COMMENT INSERTED DECEMBER 13 2010: yoga4d.org and yoga6d.org took over from my earlier yoga4d.com and yoga6d.com after march 2010 (I do not anymore have anything to do with yoga4d.com and yoga6d.com, due to the chaotic webhotel I had at that time, which didn't let the authcodes come in time for moveover to new webhotel; for present list of sites cfr yoga4d.org/updated.htm and yoga6d.org/updated.htm). Several features of this text would have been written in a different way with the more insightful language developed eventually. -- Aristo alias etc etc [this text is a couple of years back; only yoga4d.com and yoga6d.com are my websites -- reusch alias a.t. alias weber etc] stein von reusch miss yoga wint: rocket fuel for free thought ebooks by stein von reusch in the miss yoga wint elibrary standard in all miss yoga wint complete distributions from http://www.wintuition.net and the mirror-sites www.yoga4d.com, www.yoga5d.com and www.yoga6d.com, by stein von reusch copyright stein von reusch license GNU Free Documentation License see description of the GNU GFDL at www.gnu.org/copyleft INTERACTIVITY ECONOMY / Briefly, why do you think economical questions are in such focus today? They sometimes seem to be more burning than anything else -- political, religious, biological, psychological. When it comes to money and the distribution of resources, nothing else seems to matter. : Hasn't it always been that way? And then there were prophets that said: Thou shalt not fear! Look to the lillies in the field, they neither toil nor weave, and yet they have better clothes than you. Or whatever they said. I don't read scriptures. But the theme has been there, and is. The overthrowing of aristocracies with the incredible waste of resources, the barbarism of communism, at present the tyranny of megalomaniac global companies -- and what next? / It is a gloomy picture, is it not? : I am not sure that it is gloomy. The future is open, don't you think? And we make the future what we want to make it into. / Yet on these questions, perhaps there are very few who has the power to sway the political or whatever development than it takes. : Who has swayed more than Dostovjetski, with his book "Inquisition"? Where they attack the prophet in the name of the prophet, do so willingly, with admitted hypocracy. Political power without poetic power is a short-lasted thing. / Does the real power lie with the poets? : What is the Northern American constitution, if not a poetic work? And the foundation of the French revolution, is it not poetic? And both are related to Voltaire and all that. Aristotle, who with great diligence simply noted down, and in part cocreated, what was thought of as 'common sense', became one of the greatest challenges to the Christian Church with its one book. There were suddenly two authorities, the Bible, because you would be killed if you did not support it, perhaps; and Aristotle, because it made a lot of sense in itself, quite simply. Eventually, Aristotle won, and became the Western atheist science, with its atheist materialism and atheist egotistical economy. / Which is not the last word on these issues. : I hope not! There must be more. / You say that Aristotle shaped the culture so that it became more materialistic? : Of course, it is something a great many people have noticed. It is nothing original in that remark. He was a dooropener to the willingness to go through discourse and to some extent visual and auditory perception and so on to come to a great deal of stuff. Of course he was mistaken on many points and of course a great deal of people have worked on that but he laid a paradigm, a set of prejudices. In Chinese and Indian and other dominant cultures, they have had similar characters. But for the technological power that emananted out of the industrialism and science based on materialistic atheistic thinking, this has come to influence economy tremendously, even in rather secluded regions of Earth, it seems. / What do you mean, secluded regions? : Well the founder of the pop group Pink Floyd sings about this, doesn't he, how Sahara becomes a Japanese golf resort and McDonalds and Coca-Cola turns up in Tibet. Entertainment is God, all that blah. Of course, it is probably only a question of time before travelling far far beyond the globe is commonplace, and then there are all these new places without shopping centres, whole planets waiting for Coca-Cola! / I have looked up the word 'economy' in the dictionary, and I see that its roots involve the ancient Greek word for house as well as the suffix -nomy, which may mean something like pattern or order or law. : Yes, some people speak of the original concept of economy as simply 'household'. / You have begun to talk about interactivity economy. Why? : The reason, I think, involves the sense of tension between economy and ecology. When economy means something too narrow, too limited, so that we bring in another term, which in its roots means nearly exactly the same, ecology, then it appears to me that all our concepts are too limited. 'Ecological eggs', for instance. They speak of eggs that are brought forward in a way that involves friendliness to the animals and birds involved, ecological milk. Ecological corn, that the soil has not been treated with too many chemicals but things that are friendly towards nature and towards human cells are used instead. If ecology means longsightedness in resource development and economy means shortsightedness then we need something else, a third word, which does not divide in this stupid manner! / Why cannot the word simply be 'ecology'? : Ah yes, that reminds me of something else. Ethymology is not just something we get rid of. It tends to travel into the subconscious mentality connected to a word. If the root of the word is household, what about the sense of energy connected to having cash in the pocket and going to a cinema? What about the sense of value or high price on a painting involving real gold? What is the price of a book? How does the communication take place, between people who interchange a car? What is involved when somebody buys eggs from happy hens rather than eggs from sad hens, at a higher price? What about sponsoring an ideal organisation anonymously? The roots in ecology and economy lacks something: they lack action, interaction, energy, activity, process. They lack the sense of technology, also, interactive technology. So I searched in my own silence and meditation for a long while and then the term popped up: Interactivity Economy. An economy of generosity, of the energy of communication. Do you see? / You seek to bring everything that goes on in the name of 'economy' today, including 'ecological economy' and many other things, into a single new concept. : Well, not just a single concept, it can be several concepts. But I am looking for a more comprehensive sense of wholeness. And I want to understand the distribution of resources as a whole, not divided up according to this or that oldfashioned theory of how egotistical human beings might be. I want to understand electric money, I want to understand the joy of collaborating with others in a trustworthy and also intuitive fashion; I want to understand the money of science and state alike. I want to understand how economy can also be beyond the concept of money completely. In 'interactivity economy' I feel a burst of energy, and I intend to bring out the logistics as well as the logic or language of this wholeness, and I invite others to join with me in this research project. / Do you have a basic economical theory? : Do you? Do you have a basic theory of the psyche of people? If you have, then you have stagnated; if you claim that you don't have such a theory, you may have stagnated without knowing that you have it. Most people believe in Freud without even knowing what he said, because his utterances have seaped into culture. Much the same goes for economical theory. / Do you mean that every basic theory of human facts is wrong? : Once you have a fixed set of opinions or conclusions, at least, then you have stopped exploring. And I think that there is always infintely more to explore, even of essential things. / But how can you even begin to talk about a subject such as interactivity economy, then? : By declaring it an actual area, it is something actually going on -- people do communicate, they do exchange energies, they do delve into dialogue, they do set prices on artworks, they interchange artworks, they interchange other resources, they do give money to the poor, they do lend each other things, and so on. Interactivity economy actually goes on and you don't need a theory for it to say that it goes on, much as you don't need a theory of sunlight to say that there is sunlight, when there is. It is there. And we are free to explore it. / That's clear. Is there an area of interactivity economy that can elucidate itself, so to speak, with unusual clarity? : I think that there are many areas that can do so. I am particularly fascinated about the interactivity economy in the art world. There is something utterly pure about this interactivity economy because, for once, it is something done by heart and perhaps bought or purchased or sponsored by heart, and yet it is solid in pecuinary terms. There may be a lot of money involved, you can buy a hundred apartements for a good Van Gogh; some achieve Van Gogh-like prices while they are active as artists while Van Gogh himself of course did not and that is somehow also charming, as an afterthought. / The miserable artist vs. the successful artist. : Yes. I know of a very successful artist who often says that there is nothing worse than a successful artist! The point is of course than we would like to see somebody certainly doing something from his or her heart and when there is a lot of money, resources, and successes involved then can we be sure that the person is not hypocritical, cynical, manipulative, just a 'business man'? So we'd say, if the person doesn't have success in social terms but looks like he or she has a great joy in what is done spiritually, being mystical and changing names a lot perhaps, then the person is charming and there's an integrity to that. / But the distinction success versus not success isn't all that crucial for an artist? : Of course not. It is a matter of clothing, in a sense. You may or may not be vain about these clothes, the clothes of success, the titles you are offered, but in essence what matters is whether you have integrity in what you are doing. / In the art world, as we talked about last time, there are the exceptional cases of the schizophrenic artist like Vincent Van Gogh, who reaches, posthumously, prices that are incredible, you can buy a skyscraper or just about it for a couple of his pictures. But then we have contemporary art which to quite a few people seems obsessed with its own theories in perhaps a rather cold and life- distant manner. : Fortunately the art world, despite fashions, is bound to challenge itself. / You mean that no particular inclination will last for very long? : As soon as there is a concept explaining a certain piece of art then somebody will form an antithesis to that concept. To me, art is about something else than pursuing a set of concepts, or to work within a reference frame like that of socalled 'art history', which is really a very subjective afterthought, skimming a small selection of that incredible diversity which humanity pours out in the name of art every season. / You speak of an energy of communication. : Really it is Frans Widerberg, a painter, who talked about this to me. He said that money is a form of energy because -- and notice this interesting form of reasoning -- because prices fluctuate. Prices move about. So they move, so they must have energy. Energy involves the potential for movement, or, when it is actualized, kinetic movement. So that brought me into the notion of potential economy or potential capital versus kinetic or realized capital. A forest is a great deal of potential capital. And that should count, even if it is not used. / Could you give more examples? : You have an apartement or an extra office that you use only, say, every third day or so. The other two days it is still there, it is a potential energy, a potential capital. It is ownership or real estate perhaps but the sense of energy is there, constantly. You have the keys in your pocket. The keys involve the capacity to actualize this energy, to make it moving about and kinetic. / Why is this so important? : What is the difference between a plan and a key to a house? A plan to go to Venus may or may not be actualized; but a key to a house is a direct instrument of actualisation. Some plans involve certainties as to how something can be actualized, and in that way, they attain to great energy. This is a mental phenomenon. You have on your wall a painting and if you have a plan to swap it for a brand new car, you can do it, perhaps given thirty days, a contact with a gallery and a little negotiation. Potential capital may be there for years and years, even generations, even many generations. It contributes to our sense of intensity and capacity, even potency. It is a form of economy, of the interactivity economy, that creates great excitement and fun. / Are you saying that ecological values can be dealt with in this way? As a potential capital that should be given a value though there is no plan to utilize it? : Of course. The potential capital of a mountain like Mount Everest could measure far more up than ownership of the city of Manhattan. Utilisation is a different form of energy. A different form of capital. / I know you don't want to make a formula or a quick description of things, but can you try to say something essential about interactivity economy, for those who are completely new to the concept? : Okay, I'll try. But let me first explain what you just said, namely that I am avoiding making a formula out of things. Whenever we conceptualize something towards a theory, a fixed set of conclusions, then we impose something almost fascist-like on the mind. And by the turn of centuries, somebody might get fanatic about a textbook and they might torture people who don't believe in that book. It has happened over and over again and there is really no point in being overly modest about the possible implications about any text: it may be radical, so let's make sure it is radically good. And so I would say: I give energy, and so do you, to an area of exploration. Let us at once say that we can be radically wrong in everything we say; let us at once say that unless everything we say is doubted and the reverse opinions are actively considered, then we may merely be contributing to making another terrible system. All attempts to make a system where there should be the free enterprise of open thought is, I feel, almost an evil act. There should be no system, just open avenues of exploration. Does that make sense to you? / Yes, although I hesitate to see whether humankind can do completely without systems of every kind. : I don't mean it in a fanatical sense. We need calculators sometimes, of course. / Right. : So let us merely be aware that when we make a list of words that we are going to talk about, or consider our 'values' or 'priorities', or when we make a scheme of what Aristotle or the Pope or the President said, then that scheme has little to do with reality. Reality is a territory that might be infinitely rich. Let us now explore. What was your question again? / The quintessence of interactivity economy, as you see it. : Yes. Really, please, I do not have a fixed opinion here. I am listening to what you are asking afresh in this moment. My mind is open to perceptions. Interactivity economy, what is it? Can we explore it together? / But you coined the term, so you ought to mean something in particular with it. : I think I have already explained that I went into meditation to find something that felt whole, a word that points towards something holistic about the human communication, and the communication in general -- not just human, and this is an area I am sure will be more active in the centuries to come -- and communication in which generosity as to resources, and interchange of resources, and development of resources, are involved. But not limited to that either. I wonder how we should enquire into it. Perhaps through the concept of energy. / I think you have spoken about potential energy and kinetic energy in an economical context. That seems highly interesting to me. Is that concerning the quintessence of interactivity economy? : To a great deal. How many types of energy are there? How many types of resources, or capital, are there? / Are there more than potential and kinetic? Potential meaning that it can be turned into movement, it can be made something which is part of interchange. : But you see, even potential energy is in some sense kinetic and kinetic energy is in some sense potential, when you look at it very closely. So I wonder if we should say that energy is whole and essentially undivided and then we can, for the sake of emphasizing contrasts in thought, point out that here is an aspect -- let us call it potential. Here is another aspect -- let us call it kinetic. And then we ask: how many contrasts are there? / Well, then, perhaps infinitely many contrasts. : Exactly. But if we are a mediocre professor in a mediocre university we might want to say, there are, by god, seven. Or three. Or eighteen. And then we create discipleship in which on blackboard these three, seven or eighteen hundred forms of energy is repeated endlessly, to the stagnation of their minds and other people minds. I want to avoid all this. So also let us discuss it, let us enquire afresh -- that is why we do these recordings, of conversations not mere prose. Not mere description, but questions, and more questions, and then sometimes answers that lead to more questions. / Will people get clearer in this way? : Or perhaps they will realize that they are confused, and that is not such a bad thing, if they are. It is a start, to get honest about one's own confusion. Then clarity may begin to come when we start realizing that there is something beyond thought, which can be an instrument in our perception. / Silence? : Or something. Let us not make that into a formula either, but there is a meditation going on in between all these words. Do you feel it? / Yes, when we talk. But sometimes, directly after, I feel that it is easy to live according to this. And after a while, it tends to fade. Is there anything that can sustain the energy of enquiry? : You see, you are telling me something interesting right now, something creative, because you are honest. Honesty involves its own intelligence and creative compassion. You are saying: there is an energy of enquiry. This energy, you say, you would want more of. Would you be willing to pay money for it? You see, that would be part of interactivity economy. Would you be willing to buy a book which offer you more of the enquiry energy? / Yes, perhaps I would. : So let us say that there is an energy of enquiry, an enquiry capital. There is a potential capital, a kinetic capital, an enquiry capital. And if you get hungry for enquiry capital you transform money -- kinetic capital -- into enquiry capital. And as you explore more and more, you may build up a spiritual integrity. Which we could call a spiritual capital. And so on: interactivity capital, the energy of interaction, when you do things synchronistically. Language capital, which you build up by reading, writing, talking together, challenging your mind and all cliches, starting afresh with new words, making new languages even. We have a technology or science capital, of course, in terms of the machines we have or can make and and can use. As you build up programming skill capital, you enhance the machine or technology capital, because you can not only program but unprogram the machines, you can make them do anything, not just something. / Gosh. Interactivity economy is a vast field then, of so many forms of energy, resources, or capital. But still you did not quite answer my question, did you? Namely how to sustain the energy of enquiry, that I get when I talk with you, -- how to have it constantly. : You talk with me or you do something that builds up tremendous clarity and you ask: can the energy be there all the time. Not that you crave, but you see that it is meaningful to dance, to make art, to be creative based on this energy rather than going on low-key all day long. That is a meaningful question, a meaningful demand. And you ask me: How? / I know there is little point in asking 'how', but I feel the question should be asked, anyhow. : Anyhow! Quite. / Well, is there an answer? : You ask a question: can this energy be sustained? All day long? From when you wake up until you go to bed? But rather, perhaps, ask what is it that you are doing that puts that energy into conflict with itself. / You mean it would be there if there was no conflict, no activity that spoiled the energy? : Of course, wouldn't it? / Then perhaps I should do nothing, be perfectly idle! : I am not so sure. Is that what a child is doing? But if you follow what you think is your duty, then that duty, that imposing on your activity according to a pattern of greed or achievement, may limit your energy and then if you ask, do you have a pill? a recipe? then of course there is no answer. But if you keep up the enquiry, you ask all the questions all the time and you live by them, and you let that which they lead to take over, you loose yourself in high-speed synchronicity, then... / High-speed? Slow, it be better. : Slow? Why slow? That's yet another concept, from Zen or whereever. There is something beyond the speed or slowness of thought and that is this flame of attention, when you enquire beyond any concept. You don't put it into some words and think that by repeating exactly these words it will be there tomorrow. So you enquire afresh tomorrow. You let your mind explore how it can go beyond itself! Which is to go beyond selfcentredness -- and I am not talking of becoming a 'socialist'. I am talking of not having a centre, not a word-centre, that tries to push something onto your own mentality. / When we talk about interactivity economy, do we talk of it as an ideal or as something already in function? : Good question. When we talk of love, do we talk of it as real or as an idea? / Is that the same question? : Not necessarily. But can we start with love, please? That is a real issue, it concerns absolutely everyone. You turn on the radio and there is the word 'love'. They scream, 'I love you because I hate you, I hate you because I love you', and sell millions of records. Or they say, 'I will always love you tenderly, I will always take care of you, you can do what you want', and as soon as a person turns the back on the other, then there is envy, jealousy, hatred. So is there love in this world? / Sometimes, perhaps. : Sometimes, as a lie, or are you honest -- do you sometimes have love? / I know of many people who would say that they have love. For someone or somebody and that it is lasting. : So is this a conclusion or is it reality? Do you follow? / I don't think many people would see exactly the difference. : But do you? / I must think about it. : Okay. / Do you say that love, in some kind of divine, generous sense, is a human possibility? The love that can never become hatred? : I wonder if it isn't. / But you do not shout it out. : Of course not! Then it becomes the idea, the formula, the recipe. 'You must turn the other cheek' all that blah, which has led to nothing, except wars, hypocrisy, this ugly church. / So what is one to do? : If one wants love? Perhaps begin to explore what is not love. Begin by negation. / Why? : Why negation? / Yes. : When we have a tendency to look to so many things as possibly love and yet it may be something about it that can turn to revenge, hatred, jealousy etc, then perhaps we can learn about what it is that is not love, learn about it so that it falls away, and clears the way for this otherness that is love. / This otherness that is love...it sounds like something beyond human beings, somehow. : Is love a human artefact? Obviously not. / What is it then? : Is it a form of energy? And yet we have the mental energies of fear, bitterness, egotism. Do you see how it influences us, do you see how we live by limited forms of emotions? And there is all the time this other option available. Love. Whatever you call it. The word is not the thing, you know. / Is this love really a possibility? Or is it a romantic idea? : Let us explore it. Is it an impossibility? Then we can still explore it, but if we assert that it is impossible, we block our exploration. / So you say, let us neither conclude the one or the other. : Quite! / And then what? : Then we should admit what is going on, not just listen to what words people are using -- let us watch very closely what goes on in the psyche of this and that individual. Let us watch what goes on inside ourselves. There is a lot of these other things. What are they doing to us? / They keep us back. : And what is it that is keeping us back? / Egotism? : Let us not just give an answer but ask again for fresh answers. And ask again for the sake of awakening our attention. Are you with me at all? / Yes, but I know of people -- many people, in fact! -- who would say that we are not talking business, we are merely psychologising and there is no limit to it, you will never change man anyhow and all that kind of thing. They would rather talk about the latest products and the prices and the markets and everything else they attribute to the entertainment section or the lunch break or the philosophers. : Are these happy people? / They may claim that they are. : But are they? / No. Perhaps not. I don't think so. : So they have a concept of their life: they day is to consist of this and that activity to reap resources, power, money, and then it is to consist of some other activities to spend them, so that they get a little satisfaction. / Perhaps they would say it is a crude summary. : But you can go along with it? / Yes I can. : So, what has happened to humanity? When more and more people simply drop all pretense of looking for anything deeper, what is the point? It is a carry-over existence. / What do you mean? Carry-over? : Well a form of survival. You just entertain, get comfort, reap some prestige, get some sexual activity, and in all of this, we try to make a form of science -- Economy, Pscychology, Sociology -- and these large terms don't mean a thing, do they? / So is this part of negation? : I think yes. To me I mean by negation like when you empty yourself, not out of bitterness or anything, but you get into a sense of there being nothing at all. You pay attention to feeling. You watch the thought forms that come up, and they may speak to you of something that you may want to clarify or heal somehow, and you do it, and you pass on to the next thoughts. Then eventually you may come to a pleasant quietness, and something fantastic may happen in this quietness. / Love? : Well, yes. / Last time we talked a little about love, but I feel that the theme is too big that we leave it just like that. You talked about meditation, remember? And in this quietness, love can come about, you said. But I don't think that is the clearest statement in the world about it, considering all the confusion that might already exist connected to the word 'love'. And then I'd like us to discuss interactivity economy somehow in relation to it, if we can. : What, interactivity economy in relation to love? / Yes, if possible. : Sure, we'll try that. / So what is love to you? : I thought we explained that. You go through a negation of jealousy, envy, ... / Wait wait. How do you do that? : How do you what? / Negate jealousy, for instance. : Because you spend time on it. You explore it. You get fascinated about its structure, you see how thought and emotion, not just verbal emotion but a vague goaloriented kind of thought or attachment is weaved into it. You study it and you learn about it and so you charge up your capacity to give swift attention later, when seeds of it are sown. And so when it arises, if it does at all, you know all about it already and you empty yourself instantly. Your mind is all free. / And the same for other kinds of limiting feelings? This sounds a little like Spinoza's system, in which he counts hilaritas or joyous freedom as one of the expanding feelings, and as to limiting feelings he counts bitterness, envy and so on. : Yes yes. Yet when you make a system then it's not it, is it? / Why? I know you have talked against systems before, but tell me why it is so wrong to make a system such as in psychology. : Why not make a system? Why make a system? For when you make a system is there any mentality to it? It is a parrot language then, rather than a living language. The quest is to give attention, is it not? And if you make a system then it imposes certain qualities as high value and the rest it dismisses implicitly. Like a program, a hypnosis. It is sleepwalking to believe in systems, I feel. It is a theme for many books, not just a few minutes inside another dialogue. I am not trying to make it sound mysterious, I hope. / But in essence, what is wrong about having a system? : If you have a system, are you not a mechanical entity? / Not if you don't believe in it entirely. : So, that's it then, you doubt the system, you don't let it dominate you. / Then it's okay? : I can't see why not. You use the calculator but you don't try to calculate God or Life with it. You use it for adding the price of tomatoes to the price of yoghurt, say. The sloppy system, the system we don't believe in is okay, I guess. But then there is a transition, from not believing in it to believing in it, which may come much sooner than you might think at first. You may say, Oh, I am so free! And yet the system is there and it is destroying something very subtle. You must watch it, no? Think for yourself! / Then to love. : Love. So what is love to you? / To me personally? : Yes. / The love of someone who is somehow beautiful inside, at least, to me; I sense something radiate and there is an energy. : And bonding, resonance, and all that. Yet what is the essence of it? / The essence of love? Perhaps it is a perfume of reality, in spite of the fluctuations of some many other things in life. I don't know. : You don't know. That is really a beautiful thing to say about that which many people regard as the most important thing of everything, is it not? / Yet the young delve in it and those who are more established in marriage and the such tend to speak of Art and Higher Values and Societal Good as well as their own money-making and prestige. : Which is to say, when love is gone, then all the other mediocre things enter. / When love is gone? Is that your view of marriage? : What is marriage but institionalized prostitution? Come, face it, it is a church thing, a thing created to make sex in a limited context legal. I think the great belief in this little concept is destroying a lot, and the overemphasis on this little concept is creating a great deal of trouble for the children who, in the beginning perhaps, may be brought up inside its cozy context. / This is a big theme. : Yes, perhaps it is too big for this context. I would say, though, that more important than any concept we put to each other or to our relationships is this spirit of love. Now can we -- to help you along bringing it in connection with interactivtity economy -- retain a sense of love while we create? You see I have this image in mind that each can be as a fruit tree, creating more and more fruits, all the time. Different fruits, fruits for people to reap and eat and so on. / Can there be economy on that basis? : As I see it, it is perhaps the quintessence of interactivtiy economy. You create. Some consume, you consume yourself also when you turn on the classical radio channel and an orchestra, through a recording, pours out that which Beethoven created one day. The creativity is the off-spring. Then around it a wealth of interactivity happens. / So you see the relationship to the world as something that happens almost inevitably when there is creativity? : Inevitably, quite. / Many people feel that they should be 'discovered', such as when they make music, and they are angry that only a few people get 'discovered' and are hailed or hyped by the commmon media and brought into the focus by many. : Well, it is a corrupt system. It is indeed a system, a system for putting some people up and keeping the rest down. So one must develop new ways. But I feel that if you listen to yourself and your heart tells you to make more, you just make more and more, and you should not really be too oriented about who or what is doing what to your fruits. / Your tree keeps on producing a diversity of fruits, just letting go of them? : Letting go rather much. You may add a name tag for practical purposes so as to feed back some resources, some activity potentials, and so on. You may add a bank account number as well! As I do, to some of my products. Because after all the tree needs sunlight and water and soil and all that and if people have these things, then they would probably want to give it in return for these fruits. / Isn't it a bit idealistic? Wouldn't many say that it is simpler and better to oriented oneself at once to a market? : There is a role to every kind of thought, perhaps, occasionally; and you may get humble, dialogic and full of a learning attitude that is not harmful by listening to what people say that they want. We are doing a little of it here, are we not, when we discuss rather than me sitting down to write prose. So the discussion allows the person who is producing to listen, to get a sense of what happens out there, not just be navel-focussed. / But you would not advice strong orientation towards the effects of one's actions. : You see, all this is intertwined with ethics, as well as with the capacity of thought, and the capacity of that love in our hearts to reach perhaps much further than thought. / How do you mean? : You listen within yourself when you create, if you feel free in your creationship, your creative activity. You listen within and there is something to thought that is noise, symbol, socialisation, and you go beyond all these associations and there is a flash of what you ought to do. To know what such a flash is takes a certain amount of leisure and exploration and learning by doing but it comes, some day; and when you have that flash you can trust it, perhaps, that it comes from a love, an energy, that knows that this is just right to do. It is not something thought could have planned that way unless it had every kind of information to an infinite extent and even then it would be uncertain. Love is a greater computer! To put it that way. Or love is the greater Uncomputer, as I like to put it. / Uncomputer! : Like Unconscious. The Unconsciousness, that feeds Consciousness. So Uncomputer, the source of insight into the machinery of what might happen. It is a metaphysical concept. I like it a lot. One of my products, the Y4d programming language, has it in its full name -- Wintuition:Net Uncomputer Yoga4d language, or y4d for short. Uncomputer means that there is something organic, with insight into the construction and the change of computers, somehow. / Sounds like a God concept. : Well perhaps it is. Or it is near that. But where were we? The tree is producing, the fruits are coming. Yes, to me, that is the quintessence of the economy of tantric generosity, of free generosity. You are not just a tree -- let's not get stuck on any metaphor. You are as if copulating the complementary aspects of yourself and you produce by that. So there is a tantric generosity in it, and that is in essence interactivity. / Tantric generosity. You have the masculine and feminine energies within yourself, for instance, and they blend? : They blend and something new comes up. That is part of it. So a richly creative person does not have a limiting self-concept nor does the person obsessively put himself or herself above others in a quasi-hierarchy. There is a networking and yet each person can tap godhood and through this can create something entirely new and important. / Thank you. We must explore much more. I am getting more and more confused as we explore. : I think that's a good sign, don't you? / What advice would you give to a young person starting out, not perhaps wedded to any particular educational direction yet, open to various opportunities? : Well I would perhaps not give any fixed advice at all but rather have a dialogue. It is a very interesting situation and I feel everybody can tell themselves, "I love myself as a young person", because that speaks of incredible potential. Or credible potential, rather. The sense of youth is given to everyone who is willing to admit that life has a future. / Life has a future. Not just the individual. : You see to some extent the concept of the individual may be a complete illusion, and as soon as we point this out, we must say that this in no way entails that one should be swallowed up in a communist sense by a group or a social game. We are talking cosmically, life goes on and in some sense life is you. Now interactivity economy is all about that. / Explain. : Well, interactivity economy sees you as an infinitely creative person and sees your creativity as part of something that has infinitely many effects. If you were to live with all the effects of your actions for many centuries, at least, you would certainly act in a more coherent, responsible manner, you would be less concern with immediate market fluctuations, you would see to it that what you produce does not breed fanatism or violence at all, and so on. So if you reidentify with life as a whole then you are naturally responsive, responsible. And it is in each person an infinite capacity, an infinite responsibility and power, it is there already and once you start actualizing it, you actualize interactivity. You learn that there are actions or activities rather which are full of synchronicity and you learn to balance them and dance with them. / You say that interactivity has its own synchronicity. I am not sure everybody knows that term, synchronicity. : Carl Gustav Jung suggested that meaningful coincidences can be called 'synchronicities', and he discussed this a great deal with various brainy people like Freud and Wolfgang Pauli, the physicist. Freud rather dismissed him and that summarises Freud's attitude to much of the paranormal or that which expands beyond the mediocre normality that Freud typically exposed. Pauli was broadminded physicist and rumours had it that laboratory experiments on the quantum level did usually tend to break down when he entered a laboratory. That became the 'Pauli effect', as a joke among laboratorists. Jung was clever about introducing this concept without loading it too heavily with any belief and in that way he introduced a concept that keeps on renewing itself and my feeling is that it will always do so, like a fresh mountain river. I really love the concept but let's not forget that it is just a concept. If synchronicity is a form of perception, as it is to me, then nothing is not synchronicity. / Nothing is not synchronicity. You mean you see meaningful connections everywhere? : Of course. / Then how is that related to interactivity economy? : How is it related to any creative process? You see that when something is beyond the sphere of control it need not be chaotic. So you can spend a lot of time deciding on something and yet when you start doing it, you feel that the action speaks to you, from one moment to the next. As it speak, and if you don't just assert your ego with your goals and your fixed plans, then you move with them, and that has its own intelligence. / You speak of the creative process for an individual who seeks to invent something new, for instance? : I speak of any activity at all! All activities involve feelings, don't they? / Yes. : All activities involves coincidencies or fluctuations also, don't they? / Yes, sort of. : They do! No action is just as thought or imagined, because there are always features going beyond thought or imagination or any area of control. Arne Naess speaks of it as 'emergence', he gave me an example: you bring together people who ordinarily would not talk nicely and they talk fantastically well. This is something that just 'emerges' and he points out that we tend to expect emergence in daily life, in addition to typical causation with its probabilities. / Of course a clairvoyant or prescient person could feel this... : Of course. If you are sensitive. / So, again, if you look at some economical system, or organism, or whatever you would like to call it if you don't like the word 'system', then how would the interactivity exhibit itself? : See, it is exhibiting itself all the time. There is no such thing as finite, fixed, certain prediction. The fluctuations are there, the synchroncities are there. / We need to talk about technology. Technology in relation to interactivity economy, technology in relation to the future. : Well if you look to H G Wells and other writers of technology- oriented fantasy literature, it turns out that a lot of things can indeed be predicted. / Many would feel, perhaps, that they are most interested in things that are near to them in the present. : To me, the distant future is not distant. It is near. / In what sense? Do you feel it? : Of course. / How? : How do you feel anything? It is just there. / In what sense? : In the sense that it is there. I cannot avoid it. The future speaks to me. I am sensitive to it, I must have a dialogue with it whatever I intend to do. / And if you don't have that dialogue? : Then, unless the dance is already on and the dance reflects the sense of what is right, completely right, from one moment to the next, to do, then I must meditate. / And if you don't meditate and just jump into action? : Then is it action? Or is it merely reaction, a response from memory, from greed and all the rest of it? / Is greed memory? : In one sense it is, isn't it? For where else is greed in you, than in that portion of mind which has a strong reference to the past? So when you act determined by greed, it is the past in you that acts. / Whereas your present, what would that be? : That would be the part that has reference to the future. And that is infinite. Therefore, when you have responsibility, you relate to yourself as you are, now. It is not just a romantic idea. / To talk about technology, also in relation to economy, where would you begin? : I would begin by first realizing that the impact that technology has on human consciousness is not small at all. It is everywhere, whether we like it or not. And there is no reason that it should grow smaller. It is a matter of time before human beings meet up with other beings that are fully capable of doing every kind of smart, cunning, intellectual action, whether these beings are crafted or engineered by human beings or whether they are discovered in some other way is not the most important issue perhaps. And that will make it sound strange to talk about 'human being' as the synonym with 'intellectual being', as is more or less the case today, except among those who have trained chimpanzees or studied dolphins or elephants and so on very closely. / Is this, the matter of the perception of who or what that has intelligence, the most important thing that technology opens up for us? : Maybe. In the long term, I think it could be, because it makes the idiotic repetitions of many socalled holy scriptures seem to be what they are, just repetitions, rather than truth. So technology, in the positive sense, opens up for the intermingling of ideas, the discernment of what might be true in cultures and the realization of the illusions in them, but of course technology can also be used to wipe away life and also the life of the creators of the technology unless we watch it. / Would you say that it is possibly a good thing that humanity puts itself, as it were, on the cliff's edge? Could it stimulate awakening? : So far I haven't seen much of that effect, but it could be. In any case, I feel that we should not forget that we are constantly forging new technologies, and these contains seeds of very different futures within them. If we feel at leisure to look into the world as it may be say, in five or five thousand years, then we will get a lot of hints as to what kind of technology we should upplay and what kind we should downplay. Or we will at least get a tremendous sense of awe for what is to come, and the enormous responsibility everyone has now, when we do something in the technological realm. / Well, what do you see when you look into the future that far? : To me five hundred years or so is not much. I do not think in terms of years as essential. It is all a flowing of contrasts and as I stretch my gaze I see many possible scenarioes. Few of them are nice but some of them are really nice and then we must make selections. / Could you give some examples? : Examples of this kind is something given to anyone who sits down to write a science fiction novel, who does it late at night, and dreams about it. It is an amazing process. Please, do not press me to give an example, because every instant we choose to bring forward as an example in a context such as this -- a book -- may affect how we think about the future. It is not something we should just carelessly throw an image about. / We must go into the question of visual images. Technology has made the spread of visual images, as well as moving images, something that is done in a matter of seconds, at the cost of practically nothing, through wires or by air, digitally, perhaps. What has this done to human consciousness? : We have always been in love with fairy tales, haven't we? / Is that what it is about? : You see the enormous posters -- in marxist countries like China they do not accept it, nor in fundamentalist countries like Saudi- Arabia, -- of girls kissing girls, dressed in next to nothing, with the stamp of a commercial company on the lower right side of the poster. These images may be many man-sizes, they may be at all critical passages of a city, next to hospitals, sites for elderly, and across kindergartens. Of course it does something to human consciousness. As does the portraits of poor and diseased associated with certain regions of the world, spread by journalists and by help organisations in the hope that this will entice action of a right kind. Images affect feelings directly, like music, more or less. I do not condemn it necessarily. But yes, let us explore what kind of effect it has on us. It is a new theme and an old theme and in the future there may be even more pressing things, like coherence technologies aiming at sending images even more directly into our bodies and minds somehow -- just wait and see! So let us explore this fascinating and terrible and terrific theme. / Well, you seem to use a lot of images, on your digital websites, for instance. : I do. / Why? : Why not? It affects the mind to see healthy skin, to see an image of sunlight if it is cloudy outside, to have a picture of an enormous mountain on one's wall if one is in a city. These are reminders on meditation. I do not necessarily want it in connection with an empire-like fascistoid exploitative company like Hennes & Mauritz, who pay Indian girls next to nothing to imitate original fashion design made in Paris. There are worse companies but it is just too close to prostitution. / And prostitution, ultimately, is an evil or sinful thing? : To use any such words requires great caution. But when you don't do something on a heart-basis -- and I very much doubt that the people in a company like Hennes & Mauritz have chosen by heart to exploit tiny girls in India to imitiate the design made in another context, it smacks of ruthlessness and cunningness, doesn't it? It has something of that flavour. / So how would the world be if it had no such cunningness? : It would be a remarkably beautiful place, don't you think? / When scientists talk about economy, they may speak of the distribution of resources, and the psychological pursuit for use and fun and similar things; they may speak of the effect of certain attempts to regulate the whole flow of money or of other aspects of the economical environment. : Yes. What is the question? / Is it all a waste to speak of economy this way? : I do not say that. / But you do challenge the foundations somewhat? : Look, we have a barbarious system. / So it is all crap or nonsense in some way? : Obviously! Society is a mess and it inculcates this mess by education and parenthood and various kinds of pressure into the individual, the young person. It is a reflection of a barbarious state of consciousness. / There has been attempts to formulate an economy of compassion rather than the rather darwinistic idea of survival of the fittest, competition and all that. : Who is there to compete with? You compete with yourself daily if you're an artist. Not with yourself as of the past, but you compete with this moment's impulses, this moment's thoughts, so that something fresh can come up. So you are immensely active and this is not to be reduced to competition on a market, to getting a price, though such factors may play in here and there, though not deeply, perhaps. Not if you have understood yourself. / So the reason that society has this barbarious trait, or worse, is that consciousness is in a mess. : Of course. / So then the economical sciences, are they missing the point somehow? : If they merely seek to describe what is going on, calmly, they would take into consideration that humankind may have some potential that is completely different than what is now being actualized. And there is a validity to describing 'what is', to see it clearly. Yet if you then begin to assert that 'since everybody is an egotist, then so and so', you have done an arrogant theoretical act, in which you impose the role that people may take occasionally as the norm or the necessity. There is no such necessity. / Is there any economical necessity at all? : Look, do you love life? / Love life? I guess I do. : Not guess. Do you love it? / My life only? : No no no. Life! Life as such. / Do I love life as such? Well sometimes I do, when I walk in the forest and so on. : Not sometimes. Do you love life? And if you only do it sometimes, then that is not much, so enquire into it. Find out what is preventing you, if anything, from really loving life and yourself as a young, new person, infinitely. There should be nothing at all preventing you from loving life. Then in this love, of course, you see to it that the plant was water, that the cat has food, and you kiss the flower as it bursts out and shows itself, and you dance and create things; and so you naturally partake in the distribution of resources. I do not see that egotism comes in at all if you love life. / You may reap up a lot of fruits for your own party with your own friends and so on. Is not that egotism? : Not necessarily. You sense what is right to do, and what is untastely, vulgar; you sense that if you do a certain thing it will just be vain, just a showing off, but if you do the other thing then it is a refined goodness to it, it is righteous, you sense that it has the quality of art and esthetics to it. / What is egotism? : I'd rather ask, what is the psyche? Because when we say 'egotism', then we merely talk of the illusion that perpetuates, perhaps, through one psyche communicating with another psyche. You have this name I have this name you earn that much money I earn this much money you have a car I have a car you have that book published I have this book published. All these contrasts, that we come to emphasize as essential differences, when they are not. The psyche is responsible for all that. Do you have an energy that can bring about a revolution in the psyche -- not just your psyche, but the psyche of humanity? / Is there a psyche of humanity? : Is there not? Do you think that you are sharply divided from the rest? Or is your psyche just a particular makeup, the same dough in a different oven perhaps? Forgive me if I point it out, but is that which goes on inside you not the same, practically, as what goes on in practically everyone else? / Are you different? : I challenge myself in each moment to get an energy that is not this mediocre energy that comes out of the TV, out of the media, out of the many comments that comes out of people's lips in the name of 'philosophy' and what not, I challenge myself in each moment. I do not say: I am different. I challenge human consciousness because I feel that human consciousness, quite frankly, is one of the sickest things. / So you are condemning it. : If you say that the wall is blue when it is you are not condemning it unless you have striven all your life to see all walls as nonblue. If I see that something is sick and I want to avoid it, then if you point it out, then I might say: Oh you are so bitter and so full of criticism and you are so condemning and do please get enlightened and turn the other cheek and don't critize and judge so much! You see? Rather, there is great fun and love in relating to 'what is' instead of trying to avoid it. / And in all this, we are also interested in the distrubution of goods and useful things and how to bring homes to everyone and so on. : Of course, you do not exclude the social realm. / And what do you find there? : Where? In the social realm? / Yes. : I find that the confusion there matches the confusion within. / So is there only confusion? : Look, you can always find the light points here and there. You can see it in yourself when you attend to that concert, when you go dancing and you don't drink, you just dance for that has its own trance. Its own silence, its own joy, its own effortlessness. I dance every morning, I actually do. Though it may sound silly but I do it; in the beginning I did it because my stomach, my gut feeling told me to, but then it became natural. Do you see? Society could be all dance. / Interactivity. : Dance! That's interactivity, you are engaging in activities in relationship. That is really what the essence of 'interactivity' is. And when you do this, will you not find that those activities, those processes, have their own intelligence? So you get your apartment or house, you get your website, you get lots of money in your bank account not by marrying to the money nor by working eight hours pr day on something you don't like, but by challenging yourself to come up with fresh energies and fresh products brought forward from your own silence every day. That is an awakened life. / What kind of awakening? : Artistic awakening, social awakening, spiritual awakening, biological awakening -- are not all these forms of energy one energy, the energy of love? EXPERTISE IN HEALING / Healing. What does the word signify to you? : First of all I am not allergic to that word, although some are. They might feel that a word intrinsically can be a cliche. Or that, by mentioning a word that is also mentioned by unserious people, you are yourself unserious. I do not believe in either. A word of the kind that is found in a typical dictionary is not itself a cliche, if you discover a real meaning to it and find a connection with reality, and use it coherently in that sense. Next, the fact that a word gets popular among a group of people does not mean that this group has any sense of ownership to the word. The word is still free, still open to be used in serious ways. Having said all that, let us enquire into the word, what it means and so on. And why it is tremendously important, to heal, to be engaged in healing, and to really have knowledge and expertise in it. / Is this not a matter for doctors? : Healing is a matter for everybody. Even a plant heals itself if one of its leaves get a wound. Healing is a natural function of life. Doctors are merely catalysts for healing. But in the sense I wish to use the word, it is a healing not so much of anything in particular at the physical level as psychic healing. The word 'healing' ultimately, of course, means simply 'make whole', and it has the same root or stem as that which constitute the word 'health' as well as 'holiness'. It is a marvellous concept. / Psychic healing. Explain. : You know what it is, don't you? There are wounds there that must be healed, too. You sense something is wrong and you can change something at a mental level and then you subtly change the flow and ebb of things. You know it. Everybody does it, to some extent, but most have little expertise in it. Most do it unconsciously rather than consciously. It should perhaps best been done semiconsciously. / Is it a difficult thing to learn? : Hm. Is healing a difficult thing to learn? When it is the most natural thing in the world? Perhaps the most natural thing in the world is among the most difficult thing. It may be more easy to learn something artificial, construed, like the binary digit system of present-day computers. But our whole world lends itself to healing. I wish to speak of it as a world-view, not merely a technique or a practise or a question of colors or cards or any system. It is a vast approach. I guess it is difficult, yes, if you wish to master it. And yet none of it has perhaps mastered it totally for healing is life touching itself, and as life is an unfolding process, infinite and changing, so also must healing be. You follow? / You seem to not be willing to confine it, then. : That's just it. That is precisely it. Do not confine the sense of what healing means. Learn to un-confine it. It is a neverending quest, but with marvellous results. You asked if healing is not only for doctors. But what if we all made ourselves into doctors of the synchronicities which span the world. Why should only some be the messiahs, and the rest go trodding along? *** / When we heal, what do we really do? Can I ask such a fundamental question, or such a simple-minded question, or do you think it is silly? Or can we only discuss healing in terms of examples, results, concrete practises? : I do not think it is silly at all. It is often through the simple questions that we can come to the most penetrating insights. Let's see. What is healing? What do you feel yourself? / I think the connotation of wholeness is important. Healing -- wholeness. That these two belong together. That healing involves making more of a good thing, the good thing being wholeness. : Yes. Yes. But that sounds all too much like an idea, however much I agree. / What do you have in mind, then? : Let's go more slowly. You see, there are different ways of using language. Some insist that language is about expression. I do not. / What is it to you? And why is it not about expression? I do not quite follow. : Expression means that you are there, as you are, and you remain as you are, and then your emotions and/or your ideas follow. You use language to convey information. It is rather like the state office that is being criticised for acting irresponsibly, and it answers with creating an information burea. Creating a new broschure. Expression can be concealment, you follow? Expression preserves the ego. / What has this to do with healing? : It has to do with slowing down the ego, and that has a lot to do with healing. Bringing the ego to dissolution. You see, what is the alternative to use language as expression? / I don't know. To question? : Which is what? / To dissolve thought! Not to express thought, nor to express emotion, but to dissolve thought and emotion. What for? Dissolve even the purpose. Why? Dissolve even that why. Dissolve, suspend. Bring to peace. And then in that peacefulness, there is attention, and when there is attention -- then, does it not happen, that there is healing? -- do you follow. : I think so. You are saying that, or asking rather, whether we can use words to go beyond words. / That's exactly it. Not that 'you' or 'I' go beyond words, but that the words do not express, do not make an impression, but that they bring, or convey, or stimulate, or induce that egolessness which is also silence. : How can they do that? / By never asking 'how'. *** / Can love work miracles? : Of course. Doesn't it all the time? / When we have it. : So why don't you have it all the time? / It is difficult, sometimes. Habit takes over where infatuation begins. And so on. : What is love, to you? / A state of exhilleration, I guess. : Look into it. What is love? / I guess I don't know. Except as a state I recognize. : Which could be drug-induced. It could be a mere state of intense excitement. If you look into it, what happens to the ego when there is love? / Gone. : Ask it. Don't merely answer from memory. What happens to the ego when there is love? / Do you have the answer? : I know nothing of the answer in terms of words. I am asking a question that is vibrant and I know it is not enough to throw words at it. Love. What is it? And what happens to the ego when there is love? Look into it, please. Sense it. Don't merely answer. Aren't you quiet in relation to an immense question? Otherwise, how can you get into truth? / There is no repetition, then. : Look, see, I am asking something very simple: What happens to the ego when there is love? / There is empathy. : Which means what? Don't stop there. Don't guess. This is not an examination! / There is not just the ego, but something other than that. The sensitivity to another. : So, what is it that happens to the ego? What does love do to it? Does love do anything to it at all? Or is the ego exactly the avoidance of letting love act on you? You follow? / You are saying... : Not saying! Asking. / Okay, asking, you are asking whether the ending of the ego is the beginning of love. : Isn't it? / But that is what I said. : No. You said that love drives the ego away. I am asking, is it not so that love does not touch the ego? That in fact, love exists when the active avoidance of the touch of love has ended? That the inertia of avoidance is the ego, and this has to end for love to be? *** / What is enlightenment and how does it stand in relation to the question of healing? I wonder if you could go into that question. : Part of enlightenment is hunger for more enlightenment, hunger for more of the kind of insight that leads to enlightenment. Have you noticed that most people either think they are already enlightened (when they are not), or else think it is impossible or an illusion in all cases somehow? And the most rewarding standpoint for most would of course be to cease going to the false extremes and going instead to the truth of the middle: they are not enlightened but they could be, and, yes, it has immense importance. When they become aware, at least, of the possibility of liberation then the hunger of insight is awakened. This hunger can drive an individual to do great things. / How does it stand in relation to healing? : You see, enlightenment is not just another attribute, feature, or idea. It is not something extra to taking responsibility -- it is the only way to really take responsibility. For oneself, for others, for life. / And how do you do that? : You don't do it by looking for a method. You work. You aspire. You draw strength from the forest, from those few who are not out to sell a system, and who do not try to dull the mind by telling either that you already are enlightened or that enlightenment does not exist. You look away from Freud, the existentialists, the dogmatic atheists, you look away from all sorts of fundamentalism. Isn't there a great healing in that? / On an abstract level, perhaps. : Not abstractly! It is concrete healing. You see, the source of so much sickness or illness is misuse of power. When you have power -- and everybody, even children, has at least some power -- then everything you think, every little reaction, every memory, every dream, everything! -- becomes relevant. And it touches others, it makes a difference. This is responsibility. To realize that you are not an island, you are not an entity to yourself, and it is merely about 'setting a standard for your own expression' or some quasi- protocol like that. To have power means that you constantly touch others and you touch yourself. And you change others, you change yourself. So there is empathy. And if you have illusions, if you have ego, you don't see what you are doing. So power creates illness when there is lack of responsibility; and the highest responsibility is to be enlightened for then you know what you are doing. / This is a lot. Could you go slower? : It's merely a background. What is it you wish to explore? / I asked, originally, how healing and enlightenment are related to each other. : They are the same thing! / If they are the same thing, why do we have different words for them? : They are aspects, then, of one and the same process. Different aspects. But you cannot ultimately get all the way to healing unless you get that hunger for insight. / The insight that there is no 'how'. : Exactly. Among other things. / And the other things would be...? : The ending of fear. The understanding of desire. But more subtle things also -- not just the ending of anger, bitterness, anxiety -- all such things of the ego. You must know yourself by paying attention, from one moment to the next. Not merely read theories about yourself, or reading the horoscope or other such nonsense. You must understand the greatness of your own psyche. And as you understand, you begin to come to deeper quietness. / In the beginning, it may be frustration and confusion to understand how much we don't understand! : So you go beyond that. You must pray, demand, affirm to get complete and not partial understanding. / It is said by some that the unconscious mind does not understand the word 'not', so we should not include it in a prayer or affirmation. : Certainly does it understand 'not'. It just looks at things from many different perspectives -- not only the sentence, it looks at the type of words you are using. The real teaching is to say: if your examples, your metaphors, your selection of words, are typically in the negative, then that is also what you are getting. Even though the socalled 'morale' is positive. / This must be a key to healing. : Surely it is. That is simple stuff. You surround yourself with symbols of wholeness and harmony and it takes courage, perhaps, to stand against the rather trash and death oriented mass media and make your own 'mass media', your own flow of media and mediation, which can become a meditation on life. / That is healing, isn't it -- meditation on life. : Yes. When you go deep into healing you will know that there are far more subtle states of mind than there are emotions. Of emotions we can count a few, and then they blend and so on. But when you go deeper, you find love, playfulness, humour, tenderness, sensitivity, freedom, intelligence, compassion, beauty, truth, compassion and so on and on and these subtle states -- you learn to recognize them -- they are what healing is about. / So you face something and then, -- do you pay attention or what, what happens really when you heal? : You radiate attention of some kind. Marcello Haugen, the mysticist, used to say that health is a right kind of temperature of sorts in the body and when there is, say, too cold temperature then attention as if it were heats it up and restores balance to the flow. He was a great healer. *** / When we heal, we get into an ecstatic mood, do we not? : Yes. Healing, or the making of coherence, is participation of what it most deeply mean to live. It is intrinsic with feeling. / I know it is no point in asking 'how', but if we are not going to ask 'how', what is it that we can do to get into it? : First recognize that life without healing is based on superficial causes and effects, mechanically, of the push-pull type. / For if there is no healing there is only machine? Healing is the ingredient of flow, so to speak? : Yes. Healing is where the future comes in. / Explain. : This is really simple. Health involves a potential for great action, learning, teaching, love-making; a potential involves the future; healing is the restoration of health not only physically but also mentally, socially, sexually in all ways, at all levels. So the future is salvaged. / The future is real? : Of course. Not as a mechanical future in a deterministic fate- like sense. But the future is real as the infinite perceptiveness of consequences. And the sensitivity to shape those consequences with an intent of beauty. / Does this happen naturally? : When we are not hypnotised or conditioned to merely carry on. Wodehouse, the comedy writer, said that there are two ways of writing -- it is essentially the same in writing as in living, I think. He said one way of writing is to write like music, with a great deal of improbabilities and rhyme, as it where, in the story --- like he does. The other way is to 'go deep down into reality and not care a damn'. Of course this reality is merely a part of the whole reality. For taken as a whole, it is music. / Taken as a whole, it is music. Or can be? : Well, can be, when we realize that things have a potential for infinite change, and this change is wholesome, and comes about when we learn to give attention. / What relevance does this have, say, to politics? Or to situations of dictatorship or the like? : Dictatorship is like an illness. A very severe kind of illness, and politically, there will usually be many developments that lead up to it for decades. The attentive, sensitive, caring individual with great action potential would sniff it out and change things long before they go that far. Then, when it has gone as far as dictatorship, it might be that some kind of surgery is necessary, or else it can persist with incredible suffering for those concerned and breed more destructiveness which can reach other places. / Military action? : Yes well a police kind of protectiveness to ensure that individuals are not bullied around by force makes sense, does it not? / Police is usually an in-state affair. : But we are talking globally. When states are erected or shaped so that they violently treat individuals who are not violent themselves, things have gone very wrong; someone ought to rescue those individuals -- even if by drastic means. I think that is a civilisation healing. The most agile, intelligent action does not involve violence at all. And that is exemplified in the martial arts by aikido. Going far in that regard may even create capacities to dismantle a dictatorship by swift action by night, as it were, by a small supertrained group, without blodshed. But this requires a great deal of preparation, not just more bomb budgets. / So you actually mean that the word 'healing' is relevant on all levels, not just the individual level. : Look it is a natural law. One of the few. That the enhancement of wholeness of coherence, at all levels, happens when there is attention. In that way it is possible to see the TV age as somewhat of a blessing, because what is shown on television is a barbarism that has gone on for millenia but never before documented in bloody, ugly detail. Rather, much have been brought further in a glorified mythic version as the fighting between great people in a great way and all that jam. / Enhancement of coherence. Is it in all areas clear what that means? : Harmony or wholeness as a concept is not something we can enforce with much luck. Luck comes from realizing that harmony is a question of very sensitive perception, but that everything in Nature collaborates to give you that perception. It is infinite and not reducible to mechanical means or methods. *** / I believe that you have said, somewhere, that the future is significant in healing; that it is about the restoration of the future, so to speak. But isn't the now at least of equal importance? For that seems to be the impact of the traditional or ancient teachings, as of zen etc. : First of all I am not concerned with traditions, which may be little more than traditions of lies and misuse of power, but with seeing. And I am not interested in forming another tradition but in stimulating seeing, so what I have said is really not the issue, is it? But what you yourself see. Then, the now contains everything that exists, that is real, that is actual. This now, then, also contains the future inasmuch as this future has any kind of existence. The now contains the future. There is no contradiction. But please, let us not merely shuffle words around but actually explore. What do you mean by 'the now'? / The sense of the world right now is the 'now' for me, I guess. : The sense of the world. But deeply, what is it? A second? Three seconds? An atomic moment? / I wouldn't divide it up. : Ah! So you say that, essentially, the now cannot be counted. For counting is based on dividing up. / Yes. : Do you see what that implies? Do you see that if you do not engage in counting, then the whole spectacle of ageing and belonging to an age group and growing up and being wise only when one gets older -- all that belongs to a tradition of dividing up time? And you don't want to divide time? So you approach time as a whole. That is healing. / How do you mean, not dividing time up is healing? Because you reach tranquility then? : Not only that, but if you don't divide time up, then you do not give any importance to certain kinds of events... / Such as what? : Well, I was thinking of how scared people are of the thought of approaching bodily death. They are not scared of death, perhaps, but of that closing down period; in philosophizing over that, they may come to some kind of irresponsible, boring, shallow rush in which the lemon of life is to be squeezed as much as possible, as it were. Do you see the stupidity of all that? Do you see the utter stupidity, and the irreverence towards life, of visualizing that it is the bodily death that really matters? / Are you talking of the immortality of the soul? : No, not anything of that mental habit, the habit of talking about a soul in certain religions. I am talking of life as the great soul, the great movement, where we really belong. Not merely belong before or after bodily death. I am talking of life as our essence, our personality as it were. Do you see this? I don't want to give it as a description. But do you see, or sense, rather, that life is your real persona? That the bodily persona is merely the mask? / You speak of some kind of cosmic soul. Of course, the hindu have spoken of this a great deal, among others. : Yes yes. But not as that intellectual idea. But as a reality that is beyond counting somehow. You don't merely say: look here is the concept of purusha, brahman or whatever they call it. They say it has this and that characteristic and they have a few boring anecdotes -- with salt in water and the other one and this and that legend by Shankara and so on -- but all this is too feeble, too small, to wake up humanity. You give insight food into life as an uncountable whole to the hungry, and they get even more hungry! A tradition only has a finite collection of tales and then it is dry, then it is up to the priests, the gurus, the shamans to fill in the extras to make daily life a passable time, while we wait for the great enlightenment. There is another way altogether, to all this, I feel. There is an urgency in me to say: there must be an enlightenment, an awakening in everyone, it can be, it must happen, it will happen, do work for it, it has immense joy. It will be dancing in the street. It may sound silly but it is not that which has been said before. Much more refined. More individual. Creative. / Certainly it has been said before by some of the great teachers. : Well, who are they? People who are arrogant claim that people who are doubting the great teachers are arrogant. You see the hypocrisy? But it is arrogancy toward this marvellous instrument of perception that one's own mind is not to doubt. And I doubt, I doubt the great teachers. Where are they? What has it lead to, what they did? There is barbarism, vulgarity, a progression towards decline. And as a contrary movement, there is life itself, and if we can leave our vulgarity and our foolish gullible acceptance whether of atheism or any of the other dogmas, then we can come to that immense healing within. Now. And this is a now which is infinite for we do not divide it up and count it. The counting we engage in is other than the dividing up kind of counting. It is by rhythm, musically, we relate to this time. You follow? Never mind if you follow or not. We must explore more, dissolve our mental habits by exploring more, more, more. Then we will all not just come to it, but live there. It is easy, if we give it time. *** / What is healing? I do not mean the dictionary definition. : Okay, let's enquire. When does healing not occur? By negation, we can come to the positive. It does not occur when we avoid giving attention. So give attention! / Is that enough? : But what is giving attention? Attention means to see. It is the necessity of seeing. So thought is like a tape, plastered to our perceptions. If you tape together that which naturally moves apart in perception, then it is an illusion of togetherness. If you tape sharply apart -- different colors of your tape to emphasize the difference -- that which naturally moves together in perception, then it is an illusion of difference. So you must be humble to your perceptions. You give attention and that melts something. / Say, I'm in a relationship. I mean a sexual, personal relationship, like when you live together with someone, perhaps in marriage. Then I am tremendously attracted to a third person. How can this be healed? : Are you against being attracted? / But then I close my eyes and it is the person who is not physically there I am making love to. : Does this not occur to everybody? / Do you mean it should not be healed? : But what is relationship about? Attraction involves the development and refinement of an esthetical sense, which never dies or whithers, not even among the very, very old. It goes on and it renews itself. And so suddenly it leaps, like a tiger from the bushes, to a new prey. If you follow all these bursts of attraction then is there a lasting relationship? / So it should be healed. : But what might have to be healed is what you mean with a relationship. There is the infatuation because you have just found a toy that matches your inner visions. The other is a dildo to your own experience. Then the toy gets boring because it is too familiar, and you love it because of familiarity, which is something else than infatuation. The relationship goes on because you act as one body. You live with your own body and you do it beyond infatuation. You do not throw your body away when you are not infatuated with it. You renew your own relationship to your body, and you talk with your body, working on it, doing yoga each day in a new and different way. You vow never to make a movement that is not dance. You meditate on what you can do which is new today, and also vital, so that you never have a routine. All the time questioning, attention, healing. / Hm. I see. : So in seeing anything, not merely superficially, not jumping from one tape of thought to another, not just surfing the network of fixed concepts, you relate to it, you respond. Which is something else than this quest to express oneself and then the quest to get others to pay attention and be an audience to your own expression - - perhaps because you never paid attention yourself, so it is to make up for it. Or you do it because you think you are fulfilling an obligation to God when it is only the obligation of the tapes of your thought, derived from a book which may not be all that wise. Though all your teachers have read it and agreed that it is brilliant. You may not think it is brilliant in your heart but you think that they are right that only the learned can tell. Whereas in fact only children can tell and adulthood means being able to translate the information from the child within to a humble adult intellectual apparatus, humble to that child information. / Do all people see themselves? : As they are? Many of the most thinking individuals, who knows what it means to be a materialist, an atheist, a reductionist, a what-not-ist, they are curiously unable to see how they may fit their own categories. They think their knowing of it is sufficient to transcend it. As if by condemning reductionism they are not reductionists thereby. But this is not a question of voting; to see is to step out of the network of thought, lean back as it were. Not ask how to see but just see. Not just see as with the eyes but sense with all your being, all your person. And when you do it the most creative and remarkable thing happens. / Do you heal by affirming health? : I spoke to my friend, Frans Widerberg, the painter. He is the one who really convinced me to look more into the questioning approach of Krishnamurti and Bohm and be less certain that science as quantum theory can answer things -- for a theory is a question of reference, but in The Ending of Time, he said, they talk 'without reference'. I knew Bohm and knew that book well, long before he mentioned it, but he made me think back on it and start that approach over again, perhaps -- or something like it. Well, anyway, I said to him recently: There are two kinds of magic, the magic of similarity and the magic of contrast. And he replied: There are two kinds of magic, the magic of what you want, and the magic of what you don't want! That's the understanding and the humour you need if you are going to do affirmations. / I don't quite follow. : Then no matter. But unless you bring in the opposite of what you want to at least some very slight extent, you are a fanatic, and a fanatic don't get anything right, ever. That's a law. Even the natural laws are not fanatic. They wriggle. / As in the dao, with yin and yang. : Except I hope you realize that these two principles are not the principles of harmony and disharmony, but rather, the harmony is there when the two principles are balanced. / What is the difference? : Well, harmony is not either night or day but it is night and day, rest and activity, in balance. And once you realize that yin and yang is an example of such an expression, then you also realize that this balance is wriggling, too. / If it wriggles too much... : Then it gets wrong, of course. / Is there a 'right'? : In each moment there is a right action. But don't go nuts in trying to find it. You have other things to do as well! I'm just joking. / You have other things to do? : Joking, I said. If you really wish to heal, you need to work out a vision that you can bond to, far beyond any question of personal survival, reputation, and so on, but of course you want to take care of such issues as survival and reputation and so on also. But they are not top priorities, they come more down the list. Otherwise it is all vanity. So at the top, some vision that you can loose yourself in. A good novel, I like sci-fi, crime novels, and hippie-style novels these days, and I forget myself. But I forget myself having already forgotten myself in some vision. / You need to forget yourself double up! : That's it! Double up. Triple. Forget, -- or, what's that other word, leave, transcend... / Go beyond? : Yeah. In meditation there is no meditator. You know? The action that is...who you are, when you are nothing. It is absolutely obvious to everyone who has ever done anything requiring peak performance that there are moments of excellency and utter clarity and brilliance of movement in which there is no self. This is what we need. So the fruits of our actions are what we are, so we must pay attention to what we are. When are have tranquility, clarity, then whatever we turn to has that. You see people who are full of aggression, trying to be polite -- they have this sluggishness of response; because their initial inward response is anger. And they stop themselves from showing that so a second passes, then another, before they calculate a polite response. I much favour the polite response but goddamn why don't they do some real sincere self- hypnosis and get rid of their angry attitudes so that they can function more with a sense of dance and ease. Like writing all the reasons for anger and throwing it, then affirming, "I am grateful, I am grateful" until they get blue and red and every primary color. That's healing. Not just accept and tolerate but actively transform and make of oneself a radiant, translucent, enlightened mind. / When is the response we have in relation to one another a healing touch? : When there is no motive. Which is something completely, wholly other than merely thinking that there is no motive, assuming it, asserting it. You need to realize that thought is a subtle form of matter and this matter is something you can pick up. It moves around and you can move around anything you are moved around by. You can influence that which you are influenced by, on the subtle level. It's all telekinesis. Your self-forgetting or going beyond yourself, finding that state of exuberant nothingness demands that you meditate and actually uncover your motives and then make them playful, absorbing them more and more into the light. All this is done by visualization, you need to do it when you awake. As a golden sphere that expands around you and everything not golden is healed. Sometimes people are stuck in an fixed aggressive attitude that is no perception, but a habit, only a habit, and on consulting with your deepest love for all reality, you are allowed to as if close them out. That is rare. Apart from that, you let that golden light expand and it heals, you heal. / Without effort? : Dance, -- I hesitate to say 'without effort'. Dance. No motive. Awareness, attention -- there are slight elements of subtle action in it. The subtle action feels relatively effortless. As long as there is any action at all though, it may from some perspective be right to call it 'effort'. Like in the phrase, 'make great efforts'. It means great actions. Patanjali, who is the supposed author of the yoga sutras, an excellent little script and fortunately too cryptic to nurture fanatical people, usually, -- he used to say, it seems, that there is nothingness with a seed and without a seed. I am not saying I support every word in it. Far from it. You see, you relish in meditation and that is, if there is no motive, it is sheer ecstasy. Like Aldous Huxley spoke about but without the moksha bit. Every kind of ecstasy, in every kind of amount, is available to the vegetarian yoga-based brain. Absolutely every state of mind. To every degree. There are no limits at all. *** / Does music have a relationship to healing? : The music of the spheres, it listens to itself and therefore it never finishes. Healing is a participation in that, the process that I have called, sometimes, the great Uncomputer. / Which is... : Which is the untangling of the mechanisms of the universe, the predictions within predictions we call time, that lead to the infinity of guidance from the quantum potential, or whatever we call it. Louis de Broglie called it the pilot waves. It is a principle ignored by many physicists due to a certain fashion that may recede, as other implications of this science is worked out. / Where does the great Uncomputer come in? : It comes in by reflecting on what happens when the universe which is creating itself is also listening in to the effects of it so doing. This is an infinite process, you see, and it creates more and more structure that reflects this listening. / It sounds something like what Goedel proved in mathematics, that self-reference is beyond the mechanical. : Yes. Well, Goedel operated within a framework of counting, a digital framework essentially. I have another framework, which I call the analogs. A different type of number. And the reason is that I find the typical framework of mathematical logic in the twentieth century as shortsighted when it comes to the infinity concept. / So you don't entirely vouch for Goedel's results? : They are perhaps a little more domain-confined than what they have been portrayed as. I am still working on how to express this more clearly so we will come back to this in some other context, some other time. / What about time? How does time come into the healing process? : I once read a very interesting summary of a ph.d. done on a London university on parapsychology. It turned out that when the students were asked to focus mentally on the whole result rather than being concerned with means, then they got better results. The results were further strengthed if they had a rather complete trust in them also, after having performed the focussing. You see? You focus, then let go. Having trust. And you give time, in that sense -- you give time, also to the Universe to do some work. / Is the Universe real? I mean as an organic process? : What is the alternative? It is woven together, it appears; it is highly organic; if my own musings on science are correct, it is not easy to speculate that it is somewhat aware of itself; if it is possibly somewhat aware of itself it might presumably be speculated to be intensely aware of itself. / What are humans in relation to that? Midgets? : Dust? Or is the question as foolhardy as the question of a cell, or an organ, in relation to the whole human body -- what role have I, and so on. There is a consciousness of the whole body and this consciousness is intensely dependent on its constitutents. Even the very small. It is said that pain is registered in the brain, if you have a toe that has pain it is a nerve connection up to the brain and that is why it is conscious and all that. So that is practically ninety-nine percent correct. But then we must not forget -- the cells in the toe may also have pain. It is not just the brain that has pain! A more subtle kind of pain. Now, if you are truly sensitive, you can pick this pain up before it reaches a manifest level and becomes a signal to the brain. And as long as it is this subtle, you can also influence. And this is of course what healing is about. Living in the intent of beauty. / Beauty comes in...how? : Beauty, as balance, harmony, the promise of future, the possibilities -- the flood of music that makes things suddenly worthwhile. If you know the beat, the rhythm, if you get that music on, then you are swayed away from concerns -- and that is truth. It is not an escape. I mean, music can be an escape but if you are aware of everything that happens it is a wonderful thing. *** / What is healing? We seem to be never finished with that question. : Good. Let's keep it open. / You train yourself in healing by...doing what? Living healthily? : Yes. Also that. And by exploring loneliness. / You are much alone, aren't you? : And with people. In cycles, it alternate, all the time. / What do you mean by 'exploring loneliness' exactly? : It is a condition leading to terrible suffering in many. / How can you tell? : Isn't it obvious? Do you have to be telepathic to realize it? Despite the statistics on 'how happy people are' -- the thing is, few admit it. / Do they even know if they are lonely? : You see, that is why we said, earlier I think: seeing is a necessity. And in seeing, healing is already beginning to occur. / Why is that so? What is it with seeing that makes it so vital? : Hm. It is essential to reality -- can we say that? Essential to the natural change of reality. What conceals itself persists. / For a while, but if it has false grounds, it, too, vanishes. : Yes. Yet it then vanishes in a destructive way, like the conquest of a dictator by unleashing powers that strike down on a lot of people. / Attention can heal...everything? Everywhere? : There is no limit to it. But we must explore loneliness to understand how to unleash attention as a healing agent, a nonviolent agent. / So loneliness prevents good action from arising, is that it? : A lonely person may invest a tremendous lot of time to draw people to him, and this time and energy could have been devoted to acting according to the heart. / The heart, in this sense, is the spirit. : Of course. / So loneliness prevents a natural flow of...what can we say...goodness? : I would say humour. / Why humour? : Doesn't humour characterise health? And lonelinessl, it is the severe outlook, the frozen attitude, focussing on the pains instead of bringing forth what can be brought forth of love, laughter, dance. / So humour in the body... : ...is a healthy body. Quite. / Is this the temperature of the body you spoke about earlier? : You see there is a lot of myths behind every word. Humour is part of it. It is not the myth I am interesting in though -- but rather the direct perception. / Some people say that emotion is the basis for perception. Other people say that it interferes with perception. What is your approach? : Please, I am not an approach! You perceive. In that perception you are sensitive, you sense, you relate, with feeling intensity also. Or the emotion flows from the ego. Isn't it simple? / And the ego is that loneliness, we spoke about? : The ego is that which makes life not as wonderful as it can be. If you have an optimistic outlook on people, then, when you meet them, you meet them by seeing how lovely they can be, when they have no ego. / What happens then? When you get to know them? : Well, perhaps you knew them by far the best at that first moment. For what you then get to know, with most people, as it has been at least, is the ego structure. And of course we get bored with that. / So to be a less boring person, be without an ego?! : Of course. Ego is resistance to humour, the dance of life. / And this dance of life has something infinite about it. Is counting of years an illusion? : Any form of counting as 1, 2, 3 must have not psychological significance. / But it is an illusion? : The finite is an illusion, I would say. / How would you then plan something? : If you plan with a friend who is truly sensitive, do you have to use numbers? Make up a word. / If we go into dance, how is a body to dance its way out of loneliness? : How is a body to dance itself out of loneliness... it is quite a question. What is dance? Let's explore that first. / Movement to rhythm? : Please. Don't be so superficial. / Dance is a relationship to the heart. : Deeply, what is dance? / Freedom from the ego. : That's part of it, isn't it? There is no ego and, what happens then? / No loneliness either. : But if you have loneliness to begin with, then, if you come into dance, that is the vanishing of loneliness, right? There is no sequence. It happens simultaneously. / I see. : So what is dance? / Dance is perception-action. Can we say that? : Perception-action. You perceive and in that perception there is also the action. So up comes the question of intention. / Dance happens without intention? : Not so fast. What is it that is fruitful to intend? / Fruitful to intend -- you'll find that out by intuition, won't you? : Yes, but listen to the question -- what is most fruitful, at the level of intention? / You mean, what is it most fruitful to plan to do? : That is exactly the point. Intention is an action, a subtle action. It is not a plan. You walk with a certain intention and that is a different walk than if you walk with another intention. / How does this relate to healing? : How does this relate to relationship? You approach another, do you have a sense of flexibility, playfulness, perceptiveness of intention or do you go by habit, self-satisfied? The right intention is the healing intention. / Does this also go across the air, as it were? I mean, one speaks of hands that can heal. : Of course. It is just a particular intention. It is an orgasmic current, as it were, flowing from one body to another. *** / What is the infinite? : Now you are asking. Well. Rhythm. It is alive. / Rhythm? It has cycles? : Of course. Don't you feel it? You sit upright, you let your back neck or jaw muscles subtly aid the blood flow upwards, you watch beyond every thought and sense the infinite directly. / How does these rhythms transpire? : Either the infinite is one static block like some of the ancient Greek philosophers hoped to prove, or it is in movement. The movement most similar to the sense of the infinite is rhythm. You can feel it directly when you are absolutely silent. / Absolutely silent. Is it possible? Without a drug? : Certainly. / And then what happens? : Time as counting, time as thought, even thought vanishes. There is renewal, there is that bliss which is nothingness. You can have it right now. / Now. No preparation necessary. : No initiation from a Tibetan master or an UFO necessary. You just sit and watch your thoughts, see them as time. Then the moment opens up, the universe is in it, you sense that there is nothing to worry about. That it all was there all the time. / Then I might say to myself, "Now I am enlightened." : Why say anything? Don't cling to what happens. It is in infinite supply. *** / When we heal, we are engaging in what seems to be the most nonviolent -- or least violent, rather -- action that it is at all possible to engage in. Do you agree? : Well I am against comparison. There is a lot of snobbish self- satisfaction in comparison. If what you do is right, it is right. / How do you distinguish between right and wrong? : How? How! How! The endless hows! Don't you just know? / But it can be my bias. : So get rid of bias! / And then...? : Then what, sir? / What is the meaning of the whole enterprise? : Does the ocean ask of the meaning of its flow? / It flows. : Yes. And there's a beauty in that. There is no self, then. / I know of people... : Talk of yourself! / Okay. What I wanted to ask is what it means to live in this harmony when the subconscious or unconscious mind may have buried a lot of condemnation, worry, negative self-appraisal, even hatred, and so on. : How to get out of it? / Well. Not 'how' but... : Do it! / What? Step out? : Yes. Step out of humanity's consciousness and come to compassion. The land of compassion or truth. / For the consciousness of humanity is ego-tainted? : Not only that, but it has immense sorrow. / And you leave it, then what? : Then you are nonviolent. Not as a scheme, but as a wonderful life. I hesitate to use the phrase 'a life'. It sounds finite. Wonderful living. But then one merely thinks of houses and so on! I hope one day we have made a better language than English. / You say nonviolently. What about war? Is it always wrong? : Krishnamurti used to say that if parents really loved their children, there would be no wars. For if parents love their children, they will never allow them to be soldiers. It is naive but beautiful. A little truth it is. / But what do you say? Is it always wrong? : If you are supremely intelligent -- not merely as brain intellect, but intelligent because you do not repeat what others say -- even though I just repeated! -- but you speak what you live as a truth, then you will find other ways. Always. / Yet, if we take as starting-point a rather chaotic situation, with dictators here and there and not much enlightenment, then what? : Then what, sir? / Then could it ever be justified to kill somebody for a political reason? : Never. / But a mass-murderous dictator... : If violence can be accepted it must be in order to stop a much greater violence. You slap the face of someone who is about to push a button that can do physical damage to another person. You support the speedy removal of a dictator who is on a daily basis murdering people, even if this removal is not intelligent, in the ultimate sense. You support it because you must go a middle way and not just drink herbal tea and pray when a house is burning. Hillsides This is an open-ended, short story. * He woke up, after a short dream. He had fallen asleep in the countryside. To him that was a luxury -- sleep, grass, day combined. To some it was barbarism, uncivilised. He wondered how many years there had been civilisation? He sought in his mind for a number that might answer his question...5683? Perhaps soon 5684. He wondered what it referred to -- the creation by God of Earth according to bible fundamentalism? He hoped not. Whatever God had created, he is still creating, she is still creating, it goes on and on as it has gone on for millions of years. The patterns of coincidences inevitably speaks of hands of synchronicities, composers of pattern divine. Who's behind all this? Well, never mind. The divisions, he always felt, spoke of difficulties in the minds of those who related them. The minds, love, the god in our hearts, this reality, the flight of that bird, the structure of that wellgroomed orchid, where's the division? Ah, the love of pantheism. What was the dream about? Well, never mind. Oh yes, civilisation being 5683 years today, in his imagination. What was before civilisation? Agriculture, hunting, fishing, love-making, nail-cutting, massage? Gourmet dinners all day long? Jumping and climbing in trees? Will we ever find out? Will we ever find a civilisation that is civilised? What did Gandhi, again, say about this...some interviewer asked him, 'what do you think of human civilisation' -- or was it 'what do you think of western civiliation'; not that these two questions are the same. And Gandhi replied, didn't he, 'I think it would be a good idea.' He arose and proceeded down toward Venice. He could sense his lust for bread. The smell of a bakery would guide him, he thought. I wonder if I could find an outdoors bakery with pretty girls with black hair and an open mind, no brothers around. With legs and feet all shiny and ready to be assaulted by a stranger's mind, and they would delight in it, they would need an extra fantasy to carry home to their dreary life; the notion of a new prophet, a new mohammad, a new life-saver coming down from the deep dark forests to save them, to tell them to be true to their inmost desires of their hearts.' Would he meet such girls today? Or, he reasoned, he should be more interested in conversations with men. There were too many girls in his life, too few men. A little balance. Is he not, after all, a balanced person, who feels he can have a role for everyone, not merely for those pretty sweet young ones? He had a friend once who said: look, healing a beautiful girl does not count as altruism. No, perhaps not. Someone had to take care of the beautiful girls, he reasoned. And why not him, the best? He sighed, too much self-confidence. Pride is really not a nice thing to wear. Joy, yes. Pride, no. He had a tiny thing which showed pictures when he clicked it, a camera. He clicked himself, at an arm's distance. Yes, he could see pride in his face. He affirmed, "no pride", and clicked again. It was still there. Hm. He meditated for an instance, then said, "joy and strength". That's masculine -- joy, it radiates independence, clarity. Strength, unruffled by whatever happens, that's masculine, free from pride, but self-asure enough to do anything right. A girl could say "joy and prettiness". She would emphasize tenderness, he would emphasize force; both joy; their blending, beauty. Or so went the theory this afternoon... He shot another image. Okay, much better. Not the obscene attitude of pride, but the lanky masculine, slightly tanned face of something with a certain open outlook on life, male and well. * What could happen in an afternoon like this? Anything at all. Anything good, anyway. He went down and found his bakery. No girls there but the bread was awesome. Then a girl came. Then another came. They all sat down. Like a gardener of the world's wild plants, he tended to these instances of a flowering humanity with great care in his mind, if not also his body. In his mind, he caressed their legs silently. Not staring, just feeling them over, sensing how they sensed him, sensing their fears, their resistance, their longing. One of them had greed in her, greed for him -- the long one over there. Her eyes flickered enough that he could walk over if he had anything smart enough to say to convey indifference yet placitude, that odd combination so often necessary to open a combination; as if interest of a mutual kind is never enough, except in vulgar or drugged states. But what is sex except vulgar? Ah, anyway. Why is it that a partial a woman is so much more interesting than a whole woman, with few exceptions? Women's minds were so different at this point, they claimed, at least, that he would hardly speak in gender-neutral terms about this. He knew of women of astonshing radiance who claimed that what they would fall in love with, concerning a man, could be a gesture; the way he tilted his head; how he walked or became suddenly silent. Was it really that it was about for them? Their minds clicked differently, no doubt -- yet some were more men than he, and shared a lot. Their notion of grabbing the whole of a situation could drive a piecemeal-oriented male to insanity; and it was the piecemeal-orientation that made males carry out reckless, even inhumane projects; their minds fluttered in pleasure over a brilliant little fragment of something, whereas women more easily would turn in disgust unless it was a whole as a composite reality, full of gossip and smalltalk and small flowers and pink ponies, made while they cook soup. He hated that wholeness/smallness that made women go in circles; yet realized it would be terrible if everyone went in lines. A society of males would be a disasterous thing, like a rocket, destined to go nowhere but further, never resting. A society of women would be pre-civilisation. Better in hugely many ways yet unbearable even to themselves. Much as women didn't like the progressive lines and mistakes of men, they thrived in the protection that the erections of men had created around them, to protect them from weather and poverty and what not. He didn't believe much in the essential equality of the feminine and masculine, he reasoned. It was one of the greatest blunders of all time to equate them; just as great as to ignore the feminine, like Buddha did. He thought about Buddha. Buddha is great for gays for he is adequately feminine himself, and at the same time has the virtue of not understanding women the slightest bit, except that they may be ruthlessly attractive. He wanted to say to Buddha, if he met him, look: they say you have left your wife and kids. tell me why you don't go back to your kids and be enlightened also there. I find it a little difficult, at least, to believe your talk of compassion unless you also take care of them. You have started something -- not a mere thing, but a life. Yet, he sighed, Buddha was among the best of the crap of the religious founders, he felt ill at ease with an attack on this nice guy. * He felt around drowsily in his white, large bed. He was alone. None of the pretty ones came with him; he didn't try at all, because he was so saturated with beauty inside himself this afternoon anyway, without them. He felt the smoothness of the bed, looked out through the open window at the large trees and old buildings barely discernable between their massively hanging green leaves. Peace was upon him, he felt. What was the trouble with socalled 'human loving'? One thing: noise. If people only knew what it means to give each other peace. Instead they seem so often to want bondage, seek bondage, seek noise. Why? He didn't know. There is something like hypnotic peace, a peace in which you reinvent yourself, find new clarity, becoming able to see another human being afresh -- even someone you don't like. So that there is no more like or dislike, just an affinity that becomes love. You see, personal love is never love. He thought about it. Sexual love, sexual -- if it is really sensual, sexual, devoted to body touch -- it is not really personal. It is a body thing, body glistening with satisfaction, with subtlety. The body pulsating, the body dancing. It is dance, that's it, he thought. Sex is like a dance. You don't talk about the neighbour when you dance. No chatting, no bondage. No slavery to another's ego. You feel the rhythm, you engage in the movement, you let the moment speak of its own beauty and you are its transparent instrument. Delightful thoughts. Then, he mused, we have human relationships. Oh, what ugly things these may easily be! If we don't watch it, there is little relationship, just brain noise, the noise of another's name and telephone number, and one's own name, the noise of clashing self- descriptions, of clashing lies, or lies against frankness. Personal love is a lie, he thought, it is just ego-connection. Then, something far, far beyond the brain and its noise, yet something the brain could relate to, is this wind gently stroking his face, coming through the leaves into his room, and leaving again. This impersonal satisfaction of life whispering unto itself: I am alive, I love it. This burst of godhood which exists in absolutely everyone, politician and child alike. He could think of no greater polarities than that, as far as human beings go: policitican versus child. A child equals god. A policitican equals -- everything what it means not to be god. Whatever that should be called. Inert matter. * He slept. He dreamt a long dream about the valley he had just been in, about flowers becoming angels kissing him all over. Sensual living incorporated, that was him. Incorporare sensualismus. Perhaps. He didn't know a word Latin. Slight warnings, arrows, areas of danger -- he sensed it in his dream. He healed it somewhat even in his dream, and as he awoke, thought about these hints of danger. And sought to visualize that he really healed them, too. To him, the word 'healing' was as second to his nature as the word 'body', or even the body physical. Life was about healing, for him, life healing life. Love was healing, baroque music was healing, a pretty face was healing. Good writing was healing, and good reading, too. A cup of coffee could be healing. Healing, not of anything in particular, just of the capacity of life to heal life. Healing of the drugged brains, so they need no more seek drugs to have ecstasy. Healing of matter, so it became energy and light, the light of ecstasy. * He hoped he looked good enough for this girl who was his conversation partner this meal. Alisa. They had an agreement on this lunch, made last week. They lunched at an outdoors cafÄ, overlooking one of the canals. The fresh air reached them through the waters, and the smell of people, nice smells, this day. And children's screams and shouts of joy while they played danced in his ears much as the reflections of sunlight on these waves. Alisa had been one of his sexual partners for a while, a young asian/european naturally tanned petite sweetheart with a golden tongue, metaphorically, and a golden skin, literally. She spoke a rather aristocratic British English with a faint chinese accent, had been well groomed by a political mother and father, whose wealth and influence was pretty immense. She thought of herself to be pretty and young, and she was; but he could never detect anything like arrogance in her. She never spoke badly about anyone, except to the extent "I do not understanding his attitude to..." whatever it was. Not understand. That was, apparently, the severest attack she could make on anyone or anything -- that she could not understand. He wondered if she always did understand. That she did understand what the ego was all about, how it might generate emotions that are just completely different than the real feelings of the heart, and confuse people and their actions. All that enlightenment stuff. Perhaps she just knew it. It was difficult to tell. She seemed to be one of those individuals who could just save Earth if she got that kind of power, but probably she was not ambitious enough to try to grab much power; and her lack of ambition was part of her sincere deep tranquility; her lack of ambition made her spend hours in yoga for the delight of it; it made her dress herself in silk and spend time with her hair so it could be that river of shine when she walked about. She was a...there the word came again...flower. He always used that word when a girl seemed to him particularly interesting. A male chauvenist, no doubt. But he insisted he was not, for he could use it about old girls as well -- as the head of the Theosophical society, when he had met her. She must have been seventy, at least, a dancer. Wearing Indian sari, she sat in a sofa in perfect tranquility and ease with her legs under her, to her side. Seventy and sweet as a rose. He even gave her one. Well, anyway, Alisa. She said something about the world politics, how she couldn't understand something about its level of consumption. There we went again. She couldn't understand it. Then it had to be truly terrible. A child came running to them -- to her, mostly, and asked if she could teach Alisa's hair. Alisa smiled and her golden face became full of that kind of love you don't really think human beings are able to show just like that. The kind of love you imagine, with closed eyes, that some angel would have if you could see the angel very clearly, an angel woven of the orgasms of all the gods, an angel dedicated to spread compassion, to heal by radiance. Healing. Her face was perhaps so healing he could cry. He felt he had to be healed infinitely more when he saw her like that, healed, so he too could smile like that someday. Yet perhaps this was exactly the infinity of healing, that you know it can always be a new infinity to it, you bow in humility to what healing means, bow to the beauty of this woman, and you don't try to copy it. You just say: I surrender. And you don't surrender; that's part of the game of life, you don't surrender at all, and yet fully surrender. The moment is all that happiness and all that sorrow that such full compassion can bring. Yet you know that the moment is a mere meditation. There can be infinitely more of them and they are all infinitely different. There is no persistance. But you can forget that there is no persistance, forget that you are meditating, forget her, forget yourself, and see only the child over there. No more I-Thou, just Thou. Then not even Thou. A blissful nothingness. He felt himself disappearing, and came back, perhaps five seconds - - it could be five millenia -- later. The child was touching her and Alisa touched the child's head, patted it, and then the child run off somewhere around the corner, probably to her mother. * It was afternoon. They had walked from their lunch-place to a place in a park, sunlit in parts, in part shaded under a groovy tree. Alisa put her legs under her, yogaish, and he watched her admiringly. Her profile was noble -- in the way which socalled 'noble' people rarely is. She was unsnobbish yet had that ingrained pride of being a gorgeous human being. Yet not pride perhaps... more indulgence, even infatuation with herself. She had a twin sister, and they shared a natural, obvious and shameless infatuation for each other. Of course. How could they not. If one of them was unbearably attractive, then two of them was... out of reach by the inflation of the words implied in 'unbearable'. Two of them was really too much. Happy that he could be with only one of them, he decided to take her into a difficult theme. He thought of his dream; he had done much subtle healing, almost on a subconsicous level, and he found it so exceedingly easy when with Alisa. 'Alisa, you who see so much,' he began, a little pompous perhaps, but she really travelled a lot, and met many eyes -- 'there is a theme I am working on, I mean I need to intellectualize it. I have sensed it, I haven't yet come up with the proper words for it.' 'What is it, dear?' she asked, as if it were not a trouble in the world. She couldn't have been more accurate in the inflexion of her voice if he was a kid of age five and he had just bruised himself, and come in crying; she was the younger one but she could be his mother in a moment. She soothed him, she knew she did; she probably enjoyed it, too, he reflected. For he was one who valued her compassion, who regarded it as real strength, and who sought to relate something of that sense in his piano productions, musical concerts, whatever; so she could perhaps feel -- if she was interested in this sense -- that her radiance was conveyed to others by conveying it to him. They could reach the farthest shores, as it were, by his musical touch, his concerts, his audience; and so her flowering prettiness had a deep function, as if she had a child only better, in a sense, for this concerned so many. Perhaps she thought like this. He reflected that he did not knew her really well, yet. She was so tranquil, so harmonious, that if there were any shadow side to her, he had not seen it at all. 'Well, you see,' he began, tentatively, 'I have thought about how nice people can be on the surface. And then, when you shine a little attention on them, also sexually, some of them turn up with quite other energies than this. You know what I mean.' 'Yes...' Alisa thought about this. 'You mean that they carry shame on the sexual level. Or aggression. Or what not. And this comes up if somebody looks under the surface.' 'Yes, exactly,' he responded. She always took things in the best meaning. He imagined how a woman from the district might have responded to the very same sentence: "You bastard! You mean that you can't touch their butt as often as you like!" But then he would have anticipated that response and spent some fifteen minutes laying out the context that Alisa took in a flash. Or perhaps carried with her, happy and optimistic as she was about humanity. 'So, I have come to sense something, it frightens me to talk about it in case it is severely wrong, and yet it seems to me impossible to disregard it anymore. That there is a darkness about some. Have you noticed it? Or anything like it?' She thought about this then nodded. 'Go on', she said. They talked long into the afternoon. Then evening. They slept together. Next day they gathered some food and went into the forest, ate some of the food on the way and headed towards a lovely building, a place where they sold food, and there was a fire there. They could watch all the way to the sea. * His dreams the last night were postive, the sense of warning gone, and something good had come instead. The talks must have healed it, he thought -- the talks he and Alisa had had about darkness and the importance of trusting what one senses before one's intellectualizations; then intellectualize as much as one pleases in order to quicken one's sensing of it. They had agreed that, perhaps completely unwittingly, some people engage in activities -- they are not born that way -- that makes the radiance very shallow, and whatever they touch, they fragment. It is not really darkness. Alisa had said, 'Is it not rather that some people don't understand goodness -- they are running away. They don't sense it as a force, like we do. I have a sense of a mother goddess, always. She is always with us.' The word 'us' referred to she and her twin sister, usually. She continued, 'When they don't know of this thing, they do it on a mechanical basis, whatever it is that they are doing.' He had objected that some of them may talk about goodness, may have studied the literature of the mysticists, may have meditated on healing, and she said that that is not the same as taking it utterly seriously, so seriously you rely on it. 'For there may still be fear,' she said. In that way, she had urged him to take the perspective that it is not a darkness that is willed, it is rather a consequence of lack of relationship to one's own heart, and the goodness that is there. It is a running away from the elementals of life, as she put it. The seaside seemed very blue, and there was a whitish fog above it. It must be quite hot. It seemed light and clean, offering itself, virgin-like, happy and gay with the day. The valley down towards it seemed light green and they went down for a swim and said goodbye in the city. She had to go away for two days. Their kiss was warm, warmer than ususal but it always seemed warmer than ususal, he thought, with her. ** Poems on eyes 1 They say: I feel like you... watch me. Told me. Those blue eyes, watch me from above. So sexy. Sexy. She told me, did you see how he looked at us? It's there. The girls chatting. That's what my cunt is saying -- we're chatting, is that enough? No, I am shameless, if you want to know, blue-eyed God. Do you read my mind? Do you read my cunt? Pussyreader? Sister-reader? Lovemaker. You blue eyes, go home and honk yourself. Wanna be with you, forever, sex, forever eyes on me like that, babe. Sexy eyes, what are you thinking now? Do you think my think? Read my cunt! Sweet lips, pen moving...your eyebrows, your cheekbones. Ready for marriage? I'll split after a year, maybe. But not one night. All life blue eyes. A year one life. Many years, many lives. Maybe all yours. 2 Christ! Speak from thighs. Feel! Touch my look. Thighs look. I begin to wail... unless the wash of colours become settled on my gait. Between me. I am between me, don't you see? See? See! Eyes, they're for seeing, right? Eyes coloured by their own colour, sexifying my limbs, why? Why the shine? Why? Why my gait if not for your shine 3 Branching infinites, dots between dots, always more between-ness. Have you not yet discovered between-ness? Or are you one or the other? Do you see the colour? Do you take in the green? Do you train the green, to welcome the light in you that's you? For love is perfect kindness, perfect dance. Sweet silence Sit still. Watch the point. Perceive the perceiver, And time stands still. So by infinite regress there is infinite progress, irreversible, all in an instant of unpredictable grace On Dance If you will, and I will, dance!, and dialogue shall be Dance! For Your God is...God as dance as love, is love, as dialogue, as beauty: The heartbeats Dance is neither chaos nor control, but the coherence of creation Beyond pain, yet compassionate The dance of responsibility of the quietness as it pulsates within Make love to the notion of love beyond the limitations of nondance beyond the borders set by attachment: Let love flourish, make love to neighbours; condemn not love but generously support it; have no ego but see that you are love, that each is love, at the bottom under pressures at the depth of the psyche, under the superego at the core of every personality: there is love, condemn it not, but breathe fire into it, so its water comes aflame and boils away its ego Sit still also, for dance is the effortlessness: The intelligence of finding the path of utter freedom from all resistance, of all selves The spontaneous intelligence: Nature's own law: Complete coherence without lifting a finger, being the greatest dancer, beyond comparison I say, there is no a priori as distinct from any a posterori and no language game distinct from any other game and no dance of a private mind distinct from any other dance the burden of distinction must be proved: I play along without distinction to me, any information is open for my being is dance, beyond information: I do not tear open in fake transparency and the slowness of thought what happens in the immediacy of dialogue, of dance, of making love to your neighours What is life? What is consciousness? What is feeling? What is dialogue? What is orgasm? It is all...no label will do, but it is all...really no thought either, and yet it is all...dance, isn't it? You may ask: Why dance? What is dance? But you know. Without knowing, you dance. The breathing, you heart. Each interval of silence between your moments of thinking that you know. The interval of nothingness which is the fire of being. Why dance? If life is dance, then why not enact something else? If life is dance, why talk about it? Why not just do it? And yet we have such brains as love to make things complex and engage in subtleties such as to cover up the dance in ourselves. I say the shiver of orgasm is love, the dance of love is what makes us truly human To let the rhythm go everywhere, where you have mind What is dialogue? Is it to suspend? I see respect, for the essence of all: that each carries the best of all You watch what you do perhaps it is the computer in you yet you watch, you suspend, you wait the watching with the intent of beauty the watching with the intent of harmony watching, the future watching the present the coherence of what is to come watching over the dance of the present wiping the ego out you watch You watch and there's an immediacy in that watching no labelling, no conceptualization you watch, you relate, you love what is watched is no longer a thing it lives, and it is your life: the watcher dissolves Isn't this love? THE SANE MIND What I will say is like an array of stars communicating with another array of stars. The linear logic will not do. Nor will the form of a 'story'. You are your own story. I will but give a vocabulary of insight. Feel free to use it. The pieces fit in innumerable jigsaws. To have a mind at all is to have something that is a little crazy. That is the fluctuation, which gives the mind something of that unpredictable nature which it has, in its authenticity. I beg you give time, in leisure, to dwell on these possible insights, which are all just so little crazy as to make up something that is right in the heart, even if 'wrong' by some temporary societal standards. Humbly, I suggest: Wisdom comes this way. Not by anectodes, stories, but by those open thoughts which all have a questionmark associated with them. This is transparent knowledge, knowledge which you can see through, rather than accumulate. Knowledge which tells of itself not to take itself too seriously. I have lived according to these insights for years, and I am so supremely happy it is hard even to begin to describe it. The giant oak had shed its last leaves that night, it seemed, so as to get ready for the winter. Strangely the brilliant nightsky seemed to move through it, now that the leaves did not prevent the sight of them. One could stand under the tree, which was dividing itself into two large thighs, as it were, feeling utterly protected and watched over. The wariness was gone, it was ready for another three-hundred and fifty years. The silence that night moved into sleep. Doors were opened, some tiny doors perhaps shut. As water, creation seemed all waves. It was an ecstatic night. Who blows the winds that makes the waves? Do the gods blow electrons into existence? What mind blows itself up? The most dangerous thoughts are the poetic ones, for they may touch truth in a humble instant. They may say: Love is all this life, impersonally. The sense of love is beauty itself. He had been invited to give a talk at the Mensa club in that city where he stayed, the kind of club where the members take pride and prestige in swiftly solving some graphical and verbal schematic tests. The quick and clever ones get a high score, mistakenly considered 'intelli-gence'. He told his dancer friend, who joked, 'You should call the talk to the Mensa Club, About intelligence.' He joked back, 'And the subtitle ought to be, How to get it going'. Who are the most arrogant? Those who make a test and call it 'intelligence test', or those who ironize over that type of action? Among the animals humanity has tolerated we find ducks. The knowing, rather kind-seeming eyes of ducks instill peace in a human being. They paddle on with their pink-orange ores and are hopeful for at least a piece of interracial communication if not also some fragments of dried bread, tossed on water. They get startled by adults, generously give plenty of space to dogs, but are unfrightened of children. You want to know yourself. All the way through. There may be ten thousand more layers to your own motives than what you have verbalized to yourself. How do we ever come to translucence? By asking again and again? Each tree has its signature. Especially the more ancient ones. The younger may have tremendous sap, but consciousness demands also staying power. He wandered between trees in the park, feeling changes. Feeling the city through its nature is the only way to reveal all its secrets. It is the power of silence to make the unknown burst into visual and verbal expressions, all of a sudden. This is called 'insight', I think. Some may say 'intuition' instead. Or even 'intelligence'. The words don't matter so much but the dance does. The language of insanity, as a form of gossip applied to an unruly person, a free thinker, or someone apt at trance-like moods, requires tiger-like action: the gossip must be shattered, by verbal force and insight. Society, as it is, is constituted by neurotics and their categories are dull and uninteresting yet sometimes dangerous enough that they must be stopped. It is evil to say of a person that he or she is insane. The psychological power of silence reigns in the words, the great deep dark forests. Change man by going there and meditate! It was still gray weather, but it had begun to clear, and threads of gold occasionally became visible in the cloudy evening sky. Wandering in the woods was a wet affair. Somehow, though, the organic substance of silence permeated everything here, and it entered and left the human brain of the walker as if skin were no barrier. Silence is coherence, could we say that? Or is silence perhaps about love? The questions deepened as the walk carried on and inwards, past darkbrown wooden houses from an earlier culture, by lakes and tiny rivers, and the signs and sudden view of an elk. The brain that has not silence is clouded. Is enlightenment perhaps to have the ecstasy, the sense of biologically rich silence in oneself all day long, practically every day? It is possible to live that way and this writer does. The sound, sane, healthy mind, with integrity, is organic in its subsistence, its perception, rather than merely cultural. Culture offers little but names, categories, numbers, and some fashionable moves and manners of talking and doing. The health of mind requires a relationship to that which we actually are rather than merely to that which culture portrays us as. The openminded pantheist sees infinite talent in all, and the view of life is therefore profoundly impersonal. As the observer is the observed, the world is sensed through calmness and no drugs are necessary. The sense that everything is alive suggests a rather vegetarian inclination. It suggests an anchoring in honesty and clearsightedness through synchronicities, going beyond likes and dislikes of the conditioned kind. That night the clouds dispearsed, and made sky ready for the gold of the morning. Birds, late in learning before the winter, or perhaps accepting winter conditions, fluttered in delight as the sun rode up with majestic colors abounding. Anyone who has been in California knows what it means to trust light. The girl was rather young and very fair, blond, somewhat etheral, perhaps striking at times. The self-assurance she had as a teenager was gone, she said. Her father no longer lived, much had happened recently, and although generally happy with her husband and little child, she had pangs of anxiety. She seemed quite sensitive and intent on being honest about everything, and thinking it all through. Yet, perhaps, she rediculed a 'too spiritual' standpoint. She described how her intuitions about things she feared sometimes came out surprisingly right, though. 'So I don't know what to do. The anxiety bites in me. I know rationally I shouldn't worry so much yet perhaps, even rationally, I should.' Have you observed the anxiety, not tried to do something with it? 'Well, I notice it. But I do try to get rid of it.' Perhaps giving attention is the key. Not trying to do anything at all with it but creatively, in leisure, explore it deeper and deeper. 'How do you do that?' You watch how motives tend to shrink attention, for instance. You are getting honest to a point where it starts overflowing into a profound sense of tranquility. Ultimately attention and tranquility is one. Then there is no more anxiety, except, perhaps, in days in which there's a lack of sleep. She thanked me and told she'd be interested in more conversations about this with me. He gave a talk for an almost full little room at a spectacle of a giant fair involving every sort of spirituality. His theme, by invitation, was intuition. To his surprise he found himself talking to quite an influential little group, representing some of the cultural elite in that city at the present. At the outset, he'd felt he would talk psychologically more than spiritually, yet at the end of the talk, a discussion involving many spiritual questions came up and the atmosphere was both warm and engaging. Afterwards, they invited him to some cafees and eating-places, and a young, smart-looking girl who had already got a novel or two published spoke in earnest to him. 'I have heard so much about you. Some of my closest friends tell me that you are mad.' Why do you think they say that? 'I don't know. I judge everything for myself, and now I have heard you and seen you, and as we talk now, my own judgement is that you are brilliantly dialogic and I do not think you are mad at all.' Does anybody know what madness is? 'It's difficult. The concept is complex.' And he told her how, when he had left the role of editing and governing the magazine that she later came to work for, and gone to another part of the world, an embittered friend (who later apologized), an angry college, and a frustrated woman in the city to which he moved, had telephoned each other and others to exchange gossip about his intense writing activities. Small pieces of perhaps factual information were taken out of context and suitably altered to suggest a pattern of madness. When he returned for a brief six-day visit to his old place, that place was almost bursting with a gossip he could do little with. 'But you should have addressed it!' There is some charm to such rumours if they are not too strong. If you are to transform your consciousness, must you not expand beyond normality and so touch something potentially crazy? One of the things that really upset them was that I said that I felt I had surpassed the type of enlightenment that Buddha portrayed. I might have said it weaker, but it came out much stronger and without the dialogic, playful, funny context in which it was said, and so they were all sure I had become megalomaniac but none of them really asked me or even admitted they were saying it in between themselves. I heard it later, from others. From what you are saying, some of the gossip still goes on, after all these years. If you cannot say such a thing without somebody throwing that kind of category at you, if you cannot write for days and night and come into a delightful ecstatic yet shivering mood without the rest of society deeming you out of your mind, then what kind of society have we made? 'I really believe in you.' It doesn't matter, does it? To believe or not believe in one another, but to label one another with such a category, and not even admit it to the person in question -- that is not the kind of communication I would like to encourage. 'What happens when one doesn't sleep, but write for two or three days?' What happens, of course, is that you get the kinds of thoughts you would have treated in a dream when you are awake. And if you are aware that this is what is going on, and I always am, then you will not get confused at all. You will listen to it, attend it, watch it become silent, and sleep it out. But something can open up in your brain if you gently, harmoniously, without drugs, push it a little like this. It certainly opened me for new waves of intuition and ecstasy to do these experiments, and there is a hint of that which is utterly nonnormal or even crazy in it, but just a hint, and unless you have that hint with you, how can you do anything creatively? Take Salvador Dali. You don't have to conclude anything about being a genius but if you are a pantheist, like me, you attribute the genius potential to each moment, not to this or that person or buddha or yourself. That is what I meant -- I do not look up to the Buddha image anymore. 'Then what is insanity?' Perhaps we should rather ask, what is sanity? Do you live in complete harmony with yourself? 'No I don't think so. I sense loneliness in me often.' So let's explore. They explored long into the night, affectionately. New energy opened up in between them as they did. Prejudice is the past of the mind imposing itself on the presence and as such shooting itself into the future. Pre-judice is post- judice, it stems from the past of thought and has nothing to do with clear thinking. Most people have, as of today, gone at schools where picking up a pen means producing something of use. This use has corrupted the mind. The limited shortsighted practical fruitfulness of writing, in terms of rewards and punishments from teachers and others, have made language suited to purpose seem 'true' if it works according to purpose. With such minds, gossip spreads like wildfire in dry grass. Intuition would be the water preventing the fake fire of gossip-turned-prejudice. Intuition would be the dance beyond purpose, in which languaging is a meditation, and truths perhaps are touched. The evening were full of party-happy people, strolling by the big window of his office where he worked late at night. The summer was still present, and the moods were to make the best of the rest of it, it seemed. Late in the night, a woman with very long, very shining straight hair, pouting lips, clear skind and knowing yet young eyes looked searchingly through the office window. Their eyes met, he waved her in, it had been a strange day, he had been swimming 6.30 in the morning then later his best friend had turned up unexpectedly announcing marriage, then after all this and a party this nightsun of a girl enters his office and his mind reels. He looked at this quiet elegant statuesque goddess of the night and said that he felt like giving her some of the most far-reaching insights into life, cosmos and everything. They spoke into the night of the sexual energies which weave mind and constitute the pulses of all life. They spoke in new and grand, magnificent concepts and she didn't tell anything about herself in the practical realm. Many weeks later she wrote a thick letter and taped it to his office-door. They gradually found ways of communicating more with one another, giving each other energy, quietness, explorativeness. The intensities could make havoc to a feeble mind. Their intensity in meeting awoke something new, a sort of kundalini glow. It still exists, at this very moment of writing. Since early childhood, I have experienced ecstasies of meditation, like many others. I have been very experimentative. Fortunately, I have a solid harmonious family background, and a father whose scientific mind has had dialogue and empathy as priorities. So in my own experimentations, I, too, have set harmony, empathy and dialogue first. I have never used drugs, except tried cannabis enough to know what it can give and then bore of it. When I have written or explored, I have done it in a context of classical music, healthy food, much walks, and good friends, with whom I have checked for the feasibility of the results. Occasionally, when a sexual relationship with a girl has given rise to psychological conflict, there has been a little disharmony. But never anything serious. Gradually, or in steps, the sense of an active awareness that the observer is the observed has come, with its tranquility. It may be enlightenment, I'm not sure, for there are so many conflicting definitions of the term. But I've come to find a light in myself that is unceasing. And I do not bear grudge against anyone who might have characterized my experiments negatively, of course. I am free of that. The sense of love has become all-pervading. It seems to me that there are two sorts of people who are most likely to hold on to any scrap of gossip that somebody else may be 'mad', 'insane', or 'crazy'. The first type is the person who feels so estranged from society that it feels comfortable to suggest that others are estranged as well. This is said perhaps with a motive to make oneself appear a little more normal. The second type is the person who feels so estranged from himself or herself, and so enslaved in the tightness of normality, that it is fascinating and terrifying to describe somebody as outside the field of normality altogether. Both types of persons may incite society to act, with its brutish systems, against innocent free-thinking individuals. The arbitrariness of the use of the concept of 'insane', 'mad' or 'crazy' leads me to say: it is evil to characterize anyone, for any reason, by any such terms. It is a fascist type of action to utter such a statement, since psychiatric hospitals, along with prisons, are among the most brutal actions that society can possibly apply unto any of its individuals. And we know too little of mind to declare anyone insane. So I will not further contribute to a discussion on these terms. I find them boring and irrelevant. THE SUN IN THE MIND (ESSAY) TYPED IN ALMOST VERBATIM FROM THE CAFE NOTES OF ONE AFTERNOON; LINESHIFTS ACCORD TO THE LINESHIFTS IN THE NOTES Some people tell of me that I am full of a dialogic, open, and even self-sceptical attitude as I give a talk, but that when I write, my viewpoints tend to become categorical and almost dogmatically certain. To me it's a surprise to hear this, because I do not know that I have any viewpoints at all. I explore, I sense, and as I ask a question, I have a perception, and this I may transform into words. If I do this in the context of giving a talk, where people of many different inclinations are listening, not just the spiritually inclined, but the atheistically inclined, the angry political, the snobish 'fine-cultural', and so on, then what I sense in the moment may be that questions will do more work than mere recounting of perceptions. Yet the questionmark is with me in every little thought, so do I need to write it always?! For viewpoints are such a stagnated thing, are they not? Yet unless we go and explore every little possible perception to its outermost borders (if any), then I doubt that we can have the power, the clarity, and the strength to be supremely dialogic in meeting each other, and in asking anew in the next meditations. Let me give an example. I once run a dialogic magazine in Norway, Flux. I gave it name, together with a woman and a man, and I was its head for almost four years. During that time I wrote some nine interviews I had recorded with the dialogic ecophilosopher Arne Naess. I wrote about my meetings with the dialogue physicist David Bohm, and interviewed a large amount of thinkers, while also giving more and more talks about the importance of such thoughts as analogic (wave etc) logic rather than digital (either-or) logic. I even gave a talk on this in the Norwegian Parliament. Increasingly, I found myself restless and undialogic, even powerless, inside. I had not my own word, I had but the words of both-and nice open thinking at han. I did not feel enough meditative power, and as I abruptly left the post and started over with meditative writing in Manhattan, a little group of confused friends chatted themselves into believing I had gone mad, and wanted me to return to Norway so that they could perhaps offer me to 'rest' in a hospital. Of course, as soon as I found out that they had chatted like this, I phoned them all, gave them a little lesson, and of course stayed on, happily writing and exploring, in Manhattan for another nine months. For six days only, somewhat later, I returned to tell them to shut up and accept the idea of evolution in a person through explorative writing, and to stop that terrible gossip. In any case, I wasn't mad, and nobody put me into hospital and I never met with, nor have met with since, any psychologist or psychiatrist except informally, on parties and so on. But I realized how simple it is to begin to talk about a person this way, and to start to see every action in the false web of the language of insanity. A friend of mine, a wonderful and intelligent woman, did not have as much luck as me. Some people started talking about her, and her parents wanted her to always get up at eight o'clock as normal people do, according to them. She did not get to bed usually before five or six in the morning, and because of the compulsion of normality in the parents towards this young woman, they forced her to go sleepless into the day. After several weeks of this, then of course certain natural symptoms of sleeplessness occurred, and of course some idiots around her gathered and forced her into hospital. Only when I shattered the concept of getting up early in the morning did the parents allow their young daughter to sleep out, and that was all she needed! Blasted be the psychiatrists, they are such damned fools to play that role that they are playing. Once the girl promised herself to sleep enough, and if she haven't slept enough, to be much more sceptical to her own thoughts, she never had any such problem again. In any case, the year after I stayed another three months in New York city, with an increasing sense of having found my own word and perception as I pursued my writing, of course never using drugs, living healthily, dancing much, doing some yoga, and so on. After a couple of years, more and more of my old friends began to appreciate that I had done the exact right thing, and brought a new integrity and clarity to myself. Eventually, I found that they all completely embraced my new approach, and appreciated my words far more than before. I knew this would happen because as soon as I started the writing process a tremendous sense of happiness came to me, and it has really never left, although sometimes it is fierce as joy and other times a mild sense of compassion for all. When you go to the outsider position, you need to stay on to it, and then eventually you will win and gain success among the good ol' insiders as well. One must never give up when one starts with explorative, meditative writing, being oriented towards ecstastic harmony, enlightenment, and all that. One must push through like a flower breaks a stone. In Norway, there's a little language called 'Norwegian', a plain flavour of Danish, influenced by English yet without anything of the richness in meaning of the typical English word. This, although my mother tongue, is a language fit to describe material reality and simpleminded feelings, in a rather political fashion, leaving little room for pantheistic nuances. While English is something of a risky business for one who has it as a second language, it is nevertheless used by billions, many of whom has come to it in teenage years, if not even later. Norwegian is a language that enforces normality in that descriptions of people is simple-minded. The Norwegian translation of 'insanity' is simply 'wrong' (gal). What if a person is 'wrong' in relation to society, yet right in relation to his or her inner ratio, spirit, or heart? Society deems a person either evil or insane if the person is upsetting its system in an unpleasant way, and my sense of it is that all uses of such absolute negatives are indications of confusions, projections, and lack of contact with reality. Like Colin Wilson in 'The Outsider' or J.Krishnamurti in 'Freedom from the Known', I feel that integrity will come to a person only in being willing to resist the known, the normal, and the systemic approaces to being. 2 The Sun in the Mind is my chosen title of this text because one night I awoke and said it: I must write a text called The Sun in the Mind. The dreams, the night-ecstasy, the silence within sleep produces this insight, and who am I to argue against it? And then I feel the title lifts up a great fact: that the mind is not a mere auxillary phenomenon, with the Sun being merely in the senses. It is its own light, perhaps, I would say, the central light. If we let this light speak, what would it say? (Rather than letting merely an oft-repeated book be quoted, as fundamentalists do: the best quote from the Christian bible is perhaps the quote where Jesus speaks again who were 'learned in the scriptures'! An amazing fact that priestly education completely surpasses the implications of this remark. The letter-quoter is, quite simply, not spiritual, but merely parroting the expression of someone else, -- whether or not this someone else was spiritual, it does seem to remove the content from the form of the quote to live by quotes, does it not? Whether you do yoga, dance, breathing exercises, Feldenkreis, Alexander, tantrism or some athletic sports, you can enter mind-states comparable with, and even exceeding, that which the most sophisticated of drugs can give. I have discussed this with spiritually inclined people who have also tried Moksha and all the rest of it, and they entirely agree, it seems. A drug may for some have been a dooropener if taken in a profoundly pantheistic -- harmonious spirit and context. But only in cases of several problemetic minds, may it approximate anything like a necessity to try something like LSD to create the necessary 'opening of the doors of perception', as Aldous Huxley would have it. The Sun in the Mind is available for all. I ask again: if we let the light begyond all culture, the core of the mind, speak directly, what does it say? To me, it says, for instance, that the most prevailing views of evolution of life and human beings are more off the track than those occasionally echoed by fanatical sects. Many people may seem to confuse conformity with clarity (encapsulated in the loved phrase 'common sense dictates that...'). They may not even know that their daily actions are strongly affected by a subtle set of theories which may be profoundly ungrounded. However, since something of what intuition or light say, or whisper, or suggest, is wildly other than Bible- or materialistically influenced views, I sometimes wait long before speaking them, because I do not like to give to many grounds for attacks on my sanity at once! (this, I hope, is understood in a half-joking tone). THE FEELING OF DANCE Synchronicity is the quality that the ego can't reach, the ego is not fast enough, thought is not fast enough. So when there is the ultimate high speed of silence then there is the quality beyond the ego control quality, the quantity beyond the ego control quantity, the knowledge beyond ego control knowledge, and then the erotic begins. In this there is economy, the economy of interactivity, or the interactive potential, which becomes organic and kinetic in its inflow and outflow, in its orgasm in mind and body and spirit. This economy is the burst of communication between human beings and between human beings and all existence and between any kind of fully aware being or potential. To live in this state is beyond drugs, for drugs are mechanical and like a metronome strikes the same pace again and again and the brain gets bored but what the brain does not bore of is the evernew rhythm of orgasm in evernew ways and dance is the science of creating rhythm anew in each moment, so that the moment becomes transparent towards eternity. This is then a song that requires the fake normality to be switched off. Therefore it is a benefitting thing if you realize that the extraordinary powers are ordinary and that the state of human mind when dominated by ego is subnormal and subordinary. Some people claim that certain drugs open doors. All my doors of perception has been opened by writing, meditation, walking, yoga, and the erotic laboratory in bed through dance, and in awakening, dancing in the morning, and swimming much. The dance that is the enlightenment of mankind is simulatenously tantric and pantheistic, it denies the fallacy of atheism as well as the fallacy of dogmatism. There is no bible except the rhythm of freshness in this moment and no proasic statement will do; poetry touches the truth of newness and descriptiveness doesnsn't. Words as these are not to be read but danced; there is no control but improvised choreography; and nothing is not erotic. Unless your words make perfect sense in a thousand years, they do not make sense now; if you are merely contemporary and not also eternal, you are not erotic enough to embrace life; and then, if you merely embrace culture, what you express contributes to a dead and lifeless culture. Nature transcends the people that transcends nature, and she cleans up that way; unless people love nature which is to love sex which is to love themselves then there is no pantheism in the mind and no relationship to the subtler aspects of reality, and then the cells decay and vanish. The love of life is inaccessible to the cynic, to the druguser, to all the idiots who have shaped culture: you may say, please, talk both-and, talk wavish, do not say such sharp either-or critical things. But I am saying: get the guitar tuned so you can play both-and with it, but you do not play with a guitar which is both tuned and not-tuned. It is either tuned or not tuned so prefer the tuned one. Which means to have a mind that loves nature loves life loves young skin and therefore loves newness and does not enter into the many fallacies of fundamentalistic counting culture. You want me to talk slower? Then you are not fast enough. You want me to express it in a single simple argument? Then you are not complex enough. Then go to sleep so you can come to me in your dreams, for then your brain is both fast and complex, and it is also sensual and erotic and it does not suppress what I am here talking about. You find places in humanity in which the subconscious is directly accessible, and if you speak words into this subconscious, you change humanity and all species to which humanity relate directly. No doubt one day the word 'humanity' will feel as constricting as to speak of 'us in the tribe' for life takes on evernew forms. We speak so lovely of compassion being 'humane', but it is not merely humane, it is natural; should the ant that shows compassion speak of being 'ante'? Compassion is an aspect of the law of life, the laws that are not shaped by humans but which are the foundations of which the energy of matter and of life are weaved of. These foundations involve consciousness, freedom, ecstasy. They do not let themselves become formulaes. If you notice what happens in this text then you see perhaps that whenever I say anything that can become a system I provide an anti- system, I provide transparency, I provide a non-formula when something looks like a formula: then I doubt even this, for doubt is yet another foundational aspect of life, one of the nameless lawless laws of the will of life. Walt Whitman had speed but he also had alcohol, and alcohol made him too humble to keep his speed up: like the Indians, alchol broke him down: like most of the human species, he let himself be drugged and beaten by alcohol, the king and the queen of human consciousness, the problem of all problems. Have you noticed how cheap newspapers love to suggest, on frontpages, that it is good to use drugs, to eat fat, and so on? They do it in the hope that many people will get stupid by following their advice, stupid enough to buy their newspapers. It is called market liberalism. I do not favour control but I favour small economies in interplay and this is part of the feeling of dance. A dynasty never dances, an empire never dances. Dance is the individual and the other individual and the third individual and they make love and they change the world. The endavour to make Manhattan blossom again, they swiftly conquer the fanatical streaks in humanity and they activate the potential for life to discover that irreversible potential to live in enlightenment, in ecstasy all the time without a drug, by a behavioural creativity installed in the brain through proper insight. I use language to conquer the grip that thought has on the mind. I use language to destroy description and get perception. I use language to deconstruct the structure of thought, the structure of false culture that has prevented the genius potential for being awakened in all human beings. I have my own sense of value and quality and most word production pass as garbage or near-garbage and I am not in favour of the morbid entertainment stuff of Shakespeare or the many socalled religious texts. Most of the famous, hailed, historical texts have inspired violence, and that includes Nietzsche's little excrements. The truth lies in the love that the newborn has, not in these old unerotic scriptures. I can sense something sensual in almost every tradition, in almost every socalled religious text, in almost every one of the socalled great books, and if we eclectically gathered these sensual parts we would have dance, and that so especially if we forgot which part that came from where. I do favour a sort of confusion but it must be a transparent confusion, consciously willed, because we have understood the sharpness in the structures that confine human beings at present. To understand a computer is a necessity in order to make an uncomputer. To understand thought is a necessity in order to make an unthought. To understand bondage is a necessity in order to make freedom. To understand atheism is a necessity to blossom in pantheism. Most people stop their dance by a belief in numbers and counting and arithmetic, and if they are not fanatical in terms of a bible they are usually fanatical in organizing their thoughts about people and things through numbers. Numbers are all illusions except when they are brought in as rhythm, nonmechanically and organically; then they are swayed in ecstasy and I can say 777 or 1335 and I know something of the magic of these symbols and, suddenly, no more number. I am not a number you are not a number he she it is not a number we are not numbers they are not numbers nobody is a number. So there is no Kabbalah, no I Ching, no Tarot, no Astrology, there is just Godhood Beyond Formula in us all, the nameless flower, the river of ecstasy, the intensity of copulative insight beyond any systematized approach, beyond the notion of 'help' and 'tradition' and 'master'. This is art; the rest is machine and we don't need it. Imagine what happens many summers from now: some will have the resources to go far far away from the present places of habituation of human beings. Imagine what will happen then: they will come back for resources. Imagine what will happen then -- especially if they send some type of robots or artefacts to come back for resources. There are so many imaginations and all of them speak of sincere trouble unless we have compassion and by compassion we make soft lines where sharp quadrants might otherwise have cut blood. We see that nothing in cosmos is the same, there is no identity, there is a flow and ebb of contrasts and similarities. Nothing is different, there are but contrasts; nothing is but same, there are but similarities. Therefore dance is king, is master, is guru, is the path to orgasm and orgasm the path to insight and this is not a statement within a conditioned mind such as of the Kabbalah; this is a statement of youth, and the rest is longing for the lost fatherhood or motherhood. When people go to a guru, a master, a tradition it is also a wish to be one such oneself; and in both cases it is the ugliness of trying to install parents in oneself and outside of oneself instead of having healed one's wounds carefully through meditation. One rushes ahead and gives lectures on secret traditions and gives courses and makes oneself into advisors and healers and really, it is just more of the circus. Slow or velocity? Silent, moving slowly, walking around a city, not noticing anything but everything. In the rhythm, the brain is reborn, thought is absent, perception present. If there is tiredness, or loneliness, one tires of tiredness and instead of loneliness one becomes all one, all whole, and there is walking. And the walking never ends, it goes on and on and there is silence and sunlight, and the rush of cars and the playing of children and the seagulls do not interfere with this silence, it is all part of it. As is the winds on the mountains when you have gone close to the little fire inside the little cottage and the tea water is boiling. If there is any problem, such as plutonium lost, then make a cup of tea; let's think. In trying to escape from oneself, one buys bigger and bigger television sets, computer screens, robots, yachts, and climbs bigger and bigger mountains and then one realizes that in the microscale there is the wholeness, the macrocosmos, and in the silent moment, there is all velocity, total speed. In looking into ancient books, in looking into the faces of children, in looking into stones, shop windows, jewels, newspapers, we may have flashes of energy but there is but one energy and that is the energy of coherence. The energy of coherence is the energy of freedom from mental conflict. Mental conflict is the state of not meditating, not writing, not looking into thought, going around with unfinished chatterings. It matters little to look to Zen or Mu or Samadhi or Guru Dev what matters is the unruffled, energized state of looking at thought, of enquiring, of dancing, of whispering to oneself those truths that this moment can bear or should bear to hear. There is walking and in walking there is freedom. In the pursuit of comfort there is no energy, it is not in the car that we find the highest meditation -- unless it is the driving along a countryside, before and after walking, in the refreshment phase of the body and its nervous organism, then driving can be a meditation. Watching a movie can be a meditation, listening to a talk can be a meditation. Unless we find meditation we have neither speed nor slowness, we have neither thought nor nonthought, and all erotic renewal has its base in meditation and so it is there we must go. Not to the technique of it but to the activity per se, the activity that creates clarity by being guided subtly by the whisperings of the heart from one moment to the next, in the intent of beauty. What is energy, psychologically or mentally speaking? If we enquire into energy, as the feeling of life at its peak, we are enquiring into the meaning of existence, are we not? You can repeat 'existentialism, existentialism, existentialism' endlessly; you can declare how important it is to be 'sad, sad, sad' incessantly, or you can say how important it is to deconstruct or condemn America or to pursue a tradition or to realize that one is small or to repeat the word 'nothingness'. But all these abstractions and distractions are not the energy, not the peak of the vulcano exploding inside us with love and affection, isn't that right? I would say: as long as we pursue a theory, a formula, an idea, then we are somehow not quite sane, not quite in coherence. And so we can say: humanity has taken a wrong turn and let's explore energy, not the energy of vitamin B merely but the energy of compassion, of passion, and let us see if we can think and feel it all afresh, apart from our typical prejudices and socalled 'values'. I wonder, can we get hungry for insight material of this sort? Can we realize that we are already starving for it? You can't explain easily what it means to go to a mountain if you try; you can't really give the mountain to another, can you? You can say: I went there, and something totally beyond anything I had ever experienced before occured to me, and it was wonderful; how about trying it, you too? But you cannot explain the mountain. You cannot hold the ocean of nirvana in your hand and shed it over another. You can say: look, there is something here. Let's explore. But in this exploration, you are not explaining life to the martian, you are not explaining it even to yourself. Energy is energy. If it is erotic, that is not something to be explained. It is there. It is to be sensed, or lived, somehow. So I wonder why we generate all these movies and novels and why we have all these universities when we so little pursue freedom from thought, freedom from prejudice, and instead cultivate. If we cultivate the word nothingness, then that is not nothingness. If we cultivate the word energy, we have a word -- energy -- we don't have energy, the meal; we merely have energy, the menu. So to go from menu to meal, from theory and idea to living it, then let us feel afresh everything. Those who have the shine of youth to them and who may not have tried much they may be cocksure on a certain ideology and after five years they are ten times as depressed because the ideology turned out to be as rotten as everything else tried the last ten thousand years. So they are optimistic on behalf of thought whereas we ask: can we be optimistic on behalf of nonthought? Which is not to merely go dancing, or take a drug: it is to awake to a natural dance, a natural erotic dance insight and if you have tried a drug, then understand the state of mind and get it without a drug. Because the repetition of a chemical is not what we are talking about at all! And that's that. So I am going to be terribly open, not just honest, I hope I am always honest, but I am going to say things that I would perhaps have preferred to whisper, and then only in private, late at night, over a cup of tea or preferably some wine, to a close friend. And the first thing -- it is really embarrasing -- is that I am fundamentally happy. It is embarrasing to admit it because I associate this kind of statement with an illusory mind but I say this and know it's not an illusion, and it has nothing to do with a drug. It is a happiness, an energy of sorts, that is recreated daily through my actions, and these actions have a meditative kind of intent and these are what I am writing about. They make me glow inside and it has the perfume of ecstasy and it is in me every day, or else I would never have talked about it, I wouldn't have written all these books I am pouring out every year and giving all these talks I am giving every year. I have a happiness that is completely independent on fame or sexual action or anything like that; it is there because there's an insight into energy. And this energy recreates its own coherence and it's a subtle matter and the second thing I want to admit, since I am going to be very open about everything, is that I find that nobody understands this what I am talking of as yet. I have tried to avoid this insight but it is there: nobody understands it as yet. It is going to change, because I express so much it is like a fresh river of insight and it is for anyone to bath in and it is bound to suddenly, by analogy, recreate itself in someone, then in someone else, then in many, then in all, without me trying to explain anything at all. It must simply happen because this energy is so fierce it has got to happen. More wine, waiter. Let's talk about the weather or somethin'. So I say that it is possible to absolutely completely fundamentally change consciousness, change the mind, revolutionize the mind, from its core, so that it goes from having a center and a periphery to living in this ecstatic unboundedness. And that state of mind has its own energy and its own luck, its own high-speed synchronicity which is also perfect solitude, silence, love. All these good things go together, like when you care for a plant; you see to it that it has light and love and water and well-tempered air and that it is not bumped into but protected somehow also physically. All these things go together and then there is immense flowering; and the mind is similar. When you get all good things together in the mind then it is flowering. I know that it is easy to critisize the kind of texts I am making that it is too complex, too technical, too difficult to get clear about, or they don't even get past the first sentence, or it seems to have no relevance at all to their actual problems, or is the guy insane, or whatever they say. But I am not saying that the text is to my own liking or that it spells true according to a scheme of likes and dislikes. I start with the very easy, fundamental insight that nothing of what humanity has given itself in the past has worked. Humanity is, I think we can say, if we merely pay attention to what is going on, not just in the socalled 'news', but by travelling and not just repeating cozy thoughts, in a solid state of mess. People live insanely and in a cynical manner and they engage in fornification on that basis and reproduce cynicism in their children. We do not have an education that prevents these things, but rather we have forms of educations that turn out people factory-like to fit into this mess of a society with all its quasi- jobs, erected to give people a sense of meaning or happiness whereas in fact it tends to condemn them to a life of boredom, from which there are few escapes but the superficial and tiring forms of entertainment offered through technology of various kinds. Games and all the rest of it is part of the scheme of distracting people from the fact that they feel that something is deeply wrong. And I think that there is a way out of all this and it begins in saying that our psyches are repeating habitual patterns that prevent a new energy from arising from inside, an energy that involves a new form of unlimited compassion for all. And that compassion has its own ecstasy, health, renewal and intelligence. This is a statement that is intended on a level which goes underneath of loneliness: I am claiming that loneliness is an expression of illusions. If you have loneliness, you have illusions. This is, of course, in stark contrast to that which most of mass-culture is talking about -- where it is proposed, for instance, that if you are lonely, then go out and drink and dance and make love to somebody. I am all for dancing and I am all for love and also making love but not as an escape, but as an expression of an abundance within, that is created in solitude, through meditative work. What is attention? You attend to a tree, to a passing woman, to a thought, to a feeling, to a bodily sensation. That still has the sense of there being a 'you' giving attention to something, a 'thing', a 'process'. Then attention can turn inwards. It can go into a sense of pressure somewhere, and it can sense that there are vague fantasies or images or sounds or thoughts associated with this pressure, and it can give quiet attention while also healing. This is a remarkable process. It is possible to transform the experience of this moment completely by a few minutes of attention turning on itself, and it is an art, a creative thing, something that happens as if by benediction, not at all by technique. It is an art, we could perhaps say: the art of giving attention to attention, expanding inwards, reaching energy. Why should anyone care to look into themes of this sort? Well, you want to drive, say, a thousand miles or something with a car, and nobody would then say: why should anyone bother to look over the car? Why should anyone bother to check for gasoline stations or electricity stations or whatever your car is running on, if not love and fresh air? Why should anyone bother whether the foundations are right and harmonious? Because unless the foundations are somehow in tune and healthy then nothing else will work. So this is a foundational enquiry and it is not merely taking a drink and saying, 'everything is all right' when it certainly isn't. This is an enquiry that can create an infinity of joy from within, even perhaps without needing much change in the environment. You can change completely the life feeling, completely and absolutely, and it is all about a new way of using the brain. We might think that the brain is such a perfect instrument it cannot possibly make any mistake but Nature is full of experimentation and playfulness and we have these brains that are so structured that each individual has his or her own anatomy, as it were, when it comes to the billions of nervous cells and there trillions and trillions of connections. The anatomy of your brain is influenced by genes but the information content of your brain is far greater than that which is describable by the content of each cell with its genetic information, I have been told. It makes sense: the brain is shaped and influenced by perceptions and its chemicals and material background is just that -- a background. It is a startingpoint. There is love when you don't fight your own energy. You can read a novel in which somebody is portrayed as perfectly vain, perfectly superior to feelings, perfectly rational, perfectly idiotic, perfectly robotic but human beings aren't that way, fortunately or unfortunately. They have many levels many aspects many features and lots of them are erotic, lots of these aspects intermingle thoughts and feelings in a dialogic way, relating to perception no dogma. You can protest as much as you like against a societal system or something and feel pure and innocent and earnest but unless you have radically transformed your mind and started dancing in all you do you are still mediocre, like it or not. Why write it in this way, why not write it in a nice and cozy way? But it is not a question of being nice or not nice but of being friendly to facts, being honest to one's own perception, relating to what is there rather than what should be there. When we relate to ourselves as we are we can also transform ourselves because then we don't waste conflict in trying to impose the ideal, the 'what should be'. Then dance begins. Or rather, the dance that is beyond beginning and end is there. As ecstasy, health, rejuvenation, love, compassion, sex, sensuality, and tremendous orgasm potential in each moment. There is no identity and there is no absolute difference. The world is an ocean of energy diving itself according to contrasts and similarities, then blending back in again. So the nervous aspect of the organism devours contrasts and similiarities and the endless repetitions of the sects and the marriages and the institutions have little to do with life as it essentially is. Essence is sex, is copulation, mani-copulation, manipulation, attraction, change, the intent towards harmony. It is rhythm and the engagment in rhythm through resonance across vast distan ces. The person who abides in sexuality and in selfsex and in othersex is also spiritual, always; there is no end to the life when life is loved consistently and wholly. This is something beyond the 'I' seeking gratification by blending with someone representing something that oneself perceives to be lacking. It is the complementation of life towards itself, beyond the need of a mirror. You do not need to investigate which name you have nor what particular gaze you have, you need to get the speed of synchronicity high enough to enter into its consequent orgasm without a limit. People who think this way talk this way act this way have no end to their paradisic sense of life and in this there is great passion for all, passion for life, zest for life, and this involves a compassion that changes everything that is false. The person that knows the intimacy and danger of severe beauty can change everything around him or her. She loves you, you love her; you love him, he loves you; all these words speak of nonlocality, of contact between distance, of the orgasmic currents that fill the heavens. If we could see the universe as it really is, we would have no end to our ecstasies. If we could see that dancer, how lovely she is; the wholeness of which we are all a part. We do not need a bible or prophet to spell it out, do we? It is a quesiton of opening the inner eyes, the eyes that are also between our legs. Why, when or where can we be happy? Happiness is a feature of existence, not of achievement. Happiness is not a goal, nor the result of goals; it is an aspect of not shutting oneself of from the flow. Why shouldn't we dance? All existence cries for dance. There are a thousand reasons to masturbate, if you want communion with God. There is no absolute evil but there is an absolute good. The absolute good flows in the veins of all existence. Its flavour has the perfume of ecstasy, it is dance, it is freedom, and in this freedom, there is spontaneously compassion beyond any concept of "rights". The necessity is in listening to the heart, not to the Bible or to a prophet; and in listening to the heart, within your loving silence, you listen to God, and you do not say: the name of God is G-O-D or A-L-L-A-H or anything else, you do not say the name is the thing, it is A, B or C, it is beyond A, B or C. And in this beyondness, in daring to live it, in daring to walk up to the highest mountain of ecstasy within us, we live a paradisic life in which there is no absolute sin, just the goodness of listening to the heart and acting in accorance with the heart, in the highest integrity. And this turns out to be dance. Not 'dance' as a professional or amateurish word, but dance per se. So the feeling of dance resides in the limbs when you have meditated. On Safe Temporary Sleep Depletion I have heard of many famous artists and others who have, like myself, experimented consciously and successfully with very occasional sleep depletion. They have endavoured to channel the tremendous energy so released by harmonious artistic expression, such as poetically inclined writing on spiritually warm subjects. This is what I call 'safe temporary sleep depletion'. The theme is called to mind because I have heard of people who have done it in less safer ways, and it occured to me that the territory better be mapped so new wanderers may know aforehand of a few of the big possibilities as well as of the hints of possible big trouble. If you know what to look for and have an idea of how to avoid the trouble before it even begins, it can get safe even to walk in high mountains. First, let us briefly recount what occurs normally in sleep. There are myriad flowing images, positive and/or frightening, words, sounds, chattering, eroticism, and it is all suffused with strange meaning and that which may seem natural during sleep may seem absolutely wierd during ordinary daywaking. Let us also briefly note that during dreaming (which it seems everybody does a lot, even though not everybody remembers it, though alcohol abuse can change dreaming quantity), associations tend to be all deeply meaningful somehow. If the brain is not given the free time and space to roam and as such create order in this way, with the sensory organs and muscles temporarily suspended somehow, then it will try to do so in the wakeful state. So every kind of psychotic state, with fears, voices, hallucinations, and all the rest of it is to be expected after continous activity for a day, a night, a new day, then especially on the second night and third day. Longer than that it is not advisable to go except under fakiric conditions and proper pretraining. It is by knowing that the inward intensity is a direct product of sleep depletion that one does not take it seriously at all, and as such in no way get a trouble with it. The foundation for doing such an experiment seems to me to be good physical health, and good mental harmony. An inclination to walk much is vital, for in walking a natural rhythm harmonizes the brain. The proper training in a dialogic (both-and) language, with doubt of own thoughts (voices etc), is vital, as is the training in a poetic rather than merely a prosaic language, so one can have a 'verbal contact' with one's mental state. I'll return to this. It appears to me that sleep depletion is safe only if drugs are avoided (though vitamins and good food concentrates are of tremendously positive value and prevent detoriation of the skin etc). We must not do too many things at once that can upset the fine conditions of the mind. It's vital to avoid everything from alcohol and cannabis to amfetamin, LSD, mescalin and so on. And if there's an emotional trouble, such as depression over a relationship lost, or experience of violence during childhood, or other such things, then the trouble should be adequately healed (no matter how long it will take) by affirmations, meditations, explorations, and giving time to it before sleep depletion is undertaken. Why should anyone want to experiment with occasional sleep depletion? For a simple reason, perhaps: to activate the mind in new ways. The sleep/dream state involves tremendous energy and creativity and the question is how to harmoniously harness all this energy. One will easily appear manic or worse to others unless one carefully watches it (and where one looks for what is fruitful, always -- fruitfulness also in the social realm, bearing in mind that the sensory organs make gradually less and less impact on the mind as sleep depletion gets stronger, unless one deliberately opens oneself to them) and so it is vital to do sleep depletion surrounded by harmonious conditions, and to avoid contact in such experiments with those who could get scared by it. You should check this first and make proper arrangements: do not take chances with exposing yourself after, say, 30 or so hours of practically no sleep, to somebody who might call on a doctor to put you by force to a psychiatric clinic. Unfortunately, in the West, they do not tend to distinguish sleep deprivation from a real mental problem, and so many make a problem where there is none. Another thing: do not assume that you can stay awake enough to drive a car or do anything that requires any amount of continous alertness at all. You can fall asleep standing by merely closing your eyes and letting go and so please take no chances. In general, then, avoid talking about what you think to people who think it is interesting to talk or read or write about 'insanity', 'madness', or the like: they'd love to apply their amateurish knowledge to a possible first-hand case, perhaps or probably behind your back, spreading gossip that can do a lot of serious harm. Don't push it. It is possible to endavour to create entirely new mental states during sleep depletion, states that you can take with you afterwards. We can characterize imagination as consisting of two types of fantasies, one subjective, and one possibly objective. This is a key point, and I advise that the following remarks are contemplated seriously before trying sleep depletion. Where there is a burst of fantasies, then some of these fantasies may have the sense of being completely effortless and go along with a harmonious and compassionate inner sense -- these are possibly objective. The other type of fantasies are subjective, as they are the product of such conflicts in the mind as have the sense of effort. The really remarkable feature of the mind and its intelligence is that the fantasies that are effortless and possibly objective and be remarkable clairvoyant. This may all of a sudden be part of the natural and spontaneous functioning of the mind if you do this experiment right. Please also read a lot about synchroncities, the sense that life or experiment is 'talking to you'. For there is again two ways in which this talking can happen, one is by means of nonsensical associations that are rather subjective and born of conflict within you, confusions and so on. And the other sense of synchronicity is that which is based on harmony within (don't lie to yourself about the degree of harmony, though), and which playfully may suggest many dancing possibilities, in a dialogic sense. If you get negative synchronicities then don't trust them first time aroound in this area, for there is much to be learned about distinguishing the subjective confusion from what is possibly objective, and if you get dogmatic on this, it is nothing less than a mental problem. So the dialogic spirit is a strong prerequistite or else we may breed a form of fanatism in ourselves by trying this experiment. Unless you do pay attention to the harmony of mind, and now we come again to the question of writing and such, the clairvoyant fantasies may be mixed with all sorts of illusions. Those who get a serious mental problem out of this are those who take illusions to be objective and who cease to be dialogic about this. My own grounding was a lot of reading in the dialogue philosophy of David Bohm and that proved helpful and sufficient to make stable harmony in me. In short, I strongly recommend writing as stabilizing and harmonizing factor along with walking. Plenty of writing, writing that you can throw afterwards if you please. The joy and the quality of new insights coming in such a state is closely linked to poetic, meditative, free writing for the love of it. After many hours of writing you may find that you have no more opinions to state, so new thoughts begin invent themselves spontaneously, in a quite remarkable plasmatic-fluid process. In this respect, the entirely new may occur in the mind, and we may have the inklings of a revolution of consciousness. You need an anchoring in something like walking and writing, and possibly also in good companionship with friends, when you do it. My feeling is that in general parents should be avoided because they tend to be overcautions, and remind yourself too much on the childhood condition where other people take responsibility. Do it standing alone, psychologically speaking, at least if you feel mature enough to do it. If you are in doubt whether you are mature enough to do it, consult people that are regarded as wise and knowing and that has a great deal of experience through decades with people trying various things. Sleep depletion is serious enough to warrant the best of preparations, like climbing a glacier or doing paragliding. It is not something you just jump into; and you should love your life enough to do it carefully and in the right ways. Don't try to prove that you have no fear, but rather care for your life. That caring is immensely important, whereas fear is a small thing. Don't worry about fear but love life, love your body, love the integrity of your mind, and watch these jewels and don't loose them, please. You can decide to this with friends who know things about meditation and who are not scared but fascinated about such experiments. Together you can weave amazing mental energy which can possibly affect all. Don't get overconfident in any new area of activity though you may have beginner's luck. Be ready to admit that anything you say may be an illusion. You need to get to know the territory, not just shout out that now you can heal everybody or now you know the evolution of life on earth as it really is or some other stuff like that. And, please, do not believe that any tradition, sect, group, Kabbalah, Tantra, Dao, Qi Gong or anything else have got it all completely laid out; don't try to live up to a system but do it anarchistically (I suggest you consult 'The Anarchistic Logic of Love' available at www.wintuition.net if you find this aspect of it revolting). Writing is not merely an expression of the state of mind, it also feeds back to the mind. A rhythm of word formation, along with an intent of harmony, gives and nurtures harmony in the mind while the mind can process its energy in a free way. Coherence can build up. Without coherence, no enlightenment. Say, for instance, that after you acquire rather 'clairvoyant' fantasies of an effortless kind, you suddenly get a sense of a deep problem. The wrong action then, it seems, is to write this out, or even worse, talk about it. So the solution is to recognise the negative or painful aspect of the fantasy (or voice), and instantly meet this fantasy with a bunch of harmonious fanties (and affirmations etc). This has two functions, at least. The first function is to give the mind more harmony, so the fearfulness does not spread and take root or anything like that. The second function is that you may actually be able to heal something 'out there', in reality. It may be something in your body or mind that is being healed, or something in the possible future of a city or whatever that you can touch somehow, perhaps on the intention level so as to reduce the chances of the negativity being put into operation. Such is commonplace in the life of an awakened mind. Healing is a an art of dealing with vague features in a way that constantly intends harmony and beauty. There is no limit to how much we can learn about this, it is an art that is forever new. The rule, to speak of it that way, is that 'anything you are affected by, you can effortlessly and instantly affect'. Furthermore, the future is open and if you possibly have an 'objective fantasy' about something, then it is not implausible that you can affect this future somehow. In terms of language, do not say things like 'it is certainly so' or 'it can never be so' or 'it is impossible that'. Stay to formulations along the line, 'it is possible that', or 'it is probable that', or 'I feel that it is likely that', or 'I don't feel that it is likely that'. Do this throughout the sleep depletion and at least for a week or two afterwards, and then emphasize uncertainties somewhat less; but it is important for the dialogic approach to what you do that you not dabble in certainties and necessities and impossibilites when you are really a beginner in this mountain of mind energy. And if you feel inclined to say that God Lives In Us then say it of your neighbour not just of yourself, so that you don't get megalomaniac, please. Say, you have written harmoniously and inventively for hours and hours, you have walked and slept and hour or two (no need to be fanatical), and written more. Then you sense something disharmonious, like a possible infection or something. Instead of writing that, you use your mental energy deliberately to give positive attention from many angles at once, visualizing flowers and lights and good symbols crisscrossing the thought of the infection or whatever, also touching its various possible sources - - think about it in a vague sense, let yourself be as vague as you feel you should be. To allow vagueness is a great key in all sincere clairvoyant or healing work; if you make things over- precise you are likely to mess things up. After having healed, you keep on writing generous words on a general level, perhaps now vaguely oriented towards healing infections, say, but not concretely oriented towards it. You may write, say, 'When you entertain a sense of love for all then all the cells in your body have a good time in playing together, and fending off any illnesses'. Speak as if you were a wise person, and then you are. You see how high harmony writing involves a peaceful combination of affirmation and insight. You describe something but you emphasize the positive. The negative you deal with instantly at the mental level but what you express and focus on is really the positive. You do not avoid the negative but you give rapid creative crisscrossing lightgiving attention to it and as such instantly heal it and then you are at liberty to write the positive and it's honest, too. After the energy comes and you sense perhaps that it is easy to overtalk or overwrite or think that you never want to sleep again or anything like that then, after lots of cups of hot tea with a little milk or just hot water with a little milk and sugar, writing quietly in bed, you will gradually get drowsy and want to sleep and then do sleep and sleep a lot, fifteen hours, twenty hours, sleep as much as you please. Scientific evidence that have been reported in newspapers suggest that sleep can be 'made up for' by sleeping more later on, and this will do much good for you. Get rejuvenation back, get your beauty sleep. It will be a wonderful sleep and the dreams will be fantastic. Don't have horror books in your sleeping room and get all symbols of death and illness away from your walls. You are hypersensitive when you have done sleep depletion and so you should be surrounded by pink and quiet. Sleep is renewal, resillience, rejuvenation and only the most miserable people on Earth constantly lack the immense luxury of much sleep for longer periods of time. Perhaps, though, there are a few who might have different brains, different minds, so that they actually need almost no sleep. It is unlikely for a creative writing person that this is so. If you can't get to sleep, go for a long walk, then write or read with more hot cups of water with a little milk. (By the way, it's okay to start the sleep depletion with one glass of red wine but no more alcohol at all; but rather drink tons of tea and just occasional coffee; tea is very healthy but add milk to the tea to avoid the colouring effects of tea on teeth). The experiment can, in fact, change your brain structure so that you can reconnect the verbal and imaginatory areas to more silent areas of the brain, just to mention some of the many possibilities involved. For the restructuring to be good you must have nutured coherence or natural harmonious wholeness. You can gently activate the 'intuitive voice'. By keeping up writing after normal (or more than normal) amounts of sleep in the following months, emphasizing harmony, and not constantly talking about the experience and its ecstasies and clairvoyancies, if any, but letting go of it, you can achieve the sense that your silent perceptiveness actually talks to you. You must not be dogmatic and say that it says only the right things. It still depends on your harmony and such. Dance much. Dance always. Dance all the time. Dance when you write, dance when you sit still, dance when you walk, dance in order to clarify the energy and rejuvenate your body and rid you of illnesses. Dance to see things more clearly. Activate the sensuality and sensitivity of your body. Do it in the morning, in the afternoon, in the evening, in the night, do dance in sleep; train yoga so you can dance better but do not merely do yoga or something without dancing movement because you need the movement to get the energy flowing around everywhere in a nice way. The more harmoniously activated state of mind you have, the more you also have aptitude for trance or samadhi, as well as an actualization towards possibly a lasting awakening -- a theme I develop in much of my writing elsewhere. Here I have talked of structural necessities, but there is a mental art to maintaining awakening that is just as necessary, and without it, the structural changes of the brain here involved need not be experienced as positive. For instance, you may find that the brain chatters more, not less, afterwards; that you require more sleep than before, not less; and that doing things that you don't completely like exhausts you more, not less. So any structural change has implications and not all of those implications may be to your liking. It is your own responsibility, and you must live with whatever changes that come. The changes may not be the one that you thought they would be. You must consult your own intuition as to whether you should do such an experiment before you do it, and it is your own word on this you must set first, and you must remember that afterwards: it was your own decision, nobody else forced you to it; and so this, whatever is the effect, is what you will live with. On The Priority Called 'Life' In all our pursuits the question of their ultimate meaning tend to face up with questions of time and an eternal existence, if there is any. There has been an overreaction, I feel, in the Western cultures, against the traditional Christian Dogma of life after death; the overreaction asserting blindly that death is a final stop and that's that. Clearly, as with all the other illusory concepts of the imagined 'absolute negative' -- such as 'evil' or 'insane', 'death' is another such. Good is the basis, sane is the basis, life is the basis, and with this basis we can have a strong or weak relation, but we cannot severe off our relation to this basis. This is the careful way to put it. You watch the leaves fall but the tree persists, and so the forms of life come and go, perhaps, as the tree of life -- to use a metaphor, not referring to a tradition -- persists. Anyone who has gone even superficially into a meditative state senses that matter is somehow founded on mind, and mind is beyond locality and not personal. This wholeness is pulsating and silently alive, and as ground of being it is sensed directly to be both selfrenewing and unwithering. This shows that the ego in the personal sense is not worth clinging to, but to speak of the 'death of the ego' seems to me to be a bit too strong language. Let's say, 'the ending of the ego', at most. To take an impersonal silence is then to realize that mind in its fullest involves a spontaneous and natural embracing of all life. Life is not a current and the forms of life something else, like pieces of wood floating around in the current, but rather the forms of life are as if constituted by complementary spiralling vortices in this current. That is to say, the foundational energy is life or, in a different and also valid perspective, deeper than energy is life. If we now briefly turn attention to the renewal of a form of life, as the human body, we see that it is in its meditation and coherent reenergizing from within that it renews itself, suitably aided by nutrition, sunlight, walks, dances, and the tantric/erotic. We see also that breakdown of body as bodily death, while not death in any deep sense, is merely a product of incoherent fluctuation. What does it take to grow a plant? A balance, as an expression of care, involving light, water, temperature etc. But arbitrary fluctuation of this is enough to create distortion. So it is meditative preservation of coherence and its balance that allows life to take on a consistent form. A living form can last forever, and we would say of the form then that it is immortal or eternal. But life itself is already immortal or eternal. Any absolute negation is an illusion, though it takes infinite care, of course, for a living form to last forever. Yet the meaning of life lives in sensing the impersonal aspect of life and only briefly do we need to give attention to death. To make the approach to life much clearer, it is possible to say that intuitive living matters more than survival. It is possible to follow gut feeling and the whispers of the heart to a point where a decision must be made: the following of the inner whisper of life is more important than to do concrete physical obvious action to ensure survival of one's own body -- if there's a conflict between the two, which it usually isn't but can be. At least apparently so. So the sense of life is more important than the sense of avoiding physical vanishing, and this insight eliminates basically all fear of death while simultaneously installing a real love of life, so that life will be forever renewing. Love of life, of course, is infinitely erotic. It is yoga in all areas of life, as dance and health. This is the priority called 'life', and it naturally lends itself to vegetarianism and ecologically caring lifestyles, to great sexuality and spiritually and artistic creativity without any system or dogma at all, and in endless exploration forever. On Getting Rid Of Number Fascism Fascism, or fallos-ism, the fascination with the monolithic organ of erect and hierarchical and violent control, is not just a question of people taking dictatorial and tyrannic control, or machines doing so, but of false mentalities doing so. The only philosopher I know of that has in the past concisely expressed a full anti-thesis to all forms of fascism is Martin Buber in his 'Ich und Du'. Anybody who is stupid enough to engage in socalled 'front-edge technological development' is adding to the stock of possible fascist tools, adding to the struggle of the children of the future to rid themselves of tyrannic, fascistic forms of control. Nanatechnology and future forms of coherence technology, along with genetic technology and future forms of quantum technology are cases in point. Computers are already used for severe control over humans. Yet the ground of fascism lies in the mentality that is obsessed with counting, with finite rigid order, controlled by a centre. If existence is a movement without essential division and without essential finiteness then the concept of the static finite is a sheer illusion. This pertains, then, to all the numbers that we use. Except as a temporary tool of thought to initiate the dance, numbers of the finite kind exemplify the type of repetition that keeps the mind from leaping into the infinity perception and that keeps the heart from resting in an abundance of love. Instead, even walking becomes a question of counting steps, miles, or minutes; going up a mountain becomes a matter of metres; and wisdom a matter of years or beauty a matter of lacking them. All forms of counting are expression of stagnation, except when they are not used as a habit. The human body initially grows through certain stages it is true, then however, the flower is unfolded and what happens is a question of mentality and life- style. If the energy is coherent, if the days are spent in love not sorrow, then coherence is retained. Why then count seasons? I have devised a way in which you can show to yourself that the concept of a set of all the numbers is an illusory concept, unless you are prepared to admit that there are infinitely many infinite numbers. This is part of a thesis called 'The Psychology of Computation', created in an academic context, and available at www.wintuition.net/downloads/. The argument is rather involved as it challenges the whole concept of mathematics in its counting foundation of many generations of mathematicians; so a great deal of cultural assumptions are challenged. Watch this . . . III II I Here, consider that the question of what direction the growth towards infinity happen in is all we need to consider and perceive clearly to undo the belief in the finite as somehow clearcut. It seems deceptively simple unless you take a break and watch it for a long time. Good luck! Having done this, I will give you a few hints for your own further work. Clearly, the notation for finite numbers doesn't matter much, so if 1=I, 2=II, 3=III, 4=IIII, we get a sense of size of the number by looking at its width, quite simply. As we proceed upwards, we proceed rightwards, in width. The two directions are linked (are they not?). So infinity upwards implies (doesn't it?) infinity rightwards. This shows (does it not?) that as soon as we think of all finite numbers we also think of some new kind of infinite numbers. Please pay attention to the notion of the word 'all' in the just said sentence; we do not say merely 'as high as this or that limit', but we say 'all'. The notion of 'all' numbers means that whatever number we give, there is an infinity more than this number. But then we have infinitely many numbers 'upwards'. So we have an infinity 'sideways' as well. This implies the width of infinity! The infinite numbers can be suggestively written as III... But further analysis (in the thesis) shows that there are infintely many of them and that III... cannot really describe any one of them in particular. In fact, we have a whole new kind of number, not finite (nor based on adding something to the collection of all finite numbers, because we can't add something to an illusion; and so we have something that is contrary to Cantor's 'transfinite' numbers as well...). In this new kind of number, it is the movement towards infinity that somehow must be capable of contrasting itself with itself so as to generative a diversity. And so on and on. If we now realize all this at a glance we have no more systems. For a system requires the notion of the closed-off finite thing in interaction; but here we really are having infinities in interaction beyond any formula, system or finite set of numbers or operators. So the infinite is ground and this is also non-definite or vague, and if we try to make the vague specific (if anyone tries to make a system of the infinite) then it is a new illusion of the finite. In short, even our mentality is essentially infinite, not just reality, life, etc; and so we can conclude that strict finite mathematics and its limit concept is, apart from temporary utility, military purpose and so on, a complete illusion. Culture then does wrong in assigning numbers of any kind to people, houses, plants, cars, machines. The numbers reflect an illusory attempt to control and make a system where there is really none. There are but waves in the ocean, vortices, currents of life meeting life without any counting or digital forms of symbols or letters. This is a statement that is evident if one is awakened, so no awakened person can subscribe to Kabbalah or Kundalini or Acupuncture or Tarot or Physics or any other counting-based system, except as a heuristic, fallable 'rule of thumb', at best. We can then say that the emptying in oneself of numbers as well as letter fascism creates a life in infinity, of unending bliss and variation. This requires a great deal of exploration, in a renewing sense, and not just as a conclusion. In the sense of 'shutting down', there is no conclusion. That is just it: no shutting down, no finiteness; there is the movement of the infinite, which is rhythm blending in and out of each other, in resonances which speak of love and coherence. And this has its own intelligence, the intelligence of renewal and rejuvenation. Have good sex. HOW TO BE GENEROUS Imagine that the mind is a landscape. Imagine that attention is like a comet of light, with mysterious properties. As attention enters any region of the landscape, it changes. Initially, it heats up, it becomes vulnerable to change, it becomes activated. You give attention and you give it to features, which you allow yourself to think of in a vague sense. When you give attention, you heat up and start healing, or purifying, the thought mentality in that aspect of the mind. Complete the purifying in each instant. When thought in yourself is not just this controlled thing, but you let it fly, and you have perhaps written for thirty consequtive hours about love and life to activate it such (slightly schizophrenic activation is the sanest thing of all), then thought starts reporting from levels of perception underneath conscious verbal acknowledgement. I am looking for words to express something new now, something I do every day, if 'do' is the right word, yet something I have not spoken about often enough, if at all, to really know how to say in a compressed way. So I will expand it first, and let it come in a compressed, swift, smart way later. Thought is flying, you give attention. Two kinds of reports of possible perceptions may arise in each moment, the kind that is felt to be harmonious, whole, good, and the other kind, which is a report of something that ought to be purified (I prefer that word to 'healed', sometimes) at once. Now we do not need to know what it is that we purify when we purify it. We need to know that we are going to purify something, perhaps, but not what it is. In fact, it may be a burden to know what it is. I don't think examples will do. Either you understand it or you will understand it at some other time, perhaps through these or other words. Examples make things look too simple, they may show a simplicity that is not really there. So you give attention, thought comes. Then suddenly thought reports: Now you are getting a great gift of money from somone. Good. You register that. You know how to put money into good circulation to create good things, you are not afraid of money, you are told by thought that something is occuring somewhere and you leave it perhaps at that. The next moment thought says, there is something you perhaps ought to know, ... And you may have a distinct feeling that it is something not quite so harmonious. Perhaps someone is jealous or something; in any case, you stop the thought momentarily and you ask: Is this a good thing? And you feel it, you have perhaps tought your hands and fingers to lift slightly to indicate a 'yes', from deep within the perceptive quietness of the mind (I hesitate to say 'from deep within the unconscious', because it is conscious in some sense, isn't it?). So you get an answer. It is good? If it is, you let the thought come; savour the good things, you deserve that. Perhaps the thought is: Somebody really got enlightened in this moment! And the other kind of thing, that it is not good, not harmonious, lead you to instantly visualize rays or light or something, gently give attention, as in pulses, until you feel: now that -- whatever it was, I don't need to know -- has been purified, or healed, or cleansed. You may find sometimes that something is too deep to heal just like that. It may take time, or you must intensify your silence and attentive energy to do it instantly. Perhaps there are so many things and your energy is so that you feel you should give lasting attention to very many things. So you may say: for each breath, or for each lift of a fingertip, I will give a purifying impulse to whatever it is, somewhere, out there, in myself and/or others (there is no sharp distinction between your mind and anyone else's, of course). So you go on, perhaps give pulses in beats of three and three, perhaps varying, perhaps aiding by vague ambigous happy visualisations, perhaps sometimes a little more concretely -- like transforming a dark cloud, through its passage into a distant sun, into something that is burned, cleansed, so only pure white powder is sent into the distant sun and really purified there, so fresh energy is released. This text is a trance. How can I say it: for it is written in trance, as everything else I do. That is to say: Your attitude or whatever we should call it becomes part of your action and it becomes part of the result of action. So the world can be changed if you are active with a changed mind. That is logic; argue not about effects because arguments may fail to cover the scope of the effects of meditative actions anyway. Love, as it is, maybe, ...This most important word, most easily sold, most easily lied about perhaps, trampled on, misused, exploited, severed, combined with false opposites like hatred and bitterness, associated with loyality based on fear, and yet it is altogether completely different in every way isn't it? And love is none of these things we say, is it? Love is not clinging, it is not based on fear, and fear has the grip, admit it, on everyone here on Earth, not because Earth is wrong but because our conceptualisation and our complexification of persistence leads us to feel, if we're honest about it, that things are not as they seem or they won't happen as they are expected to when we are children. Love is this sense, this awesome, terrible, fantastic sense, that you suffer- with, you sense the sorrow of her lovely brow, her face, she's concerned that she's getting old and yet she is so young and her worry is so young and she is so terribly in love, so terribly attached, she don't know what to do, she thinks she has found someone who is eternal and she feels, perhaps, she is not eternal, she will wither and she is in sorrow and the sorrow is deep and she will only admit it if cared for in so many hours, cared for, kissed, cared for so she knows that she is trusted and she is trusting. She will give herself then, she will tell it all. She will tell how frustrated she is that there is really no one she can confide in. That she is worried sick about death and illness, that she has a child, perhaps, and she is willing to give her life for him, she might say, and she really means it, and she is sensitive enough to pick up dangers all over the place. And her friends won't listen to her and they say, go take a pill, put on another record, see a shrink. And her very old friends, in the sense they've known each other for years and years, they are supposedly the nearest thing one could ever get to each other, and they don't have that sensitivity she is having. So love speaks within her and to her and yet she has sorrow. She has sorrow for she has love but she also has fear and loneliness and the pain of withering and she's beyond all that but can't feel it enough, except in glimpses. In glimpses she is beyond all that but otherwise there is drink, alcohol, these things that are the small escapes and she wants only to be a little girl, a little nice good-looking girl again and things could be so different and why are they that way? Why? So love, if you have it, you sense the stream of sorrow of humanity it may be her or him or this or that kind of sorrow but it is sorrow, not just sadness, not just apathy, but sorrow. It is there and it flows through all and love is that you say, all living beings are watching the flow of life and in this flow we attach and make ideas and not just conscious ideas but attachments so deep that they feel like the very foundation of everything. These attachments, these programs, we do not know them perhaps but they make themselves felt. And if you have love you will not easily dismiss it and say, just get rid of your attachments. It is true but it is also too cheap to say that. You don't throw that out when someone looks you in the eye like that, and begs you to understand. Right? You don't say, get out of your clinging, all forms are changing, when someone is terrified about living. You don't come with your old dogma and old enlightenment insights and quote Shankara or Siddharta or this or that heraclitan philosopher do you? You don't perhaps for you know that the music of this moment is meant for you to melt with her eyes, or the gaze in her eyes, you watch and she watches and you and her has that question, that love, that mutual care and in that there is a flower, something blossoms, it is not -- oh, now we must get marriage! Now we must get to bed, rip of all the clothes, feel the body! It is not: you are the one, the star, there is nothing else. There is something beyond name and body and form and even beyond that moment and that is the flame of love, the current of love and of course perhaps you do indeed go to bed and the flame of love is in your kisses and in that sobbing that you may feel that she has within her and will perhaps come to two days later, when the business of life is again the same insensitive thing to her perhaps. Or will it change? Can you change it for her? Can love change it for her? Can you promise to always be there for her and not close yourself in tightly in anything that says: exclusive love here, and just indifference everywhere else, except for the fluctuations of flirting? Can you, are you, serious about living as love? Can you see that life is talking through you to another, the other is life talking through the other to yourself, life is talking with life, life is melting with life, life is loving life through its many forms? Can you see it that way, maybe? So you mustn't stop with talking about the things that look so terrible; look, tell her, tell yourself, tell him: life is greater than all these things we talk about, isn't it? Life, that ocean, you can't keep it within any of these concepts, can you? Ask, don't throw the same old things you've always told others at her, at him. Stay true to this moment, be humble to it, be arrogant to your own opinions, to everything of the past. Feel her face, see that the light in her face comes to shine and be purified and altruized as you talk with her, as you fondle her, as you hold her knees and feel her thighs quietly, not as seduction as much as care, you protect her, she can feel protected by you, protected -- though the Earth may be swirling into heavens we know nothing about, though so many things are happening in this terrible world humankind has weaved, so full of wars and suppression of women and of children, of millions, who are starving so some cunning corrupt presidents can have their Mercedes and caviar and fresh running water in their bathtub with golden taps, dollarbills as toiletpaper, a private baroque orchestra and a little opium with their slave women in the evening, along a private movie -- you see the cunningness, the brutality, the terribleness of humankind and you tell her, perhaps, that you see love now as something different, a current that may have been a flash here and there and sometimes given a word, a say, but really love has not done its job because we have actively prevented it, have we not? And you ask not her but you ask the moment, you awake attention in it, you say, you ask: is death death? Is illness illness? Is insanity insanity? Or are all the three but small factors or features or even to some extent, perhaps a great extent, illusions, and there is life, the greater thing, which is not an illusion? So this is something large, something beyond vanity, something beyond the attempt to save one's little life to say: perhaps there is nothing to save because life has been there all the time and it doesn't end and it speaks in us and lives in us, like the tree of life and we're the blades of that life. You two don't stop talking, do you? You talk with a friend over life and you know something, you know that you two slender human beings have nerves not just fat, you have nerves and sensitivity and not just drunken laziness and cliches and career ambitions, you have nerves and you are nervous, positively and perhaps also negatively speaking, about life. You are nervous, you have energy, you feel things, you sense something of the future and she tells you: she is afraid. She is afraid because she sees possibilities of danger. And you say, perhaps, I'm only guessing -- do you say: if you sense a danger before it arises you can act on it. You can change that possibility from being a possible danger to being a probable safety, because the future is open and sensing allows you to influence. So you intuit something and before you even come to fear it you save the good, you make good, you make whole, you holify, you do not just sense what is to come but shape what is to come, you learn the two-way process -- is that what you tell her? Because you live it, not that is just an idea to you? Or do you both say, we don't know, we must explore, we must keep up the dialogue, rather than you trying to exploit the situation and say, I'll save you, believe in me, I am your guru and you're my disciple and your real name, I feel, in essence, is so-and-so. So you don't want any exploitation and no dishonesty and it is not just about you two and yet it is essentially about you and it is essentially about her. And the amazing thing happens, it is not you as soul nor her as soul but you as spirit and her as spirit and spirituality is a flowing oneness in undivided movement is it not? Souls are multiple and spirit is one, there is the holy spirit or whatever one calls it and it is there exploring saying, for God's sake -- don't take the ego so seriously! Let it be transparent! For there is something entirely different, entirely completely different than the little loneliness and that is the silence of solitude and creative solitude with love in it and it has no borders and no center, it flows on and it loves every form in utmost detail and it loves the galaxies and it is indeed somehow the ground of all existence is it not? So all are somehow so ultimately completely good at bottom and no matter their ego levels, you say to each other, are we not always somehow radiating the love? She tells you, she asks you, perhaps: Is it so that one must be loved by father, by mother, or else everything else will be just a striving to get it? There is no limitations, there are movements of love, of compassions, in between you two, and others go by and they are not really jealous or envious or anything because they sense your light, they realize you are not out to capture her or she to capture you or anything but you two have a dialogue and in that dialogue there is a light, unlike anything that they've seen that night, or any night, for that matter, perhaps. There is something unique, it is as the Bible saying, 'where two are gathered in my name' and here the name is love. And in the name of love, she asks, not you, not herself, and both you and herself, must one be loved by one's parents or else one is desolate inside and all career striving has that edge of hardness of wanting this love? And as she puts that question you both see it, you don't have to say it and yet perhaps both of you feel that something should be said, you feel it -- that you can't really look for evidence of this love always, you must meet it by other ways, deeper ways, you must of course feel that you are loved and yet the eyes, the history of the eyes, the history of what has been experienced may be bitterness for some or for many, I don't know. It may be an experience of one bitterness and hardness after another for so many and what are they to do? They must of course just tell their little child ego within that they are loved, loved infinitely and they know it is not true and yet it is true because each has this love infinitely at bottom somehow, though the mother was drunk and the father left or was beating and all those horrible things that can have happened and that are not illusions. And yet they are somehow a little illusion because deep deep deep within there must be somehow affection, it is there. Affection is there and love is there and the person though adult must tell himself or herself, I am loved by my fathers and my mothers and metaphysically make it feel true. As an antibitterness, say it again and again and realize, letting go is only possible when we stop dividing our essences from each other, no matter what we have done to each other. Not just between individuals but between families, groups, nations, socalled ethical divisions, socalled racial divisions, other kinds of divisions, all these divisions speak of something superficial or sensory-bound taken more seriously than this love that flows between all beings. And so you ask each other, now that we feel it, we have an ecstasy don't we? And can we have this ecstasy somehow together now this moment and the next minutes and hours and we have this joy and playfulness and though adult we feel like children playing and there is summer holiday or christmas tomorrow and not a worry in the world, can we have this pastless love and yet really care for each other and for the moment and for the future and so also not get so hooked that we cling? For we can always contact again, we can talk again, we can explore more, and renew the sense of it, gather, nourish, feel it more and more and there is no limit to it. A dancing universe doesn't play according to the logic of a little game made up in thought. Your life is not just 'your' and life is not just 'a life'; the notion of living is what we can indicate when we say life, and living has no beginning and no end. And living floats in and out of various spheres and levels and groups of interconnectedness and, strictly speaking, there is no death. To understand all this is meditation and it is not merely about an idea or quoting some scriptures. When you go into your mind, what do you find? You find that there are no limits, that there is no permanency, but infinite subtle feeling and all-connectedness. So your mind is your aspect of the mind. Before the technological inventions of clock, standardized calenders, and mass media with their standardization of the view of time and progress and duration by the many; before even the organised religions, then there were ways of watching the world in which it was unthinkable that great pieces of art would not last forever. There were of course many ways of watching the world but in some of them, endurance, recreation, or the preservation of beauty as something infinite would be seen as the fact. Other views were more alike atheistic materialism in seeing forms as transient. Now I will make a statement: art can last forever. That which does not have a limited psyche but which is organic through and through, that which breaths and is translucent and has its own light, that will not wither but withstand reality; it is its own reality and other realities will dance around it in coherence. That kind of art has endless future; make just so art and you have endless good future yourself as well. Keys For Rejuvenation Rejuvenation is not something for the lonely heart that wants a younger body so as to mesh with other young people; rejuvenation is the principle of life that uphelds life. It is the principle of youth also: that growth in a natural good speed of healthy new cells matches the degree to which pollution, irritation, frustration and rather random fluctuations make them go away. The mechanical thing is to break something down, as a hammer strikes down a beautiful golden watch; the intelligent thing is to build something like that beautiful golden structure. Rejuvenation is the intelligent thing and pollution and these rather random factors or fluctuations are the mechanical things. Like gravity, the pull down. Growth pushes up, towards the Sun, the stars. So to live in rejuvenation is to live. Live is this balance: that the light or coherence within rejuvenates the body and mind and all there is to it, while there are fluctuations and frustrations that rip bits and pieces of it apart, and resillience is that the rejuvenation springs into extra intensity when the ripping apart as sprung into extra intensity, so that old wounds are healed, so that firmness of skin is regained, so that the body temperature is restored after it has been too high or too low. Etc. The cells responds, all the organism respons, to the mental state of radiant love and they respond to what you love, what you are attracted to. When you feel that somehow all existence is Godhood, all existence calls for love to itself, when this boundless love is infinitely established -- these are strong words, but I feel they are called for, because this is a strong matter and not just a comfortable little exercise we can do in addition to an otherwise weak or shallow type of life -- when this love is firmly established, then there is balance between growth and decay so that the body replenishes itself, the mind renews itself. The time in the cells tick until you are about twenty or twenty one summers old and then they have no more information about any necessary change of the human body, unless you have another type of cells than that which characterises most human beings on Earth. I mean, if you are a result of some genetic technological experiment you may have a different growth schedule and I do not know about that. The natural case is that when we have reached past puberty then we are done, and if we live in a good way, we renew us from there on. The wear and tear is determined by innumerable factors and some forms of wear and tear are tough to reverse and others are easy to reverse but basically the quest should start with where you are now, and say: let's make the best of this situation, renew the life through a love of life, renew the mind through a love of life also, let us not dream of things that are so unrealistic that we may become a little peculiar in getting lost in these dreams. This is a realistic pursuit: let us start with 'what is', with where we are, with what we are, and say: certainly there is life here! And certainly we can nurture this coherence, love ourselves in a refreshing, renewing sense, and in this sense use the word 'youth', which has little to do with actual 'amount of seasons' after the mentioned point. This is a pursuit of love and as the brain is very complex we should look into questions of how the brain work also, because it is important that the brain, important as it is to the body, is with us all the way. The key to rejuvenation is that the intent of what is to come creates, insofar as it is stretched long enough forward. If your intent is such that if it is prolonged infinitely without causing any problems for anyone, then it's good, and then you rejuvenate. Life is such that anything you want clearly, stretched into the future with all your being, creates organising events working backwards from this possible or probable future. But if it is your ego that wishes something, it is pointless; this is a universal law, it is nothing beautiful in an ego that wants something for himself or herself or itself. Why? Because there is too little expanse, too little wind in that. It is life wanting something of life that creates real magic. And the name of that magic is, above all, love or empathy or compassion or whatever we call it (compassion really means passion for all). There is nothing you cannot do, given infinitely much time; but only if you count, you will think in terms of finite amounts of time. The absence of counting involves the soft necessity of acting by love in a way that includes time as duration, as flow, as process, but which does not, in general, look much to calculator, clock or calender. The 'c' in the English language refers to Sanskrit 'kut', which means to divide, and the division is found in the English words 'calculator', 'computer', 'clock' and 'calender'. The division works in the dance, as a floating count; but not as a foundation for life. Life is ambigious, vague, open, and forms crystallize themselves It is part of rejuvenation to change one's environment subtly and without violence, in all ways so as to encourage wholeness, balance, sanity, purity, sensuality, uplifting energies. People full of hypocrisy, who have done much wrong, but who may have some power, may try to put reflections of their own decay up as a kind of 'fashion', in the hope that others will be fooled to like what they have made of themselves; but the true ones love life and love youth and thereby create energies of divine sensuality in all that they are doing and do not go to false means and their inward ugliness. Rejuvenation is to say nothing and do nothing that is not a soft necessity of attention and empathy in this moment, and that creates a tremendous discipline inside, to have this as a challenge in each moment, every day. Rejuvenation says: sleep much, and meditate even more; keep much alone, so that you can be social all the way through, and not as a closed oyster bounce off life on the outside. The energy of love protects you when it is strong and by this energy you can be open, but to make it strong you must spend enough time alone and then TV must be turned off and newspapers with their fantastically idiotic headlines must be ripped apart and not even be in sight. Look at flowers, not headlines; look at faces, not clothes; look at bodies, not fashion; look at the life in your face, and ask yourself: are you really living all the way or just some of the way? And it is not that somebody is hindering you, not that you need to switch girlfriend or boyfriend or husband or wife or boss or anything, but that you give loving transforming attention to all life, all of you, all that is you in every sense, and all that is everyone, not imposing your own sweat on anyone, not fooling yourself into thinking that you are much more charming than you are, but being honestly aware and having an infinite trust in the charm of potent silence. Potent silence is intensely erotic and the erotic has been and will always be the key to rejuvenation. For some irrational reason, many cultures think that the erotic depends on genitals; but life is inherently erotic at all levels and in all ways. The touching of a hand is intensely erotic if done without a self; the dance of a bird is sensous and erotic in every sense; and when the genitals are in that dance the ecstatic aspect is infinite. That ecstasy, however, is somehow available all the time for all beyond any question of genital focus. It is one of the greatest fallacies to think of the erotic as something depending on hormones; it is dependent on play, that's all. And in this play there is the discovery of energy through contrasts, similarities, and multiple possibilities of contacts and near contacts and we have in the complementarity of the squarish and the rounded as well. The squarish, as a kind of male energy perhaps, points outwards; but anything rounded points as it were inwards (I am grateful to Frans Widerberg for this observation). We see then that girls enjoy looking at girls and even when a girl wants a man, it is also herself as an object she wants; and the male energy reaches outward and allows that which is reaching inward to reach even more inward. It is rejuvenating to be erotic in each moment, with a refined taste. When we explore the erotic, we are facedwith an honest situation in which our actual, not imagined or conditioned attractions do play a most important and sincere role. If we react according to memorized imprints of what to despise, we may deprive ourselves the joy of being attracted to an aspect or feature of the situation which is indeed worthy of being an object of attraction. The desires in us do not need to be compelled by our egoes. We can leave our egoes and find our true attractions and true desires. In this we evoke a constant new erotic energy. In this honesty, we may discover that role-playing or role-taking is part of the complementarity of the erotic energy of life, and these roles undergo changes as we enact them. There is no limit to the possible roles we may take and yet the complementarities, that the sum total of all roles played in a situation adds up holistically to a coherent whole, is a principle, we might say, of all good jazz jam sessions or improvisation sessions. In rejuvenation, we may for instance evoke childlike player between three adults, say a man and two women, clothes on, playing about for some fifteen hours or so. What happens to the bodies when this is allowed is, in essence, that all core hardness of ego inside the body can be wiped out in favour of an allpresent kind of dance, which is intensely rejuvenating. Of course, what is required to maintain the balancies and the possible stirrings of egotism in the form of jealousy and enviousness is that warm compassionate self- irony and jokefulness that constantly emits a goodnatured playful response in each moment. The characteristic of freedom is humor. Sexuality is humor, it exists between the thinking complementarities of the rounded and the square, the centripetal and the centrifugal, the feminine and the masculine, on all levels of reality and the microscopic levels are the macroscopic levels. That is a metaphysics which is pantheistic, adventurous, dialogical and real. A principle of life is that living creates living, life creates life, and rejuvenation is a basic principle of life. So you will rejuvenate that which you live; you live thoughts, and the brain rejuvenate; you live dick, and your dick rejuvenates; you live feet, and your feet rejuvenate, etc. The key is to step out of two views of future, both of which are prevalent still on most parts of the globe, if I'm not mistaken: the view that the future is fixed and the view that the future is not. The view that the future is fixed makes a person careless, not heeding needs for vitamins, for affirmation, for prayer, for ethics or morale. The view that the future is not may make a person somewhat more enthusiastic about the present but without the coherence of realizing that the person is indeed going to live, with all feeling capacities intact and so on, with the consequences of what is started. You see the ambitious cruel cunning people who live arrogantly and laughingly without thinking that there is a future and then you meet them again in that future and they look as if they have gone through Sahara without more than half a water bottle; they look dried up, they hadn't counted on there being a future and that shows on their cells. Their miserable expressions add to the sadness of humanity; for the future is real, and deny it not. But the future is glad to talk to the present about what it is likely to come up with and receive a sense of possibilties of change through resonance. That is rejuvenation. That the future is open and real; open to change but real before it is real, so to speak. The future is open and yet the life in you has deeper meanings relative to the whole of comos. Society is not the source of happiness for the individual but rather the cosmic work, so to speak, the cosmic relationship, that the individual creates in himself or herself through rightness in what is done, is the source of happiness. Those who think that society offers happiness may not say it to themselves, but when you look back on what they spend their time and energies and emotions on doing, you can see that it is the reaping of rewards and this is egotism and it is very ugly and very sad, and leads not to happiness, nor health, nor rejuvenation. Rejuvenation comes from humility to the greater rightness of compassion which goes beyond all borders of the known. Society offers a lot of things to the individual who does this, no doubt; but the real happiness comes from this source which is immanent in all and called on when you let yourself be a waterfall -- or waterrise, we should say -- of pure energy, the energy of righteousness. This righteousness is as the righteousness of dance, it is right in the moment for reasons of the whole moment and its movement or flux, and its rhythm, beyond what can be apperceived through the senses. It must be felt through the meditative mind when it listens to the whole cosmos, the all-existence of all that is. This is no small task but it is easy to do once you are quiet; and the quietness that comes from doing good and harmonious things is akin to the greater quietness that comes when the mind is meditative and listens well. That is rejuvenation. Painting is about improvisation, it is about getting out of your ego, into the flow of doing something rightly without knowing why, without even trying to know why. The rightness is the energy of intense, unlimited harmony, that harmony which is great enough to encompass great conflicts or disharmonies or complementarities, rather, such as the dance of woman and man, or the dance of gods, or the dance of nuclear particles. To teach yourself painting -- and there is no one but yourself who is the ultimate teacher of yourself -- is then a question of teaching yourself how to acquire a certain meditative dance with the paintbrush and the colors, leaving results which then communicate with your dance and this process keeps on renewing itself without limits. You can train yourself to improvise on the piano, and that is of far greater importance than merely imitating good play according to a rigid set of notes; and you can train yourself to improvise on the canvas, and that is of far greater importance than merely imitating good paintings according to a rigid set of concepts, ideas, or paradigm paintings. As any writer knows, the books you write affect your life. You get the kinds of events that are symbolically called for in the books that you publish -- not all of them (fortunately), but some of them with startling precision. The same is also true for music, movie- making and of course painting, as well as any art. Art refers to the future, not just the past; and the present moment contains seeds of future and the future is no illusion. We might say that the future should be more properly called 'the futures', for it is an open dancing movement and dialogue which is affected by what we do now. The future or the futures are not fixed, not determined, but open, and yet this openness is affected by your art. You artistic activity does have an effect, also on the future of your artistic activity, but not just on the future of the artistic activity, but also on other people and therefore on the world. To disregard this responsibility in a folly attempt to speak of 'atheism' means to turn a great part of oneself off and one's art will be sullen and lack glow, and it will not have energy, then. Greater than the attempt to imitate beauty is the attempt to find the energy of greatness and majestic powerful harmony for energy implies beauty but the imitation of beauty implies nothing at all. When you paint, you are doing something perhaps meditative. Not everybody knows at once what that words mean. It means, among other things, that it takes time, it has rhythm, it gives a soothing relaxation -- and that's just the start. As a meditative activity is performed a great deal, and creatively, with an intent of beauty or harmony, then there can come bursts of ecstasies. For most it may be meaningful to train the left hand, if one is not already using the left hand, to paint. For a person who is used to doing many things with the right hand, the right hand may still be used to cover a large area swiftly, such as when doing background painting (thanks to Margaret Hemsen for this point, who realized that she was ambidextrous at my suggestion and half a year later enrolled for a significant art education). When doing meditative writing, you are not supposed to have a clear purpose nor plan as what to write; you are supposed to think generally and not too much in particulars; you are supposed to offer surprising combinations of thoughts in a coherent and meaningful way. What is it to do the same in painting or drawing? One may spend time with a pen and paper before doing it in the more demanding, and costly, context of, say, golden paint and black oil paint on canvas or special paper. With pen and paper, think landscape, look for landscape, let lines be drawn with playful ease beyond any disposition or idea of any particular landscape. Then perhaps move the page sideways and let the lines flow to indicate a surging movement upwards, as close to a tornado. Then maybe move it upside down and make additional lines, indicating a float in cosmos, orgasmic-like. I was taught by Frans Widerberg, my art teacher, to both think and say sentences that float, just as his images always happen in a region in which gravitation doesn't work as expected. The sense of freedom of body emanates if you let the floating lines, the spaciousness, the landscape-like feeling of the lines also somehow spontaneously become a body but then there are three rules of thumb. Rule one, don't try any anatomical feature of the body in a closed-off manner unless you are absolutely sure you got it photographically correct or artistically masterful; rather just let lines float through somehow, and let the mind itself make up the anatomy if it wants. In other words, don't draw something that could be a foot if it is wellformed; let everything you draw be wellformed so be purposedly vague and indicative and hesitant in your suggestion of anatomy if it comes. This brings us to the next rule of thumb. The second rule, when an anatomical shape of a beautiful body seems to arise somehow out of the floating lines of movement and space, then don't crave that shape but let it come a little more, perhaps, and then let go of it and let the lines dance as they wish and see if other shapes come out as well. It is part of this rule of thumb to at some stage perhaps strengthen the anatomy that appear at the same time most true and right and energetic to your mind, let it become more and more salient. This I wrote about as a feature of how matter comes into being, by 'salient' intersections of 'coherence fields', in a metaphysical/artistical treatise I published some time ago, "Sex, Meditation, and Physics". The sense of it was that each field of correlation or coherence is infinite but can resonate or cohere with other fields and as they do this, some features becomes very clear and this is indeed matter; that is how material energy arises out of more subtle energy and it is relevant for the metaphysics of painting if you wish to do it meditative. The third rule of thumb is to stop exactly when the impulse to stop arrives in your intuition, sign the shape gently, and set it aside; and then intuition may tell you not to keep it or to do something with it a day or a week later but when you get the knack of it, your intuition tells you to stop because you really got something profoundly indicative and yet not so clarified that it is dull and obvious. Now these three rules of thumb can and should be broken and this is necessary to do painting and drawing and other graphical work in other kinds of styles than the ones I prefer. If you really know how to paint human skin in human skin colour and enjoys detail and are found of seeing things through the sensory organs of the eyes and relating energy in this way, then by all means adopt but from somewhere you'll get the impulses to do a painting and why not in this way? For I feel that all conscious work by human beings in some way begins by the subtle and moves towards the manifest. / If humanity is in a state of turmoil, to some extent, and somebody claims that it is just the nature of things, of genes or whatever, and no point in attempting to create more goodness, just look at your own business, then what would you reply? : You see I have no fixed reply. Each situation, each question, each moment is unique, is it not? And if you have the courage to engage in dialogue and be humble to the moment you'll listen. So what is your question? Your own question? / My question is: could it be that it is how it should be, all things connected with the state of humanity, even though there are wars and poverty and so on and many crises and all that? : You are asking whether things are as they 'should' be. So who is the agent saying 'should'? Is it the 'should' of ideals, snobbish or otherwise? Is it the 'should' of the heart, saying, Look, can this be what love is? Is love getting its chance? Or is it the 'should be' of tradition, of scripture, with all its rules, written at the top of the mountain and delievered along with the talking burning bush and all that? / Are you saying love is not getting its chances? : I am not saying anything, I am asking. Do you know what dialogue is? Could I ask you that question before we go into all the difficult themes you are pointing to? / Sure. Go ahead. Ask me what dialogue is. : What is dialogue? / Talking together? Being open to viewpoints? : You see to me dialogue is none of these things, or these things are merely the beginning. You may have a theme, a purpose, when you come to a dialogue. Do you have that? / I may think of a theme in advance. : And what does that do to your mind? Do you follow? / Can dialogue be completely without a theme? : Can it not? Can it be completely without a purpose? Rather than it being a means to exchange some viewpoints, to put forward a theory, some ideas. You see, to me dialogue is holy. / Is it a state of mind? : Yes. Keep on exploring, don't stop there. / You seem to speak of dialogue as a kind of meditation. But can it also have viewpoints that are in contrast with each other? : Of course. If your intent is to perceive, to feel, not merely have a fixed viewpoint, you can listen to various perspectives. It's not that you try to defend, self-righteously, implicitly, your own projects and your own ego image and all that. Rather, you say: speak of what you see now, be loyal to your own perception in this moment and not loyal to your project, your boss. Can we do that together? Can we ask such questions so as to see all anew? / So can dialogue change the world? : Can dialogue change the world. What a question, I love it. Can dialogue change you? If it can change you, it can change the world. Because the world is an expression of ourselves, is it not? / So you say, or imply, that it is really no point in going on complaining about the world. : Of course not! Nor is it a question of 'putting up' with it. You see it -- you see how institutions who proclaim doubt and dialogue and science may not at all live up to it, you see how people who you thought might have integrity will, in a situation where they have influence, just add to the corruptedness of it all, perhaps. You see it, but talk about it? Talk about the individuals and the institutions that do not engage in open-minded dialogue and you only feed them energy. Let's rather explore what dialogue is. / So you are saying, then, if I understand you correctly, that nothing has to be the way it is. : Of course not. / Why is that so obvious to you? : Is it not obvious in itself? You explore and in that exploration you give attention, and that attention allows you to see something new, and if you see something new you will act in a new way. Seeing and action, these are not two different things then. Seeing is the revolution. Dialogue is to step out of nonseeing. / Suppose I'm the principal or manager of a large academic institution, say, a university of some standing, like MIT, involving many prominent and prestigious professors. And I have heard what you say about dialogue, and I may have read something in Karl Poppler's books, his thoughts and views on what he calls 'The Open Society'. I may have read David Bohm's, 'On Dialogue'. I have browsed through the criticism of Arne Naess' on forms of science that are monolithic, and how he says that enquiry and openness and doubt forms the foundation of good science. And, as a manager, I am employed because I have not only shown brilliance, but I have also shown care and willingness to accept status quo. Not being a rebel, I mean. : Yes yes. What is your question? / Well, what am I to do? : What are you to do? How can I tell you? / But when you talk about dialogue, you talk about something that is, generally speaking, not the case. : Of course not. / Why is that 'of course'? : Well, that's the insight we begin with, isn't it? We begin with seeing the rottenness of society and we don't hesitate to call it that although it does not imply at all that we condemn in any way; we merely see it for what it is, and of course all the large prestigous institutions that represent the society, even if they are an elite, are at least tainted by that. That is why I say 'of course'. But it doesn't have to be that way. / That is what I mean. : So are you asking me, How can you, if you are employed to run a prestigious scientific institutions in a context which is corrupt, in which dogmatism of a subtle kind is preferred and dialogue except on certain very limited and technical tasks is brushed away as insigificant, how can you do a job that is wholly uncorrupt? Is that what you are asking? / Yes. And not only that, but can I change it? : Let us go into it slowly. After all, at the end of the corrupt communist system of Russia, with its socalled 'Soviet Union', there was a head -- Gorbatchev. And he seemed to be of a different breed, he wanted change, and so on. And of course as soon as he did not use military power to enforce his views he was swept away by the changes he allowed, along with Soviet Union, and then Russia came back and had a chance to do things through openness. So he actually succeeded though he did things that might have gone very wrong also, and in terms of his personal career, the outsider, Jeltsin, came in and replaced him as president pretty soon as these changes occured. Now is there anything in that change, from the worse to the better, is there anything at all that we can learn when we talk of something entirely different than mere political change, namely that of creating an atmosphere of enlightenment where it is prevented? Can you as a boss, a leader of some standing in an institution of some standing, although it may be corrupt in its way, create that change? / Yes, can I? : So you are the head of something large and partly uncontrollable unless you are very intelligent. If you are more intelligent than it you can head it and it won't take you away when you do the right thing. But you can't just do the right thing and except it to accept it, right? / You are saying something important here, I think. You are saying: Don't expect talks of integrity to make any impression on a false system, even if you are leading it. : Of course not. That's so obvious. So can you change it? And do you also see the fallacy of that question? Because you may yourself be corrupt. And then you are corrupt trying to change something that is corrupt and it won't be done even half-way. Whatever changes you implement they may not be even near to be enough to actually open up for a new atmosphere of exploration, openness, everything that went on in the name of nonviolence by Mahatma Gandhi and much more, also such things as Jiddu Krishnamurti discussed with David Bohm, and even more. / You say: No point in trying to affect the system unless I am myself radically clear. : Clear, awakened, and so on. / So what should I do? Give up my position? : Well, you have to do something while you keep on exploring. But this exploration may take time, you need to give it energy, you need to have leisure. So you may want a partner, a wife or husband, and you may want kids, and a new car or two besides, and maintain your social standing by attending to this and that party and how many seconds do you have left pr day to explore the clarity of your mind? / Can it be done at all? : Of course! Don't, if I may point it out, assume that things cannot be done. Rather explore how to do them, or just do them. / Is it realistic to change society? : Is it realistic to change yourself? If it is, then society can be changed; if it isn't, then society will go on having one form after one another and no lasting harmony or peace on Earth will be found. So the key is to turn within and ask there. Now I wonder: why are so few doing that? / Perhaps because they have much pain. Or because they think that they are already free. Or that they don't think they can change anymore than they have already. : So have they changed already? / Changed, how? : Changed, so as to be awakened, not living according to the slavery of conditioning and the memorized kinds of desires and fixed ideas. / Then perhaps nobody is changed. : So, what do you do? I ask not you directly, but I ask it as a challenge that I feel anyone should ask to himself or herself: what can you do to awaken yourself? / Perhaps meditate more. : Do this more, do that more. But please, what is the core of the issue? / I don't know. : So can you stay at that not-knowingness? Because it is very honest and honesty, you know, shouldn't be a sparse commodity in the quest of enlightenment, to say it mildly. / What do you mean? : I mean that if you can stay to simple honest and not just saturate all your activities with a desire to prove yourself then you can find an explorative quality, saturated with humor and blissful energy, and you can and will actually get there. / Where? : To whereever you want. / Mars? : That is so silly, to explore outer space when we have not even done our homework in our own house. / So to work toward enlightenment is possible? : Naturally. / And it is about...what? : You question. You talk to a friend who also question. Some of your friends may be interested in questioning, not just pretending and trying to get a position and acting as if everything is okay. Thinking they know what love is, perhaps. / So you should question yourself, also as what love is? : Again, naturally. / And you end up with...nothing? You just keep on exploring? : There are points of yes and no-saying. / What if I find that people are too evil or something? : Then I suggest you explore goodness. / What if one of my friends are in my mind all the time reflecting something very bad, something evil. : Then go for a walk, pay attention to flowers, to trees. You must explore goodness, degrees of goodness. / You say, don't exactly avoid the darkest of all dark themes, like evil and insane and so on, but focus on the good? : Of course. / What is it that makes that so important? : Otherwise the focussing will bring you down, tear you to pieces. / Isn't the negative things real? : To some limited extent but do you know the absoluteness of goodness? Have you sensed that light? Do you know that saneness, and felt its health? Then why should you focus on people who cultivate some illusory idea of the opposite if you haven't yet got that goodness? And once you have a sense of it, live with it, and you don't forcefeed people with this, so you stay focussed on that which has light and let the other wither. You do not give energy to the badness, the problem. / Is goodness absolute? And if you say it is, how can I really understand it all the way through, not as an idea, merely? : Let us explore. Goodness is what? You can discard a lot of what is said about love, love contains all, and so on. Love is the greater but yet when you have it do you have the craving involved in a socalled 'exlusive love relationship'? Do you have its envy, its fear, its callousness? Or is it so that when you have love, you are also good? Let us explore, in many conversations. As a burning flame. / Good. / Is love security? : When you ask a question like that, do you want me to say 'yes' or 'no' or something, or are you oriented towards insight? / I need insight into that. : So why don't you ask yourself? / When I ask myself, how do I get up a proper answer? : You ask and your question is a kind of prayer, it requires a kind of fulfilment. And you ask and keep on asking, perhaps varying the question, until the answer somehow comes. Perhaps it comes as a question that solves the original question. But it must have substance. It is actually something other than an idea. / The answer to my question as to whether love is security is something else than an idea. : Yes. / How does it feel? How do you feel when you know that you have got something for real? : Is it a state of wholeness? You see you are very secure when you have that wholeness, although you may not have a conclusion in it. / Which is to say, love doesn't need conclusions? : Is love a humility toward 'what is'? / What if there is no such thing as 'what is'? : I didn't say it was a thing. / But what if it is an illusion that anything exists? That only nothingness is real? : So be it. You could still explore whether a humility toward this nothingness makes any sense. / Could it be? That nothing exists? : Do not say to the child who cries that she doesn't exist. Do not tell to one who has got chopped of a leg in a war that the war doesn't exist. Please. The barbarism of humanity is real, it is part of truth, we might say. Desktop philosophies can portray reality as nothingness but there is also the suffering of humanity, the pains, the psychological pains and the physical pains. And the joys, they, too, for those who have them, are real. So when we explore love we ask: can we step out of the transition of time, somehow, and find another, not time-dependent consciousness? And is this love, which this implies, anything such as that which we have come to talk of as 'security'? That is the question, isn't it? / Suppose I say: I do not want to give much reality even to wars, they are like movies, though it may feel terrible. It is an illusion of feeling. : ...Pause... Is life real to you? / That, too, is an illusion, I feel. : Is an illusion real? / No. Nothing exists. : ...Pause... Is this a statement of complete insight, of actualised insight, or is it a cold and bitter heart that has sought refuge in the idea, almost as hatred, that nothing is real at all, that all life is an illusion? Think about it, don't answer easily, if I may point it out. To put it in other words: Are you completely free from the self-therapeutic point of view in what you are saying? Or is it your pains, your own inward psychological pains that are expressing themselves thorugh the clothing of a particular language? Again, please think over it. Don't just throw out a mechanical answer, if I may put it out. / It is the latter. It is a mechanical answer, based on pain. Nevertheless, I do think it is a realizable position, that Nothingness is real, and nothing else is. : But if it is your pain, then why not drop the idea and rather pay attention to your pain? For then, when they fall away, and you do not need the clothing of such a language, you may come to see whatever is the case. But as of now, it is a mere prejudice. And an escape. / I do not know if I agree to you there. / You give talks in various places to people from all walks of life. Do they change? : You are asking, are my talks efficient? You see, I am not so concerned about that perspective. If what I say is what I honestly live, then it can be effective, but I don't think it is my role to make it effective. It is a suggestion. It must be picked up by the individual. / But is it picked up? : I think that the question is wrong. I could say yes or no but in both cases we are not exactly in the right question. If you are a changed person, you do not try to effect a change, you do not try to help others to change. Rather, you are a light in what you are doing -- you do not say, 'I am a light', but you can't help it. And that light has its own laws. If you try to use or utilize that light it would be something else again. / This is all terribly abstract. : It is really simple. Are you yourself changed? / No. : Then why do you bother with the effects of my talks? Why do you not ask yourself why you yourself have not changed? / It is difficult; but I think it would encourage others if they saw that they could change completely based on what you are saying. Otherwise it may appear impossible; something one can only do if one has extraordinary skill, extraordinary interest, extraordinary capacity to deal with these matters. : What matters? You live, perhaps, according to plan and purpose. If you narrow your living into your own purposes, then that is a certain quality of distortion, your heart may want to do fifteen other things in each moment and you narrow it down. So somebody comes along and says, 'Hey, you don't have to do it that way.' And you look at that somebody and they have their glow, their generosity, their gratefulness, they do not appear to be having a problem at all. Now, are you then capable of not condemning that? Can you, even if you live falsely, and you have gone a long way into living falsely, not condemn another who is living in a completely different manner and making it? / What do you mean, 'making it'? : I mean that the person is obviously enjoying himself or herself. Can you stand that? Can I stand that, if I live falsely, I have clipped away what I really want to do for the sake of a 'reason' of economical security, prestige, and innumerable things I do not even talk to myself about -- and you just skip it all and say, 'There's a different way.' / Why do you do all the things you are doing? You are writing, giving talks, programming, etc. What's the point of it all? Why don't you just enjoy life and so on? : Well, perhaps I do enjoy life tremendously. Have you thought of that? / But you do so many things! : And? / Well, is it not also a matter of leisure? : You may not believe it, but I have a great deal of leisure as well. / Even though you do all these things? : Yes. For when you do not do things contrary to your heart, will you not also have the space to sit down and just listen -- to life, to your thoughts, to classical music? And lie down and let meditation wash through you. And there's immense joy in that, when you have laid the foundation of harmony, of doing harmonious things only. See, if I didn't unfold what is there for me to unfold, then how could leisure be equally strong in me? / So you say that you create as part of a kind of entertainment or joy. : Of course. / Even, would you say, to create is a form of entertainment? : There are shallow and deep forms of entertainment. You entertain your spirit, your heart, your sense of wholeness when you do something which is right to you. / How can I find out what's right for me? : First of all, don't narrow it in. Explore. Be very honest to what you feel, and yet don't draw large conclusions from small experiments. Don't be to insistent on having a logical scheme that explains to yourself or to others what you are doing. Explore beyond categories. Explore, give attention, find out what's on your heart to express. You may be surprised to find out when you begin to find out, that there is no conclusion at all. / I think I have understood, broadly speaking, how you speak about enlightenment, what you mean by it. Now I would want us to go through it all very simply, as simple as can be done, yet not miss out anything important. Can you do that? : Sure. Where would you want to start? / What about fear. I have fear, I know I have. Most people do. It's a real thing. Can one do something about it, you think? : Of course. / Well, can we begin there? : Why not? I think it is an excellent place to begin. How would you enquire into the total and absolute ending of all fear, so that it is not just a piecemeal enquiry, an analysis that is going to take years and years? / Can one do it holistically? : Holistically, yes. So you would want, if you understand you correctly, to understand the whole root or ground of fear rather than any of its manifestations. / Yes. : So what is the ground of fear? / Perhaps it is attachment. : Perhaps. But, if I may suggest it, sense now fear as a whole phenomenon at a deep level in your mind, don't struggle, don't concentrate, just playfully imagine and trust that you can be in touch with fear as whole. Or holistically, as you said. Are you doing it? / Yes. I think so. : Don't try to do it, just observe, or watch, or be with fear rather. Not observe as thought going on. You are seeing a human phenomenon, a phenomon common to all human beings, deep deep in the brain, perhaps even to some extent in the genes, though we don't need to say that it is deterministic or anything. It is there, but it need not be there. Can we agree to that? Or not agree, but do we see it together, now, as we quietly, unhurried, explore it together? / So what is that ground of fear you were speaking of? : I ask you. Is fear existing only on its own, or is it something that it derives from? Is it just floating there, or has it a connection to something? / To desire. : It's pretty obvious, isn't it? At least we can sense so generally speaking. You may have a strong fear for something and then when you look for desire it is not obvious whether it is one or another desire, it can be anyone of fifteen or a dozen or a combination and it is all mingled up. But when fear is not dominant, when it is more subtle, you listen more deeply, and you sense that it resonates, don't you?, with something you cling to. Clinging, attachment, desire -- it is all much the same kind of process, isn't it? Do you see it all? So we begin by fear and then as we gently, playfully talk about it and almost hypnotically give attention to it we find that we talk naturally, feel naturally, also desire, attachment, clinging. Are we together? / Yes. It is very clear to me now, as we talk. : So this clarity, can we see that this clarity is honored, and also that we doubt it enough to ask whether it is complete? Are there more features, or elements, to this phenomenon to fear somehow? I am asking not you, not your intellect, I am asking space, mind, the human mind. Is there more? / Fear, clinging. I guess love is something else. But what about attraction? Jealousy? Anger? : Good, you bring in more things. And so when you are jealous, you are also clinging, you are attracted, but you may want to pretend that you are not. So you are attracted and attraction in itself is perhaps natural. Can you rather than fight attraction let yourself admit to the strength and energy and beauty of attraction, and also not cling, but let go? / I don't quite follow. : It's simple. All I am saying is that attraction is natural. You see a flower, you may want to kiss it, okay? / Okay. : So then from that attraction, that sense of beauty, that sensuality, you start craving. And craving gives the jealousy if somebody else gets to kiss that flower -- I'm talking metaphorically (perhaps). / Yes. Craving gives the jealousy. : So instead of then hating, when it is not yielding to you, you can give more space. You can say: Yes, I'm attracted. No doubt, I'm attracted. And that is somehow love, or it involves love. But I don't need to crave, I can give space, I can be generous, I don't have to need, need, need. I can be attracted and enjoy attraction even though I don't get to own what I'm attracted to. Is that so difficult? / It is subtle. : But is it difficult? / Maybe not. Giving space, does it come natural to the mind when it sees all this? : Not maybe that you have to say it, 'give'. But you rather realize flow, generosity, love, nonclinging, movement. That relationship is movement, that you respond not if you crave. Response is responsibility, response-ability, and you do this if you have freedom and love. That is it, right? Freedom and love. Which is an altogether different energy than fear. / Yes. : So what is hatred? Do you have hatred? You said you have fear and it is easy to say, perhaps; but it is more tough to admit that one has hatred because it is a beastly feeling, no? And yet we must be honest, or else all the fun goes out of it. / Hatred, yes. Hate. Is it the opposite of attraction? : Be careful there. Love can be something more than just attraction, right? So hate implies some rejection but hate is more than the rejection of a badsmelling odour, like some old food which you put to the bin. That is rejection but it is not hate, right? So hate is rather a psychological effect of craving. And love, is it not altogether a different spirit somehow? / This is not the common view in culture, I think. It is typical to say that hate and love are related, whereas indifference is something else. : So indifference is a coldness that may be born of rejection, disappointment -- it is all craving-related, is it not? Like hatred, but a different make-up of the problem. I know that in some buddistic teachings they speak of indifference in so great terms but I wonder if the sense of what they referred to in the original Pali, the mother-tongue of Gothama, if I got it right, was not something more in the sense of peace and balance. Balance, rather than imbalance, right? Which is harmony. / So if I have disharmony, then what? I will think about it along these lines? : What will you do if you have disharmony? You can have a theory, 'I have disharmony because I have craving, because I have disappointments, and the sum of all these disappointments and these cravings are my ego, or a great part of my ego; so I must end the ego, once and for all, and get enlightened.' You can have this theory and you can repeat it but will that affect your disharmony? / Perhaps not. : Obviously not! And yet you may be on to something. Rather than drinking alcohol or taking a drug or running around complaining to people or putting on music so load there is no thought because it is all pressed out of your brain for the volume of the music -- rather than escape falsely, you can perhaps explore it, right? And give attention, afresh, creatively. Find new words, write. You write, you sit quietly, you explore. You do not know the end of the sentence that you begin to write and you write quietly and lovely. / What happens then? I explore and I get rid of fear and all that? : Take it easy. You have a fixed purpose when you write and that purpose will create effort inside you, won't it? For purpose is again craving. Do you see the beauty of it? / So no craving. But explorative writing, giving attention. But no purpose? Why then write at all? : So you are asking questions now, you are asking and that has its own burning intensity, does it not? We begin by recepies and by fixed opinions. But now we are asking and we are getting into asking such questions as evoke space in the mind, rather than words and thoughts. And you ask, why write and explore when there is no purpose? It is a beautiful question. Is there an activity that is guided by something beyond purpose? And what is that? An intent of beauty, perhaps? Or empathy? / Empathy with whom? : With yourself? With the world? You see, you can also explore who you are in all this. You are, if you enquire into it, not merely this or that role or name or form or job or skill or interest, obviously. You are something beyond all that and yet we identify too easily and then, when we identify, there is the illusory division of self from world, of observer from the observed. And you see, in a flash, when you explore, that the observer somehow is the observed, not through these words perhaps but in your own words and in your own musical, rhythmical sense. It is just wholeness and this wholeness acts through you and then you see: when you enquire into your own craving and loneliness and all that, you do something that has a feeling of love in it. What you come up with may have a general value, right? Not just for you yourself. Now go and stay with these questions, don't settle, don't get stuck on a formula and think that it is that easy. It is a living thing and it demands daily care, like a flower, where you have to be the sun, the light of attention. Be a light to yourself. Shift the words around and go beyond the words altogether. You can do it. Explore it. Keep on writing, throw it if it doesn't feel good afterwards, keep it if it feels good. Build up the fire, the fire of enlightenment. Never say it's impossible. Go ahead, go now. You can do it. / When you work toward enlightenment, and you create certain things, instances of enquiries, as it were -- it can be notebook writings, photographs, paintings, even programs, and I know you do a lot of computer programming as well as all the other things -- then will you say, "Now I am free, now I don't want to carry any of all these things any further, I will drop all notebooks, discard all programs, get rid of the paintings?" : Of course not. / Why is that so obvious? Haven't the mysticists throughout the ages, the great masters, spoken about letting go of the past? : I am sure they have, if only I knew who they were. Look, if we are going to refer to assumed authorities then it is another type of discussion than the one I would like to go into. / What is your kind? : Our kind. The kind of conversation where we talk as friends, looking into life based on our own perception, speaking of what we see. Etc. Do we need spiritual authorities to guide us there? And if you see the danger of calling on them, you won't speak of 'masters through the ages'. It is a lot of pumping up of empty words because you do not have the radiance of trust in what you perceive, so you bring in some artificial external force to your words. / Apart from that, what do you feel about carrying on one's notebooks and all that? : If it has light, then keep it. / And if it doesn't? : Then enquire most carefully over an extended period of time whether or not it has light in it. Because once discarded, there is no retrieval, of course. And so you must be clear about it. If your mind is foggy then you may take what has light in it to be something else. / So suppose you enquire and you find out to keep a lot of your works. Then could you tell me how this resonates with being free from the past? : Yes. Let us explore what it means to be free from the past. / The past as memory, for instance. : So you enquire, you have the insight -- let's say -- the insight that the ego is not enough. You see it. It is not a sentence to you, you can sum it up with a million sentences or none or paint a picture of it but the insight is a general vague but clear sense of a wholeness of something beyond the verbal and image level. It is a perception. You realize it, as you realize the color red. You have that insight. Is it at all any element of accumulation in it? Please let us think afresh. I am not asking rethorically. Is there any element of accumulation or memory or change of memory somehow through such an insight? / Hm. It would be tempting to say that it is beyond memory. : But let us be very careful, we are saying something new -- do you follow? You are having this insight and where is it? And memory is as if the quintessence of the past and the insight, is it absolutely gone the next morning? Of course not. So can we not say that there is an element of storage, if not accumulation? / Yes I think we can. : So it is a storage of light, eh? Like Bach's music, it is light perhaps. It has its own resonance, humanity has its own memory of Bach and it is not the personal thing at all. It is not his name. It is the music, the beauty of it, it persists, it cannot other, for it has its own vitality, beyond any ego. It has just got to go on. / So you are saying that there is a past to the mind. : In some sense. Isn't it? For how else can you work toward enlightenment, generously, also so as to make so to speak a culture all on your own? / What sense of culture? : A culture of, well, -- of persistance to awakening. You build a lot of things in this persistance, you create a greater persistance than that of the newsmedia and so on around you. They are strong but you are stronger, you have what Spinoza called fortitudo; you have generositas; you have hilaritas -- all these terms and the term we must add to it, which Spinoza seemed a little fuzzy about, but which we must have, with total priority: compassion for all. Compassion, love for all. So you make a computer program guided by this passion, this compassion, and everything about it becomes a resonance chamber for your intelligence. / Are you saying that intelligence is to some extent part of the environment? The physical environment? That through your works, as you have them around you, that is part of your mind of insight? : Of course! Exactly, that is how it is. And you have no right to delete light. That's it: you have no right to delete light. What has light must persist. There must be no burning of the library of Alexandria if there is even one book of light in it. As for the rest, we can't be sure, and so it is possible to come to a dialogic responsible care for the past. Not just this hippi thing of overthrowing everything past and pretending that they are not going to persist into the future. / May I be a little private with you? I have enquired on my own quite a lot, I think, and there's a number of questions I have which I do not know what you would think of, which I do not find in your other writings -- though it may be there, I haven't read every word. : Go ahead, ask anything. I have no secrets. / You see, I have done and I am doing many things, things that girls do often these days. You know me as a woman, and you know that I have done a lot of modelling, acting, performances and so on. : Yes yes. What is your question? / Please, I do not have the questions outlined very clearly. Let it come. I must talk myself into it. I have prepared myself but I forgot my notes. First I want to ask you about esthetics. Is esthetics important to you? : That is a big question. I think I have explored it in a book called 'A tiny notebook'. First of all, we must enquire into what we mean by 'esthetics', whether it is a system of stagnated, fixed ideas or opinions, or ideals set by a stagnated, materalistic culture. For such an esthetics I do not have. But if you say, what is esthetical is beautiful, not just beautiful in surface but inwardly too, then it is allimportant, as love, as freedom. You know, that is not a simple question. / That is a beautiful answer, though. I am quite satisfied. Next I want to ask from the perspective of someone who has sought to be very clear about these matters and perhaps, perhaps not, have some enlightenment. : Yes. / I want to know, is it always wrong to have a quarrel? Or, to put it in other words, more directly perhaps, do you ever quarrel with anyone? : Well, yes. If you play music in a jam session, there can be drums occasionally. It may still be part of the music. / How can that be if you are interested in having harmony always? : But harmony may be stale. There's room for some tension, don't you think? / So there is still harmony even though you have a verbal fight, say, and raise your voice? Harmony to some extent, perhaps? : It can be. If you have the foundation of clarity and not throwing negative affirmations at someone, if you are aware of yourself without judgement, knowing what is going on, you want get into an evil fight. It will be a quarrel and it won't go on for many minutes and it won't carry over and you'll learn about some new forms of conflict through it, fast; and you won't judge the other afterwards nor yourself. You'll see, you will have this experience as well. If it is your ego reacting that is something else, then it will go on and seethe with problems, like a virus. But if you have no ego will you never ever raise your voice? I don't think Tina Turner would agree -- I am not saying she has no ego or that she has an ego, but I have heard her music, and it has terrific screaming in it. / Terrific screaming! So a moderate proportion of quarrel if you know what you do. : Only if you enquire deeply you can see that there is no role that is identified with awakening. / So. Good. Now I have another question: Suppose I am really fond of sex, I have several partners, and there's a jealousy issue. As a woman, with my modelling career and all that, I tend to attract a lot of men to my attention; and then they can get nasty at me and toward each other and even toward themselves because of jealousy or envy or whatever it is. : Yes? / Yes. : Why? / Well, is it wrong? I don't know why. Or I do not, it is the age- old problem, that's all. Alpha males and so on. They don't stand competition. : But do you put them up against each other? / I don't think so. It has happened, though it is not the thing I usually do. : You seem aware of these things. But you are asking anyway. You are asking, perhaps, correct me if I have understood you unclearly, whether you can more deftly relate to several men -- and women, perhaps, don't leave them out -- without arousing jealousy and so on. Are you not also implying that question? / Yes, I guess. : Then perhaps, if you look into it, you will be able to see such mechanisms of jealousy very clearly aforehand. You don't go around assuming that everyone is enlightened but you relate to the reality of the situation. You may be clear yourself, but there's a lot of products of unenlightement around us as the shapes of these computers, the layout of the magazines, and so on, and also people are acting based on ego. You see all this and you relate to the world, not just to your dreams, not just to a particular feminist reader or something, and as a woman you ask: what has energy, truth, or beauty in it -- is it to see, or not to see all this? And if you see, can you not always find ways in which you make it easy for people to relate to the best in themselves through you? I put it up as a challenge, not as a question to say 'yes' or 'no' to, if you agree that it is a challenge, that is? / Thank you, yes, I do agree. It is very clear. / When you work, when you make things, compose, play music, sing, paint, draw, whatever, how do you know whether you have good energy or good synchronicity or whatever you call it associated to what you make? How can you ever be sure? Can one be sure? I am asking because I am constantly making things and I realize that the educational systems have focussed on making people conform to systems even though they may say the opposite. I am trying to stand aside from systems, but I am worried about the effects on my life of what I do. Is there a key? : When you say that you are worried about the effects on your life of what you are making, do you thereby already sense or perceive a relationship? / Not clearly. I have my own guesses, that's all. : But you are concerned with good synchronicities. What does that concept mean to you, really? / Good luck, I guess. Like good karma. : So you want to make something and you'd like it to have an effect on your life toward prosperity, youthfulness, health, sex, such things? / Yeah. I guess. : So is it all a self-centered pursuit, then? / What do you mean? Like egotism? If that's what you are saying, then I do not find it easy to go beyond all sorts of egotism. : That's at least very honest. But you want to enquire into good synchronisticies, good energies, you would like life to act through you, so that you naturally get good resonances, the highest forms of energies rushing through your blood, your mind; you'd like life to be at an apex all the time and without any drugs or artificial solutions. Is that right? / That is right. : And then I ask: Who, or what, perhaps, is the agent of all that wanting? Is it a cluster inside you, a center dividing itself off from the world, being lonely, wanting a solution? Or is it life within you that says: Life, sure, life is wonderful, life is the thing, I love, but there is no 'I' in it. Which is it? / I am not sure. Perhaps it is the cluster. How can I step out of it? : So if you really want to have good energy, do you see that you must let go of illusions? / Illusions? Not quite. Aren't illusions good sometime? : They can be nice, sure, but when we use the word 'illusion' it is typically to say: Look, you have got here not just enthusiasm, but expectation, and this expectation is a form of clinging. And so you are vulnerable, the expectation inside you is vulnerable. And that vulnerability creates a constant stream of fear and anger inside you. / Is it not good to be vulnerable? : I wonder about that. Perhaps, if you are asking about sensitivity -- is it not good to be sensitive? And then we can say, of course, be sensitive. But if there is the vulnerability at the emotional level, it means people will have a hard time being honest to you because you can get upset by being reminded on reality. / Sensitivity. Sensitivity does seem to imply vulnerability, though. : So is there another vulnerability that is really strength? Let us enquire more into all these questions. / To live holistically, what is a key point, would you say? : Holistic living. That would imply wholeness, health, clarity. What is it that gives wholeness? / Perhaps enquiry into wholeness. : Enquiry, attention, perhaps the cultivation of creative rites or rituals, not the rituals of religions. / What do you mean by rites? Could you give some examples? : Say, you tell yourself: I rejuvenate! Each time you go to bed to sleep. That is something you can do with a creative spirit, you do it so as to reinvigorate your sense of it. Then after two seasons or decades...you may want to have something completely different. / Could living itself involve rhythms that can be said to be holistic? : Of course, of course. Rhythm is a form of resonance, creative resonance. The body has rhythms and they change, as your mind changes, as the needs of the body changes. By recreating resonance you can creatively reestablish rhythms. / Such as? : Such as the rhythm involving dance in the morning, a sense of golden light concerning all living beings, a feeling of care as ground for your activities rather than worry, and so on. / You don't merely decide to do something like dance in the morning. : Certainly not. Decision may be a forcing based on ego-purposes, it narrows it in. You must pray to dance, pray for great dance, but also pray to really want it. When you want it, then you do it. When you don't want to do it, there mustn't be forcing or else the fun and the spirit goes out of it. / This is contrary to the scheme of training many athletically oriented parents gives the their children, isn't it? : I don't know their schemes but unless it is effortless it is neither true nor fun. / All the things you are talking about, are they for humanity? Because humanity don't change. That's obvious. If you look at the news, if you watch how things develop, you see that they don't develop. So why not join the cynical bunch and make the best of it while it lasts? I don't mean this but I want to hear what your response would be if somebody said this! : You are worried about society. But why don't we look a little to the individuals that are around. Are you saying that individuals don't have a cosmic life, that they don't have a sexual life, if society is not a good society? / Remember I am not saying these things. But if I were defending the point of view of cynicism, I would say, perhaps, that all the things that you are talking of makes less sense when there is not a society that cares for it, when humanity don't care, then why bother? : But let us go slow. What is meaning? What would be a meaningful life for an individual? What is the pinnacle of meaning anyway, is it people areound you or is it somehow you yourself? You have a heart, right? I am not asking you, but do you have the feeling that everyone has a life in their own, on their own -- do you? / Of course. : So is there a heart in the individual who is saying: This is right, that is right, and stay on doing these things, don't waver, tune to the things which are true to you. / Okay...so you are saying this would outmaneuver cynicism somehow? : Not outmaneuver, but I am saying: can you outmaneuver yourself? If you have read novels or seen movies inspired by Machiavelli, the authors conjure up fantasy people that has no heart; they are happy and so on based on things that only a robot, stupidly programmed, could be satisfied with. And I ask: do you have a heart? Do you? / I do. But... : But what? Not everybody? / Yes everybody. But not everybody listens to it. And when those who don't listen to their heart comes into power, they make society into a terrible thing. : So make it better. But unless you live righteously, you won't have the right kind of energy to make it better, or make it good. So, what you are really asking, perhaps, is: can we have complete energy, clarity, love, meaning and so on in ourselves when things around us fall apart? / Yes. When people pull it apart... : So do you feel that your way of living is dependent on others? / Well, to some extent. : Yet can your mind, can you find a way in which your mind can renew itself and have great love and clarity despite the environment? Absolute independence from the environment -- can you put that up as a challenge? / I think it is difficult. : So? / But not impossible. : So that's it. / But what is the key to such an independence? : Sex, perhaps. / To have sex? : To engage in a sexual perception at all levels. A sensual, erotic, sexual contact with yourself. / Even if you don't feel very sexual to begin with? : The feeling of not being sexual is an illusion, it is ego, it is stagnation. Can't you sense the sexual energy? It is everywhere, except where the ego is. / When you speak of taking sexual energies seriously, I am led to ask myself, 'Should not sex happen within the situation of loving another'? Should it at all be a widespread energy or even attitude? What do you say? : I think you're right. You must question. What is love and what is sex? Is there a difference, or are they somehow the same energy, or two aspects of the same energy? You see, you must enquire. Not merely think that you know everything about love and everything about sex and then you enquire into their relationship. You must suspend your knowledge about these things. Then awareness comes. In that awareness, you are open and creative. You are not certain, nor merely uncertain, in the sense insecure. In that security, of not being certain, you can find out anything for yourself. You don't need me or anybody else, you can enquire and find out. / But love and sex usually involve at least one another! : Love and sex involve not just yourself, not just your ego, the 'I'. But even your body is something beyond your ego, do you realize that? / Not quite. How can that be? The ego is me, is it not? : The thought of you is the ego, but the body is something beyond that thought. / The thought of me is the ego. : To put it a little superficially. But you, psychically speaking, and you physically speaking, -- that's not exactly the same, right? / Some people say that we think with the body and so on. : Of course! When there is health! Now the ego is perhaps something that resists the body, or life in general: the ego is a structure of likes and dislikes and not intelligent at all. Can you see that? / It's a little unclear still. What exactly is the ego? I say I am such and such a person, and that is more than the body -- it is not less than the body! : Well the ego is a way of perceiving, or dividing rather. It is a cluster that makes you very angry if somebody opposes your ambitions, say. The body may be a temple of silence. When you dance, do you have an ego? I mean, you may have an ego, but is it the ego that rules the dance, when you dance well? / Now it is getting clearer. For I know what it means to loose oneself in dance. : So let us go further than merely that. For the sexual experience is a question of going completely beyond the ego, the narrow division attitude. You experience life as dance, you have your body and you listen to it but you also listen to the body of another, and beyond that, you listen to life pulsating and silently copulating. / You don't mean physically copulating? : Well, that too. But sex is an experience. / So you have that sexual experience in relation to all? : In a sense, yes. And that doesn't mean that you have your genitals into action with all. It is mind-sex. Which also can become genital-sex when you meet somebody to your liking. / When you plan or make decisions, how do you do it intuitively, so that you know that you are right? And do you ever change plans? I do not know you well enough personally and privately yet to be aware of these things as to you; but I am sure you have thought about it. And, if you'd like, I want to know what you think about my opinion of sex as a distraction, that it takes a lot of time and energy and gives too little back when you want to create something else. But I am not certain this is my opinion for when I dance a lot, in those periods -- for as a little girl I trained a lot of ballet and the like -- then I want more sex and I realize my own inner sadness. What is this -- is it a ral sadness? What has it to do with sex? And with dance? Does dance release it somehow? Can we go into all these things, please? I know it's a lot to ask but these questions are of burning interest to me. So can we do that? : First of all, are you aware of all your problems, or do you just want to solve them? If you just want to solve them, then they are abstract to you, you do not relate to them. And then your solutions will be inevitably superficial, they will not be lasting, complete or penetrating. You will feel that there is a wall or frame or bottom and beyond that there is sadness, something unpenetrable. To go beyond all your problems, all your sideissues, as it were, you must have the transparency, the transfluency, the flow, the unbounded wholeness in movement that comes from giving attention. Then you don't ask for solutions but you allow them to present themselves in your healing attention. / Fine. I don't know if I understood all that but it seemed right at that moment when you spoke it. So can you apply it to sex, somehow? : Must I do it for you? Can we not give this attention that we have by virtue of being alive, by virtue of being expressions of life, of the sound of the stars, as it were, and find out, for enquiry is part of life, is it not? / When I enquire into sex I feel it is a terrible distraction. : No that is not an enquiry, that's a conclusion. Do you know the difference? A conclusion is a concluding down, a shutting, and enquiry is openness. A direct reversal of conclusions, not that you conclude the opposite but you reverse the shuttingness. / Reverse the shuttingness, quite. So sex can be opened beyond conclusions, then? What does it mean in practise? It still takes a lot of time and energy, I feel. : I wonder if it takes time or gives time. Do you do things that are fully of your heart, or do you concentrate, you push aside the central question, the core question, and you force yourself into a plan? And then, confronted with that plan, the wholeness and delight of yoga, sex, walking in nature, having leisure is at odds with the little plan made by the shallow ego? Is it so? I don't say that it is so but enquire more. Another time. / What is the importance of sexual activities to you? Why do you talk so much about it? Is it for all or just for some? : Well. Let's explore it all. Is sex just a fantasy, is it just for biological procreation, is it just for the young? Obviously not. Or what? / No, I agree. Perhaps. I think it is for all, somehow. : So we enquire with dignity, with responsibility. In the name of lust for sex, just like in the name of lust for money, prestige, power and the like, much has happened. It is not to say that money is bad in itself or that prestige is bad in itself that the lust for it has led to much shit; the same with sex. The Augustinians and the Lutherians and the adherents to every religion and every religious sect have their own peculiar forms of condemnation of either sex or women or both. So let us step out of all that, please. Let us give unbounded attention. / One might say that the teenager and the young adult is sex oriented but that hormons are other for old people; besides which it is not so easy with an old body to acquire new sexual partners perhaps, at least not the sexual partners that may reflect something of that which one was strongly attracted to as a young person -- unless it is love and the sexual feeling that comes from loving someone affectionately, as can happen even in very old marriages. : I am not experienced with all that, I don't know. But even if sex is basically self-sex, even if it is based on reading and writing, painting and playing music, watching life and flowers everywhere, it is still sex, I do not merely think that sex is genital sex although it can be. And sex in the sense of playfulness, humor, shamelessness in a good way is important, I think also for people of a hundred summers and more; this much I have been told by people who has a first-hand experience. / So you don't think that sex is too limited a concept? : Not at all. / What is great sex, then? : What is great to you? Let's enquire. / I think that which is great sex for me involves the new and unprecedented, some experience that takes me out of my self as I know myself. : So that is meditation, right? / You could call it that. : Now can that happen all the time? Can you have a renewal in relation to yourself, a constant orgasm as it were? / Not without difficulty. : But with difficulty, could you do it? / Perhaps. Do you have it? : I have some sense of it, yes, some sense of orgasm having an eternity of persistence through my mind and you can redicule me for saying it but it is so. / Intuition and logic -- what do you choose, when logic says A and intuition says not-A? : These are but words. How do you know what intuition says? Do you enquire, do you get silent, do you listen beyond all thought? And if you do, how can you say that listening does not have its own logic? What is this logic you speak about? You see, these are subtle matters and unless we give a lot of good quality time and leisure to our thinking about this, we may rush into a lot of conclusions and think that we follow intuition when we don't and think that we follow logic when we merely go along with a limited path of reasoning and not any deep logic at all. So what is it? What is real intuition to you? Could we please enquire and not just be certain to begin with? / I am listening to what you are saying, I know that intuition is difficult sometimes. Yet I have an experience of an intuitive voice and sometimes it speaks against logic. : Like when? / Well, perhaps in questions of money or travel, there are pointers, logically speaking in one direction, and then intuition may say something else. Or that which I call intuition anyway. : These pointers, what are they? / Perhaps it is about simple pieces of information. Information that suggests a logical path of action in the common sense language. And then the heart or my gut feeling may indicate something else. : What happens when you act contrary to gut feeling? / Well I'd like to say that it always goes wrong when I act contrary to gut feeling but it's all very confusing. I don't know yet. : So you enquire more. That's good. / But how is your life on these matters? : As to intuition? / Yes. And do you have any conflict at all in you? When you make a decision, is it all clear to you always what to do? : You see clarity is about openness too. / How do you mean? : There is something which we may call a 'natural action'. It is natual for the flower at the apple tree to transmutate into a small fruit, it is natural for the fruit when mature to come off in the hands of someone plucking it easily, and so on. The natural action prompts itself into being. But does the flower always know when it will happen that it gives way to the next phase? Indeed, does it has to know what will come in the next phase exactly? There is an innocence of not knowing. When you have this, you have the security that let you be completely tranquil and completely uncertain at the same time. Then you cannot but do the right thing. / Hm. It's interesting and yet I don't quite grapple with it. : What is your problem? / It's just too many emotions. Perhaps the issue is somewhere else, in my attitude about life or something. : Your energy is dense? / That's just it! How did you know? : If your energy is dense, explore it. Explore also lightness, and light; explore and visualize, meditate, write, find out what you identify yourself with, perhaps it is possible not to identify with any project, any name. / You seem to operate with several names, several websites, several homes, and so on -- several girlfriends even -- and is this conscious? : Again, I would say: it is natural. It is not that I decided, 'now I must develop more names' or something. It just felt the right thing to do to experiment on this. / Some might criticise this as unfounded or unreal or indication of lack of coherence. : Of course, those who identify stability and identity in a fixed sense with happiness, they can criticize it. For instance, they may think that a person is crazy if he or she starts reinventing himself or herself. Whereas I would say: unless you shift role you won't see the role as role and then you don't know what authenticity is. Soft necessities constitute new kinds of logic, a new kind in each logical situation. There are no numbers, strictly speaking, for a number means a member of an infinite set of something well-defined. But once something well-defined is set to characterize an infinite set, it tends to undefine itself, and the limits of the set becomes soft, its size and upper level members vague, ambiguous and infinite. This occurs even when we write '...', indicating 'et cetera', in a context like 3.14151926... This means that we have not got finite set and every infinite set in some sense contains all, in the sense that thought blurs in perceiving the mental content of it and discovers that it cannot meaningfully prevent anything from entering into the set. The proper foundation of mathematics is therefore in the infinite in the ambigious and not well-defined sense; any finite formalism must be considered a temporary floating abstraction without any strict value, pragmatically justified by its temporary engineering fruits. There is no foundation for applied mathematics in pure mathematics, except if pure mathematics is dissolved. * Seamless. If a logic is not seamless, it does not exist except as a finite and temporary illusion. If it is seamless, it does not exist as a mechanical thing. It is not a machine that can be permuted. Mathematics did not worry about a foundation, then came people and worried about it. They thought that since mathematics is an offspring of techniques, then there can be a master technique at the foundation. Of course it couldn't. Then art is the foundation, and that is a nonsystem, a nontechnique; there is no foundation and that insight is the foundation, coherent and consistent. It is consistent in that there is nothing that is disallowed a priori, and nothing shown a posterori, and nothing is wholly wrong nor anything wholly right, except that absence of everything. It is the mystical foundation that is true; and this is a nonfoundation, it has no letter, it has only the love of art. This love of art makes us realize, oh over there, in that thing or phenomenon looking like a hole, black or hairy, out there in the center of a galaxy, it seems to be radiating something that has a certain input feature and a certain output feature. Then someone might jump into the fallacy of misplaced concreteness and say: It's a computer. It is an uncomputer, of course; not a computer. A computer is part of the fixed finite temporary illusion of mind; what exist is this dance that is the foundation proper. * You hold something steady and let the rest move; and you do not even hold this too steady, not rigid. Then in the frame, the wave dances, but it dances outside of the frame as well and you don't stop it. But the fundamental mistake is to think that the fact that the wave dances outside of the frame also is the same as to say that it dances completely independent of the frame, which it doesn't. For the frame is itself a temporary wave structure, composed as it were of complementary vortices feeding each other and making a temporary crystallisation possible. Then the waves around dances and they relate and refer and respond and it would be totally different with no frame at all and yet that would be meaningful as well: different but also meaningful. And then when there is no frame, the startling thing happen, that waves far apart, having gone free, start combining into forming new temporary crystaliisations, new frames, and in this dance between the analogue and digital we have the true mathematics, which can never be written down but only sensed in a divine flash, beyond all ideas. The fact that this has not become part of socalled 'academic institutions' means that these institutions have ushered illusions into people, into society, into young people; the fact that they have come to believe in frames as stable, even when constructed, means that the only real dance has been across but never only within these institutions; their significance has been as much in their darkness as in their glimmers of light: that only in being free of them it is possible to see the truth. And the truth, when seen, is not the truth, when said. That which is said is something else, or it is said poetically but not descriptively, not formally but as a reflection of a perceptive dance, like perhaps these motions of letter-signs after one another, but then it is not in their repetition but in their re-analogizing in a fresh dancing mind that truth can be rebound, rediscovered. Truth is not in the sentence, nor shown by the sentence, but it reverberates when the sentence is, beyond all frames, enacted by life itself through an instrument of life, such as you yourself. To live so as to do such enactments is to be a mathematician, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with memory or the mastering of any technique, nor is it of help to have memory or the mastery of a technique, nor can any amount of socalled 'references' provide much of anything but a fog of clouded half-bred thoughts to an otherwise fresh work; and a real academic institution would be one that devotes itself to glimmers of light and fresh dance in their own elegance quite apart from the fog of reference. As nothing can be repeated anyway only illusions are worth referring to, when one erects new illusions; truth has no reference at all, and can never be repeated, not even once. * Energy without friction, metaphorically speaking, is the aim of logic, not truth in the imitating sense. If that which is spoken in response to a question engages fresh energy in the minds present, if it enhances alertness, then it is logical, but if it is spoken in false reverence to a past authority of the mind, then no matter how cleverly it is construed, it is illogical. So truth is an offspring of the energy of awareness and all falseness is over- repetition. * * * If we cannot close a set in thought properly off, then the thought of the set is rather as the thought of a rather bounded wave but not wholly bounded wave in quantum mechanics. You try to put the wave in a box but the wave spreads out anyhow and touches all the universe. So you try to put the thought in a category box called 'set' and it turns out it spreads out anyhow and touches all the universe. So tell me: can you clearly now entertain the notion anymore that mathematics is a language game of construction only, whereas physics is nothing but an application of mathematics? Or is it so that any real thought in mathematics spreads out and touches domains other than the language itself, in fact, ultimately, touching all domains? So if physicists like to say that anything might be connected with anything then should thought be different? Should there be a discipline in which we imagine that thought is able to seal itself off from the world and call itself 'pure' and thereby imply that the world is 'dirty'? So there is no pure mathematics except meditation. And the alternative is not merely 'applied' mathematics but rather that there is a relationship of some kind; that there is a perception of some kind; that there is a correspondence of some kind. And thinking is not completely separable in terms of 'fields' but rather all thinking is also thinking-about. * The infinite is not conquerable by thought. Our brains, magnificent structures as they are, cannot therefore comprehend the totality of ethical implication of any of its proposed actions unless it lies down all activity except the sensitive activity of listening. This listening is not merely through the ears but it is a listening to the structure and form of the fluctuations at the quantum level, and it requires an extraordinary quietness and silence for it to pick this up, rather than eradicate it through statistical noise. In picking it up, it will know for fact, in a multidimensional way, what is to come and its degree of harmony or coherence or empathy, given that the action proposed is fulfilled. This may not be coherent and the brain, if enlightened, if it is suffused with goodwishes, also to itself, will then propose a change to this action. What this change is can also be, of course, rather apperceived than proposed, by same such silence. To play, as children are playing, perhaps, when you're adult, is both healthy, humorous and can be outrageously erotic, and give the best orgasms. Your prettiness should not depend on make-up or things that can fall off during play, you should dance by yourself every day to get your muscles toned and you should stretch every day to get them free enough to engage in play, perhaps also strengthened here and there, especially if you have some constant pain in some muscle parts. But let the man be masculine, make yourself petite enough compared to him and in that way you will feel the complementarity of your own feminine parts and his masculine parts. The complementarity is like a battery, and when the battery connects, it is orgasm. Your prettiness can be your friend or your enemy in getting supreme orgasms. If you learn how to make your prettiness expand indefinitely and become part of your surroundings, part of the way you work, part of the way you affect the world and part of the way you recreate your mind, then you will understand that it's all about rhythm and so is orgasm. It's about timing and appropriateness and coherence, not just symmetry and so on, but coherence, rhythm of features and moves and sentiments. Orgasms is a prettiness that washes through the body and beyond, into the bodies that are with you. Jealusy is not part of orgasm, that is one of the things you must understand: that everyone deserves infinite love and everyone can be infinitely beautiful -- or else it is an egotistical thing and that stinks of old fish. Do not be an egotist nor reduce yourself by describing yourself in belittling terms. Be enough pantheist to see greatness in all life and be enough polytheist to love many and accept that many loves you. To get such great orgasms with a man there is the issue of having both clitoric and vaginal stimulation at the same time, and to have the leisure and the play involved in getting a contact between the man and yourself. You may discover that there is an electricity of sex in having clothes on and once the clothes are off, there is a different kind of energy, more shared, less polarized; and so it is a great sexuality in having clothes on, because the skin has not yet exchanged its polarized forces. So the feminine may be very feminine and the masculine may be very masculine and once all clothes are off, there are different conditions to upheld this polarity and this is easy if you actually copulate all the way. But there is this half-well-done thing called 'condoms' and it is of course extremely important because of several key issues -- not making babies when you don't really want to, and keeping probability of transferring anything infectious down. So condoms are important but at the same time, condoms may take a lot of time and attention especially if the condom is really tight and the man really big somehow, down there. So then you should pay enormous attention to the quality of condoms, that they are roomy and have an interesting inner environment for that long thick thing which is going into them; and their exterior out to be wet and interesting and happy for your vagina. All this is involved to get really great orgasms and no doubt a great deal of further technological development should happen on the condom area but at least do get the best ones. Heal Humanity Fast Healing is the creation of generosity towards the future, towards ourselves in the future, towards ourselves as we are connected in evernew ways in the future, towards, therefore, essentially all life since nothing can be considered at 'cut off' anyway. We could coin the word 'generositize'. Let us step out of recepies and fixed answers; this is not an examination. We need a bunch of words for all the things that are important for us, so we can go on improvising in how we think and talk and feel about it, how we relate to it; we shouldn't stick to one or two as if 'master words', there are no 'master words', just as there are no spiritual authories. If you are going to buy a violin, talk to a violin master, but ultimately it is your gut feeling that decides whether to buy A or B or do something else. Spiritually, you come to learn how to make decisions and when there is not a single decision that is not made this way, then you are whole. So what is it to create generosity in ourselves and in others? What is it to 'generositize'? What is it to make conditions for the creation of beautiful golden fruits and the conditions for them to be picked up? We see that these are two things, or two processes or phenomena: the creation and the exchange or interaction. In quietness, spending time in meditation, walking by our own, not talking, not listening all the time to radio or TV, not reading all the time, but writing, sleeping, taking cat naps, dancing on one's own, doing yoga, perhaps to reggae music! -- all these things are involved in the creative solitude of coming up with impressions and expressions suitable for these impressions, impressions arising out of the silence deep within oneself. Then, having had the time to create, one can have the time to share and exchange and let inspirations and other fluids of good nature flow between people. And in the social realm, to be truly creative, involves laying the foundation for this creativity -- to generositize. Think of anyone you like, say the word, 'generositize!' several times, then be quiet. In that quietness, hold the image of that person, as general or vague or abstract as you would like, and let light shine and wash the person and so all becomes a radiant star about that person. The person quietly becomes generositzed. Then forget all about it, but trusting that it has an effect, but forget about it, leave it, ignore it, discard it, let the universe and the person act on its own accord and do not go pettily around looking for immediate benefits of your work. You are generous in doing the work of generositizing. Now do it with all humanity. Just that -- all humanity. Wisdom implies that we have no egoes. When we have been brainwashed by our culture to brainwash each other more and more to adopt the ego-stance in ewhatever we do -- or the socialist stance, which is merely another form of egotism, this time extended to portray the society as self -- or any other form of egotism, such as scripture fundamentalism (the book is my ego) -- then we must step out of this brainwashing. However the instrument that is tainted by this brainwashing, or even formed and shaped by it, namely thought and the likes and dislikes of the mind, cannot therefore be trusted when we are about to find freedom from it. We must explore within ourselves, by hanging on to questions for which we deny ourselves the impulse to answer quickly through memorized responses, whether there is something that is not conditioned within us, which can speak to us somehow; and which can teach and train us and unprogram us, as it were, from all our conditioning and brainwashing. And this is what could heal humanity, if we found it, and let it be described, without fear of who said it first or anything like that -- if we poured on each other a new sense of culture of unconditioning and the undoing of brainwashing, then our brains could find that they are bathed in a secure intuitive state through this new culture. Then this culture can set us all free. This is a great potential now that technology can reach everyone in some way or another, at least in affluent regions of the world. If we could use this potential not to further the hypnosis of commercial companies with their expertise in sublimininal programming to make people buy their silly products but rather actually to use technology to ask questions in common, to give meaning to dialogue, to furnish the deepest questions of life with a sense of the mysterious and to step, thereby, completely out of the dogmas and forms of conditioning of humanity's consciousness stream, then all humanity could open up, and be healed -- fast. It is possible; I assert it, for I see that it is so; but please feel free to explore it for yourself whether it can be the case. But in order to explore a possibility, please do not begin by asserting an impossibility. It is only one thing that is impossible, and that is to give evidence for an impossibility. We will proceed to present questions through the sense of a conversation. The thought that talks and talks is not insight; insight involves the space between question and another question, which may question the premises of the first question. This space changes humanity; no monologue will ever change humanity. This space was opened by Socrates but misused by Platon the older Platon got, to implement thoughts on fascistic state control of people and slavery and so on. In the beginning of his writing career, Platon had fresh memory of Socrates, it seems, and the account of the Symposium can bring anyone to tears -- and, above all, it does not end in a victorious conclusion of one or another kind. It opens up and yet it is only one text and one text becomes its own monotony unless challenged by a million other texts. Shakespeare grabs the notion of conversation but utilizes it mostly for purposes that are very narrow, namely that of entertainment and that makes it a falsely used power -- as far as I can see. What will change and what must change us is that willingness to feel afresh, meditatively, what to think and do in each moment. It comes from dialogue, also with ourselves... / What are computers doing to humanity? : Computers are an extension of our thought processes, are they not? / Yes. Perhaps they can be seen that way. But the enhanced electronic communication, does it not lead to a breakdown of traditional hierarchical structures in society? : The real life of humankind has always been network-like, rather than hierarchical, I feel. So we have some electronics that mimick that, okay, that can have an influence. / But it won't save us or anything? : Obviously not! A hierarchical structure may just strengthen itself when exposed to a great diversity of anarchistic impulses. Has the sense of dialogue in humanity been enhanced after ten years with Internet? / There are signs of both. : So, perhaps, we see that young people utilise this form of communication; and they always do the new thing, the evernew thing of mingling sexually and so on, the feeling of great future, of crossing all known barriers. They have always done that and if they did it all the way, maturely, they could each time change the world. The hippies and all that -- instead it gets politics, drugs, and unpaid bills and too many babies without proper conditions for growing up safely and happily and so on. And at the same time, universities and states are more tradition-bound than ever, they hold on to their old things while the young mix every idea that can gathered with all other ideas. / Could it not be that it is 'the last vestige of the empire' and the hierarchical structures are bound to fall? : See, they are bound to fall, are they not? But not because of technological impact because that can always be utilized in this and that direction. It must fall, the hierarchies must fall, because of the coherence of the networking alternatives. / You speak of anarchism. : I abhor all -isms, pantheism and anarchism inclusive, but if we take away the dogma and the politics and the communism from anarchism and we say of pantheism -- I sense that God is immanent not just transcendent, but perhaps also transcendent -- then we have at least an exciting worldview to explore and meditate through. We can do something without harsh control, without hierarchies, that's anarchism really. / And you still believe in enlightenment for all? : Still? I have hardly begun. I am just warming up, enlightenment is just another word of course, like love is a word, like insight is a word, but there is a content to how we might use these words that can really change everything. / Does this notion of change not imply that you in fact condemn the world? : I criticize it. I am not sure you would call it condemn if you looked into what that word means. See, do you not want to criticize a dictatorship? They bully people and hey, even the baddest of democracies beat the best of dictatorships, don't they? That is criticism. Then you say, oh so terrible you condemn. But it is not condemning, it is respect for individuals and their potentials and we say now that there is something which is completely unleashed, some greatness, and it will come to be unleashed. There is no condemnation in that, it is a great love in that. Do you see the beauty of it? You achieve everything you really want when you find out what you really want, and not just want in a phoney way, and take that real want with you in silence to listen to the intelligence of love whisper to you heart what to do, or it shouts to you, playfully; or this love dances in your limbs and you cannot do it wrong. THE ANARCHISTIC LOGIC OF LOVE Is love personal or is it, in some joyous sense of course, impersonal? Is love merely that genetic thing of lusting for a fierce power or shape that matches a genetic imprint? Is love carried on a sexual wave or are the sexual waves carried on a love that is unbounded? Can love be the borgouise thing, or, like music, is it the impulse of freedom? Is love that of a female form seeking strength, or of a masculine strength seeking a flower to land his genes on? What kind of love begins everywhere and ends nowhere? What kind of love is unconditioned, both with regard to genes and culture? Love, affection and compassion. These and other sense of the world are as basic to life as dot and circle to geometry. Barbarious system-followers wade in "impossibilities". Love always sense the smooth possibilities. Love is the winner, even when at times a barbarious system seems self-confident. You must stand alone or else you have no integrity. You must be loyal to your heart not to a club. And be then who you are when you are honest to your own perception, and appropriately arrogant to systems. For systems are evil and you are not. To the one grounded in love, everything is possible. A system controlling work or rites or rituals is a denial of the inner spirit, the good spirit of the free heart. Love is not mere sensuality and dance in the streets, but that, too. It has its own intelligence and its own logic and we'll go into all that. What is most important in compassion is, I think, to realize that if compassion is our daily potential, then we must manifest it by cleansing our energies each morning (as we start the day), and giving immense attention to staying pure and beautiful in inner radiance energy throughout the day and night. When compassion is most needed, then we might give in and become self-pitying sulking people, but please don't do that!!!! We must do away with self-pity, and gather our harmonies by dance in the morning (as we begin the day), right food, great writing, painting and music, and play with logic and even perhaps mathematics as well. We must radiate what we want, compassion. And there is no room for self-pity in this, is there? No room for sulking! With immense strength, based on compassion, we become a danger to all systems!!!! In our culture there is perhaps an importance given to the term "politeness". Another such term might be "status". And we see that those who crave for these things easily become mediocre in what they do and in what they radiate. While I prefer a dialogic tone is it not right to hate (in some sense) mediocrity -- which is not at all the same as to hate the living being behind that mediocrity, simply because the living being has many other potentials than that. Is there anything wrong about demanding excellence, at least of oneself? Is it not a part of compassion, both in ourselves and others, to urge excellence in all that we do? I think that when attention is given to why we are mediocre, then we are no longer mediocre, isn't it so? Let us enquire each by ourselves and listen beyond agreement or disagreement, if I may point it out. I do not represent dogma or a system of belief. We stand free as we do not carry out fearbased actions to protect a fake status or prestige. But then many institutions might fall, if we stopped doing that. And, considering the influence they have, perhaps they should fall. So the inner revolution implies an outer revolution as well. Compassion, which really means a passion to sense, care, take pity in, as well as to heal, not just one another but all others, is the urge of a quiet revolution. Nothing will be the same afterwards. We can all do it, since we are alive; no thought, no condition set by environment need have dominance over us. We can be, and we are when we realize that we are, sovereign, in some sense. When somebody, who may be representing a system or just himself, tells you not to consider yourself so important, how do you respond to that? Is not your life, your honesty, the protection of your integrity immensely important? Are you going to downplay the fact that you have an urge for excellence and righteousness at the very core of your heart? For each do, I think, when they listen well to themselves. Test it. Don't you want to play the games you play as a child well, to perfection, isn't that a part of the joy of it? And does this intention every end? Do we not want to do things so that they have superior quality? So this is about, isn't it?, not to let oneself down. Compassion involves seeing and feeling everything in experience through a pure oceanic inward meditation. Unless you wake up your meditation before you being "doing things", then what is the instrument with which you experience? It is then but a clutter of past experiences, and then the experience is the experiencer. The new, the evernew, comes in with the meditation in which there is no meditator, just oceanic silence. Isn't it so? Let us enquire together. If you belong to an organisation, you do not belong to yourself. That is a simple fact. You can try to belong to both the organisation and yourself, but quickly you will find that you must choose. Unless, that is, the organisation makes absolutely no demands on you but then you would not speak of 'belonging' to it anyway. When you choose yourself, your own heart, your own integrity, you get good and pure energy. Then you are responsible, it is not a self-centred matter. Rather you are heart-centred instead of organisation-centred. You acquire, in this way, transformative powers. No organisation can stand that. You can transform the world, quite simply. Organisations, especially socalled "spiritual organisations", involve the desire for you to be compliant, to put up with things, to let yourself down so as not to let it down. And such things make up the organisational ego, and it is a disaster to support it. It is barbarious, even spiritually criminal, to support a priesthood, a corrupt or hypocritical university system, a fashion society, a dance group, or a business which is not in every way absolutely open, transparent, dialogic, wholesome and intelligent. Certainly there must be dance groups, clothes companies, academies and so on that have integrity -- find these! But let us not lie to ourselves and think that we can be honest in the evening, exploring meditation and so on, while we go around trying to fool ourselves during the daytime. Compassion is that true spirit of integrity. There is spontaneous design, emerging from silence, when there is compassion. How do I know? How do you know? Either it is a conclusion or you fold in your process of dancing and writing so you reach ecstatic silence. Silence in the mind is a very subtle, highly intelligent process that can also whisper, or speak quietly. Like the stars that you see when the artificial lights are temporarily switched off. You switch off thought by attention to thought and then there is the delievery of intuition, through your heart, to your conscious mind. You note it down in writing, or speak it aloud, and that cleanses the channels within you. You become the loadspeaker of quiet intuitions. And there is great love and beauty to that. Tear the systems away. We were not born to be robots. In having compassion for all life, attain to immense energy and shout 'No!' to the exact misuse a system may tro to offend you with. Be exact, don't slash people or people's heart, don't lash out against the human being but against the machine, the enemy of the heart. Lash out against the systems. Walk carefully, paying attention, and always keep in mind that a living being is an infinite potential, even if there is only finiteness in his or her actions at the moment. It is the finiteness you question, not the validity of life! So the obvious necessary dictum in a true inner revolution is, of course: Never kill. Compassion admits of no system. There are open rules, of course, such as the rule to stay pretty much at the table at the cafe that you have chosen, and pay for your tea or coffee or whatever. But a system is that thing which would tell you were to go, how long to stay, and what to do when you're at the table. People misuse computers for purposes of control and enforcement of lifeless systems. Learn to program so you can unprogram these computers. If we are simple-minded, immature and inexperienced, then let us be honest about it and gently deliberate to make ourselves subtle-minded, mature and at least relatively experienced, before deciding what to invest energy into. Otherwise immense energy is wasted into silly pursuits. Ultimately, perhaps, we work for all, and in particular we work for the children of the future, the children of the world. And in some sense we all have the children aspect within ourselves alive. Thinking about this makes one think about truth. I would go as far as to say that those who do not work for all the children of the world do not have any contact with themselves, with nature, with anything. Every piece of information, every symbol, that you accumulate, have an effect on the luck you have. For the fact that you can play or unfold the information later makes an impact on you already now. So the way to rid yourself from bad influence of the past is to transform it. Only the man who is free fromsystems has the full power of intuition. You can try to escape from this fact but the sense of the importance of being free from systems, I think, will always come back to us, at regular or irregular intervals, until we all face up to it and live in pure undiluted anarchistic love and responsibility fully and irreversibly. Then we will always be in renewal and it'll be a great joy. We can have it already now, for fortunately it is but ourselves who compell us to go on with a system. At least, that is, if we live in a fairly democratic region of the world. This is perhaps an apolitical (non-political) approach, except so as to work for the sovereignity of all individuals beyond any concept of country, state, company, organisation or system. When the oceanic feeling is near, you always have horizons, and it shows itself as a golden glow deep within your eyes. Then love can also be intercourse, and also relationship, of course. The views of love are not the energy of love, of course. Love is that which renews. If you have love, you are not greedy but generous, yet sharp against those who merely enforce a system on others. That is the key, I feel. To say: I love life! I love you as a human being, but then I strongly object towards the fatigue of your system. Mathematical or otherwise, a system is finite but life is, in contrast, absolutely unbounded and creative, obviously. In realizing the unboundedness, there are the playful confinements of energy as marks on paper, as dance in a room, as talk on a stage, and so on, but its care is transcendent, translucent, open. The openness that is an ideal or idolization, however noble it may seem, is not the truly worthwhile openness of each thought in your own mind to yourself so that you know yourself, in each moment anew. With such knowing yourself in each moment anew you will find that you know the thoughts of others and that may not be anice things always, unless they purify themselves, something you cannot just demand. You can, however, anarchistically maintain your own joy, clarity and beauty of mind, and radiate attention constantly, and something in terms of unexpected miracles, synchronicities and the joy of holiness will always happen around you and in the houses and so on where you are. This is a real fact, surrounding the enlightened or awakened individual, not quasi-"enlightened" according to the dogma of a tradition, a system, or a belief-set as to reincarnation, but it belongs to, or happen to, one who is a light to himself or herself. Without any limits, this light is its own goodness and care, and it heals all that it touches. And it is also a danger to the falseness of society. Some day this simple sense of infinity will be there, not just available to all, but actualized in all. Until then, before as after, the maintenance of insight requires its constant, daily renewal. But then we must not accumulate emotional bitterness nor anything like it. When we understand that people don't know what they're doing, don't even know themselves or what they're thinking, then we call them mediocre but we do not get bitter for their actions. They will come along to insight, perhaps or certainly, as life moves on. Love creates an orgasm in each step. Love evokes joy, joy not only in the head but in the genitals, in the hands, feet, hips and so on. Did you know all the world can be felt as a vibration in joy? That is, at least, when there is no violence. Then the oceans, the trees, the jumping deers and the girls sitting beside you all partake in the very same meditation. Gracefully, even the slightest touch is then ecstasy. This ecstasy is also godhood. No bearded angel can tell you this. This is the soft porn of insight, drinking love in each second, coming up always refreshed. Joy creates a change-about in consciousness. The girl's limbs respond to your touch, you kiss her orchid, there is the spasm of delight which is god in man. Anybody who has an urgency, an appetite, for genuine insight will fearlessly find those who live every day in generating such insight. They will come and be alive together, have orgasms together, and they will not condemn each other. Open up the dance in your limbs. That is the strength you need to handle society, so it does not merely handle you. You enact the generosity of radiating compassion, and draw nourishment and strength from teachings like this. As sex and in other ways, you come together with another who is doing the same. You kiss, you fall upwards, you mingle the energies and swing the societies. Societies might call you 'barbars' for you are anarchistic and have love and the logic of love is pulsating in everything you do and say. But these societies know only the rotten order of control, for they are rule-based and so they really are just factors of chaos, except for a little bit of lucky wellfare here and there; and of course free individuals with compassion would want to take care of the sick and elderly in a decent manner; would want to see that roads are okay and that electricity and water supplies flow, and so on. But we do not need the rottenness of these ugly quasi- civilisations to do this, with all their power-play and insane views of health and happiness. Compassion involves unlimited order. Come, come together and the spasms of delight shall shake the foundations of society. Your orgasms will shake the hypocrisy out of humanity and dissolve it forever. This is our task and it is an immense one so we better get going with our own meditations and get deep in them, rather than wasting time with merely talking about "shift of worldviews" or getting the "horoscope" mapped in hunt for a better sex partner or more money or whatever. Those who are not self-centered nor politically worried but who go all the way to the pure flow of the spirit are the winners, the conquerors, the foundation-layers of a totally new civilisation, one with the heart intact, pulsating and joyous. They will be able to unfold more of the logic of the love in anarchism each day. They will make another type of schools, or gardens of learning; they will not enforce the false dogmas of academic institutions, but bring out the best in science and in open-mindedness. They will not gather in greedy, powerhungry monsterous "companies" but rather do things informally and ask what each can give rather than try to get, get, get, and be so cunning that the light is lost. People who are light to themselves do not, I think, hide in a closed partnership, that would be yet another form of hypocrisy again. You open up, recreate the lost waves of love and peace, and care for each other's flesh so it pulsates and glow and renews while living inspired lives without an end. This has no limits. You two, or however many you are then, are in contrast, for each of you are wonderfully similar in yourselves. And the contrast recreates the poles of a battery of love, so that sparks of heart and fluid light emanates and resurges always between you and in evernew pathways, as your attention expands beyond itself creatively all the time. The world, verily, is between you. And nothing shall be the same. Dare to dance. Don't have a day without it. Dance is the essence of health, learning and insight. It shows how lack of control, freedom from hierarchy, is the jubilation of orgasm, is wholesome and harmonious, yet intensely unpleasant for the ego- freaks. Remember that even the worst of egoes have a potential to dismantale their own selfcentredness, and so do not lead anyone into death. Life will always reign. When you work from compassion and its intelligence, life renews in you in freedom from every sort of limit, including counting. You do not count freedom. Freedom is flow. Who is beautiful? Do you think that if you saw God as God really is, God, the source of all the real and genuine beauty, love and goodness, you would get something that you would instantly characterise as beautiful? Only if you have no ideals. Without ideals you will see authentically, respond to it, even sexually. And this is a copulating creation. New ecstasy in each moment is given to one who has no ideals, no corruption of any goal, but who lives in affectionate renewed touch with reality in each instant. So what is beautiful? However you look by nature, don't clog it by false play, overeating, hypocrisy, goalmindedness, self- centeredness. Be alive. Write and give talks, when you're enlightened. Write and experience relationship. Have sex and joy. Watch the seeds of desires grow and change, and learn to create playfulness and grace in every stiff point in your mind. You rule your life when you dissolve your will and listen instead to the whispers of your heart in silence and adopt to these whispers as your determination, most playfully, not craving respect but simply respecting this playful and most humorous and sexual process. If you write, connect to somebody who reads. If you talk, connect to somebody who listens. If you radiate health, connect to somebody who drinks in your looks. If you are playful, connect to smebody who responds to that playfulness and encourges it to deepen and take new and exhillerating pathways of joy. Will is an illusion and those who merely seek to enforce their will are just enforcing their stupidity. Anarchism means to love. Anarachism means to explode the tyranny of any saviour, and be yourself holistically. It means to be free from thought-control, and live by the dance of intuitive coherence and its synchronicities. It has no violence, supports no system, enrolls in no military, does not make of oneself an "agent" of a hypocritical thing, and has no indulgence at all in any form of racism whatsoever. Whatever you do, do it deeply, strongly, with quality, and in great quantities, perhaps. Quantities of quality! Not waiting to be "discovered", you let your own inner light guide you, and you do not regret if a university or a company or a newspaper or something else does not back you; for you have the authority of the quiet, compassionate heart, so your works have integrity and they will live, whereas those systems will whither, especially if they turn you down. That is a quiet law of life and it is inescapable. What has love and its beauty will endure. What others pay attention to is their business. You will find that which is absolutely independent of recognition by mums, dads, priests, gurus, friends and states. In standing alone, radiating truth, sensing joy in life, namelessly, you will open up to what sex really is. For the first time, perhaps; what was before was performance, sports. Then you can form amazing relationships, for you do not attempt to "handle" life, such as the cunning ones do, but rather life is dancing and you are this life, not cutting off. In having this loving logic of anarhcism others who are tuned to that mind-state will come along and you will enjoy each other and there will be much love. And this is not the self-indulgance of a "pair" or a "group", but rather that open-mindedness taken a step further. You as man will know that penetration of the woman is a reconnection of substance as well as essence, and this is a wonderful point of creation, a flow involving goodness and innocence, to be done as much as possible between free people who like each other, and without child-making as any necessity at all, of course. What has virtue, virginal virtue, is the orgasm based on compassion; not closing oneself of for the sake of some dark tradition. Combine yourself then so as to nurture the joys of each of your cells, of every organ, not just the physical organs, but your entire spiritual being, which ultimately has no end. You want it and you can get it. You have shamelessness and pulsating joy, an awe of the meditation inside and between the legs as well as inside and between the ears, and that is how the right others will feel when they watch you or are near you. It is exploding joy. Freedom is not to fulfill the criteria of others, not even your ballet teacher. You know that, right? Freedom requires immense energy, that of truth not thought. Do you see the difference? We all know of people, fortunately or unfortunately, who has glittering eyes and great passion but then switch, become borgouis, and they let not just you down, but themselves. If you tell them this in a careless tone they might turn you, the representant of life, into a temporary 'persona non grata' but really it means that they themselves have said good-bye to life. You win, and they wither. They wither not because you want them to wither, of course!, but because they do not respect life anymore. With luck, something will happen to them so that they become interested in life, not just status or prestige, again. But can anyone force them to do that? Obviously not. Compassion bears no lies except as jokes. Those who hypocritically associate with "right" people will get real sex only if they open up to truth again. And the option of opening up is now, in each moment. You can do it, you can open anywhere, at least briefly. You must want the magic to come out of this moment, and let the dance wave of all inner awareness manifest. In this, let us not say, "tomorrow", don't let time wait, but come on to time, now. You ask, maybe, "why?" And the why is a shock, it has no answer, you are questioning the habit of nonloving, of computerized behaviour. And in the question there is freedom, if only the question is listened to, attended to. You ask "why?" and since the ego has no answer, then, in that moment, the jewel of godhood manifests. You have the masculine power of touching another with sincere inner force and the feminine power of evoking the masculine to touch your inner organ of truth and lust. Your behaviour together is dance, and in being physically apart you still dance mentally together. As sex creates telempathy, or the radiating of empathy in a telepathic sense, your physical body is as if also within her or his awareness, and then wholeness is boundless. Even in walking down the street, you are as if copulating the world. This is godhood. There is no separation of God and sex. It shows the staleness of traditional religions that they even begun separating God and sex. Your body is the universe. The universe pulsates in orgasms as you pulsate in orgasms. In your silence the holiest of holy enacts itself. No socalled "spiritual hierarchy" can compete with the anarchy of orgasm and its logic, the sovereignity of the sexual, individualistic, playful outlook and insight into all life processes. An anarchist must ask: can I myself renew and accept that those who are not pantheists, that those who are bound by the false time of a false system die? Of course you can evoke you potential to heal, to suggest a pathway out from their hellish hierarchy to your paradisic anarchy. They will then perhaps come, perhaps not; and if not, they might die on their own accounts of their false actions, and can one accept this? Can you let those who say goodbye to life say it, and not say it yourself to your own life? Can you refuse to let the others pull you down to their rotten core? Can you stay grounded as an ever-renewing tree despite the seasons of others? This is the harsh but necessary question, that there must be somebody left to care for life, to care for the coming generations. Let them go if that is what they think they must, but do not go yourself, but stay tuned to life, stay dancing, stay rejoicing in breathing, pulsating, rhythm, tasting, eating, swallowing the joys of this wonderful planet. But you will not be unnecessarily harsh, right? A contemporary note. Before the Internet, anarchy mean having incredible faith int he validity of one's own papers, despite the brute use of money by those in power (when they decided to publish everything else). With the Internet, you can stand by your products in sincere generosity and offer the flow to the world, in silent compassion. This is a new factor in human consciousness and let's affirm that it will never vanish, but that unfiltered, free sharing, also of sexuality in the nonviolent, nonraping sense between consenting adults, and of absolutely free religious thoughts, of thoughts transgressing the stagnation of the university systems, and so on, -- let us affirm that such intellectual and sensual generosity will always be an option. Some might say to you, if you explore all these things, that you should lower oneself down, accept socialistic money as it were, wellfare or a shit job, or something like that. But they say it to you perhaps only because they try to convince themselves that their own shitty lifestyle is correct, and it has nothing at all to do with you. You have excellence if you let go of the soddy way to get money. And with compassion, it is possible to ask for gifts from those who have resources, and get it, so your body can renew and your house can be maintained, that you can travel and write and have fun as well as do good works and good talks. The right way to get any resources at all is to get it as gift to you as a person, a process, as someone who has integrity in bringing life and teaching together. You get it by sending out a general request while being in general generous, and let particulars dance without you concentrating on any one of them. I have literally done exactly this when I needed to upheld my writing and work in Manhattan, at a time when I had no apartement, no job, and no money left; not even a credit card or a working license. Of course, it worked. A simple anarchist, with the intelligence of compassion, can nonviolently destroy an entire university system, or any other system for that matter. It requires an arrow of logical insight that touches the anchor point in the system. It falls and quietly or noisely the rest of the system falls, before anyone (except you and your friends) know what happened. It is impossible to buy off an anarchist. He or she won't be flattened by lies, for the insightful penetration is too deep and too strong. Idiots march together, idiots march to a leaer, idiots become leaders, idiots like symmetries of compulsory order, and idiots throw geniuses out of their sect. "For idiots only": This ought to be the sign over the entrance-door of every hierarchical organisation. The top leader is the bottom idiot. Fanatism is not based on a relationship to facts, but on taking ideas more seriously than perception. If the world is rotten,cold, indifferent -- the manmade part of it, that is -- then one who is not fully willing to verbally, at least, express that fact and act on it with integrity is fanatical, is corrupt, is a hypocrite. Compassion involves being in touch with reality and with life, rather than defending rottenness in the name of humility. If it is arrogant to state the fact, so be it. Do not shroud falseness in a veil woven of politeness. Do not drink herbal tea with dictators hoping to to convert them to democracy. The cunning ones must get no energy at all from you. Look away from their newspapers, do not watch their TV channels, do not partake in gossip feeding their egoes. The anarchist does not live for effects, but for the content of this moment's meditative process. The whole notion of "anarchism" is freedom from bondage with regard to effects, realized, actualized, not as the practising of an idea, nor as the categorisation of oneself according to a label, going around and with ugly pride say, "I am an anarchist". It has nothing to do with that at all. It is about the abomination of self, and not with glorification of petty poets like Nietzsche. Some speak of how little time they have, how succesful they are, and give ghastly obnoxious comments on how deep their affection is for you or anyone else who stand outside of their system and range of control, and you are, of course, not flattered. You see through it, not impolitely, but directly. With gentleness but clarity, you point out that they lead false lives. When you have pain, give attention. If the pain is such that you get more of it when you give attention to it, give even more attention. To increase attention then, perhaps after a hot bath, by yourself, quietly lift a finger three times then wait then three then wait. In each lifting, move attention. It moves and heals, moves and heals. As it moves more and more and healing happens deeper and deeper, increase the interval. Leave then all repetitions, sit in silence. If you have a pen and like to write, write what comes to mind of positive remarks to yourself about something with wisdom. Then sit in silence. Let all violence within vanish. Let truth be love inside. Let the distinction inner - outer even vanish in your quietude, peace and eventually, perahsp, with luck, also bliss, joy and compassion. When you are utterly free from violence within, you know what love is. And you have stopped complaining, craving and recklessly wishing for support or proof of love from the world or even just a single other. Then you care for yourself holistically. Like an owen, your generosity radiates. As generosity radiates, out and out and out, you enhance your awareness that all life is one. You do not even eat chicken then, if that involves participation in felt violence for them. It is not fanatical, you simply love and pity too much. You can tell a professor who is corrupt to shut up but you don't even kill an insect. When you are confused, when you have read a little bit here and there about attention and so on -- 'presensing', God knows what -- then if you set up your own little magazine, company, club, school to teach it, you teach confusion. You add to the problems. You pretense of clarity is just a further pollution. To be clear, you must meditate. To meditate, the attention of every kind must be given, in movements. Each aspect of the confusion is present in any modality, touch, sound, rhythm and so on. Each has its own form of attention. Don't be attached to any one in particular. When the mind is whole and attention is vast, then attention heals or 'makes whole' as a matter of spontaneous movement. When the mind is cluttered, then we may say 'healing' and so on to remind ourselves of the capacity of attention to do just so. When we spend time enough in silence, we renew. Pain is not just physical but, in many cases at least, if not in all cases, a manifestation of subtle thought patterns. In the immediacy of flowing attention, the thought patterns are abstractly (as it were) moved, reorganized, and directly out of the perfume of attention, pain dissolves. As pain dissolves, the golden sphere of full attention re- emanates around the body. It expands and you are a sun to humanity. You do not need physical travel to do this; you do not need a physical sex partner to do this; you do not need money to do this; and if you do it, then the effortless inner love power emanating from you will call on whatever you require. Do what is effortless from where you are standing, and which is relevant to where you are going. And where you are going is where there is dancing wholeness in all areas of life. Is not pain a form of clash inside, diverting attention from itself? And so unless this is understood, then one acts in a stupid, imprecise manner, causing unnecessary damage. When one knows the unnecessity of pain, the much more intelligent power of compassion comes. This is the ending of violence. Before we look to the illusion of mathematics, the idiocy of fixing thought into a system, let us feel a breeze of its occasional greatness and subtle order. There we see that the future is a potential in change. That change is a reflection of symmetries and contrasts, and the unfoldment of a process a perspective, in change, on change. So by attention, limited to no place, you can deepdive into any place. And in deepdiving, be careful, and do come back to that marvellous temple that the body is. Creation emanates through an interplay of intelligences of a subtle order, in which all is meditating, pulsating, breathing on and through one another indefinitely and with inexhaustible energies, beyond any limited conception of time. Then see the danger of making a habit out of any set of perceptions. See the danger of erecting axioms, a fundament, a platou. See the danger of having unalterable rules. See the pompous pretense in speaking of 'proof' concerning what is really just an argument from premises, and a fallible argument as well. See the commonplace mistake of regarding anything spit out by these rules as necessarily true in any way. Some day human beings will probably leave Earth, perhaps out of a necessity related to conditions on Earth, to changes in the Earth's Sun, or just as an urge to get to somewhere else in the vast Universe, rather like a young woman who wishes to leave the parent's nest and open up. When this happens, then most likely it will involve technology of some kind that requires a pretty fierce insight into process of matter and reality. Science fiction writers indulge in the term "hypertravel", in which, by coherencies in which distance is not an issue, a rather instant though dangerous transmission could occur. Let us hope that technology of such a fruitful, even perhaps necessary kind, can be made without us first messing up life here. This, I guess, stated as positively as possible, we must all pray for. I can see that, therefore, fundamental physics as a pursuit can, one day, be intensely fruitful, even vital. As I've pointed out (see Wintuition:Net:Pro periodical and Yoga6d:Com periodical 2003/4), fundamental physics is an impulse that is so wrought with dangers that the mature individual would restrain that impulse in himself or herself. For just as an apparently innocent equation on energy, such as the wellknown one by Einstein, can become an instrument of global destruction half a century after its publication, so can new developments in fundamental physics yield even greater potential terrors, if possible. Meanwhile, the planet works, sort of. I suggest we give ourselves the leisure to step out of our little genes. Let us give ourselves freedom from all strife except the purely practical one, and each day devote time to spiritual revelation through openhearted meditation without a master. By 'freedom from philosophy' I do not mean freedom from what the word 'philosophy' means in its ethymological sense, namely 'love of sophia', or 'love of wisdom or the goddess of wisdom'. Rather, of course, I wish to indicate the importance of being free from any systematic approach to philosophy, and in particular, any philosophical system, ideology or ideosyncracy. Some time ago, I thought that by exploring worldviews, through science and philosophy, much in the world would be changed, and people would be heightened in their awareness of enlightenment potentials. A philosophical system can be switched with another, and people may spend tremendous energy in fighting one and building up a new. And now I ask: Is it really worth the while? Does it go to the core? Will a switch from say, a local deterministic worldview to a nonlocal and open worldview do away with the ego? Obviously not! For the ego is a much more subtle matter and it requires a great deal of exploration and self-insight to maintain that freedom in a mature sense. Then, those of a different inclination will inevitably object along these lines: But surely it is better than nothing to swap a stagnant worldview preventing enquiring, preventing even the idea of enlightenment from appearing rational, to a different, more open worldview. Say, for instance, in a classroom of pupils. If they get a sense of potentials for inner freedom they will be encouraged to explore and so on. And I wonder, perhaps there is no progression, step by step, to enlightenment. Okay, so you're an atheist, then what? WIll not the hole in the ego that a sudden penetrating meditation gives be at least as powerful in this context as the hole made in the ego of one who has a more foggy and open worldview? Is the priest, preaching his illusions, and that of his organisation, any closer to enlightenment than a scientist who believes that experiments on rats show all there is to say about the world? Do we get closer to enlightenment by going from the philosophical system of Aristotle to the philosophical system of Shankara or Spinoza? I know of eminent thinkers who have spent considerable time together with people who has devoted themselves to meditation. Did the meditation of these people flow into these thinkers, somehow? Surely the thinkers thought new thoughts but did the playfulness and deep-attentiveness as if fly into them for that reason? According to legends, the mere presence of an enlightened one will change others. But if a self-centered person is in a forest, will the forest enlighten this person? Obviously not. Just as there is a legend about the disciples of the Buddha engaged in hefty quarrel, not letting the Buddha even have a word when he came around to listen to them! So a system may give detailed information on the types of feelings, thoughts, etc, that characterize freedom or awakening. Will that systematic philosophy set even a single person free? Is it not the so that, metaphorically speaking, there are prisons of quasi- or near-enlightenment outside one another, and that by going from one to another there is still the confinement of the ego and no freedom? So does it matter to replace one system of philosophy by another? Is it not the question of getting out of conclusion and even hidden dogma altogether? If you really love truth or wisdom, then that love is an energy unconfinable to the cage of a system. The in-betweenness is God, isn't it? Every man lusts for the in- betweenness of female legs. Every discussion partner wants the in- betweenness of dialogue to arise. A human society without in- betweenness is a machine. Just as certainly, a logic without in- betweenness is dull, a tautology, incapable of reflecting the genius, incapable of representing deep change. Dance occurs in between the poles erected as markers for time and space, location and destiny. Freedom lives in being unbounded in feeling and thereby also in perception and so also in action, unbounded from all the points of either-or-ness as of a stagnant discipline. The reason, I guess, one should not drink alcohol regularly is that one must not loose memory of the important nuances of in- betweenness that makes dialogue a high-powered energy thing. If you are in love with somebody, what is it except the in- betweenness you get an energy kick from? Do you love the account number? Do you love the waist-line? Or is it the dance of in- betweenness that awaken you to yourself? If you are absolutely awakened to your own in-betweenness, and you meet somebody else who is absolutely awakened to her or his in- betweenness, then there is immortal, indestructible love. Which means that if everyone awakens, then everyone is in love with every onelse. Okay, that must mean that marriage and child-making and so on cannot be determined only by love, because there is just too much love around. And it is part of awakening not to be jealous of all that, but support the mutuality and in-betweenness of love. When you have love, you see the truth of something, even the truth in the falseness. So in your perception, there is beauty. And so you experience a world of beauty being intensely aware of all that is going on without justifying corruption. When you look closey as to that which pass as "proofs" in the present culture of academic logic, you may find that much of it doesn't hold up. Take, for instance, the socalled "reductio ad absurdum" proofs. We start with an assumption that we think is wrong, bring forward an absurdity, and go back and conclude that the assumption is proved wrong. What is wrong with that? That which may be wrong with that is exactly the same kind of thing as when as scientist tries to apply Karl Popper's notion of "falsification". Say, you wish to test a theory. So you deduce an implication, and go to the laboratory, and you find that the research brings up a negative result. Any sane, decent scientist can tell you that it takes a lot more to do anything near of a "falsification" of a theory. Because there may be any number of mistakes in the background web of assumptions, as well as in the line from theory to experiment. In academic logic as it has been practised in the twentieth century, you often find that the works are unquestioningly arguing that they know exactly where it went wrong, when they get an absurdity. Examples may be misleading but if you have ever had a fractal pattern on a computer screen, generated by a program online, so you may magnify any part of it indefinitely, you have a sort of example of this. Suppose your assumption is, "if I magnify the fractal pattern I will see new, and not quite similar, patterns, however much I enlarge." So you pick a part of the factal and magnify. Then you might or might not get a new pattern. You have not "falsified" your assumption if you don't get it. If the program is correctly made, and if you use it correctly, then you may have magnified a non-border path of the fractal. It is only in being precise in where you look that you get a "verification". However, if you are a person with plenty of reading behind you, then you may know of typical pathways in thinking about these issues. You do not do the "lateral thinking" that Edward de Bono talks about, then, unless you consciously take the stand of the outsider, questioning everything. Krishnamurti had the genius to take again and again the "outsider" stand, but people within his organisation, like former Brockwood head Scott Forbes, started sometimes to act like "insiders". Only the fool is an insider. As in the case of the fractal, people have come to disregard a vast range of naturally occuring phenomena like telepathy for a long time, simply because they didn't get it to work in their crude and off-the-point initial experiments. Intelligence is a question of being suddenly precise, as a matter of perception that is not merely the dictate of the past and its systems, experiences, failures, successes and loyality concepts. You must step outside of the groove of a particular system of logic to do right to the inner order or analogy or "logos" of the situation, which is its logic proper. Each question ultimately has its own logic. I will, for once, give a rather morbid example. A close friend of mine had an argument with me in a car one night, in which he said, along with his buddhist friends, that "we're all mortal", and that this is something one must remember all the time, and so on. I didn't like his tone and I offered the to him rather preposterous view that "that is an assumption, even a prejudice". He is generalizing from other's morbidity, in the past, to his own in the future. This generalization cannot be verified. But worse, of course, he is emphasizing it, thinking it would clarify his rather confused life at the time if he kept on thinking about it. The example is morbidfor not only did he refrain from answering my calls after that, but half a year later he died in a street accident on a holiday with his buddhistic girlfriend. So a person must take responsibility for the kind of life he is generating through his assumptions, perceptions, logic, compassion and his language. Those who emphasize morbidity a great deal may wither away more quickly, perhaps in anticipation, perhaps in affirmation. I think greatness involves living life profoundly, and not be so selfcentered that the on-off of birth vs death is one's constant concern. Logic is also a question of polarities, of logic. Sharp use of logic dcan slash another's sloppy use of logic, but then somebody must be there to read both and do so objectively, dispassionately, and in perceptiveness of the background web of assumptions called on by both. Does this make any sense to you? Do you have the compassion of wakefulness to abide by clear thinking for its own sake? I think that the world, for many, is a structure of disappointment, guilt, shame, revenge, and so on. I wish to say that there is only one contrast to this, and that is infinite self- insight. I love that which has no opposites? No matter how we might feel in drugged states, then it is the life feeling we wake up with that we can profoundly explore and radically transform by the attention that is called 'meditation'. Those who go to a psychologist are obviously not artists. An artist is obviously one who has no need for someone to console his or her hurts, give a pill, become cold, attempt "normality" and other confusions. An artist basing his or her artworks on a life dullened by a psychologist, priest or guru is a fake, and ought to explore masterless meditation. Without a technique, life, daily life, can become a fearless ebb and flow of meditation. Those who live by assumptions are fakes, no matter what they do. Somebody who thinks that the world is more or less "rational", is wasting his or her life into supporting it or perhaps modifying it. What is not a waste? Love. But then people confine love perhaps into a belief,k in God or Jesus or Mohammad, or into the companionship with another. Really, the core of a belief is cold indifference to life. In enquiring meditatively into love, as with any other question, we can solve all problems, open up and face all challenges. And then there is an art of negation. We must not wait with solving the last of our confusions until we have got "recognition", "marriage", "confirmation", "status", whether through education or in some other manner. And since life is something wholly other than movies and cartoons, the language or logic of life and exploration into love, the language of our endavour of insight, must be based not on movies, cartoons or on mere "manners of talking". For we have a life to live, and to live it fully, sensing its infinity, we need a certain dynamic, living, warmhearted precision, abiding in the moment, through its tranquility and spontaneous expression of the heart. Then we are poets, and artists, whether or not we paint pictures or make verses. Don't accept it, enquire into it. When our feelings are clogged so the logic of the mind will suffer. Then intense quietness is required. Attention emphasises healing, the thinker moves out of its monotonies, and attention goes in circles, spirals, evolutions. You should not, perhaps, act aggressively towards anyone "of the system" as long as you struggle with yourself, and when you have love, you have nonaggressive means: speaking precisely, nonaggressively, is enough. For even one true sentence, spoken by one who lives in truth, can change the world. Thought is part of the world, but the world is bigger than thought. Truth is that field of relationship, or the lack thereof, between thought and the world, and this truth is always self- reflective. For thought is part of the world so the dance of relationship between thought and the world is also part of the world. Then truth exists as part of the world, the dynamic field of interconnectedness. Is sex not based when all the world is loved, for you have penetrated your own pains and their grounds with your meditative attention? So sex is about meditation, and, as I pointed out in my first little book(let), "Sex, meditation and physics", there is nothing like sex when it is founded on an insight into the nonlocal interconnectedness of all reality. Then sex is like a ballet of the spirits, whether it happens in couples or not. With the reality of telempathy, even in self-sex, you can partake in a world of sex and orgasms, as you meditate and have sex with yourself. The presence of another individual in this, beyond questions of hetero, homo, bi, iso, or pan-phili (iso- meaning the same), involves such an intense shared joy that it is also a danger. For if the other person, unlike you yourself, perhaps, have not come to live in such ecstasies by himself or herself, then what will be generated except almost infinite attachment? And attachment is within the field of the known. So if you come to be a tantric expert, then you live in daily sexual energy ecstasies beyond technique or partner, and then you must take care also not to scorn anybody with unbearably joyous sex, the type of joy that maybe they do not recover from even after half a century with other partners. Realistically, the ultimate of sexual joys need be shared with enlightened partners, basically of the complementary gender (not emphasizing the point, since both masculine and feminine roles can be played and enjoyed by every flexible ego). THE HOPE FOR PANTHEISM Chapter 1 / You have entitled these discussions 'The hope for pantheism'. Could you briefly explain what you mean by this? : Yes. There are certain features of atheism that cause people to feel inclined towards it. It promises a certain relief from dogma and stagnated viewpoints. However, atheism -- the denial of godhood in our reality -- leads to no deep sense of meaning. For those who seek both an end to dogma and also a sense of a higher guidance, of a not quite defined sort, pantheism offers hope. This is to put it very simply. It really deserves a whole book, at least. / But to get started, what do you mean by pantheism? : First of all, I see pantheism as points of views that are loosely connected, perspectives that each stand by themselves or by your own individual understanding. Any kind of -ism may be a limitation. However, pantheism is not at present associated with any strict set of dogma. It suggests something religious, the 'theism' part; and it suggests that this has something to do with everything or all, the initial, 'pan' part. Any dictionary would tell you this. / Why is there a hope associated with this? : Originally, in many religious texts, talk of God means talk of the infinite or indefinite, that which is beyond image and thought, that which goes beyond our egos entirely. The mysterious, the unknown; which nevertheless can be sensed, somehow. Then, in various religions, people, icons, names and even places and institutions were asserted to have a particular affinity to godhood, to God. Pantheism is a much more promising approach, for it is free from the elitism associated with these dogmatic forms. It also seems to be more realistic, both scientifically and intuitively -- and of course, this is something we must look carefully into. If it is merely anti-elitist, or anti-this or anti- that, then it is not a viable position in itself. But pantheism is more an approach to life as a mysterious, great whole, a whole in which we are in a neverending quest. But it is also a whole in which we can find fulfillment, fulfillment of constantly new kinds. Pantheism suggests very creative living, it suggests an exploration of meditation and intuition but also of science and psychology, of technology and literature; it suggests that there can be something godlike in our relationships as well. And anyone who comes from a religious background will be aware of statements of this sort in every religion. So everyone will find something here. / Why hasn't pantheism caught on by itself, then, before now? : Would you prefer a God you have a clearcut name for, and a clearcut image of, or would you prefer a God who is a mystery? Or none at all? If you have a definite image of God, or declare that you do not believe in the existence of any kind of God or Allah or Samadhi or Brahman or Jahve or whatever, then you have a certainty, there is the question of trust, of getting something definite -- like being married. Pantheism, or pan-en-theism, panentheism meaning God-in-all, is much more of a blur, initially. So it is harder to understand. It is tougher to live with a lot of undefined relationships, it appears. And yet, when we accustom ourselves to it, it turns out that this works even better. / But in the way in which you present pantheism, it would seem that the natural transgression would be from a particular religion to pantheism, rather than through atheism? : It could be that way. But when people have spent a lot of energy, perhaps also blood and tears, in a particular direction and it somehow doesn't seem to work out, then is it really so strange that we get a period with the opposite kind of view? The tendency is to make up for the years of suppression with the possibility that most of their religion may be based on illusions. / So after a religion, atheism may seem promising... : Yes. And then atheism, of course, has its own set of very strong problems. But these problems are different. It is no longer a question of how close one is to belief, how righteous one is. Rather, the question is whether the kinds of pleasures and securities offered to others are also offered to oneself, and what one can do to get more of it, and so on. It is really a political development. Atheism leads to political engagement. Then, when all this gets profoundly boring -- but there are a lot of possible pathways here, and so it takes more time to get bored with it! -- when it finally gets boring, pantheism is an option. It is the third state. / The first state being religion of a definite kind, the second state atheism. And the third is pantheism. Is this the final stage? : That would depend on how open we make the definition of this term. We can make it narrow and then it will be merely one stage among more stages to come. We can -- and this is my approach here - - keep the term so open that it is the logical third complementary approach to the first two. The definite religions of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism and so on all have their opposite in a rigid denial of the possibility of anything beyond matter and physically measured energy being real. Both of the first stages are rigid, but opposite in that the first insists on the reality of something infinite, and the second reverses this belief. The opposite of this rigidity is something like pantheism, in which a sense of the invisible is kept open, even nourished, as a trust, but no definite images are made. Before we go on, I would like to say that since atheism is in many ways equally rigid in adherence as a religion, it is not strange that we see all kinds of alternations between the two. For instance, after being bored with atheism, one may come to a religion; then, being bored with both of these approaches, pantheism may appear. / Okay. I have two questions now. The first is, isn't pantheism as you describe it very close to Buddhism and to Daoism? And the second question is, are you using the word 'pantheism' in an unusual sense? Usually, it is suggested that pantheism is a denial of the possibility of a God that stands outside of reality. Pantheism, it says in some books, I believe, means that God is simply our reality. : Let us take the last question first. Pantheism as defined by people who adhere to a definite religious system is often presented that way, but the roots of the word are simply, as said, 'all' and 'God'. There is no sense of exclusion of the possibility of a God outside of reality at all. Rather, it is simply an assertion that there is a presence of this God-sense everywhere, but certainly not to the denial of a transcendent God. As I use the term, and as I think many others who are not out to attack the term would use it, pantheism (including panentheism) supports all possibilities of transcendent Gods, as long as reality gets its share. Now to answer the first question, about Buddhism and Daoism. I am willing to say that every religious system I know of not only has elements which are pantheistic, but they can also be given interpretations which are almost completely pantheistic. For some religious systems, such as Christianity according to Martin Luther, this takes a lot of work, and the results may not be all that convincing. For other religious systems, such as Buddhism and Daoism, the pantheistic interpretations arise far more easily. Yet, when someone adheres to Buddhism, it typically involves a lot more of a fixed, definite, even organized kind of interpretation than what we would here like to associate with pantheism. But if someone begins, let's say, with Buddhism and comes to be pantheistic in this sense, we could call it something like 'pantheistic/buddhist'; and then we can have 'pantheistic/daoist' and so on. But if you make the last part of the couple rigid -- the 'buddhist' or the 'daoist' part -- then the first part, the 'pantheistic' part disappears. For pantheism cannot embrace, support or encourage rigid approaches. / Okay. The stage is set for our book of discussions about the hope for pantheism. Chapter 2 / I wish to address the question of belonging. : Belonging, yes. / For we would hardly have religions -- nor nations, for that matter -- unless human beings sought to be together and felt something about being together and labeling this association. : Okay. / So can pantheism answer that? : Answer the question of belonging? / Yes. : Certainly. I feel it can. The sense of trust, the sense of being connected to life -- we all want that. It is far deeper than any of the signs or symbols connected to a particular religion. And yet, we must also very carefully look into the backgrounds for loneliness. We may be plagued by loneliness for reasons connected to our illusions. When these illusions are uprooted, I think we can come to new forms of belonging, which do not depend on a fixed religion. Is this too complex to discuss already in the beginning of the book? / It may be, but let us try. You say that loneliness may be the reason we seek forms of belonging? : Of course. Loneliness is, or can be, a very painful thing; it is, by some, perhaps by most, dreaded. Writers may feel that they are not lonely when they write well, the flow of the writing has its own company of imagined beings, as it were. I have heard a painter friend of mine, Frans Widerberg, say the same about the flow of painting. It is as if a society of beings exists associated with the painting. Creative people -- and we are all creative, in our essences, as children all are -- can then feel an easing of loneliness by other activities than by directly associating with them. And this is involved in belonging. I can imagine a dogmatic Christian taking refuge in re-reading stories of biblical characters over and over again. The comfort of the known provides a rhythm to daily life. Then, occasionally, he or she will meet with other people of similar faith and the feeling is strengthened even more. Bohm, the physicist, called this a 'collusion' -- a shared illusion. / Why is this an illusion? : I am not saying it is always an illusion. I don't think a writer, painter, or artist in general can be said to make illusions, at least not to him or herself. They are aware that they themselves are in some sense originators. But when we take these stories, and the symbols, the signs, and the forums we make, the churches and the institutions, to be somehow real, as existing 'out there', then it becomes a question of illusion or collusion. / So? What is the importance of that? : An illusion is pleasant to some extent but it is also immensely painful, at least in two ways. One of the pains happens concurrently with the pleasure, but is hidden underneath it, as it were: the pain of not being connected to reality, to life. You know, at some deep level, that you are fooling yourself if you feel you are. And so there is pain involved here. Someone watching the faces of people in a group where there are plenty of illusions can surely read out pain there: certain asymmetries and so on, suggest that there is nothing like deep happiness in it, except, perhaps in glimpses. But those glimpses may come from other reasons than those they would like to think. A man sees a pretty face at a Christian summer camp and feels a surge of joy inside, and says, "Oh, I am so in love with Jesus!". But really he may be in love with that face, and the prettiness of that face may in fact invoke real joy in him. The other kind of pain associated with illusions comes later -- when the illusions break down. They have a tendency not only to break down but to break down violently. Like preventing a river from flowing -- it justs keeps growing until it overflows anyway. An illusion is a kind of blocking of life and life won't have that. A Buddhist would say it is 'bad karma'. / So you say we must be free from illusions, somehow. Will this lead to a sense of increased belonging, you think? : Well, not automatically, perhaps. But if we want a kind of belonging that is real I think we must go to pantheism. The belonging in question is the belonging to life as a whole, not broken up in particular groups, associations, clubs, or connected to particular slogans, books, institutions, stories and so on. And it is possible to anchor oneself in this belonging and so it will keep feeding good situations, where we do in fact relate to people, to books, to institutions, but there is fundamentally no such thing as a strong illusion in it. Rather, the freedom is complete at an individual level and so the whole spirit of life in the person is adequate to live at a religious level. A mere 'member of a group' does not have much affinity to reality, but is a slave to illusions and their present and future pains. These members of groups may have to engage in drugs of various kinds to lessen their pains. The real belonging starts in being free from illusions. I think we must enquire a lot more in order to come to a greater clarity in expressing this. It is important. It is for later chapters. Chapter 3 / We left last time with a sense that more has to be said about the notion of belonging. : You know, the word 'religion', as it exists in English, draws on Latin roots which seem to mean something like belonging, or a 'binding back', a connection back to the whole. I must say something personal at this stage, for after all, we are not pursuing pantheism or the religious sense of life merely as intellectuals. We pursue it, if we pursue it at all, as human beings with hearts, and we have lives to live, and we won't let ourselves down. So the question you must ask, I feel, if you may let me point it out, is: What does pantheism really lead to? Is there ecstasy, life, love, hope, compassion in it? Is it a real life, or is it not? / Okay. Your passion for pantheism must have be grounded. Is it real? What does it lead to? I throw the question back to you! : Thank you. Yes, pantheism -- the word may not be the thing, it is merely a pointer -- but anyhow, what I mean by pantheism really works. It is a life in ecstasy, in a sense of wholeness, participation, great beauty. I am speaking from personal experience. There is a great deal of psychological subtlety to get into it. / What do you mean? : Suppose we read a book like J. Krishnamurti's "Freedom from the known", which has a number of viewpoints and questions. Let us say that we have read it, and let us say that "we agree". This is hypothetical. The book is very close to something like pantheism anyway. But we simply agree. Then what? / I don't quite follow. What are you really asking? : I am asking for the validity of agreeing about a number of viewpoints. In this realm, that is of a certain value but it is not of a great value. / What is it that might have great value, then? Meditation? : Let us move slowly. If intellectual agreement is not enough, what is enough? / Enough for what? A spiritual life? : Let us keep the words simple. Enough to live with a sense of the religious, beyond any system, beyond any dogma. To have that sense of life as a whole, so that when we walk down the street, we might as well be dancing, for the love is in the limbs -- the sense of life dancing. That sense. Happiness. Joy. Intellectual agreement is okay but it isn't enough for that. Right? / Well, Aristoteles spoke of the joy of intellectual understanding, didn't he? : It may occur. I wish to enquire a little more deeply though. If we have a set of points of views about pantheism, will that make us sense the spiritual aspect of life by itself? Or must we come to a deeper kind of change than mere agreement? / Deeper, of course. : Yes, but what kind of deeper change? If intellectual understanding is not enough, if agreement is not enough, what is really enough? / Dedication, perhaps? : A passion, a dedication. Is that enough? / Is it enough for you? : I wish to avoid answering the question directly and merely point out that our organism, the human body, the human being as a whole, is far more than mere intellect. There is passion, there is practice, decisions, how you make decisions. There is a whole life. And pantheism, the living in accordance with godhood, requires something on all these levels. Exactly what? Let us find out, let us circle around it and sometimes dip deeply into it, and learn more and more. I think everybody can come to it, no matter background, age or present life situation. Chapter 4 / Pantheism -- the word seems to suggest that God or godhood, at least, is everywhere. God is also in human beings. Is that so? And if it is so, why is there so much hatred, bitter conflict; why are there wars every year? What is the solution to all of this? : I feel, instinctively, that somehow, we will come to pantheism and we will leave nationalism and the rigid adherence to any symbol system behind. As to wars, nations -- the very idea that there are nations -- tend to upset emotions. "Do not invade our territory!" "We have the right to defend ourselves -- if so by preemptive attack!" And all that. If we had cities and loose confederations of cities with no authority to any King or President at all, then we would only have to defend this open democracy of cities, we would not have the artificially erected barriers of nations, which are really arbitrary groups of cities. / Do you feel that democracy has anything to do with pantheism? : Well, loosely so, I do. Pantheism suggests that there is a decentralized power, in a sense -- if God is everywhere, it or she or he is also everywhere in the body, in the brain cells, in all the neurons. So psychologically it is a whole-body approach. But if God is everywhere, God is also in every person, somehow, everywhere. And we must somehow let this godhood speak through everyone and not overrule anyone by military power. The freedom to think, to be in dialogue, to express a variety of opinions, to engage in actions that do not harm other living beings, and so on - - if we mean this kind of thing with democracy, then this seems to be the kind of society and globally loose structure we need. / What if someone wants to grab power in a limited area? Would there be a planet police or something? : Let us not be unrealistic. Some kind of a police system seems to be called for, -- even in a healthy body, the immune system is there, right? And it is, in fact, a little active all the time, due to natural radiation and such. This little activity keeps it awake. Now if people are not treated violently when they speak their opinions, against the structures of power and so on, if there is real democracy of some kind, and not dictatorship, not fascist or a fascistoid regime, then do we not want some kind of as-little- violence-as-possible way of defending this? And this would be some kind of police. However, they, too, must have rules under which they act, and these rules must be very carefully looked at, and openly revised. I favour Aikido in what it claims to be able to do in terms of nonviolence; to defend without engaging in violence but rather through intelligent action seems right. / Before we leave this theme, do you think a dictatorship can be rightly invaded by democratic regimes from the outside? : As you state the question, completely free from alternative interpretations of the situation, I am inclined to answer 'yes' if by 'invasion' we mean 'non-violent invasion'. That is, if people from the outside can help people free themselves of a militant paranoid suppressive regime, that's good; however it may be that the situation can be seen correctly from other perspectives in which such an invasion is asking for a lot of trouble. / Let us turn our attention to the idea of God or godhood as being within, somehow, also all people. How can we both think this and also realistically appreciate all the brutal, violent, ungodly activities human beings have partaken in? : It is very simple. You may have a Mozart record and a record player, and yet you may not play it. It is there, it is a potential. But the record player may be out of tune and produce only noise, for instance. The reality of something divine is still there. The fact that we do not see it -- in a butcher like Hitler, who, with his acting capabilities, seemed to seduce millions into believing in his powers for a few years, it is hard to see any trace of godhood. In such an individual, the ego is making noise, it may be quasi-clever noise, noise that works for a little while, then the noise becomes self-destructive and it all ends. / So to come to a Pantheistic sense of other people, we must look 'under their skin', so to speak? : We must look pretty deeply. The atheists don't really look deeply, because they have concluded that what appears to the senses, more or less, is all that exists. Then they may have personal opinions, and shallow stupid concepts like 'tolerance' become all-important. When atheists talk about 'love' it is little more than I-me-mine having sensual experiences, desires, passions, and grieviances in relation to another. It is all very self- centered and the atheist begs for tolerance from others to keep on being self-centered. A Pantheist is not someone who has hatred against the self, but a Pantheist has the joy of seeing so much more all the time. / Next time we will ask about that, shall we? The joy of seeing more -- of seeing the invisible. : Okay. Chapter 5 / Seeing the unseen. Watching the invisible. Sensing that which is beyond the senses. It sounds like a string of paradoxes -- and yet it is not, according to the mysticists of all ages. Yet what is mysticism? And what is its connection to pantheism? And how, above all, do we come to achieve this? : If I may point out, it is possible to tune the mind so that it takes in reality more as a dance than as bits and pieces of information. This dance contains information of a kind that goes beyond the senses. This dance guides the mind of the Pantheist. It is a dance which is like the moment in tennis in which everything is right -- effortlessly -- the ball is hit in the perfect manner, and it is a perfect shot though it seemed impossible, more or less, to achieve it. Suddenly it all comes together. Then there is dance, and this is a state of mind of meditation, the state of mind which a Pantheist must seek. How does it arise? Let us enquire into it. / Is there no paradox to you in the statements, 'seeing the unseen' and so on? : The paradox is only there if you do not switch context when you go from the first part of the sentence to the last. The first part contains the word 'seeing'. So the context here is seeing with the mind, seeing as sensing very deeply. The last part of the sentence contains the word 'unseen'. That is in the context, of course, of what is seen and unseen by the eyes. So, when you interpret it, 'seeing with the mind (what is) the unseen by the eyes', you see that there is no paradox. / But speak of the state of mind of the Pantheist. Does he or she see everyone as having a God-glimmer? A God-light? And what is 'God' or 'godhood' anyway, to the Pantheist? : Now you're asking. The state of mind is lucid, illuminated, of course. The enlightened mind has love for all but may act strongly when required. The love for all is, we might say, the 'pan- compassionate' state of mind. When we all feel that we stem from the same source -- as Charlie Chaplin said, that the force of life in the saps of the trees is the same in all human beings -- then it is not difficult to feel a love for the essence, so to speak, for all. At least verbally. We can assert, 'everyone is good deep down', and then be aware of how this depth has been covered up with ego-elements, preventing this compassion from flowering. / What, exactly, prevents compassion from flowering? Is it fear? : Fear, rage, loneliness, desire, but, deeper than all that, it is the stagnation of not meditating. The sages all speak of that -- the importance of solitude, and of being creative in that solitude. You go into your own chamber, if you have one -- or make a circle in the sand if you live outdoors! And in that circle, in that chamber, you engage, creatively, in some activity that encites the mind to its own infinite dance. Now you asked, "What is God?" / Yes. : Have you got the answer? / You mean right now? I have a sense of it, perhaps. : Which is what? / A sense of this love. : So that's that. God is love, love is God. But you may want to push it, "What is God? What is godhood? Is it really that? Is it this? Is it a being?" Now what do you think? / What do you see? : We can talk about that later, but what do you think God is? / I don't know. : Which is, by the way, not such a stupid starting-point. The Cloud of Unknowing, wrote the mysticist Meister Eckhardt, where there is no image, not even a knowing of God, there God is. Now, if we really want to pursue the possibility of whether God is a being, whether there are beings, such as angels, and an archbeing, or two archbeings, or whatever, how shall we go about it? / Well, how can we enquire into that which we do not see? : We must develop powers of intuition -- or else rely on the verdicts of others. Which do you prefer? / Intuition! : So, this is something a Pantheist must work at. You see, it is here also we come to the question of faith. For intuition may be that subtle whispering from godhood beyond, or within, ourselves. And if we have no faith we have no intuition, perhaps. It is the believing person that has this intelligence. / That is the opposite of what Jiddu Krishnamurti said in "Freedom from the known", by the way. I wouldn't have mentioned that unless you yourself hadn't mentioned this book in our previous conversation. : Again, let us remember that that which may seem to be opposite, contradictory, or paradoxical, may not be so if we switch the context. Krishnamurti was an artist within his own context, which he changed a little every decade, but it was fairly clear. Belief for him was a no-go, and he would never publish a book in favour of any -ism. But this stance on words may not be as fruitful as we would like to think. Belief certainly has other senses than the narrow ones that he ascribed to it. Pantheism is an -ism that certainly can open up the mind to a transformation akin, perhaps, to the one Krishnamurti talked about. However much I fancy some of his texts, and his great energy in pursuing a set of questions, I must confess that I find my own intuition whispering to me that he was not quite transformed; that he indeed had fears himself; and that his language was not as fruitful as it could have been. However, he is miles ahead of those whom he found it natural to criticise, such as Osho, charismatic Christians, and so on. / So you say that pantheism involves a belief? : Why can't we say that? A belief in that which is beyond, and which is somehow life-affirmative, intelligent. Something that we can listen to and work with, learn to work with. In our daily lives. So that we reshape our lives into greater and greater artworks, each day. : We must come back to these questions, also the question of God and godhood, and how to develop intuition -- in later chapters. Chapter 6 / We must explore happiness, joy, I feel. Because this is a theme that perhaps occupies a great deal of those who wish to explore a new spiritual path. Is there a promise of happiness in pantheism? I would like us to enquire into it afresh, bring up new issues, show how pantheism really can be viable. How are we going to get into this theme? : It is easy. Begin with your worldview. How you see people, how you see life. Do you see it as a whole or as broken up? Reflect on it, don't answer immediately. Whole or broken up? A flowing whole, or bits and pieces here and there, and the 'I' solidly in the centre? Reflect on your worldview. Everyone has one, it may be subconscious or partially conscious or fully conscious, perhaps. Let us make it conscious! / Why should making oneself aware of one's worldview make such a big difference? : Here's a visualization for you. Imagine all living beings everywhere as made of a living kind of gold. / Gold. : Quite, gold! / Why gold? : Because we are picking a mineral of a noble kind, which shines more or less like very healthy skin shines -- different colours depending on the angle of light and viewpoint. It is a document of health to have a golden radiance. Let us imagine every living being -- as gold. A living gold, a moving gold. And let that sense of the universe come into the mind and its emotions and feelings about the world more and more. Vaguely imagine everyone transmuted into a happy, living kind of gold. Yourself as well. Do you get it? Feel it? / Something feels different, yes. : So that's pantheism! / Why? : It is a change of worldview. It is not an 'I', ashamed of itself, with its own stinking ambitions, condemning and being condemned, and all that. Man vs. woman, child vs. adult, adult vs. old, this group vs. that group, this nation vs. that nation, this religion vs. that religion. We are beyond that in our visualization, in our fresh worldview: we see each human being, and each living being generally, as somehow godlike. / Suppose I say: This is a nice visualisation, sure, but I like to keep my feet on the ground. : So what is it to keep your feet on the ground? Stick to what you see with the eyes? / Something like that. : And I would like to question that. I say, what the eyes take in is suited to the needs of the body, in an immediate physical sense, to take care of oneself. The eyes have been developed through millions of years of natural evolution -- I am not saying there have been no spiritual hands in this evolution, but much good science suggests strongly that millions of years of evolution have indeed happened. It doesn't have to be Darwin only. It can be much more refined. But evolution has happened and so we have eyes and ears and fingers and so on which are tailor-made by this evolution. And the question is not to be a slave to them, but to see their role. / And what is the role of the senses if not to show us what the world is like? : The role of the senses is to show us what the world is like only inasmuch as we need it for physical survival. To see the world as it is we must close our eyes. We must go beyond the mechanisms that we have abstracted through our senses. / Why? : Because that which comes in by the senses is just a partial reflection. So when we visualize every living being as light, as gold, as -- whatever, goodness, love, liquid diamonds -- then we are pretending to have senses that can see the wholeness of life instead of the contrasts, the pieces. And maybe we do have such senses. / We do have such senses as can see pantheism? : Well, we might have senses which enable us to see the world as a whole, subtle senses, refined senses, senses made of subtle matter, which are able to provide a sense of grounding for pantheism -- and maybe for much more. And this, I would claim, is to have one's feet on the ground. To realize the limitation of the sensory organs and then proceed to investigate how the mind can feel the world as a whole, beyond the senses. / It sounds like hypnosis. : So maybe we are hypnotized, by Kant, by our sensory organs, by Plato, by Shankara, by God-knows-who, and we need a counter- hypnosis. We need to dehypnotize ourselves I would say. And by suitable visualizations, we can reach the essence. Chapter 7 / I wish to address the question of good and evil in relation to pantheism. Of course, as Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel has pointed out, it seems more difficult to believe in God in light of the atrocities committed, for instance in the second World War. For how can a God permit this, if God is almighty and also good? Wiesel has asked whether God has given up on us, given humanity up. Could it be? : Well, we are still around, aren't we? So there must be more chances. / Does pantheism offer any solutions other than that we have been given up, or that God does not exist? : Of course. You only have to go to the Dutch philosopher Spinoza to get a sense of a solution. As he puts it, we are the hands of God. Unless we realize our authentic nature, which is ultimately one with godhood, we will not act out this authenticity. And not acting from our source, from our origin, is how he defines evil. Evil and good are thereby not symmetric, you see. Good is the wholesome action, the whole action, the action that comes from the whole of yourself. But evil is a fragmented action, it flows from a little part of yourself, and the solution lies in becoming whole again. / How can this be achieved? : This takes meditation, it takes creative work where we distill that which is the most whole about ourselves and stick to that, no matter how much of a storm of events there may be around you. / But more precisely, what is the solution to the problem of a good and almighty God, permitting the atrocities? : Let us enquire. When a body has an infection, what does it do? / It enhances its temperature and does other things which puts the immune system into action. : Right. So gradually, but not at once, the infection is gotten rid of. First the body does things to enhance its own strength, and it learns about the nature of the virus or whatever. Then it acts, more and more directly to get rid of it. Usually it succeeds. Yet, an infection is not entirely what we would call 'evil', right? It is an abberation, in a sense, but it is also part of life. It is a question of a certain limited wholeness of the virus or whatever, against the greater wholeness of the body and the family to which that body belongs and so on. / The greater wholeness wins? : Well, not always. It is also a question of what we mean by 'greater'. But now let us consider the notion of war. Imagine that God exists and has the capacity to stop people from, say, enrolling as soldiers into that war. How should God go about doing it? Let us give you the role of God for a day. How would you do it? / Hm. Let's see. I could, for instance, conjure up images of how terrible the war might be in the minds of those who are about to enroll. : So, perhaps this in fact happens. But then they may have been taught, by advertisements from the government, to ignore such fears and to not think of pain but only of the 'pride of defending the right and good of the nation' and such things. / Well, I could stop them from enrolling, if I were God, more physically. : Make them ill? / Perhaps. Or temporarily unable to move. : Would that be good? Is that how you teach a child something? By putting the child in a room every time the impulse to act in a problematic manner arises? And lock the room? Or worse, make the child ill? / But if I were God I would go rather far to stop the terrible things, such as torture, that sometimes happens. : But how far? And would you prefer to engage in all events, all the time, or rather let humanity learn, evolve, find out, discuss, have a dialogue, and do this on the basis that there are certain patterns in reality which are dependable? / So you argue that the stability of reality may matter more to God than the suffering of a person. : I am merely beginning to point out some of the difficulties in intervening, even if I were God. Now, to come closer to Spinoza, and to pantheism also, let us say that we are part of the body of God somehow. / Then you are, in that case, saying that this body of God is acting against itself in terrible ways, sometimes. : If this were a biological body, it would have a name: illness. To put it in other terms, the universe may have the flu. / This sounds to me similar to what I have heard some kabbalists say. For instance, in Russia, some centuries ago, the Tsar might go to the kabbalists and make them meditate on the wholeness of the universe so that rain would come, and so on. Of course, it usually worked. : Of course. / But are you saying there is no problem of good and evil to a Pantheist? : Let's not accept any cheap solutions here. There is the question of wholeness, of resonance, of love, if you wish. And how to act from this love or sense of goodness, and move beyond the ego. And the ego has a great deal of hold on the psyches of humanity, as humanity has been: and the Pantheist must of course address this, also in his or her work. We'll come to that. Chapter 8 / What is goodness? I feel we ought to explore this theme a lot more. If we prefer not to have a bible full of rules, telling us exactly what kind of actions are good, then what meaning does the word 'goodness' have? Can we really separate good from nongood, apart from what the books tell? : Of course. We can. / But many people, at least those who incline towards atheism, don't like this word at all. They feel offended. I have met many who feel that the step from talking and believing in goodness to condemning other people in the worst of ways is short. : The ego separates the world into what it likes and dislikes. When it grows bored with something it likes, it moves into the dislike category, the 'bad' category. Then, when it forgets what it dislikes, it may put something from that category into the 'like' category, the 'good' category. This is entirely an issue of condemnation and acceptance, all on behalf of the ego. The Pantheist sees this but does not identify with the ego. / You mean the ego also operates within the Pantheist? : Not strongly. After sufficient exploration and meditation, a person can say, strongly and intensely to himself or herself: I believe in God, I believe in love, and I believe that God-love exists in every human being. I determine to live according to this, or to the whispers of this, even when it is hard to listen to it, and hard to follow it. I will follow this rather than my dislikes and likes, I will follow this love-for-all rather than the whims of my ego, or the whims of other people's egos. Something like this anyway. I don't mean it as a formula. / So the Pantheist can state: I believe in God. Just like that. It sounds like monotheism. : Remember we began with the discussion on the progression from rigid atheism and rigid belief in a religious system over to pantheism, which is nonrigid. It does not preclude the belief in God. / Okay. Now what about goodness? Is it that which is in alignment with God? If so, how do you work it out -- say, if you want to become a vegetarian? How can you know whether that has to do with goodness or not? : Good. Let us be concrete. I feel an inclination to become a vegetarian. Perhaps I saw a movie, or I talked to a pretty face, shining when she or he said that vegetarianism is it, won't you join? And the body felt extra alive at that moment, and pleasure was recorded as being connected to that thought. Now the Pantheist does not preclude pleasure but wants to go deeper still. / So you go deeper into the question. : Yes. How do you go deeper? You must first detach yourself from any preconceived conclusion. You must neutralize any desire to either say 'yes' or 'no' in relation to it. / How? : Well, for starters, say it, mentally: I am now free from bias. I am now free from desire, at least with regard to any answers to this question. I am now free from prejudice. And so on. It helps to write it. It helps to say it aloud, if one is by oneself. It helps to sit still and just feel alive to all possibilities, and remind oneself that the landscape of possibilities is open. / So you come into a tranquil state with regard to the judgement you are about to pass. : If you want to call it 'judgement'. It is more like an effortless decision. / How does it come? : It simply comes. Once you achieve neutrality and tranquility and fearlessness in relation to a question, the answer presents itself. For instance, I may sit very symmetrically, quietly, with a straight back, and feel whether I feel inclined to nod when I ask the question -- "am I vegetarian from now on?" or whatever it is. / The nod is always the 'yes'? Could it be another response? : Yes of course. It can be any response. / How do you know whether the response is to be interpreted as yes or no or something else? : You begin by asking that. You ask yourself, how is a 'yes' response...and wait! Just wait. Your eyes, if you are outdoors, may, for a brief instant, look close to the sun. The index finger of perhaps the left hand may gently rise. If nothing happen, demand a response! This is to teach self-communication, communication with your own depths, communication with your own psyche and its subconscious parts. / Why should I trust these answers? : You begin by experimenting more than trusting. You trust the possibility of getting the right answer, you trust that there is a God and this God is love for all somehow, and that you are in contact with this God. That is all part of pantheism. This God is everywhere but it may also be personified, this is all capable of being embraced by pantheism as I present it here. In any case, you trust the possibility of a right answer but you need to experiment and play with it in leisure, over a great deal of time, to find out how the right answer feels. / How do you experiment? : You play with it! You ask, for instance, the same question a number of times, and check for coherence or consistency in the answers. You swap the formulations, you try to get answers while in different contexts, and so on. Eventually you get the knack of it. You may find that, especially as concerns relationships, the answers vary a lot. It is not always right to do something that it is right to intend to do, for a while. / It is not right to do something that you intend to do? : Not always. It may be important to nourish an intention to do a certain thing, and yet suspend the action in itself. / Why? : Because our intentions shape ourselves, shape our personality, shape our radiance. Sometimes we need the intention for a while, not carrying it out, and then we simply find that it is right no longer to have the intention anymore. Everything has an effect! And the question, as to your original theme of goodness, is what is fruitful. The question of fruitfulness is a gret and wonderful theme, we should go into it. / Fruitfulness. Is that the same as goodness? : Isn't it? Fruitful, also economically. Sexually, socially, morally, cosmically. And it is fantastic to find actions which are fruitful in all these regards. / Those are the good actions? : Yes yes. But we must explore more! Chapter 9 / Fruitfulness. We should discuss that theme. : We must discuss time. / Time? : The landscape of time. How events spread out. How things can be sensed before they manifest. / Are you psychic? : Everyone is psychic. It is a question of relating to your own sensitivity. / What do you mean? : You can see the faces of those who are about to go into a meeting where there will be tension and problems. They look sleepy, desolate, asymmetric. You can tell by the body language of people what they are about to experience. / How do you explain that? In terms of worldview, for instance? : My worldview, the worldview I advocate as natural in pantheism, is that the events that manifest have partially manifested long before they manifest in full. And this is a mechanism the universe provides in order to allow us to foresee what happens and change it if we don't like it. / Wow. So you are saying that scientists who talk about cause-and- effect working from the past to the present are merely presenting half of the picture. Do I understand you correctly? : I think so. You see, scientists who have looked a great deal into the fundamental patterns of energy flow tend to operate with some kind of future or futures, rather, in their equations. It began with Einstein, of course. But in Einstein's equations, there was no need for multiple futures. One future would be enough. So this encouraged Einstein to become, or remain, a determinist -- one who chooses to believe that everything follows a course which is already there, long before it is followed. / Whereas you feel that although the future is there in some sense, ... : It is changing. The future is changing. Which is to say, we have a multiple-future situation. / I believe I have heard that the American Indians have something like this faith. : Yes. And in physics, there is of course the popular 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum physics. However, I think this interpretation should blend a little with a single world interpretation. The clue is to think of the future is many, and what actually unfolds as not so many. / What makes the decision? : You see, that is their lacking parameter. That is when you get fruitfulness, goodness, the spiritual aspect in. What lacks from physics as it has been in the twentieth century, at least, -- but which I am working to get it, also in a mathematical sense, if I may humbly point it out -- is a selection according to coherence, to wholeness. When multiple paths are present, some have greater coherence or fruitfulness if chosen, and they are chosen. / Is this evolution, as you see it? : I suggest that a pantheist thinks of matter as alive and intelligently alive. Sometimes chunks of matter do not exhibit much of this aliveness, for a while, but given time, this aliveness manifests. And this aliveness comes by a 'tendency of coherence', as I call it, inherent in the essence of energy. So, when you think of causal effects from the past to the present, then you are thinking of just an aspect of the energy processes. To think of energy as a whole, think of multiple possibilities of wholenesses, of coherences, and of how the greater coherence is always sought. However, there is no end to the diversity of evolution if this is the goal, for there is no final coherence or wholeness anymore than there is a final poem or a final theory of the universe. / I have heard that you have made a mathematical proof that there cannot be 'theory of everything'. : Well, yes. If by such a theory we mean a theory that can really tell everything there is to tell about the patterns of movement of energy in the universe, then it cannot be both valid and complete. If it is valid and complete, then it would be able to talk about everything in the universe, in detail, including computers, and including computers which implement a version of this theory. That creates a self-reference which the computer cannot handle, a self- reference which is mathematically equivalent to the well-known halting problem in mathematical logic. For a pantheist, it can be interpreted this way: the patterns of this universe has an order, but it is not an order of the kind that a mechanical computer, no matter how big, no matter how many years into the future, can implement. The order is more subtle, has a greater sense of infinity, we might say, than any computer program. / Is this really proved? : Yes, when we add suitable additional assumptions -- such as the computers being digital, not analog, and so on. But I am using the standard vocabulary of cognitive science, which I have been educated in, and mathematical logic, which is really part of cognitive science, when I made this proof. It is no surprise to those who have assimilated the depths of G_del's theorem, but many physicists and scientists haven't really understood that this theorem actually concerns them. Now they might understand that. / We should maybe not go too far into mathematics here. : No, but it is always good to know that if you want to look up the mathematical part and spend the extra time needed to learn it, it is possible to do so, and you'll find that nothing is in direct contradiction with what we say here about pantheism. Chapter 10 / It seems that as more and more billions of people try to live together on this planet, the potential for wars is at least not decreasing. : What are you trying to say? / Is a war ever meaningful? Are you a passifist? : Very briefly, if a body has an illness -- every time we talk about the state of the planet, I find it fruitful to talk of a body -- if a body is ill, then there are two ways of interacting with the body to get it well again. One is to tone the natural immune responses of the body, by vitamins, herbal concoctions, energy boosters; by exercise and healthy food; by sauna and good sleep; by leisure, play and laughter; and even by prayer. And then there are kinds of illness which have taken on such a material quality, so to speak, that material action -- not mere interaction -- is required. / What do you mean? Is that an analogy to war? : Isn't it? There are situations in which every kind of acupuncture, energy boosting, etc etc is not adequate. It may be tried first but then, at times, sometimes more radical, material cause-effect kinds of actions must be attempted. The scalpel of the doctor may have to open the body, change something inside in a very physical way, then sew it together, nicely and beautifully. That is the other way of handling a problem. The first way is interaction, the second is action. However, if you push the potentials of interaction, you will find that nearly always, interaction can be the way. But I cannot rule out the validity the noninteractive kind of action in some special cases. / How do you transfer this to a global political situation? : If I were a prime minister of some sort, in charge of security questions, I would devote a great percentage of the resources to develop an Aikido-like immune system for the freedom of every individual -- on Earth, or at least in my domain of juridiction. Since I do not believe as much in nations as in individuals, it would be of prime importance to secure the possibility of creative flowering of individuals everywhere. If a portion of the globe, lots of people, are kept in severe leashes by torture and murder, then it would be of the utmost importance to explore subtle means of actions to undo this dictatorship without undoing any individuals. In that sense I am a passifist, a very active passifist. However, if the state of affairs has gone very far, and if the time to prepare the more subtle actions have been wasted, it may be that a more direct physical form of action, on the principle of absolute least causalities, can be justified on the grounds of the risk of the spread of this fascistoid illness on Earth. / When you say this, do you take a political stance? : You see I am not a believer in 'politics', I am a believer in life, and in acting on the basis of loving life everywhere, and taking responsibility everywhere, in order to secure individual freedom, and the freedom of people to relate to each other. Sometimes control is valid, sometimes other forms of action, at all times a great deal of intelligence must be evoked, and much prayers, for leadership to happen correctly. It is as difficult as life itself and bears no -isms, except, perhaps, something as undogmatic as pantheism. Which implies, of course, that more important than socalled 'race', skin colour, hair colour, language, belief system, or whatever, is the fact that all living beings has a God-glimmer inside, each individual is infinitely valuable and nobody is fully bad or evil. / Nobody is completely evil. : No such thing as complete evil exists anywhere. Actions may be evil but they rip a person apart if they are evil. The person in essence is complete only if the person is good. If the person is incomplete, then evil actions can manifest but these cannot be upheld forever. You see, even the force of Hitler came to an end, after not all that many years. / But that was a result of strong attacks by the British and others. : Yes, and we can always argue whether the attacks were way too strong. The thing about the socalled information age is that we now have access to a lot more information, day by day, in the events of our planet, at least. Some day this will undoubtably include many other planets and places of living. And the presence of information allows a new form of precision to come in, if there is a problem. The precision allows a military installation to be destroyed rather than the thousands who live nearby. And I believe this is the only times such things as anger can be said to be fruitful: if a person say, "I will destroy that other person", then, perhaps for the first time, you can show anger to that person and say, "that is not the way! stop his action, but do not stop the person!" And I would say that that is infinitely more compassionate than the dogma of equanimity in buddhism which emits the attitude, "suit yourself!". It is uncompassionate to be always without emotion. Yet, when the emotion of anger comes in without precision, it creates a lot of damage and the results are not fruitful, generally speaking. / What do you mean by precision? That something is exactly met? : Yes. The word for it in Sanskrit is of course "Siddhi". It is, interestingly enough, also the word for every sort of paranormal powers like levitation and invisibility. You hit it straight on. In the Christian tradition, the word that become the modern English 'sin', was a translation from the Greek 'hamartia', and this seems to be a negation of the Siddhi, a negation of hitting directly the mark. / So to sin is simply to miss the mark. Hamartia. : Quite so. / But how can one make a proper diagnosis of a world situation -- isn't the presence of information a problem, when we talk of information overflow etc? : Not if you know how to listen to yourself when you listen to the radio or whatever. You tune in and ask: is this real? Is this a biased interpretation? Is this simply a lie? And you must not be prejudiced and say, "I approve of everything that the republican party says in these questions. Too much is at stake." You must listen to each proposed fact separately and make up your own mind, and stand by it no matter what the people around you do. If we all did this it would be an amazing civilisation. / So sometimes war can be justified? : Violence is the last refuge of the immature, I think Isaac Asimov wrote, more or less than, in the character of Hari Seldon of the Foundation series. If we work on premonitions, on insights of a deeper kind than mere cause-and-effect, as it appears, looking from the present onto the past according to the history writers, then we can anticipate and work out routes aforehand in which violence is not really necessary. However, we must also not be biased by this point of view and make it fixed. Pantheism requires this, right? That we do not have any fixed view but a solid trust, after all, in the godhood in all. This trust enables us to transcend any viewpoint. Humanity has transitions, we do not necessarily progress slowly but all of a sudden all of humanity may change very deeply and very positively. This pantheistic change may occur, it may even occur soon, relatively speaking. This is the hope of pantheism also. But prior to that, we must take care that as much as possible of Earth has freedom for individuals, has security, that there are no bases in which weapons of mass destructions are being made for the silly purposes of a morbid terrorist group or anything like that. Chapter 11 / So what is the grounding, the root faith, so to speak, of a pantheist? There is no system. Presumably no particular prophet or teacher to rely on. No particular holy book. No temple, mosque or church. No institution or community. What uphelds the pantheist? And what is the core of the faith of the pantheist? : Nature. Life. The holiness of life, the dance of life in the limbs, the spring sense of life. The harmony of nature, the harmony of every kind of exalted art, the presence of sensuality and sexuality even in and between people, in all living beings. The sense of compassion when divisiveness comes to an end -- a compassion that entails that you feel something of how other people feel, and have a sense of healing relationship to them. That you have a sense of faith in the holiness of all life, and that you partake in it, and change it. That all your actions matter, that all your intentions, even, every kind of feeling and emotional aptitude -- all of yourself is significance. All of everyone is significant. We are all partaking in godhood. That is the root faith, the core faith. And if you have a worldview in which this sense of harmony and love of life penetrates you, you find intimations of godhood everywhere. You don't need a church for it. You don't have to have a single book for it. / Do you read novels? : I do. Why? / Why do you need them? : I didn't say I need them. It's entertainment. / Like what? : Must you ask? Like Ian Fleming's 'Goldfinger'. Superficial, funny, the good people win. But it has style and a great deal of humour. Why not drink in this entertainment? / But do you see that most people want something very stable to hold on to? : I do. / What is the pantheist response to it? : First of all, do we believe in God somehow? If we don't, we have only ourselves to rely on. The atheist may have a fun time reading a novel -- speaking about novels -- like 'The Dice Man'. In this book from the late 1960s, a psychiatrist experiments with a dice, to reach a zen state where his ego, his own self, no longer makes the decisions. He writes a list of likely actions, and some strange ones, and lets the dice select. In giving himself over to the 'power of the dice' as he puts it, he becomes a 'Dice Man', and he proceeds to teach other people this as well. / Does life become more harmonious for that reason? : Well, this man speaks not so much of the importance of harmony as of the importance of chaos. He leans on Nietzsche and others in this regard. Nietzsche was never particularly fond of the cardinal virtue of compassion. He spoke of pain and took delight in pain, and of hatred of weakness; he spoke of power but not as much the power of love, the power of empathy, the intelligence of love. So the ingredient of chaos becomes rather to big in Nietzsche's ambitious attempt to overcome the deficiencies in the Western philosophy and it is not so strange that he finally becomes mad. You see, the brain thrives on harmony. Harmony is greatest when it has an element of chaos but the chaos must not be too great, otherwise fear and stupidity may set in. / So you say that the pursuit of harmony is greater than the pursuit of chaos? : Of course. / But what if I say, "I find harmony dull"? : Then I would ask you to look into your state of mind. It may be so disharmonious that you only find particular forms of disharmony interesting, forms of disharmony which matches your inner state. / Then what? : Then ask yourself whether you are truly happy in the state of mind in which you are living. If you are truly happy, you should be able to sit silently and meditate and still be happy. If you are not, you are probably escaping from yourself. In that escape, harmony may seem threathening and dull. But if you start being honest to yourself, I do not think it will be that way. In fact, I think harmony can be the greatest of joys, because something happens to the brain cells, to the heart, when you drink in the harmony of right food, beautiful music, watching flowers, talking compassionately with others and so on. It is living on an altogether different state of being. / Is this the God of the pantheist, then? Harmony? Dear Harmony, give us our daily bread?! : Harmony is a key word, I feel. But just as the word 'compassion' may feel strange to many, 'harmony' and indeed every word which can, in an altered state of consciousness, come to have ecstatic meaning, all these words may seem dull. / But you are saying that this dullness is... : ...little more than an escape from yourself. / Which brings us back to meditation. : Yes. But when you are on an escape from yourself, you don't want to stop escaping. You don't want to meditate then. And if you pick up meditation, it is likely a rigid form of it, which provides some sense of continued escape. Of course, the ordinary escapes from oneself don't really work. Drugs don't work, they just relieve the symptoms of being caught in ego-control. / What is the real release? : Explore. Think. Have dialogue. Write. Read poems. Write poems. Make paintings. Put on classical music and intend, demand that a real change of your brain is going to happen. Sit still, breathe, write every association, throw it away. You must change the sense of time. / We have talked of time in an earlier discussion. You said something of time as a landscape. : Step out of the story of your life, and into a sense of possible much greater stories. You know how you feel when you get into a great novel. You sort of adopt its sense of time. As you read on, the story unfolds within you and you experience meaning. Now, most people have certain elements of imagined past and imagined future that determines the meaning of most of the rest that happens. The pantheist does something with his or her sense of time until that sense of time is no longer bound by the ego. Chapter 12 / You haven't shown a path, yet, to pantheism. : The path is attention. / Why attention? And how? : Who is you is giving attention? / Well, that's hard to say. It is my mind, perhaps. : Which is to say, something very essential about you. / Right. : In fact so essential that it is rather impossible to say that it is this part or that part of you. / Yes. : Which means, furthermore, that when we give attention then we are applying as if the essence of ourselves to be in touch with something. / I can see that. : That is pantheism. To do that in relation to all life. Really give attention. / Suppose I try that for a day... : ...not just for a day! / Please, I mean to say: Suppose I give attention a whole day long, and I don't feel much different at the end of it. What would you say? : Ah, you see, to give attention is not something we just do. It is a creative thing. Like water flowing down a mountainside, the patterns of the mountain affect how the flowing of water occurs. The quest in pantheism is to get a real waterfall of attention -- unlimited attention. / How do we get that? : By praying. By demanding it. By experimenting with the laser beams of attention and let them rinse your mind, rinse your perspectives on the world and on the times to come, and make you as child again. Chapter 13 / How did you get enlightened? : If we want to use that word, "enlightened", or "illuminated", or whatever, let us first describe what we mean by it in the context of pantheism. You remember we talked about the novel about 'The Dice Man'? Well, the Dice Man sought a kind of enlightenment through giving himself over to a kind of chaos, the kind of limited, controlled chaos that selecting between the options that dice exhibit. Of course, it is his own hand casting the dice, and so we might surmise that his subconscious mind might give a certain alteration to create a certain result. Let us call it a primitive way of consulting with the soul. / So you are saying that it is not quite free chaos. It is not random. : Obviously not. Yet, what intelligence has he put into giving the alternatives of the dice? What state of mind is he when he casts his dice? So it may not only be a rather controlled process but also a biased process. / What has this got to do with enlightenment? : It serves as an illustration as to what it may look like, from the viewpoint of the ego, to give oneself over to attention. / How did this happen for you? : Wait a moment. Let us suggest a little more clearly what is wrong with the Dice Man approach so that we get a sense of enlightenment proper, in a pantheistic context. / Okay. : What may be a right element in the rather chaotic approach of the Dice Man is the perception that the ego, as long as it has control, makes a mess of our lives. It may put a rationale on the actions, but what it produces is really mostly a mess anyhow. This is so especially, I think, when you see it from a social level. There are exceptions, when you see great artists like Bach or Beethoven. But while child life may be fantastic, most adult life seems dreary with the wrong kind of routine, loneliness and the forms of habit that keep life limited. So some release is required. But what kind of release? / The release of enlightenment, perhaps. : Yes. But then we must realize that not everything that is beyond the control of the ego is the same. It is not that there are only two possible kinds of things in the world, "controlled" and "uncontrolled". Rather, it is a question of two dimensions, at least. One dimension is the dimension of control versus lack of control. The other dimension, crossing this as it were, is the dimension of coherence or harmony. / Back to harmony. : But harmony is important. What is an orchid without harmony? What is the golden shine of the hairs of a child unless it is harmony? What is Mozart's music without harmony? Take away harmony and music becomes a sledgehammer, take away harmony and a watch becomes a piece of junk. / What's wrong with that? : Well, lack of harmony generally means internal conflict. Which means a breakdown. / Then there are people who say that that is okay, for breakdown is part of life. : Is that satisfactory? The fruit tree has a coherence great enough to make marvellous fruits, and you say, "It is part of life to break down, so let's chop down this tree?" That is the barbarious attitude. The approach of loving life is to be tender towards harmony and not disrupt it. Gravitation is easy, the uplifting of natural form requires great intelligence, and is evidence of the spirit of life. Henri Bergson wrote about this, of course. / So do you say that enlightenment involves the caring for harmony? : Care for coherence! And if you wish to cast dices, cast dices to select what you are going to select, and do it in a harmonious state of mind. Cast dices as to how you are going to cast dices. Unless every part of the process is upturned by fresh attention, unless every aspect of your activity is illumined by your own attention, you are not enlightened. Nevertheless, it looks a little bit like giving up control of the ego. But the pantheist gives over the control to God. Can we say that? / It sounds much like how the religious people talk. : But the word "religion", or "re-ligare", may mean "to bind back", as I think I have pointed out earlier. So it is a question of relating to this wonderful wholeness of life and let that whisper through you. Then you must be very silent so you can pick up that whispering, that secret joy, that hidden light. When it comes, you must know how to enhance the wave, to thrive on silence, to go beyond your ego limitations and let attention take over. That is enlightenment from a pantheistic perspective -- to let attention take over. / Now I can perhaps ask, "How did it happen for you"? : Yes, go ahead and ask. / Well, how did it happen for you? : It was a realization, a kind of shock -- positively speaking -- that all dances of events flow out of the same or a similar process as attention. I am it, this process of attention to attention creating life is what I am, I am not separate from it. It is an ultimate security. I realized that no matter what happens, I feel this complete security for the flow of attention is the same everywhere, the same in us all, and through its multiple perspectives the world comes into being and the world is being changed, all the time. It is one and the same source and the realisation was that everything is transparent to it. / But concretely, what did you do? : Nothing. Yes I did something. I prayed a lot, for complete transformation, after a period in which I came to feel some fear. Nothing happened at first. Some weeks went past, I started working on various projects, forgot a little about the prayers. I felt good. Then meditations came -- I have always meditated regularly, ever since early teenage, and I have written about meditation. I published a book about it, a small book in English and Norwegian, privately, entitled "Sex, Meditation and Physics". You know -- tantra, mantra and yantra, as they say in Sanskrit. But attention has been here or there. I realized that we are living in attention, attention fills us, everything is made of attention meeting attention. It is one and the same energy. Some months later I have played with calling this energy by the somewhat odd name of 'the uncomputer'. / Uncomputer? : Uncomputer. We say 'unconscious', right? We say even 'unconsciousness' sometimes. So from consciousness there is the realization of unconsciousness, that both exist. From the realization of the computer there is the realization of the existence of the uncomputerized, or the uncomputer in short. It is a noun because I wish to indicate its real existence. Yet it is under reality, so to speak. Of course the notion of the 'computer' is relatively new in human thinking. It was introduced in the wake of Kurt G_del's work in the 1930s, by Alan Turing and others, in mathematical logic. Then later came physical versions of the idea. But the idea is very simple: it is the notion of the absolutely contextfree rule, which determines what is to happen absolutely clearly, based on simple, usually numeric, input. With this little concept you can build mostly everything that a route procedure can do. You can make inventive programs which can mimick our ability to learn and perceive. But there are things a computer cannot do, in principle. Earlier on I mentioned that a computer cannot calculate the physics of the universe, no matter how big it is or how fast it is, no matter to what precision its measurement data may have. Even if these data are infinitely precise, the computer can't work out the course of the universe. The universe, in a sense, is an uncomputer. / Hm. Will it catch on, do you think, in science? : It may seem rediculous to predict about that, but as a matter of fact I do feel fairly confident that this term will catch on, because it is an almost direct logical consequence of the work Kurt G_del did, and he is regarded as one of the foremost mathematicians in the recorded history of mathematics so far, without doubt. This is a shared view, this is not just my own opinion. The consequences of this work is something which will inevitably roll into human consciousness and change us. The changes are yet to come. But we can anticipate them if we, like I do, study intensely and for years what really lies within that proof and meditate on it. And then, with great force, all of a sudden, the word 'uncomputer' came, and unleased, as if with a command inside me, a sense of a new metaphysics being born. / Is this something like David Bohm's 'implicate order', which he describes, among other places, in 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order'? : The implicate order is a very general concept, much like the concept of a number. As he used the concept, mostly anything can be 'an implicate order'. He said for instance that a grammophone record is an implicate order and the playing of it makes an explicate order. So it doesn't say very much to say, 'yes, the uncomputer is an implicate order', for it is trivally true. But more importantly, it is a very active concept because it suggests that what underlies even 'the implicate order' of our reality is beyond computation. And it is by attention to its 'computers' -- that is, its more explicate forms -- that the computers change and new computers are made. So the programming process in a sense is like the creation process. That is pantheism! Chapter 14 / We left the previous discussion talking about enlightenment and pantheism, among other things. You said that enlightenment happens, if I recall correctly, at least in your case, by a realization that 'we are all made by processes of attention', or something like that. Could you elaborate on this? : I am talking of enlightenment as an irreversible process, let me first point this out. It is not the mood of a day. Most meditators experience that, all of a sudden, they have days in which everything and all seems bathing in bliss. They may have such a day once a year or more often, depending on how much energy and time and deliberation they devote to their meditation. They may sit still for hours as in the Vipassana Meditation Centres made by the buddhist monk Goenka, for instance. They may do it through dance, as in the Waldorf Schools made by Rudolf Steiner. There are dozens of ways. The emphasis is on attention and on being creative with regard to attention -- or just focussing on nothingness. / So enlightement is irreversible. In what sense? : In the sense that if enlightenment comes, it does not pass away. Though the meditation may pass away. / Please explain that. If the enlightenment remains but not the meditation, what is then the enlightenment? : The enlightenment is the fundamental perception of all reality as a fluid process of attentiveness, perceptiveness, that there are coordinating forces. This understanding admits to a mutation of the brain cells. They physically alter in their activity. There are certain regions of the brain that are under-active, who, in some schizophrenic states, appear to be over-active. When the activity is balanced, and coherent, then there is enlightenment. This is the basis for living in meditation. It means that meditation comes completely natural in that state of mind, perhaps, in a sense, it goes never away, but is always there mildly. But the readiness to go into meditation even infinitely is always there. The understanding of reality is irreversible once it occurs. / So what relationship does the meditative state of mind, when it comes to someone who is not yet enlightened, have to enlightenment -- and how does this tie in with the faith in pantheism, exactly? : This is very complex unless you have experimented with it for yourself for a long time. But briefly, the meditative state of mind, when it comes to someone still living by his or her ego, is simply a burst of energy, like taking a pill, rather. The energy does not penetrate through the entire psyche, but portions of it keeps itself from being exposed to attention. Enlightenment is that no portion is being shielded from attention. That is a lasting transformation. All the psyche is revealed, as a whole, not just a bit of it. It is a total karma dissolution, to put it in more buddhistic terms. I doubt, therefore, the validity of mere sitting, sitting, sitting. You must experience life, enter into relationship. You must have faith in the intelligence of life, call it God or Samadhi or Allah if you wish, or something else - and call on this by prayers and affirmation. The faith in pantheism enhances itself when you see its fruitfulness. When it explodes, you give yourself over to living by attention, and by the leisure of sleeping as much as you need, living very healthily and not upsetting people needlessly, and so on -- and then the faith becomes the enlightenment that you need. / You say living healthily. Is this part of pantheism? : Of course. You honor the body as a temple of the spirit. You understand and appreciate the mystery of each and every cell in the body, it is as if a coordination of infinitely complex beings make up your own organism, and that is, in a much deeper sense than any book like the christian bible, something holy. The body is holy, or can be. You must understand that the coordination of the body is not merely mechanical. There is nothing that is ultimately like a computer -- we are all reflections of the uncomputer. A computer that changes is not a computer, it is the uncomputer. Or the changes are by the uncomputer. If this makes any sense to you. / But what is health? Can you define it? : Let us suggest a definition, then. I would suggest that health is the beautiful and elegant spontaneous, effortless coordination of the organism with itself and with its surroundings at all levels and at all scales. It is a dance of being. This dance of being involves rejuvenation, the regeneration of the seeds of information as to how this coordination should happen within you. And this dance of being happens more deeply when there is tranquility and the bathing in attention. It is also a dance of being which is capable of expressing itself in terms of fruits for other beings. And I would say, it is part of health and rejuvenation to let this expression happen, creatively. So a child is intensely healthy -- and happy as well, presumably -- when the child is allowed to be creative and give great attention to the products, the fruits of this creativity. / And adults, they should avoid working in a limited field, or what? : Absolutely. Several limited fields are okay, if there is the intention to expand. You give creative, playful, selfcritical attention to your products, and when you find that they have excellent quality, you start letting other people enjoy them -- through important acts of generosity, not giving it to people who wants it only halfheartedly, but giving it to those who really signals that they have joy in getting it. And the greatness, the genius of having a mind -- which is a particularly of every living being and not in the least, human beings -- is that it can be everlastingly creative. It is not a question of 'what society needs to have'. It is a question of what you yourself needs to express to ensure your own generosity to yourself as well as to others. / Are you saying that everyone ought to be not mere consumers of music, but composers of music; not mere readers of novels, but writers of novel, and so on? : Why not? Why should the adult have such hopelessly reduced demands of himself or herself compared to that of the child? I believe even Freud, who otherwise did not have such great views of children as more recent scientists, spoke of the intelligence of the adult as meagre compared to the 'brilliant intelligence of the child'. Why should we be so limited? / I can hear the socialists and others complain that 'not everybody can be prophets, some of us has to do the dirty work'. : Who said anything about avoiding the dirty work? I said, do more, do not do less. Do more of the things you want to do, and so crave less in terms of entertainment and reckless exploitation of a nature which has already been pushed beyond any sound level anyhow. Chapter 15 / Truth. Let's talk about that. And let's talk about your relationship to science, and how you portray pantheism with regard to science. Is pantheism a dance around the gold calf of science, or what? : You said the word 'truth'. I prefer truth to science, when they two goes apart! And science is a label of a very large set of activities which somehow involves a pursuit of truth, but which obviously, more or less obviously, fails in many regards. For instance, there are hidden premises involved in much research, premises which involves theories and worldviews foreign to the scientists involved, and which they cannot air without getting their careers in trouble. So there are political and financial reasons why science is not the entirely multi-perspective seeking of objective knowledge it would like to say that it is. However, it provides a great deal of data, empirical data, reports of summaries of very careful research from laboratories and fields and so on, and we can, democratically as it were, elaborate our own theories or models of these data. / So you are in favour of science but prefer to select your own theories and so on? : Not exactly that, but I prefer to distinguish between theory and data, to some extent. Arne Naess, a philosopher of science of some magnitude in the field, also a founder of deep ecology, suggests that we should use the word 'research' and the word 'science' with a rather clear separation. Research is what we do when we very carefully report on what we see and find out. This is something we all can do, and there is no reason why research should start with the theories that scientists usually talk about. Your research can concern pattern formation in butterfly wings outside your mountain cottage, for instance. Science, however, is a more socially constrained term, in which the theories over these data have been launched and to some extent discussed -- hopefully, but not always, in an objective way. / Where is truth in all this? We mustn't make it too complex! : Well, truth is our great pursuit, that which brings us together and connects us as living beings. We may not all be interested in science, but we are all, at some deep level I surmise, interested in 'what is', in actuality, and in what it makes sense to say about 'what is'. To talk about something 'as it is' is to some extent what truth or at least, true statements is about. However, truth is also a question of a multiplicity of perspectives. / You may have one perspective on God, and I may have another perspective on God? : Well, you may have several perspectives on God inside you, or indeed on anything, and so may I. There is no reason why we should stop at one or two. And in a reality as rich as ours, somehow we need a multiplicity of perspectives, and also the grouping of mutually excluding perspectives, and so on, at higher and higher levels, to get a sense of the truth as it is in itself beyond all this. This is an open-ended philosophy. It says truth is possible, but it doesn't say exactly how. / How does what you say stand in relation to traditional organized religions and to pantheism? : I foresee a mass-emigration from the remnants of the large organized religions to pantheism. This is the logical result of applying science to an open-ended philosophy, as we just talked about. In this, there is a hope for pantheism. For pantheism answers the need to meet a complex world with a multitude of open pathways, where pleasures, pains and opportunities mingle, and where each individual must develop his or her own intuition. And in this, a faith which does not seem stupefying, but a solid faith which can bring a certitude to the individual throughout all these changing processes, is needed. Then truth is multiple-perspective, and by intuition and insight derived from meditation, we can come to that sense of things which guides us in action. It is not so that we must close down the perspectives in order to act, but rather, there is a spontaneous 'calculation', if that's the word, so that some ordering between the perspectives occur. / I think we must simplify our language at this point. : Yes, certainly. But it is good to have said a few things which can be dug into by those who wish. Chapter 16 / Let us talk a little about pantheism in relation to the organized religions, the large religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism and so on. : Well, pantheism -- again and again I emphasize this -- must not be portrayed in exclusion from monotheistic, dyatheistic (two-God) or polytheistic religions. Rather, pantheism involves, in the root of the word, an emphasis on 'all', on 'allness', signified by the word 'pan'; and the remainder of the word signifies God or godhood. So, there is no need to put pantheism up as one point among many, and further differentiate such things as 'panentheism' and so on. There is no denial in pantheism. Pantheism does not deny a transcendent God. Pantheism does not deny that human beings may have a particular cosmic role. Pantheism does not deny that a human being can pray and receive individual guidance. Pantheism embraces these possibilities or probabilities, with a faith which is nonrigid, not systematized, not made into an organized thing. Pantheism does not, by nature, have a priesthood. / And you say that it does not equal buddhism or daoism? : Buddhism goes some way in answering this, as does Daoism, but they are still too rigid, too much their own systems. We need something beyond the system now. And we need to have more than meditation techniques and moral rules, I feel. We need a faith capable of bring a transformation to the overall psyche of the modern man or woman. / The modern man or woman may be concerned with such things as not getting unemployed. : Now just look at that issue for a moment. What is so dangerous with being unemployed? Look at the word 'un-employed'. It signifies leisure, free time -- time to meditation. What is wrong with that? It is really not unemployment which is the problem. Rather, the problem is how to get resources distributed in a way that is fair, when robots do much of the work that people could have done. If a factor owner has fifteen hundred employers, and can dismiss fourteen hundred of them due to new machines, then he or she can get a lot richer, because there are now only machine maintance costs, not employment costs. But rather than he or she getting expontially richer, the fair thing would be to redistribute resources to these individuals. There is no reason at all, as far as I can see, to put people into every kind of silly job positions just to 'keep them employed'. We need leisure, we need the luxury of spare time, and we need resources such as food, clothes, shelter, money for transportation and entertainment, and so on. / This is utopia, though. Reality is a grim economical market structure in which the individual who may be interested in your pantheism may have to support his or her family. : I am aware of that, but let us not always think in a self- centered, worrying manner. Let us always think also on behalf of societies, and we'll put our own challenges into a perspective where they matter less and may more swiftly be given a solution. A pantheist would pray, pray to the spirit of life, pray to the intelligence of life, to the compassion which is the source of reality, to support him or her with everything that is valuable and important. And he or she would pray for creativity, for strength, for generosity, giving when it is important to get, and not only then. We must teach each other again the laws of generosity, to act according to an intuition which speaks of what to give and to whom and when, rather than insisting on the buying-selling situation all the time. Faith can bring new kinds of community economies into being as easily as that. For instance, there are exchange rings or 'local exchange trade systems', LETS, in play in mostly every country. These are beginnings of other forms of economies. / But practically, do you really think prayer on this level works? How would you pray? : How do I pray? I pray a lot. I start every morning visualizing the world and feeling what needs light, golden-white light, and/or affirmations of health, wholeness, goodness. I visualize myself protected, visualize and affirm the wholeness of all my activities and their fruitful successes. I ask for money if money is needed, and sometimes explain the reasons. I may say 'Dear God' as a heading, I may say 'Dear Origin', I may invent something, I may use a mantra or a sound that feels to reflect the origin somehow. For me, this is part of economy. Then there is the part of doing everything that is in your heart, neither more nor less. Neither more nor less -- do you understand the implications of that? / You don't do more than is on your heart in the sense that you don't do things you do not feel for. : Yes. And you do not do less than it feels for -- and you will be astonished how much you feel like doing once you really start opening up to your heart. You may want to invent a new language, a new form of music, write new types of novels, you may want to make new schools, caring for the individual richness of the children and ensuring spiritual growth on a nondogmatic, dialogic basis in them all; you may want to work for a new kind of world integration, without the nonsense of nationalism; you may want to do so many things. / I can accept that as a possibility, but what would be the driving force? What drives a pantheist when the world looks grim? : Remember not to look only with your eyes, but close your eyes and feel the world, feel not only your own ego and its little things. Step outside of your ego and climb, in your mind, to the top of your golden mountain of enlightenment, and feel the world from there. Don't get hotheaded but know that each and everyone has in him or her the duty to nourish, strengthen, achieve and maintain the enlightenment of all the beings there are. This is not just a calling for an occasional buddha every four hundred years or so. Every cell in the body must support the health of the whole body. Every human being must support the health of humanity. And that includes, of course, the mental health. It is not 'every cell to itself', and it is not 'every human being to himself or herself'. That would be fragmentation. Economy, as spiritually, demands that we recognises the allness in all and works, creatively, through art, science and religious pursuits, to reflect that greatness and beauty. The less dogma, the more curiosity and wonder, the better. With a deep radiant faith in an all-compassionate God we will develop a strong capacity to think telepathically and clairvoyantly, and that will also helps ensure economy. It helps me. I know when I should ask a rich man or woman for support for a project, and how, and for how much; I just listen within and then I know. I didn't always, I have learned to do it. You can also do it. / Well, but if I have to cover immediate expenses, is there something I can do at once? : Sit still, pray for it, happily, and stay confident afterwards. If you get an opportunity to help anyone with anything then grab the chance. Be generous yourself with that which you can be generous with. / Then it will come? : Always. When you listen inside for your own currents of generosity then, if what you require money for is right, you will sooner or later meet someone who has opened this generosity in himself or herself and can help you out, somehow. / You seem to have a spirit of playfulness and calm constantly. Is that a prerequisite? : You see, if you wish a multiplicity of perspectives on what you do, on what your appearance is, on what the world is, and so on, in order to get a sense of fact and of the truth of a matter, then you need playfulness of mind. Playfulness means that you are not rigid, right? / Yes. : So in being playful, not fearful, but playfully aware, you let a dance of perspectives occur, and you get a constant sense of perception. Then you express these perceptions in creative work. You must have channels to express them, or you get filled up with too many unused perceptions and that can create rather unhappy states of mind. Expression of what you honestly perceive is very healthy, it clears the channels of your body, so to speak. You get radiant, and this radiance helps enormously when you require support for your activities. You got to have courage. Chapter 17 / A person who seeks to find his or her own way in a society of competition, chaos and perhaps hardened traditions, who may be married or not, who has a family to support or not -- would you say that pantheism offers clear help? If so, could you spell it out? : Yes. Pantheism offers help. Of course. It makes the person anchored, not merely in society, but in a sense of life as a whole. You are no longer alone, but you are as a blade or a fruit on the tree of life. The energy of life is the same in all, and you learn how to communicate with this energy. You speak to it and listen to it and communicate with it. Together with life, so to speak, you find out, your work out, you enquire into supporting yourself and your family. Then you go beyond. / What do you do then? : You do what love to do, you find out what you love to do and then you do it. As you begin to do what you love to do you'll find your heart opening in delight, joy and happiness, you'll find your health getting a lot better, that you rejuvenate and stay vital, and you'll find even more activities which are supported by your heart. Pantheism is the growth of love in all areas of your life. / There is love, and yet the world may seem hard. At times, strong action -- even violent action -- may be called for, to save individual lives. Would you turn the other cheek, always? : 'Turning the other cheek' is one of a series of Christian phrases to signify the humility of a human being towards life, towards the life of other human beings at some level also. But you do not turn the other cheek if somebody is about to smash a child or commit a series crime. You stop the other. Yet spiritually, you turn the other cheek by not being against the person in his or her essence, only against the action and the action pattern. / So you can act strongly. You can shout, you can hit, if so need be. : Of course. You do what love commands you to do. / But love is always positive, is it not? : It is positive to the life in the other individual, not to the denial of life in the other individual. With precision, love can command you to speak out against the ego of another, with little sense of mercy. Sometimes that is required, it is right, it will create a suitable effect with no lasting problems of health or anything. / So love whispers, or speaks to you. How do you pick it up? Meditation, tranquility, sitting still? : You stay tuned to life and you watch what is going on. If a dictator prohibits people from leaving his or her uglified country then that is wrong, and to pray and even help precise, nonviolent military actions to get the dictator away is right. When the military actions are so as to create a lot of sideeffects, then they can be too wrong that we can support them. Strong action must be precise. Love is always precise, it does not want any individual to come to harm. Not even a dictator. A massmurderous dictator should be told a lesson, perhaps in a prison for a long while, though. / Hm. A pantheist has love for all and may yet go as far as supporting, to some limited extent, actions which may lead to killing of people. : To a very limited extent, but it is also a question of fierce realism and avoding even greater harms. I have had a year-long friendship with a philosopher who is much older than me. Arne Naess is not only a leading exposer of the passifist thinking of Mahatma Gandhi, he was also so during the second World War, when he helped the resistance movement against 'hitlerism', as he calls it. He did not want to use weapons himself but accepted tasks of transporting weapons for the resistance movements against the German soldiers who had installed a hitler-regime in Norway during the war. It is fine preaching passifism of a fundamentalist kind as long as you sit by your table thinking and writing, but sometimes reality demands just a different level of action. It is best to be prepared for that -- even for a pantheist. Love for all does not mean that we get stupid and avoid doing the right things to save many when we can -- even though it means that some are not saved. / The intention, though, is to save all. : Of course. No life is 'expendable'. And transferred to more happy social circumstances, such as employment in a company, it is rubbish to say that all individuals are 'replacable'. Nobody is replacable once they start unfolding their real spiritual role. / Explain. : Can you replace Mozart with Beethoven? People who start unfolding their intuitive potentials do so in ways which are not identical at all. Only military behaviour is identical. In natural, creative work it is an illusion to imagine that anyone would do identical work to any other. And a company which fails to draw on the uniqueness of the flowering of each of its individual is not a very interesting company. / Then perhaps not many companies today are interesting! : Well, there you are. So start new forms of companies. Perhaps looser associations should be preferred, where people have a greater responsibility to come up with a variety of creative goods for others. In exchanging these, new forms of connectedness with people would provide new rings of exchange. Chapter 18 / We need to talk about the adult theme of sexuality, in a religious context. It is not always easy to discuss. : I agree, we must talk about it. How shall we begin? / Let's begin at a metaphysical level. The ancient Indians, along with a great deal of other, notably shamanistic cultures, suggested that the world came or comes into being by copulations among the gods. Does pantheism as you put it say anything about this? : Well, I think it is softly in support of these kinds of views. Rather, perhaps, I should say that one who has a faith of a pantheistic kind may come to such a metaphysical picture as this, but this is not a requirement for a pantheist. It is a possibility, not a necessity, within a pantheistic framework or viewpoint. / But it certainly helps putting sexuality in place, if you do in fact have such a metaphysics, where sex is somehow at the essence of the universe, doesn't it? : Oh sure. Sex can no longer be such a rather bizarre little thing as christian church fathers like Augustine sought to make it into. To point out something of the silliness of the history of christanity (which is shared with several other large religions), Augustine, after having been with a number of women, declared, and made it part of the christian curriculum for centuries to come, that women are "dirty" because they have "two dirty holes" and that babies are born sinful because they are born in proximity to these dirty holes. You see the kind of fanatically anti-female attitude that went along with the fanatically anti-sex attitude. Sex is of course such a great biological attraction that a religion would be smart either in denying as much of it as it can or else embracing as much of it as it can. / Whereas pantheism does neither? : Well, pantheism is a love of the spirit of life in all, but sexuality, for instance as exploited through prostitution and clothing industry with their advertisements, is not always an honoring of the spirit of life. / When is sex an honoring of the spirit of life? : Obviously when love is involved. / So would then sex be right, if love is involved, without marriage? : Where does the concept of marriage come from? Most societies have it, and most of them have it, of course, to create a solid, working, dependable frame within which childraising can happen with less effort and less problems than a man or a woman travelling alone with a child or with several children. So marriage does have a function in relation to children, and children may be a result of some sexual activity. When there is intelligence in relation to the sexual activity, proper means of protections, protection both against viral transfer and conception, with consenting adult partners in an honest framework, then I cannot see that there are rational, moral, social, sexual nor religious reasons why sex cannot occur. / So far we have spoken about the place of sex, in terms of rules or what should be allowed. There is more to sex than that! : Yes. As I pointed out in my little book, "Sex, Meditation and Physics", and as I am sure many others have pointed out, the orgasmic state, or sexual arousal, involves greater coherence of body and mind, and this coherence is a kind of meditation in the genital areas and in the body in general. It is healthy, it benefits intelligence, and so on. / Is there a condition for it to be in this way, rather than be an issue of shame and so on? : For many, indeed for most, the psyche is full of issues about sex, and a great deal of self-enquiry about this, with ruthless honesty about what fears are actually involved, what one really is trying to fulfill in looking for this or that in sex, and so on, over a great deal of time, would be beneficial. Then a purification of the intentional level can occur; after which sexual energies can flow in new ways. This does not always need a partner, far from it. Selfstimulation can and should occur as part of a playful, humorous giving of pleasure by the body to itself. There is no age limit at all about this; and we should be tranquil about it and quietly, esthetically, letting every individual, at any age, engage in it. / What about women liberation? : For many centuries in most parts of the globe, by far, women have been suppressed, and the pendulum should swing but also women need to learn to balance with regard to men, and not overdo the 'compensation' which they rightly deserves. Pantheism suggests, of course, a supreme equality, no limits at all, of any kind whatsoever, due to gender or other features. Every being reflects God, and there is no such thing as a dogma putting one gender down in relation to the other gender -- nor any such thing as a skin colour to be in any way superior. / Why hasn't this come more naturally before? : Power greed. Muscles grabbing around the softer forms of the woman and considering the woman property more than being. The conditions have been ridified into the rediculous aspects of most religions. Science and its first phase of industrial materialism slowly set women free, gave women the obvious rights of voting and so on. Pantheism then gives both men and women back their sense of relationship with something beyond matter, beyond themselves -- perhaps a little like Martin Buber's I-Thou. I predict that the future will see a lot more of philosophies of Buber's kind. We have had tons of the individualist stuff of Platon and Nietzsche, and it has led to fascism and totalitarianism, to imprisonement of women and to slaves. Every individual matters infinitely and this significance blossoms only in relationship, in I-Thou relationships, in love relationships -- and in sex relationships. Chapter 19 / Suppose I want to develop a sense of righteous action, intuitive action, cultivating the right kind of energy in my daily life. How would I begin, as a pantheist? : You would probably want to begin by meditation. You would probably want to draw in a sense of the greatness of life, and appreciate life, and honor life. Then you would request that this life acts through you with regard to your present primary intentions, which should all have some generous aspects about themselves, and that you should be guided by love, by God, in all you do. You should request this fiercely, yet playfully. With strength and determination. You need great strength because you are about to set on a journey which will physically alter your brain and set your mind free from the false forces of humanity -- and that is no small task. / I demand this and I demand that, but what will I do when the intuition is to become my real life? What is the practise I will engage in? : Remember it must come from within, but you can experiment to help it unfold. For instance, you can go for long walks and describe certain issues of life to yourself, and watch how your body goes through phases of feelings as you quietly talk to yourself. You may discover that your eyes tend to look at things which provide a commentary from your subconscious mind as to what you say. / But suppose right now, for a few minutes, which I take from in between the many activities I have, I want to develop intuition. What is the ultimate 'crash course' in developing good intuition? : Okay, massage your whole body for a few minutes, from bottom and up, then sit still, say something nice, pantheistically nice, like 'love for all' a few times. Then sit absolutely still and say, 'I am more and more intuitive every day, and I win by using intuition'. Say it and feel it and be still. Then ask something which is not of great importance to you to know, but which you don't know now but will come to know soon, like 'what is the weater tomorrow?' 'what will I have for dinner tomorrow?' 'what will I discuss on the phone next time I receive a phone call?' And for each question, let answers come up and then give a number, say, from one to five, as to how credible you feel that the answer is. / How do you decide how credible the answer is? : You make yourself neutral with regard to each question -- I forgot to say that, but that is very important. Tell yourself to be free from fear and desire and illusions and so on. When you are going to judge as to how credible the answer is, then propose a number very quietly, that reflects it - say, five for completely reliable and one for completely unreliable. Before you say it aload, feel the number you are about to propose as if in your gut feeling. Just sense, quietly, if the stomach is warm upon your saying of it. Don't say it unless you feel that somehow your body agrees. Change the number until you find a number that your body warmth supports. It may take time -- let it take time. Then you will get it done maybe much faster later; while there are questions which will take time later also. The most difficult questions may take weeks and months, even for trained intuitionists! / Thank you, that was practical. Chapter 20 / Do you believe that enrollment in a monk or nun order of a buddhistic kind can bring progress in the path towards enlightenment, as the buddhists typically claim? : Much as I would like to believe that, I simply cannot bring myself to believe it! I think the Buddha made a mistake there, if the munk and nun order indeed was his creation. He did make mistakes, you know. After all, it is remarkable how well-tempered and culture-independent his teachings appeared to have been, considering his environment and that his travel experience could not have been anything near that of a typical man or woman of today. Yet, even if we believe the legends, Buddha changed his mind about things. First he did not want to enroll women into his order. Then, very late in his life, he accepted them after all, and created a nun order. What was that all about? So if we tend to hold the belief that nothing he did had anything to do with the limitations of his present culture, that does not seem to stand up very well. And the notion of progression towards enlightenment through having a master was, and still is, to some extent, a deeply ingrained bias in the Indian culture. / What is your proposal here, then? : My proposal is that the notion of progress towards enlightenment is, in most cases, an illusion. Enlightenment is a sudden thing. It comes as a byproduct of right activity, but that activity is not likely to be all of the kind that consciously intend enlightenment. In fact, my proposal is that the greater part of our activities must have a much broader focus than personal enlightenment, and only some of them should have this perspective or focus. Otherwise it becomes too much of a tight grip according to the ego. / What do you mean? : It is not playful, openminded, open-ended enough if you enroll into something in order to become enlightened. / What is, again, the notion of enlightenment in pantheism? : As I see it, it is the realization, the awakening to the direct or immediate, ongoing and irreversible fact of pantheism or godhood-everywhere. It is a realization of the fact that the observer is the observed, that there is no division, and a profound sense of a fire of love beyond any conscious observation. It is an alternate fire. I call this paravana, for this not merely the extinguishing of a light or a desire, as in the concept of nirvana. / Paravana is enlightenment? What does the word in itself mean, in its roots? Is it 'vana' as in nirvana? : Yes. The 'vana' may be translated something like flame or desire. The 'nir' is obviously a negative term, an annihiliation of the latter. So I go to greek and find 'para' there, as in 'parable', 'parabole' and 'parapsychology'. It means on the side or different. Alternate fire, that is how I prefer to put it. / And paravana would be the natural concept of enlightenment in pantheism? : I think it is. / You say that there is no progression to it, it is sudden. Could you elaborate on what that might mean, and what it means to work, for oneself, to come to it, then? : As J. Krishnamurti very forcefully pointed out, as few others have, perhaps an occasional zen teacher here and there, most people love to speak about time and progression when it comes to enlightenment, because that can explain that which their ego is still not able to give up, as it appears to them. It is as if they are saying: I am still a brute, but I won't be in the future, so can you please leave me alone to be brute a little more! / Not to be enlightened is to be a brute? : Of course. / What do you mean? : Enlightenment means that you no longer resist the impulses of your heart, you no longer enforce your prejudices, fears and inbuilt traumas on your decisions and actions, it means that you realize the immense responsibility we have in all our actions to act with empathy, compassion, wholesomeness and intelligence, rather than merely insisting on a few 'rules' or making for oneself a 'standard' of action. To avoid this challenge is to live as a brute, and do ugly actions. I am sorry to say it, but that is exactly how it feels to me. / How can you at all manage to live happily in a society, then, if this is your view of most actions? : You see, you do not fight fact, but appreciate it and intend to heal it. It is there. You learn to live with the facts, and the facts are changing all the time. It may be ugly in some ways but you know that the potential is that everybody can be enlightened, absolutely everyone, sooner or later. / Isn't that an escape? : You mean that it is an idea that the ego clings to, another form of 'becoming' or progression, another form of delay of personal transformation? It can be. But I am fairly sure it isn't for me. You see, when you feel full of this light of love within, when you live as a pantheist in this sense -- awakened -- then you do not feel compelled to judge in the sense of hatred. You see the facts but you also see that they can change. You also intend, as a healing factor, to do things that can allow this change to occur. That is not a false escape. I am willing to say it is a true escape. If you do not permit yourself to have the intention or passion of awakening all, then the fact of the brutality is a lot more tougher to face, of course. Because then you are avoiding to intend the obvious. / I hear that, but I remember phrases from the teachings of enlightenment by various people that any motive of action is harmful to the action. : Let us not be caught up in words. The word 'motive' may signify - - now I am giving maximal credit to your quotes -- that there is effort in the mind, with regard to the action. That there is not the quality of listening deeply and acting with wholeness. Rather, the ego implants its wishes on an action and forces it to go in a different direction than your godhood within, to put it that way. To have a passion and its intention is altogether different than that. Passion is compassion, the action of the whole of you, not merely a fragment of yourself. If you look to Spinoza's teachings, passion means hilaritas, the joy of the whole organism. Having a motive is titilatio, a pleasure of a fragment, a mere portion of the organism. Hilaritas is beneficial to freedom, to awakening. Titilatio may inhibit freedom. / Do you suggest that a pantheist looks eclectically to past teachings? : Everybody is a teacher. The look a child can give you is a teaching look. The timing, the contours of his or her eyebrow, the overall expression of the face -- that is a master teaching you how to be human. The children are teachers of enlightenment. / Why do they seem to loose it, then? : Well, because they must learn certain skills, such as reasoning in relation to action, that may limit their relationship to fact, to themselves, to other people, unless it is taught with unusual skill by adults who are themselves enlightened. / We teach our children to be un-enlightened? : Of course. / So this is a challenge for schools, then. : And parents. But we must not forget that children can be quite brutal as well. I am not saying every moment is equally bright. So it is an immature form of enlightenment and it vanishes, to a large extent, exactly because it is immature. Mature enlightenment is enlightenment proper, and it does not vanish, no matter environmental pressures. / But more generally, would you advice people to read socalled religious texts, or teachings of a buddhistic kind, a zen kind, a dao kind, or whatever? : I think a mature, adult individual who is preparing himself or herself to be enlightened should travel a lot, learn to have a fluid, playful, yet logically grounded dialogue with every kind of personality in every kind of culture. I think the person should acquaint himself or herself with every kind of recorded idea in human history, from every kind of culture, but not chaotically nor as a system, but in order to think and reflect on each idea, to go through each idea and get his or her own sense of reality through it, not being gullible, not accepting Kant or Wittgenstein or Krishnamurti. We have had a few teachers, some of them were rather clear, but feel quite free to check with your own intuition whether anyone was absolutely enlightened. / What does your own intuition say? : Ah, does it really matter? Fish your own fish! The rod is there! Chapter 21 / I have a practical question. : Come with it. / You speak, sometimes, of the importance of going beyond time. : Living in the timeless, yes. / Yet society as it is, at least around me, configures itself according to clock and calender. : Quite. Do you feel a conflict? You shouldn't. / Why not? : Because time is part of the timeless. Processes unfold. You must learn to predict how they unfold, to sensitize yourself to upcoming events. / Explain. : Say, you make an agreement with another individual to meet and do something. How do you do this? / Well, I reason whether it is in alignment with my priorities, and with what I feel like doing, and so on. Then I conclude I want this agreement. : That's all good and well and fruitful. But there is a final stage before any agreement is reached, isn't there? A stage of silence. / Silence? : Silence. You reason and reason well, and that is valid, to some extent. Yet, as all who have looked a lot into formal logic knows - - and why shouldn't everyone look into this delightful piece of easy mathematics! as important as numbers! -- if you shift the premises, then the conclusions shift, and the premises come from something else than logic. / Please explain this, it is fuzzy to me. : You are about to make a decision as to something you are going to do in the future, say. And you say, "I am interested in such-and- such activities these days; this activity benefits what I am interested in; so I conclude that I am in favour of it". But if you change the premises, the first parts of this reasoning, the conclusion may change. For instance, you may remember that you have something else to do in that week; you may remember that you have changed priorities; you have recognize a sense that the person may actually not be there though he or she promises too -- there are so many possibilities, in fact infinitely many. / So what do we do, then? : You go through what you think is probable, and then become silent. You have got to feel it through. There is a moment, or should be a moment, of a silent pause, a sense of the wholeness of yourself and of how you feel in that future, doing that, and this moment will guide you. / Thank you. : You're welcome. Chapter 22 / I wish to discuss political issues with you -- and hear your views about what you could think or imagine to be an utopian state, if any; and how this ties in with pantheism. : Ough! Do we have to? If we are going to have this discussion, I first want to point out that, as far as politics goes, any particular political view is neither a prerequisite nor a direct logical implication of pantheism. We merely discuss possibilities, compatible possibilities. Do you know of the structure of deep ecology, as it was founded by Arne Naess and others? / Not much. : Well, deep ecology is a set of some eight points, which are all very general. They do not say how it is you come to believe in these points -- one of them being that 'nature has value in itself' -- nor do they assert exactly what you should do if you believe in them. It is more like a tunnel, through which we may stream a lot of different worldviews, and drew widely different courses of actions from. Do you see the similarity? / You mean to say that pantheism is like deep ecology in that it is a tunnel, capable of holding a variety of religious and political views? : Something like that. As I said, any political view is not a necessity in any way, as far as pantheism goes. There are likelihoods, probabilities, perhaps; there are plausible ways of thinking, that's all! / Okay. Granted. Can you imagine an utopian state? : No, I cannot: a 'state' is a fragmentory concept to me. Isn't it? How can you define a state unless it is by some set of borders? / Do you wish every culture to mingle, then? : That does not follow. We have different languages and cultures, we have different city-cultures and country-cultures, but I do not see that the concept of the state or the nation is of all that great importance. / Yet there are people who have adherence to religious scriptures, which say... : No! Adherence to a scripture is adherence to a folly! We are not robots, and the written texts are not our programs. Unless we rid ourselves from fundamentalism, letter-reading of texts, and start thinking for ourselves, we will get the worst kinds of atrocities. / Nevertheless, the political situation also involves people who relate this way to texts. : I see. You are asking how to relate to this, and whether it does not make sense to shield oneself, perhaps in a state, from these people. / Yes. They might invade you, overtake your cities and so on, in other cases. : I do not know if I follow that. A free city should have some kind of police that protects it. It may even have a military apparatus for strong defense. I do not see that a state is necessary to protect individuals. / But who is in command of that police force or that military force, if not a state? : Who is in command of anything? You see, in ancient Greece they had slaves and no real power for women, and on these very unfortunate conditions, the philosophers, such as Platon and Aristotle, sought to construct ideas of how things ideally should be. But with this brutal prejudice, they did not get very far. And none of them would have anything of democracy. They did not want people to have power. A lot of fascism came from these socalled wise people's thinking. Add Nietzsche, with his horrendous aversion to what he called 'weakness', and you had the horribe foundation for the fascist tradition of Italy and the nazi-fascism of Germany, and the marxist-fascism of Russia, China and many other countries, and countless ruthless dictators in latin America. Even the socalled 'democracies' denied women and indigenous people rights, women who were beautiful and independent were burned, millions of American Indians were maimed by the invaders and occupiers of the American nations; the Sami in Northern Norway, especially the shamans, were destroyed, in the most brutal ways. This brutal thing has just barely began to end. Chapter 23 / I think we should talk more politics. : Yes. / Do you feel that pantheism is most in favour of democracy? : Yes, if the alternatives involve any form of limitation of personal creativity. / But why was democracy so little approved of by the major Greek philosophers? : The reason is simple, but not very wise, as far as I can see. The reason is that when compulsion and overuse of brute force is already in effect, then the silly decisions of a bad democracy may appear at least as harmful as the decision of a rather clearthinking individual. The wise tyrant and all that. But the principle of regarding every human being as a piece of holy life, whose creative expression must be guarded, though perhaps counselled, must never be upset by a pantheist. A pantheist can never accept any form of fascism or dictatorship. / I thought you said that you can draw no political inferences from pantheism. : Not when it comes to particulars, and not with certainty -- as far as this or that nonviolent approach goes. But from the outset, there are constraints, there are limits as to what it makes sense to accept as a pantheist, and certainly, a tyranny, a dictatorship, a military hold on people so as to suppress their creative, artistic expression, or their moving about to other parts of the world -- any such violence against human beings cannot at all be accepted by a pantheist. / What about violence against animals? : The same applies. But there I agree with Arne Naess, that it makes sense for human beings to put a certain priority on their own kind, and then show compassion to other beings as an extension of this. / Can you tell what you think would be the ideal political situation, what it makes sense to work for -- what kind of democracy and so on? : Yes. Again, this is not something I think is necessary to pantheism, but natural in it: I think we should have a leaderless democracy. I think we should utilize our communication technology to make it possible for everyone to have a say about everything, and have no leaders with any mandate of power at all. That is one point, and it is not entirely unrealistic. After all, it was merely a practical installment that people votes on people to decide for them. Now we have technological opportunities to have an actual government by the people. / Why should this make a great change? : I think possibly it could make a great change, because everyone could at all times influence anything they like. That is a very radical shift of consciousness. It mirrors more closely how we might imagine the neurons collaborate in the brain. / Any further conditions for this to be fruitful? : Oh yes, we must investigate a lot of conditions, experiment, be playful, work it out. Again utilizing communication technology, anybody at all could create newspapers, magazines, TV stations and so on. I think this -- the free flow of information -- could effective replace the need for advertisments. Paid advertisements are often little more than paid lies. If we take away that thing, but have a completely free press in all ways, then journalists may or may not be biased or affected by gifts and so on, but some journalistis and media would get a reputation of honesty. / You would sensor advertisments? : No sensorship. But I would propose, in a democratic spirit, for voting, as all people could propose, that while there is freedom of expression for everyone, we should print information as we find interesting and not be on the mercy of paid information. I have a further point about this, as long as we remember that these are merely my personal opinions, compatible with pantheism but not necessary in it: I think we should not have money. Rather, people should have full freedom to work out whatever forms of exchange they feel like -- such as the local trade exchange systems or exchange rings that already exists around the world. / Is that realistic? : Why not? / But many have found money practical? : Yes, and still more have found that they have becomes slaves of the conditions that money power people set for them. / This sounds, in that respect, as marxism. : I think marxism does not work, because it is too onesided in how it characterises societies, it is too empty in how it consider the importance of individual freedom, and too negative in how it considers competition. Marxism does have some points of criticism which may be valid, apart from the severe lack of validity and meaning of the rest. I am most strongly against the crimes against humanity that communism in almost every form has led to. I have disregard for the anti-individual and anti-spiritual aspect of many forms of socalled 'socialism'. It is important to start any political thinking with a great emphasis on the uniqueness of each individual, and the infinite potential that every human being has. A pantheist is obliged to consider all human beings as infinitely valuable and far more important than any societal structure. / How would we make sure roads and power stations and so on would be maintained if this form of radical democracy -- almost anarchy - - which you are proposing would be implemented, without leaders, and without even money? : How would we get anything done? By exchange, by generosity, by letting people do what they love to do and work out forms of coherence of societal structures on that basis. Through the democratic voting, and the right of every individual to propose anything for voting, and the natural kinds of filters that people may vote to put into effect to reduce information overload, and so on and so forth, they may come to work out viable systems to get all essential tasks done, as well as a lot more. You just trust people and see what happens. / So, what if somebody attempts to take control? To make themselves kings, perhaps by unrightful means? : Then there can be a democratically elected police force, operating on principles. / What if it doesn't come up in time? : Let us think a lot about what should come up before we implement it. Things change fast, and when the last dictatorships -- such as the one that presently still exists in China, in Cuba, in some arabic and african countries, and a few other places -- when these last fascist or fascist-like regimes fall, then they will want to implement a structure that has already been thought a lot about. If we think it out in advance, then democratic planetary structures -- now we have the United Nations, in the future we may have something more applicable, perhaps called 'Integrated World' or whatever -- these structures can work to make the planet a nationfree, culturerich place where nobody is limited in terms of travel, and where a sufficiently smart and strong police force makes sure that no terrorist group or mafia gets enough power to make people come under their sway. The Integrated World thing would be like an immune system, defending individual freedom everywhere. Look, I am not saying I have a political agenda -- I would not automatically say that I support people who claim that they work for these kinds of thing. Because many have secret ambitions for power and I don't. My ambitions are very clear to myself, I wish to spread enlightenment so it touches and lives in everyone. We do not need temporary structures of power if this happens. When enlightenment lives in everyone, then enlightenment is spread by everyone to everyone all the time, just as much as the cells in the body all takes care of the body as a whole. They all take care of each other. / Isn't this a rather fanatical stance? : It is ambitious, but remember that I do not assert that anybody should lead this change, anybody except everybody. I do not say: Believe this! I say, I believe this, and I think this is compatible with pantheism. The only very strong assertion in pantheism is to see the god-glimmer in everyone, to see a hope in all life, to nurture love and not regard skin colour, cultural or religious background or behavioural or political attitude-pattern as important. A pantheist has trust in God to guide not only him, but everyone; and prays for this. / Yet, if a group of a people claims that they are pantheists and go to a crusade, where they condemn people who are not -- perhaps even kill?! : No! A pantheist can never kill another human being for any reason whatsoever. Somebody who has a faith in the godhood in every human being will always seek ways to protect life, and only in defense, but hardly even then, accept actions which may harm people. A crusade involving violence is something that people with rigid beliefs can do; a pantheist does not have rigid beliefs. A pantheist emphasises love and communication. The ambition to make everyone realize their own potential and let go of their ego and let guidance come from the heart expresses itself as art, as speeches, as new kinds of schools, as experiments with new kinds of economies, as nature conservation, as vegetarianism perhaps, and so on. It never expresses itself as a crusade. / If you -- in a world which is as yet far from nonpantheistic -- were given presidential powers, say, over the United States of America, how would you have handled this? : I would have given a lot of speeches about pantheism, in the sense of talking about the potential in every individual to relate to the origin of life, to receive guidance from there. I would urge all people that listens to think about this often, and to let go of dogmas and rigid opinions and engage in dialogues, in the newspapers, at the schools, at the universities, at their respective churches and so on. I would encourage democracy at all political issues, at all issues of decision there are, and teach people to use the forms of technology. I would set of commities everywhere to come with recommendations as how to spread the sense of wholeness in each individual in a healthy way, leading to more peace on Earth. And I would encourage CIA, FBA, NSA, Pentagon, the police and all the security services to have the same kind of ambitions and to equip themselves with Aikido-inspired powers, where they do not shoot, except perhaps with tranquilizers; where they can bravely go into a fascist country to arrest the leader, and make democracy there, without military action necessary. / What if people elsewhere were worried about about this mingling in their affairs? : People worry a lot, and dictators should indeed worry, because they have no right to be dictators. / Says who? : Says a human being on behalf of humanity. Nobody has the right to suppress people. / What if the people say, "We want to be suppressed?" Or rather that, than being invaded? : Give them real democracy and they will afterwards thank you. But do not do it by bombing recklessly. It takes great training, courage and discipline for a small number of extremely well- equipped agents, with great precision of information, and with a real amount of intuition developed in themselves, to bring down a fascist regime without bloodshed. It has happened. The author, Vaclav Havel, changed the dictatorship of Tscheckoslovakia into a democracy by the power and integrity of his own words. Such miracles do occur. As a president, I would work to undo all forms of power and instill democracy everywhere, in which nobody has the mandate to suppress any other, and in which there is a natural, democratically supported 'immune system' protecting this everywhere. Without any nations. Now you have got a personal answer to a personal question. However I see myself more as a teacher, or a scientist, perhaps an artist, than anyone with political ambitions or interests. As a pantheist, I speak of what I feel to be natural. I do not see that money is necessary or natural; I do not see that the power structures we have today are as democratic as they with ease could be. But you may have other propositions. Chapter 24 / Where would you begin, to talk of physics to people strictly outside of the field? : Perhaps initially I would give some motivating information on where physics seems to stand and where it is going, and then I would go a little back and look at how it has come there. Finally, I would go in some detail in an informal language, at some issues which may be of interest to religious people. I would try to do it informally yet without saying things which are far from being anchored in physics. I am rather unhappy when I read how physicists talk, sometimes, to Dalai Lama and similar figures, and tend to say things like, "Physics has brought evidence that there are multiple universes, multiple minds" and so on. A physicist steps outside of his field when he says such things, and he should not try to use the prestige of physics to account for them. A lot of my opinions have little to do with physics and then I cannot say that this is grounded in physics. This is not a question of regarding science as superior or anything like that; it is simply a question of being honest as to where one has gotten a piece of knowledge, insight or opinion from. Physics may have inspired certain metaphysical views, but it is insincere to say that physics has created evidence of this or that metaphysical worldview, with parallel universes and what not. These are simple open possible interpretations, that's all. / You have met a number of prominent physicists, partly as an editor of your own magazine, and partly in your own right. That includes Ilya Prigogine, the Russian-Belgian thermodynamician, Holger Bech Nielsen, the Danish professor at the Niels Bohr Institute who laid some of the mathematical grounds for string theory, and David Bohm, who you knew personally. How have these people affected you? Have you been in particular affected by David Bohm? : Bohm struck me as very honest. He always looked for logical connections, connections involving necessity, and he was completely unafraid in seeing things afresh, seeing facts together, and moving along in dialogue. He seemed to radiate a desire to stay present in dialogue and rarely came along with long stories of his own. As a researcher, he struck me as having great integrity. Of course, I was influenced by having read books by him and conversations with Krishnamurti, such as the eminent, strange book called 'The Ending of Time'. I was happy that he accepted me enough that I could call him any time and ask intellectual questions, and he would always reply at once. I could call and ask, "Do you regard intelligence, the intelligence of life, as being more related to the third implicate order?" And he answered, "Well, intelligence could be indefinite, you see." "But if you were to relate it more to one implicate order than another, would you go for the third?" "Yes." He put a lot of significance into small words like that. Another time: "Do you regard continuity as based on discontinuity, and discontinuity as based on continuity, so that there is no end, or do you regard one of them as more fundamental than the other?" "The view is that one of them is more fundamental, so that discontuinity is ultimately based on continuity, yes". The last time we spoke, about a month before he left us, due to heart trouble, he said something like, "in dialogue, we must suspend not only thought, but also emotion." "What is really suspension?" "You know the phrase, 'suspend judgement'?" "Yes," I said. "So here we suspend not only judgement, but also other kinds of mental processes, including purpose. But instead of saying, 'we should not have purpose', which may lead people to have the purpose of not having a purpose, we can say: 'let's give attention to purpose'." That was the kinds of conversation I had with him. / You said something about beginning the tour in physics by relating where it stands and where it is going, in a motivating way. : Yes. Physics as it stands have elements of interconnectedness that scientists of the eigteenth century would have regarded with amazement. For instance, it is clear that light may communicate with itself across any kind of distance, at speeds which seems to us to approximate instantiety -- we are talking of phenomena going well beyond the speed of light. It is clear also that matter may put itself into states of coherence where it acts rather like a laser, -- the superconducting magnets and so on, which they now find at higher and higher temperatures. It is also clear that the universe contains a lot more structure and also a lot more process than active physicists typically thought say, a hundred years ago. In short, physics suggests that we live in a universe full of activity and structure, interconnected more than it is disconnected -- and metaphorically, stepping outside of physics, and describing it poetically: it all looks alive. / When you say 'it looks alive', you are outside of physics as an academic field, but you feel that you are in tune with facts when you say it? Is that so? : More or less like that. Physicists don't have a definition of life; I wonder if really biologists have a definition of life that is universal. But as human beings, not as scientists, we have an intuitive sense of what we mean by saying that something is living -- it changes, dynamically and in a meaningful way, it picks up things and responds to it; there may be forms of learning happen. And when you look at the kind of theorizing the physicists engage in, you find most of these elements present somewhere in their views on the universe and its energy patterns. So if that is not interesting to someone, I wonder what would be interesting. It is interesting to such an extent it is amazing that not everybody study physics. Yet, when you look at the complexity of the formalisms of physics, we can understand why people prefer a distance. So that is part of the reason why I have developed a formal language, which is able to represent more and more of physics, in a simple way. I build on programming languages. This we can return to. / Okay. And where is physics headed, do you think? : I think physics no longer has the sense of the big alternatives, one or two or three big alternative worldviews, each of which 'sums it all up', as happened to be the state about fifty years ago. Rather, it is a vast conglomerate of data, theories, interpretations of theories, and possible worldviews to fit these interpretations. / Isn't that nice? : It is nice in the sense that it is stimulating for creative people. But it would be interesting to try to stand apart from this forest of details and diversity and look for coherence and wholeness, to get a sense of overview. The bewildering details of our life could need some kind of unity, coherence or wholeness, right? So if physics could pull itself a little together it might come up with things that could give a sense of greater meaning to all. Rather than merely say, 'pick your choice! do you want multiple universes? here we got a package for you! do you want complementarity of position and momentum? here, take the bohr package! or a determinist version? grab the good old bohmian package, it still works!' / That is funny. You say that some big worldviews are coming up, then? : I think the inclination is there, very strongly now. Again the map of existence looks pretty foggy and the alternatives are many. However, I know of the kind of physicist who may say, 'we have got it nearly all figured out -- look here, here I write the equations of the natural laws. Here are the constants. And here are some of the things we must solve, and which good groups of physicists are already near to solving.' According to this breed of dogmatic narrowminded unscientific physicist, there isn't much to do. I think this is a dishonest presentation -- there is infinitely much to do. And we don't really know much about 'natural laws'. These are human laws, which sums up a few patterns among a great deal more to be investigated. And the ideas sewing this together are in a state of a fragmented cascade. There aren't any worldviews proper. And physics can never just be mathematical equations. Physics is a question of understanding reality, of perceiving and relating to the world or worlds. It is not just a case for the calculator. Physics is for the mind. / Physics is for the mind, but does it say anything about the mind? : We'll come to that. But officially, it doesn't say much at this point. / So you feel that it is an urge, as if in the collective unconscious of the scientific community, in people at large, as well as in physicists, to come up with some big coherent worldviews before too many years? Some new worldviews, bringing the ideas of Einstein, Bohr, and the rest of them together somehow? : Yes, and then some of these ideas will be radically changed in one worldview, and other ideas changed, and changed in another way, in another worldview. Some big alternatives will come, each suggesting some big, perhaps complementary perspectives, on reality. The mathematics will go together with them, and the mathematics will be simple enough for enthusiasm to spread. And Einstein's equations of gravitation will not be left out, they will be somehow included together with quantum physics. And there may be some element X, Y or Z that we don't have yet, which is added as glue or as a fresh parameter of research, or which plays a new role. / Some would say the many worlds interpretation or the string or m- theory already have these ingedients. : I wonder if that can be said. The many worlds interpretation has been around for many years now, without any solution as to gravitation, of the kind that physicists readily accept. And the string and m-theories and all that is full of nice mathematical abstractions, fancy words and equations involving things which are untestable for what may be millenia. It lacks simplicity and persuasive power, it lacks elegancy of ideas, it has perhaps numerical power and it has a certain poetic suggestive power but it is not yet a theoretically winning stance. It is merely an activity with a few results. Something reaches the status of a great scientific theory only if several criterions are met simultaneously, and to bring physics to its next step, we need something more than, and different than, these approaches -- though perhaps with elements from both of these approaches, as well as from the approaches of David Bohm and others, including lattice theory versions of quantum physics and so on. / Let us not get too complex. Hopefully we have wet the appetite of many who knows little or nothing of physics to look more into it. Now we go into the history of it a little, shall we? Chapter 25 / Let's talk about the history of physics. In simple words, please. : Okay. I think it is fair to say that physics began partly as revolt against Christian dogmas. People read the Bible, they read Aristotle, and philosophy for a large part were concerned with sorting out the quotes of past teachers. Then someone watched the simple steam-engines and that kind of apparatus -- watches, and so on -- which had their own little mechanical life, as if. And they imagined, as a project: let us describe how energy flows in living beings, and let us find the rules of this energy flow, and try to describe as much as we can in this way. Not just in living beings, but indeed in all of the universe. / You mean that biology started together with physics? : Perhaps I confused the two in what I just said. I wanted to put it very simple, not chronologically correct. Of course, Newton wanted to think about the mechanical things of the world, and he didn't want to explain the life of organisms except by alchemy and theology. So the idea of applying mechanisms of energy transfer to living being chronologically came later. Yet the impulse, if we blend a few centuries, say, from the sixteenth to the eigteenth century, in Europe, was to go as much as possible beyond the very strict dogma of the Christian churches. / So science broke out from philosophy in opposition to theology? : Something like that. The people had pushed God, God, God onto mankind's thinking for one and a half millenia, and as a revolt, people said: let us see how far we can get in taking God away. And this attitude is found in many scientists even to this day. To me, as a pantheist, I think it is childish to be so much in revolt -- you can't get to truth by fighting an opposite all the time. / In any case, energy transfer according to rules, you say, was part of the initial idea of physics. : It still is, in many ways. The word 'energy' comes from a Greek word 'energos', meaning work, or capacity to do work. But the word itself was brought into our culture by these natural philosophers or scientists or physicists, as they came to call themselves. / Then things did not turn out to be that simple. : Well, a lot of exciting things happened first, you see. The more they looked for patterns and rules of energy flow and transfer, the more they found. And the more they found, the more interesting technology could be created. The more interesting technology they created, the more they achieved glamour and popularity, as well as better measuring tools and travelling tools and so on. So the mutual reinforcement of physics and technology created a force that came to radically challenge the whole authority of the church. Of course, the churches did a lot to prevent this from occuring -- and engaged in a lot of rather unforgivable violence against scientists and philosophers and free-thinkers, which should be enough to close down that wretched institution, as far as I am concerned. Other people say that we should allow the church to learn, to mature, to become wise as the millenia goes by. But I don't think it has acted responsible and I don't think it still acts responsible -- for instance in the way it does acts against protected sex, which could prevent deadly epidemics from spreading, in certain densely populated and poor regions of the world. There is a lot of irresponsibility that goes on in the name of dogmatic organized religions, and there is no justification in these dogmas when people are killed by stupid priests adhering to them. Anyway, science grew by a lot of mechanical thinking, and then, as we came into the twentieth century, we had a century which saw the end of mechanical physics and the birth of a new kind of interconnectedness (nonlocality), as John Polkinghorne, priest, physicist, and dean of Jesus College, Cambridge, once put it. / So could you outline in simple words what this transition was all about? : To begin with, the physicists had hoped that rules for energy transfer which allow a piece of energy to move gradually from here to there, following what is called 'local' rules all the way, without any interference from outside or strange forces, could explain all there is to explain about the material universe. It turned out that, in mathematics, they could use a concept called 'the path of least resistance'. A very inventive physicist called Hamilton developed this concept, and while it has a taste of something almost spiritual, it worked well to describe a mechanical reality. / But as we went into the twentieth century, we could no longer use this physics? : Well, it turned out that the more we looked at the picture, and studied the finer grains of it, so to speak, the more we had to come up with other kinds of rules than the original rules. The local rules would still be there, but supplemented with rules which applied to things that were very separate in distance, even in time. Einstein made time a rather active and flexible thing, in his equations. Then came quantum physics, which Einstein helped giving birth to, but which was a runaway child as far as Einstein was concerned. In quantum physics, there is still the path of least resistance, and Hamilton's physics still works, except that it has a few new elements which makes it nonlocal rather than local. / Nonlocal meaning what? : Nonlocal meaning that we have a sense of wholeness to the rules. It is as if a group of people not only relate to each other, but that they also relate to the group as a whole -- and the group relates to them each as individuals. The group of atoms, say, to be concrete, in quantum physics, as a molecule, acts as a whole in itself. And this wholeness is not merely the sum of its parts but more than that. This is conventional quantum physics, and I think I have so far really said nothing that any flexible physicist would not agree to. When you come up with assertions of the kind Fritjof Capra made in Tao of Physics, or the kind Ervin Lazslo has made in some of his books, then I would say: This is a poet reflecting on physics, and the physics is perhaps compatible with it, but the physics does not really give much credence to this poetry. If it is good poetry, let it be good poetry, but it is slighly, let's say, exaggerated, to say that this is supported by physics. / I know of people who think that one should not at all be against their speculations, but support them. : I know. Well, if I were the editors of these books, I would have deleted every reference to physics and science and presented it as philosophy. Then I woul have provided an appendix or something like that, in which it is said that it is possible to interpret physics in this direction, but this is not what physicists typically do, and the grounds for it are intuitive not scientific. This is the thing that shows that you understand the context of science for what it is -- something in which honesty and relationship to other scientists and to how far it makes sense to pull theories work. David Bohm had this honesty, and he was able to clarify when he spoke science, and when he spoke metaphysics or philosophy, so that, even those who strongly disagreed with Bohm, did not find him a bad scientist. I think it is bad taste to try to put science in a light that it has not put itself in. If this is not obvious to you, I don't think my words will do much difference, but this is something I prefer, and which I find a kind of basic intellectual integrity. Those without a scientific training may want to claim that their things are scientific; those with a scientific training may want to claim that a free speculation are scientific; I say that my preference is to name things that are scientific for scientific and those things that are personal philosophical speculation for personal philosophical speculation, whether or not I have scientific training or background. If you mix it up, you only mix yourself out of the sphere of interest, and you look rather confused to a great deal of people, and I am not willing to be a member of that confused club. If you think that is an elitist point of view, so be it. I call it honesty to my own perception of what's what. / But let us go back to the history of physics. Somehow nonlocality or interconnectedness came in with modern physics, in the twentieth century. Yet twentieth century became one of the most ruthless centuries ever. : Yes, thanks to technology. The nonlocality is suggestive of new trends of philosophical thought, trends which have an affinity to streaks in Spinoza, to streaks in Vyasa, Shankara, Lao-Tse, and what not, but it is still of a technical and extremely vague nature, and it is far from certain to what extent nonlocality pervades existence instead of being a special case -- as far as science goes. Personally, I do believe it -- or something like it - - pervades existence, and personally, I have reasons for it, but scientifically, there aren't all that many reasons for it yet. In five hundred years there might be a lot of reasons, or even if five or fifty years, but scientifically, we don't yet have a grounding for a spiritual worldview. / Is there in science a grounding for a mechanical worldview? : Only if you are lazy. If you are diligent, if you really look closely at all the facts, not just from physics, but also from brain science and other parts of biology, at psychology, at many facets of science, then there are suggestions of a very strong nature that the mechanical picture won't hold up. / What is the mechanical picture, in short, and how do we go beyond it? And why? : The mechanical picture is, with a modern metaphor, that the universe is like a digital computer, or a program on a digital computer. Everything unrolls according to if-then sequences, to numerical patterns being manipulated by some kind of fixed rule. The alternative is say that this may be part of the picture, but there is something more than this going on, and this otherness is neither chancebased nor rulebased, but involves a wholeness that has a relationship to everything that happens in the universe. Now this is not something that science garantuees, but it something we may find compatible with some aspects of science, especially physics, if we look very closely -- as I have done, if I am going to point it out. And yet there is so much more to come. / Why should we go beyond the mechanical picture? : Well, the mechanical picture offers no idea at all as to how life can be felt as a whole, as to what the significance of having a mind may be, other than shifting around with action possibilities. It seems to be the kind of picture that encourages indifference, apathy and intolerance. It does not personally ring poetically true to my inner ear. Yet I have talked with writers like Margaret Boden, who seem to find great joy in considering human beings to be machines of great complexity, and who sees no loss of dignity or anything in this picture. Perhaps especially women find it liberating to be completely free from the cultural debris of assigning 'divine significances' to people, and I fully appreciate their desire to go beyond the dreary past of humanity in this regard. But I think humanity is in danger if it stays with the myth of mechanism for too long. Chapter 26 / In our previous conversation on the history of physics, did we leave anything out? : Most of it! However, I feel I should not have left out the issue of probabilities. / Go ahead. : Probabilities came in with twentieth century physics -- not merely as a statistical uncertainty, but as something more real than that. / Real probabilities! : Quite so. Perhaps we should, so as to clarify the meaning, give it another name in daily life language -- perhaps potentials would do. So with quantum physics, something like probabilities or potentials came into science, for the first time since the conception of science. Potentials as actually existing processes in reality, which then manifest in this way or in that way; but which, as long as they are not manifested, may mingle with each other and produce wave like patterns. As soon as they manifest, they manifest in energy packets which are indivisible quanta. This is basic quantum theory or quantum physics, of course. I am really not saying anything new as yet. / Okay. We are not going to get too immersed into details, but now I would like to ask how you feel that a pantheist can draw on physics. : A pantheist would probably be interested to know that both in Einstein's work, and in the work of the quantum physicists, there are landscapes of time, or of possibilities. This suggests that the future may not be only in our mind, but somehow universally real, yet, possibly, changing (although Einstein did not vouch for a changing future, quantum physics seems hard to interpret without it). Secondly, a pantheist would be interested to know that physicists tend, nowadays, and presumably also in the future, to find everywhere tiny ripples of nonlocality, when they look carefully at microscopic energy transfers, at least. Possibly a lot more places in the future -- such as in the brain. For instance, a molecule is held together by certain forms of nonlocality. And nonlocality, again, means interconnectedness. Since our brains are made up of electrons and other kinds of energy processes, it is not at all ruled out that we as physical beings may somehow partake in a giant interconnectedness, though science can in no way garantee this possibility at present. / What does your own research into physical themes suggest? : My favourite notion of science can perhaps be summed up in the phrase 'mathematical psychology'. Here, I start with the notion of the computer and of the limitation of the computer, and by the limitation of the computer idea -- looking at what is beyond -- I coin the word 'uncomputer', as an instrument of coherence. I see a dialogue between the computer and the uncomputer, giving the upper hand to the uncomputer, and I put this in a very simple formal language and then something interesting comes up -- namely a universal tendency towards coherence, which can be seen to underlie all of physics, in my own interpretation. Of course, this also brings a unity to the branches of physics, but in a novel fashion. / What is coherence, in this regard? : Coherence, of course, means 'belonging together', fitting together as a whole, somehow. And Gestalt Psychologists summed up some perception ways in which things could cohere, and if you look closely at what they said, it can be summed up as 'contrasting similarities' and 'similar contrasts' (in this I draw also on the book 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' by David Bohm). My proposal is that coherence is the one big universal law and everything else can be deduced from this, but that this law is ever playful, it is not a mechanical law, it is not quite capable of being completely formalized. / So coherence is in some way that creative aspect of reality which brings things which belong together more together? : Exactly! And we can of course find a role for the concept in the major branches of physics. In Einstein's theories, for instance, we find that relativity is a form of coherence -- the coherence of equations of movement across difference reference systems, and the coherence of the velocity of light across difference reference systems, and the coherence of gravitation with accelleration, to put it very roughly. And in quantum theory, we see that coherence arises more directly when there is a form of resonance of the energies involved, such as when the wave function of an atom locks with that of another to produce a molecule. Coherence is, in this theory, nonlocality; it is also the conductivity of superconductors, and the coherence of light. / Is this merely an interpretation of the existing theories, or does it add something to the physical theories? : It adds one very simple crucial element, which may have indefinitely many implications, and that is that there is a tendency towards coherence in all open processes. It may mean that not everything that looks random is as random as it looks, but that the individual manifestations are rather expressions of the tendency of coherence. It may mean that interconnectedness or nonlocality can arise in new and other ways than those predicted in conventional quantum theory. For instance, it may mean that similarity of shape of movement can create some kind of nonlocality, even if these shapes are widely apart. And this can go a far way in suggesting things which spiritual people would kick on, of course; but as scientists, we must go slowly and merely show how simple we can render existing physics in this new formal language, how simply the ideas come together, and maybe this and that can be empirically researched on without great difficulties, and so on. / Where does consciousness come into the picture? And why do you say this is more mathematics than physics? : Well, the notion of coherence is very near to our sense of what we mean by consciousness, is it not? We feel, among other things, that our minds can keep a sense of life as a whole, at least when we are quiet. And so coherence is already a rather psychological term, but yet it has physical or mathematical meanings, such as the extent to which something has similar contrasts or contrasting similarities and in that way belongs together with itself as a magnificent whole, rather like a great painting or a great composition. So there is an element of art and mathematics here. I propose that we think it through, all the way through, beginning with something like the mathematical work of Kurt G_del, which showed rather conclusively, and in a way scientists will still think about in 1000.000 AD, if I am right, namely that fixed local rules aren't enough to generate complete knowledge about anything. That is one way to put it. And another way to put it is: coherence is beyond mechanisation. Then let us make a language which shows what is mechanical and what is beyond the mechanical which is as simple as possible -- and one such language is clearly Wintuition:Net programming language. With this, let us re-represent physics with an aim to see coherencies. / Wow. That is quite a picture. Thank you. Chapter 27 / You have said that pantheism involves a love for all. I may be in a state of mind where I find this feeling difficult to get at. Is there then something wrong with me? : Ah, you are the observer, I am the observed. Is there something wrong with me, who feels it, do you think? If not, why not? Why do you take my word for it, that I feel it? / You're honest to me. Why shouldn't I trust it? : Why should you? You have put me up as an ideal in terms of emotion or feeling and you feel a little let down to yourself from not feeling it. So you call on me as a superior and you want me to do what? to whip your ego?! But I won't. You must come to it yourself. / Are you against masters? : Show me a master! The masters, whoever they may have been, have led humanity into a great mess. Nothing has worked -- nothing of the socalled great religions have produced much other than the circus of entertainment-like structures which keep people stuck and stagnant in their ego-roles, doting for idols of emotions of love for all and so on which they do not touch much on anyway. / Something of it works for some people, occasionally. : Have any of the organized religions produced even a single enlightened human being? It could be. But it remains a speculation. So I am willing to say: Don't let yourself down. Stop comparing, but intend, generate in yourself the flame, the passion, to elevate both yourself and everyone else into a feverent, delightful, natural ecstasy of enlightenment. And what you will bring to others will be as chaotic as yourself, unless you learn how to live in ecstasy. You learn how to live it also by the motivation of having something of great value to come forth with to others. Don't start with your ego. Start with the light, and hold on to the light, and dismantle your ego from there. That is true pantheism. Chapter 28 / Can pantheism be a part of tantrism, somehow? You know the blending of sex and spirituality that some buddhists and people of other religious inclinations so strongly support. That orgasm can teach us more of the state of samadhi or illumination and all that. We also have the teachings of people like Wilhelm Reich, with his orgone chambers. : It would be quite nice, wouldn't it, if the pursuit if orgasm would be identical to the pursuit of awakening. / Well, isn't it? : Do you think it is? Just imagine how many inhabited planets that exists in the universe at this moment. It may be a greater number than the number of neurons in your brain, and that is already at the order of hundreds of billions, each with a structure more complex than a typical city on Earth. At each of these planets, imagine what percentage that is in this moment in an orgasmic state. Imagine that your whole beings is intertwined, healthily and radiantly, with these orgasms, the billions and billions of these orgasms, penetrating the universe. Okay, if you really push it, it's it. But as far as you merely think of it as a satisfaction for a part of your body or a part of your self-esteem, you have neither much sense of orgasm nor much sense of awakening. / Okay. I let myself visualize all these orgasms, I feel them, I bath in them, the universal group-sex, the pansexuality of all beings... : Now you are going! / So I say: I must not resist this. I must feel this -- nonlocally, as it were. Is that it? : Yes. / And isn't this enlightenment? : But does it reverse? / Then it is not enlightenment? : If your orgasm leaves you, it is not. Enlightenment stays. That is the key feature of enlightenment. When it arises, as the real thing, not just the idea, the conclusion, 'I am enlightened', but as the physical alteration of your brain and the awakening of your spirituality so that you are radiant to yourself and to all forever, then it is irreversible. Isn't it? I am not offering it as a dogma, but as something I sense. Isn't it so? Doubt it! / I think it is correct, what you are saying. : That's not very tantric, 'I think it is correct'. It sounds like an intellectual commentary. / It's right! Is that better? : I am not your tutor. / But I want to feel this always. : Then examine your intentions. Do you want other people to have exalted lives? Or are you still caught in looking for acceptance of peers and parents, comparing yourself to silly ideas, downloaded from advertisements, books, computers and robots? Which is it? / I guess my intentions aren't clean. : So if you want an orgasmic body, a body that shines with orgasm so that it is orgasmic even just to be near it, for others, for all others, not just human beings, but cats and lions and what not of intelligent beings -- dolphins, whales! -- then you must look into every cell, every intention of every cell, and you must work on that until it is all purified, until it is all radiant with the greatest sexuality ever! And in an nonvulgar sense. / What do you mean, nonvulgar? : Nonvulgar! My God! Nonvulgar. It means that you do not squeeze the arms of people who do not want to be squeezed by you, smiling sexually when they have not invited you to do so, or touch children, people who are not yet ripe to be on the sexual wavelength, and who have mature psychological selves, to handle it. You must manage your sexuality and yet you can radiate it, you can sense beauty, drink in beauty everywhere, and not be ashamed of it -- if you check the vulgarity, and do not let it become an irresponsible thing. With unprotected sex and so on -- we must protect ourselves and we must never let ourselves in on people who are underage, no matter how much attraction from the underage ones. Otherwise promiscuity becomes a bad thing. The whole tantric business stinks unless we clarify our sense of wholeness and responsibility and insists on that which Kant called 'beautiful actions'. There is a morale in sex and when we understand it, we can have sex without problems. There are orgasms or orgasmic states or near-orgasmic states, and we know how to act sexually in relation to each other without making bondage. / Is that pantheistic? Sex, which does not lead to children and emotional bondage? : Sex as an expression of love, as a further of the love of the body for itself and for others, sex as a sense of wholeness -- I am not saying that it is anything near a necessity. You can perfectly well get a radiant sense of spirituality by long walks, by baths, by listening to classical music and reading a good book; by self- massage, by happy eating, by dancing. Sex is a genital version of it, that's all. But sensual we must all be and we all are -- at all planets, for that matter. We must never switch our bodies in for artificial products. Nature is infinite sensuality and for that reason, infinite intelligence; our man-made products don't have that depth of resolution. Chapter 29 / Tranquility. The thirst for tranquility dominates all people and all cultures around the globe, it seems. It seems to be a longing in us that is engrained, together, perhaps, with the longing for entertainment and laughter. Where does it end? Will we ever find true tranquility? What do you say? : Do you have tranquility in your life? / Me? Yes, I think so. But it could be more. : Could it be a lot more? / Presumably, yes. : Then meditate more. It will come. / Is it that simple? : Do we have to make it difficult? / Yet sometimes I am restless and the restlessness won't go away. : Or you don't want it to go away. Do you always want to meditate? / Far from it. : Why is that so? / I guess, because I don't want to loose my hold on reality. : You mean your escape from reality. Sorry, I don't meant to upset you. But isn't it so? / I guess, yes. : So can you step out of guessing and relate how you know yourself, moment by moment? For one thing is to relate to yourself, or to reality, by conclusions. You seem to be beyond that, when you use the word 'guess'. But then, if you cultivate attention, if you pay attention, I mean, you can do more than guess. You can sense yourself as a whole. Do it now, please. / Yes. : So what do you sense? / Loneliness? : Don't speculate. / I sense fear. And anger. : At what? / At...a lot of things. I felt let down by life a little while ago, some weeks ago. But now it is disappearing. These conversations have helped me a great deal, thank you. : What are you progressing to? / I beg your pardon? : Where are you going, by means of these conversations? To a new set of conclusions? To more guessing? I want you to ask yourself these questions. Be extremely self-critical at times, in a nondepressive way. In a playful manner. / How can it not be depressing to be extremely self-critical? : It is not difficult. You simply have a sense of faith in the awakening of your light. You trust it. So anything at all can be doubted -- all your motives, all your intentions. And you empty yourself of them. Not wanting anything, you start feeling compassion for all beings, not just human beings, but also human beings. All of them, not a segment, not as a jew, an arab, or an american, but as a human being and a living being, a universal being. You sense a love. And then you bath in that love and sense how you can produce some of the fruits of that love for others. And you gradually come back to yourself, gradually center on yourself, without becoming too occupied with yourself. / Clearly. That was clearly put. : So can you live that way? / Is that the key -- to love your work? : Isn't it? / If it is, why do so many people claim a victory when they force themselves to do things, by effort, by violence, even? : Because we are still brutes in some ways. The protestant ethics, socalled, which is really no ethics at all -- just a compulsion, born of an illusion of what the ego will get after this life. But this life must awaken and the ego must vanish, then the soul will find its heaven. We mustn't delay this and meanwhile make ourselves into robots, ignoring the sense of life from day to day. / Some people who start being very sensitive get into a lot of trouble. : So we need more than sensitivity, but we need also that. You see. / What more? : More than it. Strength. Love. Clarity. / Does that sum it up? : I am not sure it is summed up in anything except that you awaken. If it is an ideal you you strive for, it is still you and that ideal and there is the division. That is not tranquility. / How do I meaningfully work myself from this side of the river to that side of the river, then? : Doubt also that there is such a river. You may already be on the other side, as well as in between. / Rather sounds like shooting an arrow in the Zen tradition, no separation of aim and process. : Something like that. Except the tradition has a rigidity and it lacks some of the compassion and playfulness that must be part of a really enhanced presence of life in yourself. / So how do I work? : You work. Just spend time with it. Chapter 30 / I would like to go to a place of leisure, a schola, a retreat, full of nature, its vibrancy, so I can have my own share of meditation. : Go! Go! You need that. Shower yourself in it. / I thought your attitude was: find it where you are. For if you cannot find it where you are, where can you find it? : Do I have a fixed attitude? Or is that you? / But... : No fixed attitude will do. You need fresh perception in the moment. Sometimes you can feel ahead of a complex situation and feel that it is appropriate to take on a role, a persona, a mask. Okay, go ahead and do it then. But do not fall in love with the attitude and become it, identify with it, and all that. That is boring. You are no particular attitude, you are no particular personality, these are merely mental habits and unless you change them you won't see that these are habits, you will think reality is that way, is the way the mask forces you to see. Have no attitudes if you want an everlasting stream of tranquility every day. / Is that possible? : At least do not assert that it is impossible. Go ahead, go to your retreat. Discover your meditation there, if you can. Then, when you know what state of mind you can be in, when you know what the brain can do without drugs, what doors of perception that can be opened completely without artificial stimulants, then come back and make art to reflect it, to remind yourself of it. / Is that the role of art, as you see it? Meditative art? : Either art reflects your bad habits, the computer aspect of you, or it reflects the life of you, the dance of you, the uncomputable aspects of your being. It is either the chaos and control of your ego, or it reflects your higher nature. Either art is the psychotherapy gone wrong, the rotten fruit out for sale on the market or not out sale, but cherised by the ego as some kind of ugly mirror of its ugly self, or art is a living golden fruit capable of awakening others, art as sexuality and sensuality, art as awakening and awareness, art as dance in your limbs, art as the sense of dance, art as the sense of God. If you make the art of rotten, ego-kind, then you will get more ego whereever you go, and the kind of energies you get, will be material, not spiritual; and the kind of coincidences you will meet, will not be lucky. If you make art of God, art of love for all, art of a sexuality that is panerotic, pantotal, pantheistically gay and free and exploding all frontiers of nationalism and culture, then coincidences will be for you synchronicities, it will be luck, your being will fill light and abundant with tranquility. People may be telling you at first that it is not fashionable but the force of your art will quickly change the fashion. You may not at first sell but then the energy of your whole radiance will make people open their eyes to what you are doing. So your whole life will have the energy of a natural retreat. You will have that meditative presence whereever you go, and wherever you live, but you will spontaneously select places which encourages this good energy in you, and meet people who do the same. In this way, through your art, you will awaken the whole Earth. Go, go on your retreat! DICTIONARY OF SCANDIAN These are the following extra contributors to a few of these entries in this part: Lumi Kartuuni [LK] Elisa Roetterud [ER] THANK YOU. Thank you also Stein Braten, Arne Naess and Frans Widerberg for many conversations on language, and playing with language. Grammar and considerations of use The grammar of Scandian, as here proposed, is to be sequence based, so that the meaning is generated through the particular sequence in each context. The words themselves will not necessarily be changed in order to occur in positions denoting a different sense. New words can be generated freely in any context, by a certain kind of sequence of words, some of which describe that this is now happening. Both these features are the same in Scandian as in the most simple of programming languages, like Forth and Yoga4d. We can imagine playing the piano as a metaphor to these two features. When we play one tone after another, it is like placing the basic words in Scandian one after another, and when we use these basic words to make new words, it is like striking a chord (and these chords may also be played one after another, of course). A melody can be said to distinct from another melody by the sequence of tones, even if all the tones are the same as in innumerable other melodies. Initially, we will see this very easy example, in which a few words are placed in sequence to make up a sentence in Scandian or Yoga6d, as it is also called. Secondly, we will see how this sentence can be assigned to a new word, constructed at the spur of the moment, which can then enter into this context as part of the word usage. atrio kresch of seid Each word has several meaning and each meaning has several words or names, in any living context; ambiguity is there, and it is part of the fun of life that it cannot really be taken away. We will now look into the first meanings listed for each of these words, if there are several, and suggest a way to appreciate a possible meaning of the sentence 'atrio kresch of seid'. 'Atrio' can mean to bring a third person into a dialogue. 'Kresch' can mean to see Nature as creative. 'Of' can mean humble. 'Seid' can mean magic. Atrio could also mean to bring a third aspect into a dialogue, perhaps in a situation where two aspects are considered in contradiction with each other or there is an either/or situation which needs a third perspective. We now imagine that this sentence is spoken in very slow sequence, as when we play a melody very slowly on the piano to hear each note and each transition very clearly. Atrio......kresch.......of.......seid. In this context, 'of' does not mean as in English 'pertaining to', nor does it mean as in Yoga4d, the value 0 or the false Boolean value. We must keep in mind that each context can freely give new and fresh meanings to words which already have other meanings in other contexts. The fact that a word is short does not necessarily mean that it is signifying anything simple, or that it is merely a 'conjunction' or 'preposition'. Let us again meditate, feeling the possible ways of sensing what this could mean Atrio......kresch.......of.......seid. What is in our mind as atrio is said? Okay, a third person enters the stage. Or something third. Then comes the word 'kresch'. The situation with these three people, let's say, turns attention to kresch, to the creativity of nature. Then as these three people turn attention to the creativity of nature, perhaps discussing it, the word 'of' is said, bringing humility, the quality of being humble, into play. So, atrio brings us the scene, kresch talks of a theme, this theme calls to mind 'of' or humility, so in some sense it is said that kresch reminds one of humility. In a digital world, everything flows just one way. In an analog world, everything flows both ways, though there may be an emphasis on one way. So there is in this case the startling, perhaps, utterance that the creativity of nature is in some sense humble. Hm. And then comes a word that sort of fills in the gap, opened up by humble. The kresch is humble (of) to seid, to wizardry, to magic. So the sentence could perhaps be translated as follows: Atrio kresch of seid, A third person enters the dialogue, which turns attention to the humility of nature's creative processes to wizardry. We will now, in this context, as an example, make up a word that will, temporarily at least, be defined to mean 'atrio kresch of seid'. The new word will be maravara, say, any word that does not already have ascribed a meaning in Scandian, at least not in this context. We will write something in front of maravara, a word that we will typically use when defining a new word, and then we will write a word after the 'atrio kresch of seid' phrase, to signify that the definition is now complete. akrai maravara atrio kresch of seid selbi If you look up 'akrai' you will see that the first meaning listed is to make such a new word, and the first meaning listed of 'selbi' is to complete the definition of a new word. To show the ease with which we can use this principle, let us make up a new word, kavirinana (the condition is that it sounds good, musically, to the one that makes it up, at least, and at least in the moment of so doing!), which is defined to be the first three words of our sentence, as follows: akrai kavirinana atrio kresch of selbi We are now in a position to say kavirinana seid And this will be rather the same meaning as saying maravana Something we can express thus: kavirinana seid maravana sam since the word 'sam' signifies resonance or similarity in meaning (among other things), and we will probably already have noticed, when kavirinana seid maravana has been expressed, that there is a similarity, there is a repetition, and to elucidate this fact, we say 'sam'. To sum up a feature of sequence, it is taken that, inside a sentence at least, the words that follows describe or qualify what has been said earlier. In a programming language like Yoga4d, we can add numbers by writing something like 3 5 mk And in this case, 3 and 5 are said first, then addition is applied, we might say, it 'qualifies' that which already has been said, so that if one writes an extra function, x, like this 3 5 mk x then x will further qualify what happens in such a sense as to print the sum, usually 8, on screen. When several things have been said in a row, and then something that appears to be qualifying just a little of it is said, then it is the last thing that has been said that is considered to be talked about, generally speaking. This again has an analogy in the following situation in y4d (short form of Yoga4d): 5 10 15 20 25 bb x In this case, the word 'bb' in y4d means 'add two', and it will then add two to 25, since 25 is last in the list; and then 'x' will print 27 on screen. Since there is something 'untalked about', it is possible to pick up from there again in the next line, like this: x x x x which will give us the remaining numbers, printed on screen. In a digital situation as in y4d it is very clear-cut. In a semantically rich, open, floating situation, as we want y6d to be, it is not clear-cut, and that is exactly why y6d can be poetic, stimulating, inspiring and so on, whereas y4d is poetic primarely as an afterthought, since it is a sharp structure; something written in y4d can be beautiful just as a Harley-Davidson bike can be beautiful, but it is beautiful as a feature it has in addition to the quality of functioning in a precise and fairly unambigious way; and the sense of potentiality about the machine -- that it can do its job, we can switch it on -- possibly enters into our perception of its beauty feature (and therefore a real Harley- Davidson emanates a different feeling than, say, a wax model of such a bike, even though it is painted with precision to look identical. When we speak a natural language, or any language in which the organic and flowing, the biological and open is in forefront, then the mind can touch itself directly on a meditative level through this language, since the mind is naturally multisemantic, the perspectives and the possibilities are naturally crossing and melting and shifting and being compared and distinguished, and the language is not an artefact trying to create an artificial order in this truly interesting coherence which is neither digitally controllable nor mere chance, but something greatly other than both those polarities. Scandian is what we might call a Virtual Language, or semi-natural, or virtually natural, since it is constructed yet has the features of the unconstructed natural languages in many ways, though not in all ways; and it comes with some features of its own, like the inspiration drawn from Forth- like or stack-based digital languages like Yoga4d. Therefore, in a computer context, it is easier to implement Scandian, or any such virtual language, before implementing a natural language, since there are certain simplicities guiding Scandian, including a grammar we can decide, and a basic word list we can consciously keep small, and a basic ambiguity we can consciously keep (enormously) big compared to a natural language. Then by suitable enhancement of discernments of meaning by word creation in Scandian, we can approach a language such as English. In the Triaversux operating approach (OA, rather than OS, since the 'S' is for system and we anarchists do not favour systems, do we?), we find y4d as a foundation when it is at a digital computer, then y5d as a mediate level dealing with NNS or neural network simulations, and y6d is on top. Within y6d, we can then find English and so on. In addition to the basic word list, which is alphabetically given and comprises the largest part of this text, here are some additional words, provided with the 2nd edition of this dictionary, to faciliate innovative use of Akrai and which relates the language Scandian or Yoga6d more clearly to other languages, both natural and digital (programming). The sensous erotic meanings are added not only for fun but for the sake of radically open up new perspectives on the sensuality of existence while the mind also thinks clearly about philosophical terms, this is something that proves absolutely significant for meditative / spiritual practises not to become grim and sullen. Yoga6d is in that sense mildly (or even vividly) erotic and I have no doubt that this is the way society is bound to develop any way, as spirituality merges with a complete and lasting acceptance and even embracal of the erotic aspect of existence and gets a divorce from the vulgarity of letter fanatism and scripture fundamentalism: SCANDIAN Akrai-related word list, added with the 2nd edition of Dictionary of Scandian by S.V.R. Released at www.wintuition.net/dictionaryofscandian.html together with Yoga6d emulation programs. Note that Scandian or Yoga6d is not just a question of software and applications and emulations but it is also intended for its own organic, prosaic and poetic purposes, as a dance of spirituality in the mind and suitable for both writing and conversations for those who wish. Please feedback www.wintuition.net with spiritually healthy books and essays written in Scandian. A selection of them will be included in the appendices of future editions of this dictionary. algorithm the notion of counting; the notion of not counting; the notion that a system is complete; the notion that a system is not complete; programming; unprogramming; the program; the unprogram; computer; the uncomputer; a sentence in Yoga4d defini the first and last ending of the ego; the death of the ego which happens once so that enlightenment incurs in an irreversible sense with dedication to life forever thereon erikle to undress a girl and paint her with 24 karat gold and black on a large canvas; and to make love to her afterwards, during, or before; also, such male activity; also, to make fun wordlists with impossible etceteras; to jump in order to get oneself hot when its cold; to colorize the desktop golden, red and blue; etc karragal to come from another language context and reenter Scandian, reactivating the contexts we last had, perhaps meta pointing to something in this sign context, such as bringing something in as a digital image to show what we wish to indicate, easy to use in connection, say, with Akrai metta pointing to something by organic means, such as finger pointing; talking Scandian aloud meriwa to leave Scandian temporarily and enter another language context ref reference to another language, such as English, can easily be used in combination with defining a new word through Akrai, when you wish to import a word like 'peach' or 'necklace chain of gold' directly and easily, defining it into Scandian; to bake bread; etc refer reference to another language, especially digital language, like Yoga4d or Yoga5d (Yoga5d is actually both digital and analog, at least to some extent); to read the newspaper; to destroy the newspaper without reading it; to purposedly look away from the newspapers in a store and to the flowers and living people; to steal; etc ramawaya emulation of quantum physics with a pedagogical intent; engage in David Bohm style of plural dialogue; critisize a system in Krishnamurti style; create a school or schola with a dialogic intent of liberation the individuals from self- centredness; to disregard the concept of age; to stop counting; etc mobhi the body sawawa context, ambiguity, making love, etc Scandian this language, when it talks about itself, such as to describe its problems, its confusions, how people misuse it for the sake of promoting their own egoes, or to talk about how extending it, how refining it, how to make it more transparent; how it ought to be, how it relates to other languages, to phenomena, such as religious and spiritual; how it relates to actual life -- is it an idea or is it actual; Scandian must itself encourage doubt of Scandian (or else it has no integrity; and the doubt must be as limitless as our trust in its potential fruitfulness and goodness); to be generous; to encourage many people to be lovemaking to each other; to write beautifully about philosophy, quantum physics etc teiwea a b c d e f g h i j k l m o p q r s t u v w x y z 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . , : / # $ ! ~ @ " ' ( ) | \ ^ * _ - ; % & = (as well as 0 or zero, if you insist) The full minimum set of signs to talk Yoga6d, when the three dots '...' are added as one sign or 'sign concept'. Optionally also the capital letters, but they are not to have decisive meanings for the simple reason that they are not pronunced differently than the versals. Here they are: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ The pronunciation of the letters in Scandian is suggested to be generally as in the Scandiavian languages, especially Norwegian, since this is fairly close to the ancient pronunciation rules of Pali and Sanskrit and really simple to learn; however it is suggested also that Scandian is to be a generative language which is to be encouraged to be used in a creative diversity of ways and not in a way enforced by any 'standard committee' ever. Note: Space or ' ' is considered to be a sign with Ascii value 32; 'A' has Ascii value 65 and 'a' has value 65+32. Unless specified, the Ascii values are preferred as the sequence as well as the numbering of the signs in Scandian; however in some contexts other and far larger signsets, such as 'Unicode' or later will be used in addition or as a replacement (for instance, if Scandian is simulated on a Java environment it will typically be such an extended code that applies, so that a letter like '' does have a number, generally a number with a code larger than 127). ... Absolutely illimitable infinity in every sense; the triaverse; Triaversux; the notion that Georg Cantor was wrong in defining N the set of natural numbers so that its size was less than R the set of real numbers and the notion that all the definitions following Cantor's incoherently thought-out, circulating socalled 'diagonal proof' are incoherent as a foundation for mathematics; also, a function in Yoga5d language which emulates 'going all the way, beyond all limits, to the fullness of self-referencing infinity; also, the concept that 'what is' is infinite; also, the concept that all set conceptualized in thought are in some sense inescapably self-referring or self- including; also the notion of nonlocality; also the sense that language cannot here say more, now intuition must act wordlessly; can also be pronunced ETCETERA theravada the form of buddhism which is nondogmatic, nonsystem, perhaps the only genuine branch of buddhism, perhaps the only approach that, especially if tantric, a buddha could subscribe to, if there is no hierarchical spiritual organisation nor any spiritual authority of any kind to human-made things or objects or thoughts, nor any idea of absolute nor gradual progression of the spirit (since it is anatta, noself) yoga4d the ground digital language for yoga5d and yoga6d when a version of it is emulated at a digital computer; also, dreaming at night of great ecstasies in lovemaking after doing programming on paper in bed; etc yoga5d the intermediate language between the digital language yoga4d and the organic language yoga6d; the reference to simulations or emulations of some kind of neural networks; the reference to www.yoga5d.com as an organising website; also to say 'yoga5d' may be to refer to the fact that an organic language like yoga6d cannot be implemented only emulated by something digital; also, any sentence in yoga5d, such as to elucidate a clear technical meaning of a yoga6d definition or organic statement; also, to refer to 'both/and' thinking in contrast to the 'either/or' thinking going on in the digital context; going for a walk; toning the muscles; etc yoga6d Another word for Scandian; in Scandian, most words can have criss-crossing meanings, and most meanings refer to several words -- so to say yoga6d may also be to refer to this aspect of Scandian; the reference to the fact that Scandian or any part of Scandian and all parts of Scandian are ambigious; also the word has been noted to be used by notable writers in the sense 'to swim' (such as naked with many model girls around one) Complete Basic Word List A Aie To create artificial intellectualisation, such as through programming, based on understanding and insight Ain Listening to people as one listens to a concert Akrai To make a new word, the word that follows, meaning the sentence that comes immediately after it until 'selbi', to doubt this language system; to leave this language context; to build a radically new language; to affirm transparency of this domain of intercourse; to have sex Alumnashtagilfatimulfitorr The joy of eating correctly, not vulgar eating or fat eating Amara To perceive something fun Amaysaglitorium To engage in dialogue Ambria To perceive of life as open Ame To fulfill with or through feminine energy, the complement is Rae Ami The sense of unbounded friendliness with all Amitar To wake oneself up from a doze Amitir To fight for one's freedom in the context of political oppression or the like Amaumtanisheigir The freedom to live as one wants to do Ane The contact with the intuitive in a pantheistic sense Anga To cease doing one's false things Angrenasjon Pippi_Longsocks_like; key cheese; etc [ER] Ani Bosom Anibel The perception that truth has an immense activity in it Ansh The doubt of all one's plans Apit the drive to do something good for humanity, for life, or for trees and nature in general; to copulate intensely, while thinking about the stars; to clear up one's room; etc Argal Glass Ase To perceive vividly something new without distortion or influence from the past; to create based on visual perception from one moment to the next Ati Mouth Atok to paint a painting in pure gold; to make love while thinking of birds and broads and all beings as somehow golden; to drink tea; etc Atrafillhanorampakoshpitafna To gather energies on all levels Atrio To engage a third person in a dialogue; originally involving only two; to balance, to achieve a golden mean; to make a threelegged chair; to have romantic intercourse between three or more people; to build a house for more than oneself Avdatoren The Uncomputer, the concept of the source or origin of computers as something organic and beyond computers Avdatorisere To rip away computers; to unprogram computers (cfr avdatoren - - uncomputer) Avhabia To get rid of all habit Ayant The realization that any language has its own fragmentation, including Scandian etc Ayinatang Love in the sense of mutual sexual attraction ... B Bakorg Having an orgasm in one's back, in one's feet, hands or in other areas that are not directly considered genital from an ordinary viewpoint Bea To perceive the beauty of a dancer so as to have an ecstasy in eyesight; to drink espresso; to talk with one's best friend; to travel to Manhattan; to make love with attention to beauty Befolde Bring an affirmation into the universe, sow a plant, copulate Best Readable Bil Car Bile Drive or be driven in a car Bongotosh To doubt the systems that one currenly may have conditioned oneself to like Briff innocence, newness, openness, tenderness, youth Buros Hair ... C Chikal The making of new languages so as to reflect new insights into the world Copulere Meditate, making love to oneself or other without fornification, for the love of it, walking joyously in the mountain, or reading poetry ... D Dator Computer Datorisere To utilize or program a computer Del To dress up so as to convey a psychedelic spirit of freedom Dialogisere To make a dialogic intent and openness where there used to be dogmatism, also used to diffuse tension between fighting groups of people, used as self-therapy to root out portions of the subconscious where one is emotionally reactive towards dialogue (such as when somebody says: let us never talk about age or numbers concerning people; and somebody else reacts to this with a sense of lack of control) Dia To doubt the need to put anything into words right now Drogol To listen to the message in a sudden occurring pain, and heal accordingly ... E Ecste Samadhi with a seed (cfr Patanjali), that is, the state of awakened tranquility in freedom from all bondage as of space and time, yet with some element of thought or intention (useful in Samyama, in which there is an awakening of extraordinary powers such as telekinesis or clairvoyant or prescient insight) Ecstaff Samadhi without a seed (cfr Patanjali), that is, the state of mind as unbounded with regard to ego, world, time, space, notions, ideas and so on, completely activiated with regard to love and its intelligence (filled with joy etc) Egrila To interpret synchronicities with a playful intent Ehe Milky way Ehm Tea; herbal tea; hot water drunk as tea; hot water with milk (prior to Asterix and Obelix in England); hot water with milk and sugar; tibetan tea with butter and a taste of old fish; any health drink, especially if it tastes very healthy and not nice at all; a juice, when drunk by a fanatic vegetarian; but also in some cases a fruit juice drunk without any sarcastic intent; also a dance made by a fruit maker, such as with bare feet on top of olives; also virgin olive oil, especially when made by virgins; and other such alternatives Eiro To activate oneself with regard to something, in a mental focus, when one is tranquil; also to swim (literally or metaphorically); to masturbate; to destroy a system; to make a poem; to poke fun at school teachers; to photograph Elbe To make artworks Ele To create electronic connection; to phone (see also ringe) Elisitamapuram Hip Em The awareness that the observer is the observed Embri The complete transformation of the psyche so that enlightenment is lasting Eme Freedom to do what one wants to do, when one has love Emey Politeness Emio The creation of new patterns of activity to ensure goodness Enei Alcohol Enfi The doubt of the concepts of enlightenments presently around Enfrabel Dialogue to change the world Engaliam The realization that there are no spiritual authorities Eni Purification of energies Enia Insight Enitra Freedom from too much emphasis on the impulses from the sensory organs etc Enk To protect one's energies so one can be more generous and creative Eventyring To move around with a sense of harmony guided by gut feeling in the spirit of making physical, mental, spiritual, social discoveries incessantly, especially in the context of travel; to write about this; to meditate and discover love anew; to make love secretly beyond one's official contacts Evin Head Excelciuroumitafina To perceive of life as eternal ... F Fi Wet pussy; extraordinary sweet flower-looking yoni; or the act (by a man or woman) or entertaining it towards new forms of ecstasies Finitongaronkiltafinkar To perceive of life as dialogic, in the I-Thou sense of Buber Fitne To heal the sick Fivit To perceive of life as beyond what any book or language can say Fix Neat; to repair Fjetfitol Mutual telempathic (telepathic empathy) Fornemmelse Direct recognition of love of reality, which is not necessarily based on sensory organ reception nor on concept formation Forny Total rejuvenation, renewal, resillience regained, of skin, organs, all the cells, all the aspects and parts and levels of the organism, material as spiritual as mental as social, so as to regain glow and youthfulness Foryre Make or create meditative energy in another despite the fact that the other does not have any meditative energy, such as by quiet dialogue, or healing actions Frigol All the universes Frikschmotang To dance freely ... G Generere Generate Generos Generous Gjemme Success by only and exclusively golden means; to tread the golden middle path Glykke The generation of good luck Godroing Meditation, healing, spending time in the bath, making love etc Goga to throw away petty-mindedness and have the grand and grandiose outlook in which each being is potentially actualising an infinity of insight and goodness, as a metaphysical insight; the meditation in which all beings are seen as swirling currents of complementing forms of goodness, or are somehow weaved of goodness, despite the potential for this fundamental goodness to become twirled up in an ego inside a being so it must be healed; to engage in world healing daily Grablo Love such as to live together also Graha The generosity of wellsculptured high-heeled feet; the movement of effortlessness; walking for a long walk meditating; etc Gratia To perceive the grace of someone's eyes; the sense of glamour; freedom from hatred; the healing gaze; to dance well ... H Habia To grow a plant with the intention to smoke it; to have a habit Hafkol Love in the sense that no conclusions apply Hafrit Not drinking alcohol Hamitna Finding a way to enlist a new goodness in this moment by attending to subtle harmonies and expressions of health, and instantly healing as well as avoiding pathways of disorganized and ill feeling Hanit To dance through the day and work spiritually at the same time Harmoni Harmony (see also monisere -- to create harmony) Haya Plates Hef Being doubtful of oneself at a mental level while listening to 'what is' Hefnibarolay The creation of science fiction novels Hele To heal (body/mind/spirit) Hemp Arbitrariness Hent Redundancy Hextapinho_dosaquapsipipihinhe Trance; speaking in tongues; relating to mushrooms; [inspired by Terrence McKenna's 'Speaking in Tongues', from his Spacetime/continuum CD 'Alian Dreamtime' -- LK.] Hfr The perception that love is good and ecstatic; the intelligence of love Hin The subject, which can be a person of female or male gender, for instance; this is also the proper word to use in the traditional object position, since Scandian favour many-subject sentences, like 'hin talar med hin' (he/she is talking with he/she). Hoe To see humour where nobody else sees it; the discovery of a new love Hoit To watch a movie Honos Honesty ... I Igg The revolution of all one's mind Igura To remove all beliefs in gurus, masters, leaders of every sort; to overthrow a fascist regime; to turn off or deprogram computers that control living beings Im Walking along a lake Imay Love such as to form lasting relationships Ine To dance in order to get insight Infi Internet Infinitize To make infinite (one's understanding of something); to change the world through meditation; to kiss a woman's hand Ingashal The realization that one must doubt oneself and any tool that one is using Ingashmota Galaxy Iniay The known Inilamsopretashnapihexroykampeshmo Love such as to eat many meals together Init Vegetarianism Intensitet Intensity ... J Jahit To combine dance and yoga Jesch The doubt of one's own master so as to realize fullness of intelligence in oneself Jivere To cure an infection by bathing, massaging, healing, praying; to create life in organs; to rejuvenate; to eat vitamins; to pray to the sun ... K Kabir To hold around a slim woman; to hold her arm's back while copulating with her; to kiss her neck while she comes; etc Kae The freedom to do what one wants Kaf To watch a dance performance Kaga Walking meditation, walking without talking, walking without thinking or so as to heal something Kagal To combine dance, yoga, Feldenkreis movements, and so on Kagash To walk through a city in order to enlighten all Kaggagallah To take something down from a pidestall Kajet Feeling the force of a city Kalit To say something extremely funny Kambrez Ego Kameni Strength Kami To critisize this language (Scandian) for its lack of wholeness etc Kamishalayat To sense goodness Kanay Celibacy in the joyous sense, for the sense of gathering of energy Kanex Leg Kanga Repairing a machine Kangaja Altruism Kangh Coffee Kanit To end with all one's false projects Kasni Changing hatred into goodness Kavi To set one's hair so that it reflects cosmic chaos; or to set one's hair for ballet dance; or to tone the color of hair; or treat one's hair Kehi Finding something new in each moment Kemeni Friendship Kitno Joy Kli Clitoric stimulation; clitoric orgasm Klilo Walking along a mountain Kodogo Self-sex Kolingva Conversation Kongaja Destroying a dictatorship in a bloodless compassionate way Kongoyo The ending of pretense Korg To engage in healing actions Korgolamp Compassion Kositang To reperceive the cosmos without influence from any language, context, lifeworld, worldview, organisation, cult or master Kraskagabal To make love to a friend in mind Kreabel To perceive of life as full of angels Kresch The perception that Nature is infinitely creative and aware Kresque To be careful with language Krevet Intelligent Kvikne To gain the speed of synchronicity ... L Labli The perception that finiteness is an illusion Li To lick a woman between her legs Lidenskap Passion Liey The unknown Lilalanga To dress so as to enhance beneficial synchronistic effects Lingva Language, suggestion of language, tool of recognition of verbal nature; way of discourse Livit To create for creativity's sake Lobrintagish Integrity Lyr Language activity with poetical features, given meditative unfoldment, when one, for instance, write to oneself in the morning to reunite oneself with meditative clarity. Also lyrende, lyring. ... M Mah To avoid reading newspapers Mahalla To boil water, for instance for food or tea Mak Raising slowly from a sitting or lying position to a standing position, such as in the modern dance style of butoh Mastabratalay To doubt that one is enlightened; to doubt that it is impossible to be enlightened now Maval To listen to one's gut feeling Mayanana To make a laboratory Mayaya Stars Me To take care of oneself Meditere To meditate Megil To work effortlessly Mehetnitonk A pidestall Mehtscha The doubt of all gurus Meliam The radiance of having recently had much sex Meme to cook a lot of water for tea or something without shutting it off; to take a sauna; to swim early in the morning; etc Meo Compassion Mergiri Hilarious feelings Merik To create beings floating in air as in Frans Widerberg's paintings Merila To watch with a clairvoyant sense Merio The necessity for a society to be open Merivirimiribal To achieve beautiful things in beautiful ways Merk Infinity Mervit Shoulder Mischkra The doubt of the conditioning one was born into Mishef Changing a dictatorship into something more democratic Meshia Love Meshishi To end corruption Meshitraval Taking down the government Meske To send any kind of digital message by any kind of technological medium Metiv To stop misusing friends Metivin Foot Mevetinga To mentally visualize money, income, wealth Meviv To doubt everything Mi To move synchronistically Mie The construction of new languages, also such as to reflect features that Scandian doesn't show easily Mihi The perception that fluctuation is part of all life Milaha The necessity for a organisation to be open Mishtava The ending of a system Miskal The absolute ending of the ego Misompra Moving gently about, such as with the effortless awareness that Moshe Feldenkreis suggested Mistag to eat sushi; to sit in the diamond position, as in yoga asanas; to eat with pins; to thinking of Mu or nothingness; to lick her very deeply; etc Mistall to aim at nonviolence defence strategy, such as inspired by Aikido, in which the energy of the attacker is diligently and smartly used to set the attacker in a position where no more attack can come, without incurring harm either to the attacker or the attacked; successful nonviolence in practise; to disarm people by the power of compassion, and meditative insight, and visualisation; to engage people in a dialogue so as to question their ultimate purposes, which lead to conflict; to realize that things are prospering and hopeful when they look otherwise; to create good luck; to repaint the walls of one's house or create, in architecture, truly beautiful houses, also spiritually, so as to enhance good synchronicities everywhere; to end corruption by meditative and dialogic means; and so on Misti To loose oneself in a cloud of mysterious joy Mivil To float through space; also as in orgasm Mme The recognition that all living beings share a common sense of love of life, at least potentially so, if this potential can be actualized by proper culture and by the freeing oneself from all systems and formulae etc Modig Courageous Moga To create the courage to do something (cfr modig -- courageous) Mohai Love in the sense of mutual sexual attraction in a celibatic context Mohaya Creating healthy coherent compassionate anarchism Moho The perception that consciousness involves duration in a Bergonian sense Monisere To create harmony; in architecture, as in Feng Shui, to create beneficial surroundings; to sense possibilities of joy and act accordingly Morfit To encourage goodness and laughter in all Moril Oval Mosh Idleness Moshtablakatongahuxja The universe as a whole Moshtafilna Love in the sense of joy Movere To experience movement as infinite and natural in a new area, where one before was in the habit of thinking in terms of stagnation Moyomoyo Generosity, gracefulness, orgasm ... N Nahbro The completely and lasting change or revolution in consciousness Nara Massaging hands or feet, especially with a healing intent Nerigilli To make love to a friend Nash Water Natib The perception that one must be honest to one's perception Nave To anchor oneself; to make an unbilical cord as it were, such as to an artifical system to make it (more) organic (see navle) Navle Navel Neiichi The perception that there is a coherence beyond chaos or control Neit Idleness which becomes the leisure and space of meditation Nergioh The perception that the hunt for prestige may be at odds with own integrity Nette To create a network (where there was hierarchy, perhaps); to engage many people (in organisational pursuits, in a context of love or playing music or whatever) Neyet Walking a very long walk, thinking, as well as freeing oneself from thought Nibbhanatashnayogachutnachitta The realization that spirituality involves love and care for all life without ends Nivitangasjmjoi The necessity of being willing to critisize and describe accurately any hypocrisy Nogr to think intensely synchronistically (so as, for instance, when one has thought a thought or written a sentence and someone coughs at that moment, the word 'not' is inserted or removed or the whole sentence or thought is considered a lie or mistake) Nolit To live life in the fullest Nokk To say something so as to create light in another's psyche Noreh To be endlessly aware Nuet To question oneself as to whether something is right, and listen through synchronicities Nuitang Love such as to drink intoxicating drinks together while having a dialogue Nyere To ask again, after the answer was provided from memory, in order to trigger a fresh perception (see fornemmelse, oppfattelse, ane) in relation to the question rather than merely an answer as cliche ... O Of Going beyond the notion of the 'subjective' and being humble to 'what is' Omiam The sense of the future in the present, and the dialogue with the possible futures Oppe To affirm, positively; to massage so as to awaken; to lift high (as in dance or mountain climbing or sexual intercourse) Oppfatning Opinion, as distinct from oppfattelse Oppfattelse Perception of reality which to a larger degree than fornemmelse is sensual, and not necessarily limited to the sensual realm. Confer the English word Perception. Orge To create natural order, love; to have an orgie; to be many adult people washing themselves, singing, having sauna; to eat gastronomically; to copulate many virgins; etc Orgish the sense of all-pervading orgasm ... P Panteisme To love all as godhood or holy somehow Palidha To end another's ego Pantra Tantric kundalini awakening Patiskol Thinking-awareness Pe Swollen dick; extraordinary grand lingam; or the act (by a woman, generally) of sucking such Perivineshabla The realization that violence is stupidity Petni Love in the sense of heavy petting, much touching, but basically with clothes on Pevind To listen with a clairvoyant sense Phoschitt Moderation, health; freedom from drugs Pimpatorianatolat Angel Pipi Sex with many people every day Pistneka To say farewell to somebody Polyteisme To love everyone as gods Portanai All the futures Porvo Bringing in stimulating good taste pictures of the sexual action or of people near to it so as to furnish a sense of good radiance to an office, a working place, a computer environment, a car etc Poshta Love in the platonic sense Potni TV Prenitsch Moving about with full awareness Prepolnoshsut Dialogue to create more peaceful and artistically healthy surroundings in a society Probe To recognize probabilities in an area in which one has no knowledge at all, in terms of certainties Prs Ending of egotism of all kinds Pue To take a break; to wait; to copulate while waiting; to program computers for fun Pumphallitt To use a drug with a spiritual intent, once, and not as a habit Puti Swollen breast tips ... Q Qevitashnojivitam To emphasize the gravitationless Qi One of the many names of the ultimate energy of life, pronunced as Chi, but with more intonation Quitariam To avoid saying things that appear too certain Qungiska To avoid conclusions ... R Ribal To take a break, watch life, and regain meditation and love for all Rae To fulfil with or through masculine energy, the complement word is Ame Ragalal To engage in design or painting so as to create healing synchronicities Raganiat Thought Ragash Newspaper Ragashnotakk Love such as to do many things together Rajamataka To perceive of life as beautiful Ralaytarvisashama Passifism, so as never to kill, no matter what the goal is Rangajanga To perceive beyond likes or dislikes Rayvanareginash Gentle Rebrilating To perceive of life as joyous Relaykoshta To be precise Resh To watch a woman's eyes and have a dialogue about life with her Revil To step down from a false position involving vulgarisation Riatnoshiv Love in the sense of friendship Riay The sustainment of a healthy immune activity; on a social level, protection against crime etc Rigalhatimoshapirmiazul The feeling of being new and spontaneous Rigall Eating little to enhance sensitivity; eating vitamins Ring Circle Ringe To phone; to make a circle (ring) Rion Starship Ritambhara Playfully give awareness to all that happens Roat To mentally visualize rejuvenation, renewal, resillience Roatnikalalupur Lip Roblaflow To end control and begin dance Roey The training of oneself so as to be polite Rogin Eye Ronkistafpluxe To avoid saying 'never' to another living being Roshamba Not using cannabis Rshma Making love along a lake Rye To create a new rhythm in one's surroundings ... S Sabli To watch oneself as one is and healing oneself Sablinatong To engage in healing through art Sabretangijava Probable Saeh The sense of being good within, even when one is doubting Sagin Ear Sam A basic word indicating similarity through loving resonance, compassion, and lovingkindness, as in samvit Samdi To focus attention on a woman's butt; to be in total quietness of a receptive kind; to be in ecstasy beyond the feminine or the masculine Samlingva To compare languages or ways of discourse so as to step out of the field of language altogether Samvit The blend of godhood and mankind Samyamangamlatill Arms Sanit To ride a horse Sapil To mentally visualize luck, healing, light and love Sayet The freeing of one's mind of a language system; the making of anarchy of a coherent and compassionate kind where there is a system Schortna The doubt of all priests, imams, interpreters, and professors Schpa To stop lying Schwoll Doubt of pride (one's own or others) Seblaytaram To listen to music Sebrinotsch To dream, to fantasize Seh Solar system Seid Wizardry [LK] Selbi To complete the definition of a new word (see Akrai); the feeling of doing something completely right Selio To perceive of life as immense Seloy Freeing oneself from conditioning Sembje Find resonance in a new thought; etc Sangit Weightlessness Senoi The compassion of divinity towards all creation Sepit Making good food Setch Doubt that societal success has any spiritual significance Sevit To do healing actions while sleeping Sex Sex Sexso Taking sex into society Sexoso Taking sex out of society Sha To avoid turning on the TV Shanitra Freedom Shaya Vanity Shia Computer networks in general Shish To find a secret spot in a hierarchy so that when this spot is touched by a healing intent, the whole hierarchy collapses Shishishish To expose an editor of a media as a fascistic or fascistoid inclined person Siay Freedom to be as one wants to be, when one has love Sibra To stop deceiving oneself Sikia To watch, see, feel, taste or hear, especially in relation to rhythm, party, music Simah The perception that there is something beyond time and thought Simra To perceive of life as a choire, sung by gods Singa To stop misusing oneself Sipia To mentally visualize beauty in all Sissi The programming of computers Smr Make love in secret places Sobra To perceive of life as holy Sojo To stop deceiving oneself and others Soyoyoyoy To give a talk on enlightenment questions, not setting oneself up as guru Spaya To eat pizza Stari To listen to harmonious music (such as baroque) all day long, while meditating and doing creative work; to sleep while one listens to low-volume harmonious music, and thereby rejuvenate; to play harmonious music in an empty house, for the sake of the harmony of the walls, the plants, the pets and so on; to play an instrument so as to meditate; to dance to harmonious music Stiraykosin The perception of the nature of a computer Swelgish Energy Swor Space, spacefulness, also mentally Synge To sing, to chant a mantra, to awake, to dance in the morning, to make love in the morning ... T Tagaoi The perception that all is open Tafina To perceive of life as infinite Tafitamafopur Hyped Tagaga Timeless feelings Tangi Round Tangish Learning a new language Tash to dance around synchronistically, thinking about the wholeness of all life and one's own species, and that there must be no wars, no bombing, no exploitation, that empires must fall to the erection of goodness through anarchistic networks, etc Tatonga To mentally visualize happiness, goodness, joy, sex Tavithashno To create music Tavre Limb Tayagothnabiltoshagar Cannabis Ti To listen to a good DJ (and perhaps dance to the music, at least within) Tokapotahelxibur Nose Trafittlomp Long Travit to drink coffee or tea while writing and meditating and looking at girls Trefni Joy Trevina To perceive of life as good Trevitne Nonviolence; or peaceful achievements of goals of high integrity Trinne To make massaging movements of healing-tantric value, such as to induce both orgasm and health in the various organs Trobri Possible Trofalltishnopluttarkiam Freedom to disregard socalled 'authorities' Tvigal Not believing feverently in any ideology but in eclectism ... U Uen Giving marvellous talks Umbre To unfold a new flame of wholeness in one's work by suspending all plans, going for long walks in quietness, sleeping and meditating, and coming up with new appropriate visions, to make love for hours and hours so as to forget oneself, etc Undre To wonder, the basis of all philosophy or love of creative insight from one moment to the next ... V Vegil Being responsive, full of life, not cutting people off Ventyromantisk Adventurous romance [LK] Vie To dedicate oneself to something, wholeheartedly, so as to combine one's sense of life with the object of devotion and usher one's creativity and perception afresh and anew into it, also so as to make money or create new resources through this, in the sense of interactivity economy Viey Polite Vitit To arose a sleeping city to enlightenment ... W Wagila To activate the brain in new ways Wakat To find new coherence in brain activity Wangapeniltoy To write and talk while doing safe temporary sleep depletion Wayat To create coherence technology in a way that is not usable for petty control wuweie To do something without doing it; to intend something without intending it; to achieve success without trying to; the elegance of being beyond material concerns and own ambitions in doing something, just for the joy of it, with the ease and grace as of a dancer; also tantrically, to achieve masterful copulation with big organs and so on without even trying to ... X Xing To move around in Nature talking a language that does not exist ... Y Yeah Spiritual success, which may go along with societal success Yentrisal Accurate description Yntre Effective healing of world Yntzi The utterance of something truthful so as to heal Yogatarhitnolajamashabavahhar Ecstatic feelings, beyond the ego Yoshampla Gentleness, loving-kindness Yr The state of being entirely waken up, not necessarily by LSD or anything like that, but through meditation, yoga, dance. Yrvakenhet Enlightenment, wakefulness; verbal form: at yrvake Yskrabel The change of environment from planet to spaceship ... Z Za Care for all living beings, with particular emphasis to beings with a great deal of nerves Zar Duration Ze Going beyond the known Zegre Learning to talk about feelings and thoughts inside oneself in a language learnt as adult Zeshe To perceive that each one has a Buddha-nature Zi Compassion for animals Zing The copulation song Zipe The perception that truthful sentences are magical Zizt Finger Zo The listening to a human being without confinement to the known Zu The sense that all life is one Zurial Selfishness Zy The care for animals; also, to be against shooting or slaughtering animals; also, to be against such building of cities or other things so as to make conditions difficult for animals ... ... ... ESSAYLETS za wuweie wakat If we translate it as za, living; wuweie, without doing as effort; wakat, inward coherence; knowing that there are always multiple alternative ways of interpreting anything Scandian when we go to little English ;), then we can see it as something like 'living without doing as effort [creates] inward coherence'. If we take it step by step, za brings focus to living. Then wuweie nicely qualifies za, it is living, in the sense that it is doing without effort. This is now further qualified as 'inward coherence'. In some contexts, we would perhaps see 'inward coherence' as a new thing to focus on, so that we have two things. But in this context, the sentence does stop there, and it is hard to avoid feeling this as a factor in a sentence (unlike a digital language like yoga4d, in which it is in principle just an on-goingness unless it is inside a function definition and it is finished). Since the sentence is finished, we are led to feel that inward coherence describes that which goes before. So if we wanted a scholarly translation, it would be rendered to something like 'living without doing as effort can be described as inward coherence'. I will be less talkative as to the translation possibilities, just bring forward the obvious translation, as it appears to my mind, when we go from Scandian to English. However, I think we should get the knack of understanding that a mental habit of aperceiving the world according to certain categories is a reflection, generally speaking, of culture and conditioning more than of the world, properly speaking; and each language tends to reinforce its own primary contrasts and similarities; if any such language asserts of itself to accurately describe the world, it becomes a factor of fragmentation no matter how holistic it is in intent. With this key awareness in mind, we can pay attention to how a certain level of what we may call conscious vagueness or conscious impreciseness is in another sense completely concrete and completely precise, when we have a perception that ought not to be divided any further. If you cannot translate Shakespeare's Hamlet to formal logic without missing the point, then neither can you translate a Sanskrit, Pali or Scandian sentence to Latin or English without missing the point; however that is not to say that it works only that way -- to translate from English to Sanskrit cannot be done either without perhaps missing the point. So a translation is a re- poetiration, a recreation of a poetic instinct as laid out in signs which means something in a context. This has no absolute validity but has to be savoured in the present through an immediate perception of the recreators of statements, and it has to be sensed whether this is in some sense either a right statement in itself or whether it is right somehow in having a correspondence to the original intent or both. Sometimes a translation may be more beautifully written than the original (I believe this is the case, according to several readers, of Jostein Gaarder's "Sofies verden", in Norwegian, which became rather lovely in English, as "Sophie's World', though it was cluttered in Norwegian as many things easily are in Norwegian; Scandian is of course also my response to this language I was born into). Another example: Arne Naess, ecophilosopher and Mahatma Gandhi peace philosophy expert, tells of his translation of Gandhi and of Spinoza's approaches that he is more interested in meaningful translations than translations that are accurate to the original intent (especially as concerns Spinoza). He uses phrases such as 'Yes, what you say there is compatible with my own way of reading Spinoza (though I am not sure Spinoza would have agreed).' My many conversations with Arne Naess, who, like me, loves Sanskrit, has sharpened my understanding of the willingness to be honest and precise and vague and all that, in a way that reflects one's own personal and private perception from one moment to the next. Now I will give a series of sentences, an 'essaylet', and then I will, without explanation, give a possible translation into English. And then I will do so again. That concludes the examples in the 2nd edition of the Dictionary of Scandian, which I now consider ready as a basis to be used indefinitely and in innumerable contexts, including in the Triaversux operating approach and as a basis for English natural language processing and parsing for Virtual Compassion Artificial Intelligence as Yoga6d Applications, written in Yoga5d & Yoga4d. See www.yoga4d.com through www.yoga6d.com for all this upcoming... ESSAYLET 1 Scandian: uen undre meske mischkra yntre sojo sissi trobri kresque ribal sam mak maval A possible translation: give great talks [about] wonder [and then] transmit it technologically doubt of conditioning [unfolds] healing freedom from self-deception [with regard to] programming computers [is] possible being careful with talking [and] having leisure [has] similarity dancing slowly [unfolds] listening to intuition ESSAYLET 2 Scandian: ani eme ele ami anga trobri A possible translation: [her] bosom does what [it] wants to phone [with] unbounded friendliness [is] to cease doing one's false things possibly THE SOVEREIGN MIND The Sun clears up the worries and problems of sight, and attention similarily clears up the worries and problems of mind. Be that attention, as you are a sun, or can be. To be a light to yourself always is to have no master, no guru, no political party. It is the sovereign mind that is enlightened and awakened in every sense, completely and forever. The patterns of Nature speaks to the sovereign mind, and it to Nature. That is not to say that they are the same. The sovereign mind is beyond, somehow, both Nature and the human conditioning. And the human brain is never so full of energy as when it allows the sovereign mind and its compassion to unfold in it. Human conditioning, as of the last fifty thousand years or so, perhaps, can be summed up in one sentence: "I am unauthentic, and I don't care." To be authentic is not a matter of shouting about authenticity. Nor is a matter of shamelessly announcing the fact of the lack of it. To be authentic is foremost a question of giving an attention of a creative kind to one's inauthenticity. In so doing, it dissolves. The authentic state is one of dance, we might say. The sovereign mind is untouched by the nondance of the environment, if any. Effortless dance thus characterises the sovereign mind. Women and men may speak of "years" and "history" as if these were finite, known and simple things. It is part of human conditioning, in practically all cultures, to believe feverently in the finite. The finite is folly, is illusion, and the unconditioned mind is free from it. The self-reference questions in areas called "philosophy" and "mathematics" and the like have been a plague to the believers in finiteness. To avoid dissolving finiteness they have instead sought to dissolve the concept of movement. The notion of movement that looks the most like infinity is of course rhythm, such as wave movement. Naturally, a closer inspection of reality reveals rhythm. This rhythm can be understood adequately by submitting ourselves to a sense of dance in all our perception. The finite will have nothing to do with it. Essentially Nature is infinite. The self-reference questions leads the inauthentic mind to divide and divide more, in the hope of finding components it can hold still. Not able to find such components, the conditioned mind asserts them ideologically. This is the birth of a "religious system", of which we may count "atheism" as one. Ideology is an instrument of the self-deceiving mind to keep up its self-deception. Meditation would be a way out. In meditation, attention is given to measure and to the finite, so that the mind melts with the immeasurable and the infinite. This is an act of love of life unto itself, in which the rhythm of life as a whole is engaged in the sovereign mind. Since it knows no division, the life-identity is with all, and so the self- preservation instinct leaps out to encompass all. Thus, such a mind also has infinite compassion or "love". Love is a certain kind of heat which is unbearable to the intellect. Instead, love furnishes its own intelligence. Magic is not abuse of power, it is rather the natural expression of love. There is no power so great that love cannot tear it apart and play with it. Beauty of a face is a valid statement of expansion of your own mind. You see it, attraction of an aesthetic nature changes the structure of perception. Every day needs the private fulfilment of beauty. It is this gift we give each other when we take care of our own refinement and dance. The moment the mind realizes that God is a spiritual teacher, teaching himself or herself, then suffering has ceased. But then the name of the source is no longer the inventions of a fairy tale maker. When thought learns to be a perspective playtool, humble servant of love in perceiving reality, it ceases to impose itself. It is this imposing nature of thought that constitutes the inauthenticity of human conditioning. The new is forever the enemy of human conditioning. The rhythm of silence is evernew. Nature must express to herself, and humanity must hang on. Rejuvenation happens then, when all cells are aligned to Nature and not to human conditioning. The dancers have an algorithm of orgasm in their limbs, but unless their minds are set free, they are but halfdancers. In the freedom from vanity and selfishness lies compassion. The ending of jealousy, of course, lies in pansexuality, quietly or loudly, but never in violence. Pansexuality is none other than pantheism. Pantheism is none other than constant dialogue with the God of which each living being is part, in flesh and mind. There can be no violence if this is seen properly. There is care, and care has its own necessity. This necessity expresses itself first as whispers in the heart, then as physical dance, then it is the life, the breath, the infinity of the human being. She who sees all this must fulfill herself. She will rejuvenate her spirits without clining other than to nonclingingness. She will be visited by beauty in her dreams and glow from it. Magically she becomes the healer. Men and women are meant for each other, not always to melt, but sometimes, perhaps often in phases. Yet their dance physically must naturally be just a fragment of what their mental copulation can be. It is the generosity of man towards woman and woman towards man to let mental ecstasies always to be transmitted. Lightsteps, dancesteps, mindsteps: All of silence gathers in the meditator. The meditator looses the centre of consciousness and becomes all consciousness. The elevation of the universe awareness happens in this quiet act of tranquility. It is open to any human being, man as woman, child, in any life phase, to engage in these acts. This is what the human being was groomed for, obviously. This is the ascent of human consciousness. It depends on no ideology and no master. Each is capable of initiating herself or himself through attention and demand. Infinity and nonlocality, rhythm and allawareness, dance and compassion, perception and intelligence, these are aspects of the core of all living. The floating dimensions are but features of this greater flux. The numbers derived from finger counting are but elements of infinity. The distances are all infinite, as zero, but the measures in between manifest as the touching of one infinity by another. Please, we do not need technology and science to know all this, it is kindergarten stuff. The humaneness of the human being lies in laying it as a foundation of harmony and bliss in all that is done. Freedom of mind lies in its utter lack of pretension. Lesser minds think of freedom primarely in terms of bodily action. Of course, it belongs to barbarism to prevent bodily expressions, and physical freedom in the sense of democracy is an absolute prerequisite. Yet freedom, the obligation to transcend human conditions and become rooted in compassion, involves a greater space. This greater space is not born of the ego, it has no experiencer, nor is it built of experience. It is freedom per se. Human beings may give prizes to one another. They may pretend to stand together and form their little two-dimensional circles, their little hierarchies, their circus of brute and vulgar ideals. The sovereign mind is beyond all that. The sovereign mind is silent and conceives of the ages of human suffering as a whole, being outside it and full of compassion. Compassion evokes the action of spiritual teaching, yet there is no thing that can be taught. The teaching is the revealing of nothingness to itself. While human beings have a language, imagination and concept feature of the brains clever enough, if that's the word, to promulgate suffering and illusions, they can also set themselves free. In the act of doing so, completely and forever, a form of poetic creative spiritual flow of teachings emanate from all their actions. It is precisely in this way it need to be a revolution of consciousness not just for human beings, but for any living process with reflective capacity. Of course the universes are as rainforests, full of such self-reflective beings. The state of compassion is the same everywhere. Their challenges must be met here as everywhere else. The universes then are penetrated by intelligence and its love. The being essence of any one living process is the same as that of any other. They do not merely accumulate as energies, which then touch. Rather, each living process is in its core the very expansion of every living process. "There is but God" -- that is another way of putting it. And it is God healing itself to engage in spiritual teaching of a poetic, rather than dogmatic, foundation, in which all hatred has been cleansed first. When this healing has told itself successfully to be everlasting, then God or reality has achieved salvation. It is then we find that the dance that potentially has always gone on, is what is actualizing itself. Life is infinity. Without any contemporary contet, without reference to any guru or implicit teaching, but solely in observing how the feet of a dancer gently and rhythmically touch the ground, all creation and its essence can be completely and in all senses understood and felt. Selfevidently, then, the fragments, illusions and prejudices dissolve, and this is exactly what is required for the whole sense of life to arise. In the whole sense of life, there is a holiness to be touched. In touching it, a perspective of the light or God or whatever we call it, at the fountainhead of actuality so to speak, comes effortlessly. This constant sense is the essence of sovereignity. It is open to any individual in any context, human as nonhuman. For greater than the pride of being human of the human being is life considering itself holy through any form it takes, flower as human being as any other kind of being. It is here also that the more or less artificial products of technology must face up to their enlightenment challenge. Any kind of "race pride" is folly, and compassion is for life though life on behalf of all life, whatever form it takes. The youth of mind is its everlasting perception of itself, in synchronistic empathic aesthetics, under all circumstances, in all times, for all. Life is infinity, in short. Love is the freedom from mere pleasure and pain. Love is energy. When there is no 'I', love is. To love God as oneself is to love love as love. There is no other essence. In not being lazy about meditation and in seeing 'what is' as it is from one moment to the next, dance begins. In dance, life renews itself, laughter emanates, freedom works in the perceptive organs, the skin is cleansed up, the muscles toned etc. In short, all sane and sound growth has its basis in play and dance, and in its awareness and attentive liveliness. The mind no longer afraid of dance is eternally young. The body that is the temple of the sovereign mind is eternally young as well. Life is infinity. The self- perceptiveness of this life is intelligence, in which the observer is the observed and beyond. Whole continents of dance have been ignored and exploited by the cold undancing egoes of cunning clever thought. The rhythmlessness of these egoes destroy these egoes. The human being, the dancer, raises to the integrity of dance, which is that of unbounded compassion and its intelligence. Dance, so Earth will never be the same! Dance, so understanding shall prevail! And in dance, there is the holy insight into that which binds all life together, without the cage of organized religion, of priesthood, powerhungry shamas or the creed of a book of war. So when dance is in your mind, and the rhythm of love begins each day in your limbs, then you will create more of life in each of your actions. Quite effortlessly, the action of the love in your limbs is to ensure the life not only yourself and your fellow dancers, but of all beings, everywhere. This quest is not an illusion, but an infinity of strength greater than power. It is the strength of the kindness of dance which will win. It is the tuition within, the learning from within, as the dance of your mind is affected by the dance of another, that will teach you. Watch your feet, fondle them, ask them of where the future of your expression lies. They know, for your feet belongs to the future, and the future is our reunified mind of rhythm and dance, play, song, dialogue and forgiveness. Wake, therefore, up to the intuition of love which you must win by, the winning that makes every child of the world into a winner. And in moments of despair, see each adult also as child, for everyone is still also a child. Your fears are never only yours, but shared. So your freedom is not just yours, but everyone's. It is legitimate to wake up, for then you wake us all into love. If you pray, pray to love. If you seek a miracle, ask your heart, that true inner heart which has compassion for all in it. For it alone, and not some pseudomagic potion or power ritual can reach into the fabric of life itself so as to fulfill an honest request of greater silence. Remember dance is your being and all shall be good. Forever. Love is truth. Love has its own power, greater than any willed power, a force outdoing all shamans, all magicians, all repetitions and all voodoo. Love conquers all, being innocent, the source of virtue and of affection. That which is controlled by greed must all fall. Exploitation can never work. Armed with love, the innocent woman or man conquers all. By virtue of infinite intelligence, she or he cannot be hindred. So love, love for all, is the ultimate magic. And goodness is absolute, and it has no real opposition. Whatever happens, radiate love, and you are protected. In love, in that energy, you can by instant demand attain the radiance of a master, and brutes must obey. Love is that dance of innocence inside you, when all secret rage has vanished. The psyche in an unawakened sense is nothing except suppressed rage, hidden bitterness, and the sum total of experiences gathered on such divisive grounds. Only in effortlessness, the delightful, virtous nothingness that comes when the mind turns on itself, can there be the ecstasy of tranquility. Then the forces blend, something new comes into being as the past and its tension is washed away. All pain dissolves by attention as dewdrops in the sunlight. Do your dance, anonymously or not. Do not be greedy for the attention that others may radiate towards your motions. Let your own attention intensify and deepen as your own motions reflect it back unto itself. Do your dance always. Go on whether you sometimes feel utterly alone or unsupported by the world. Select exclusively quality in what you're doing, and create endless quantities of those qualities, and by the love inherent in these qualities, the world will be transformed by your dance. It is a promise of life to you. Whereever you are, whatever experiences you've had -- if you don't take them too seriously -- you can transcend all time. Sit not stiff but intone the balance of the body and listen to the mind. Sense the surroundings. Intend the moment of beauty as you pick up the pen and on paper express the wisdom of all time. Sentence by sentence, your mind meets its own depth and goes beyond its own barriers. Empty yourself in that all-natural high you can even get in a city without any drugs. Listen to the quietest of playful thoughts and instantly heal a disharmonious intention as you feel it is about to arise, without any suppression. And suddenly there is meditation. The dance course is the course in miracles, is the spiritual awakening you can never loose when it has taken you. Once you've understood a rhythm, it is irreversibly yours. You acquire all elements of a good melody, you come to know all its life phases, both ways, forward and back, left right in symmetry, up down, in and out. The depths of tranquility speaks to you in this melody, your dance is the dance of the eight, always new. Your improvisation is the love axis of Earth or whatever region of space you associate your dance with. Fly out, come to ever-renewed form. Enjoy, also across the genders. Flower. Tranquility of the effortless kind is health. You find it not by methodic practise in a group, under a guru or socalled "facilitator", however rich, famous or stupid he may be. You find it by leisure, by creatively making you a dance master, of high integrity, great elegance, and with sincerity but not self- importance nor self-righteousness in body language. When you speak, your voice does not have the irritating frequencies of pride, for you watch, and do not merely tell yourself, "I am enlightened! I am enlightened! I am enlightened!" You watch, and you see what is actually going on, not accepting it, nor pretending it's not there, but playfully enquire, looking for the true space in between the halfbreaths of the ego, and enjoy those spaces fully. Live it. Dance is infinite life. The feeling of dance belongs to no theoretician. Beware of those who say that they do not have a theory while implicitly enforcing one dogmatically. Dance must be free or else it is not dance. Dance is never lost. Only the beautiful, and all the beautiful, dance moves you partake in holistically and with compassion last, and they last forever. Every dance step you make, God, the Lord of Dance, the Mother of Dance, is watching. Dance through the rhythm of nongreedy but strong sensuality. Watch the mind, let it attain its orgiastic union. Let it run, then fly. Have playfulness all the way to the bottom of your heart. In playfulness, through attention, there is eternal youth and insight. Playfulness in which all habit is dissolved and in which you refresh the intent of grace restores the infinity of the network of fine balances. In the complete tranquility of body-mind, in which the sexual organs are also included, without any shame, there is lasting youth. It's somewhat simpler to be authentic in doing painting, or any of the classical arts. For in these arts, there is a devotion to the moment of expression so that finer qualities, such as beauty, may penetrate in a new way. How does a spiritual teacher measure his or her enlightenment? To teach as if near the top is the top of the inner mountain of excellence of understanding is grotesque. For those further down the valley may easily be misled, but due to the subtle error there will be a final and severe barrier for them all. One might imagine that truth is better secret than a near-truth popular, for that reason. Take something as simple as the many vulgar smiles delievered in pictures of inauthentic spiritual teachers. These smiles have of course the dual function of suggesting that the person is living in hilaritas as well as helping the apparent master overcome the depression he or she harbour inside. For inauthenticity breeds loneliness, there is no one to confide to. How does one tell whether another person is enlightened or not, totally and completely apart from the apparences? HOw does one distinguish one with a near-sovereign mind from one who has it? And the distinction is as absolute as that of playing on an untuned guitar from playing a welltuned one. History will not always tell. For initial nuances may be washed away as documentaries are transferred into myths and philosophies into gospels. The brute may become a saint through the illusory process of human history writing. The saint may also become a brute. Lack of grounds for comparison may make it more difficult to determine who's enlightened, and yet comparison may easily come to focus on inessential aspects. But who is there to compare with, on issues of enlightenment? Surely it takes the greatest of intuitions, such as only the enlightened or sovereign mind can harbour, to distinguish someone like Gothama from the Buddha paraphernila. Then let us once again look at the horrible smiles of the near-enlightened. They do not do things for their own joy, and so their apparent enlightenment is then a vast facade, smile included. Any attempt, though, to say: One who is enlightened will typically not say such-and-such can merely be incorporated into the facade, as a matter of formula. There is no doubt that the diagnosis of near-enlightenment is a very subtle one. Obviously, one who has a great deal of animosity in a fixed or stagnant sense, or who clearly lacks compassion for the future generations, or who does not properly refer adequately to those who are genuinely enlightened, contemporary or historical, is not enlightened. This reference need not at all be through quotes, but it has especially a value in a contemporary world where there are few who have broken through the veil, and they need to suggest encouragement to each other. Most deeply, though, it is an esthetics sense of the tranquil intuitive kind that can distinguish real or actual from inauthentic or fake. You will see it in yourself, in those days in which greed or desire or fear has come close or into the command centre of the psyche, how notoriously ugly and unrefined the whole register of actions will be -- when you look at it objectively. Now when mass media are in the habit of displaying those who are just so vulgar on their front pages, the population may becomes stupefied, their senses dulled, and this may serve the owners of such media well, while it serves no one else well. In particular, persons like Osho with his unrefined sense of esthetics, his crude relationship to understanding of desire, responsibility and compassion, can attract millions and millions of people. He is a particular easy example of a person who is more greedy than enlightened (though pretending the latter, and probably believing it himself), with his ninety Rolls- Royces. Relatively superficial people fall for this. The more difficult examples are the more interesting. Why should anyone care as to the difference between near- enlightenment and enlightenment? In the light of the summing up of fifty or seventy thousand years of human conditioning as, "I am not authentic, and I don't care" (as suggested in the beginning), then most would, in their conditioned state, not care at all. Yet the difference is as if living in a Hollywood facade house without other walls than the front, and living in a full three-dimensional house. A civilisation based on near-enlightenment is doomed. As Aristotle said, "A small error in the beginning grows to a big error eventually" (a statement that is not true in all contexts, such as the healthy organic, but it is true, I feel, in the context of thinking about enlightenment). More personally, action which is right goes together with joy. Wrong action involves every kind of pain and suffering. The distinction between right and wrong cannot be the product of a scheme, a set of rules, any dogma, any social contract, any ethics "code" of conduct. Rather, righteous action comes from unbounded compassion as a perception. Near-enlightenment may perform well according to a code of conduct, but its actions are wrong. A great musician acts in relation to the entire moment based on a perception flowing from the questions of harmony with which he or she may be concerned. There are codes of harmony and the perception may or may not cohere with these. Consistency with a code is a matter for the imitator, the pretender of enlightenment. The exact right breaking of the code and the exact right element of adhering to the code is a question of uncodifiable intuitive perception. The 21st century looks, at the beginning, to be a century of breaking of old codes of morality, and a sense of endless, boundless, public orgies may come upon one. It is clear that breaking of limitations by themselves are neither always right, nor always pleasurable, and certainly not always interesting and very clearly not always involving any esthetics at all. When society does not limit the individual, the individual is freer, and in this freedom, the sovereignity of mind can create abundant energy in finding its own discernment, moment by moment, of what is right and sticking to that. Like the evaluation of a great piece of music, it takes sophisticated musical understanding to pick one from the other, in many cases. In the question of life, the imitation of enlightenment, as a robot pretending undestanding while merely running a consciousness-lacking program, invites conflict, suffering, illness and early ageing. Actual enlightenment means that the compassion is real and not merely a look-alike compassion. The near-enlightened people pretending enlightenment are as crooks, parasites of understanding. Power play drinks of virtue until there is nothing left either of virtue, drink or power. The true power lies then in those who does not engage in power play at all. Rather, their actions is as the overflowing of virtue, and this cannot fail to have deep impact. The action of virtue is, what we may say, deep. The action of power play is shallow and like brittle structures fall apart by the simplest touch. In a universe in which goodness is sheer force there cannot be any necessity in opposing power, power being an abberation of this force and as such weak by nature. The fake enlightened person expresses enlightenment-sounding sounds as a kind of duty, rather as a boring paintjob to keep the twodimensional facade of a fake movie house up. The enlightened individual expresses because it cannot not be done, and in so doing sets the future free from unnecessary hindrances born of inattention in the past. The teachings are an act of attention. While the enlightened individual of course consider Patanjali as authentically enlightened and does yoga for two hours in the morning and so on, he or she also sees that the observer is the observed and produces no fixed morality. The statement that "the observer is the observed", which is remotely like "tat twam asi" (in ancient Sanskrit), implies an undivisible flowing wholness or even oneness, such that all is dance. We ought to care whether we are authentic or not, if we are in the least serious. The next thirty thousand or whatever number of years depend on our authenticity now, and that means that even the minutest of our resillient and rejuvenating cell processes also depend on that. Like Krishnamurti, who was authentic, in my intuitive understanding of him, as far as he went (not overestimating the value of his last ten or dozen years of production, though, unlike those in charge of his works up until recent), there are those who are able to advice people to look at themselves -- their eyes, especially -- in the mirror. Do you see complete sincerity and freedom from hatred there, yourself? You can only be a flower if you let go of power, influence and manipulation. Innocence and virtue, the perfume of aesthetics, the crux of balance and of dance, must come and will only come as the debris of old egotism, hatred, bitterness, manipulativeness and so on is completely and forever washed away by attention. To understand this and not waver away from it until it is completely felt and thought through, discovered in every sense, not merely with the intellect but with blood and bones, is obviously the absolute prerequisite for authenticity, for participation in the sovereign mind. To be a light unto oneself, without any rush, leaving entertainments and typical distractions as smoke, chocolade and bills away, cleanses the house of conciousness and empties it of oneself. The light of attention rejuvenates the skin and makes the dance start up again, where it left. Then one's mind can be an instrument of insight and intelligence, and thought and emotion will have a role in this. Then compassion is not anymore a role one takes on when it suits oneself, but rather it is the strength of being, the integrity of the mind. To live like this, not as an idea but the actuality of it (the two being as different as a menu and a meal), radiates a holiness. A human being living like this in a house makes the house holy, and this holiness is not the property of any book, temple or templestone aforehand. In holiness, there is benediction, compassion and joy. The joy involved in living in righteousness is the happiness that humanity has always longed for. According to fashion of language, people who are sad may realize this fact or not and if they realize it, they may speak of it or not, and therefore many people grow up in some peculiar admiration of this rotten society, inevitably leading to disappointment. The admiration leads also to a string of Machiavelli-like actions, breeding corruption, ugliness and degeneration. The intense sorrow underlaying this entire human conditioning is that which makes any Machiavelli-type of action pointless and utterly self-deceptive, even with apparent awareness of the 'game'. For there is renewal only in the total emptiness of this silliness. In complete emptying of the mind, it is victorious in the sovereign sense and then it has ecstasies unknown to the cunning. These ecstasies are not sideissues, such as taking a drug at a party or something like that. The ecstasy is the felt presence of life in the moment, it is the full enormity of the life force in the present now. This is what the Machiavelli or Nietzsche-gamers do not comprehend or get near. They may have the apparent power of being able to bully another and have a bigger car. They have no luck nor joy except the ashes of pleasure, amidst a raging depression that makes of them life-escapers. Violence is born among the manipulative people. Complete and utter freedom requires that there is no violence in one's heart. The shock of healing touches the core and the fabric of the psyche, going back to its seeds. In those who comprehend, at least intellectually, the beginnings of the sovereign mind, a hunger for more insight arises. The decent and honest way for a serious individual is to satisfy the hunger for insight by creating such circumstances as allow for insight. That will clearly include attention to thought, dialogue with oneself, leisure, scrutiny of such writings that may in between the lines, at least, contain keys, and further writing for oneself, as well as, perhaps, retreats with deep and immense meditation in nature or extreme contexts. One must be careful, though, and go fairly slowly sometimes. When the hunger for insight is a little satisfied, then, of course, like a hungry dragon that has tasted a little fresh blood, the hunger will vastly increase. When the hunger for insight has become the passion of life itself rather than residing in an instrumental position in the mind, feeding the ego with the new possibilities for prestige, comfort and sex, then, in this unboundedness of the hunger or zest or appetite, attention is complete. Unbearable ecstasies follow, and no day is without them, though it has not the same intensity always. This is the awakened approach to life, the brain turned on and a seething sense of harmony pervades the body actually, and not as an illusion, not as a thought to be achieved in the future or in some after-life or next-life. It is the potential now, it is here, it is real, but the ego must be adequately dissolved and the network of insights effortlessly be there, so a new set of attachments, a new ego, is not born around the next corner. The sovereign mind is always in joy and bliss, though it can also at some level sense pain and so it can take on a rather complete empathy. The extent to which it takes on pain is not such as to render the mind soft with self-pity, though. To retain the function of being generous and intelligent, the sensing of pain must not be recklessly invading the whole of the mind and distort perception. Empathy then becomes compassion, and from compassion, healing. It is the natural way to live, not just for a messiah. What is the point of talking about enlightenment, you may ask, in light of the barbarious past and perhaps also present? In the name of nation or tribe, aristocracy or religion, class or politics, gang or attachment, people have kept people as slaves, prisoners, creatures of torture, and slaughtered animals and trees also, even whole rich rain forests, for the sake of nothing at all. And then, in all of this, after some has summed up human existence rather along the lines of some parasite or virus, they may add: Let's make the best of the rest of this decayed feast by being egotists. The notion of enlightenment, they may say, is an escape. Etc. These people, though they may wither quickly (revering life as little as they do, except in the shallow sense), may make a lot of noise, saying that humanity cannot change. And then, those who do not see anything as a fiest, but who lack playfulness in themselves, may associate with fanatics, reading only one book, doing a series of terrible actions in which the last of their life spirits is denied, hoping for some reward in an illusory life-after-death. Neither egotism nor fanatism (which is merely another form of egotism) provides any lasting consolation, just a burst of pains and pleasures perhaps slightly hiding the deeper sorrows of living without having any sense of integrity at all. The fanatical groups, of course, are but enacting a transference of the egotism force from the person to the assembly of persons. The stupidity and sorrow is the same. The relationship to Nature is part of what the ego-approach cannot really handle well. The human body, from which the psyche emanates to a great extent, is of course weaved by Nature and has its roots in Nature, and a relationship to Nature is a prerequisite for a relationship to the body. The sensuality of the body is of course inseparable from the greater energies of Nature. Then society comes and regulates human beings through agreements spelled out in the languages by which the psyches are suppressed, twisted and manipulated. Fears grow, honesty becomes difficult, and of course, sensuality bursts forth and occasionally breaks up the systems. Those who profit the most from such systems (in a shallow sense) may enforce these systems by systematic dishonesty and systematic violence. The socalled bibles or "holy texts" may be little but instruments of such enforcement and mutilation. Exactly the same people may the ones that most feverently declare change to be impossible. They are the ones that, from the shallow materialistic point of view, have the most to loose. A book may become an enemy of free thought if it is given a fanatical status while the book also declares doubt to be some kind of illness, perhaps a sin. Of course, doubt is an enormously vital purifying agent for the mind. The mind that does not doubt has no sense of meditation whatsoever. It is a program, it is software, it is belief-ridden. You may say, "Let us see the fruits of enlightenment, present them, please, on the table. Perhaps then we may set aside our egotism, apathy, brutality and stagnation, when we see the miracles that await us as enlightenment or this great sovereignity of the individual that you speak of, comes about." Yet this approach is nothing but a further contribution to the lustful, ensorrowed circus of chasing for pleasure and avoiding pain, building the deepest of agonies of loneliness and detoriation that way. How can a mind filled with noise and propaganda, a mind with a centre that seeks constantly a reward and attempts to avoid reality, appreciate something like the joy of enlightenment? How can the delight of silence be a fruit that the ego born of noise can grasp for? Obviously, a sincere approach of integrity to real and total freedom within can only show the door to that freedom, but not walk another person through that door. (I am not saying that miracles are not valuable at all, though; and also it may make an enormous impact to actually see a person of high and complete integrity.) The glories, real as they may be, available on 'the other side', so to say, are not the cheap stuff that an ego can let itself be tempted by, except as one of its myriad distractions. The greatest of dangers in humanity, apart from the idiotic bomb- creating activities of physics, biologists, and others, may be those books that promise all sorts of cheap rewards to the egoes (perhaps in an after-life) if they do acts of violence. They are a virus on the human mentality. So the physical criteria of education in doubt (unlike Kant), thinkin for oneself -- teaching not what to think but how to think -- and in justice, keeping nobody down for any reason -- must be laid, as fanatism is banished from humanity. That includes, of course, banishing the "let's pretend we're compassionate when we're not" attitude of socalled "market economy". Compassion for all of Nature and all human beings, including freedom of speech and freedom to engage in artworks etc without the compulsion to relate to a marked and its cunning must be adequately realized, somehow. Yet, as long as the ego is in dominance, the human being will create of any system, however noble its intentions, a rotten thing. The solution does not lie in yet another system or in defense of the tremendous brutality and coldness of the present known societies, while it is my political opinion that the worst of democracies are infinitely better than the best imaginable tyrannies. The least thing we can do is not to bully people who walk their own way. Open-minded expressions must be free. The legacy of Plato and Aristotle is not at all favourable here. The force of the fully enlightened spirit in a human being is capable of transforming all human beings. Here the only possibility lies. But how can it be proved, except by doing it? See, this is the point of fear, confusion, laughter, amazement and so on, among those who are inclined to live on the party wave or join and skinhead club of fanatics or such. Should then the point of possible transformation of consciousness of all humankind be rationalized, justified, be made maximally plausible? And yet the element of joy in becoming true to one's inmost spirit may be sufficient to incite the hunger for insight that we spoke about. A precursor of such joy and its immense, almost healing, energy, can be found in watching a sunset, walking along a shore, feeling whole. For those who feel that such joy of stepping outside of the stream of sorrow of humankind is as if yet another form of egotism, unless it is garantueed that it implies the strengthening of healing for all humanity, they would perhaps consider the opposite. Unless the individual transcends the circus first, how can there be any possible change? It is anyway an expression of our consciousness. So the bet should be on the individual walking solely away from the world, attaining to the boon of sovereignity and independence from the environment and its conditions, and who then brings it forth in him or her so as to have the capacity to spread it, generously, as a sun. If we would like some philosophical credibility, then imagine a "trial". The defendent claims that the enlightenment in one man can heal all. The opponent attacks, saying that one man enlightened means probably nothing for the rest. The defense calls for evidence that reality is divided in sharp separate souls, pointing out that without sharp division it is impossible for one individual to hold back the floodwave of enlightenment. Of course, the opponent won't have any such proof. Impartiality in the judge will release the defendant to go on with his or her quest. Doubt must benefit the individual. A more physical argument is that there is a miracle to one human body, despite billions of cless which are separated by, to them, relatively large distances. As any human being has had had intense copulative intercourse with another knows, this sense of wholeness can including another human being. Is it inconceivable that the cells of all human beings are to an extent so connected, that a complete instance of healing in one may not touch everyone else? Surely it is not by chopping the head of an elite that the rest will attain to clarity. Nor are the elites of power in general in possession of any higher faculties than the rest. Mediocre people may be leaders. The single individual, or the single individuals, who manage to wake themselves completely up is or are the only real elite, and this elite has the intrinsic feature of pulling everyone up to partake in that elite. That's the sovereignity potential of each individual in humanity, and it is not a question of aristocracy or prestige. Even if a human being is completely unknown, without contacts, without fame, then in awakening there is an intense relationship to all the universe, to Nature, the trees, the animals, one's own body, and in all of this there are the meditations which never end. They go on like a breeze or sometimes a storm of hilaritas, the joy of the timeless. The eyes learn to see from love all the time, and the birds and flowers, the children playing, and the lovely faces, are all partaking in this dance of joy. Can these joys be sold on the market? Can enlightenment ever be the property of a gang, a club, an institution, a government, an academy, or anything like that? Of course not. While the simplicity in living may seem peaceful -- and it is -- the energy of an awakened brain turns on all brains, from within. The inner revolution it is. This freedom of mind is not really hinted at in Zen, in Dao, in Kabbalah, and so on, for each of these traditions are habitual thought processes, talking about freedom but intending it only so- so. The masses of young people who are first seduced by a "tradition" offering a quasi-enlightenment are in general not "helped" at all, because, in their inevitable disappointment they are more likely than before to become cynical and then very stubborn materialists. So it all ends up, does it, in the old and wornout claim to trust, to have faith, in some unlikely, remote idea? But, there is one change: Here is no priesthood begging you to trod in their dirty paths, here is no cermony introducing you to a circle of crooks, here is no teacher with a snakeoil recipe, rather, here is a voice, standing alone, suggesting a great possibility. The possibility of a leap that you yourself, in your integrity, in your own pace, guided by your own sense of love of life, including the sensous aspect of life, can reveal fully to yourself by exploration, dialogue and meditation without a leader and without a cunning little group consoling and comforting and escaping all important issues. This voice, then, has nothing to gain on the ego level, unlike the priests woho would want to enroll the sinners as humble servants in their corrupt little costume circus. This voice is that of a friend suggesting some lovely sights over here, come and look if you wish, I do not speak from theory but I live this. It is not the voice of creed or a political party, nor the voice of a president seeking votes. The cultivation of partial insight is never enough to bring about an awakening of the mind. The division of labour that may make sense in practical territories has no relevance as to the quest of knowing oneself. Likes and dislikes as to particular areas of study must be said to be insignificant. The whole area of study is the psyche, and all of it, boring or not, must be understood. Since the flow and ebb of awareness tend to follow interest, it seems that we somehow ought to come to the state of finding all the psyche interesting! In being aware of the whole of the psyche, not just of oneself but also that of others, the patterns of life appears always in a deep and psychologically sensitive light. That is, of course, unless one leads a routine life in which one never really meets anybody. In this sensitivity, sensuality takes on a new a more holistic flavour. For in undiluted sensuality, when the psyche has reached the harmony of not interfering negatively, there is a constant field of ecstasy, which is physical and tangible, as an orgasm, only its everpresent (I speak from my own experience). Nature as a whole may be said to exist in such as state of fluid meditative ecstasy. The readers of a conversation book between the legendary physicist David Bohm and J. Krishnamurti called "The Ending of Time", may find statements to this effect; however, there are certain patterns of Krishnamurti's thinking that may have taken wholeness more seriously in a fixed sense rather than a fluid (or as I say, dancing) sense, earlier in his life. The notion that Nature (almost as a subject) engages in any "action" like "meditation" is totally foreign to a view of Nature as a rather fixed environment which is abstractly felt to be whole. However, had Krishnamurti had much more time he might have developed a new refined tongue on speaking in terms of the vast dancing movement that Bohm termed the "holomovement", and which is philosophically in tremendous contrast to for instance the views of Albert Einstein and Baruch de Spinoza and most wellknown ancient Greek philosophers. Indeed, I would like to call for dance as a foundation for worldview to properly come to a language of meditation which is truly whole and not fragmenting; and these terms I set forth here are clearly felt but the metaphors can be indefinitely improved, of course. While walking in a forest is not enough for many to induce new intensities of ecstasy, it is so to anyone who has cleansed, emptied, vacated the ego. So a bonus of enlightenment is the perfume of heightened sensitivity. In looking to the whole of the psyche, rather than just pieces of it, we'll need an unsystematic, eclectic selection of insights, overlapping and giving alternative perspectives. We do not need to ascribe the feature of "genius" to some obscure philosopher and bring in a quote in every third sentence or so, thinking that that will set us free. What we need, perhaps, is sincere enquiry, not repeating the same sentencs, not sticking to a favourite set of phrases, but creative in language, in sense, in thinking, in feeling, in the dance of perception and in the gentle and careful use of such synchronistic devices as kinesthology. As language, it must poetically rather reinvent itself in every act of enquiry. There is nothing in this enquiry that is "fundamental" (other than the element of openness). Rather, we as if play with a caledioscope or network of penetrating insights, not, however, in a hieararchical scheme (beginning with perhaps many false pretenses, misguided assumptions, prejudices and what not). There are those who think that they are in a hurry so that they think that they just want the summary, the result. But knowing oneself requiring something of the same attitude as being a connoiseur of fine wines, and the same is true of knowing another. There must be a love, a passion, even, that is acutely happy in giving thought to nuances (the terror of hierarhical people); nuances which may appear "technical" and "dull" to those of more cruder appetites. All the same time, of course, the wines constantly change flavours and new are added, and you yourself change, as others do as well. Of course, we always begin anew each moment. And yet the momentum of earlier insight may make things easy for us. Even if everything you say is, as far as it goes, true, then what you say as a whole won't be a truth if there's an element of self-repetition in it. If what you say is true on a sentencelevel but does not add up to a truth then what you are projecting is simply your ego. Instead of helping others, you are soldifying barriers, then. In this sense, there is probably more harm than help in anyone giving talks on "preliminaries" of enlightenment. We do not really need "introductions", they merely enforce a scheme of reading or listening. At the same time, if a text does have truth it will radiate this truth more strongly without "interpretation" and if it does not have it, is it worth interpreting? (Another way people try to avoid listening to important texts is by putting them in a category, as if that is evidence of they being in any deep sense finished with the texts; of course, the putting in a category is merely an action of the ego, in this case.) I mention these things because in particular the socalled "buddhists" (a group which does not include Gothama the Buddha as far as I am aware) are in the habit of repetition of themselves, in so many ways. In an age in which verbatim oral repetition served as "reproduction of a text" this had, and in that sense, may still have, a practical utility. However the mouth that speaks a repeated text does not speak a truth, even if the text is true. And unless you live by truth, you are not enlightened in any sense at all. If you then take on a robe and a more exotic name or status (even if you have had any number of ecstatic and fascinating meditations in the past), you are then participating in the decay of understanding in humanity. You are, what Jesus called, merely a "scholar", and a scholar is indeed the wallmakers around the great essence of enlightenment. One must go beyond them, without becoming one of them. You can look into the eyes of a person and see if the individual lives by words and roles, or if there is a genuinely awakened spirit of goodness there, such that the person is merely utilizing his intellect to express that goodness. Or rather, that the goodness is utilizing the intellect directly, as in a dance. There is the childlike essence of the genuinely enlightened, unlike the fear and unnatural pauses of those who strive to keep up a role of being a "philosopher". An enlightened individual will stand alone and talk or listen, while a serious unenlightened individual will stand alone and enquire, not assume a position. The support of an organization pretending to represent spiritual positions is then nothing but a confinement of materialism to the enlightened spirit of humanity. For instance, had the head of the tibetan buddhist organization been enlightened, he would not have been the head of the tibetan buddhist organization, then, of course. For spirituality lies in awakening and getting rid of every kind of tradition, not merely marxism, dictatorship, nazism and so on, but also in avoiding to substitute materalistic terms, names and positions with spiritual- sounding ones. However many "miracles" of clairvoyance and such some of the historical members of such stale systems may have produced, it is still mostly ego-noise, obviously. It takes enlightenment to interpret even real acts of clairvoyance rightly, and it does not take enlightenment, but just flashes of sensitivity, to produce such things as clairvoyance. One must not be so gullible that in getting hands on something extrasensory, one is at once among the enlightened! Extrasensory perception happens many times an hour for any enlightened person and it is as unsurprising (yet lovely, of course) as the dance of colours that the sun creates in meeting with rain from a certain angle. It is there, it is fantastic, but flashes of it occurs really all the time in the human unconscious and while it may strike an atheist as a sure miracle it is simply the way of life on the other side (this, of course, explains why the apparent stern morality for the enlightened is not stern at all, but merely the natural necessity, for so much else is seen, than the unawakened see; I know this sounds like a rather hefty elitistic hypothesis but it is humbly what I must state to be my own direct perception like everything else here or else I would, of course, never have included it! Yet any such claim should be ascertained in one's own life by one's own exploration of all the issues, going all the way through them to the end and then becoming intensely clear and open-minded in this process. Then one will also see that things like telepathy is a wonderful miracle which it can be pretty tough to have to such great extents as is inevitably implied in realizing sovereignity of mind; a task of significance is therefore also healing as well as the acute ability to shield, when required; it also explains the passion to bring about a sincere interest, if possible, for all in meditation; since the pressures of a telepathic ability would then greatly be transformed into something far more wonderful. Yes, I know these types of views may scare the atheist but really it is a question of relating to the whole of reality rather than just a little bit of it, filtered by the sensory organs; and metaphysically it is not a big deal to explain it, so why not test it out?) An entirely different way of standing together than the "group" is the approach most poetically and feverently suggested by the philosopher Martin Buber, which I will say little of here, but more of later, when I have comprehended more fully the concepts implied. However, there is little doubt in me that Buber provides perhaps a genius element, which must be considered absolutely essential in all understanding unless it shall look like the fascistic and hierarchical to some extent; Buber's "Ich und Du" is the ultimate antithesis, in a compassionate sense of fascism, and while all world cultures have myths that hint of his approach, none has the depth of his poetic explosion in this particular regard (while I do not necessarily consider it more than an element). My own translation of a few bits and pieces, leisurely selected of his German text can be found in the Yoga6d Periodical number 4, 2003, at www.yoga6d.com. Essentially, Martin Buber points out that in relating to another being there is a sense of I and You in which there is no instrumentation, no objectification, but a direct relationship. This relationship is in a sense holy, it is for Buber the bearer or pointer to God. He speaks of it also in relation to natural beings. The word "environment", that some political groups uses about Nature, would to Buber refer to the detoriated form of understanding which he terms "I-It". When thought has seen its practical but limited function, thought can engage in I-It while leaving the silence in the mind open for I-You at the very same time, I would add, here, in language, also inspired by J. Krishnamurti, of course. I would have been interesting to hear what Gothama had reflected, if he had seen these remarks. I am sure he had much greater depth to his thought that the stupid little verses and gossip-magazine like stories about him that remain. The liberation from limited, lonely, petty state of mind so that an enlightened, awakened state comes about is a subtle matter. Refinement of insight must be built up by a playful sustained intent to ascertain evermore nuances and revising earlier ideas, theories and assumptions. This intent must involve looking into itself with a doubting and sceptical nature, so that when or if the intent becomes an attachment, a greedy goal, a motive, it will set about dissolving itself, realizing the danger of a nonplayful attached approach in these matters. The intent of intelligence is something vastly different than greed. The implicit or tacit or subconscious assumptions (or whatever we shall call them) must be made conscious and then doubted, enquired, explored against reality. Fluid perception must take the place of stagnant thought processes. Creative use of words to touch new facdts of oneself is natural in this process. Stored-up emotional prejudices, traumas and fears need to be scrutinzed with the beam of attention, and healing must be intended and affirmed in a playful, dancing mood, when required. Some of the typical themes of many books and (retrospective) movies, especially in the wake of the (socalled) "renaissance" , centers on the validity of switching from following (old) rules to following (simply) pleasure. But following pleasure is of course just another rule. The real and deep quest is to move from ruleboundedness to something other than mere randomness (or 'chaos', in some sense), namely to a coherence or wholeness in which each action is new and yet spontaneously fitting. A great deal of enquiry into the role of the various forms of thoughts and emotions and so on is then required. Stagnent deep thoughtforms without words may be given words, so as to reconnect the verbal parts of the psyche with some of its less verbal and more emotional or imaginative parts. Then, as the words are played with and questiosn of fact inserted, the bottled-up emotions tied in with the psyche can easily and drastically alter. Harmony can be won back. But only if the massive extent of disharmony is heeded. A person does not radiate enlightenment by, however correctly it may be, simply 'concluding' that harmony 'has been found'. Rather, each moment of conclusion as to these matters is a moment of disharmony, sowing seeds, at least, of new ego. The ending of violence is a prerequisite for intelligence in our lives, and the ending of violence requires, among other things, a full comprehension of the tendency of a mob group to form itself. It may be easily explained as the desire to divert attention from other less pleasant matters (such as acne in the case of schoolboys; I was myself sometimes the victim of verbal mob groups at school, like very many people), and rather concentrate on something that is a shared object of possibly an irritating character. It is harder to believe that a mob can attack something or someone who in all respects are loved and treasured by each person in the mob. But once the majority in a group, perhaps through a cunning leading member, has selected a victim, then it may be frightening for the minority to not at all at least pretend that they are also in it. For anyone in the group that actively separates themselves from the apparently unifying mobbing activity may sooner or later find themselves victims. In the long run, of course, most mob activities self-destruct due to the arbitrariness of selection of victims, but, unfortunately, much damage can be done along the path first. The concept of "loyality" is never so happy as when it is used to impose gang consciousness on person consciousness, and in almost all contexts, any reference at all to "loyality" is implicity a reference to mobbing, at least potentially so. The only possible decent way of using this concept, as far as I can see, would be to declare: Henceforth my loyality is only, and moment by moment, to my own individual private sense of what is really and deeply good! If the socalled loyality to the group, gang, company, nation, tribe, military, or league is in opposition to one's own sense of loyality or obedience to truth as one feels it, and the goodness inherent in it, then one must obviously disobey the former type of loyality if one is in the least a serious individual and not totally and utterly mediocre and petty. Greater than the integrity of any societal structure, computer program, or bureucratic structure, is the infinity of the human organism. It is this infinity which must be protected and incited towards flowering in goodness, and not the finiteness of a societal scheme. We'll now look into more of the question of the 'near-enlightened' in terms of a famous and much-loved person, who I have had great moments of learning from listening to, in terms of a video series. I am refering to the great mythologist Joseph Campbell and his interview by Bill Moyers in the Power of Myth series. Clearly, Joseph Campbell appears there to favour violence in some odd sense (he refers to 'terrific violence' in context of human slaughtering, for instance). He explains further that the Sanskrit phrase "sat-chit-ananda" supposedly outlines the whole of the awakened state, of which the last term means bliss or joy, and this is the bit he selects out to hold on to and pursue as his notion of an enlightened state, it appears, in his much-published formula "Follow your bliss!". In following bliss, leaving purity and mind-presence out, we find an echo of his views on good versus bad. In mixing "dualities" rather fiercely, beginning with male versus female and ending with good rather bad (as if these had anything to do with each other), he asserts that "every action has both good and evil consequences and all we can do is to lean towards the good". While there are elements of good sense to this, in my own opinion, we get a picture in which a leaning effort is implied towards rather a concept of the good. Rather, I would say that the enlightened state involves something radically different, and that the implicit picture Joseph Campbell suggests of enlightenment is mediocre and off the point. What is involved is that the essence of the state of mind is compassionate, so that its perception-action is spontaneously reflecting this compassion in a totally effortless and natural way. Goodness erupts into action and it does not have evil as an opposite; rather goodness is the energy and it contains the possibilities of "loops" in itself so that it may occasionally fragment itself within itself and this is not a duality, this is rather an ocean with ice. Abstractly it is then some sense in the idea that the effects of actions are, ultimately, infinite, but Campbell seems to suggest that it is in thinking through them that one can get to what is right and this is then pursued consciously as a goal. However, the crux of the matter of enlightenment is the realization that knowledge, thought, is too limited to do the job and a totally different mind is required to actually sense an infinity which speaks of a coherent action rather than logically spells it out (for that would in general require infinitely many premises and infinitely many deductions and so no action would be possible at all if it were to be done as completely as one would want). The sovereign mind is a realization that inherent in the universe there is the mind-sense of the future and it expresses itself, as a dialogue, in a dynamic sense, in the moment of playful attention without any resistance such as the ego, the thought, that always has formulas and schemes like "Follow your bliss!", "Don't pursue just pleasure!", or "Just do what you want!" or whatever. It is tough, perhaps, to spell it all out but I think it serves as a good illustration to be aware that Campbell, with all his knowledge, has inserted several hints to the implicit hint that he finds himself rather awakened or enlightened. He speaks of enlightenment as something that happens all the time and of the meeting with the Indian guru that speaks of him and the guru on the same terms as beyond duality and so on. Now, in considering what I take to be a medicore view of enlightenment he may be correct enough in that according to these lazy schemes he fulfill them. Yet he is not enlighthened but near-enlightened in terms of what I sense to be the case; and this may sound like moralization but what I intend is rather along the lines of being a connoiseur of fine wines and seeing oneself for what one is before one thinks that one can stand up and be of any good in these enquires at large. It is tough going but it is also realistic: unless we actually get authentic all the way, throwing off the limitations of thought through insight and not harshly, getting grounded in compassion and learning how to act from it, then we will make a terrible mess. It is not helping people then to wobble around in near-enlightenment and preaching it, implicitly setting up barriers for final penetration just because oneself was too lazy to do it. So am I completely enlightened in saying all these things? Obviously I cannot have that conclusion or the conclusion would prevent me from checking and this would be nothing but a seed, at least, of ego and so defying the claim itself. And yet at least what I say I see completely as is and it is not a theory to me. Sense it yourself. A TINY NOTEBOOK Chapter 1 Ahhh... * ...beauty belongs to that which meditates in itself, without help from culture... * The pursuit of "knowledge" is not at all times beautiful and therefore fruitful: The pursuit of knowledge of atomic splitting in the laboratorium of Hitler was never scientific if science is the pursuit of truth as beauty. * In woman-suppressing times, the flowering period of free womanhood (or girlhood) is brief, after which the flower is supposd to yield fruits in the context of that institutionalized torture called, in pathethic mildness, "arranged marriage". * It is, I believe, proved that the 'scent of the other sex' may produce tranquility, if not even happiness, inside a person who is starved of it. A beautiful society is full of sex. I cannot see, though, that it can be full of violence nor the display of violence. * By Christianity, fighting ~~ as violence with "heroes" ~~ became legitimate whereas sex did not. The perversion of this view is, thanks to dispassionate science, slowly being corrected. * Beauty as coherence is movement, never conformity with the pattern of the ego. * Is beauty subjective? Can it in any sense be said to be objective? Rarely will the criterion of "beauty", consciously adopted, make sure that what is bought to a museum will appear to be a "classic masterpiece" a hundred years later or so. "Beauty" in one culture may signify the pretty and the nice, the cartesian well-ordered garden without "too much wildness". In another age it is the lion eating a man. Then in another age it is the slicing of atomic cores ~~ or a line, a dot on a monochrome surface. What next? * The cultural conditioning involves a bias. Unbiased perception is indeed possible for any free, independent~minded individual in any culture. As several mysticists (among them David Bohm) has pointed out, it is possible to "be in the world, without being of it". * It may be tempting to offer the point of view that works of Michelangelo, works of Bach, and the Himalaya mountain range, are three examples of "objective beauty". * A sure sign of spiritual immaturity and power-hungry preaching is when a text is full of 'you should try this', 'do that', 'try this', and so on. The spiritually mature does not show the path, but effortlessly dissolves the obstacles to the path by impressing the mind with astute, precise questioning. The path of the spirit will then open as a flower to daylight, quite unique to every individual and free of the compulsion of any system of effort. * There are subtler ways of order and harmony found in tranquility. The position of your pen. The curve of the curtain. The eight- folded bath. Where you put the flower. You can make the room meditate. And be filled with Analogs. * She believed in God and in Christianity, she said. She came to me while I was sitting in a park, watching birds and people, looking into a dictionary. She sat down, looked at me with that sense of peace which comes from someone who has thought a lot, or suffered a lot. / So what do you think of the Bible? I believe in it. : Which part? The whole? / Yes. : The whole, as according to St Paul? / Yes, well. There is a great deal of wholeness to the book. : Is there? Well let's not argue. St Paul. What do I think of him? I once looked in that little book by Abraham Lincoln, where he collected the Jesus sayings he felt were coherent enough to belong to one and the same person. It is very beautiful. You know Jesus don't talk much about Jesus. St Paul does. I feel more for these sayings than about the endless cultivation of the person Jesus. / Why? : Do you follow the name, or do you follow the rhythm? * She was sitting with a girlfriend at a bench, and stood up when I came. She looked, looked, went on looking. She had a kind face, her navel area was brown from a long summer with lots of fun. She took me by the arm and put me beside them. / Do you believe that nymphomania is inherited? : Why do you ask? The girls giggled. I said it had to do with the roundedness of the ears, just to say something. After a while, they became more serious. / What if ~~ all life was magical. Like you could just sense what could happen, and move into it, fearlessly. : Isn't it so? Can't you do it? / But it's difficult! Unless you're on alcohol or something, of course. : But if you're on a drug, the experiences don't go under your skin. They have no value then. / No. Could you tell me whether the guy I'm thinking on is the right one for me? One of them asked. : Come on. The "right one?" You mean forever? They were quite young. / No. I mean, is it going to be a relationship? And with a little magic we found some answers. * DESIRE What we want is not what we really want. That is the simplest way I can think of at the moment to summarize the distinction between emotional desire and what intuition begs us to do. When we question each desire ~~ do I really want this? Do I really want that? Then the intuitive patterns beyond all thought and emotion become more and more visible and audible. When false wants are all gone, the passion of the spirit takes hold of us and gives us everlasting joys. Chapter 2 Dialogue * ...the characteristic of beauty... * ...the conquest of the infinite... * Given that there is a cyclic or rhythmic aspect to an analog, how should it be visualized? Up and down, sideways, sine-like, as rotation, spiral, or a wobbling of a hyperdimensional object, as ocean waves, or what? What is the effect of adding two analogs? If not just increasing the amplitude, as it were, rather than the rhythm aspect? Is there any reason why adding an analog to itself should result in this rather than that? Is there any inherent necessity in what goes on at the moment of infinity of dot~dot~dot in 1, 2, 3, ...? Or is it just a spectrum of possibilities? We have seen that it's possible to imagine coherently the mapping of, say, pi and the square root of two to distinct, and, in a sense, precise analogs. This suggests an order to them. Does not this order also entail some 'natural operations' on them ~~ which are necessary by coherence of insight, at least? Let us focus on the image of the mapping. Let us in some as yet undefined sense of 'add' perform an addition of an analog ~~ say, the one that matches the square root of two ~~ to itself. Does it get 'more of itself'? Or another analog? Indeed, it seems no reason why we cannot have both these addition types ~~ ADD1 and ADD2 can be our temporary name. In ADD1, we assume that there is an 'intensity' characteristic to the analog, and we perform addition with regard to this. In ADD2, we assume that it is our before-mentioned rhythm that is being added. What is the simplest kind of rhythm imaginable in the context of analogs? If we imagine a line, like a string, we are faced with the challenge of rounding its ends; if there are no ends, then it may give us some sense of dissipation of energy. We do want an ongoing, never~ending cyclic aspect. A wobbling up and down begs the question of how far up and how far down and what line this really is. I would argue that in the context of analogs, we have the circle and thereby rotation as the most natural answer. * ...the perfume of happiness... ...through going beyond the ego, and awakening our compassion, a new level of mind is possible... * ...analogs: a characterisation of infinite forms relevant to Feynmann & Bohm quantum theory... The circle is more elementary than the line. They make the finite numbers: analogs...III, II, I, -I, -II, -III, ..., -analogs An expansion can be described by the complementary pair (how fast, how much). How fast: cyclic, circuit, rotating. How much: intensity. If the circle is fundamental, how can then anything be a line, a pulse, have a sequential propagation? However, if two circulating movements are in phase and have equal intensity and rhythm, but move in opposite direction their vector sum is movement back and forth a line. If sufficiently big the sense of movement in one direction only is reached (as a special case). If space can be thought of as a line and time as another line, describing movement along the first (by resonant rhythms, there may be many lines), how can these be linked appropriately as dimensions? But remember we formed line by deflating pairs of circles and by deflating less perfectly we get other shapes, more complex the lines. Chapter 3 City of God * Allatixa Kanbeatilfa: Poem on Gratitude Thank Thee, Lord and Lordess Rama and Ama Thank Thee, In Thy infinite copulation named Amarama Thank Thee, God Grateful I am. For all the music data to me in this universum process alive waves as dance Grateful I am. For all the dance Cycle upon cycle The neverending ocean~breaking upon the beach of my horizons Upon the beach of my experiences Infinity (Translated from the Zatiltian) * Words in English like 'terror' and 'horror' contains the rambling thunder of 'r' without any consoling smoothing element like 'm' in 'mother' or 'mellow'. The contrast between the roar of 'r' and a melodious, playful, laughter-like sound of 'l' is perhaps evident. How much more does a word influence us when repeated to us hundreds or even thousands of times each year, in year after year ~~ I am thinking of our socalled "names". How parents, in their often idiotic, imbecile possiveness can be trusted to give names to children I cannot fathom ~~ but I guess it because nobody else will. But still less I can fathom why people chose to keep them when they are adults, instead of getting the upperhand on this process. * Some say, "Is it really so that anything happens but by coincidence and dull mechanical causation. Even life etc." And to me it is utterly clear that there is no event that cannot be picked up before it happens by the sensitive mind. Every event is as if advertised by a wave or wind of its own like. The whole body state of the sensitive person speaks of what is to come. As weather, it is never completely surprising to the avid eye. Not only that, but events as advertised are advertised so that they can be changed, if they do not appeal to us. * Never let an Indian hand~reader get hold of your hand. From what I've heard, they are a bunch of determinists. With all respect for much of their culture, such as the Upanishads. * Whose brain does really work? Who has not stopped learning about everything? How is an adult person capable of lacking self~irony in most forms? How is he capable of avoiding to explore the roots of jealousy so as to get rid of it once and for all? Chapter 4 Quart03 * ...the esthetical paradigm... * Beauty, like truth, may be denied in the daze of ego-attempts at fulfilling desires which are arbitrary ~~ arbitrary at least in the sense they belong to a personal history of traumas, to a self- condemnation that is half~hearted sought to be healed by chasing after its opposites in daily life. Beauty as ego~fulfilment is subjective, but what is beauty in the situation of egolessness? * Just as, when time goes by, it may (but this is by all means not necessary, as the history of religions show) be easier to discern fact from prejudice, myth and illusions inspired by desire, rage and fear, so it may be argued that beauty of an objective kind penetrates easier the veil or "maya" of subjective (or false!) beauty as time goes by. * Remarkably, despite all the contrasts between not only the two major branches of 20th century physics, but also in between the various interpretations of each of them (esp quantum), there is a penetrating similarity found in nearly all facets of THE NEW PHYSICS, and that is a completely different sense of what the concept of "the future" refers to. Different from classical physics, but similar in some ways to certain mystical sentiments as found in writings so diverse as Meister Eckhardt, the Upanishads, and the stories of some American Indian tribes. This is the view in which the future is not merely subjective, but in a certain sense actual or objective ~~ and, to side with quantum physics (over Einstein), quite possibly in dynamic change related to the present moment. * Now, for reasons which biologically makes a great deal of sense, beauty and health are deeply related. The compassion evoked by a child being sick is often enormous, for its health and growth potential, the child is a bearer of a great deal of future. * In music, the lifting up beyond gravitation by a health plant may be echoed in raising tones. Where everything is raising, the mirroring of gravitation as a challenge is lost, and it may feel superficial where everything is falling, it may seem superficial for the lack of diversity and trust in life's upbuilding processes. With a remarkable synchronicity, an example of such a superficial song, in this author's view, is the list pop melody "call 911 (the emergency number)", in which everything is falling, just like the two World Trade towers fell about a year and a half later at the date 0911. Does it always have to be spelled out? Symbols perpetuate themselves into reality. We have a great deal of responsibility. Let's wake up to it. Art changes the world in each second. Each expression does. Not just architecture, as in Feng Shui, that dogmatic little zystem. One must open up to synchronicity, to attention of simultaniety ~~ not just awareness of simultaniety ~~ otherwise one's brain is slumbering. On with the brain, read the synchroncity, act in it ~~ then enlightenment stuff is what you get thirsty, hungry for. It will change the world. Forever. In a good way. We must have that passion. Playfully...With love and compassion. For all. * The living future and our relationship to it ~~ the uplifting forces of life beyond any gravitation ~~ involves a relationship to harmony or coherence. Remarkably, through the classical concept of "resonance" as further refined (and mysticised) in quantum physics as "nonlocality", harmony or coherence has attain rather objective sense. To paraphrase Goethe, coherence is an objective quality, not merely a subjective quantity. There are sentiments in biology, represented by controversial figures as Rupert Sheldrake, but gradually filtering into what may one day be fruitfully called THE NEW BIOLOGY to take coherence seriously as a deep concept (on par with mechanical causation) in biology. In the neurological (or cognitive) sciences, the word coherence are getting deeper significances, and it may presumably spread both "downwards" (from the brain) and "upwards" (from the quantum level) to biology as a whole. * Psychological, coherence looks a lot like beauty. So to a mind in chaos, what may lead to some limited coherence may appear "beautiful", but this is dependent on the particular style of chaos. To a mind already fairly coherent, what has intense coherence with itself may echo "objective beauty" ~~ and we may have to penetrate the veil of the maya to realize what this is. * Beauty cannot become the fascist uniformity thing; it cannot be sensored ~~ for if it is the challenge of the ego then no form can be imposed on it. In a state of dictatorship, it would obviously and clearly be an expression of beauty to oppose the dictatorship, for the latter involves the bullying of the coherence of individuals. * Beauty is danger. Krishnamurti pointed this out. * ...seductiveness of a form ~~ that which truly has deep inward coherence not only with itself, but with the universe, flowing full of analogs ~~ analogs indeed fill our space, they are what the quanta are weaved from, and they spring from simple counting, simple computation, in that perception which lifts the gaze of counting to the dimension of the timeless ~~ just consistency is not enough ~~ the dance of contrasts, similarities, blendings and so on, even wholeness is not enough... * Fascism must never re~arise. We must not stuff the free space of movement for individuals, which ought to be and must be unlimited, with rules and regulations, fears, violence or things. * The fact that science cannot safely affirm what truth is, is no arguement that ruth does not exist. * The mind may be in particular able to grasp truth in a moment's flash. And, in the wake of Einstein, many would equate this flash with beauty. * Can beauty be defined? There is an almost hitlerian uniformism in many cities, where mass media and related factors prove remarkably efficient in hypnotizing the many (including teenagers) to adopt a socalled "fashion" or "trend" season~based look as a uniformed necessity for socalled "individuals". * Can beauty be defined somehow? A term of awesome importance is better associated with rich and deep, subtle and varied questioning rather than dogma. However, media has quoted, in a shallow manner, scientific studies on "symmetry", as if this was all beauty was about and this leads me to work on the concept. In particular, "symmetry" can be dissolved into the roots "sym", meaning "together", and "metry", meaning "measure" (among other things). Together in measure. Similarity. When a mirror image is similar in measures in an opposing way, this is "mirror symmetry". Opposing ways are an example of contrasts. Let us now proposed, inspired by D. Bohm, that the perception of order is the perception of contrasting similarities and similar contrasts and blendings of distinctness across all levels and categories. And let us us call such order for coherence. An example of this is fractal geometry, useful in making computerized images of landscapes, in which a similar form is repeated, with subtle variation, across contrasting scales. The perception of music lends itself intensely to this kind of analysis and synthesis. * Since most of society is neurotic anyway, a discussion of madness is seldom of deep philosophical importance ~~ for the lack of examples of the genuinely and obviously non-mad or "sane". Madness with compassion is good but madness without compassion isn't, I think. * I estimate, from my own experiences and intuition, that it typically takes around three years to build an ego, such as between two persons. A dismantled ego is the preferred state. However new seeds of ego may be sown in any instant if one does not watch it. * In an Age of Reason, fragmented theories of the world, the mind, language and logic are imposed on the many. In an Age of Emotion, exactly the same can be said, but the name of the game has shifted. It may be said that the solution is the cry for Respect for Individuals, but this may entail little more than a fortification of the ego structures in one another by lack of willingness to ask each other deep questions. A better slogan may be Compassion for Individuals. Does individuals exist for society or society for individuals? * ...spiritual truth is beauty... * ...logicians flocked to Art (and the cross of Christianity and the fundamentalist reading of Rumi and the Quoran and so on was ruled out as too unesthetical) but unfortunately they corrupted it with their unfailing desire to forego refinement in quest of shallow consistency... * ...sex, fashion, and the movement from atheism to pantheism on esthetical grounds... * ...the new physics and its challenges in the 21st century... * ...the nature poets revived.... * ...the esthetics of anti-totalitarism... Chapter 5 RouteE6 * ...the pond of knowledge and the infinite beyond it... * ...the winner gives it all... * ...the winner is the truly generous... * ...therefore winning by intuition, intuition being the delight of generosity to reality... * ...gold symbolizes luck, the light of it, humane; what dialogue can give, ought to give; a trusting humanity~civilisation is dialogic, dialogic through and through, never~endng, nonmorbid, always potential, flow, ... * From logic and the affirmation of the importance of knowledge one can be led to attention. Attention must be given not only to experience but to the role of mental processes in their bringing of an order and an emotionality and so on to these experiences * Chapter 5 Something before infinity * Since Fibonacci named the primes as primes, and invented the series of numbers giving the ratio of the golden mean, mathematical thought has seen incredible evolution. * Physicists consume bits and pieces of mathematical thought in their means-oriented approach, and discard it, toss it away, when anyone stumbles on a simpler way to do it in mathematics. In contrasts, mathematics tend to grow, though with occasional disclosures of unwanted hidden assumption in their proofs, leading to refinements. For mathematics describes the abstract features of perception itself, rather than attempt to describe what this perception is utilized for. * If, as Spinoza pointed out, "negation only exists from the perspective of finite creatures" then, presumably, God or an infinite being would have it all worked out without errors, which would otherwise each have to be negated at some point. However, in a post-Gîdel era, we are led to ask the question of whether such a God-concept involves a "countable" or an "uncountable" infinity. For if the former is the case, he/she/it could well have it worked out without errors, but not worked it all out; but if the latter is the case, it might all be worked out. That is, of course, if Gîdel had it right. * If, as Peter Wessel Zappfe pointed out, human beings are tragic because, and not in spite of, their huge potential for realization -- due to the limitations in the environment and such, prohibiting this realization -- then this tragic aspect should be very clear in focus in mathematics, the purest and strictest of all sciences, when mathematicians have established the incompleteness of an infinite family of likely axiomatic foundations for it. * However, incompleteness can, and should be, felt as a delight. This heavy poetic word signifies a stirring in the brain, the muscles of the soul, greater than that of lust, pleasure, pain and lesser ailments and titilations.. * For example, how dreary thing the world could be imagined to be if it were a physics theory describing all evolution paths completely, so that, if an infinite amount of infinitely precise measurements values were plugged into a machine representing this theory, the world would be spit out numerically. Chaos theory does not prevent this, and quantum theory is merely a physics theory containing uncertainty as a premise, not as a proved conclusion, of course -- but Gîdel did prove the incompleteness for mathematics. And careful analysis shows that the proof does indeed carry over to physics. * If mathematics is, as far as rulebased foundations for arithmetic goes, incomplete, then human thought may presumably also be incomplete? This seems to be the consequence Gîdel himself draws, aided by the philosophy of Husserl, but he leaves a delightful space open for our ability to 'intuit', as he calls it. * Intuit - a process which, by Church thesis, cannot be rulebased, if it stretches beyond the incompleteness domain, nor can it merely be random, a chance thing. If rule is one polar end, and chance the other, then 'to intuit' playfully goes beyond the scope of this dimension, yet projects down to points in between - it seems to me. * As far as I understand some of the proposals in some stage of Charles Sanders Pierce's thought, Pierce suggests that there is something "in between" the rather mechanical deduction process, and the also rather mechanical induction process, which he terms "abduction". Abduction is a terrestial matter of being in a dialogue, so to speak, between throwing forth suggestions, looking at patterns, and checking these suggestions mathematically. Clearly, abduction would be greatly helped by any such capacity to intuit as Gîdel talks about. * As far as I understand Alan Turing's papers, he found that, when he sought to describe the process of "gîdelization", as he called it - - to generate, in a rulebased way, theorems of the kind which cannot be deduced from the axioms, but which pertains to these coherently -- that, in short, there is an infinite regress required to do so completely. For each gîdelizator can itself be given an axiomatic form, and by this, a new range of incompleteness is uncovered. A "stepping back" from the gîdelizator in order to describe it is, in each case, a creative jump, itself requiring the intuition Turing seeks to overcome the necessity of. * Clearly, if the language employed is such as not to draw too much attention to internal formal complexities, but has a flavour of simplicity, then such a "stepping back" in order to grasp it, and perhaps also describe it, as a whole, is also likely to be easier. * The quest for simplicity, elegance, beauty and the aesthetic features of our symbolic work has a solid grounding in much of the best, it appears, of abstract theorizing, both in mathematics, and in mathematically relevant domains (at least). For instance, both Einstein and Quine emphasized simplicity as one of the key features involving trust in the potential of a theory. * Nearly a century ago, Einstein postulated (1905) three articles, each of which turned out to be highly significant. The theory of relativity, as first published, was simple, yet not visually described -- rather its equations, postulates, and deductions were all clear and can be read with little modification today, as a set of statements which still are considered to be fruitful (to take a pragmaticist's position to theories). * However, -- and this had far-ranging, and very complex consequences, formally speaking (and not just formally), Einstein's math teacher, professor Minkowsky, showed that Einstein's equations in the special theory of relativity were compatible with a view in which time was considered 'the fourth dimension', adding to the (cartesian) x, y and z. Minkowsky then provided a pictorial rendering of relativity, which spread quickly. * Einstein then adopted Minkowsky's vision of "timespace", with its formal complexifications, and spent many years in futile search before, in 1916-17, he achieved a generalization to include also the domain of gravitational fields (as curvature in "timespace"). However, in the wake of the simultaneous and later developments in the theory of electromagnetism and atoms (quantum theory), the simple equations of early Einstein still stand, however as approximation, whereas Minkowsky's visualization seems hopelessly inadequate (at least for the time being -- and that includes the last fifty years). (However, the isolated equations of the general theory of relativity must be admitted to hold also, of course). * This should be ample evidence, at least for one case, that the quest for simplicity involves questions of simplicity, which it is not simple to answer. * The simplest approach, in terms of language, to comprehend mathematical objects is what? It may seem odd, and perhaps unfortunate, that among many of the very young, mathematics has, as it is taught, acquired a reputation of outstanding nonsimplicity. Indeed, it may be tempting to remind ourselves what the mathematician Littlewood proposed, as a toast: "To pure mathematics, and may it never be of any use to anybody!" For in the means-end thinking, where mathematics is reduced to a tool to control reality, it is not the greatness of simplicity which springs into expression. Rather, it is the memorizing of techniques and such. * The mathematicians Ole-Johan Dahl and Kristen Nygaard developed Simula, then Simula67, to "simulate processes in the behavioural sciences" (as Nygaard conveyed in a discussion we had). A feature of both (this, the very first class/inheritance/object-oriented programming language) Simula and other (not necessarily object- oriented) programming languages such as Abacus machines, Lisp etc, but in varying ways, is their concept of sequence, and by this, a form of time (which raises interesting questions of paralellism). * A statistical description, such as the one found in thermodynamics, is, in contrast to a programming language, an approach in which the whole landscape of events is characterised as a whole. A programming language is more generative. Its output may be more simply described statistically, if it itself is complex. But (as for instance fractal imagery shows) there are cases in which complex processes resulting from simple programs provide exceptional opportunity for insight into these processes. * Again, programming langugaes, like much of taught and lower-grade mathematics, are often efficiency, productivity and thus tool- oriented; and this takes away attention from such extraordinarily interesting themes as the philosophical relation of simplicity (and beauty) to truth (not that beauty is only about simplicity!). * It seems natural, in a post-gîdelian era, to ask for means not merely to implement rulebased control (as when mathematics is applied to a bridge), but to ask for means to aid perception, intuition, the grasping of what is talked about. And there seems no reason why equation-based (or, in general, more "timeless") descriptions need have priority here, before sequence / programming languages. Indeed, Turing, Church, and Post's mathematical works, to mention some, shows this (the value of recursive work). Put simply, I suggest that it is a historical, rather than a mathematical / rational grounding for the priority to seek formal simplicity in sequencefree expressions in mathematics. * However, the need to ask the question of 'what is really simple' presents itself strongly as soon as any practical task is to be implemented in a programming language. is, for instance, (eat(apply(take(knife) take(fork) food) say(q(Thank you!))) (in a stylized Lisp-inspired style) simpler, because of the "simplicity" of always using parenthesis, than { eat(apply(take(knife), take(fork), food); say("Thank you!"); } (in a stylized C-inspired style), or than knife take fork take apply eat "Thank you!" say * Notice that simplicity involve the question of pespective: the perspective of the same sign always (parenthesis); the perspective of contrasting, clarifying signs; and the perspective of no signs. The perspective of getting the resources to do the task before specifying it (stack-based languages, as in the last example); the perspective of stating the process before calling on the tools. Yet more perspectives would be called into consciousness if we compared with presentations of the same program in, say, 8080 assembly, APL or Cobol. * Simplicity is also about convention, or of relating to the known. * As far as programming languages go, especially (and this will have to be investigated) of the sequential, algorithmic type, the third is by far simpler in the long run, however "far from the known" it is in these days in most programming communities with their Java orientation. * In the simplicity of using only Ascii signs in such contexts, we see that the elegant symbol of integration, suggesting "S" for "summation", need be replaced by, for instance, the letters "integral" -- plenty of examples of this style can be found in Stephen Wolfram's famous Mathematica program, for instance. * In signing, the mere presence of a sign, like %, can make a young person say, "this is too complicated". Naming can invoke similar psychological effects. * The fact that signs and names have a psychological implication, which again affects our capacity to "intuit" in a field, should in a post-gîdelian era, I feel, entail that we do not only consider mathematics as a quest for proofs, nor as an abstract rendering of perception of relations between objects, but also a quest for cognitively viable sign- and name-approaches. * English, as Norwegian (by and large), can be written using the Ascii signset. Each sign may be traced by those seeking special knowledge, such as linguists, to their remote origins, where they perhaps can be found to relate to some ideogram. It is tempting, for instance, to regard the Devanagari script of Sanskrit and modern Urdu, in a few cases, as simply giving the position of the tongue in uttering the phonemic syllable. * The possibility that the ideogram of, say, a marvellous lion, depicted in a column in an otherwise rather austere interior of the Keops pyramid, merely symbolizes what we today call a "letter", namely L, in this case, seemed "too simple" for many, many centuries of recorded investigations into ancient Egyptian hieroglyps. * As the initial reflection over a sign or name sinks in, and the function of the sign/name takes more over, cognitively speaking, other features are brought into play. I still cannot fathom why the originators of Java had to use "import " (rather than Perl's more elegant "use ") in the beginning of all programs, knowing (1) the predominant position of the word, and (2) their little-amusing (to most) association with such themes as the import/export budget deficit, part of most newspapers-readers connotations (which programmers also presumably usually are). Whether you like it or not, you reflect on all such things. For instance, unless you are rather unusual, you will probably encounter moments in which you study in detail the wallpaper structure of your bedroom. No matter how "known" something is, then, it can suddenly, and will inevitably, come to provide new phenomenal experience. Nothing is "just" a convention. There is an unconscious semantics as well as the intended one; and it all enters into the concept of what is cognitive viable in showing simplicity and truth in a sign-situation. Chapter 6 Undoing Heisenberg * The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), also called the Indeterminacy Principle, in quantum theory, plays a fundamental role in that theory, not only as constraints on laboratory measurement but as element of cosmological theory. For instance, it is assume that the area near an imagined singularity in the gravitational field must be fluctuating, ie, have momentum other than zero, when position is known. This application of HUP shows that it is considered as much part of ontology as of epistemology. Of course we may want to refrain from such ontological application of HUP and indeed I believe that there are physicists associated with the Bohr Institute in Copenhagen who take this stance. * However, if we do accept the notion of applying HUP ontologically, then, it appears to me -- and I do not know whether this notion is original -- that we may run into situations of "ontological self- reference", in which it becomes a contradiction to rule out the possibility of certainty. * Let us briefly note, first, though, that unless we somehow assign the HUP an ontological significance, it seems unlikely that it can persist as more than a rule of thumb, a practical but not principal limitation; in which case hidden nonlocal variable models, as in J. S. Bell's analysis, seem somewhat called for. * However, in the ontological case of HUP, we find that asserting the impossibility of certainty lead, by adequate reasoning, to the possibility of certainty (ie, the negation of the initial presumption), then it would have the apperance of a reductio ad absurdum 'proof', in which case it seems best to drop the initial assertion of an ontological HUP. If this is the case, and we shall shortly consider the arguments for this, then the alternative that seems to be freest of contradictions should be the "rule of thumb" alternative, combined with a nonlocal model somehow. * The way we shall here sketch seems to me to be merely one of several ways in which we can create a situation of ontological self-reference. We will consider that the HUP is an assertion about the impossibility of precise information simultaneously about two conjugate variables (observables) such as position/momentum, so that the least imprecision (ie, the maximum precision or certainty or determinance) is a numerical value, let's call it "delta". * We will now create a thought experiment in which the quantum theory, and HUP in particular, is implemented in the form of a program on a computer, predicting numerically "delta". The program is implemented by means of a computer that is of the "quantum" kind -- that is, by suitable configuration of subatomic entities, themselves subject to HUP, in a way that is adequate for computing. The program is set also to predict about itself. We are now led to say that if the program predicts "delta" uncertainty correctly, then, it must say that it is delta uncertainty about the delta uncertainty. That is, if the delta imprecision is itself associated with delta imprecision, the range of imprecision becomes at once everything from zero to twice delta. But zero imprecision is exactly the possibility of certainty or complete precision, and a contradiction to the implemented assertion from the outset. In other words, it seems to lead to the possibility of certainty by asserting the impossibility of certainty. With this line of reasoning, we suggest that the time has come to call for a powerful reduction of the sense of principality about HUP, and rather rename it into a "practical limitation", leaving conceptual room for adequate technological transcendence. Chapter 6 Nets and netions * What is the ultimate datastructure for a net, such as a mind-net (mind-map), a net of relationships, a net describing a quantum system, the movement of a dancer, or the dancer's anatomy? How would you model the flowering of a thousand flowers in a valley? How would you place algorithms of practical functions in a great and changable programmable environment? * I propose that in a "net oriented programming language" the basic structure is some such net (a network), in the sense that nets (and essential functions providing enhancement of coherence of nets, changing and blending them and so on, as well as relating them to such niceties as a 3d library of graphics, an english library of natural language parsing elements, and a music synth library, as well as accessing them in detail, storing them on files etc) are what the language is about, and mostly everything is done by means of nets, and mostly everything, including strings, is or might be a special case of a net. * A net consists of some kind of unit which may refer to any number of other such units (such as referring to a whole area of a map, by some node of the map), without any limits imposed on the kinds of references involved (eg, they need not be merely hierarchical, and they might be in some sense circular; and they can certainly be multiplelevel of the kind used in connectionist pattern recognisors and generators). * This we can call a 'discrete' kind of net, which is the type I prefer here, since a 'continous' kind of net is at odds not only with the digital-type of implementation environment here under consideration, but also with the quantum-like simulations it seems I am carring out, and which I am letting myself be inspired by. * When a unit refers to other units, it may also do so in a way which qualifies the kind of references involved. For instance, a unit in a net may refer to two parts of the same net, each part being units in their own rights, so that the sense of the reference is that of 'contrast'. * Another sense, complementary to this, may be 'similarity'. A net describing movement may then contrast and compare metalevels of movement (say). * A unit in a net may refer to a computational function, for instance one instigating some movement. It may contain a tex string, for instance one to be printed out on the text screen when prompted. Indeed, a unit may contain any kind data/program whatever. * When comparisons in terms of similarity and contrast are carried out, it makes sense to register a quantifier showing the result of the comparison (for instance by a difference value). Then, for instance, the road is short to a pattern recognisor pointing out "the most similar shapes" to a certain one. Even a context-oriented pattern recognisor, that is able to lift certain similarities out, and then shift context, and lift certain other, perhaps complementary similarities out (like figure-ground perceptual experiments), is possible by this dyad of contrasting/similarizing patterns at indefinitely many metalevels. * Since all forms of movement in reality seems essentially to be pulsatng and wavelike, and mostly all forms in reality seems to be reducible to movement (but not vice versa), then we suggest that our general nets will contain a wavelike quantifier. A pulsation is havin at least one axis (corresponding to positive and negative numbers). However, with reference to Richard Feynmann's QED, let us give the pulsation two axes, and rotate it around this (corresponding to complex numbers). (However, we do not share the point of view with Niels Bohr that the second-dimensionality of these numbers is proof that they are merely imaginary -- far from it; Bohr, who often showed uncanning audacity in recognising general truths when he had but little empirics to go on, seemed to have got all messed up at the level of the philosophy of mathematics here. The formal equivalence of the second dimension with some features of the square root of minus one, so-called, does not mean that it is paradoxical or imaginary. And if all equations in quantum theory work well and work well with such numbers, it is bad science to assert as more than a fleeting and uninterestng possibility that there is nothing in nature corresponding actually to some of the structure of such numbers, operating behind the scenes to give rise to the known empirics. By his notoriously anti-realist assertions, Bohr succumbed to a position where his physics detoriated to engineering; and physics can only be rescued by rescuing it from Bohr, as well as from Einstein's overly limited picture of what realism ought to be. In this author's opinion, anyway). * Apart from the desirability to save portions of a model to different files, there is nothing in principle that requires us to use more than one single, big net. However, as we shall see, it may be interesting to treat 'a net' as one of the most fundamental datastructures -- more fundamental than, say, objects -- and as such implement many other datastructures through them. In that case it may be worthwhile to be able to treat a lot of different nets, blend them and divide them, modify them and search them, and so on. Chapter 7 Beyond the finite (to analogs) * We start by a single number, perhaps zero, and create the real numbers from this number by permutation around the decimal point, by a fairly simple mathematical procedure which is carried out first one time, then a second time, and then assumed to go on indefinitely. In this way, we stay fairly close to conventional mathematics. As we create more and more real numbers (as I have shown in a concise Java procedure in my graduation thesis, "Elements of infinite mathematics analyzed algorithmically", delivered at the University of Oslo, dept. of Cognitive Science (SLI), at June 19th, 2003, with guidance by professor Herman Ruge Jervell), we can also map each newly created real number to a (growing) whole number, or integer. Imagining this going on, well, to infinity, we come to a sense in which every real number is mapped to one and only one number, of sorts, in the whole number list. Only that these numbers are no longer finite. They are different. Let's call them "analogs". Okay, something funny may after all exist in the foundation of mathematics for the last century or so. * A function f with two input parameters x and y can be written as this: (x y)f. This is computationally close to what a computer actually does -- look at parameters first, then what to do with them. * The asker: But then it is impossible to say that the real numbers are mappable onto integer numbers. I say, okay, I agree. The asker: But I thought that what was you claimed to have proven, that they could be mapped? I say: There was something else that I claimed, which I do not see that is a mistake -- help me if I am wrong here -- and that was that we have a concept of infinity associated with the set of whole numbers that is not superceeded when we come to the set of transcendent numbers. The asker: But if the real numbers fall outside of mappability with the integers, then the real numbers are a bigger infinity, somehow. I say: I want to draw a distinction there. I agree that the square root of two, to infinite precision, is not given a finite position number. It is given an analog. But you must clarify how the extention of a finite list by a finite amount of additional members, repeated indefinitely, is a list that is in any serious sense greater than that of integers. Then, when we come to take in all this new mathematics, it may appear that by a slight change in the foundations, everything will change, subtly. Yet is not mathematics the only science of truth? Whereas the rest of the sciences are the sciences of approximation. But humanity has not come a far way by asserting that things are "proven". Proven means shown, but things may turn out to be more subtle than they appear to thought at first sight. The infinite may after all be a singular term, sufficient. If the infinite has structure, then it contains, in a sense, many infinities, but it does so self-referentially. And self-reference is the apex of the meditator. I meditate, therefore I am. Without the 'I'. Meditation. Am. Ok? ;-) ENLIGHTENMENT Do you rule over your life as a dictator? Do you rule over your life as a dictator? Or do you let the many intelligences in you effortlessly make decisions? What can communication be? What is that perfume of excellent communication called "love"? The in~betweenness mustn't be sick, full of deception, illusion, the untenderness of avoidance. Get real. Honest. Love isn't for the few, is it? The divisiveness is an issue for healing, completely! Nobody is an outsider. Don't be bad news, and don't be morbid. Immediacy, compassion means passion for all. Scream it! I feel. Then, when we all require this of ourselves ~~ then what? Then humanity won't be a parasite, and the human being won't be tragic in nature. Humanity, through the ecstasy of good communication, is also godhood. Do you see it? Live it?! Then the urgency of change is not merely converting dictatorships to democracies and so on, but to take away the confinements of our "smartness", our "pride", our "evaluations". Our judgements are all true only when they are absent, as far as stagnated positions go. Don't be sick. Don't be a parasite. Be a creator, a creator of energetic life of qualifying generosity and sublime honesty. Care for coherence! I feel that all~passionate, beauty~uplifting love, untainted by drugs, illusions and self~occupiedness, is the promise of a whole capacity of self~regenerating ectasy for all, every day. *** / What does the chakra system stand for, in your opinion? : 'Chakra' is Indian, or Sanskrit rather, for 'wheel'. But they aren't wheels, they are spirals. They are just the sensory~motor system of joy. They don't give enlightenment. You just need them to be a fully functioning human being. And it is not seven of them, nor eight, but more like seventeen thousand. / As in the Chinese approach? : As far as the order of their numbers of vital points and centres goes, perhaps. But then the Chinese acupuncture approach has its own ideosyncrasies. I do not mind an ideosyncrasy if it really fits with truth. But none of these systems do. / Says who? Your intuition? : It is pretty obvious if you look into it in an unbiased way. Okay, yes, my intuition; but I know others who clearly and obviously listen to their own intuition and they agree. The way I approach intuition, you must rid yourself of assumptions, of fears, desires, angers and so on ~~ and also teachers and ideologies. You get really naked in relation to what you are going to perceive. And then you just happen to perceive it correctly. It sounds arrogant, perhaps, but it is not. When more people do it, and they get not only the same result, but the result fits in practise, it works, it is fruitful, and it is also scientifically matching with what is measured there, then you get to trust these things. It is not to be arrogant that I say: Put your own intuition before the Chinese or Indian or Kabbalistic system or whatever. But intuition is a great discipline. / How do you train it? : You see, you train it by knowing yourself, by knowing and enquiring into all these things, at leisure. You must give yourself some time. That's all. / There is no specific technique? : There are ways to help the person who is almost there ~~ who has seen desire for what it is, fear for what it is ~~ and yet that person has the intuition to help himself or herself. I do not see the reason why we should emphasize technique. I may, for instance, get a fleeting thought, an impulse, when my mind is quiet, and then I may swiftly ask myself, is this correct? And I have practised to raise a finger three times for yes, effortlessly ~~ it can be any finger, like the left index finger. And it can vary, it varies with posture, with position, with action. It has to do with symmetries. Somewhere in your body you can find an effortless expression of the maximal coherence, and that is truth, and it is always original. So it doesn't follow any system. You see? / These are merely add~ons, or rules of thumb, they are not the essence of enlightenment, is that what you are saying? : Obviously they cannot be the essence of enlightenment! Enlightenment, that light within, must be beyond the learning of any skill. Smartness cannot add up to insight of a deep kind. Of that penetrating, complete kind that is beyond any measure. *** / What is time? : Time? A cycle, obviously. / Cycle? What about linear time? : Linear time is just a big, big cycle. / Does logic have time? : Which logic do you mean? / Well, the formal symbolic... : Never mind. Could you rather ask: Does thought have time? / Okay. Does thought have time? : Which is to ask, isn't it?, is there a movement to thought and to reasoning? / Well, is there? : Of course there is. And now: Is the movement of reasoning the same as the movement of intuition? / Ahm. The movement of intuition? Isn't it a flash? : Well thought can be a flash. And then we say: Thought has a movement. And now I ask: Does not intuition also have a movement? You follow? But is it the same movement as thought? Obviously not. And so on. / These are two different movements. : Of course. You pay attention to the movement of intuition or inner intelligence and you notice that it comes, rather along with thought, or it comes rather along with the movement of thought. But it is a different movement. / Like different brain functions... : Let us not limit it. / What is it then? : What? Intuition? / Yes. : What intuition is? Oh, that is an entirely different question. I am merely pointing out that if you pay attention, you can sense a difference, or a contrast rather, between the two movements. Can you do that? Now? / What relationship does this have to our sensory experience of the world? : I don't know. / What do you mean? : I don't know what you mean by 'sensory experience of the world'. Is that a category of its own? You walk barefoot in the grass and stretch out. So is this something ~~ when you perceive the sun, or you have on sunglasses, you watch the extraordinary colour shifting of the clouds, as if they are telling you magnificent messages. This is a movement of course. Are you asking whether this is a third movement, other than the movement of intuition or the movement of thought? / Yes. Perhaps I am asking that. Or perhaps I should ask that. I don't know. : So let us ask nothing more right now but just suspend it all. We'll come back to it, afresh. Silence in between. *** / What does reality look like? : You mean from a bird's eye? Or what is it made of? / What is it made of. Is it a meaningful question? : Oh yes. Of course you can go to the scientists. I can promise you that whatever answer they give, it will hardly be recognized a thousand years later. So you must ask yourself what you can trust as authority. / Perhaps I can trust you? : Perhaps you can trust your own intuition. / So what if I don't get a clear answer? : Then you need to ask why you don't get a clear answer. Do you have desire, do you have fear? Or is it something you must heal in yourself? Do you have to learn more about your psyche? And do deeper meditation? And so on. But you asked a question. Perhaps it is okay for me to tell you some results of my own investigations. / Please do. : Very well then. Anything to do with life, or consciousness, or mind in any sense whatsoever, even as feeling, as immediacy ~~ involves, as Henri Bergson said, something with 'duration'. Even if only a little duration. But duration there must be. This is cyclic. It may be many cycles or a big cycle I don't care but it is cyclic. So then, some cycles are more regular than others. That is how we make our concept of time, right? / I don't quite follow. : Well the sun is a cycle. / Okay. Got that. : So cycles have different speeds and, what shall we say ~~ intensity. The sun is very intense, right? / Yes. : And then there are not just contrasts between cycles and intensities and so on ~~ and the speed of the cycles, their frequency, or their energy ~~ but there is also the fact that some cycles are linked ~~ your body ~~ and some are not linked to that extent. You breathe in the substance of air and the cycles of that air connects with the cycles that is your body. You follow? / I think so. : This is all very abstract but we can say, then, that interlinking rhythms of different intensities and of different energies constitute reality. That is I see it. On a very general level. Then another time we can ask about levels, whether there is not just gross matter but subtle matter, or psychic matter; whether it has an overall kind of anatomy this universe and so on. *** / How can we heal something in ourselves? : Something? There is infinitely much to heal. / Infinitely? : Yep. You better get used to the fact of infinity. That is the base of our lives. / But infinitely much to heal? : Did you think it was only a spot? A little more opening of your crown chakra? Too little dopamine? Wake up, buddy. / How can we do that? : Heal infinitely much? Well, when you realize that fact, you start doing it. That's all. / All in one ~~ swosh, as it were. : The swosh doesn't come to an end. Life is healing. / Is this rejuvenation? : Of course. / Is immortality possible for humans? : When was life ever finite? There are the myths of gods being immortal and humans not; then there are the religions saying that, after all, humans can be or already is more or less immortal in some way. Then scientists may come and hope that they can give it. The lust for length of life is an illusion as long as we keep on comparing each other with ideals, instead of relating to life as it is. And then you'll see it is already infinite. / As an abstract concept? : No! / As what, then? : Why do you want to know? I can tell you, but is that the ecstasy of your awakened life? A story? A set of words? A string of characters? You can open to your senses, you can learn to watch the sky; you can drink in the infinity of life and this requires an ending of your tendency to be gullible. / Gullible. : Yes, gullible. Human beings claim that they are individuals; why not be individuals? Why not live up to that claim? And that means that we must not be gullible and accept the stories of media, the stories of bibles, the stories of science, the stories of our peers, of our doctors, of the dope dealers, of the commerce. Not gullible. So as to awaken your own relationship to fact. There is an immensity in that. Do you see it? As compassion. Not only that, but...you see, I hesitate describing that joy. It is real. Not a concept. If you make it into a word, a formula, then Coca Cola company will release a liquid named just that. Words can be taken apart, reality cannot. Don't let words bring you down. Explore your mind. *** / What can you say about love relationships between humans? : Love is God, of course. God is love. To live without love, even in oneself, is meaningless. But that does not mean that a partner in a fixed sense is the only way to live in love. / How can it be done otherwise? : You realize what prevents love from flourishing in you ~~ your condemnations, your ideals, your narrow ways of viewing the world. Each human as each living being carries a God glimmer, at least. That is the pantheistic openness without which dignity and both mutual respect and self~respect is impossible. / Then love relationship. : A love relationship can be like a cleansing fire, an ongoing ecstasy. Of course. Then there is something else, that when you snatch another person and keep him or her close to you, you may have simplistic notions and ideas about what this is all about. You live with your own body, don't you? / In a sense, yes. : So do you love your own body? / Why is that relevant? : Do you? / I guess. Sometimes. Yes. : Do you love your own body? / Love usually has an object outside of itself. : And yet the body is there, created by Nature, not by you. It is there, and you need to enjoy it, be dancing with it. / Is this not to assert a division between yourself and the body? : Not a division. And yet you are not limited to the body. There can and must be a relationship to your own body. So then that has also love in it, if you know what it is about. / What is it about? : It is a great deal. And so when you relate to another, you also know what it means to relate to yourself. You know what it means to renew the quality of love beyond all boredom. You do not have overheated illusions about yourself that then leads to disappointment and so you do not have it about the other. You have something endless. / That sounds nice. : It is not about making it merely 'nice', but you must ask, constantly, for truth. Truth is what you can rely on. Not a forced superficial honesty but the honesty that is the intuition that comes as a flood. It is fierce and strong becomes it comes without an effort from within. / What has this got to do with relationships? : Everything! For when you have this love you know that it is endless healing it is also about. And the truth of the matter is that nothing is finished, you engage in it each moment anew. / Can one ever make a decision, such as to marry, if one is to rely on such an immensity of perception from one moment to the next? : Of course. And it can be a spiritual marriage ~~ you know that the energy is there, and one is not treating the other as an object, a temporary pursuit, but there is an endlessness as to the highest goals in meeting one another, so it can renew itself quite possibly. If you make children it is a procreative or productive relationship in a certain bodily physical sense and then you are spiritually responsible to see to it that the children are taken care of. The productiveness is then no longer on you as persons, but rather it is a finishing of yourselves as persons, as it were, and spiritually you must relate to your children. / Do you advice spiritual marriages, or childfree marriages, then? : Advice...the word sounds rather pretentious, doesn't it? Who am I to advice anything on these matters? But it is a fact that you are finished as a person if you make a child. It is only with the responsibility that radiates from you towards the child in a generous sense that you are still a person. If it is practically difficult to be together with the child or children or they have grown up this spacious generosity is then that responsibility. Only in having it can you then also fulfill more of yourself as a person. / This sounds as a complex thing. : It is extremely complex at a practical level; and so this difficulty can perpetuate up to a spiritual level. Running away makes little or no sense. The greatest fulfillment for many would certainly be in staying out of it, even if inside a spiritual marriage. Yet some know that for them it is important, they have a calling, in creating the child or the children. This is a question of personal intuition. *** / How do you make a decision? : How do you make a decision? What happens? / I think about alternatives, and... : And as long as you think, there is no decision. Choice is confusion. / Do you say, Not to think? : Neither not to think or nor to think. It is in alternatives, of course, that intelligence grows. / Could you elaborate on that? : The narrow mind does not make any decision except enact patterns of habit. Un~narrowing the mind happens in entertaining alternatives. / Yet alternatives is confusion. : Nay, the lust to break through prematurely is confusion. To wade in alternatives itself is not confusion. It is more getting a sense of the terreign. Look, they say, when you are going to program, that you should make a high~level program and gradually break it down to pieces. It is called top~down approach. It is a habit, and it destroys intelligence to go for such a habit. / What do you suggest then? : You don't build a house top~down by gradually refining a plan to more and more details if you haven't entertained a sense of alternatives and perspectives as to the place where it is built, the functions it or they may have, and the grand overall alternative ways of building it. It is sheer folly to right ahead go about some 'top~down' approach. / Yet the top~down approach pervades much of materialistic society in its planning processes, it seems. : That, and chaos. They don't really have an approach. Not of insight anyway. You can tell by the intellectual fashions. Some decades, the word 'time' is in fashion; other decades, it is completely out. Everything has to be timeless. Then, in other decades, 'cause' is in fashion. Then 'rationality'. Then 'emotion'. Then 'learning'. As long as you go by fashion or paradigm, you are stuck. / You say that one can entertain a holistic approach all the time? : Yes, well, then you have another phrase ~~ holistic. / No formula. : That's it! No formula. / But that doesn't mean that you simply try out things. How could you make a school, say, on such a basis ~~ how would you teach it to children? : Very simply. I would say that the intent of beauty is what need to be taught, cultivated, entertained. Beauty in action is ethics. Beauty in relationship is love. Beauty inside is meditation. Beauty in body is gymnastics, dance, games. Beauty in thought is mathematics. Beauty in use of fingers is art. Beauty in the air is music. Beauty in relationship to the world is history, science; beauty in relationship to society is politics, ethics; in relationship to nature, conservation, biology, ecology; in relationship to resources, economy. A child knows a sense of attraction to flowers. To the line of a car. It is not a completely foreign concept and it is much less ingrained with dogma than such mysteriously large concepts like 'love'. Beauty in communication is language. Beauty is order, right? So by the intent of beauty ~~ in relation to clothes, is design, hygiencs; you can go very far with that. / Health is beauty in relationship to oneself as a body, or what? : You see, for centuries, hygiencs was associated, in Europe and in Italy or former Rome, with orgies, with great lustful sinning. So the Christian authorities in Rome condemned bathing and it became associated with sin to get water on the body. Better be full of shit so that the glory of God stands clearer out, so one is not to attracted to matter, ~~ do you get the picture? And of course this nearly wrecked human civilisation altogether, with tremendous suffering as a result of this absolute incompetence, this sinning against the reality of human living that the Christian Church instigated. / Now, civilisation is to a great degree associated with hygienics. : And for rather good reasons; although in many places it is still considered sinful to have a lusty, dancing, horny body. And so the sterile life ~~ which is really nothing but death ~~ is cultivated, unconsciously, as a result of centuries of suppression, repression. Even at Descartes time they had to corrupt what they wrote in order to survive; he had to come up with some idiotic schemes a mind like his would never have believed in, to save God from being thrown out of Christian dogma. Otherwise he would have been killed! Can you imagine what situation that is? It is like Stalin, or Hitler, but on behalf of a so~called loving religion. I cannot ever belong to any organisation that condemns people of different thinking. / So, let's go back to making decisions. : You see you must not think that you as the thinker are handling thoughts as if they were cards on a table. They have their own life. / Let decisions make themselves? : Ah, please don't encapsulate it like that. But thought, thinking is a living thing. Thinking, feeling, you stop having conclusions ~~ conclusions means a shutting down. And yet, you suddenly become aware, very quietly, of having made a decision. It simply comes. Doesn't it? Quietly. Very quietly. Unless you are aware of what is going on in your mind, it may take you years to find back to that exact moment when you really started to quit a relationship or begin a relationship; anything truly big is taken in a flash; the flash is not a concrete result of concentration. It simply comes. Perhaps when you take a shower. As you go for a walk. As you wake up. It is there. You are humble to it. You do not overrule it, though it may frighten you a little or a lot or not at all. You listen to it. Still you do not make a conclusion because if it is true, it will live on its own. Then at some time you find that it is still there, still alive as ever, and you adopt it as a conscious decision that you also stand by. That is how I do everything. *** / Suppose I say: I have understood, intellectually at least, all that you are talking about ~~ desire, fear, healing, all. But I don't get it to work completely. : Suppose? / Well, I say it. : So you have understood, you say ~~ me? Or is it yourself you have attempted to understand? Is it my words, how they are related to one another, or have you penetrated your own psyche, perhaps aided by these words? Which is it? / I don't know. : May I suggest something? / Yes, please do. : That you do not think about it. That you anchor yourself in a sense of wanting to produce the most complete expression of insight into the psyche ever produced. You forget about me. You forget about the words of this or that person. You forget your own words. You anchor yourself in insight, or in the intent, I mean, to produce insight, an expression of insight. You begin all afresh. You begin totally from nothing. In that nothingness, you observe. Then quietly, slowly, taking enormous time if you have to, you begin to express. So that it fits what you see. And these are subtle matters so you take time. Do you get it? / Yes, thank you. I will. *** / What is democracy? : The necessity of not bullying people. / Is that all? : That is a great deal. Of course, if you look at the word, what it means, it says that 'people rule'. Rather than no rule or rather that just some rule. / Can this be achieved? Is it an importance to have it this way? Some thinkers, including Aristotle, the philosopher, was against it. : Whether or not they were against it, it is a matter of perception: Don't bully people. People must be free to express themselves. There is only one real alternative to democracy, and that is dictatorship ~~ which means that torture or violence or killing or rape or something more sophisticated, but still violence, still control ~~ is used to stop people. And dictatorship, of any kind, for any reason, is evil. / Evil? Is not that a judgement? Can you not say that it is merely a limitation? : Dictatorship is evil. / But you yourself have spoken against condemnation. : It is not condemnation, it is seeing. / What's the difference? : Condemnation in image and an emotion. Seeing is relationship to fact. / What is the meaning of the word 'evil'? Can a person be evil? : Of course. / And you still want democracy? Don't you see how easily the use of this word can lead to people engaging in brutality, to wipe out those which they call evil? : I am fully aware of idiotic interpretations. But the wise interpretation, the clarity of mind says: Never, for any reason, kill or engage in violence. A drug dealer standing at the street pushing some kind of chemical that destroys brain activity permanently in other individuals is engaging in some act of evil. So there is something evil about this person. / Spinoza said that an action can be wrong, but the person is beyond it somehow. : If you are a panetheist, in an undogmatic sense, then you will say: To every person there is something God~like. I say that too. But when the worldview of the person is as a flask with a cork ~~ stopping that goodness from flowing into the person, then the goodness is only a potential. / But if I go around labelling people 'good' and 'bad', then... : Do you? I don't advice you to. / Why not? : Because you may not be clear. Are you enlightened? Have you pulled away the cork in your own worldview, and gained respect for every individual? On the basis of this respect, on the basis of respect for all life, and the complete foundation in loving all life and never willing to kill for any reason, then you can also see what evil is without this leading to imbecile actions. This is an area of great subtlety and difficulty. If you haven't seen it all, who are you to label anyone 'good' or 'evil'? And if you have seen it all, you don't 'go around labelling'. You see or you let go of that seeing. You don't project a label from your own psyche or your own ego. / Thank you. *** / Last time we talked about a very difficult theme. That of good and bad or evil. I feel that there is more to say about it. I have more questions. : Come with them. Only please, don't consider that it is me who shall answer them. / We'll look into them together. I know. Okay. The question I have in mind is: What is the societal structure of democracy when it is at its best? I am concerned with the vulgarity that seems to spread when the old dynasties and aristocracies break down; I say this not to defend anything of that old mafia~like structure; it had to go. I am willing to say, as you, that bullying people is an act of evil. And I am as yet not able to see how people can get responsible, at large ~~ how can the large masses, influenced by so many features, by commerce, by technology, by books, by state propaganda ~~ how can these masses raise above vulgarity? : Sir, what is vulgarity? / Base interests. Shortlived emotional concerns. Pleasures of the flesh. Eating the kind of food that encourages people to burn and chop down the last remnants of that paradise on Earth called Amazonas; not thinking that one's action has consequences. Or not caring for them if it does. : Okay, okay. Vulgarity is hedonism, is that what you say? The looking for pleasure. / Yes... : So what is it that leads to vulgarity? / The ego, I guess. : Please don't merely guess, if I may say so. What is the source, the origin of vulgarity? Can you hold that question? / Yes. : Well, what is it? / I see it, ... as habit. : Habit? Please, sir, just look at it. What is vulgarity, in its essence? How does it come about? / Some kind of lack of love... : Please. / I don't know! : So stay in that not~knowing~ness. Just observe it. Listen to it. It is a wonderful flower ~~ vulgarity. Explore it. Get in telepathic touch with it, so to speak. Can you do that? Direct, immediate, not just as emotion but as direct feeling~perception. A relationship. Can you have a relationship to that which you despise? And you see vulgarity in all its features, how it implies a lack of relationship to the future. How vulgarity may eat up the flesh, because youth or rejuvenation happens when there is a sense of caring that extends indefinitely into the future. There is a feedback from every action. Sir, have you noticed how, when matters of personal health is concerned, anything else may be set aside? / Hm. Yes. But what has that got to do with vulgarity? : Just look at it. Go around it. Don't try to crush vulgarity at the moment. Vulgarity is sustained, is it not, because the sense of life that many people have is that it goes on and on, stable, as it were, untouched by their actions. And yet actions do have immense consequences. Roll into the future a couple of years, and those who engage in a mediocre life have dull skins. Beyond what technology ever can repair. / You say that unless they have a flesh~feedback, so to speak, then they will go on following pleasure? : Don't merely say 'they', please. This concerns us directly. So you explore vulgarity. Not as a condemnation, but as a phenomenon. It is vulgar to condemn sex, it is vulgar to have a religion without sex, or to have sex without religion. It is vulgar to be dogmatic. It is vulgar to have a state or a company so huge that it makes other companies want to grow huge; a state makes other people want to make a state. It goes on and on; people protect themselves against the self~protections of others. We cannot have a decent society unless the units stay rather small, right? When it grows to thousand and tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of employers, then there is no big difference between a company and a state. One state here, it gets a little military power, and then another state to protect itself against that; then some people inside the state are bullied or likes to think that they are, and they also want their little silly state. Is not all this part of vulgarity? / It may be, but what is its source? You asked that question yourself. : So let us slowly sense it. What is the source of vulgarity? You are either an intellectual, socalled, interested in textual patterns. Or you are interested in intelligence, in intuition, in reality, actuality, truth. Which is it? Either it is ideas and 'my expression' and 'your expression'. Or you are looking at vulgarity in its actuality, its phenomenal senses. And then you are looking at a core feature of humanity as it has been, not just for decades or centuries, but for ten or fifty thousand years. / It is a vast phenomenon. : So you are no longer looking through the words of Freud or Shankara but you are in relationship to what you are asking about. And in that relationship, you ask it ~~ not me, not Freud, not the President, ~~ what is it that is its origin? It is fear, isn't it? / Yes. Fear of life. : Fear of existence, fear of taking in this magnificent rapture of a life that exists beyond all categories. But don't stop there. What is the source of fear? / Some has said that it is either love or fear in us. : Some has said this and some has said that. But love may be that which has no opposite. Fear is not the opposite of love. Fear is part of the cork, is it not? Fear is part of that which prevents something much greater. But where does fear come from? Don't merely say that fear is at the bottom. Ask it of yourself. Look at it. For when you look at it, something happens to it in that very moment ~~ if the looking is not merely cognitive, not merely of the mind as something verbal, but it is a looking with the heart, a looking that is also an immediate dialogue of feeling. Can you do that? / So what is the origin of fear? : See, now you are asking a question without jumping to a conclusion. / What is the origin of fear? It is a magnificent question. I feel that everything is open up as I ask it. : So, if I may make a suggestion, ask it more. Stay in that observation, see what comes of it, ask more, ask until you have that state of mind forever ~~ of silence and its tranquility, its love, its compassion, which has never known vulgarity. *** / Society seems full of people who lacks an ethics. They grab and think they can get away with it. Those few who are responsible and have integrity are laughed at by those who grab. The greedy ones may get power and keep it for decades. They may rot, but they have their power and take some satisfaction for it. Then, as they get their portraits around, with nice cars and ladies and so on, a whole lot of people get envious. They get cults around themselves though their inner nature is as rotten as can be. They have nothing to offer that really makes sense, except the preaching of greed and egotism, and for that people flock. It may have been so for thousands of years for all I know. Is there a solution to all this? I ask because I find myself the picture rather bleak and grim at times. I cannot see any solution; at times I get hope, perhaps a hope based on some kind of political development, and then, as if it was never there, the development is reversed or vanished. You have thought a lot, it seems to me, so I ask you: can there really be a big positive change for humanity as a whole? Or is it forever for the quiet elite to find enlightenment, or awakening, or whatever we call it? An elite that may not be recognized by the many, that many not be discovered. It is just there whereas most waste their lives. : I wouldn't say that they waste their lives. That is putting it way too strong. / Well, they lead superficial lives. : They do, perhaps, and yet they are not in control. They are creatures of habit, pulled and pushed by circumstances. They may think they are in control but they really are not. And so there may be meanings to all of this that is beyond them, but which they partake in. / Ahm. You are saying that there may be some meaning to...the whole of humanity, after all, to all the particular things going on, the greed and all that? : Nothing just happens. It is there and it is perhaps more pliable or changable than what it looks like. Have you awakened? Have you gone out of the habit~pattern, out of the masses of unawareness? / No. Not yet. : So why do you speculate, if I may point it out, about humanity as a whole? If you have not awakened you are yourself part of that circus of greed, though perhaps you are a little more sophisticated and your ideas are more up to date on spiritual matters and all that. / You are saying that I don't see humanity clearly. Or even individuals. Unless I am awakened. : Of course, but don't take it in with pleasure, in a masochistic sense ~~ if you like the pain of me criticizing you, I won't. Step out of it. And then perhaps you will awaken to a power that from within can change everyone, despite the thousands of years of inertia in the spiritual realm. There is infinite magical power to an awakened being. Please don't quote me on that. Just awaken, please. *** / What is happiness? The question has been asked over and over again, along with questions on the meaning of life, and I feel that the question is full of potent energy. I wonder if we could enquire into this, not lightly, but deeply. : Alright. Where do we begin? / Perhaps with what is not happiness. With negation, so as to reach the positive gradually. Looking beyond confusion. : So what is not happiness? Obviously, the pain of frustration; the fears; the bitternesses and all that ~~ which is of the ego. / Don't go too fast. : It's not too fast. The ego is not happiness, is that clear? / Not to everyone. : Is it clear to you? / Yes and no. Perhaps not. Let's move slower anyway. : So what is the ego? It is a structure of bitterness and hope. That, and a lot of assumptions, perhaps not the word 'assumptions' but more images, unconscious prejudice, against the world, against certain groups of persons, whether divided by socalled 'race' or skincolor or nation~belonging or religion~belonging or some other idiotic idea of division. All individuals are alike in their god~potential. Their worth is infinite. So there is no division in an essential way. Is that clear? If you really feel that then there is no ego. / How can that be? An ego can still be even if I adopt a rather new~age~ian worldview of holism and pantheism and all that, can't it? : I didn't think of adopting a worldview as you adopt a fashionable opinion. Or take it on as you take on a suit. I meant, if you discover that the division between the observer and the observed is an illusion. / Now you talk like Krishnamurti! : Is that valuable information to you? Does that explain what we are talking of to you, that you compare it, on a textual level, in style, to somebody else? Or do we actually now perceive what we are talking about so our words, our ideas, are humble to our perceptions? / Sorry. I didn't mean to digress. What is the ego? Is it a product of world~view, as you seem to indicate? : Is it not? / It seems a little too shallow. : Is world~view shallow? What is the world~view of the autist? We don't know, of course, in a scientific sense of the word 'know'. But here's my guess: there is a lot of disturbances, and there is that which is disturbed, the 'me'. That is the worldview ~~ there isn't any world. / So you say, worldview goes deep, in our blood, as it were. : Well, in our blood, but not in the sense that it cannot be transformed. Yet that takes a deep quiet moment of ecstatic insight. / Which takes us to the theme of happiness. : Yes. What do you wish to say about that? / What is happiness? : I don't see that you have anything but happiness and its lovable sense of compassion when you have dissolved the ego. You open to your senses then. You sense the world as a flower and it is full of something eternal. *** / Civilisation. Does that word mean something positive to you? : It can. To be civilised means being empathic, does it not? / Empathy. Compassion. To have love for one another. : Yes. You step into the perspective of your friend. Well that's what having a friend is, isn't it? That you can take the perspective, feel the position of your friend. Feel his mind. Not just simulate it, imagine it, guess at it. Autist's seem to be guessing, imagining, reasoning out how others have it, if they care at all. So autism and egotism are really two faces of the same process, no? But civilisation, then you can take the perspective of anyone else. So the enemy becomes the friend because you know him or her from the inside. You may be heterosexual and then you take the perspective of someone who is homosexual and so there is no animosity. / What happens when we take one another's perspective? : What happens? What happens when you see the reflection of yourself in a mirror, or at night in a window, or in a pond? Do you see a fixed image? Are you afraid of infatuation with yourself? Do you have a lingering condemnation, or a lingering fixed acceptance? Or do you have the dance of enlightenment, of love, in what you see? So you understand yourself deeply. And suddenly, in that essence of being yourself, you find that you see another, see how another sees you, see how another sees anything. What happens then? I don't know. It's a mystery, isn't it? / The meeting between two is a mystery. : Is it not? For anything can happen. It is not something that can be explained. Not even the gods ~~ I apologize, but I do sense that gods exist ~~ but I don't think even the gods can be absolutely sure what happens when people really meet. When there is actual contact, relationship, response. I think this is something new in the universe, so to speak. / Is that art, do you think? : Is it art that somebody meets? I wonder what it takes for a meeting to be so full that it is also art. I have seen people struggling to accept themselves, struggling to find a role that also their friends accept, struggling so they are on the verge of suicide ~~ until they adopt the notion of being an artist. Perhaps they enroll into an artist's school. And the notion of an artist gives the dignity that no amount of conformity could give them. / But then the art schools may come along and provide a new ground for arrogance, so to speak ~~ unless it is watched. : Exactly. Unless it is watched. I must admit that it is okay to be able to tell society, once in a while ~~ look, I have also some letters behind my name; but I don't, for that reason, stop listening to how bird's chirp. I don't throw my head back and think that I am above people for that reason. I don't think that the idiotic theories taught at the conventional academies, whether of art or mathematics or quantum physics or philosophy, have anything to do with life. It is about money, prestige, respectability and so on, but not life. Life exists in these moments of quietness, in that intense creativity, in which we are beyond judgement. / How do you relate to people when they seems to be completely attached to the notion of evaluating, judging, condemning all the time, according to some kind of standard they have the habit of condemning things from? : Well they don't really relate to you, do they? / No. They relate only to their own schemas. : So whether you are there or not, actually, doesn't make much difference for them ~~ they may scream and cry but really, they are much more concerned with their judgements than with any other. They don't give you room. So why try to break open into a room that is not there? Go spend you energies elsewhere. That is one approach. The other is to say: There is this love, this compassion, and it just opens people, all by itself. / Love opens, it makes room. : It opens, but then some are expert ~~ in fact, many or most may be, as present conditioning have been ~~ in pretending it is not there. Some said to me, if you have no fear, then everybody in this cafÇ ~~ that is where we were ~~ would start crying for the beauty of that. And I replied, then they would start crying if they went for a walk in the forest. For the trees have no fear. / Yet, if you really allow such a fearlessness to come through, then... : Then, of course. It does have an impact. An immense impact. But ~~ and this is something I rarely talk about ~~ if somebody has said goodbye, who am I to come and try to pull the person back? / You mean, goodbye from...life? : Yes. That is what I mean. It happens. And then, when they are gone, while they are still alive as bodies, you can see at their eyes that their flavour of enthusiasm ~~ which literally means 'God within', it is a marvellous concept, very pantheistic ~~ or pan~en~theistic, if you wish ~~ well, if this enthusiasm is not there, and they have said really farewell to all people, they just carry on. At a physical level. A comfort level. If you start talking about love of life and so on it is an added burden to them. They just want to finish decently. / You mean, they go on and on and then just wither away ~~ because they have wanted it, wanted to wither? : Isn't it so? Because it is demanding to love life. Life is such a great storm of ecstasy and eventfulness, and it is just too much for some. For many, even. So what are we, say, if you and I see this very clearly, then who are we to come along to a third person and say: You gotta open up? / But then, we can also do that. I almost feel we should do that. Don't you? : Maybe. Or maybe not. It is a difficult question. I sometimes use, again rather privately ~~ a metaphor. That of the mountain, imagine a mountain of light, of enlightenment, of awakening. Everyone seeks, by virtue of being alive or living, to be on the top. And it is possible, perhaps even necessary, for everyone to go there. Somehow. Sometime. And there are all sorts of forms of ascendance and special challenges depending on where you are, generally speaking. A person may take a drug and get a glimpse fairly high up only to find himself or herself more stuck deep down there the next day. Some may go half~way up ~~ the mediocre ~~ and build a cottage there, perhaps set up a system of some number of insights, steps, keys, treasures for people, something that he or she can sell; they set up a group. Some go really far up and it is quite dangerous up there. Those on the top are totally safe because what works in them is that awesome intelligence all the time, the intelligence that is not measured in Stanford~Binet tests nor is it mere emotional intelligence or this or that type of intelligence, it is intelligence per se, the fluid quality, if you wish. And it is beyond any person. If you have no fear, you are free from desire, you have obedience to it and you talk to it, and that intuition may not guide you to money at first or it may not lead you to do the things parents or friends would at first appreciate, because it has its own order and that you must be obedient to. Perhaps you will stray away from your 'age group', you will do things teenagers do though you may be triple their age, or quintuple; you might act as if you are a thousand years old and perhaps you are! In any case, at the top there is safety but near the top, there may be quite a few who need that very special attention. And that very special attention, I feel, is rather of a different quality than that which something like the Red Cross or Save the Children, respectable as such organisations are, and important as they are, must provide. / You are saying that the elite needs to be taken care of as well? If 'elite' is the right word. : The enlightenment elite, yes. Now I am wary a little bit of the word 'enlightenment' because it is such a formula~sounding concept and very definitely there are quite phoney teachers who are really just greedy for attention, money and cars, who set up enlightenment shops. Some of them do it a little more subtly but you can read between the lines that they are screaming for love from others because they lack it in themselves, and they may be clever at shifting words around so it may sound to the most unenlightened that they are enlightened. But apart from all that, if you are honest, if you really know yourself, then you can see that some are so close as to be really living in the infinite, and are they not going to get that little extra attention? Are you going to treat everyone as if they were at the same place when they are at different places at that mountain? And so I am not a socialist because the socialist are expert at sarcasms against the capitalist but they do not have much compassion for truly spiritual people; they are inclined to say that too much spirituality is self~centered or egotistic. And socialists too have a tendency of being more eager in their feverent disgust for capitalist things than dictatorship things, especially if these dictatorship, like Mao, had something in common with socialism, however weak. Though capitalism is, as a political trend, completely irresponsible towards both Nature and future generations as well as to society as a whole, so they, too, cannot really be supported as spiritual. But do you see the point about that special attention? I feel it is important to say also that. Though it is a difficult point and who am I to say who is on top or nearly on top and all that. I just wanted it said. / Can you see directly where somebody is, at that mountain? : It is a metaphor, okay? But seeing it is really simple, it is immediate, it is not something to consider anymore miracle than the seeing of how a cloud or the clouds reflects themselves in the waves of a pond. It just comes to you. You may be biased, self~centered in your intuitions and then you will only see what the Chinese or Indian Master has ingrained in you to see; or what Rudolf Steiner and his kabbalistic approach taught you to see; or something like that. Whenever you have a system you only see the system. You really never relate to anybody if you have a system. But if you have carefully explored and lived in meditation and come to understand that tremendous sense of movement which life is, without any thought, dividing not people up, then you can also see another directly. It is frightening to many and it may be offensive to speak of what you see. But I feel you must be honest in relation to your own perceptions. / Honest in relation to your own perceptions. : Or how we can put it...honest in relation to what you see. Just that. David Bohm once said to me, 'there is no other question with regard to a thought as to whether it is correct or not'. It is a statement that may people of a constructivist inclination go nuts. / Constructivists? : Yes, the trend that everyone has their own story to express and that life is basically getting food to the body and expressing their story. / I am sure they would have explained the word different, the constructivists themselves, whoever they are. : Quite so! But that is how I see them. The word 'correct' signifies a humility to something beyond thought. The constructivists are in love with their thoughts and emotions ~~ like Hitler, they don't care whether these emotions, like hatred for a group of people, have anything at all to do with reality. They laugh of the concept of 'reality'. *** / What is openness? And is it eternally a good thing, or is it just a fashion word, a trendy thing, a wave which will pass? Is "openness" necessarily as great as the Good, the True and the Beautiful? : I think the word "openness", as in ~~ having an open mind, being open about it, and in the phrase ~~ the world is open ~~ suggests freedom and availability for thought. It is a key ingredient in science. Some might think scientists form a closed society. I don't. / But science is highly elitist? : It can be. But it is not ~~ or I am asking, is it not rather different that somebody excells, say, in piano playing ~~ she is a "virtuoso", they might say ~~ and that those who excells, or somebody else, actually closes themselves off and form a power elite? The closing off may be very destructive. But it is constructive that some people acts as lights, in that they excell in what they do and show us what is possible. Like Albert Einstein did in certain ways, for instance. Einstein was certainly not one who favoured any such thing as a group closing itself off from the world. He was an individual, thinking freely, and often in opposition to such groups as formed, for instance, around Niels Bohr with his "institute". / Are you against Niels Bohr? : No no. But the spirit was very different. / What is openness, then, in terms of its quintessence? : Freedom, clarity of thought, willingness to allow creative expression ~~ not as the Pope~led Church to tell Gallileo to keep his mouth shut about what he sees with his eyes. No fundamentalism, in the sense of sticking to the letter of some silly book. Openness is the willingness to be mental. / Mental? : Rather than merely inert, a lump of matter. A society that is open is mental. A society that attempts, somehow, not to be open turns itself into something shielded from attention and in that sense it may degenerate. The light of thought is like the action of a musical radio wave on an antennae ~~ if the radio is open to reception, it suddenly makes evident an order that is beyond itself. Openness ensures evolution, deep change; it involves clarity, also the clarity of love. And it is certainly the foundation of knowing, and of science. / Can you elaborate on that? What kind of science? Certainly not every kind of science! : Well, what kind is exempted, do you think? / I think theories of economy, though it is called science, is rather closed. : Have you looked deeply into what they are saying, though? I am not asking you, I am asking into the air. I am not defending how science is always practised. Just as I cannot defend how the United Nations, the present world integrating body, always does its things. But it is an approach, science is less closed than many other areas. Think for a moment on business life. Business life is oriented, far too often, to what works in the short run. So if it works to enforce control over employees, they try that; if it works to sell some garbage in good wrapping, they try that; then, when the laws of karma, as it were, comes to strike down those directors, other directors come instead and try something else. This is cheap; much business, but not all is cheap. Body Shop products seem to have less cheapness; United Nations seems to have less cheapness; science seems to be more open than mostly everything else. However, science is also a social thing and it is therefore not in itself a noble ideal in exactly the same sense as Goodness or Freedom, of course. We must always ask: is science as practised how science should be? And perhaps in this or that corner of science there is a little, or a lot to clear up. Perhaps a great deal. But it is an obligation of the scientist to question, question, question. As Karl Popper said, it is important that the theories are in some sense vulnerable. They must be challenged. If they are made so that they cannot be challenged, they are no longer scientific. The way he presented is, then, is that the very openness is a key characteristic of science. / Another thing. Could we say that democracy, the concept of it, is the incarnation of the openness concept as applied to a society? : No. Democracy is much to loosely defined in daily life language that we can give it that greatness. However, we may want to begin to use the term in that way. I wonder, though, whether we must not admit that it is applied in a rather sloppy way. For instance, democracy may involve the election of a set of people every fourth year to decide things. But really important things are supposedly something that will be taken care of in terms of a special voting by all people. Take the present issue going on in these days, whether England should convert its monetary currency to the European currency Euro. There are two themes heftily debated by the politicians. One theme is what they advice in the issue. Another theme is whether they should allow people to vote over this at present. Think about that, think about what that implies. Democracy? / But certainly it is an important ingredient in a society that it has a free press and so on, even if people rarely get to vote over anything important. : I totally agree. Completely. It is a radical improvement ~~ no, it can't even be compared ~~ it is absolutely essential, necessary that people are not enprisoned when they speak their mind, make challenging artworks, make new publications, make new kinds of political parties, and so on and on. This is the necessary element, as necessary as breathing and water and food. But it is not satisfactory if this is the only thing. It is the negative definition of democracy: avoid suppressing individuals who do things differently. Of course, it is vital, it is necessary. But what about the positive definition of democracy: listen to the individuals, make their opinions matter? What about that aspect? / I see. So could more voting, perhaps by technology, be the solution? Of course, in the U.S. many years ago, Ross Perot, the billionare, sought to become president and had as program to use computer networking to allow greater influence of the people in what is being decided. : If he actually wanted that, I believe that is a fascinating prospect. Something like that is on its way. Imagine ~~ no, don't imagine, we have actually research on this. If elderly people in homes are allowed to make small decisions all day long on things that matter for them, down to what kind of meal they would like, they they blossom, they get radiant energy. Decision~making is energy~making, mentally. / Could the same happen on society level? : I think that is what we must explore; whether we must not find ways in which openness can be a way of intercommunication at a societal level, in which everyone, about in principle anything, can have a say, from more or less a day~to~day basis. For this would fight the feeling that the individual is a mere pawn in a game played by others. We need a society with a rejuvenating mind. Young people, even kids, should be raised to feel that they have an influence and a responsibility for that reason, and they should actually have it! Not merely as a moral story, a myth, a fairy tale on how they might have had influence if only they had married a princess; but to make a society truly open. So these are our open society questions, we might say. / Now another point. Conventionally, many has thought it wise to distinguish between "dreamers" and "realists". Of the first type, we count the hippies, those who are against mostly everything borgouise, who are vegetarians, and so on. Of the second type, we count the cunning industry leaders and the corrupt type of politicians, who actually tend to influence the world, to the disgust of the dreamers. Could you comment on this? : Those who dream without realism have weak force in their actions. Those who know of a part of reality ~~ such as the smalltalk part, the violence part, the bribery part, the part that Machiavelli indulged in, for instance ~~ are not realists in the fullest sense; so they, too, have weak force in their actions. However they may achieve more influence than most dreamers, because they have some anchoringship for what they are doing. A realist in the fullest sense must also know of that which lies beyond the material present. He or she must sense the intentions of a great deal more than the cunning bribery of politicians and so on. / What would this kind of realism be? : Well, the truly wise man or woman would partake in actions that reflect empathy, wholeness, a sincere interest in the children of the world and what world they will inhabit as they grow up, and so on. This can justify immense strength and even passion in action of a form that can be labelled 'realistic', in that it has carefully measured ingredients of manipulation and propaganda and so on, however not of the type that speaks of irresponsibility with regard to life, which is the same as irresponsibility to the future. / Why should anyone care? Why not just drop interest in the future? : Because life involves a relationship to the upcoming. Without this, where is the meaning? If you look carefully at it, you will find that those who thrive in power games usually do it from the hole or bleakness that childhood traumas have created in them ~~ traumas in which they felt that they did not live up to some ideal; in which they felt ~~ as they still do ~~ to be miserable. It is an escape, that's all. A temporary relief from the pain that they have never gotten rid of in themselves. Those who are not slaves of their past become interested in the future. And this future must hold more than endless manipulation; it must hold love and sincerity. / Love ~~ as the hippi kind? Make love not war? Or some other kind of love, like the one expressed in marriage? : The creative individual is the basis for the open society; but this creativity should be on behalf of life, of being constructive and so on with regard to life. It is the impulse of love, I feel, in us that makes us most deeply creative ~~ love, not of this or that thing or name or family union, but love of life, love of the birds that flutter, love of the unfoldment of great mysteries and diversities; the love that makes a man sad if a forest is burned down; because the forest promises much of the mystery and unfoldment of life. The respect for life, as Albert Schweitzer talked about ~~ that kind of love. This love can also be focussed on some individuals but an individual is so much more than any image we project onto that individual; so the easiest way to love an individual is to love life as a whole, because this may in fact relate more to that individual than his or her name, education, looks, likes and prejudices. The love of life is the ground of our creative expressions in an open society, I feel. *** / When is service or servitude the greatest happiness, do you think? : Would you care to explain? / I mean 'service' as giving, giving, giving, to some higher... : Purpose? / Yes, or to something beyond oneself. : Ah, now I understand. You are really asking about the relationship between joy and giving, aren't you? / Yes. : So what is it you give to? / Not a political cause. : Why not? / Why not indeed? Because political causes have a value in a context only. And I am in doubt that these causes go deep enough. : Ah, so what goes deep enough? / Service to messiah? : I see. You mean to be disciple, not in the sense of getting that name or status, not as attachment, not to gain a position in a hierarchy, but to be a discipline in the sense of serving and giving, endlessly. Not asking for a return. The sense of generous space. To be committed to give, based on the sense, the joy of giving; because there is something worthy to give to, not because you are an ego getting something for it. And in that there is self~forgettance. A transcendence. Getting beyond yourself. / Is that right? Or is it like Krishnamurti said, that following or discipleship is a denial of one's own freedom, and without this freedom it cannot be joy? : Well, if you deny your own freedom, then, in a sense, it is hard to see that you have anything to give. The giving must come from your freedom. Is then following in all cases wrong? But you see, he pointed out ~~ Krishnamurti, as far as I've understood it ~~ that the routine, the habit, the emotional attachment on the ego~level makes structures of guruhood and disciplineship basically a circus of little importance. And that is absolutely right. You are asking, I think, about something else, something much deeper. Which is to give oneself over... / As love. : Yes. Being alive, and dedicating a sense of endless servitude or service to another, a messiah worthy of it, like a flower, a marvellous ancient tree, renewing itself. And it is done not to please oneself, not so that one gives in order to get. But rather, one gives because of the sense of giving is pure joy. Is that it? / Yes, that is it exactly. : So, then, what is the problem with that? To be endlessly generous in a responsible direction, what can be wrong in that? That is greatness, but I do not admire those who tear themselves apart in suicides of some kind to convey a message ~~ it is a morbid approach, that does not gain the support of anyone who is seriously interested in life. Violence of any kind does not deserve the label 'greatness'. Sex, sensuality, dance, insight, meditation, health, generosity, responsibility ~~ all that is involved in the love of life...that I can respect. For my part, I cannot see that the present TV culture is healthy at all; when it approves of violence but disapproves of the naked skin, except in commercials for companies whose business is often based on lying; existing just for the benefit of a very few people on top, with elements of near~slavery for thousands or more. So you are talking of something entirely different than this present culture, and something entirely different than Moslem culture, Hindi culture, Daoist culture, communist lack of culture, and all that ~~ and what you are talking about is the ending of the ego by dedication. Not dedication as a formula or habit, but as a life approach. Without an end. Is that it? / Yes. : So what is the problem with that? / I just wondered if you approved of it. : Of course! Generosity for generosity's sake, that is without a problem. It is sheer love. If you have love, do what you want. *** / You mention, when you talk, intuition or intelligence, and also the word 'healing' quite a lot, it seems. Yet I am unsure what you actually mean by these words, except at an abstract level. : What do you mean? An abstract level? / You say, for instance, that intelligence is change, or freedom from habits. It is based on perception. You say that healing can happen infinitely. These are but words to me. What do they mean concretely? : Let us go slowly. Are you asking what intuition is ~~ just to take that as an example ~~ at a concrete, practical level? / Yes, I guess so. Something like that. : So let me ask you in return: Why doesn't your intuition work for you? Why don't you have intuition in your life, in all your life, so that you can use it to take every decision ~~ a good, clear intuition, not a whimsical intuition, an intuition that really works? Why don't you have that? / It's just it. I don't know. I need some practical advice, I think. : So what is intuition at a practical level? You ask that question but I ask you: What is preventing you from releasing your own natural power, which I am sure you have a lot of? / I am not so sure that I have. : So is it too much self~doubt? You condemn yourself? You try to watch every step and you never run? / Is it? I don't know. : What is it you do know? You have fears, you don't trust your own inner capacity to intuit, as Goedel put it. The verb 'to intuit' is really great, because it says that it something you have got to do. You ask yourself ~~ something. Anything. Like an artist, you ask whatever you want to ask, there is no limit at all. And then intuition, or the intelligence of love, can give you an answer. Does it not happen for you? / Sometimes. : What is it with these 'sometimes' that makes it work then? What is it that you sometimes do to enable your intuition? Or to heal? / Perhaps I just get an idea. And it may turn out to be right. : Which it also may not turn out to be, because it can flow from desire or prejudice. How do you tell the difference? / That is what I am asking you. How do you tell the difference? : You ask your body. / I ask, and if nothing happens what do I do then? : Look, you need to set yourself free. / How do I do that? : You do it. Set yourself free. / There is no method, it is just a question of awareness, and the enhancement of awareness and attention, is that what you are saying? : Be careful. It sounds as a recipe. You must demand it, of course. You must demand of yourself to understand how to heal also. Don't merely read a book that says, 'Visualize light!', 'Affirm Health!', and follow it as a habit. Explore it. Be creative. But make sure that your intent is beauty, is love, is care, that you do not engage in means that are tainted with ego or selfishness. / When you say, 'Demand it!', it sounds to me as though I am to go into the woods and shout it out: I demand to get enlightened! Wake me up! Set me free! Give me intution! : Well, be certain that you are far away from other human beings, or they may lock you up. You know how they are. / But is this what you mean? Is that how you yourself demand anything? : I don't know if this is relevant or not, but it is sometimes quite funny to watch movies of a really bad quality, with actors that can't act. And then, for contrast, you watch a movie in which the actors just make you forget yourself, forget that they are acting, forget that the context is a movie. If you watch the faces of the bad actors, they are all the time making noise. The kind of noise that liers make. A really great actor radiates silence. Says something, and radiates quietness, tranquility at the same time. Fearlessness. And then it is picked up, it takes you away from yourself. That is how you must demand. Fearlessly. *** / What is economy? : Balance, I guess. On a resource level. / But is it disgusting to have lust for money? : Why? / It is desire. : So all desire is disgusting and you are a peaceful person if you set good taste, refinement, beauty before desires. Desires are a problem because they prevent attention. So we become not as animals, but as robots. If you have lust for money, as you put it, it may also be something else. / As what? : As passion. A deliberation to get it. Like a deliberation to go to Uranus; a deliberation to do science. / A deliberation is not wrong? : Why should it be wrong? / But it looks like something of the ego. A desire, rather. : It need not be. / How can it be anything else? : Is it all either~or to you? Do you have no playfulness? / You mean that if it is playful, then the intention ~~ even to get money ~~ can have something about it that is righteous. : Of course! / But what if that intention brings destruction to others? : Then it is not wise. So it is a misguided passion. Good fortune requires a wellguided passion. It shows on your radiance. Your karma, as it were. / Well, isn't that where desire comes in? : You must be careful not to automatically associate anything with anything, for then you become a mere automaton. Watch it. Watch what you are talking about. Or you are like a politician, a socialist who hates money or a capitalist who hates society. This hatred and these habitual pattern formations of automatic association is a disgrace to what it means to be human. / You would then not automatically say that even ambition is wrong? : Of course not. Not automatically. You must look at what you are talking about. Some people have allergies, based on too much contact with religious dogmatic people who have misused the terms 'wrong' and 'right' based on their fundamentalistic viewpoints, against using such words at all. They won't even ask the question of whether something is righteous. I say, ask it. But don't answer from habit. Look! Feel it over. Meditate. / But if we go into economy, it seems that sometimes a great proportion of people get money~focussed. : Which is nothing but mass hypnosis. / For money does not mean all that much. : It is a game. That's all. Then, are you automatically against games? There is no reason to. And, after all, if you are a decent person and you have an intent of beauty, you want to create really good things, not vulgar, not biased by your ego, then you also need to call on economical power. / To call on economical power...that sounds nice. : Well, that is part of the magic. You call on it. You demand it to be there, and you demand with grace and gratitude, with trust that it is right. You act according to this rightness. Then money comes in. A fortune builds up. It must happen. It cannot be otherwise. It is a necessity. *** / Is there a need for quietness, do you feel, or is an intellectual pursuit enough? : For what? / Well, enough to liberate oneself from the ego. : Is that a goal for you? / Yes, I think it is. Yes. : So you are working on it ~~ this liberation from the ego ~~ and you wonder whether an intellectual attitude is the right, or an emotional, or getting away from everything, from the cities, getting into Nature, and so on. / Yes. : So what is an intellectual approach? Could you explain that to me? / Well, to think and reason things out. : In contrast to what? / The emotional. : May I suggest that you may not have understood what is intellectual very clearly? I do not mean to offend you, but it sounds as if you project a category ~~ "intellectual". And, if I may say so, it is a very intellectual thing to do, to project categories. I know of people who are so entwined in what they call "spiritual traditions" ~~ with all their circus of angles with different specific names and ages, all in a hyperintellectual system, and they are sharp to cut people who are doubting and thinking on their own as "intellectuals". What are they to themselves? They are mere "natural", "spiritual", they "belong somewhere", they do not "have the arrogancy of standing alone". And they are incredibly arrogant in how they stand. / Well, I prefer not to be intellectual in that way. : So what does the word 'intellect' refer to? / Reasoning, as I said. Logic. And all that. : What about insight? / That is deeper. : So you have encapsulated an idea of 'the intellect', and I wish to question that idea. Do you see why? It is giving the sense of intelligence to something which is merely a verbal habit. Quotations. Are you more clever because you can quote? / No. : So if you can't quote, you can still see. / Yes. : Do you really see that? / Yes. Now, where does quietness come in? Can you see without quietness? : You have a conclusion about it, don't you. / No. : What is seeing? Do you depend on circumstances to see? / No. : So let us begin there. You can see, relate to anything that happens, without having first to leave the city or whatever. / Yes, let us begin there. Then if there is noise all the time, it is exhausting. If people talk all the time and you must respond all the time, then... : Of course. Then the brain is entertained on a shallow superficial level. So we must give each other solitude, quietness, the freedom from having to explain so much. A great deal of quietness, tranquility, space. Can we give that to one another, whether we live in the city or in the mountains, by the sea or wherever? *** / I have demanded, as you say, to get more intuition and direct intelligence, clairvoyant intelligence, in all matters in my life. But I can't get an intuitive voice or whispering up. It feels like guessing. Sometimes it really works but not consistently. What can I do? Do you have any suggestions? I do not ask it lightly but I have really spent a lot of time with this, and I know you don't like to give recipies or techniques or anything like that, but I feel I need to make progress on this. Could we look into that? : Sure. Yes. / Is there a talent for intuition in some that is much greater than in others? : Of course. That does not mean that anybody is excluded from it. And it is not just one form of intuition, mind you. Piano playing is another kind of intuitive work than improvised cooking, for instance. Quantum theory is another. Love~making. You name it. / But how can we awake it? : How can you awake that voice of intuition inside you? It takes a brain alteration. And you must be careful. This is an alteration that cannot easily be undone. You activate dormant parts of your brain. If it goes wrong, the doctors will tell you that it is this or that psychotic state, and they will happily add that it is incurable, and give you a decent piece of shit to swallow. / You mean pill? : I mean shit. Their products are insane. Have you noticed that people who are severely lacking in a quality might get professor in just that quality? / The psychiatrists are the patients. : Of course. And there is no science of healing. That is the most important science, and it does not exist. There are just sciences of normalisation, which is something else. / So you say that the brain can be activated so that you literally hear the voice of intuition? : Of course, yes. I have it, many have it, it is not enlightenment merely to have that. It is a simple thing. But you must learn about it, preferably first, or it may be too late to learn about it when you have it. You must learn that whatever you activate in yourself, unless it flows from love, care and harmony it is not to be considered intuition, but rather a projection of trauma and trouble. Do you see the difference? / If I do something to awake the brain, and then I get into, say, a depressive mood, then what it tells me is... : Nothing but an expression of that depression. So you need to love harmony. / Why harmony? : Because it is togetherness without conflict. It is a magical feature. Those who do not care about harmony are as good as dead. / But why exactly harmony? : Well, order. Natural order. The flow of effortless playful attentiveness. Coherence. Wholeness. Creativity. / Some might say it is boring. : They say it is boring because they fear what they will see of themselves if they get so tranquil, so harmonious, that they cannot run away from themselves anymore. So they must stop, they must watch, they must forgive. They run away from their duty to forgive themselves and others and so they carry guilt; this hidden guilt tells to others and to the brain itself perhaps that this or that is boring. Or it uses some other word. Only not the word that touches the fact of the matter. / Harmony is exciting, then? : Harmony is the ground for being a channel of immense energy. Can we say that? For being a channel of...joy. That rapture, that intelligence. Which is beyond the person. Which is a light in the eyes. Which gives you the song, the dance of enlightenment. Harmony is required and yet harmony is beyond classical physics. / What was that? : Classical physics? / Yes. : That is the theory of machines. Machines have a crude order, not harmony; they are not as a symphony. So a feature of life is this subtle, flowing order; even the universe has an anatomy, not to love it is to be a sulking little snobbish theory~maker. / (Laughter) Well, then. Let us love harmony. : So you awake your brain, you awaken that voice, but it is still your voice. It is still the observer and the observed, you get what you already are; so you must cleanse yourself, empty yourself of ego evermore than before, to live with this voice. Then it will tell you the truth, and the truth must be suffused with love of truth, and that is philosophy. Love of truth, love of wisdom. 'Philo' and 'sophia'. Love of wisdom. This is the ground, otherwise it gets insane. / Literally insane? : Well, most of society and most people are a little nutty, aren't they? So it is a question of coming to that complete and utter state of altruism which is also self~care, which is also dialogue and empathy, which is dance. The dance that is the love of life, endless, renewing, rejuvenating. / How do you awaken it, then? I do not mean 'how' as a technique. : Why not as a technique? It is only that we must be aware of the techniques, aware of what we are doing. You write, you converse happily with friendly, enlightened or at least rather brilliant people. You eat vegetarian, don't smoke, don't touch drugs, perhaps a glass of wine. You write and you take vitamins, B12 and what not. You drink coffee and you write something to enlighten all. You anchor yourself in the sense that you are in the process of becoming enlightened and you are in the process of enlightening all, which is one and the same thing, come to think of it. / What then? After writing? : You must not stop. You must not sleep. You are going to transform the brain and you need to let the sleep state in this case become the creativity of your hands as you write, with pen. You pay great attention to beauty as you do this. You can do it in a place like Yaffa cafÇ at 8th Street, which is 24 hour open and has excellent salads and typically wonderfully bright people who come in and are ready to make new friends, including yourself if you are behaving nicely, not too eager, not too bored. You know all that. So you do something like writing, and you don't stop, nor do you tell others much of this; you are not getting maniac, hysteric; if you get enlightened you don't wave a flag, you don't raise a banner. It is a private thing. / Private in what sense? : Private in the quiet sense. Not as ego. You don't shout it out and get into that vulgar mood which provokes other people needlessly. You must have elegance in all matters. / How do you know if it is enlightenment? You don't assume it, for that would be a conclusion. : You will know. At some stage. / So what happens in this writing process? Does it just become something like a voice? : Look, after many hours of this, or many days, you have nothing left to say. Is that right? That is right. You have nothing left to say, and yet you are going to write five or fifteen thousand more words, and you are not going to imitate or write by copying off a newspaper. It is going to be your own words. But you haven't got anything to say. And you stay in that dilemma. What happens then? / Ah. : Yes, ah. That is right. / What do you mean? : It becomes a revelation. An eureka. That there is a creative source inside that is able to talk, if given the chance. And it can say all sorts of funny things and it is probably, for most, in an immature state to begin with and you may find yourself even more immature in beginning to listen to it ~~ and so, if it says, 'I am God and I dictate you to jump thirty times right in the middle of this street where the cars are running' you are of course not going to believe it! You need dialogue with this voice; you need sleep ~~ once it is there, you go to sleep. Your work has merely begun. / When did this happen for you? : A long time ago. But it has taken some time to live with it completely, in all circumstances. / How do you get from having a voice to using it correctly? : You are not going to use it nor is it going to use you. You are going to abandon yourself to harmony, to obey your own listening. It will reflect the depth of your own listening. / When is this enlightenment or awakening? When have you set yourself free? : When you have no resistance. / What if the voice, the intuitive voice, as if, tell me something and I am fairly harmonious and it might be right but I am not certain ~~ then is that doubt in myself unhealthy? : Never. Doubt is healthy. / So what can I do to double~check what the voice is saying? It may be a whisper, perhaps, so it is tough to pick it up ~~ I don't know, I am speculating now, but I want to know in case it is suddenly there. : You are quite right. Well, ask your body for a hint. / How? : Ask it! Be perfectly relaxed, sit straight and symmetrical, ask the body for some sign of how truth is feeling in you. / How truth is feeling... : Well, how the truth would feel, if something right is said. Or how the body wish to indicate to you that something is right. You have just got some possible information, a possible intuition. And then you ask: Is this right? And perhaps the body has a response for you. / Like what? Warmth in the stomach? : Yes. Or even more physical, it can also be that. Such as a finger that quietly raises. / What do you ask ~~ you ask, "Is this sentence: so and so: right?" : Whatever. And you can also ask: "Am I now merely expressing a desire or a fear?" You can ask: "Would I know if I am biased?" / What if I ask that last question ~~ "would I know if I am biased", and I get a 'no' answer, a negative answer. : A no answer is, by the way, the absence of a 'yes'. You must be careful not to train in a notion of 'the negative', for that is in nearly all cases an emotion, not a response. The true statement evokes a sense of harmony, and perhaps a physical indication of harmony. That which is not true is merely fragmented, so it does not really evoke anything. Not anything whole, in any case. So what did you ask? Oh, if you get the answer: You are now biased, or: you would not know if you are not biased. Then you need to meditate. Sit still. Change position. Go over the questions again. Recalibrate the tremendously finetuned instrument that the meditating human body is. The Empathic Computer: A big question What sort of computer could be empathic in a quantum world? This question appears to me to be both as important as it is fantastic. For how can a computer be empathic at all? And yet if society and even people as individuals are more and more controlled by computers, like it or not, then if we are controlled by things which cannot be empathic, then it seems that we cannot be progressing towards a more empathic state. That is, unless computers can be remade from merely being based on causation from the past through rules which are completely mechanical to some other principle, that can be reasonably claimed to be empathic. And this must happen in the world we are living in, which in some sense or another can be reasonably claimed to be a "quantum world", for instance in the sense that the physicist Nick Herbert proposes in his nontechnical book "Quantum Reality". I will repeat the question: What sort of computer could be empathic in a quantum world? It can be objected to the premise of the question that the ordinary rulebound kind of computer can be made so as to simulate empathy. This is of course the case, but it would always progress mechanically from rules and these rules does not refer to anything beyond themselves. There is nothing inherently empathic in the rules of a computer. They can be cleverly programmed, with clever learning principles, and so on, so that it can fool a superficial user of the computer. Let us make this a trifle clearer. A computer of the kind envisioned by Alan Turing is determinate, in the sense that given its state ~~ its state, and nobody else's state ~~ we can always say that it is possible to determinate the next state. Have you ever had a conversation with a state~employed person, or person employed in a large company, who says, "I understand you very well and I agree with you that it does not seem right in your case, but these are the rules, and we must follow the rules." ~~ then you also know the impulse of the anarchist, who says: Only when humanity is finished with rules, it can become what it should be. Yet, the absence of rules may make personal dynasties, gangs and barbarism with their own kind of twisted rules come more easily into domination. So what seems to be perhaps more adequate is that rules are followed when it is right to follow them and rules are broken when it is right to break them. This is the golden mean, it would seem, between the rulebounded absolute dictatorship of rules and the absolute absence of every kind of rule as complete anarchy. Between these harsh extremes we may postulate that dimensions, open dimensions, of coherence exists, in which the coherence of an individual as well as the coherence of society, the coherence of a situation, and so on, comes to be in focus. It turns out that the word "coherence" also has a role in quantum thinking. Unlike classical mechanics, which is the paradigm, we might say, of the classical computer, in quantum thinking we find that the whole of something has a meaning beyond the parts that make it up. The whole of something can be active in relation to the parts. And the parts can be active in relation to the whole. And anything at all can be connected with anything so as to make up a whole, if there are conditions of resonance, so to speak ~~ and these conditions are not distance dependent. In a quantum world, what constitutes a whole may not be, therefore, merely what is considered to be connected from a classical perspective, ie, near each other. This looks a lot more like how we perceive the world on a mental basis, in which we consider, for instance, clouds as a whole; we consider people as related when they are travelling in different regions; we consider different parts of a group of people as more related depending on what perspective we take on this group; we perceive similarities and contrasts across all levels, scales and so on and relate them thereby. And this kind of active perception involves, we can say, picking up Gestalts or coherencies; and this concept of coherence has something to do with actuality as seen from a quantum mechanical perspective. Okay; this is my way of looking at things, and only the more spiritually inclined of quantum theoreticians would agree to this. The more conservative viewpoint is that nonlocality is something arising only under very special circumstances, and that this has little to do, except perhaps metaphorically, with life, which exists at energy levels in which nonlocality does not arise. I say that this is a bias based on lack of investigation; but I do not claim that most active physicists agree with me, and so while I claim that it is compatible with some development of science to assert the all~penetrating presence of some subtle kind of nonlocality based on a much wider principle than initial condition of locality (such as in EPR), I do not claim that it is part of science to claim it as yet. However, what we can reasonably claim, at least after acqainting ourselves with the mathematical techniques in quantum theory developed by Richard Feynmann, concerning "sum over possible paths", is that prior to a movement of a quantum particle, some rather amazing stuff happens. Prior to each movement, it seems that a kind of exploration of all possible movements occurs, so that the particle is attracted, as it were, to situations of the highest coherence in result. With a little wishful thinking ~~ a lot, from a conservative standpoint ~~ we may imagine that the coherence attraction principle is an empathic principle. Let us toggle between the states of a digital computer according to Alan Turing and the states of a quantum kind. The digital computer can only be implemented by ruling out such quantum infinities as are involved in "exploring every possible path"; we must reduce the situation to that which is statistically determinate even though, on a closer inspection, what constitute this statistics in terms of individual processes are all quantum fluctuations, characterized, perhaps, by such Feynmann paths, as we may call them. The computer idea is that given state S1, there will be a state S2. A computer language may for instance contain a phrase like if (r > 3.14) print "yes"; and if r indeed is greater than 3.14 then it will print "yes". In the quantum situation, however, we can have more than one state to follow one state. So S1 can bring about S2a or S2b ~~ and there is no rule to decide which, of the Alan Turing kind of rule. Rather, there is the quantum kind of rule, which is of a kind that leaps into the future of all possibilities, as it may seem, and comes back to report on what has the greatest coherence. So S1 might lead to S2a if that has the greatest coherence, or to S2b if that has the greatest coherence. Let us now generalize widely and strongly into what an empathic computer ideally would do ~~ whether or not this is practically implementable some day: if (r > 3.14) print "yes" if this is the most empathic, or print "no" if this is the most empathic, or something else if that is the most empathic. This is the kind of statement we might laugh of if we are programmers and know only today's computers. But we are asking a question of importance ~~ when more and more events for human beings are computer controlled, then what can be done to make computers empathic so that these events preserve life and integrity of the individual as well as of society, and are not destructive for us? This question is important and so I do not mean to ask the above merely in the sense of the rediculous, or to make an idea for a science fiction tale, or some other kind of entertainment. What we want a computer in a quantum world to do, to be empathic, is something else than merely following rules. It does have rules, but as we said above, we want these rules to be overridden when empathy calls for it. In practise, what we want the computer to do is something like this: if (r > 3.14) then ~~ look at all possible implications for all beings involved, and if it is coherent, proceed to do the ordinary thing, which is: print "yes" ~~ and if it is not coherent, work out some alternative. Foundation Encapsulated This is a science fiction psychedelic trance/sexual drama inspired by Isaac Asimov Foundation series, but quite freely extending and modifying towards an intent of conveying quite different thoughts also; the three first episodes (all that is written at present of it, as it is being published consequitvely in the Wintuition:Net periodical) are included in this book because they convey inspirations, sentiments, attitudes and intuitions suggesting ways of approaching the overall issue of freedom, so as to compliment the conversations and articles. Foundation Encapsulated (A novel) Episode 1 INTRODUCTION Design of a language for cosmic intercourse, part 1, H Freudenthal, Professor of Mathematics, in "Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics", ed. by LEJ Brouwer, EW Beth, A Heyting, 1960 (EARTH): "...It was in this way that I arrived at the problem of designing a language for cosmic intercourse. ... As a linguistic vehicle I propose to use radio signals...A language for cosmic intercourse might already exist. Messages in that language might unceasingly travel through the universe, ... in spite of our efforts even intelligent receivers might interpret ... messages as physical phenomena or as music of the spheres... cosmic radiation [is] a linguistic phenomenon..." Reprinted with permission of Public Milky Way Central Library, section HUMAN:EARTH:First Industrial Age Welcome to a world in which the grounds of matter, the state of technology, and the heightened state of awareness are all meeting and melting. This is impossible without a new sensuality, and a new shamelessness with regard to sexuality ~~ for the mind is wherever there is nerves, and there are nerves not just in the brain but in the genitals. Space and scale travellers of this age ~~ spacers ~~ have a training in allowing their physical reality to change while maintaining clarity of mind. They know that a proper relationship to the telepathic world also involves empathy, even sexual empathy, and that nothing can be completely manipulated nor controlled, because the universe delights also in chaos. Just as limits set by matter constitute challenges, so does the limitlessness of energy, as explored by the spacers, in their minds and through their technology, and also in their sexuality, meet these challenges. However, any engagement in spacer activity involves dangers ~~ dangers of insanity, of taking surrealism too seriously, when sensory imput is strongly changed. Enter the story if you dare. But calm yourself, also; it is for winners, and you are a winner if you join. Away with shame, discard the patterns of your personality. In the words of The Dice Man, yet another EARTH book: "...Man must be free from boundaries, ... Man must become comfortable in flowing from one role to another, ... What if we were to bring up our children differently? Reward them for varying their habits, tastes, roles? Reward them for being inconsistent? What then? We could discipline them to be reliably various, to be conscientiously inconsistent, determinedly habit~free ~~ even of 'good' habits...The man in our multi~lie society absorbs a chaos of conflicting lies and is reminded daily by his friends and neighbours that his beliefs are not universally held, that his values are personal and arbitrary and his desires often ill~aimed. We must realize that to ask this man to be honest and true to himself, when his contradictory selves have multiple contradictory answers to most questions, is a safe and economical method of driving him insane...", George Cocroft 1971, Granada Publishing Limited, London, EARTH. 1. Dawn. Winner. Girl. Feet. Oceanspread. But was it ocean? No past. Hidden future. Open? Juliana, she could remember her name, waded, her bare, beautifully rounded small feet was touching this mass of violet and, interspearsed at regular angles, light green. "Why these colours", she wondered. "Why I ~~ here ~~ now", she went on. Far away there was the sense of people, though she could not see them excepts as points in the future. The future?! She meant, points in the distance... 2. "Bill, I have told you this over and over", th officer repeated with an irritated, grudging voice ~~ however, he could not conceal a hint of admiration, for Bill Hopkins had carried out the task, as assigned, without anyone coming to harm ~~ at least not yet. "I have said", the officer went on, "don't leave people wading alone in the seaplasma. They can go nuts!" "Juliana is not just people. She'll work it out, regain the ability to separate the mind from the world, and her sense of time, and all that. We're watching her." "I know, I know." He waved him away, throwing the medal at Bill. "They're going to give it to you officially in a sermony this night. Allgalatic transfer, of course ~~ and hyperspaced, too. You're instructed to give it to Pauline five minutes ahead of the program, which is at 6 pm sharp. Got it? Congratulations, by the way. If anything happens to Juliana, the medal will be all that's left of you, I'll personally see to that." Bill shuddered and left. Pauline, he was going to meet the hostess of the universe, with her famed legs. With the medal, fame would come ~~ an irreversible fame. However, he needed to save Juliana first. He gave himself one year, switched on his personal time~expander machine, plugged in to return at 5.45 pm this evening. If he hadn't saved her within one, or at most two years at the sub~atomic timescale, she would be lost anyhow. And more than that amount of time spent in this sauce called 'plasma~sea' wouldn't be good for his health. The gene~strengtheners would have to be applied to a greater and greater degree, threatening to turn him into plastic. That was not his idea of immortality. All set, the orange light flared, and he uttered softly a small affirmation, hoping to return this afternoon, and sped into the atom where Juliana of the 1st World Foundation waded. 3. Bill, having fifteen his~hours to go before he had shrunk to the size of an atom of his world (and actually a great deal smaller than that as well) wondered what lay ahead. Three hundred and sixty~five days and nights to his own body ~~ of what? First there was delightfully shaped Juliana, with her mind ~~ who had been one of the first to cross the barriers of the foundations between the two worlds. In her meditations, while she tended her galactic flowers, as known for their beauty as she herself in person was, she had reached direct contact with minds set on mind~reading / mind~writing, not of her own world, which were as atoms of the second World, but of the second World. The Foundationers of the Second World, like the Second Foundationers of the First World, to which Juliana anonymously belonged, ... Bill's thought process was sharply interrupted, for he suddenly looked into her eyes. She blinked, then almost laughed, perhaps somewhat insanely. Oh, Great Sun! Had he forget to turn off perceptiveness~contact? Then fifteen hours would becme fifteen hours of scale~travel mind/reality blur, of that creeping combination of clairvoyant fact and illusion which was the recipe of paranoia. He had forgot it before and he had managed it. Once. But that time the circumstances of arrival were cozy, taskfree, settled ~~ almost paradise~like. This time, the overwhelming insight into an area of trouble, the plasmaocean with lost goddess Juliana. Then suddenly, her crotch appeared. And was gone again: his mind compressed into the scale with tremendous speed. He made up his mind not to trust his mind on arrival. Too much trust and he might not be able to return at all, for a rescue team might not be sent before it was too late, for both of them ~~ if he turned nuts. He didn't even want to think the thought. From their perspective, they would probably send a team, at earliest, later that evening. Unless they happened to know some time~expander tricks that he didn't know of, they would arrive, at earliest, after several years. Years of possible insanity in ocean~plasma, genes decaying... Her feet appeared. Now her face and feet. He tried to convey to her the sense of coming to rescue, but also the sense of danger...hoping she would be able to pick at least some of it up, and possibly tune down the intensity of her mind with regard to his. Then orgasm. Not just her, but they together. So blissful, he wanted more and more mind/reality blurring. He forced himself to resist the pleasure and stay focussed on nothingness. Compassion, he thought. Compassion for the future of our lives. Disregard insane illusions, now... Finally he went into sleep. 4. Long, graceful legs. She is dancing. Juliana, Juliette, she didn't have the certainty of her name anymore, wasn't Juliette da Vinci always a ballet dancer? Yep, she tried the split. The plasma ~~ her scientific sense of it, perhaps a memory, perhaps something said by that brilliant officer of the otherworld that he had never seen physically ~~ Billy? Willy? ~~ the one she had had a sense or two of ~~ the plasma, the yellow/violet stuff, got into her, through her underwearings. She didn't like the joy it gave her, she shivered, felt Bill ~~ that was it! ~~ Bill! ~~ for a moment. There! Up. Dancing. Legs touching plasma, feet being kissed, plasma taking shape. Sudden expanse. Fear. 5. "Quiet!" Bill had reached his destination now, scaled~down to a speck within a speck within an atom, using the latest scale~manipulating technology of the Foundation of World 2. His sleep had rescued him from a possible insanity on the way, he reflected ~~ all the bisarre things were now safely enwrapped in dreams, and the brain had, by that act, successfully tossed the reality~content of them enough away for consciousness to be clear still. However, he couldn't be sure. He would have to put it at a test ~~ even the dream might have affected his brain; even the notion that he had slept might be an illusion. He consoled himself with the fact that he was doubting. "I doubt, therefore I exist!" The first lesson at the Schola of Mathematical Psychology at the Foundation Center for kids. Now what was this voice? 6. "Quiet!" it said. Juliana stopped. Who spoke? She had almost began to imagine that there could be no other voices than that of her own willed thought. This came from afar, yet, frighteningly, spoke through her thought, without her will. "Quiet!" it repeated. "Do not think now!" 7. A voice had penetrated Bill's mind and Juliana's mind simultaneously. These people were not unaccustomed to such phenomena. Much happens when not only mind~training, but also technology, equipped with sub~Planck matter, works in accord. Scales can be overcome, not just distances. Information from hidden, yet orginating worlds can suddenly penetrate. They had been taught to recognize the "good penetrations" ~~ these felt harmonious; they coincided with lifeaffirming events; following their information tended to be fruitful. The "good penetrations", such as voices worthwhile to take seriously, spoke in noble ways, and ~~ they had been taught ~~ never encouraged violence. A violent voice is an expression of trauma. "Listen only to harmony!" they had been taught in the mysteriously common curriculum of the Schola of Mathematical Psychology, existing with slightly different names, in different tongues, in World 1 and 2. "Quiet. You are in danger unless you listen. If you listen, and trust, you are absolutely safe. Calm yourself.Listen without interruption." The voice spoke in a commanding, yet soothing, caring way, succeeding in reaching deep into the brains of both Bill and Juliana. "We have a mission for you. We speak from love, from the origin. Look for signs if you want to. We wish you well. We have blurred your reality temporarily, to enable you to go to a new level of experiencing. There are things to be done. Do them, and we'll see you safely out from here." And as the voice vanished, the soothing tranquility of a substanceless drug washed through their brains and bodies, leaving a sense of harmony. Doubt yes, but not fear. 8. Amira would awake about ten o'clock, listening for the chiming of clocks; would catch a fly or a beetle for the octopus' breakfast, would lie on his cot watching the octopus in her tank eat, would ultimately turn over on his back and relucting permit his constant thoughts of redemption, escape and freedom to engage his mind. Near Midday, Alhi or Alhoud would unlock the door and bring him bread and cheese, perhaps with some watered red wine. Alhi would barely look at him, would never speak, would simply set the dish on the dirt floor inside the door and leave again. World 1 was not in a happy condition. Within the span of the violet / light green plasma, where Juliana kept moving, often wondering whether she was at her wit's end, in fact existed her world. A hidden menace had fragmented, it appeared, much of her Foundation's work for many centuries. Of course, her memories of these ~~ if they would return ~~ were far from her consciousness now. She was close, though, to make an enterance to her own crystallized microexistence when Bill reached her, laughing, dumb, definitely at his wit's end, in a ragged suit which, she reflected, must once have looked terrifyingly attractive. Within World 1 kidnapping, murder, and every kind of bestiality were the rules, the remnants of the two Foundations the exception. Even Gaia had broken up, as their central quantum computers flipped ~~ as if someone had tampered with the quantum rhythm of their world, set by Planck's constant. In fact, somebody had. Little did Bill and Juliana know that the badness of World 1 within the plasma could rip away worlds above it ~~ little they knew of anything in their present state, except what the recurrent voice had given them on what appeared to be a "need to know basis", for the past six months or so. Both had been warned not to take appearances too seriously when they met each other ~~ but trust. However, at the moment, Bill just collapsed at Juliana's lovely legs, and remained lying there as a ragged collection of limbs and clothes. Not knowing what to do, she laid down beside him, ~~ the first being of her kind, of any kind, she had seen since her memory had left her, and past as well as future became a landscape indefinite, blissfully and terrifyingly open. She touched, kissed, consoled herself. When Bill half~awoke some hours later, he was amazed to see those golden long legs of a completely nude goddess around his own battered body, partially in the nude, with little left of his clothing ~~ he smiled insanely and slept on. 9. "Sergant Hopkins. Bill Hopkins. This is HQ Command, Foundation. HQ Command, Foundation, calling Sergant..." "Hello, hello", Bill gruntled into his wristwatch. "Bill! Where the hell are you! You are about to appear before the whole Galatic Hypermedia with Pauline in half an hour." Bill was startled ~~ and looked straight into the starlike iris of one of the most beautiful women he had ever seen. She eyed him without fear. "Could you call back in a few minutes, please?", Billl said, unsure of himself, into his watch. The voice in the watch started to object but he shut off the voice and face in it by hitting its wide red button. Did he remember or didn't he? And his girl...? Slowly, still being watched by the starry~eyed woman, he sat up into a lotus~like position and did an exercise. With sheer will he turned his brain fully on. He washed through it, again and again, then punched into his watch, called up Paul at HQ Command, Foundation, ~~ the man who had just talked to him, and gave precise instructions in a coded language, every sound ending at ~aim, ~~ instructions to the effect of going to the time/space scaler in his office and replace the timesetting from one to two years, keeping the return time only three minutes later, adjusting compression level to make this possible, and to supply extra gene strengtheners. The words came out as he dripped with sweat, he read the words out of an almost unconscious part of his brain, managed even a causal joke in the common language about not keeping the legs of Pauline waiting, ~~ a remark which made Juliana turn slightly away ~~ and got the confirmation he needed, switched off and collapsed. Juliana was impressed by his wristwatch ~~ indeed by the whole behaviour. The man was thorougly sapped as to energy, but had yet managed to draw from some hidden reservoir and communicate ~~ with whom? The scent of him was, strangely enough, lovely. She decided against tearing off his watch and getting away from him. The voice within had built up her confidence as to what was ahead, ~~ almost the sole source of consolation in the endless swirling landscape of violet and light green. She sat up and started to assemble the plasma, as she had taught herself, into a fake kitchen and livingroom full of lovely plants and flowers, with a fake set of furniture, with elegant but rather useless chairs. Useless, because sitting in the plasma, or lying down, or walking, essentially involved not touching it. It seemed to keep a distance from itself to her, and to him also, perhaps not to hurt them. But by her gardener mind, strengthend by Foundation training in psychohistory, she had learn to shape it, using her hands to fondle with the whirls of violet/green plasma that her mind commanded loose from the ocean, dancing around her. She could even sometimes reverse the swirl constantly going on in it, for a little while, usually seeing that it would return to its original counterclockwise movement later on ~~ not knowing what significance this could have. The most dramatic example of her newfound interaction with the plasma was that she found that she sometimes, in states of strong harmony, could as if fondle a piece of it, like a cloud, from far away to drift towards her. Bill awoke suddenly and was amazed to find himself in a violet / green house, with a young woman apparently cooking food while he apparently rested in front of a television eating chips. 10. He willed himself into sufficient strength to reciprocate some of her pleasant magic. In the months that had passed, his mind had shifted between ignoring everything and coming to complete moments of knowing what he is at. Like Juliana, he had recurrent flashes of the voice, cautioning, soothin, sometimes directing. He was afraid his body would get greenish and violet, too, but somehow it didn't, while it appear to require less and less, and then suddenly nothing, of the little food he had brought with him. His clothes were attacked by sharp cliffs of plasmatic fog that he sometimes run into, but his body was mostly unharmed ~~ strangely enough. He was conscious of a power of the mind over the landscapes, but had not harnessed it nearly as far as Juliana, as he now realized it was. She was here. Why hadn't he ordered a return when he had World 2 on~line? Ah yes, ~~ he forgot; there are requirements of scaletravel. If you upset initial conditions ~~ except for prolonging them ~~ you may end up at wrong scale on return and essentially get lost there. It had to do with the resonance of the different size of the moments of the two worlds. The plasma was a kind of "pre~world", adhering somewhat floatingly to most of its principles, yet submissive, somehow. In the plasma, the wonders of spacetravel across vast distances, leaving the speed~of~light limit entirely behind, was possible. The plasma was pre~space, too. A starship floating into hyperspace and out again crossed momentarily the plasma. Was this the cliffs ripping at his clothes occasionally, brushing his body a little? Juliana was sort of naked ~~ sort of, because she could be vaguely seen as nude through the semi~opaqueness of the colours weaved of plasma she had concocted for the evening ~~ to call it that. Plasma lights were burning plasma flames, and a plasma mupped~show was showing on the plasma TV, with plasma chips in front of him. He looked at himself and found all of his clothes ~~ everything except his watch, in fact ~~ replaced with pleasant plasma clothes. God, she was a gift! Apart from the lack of variety of colours ~~ the only factor that made the eyes still see the violet as violet and the light green as light green was the different colours of their own skins and hairs. She had raven~black hair. He couldn't help feel that he was hypnotized by her. Had she become a plasma~witch? He decided to give it a test. After all, she was ~~ or at least, she had been, he reminded himself ~~ one of the most powerful minds of the underworld, the World 1, a Second Foundationer groomed to handle a galaxy of people. Without turning, he willed a telepathic concealment, felt it glow red, and so drew it lightly to his body, within her garments. However, his head would have a reddish glow, he imagined, so he turned quietly to the other side. Her curves were showing from behind as she played and made things in her semikitchen. She switched on a semiradio and bird's metallic chrips came out. He smiled and went on with his test. From within his concealment he urged himself free from fear, from the bias of desire, from any destructive impulses, he reaffirmed love of truth, love of love, love of life, love of the origin ~~ as he had been taught: creatively, each time a little different, at least. He then visualized a rod of light connecting himself with the source of all, vertically above. "Yes?" the voice came through, inside his glow. He asked, "Can I trust her?" It happened all in his thought, yet it was not his will that made the voice say what it said. "Yes, you can", it answered. "Any instructions?" he asked. It became quiet. Then, hesitantly, "Stay. At risk, but if you check in with us often it will work out fantastic. Something is coming up. You must bring her down to World 1; do not return to your own world with her before you have cleared up what goes on there. Wait at most three days. Tell her nothing now. Get up and kiss her neck." "But", he objected. "Now! Get up and kiss her neck. Don't scare her." The voice was gone. He switched the concealment off. "Darling, what's on TV tonight?" he made himself say, with a somewhat forced effortlessness. She laughed, and beamed with her deep greenish eyes into his look. She had pale skin, heartshaped lips, a slightly dangerous look. This was Juliana all right. Not that he had really studied her features that closely before ~~ she had been a midget in another world, which he carefully attempted to rule as a demi~God to fulfill his assigned tasks ~~ a wonder, a pearl of that little world, but yet immensely far from his own lifeworld. "Hello Bill," she said, still laughing lazily, surprising him. Okay, go for the neck kiss. He nudged behind her, feeling more and more sensous between his legs, wondering if his clothes were as transparent as her own, and she had no fear but let him. She quivered like a little girl when he kissed her at her long, pale neck. On impulse, he sat down, held her legs, gently took one foot in his hand and massaged her. Their resonance was astounding. The semitransparent house of violet/green creaked a little as if caught in a wind ~~ did she have to focus on it all the time to keep it up? He would risk that. He would soon make her focus on something entirely different than uphelding a house of plasma. He willed her down and she sat down. "Before we go on, I wish to see into your eyes," he said with a sudden, warm authority, as if that vertical beam connecting him with the ground of being were still on ~~ maybe it was ~~ directing him without the mediating orders of thought, rather talking through his lips, through his fingers as his hand touched her lips, her hair, and then the neck. She closed her eyes, leaning backwards. "No, open," he said softly. She looked, half in fear. Then he beamed ~~ scanned ~~ saw more of her than she had probably ever seen of herself. He saw the lost parts, saw her futures, scanned even her body, what it had had of sex, scanned even her views of him. Without a word, he let hismelf open to her probing mind as well. After all, she was a mind~expert, a mathematical psychologist. There was no fear in him. She was as clean as could be. Two minutes later he used his newfound warm, quiet authority to make her lie down on her back. He gently massaged her body here and there, expertly ~~ scanning for the fleeting tensions of ego, slapping sometimes a little hard and making double up for it with very soft squeezing the next moments, ~~ up and down her long, well~curved legs, around her exquisitly shaped feet, around her waist, ~~ putting her on the side, touching her firm bottom. She opened her lips and steered at him with more and more desperate longing. He let his own arousal come forth and at some stage, simply guided her heartshaped lips to fondle with it. Two hours later, with no plasma clothes left, she had had perhaps a hundred small and some big comings while he none, and then he came all over her, giving her a personal garment, which she smiled at. 11. A Foundationer ~~ "Second Foundationer" of the underworld, or just "Foundationer" of the overworld (the 2nd World), for here the structure was somewhat different ~~ had to know the joys and workings of the mind also sexually. A secret teaching in the overworld held it that the origin engaged in sex to keep it all up. Hints of this teaching had been conveyed down to he underworld. There were many underworlds, but they were strangely united, in form as well as function ~~ for reasons the scientists of the overworld were still arguing about, five hundred years after this discovery. Foundation Encapsulated (A novel) Episode 2 The starship gleamed of atomically thin layers of gold, innumerably many of them to comprise a steel~like hardness, a gold derived from asteroids fleeting around. Some of them are like chunks of gold, scattered all over the universe. The oval elegance of the ship, the product of a technology developed over thousands of years, and not just with human intelligence, carried Juliana and Bill to Omarti, a planet of sacred mysteries, where a wise man of a certain fame lived. The togetherness of Bill and Juliana in the plasma had restored their mental capacities of each of them, quickly, and in full. While they had never met directly before, Juliana had, through her earlier work, become aware of the physically attractive human at the upscale world. Any atom of the upscale world provided a bridge for a spacer, for those with the courage and equipment to do scale, time and space travel, leaping into the microscale world. Perhaps only the quantum scientists ~~ or their equivalents in the upscale world ~~ realy saw mathematically how scale is an illusion, yet a technological challenge to be roamed; a dimension containing innumerable mysteries on which all of the worlds seemed interdependent... When Bill and Juliana had had some time together in the plasma, Bill had instructed Juliana as to the secret of reentering her own world ~~ and he went with her, perhaps driven as much by his attraction to her physical splendidness than as of any official duty as a Foundation member, a keeper of the integrity of the universe. She only had to use her powers of gardening and cultivating the plasma, he told her. The powers she had demonstrated once they met, crafting a house and so on ~~ these powers she had to put to use to visualize, in precise detail, an already existing object in the world to which she was going. The more accurate the visualization, with identity codes, timers and so on indicating precise location and time, the more precisely the entry into her world. The time should correspond as closely as possible to an estimate of what time it should be, considering what time had passed when outside of that world, otherwise they would risk entering into a less real, more filmy part of existence where potentials are still working out what is to be actual. Bill advised her therefore to choose something which she was thoroughly acquainted with and which was safe. She chose, naturally, her spaceship habitat outside of the main Second Foundation regions, which now belonged to an area of the universe rather than a particular place in the Milky Way Galaxy, from which it sprang in its earliest days. When she positioned herself and Bill inside her own spaceship, with details know perhaps only to her to identify it, resonance begun building up. After all, the plasma contained the whole of her world, being its essential origin, being the stuff that weaved the quantum patterns of her world together. The ever violet and light green colours of the plasma shimmered and all of a sudden became metallic, the metallic gleam of the gold of her own spacecraft. They arrived naked, with utter relief, and with some sense of throbbing in midair of her craft, falling to the floor through its artificial gravitation at once (actually a subtle form of accelleration). After a few days, they had got a good amount of Foundation Credits, and an update of the latest news for the last six months or so (days, months, and years being approximate terms, all a result of standardized codes defined by standardization committees and implemented through technology). The news had been to the effect that severe breakdown of world civilisation had occurred as if from within with no clear common thread, except that of fragmentation and barbarbarism. Peace and prosperity everywhere had been upset. Even the Second Foundation was down to about a third of their typical size, after sudden breakdown of controlling starships, outbursts of violence on their main planets, and a new strange type of epidemics strangling people. So, Bill had decided to go along with Juliana in exploring it ~~ on their own terms, but that was part of their Foundation training. They were not mere sergeants in a hierarchical scheme, but trained to trust their own instincts as what to do, and always provided enough resources to carry it through in an elegant way. It was based on trust. Juliana's intuition suggested they should seek advice at Omarti. Omarti: lazy stone~temples built in triangular shapes with stairs towards the sky, lay in clouds drifting on the golden horizon of this lovely afternoon as they appeared. At Omarti spaceport, a few bored workers received their craft and towed it to a rest hangar, antigravitation being showered towards the little group of ships to keep them from scratching their golden surfaces to the burgunder cheap metal of the hangar. They travelled by quantum coherence, in a flash from here to there, and dependent on the coherence of their gold to do it well. They got a temporary visa, leaped into one of the taxi ships, and travelled through the golden afternoon to the main city of planet Omarti, reaching Omarti~Sa, the city of lights, just as the one sun went down. And the stars of the night~time city came upon them. These were not the lights of offices whose people had forgot to turn of, nor the neon of advertisments not even the lamps of streetlights. The city of lights had a rare luminisence flowing through itself, powering in and out of channels all over the place, inside as outside buildings, near rivers and inside ponds, upwards to higher levels and downwards, deep into caves under Omarti~Sa. The lights did something with the mind, perhaps also the body. Some said that those who new how to drink of the fluid of the light could live without decay. And Juliana wanted Bill and herself to meet H Sangija (the 'j' pronounced as an 'y'), a man possibly from the beginning of the Foundation days, a young man, regarded as a teacher of the teachers, a man whose meditation was said to be so vast that he could change anything, anywhere. She didn't know what to believe but in the present situation, she needed them both to have the best advice ~~ if he could give any advice at all. Some days later she and Bill and Sangija met. A temple of brown stone was behind them, and people were swirling in front of them and they were drinking a green kind of liquid with some of the luminesence in itself, at a kind of Omarti~Sa style cafe. The people were wonderful to watch. They were without any of the stress shown elsewhere; no sense of barbarism were here. They seemed to be in the mood that people might be in just before they are about to embark on a profound, positive change ~~ perhaps going to another continent, or to another galaxy; perhaps marrying; perhaps starting a new business. There were lot of smiles and the languages were many. Bill, a conossiour of women, had his share of satisfactory impression, to Juliana's slight frustration. Here was a place to fall in love with life rather than another person. Juliana asked, 'So what has happened? The news tell about all sorts of things.' 'I don't know', said Sangija. Bill: 'You do know, come on, you are the only one who can really know, aren't you?'. 'You see it used to be this way a long time ago. Before the enlightenment. I have seen it before and so the question is not: why the barbarism.' Both Bill and Juliana and expertise in dialogue, training in mind~reading, understanding of implications. Nothing much had to be said really. It was flowing between them. Sangija seemed to know that he didn't have to make much things explicit. But to be sure, Bill asked: 'You seem to imply that somebody has let the world down, not that anything has happened to it.' 'Of course.' Sangija seemed a little restless at that. 'I don't know who that is. Except, as you know, it is everyone's responsibility to keep it up. Not just mine or yours. So you are asking something quite deep, you are asking: how come that everyone has lost their grip?' Bill: 'When it happened before, what caused it?' 'That's easy. Can't you feel it?' Sangija challenged them to sense the past, one of the typical exercises done by every schoolchild as soon as it became clear that in subtle areas of the universe, changing versions of times to come and times which have been still exist, and can be accessed by a coherent mind. 'I sense lack of understanding. Lack of worldview,' said Juliana. 'So. Is it the same now?' H Sangija did not want to give a quick recipe. After a while Sangija took them to his house. Sangija was a tall man, with dark/light alternating curls. He lived with several people, it appeared, or maybe some of these were advisors. A woman, of such carrying nature she could have been a prime minister. A man, concerned about what computer tools she were using. Two girls, one small, another long, passionately concerned with Bill's handbag, making sure he was uncertain whether he had all his things so he politely had to talk to them. Sangija seemed to delay the talks about the state of the universe, but he gave them one clue: 'You probably know this from fiction stories, just as much as your own training. Or you may have forgot, or had a more complicated training. But let's suppose that some evil ~~ real nasty evil ~~ has struck the universe. And then, what would you do?' Juliana thought. She said, 'I guess we would look for that thing or person producing the evil.' 'Yes, but suppose you were taking a metaphysical stance. You simply sit there. You meditate. And you ask: what is evil.' 'Is there an answer?' she asked. Sangija didn't want to answer. 'Okay, I can remember some fiction stories ~~ I don't know if this is part of our training. I don't know for Bill, but for me, I was told evil is a result of greed, fear, prejudice, illusion, all cooked together into ego and so on.' Sangija didn't say anything. 'Then there are some stories,' she went on. 'Some of them concerns how even a single person, not equipped with all that much resources, can actually destroy an enemy, by hitting their weak point.' 'Ah.' Sangija seemed a little pleased. 'You see, this is what we will explore soon. I tell you this, nothing is difficult, nothing is problematic ~~ if you find that point. But I am not talking of fiction. I am talking of the real nature of evil, it has such a point, because it is hierarchical. But no more of this now. We'll solve it. I'll take you for a ride.' Sangija disappeared and, and streetlevel, what seemed to be rather nice old blue shapely car turned out, complete with wheels and everything, and Sangija as its driver, perfectly dressed for the task. It didn't have the appearance, flashy~kitchy, of the space cab they took from the station. Bill had his suspicions that this was not what it looked like. They sat in, and Sangija assumed a quiet non~talking meditative mood. He sped up, with a quiet happy hum of a strange engine, and soon they were on a maze of streets, obviously designed for vehicles without antigravitation means. Or? It began by Bill and Juliana looking nervously at each other when he sped tighly beside a much greater vehicle, also dark blue, like a tram. Juliana said, funnily, 'Hey! Take it easy!' but Sangija had the determined look of a cab driver not to be disturbed, apparently not noticing that anything is said to him. Fortunately there were few cars around, because his speed increased to a point where, instead of turning down slopes and then up again, he simply floated, by speed, from one peek to the next. And when they were really nervous, and hoped it soon would end, they realized he had driven off what was practically a cliff. Juliana screamed a little, but Bill smiled. 'I think we need to realize by now that this is something we ought to think of as a spaceship, though it looks like a car.' Sangija quietly nodded with a near~imperceptible smile. What might have been hundred meters below they touched road again, only to emerge second later in yet greater speed in free space ~~ this time all pretense of falling had gone away, and they were simply flying, horisontally, over a valley with large machinery, large roads, large houses of sorts, and much colours from a rich growth of many kinds of red, orange and other~coloured plants. Finally he asked them, 'Now what do you think?' The scenery was severely beautiful. Floating over it gave rise to an utter peace. Maybe they should come and live with him, if this was his life. If they could. The universe and its struggle with itself, which they would soon begin to affect in ways deeper than they had ever thought, seemed remote, and all that was, was this floating, floating, floating, as it would never end. Foundation Encapsulated (A novel) Episode 3 For a week or two ~~ translated to earthian terms, they did not use months or years, either, but we've translated for ease ~~ they stayed with Sangija and his company. He had told them again and again to look for that single point which may whip any evil hiearchy off its pin, and dissolve it ~~ rather than looking for lesser things. Sangija was formally the director of the Spacers Incorporation, although he rarely touched it. He had trained the Second Foundationers, but they didn't call themselves that. Since he had trained them, he wanted as little as much to do with them as he could. Once he stepped into a room with spacers, he became an immediate authority. And he knew that for they to exercise their own intuition maximally, they must do it on their own, taking responsibility for what they sense. Occasionally, he received their reports, and if he disagreed ~~ he or one of his trusted friends, also a spacer, equally apt at sensing the greater truths of the universe, in his opinion ~~ they could send the reports back, asking for reevaluation. If anything was disagreed on then, Sangija would step in and make the decision himself. Bill and Juliana had finally decided to do some big meditations on their own, to come to clarity. Things spread fast in this incredibly interconnected universe, full of a technology that enhanced the connectedness that were already subtly present. And what spread now was a combination of disease, crime and corruption. People were strangled by disease; kidnappings took place here and there, and governments fell apart in too many ways. In a few months, things had gone to rapid decay. Bill, for his part, was too much in love with Juliana to let go of her right now, although he belonged in a different scale region. He was properly a spacer ~~ a 'scaler spacer' ~~ since he belonged to a different scale altoghether. Already in the first meditation, the voice that had contacted them when they first waded in the plasma, came through ~~ the voice of some commanding intuition, from a source region of reality; it was part of their training to recognize it as such, by various tests ~~ and check whether it could be an illusion. Their messages were compatible, but not identical. Bill was ordered to pick up the language of this civilisation, so he was not an outsider to the extent he had been; he was told also to let Juliana do her next thing alone. Juliana was told to summon the other spacers, in the Second Foundation, immediately. Things were a little different these days; the Second Foundation formally looked like a company; it was run only by women; and their meetings was strongly characterized by the meditative training given them. So Bill hired a female blue nicelooking robot to teach him Galatics, the language most common. Their conversation typically went like this: 'You should read these verbs that I printed out for you", robot said. 'I know. I am doing it.' 'You seem to be thinking of something else. Is there anything I can help with?' 'I don't think so.' 'You must be thinking of her girl~friend. She is very sweet.' 'Are you jealous?' 'I am not programmed to be jealous, you know, although some people think it is charming with jealous robots and they can add that flavour.' 'You seem to be avoiding the question.' 'We really ought to do more verbs.' And so on. Juliana, for her part, summoned the spacers and the board~meeting had begun. 'Do you wish to say anything about why this meeting has been summoned?', Deidre Chevallier, one of the leading girls in the company asked of Miss Hopkins. 'As you well know,' began Juliana, 'much have been corrupted lately, at the level of civilisation. I have met with Sangija but he told me nothing specifically. But then I meditated, and by great clarity, I was urged to summon a meeting between us, as this is nothing I should look into only by myself.' 'I have had much the similar command,' said another woman. 'Me too,' said yet another. 'So let us begin by quietness,' said an unusually tall, thin elegant~looking dark~brown girl at one end of the oval table. They were among twentyfive; sometimes they had been thirty~three; Sangija, in accordance with advises also found in other universes, had gone against larger groups than a hundred. They were all young and had some years of attendance, before they were urged to forget about the organisation and go out in the rest of society and act there, with responsibility and intuition. They all knew the conditions before entering and this was the Spacers Incorporated way of ensuring that nobody got stuck there and so by age twenty~five they had to go on to other jobs or activities in the world. Three years there ~~ like presidents sometimes serve three or five years. It is to ensure a sense of contribution, rather than the build~up of personal power, dynasties and corruption. Though their education were usually strong on issues of integrity and helped prevent that in any case. So there were no leader. If anyone was restless, talkative, chattering, then anyone else could propose ~~ without personal attack implied ~~ that the restless leave the meeting. For it was not to be a personality thing, but rather they were to read deeper information levels and needed the humility and respect to quietness so rarely found elsewhere in society at barbaric times. The meeting went on and on and had periods of quietness often. Juliana returned to Bill in his computer~simulated mountain cottage drinking computer~simulated wine with the robot, who looked on Bill with large, mysterious eyes, which obviously had some mascara on them. They were in a chamber which allowed certain things as the colour and immediate taste and sensation of a liquor to be as much changed as the windows and other features of the environment, changed by computer control. She smiled at Bill and asked how he had got a language robot to go this far with him. 'Oh, it only took some very rational explanations of how we need to enact certain situations in order to give a deep learning to certain verbs and words,' Bill had answered. 'What words and verbs?' Juliana looked straight at the robot, and the robot managed to looked as if it were flushing. 'I apologize very much. You can have my program replaced if I have overstepped the line. I am only a language~teaching robot.' 'I don't know what line you have overstepped, or how you did it if you did, but I had a splendid meeting so I am going to turn you off without further ado. I can't stand any explanation right now.' She switched the robot off with a slim long finger. 'I have been thinking about you all the time,' she said to Bill. 'It's mutual. The robot couldn't simulate you.' 'Oh thank you, what a compliment'. Juliana smiled and they kissed. Hours later, her legs around Bill, Bill half~awoke and looked at her marvellous hair, and gently touched her ravishing body in various places. It was going to be a long morning, full of love. SEX AND LIFE / What does sex life mean to you? : Sex and life, life and sex, sex life, at one point in my life it became all weaved together. / What was this point? : It is private, yet I have drawn some metaphysical results from it. And I have worked further on the implications on all that. One of the key points is that the energy of silence, the energy of the meditative mind, is an energy that involves a kind of sexuality in its essence. This is hardly new, I know of many mythologies and of at least some philosophies that say the same. But it is new to me that I consider it an actuality that is directly perceptible, and not merely a speculation. It is the principle of energy as such; that is, at least, what I feel now. / But you had a lot of sex experiences or something to bring this point forward in you? : Well, it's a long story, and it is only beginning to unravel. I am not too fond of anecdotes, they may lock up what should be kept open, they mean conceal more than they display. Experiences are not all that important. And our explanations of our own experiences are not really often exactly hitting the point, are they? / Come on. There must be something you can say as to how this personally became a clear issue to you -- that sexual energy and meditative energy is the same, if that's what you meant! : Yes. I had a relationship, a sexual relationship if you wish, with a certain woman, -- it wasn't all that special in the beginning. In the beginning it look like any of the other many sexual connections in that period. Yet there was something to her and to how we were together that made the mental, the mediative, and the bodily-sexual energies melt together, and we eventually copulated on every corner, it seemed. There wasn't a public room that we didn't more or less secretly have sex in. There wasn't a thought we didn't think through and talk about while having sex. There wasn't a portion of body unexplored as part of the sexual motion, and our minds connected as lovers do. / For how long? : Do you count days? Do you believe in counting? I don't. But for long enough. It was a lasting, permanent change. There was no sense of shame in it, eventually, just energy, just bliss and exploration. / And no conflict? : Oh, let's not get into that. It was as full of conflict as a sexual relationship can be. You quarrel and there's a noise between you, and then in bed (or whereever you do it) the sex becomes also the ecstatic overcoming of the barrier that was understood in the quarrel. The mixture of sex and the psychological pain of conflict is all the more blissful. / Was it not very exhausting? : It can be exhausting to save one's energies, if you know what I mean. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF COMPUTATION CHAPTER 1 Pluralistic and possibilistic dialogues on the infinite On dissolving the finite / What is really your hypothesis as regards the infinite as to numbers? : Well, I have given a number of different explanations. Some works on some. Let us test this one on you: We begin by writing one, then two, then three. We go on extending this list. We want to think about the list of all the numbers, not just some. / Okay. : Then let us now look at each step. In each step, we find that the member we added to the list, described the exact number of members in the list. / Right, I think I see that. : So we write one. There is one member in the list. We write two. There are two members in the list. We write three. There are three members in the list. Then we will add more and more members. Ten. Thousand. At each stage, the last number we add to the list self- referentially describes exactly how many numbers there are in the list. / I see that. : Then be watchful for now we come to something entirely at odds with the mainstream of mathematics as I know it. We come to something in which I am sure many people have thought different, but mathematicians have come to some kind of dogma. Okay? Are you ready? / Yes. : So we go to infinity. At each stage, there were as many numbers in the list as the highest number we had added. There were as many numbers in the list, I repeat, as the highest number we had added. I repeat again: There were as many numbers in the list, as the highest number we had added. And now we have gone to infinity and so infinity is the number in the list and so infinity must be a member of the list. / No wait. : That's just it, wait. / For we are talking of numbers, we just want to have ordinary numbers, and we go on making more of them. : That is right. / And then we get infinitely many such numbers, but they are still finite. : How can you say that? / Well, that is what I defined, as part of the initial design. You said it: we want numbers like 1, 2 and 3. Finite numbers. : Yes. / So even if it goes on and on it is still finite numbers. : Very well! And this I have also believed when they told me this at high school and so on. And yet us now look at it, clearly. We definitely want all the numbers, not just some, right? / Right. : We want them all. ALL of them. / You said that. : So at each stage of the adding, we count the number of members in the list and find that this is a number in the list. Can you tell me that this process ever stops? / No, but... : But what? / But at each stage it is still finite. : That is well and right as long as we go up to a thousand. A million. A billion. Any definite finite number. But we go on and on and on and it is as if you imagine that you extend a light ray infinitely far into the universe. You are then asked to close your eyes and imagine that you can sense the whole light ray, the whole of it, even though it is infinite. Are you doing it? / Yes. : So then we think of the entire collection, the absolutely complete collection of all numbers that we can make by beginning with one, continuing with two, and adding one each time and going on and on and on. We want'em all. Not just some of them. / Yes. : So we have in fact an absolute similarity between adding a member to the list and the number of members in this list. The number added is the number in the list. And so we keep on doing this. And we step out of the initial finite algorithmic generation, that a computer also can do, and we say: IT IS COMPLETE: FINISHED: DONE WITH: WE HAVE GONE ALL THE WAY ALL THE WAY ALL THE WAY TO INFINITY. And the list is absolutely complete. Complete. It is finished. It is infinite, and all the way, we added to the list, the number of numbers in the list. We never stopped doing this. We never said: There is a point, and it is about here, perhaps round three trillion or something, in which we are going to make the list longer than the highest number included in the list. / Now I begin to see. : Right? Right? It happens to be so that it is impossible to break the rule, as far as I can see, that the number added to the list also describes the size of the list. So if the list has infinitely many numbers then numbers of this perhaps very peculiar kind is also in the list. / Okay. So I am with you on that. But what if I want to take these infinite numbers away? I simply define the collection of all the finite numbers and this is what I call N, the Natural Number set. : Right. Do you want the size of this list to be infinite? / Yes. : So then you have an infinite set. How do you wish to generate it? / By beginning with one and adding and adding, of course. : Yes, but you wanted to exclude the infinite numbers that you just agreed came along with this generation process. / Yes, by definition. : So how are you going to generate the set then? / By limiting it to those that are finite. : How? Do you want to say, we begin with one and add one, and add numbers as we go along, but check that the number is finite first, and don't add it if it is finite? / Yes, well, perhaps something like that, yes. : So may I ask you: how do you know that a number is finite? / Well, one is finite, and if you can get to the number by adding ones a finite number of times. Oh, that's self-referential. : Yes, that is self-referential. Any other suggestions? / If you can get to the number by starting with one and adding one, then the number is finite. : But you just agreed that this can lead to the infinities. / Yes. Okay, but everybody knows what a finite number is. : No. That is a dogma. I am certain that, after all this looking into it, we don't really know. We think we know. I think the finite is dissolving. / Okay, I see that you are working on something here, and it seems right, and I think you will get it into the academic environment and they will accept it. But you must be more pedagogical, you should perhaps make diagrams, like circles or like the number 8, something visual to show how the infinities appear. : No, I rather want to avoid that. I once saw a cartoon version of quantum physics, socalled. But it became quantum bullshit. Because when you draw a bubble and call it a quark and so on, you don't really touch either physics or reality. If you want to understand infinity and you make a graven image of it, then you get into a new type of finiteness that you then later must dissolve. You make a system, you see. / Okay. On getting to the infinite / I have read your thesis. I know the themes you are talking about well. If you are right, of course, then the works of thousands of brilliant mathematicians at least for a century, in the area of the foundations of mathematics and so on, must be looked at afresh, and quite possibly changed. This is pure number theory but it concerns the fundamental questions in set theory, when they assume, as they do, that the natural number set N and the real number set N are infinities of two different types. This is fundamental to a lot of work that seem nonsensical to many (and perhaps it is) but you question the size of N, you question that the size of N is as small as it appears. And I accept your questioning. I accept the reasoning. But I have a question, and it is this: Suppose we understand your reasoning and understand that there is a problem in closing N off so that we do not get to infinities within this set, what if we create the definition of a new type of N, say M, in which we have awareness of this problem? : Yes, go ahead, do you have a way to do it? / Yes. I think so. I would say: M is the set of every natural number that we can write in the way III...III, that is, it is a number that has a beginning and it has an end when we use the mark notation. So that, for instance, seven or IIIIIII is in the set but a number that can be written as III..., meaning indefinitely or infinitely many marks is not in the set. : Okay. / Okay? Does it not work? : It seems nice, I mean. Obviously it fits with the conventional thinking really well, that we can distinguish what has an end from what has not an end. / But you are not satisfied. : No, I am not satisified, because although it may seem, within the conventional context rather unproblematic to give such a division, there is a catch. How to express the catch I am a little uncertain of, and this uncertainty is the greatest I feel that I have with the whole project -- to call it that. But when we look at the geometrical argument, in which we write the set in this way, building it one by one, . . . III II I then we are led to the same result as I have I think. Just try it yourself. Write your set M in this way. Get the value one, then the value two. Do it. / Yes. Then I get an infinite list upwards. Hm. Do I get an infinite list in the rightwards direction also? But I have defined that I only want finite-sized digits, the III...III rather than the III...! : Exactly. You attempted to define it. And you write the list and you pronounce the big, big words that some consider commonplace and that are not commonplace: go to infinity. It is not merely going arbitrarily far. It is going all the way. Unless you go all the way up, then there is no chance at all that the list is infinite. Do you agree to that? That the list M, I mean the set M, is infinite only if you can write its members so that you go all the way up? / Yes, but... : But if you go all the way up you go to infinity upwards. And I just cannot see that there is any way you can do it without also going to infinity rightwards. I can't see that you don't get to infinity in the sense that the III... will be included, despite your attempted definition. Which means that the definition contains a catch. How to explain that catch is a completely different matter! But I have a way to express something of that catch: since the size of the set, or list as I prefer to talk abut, is included in the list, then it is only by having a finite-sized list that you can have exclusively finite-sized members in the list. / Say that again. : Thank you. It is only by having a finite-sized list that you can have only finite-sized members, because the size of the list is connected to the size of the members. / So you are saying that the reductio ad absurdum we come to is that the definition of only III...III numbers, but all of them, don't work. : Yes, essentially, yes. / But how do you visualize it? Where do they come in? : That is a very beautiful question. I think, perhaps, we can put it even more precisely: how do you perceive the process of generating numbers? Since we generate new ones by adding a mark to the existing highest number, then we can describe the whole process of getting all numbers as essentially depicted by III... Do you see that? Do you see that the notation III... really shows us what we are doing? So we say, let the moment of infinity, or MOI, as I call it, come now. And then, how would you see the whole development, if it were rather like a ray of light spreading into an infinite universe? How would you yourself see it? / I have no idea! : Think about this possibility, and let us discuss the mental 'empirics' or phenomenology of the generation idea together someday. I suggest that it is an illusion that things have an end, though perhaps the word 'beginning' makes a little more sense. I suggest that when we watch the stepwise process of digital numbers of what we can call them, and say, MOI, then we will, contrary to mathematical mainstream, get something like a continuum out of which emerges the infinite numbers, and the infinite or analogue numbers will sort of emerge back into their own continuum, and ultimately, of course, we do not see the end of this. It is absolutely in every sense inexhaustible -- per definition. / Because you add marks. : Because you add, well, anything to anything, positive. / So this is possibly a question of notation only, then? I am only asking. : Let us ask that question. If you write it as numbers of the typical kind, they still get a width to them, but it goes more slowly, that's all. We get 1,2,3, and then some more, then 10, 11, and a lot more, then 100, 101 and so on. It does expand in width. / But could you not imagine a type of notation in which a number like three billion was just a dot? : That's a good question. I mean, of course you could have that notation. Any number you'd like you can just declare to be a dot. But we want to consider the whole collection of every number. Okay? So we want a generative grammar for them. A generation process. A generation notation. And can you see a way to do that which has no growth involved, when you are to account for, in fact, infinitely many numbers? In a way that uniquely distinguishes each from every other? I cannot. / Hm. No, I guess not. But still, is it not merely a notation argument? Numbers are more than their notation, are they not? : They are a lot more, of course, in some sense. But if a notation is correct and without mistakes and if you in one notation for natural numbers can show to your own mind that it is coherent to say: we get to infinite numbers of some kind, then you have just used a notation to show a point that is in itself about numbers rather than notations. / I can see that. : So you may say, all this reasoning is childish, trivial. Certainly many must have thought of it. And indeed, I do think that perhaps every human being who has ever thought about infinite collections of numbers have had at least a momentary glimpse of the perception of truth in this, whatever the truth might be. As I see it, what has become the dominant trend, so dominant that I have still not seen anybody present a clear argument of the geometrical kind I have in a consistent manner with an algorithmic analysis of real numbers and also with all subsets of an infinite set, then it may be that mathematics is laden with prejudice. I have not seen anybody present the geometrical argument but I am sure it must exist somewhere but perhaps, like the program sketches on subsets, be thought of in a different way, so that its real implications are not seen. You may ask, are there any implications of this? But there are philosophical implications of immense magnitude, yet subtle, of things like Goedel's incompleteness theorem. And of course, if the conception of the collection of all natural number is so that this is an infinity that is way beyond finite numbers already within it -- that it cannot be closed off -- then when we speak of 'any number in this set', then we speak of something else than what Goedel imagined, and that so many others, including Alan Turing, and, of course, the original worker in this field, explicitly, Georg Cantor. And so we see that the immense philosophical implications become altered in a subtle way. / Why? : Because, quite simply, I do not see that Goedel's argument and so on stands anymore, unrevised, if we cannot with ease pick a welldefined and always finite number out of the set N anymore. If we might come up with something nonfinite then the function definition operating on it no longer can be so as to assume only finite structures. But then it might yield no answer at all, and so the proofs and theorems are no longer proofs and theorems, but rather sketches of something partial that must be completely reworked. / Will this mean that there is completeness after all, then? : Well, you see, it will mean that the natural numbers come up with something self-referential in their infinite growth, that there is always a member in the set I, II, III, ... that describes the quantity of the set, even when this set is infinite. This means that Cantor's definition of his omega number for which he goes to the transfinite and so on is in complete question. It means that the 'set of all sets' may be closer to the definition of natural numbers after all, and the idea of the set of all sets is exactly what is a severe problem (and accepted in mainstream mathematics) to be a severe problem for Cantor's set theory, and those who rests, as most do, on his ideas, which became dogmas. / But you are yourself rather certain, aren't you? I mean, while your language may often be careful and dialogic, you do feel certain? : My gut feeling has been that I am right but I am not all the way to 100% certain, I have a certainty that is dialogic and I want a language that invites or inspires dialogue. On being free from systems / So can the infinite that you are talking about be described? Perhaps as a circle or something? : A circle is too limited because it is totally self-repetitive and that would be an assumption. What you can imagine is that when you start with counting and let it go into the moment of infinity, then you are starting to come to movement or rhythm of some kind. When you have understood the geometrical argument that is presented mostly in the last part of the treatise, and then read again the algorithms, you will see that in combination this strongly suggests that there is an infinity of upperlevel members of any infinite natural number set, and these upperlevel members are in some way not alike, but their contrast must then be in terms of the movement that is indicated in writing something like ...III... / That is interesting. It is movement. : Or rhythm. You see, I have published in Wintuition:Net 2003/4 a brief analysis of rhythm per se. But the thing now is to avoid making a system. Do you know the story that J Krishnamurti used to tell? I love it, it is so anarchistic, it has such a magnitude of wisdom. Those who understand the story will never enroll in fixed rites or rituals in any community, they will be free at heart and in mind and go beyond fixed traditions and dogmas and gurus and self-appointed masters all the time. They will enquire for themselves and not try to enslave it into a system. Do you know the story? / Not quite. I seem to remember something. : The man walks on a path and something glimmers and it is Truth. He picks it up and looks at it in awe and wonder and, just as he is about to go on, the big monsterous devil comes in the form of something perhaps not so scary and asks him, why not make a system? And that is the scary end of the story. The devil prompts him to make a system, because, of course, the devil is afraid that Truth is going to come into the world, knowing well that a system would fragment it, twist it, bias it, make it tame and unenergetic, no longer an insight, but something bored, something like a dogma enforced by rules. / So you want to avoid making a system, when we talk of infinities. : Look, isn't this exactly the whole thing? That the finite is a question of system, and there are lot of system theoreticians, socalled, such as Ervin Lazslo, and when I meet them then is there really a dialogic impulse in them, or is there rather a series of monadologic statements with little room for alternative perspectives? My feeling is that thinkers divide roughly in two groups, and I have never heard anybody say this before, so think about it: one group thinks of reality in terms of the plural and thinks of the images of reality in terms of the singular. The other group thinks of reality as the singular and our images as the plural. The last group just uses images as pointers, but leaves behind the images and comes to perception. But the first group is interested in the power of an image, and one image, one paradigm, and one set of prejudices, and they don't want one reality because that would upset the power they have invested in this image. They rather then speak of many realities or none realities. See? / So you would suggest many images or no images of infinity? : The thing about graven images again. Thought is not the infinity, but thought may console itself and comfort itself with images. And those who do this may be apparently earnest thinkers but their humility is only to their own thought, not to the vaster context which involves feelings, empathy, dialogue, other people, animals, and everything. So earnesty lies in perceiving that our thought processes are, somehow, only servents of an even more subtle process of perception which is somehow beyond all image. This is important, because this tells us also how difficult for many people it is in mathematics to leave mathematids. You see that mathematics is to a great extent built on socalled 'analysis', which is an idea of dividing up towards zero without getting all the way to zero. Of course this is merely a variation of what I perceive or sense as the mistake that Cantor explicitly made much later in asserting that we can conceive of a collection of finite natural numbers as infinite, going as high as we want but not all the way to infinity within this set. On the views of David Bohm / Do you want to say that when you begin even very simply with something like counting or like a computer program, then, when it goes to infinity, something radically new happens? : Yes. That's exactly it. And that is a matter of perception, the psychology or psycho-logic of computation. / Is there a difference in infinite and endless? In Norwegian, the word "uendelig", meaning rather something like endless, and then the English "infinite" seems to suggest something else, namely that it is not finite or definite. : Quite so. Interesting. I haven't really focussed on that. Let's do it. The Norwegian word sounding more like infinite in English would be, perhaps, "ubegrenset". This is rather like the English word limitless. Boundless. / So is there a difference in the psychology of computation here? : I feel that this is very close to what I think is a misunderstanding in mathematical foundations after Cantor, at least, though it probably begun already in a subtle form with the Greeks, and then again was reinforced by settling on the limit idea when they 'go towards zero'. All of this involves going further and further but not all the way, right? But if you only go further and further, it is still finite, it is still a limit. And paradoxically, it is through the concept of 'limit', literally, exactly that word, that mathematicians have thought they could handle situations in going to infinity or in going to zero. / So it is rather the boundless or indeterminate, or something, then? : Yes. Not definite. You begin by something very definite, programmatic, a simple rule of addition. At least it appears to be very simple and definite. And you can go further and further. But then there is a conceptually new step, I feel, when you say that you are going all the way. And that involves the full complete sense of the boundless. But mathematics, as well as quantum physics, of course, is full of that thing called 'incompleteness'. Of course the infinities in quantum physics is a well-known issue, people like Richard Feynmann and the Scandivian thinker Holger Bech Nielsen at the Bohr Institute have often spoken of 'the problem of infinities', they are sort of just ruled out but mathematically they arise, though in 'real number thinking' they don't have a place. / Then the number pi has of course infinitely many decimals. : Yes, yes. Now it is getting interesting, because this is really some issue. Did you know that Niels Henrik Abel talked of non- converging series as of the devil? An example is 1+2+3+.... or 10+10+10... The alternative is like the series that gives you, supposedly, the number two times pi, which is, if I remember correctly in this discussion, 8/1 - 8/3 + 8/5 - 8/7 + 8/9 + - ... And so Abel realized that 1+ 2+3+... and 10+10+10+ ... probably were somehow different infinities but since he didn't control them (and he were a control freak) he said that they were made by the devil. He said that God made the convergent series. This, except if it was a hundred per cent joke, suggests that he thinks that God is rather like a Cartesian garden with everything ruled up in nice little patches. And so this reflects a rather pettyminded view of order. Fortunately, with all the things Mandelbrot created in computer science, the sense of infinite order is now much more visually presented to the entire culture. I have spoken with painters who deal with abstract art and has no scientific training but who are very well aware that fractals involves somehow a new kind of dimension in which chaos, order, finiteness and infiniteness are all mingled in a somewhat puzzling way, perhaps. Of course, this part is well-known now. / If we go to pi, would you say that pi is somehow an infinite number? : Be careful here. We have the number 3.14, that is something a calculator can handle. Then there is the number 3.14..., which is something a calculator can't handle, if by the three dots we mean 'go to infinity'. If we are going to treat those three dots in the same sense as when we did counting, and I can't see why not, we are led to say that there are positions of decimals of pi that are not given by finite integer numbers. In other words, we are getting into the situations where pi is immensely larger in terms of its decimal positions than merely that which correponds to finite position numbers. You see this is the argument, or one of them (there are actually two, at least) that I have against Cantor's diagonal argument against mapping real numbers to integer numbers. Cantor assumes that every position can be mapped to an finite integer position. But this is exactly the type of attitude that leads us to think of the set of all integers in a way that to me is utterly incoherent, and so when it seems that he 'proves' that his attitude is correct, he has merely proven what he inserted tacitly and implicitly in the proof in the beginning. This seems to me how John von Neumann wrongly 'proved' that there cannot be any hidden variable theory, ruling out that what David Bohm had done was correct, even though it were correct. It were correct but it took J S Bell to show that von Neumann had implicitly assumed that the model was local whereas Bohm had explicitly assumed that his model was nonlocal. This type of thing can be very subtle, and the best of brains, it now appears, let themselves be fooled by von Neumanns argument for three decades, and that included Bohr, Einstein and all the rest of that gang. / What was Bohm's view on infinity? : I asked Bohm for his view on whether the continuity or the discontinuity appears to be fundamental in his view of reality, since he had pointed out in "Causality and Chance in Modern Physics" that one can analyze continuity in terms of smaller discontinuity and discontinuity in terms of smaller continuity. He said that his sense of it was that continuity is the more fundamental. He also wrote that he regarded the infinite as essential, and that reality, in its implicate sense, is really not just many-dimensional but infinite-dimensional. To a friend, Donald Factor, a month or so before Bohm died, he said that he believes that nonlocality is the foundation, the fact, whereas locality is an illusion. So it becomes nonlocal, infinite, and continous. Clearly this speaks in favour of seeing all reality as more boundless than limited. / Did Bohm make it into a physics theory that worked, somehow? : Not quite, not really, except that initial piece of giving an apparently fully valid alternative interpretation of the basic mathematical model of quantum theory. But I think, now at least, that he agreed too much in Krishnamurti (he was a close friend of Krishnamurti over many, many years) in that systems are not the thing, that thought is finite and that perceptions and truths must be forever beyond thought. And so a physicist cannot easily go on making new equations when this is the sense of it, especially since he was a student of Oppenheimer and so had to live with the fact of directly contributing to a weapon, in the Manhattan Project, that killed of hundreds of thousands of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There was just too much negativity involved in making yet more physics theories. But he wanted dialogue, he wanted, according to his college Basil Hiley, to show that alternatives to the minddead mainstream in physics is possible. For my part, I think that theoretical fundamental physics is far more dangerous than genetic manipulation, and that we ought to suspend it as much as possible while perhaps occasionally developing a little bit of technology of the obviously helpful kind. Elements of infinite mathematics analyzed algorithmically (THIS IS VERBATIM WHAT WAS DELIVERED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OSLO, DEPT. OF COGNITIVE SCIENCE (SLI/HF) JUNE 19TH, 2003. REF PROF HERMAN RUGE JERVELL.) * Much of the exploration of the foundations of mathematics in the past century, in terms of logic, has involved questions of the finite and the infinite. Let us call the infinite simply 'infinity'. * Cantor showed that if P(X) is the set of all subsets of the set X, then P(X) is bigger not only if X is a finite set, but also if X is an infinite set such as the set of all natural numbers. His work created a wave of implications that entirely set the agenda for twentieth century mathematics. Even Alan Turing's work, that led to the computer concept as he conceptualized it, may be seen to happen in the struggle, as we may put it, to overcome 'larger infinities'. In the case of Alan Turing, he sought to find a way to incorporate the theorems that Kurt Goedel some years earlier (Turing in 1937, Goedel in 1931) had shown to be 'unprovable', in some kind of rule- bound machinery. Turing generalized Goedel's way of showing what is an unprovable theorem within a system to a 'goedelizator'. This goedelizator could go on to infinity producing unprovable theorems. However, Turing had to realize that even such a goedelizator machine is incapable of generating every unprovable theorem for a system. For it, too, is a machine that can be represented by means of a finite axiomatic system rich enough to contain integer arithmetic, and so, it, too, is subject to a second level series of 'goedelization' theorems. Each such new level seems to be beyond the reach of finite computability. So the work of Turing, combined with Church and others, lead from 'uncountability' -- that an infinite set, such as that of natural numbers, cannot be used to 'count' another and presumably 'larger' infinite set, such as that of the real numbers -- to 'incomputability'. * The mathematician Brouwer suggested that there are ways of counting real numbers if we introduce 'choice sequences'. The temporary (?) end of the discussion around the kind of 'intuitionism' that Brouwer propagandized is that some issues are not properly within the domain of that which can be called 'mathematics'. * Let us consider a way in which we might imagine that we could, after all, find some sense of countability of P(N), with regard to N, where N is the set of natural numbers {1, 2, 3, ...}. Let us bear in mind that an infinite set is said to be 'countable' if and only if it can be put into a one-to-one mapping with regard to the set of natural numbers. An example of an infinite set that is countable is the set of prime numbers {1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, ...}, for we can here make a mapping of this kind: {(1, 1), (2, 2), (3, 3), (5, 4), (7, 5), (11, 5), ...}. While both sets are infinities, they are understood to be infinities in somewhat the same sense. Consider the way of writing natural numbers as a matrix: 1 2 3 . . . 1 2 3 . . . 1 2 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . If we can now make a rule of enumeration of all the subsets of the natural numbers, so that we can make a mapping {(1, N1), (2, N2), (3, N3), ...} where N1 is the first subset, N2 is the second subset, and N3 is the third subset, and so on, of subsets of N, such that, when this is allowed to go to infinity, we have every subset of N, then we have a way to show that P(N) is countable. Let us do this as an attempt and see how it goes, in the spirit of free and open enquiry. It may be that we can readily comprehend something about the question of what it means to 'go to infinity' in so doing; and let us not jump to the conclusion that a mere hundred years of mathematics is in any way adequate to ensure that everything important has been said about this issue. After all, Euclid's axiomatic geometry was around for twenty times that period before some of the most important things about geometry, as seen from an immediate post-Riemann perspective, came to be said. The most challenging aspect of trying to enumerate the above is to avoid having this kind of enumeration {x1, x2, ... to infinity, y1, y2, ... to infinity, z1, z2, ... to infinity, and so on}, because, unless we are able to confine the notion of going to infinity to the end of the set, we have produced nothing that proves the possibility of countability by means of natural numbers. That is to say, in our particular case, let us avoid applying a rule of enumeration first to the first line in toto, then to the second line in toto, and so on. Rather, we want an approach that works from the upper left corner and downwards to the right, in a step by step progression, such that the infinity is confined to this 'right and downwards' progression through the matrix. Let us see if this can be done. In any case, we can make rules of enumeration pertaining to line 1, let us call the line 1 for L1, and line 2 for L2, and so on. Let us make rules of enumeration called R1, R2 and so on. We can then make the notion of a first step being taken for L1 by R1, then announce that as we go to the second step of R1, we also go to the first step of R2 for L2; as we go to the third step of R1, we also go to the secon step of R2 for L2, and the first step of R3 for L3. In this way, we get progressively rightwards as we get progressively downwards. We must avoid the situation of going to an infinity either rightwards or downwards 'before' doing something else. We must bring the infinity-movements together, so to speak. Let us denote the first act of enumeration by R1 on L1 as E(1, 1). The second act of enumeration by R1 on L1 (rule 1 on line 1, that is) for E(1, 2). The third act of enumeration by R1 on L1 is then E(1, 3) etc. The second line is enumerated by E(2, 1), E(2, 2), E(3, 2) etc. The third line is enumerated by E(3, 1), E(3, 2), E(3, 3) etc. We now say: we wish to make the enumeration E(linenr, stepnr) such that E produces a subset of the numbers at line number referred to. Furthermore, we wish to make the enumration E(linenr, stepnr) such that when we go through both all the lines and all the steps somehow (if we are able to), then we have every possible subset of natural numbers. Each line, we bear in mind, is imagined to be simply a list of all natural numbers. That is, we want the set of subsets of N, which we can call Q, since it is our question, to be generated in this way -- referring to our strategy above, as going rightways and downwards in the matrix as just described: Q = { E(1, 1), E(1, 2), E(2, 1), E(1, 3), E(2, 2), E(3, 1), ... } We see that in each step of generation G1, G2, G3, and so on, we generate n subsets if we are at step Gn: Q = { G1: E(1, 1), G2: E(1, 2), E(2, 1), G3: E(1, 3), E(2, 2), E(3, 1), Gn: ... } If we allow n to go to infinity, we have of course generated an infinite set. Now look at exactly what happened here: we allow n to go to infinity -- which means that if we imagined (somewhat inaccurately) that 'infinity' constitued one of the steps, then we would, in that 'step', add an infinity of E's (subsets) to the set. We'll leave that remark for now, only noticing that this is an issue that we will return to again and again, and it is here we must face the questions of exactly what we mean by a countable infinity. In any case, whatever E does -- and we will soon see what it must do -- it is clear that we are in a position to write the following mapping: { (E(1,1), 1), (E(1, 2), 2), (E(2, 1), 3) (E(1, 3), 4), (E(2, 2), 5), (E(3, 1), 6) ... } in other words, since we generate Q by a finite countable extension of subsets in each step, we are able to count each step by natural numbers, and as we go to infinity in so doing, we appear to get a countable set Q. However, we need to look into this question again, and also, perhaps, in relation to other kinds of sets. Let us now see what E should be. It should certainly be interesting if we could now make E such that when E(n, m) is generated for all n and all m, we do in fact have all subsets of natural numbers. If we are going to make a full list of subsets, beginning with small sets and going on to larger sets, why don't we begin with the subsets that is simply a single number. That is, E(1, 1) is the subset {1}, whereas E(1, 2) (where E is E(linenr, stepnr)) is the subset {2}, and E(1, n) is the subset {n}, for a natural number n. Then, E(2, 1) is the subset {1, 2}. It seems. However we must be careful to include subsets such as {1, 3} just as much as {2, 3}, somewhere in our procedure. Clearly, we need some kind of loop in each of the higher E's, of a finite and countable kind of course, to produce what we need. I am, by the way, making this procedure for the first time -- I have not checked anywhere whether this has been done before nor have I tested it; I go by 'gut feeling' at the moment, checking with logic. I am, however, fairly certain that it is no harder task making an enumeration of the E kind than the task I have already looked at, which is enumeration all possible permutations around the decimal point. Our present task is to look at line 2 in 1 2 3 . . . 1 2 3 . . . 1 2 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . so that we can produce, somehow, all possible subsets of two and exactly two numbers by what is included by the procedure E(2, n), if n goes to infinity. We need then to get sets such as {1, 2} {1, 3} {1, 4} ... {2, 3} {2, 4} {2, 5} ... {3, 4} {3, 5} {3, 6} ... where we avoid, of course, {3, 3} since this, by typical set theoretical standards, equivalent to {3} and hence superfluous, since we already have included this series of subsets from the steps in line 1. However, since it may be simpler to make a rule that also includes {n, n} let us not emphasize the point: as long as it becomes countable, it is okay that the set, when generated by a rule, has some duplicates which are then imagined to be 'filtered out'. We see that we have several infinite series for E(2, n) and we are at liberty to organize them, too, in terms of a matrix going rightwards and downwards (or upwards, to be more accurate, when speaking of size; however since we write letters rightwards and then down to the next line, by convention it becomes rightwards and downwards): {1, 2} {1, 3} {1, 4} {1, 5} ... {2, 3} {2, 4} {2, 5} ... {3, 4} {3, 5} ... {4, 4} ... . . . . . . which we may sort out in a zig-zag fashion from the upper/left corner through the diagonal of the matrix as follows {1, 2} {1, 3} {2, 3} {1, 4} {2, 4} {3, 4} {1, 5} {2, 5} {3, 5} {4, 4} etc We can cut the whole thing down to the following: For E(2, n) generate all subsets of {a, b} where a and b are natural numbers between 1 and n, except where a = b. This can be done, in terms of an algorithm, as follows, in terms of something like Java 1.1: /* For E(2, n) given any n */ for (int a = 1; a <= n; a++) for (int b = 1; b <= n; b++) if (a != b) addSet(a, b); We are now in a position to say how E(3, n) must be constructed: It must generate all subsets of {a, b, c} where a and b and c are natural numbers 1 and n, except where a = b, b = c, or c = d (or any combination). In other words, /* For E(3, n) given any n */ for (int a = 1; a <= n; a++) for (int b = 1; b <= n; b++) for (int c = 1; c <= n; c++) if ( (a != b) && (b != c) && (a != c) ) addSet(a, b, c) We see now that given any line number L, we have a route procedure to make E(L, n), for all natural numbers n, so that the mapping { (E(1,1), 1), (E(1, 2), 2), (E(2, 1), 3) (E(1, 3), 4), (E(2, 2), 5), (E(3, 1), 6) ... } when going to infinity is a complete mapping of all the subsets of N. At least it may appear so. Let us discuss this, and furthermore, raise more general questions of infinity and finiteness afresh, with this apparently contradictory result to Cantor's original approach in mind. To anticipate: we will see that by an advanced algorithmic mind, trained in computer programming, we can provide situations in which it appears that not only this apparent uncountability situation -- that of Cantor with regard to the subsets of the set of all natural numbers -- but also others, in particular the set of all real numbers -- can be, perhaps surprisingly, dealt with. However, this is less of a surprise if we look more closely into what this implies for the set of natural numbers itself. It turns out that the two just-mentioned results are rather special cases on a feature of counting which, to my mind (but that may be just because I am not well enough educated in mathematics; and I expect to work further on this in the context of a ph.d.), comes into being -- even in the set of natural numbers -- once we say: go to infinity. It may be of great value to the reader of this treatise to ponder on the possibly huge difference between "going as far as we like" - - to any arbitrary finite point -- and actually going infinitely long. In the case of the use of the word "limit" in mathematics, the first situation is involved; in the case of the consideration of the kind of infinity involved in the "size" of the set of all natural numbers, the second situation is involved. It appears to me. The whole of this thesis can then be summed up as follows: when we look, from the point of view of programming, at old situations of apparent uncountability, we come to regard something which has been considered a rather easy point -- namely the visualization of the set of all numbers, based on counting, such as 1, 2 and 3, when we go to infinity -- to be a rather difficult point. Without going beyond the confines of this treatise I think it is apt to point out that if the basic set of counting has somehow more difficulties involved with it, then it may be that some of the difficulties ascribed to countability may be relocated. * It may be objected to the procedure above that, although we at each step have a perfectly well-defined procedure, then, ultimately, in order to "go to infinity", we need a case of an infinite procedure. In other words, it would be required to do something like the following, which is doable enough in a finite context for (int X1 = 1; X1 <= n; X1++) for (int X2 = 1; X2 <= n; X2++) for (int X3 = 1; X3 <= n; X3++) ... for (int XL = 1; XL <= n; XL++) addSet(X1, X2, X3, ..., XL) And then say: L => infinity as if it were a command in the language. * The case we just discussed is a complex version of something much more simple. Before reaching this simplicity let us show how the example above is comparable to enumeration of decimals around the decimal point. Let us write decimal numbers by zeroes and ones, separated by a decimal dot. Then, consider the list Permutation of 1 digits before and after: 0.0 0.1 1.0 1.1 Permutation of 2 digits before and after: 00.01 00.10 00.11 01.00 01.01 01.10 01.11 10.00 10.10 11.01 11.11 Permuation of 3 digits before and after: 000.000 000.001 etc We can then say: when we have come as far as to permutate n digits before and after, we reach an enumeration of all possible real numbers involving, at most, n digits before and/or after the decimal dot. We can further say: if n can go to infinity we appear to get a complete enumeration, in a step-by-step manner, of all decimal numbers. However we must take care to realize that an infinite- decimal number like pi can only be mapped to a natural number that has just as many digits ("before" its imagined decimal dot) as pi has after. That is, it would be a specific number but not finite. What's this? And what is, indeed, the exact constitution of the members of the set of all natural numbers, whose beginning seem some complacently simple: {1, 2, 3, ...}? * Just to tease the reader who wishes to tell exactly what on earth is going on in the above reasonings, we will not provide any solutions as yet, but merely drive the contradictions in with maximum of compatibility power. In the next point, there is a program. In the following point, there is a shortening of its output. In the following point, again, there is a discussion of what it does -- in generating a list of real numbers. And only after all this we will concentrate the question into looking at what is exactly the constitution of the set of natural numbers. After the program comes the explanation. * PROGRAM import java.applet.*; import java.io.*; import java.net.*; import java.awt.*; import java.awt.image.*; import java.awt.event.*; import java.util.*; import java.math.BigInteger; // Please test the program if you wish, at // http://wintuition.net/wnmagazines/ // quantum/quantum4program1.html // It runs as an applet in Java 1.1. // Designed by H W Reusch, released under GNU GPL. final public class wn_quantum4program1 extends Applet { final static int _DIGITS = 2; // Change this as you please, if memory enough // Remember that this algorithm is to show that the procedure // as sketched in the article is correct, not that it is // computationally efficient or anything like that. // Strings are used in this case, and Java strings are // pretty leisurely beings...but they are easy to change. static int _HOW_MANY = 2500; // Change this as you please, too // If you set _HOW_MANY to too high or to zero, you get all of them! final static boolean _SHOW_ALL_THREE = true; final static boolean _CHECK_FOR_REPETITIONS = false; // Saves a little time to only print the map set (then set to false) // If, say, _DIGITS == 3, then the numbers are of the form // +000.000; if _DIGITS == 8, then +00000000.00000000 etc. // The algorithm makes no assumption that this has to be small. // If you run this on a supercomputer, you may want to turn // the 'int' into something larger than the Java int, // so you can generate thousands of digits. /* Step 1. We start with the set {0} for W and {0.0} for X. We make a mapset, called M, where {(0, 0.0)} is our initial member. See initialization part for this thing. */ public int W[]; // The whole numbers are stored as int, of course public String X[]; // The real numbers are stored as string, as said public String M[]; // We store each (a,b) pair as a string "(a,b)" /* Step 2. We set index s=0 and another index t=1. */ public int s=0; public int t=0; /* Step 3: Clear a temporary set Y={}, that is, empty. */ public String Y[]; // Same type as X, of course public int AMOUNT_IN_Y = 0; public int AMOUNT_IN_X = 0; // Keeps track public int AMOUNT_IN_W = 0; // of how far public int AMOUNT_IN_M = 0; // we have come!;) public int MAXIMUM_AMOUNT; // *will be calculate based on _DIGITS public boolean thisisfresh; // Since sets should not // have repetitions, this flags helps us to keep them right. public String text; public Frame textFrame; public TextArea textFrameArea; public void init() { // The whole procedure is within applet init /* We prepare the frame to show the results. */ textFrame = new Frame(); textFrame.setSize(650,432); textFrame.setTitle("YOU HAVE ORDERED "+_DIGITS+" DIGITS BOTH SIDES"); textFrame.setLayout(new BorderLayout()); textFrameArea = new TextArea(100, 90); // extendable textFrame.setFont(new Font("Courier", Font.ITALIC, 13)); textFrameArea.setText("\n * * * * *"); textFrame.add(textFrameArea, BorderLayout.CENTER); /* The frame will close at once IF the user indicates so. */ textFrame.addWindowListener(new WindowAdapter() { public void windowClosing(WindowEvent e) { textFrame.setVisible(false); } } ); textFrame.validate(); textFrame.setLocation(110, 225); // Somewhere up to the middle textFrame.setVisible(true); requestFocus(); textFrame.requestFocus(); // Put window up front boolean finished = false; /* EXTRA INITIALIZATIONS...cfr step 1 and 2 and 3*/ MAXIMUM_AMOUNT = 10; String BIGZEROREAL = "+"; // initial sign for (int a=1; a<=_DIGITS; a++) { MAXIMUM_AMOUNT = MAXIMUM_AMOUNT * 10; BIGZEROREAL = BIGZEROREAL + "0"; } BIGZEROREAL = BIGZEROREAL + "."; for (int a=1; a<=_DIGITS; a++) { MAXIMUM_AMOUNT = MAXIMUM_AMOUNT * 10; BIGZEROREAL = BIGZEROREAL + "0"; } MAXIMUM_AMOUNT = 2 * MAXIMUM_AMOUNT ; // Plus and minus MAXIMUM_AMOUNT = MAXIMUM_AMOUNT + 5; // A little extra BIGZEROREAL = BIGZEROREAL + " "; // Now BIGZEROREAL is "+0000.0000 " // if _DIGITS are 4. int DOT_POSITION = _DIGITS + 1; // Note that both strings and arrays // in Java begins with first entity at pos 0. X = new String[MAXIMUM_AMOUNT]; W = new int[MAXIMUM_AMOUNT]; M = new String[MAXIMUM_AMOUNT]; Y = new String[MAXIMUM_AMOUNT]; for (int a=0; a < MAXIMUM_AMOUNT; a++) { X[a] = null; W[a] = 0; M[a] = null; Y[a] = null; } if ((_HOW_MANY == 0) || (_HOW_MANY > MAXIMUM_AMOUNT)) _HOW_MANY = MAXIMUM_AMOUNT; /* Okay. Step 1 and 2 here: */ X[AMOUNT_IN_X++]=new String(BIGZEROREAL); W[AMOUNT_IN_W++]=0; M[AMOUNT_IN_M++]="(0,"+BIGZEROREAL+")"; /* LET'S START LOOP! */ while (!finished) { // WHILE#1 /* Step 4: s=s+1. That is, increase s by one. */ s=s+1; if ((s > _DIGITS) || (AMOUNT_IN_X >= _HOW_MANY)) { // IFTHENELSE#1 finished = true; do_the_printing(); } else { // IFTHENELSE#1 go on making! /* Step 5: For index i=1, increased stepwise by 1, up to and including s, carry out step 6. */ for (int i=1; i<=s; i++) { // FOR#1 /* Step 6: For each positive member x in X (or zero, first), carry out step 7. */ for (int xmember = 0; xmember < AMOUNT_IN_X; xmember++) { // FOR#2 String x = X[xmember]; if (x.charAt(0) == '+') { // IF#1 /* Step 7: For each of the digits d = 1...9, do the following 8-11: */ for (int d = 1; d<=9; d++) { // FOR#3 /* Step 8: With member x, make a new member by replacing the digit in position i before (if i negative, after) the dot by d, and add it to Y, if it is not already in X. Call it x2. */ // In this run, i is positive. int p = DOT_POSITION + i; String x2 = null; x2 = x.substring(0, p) + ((char)(d+'0')) + x.substring(p+1); thisisfresh = (!a_member_of_X(x2)); if (thisisfresh) { //IF#thisisfresh Y[AMOUNT_IN_Y] = x2; AMOUNT_IN_Y++; /* Step 9: If x2 was new: Make a new member in W by adding one to index t and adding this as a member to W. */ t=t+1; W[AMOUNT_IN_W] = t; AMOUNT_IN_W++; /* Step 10: If x2 was new: Make a pair (t, x2) and add it to M, the mapset. */ M[AMOUNT_IN_M] = "("+t+","+x2+")"; AMOUNT_IN_M++; }//IF#thisisfresh /* Step 11: If -x2 is new to X, then add one -x2 to Y; Increase t by one; Add t to W; Add (-t, -x2) to M. */ // Make x2 into -x2 x2 = "-" + x2.substring(1); thisisfresh = (!a_member_of_X(x2)); if (thisisfresh) { //IF#thisisfresh Y[AMOUNT_IN_Y] = x2; AMOUNT_IN_Y++; t=t+1; W[AMOUNT_IN_W] = t; AMOUNT_IN_W++; M[AMOUNT_IN_M] = "("+t+","+x2+")"; AMOUNT_IN_M++; } //IF#thisisfresh } // FOR#3 } // IF#1 } // FOR#2 } // FOR#1 /* Step 12: For each member in Y, add this member to X, and set Y={} again. */ for (int a = 0; a < AMOUNT_IN_Y; a++) { // FOR X[AMOUNT_IN_X++] = Y[a]; Y[a]=null; } // FOR AMOUNT_IN_Y = 0; if ((s > _DIGITS) || (AMOUNT_IN_X >= _HOW_MANY)) { // IFTHENELSE#1 finished = true; do_the_printing(); return; } /* Step 13: Go up to step 5 again, and do the same with negative i down to and including -s. NOTE: To do this, we give the code above in a compressed form again, without comments, where the sign of i has changed: */ // *******COMPRESSED CODE WITH CHANGED SIGN OF i ************** for (int i=-1; -s<=i; i--) { // FOR#1 for (int xmember = 0; xmember < AMOUNT_IN_X; xmember++) { // FOR#2 String x = X[xmember]; if (x.charAt(0) == '+') { // IF#1 for (int d = 1; d<=9; d++) { // FOR#3 // In this run, i is negative. int p = DOT_POSITION + i; String x2 = null; x2 = x.substring(0, p) + ((char)(d+'0')) + x.substring(p+1); thisisfresh = (!a_member_of_X(x2)); if (thisisfresh) { //IF#thisisfresh Y[AMOUNT_IN_Y] = x2; AMOUNT_IN_Y++; t=t+1; W[AMOUNT_IN_W] = t; AMOUNT_IN_W++; M[AMOUNT_IN_M] = "("+t+","+x2+")"; AMOUNT_IN_M++; } //IF#thisisfresh x2 = "-" + x2.substring(1); thisisfresh = (!a_member_of_X(x2)); if (thisisfresh) { //IF#thisisfresh Y[AMOUNT_IN_Y] = x2; AMOUNT_IN_Y++; t=t+1; W[AMOUNT_IN_W] = t; AMOUNT_IN_W++; M[AMOUNT_IN_M] = "("+t+","+x2+")"; AMOUNT_IN_M++; } //IF#thisisfresh } // FOR#3 } // IF#1 } // FOR#2 } // FOR#1 for (int a = 0; a < AMOUNT_IN_Y; a++) { // FOR X[AMOUNT_IN_X++] = Y[a]; Y[a]=null; } // FOR AMOUNT_IN_Y = 0; // *******COMPRESSED CODE WITH CHANGED SIGN OF i **************FINISHED } // IFTHENELSE#1 /* Step 14: Go up to step 4 again. Ad infinitum. */ } // WHILE#1 } // Finish public void init() public void do_the_printing() { System.gc(); // Do garb.collection textFrame.setTitle("wn_quantum4program1 (c) Stein von Reusch"); textFrameArea.setVisible(true); text = "Permutations for numbers complete\n"+ "Now doing amazingly slow Java string handling before output...\n"; System.gc(); // Do garb.collection textFrameArea.setText(text); // In case the next step takes time... text = "You have ordered "+_DIGITS+" digits on each side.\n"; if (_CHECK_FOR_REPETITIONS) text +="Repetitions have been removed from the lists.\n"; else text +="TO SAVE TIME, MANY REPETITIONS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. \n"; text +="You have asked for "; if (_SHOW_ALL_THREE) text += " all three sets.\n"; else text += "only the map list M.\n"; text = text + "You have asked for "; // Clearly, AMOUNT_IN_X == AMOUNT_IN_W == AMOUNT_IN_M /// if (_HOW_MANY == MAXIMUM_AMOUNT) text += "all the items.\n"; else text += _HOW_MANY + " items.\n"; text += "CONGRATULATIONS. Here is your list!\n\n"; if (AMOUNT_IN_X < _HOW_MANY) _HOW_MANY = AMOUNT_IN_X; if (_SHOW_ALL_THREE) { //IFELSE text += " W R M\n"; for (int teller = 0; teller<_HOW_MANY; teller++) { //FOR // Assume AMOUNT_IN_X = AMOUNT_IN_W = AMOUNT_IN_M if (M[teller] != null) text += W[teller] + " " + X[teller] + " " + M[teller]+"\n"; } //FOR } else //IFELSE for (int teller = 0; teller<_HOW_MANY; teller++) { //FOR if (M[teller] != null) text += M[teller]+"\n"; } //FOR //IFELSE textFrameArea.setText(text); textFrameArea.validate(); textFrameArea.setVisible(true); // In case user has closed window, reopen. textFrameArea.requestFocus(); // In case something else is in front. return; } //public void do_the_printing() protected boolean a_member_of_X(String potential_member) { if (!_CHECK_FOR_REPETITIONS) return false; int counter=0; while (counter< AMOUNT_IN_X) { //WHILE if (X[counter].equals(potential_member)) return true; } //WHILE return false; } //protected boolean a_member_of_X } // * SHORTENED OUTPUT OF PROGRAM You have ordered 2 digits on each side. TO SAVE TIME, MANY REPETITIONS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. You have asked for all three sets. You have asked for 2500 items. CONGRATULATIONS. Here is your list! W R M 0 +00.00 (0,+00.00 ) 1 +00.10 (1,+00.10 ) 2 -00.10 (2,-00.10 ) 3 +00.20 (3,+00.20 ) 4 -00.20 (4,-00.20 ) 5 +00.30 (5,+00.30 ) 6 -00.30 (6,-00.30 ) 7 +00.40 (7,+00.40 ) 8 -00.40 (8,-00.40 ) 9 +00.50 (9,+00.50 ) 10 -00.50 (10,-00.50 ) 11 +00.60 (11,+00.60 ) 12 -00.60 (12,-00.60 ) 13 +00.70 (13,+00.70 ) 14 -00.70 (14,-00.70 ) 15 +00.80 (15,+00.80 ) 16 -00.80 (16,-00.80 ) 17 +00.90 (17,+00.90 ) 18 -00.90 (18,-00.90 ) 19 +01.00 (19,+01.00 ) 20 -01.00 (20,-01.00 ) 21 +02.00 (21,+02.00 ) 22 -02.00 (22,-02.00 ) 23 +03.00 (23,+03.00 ) 24 -03.00 (24,-03.00 ) 25 +04.00 (25,+04.00 ) 26 -04.00 (26,-04.00 ) 27 +05.00 (27,+05.00 ) 28 -05.00 (28,-05.00 ) 29 +06.00 (29,+06.00 ) . . . . . . // we have shortened the list here! /// . . . 2297 +07.06 (2297,+07.06 ) 2298 -07.06 (2298,-07.06 ) 2299 +07.07 (2299,+07.07 ) 2300 -07.07 (2300,-07.07 ) 2301 +07.08 (2301,+07.08 ) 2302 -07.08 (2302,-07.08 ) 2303 +07.09 (2303,+07.09 ) 2304 -07.09 (2304,-07.09 ) 2305 +08.01 (2305,+08.01 ) 2306 -08.01 (2306,-08.01 ) 2307 +08.02 (2307,+08.02 ) 2308 -08.02 (2308,-08.02 ) 2309 +08.03 (2309,+08.03 ) 2310 -08.03 (2310,-08.03 ) 2311 +08.04 (2311,+08.04 ) 2312 -08.04 (2312,-08.04 ) 2313 +08.05 (2313,+08.05 ) 2314 -08.05 (2314,-08.05 ) 2315 +08.06 (2315,+08.06 ) 2316 -08.06 (2316,-08.06 ) 2317 +08.07 (2317,+08.07 ) 2318 -08.07 (2318,-08.07 ) 2319 +08.08 (2319,+08.08 ) 2320 -08.08 (2320,-08.08 ) 2321 +08.09 (2321,+08.09 ) 2322 -08.09 (2322,-08.09 ) 2323 +09.01 (2323,+09.01 ) 2324 -09.01 (2324,-09.01 ) 2325 +09.02 (2325,+09.02 ) 2326 -09.02 (2326,-09.02 ) 2327 +09.03 (2327,+09.03 ) 2328 -09.03 (2328,-09.03 ) 2329 +09.04 (2329,+09.04 ) 2330 -09.04 (2330,-09.04 ) 2331 +09.05 (2331,+09.05 ) 2332 -09.05 (2332,-09.05 ) 2333 +09.06 (2333,+09.06 ) 2334 -09.06 (2334,-09.06 ) 2335 +09.07 (2335,+09.07 ) 2336 -09.07 (2336,-09.07 ) 2337 +09.08 (2337,+09.08 ) 2338 -09.08 (2338,-09.08 ) 2339 +09.09 (2339,+09.09 ) 2340 -09.09 (2340,-09.09 ) 2341 +01.11 (2341,+01.11 ) 2342 -01.11 (2342,-01.11 ) 2343 +01.12 (2343,+01.12 ) 2344 -01.12 (2344,-01.12 ) 2345 +01.13 (2345,+01.13 ) 2346 -01.13 (2346,-01.13 ) 2347 +01.14 (2347,+01.14 ) 2348 -01.14 (2348,-01.14 ) 2349 +01.15 (2349,+01.15 ) 2350 -01.15 (2350,-01.15 ) 2351 +01.16 (2351,+01.16 ) 2352 -01.16 (2352,-01.16 ) 2353 +01.17 (2353,+01.17 ) 2354 -01.17 (2354,-01.17 ) 2355 +01.18 (2355,+01.18 ) 2356 -01.18 (2356,-01.18 ) 2357 +01.19 (2357,+01.19 ) 2358 -01.19 (2358,-01.19 ) 2359 +02.11 (2359,+02.11 ) 2360 -02.11 (2360,-02.11 ) 2361 +02.12 (2361,+02.12 ) 2362 -02.12 (2362,-02.12 ) 2363 +02.13 (2363,+02.13 ) 2364 -02.13 (2364,-02.13 ) 2365 +02.14 (2365,+02.14 ) 2366 -02.14 (2366,-02.14 ) 2367 +02.15 (2367,+02.15 ) 2368 -02.15 (2368,-02.15 ) 2369 +02.16 (2369,+02.16 ) 2370 -02.16 (2370,-02.16 ) 2371 +02.17 (2371,+02.17 ) 2372 -02.17 (2372,-02.17 ) 2373 +02.18 (2373,+02.18 ) 2374 -02.18 (2374,-02.18 ) 2375 +02.19 (2375,+02.19 ) 2376 -02.19 (2376,-02.19 ) 2377 +03.11 (2377,+03.11 ) 2378 -03.11 (2378,-03.11 ) 2379 +03.12 (2379,+03.12 ) 2380 -03.12 (2380,-03.12 ) 2381 +03.13 (2381,+03.13 ) 2382 -03.13 (2382,-03.13 ) 2383 +03.14 (2383,+03.14 ) 2384 -03.14 (2384,-03.14 ) 2385 +03.15 (2385,+03.15 ) 2386 -03.15 (2386,-03.15 ) 2387 +03.16 (2387,+03.16 ) 2388 -03.16 (2388,-03.16 ) 2389 +03.17 (2389,+03.17 ) 2390 -03.17 (2390,-03.17 ) 2391 +03.18 (2391,+03.18 ) 2392 -03.18 (2392,-03.18 ) 2393 +03.19 (2393,+03.19 ) 2394 -03.19 (2394,-03.19 ) 2395 +04.11 (2395,+04.11 ) 2396 -04.11 (2396,-04.11 ) 2397 +04.12 (2397,+04.12 ) 2398 -04.12 (2398,-04.12 ) 2399 +04.13 (2399,+04.13 ) 2400 -04.13 (2400,-04.13 ) 2401 +04.14 (2401,+04.14 ) . . . . . . . . . etc to infinity * EXACT DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE PROGRAM DOES Step 1. We start with the set {0} for W and {0.0} for X. We make a mapset, called M, where {(0, 0.0)} is our initial member. Step 2. We set index s=0 and another index t=1. Step 3: Clear a temporary set Y={}, that is, empty. Step 4: s=s+1. That is, increase s by one. Step 5: For index i=1, increased stepwise by 1, up to and including s, carry out step 6. Step 6: For each positive member x in X (or zero, first), carry out step 7. Step 7: For each of the digits d = 1...9, do the following 8-11: Step 8: With member x, make a new member by replacing the digit in position i before (if i negative, after) the dot by d, and add it to Y, if it is not already in X. Call it x2. Step 9: If x2 was new: Make a new member in W by adding one to index t and adding this as a member to W. Step 10: If x2 was new: Make a pair (t, x2) and add it to M, the mapset. Step 11: If -x2 is new to X, then add one -x2 to Y; Increase t by one; Add t to W; Add (-t, -x2) to M. Step 12: For each member in Y, add this member to X, and set Y={} again. Step 13: Go up to step 5 again, and do the same with negative i down to and including -s. Step 14: Go up to step 4 again. Key to read the above: Imagine that W is the set of whole numbers, whereas X, if this procedure is allowed to go on to infinity, becomes more and more R. * Having done as we promised, we will now look into the set of natural numbers. We will take care to consider the fact that the way we write natural numbers may have an influence on how we mentally think of these numbers. When, for instance, did it become utterly clear and accepted that a number like 3.14159265358... gives any meaning at all? Why is it so clear that that number makes full sense whereas this number 14159265358... belongs to science fiction, at best? Since conventions, mental habits, and cultural 'debris' (I apologize for the metaphor, but it is sometimes necessary to point out how culture may cloud our perception) are heavily ingrained with our natural numbers, let us do something that must be among the most ancient ways of handling numbers -- we write them by one 'digit' only: Let 1 be I Let 2 be II Let 3 be III And so on. Let us not even group them, since we are quickly going beyond the finite range anyway. That is, we won't write eight as two groups of four I (like IIII IIII) but we will write eight as IIIIIIII It is now tempting to imagine that infinity can be written as IIIIIIII... but we must be careful. Let us point out that in the enumeration above, of decimal numbers, we had a comparatively easy situation as regards finite numbers, and with finite decimal precision. That is, we can imagine situations where numbers like 3.14 and 5.18 have an enumeration as follows: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII: 3.14 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII: 5.18 Let us now imagine that we are in a position to carry out the thought experiment -- as we are! -- that the generation of decimal numbers goes to infinity, somehow. Then, let us consider the more transcendent-style numbers 3.141519265358... and the ratio-based number 5.181818181818... Let us write POS1 and POS2 for the imagined position in a list, which is the mapping of the set of decimal numbers generated by our procedure. That is, POS1: (IIIIIIIIIIII....): 3.141519265358... POS2: (IIIIIIIIIIII....): 5.181818181818... The question that impells itself onto us, not based on any mathematical culture that I am strongly aware of, but simply by our plain procedural reasonings when taken to infinity, is: what kinds of numbers, if any, might POS1 and POS2 be said to be, and might they, or might they not, if we grant them status as numbers, be said to be equal? First of all, let us not automatically assume that we have transgressed from what has been somewhat pompously been declared to be 'cardinal numbers' to 'ordinal numbers' -- that belongs properly to a tradition in which certain things have been taken to be sure as to the non-denumerability of certain sets; and we must remind ourselves, at this point, that we have not as yet adopted this type of approach. Rather, we have striven, if I may point out again, to enumerate that which appears to be very difficult to enumerate, by converting sets of the kind {a1, a2, a3, ..., b1, b2, b3, ...., c1, c2, c3, ...} into sets of the kind {E1, E2, E3, ...}, where E is some enumeration route procedure. We have then said: let this go to infinity. And in this way, we achieved a list which, 'at the moment of infinity' so to speak, should be containing members that we might consider to be of infinite size. Let me make this clear: I II III IIII IIIII . . . We can also turn it upside down, thus: . . . IIIII IIII III II I Let me speak explicitly of the visual hint that we now just inserted: instead of putting the dots vertically, by analogy of putting them horisontally in the set {1, 2, 3, ...} (or in the set {I, II, III, ...}) then we have put them in the actual direction of growth, where the size of the member inserted at step 1 is 1, at step 2 it is 2, and at step n it is n. That is, if we generate a set in this way that has a thousand members, then there is a number in it, which we may write as n:(III...) where n equals thousand, and where the notation n:(III...) signifies that we achieve this number by the procedure, again in Java, String Inumber = ""; for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) Inumber.concat("I"); In Java, string concatenation may in fact be written by the addition operator, so this can be written also String Inumber = ""; for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) Inumber = Inumber + "I"; However, since Java handles strings as objects that really are just replaced in each case, a loop going up to thousand would involve the rather useless creation of ninehundred and ninety-one objects first -- which explains the slowness, in general, of Java string handling. I just mention this in the interest of using Java to construct somewhat lofty programming languages that can handle a concept of infinity as indicated by three dots in the case of sets like {I, II, III, ...}. In any case, if n:(III...) has the size n, and this member is always and inevitably member of the set {I, II, III, ...} when this set has n members, then it follows by sheer logic that if the set is infinite in size, then there are members whose size is infinite too. That is, we cannot exclude members in which n:(III...) exist in some sense in which n is not any more finite than the size of the set itself. This is visually obvious in the reproduction from above as follows: . . . IIIII IIII III II I We see here that the dots indicate the actual direction of growth: it is inseparably going upwards and rightwards AT THE SAME TIME. If we could separate these two directions of growth, then we might say: let us grow it infinitely long, this list, but avoiding such nuiassance members as those that are infinitely wide. Alas, it does appear plainly incoherent in our thought experiment to do so! * If we write the generation of natural numbers, inspired by the above, as follows . . . 1000 . . 100 . . 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Then we see that also here, when we write natural numbers in terms of the ten digit conventional system typically implemented in our societies today, we also have a direction of growth that is inseparably going in two directions at once. * I wish to now ask the question, for which I do not as yet know the best way to answer. I ask it in the sense of a thought experiment. I ask it in order to try to approximate conventional thinking about infinities in mathematics, in which it is taken for granted that the set of natural numbers only contain finite such numbers. The research question is: can we imagine the following set {1, 2, 3, ...} to be infinite without containing anything except finite numbers? That is, written in the challenging manner . . . IIIII IIII III II I can we imagine this set to go on to be an infinite set, without at any time we coming into the situation of having to admit a number which must be written as n:(III...) where n is no longer a finite number? I am going to attempt to say 'no', for the sake of research, and certainly not at all in a dogmatic manner. I am going to say: No, I don't think we can go to infinity in size without going to infinity in width. And so, no, I don't think we can construct the set N = {1, 2, 3, ...} such that it admits of exclusively finite numbers. This I will say in the spirit of research, but also in order to be honest to the visual experience of growth in two directions in an inseparable manner. This growth is in terms of the upward direction of size of set and the rightward direction of size of numbers and these two directions are acted upon by a single function, namely the function of going from one step to the next, so that they are both involved in each step; and in this situation, I wish to say 'No, it doesn't seem as though we can mess with infinities in one way and not the other'. That is, while we can go 'as far as we want to' in strictly finite terms, and still have only finite-sized members, I wish to say that if we actually want to 'all the way' to infinity, in a moment, somehow -- in the dance of our thought perceptions around the question -- then we have also left the finite numbers in so doing. However, if I stand up and say this very strongly, then I must admit to one very essential fact: every finite number is still a member of this set, and I cannot say that this subset, then, as it will be, can be itself finite. That is, again by apparently clear reasoning, there is a subset, which is infinite, of the set {I, II, III, ...} such that this set is indeed only constituted of finite- sized n:(III...) numbers. And then, for the sake of research, and for giving maximum impact to the bold 'No' just given, let us challenge this and say: No, there is no such subset. For if there is such a subset of finite numbers, it can be written . . . IIIII n=5 IIII n=4 III n=3 II n=2 I n=1 where n is a finite number for each and every member. But if n is a finite number for each and every member, then, by the above reasoning, where we linked the size of the largest member to the size of the set, then the set must be finite. Reductio ad absurdum, there is no infinite subset of {I, II, III, ...} of all the finitely sized members. We are led into a contradiction, in other words, if we assume that there is an infinite subset of only finite members and this contradiction, inasmuch as it is correctly reasoned out, tells us to avoid the assumption. There is no infinite subset of only finite numbers of {I, II, III, ...}. * If there is no infinite subset of finite numbers of {I, II, III, ...} then how can there be an infinite set of finite numbers N = {1, 2, 3, ...} at all? In fact, is it such that once we speak of "any" number, of an "arbitrary" number, then we are not in a position to announced that this number is finite? And what is it, if it is not finite? Just to make clear how embarrasing this conclusion would be, let us think of all the proofs, including Goedel's famous incompleteness theorem, that explicitly uses a line of reasoning of this kind: "We imagine that there is a natural number n such that P(n). This implies: . . . We see that the assumption of a number n such that P(n) leads to a contradiction, hence we cannot imagine that there is such a number as n." However, in all such proofs that I am aware of, it is taken for granted that we can speak of "any" natural number in the sense that we can achieve "any finite natural number". But what if the notion of "any finite natural number" is itself a contradiction? Then the above line of reasoning should be recast into the following: "We imagine that there is a finite or not finite natural number n such that P(n). This implies: . . . In the case that we assume that n is finite, we see that P(n) leads to a contradiction. We are led to assume that it either does not exist, or that it is in some way a natural number that is not finite -- and in this case, we may have to look at the definition of P(n) and see if it has any defined behaviour; since we gave it no such defined behaviour we must again look at our whole proof. In the meantime, it seems that if n exists, it is other than finite." Note: we have not at any point introduced a particular 'wonder' number, rather, we have pointed out what may be the case for a range of numbers of a certain kind, whose temperance is rather like the decimals of transcendent numbers; and we do so from a humble computer science spirit, not from the point of view of a mathematician who has read all there is to read about this, and proved everything there is to prove about this. * So let's make it better and better. Still anchored in the spirit of research, of giving energy to investigating alternative hypotheses, let us recall the two numbers 3.141519265358... and 5.1818181818... and let us also recall that we had a procedure that would generate any finite-digited decimal number; and that if we allowed this procedure to proceed infinitely, we could imagine that it could produce every infinite-digited decimal number -- that is, all the real numbers, as they are called. The whole of R. We could then map the whole of R, beginning with the finite decimal numbers and map them to finite numbers in the list I = {I, II, III, ...}, and let us now consider what in I that the infinite-digited decimal numbers, as the two above-mentioned numbers, could be mapped unto. Since any finite-sized n:(III...) is mapped to an equally finite- sized limited decimal number, we must consider the case of numbers n:(III...) where n is not finite. A number with an infinite series of digits in R is mapped to a number of an infinite series of digits in I. The question I wish to pursue, since I gave two different numbers, 3.14159265358... and 5.1818181818..., is whether the mapping somehow is conceptually equivalent or conceptually nonequivalent. This entails that we must ask something new of our minds. We must actually imagine that the finite computational procedure, for instance as carried out by the Java program given above, with example listing, is really carried out to infinity. We must, as it were, let the road that the program generates in performing onwards and onwards, be continued into the horizon to infinity. Then we must lift our gaze above the horizon and somehow ascertain the sense of this road as a whole. We must not confine our visulizing nerves to the domain of the finite -- NO MATTER HOW PLEASANT OR COMFORTABLE THE FINITE REGION IS, due to our computational procedures. We must ACTUALLY VISUALIZE THE INFINITE. In so doing, in visualizing the infinite, we must ask: can we see, somewhere, the number pi? The number pi is not entirely mysterious, though it contains beautiful order. After all, it is a number, and it is a number that is generatable in terms of nothing but a permutation of digits. That is, when we permute all possible digits at each position after the number '3' and the dot '.', as 3.nnn..., where each n is 0...9 (say), then we we certainly get (also) to pi. The fact that we cannot pick pi out without also having additional information is not the issue at the moment; pi can be generated algorithmically, after all. We are interested in the precise number pi. We see that we have made a list and we have involved a sense of a moment of suddenly going infinitely far in so doing. Pi does not belong to anywhere which we can finitely pin-point; however, it is clear that pi is comparable to the number 5.1818181818... and we can say such things as: pi is less than this number. Let us call the number 5.18181818... for pa. So pi < pa. The set of all real numbers is unordered; but when we map the making of a set stepwise to the integers, we get what we can call a 'list'. In this sense, each number in a list has a position. This is exactly what we done with the Java program above. So, we see, it generates more and more decimal numbers as it generates more and more digits for these decimal numbers -- it works in the matrix way, beginning in one corner and working onwards. Not at any particular position we find 'position infinity' -- indeed the concept is wrong, since infinity, properly speaking, involves beyond-position-ness; not-limited-ness; not-finite-ness. Rather, it is an act of thought, and it is in that moment of thought that the infinite positions all belong. We see that since the number pi < pa, then pi comes, in this Moment Of Infinity (MOI), to be "before", in some sense, pa. So, the position of pi is not "at" MOI, but it is "in" MOI, since MOI is more like a dimension of duration, rather than a spot in this dimension. However, the position of pi in MOI is different than the position of pa in MOI. It is before pa. And a number like the square root of two is again before pi, also in MOI. The number [3.14] has a finite numbered position; the number pi does not. We might give the notation pi// to indicate that the position is in MOI, that the position is associated with indefinite movement 'upwards and rightwards' in the list . . . IIIII IIII III II I We can then say: the position of pi in terms of a mapping to the I = {I, II, III, ...} as made by a procedure as in the above Java program is a number n//, not a number [n]. And this corresponds to a number n//:(III...). In other words, when we speak of the size of the number III... we can speak of the size as proper to MOI -- the moment of infinity. That is not the same as saying that the position 'is infinity'. For that sounds, doesn't it?, as something definite, limited. It is precise, in that pi<<4.14159265358...<5. 14159265358...<6. 14159265358...., say, just to give some examples of positions, but it is precise in a way that is beyond the confinement of the [n] type of natural numbers. * However, if it is accurate to say that the very assumption of there being an infinite subset of . . . IIIII IIII III II I such that only finite-sized n:(III...) are included, then we cannot properly conceptualize the kind of numbers of the [n] type. This seems strange, that we begin by finite numbers to reach a number concept in which we cannot properly any more talk about finite numbers. * There are cases in the history of science when the startingpoint of investigation, such as the theory of classical mechanics (as it is called nowadays), which is researched upon so as to be modified appropriately to accomodate new evidence, say, of subatomic behavioural patterns, later is switched to be considered a special case of the new kinds of theories that is being worked out. In other words, it is a leading thought among many of the most prominent quantum physicists that classical mechanics is to be understood as a special case of quantum mechanics. However, classical mechanics was originally thought to be something that needs to be equipped with an extra understanding, rather than to be revised into a special case of something else. (The debate on this is not finished, by the way -- confer discussions on the possible future role of the Correspondence Principle of quantum mechanics; the Correspondence Principle concerns exactly this, in that it says that quantum mechanics should do nothing except approximate classical mechanics in situations where the energy concerned is high; this is a statement made from the point of view that "classical mechanics must be rescued", and that classical mechanics is somehow of deep significance to what goes on in the environment of the researching laboratory, even if the microscale energies studied do not behave according to classical mechanics. However, superconductors are example of macroscale situations in which classical mechanics is wholly inapplicable; this calls into question what the socalled Correspondance Principle should really be understood to be -- perhaps a rule of thumb of construction of quantum mechanics in a historical perspective...). Let us still do our thought experiments on infinity very diligently, and let us pay particular attention, with the just- mentioned point in mind, to the contrast between 5.18181818... (the number we called 'pa') and another number, which may call po, 6.18181818.... Imagine that the numbers of the n// kind is the kind that we without contradiction feels to be our primary ground of numbers, with the argument going towards this from two directions - - one direction is from the thought experiment, in which the moment of infinity, or MOI, contains a great deal of order and seems to be perfectly called for in terms of the 'upper level existence' of the set {I, II, III, ...}, and one direction is from the sense in which it seemed, at least for a while, to be a contradiction to talk of an infinite subset of only finite-width numbers of the same set {I, II, III, ...}, which we have called I. Let us now say that the difference between po and pa is an example of how we may define the number One. Yet another number, perhaps called 'py', like 7.18181818..., has the difference to pa, such that pa-py can be how we may define the number Two. In this way, we can achieve a definition of finite numbers without trying to impose the notion of extracting an infinite subset where it seems difficult to impose such a notion; rather, we can define it by means of an established substraction operator operating on real numbers. If we generalize the substraction operator so it can handle not just infinite-decimal numbers, but also the n// type of numbers, we can reach something like a definition of finite numbers by means of the n// numbers -- which may seem preferable, in many context, to starting with real numbers. We would then imagine that, say, the position of pi in the list where we map the real numbers by the set I is given by one number n//, and that there would be another position, the number m//, such that their difference is something like our number One. In order to get a sense of such numbers, we might want to invent a way of writing them so that the typical ten- digit number system, with the same order of priority -- the least significant digits to the right -- is adhered to. Then, if we have an n// style number of the kind ...XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX1 and another number, where the X's stand for exactly the same digit series, ...XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX2 then we could "define" One to be the difference m// - n//. I mention this very tentatively, fully aware that we have not defined any value for the substraction operator in dealing with entities that are not finite. * If the above reasonings and musings and thought experiments, the above denials and affirmations, carry any power of coherence at all -- and I beg your pardon if you don't think it does -- then we should be able to see an interesting feature of the numbers in I, namely that III... and III... might be two different numbers. For we have above indicated how numbers may be infinite in terms of a digit series that has a beginning (or an ending, but not both), such as ...XXX2 and ...XXX1, whose difference corresponds to what we may define as a finite number. If we wish to write this as ...III or III..., then we are led to say the following: even though the three dots indicate MOI, -- the Moment Of Infinity -- these three dots do not by themselves give exhaustive information. Rather, they suggest that the numbers belong a range. * Perhaps everything above hings on a hidden false assumption. If it does, then this treatise so far has been an exploration of the consequences of taking a false assumption seriously -- rather like asserting something that is wrong in terms of an axiom, and see how it goes; keeping going until either a contradiction arises, or it becomes all to incoherent to feel worthwhile to continue. In the spirit of research, I say: of course this is possible, that it has been the case all along. Of course, especially since we are contradicting the typical way of talking about infinity as I have understood it. For we have not introduced one single infinity to account for the size of the set of natural numbers. Rather, we have endavoured to argue, like a radical politician against all the others, perhaps, that the set of natural numbers is greater than what we might imagine at first. Or else that it is a contradiction to assume that it exists, if only finite members are admitted. Therefore, when we speak of infinity as MOI, the moment of infinity, we speak of a range of what we might call the n// numbers. I wish to say that if we take this line of reasoning seriously, we ought to give this style of numbers a name -- and not the name "transfinite" or "ordinal" or anything that has been associated with those who have taken for granted the ease by which we may assert that {1, 2, 3, ...} can be superceded in size. Boldly, I suggest -- also for the sake of speed in research into this assumption -- the term "essence" number; suggesting that the finite natural numbers ought to be defined by means of comparison of the essence numbers, but with care taken not to assume that it is easy to speak of an infinite set of finite natural numbers for the reasons given, on the direction of growth in case it is written {I, II, III, ...}. That is, we may speak of finite numbers, but we must be aware that the finite numbers "become" essence numbers as soon as we let this process go to infinity. That is, it is not easy, though imaginable, to confine the group of finite natural numbers. This may seem a strange statement, but if we accept that something we have thought of as easy to be "difficult", then something we may have thought of as "difficult" may become easy. It is easier, then, to continue the line of research, to assume that we have a set -- let us call it E, for Essence Numbers -- of all essence numbers -- than to have a set N of natural finite numbers. Exactly how to write E is not my concern at the moment, but we might indicate it this way: 1, 2, 3, ...E... That is, E properly "is" the region of 'going to infinity'. E is MOI, the moment of infinity. It is not 1, 2, or 3, nor 7, 14, or 238527693. Whatever number we write of the finite kind, this finite number can at best be a construction equipment to "get there", rather as a rocket must leave its ramp. The rocket, when it actually progresses without any limit at all, exists in a dimension which is the E dimension proper. And the countability questions should be deferred to be a question of mapping with E such described, rather than N; and in this case, it seems that everything we have so far looked into, including the set of all subsets of numbers P(N), the set of all real numbers R, are E- countable. Vague proposition 1: The set E, which belongs to the moment of infinity indicate by the three dots when we write 1, 2, 3, ..., but not so that any finite number belongs to it, can be easier defined that the set of finite natural numbers. Open definition 1: "Essence number": any members of E. Open proposition 2: R is E-countable. Corrollary 1 to Prop 1: The notion of "any natural number n", when it is taken for granted that n is finite, should be cleared up somehow. Corrollary 2 to Prop 1: Finite numbers should be defined by means of essence numbers. Corrollary to this: Proofs of "uncountability" and "incompatibility" concerns merely the limitations of a finiteness that we do not easily have in any case; and as such, there are options of "countability" and "computability" all over the place, at least in the sense that the original proofs of the reductio ab absurdum case involving negation of existence of (finite) natural numbers n to fulfill P(n) no longer can be said to have the same strength as before. Open conclusion Infinity is a concept that is not easily superceded. * It is interesting that with the approach taken, we have come back to the sense of the infinite more or less as given in any typical dictionary, including this dictionary of synonyms from 1942: infinite. Infinite, eternal, semipiternal, boundless, illimitable, uncircumscribed agree in meaning having neither beginning nor end or being without known limits of any sort. -- Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms, First Edition, G. & C. Merriam Co., Publishers, Springfield, Mass., USA 1942. * In other words, in common sense use -- in daily life language -- the notion of the infinite is such that it can, in general, in no way be superceded as to limits. The infinite is the quintessential concept of that which has no limits. Why, then, was it regarded as such an act of genius in mathematics to consider that the difficulty of ordering the real numbers or the difficult of ordering the set of subsets of natural numbers amount to an impossibility? It is a cardinal, not to say ordinal, mistake to regard something as impossible when it is merely extremely difficult. There is a huge jump between zero probability and near- zero probability -- to use a statistical term. Perhaps one of the reasons why the new notions of several 'infinities' in mathematics came to be so readily accepted was because of the notion of the concept of the 'limit', as applied to the approach to a finite number, replaced the notion of an 'infinitesimal'. The idea of going as close 'as we wish' to zero in, say, 5/x, as regards x, always and in each case gives us a finite result. It was felt that this adequately could deal with situations where we in fact were interested, not merely in being near zero, but in having x equal to zero. The convention came about, that we can speak of 'going closer' as nothing more than 'going a finite step closer', rather than going all the way. Of course, it is radically different to merely go 'as far as we please' in a finite way to zero in 5/x, and to go there all the way. Or, to be more accurate, 'as far as we please' is a term that involves a certain arbitrariness, and this arbitrariness, if taken seriously, means going all the way. If it doesn't, it is not 'as far as we please'. Going all the way is, however, conceptually different and involves something entirely new. It seems, then, that if we are tempted to accept the notion of a 'limit' combined with the notion of 'as far as we please', near to a finite number, then it also becomes tempting to disregard the upper level members of a set like . . . IIIII IIII III II I for here, too, if we go merely finitely long, we have finite members; but if we actually want the FULL set {I, II, III, ...} then of course there is no sense in which the concept of the 'limit' will do favour to this; the full set involves a unique Moment Of Infinity, a MOI, in which something conceptually new comes into being. Namely not-finite-width numbers. So it may be, psychologically-historically, in the mathematical tradition, that the confusions, discussions and compromises arising from giving up infinitesimals and going to the notion of 'as near as we please, but not there', crept into the notion of set theory when a full infinite set is considered; from there, the pathway was short to ask of this infinity whether it is not too limited -- and, of course, by sloppy reasoning about the actual constitutents of the set in the first place, it would quickly be found to be insufficient; and then we had a new series of infinites going; applying the same sloppiness to this new series, there would be no end to the need of the 'transfinite' or ordinal. * It is possible to take another approach to the whole issue that that which penetrates most of the earlier reasoning in this treatise. And that is the stance, more or less, indicated by especially David Hilbert, however modified with modern insights. Hilbert, as is part of the common lore of mathematics, made himself known as head of a 'programme' to reduce mathematics to a rule- based logical foundation. It was this programme that came to a rather abrupt end as Kurt Goedel did the masterpiece of showing the inherent contradictions in the common assumptions that Hilbert and others applied. Goedel did not invent a new type of numbers or something like that; he merely pointed out that given the type of assumptions implied in our theories of numbers, then, by means of creative use of mapping of formal axiomatic systems to describe integer arithmetic (etc) to whole numbers by means of prime number factorization and primitive recursive functions, we are led to assume that there are correct but unprovable statements. Our criticism in the foregoing treatise is in now way attacking Goedel, but rather pointing out that there may be more to natural numbers than what has become the stigma of natural numbers, so to speak. Let us now take a stance closer to Hilbert, but modified to accomodate fresh perceptions. This stance says: we are interested in that which we can prove, and we are interested in seeing how rules of logic, or of computing somehow, can give us certain results; and let us say: this is mathematics; mathematics is not about the perception of eternal ideas lying out there in a platonic sphere of the mysticists; rather, it is about making algorithms, we might say, and that includes talking about these algorithms and making algorithms that correct and investigate and analyze other algorithms inasmuch as it is possible to do so. Also, we want to be able to write these algorithms or route procedures or whatever on paper, not wanting infinite paper, we stick to finite algorithms. At least in this sense, the word 'finite' makes certainly sense. In this stance, then, mathematics becomes almost a branch of computer science, as computer science stands today. Mathematics no longer is an issue of the cognitive informal intuitive perception of relationships between imagined structures in a possibly infinite space, but rather a question of the handling of formalisms of a finite nature according to rules, which we may change and permute and so on, but all the time they do have the feature of being of a finite amount. Of course, Kurt Goedel was careful in pointing out, in his 1931 article, that his incompleteness result concerns finite systems, that is, finite axiomatic system with at least adequate complexity to contain multiplication and addition with whole numbers, and do some primitive recursive functions on these. Any more complex system will be touched by this. It has been a strange result, in this region, that it appears that the axiomatic system relating to the real numbers, not defining the whole numbers, is having less complexity, and can in fact have a sense of completeness. This little oddiness apart, the result by Goedel stand there, strongly. It does suggest that some creative ability of our minds would be greatly called for in the changing and reordering of our finite axiomatic schemas; it does not, by itself, suggest that we must from now on engage in 'infinity perceptiveness', however much we may like to interpret it in this or another way. If we take this stance, that mathematics concerns looking at consistencies and contradictions concerning arbitrary but finite lists of rules and their permutations, such as in axiomatic systems, or in terms of programming languages (in which the rules in their explicit form can be anything whatsoever that looks like something like a machine can do, such as substituting 'x' for 'y', and they need not be exactly that which is called 'formal logic'; however formal logic may be used to describe these rules, for example), then we do not come anywhere near the question of having to look into our minds as to the relative position of a mapping of R against E in a domain of infinite-sized essence numbers. We can then stick to the rules, try them out on machines occasionally, drink our coffee, eat our lunch, report the consistencies and inconsistencies, and go home after a successful day of Mathematical Work. * However, if our stance is that mathematics is nothing but this finite rule permutation thing, then it is clear that we must not anymore think that we are within that scheme when we talk of infinite sets. In particular, we must abstain from asserting things with self-assurance about such sets as N = {1, 2, 3, ...}, since this set, however much it is generated by a finite algorithm, is itself not what we can write out; and so we must assume that the finite algorithm is performed infinitely, but since this is outside of what we can ask our machines to do, we cannot talk about it with such ease and grace as to what happens when we perform this algorithm, for instance: int i=1; int j=1; int temp; System.out.println("Fibonacci: " + i + " " + j + " "); for (int p=1; p<=55; p++) { temp = j; j = i+j i = temp; System.out.println(j + " "); } We can talk of: what would happen when we run this algorithm and insert 155 instead of 55? 'Oh, very interesting, that would give this and that result.' But what if we produce this notion: Concept MOI = ...; int i=1; int j=1; int temp; System.out.println("Fibonacci: " + i + " " + j + " "); for (int p=1; p<=MOI; p++) { temp = j; j = i+j i = temp; System.out.println(j + " "); } Then we we might imagine that we should protest and perhaps utter something to the extent like this: please, don't upset our ideas, you are no longer doing mathematics -- you have introduced a not finitely computable concept here, MOI! This is not mathematics, this is science fiction, fantasy, psychology -- or worse, it is parapsychology. This is not something we can write on paper. Mind- work! How terrible! The reply to this is, of course, along the lines that Karl Popper suggested: Unless our ideas are not vulnerable, they are not scientific. The task of science -- any science, also mathematics -- is to expose ideas to criticism, not shield them from it. * In that humble spirit I submit these thoughts, which can be summed up in one sentence: there is perhaps more to infinity. More than what? That is exactly the point: more than anything we can say. CHAPTER 3 More pluralistic and possibilistic dialogues on the infinite On the views of Martin Buber / One would have thought that mathematics, which is about, isn't it, our thoughts, and formalisms about thoughts, and even formalisms about nothing, that this is an area in which it would be usually a trivial matter to tell 'right' from 'wrong', in contrast to every other science. : Yes, and yet, as Husserl, according to Dagfinn Follesdal, in my interview with him some months ago, points out (see Wintuition:Net:Pro 2003/2), had the point of view that mathematics is about the perception of the relationships between mathematical objects of some sort. And that in this perception, we may not always talk about it correctly. / We may not come to have a clear perception. : Yes, rather that. And Kurt Goedel himself was inclined towards the perspectives of Husserl, as far as I understand. / What about the views of Brouwer? And the many people who have worked on similar issues? : A professor in mathematics ought to, I guess, have an overview over all this. It is not my own task now to have that; I have sought to describe something which is perceptually correct, that's all. I leave it to others to provide references and comparisons. As to Brouwer, I find that despite his claims on being 'intuitionistic', that he is rather dogmatic. He seeks to raise an alternatives, or even several alternatives, to the mainstream. He touches on some issues but to me he does so in an unclear way which does not go all the way to the heart of the issue. / So you say, a work of mathematics ought to be possible to be evaluated on its own. So why was your little piece not even accepted at a graduate level? : Because the language doesn't teach the person who reads it unless the person is extremely willing to learn from it. One doesn't, perhaps, expect at a graduate level anything really important to come up. They might even expect humility to tradition, something I feel relatively little of, because my concern is humility to perception -- at least when the two are in contrast. / Humility to perception. Which is then perceived as arrogance to tradition! : It can be, yes. / Yet you talk about, in your submitted graduation thesis, that you put it forward in the spirit of doubt. : These words may mean nothing to some people who are in the habit and the rush of talking about things dogmatically. The word 'doubt' has a high value for someone like Arne Naess, who I have talked together with on every kind of issue, also in the mountains, many times. But, after all, these are personality types. I doubt tradition, but I am also willing to really lash out against a system, so that people who represent a system may feel that I lash out against them, if they don't perceive the situation with all the proper nuances. It may also be a language issue. I love language, I love the philosophical nuances in English, and personally I find them rich and ripe and more interesting than my mother-tongue Norwegian, and there may be different inclinations and capacities in those who thought they could give my graduation thesis a proper sensorship. / Haha. : But there is humour in all this. As one professor commented afterwards: If it is brilliant, then really it is better that it is dismissed than given a mediocre grade. Enough about all those issues on graduation and ph.d. and so on; let us focus on the content. My view on mathematics, or on any issue, as regards perception, is that of dialogue. Husserl is complicated and nuanced and obviously of great significance, and I'd love to understand Husserl some day. Martin Buber clearly speaks of the relationship of dialogue between people as essential. This dialogue (as also my father has worked with for decades) can go on within the mind. The I-You can persist inside the mind and that is the mind of perception, of meditation, of dialogue, the music of perceiving mathematics from within and not merely relating to it dialogically. / So you apply Buber to mathematics? : It is not that difficult. / But I thought dialogue mostly had to do with relationship between living beings. : I know, but you are a living being yourself, and you have a multitude of facets. When you entertain doubt, the spirit of smile, of listening, and relaxation, then is it not a live dialogue going on? At least potentially? / What if I don't have doubt? Then if I am certain can I still have a Martin Buber-like dialogue within myself onmathematical issues and themas like the infinite? : There is doubt and doubt and there is certainty andcertainty. Doubt can be aggressive, as the "I will never ever believe that!". The type of doubt that is creative is playful. We can say the same about certitude. There is something like open certainty, I feel. On the views of Brouwer / Did not L E J Brouwer work with much as the same as you worked with? : Brouwer worked intensely, he generated a lot of work. As yet I am not there that I can speak about this work as a whole. I can only speak of the portions of it that I have touched, and inasmuch as I have understood these portions, then I can say: No, it is not the same, although it is a little bit similar. For instance, Brouwer suggests that there are way to count the real numbers, in the sense of creating a sequence of them. He introduces the notion of choice sequences. I do not think that this really touches the core issue here, because I question rather the concept of the set of the finite natural number as an isolated whole, and so far, I do not see the principled argument against this in what I have seen from Brouwer or anyone else. But I agree that we should look to countability as to real numbers, and I think that the algorithms in the thesis would in fact do the work they claim that they do if only we could actually get them to run on an imagined infinite computer of some sort, with infinite speed. Of course, if they are seen from the computer science angle of the kind in which our present computers are used, then only finite sets are generated and that is an utterly trivial matter and it has, perhaps, been done over and over again. However, due to the nature of the particular set or list or mapping generation procedure that I use, one of the algorithms would actually list the infinite-sized real numbers in some rather funny sequence if the procedure was run on some science fiction computer having both infinite speed and infinite capacity. If you can demostrate that this is not the case, I would be hugely interested! / So Brouwer's "intuitionism" is not to your liking, or what? : I am so fortunate that I don't have to call my approach anything, because I am interested in insight, in perception, in 'what is', and also in the perception of patterns of beauty and order involved in mathematics. I think that if we try to encapsulate how we approach our perception alongside some kind of 'paradigm', then we merely strengthen prejudice. I do think that Brouwer played an enormously important role in erecting some sense of alternative to mainstream tendencies, and I have no doubt that he saw himself in this light. But just as you don't justify one prejudice by an opposite extreme, which is also a prejudice, I do not think the best of the spirit of mathematics lies either in mainstream or in intuitionism. It is really not about liking or not liking as much as to focus on insight rather than play along the rules of a paradigm. I am against paradigms of any sort, also alternative paradigms. I am content-oriented. On the views of Thoralf Skolem / Do you think that the infinite has been treated well in any discipline? : It is a bit hard to answer such a wide question, but has the notion of infinite and the notion of finite been treated well in that which has become what is known as official mathematics today? And my feeling now, after the surprising new perceptions I had in May this year, is that I am rather clear that something went deeply wrong. / Did Goedel touch it? : You see, Goedel's work on incompleteness has been, very lightly of course, been summed up along the lines that 'the question of truth is broader than the question of provability'. For the 'field of true propositions' is supposedly bigger than the 'field of provable propositions' within a formal system of the kind that handles addition and multiplication and function formation and so on with whole numbers. Yet if the essential concept of the whole number is at odds, so that you cannot adequately exclude infinite numbers when you speak of arbitrary whole numbers -- and I have justified that it is coherent to be really in clear opposition to mainstream atthis point, I feel -- then the field of true propositions and the field of provable propositions may have a completely different relationship after all. So Goedel worked from assumptions to show some coherencies and incoherences and this is all very good except that these assumptions are basically the same as Georg Cantor had. However, before Goedel produced these results, Thorals Skolem worked in a way that suggests remarkable things to a philosopher. / Yes. Skolem showed that a set theoretic model of an infinite kind can be swapped with a model of a finite kind, and vice versa, within a formal axiomatic context. : Yes, or something like that. It is of course complicated stuff and assumptions are used there which are none different than the paradigm of Georg Cantor. So the fundamental sense of the thing is rather the afterthought than the immediate proof. And the afterthought could then be that, well, if that is so, then maybe we have got it somehow wrong about the finite and the infinite and the distinction in the first place. You see, this is really slightly a sideissue to me. / What is a sideissue? Skolem? : No, not Skolem. Skolem was one of the few who didn't feel Goedel's results were important or surprising, he spoke of them as 'obvious', if I remember correctly some remarks I once read. Skolem's approach deserves re-investigation, and there is an interesting book called "From Pierce to Skolem", devoted to the voices that were not heard so well, prior to Goedel. What I mean by sideissue is that the work I have done is critical rather than constructive. It shows what I think is a real incoherence in one of the absolutely fundamental assumptions used in a huge amount of number theory. It is an incoherence that it is a little tough to get at, perhaps, because we have so many assumptions that tend to make us overlook it. Even when you focus it in its eyes it may not be easily seen, or you may feel that the logic of the issue is too strong in some other direction. But the logic can be changed but our perception cannot; how ever we can clarify our contact with our perception and be ever-better in our use of language, symbols, and so on. To me, the primary issues are perception, intuition, awareness and dialogue, and so on and on, and the question on the finite and infinite are really not more than one of many approaches to a whole state of mind. / But do you feel that Skolem and the work on the finite and infinite points in the same direction, somehow? Or even more strongly? : I may not have understood the Lowenheim-Skolem theorem at all. After all, I have worked a great deal more with Kurt Goedel's analysis of incompleteness, I have made a private translation once of his article from 1931 and made for myself the proof over and over again, also using programming languages such as Lisp, Forth, or my own y4d, and I was enthusiastic about Goedel. Skolem worked on things that at first seemed to me strange, different, exotic, something you don't really know what to do with, but which might be something 'big', as they say in America. Perhaps. Perhaps what is involved in the theorems of Skolem is that finite and infinite are questions of perceptions rather than fundamentally different structures. On freedom from prejudice as to counting / You seem to work on issues which are almost banal, so banal that no references make sense. I can see that you have wanted to avoid references because you want people to focus on the essential issue of counting. : Yes, it is a perception issue. / So I have a question for you: How can one be maximally unprejudiced in relation to something as commonplace and part of everyday life as counting? : You mean, since counting has become part of what Husserl would call the 'lifeworld', since it is part of the prejudiced scheme of things to just do it, automatically, then how can we step out of it, be an outsider to human consciousness in that regard, perhaps, and get a fresh perception of what is entailed? / Yes, how? : How to perceive anything at all without prejudice? That is really what you are asking, isn't it? / Yes. : Which is really how to perceive anything at all -- that is the same question, because prejudice is the essence of not perceiving, don't you agree? / Yes. How to perceive. : Just that. How to perceive. / Is there a 'how'? : Let us see. Let us open the question up, give it leisure, give it time. What is perception? / The understanding of something. Or seeing. : Understanding, seeing. What is the essence of perception? / Be in contact with something. The mind is in contact with something. With the order of something. : You get the order of something in your mind. Is that what perception is? It is part of it, perhaps. Is it attention? And prejudice is inattention? / What about similarities and contrasts? : Similarities and contrasts, and other features as well, such as melting into a continuum, may be part of what we mean by order. And even energy. You perceive, there is an energy in that perception. Yet what is perception in its essence? / You must be silent to perceive. : That is an essence, is it not? The cluttered mind perceives nothing. / So be silent in relation to counting, is that what you say? On why going further and going to infinity are different / In the concept of 'limit', such as taught on high schools, they talk of a function and then perhaps use an arrow towards an infinity symbol and perhaps write the word 'limit' under the arrow. : Yes. It is a paradoxical thing, isn't it? But it is sort of honest, too. They don't go there, to infinity. They go further and further but they then stop. / You seem to say that something conceptually new comes in when you don't merely go further. : Yes. We must not fix the language here. Going further and further indefinitely would be going to infinity. But going further in that way you just mentioned that they do at high school is different from going to infinity. / How? : Isn't it obvious to you now? Haven't you seen enough of examples to see that when you go merely a few steps further then you are still in the digital realm, but when you go all the way, you change from these digital finite numbers into a blending area, into a continuum, where the numbers are of an infinite or analogue kind? / Do you call them analogue? : Let's not give them a name and think that we have understood them thereby. We can call them essence number, analog number, potential number. We can call ordinary numbers for apparent number, digital number, manifest number. These are just signatures to our understanding or lack of it. No name will ensure understanding. / But you say, you go further and further and when you actually go to infinity you do a conceptual leap. Suppose I don't see it or I just don't agree. : Then I would say, let us look at it, perhaps we agree perhaps not. For the language here is unclear. Let us focus it and watch what happens. You have some kind of procedure, such as counting, you go up perhaps from 2 to 4 to 8 to 16 to 32 and if you go further and further, will you not pass 32768 and also come to 65536? These are the numbers technical programmers like myself often deal with, we know them well. So you go further and further and you come to any such number. We agree to that? / Yes. That is perfectly clear, for there is no breaking with the premises of the procedure. : Or I make a computer program, which in each finite step makes a finite set. It is larger and larger this set, but even if we go further and further and only goes the finite way, we still have finite sets. So we introduce something new, we say (as is done in the treatise): Let us go all the way to infinity. / And I would then object and say: I don't see that that is different. : Ah, but it is different. / Why? : Well, why. It is different because in the first case you are always unfinished but in the last case you are finished. In the first case you can still go even further. In the last case, when you say, let us go all the way to infinity, you are finished. / How can you finish with infinity? : Very well put. I wish that question would be asked intensely, and poetically, and far more often at high school, so that people don't think that these issues are as simple as dogmatic mathematicians would have it! How can you finish with infinity? But you see, that is the beauty of thought, or the subtleness of a mind asking a question as a thought experiment: let us now imagine that we are finished indeed. / I thought you thought about thought that thoughts are finite. : Could you say that again? / I mean, I had the idea that you consider thoughts always finite. : Yes, Krishnamurti-style, I believe or feel that the field of thought is the finite, more or less. But yet there is something like open or transparent thoughts and these are the type of thoughts in the enlightened mind. Very well, but when we have a thought experiment we look at it, we give attention to it. In giving attention, in seeing, we are outside the time of thought even though we took time in building the thought experiment. I discussed this with David Bohm once and he pointed this out so I understood it at once. The thought experiment is constructed by thought, it takes time to set up. Then the seeing is as a flash, perhaps. / And in the context of going further vs going all the way to infinity...? : Then we imagine that a process like counting goes all the way. It means that the process is finished and in our mind we somehow lift our gaze from merely the next step and move somehow away from that dimension of the next-step-style-of-movement. We consider the stretching towards the next-steps as a whole. And then we ask whether something new came into being in seeing it as a whole. And lo and behold, perhaps yes! / I think I see what you mean now. It is subtle, it may slip easily from my mind, but I see right now. Acknowledgements to this part: David Bohm, Stein Braten (many key points from conversations with him), Dagfinn Follesdal, Monica Emilie Herstad, Petter Noeklebye, Arne Naess, Herman Ruge Jervell, Ilya Prigogine, Henrik B Tschudi, Rupert Sheldrake, Raymond Strano, Staal Aanderaa. Finally, thanks to a "painter of infinity", Frans Widerberg. And a great deal of informal conversations over the years with many, many friends, touching themes like this.