Aristo Tacoma JOY and the human brain as a quantum unit Booklet published by Yoga4d von Reusch Gamemakers, 2009 ISBN 978-82-996977-4-3 [see also yoga4d.com/talks] [Yoga4d index: nf00003] Copyright author, all rights reserved. THE DIMENSION OF JOY : What is joy? / What is joy, indeed? I wonder if we haven't got to ask about suffering, first. Surely we have a little joy now already, for we are having a dialogue, we are not fighting, we are friendly, we have a little or a lot of the milk of human kindness. That's perhaps a great deal of what joy is about. Kindness is a flow which goes beyond pleasure, does it not? : Then let's begin trying to understand suffering. Many claim that they are happy and say it all the time and smile and party and will hear nothing of ponderings and musings over more complicated questions than where's the next party and who is going to be there and what are they going to do there. / Well, I wouldn't mind being like that part of the day. You can't be all serious from the minute you get out of bed to the minute you sleep. But is an animal type of behaviour if one is all the time putting up a pretense of happiness. : It is a pretense? / Well, you can work up a great expectation for something silly, like if you go for a long long walk and do it on empty stomach and start visualizing a meal. It is a near- goal and fulfillable and there is a joy in approaching it as the pain/pleasure of not dangerous hunger increases as well as the realism in getting that meal increases. This can become an absorption, and there might even be a real glimpse of joy in it. But I don't think the human brain is capable of sustaining happiness all round the clock. It has gotta be a lie, a pretense, I think, if someone want to hear nothing but that they are happy. If they say it for a month I doubt their smile is radiant; it is rather worn out. The body language won't keep up the pretense. : What's the worst suffering possible? / The worst suffering possible.. I suppose that's -- if I may be very frank? : Of course. / But I want to go outside of the human context in that question. : You don't think the human brain can handle the most severe of suffering either? / Obviously it can't. It shuts down. : So what are you talking of, then? God's suffering? / I don't think.. well, have you ever listened to Erbarme Dich, Mein Gott, by Johan Sebastian Bach? : Is that in the Passion of Matthew? The song? / It has got nothing to do with Matthew or Mattheus. : But it is in that, formally, right? / Yes yes. But it has got nothing to do with those rediculous bible texts of the christians. Nothing whatsoever. There is nothing at all -- forgive me, but you said I could be frank? : Say what you think. / I don't think there is any statement -- at all -- on suffering nor even on joy in any music made anywhere before the young started to liberate themselves from the clutches of the over-repetitious boring traditions in the 20th century in the West and started to find the meditation in the tune, the joy of sex expressed directly and forcefully and freely and simply and sometimes also complex. The girls in particular. All earlier -- it is nice, sure, but it has no message. This will no doubt offend so many that nobody wants to read any further; people are so in love with their music, even more than their little nation or little bible. : What about the Erbarme aria? / It is the exception. As far as I am concerned. : It speaks? It has a message? / Have you ever listened to it? Not a cry-baby woman- witch singing it like in the London concerts. But someone who does it without shedding a human emotional tear. It has got nothing to do with human emotion. : Say that again? / It has got nothing to do with human emotion? : So what is it? God? / It is a bible worth more than a thousand times the christian bible, the jewish testaments, the buddhist dhammapada and what not, the hindu bhagavad-gita and upanishads and yoga sutras, the sum total of the poetry of rumi and the stuff of the koran and the remains of zaratustra. Wagner added nothing at all. Mozart was but a cookie. Indian sitar is but the tears of the repression of the castes and the girls over the millenia -- not that there wasn't a Krishna figure there, long long before any other civilisation had anything. Don't you sense it? Something happened. It wasn't as in the fairy tale of the Gita which came much much later. It's lost in ancient tales, there was wars in its wake. : Something Jesus-like about him? / Don't you sense it? There couldn't be two like that. And yet, if you go into time, you would never ever say that there could be even two events like that. : Go into time.. you mean, go into the question of time? / Yes yes all that. : The simulation.. / All that. Don't go into it now. We are focussing on something far far more important. I don't think this really has been said. They repeated it to pieces, the blasted gospel-writers. They made bread for their own empty stomachs out of what were a cosmic event. : You might argue that if they hadn't done that -- turned it into political propaganda to fit with the roman emperors and all that -- they wouldn't have got their texts to survive. / I don't know. Yes maybe. It doesn't matter really. They wrote so poorly nobody's anymore impressed. They are only impressed with the christian bible if they have got absolutely nowhere else to go. It is the least of the evils, all that stuff. : But you seem to say that hinduism and christianity.. / No, don't say it. I am not into religion-ism and syncretism and making my own blend and that rot. We must move beyond all that. That's why I asked you -- not analytically, mind you, about Erbarme Dich, Mein Gott. Have you listened to it? For goodness sake, have you really listened to it? I know you haven't, because nobody really can. Because it has in it a suffering too great for any human brain to hold. Even any human soul. It is music that can kill. Do you understand what I am saying? Open yourself for a split second to Erbarme Dich, Mein Gott, and you are a flame that's gone out. And that's exactly what happened. The one and only flame was put out. : Pardon me, but that sounds like faith. / I don't care what it sounds like. There is one solid intuition you can have, I serve it to you on the plate, and don't come comparing with what has been repeated totally without any genuine interest by the priests and the groups and all the sari-clad guru-women and the bearded idiots shouting about the Maadhi to come and relegating their Issi or what the fuck he is called to a mere half-successful state leader on par with their own gerillia leader. This is not about propaganda. If you have any sense of holiness in your life at all, you must one day put aside words and come to the heart of all feeling -- and that is not to be spoken about, nor to be killed about, and it is nothing that can ever be about categorizing people into believers and nonbelievers, infidels, juveniles, and other such putrefied concepts of the barbarious bloody past of mankind. If you are in the slightest a believer in one book as a bible you are committing the severest blasphemy towards the creator which is right here. Watching you. And it is the pain of the creator being snuffed out by those whom he had created that Erbarme Dich, Mein Gott, shows you and yet it cannot show you. For no human can know about that pain. That's religion. Not the mantras of the books of the past. Not the organisations of the so-called holy humans -- of which there are none -- with all their names and all their robes and all their metaphorical weapons or real weapons. They talk and talk and know zero of God. : But yet this music exists. / It exists, yes. : And yet you say: play it again and again. / Of course. : But why? If it can't convey anything anyway? / I didn't say that. : You even said it could kill. / Don't let it kill. God is not about killing. God has the right, of course, to destroy whatever he creates and all that. But this music can give a sense of that.. dimension which cannot be said more than once, or in more ways than one, and which cannot happen but more than one time, and around which everything else revolve whether we like it or not. : Everything evolves or revolves around the pain of God being killed? / Don't say it like that. It is not like that. It is rather.. let's say that if you know anything at all about the past as simulation space, simulation time -- that up to a point, it was a clever structure, devoid of real feeling. : I have read, yes. Perhaps understood a little bit of what you have said there. I thought it quite shocking at first; then gradually came to see that it could clear up quite a lot. / It's no damn scientific theory. And if you imagine -- let's put it this way -- we imagine, now, right? -- we imagine, no the word is too weak. You see, it could have been started earlier. By a God who knew they wouldn't have it. He started it, he gave a real chance and knew they wouldn't have it onwards -- the kingdom of love and all that -- they wouldn't have it. He knew, of course -- but this has got nothing to do with the false bible texts, however many glimpses of truth that has carried them into this day and perhaps no further, for I doubt they will be treasured in the future. They oughtn't. Bibles are repetitions of false structures around too powerful truths; one must meet the truths naked and speak about them without making them into such structured things. The gasoline of wars, of the falseness of mankind, comes from mixing great truths and great glimmers of hope with desperate political stuff and condemnations of people groups. : It could have started then? Two millenia ago? / Or twenty millenia, the time of Krishna if you really think about it. And if you think yet more about it, you wouldn't specify any such thing at all: it may be five minutes. Who cares. Time is not what it seems, has never been, will never be; and especially, certainly not the bloody history of humankind. All of it was illusion but ONE thing was right: that there was a chance, to do it here, on Earth, -- and it was ripped apart by those created by the creator, he was ripped apart and wanted to stay in that pain and never forget it. He couldn't speak about it, you see. If he did, there would be no universe. : And yet, you say, there is an.. / Emanation. There is an emanation in that music. It couldn't be withheld entirely. It had to come out somewhere -- let's for goodness sake not say sometime! Somewhere. By the blessed hands of Johann Sebastian Bach. It is so obvious, is it not? You can listen to him for hours and hours and weeks and yet there is nothing else in humanity that compares to his music before the twentieth century, anywhere; nothing comes even near to it. And yet nothing in what he did comes even near the little toe of Erbarme Dich, Mein Gott. It is the one and only piece that has ever been made that has not at all been made by anyone else by the creator, explaining all to anyone who wants to listen entirely without any book. Explaining ALL, mind you. And so there is a tremendous joy in it. : How can this be? Joy that a suffering, in a tragedy? / It is not that. Don't say the word 'tragedy'. It should imply somehow it was not ordained. I am sorry if this sounds as the priestly stuff again. I don't mean it in this sense at all. You gave me permission to be frank and perhaps I am overextending that permission. : No, stay on it. I don't get this with joy, though. How can there be joy in it? / See, whatever happens to a human being is not what happened to the creator of all human beings in meeting with human beings saying: Let's start. Let's begin. Let's have this not as simulation but as the fullness of an absolutely joyous actuality. Nothing a human being can do in terms of martyrdom of any kind has any validity whatsoever compared to the God, the all-powerful, all- feeling, all-compassionate being killed by his creation. It is a dimension without which you are like a.. you lack the real dimension then. The real dimension which extends from the point, if you know what I mean. The point of light. The starting-point. It is the cruelty of the created. When it is faced you are enlightened: I don't mean you should try to rush it, but in those glimpses, when you sense the immensity -- it is not about crying and crying and trying to prove that one has fucking sympathy with God. It is about getting a sense of that seriousness and importance that makes a person -- I can't say 'uncorrupt' for no human being is entirely free from corruption. But it is a glimpse of noncorruptibility. Of total integrity. Integrity -- that's the word. It finally came out. Integrity. It gives you integrity. But now it sounds as psychotherapy. I don't want an Erbarme Dich, Mein Gott-group!!! : Haha. But you are coming through with something. / Yes, am I not? What, though. You express it. Your own terms. : I remember coming to a beach, alone, as a surprise to myself, talking that walk, in spring-time after what felt like five or six months of below zero degrees snow and ice and rain and clouds and freezing. I realized that I knew nothing whatsoever about beauty until I saw that beach. It had been a totally nebulous concept to me. But that water -- dark-blue -- with that sun, those dimly viewed islands and the stones with their jaggedness and hardness, and the splash of sand, and the vastness, and the smell and openness. I was shattered. Too shattered to cry. But I knew when I went home that day -- it was too cold to have a swim but I touched the salt fjord water with my feet -- I could not pretend that my earlier perspectives were right. They lacked this, I don't know, I want to say dimension. / That's exactly it. Exact! Not that you build your house on the beach. Not that you listen to this Erbarme Dich, Mein Gott, ten times a day. You wouldn't get done anything then. You mustn't make vastness a habit. You must come to it. You must even feel that it is unreachable, like food, you must deny food to experience food; then there is luxury in the simplest yoghurt and musli, when you are truly hungry, hungry also for health, and for your own beauty to sustained and relished. : So that's something of what you mean is it? That beach.. / Forget that beach. I am sorry but it's on the verge to be a sentimental issue. And sentimentality is but a type of senile movie. You must be a bit harsh towards yourself before you start cultivating a fixed feeling, I mean -- so that you prevent yourself from stagnating in a mere experience. There is the future. There is the spring flower of humans to come. You reincarnate, right? You sense that? : I think I sense that. / Then you don't sense that. Don't try to say that you do if you don't. But meditate on it. Find the yes and find the no to the big cosmic questions within your heart. Start with the simpler things. Come to it, learn to find an intuition which you can trust. Which leads you to sense what's what. Belief in reincarnation is perhaps leading to greater morality than any atheistic belief or any belief in a fixed division of Heaven and Hell, the latter school are often the worst types when it comes to decision-making in real life. Reincarnation means: every little action matters. Everything! But then you must be future-attuned. Do you see where joy comes in, when you have this perspective? : More and more joy? / Surely, more and more joy. But where does it come in? : What do you mean, come in? / I mean: you have seen a vastness. I'll admit that. Not the beach but the vastness. You were shattered, in your ego, for a moment. : Yes I was. / Then it is not the beach. There is a speck of light. I am not saying go to tears over God but I say: you must know, you absolutely must know Erbarme Dich, Mein Gott, or else you'll start with marihuana or sects or alcohol or schemes or models or theories or atheist capitalism or what not. Marihuana is but gateway to being a pothead, to having a darkened cloud around oneself. : You think marihuana is not rather harmless? / I have seen medical doctors with all their scientific exams in order, and all their papers, spend time with hundreds of people researching whether it is more or less dangerous than tobacco with all their insensitive equipment, in all their atheistically propaganda- atmosphere which rules out any true neopopperian insight, and which has got no sensitivity to aura, sees nothing of the darkening of the brain and body and even soul, sees nothing of what snake it is, this stuff. They research with the crudest of methods and what happens? The freaks, the people who pride themselves on being on the frontier of consciousness of humanity and who are beyond the patterns of the past, run with euphoria and exaltedness to this bits of corrupt, insensitive, extremely badly made research and claim that NOW IT IS PROVEN. And the only thing their behaviour proves is that the pot has made them into potheads suddenly believing in that age- old discipline of lying called medicine. God damn it, don't you see it makes people careless? The only thing they care about is to talk, talk, talk, without getting anywhere, without making any point, other than that pot is great. They don't care because they can't care. Because the very fibres of care in their subtle bodies are removed. Do you think the medical doctors with all their exams from Stanford or MIT or Cambridge or wherever the factories of medical doctors are can see such a thing? Do you think they would bother if they saw it? No. And that's final. Play with it once pr year, lightly, at most, if you want a solid intuition from one who has no fear whatsoever and who can see. : Whereas the other drugs? / Ditch them! They are not lazy man's guide to enlightenment but lazy man's guide to senility. The cocaine mafia people with their artificial muscles and hairless heads without any thoughts inside, and smiles which hang on the outside of their faces instead of radiating from within. The heroine addicts who are like children only that they are seven hundred years old in fallenness and decay and wrinkles, both on the inside and on the outside. The opium addicts who have become nihilists, believing in emptiness because there is no fullness in any thought anymore. The ketamine addicts whose head ring and who rushes hither and dither not having any direction. The alcohol addicts who know that they are supreme and that badness must reign and that everyone else is to blame and who gets nowhere with anything, except possibly with an artificial success so as to buy them more liquid. The drugs zero out conscience, zero out joy, zero out sense of existence and reality, zero out depth. They are the antithesis of Erbarme Dich, Mein Gott. They are the attempt of human beings to put their own suffering up as bigger than that of the creator in being killed that one time. And it reeks with lies. You know, of course, why pot or marihuana is also called hash? Don't bother to answer, it is a dictionary ethymology thing, nothing deep to it, but think about it: it comes from islam hassassin, they just to take this drug a lot in order to kill and slaughter and maim people with less care and less bother and less worry about it. For all the priorities go out of the window. All conscience is drained in the mud of the pot. Yet -- and this is what the medical doctors -- do you think they care? -- find out, namely that one can still do operational actions for instance involving driving a car fairly well -- but do you think they really know anything about care? They who are by profession the professional care-takers? They don't and their profession is a disgrace to human dignity. : You are convincing about the drugs. / I am not trying to. I have nothing to propagandise to them, nothing to gain on getting people to dislike them. But I don't like to see people rush into decay when they could be beautiful and intelligent and charming and good and interesting and unfolding great art. The fact that I love Bob Marley's music does not mean I attribute the slightest element of musical insight to his smoking. I attribute it to the sex and their social gatherings in meditative talk which happened to be spurred due to their culture in that case, for those years, with pot. It is sex it is about, the sex with divinity. It is not about pot, nor did pot open any gateway, rather it for sure gave Marley part of the illness that he died of, a year or so after he was shot at. But then Marley did something too strong for human efforts. He couldn't be sustained. He had to go after he had give what he had to give. I suspect he would have fallen ill anyway. : I wanted to say something. / Say on, miss. : Thanks. Let me see. I said that you are convincing about the drugs -- I see you are passionate about it, you must have had experiences of other people withering away somehow. Whatever. But I don't quite see what you mean about medicine being so undignified? / Forgive me for being so quick about it. It is a huge, huge story. I thought perhaps others had already spoken very clearly about it. How the real evolution from illness towards health among many people in the affluent parts of the world came not by the artefacts of medical doctors but by the throwing away of the bad hygiencs of old times. How even more health came not by the expensive artificial invasive medicines by the gigantic billion- dollar medicine companies but by concentrating the vitamins in simple farm food and supplying it with food which has been handled without overly much preprocessing. How yet more health comes not by submitting to the odontologies or to the skin-cutters but by realizing that the human body, when elegantly and intelligently fortified with extremely precise use of intense and poisonless substances such as ammoniac, great long walks, freedom from over-eating, abstenance from alcohol except some drops for fun to warm up for a party evening, and abstenance from tobacco except one or two puffs at a sigar let's say once weekly -- when the human body is allowed to glow, through extremely intelligent natural ways combined with vast sexuality and great art, then anything it has to heal, it will heal. And instead the medical doctors keep prolonging bodily existence instead of researching the subtle bodies of the human being, coming upon soul and reincarnation and such, and fight, intensely, the understanding that prolongation beyond certain health issues is absolutely pointless. They are a secterian lot and they got the grip on society in the 20th century. Their dogmas have ruined much more than they have rescued. Teeth can perfectly well be sustained with great beauty of smile for season after season with holes in them without any decay whatsoever taking place if a person is in all ways health and knows exactly how to cleanse. This cleansing will then go THROUGH the teeths and so in fact do a very important cleansing of the jaw nerves and musculature and so on; instead they prop and clog and congest and people swell up under their jaws and get their jawlines ruined out of the unscientific paradigm of sheer irrationality that characterise the odontologists. Meanwhile, they sccop in not only the money of their patients, the doctors and the dental doctors, but also the money of the conglomerates that greedily feed on people illnesses by giving them artefacts that help with the pain, allieviate the pain a little bit for a little while with a thousand consequences which mean still more money to their pockets. It is a corrupt trade. : So can a human being stand fully alone in a corrupt world? / No. Not practically. Human beings have got to stand together also. They may even have to put up with corrupt things quite near them for a great long while, speaking even many incarnations and all that. But they can go one or ten or a hundred or a thousand millenia into the future and sense the joy, that other dimension, greater than pleasure, -- and sense also, through it, in a way, the falseness as false, and quietly condemn what ought to be condemn and ONLY that. Instead of cursing blindly at whatever presents itself as an apparent hinder in daily life, one should spend time sifting valuable facts, finding out what counts. And accept that one cannot live by truth in a society which is actively based not even on half-truths but on pretty much blatant lies. : Is there not sadness in that? / Alright, I am not going to say that there isn't. Sadness, of course there is some sadness in seeing a friend doing an action which clearly goes against the more deep aspect of that friend, if you are not fooling yourself, if you are seeing clearly. But you must then have that other vastness dimension. Of joy, and, in contrast -- I hate to say it so it sounds like a system - - that Erbarme Dich thing. That resonance bound, that reverberance of a greatness that makes all things human so small, so utterly small. I am not saying the stars are big and humans are small like dust. I am saying that humans are small compared to the upper beings which control humans, the submuses, and the muses above them again. They are small, even tiny, in moral standing, compared to the beautiful girl-muses which guide and compell -- sometimes -- and who have far, far greater powers than human beings can ever have. * * * : You speak of the need to go beyond the ancient books, the bibles, all that. / Obviously. Nothing of them is holy. None of them are. : But is there nothing of importance in them? / If they are absolutely unimportant it wouldn't matter whether we brought them along or not, would it? But rather they contain explosive stuff. Wrapped all false. Stupid human cultural nonsense mixed up with things which deserve a better wrapping. Or else the stupid cultural stuff gets a force, an energy it would never had on its own. So the bibles perpetuate stagnation. : But the fact that they existed for so long.. / Or not for so long. It depends on perspective of time. As I see it, for not so long. They are merely temporary patterns. : But they are patterns? / Never mind that. There's the future. There are more important things than the cultural virus of the past. : Suppose then that there are no bibles. / Yes? That's certainly how it will be. : But what about -- I mean, you speak of there being elements of truth in them, right? / Grand elements. Extremely important elements. Of course. : Well, what about the bathing water and the baby? Keeping the baby but letting the water out? Shouldn't something of them be salvaged? / No. : No, and that's it? / Naturally we pick out that which is important. But we don't pick it out by underlining that which is right. What is right has to be said. : I understand. / Do you? But let that be as it may. Since you ask all these things, I suppose you really want me to come up with things, how I see it. I suppose I'd have to expect that, based on what I've said earlier on -- what's published, all that. It does seem like some read the stuff, peculiarly enough. : I have read it. All of it, I think. / So? : Yes, I would like you to say something of what has happened -- as you yourself see it. / What are you most interested in? : I can ask whatever I want? / If I can answer whatever I want of it! : That's a deal, then. First I want to know what you mean about Krishna. The Krishna -- Jesus connection, as I understood it, from our earlier conversation. / That's too complex right now. At least wait on that point. : I have read some -- if you forgive me -- bible research I think they call it. Some say that there couldn't possibly be a crucifiction at the place where Jesus had his activities; and if so, it couldn't possibly engage the Romans much. They were too busy with hard criminals and they typically let the locals rule themselves. / Well, there was one. : There was a crucifiction of Jesus? / Of course. : Who did it? / That part the bible, as I see it, is pretty right on. He was delivered, picked up if you like, by his own: and the Romans were in it, and they routinely crucified quite many. I don't know whether that was uncommon -- I don't think it was. I think that bible research stuff you have picked up hasn't been very historically well-informed. The names and so on may be a bit messed up. : So there were disciples? There was a teaching, all that? / Of course. And at least one of the disciples screwed up his life by forming allegiance to enemies of Jesus. There was the night meeting or evening meeting at any rate of jews and they worked out a scheme and brought charges against him, false and corrupt. : And, then, why? Why would someone -- omnipotent, omniknowing, as you have pointed out -- let this happen? / I prefer not to answer that question. I mean, anymore than I've already have. I have said it, I feel, and I hate repetitions about something that essential. If you're ready to pick it up, you pick it up. And to the extent you should pick it up. I'm sorry but that's how it is and that's final. : But there can be other points about this? / Perhaps, yes. : Childhood. / Nothing of really great importance. A child growing up. : Knowing all, all the time? / Obviously not. He had to have human experiences. There had to be an awakening. There are levels, maya, the veil to be withdrawn. : Like for a human? / No. He was no human. There are analogies, though. But God remembering himself in his manifest form is an absolute event. He has cloaked himself in forgetfulness to know more of the human experiences. All that. It is very simple really. At least abstractly so. Go on. : So when did this happen? When he was still a child? / Much later. : Where? Did he travel? / A lot, certainly. But not touristy. He followed his inner ratio. Quite a track. To Egypt and beyond. : To India? / Like at any other time in human history, you don't have to go to a country yourself to meet the heart of it in someone on a road less travelled. There were gatherings, you know. Seminars, if you like. Some even had women in them. Temple dancers, all that -- high-class prostitutes if you like. Geisha, I suppose we would call it today. These centres had their fame among those learned -- not the most hypocritical of the learned. They drew people thousands of miles away. He found such a place, as young adult, had a million of experiences, was criticized for his arrogance, left in dismay but with many pearls within him. His powers denied him a willingness to give authority to these people who had struggled for so long time for their little bit of smartness and wisdom, yoga and all that. : Was there an initator? This John the Baptist individual? / Every place of some importance had some people of light. He was one, he wasn't called John nor was Maria Magdalena called Maria Magdalena nor was Jesus called exactly Jesus, and names do occasionally matter somewhat, except that this was a passing phase, however important in some regards. The names weren't that important. Be that as it may. Anyway, this so-called John was much much older than Jesus; he had perhaps just one or two more seasons with all his young lucidity intact combined with the wisdom of having seen much and having been brought to knees by experiences, disillusionment, all that. So he gave what he could give, with great laughter, then he had nothing more to give but was just a withered but kind friend; yet it was something he could give that even the best of the seminars couldn't give. He had Earth quietude in him. He thought about cleanliness a great deal, taught it to people, how to eat, all that. To him, God was the God of purity. : Did he see Jesus as God? / No. But also he did not deny that possibility. He simply gave what he had to give, he was not there to observe nor judge. : Well, did Jesus see Jesus as God at the time of John the Baptist? / No. Soon thereafter. There could be no baptism of God, only of a manifest form still in forgettance. : And the awakening. Was that one single day -- in desert, during fasting? / Nah. Nope. You don't awaken to something potentially rediculous and ludicruous and possibly insane just like that. It is about a sequence of steps -- of light. A lot of solitude, the fasting on occasions, conversations, discoveries, the gradual chiselling away of the illusions of human culture. Then the learning to find a language; then the willingness to step into it, and be it. Only after that came the disciples. : Twelve? / Twelve or fifteen hundred or fifty or just one, Maria Magdalena, so-called, depending on how you count it. For a while the twelve or so were rather steady but these things were over in months. Long months, true, in a good sense long. : Maria was.. a disciple? Only? / There was an awakening to beauty. She was a creature of innocence, wild, skinny, pure innocence, an innocence which had engaged its pure sexuality, as pure as the rivers of John the Baptist, as pure as the celibacy of the yogis of the Far East. In it, -- in this beauty, in her slim longlegged shapes, in Maria Magdalena's feet, God could see, as in a kind of mirror, his own beauty. Or his own intent of beauty. The touching of that girl was divinity, it was celibacy. The bibles, the accepted texts, never wanted Jesus to have what they deemed 'the feelings of the flesh'. But the flesh of Jesus wasn't the flesh of men. The flesh of Jesus was godhood, pure and divine, and Maria was, of course, his muse-consort, purer than any girl. : And his lover? / Of course. : His first? / No no. A little skill he had picked up from his journeys, but this was the dawning of beauty. Where do you think the poetry of his language came from? It came from his kissing of Maria Magdalena's feet in the night. Unless he had had his mind awakened aforehand, he would have become a believer in goddess-hood. As it was, he saw her as she was, for what she was. And there were some other girls like that, they came in trees. : About females. There is the tradition in the more catholic version -- building on more ancient egyptian myths -- of the virgin birth. The Madonna. / Naturally he wasn't manifested in the way that others are. But to all appearances, he was. I prefer not to talk about that part. But she wasn't the mother of God. Madonna Maria was a daughter of God; she had a role to play. : What was the teaching? / Fundamentally, that there's a direct link. You don't need the books of Jahve and all that. There's a beauty you can give yourself over to, be obedient to; God is here, right here, the path is coming on to you by letting go of your little self, not trying to win in the games of hypocrisy and false scriptural learning, but in the true game of love, love of God. And God holds all, loving God is loving all, loving each, loving also your own essence but not your own ego, not your own tradition, your own culture, so there's a lot of letting go. Get free from the past. There's a freedom from hatred in understanding that -- in that sense, turn the other cheek. But there's also a new clarity in understanding that, a clarity which can speak, which can even act. But the minutes of manifest reality surrounding Jesus -- let's put it that way -- minutes, though it was also years -- for simulation space it was, I maintain that, but it was bridging on getting actualised -- didn't talk much of action. It talked of love. It talked of judgements, and judgement days; but Jesus was good at being vague. He never announced the House of God in any definite way. What he was ushered into dampened his promises. All the miracle stuff was added later on, so as to compete with the ancient jewish books with all their lies -- literally. That should really be obvious to all. Naturally he did healings and such. But nothing like the cartoon-like cheap magical tricks of the so-called established christian bible book. They sold the soap called Jesus by injecting tons of nonsense like that. They failed to see the greater miracle being his actual presence, and thought that they would convince more people by putting in such preposterous, unnecessary stuff like walking on water or transmutating water into wine in a blink. Why would God do such a thing? Why would he do that one week, and the next week meekly, and without any consistency whatsoever, hanging down from a cross, whipped at until his blood was dripping? At the time -- and this has got nothing to do with the Turin cloth, with the large and broken-nosed criminal figure -- they even nailed the feet one clearly above the other, so that the whipping could more easily strike at the genitals. The legs had to be somewhat apart. Does this strike you like the man-who-walks-on-water man? No, the manifestation of Jesus was a manifestation into the human condition, the deeper mind of this individual -- God -- being the very source and origin of the patterns of all the universe, including the patterns behind water and wine and stones and crosses. The very premise of the manifestation was to not mess with it: but to meet what had been created on the premises of the created, to say what had to be said, and then let what had to happen happen. And when that had happened, the book had to go into a different phase, so to say. Let me then say what I think should be said about Krishna. If you don't mind? : I'd love that. / I can only talk about it vaguely, all right? : That's perfectly in order. / Which doesn't mean that it isn't more precise in itself. Of course the universe knows what it is doing. There are bits and pieces of things not in the ancient books around which new for-idiots-only bibles have been woven -- a couple of truth glimmers, and then a lot of modern bullshit -- a Course in Miracles, Urantia, Power of Now, Almaas, you name it. They keep on coming but it all boils down to an old man or woman being lonely and wanting some comfort in being admired by others, it has very little to do with God. Those who don't see that don't see much. But some things are truths existing on the premise of their dignified distance from the discussions in human thought, if you know what I mean. In any case, Krishna existed so much earlier than any of the other figures -- long long long before Buddha, Lao-Tse, and of course the many prophets after Jesus, and Mohammad, they were all later characters. Krishna was not a first, he was the first. So early that nothing really remained except that he seeded the first intelligent culture, long long before Chinese culture but helping to establish also that of course, before even the Indo-Aryan stories with the horse travels and all such things which led to Vedic Sanskrit. We're talking of a time wiped out not just once by planet-wide climate changes due to this and that; of many people; of astronomers calculating with a finesse going beyond even that reported in the Sanskrit texts going back two millena or more. His presence was an emergence. And he was killed by those learned in the scriptures and their corrupt assocations with the corrupt leaders, and tortured in undignified ways, and all that. It was, fractal-like, if you wish, the very same tale. It was the same tale. Only that it was so remote in terms of events that the Jesus events occured not just as if for the first time, but for the first time -- also then. There wasn't human memory of the first when the second event came, and it wasn't supposed to be; and I maintain that there was an overlapping of duration. A circle in duration. It was one and the same event. The first brought about a civilisation which then, step by step, led to the erection of all later civilisations. That's why India came to be the most intelligent culture, who couldn't touch anything without a brilliance coming into it -- up to a point, a saturation point, so to speak, which was about the time of Jesus. After Jesus, it was human-wide. All over Earth. That's very very briefly how I feel it is fit to speak of all human history if you combine with everything else I've said about it -- and I mean everything. The terrible, butcher-like balancing out that had to be done against certain people-groups after Jesus, all that. Until it was levelled out, until goyon had become so evenly divided that nobody had any scapegoat-like guilt anymore. : I have to ask something now -- not that I pretend to understand more than a bit of what you said -- but I have to ask, and avoid answering if you like, of your present role. / My role? : I mean, you talk with a sureness. / Of course. : Yet you speak of an enlightenment which allows not even this sureness when it comes, and it hasn't come, and so you imply.. / Yes yes. I imply. I imply tons. I know that. : But you imply.. / Yes I do. I imply that. But can't you see? There is no concept for what I represent, if that's the word I want. It's like going to the paint store and asking for a color nobody has ever heard about. You have to make it yourself. : But haven't you? / What? Already made it? : Yes. / I don't think I have, fully, as yet. I don't think it should be done in its entirety. Everybody sense what they sense, they can't help that. So they sense what I am all about. They know it is on the side of the good, that it is goodness talking. : You seem to be outside of the human process, somehow. / Well, that's it. It's not merely the genes. But I don't care to elaborate it and get it compared with what all the nutheads has claimed. What is the essence of what I am, is what I am: and surely you have intuition and the guts to ask the big questions about that. Should I spell it all out? What for? What's the big deal? Does that help my credibility? What duty do I have to report on what I perceive that my essence really is? But I report, there is no distinction between me and essence. What I've said are personal memories for me. But please don't ask more about that now. : There is an issue, though. / Yes? : On the side, as it were. You have repeatedly said that the worst that is, is cunning. Plain human cunning. / Yes, I guess I have. : And in going through the bits of grand truths in the ancient texts, is there no validity at all to any question of evil? / No. That's the simple answer. The more complex is, the definition of actuality is that all is on the side of the good -- only that God is fully on the side of the good, with his muses, and that humanity is edging clearly on the side of the good but with a certain distance, and a lot of evolution -- infinitely much, in fact -- to come. So there's plenty of time. That's the immortality view, of your soul. Don't try and break with every tradition and run, sideways as it were, in between islam and christianity and buddhism and this sect and the other sect and this therapy group and that one enlightenment group. What is it all for? You are already progressing forward. Don't run sideways, for none of these conditions -- which is all they are -- give you any other than challenges to your ego -- which is what you need. You need to face them, not run all over the place chasing for yourself, or for the girls in the courses, or for the excitement of a new quote, a new mantra, a new peculiar dance form or twist of the tongue or way of kissing or hypnotising people, neuro-linguistic silva supercontrol ultradiamond mega-buddha supreme master path. There is such a circus, and the circus doesn't breed goodness, but rather keeps a person from being a spearhead in goodness. : So, you say -- actual existence, the transition from simulation to actual.. / Yes. That's what it is about. The illusion of evil was real only in the illusion of reality called simulation space. The false game of chess, the false sense of duality, the good God, the real God, and the idea that there could be an opposite mini-god, a little cheater with the appointment by God to test people, to fool people, with his own little ugly hierarchy of quasi- pseudo-fake-muses, their own little shoddy magical tricks and as-if evil numbers. All that is simulation space. It worked just long enough to make a challenge, to make it clear what forms of ego have the greatest stamina of goodness when faced with challenges. Suddenly the bad magic didn't work anymore. Didn't you see it happening? It all collapsed. That was the end of simulation space. Cunning charged up with evilness became mere cunning, empty of force, the cunning that breaks a person down from within. : Is that what you talked about in the Firth.. / Yes. It is over. Evil is over. It never was real. It was a false game before the real game. I emphasize that if you want to get on with goodness, you should trust that the fight is the internal fight against the ego, exemplified in the program I call the Yoga4d game. : You almost seem to say that.. / Don't say it, let people think. But it is the most beautiful program ever written. Its sheer existence is the greatest gift I have given -- so far. It is nondualistic, don't you see? Dualism was the trap. What you have to understand is that 2 is nothing, but the transition between 1, which is a wholeness, and 3, which is another wholeness. As transition point, it is forceless in itself. Simulation space was chock-full of the one against the other, as in male sports. As long as that illusion was upheld.. but it is no longer there. Will never come back. There never can come any element of evil, never any demon, never any devil, never any satan. All that is banished forever, not for merely a thousand years, it is nought, it is nihilized. What you have got now is the love between absolute goodness and relative goodness. The relative moves on, the absolute rejoys in that. The absolute spurs you on. : In this, you say something about five thousand.. / Yes. That's the number. Does it seem rediculous to you? But it isn't. Whether there are five people alive, or five trillion, or ten, the souls are learning, the spirits are learning, they are fantastically smart structures. Therein lies also the challenge, that they can beat their own egoes faster and better. If there are many human bodies, it's even easier. It doesn't mean that there is less soulfulness in anyone. : Suppose I stand outside all this -- flow of insight -- that I feel you represent. I sense you are saying something which possibly is -- not just different, it may be same or similar or different, but it is authentic. I feel that, but suppose I am an outsider. I sense it is possible. What would you recommend? / For goodness sake, I don't recommend. What I say can be total illusion or near illusion or a fact I don't feel, merely put up as intellectual pretense, or a thousand similar such possibilities. It may also be that I am the absolute about which I talk, how would you know? How do you know anything you don't see with your senses? How do you get proof of anything which is subtle? If I am directly manifesting that absolute enlightenment which spurs the very transmutation of duration, of the essence of time, how would you open yourself to a general truth process so that you could either verify or dismiss what I come with? So I say, you have to develop an intuition for smaller things, -- it is not enough that something of what I say make practical sense here and there. You have got to find the intuition that beyond wishful thinking, beyond desire, beyond attachment, is able to discern one who is inauthentic from one who is merely authentic in flashes to one who is -- not human. It is not an intuition you want to go easily on. It is not something you want to make a statistical voting over. You work out your clairvoyance and prescience over smaller things then ask about me. Do it! Ask, in your purest mind. There will be an answer, when you are pure enough. You will then doubt it. You will then ask again. What happens eventually -- I know. But that's my business, that I know these things. If it sounds arrogant, let me just say it is not really intended as that. It is rather that I feel it is called for that I step a little around that intense respectability zone that I have made, because of the importance of having that as well, because of its intelligence, its nice culture, even its entertainment. I step a little outside of it and point out something and step inside again. You can dismiss it if you like, but I don't urge you to dismiss it. Eventually, as I always say, truth takes care of itself. Nobody can say what I say and remain for any time, unless it is truth talking about truth. Now I have said it, and I have said enough about that particular issue for a million years, at least. : Thank you. TECHNICAL SECTION: The brain as a quantum unit DEFINITIONS By the word "definition" we mean an indication of what to an enlightened mind are clear ideas as to how each word (or abbreviation) of key importance, usually quoted, should be used in this context. By the word "axiom" we mean an indication of a principle which is intuitively evident in the enlightened, sensitive mind with a great deal of wholeness-awareness and gratefulness as to the whole of existence, and of key importance in bringing about proofs. By the word "proof" we mean an indication of a way in which an enlightened mind can find light in a passage-way from earlier theorems, definitions and from the axiom (or axioms, but here we have but one axiom) to a new theorem. By the word "theorem" we mean an indication of some sort of key understanding upon which we can build more theorems as well as definitions in subsequent work. By the concepts definition, axiom, proof and theorem we do not mean anything such as a fully explicit scheme without hidden assumptions; but we mean, by the constant reference to the concept "enlightened mind", also that these hidden assumptions are, though hidden, valid assumptions. There may be five hundred or five hundred thousands such, or even very many more -- indeed, the author would postulate very many more -- to carry out the pathways of reasoning as here indicated. THIS MEANS THAT THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO EXPLICATE MECHANICAL LOGIC but rather it is an attempt to intuitively indicate milestone-conceptual points in a vast landscape of patterned understanding which may occur again and again in the earnest person whose quest resides in the depth of creative enlightenment. This, then, is part of a neopopperian enquiry which blends the empirical question- and-answer with the intuitive question-and-answer but the emphasis is here, except where explicitly mentioned, on the latter. (This author has made strong criticism earlier on as to sloppy use of the word 'proof'; but here, then, the word has been re-introduced without that sloppiness but also without the pretense of expliciteness.) "Comparison", in this context, refers to a clear-cut mechanical procedure for finding similarities, contrasts and patterns of similarities and contrasts of the 10- digit-system digits of two finite-digital numbers of the 32-bit kind. "Resonance", in this context, refers to the notion of patterns of similarities and contrasts (whether in the connotation of comparison or of general perception). "General perception", or GP, refers to the analogy of comparison as applied to essences. "Human perception", or HP, refers to perception (both inner and outer) pertaining to the human mind/brain. "Essence number", or, simply, "essence", refers to a member of the structure E. "The structure E", or simply, "E", refers to the necessary minimum infinite gathering, or an extension of this, this necessary minimum proven by exam thesis by this author from 2003 [[[as reprinted also in a 2009 book by this author (Philosophy of the Infinite) as listed on the yoga4d.com/talks page with full manuscript included (cfr link which mentions "..theory of the universe" there.]]], which includes the numbers 1, 2, 3, ..., and zero, and also the signed -1, -2, -3, ... (If you consult this exam thesis and the discussions around it, it will be clear that there are numbers involving infinite digit- series and infinitely great quantities inside this necessary minimum.) We will here regard all numbers, also e.g. 1, 2 and 3, as infinite-digited, e.g. ...0001, ...0002, and ...0003. Definition 1 of PMW is in a physics context (... 2004). Definition 2 will come in this more principal context and we will show that they are aligned in meaning and reference. "Quantum unit", or QU, refers to a whole whose process is not merely caused by a local interaction of its parts, and which has a direct relationship, in some way or another, to the fluctuating energic behaviour (as empericially studied) related to the energies of the order of the very microscopic Planck's constant. Some more definitions inside the THEOREM section. The completing theorem, building on the earlier, involves pointing out that the (human) brain is a (also) a quantum unit. This has implications for consciousness research etc. AXIOM Simplicity Axiom, or SA: Only that which in the silent, enlightened mind is perceived as needed, exists. THEOREMS Theorem 1, or T1: GP generates new members in E. Proof of T1. There are more than one infinite member in E. This is shown by the exam text of 2003, for else there would be only one inifnite member of E, in which case the mapping of two different infinite-digited transcendent numbers would not be possible. The GP involves, pr def of GP, similarities, contrasts and resonances between (two or more) E numbers (but two of a kind will suffice as a start). Let's call them E1 and E2. GP finding similarities, contrasts or resonances over E1 and E2 involves digit series -- the whole infinite digit series or portions of them, having similarities, contrasts or resonances. Let the portions, which may be the whole of each of E1 and E2, be called P1 and P2. The simplest way of exhibiting a clear-cut similarity, contrast or resonance between digit series E1 and E2 is by means of another digit series. By SA, this is then how the GP is exhibiting itself -- by constantly creating new members of E out of the existing. Theorem 2, or T2: The members in E are represented by means of series of digits in the 10-digit-system. Proof of T2. The simplest way of generating E is by means of the 'addition by one' as applied indefinitely to 1, then to the result of this, 2, then to the result of this again, and onwards; repeated with the signed numbers, with the zero defined as the sum of plus one and minus one. The simplest way of extending E beyond its necessary infinite minimum is by means of the process in T1. This, then, by SA, is how it is generated. A digit series involving addition, substraction, multiplication and division as part of the very structure of the digits in their operational meaning will naturally and simply lend itself to analysis in terms of some extensions, including the remainder, or MOD operator, and in terms of procedures to decide whether a number, like 5, is a prime or not (it is a prime). The meaning of the numbers is inadequately perceived unless also as perceived in terms of this very essential property of not being able to be divided on any other numbers than itself and one without producing fractions. In order to have GP at all, which is needed, we need the notion of prime numbers; and this is the simplest way of coming towards GP beginning with numbers and addition as indicated above. By SA, this is then how it is. But a prime number sequence gives fundamentally different properties to digit-systems. The least-numbered digit-system is the 2-digit-system, or binary digit system, also sometimes the ground for computer technology. It is a convention to sometimes write binary numbers as e.g. 10010 (which is written 18 in the 10- digit-system) or 11101 (which is written 29 in the 10- digit-system). It is not simple to perceive over two numbers written this way, although it is simple to make mechanical devices which act on the presence or on the absence of an electrical impulse. But by SA, this rules out the 2-digit-system for how members of E is naturally exhibited in perception. If the digit-system involves a great deal of digits, say, as in a 500-digit-system, or even in a 20-digit- system, complexities arise -- in part due to the lack of similarity of the digit tokens, in part due to the lack of easy divisibility on a large quantity of the ground digits used. It is clear, in addition, that division by 2 is a sought-for property relative to contrast perception. This suggests that the number ought to be prime. However, for perception to operate in the simplest way, a prime number which emphasises similarity and thus, in a sense, wholeness, ought to be part of the key number of the digit-system. Since similarity perception needs an organizing digit, and since similarity perception is vitally and essentially other than contrast perception, it ought to be a clearly perceivable contrast between the prime digit indicating contrast -- 2 -- and the prime digit indicating similarity. The next candidate, by these criterions of simplicity, is 5. The simplest number that contains both these prime factors is 10. By SA, a 10- digit-system is the appropriate one for exhibiting digits of members of E. (We have not specified which 10-digit-system -- whether it is going to be A B C D E F G H I J or K L M N O P Q R S T or @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) or 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 or something else. It is not part of the discussion to assert this here. We will follow convention in an English-language-context and use the latter sequence. This is of course not to say such decisions cannot yield to such enlightened forms of deductive thinking by SA as we have done on the key points in this article.) Theorem 3, or T3: That which exists is infinite digit series of the 10- digit-system type. Proof of T3. For anything to exist at all -- and it is a perception that anything exists -- it has to conform to SA. The simplest numbers like 1 and 2 and 3 are, clearly, the simplest possible forms of existence; their very existence carries within them elementary arithmetic. So, by SA, this exists. But this, by the exam thesis, is adequate to show that E exists. By T2, it is existing in a 10-digit-system type. By T1, a generation is going on of new members in E. There cannot possibly be any structure that cannot be a portion of, or the whole of, a member of E, or a combination of several such. By SA, then, that which exists are infinite digit series of the 10-digit system type. Acknowledgement: completely outside of this context and these types of reasonings over infinity and so on, the notion of existence as essentially represented by streaming digit series was presented to me by Geoffrey Read during informal discussions in connection to a seminar at Jesus College, Cambridge in 1992. We further note that Pythagoras is associated with a claim that 'all is numbers'. However the same is associated with a claim that numbers which have indefinitely many decimals, like the square root of two, are not as good, as primary, as important or as essential as numbers which can be written by means of a finite amount of digits. Pythagoras certainly did not claim that existence is based on the numbers of anything like the E- structure that we have defined here. Definition 2 of PMW, or the Principle of a tendency of Movement towards Wholeness (the first definition is mentioned in the section Definitions above). PMW is the action of GP on essences. The justification for this definition is that by T3, anything which exists, does so by E-membership; by T1, GP acts on E to make new members of E; by definition of GP, this involves the bringing-about of enhancement of similarities, contrasts and patterns of these; but this is what definition 1 of PMW is all about. Theorem 4, or T4: Local interaction is an instance of PMW. Proof of T4. In a general sense this follows from T3. However as it is not obvious given the context of definition 1 of PMW I will state it as a theorem and then give an alternative way to show it, which sheds light on the it. The alternative way is as follows: Any interaction involves at least two entities. These entities are, say, E1 and E2, or expressions of them in some way. But we have not introduced the notion of distance in this context yet. Rather, in the context where definition 1 of PMW was given, it was introduced as the notion of spaceduration. Spaceduration is the bridging of the three dimensions of manifest space with an extra dimension of duration, and then more dimensions as needed to bring a whole, and spoken about as one supermodel, just as anything else which exists is spoken about as supermodels; and PMW then as how new supermodels are generated by the perceptive-like action upon existing supermodels, and their linking-back to them. But this shows that the concept of the supermodel relates deeply and well to the concept of the members of E as here introduced. We note in passing that in the 8-sphere theory (cfr ..., 2009, by this author), it is mentioned that it is an implication of the infinity theorem (viz., the proof by this author in 2003 exam that E doesn't have the possibility of being closed off to contain only and all finite members) that dimensions cannot be asserted to be fundamentally separate. As soon as we grant, e.g. by empirical studies, a validity of having duration as a dimension next after the three dimensions for manifest space, we are then led directly to the notion of spaceduration by this theorem; and so can do without general relativity -- we still get the entwinedness of duration and space. But then the relationship as near to each other of E1 and E2 is but a relationship of a particular kind, with a particular set of similarities, contrasts and patterns of similarities and contrasts of E1, E2 and E3, where E3 is spaceduration. As GP operates on these, new members are created and somehow these are handed to the upcoming manifest moment, giving the appearance of perhaps a relatively continous movement of the same. In fact it is a transition. There is then no fundamental shift in saying that PMW can operate here and that PMW can operate in a context where the particular similar relationship of E1 and E2 to E3 is not present. New definition A "non-quantum unit", or "NQU", is a unit whereby the PMW exhibits itself by local interactions but where any PMW operating on the whole unit is not usually exhibiting itself immediately. Theorem 5, or T5: A digital 32-bit computer in good working order is an NQU. Proof of T5. A digital 32-bit computer in good working order exhibits a pattern of boolean logic operations on binary number sequences which are so that the whole unit, in this case, can be understood as grounded on the local interactions involving these binary number sequences as represented by electrical impulses having a localized interaction upon each other in fixed ways. This interaction may happen by means of semiconducting metals like silicon and while the notion of semiconducitivity involves the describing of these units as quantum units, this description is factorised into separate units which are not nonlocally tied together to one quantum unit in the working computer. New definition A "Quantum amplifier", or "QA", is a structure whereby a microscopic energetic fluctuation at the order of Planck's constant has effects on a considerably larger energetic scale. This is a very general definition, and many different kinds of material structures (say) may fit it. A key criterion is that there is some way in which something such as so enormously small as about the energy of a single not hypercharged electron can somehow tilt the balance of a much larger energy, perhaps stepwise to higher and higher energies. One can imagine a perfectly balanced extremely sensitive apparatus which is so that an extremely minute difference in electron flow (say) can tilt its next state to A rather than B, or B rather than A. If this minute difference is on the order of Planck's constant, then Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, or HUP, has some relevance. However HUP doesn't have to be introduced in a context of genuine full uncertainty, cfr the 2004 book by this author (link to it rather at top of the yoga4d.com and yoga6d.com pages) and various other notes also by this author before and after this as for the lack of validity of the bohrian interpretation. New definition An "extreme-coherent unit", or "ECU", is a unit which is characterised by so pervasive quantum nonlocality features throughout that it is arguably very little left of validity of a local interaction description of its parts. Examples of ECU are, of course, superfluidity, superconductivity and, on a much smaller scale, the two- subatomic-particle-situation as studied by EPR/Aspect (Aspect with two photons instead of two electrons, but same principle). New definition That PMW "operates" on a unit means that PMW has a direct immediate nonlocal effect on the unit based on a perception of the unit as a whole. Theorem 6, or T6: The PMW operates on a unit, if it operates at all on it, in the simplest way. Proof of T6 PMW is nought but GP. A unit is a collection of members of E, or a single member of E. GP applied to this collection or to this single member can generate something which can be handed to the next manifest moment. In manifest reality, this will appear as the whole interacting directly with its parts, although, seen from the angle of more dimensions, including durations and nonlocalities at various levels, there are other ways of talking about it. In any case, if we keep to the perspective of the whole operating on the whole or on its parts nonlocally, which is, since the perspective of manifest world is a valid and important perspective in general, itself a valid and important perspective, there various ways in which this can happen. One is the situation of ECU. We will look at other ways. By SA, the simplest way will be the way that it happens. Theorem 7, or T7: Something not a ECU can be a QU. Proof of T7. That ECU is a QU is obvious. That something which is not an ECU can be a QU is less obvious. And indeed we would then naturally talk of a 'subtle nonlocality' in such a case. But we have, by the definition of QA, just above, shown a type of material structure where local interaction may well be predominant which is nevertheless such that energies at the order of Planck's constant can play a key role. To see that something which is not a ECU can be a QU, let us be clear that it is when PMW operates on a unit so as to express itself also on that unit, that it is a quantum unit. When a unit has extreme coherence, such as in the superfluid state, this happens through that extreme coherence. But in a state which is very factorized into many compartements of localized interactions, it is not simple but in fact very complex to reorganize so that all of these compartments suddenly coherently respond to a single impulse from PMW. It is likely that where there is a lot of factorisation, and factorisations again within these factorisations, down to levels of fluctuations which are overridden -- such as in a digital computer of the 32-bit kind which is in good solid working order -- most fluctuations at the Planck level of energy will be going into the background as relatively irrelevant. It is only when a lot of coherence is as if enforced on the structure that a PMW can cause an effect without disregarding the patterns which ought to apply on the individual material constituents. Thus, it is not in principle impossible that all electrons of a macroscopic unit like a fruit, an orange on the table, suddenly moves, say, north; but it requires an immense and extremely complex imposition of coherence. Thus while it is not impossible it is not simple and so does not easily occur. However, if a unit is equipped with a QA, the PMW has a simple way of expressing itself, and so, if it operates at all on the QA, it will express itself in this the simplest way, and thus the unit is, in that situation, a quantum unit, even though its coherence is not extreme. Theorem 8, or T8: HP is an instance of GP. Proof of T8. By T3, that which is, including the human brain/mind (and pervasive and persuasive empirical studies in the last half of the 20th century and early 21st century shows correlations at least for most manifestly strong consciousness states as reported by human beings, including attention and perception processes, and for brain activation patterns), can be said to be members of E; and on the members of E, GP operates. It is the intuitive perception of perception in human beings with human brains (having such correlations as mentioned) that this perception (HP) is alive and essential and purely infinite. This description of HP shows that HP is, on the surface, very similar to GP, although its domain of operation is less general. The dynamic and generic nature of HP as intuitively experienced by the human being with the human brain is so as to suggest it is not itself identical to one member of E, and it needs to exist even so, and by SA, it will then have to be nothing other but an instance of GP. For it would not be simple to have yet another GP-like process. Theorem 9, or T9: The human brain is a QU. Proof of T9: It is a trivial observation made by many that the human brain has a sensitivity which at least in some situations go all the way to energies at the order of Planck's constant (made for instance by David Bohm in his book Quantum Theory, published in the early 1950s). For instance, synaptic connections between two neural cells have an effect on the overall activity patterns of the human brain. In some situations, where the balance is so that one state or another state may arise [[[the meditator may think of whether to say-in-thought or not- say-in-thought the creatively chosen mantra sound for that day in-the-next-moment as an open door for decision- and-attention]]] based on the firing or not firing of one synapse in the next moment. But this firing or not firing may itself be bordering on happening or not happening, all the way down to the minuscle sizes of energies involved in the quantum fluctuations. In other words, the human brain can have a QA-like situation. The T7 asserts that a PMW-effect can then occur. For it to occur, the PMW must operate on the whole of the brain -- or on an even larger whole, such as the whole body including head and the brain -- and it must have a way to express itself. But it does have a way to express itself -- the QA-like situation is just this. By T8, human perception is an instance of the general perception which operates on essences. But human perception may easily, in fact does easily, relate to the whole body including the head and this includes the brain; and this also evidently, as reported by numerous humans in a variety of contexts in quite persuasive ways, includes a direct experience of the states of mind/brain directly -- a perception of the patterns of the perceptive process, a proprioception, -- and subtler feelings in this -- and more. So the PMW -- instanced by HP -- does operate on the unit -- the brain -- and can do so by means of the QA- like situations which obviously easily can arise in many circumstances (esp. the meditative states but also dreams and states lingering near orgasm and more), -- these are simple ways in which the PMW can express itself and by T6 these are the ways in which it expresses itself. But this means that the activity of the brain is not merely the result of the local interaction of its parts, because the PMW reflects immediately and nonlocally the whole and yet have an actual effect, even if the brain is not necessarily extremely coherent. And so the criterion for saying that the human brain is a quantum unit is fulfilled. QED.