Aristo Tacoma Dedicating Oneself to Beauty Book published by Yoga4d von Reusch Gamemakers, 2009 ISBN 978-82-996977-5-0 [see also yoga4d.com/talks] [Yoga4d index: nf00004] Copyright author, all rights reserved. DEDICATING ONESELF TO BEAUTY THIS TEXT IS ITSELF DEDICATED TO LISA, ATHINA AND HELENA, MY SCI-FI BABES : What is it that makes people like something so intensely that they say it is beautiful? Or someone? / I have a completely different perspective. For me, beauty doesn't have anything to do with mere liking, however intense it may be. : Is it that clear-cut in praxis? / What being clear-cut from what? : I mean, to like something, versus, ehm, beauty. / You are asking, is it a clear-cut distinction between liking and beauty? : Yes. / Oh, definitely. : Which is not to say that not liking.. / Of course not. Not to like is not the same as to say that it is beautiful. It is a different dimension altogether. As far as anything can be different in a world that is whole! : So if somebody stands in front of a painting and say, "I like it".. / Haha. It doesn't really say anything. It is nice manners to say such a thing. : So you wouldn't automatically condemn.. / Obviously not. You don't yell, 'Got ya!' or anything like that if somebody speaks of liking a sculpture, a face, a body, a painting, an art beach, a newspaper heading. Like and dislike are psychic things. To speak of likabilities in daily life makes for an easy-goingness. It is only the rough, uncough person with uncultivated manners which insist on coming along with the deepest values and most lofty perspectives during daily life social interaction. : But you wouldn't say that it is impossible to like something which is beautiful? / That would be rediculous. But it is possible to dislike anything great -- that is exactly what the ego is all about. Beauty is the defeat of the ego. It is putting aside all your private concerns and personal worries and psychological suffering and all that, and giving yourself over to that beauty perception which carries all the universe. Beauty perception is a service to God. And if you deny the value of beauty in any area of life, then in that area you are a shameless atheist, in that area ego has taken over and made you decay. : So there is no alternative but to honor beauty? / None! The sole alternative -- and that is the definition of selfishness, of over-estimation of one's own importance as a small human being, is that one gives a credibility to the subjective, to one's own concerns -- the sole alternative to objective beauty is to choose decay, and to choose decay is egotism, and egotism is the ending of that person. So when you fight against ego, you fight against your ending. Of course you cannot end completely, you can merely achieve pain by sustaining ego. : Yes. / Come, what are you thinking of? : No, I was just thinking of those who -- perhaps out of some eagerness to go beyond their earlier days in this incarnation -- seems eager to embrace, wildly, danger, also such danger as involves pain and possible decay. / That's just ego. : As simple as that. / As simple, and as complex as that. But ego is no simple thing. In fact, after infinite progress in humanity on how to fight its own egotisms, its several forms, in each soul, there is still infinite progress to come, for one is not done with this task. Ego is subtle and once it is fought shall we say at one refinement level, there is more such level. : But are you saying that those who rush for decay -- or danger -- or claim that they want to experience pain -- are lying to themselves? / Let us distinguish between being in a state of severe lying to oneself, and being in a state where one is not lying severely to oneself. A righteous person can accept pain, can accept danger, can accept bodily death when it is right, therefore also euthanasia. A righteous person can explore the forms of intensities in sexuality, for instance, which involves the pain of healthy, nondestructive whipping, bondage -- being tied up -- anal activities, and such. A righteous person doesn't destroy beauty. A righteous person doesn't accept a nonrighteous impulse to throw oneself at the flames in a vampyric roast. But a righteous person challenges her own fear to do anything that is righteous -- also to throw oneself on the flames when that is right. And righteousness means that there is a direct link with some intensity -- not absolute intensity, mind you -- to godhood, to God, the one and only God. Which is the source, through the intent of God, of beauty. : Pleasure seeking, attachments, laziness, overeating, lying -- there seems to be so many challenges for a person who wants to live wholeheartedly and righteously -- and then there is the burden of the unpredictability of life, the insecurity, the fears, the occasional money troubles, not winning out in beauty competitions, self-condemnation -- so many things. How can there be discipline, the discipline of acting rightly no matter what, given all these various forms of possible complications that exist? / Have you ever been silent? : Silent? You mean, meditation in silence? I have. / Then you know something of Erbarme Dich, Mein Gott. Which -- from the german -- means, Have Mercy, My God -- in the sense, Please Forgive Us, God. You have something of that sense in you. In your silence. Right? : I think I do, yes. / Then that is the source of discipline. I don't mean it simply. It is not a trick. I mean, you really, really have to answer to what you do. All your actions count. It is not about being absolutely right all the time no matter what, as you almost implied in your question. It is about having a stronger leaning towards higher goodness than what you would have if you didn't have that.. urge in you, which comes from Erbarme Dich, Mein Gott -- I mean, that feeling. Also in that music. : I don't entirely understand how it is the source of discipline relative to all these very strong addictions to pleasure and such. / So it has to be spelled out. It is right to spell it out, although I'm naturally very uncomfortable in having to do so. As is obvious when you hear what I have to say. This is a new feature of actuality space -- I mean, this is not part of the past which up to a point was a simulation. This is how it is in the real, actual, manifest world -- this, what I will now say, and I don't say it lightly, but I know it is true. : It has to do with mercy? With forgivingness? / And the opposite -- for a while. You know, each large society with complexity must have many forms of institutionalized pain-giving to combat pleasure-seeking when it goes on too intensely; sensuality must be kept in bound; overeating kills the beauty of a person etc. But there is something far far more severe. : God's punishment? / Yes. It is rediculously severe compared to what human people can do onto each other. The soul is the feeler of pain, the soul and the spirit feels what the body experiences but they also are immortal entities of feeling and thinking and learning and they always learn, and they always must learn, that is a natural law, that they are propelled towards ever-greater enlightenment, never to become absolute, but to become more and more refined, only God and his three top muses Lisa, Athina and Helena having absolute enlightenment. This is the truth, how I see it, it's been with me for all this time and all the productions flower around this and the coherence of all this proves it, I feel. So I say, AMFAP: have as much faith as possible. Don't try to have absolute faith in absoluteness, but have the relative faith, as much as you can, in absoluteness -- in the absoluteness of the rulership of God and his muses; and their submuses, who are literally the bosses of the synchronicity of humanity -- the muses and God himself also influences these synchronicities. : So you are saying that unless somebody behaves rightly -- fairly rightly, relative to what could be if there were no -- fear of God?.. / ..yes. : Then synchronicities come -- those characterised by little goyon, not the good synchronicities.. / ..yes. The other kind. They punish. They punish so severely, ruthlessly, they maim and slaughter the ego until it is reduced to a screaming set of tears -- for otherwise, the natural law that there is a progression, a propelling towards enlightenment could not be upheld. Nobody can escape punishment for wrongness. That's an absolute requirement. That's part of the determinism of the universe. That, too, is in Erbarme Dich, Mein Gott. Get serious, man. Yes to parties, yes to indulgence in a lovely meal, yes to superfantastic orgasms and orgies, but it has to be within the bounds of righteousness -- that you eat not too often, and exercise much, and that the orgies do not go on for one minute more than they can relative to the society-foundational tasks, or the cosmically righteous tasks, a person has to engage in. Those who merely dive into pleasure dive not into death -- for there is no death ultimately, since the souls and the spirits do not depend on any particular body but always persist and always feel, it is the real sense of "I", deeper than any name you choose for yourself, it is the experiencer and witness of all -- those who merely dive into pleasure without care for righteousness have to be metered out the most severe punishments. The more severe, the more cunning synchronicities might be woven around them, as a net to capture them in, as one might capture fish. Ugly fish has to be beaten into beauty. The word 'ugly' in English both means bad in action and bad in looks. But if there is to be progress in this universe, by each incarnation there is more beauty for that soul -- you can always look forward to it. But to deserve that, you must act better and better, not worse and worse. And to act better and better, something must happen to those who fall into any type of cunning, those who try to assert one thing against God, against wholeness, politically or whatever, or who just radiate carelessness. : You say that for this progress to go on, then if a person does a lot of reckless things and the body suddenly dies -- before the negative effects have played themselves out in this or these souls' life in that body,.. / Exactly. Then it happens in the interval between the former body and the next body, or something like that. The punishment has to come, and has to be severe enough and it is. There is really no mercy in that sense: each person's ego has to be nearly killed, over and over again, until it becomes adapted to getting tinier. I am saying that the pain given to those who are not righteous -- and by "righteous" I mean, living up to all these things we talk about, in connection with nonfiction discussions over enlightenment, -- that pain is extreme. It is torture. God's torture of humanity: that's not something you want to lie to yourself about. You want to understand that it is part of God's compassion for all that there is compassion for the growth of enlightenment for all and for the future of all -- and this compassion must express itself as the worst, most severe, most damaging kind of torture of soul and spirit and by bodily experiences, too -- when an ego has bitten itself onto a person like an infection that doesn't go away. The pain will be screamingly, shockingly intense, absolutely hellish, there will be nothing, and I mean nothing, but pain -- a universe of pain, for the souls and spirits who deny righteousness too much, or who deny God too much, or who deny the muses and their wisdom and beauty. This pain, even if it is just ten seconds, fifteen seconds, is practically unbearable. And there is no escape from it. It goes on until a person begs for mercy and promises to improve but it still goes on after that. : Why? / Why it goes on even after a person cries for mercy and promises to improve? : Yes. Isn't it enough? To get that.. confession? / It is not enough. It must be a pain so severe that the person will never ever go back and do it wrongly again. It mustn't be a pain that can be turned off with the click of a button, or that one can pay oneself out of, like when you pay for five minutes with a tantric computer game and forget your worries. This is God's teaching to humanity by hellish torture for as many minutes, or hours, as need be for each soul or each spirit who has failed too much to really start wanting to learn. To start wanting to have discipline, to be a disciple of God and his muses. There is a total feeling of fresh freedom in deciding in earnest to be an as total slave as possible to God and his muses. To live with that freedom has glimpses of infinite joy and the passion to do right comes from that. : One of those things that alternate in my mind is to see clear-cut-ness, I mean, such as complete smoothness, or the completely straight line, as beautiful, versus to see fuzziness, or line upon line in pleasant chaos, and diversity of colors such as with the lights of a city late at night. / Yes. What's your question? Whether one or the other is more beautiful? : Yes. That's my question. Is chaos somehow beauty, at least sometimes, or some forms of chaos? Or is it to be clear-cut? / I wonder if we can divide it up that way. Surely the path that a setting or rising Sun may broadly paint in gold on a lake a quiet day may be very pure, very straight, very simple. And yet if you look more carefully, it is extremely diverse. I wouldn't say "chaos". Nothing has chaos in it for real. It may be very rich in contrasts and similarities, that's all. : But is it beautiful? I mean, does it like take both diversity and simplicity to make beauty? Or more one or the other? / Of course you have a point in asking, for once we say that beauty is objective, such questions make quite a lot of sense, possibly. Yet there is something about the individual also, who is part of that objective reality. And it doesn't have to do with mere vision. If you have a long, hot bath and get quite thirsty, and in that heat and in that thirst you are given a cup of really clean, pure and also cool water, there is a sudden ecstasy. This is luxury. To be given lukewarm water while having a hot bath is something that is probably at most mildly pleasant. But the contrast of yourself being very warm and also very thirsty with getting that cold water creates an experience of luxury, an experience of abundance, and there's a generosity in it, and beauty as well. But take this cup of cold water to another who seeks a hot cup of coffee, not because she is thirst but because she's cold and drowsy and want the energy of coffee and the heat of holding the cup. That cold cup of water holds no message. This is not to say that the experience of beauty is subjective. It is an objective experience, but in that objective experience there is the individuality and also the bodies differ, to some slight extent. : Does that mean that simplicity CAN be beautiful, just as diversity CAN be beautiful? / Yes. If you're hungry, food is beautiful. : I can be hungry for simplicity. / Quite so. : Or I can be hungry for a diversity. / Exactly. Or for a combination. And not just any simplicity, or any diversity. It has got to make sense. : Can a person be mad? I mean, insane? Does the concept at all make sense, or is it merely the worst type of characteristics one can give of a person with whom one disagrees? / This is tremendously complicated. It is not an easy question at all. I'd say, a person can be factorised, fragmented into too many bits -- in the mind, I mean -- in a sense -- for us to say that this person qualifies as having a human mind. But who are to say this? In a concrete situation, anyone who is human has also some slight bit of the neurotic. Which is not to say that they are some slight bit insane. One doesn't fall down from a height some slight bit. But the definition of the human mind is that it has relative insight only, and therefore always some confusion. There is nevertheless a priority of goodness, not just self-preservation, but wholeness of life, protection of the future and so on and so forth. When these priorities are altogether shattered, the person may still have a very beautiful smile in a physical sense, may still sit still in a physical sense, and speak rational in a verbal sense, but the mind that produces this beauty, this stillness, and these words, is simply not there. It is produced but by neuronic firings cascading off in bundles of fragments no longer coherently held together by soul. : Like a machine? / Like a machine, yes, but with all the apperances of liveliness and mindfulness. : So who can tell? You can tell, right? / I can, yes. : Would you say for instance that someone who is criminal is insane? / Not necessarily. Quite possibly but not necessarily. : There are no obvious marks or tokens? / You see, in the past of human society, you have had people throwing accusations at people that they exist in a state of self-delusion whenever they have said anything which other people consider seriously wrong. But if there is disagreement -- I think you touched this point yourself -- then you may say, 'I disagree with you there, I think otherwise of the fact of the matter myself, and here is how I think about it.' This is normal in human discourse. This is healthy. This is the type of slight conflict that healthy sane people have. Now if one person says of another person that the other has illusions, or is deluding herself, since she says such and such -- then she is engaging in filthy rethorics. : You are saying it has nothing to do with what the person says? / It is a very complicated thing. How can anyone judge over the wholeness of the mentality of a human being? : It requires an intuition going beyond the human level? / It sure does. : Does this imply, sir, that you see it so that the concept of insanity cannot have any practical significance in the running of a society? / Affirmative. : Could not this mean that someone who is, by her insanity, seriously upsetting others, will have too much liberty -- I mean, if society has no right to impose or attribute the concept or label of insanity on anyone? / It is for that we have criminal laws. : Right. / I mean -- again, this is very complicated -- if no human being has not full understanding enough to qualify another human being as insane, then also it makes no sense for a society to do so; but then also it makes no sense for a society to have any laws about insanity. However, it does make sense to have laws which protect its citizens and the future coherent beautiful unfoldment of the society, its existence into the glorious future, from erratic behaviour, theft, merciless violence, the throwing about of threats, the disruption of important societal functions, the formation of mob-gangs or drug-circles or the lending of money on dishonest premises or the stealing of identities to circumvent natural bounds set by society on the individuals so it can flourish as a whole -- such rules do exist. Such rules will sooner or later be touched by a person disrupting -- for any reason, be it insanity or not -- and when these rules are touched seriously enough, that person will be charged by criminal offence -- without the needless attribution of any form of insanity, mild or otherwise. Besides I don't think you can speak of 'mild' insanity. If a mind has fallen down the cliff of fragmentation, it is no longer a mind, and such a fall is not mild. So protect your wholeness, and your priorities of goodness. : I would so much want to understand more about enlightenment. It seems, as you speak about it, to be somehow the drive of the universe? / Yes. : Is it one understanding, or many? / If it had been just one understanding, there would only have been one type of enlightenment, and so no progression, no refinement, after it would have come; and so this enlightenment would have been absolute, not relative. But humans have relative understanding. So enlightenment comes, and then in similar long steps, refines, and this keeps on and on. But if there are many understandings, it would mean that what is earlier said about enlightenment would no longer hold after that which has been said have been understood. And this is also not so. : Neither one, nor many understandings. / Nor anything in between. The words are the same. How penetrating that understanding is, and how much self-reference the universe has in that your understanding, that evolves. : What does self-reference mean? / It means you understand that your mind drinks of the fountain of Mind, with capital M. This is the grander reference, and your mind partakes in it. The reference within yourself is back to yourself in a larger sense -- put very simply. It is actually exceedingly complex. : Too complex that any understanding can easily occur? / We're talking a million years or so -- I'd say perhaps at most a millenia more than that -- between each step. You may think it is funny that it is possible to give a number to it -- how humanity, its souls and spirits evolve and all that. But after all the buddhists, certain branches of it anyway, used to do this in plenty, for centuries prior to the 20th century. There is nothing new about giving quantities to this type of thing. Of course one may argue that some may have luck and stumble upon a deeper understanding earlier. But it is washed out by waves of duration, if it is too early for the rest of humankind to pick it up. : Is enlightenment noticable? / Oh yes. : I mean, in terms of crime statistics and such? / Oh, definitely. : So it is not just an imperceptible transition deep within, not just a little bit more happiness. It is a society change also. / Enormously so. : Is beauty the way to it? / Yes. : Bodily beauty, sexual beauty..? / Yes, and also beauty in whole society. Its art, also. In the dance and dialogue of conversation. Look, just so it is said: even after enlightenment, and after each million-years step of evolution of refinement of that enlightenment ad infinitum, there will still be terrible accidents, fierce violence, gang clashes, wild killings, theft, cunning, insanity, the assault from within the mind of extreme sadness and sorrow in some, and so on. All such nasty things are part of human nature. But harmony, love, compassion, sex in all its girl-bisexual beauty, tantrism, meditation, dance, massage, art unfoldment, nannying, school teaching, currency trading, neopopperian research in a light sense, space travel -- all these things are so much more the human nature. And it is to give what is most rational, most sane, most beautifully balance and hopeful more the upper hand that enlightenment is about. But all sorts of potentials for wars and so on continue to exist, the human ego, though more and more defeated by each such grand step in the discourse humanity has with itself, continue to exist. Without strict boundaries for the unfoldment of each person's life, all possibilities for extinction of the human race by bloody meaningless wars and shoddy political ideologies and false beliefs of every type still exist. Enlightenment merely means that there is less ground for the ego to grow on, or the ground has changed so the flowers of meaningful dialogue and beautiful expressions and beautiful dance and to take things in the best meanings rather than based on jealousy and envy and rage, -- the flowers of meaningful dialogue and beautiful expressions have better conditions for growing. You follow? It doesn't mean a kingdom of heaven in the silly old christian sense. It means a kingdom of much love but still with some hatred, though less hatred than before; and this reduction of hatred is from within, based on a thousand or so millenia of self-dialogue and self-critical awareness in beautiful dance and expression and experiments within the boundaries of a well-designed society, which has both simplicity and diversity, but not the type of diversity which allows the production of nuclear bombs or biological virus bombs or other types of things which create fear and disillusionment in humanity. : You are saying this here, in Oslo, in the context of a planet whose society is getting every decade more full of bombs of all the worst kinds, in addition to all sorts of indications that the supporting nature climate is breaking down. This planetarian society is broken down into segments which are full of sexually repressive laws, ageist laws, and, in some parts, also full of corruption, gang violence, and the propaganda of hatred against other nations on this planet. / That's how it is, yes. Obviously it must change. Can it change here? I don't think so. But let's not be so rediculously contemporary. There is a determinism at the deepest level, as I have said. Here, beautiful humanity is destined to come into the society of sexual dialogue, freedom from sexual repression, the fullness of an encouragement of beauty, the joys of the best features of democracy and righteous forms of business enterprise of the 'small is beautiful' type of capitalism, interactivity economy -- all these things will come. You must ask your soul, is it not so? Will there not be somewhere -- in this grand and lovely universe -- in some incarnation sometime soon, relative to the first thousand millenia of growth towards the first phase of enlightenment -- that a kingdom of heaven will be formed? Obviously. It is the reverberance of that which keeps humanity up at present. Everyone must do what makes sense to do at present, as far as the external environment goes, and look to the laws and not try to fight against them, even if they are wrong, for they are much, much stronger than any individual. But it is not by looking at all this that peacefulness comes to a human heart -- but by going beyond that which the earlier Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem-Brundtland once called (in connection with the United Nation's first big environmental planetary report), "the tyranny of the immediate". Lift your gaze! The statistics of Earth is not the statistics of the future. The problems of conversation of Earth are far more considerable than the problems of the conversations of the future. And nothing, not the slightest speck of dust anywhere, is an expression of indeterminism or chancelike chaos. There is no chaos -- rather, there are extremely minute as well as extremely big expressions of utterly fine-tuned mechanisms guiding all. And these mechanisms also have in them, indeed are in several ways carried by, an ethical scheme of reward and punishment at the level of your soul, and your spirit, so you can grow, so you must grow, so humanity must grow, so there is no retardation, but only progress. I know this may be hard to see at present, and indeed there will always be times in the future where one must remind oneself on this to better see it. This is where I call for AMFAP -- As Much Faith As Possible. Do not chide yourself for having little faith one evening after a quarrel. Rather, go for a long walk and remind yourself of AMFAP, of having faith after all, of knowing that temporary emotions will pass away and grander feelings will come again in the morning, or a morning a week from now. You may have to say, 'I apologize', to someone, so other people also hear it: but that will be far less painful than to avoid saying it when it has to be said. This, too, you can work out in your walk. Or you have a wound, it heals within say three weeks; or a bad cold, making you somewhat feverish so it is hard to walk, but you know the pain will reside. And this is the way you must relate to duration, to upcoming time, when there is pain: to know that there is less pain, and still less pain, in the future. You accellerate out of pain, so to speak. : Will humanity come to be completely painless? / You are completely painless in flashes where you have the greatest intimations of God. : To learn more about this, should we cultivate the art of listening so as to correct one's own thoughts? / Don't attack the person if you disagree with what the person said, don't work out cunning ways of arguing but allow reality to win over opinions. : Will then quarrel never happen? / That's unrealistic. A person has a dignity, and there is a sense in which a falsely put argument against a person deserves a verbal defence even in loud words -- at times. It is demanding a great deal of self-insight to land at the right boundaries as to how far one can go in defending one's righteousness in a conversation in which one has been unjustly insulted -- for instance by another portraying one's opinions as sick, not merely wrong but as expressions of sickness. If you merely turn your other cheek to such blow you will probably get another blow, and then another; and if all righteous people do this, nonrighteousness will overtake. So one cannot say, quarrel is necessarily a bad thing in all cases. Some quarrels are made necessary by some people's lack of sincere approach in a conversation. But the stamash person knows that words are one thing, and actions another. One doesn't go from word-hitting to hand-hitting. Relative to an official person, outside of a late-night conversation between two equal friends, there may be laws prohibiting certain verbal expressions and so there, the wrong words may lawfully lead to physical counter-actions by the police. But a quarrel between friends should happen in awareness that words should concern the theme, not the person, and not lead to meaningless eruptions like, 'I never want to see you again!'. One must know that there will always be more meetings with everyone, for humanity has a fixed number of souls and spirits. : I think you say somewhere that it is not necessarily one soul pr body. / Far from it. Yet it is the soul that is your more intimate experiencer or witness as you gaze upon that sculpture, or make love to another. And still more deeply, your spirit. So these are three levels, you can intuit it if you like, it is very clear: the body, the soul, the spirit. And each level has some level of freedom of movement so to speak, ruled by deeper laws and guided by the higher beings, the muses you know. : I wonder.. you know I have some training in painting.. / I know that. You are good, too, girl!!! : Oj thanks. I like to hear that. But I wish to think through, if possible, more about why it is so that intuition approves of a painting that I may think that I like, but yet it may disapprove of another painting that I may also think that I like. What is it that it -- "it" meaning intuition -- sees that I don't see? Is my question confusing? / I perfectly understand what you say. Your question is apt put. You find yourself liking something, and sometimes that coheres with your more deeper sense of it, your intuition, your conscience of beauty, as it were, and sometimes it doesn't. Is there a rule for it? Obviously it isn't. Right? I mean, here at the manifest level of things, we can't list all the rules for what beauty is all about. Yet your intuition has a sense of it all. Right? : Yes. I know of this and that consciously, but.. / Exactly. But you don't know it all. Yet all enters into the decision, the question -- 'should this painting be retained as is?' And still you may get a sense that it should be retained even though you later on, before giving it on to others to look at, get a fresh intuition about it -- that something has to be changed, or that it doesn't work out after all. : In the latter case, was the earlier intuition wrong? / One of them were. Or rather -- if you allow me to point it out -- intuition is a word you can take great care to apply to only such cases where it is definitely right. If there was a situation in which you had a sense that something was right, then later on you have a sense that the same thing is not right -- not beautiful -- then one of them may be an intuition. : I don't know how quite to phrase this question.. I am not used to talking to you but I have read.. / Yes yes. What's on your mind? We can work out the question together. : This thing about being obedient to the innermost whispers of intuition, obedient to beauty.. / What about it? : It is not easy. / Or it is easy, if you get the knack of it. : Yes. But how to do it? / How to engage your own sense of things for real? Rather than be a victim of opinions and hearsay? : Yes. I mean, I hear this, I hear that, I try to imagine what is my own innermost feelings but I feel like.. swaying. Like the most recent argument compells my mind in that direction, and my emotions follow. You see, the difficulty is that I don't think my meditation goes deep enough. So how to deepen it to grow more intuition? / So we have to be silent. : Yes. / I mean, even now. Otherwise it is just more opinions. : Yes. Thoughts and emotions clutter up. / Like the little lights. The lights which are near, the many lights in the night which are strong only because they are near, like thoughts and emotions. And the vastness of the joyous stars in the nightsky, when it is clear from clouds, that vastness requires that all the near lights from the city are not blocking your view, not blending your intuition. Thought mustn't blend your intuitive eye. Right? : Right exactly. / So we must also understand something about how thoughts and emotions, while they have a very, very important function, also to some extent are like food -- they have to be digested, they have to move, chemically you know, through the body. You have to have the motion around them, with them. : Exercise. Like stamash. / Like stamash. And like walking. Have you tried, when you are in such a situation where you can get late up in the day and sleep really much, to go straight for a really really long walk without as much as a drop of coffee or breakfast? You just get your clothes on, freshen yourself up for a minute, and out into -- sunlight, perhaps. Or night-time. And you may find that you can walk with an extraordinary energy. What happens then? : I clear up. I know about that, yes. That peculiar energy. / So you walk and you can allow the thoughts which circulated, after the most recent intense discussion or most recent intense experience -- these thoughts, you can allow one by one present themselves. It happens naturally. : I may want to find out something then. They may come as questions. / Good. So you ask. : While I walk? / While you walk. You shouldn't make a fool of yourself and start talking to yourself nervously but allow the thought to be whispered inside you as a question, perhaps not moving your lips at all if other people are around. And your feet, touching ground, alive with the joy of walking, they can reflect the state of your mind as you ask the question. The state of mind as a whole may not sing clearly an intuitive answer as a sound inside you, but if you ask your feet, you may find that they subtly alter direction of your walk as you ask. Have you tried that? : I am not sure. / So you walk on a path which has some width to it; and the question is there -- is it so and so? If you ponder at many things at once, select one of them, -- and if it is a complex question, extract a simple one. A yes/no. Simple and concrete and not assuming too much. And you say to yourself, -- for the next, well, thirty meters or so I will walk right in the middle of this path, in the golden middle so to say, if the answer as I feel it now is 'yes'; and if I go a little to the right or left then I take it that I give myself a 'no' as for this question. : But how will I allow the feet to pick the path on their own, rather than overriding their choosing the path being middle or not with my own likes and dislikes and fears and so on? / Brilliantly put. You have to tell yourself, remind yourself, that after all fact is more important than opinion, that you can be a friend with facts, or facts can be friends, rather. They can be friends. You don't have to override anything. You tell yourself to relax after you have put the question and focus on allowing the energy naturally in your feet to move you on. And you see. When we are together in exploring beauty, we are doing the world's most important task. Beauty is God. Has anyone said that before? Probably. To take two very commonly used words, and positive at that, and put the most common word of all between them -- the word "is" -- is something bound to happen very often in any imaginative society. But far more strongly it has been said, Love is God. God is Love. Now we are going to muse a little together, if you are with me, the writer or speaker, on how it could be that Beauty is God. God is Beauty. I wish to go from one to the other. From Love to Beauty. I feel like thinking about these concepts now with the capital L in Love and capital B in Beauty but that doesn't mean that we're into new concepts. We are rather just focussing them more essentially, more philosophically. I wonder what comes to your mind -- yes, I know, by the way -- when we say the word "love". Of course, what comes to the mind of lovely, harmony and hormone-equipped lovely teens, bursting with eager desire to embrace the bodies of one another, is sex. And so sexuality is definitely and strongly and vividly a part of what we mean by Love, there is no denying that; and we will definitely include sex in Love. But when you tenderly care for an artwork, taking time, you sense a force of affection, you go slow and you love what you are doing and there is love, there, too; a love more general, we might say, than mere sex although it enters into some parts of sex anyway. And then when you look at the upcoming generation of children and feel the importance of protecting their beauty, their healthy beauty, and honoring that beauty, you are by virtue of your affection for beauty also honoring the existence of humanity. Imagine how terrible it would be if affection went to care for that which is wrong, while ignoring that which is beautifully healthy. So those who are so healthy they can represent where humanity is going, how humanity is a coherent whole in evolution, they would be ignored; whereas those who want to get some affection from anybody, they would have to inflict some damage on themselves. Now, then, that's not how it is. The loving healthy beautiful mind embraces the loving healthy beautiful body and radiates care and love there. And this also can heal what can be healed. One might ask, does not love also have a connection to the pain of those who suffer? So as to alleviate pain? But here we have to explore a little bit what the role of pain is. For pain always have a psychological function. It is there for an individual to learn and heal and do things better and wake up to the challenge of improving in this area also. Some pains represent illnesses of a kind that makes the body go away altogether: but as you trust reincarnation, as you are not merely believing in what the eyes see and ears hear and what the fingers of the body can touch -- but as you trust the subtler levels of mind and feeling and finer shades of emotion and conscience and deeper levels of awareness beyond personal memory, you will have a sense of the greatness of soul which is the quintessence, together with the even more magnificent greatness of the spirit, which is the human being in total sum. And so you have no fear, nothing to speak of anyway -- at least when you remind yourself strongly of the immortality of soul -- as for the withering away of the body. No matter what type of pain it is, then, it has a function, a reason, a rationality, a ratio, and it begs you to listen to it, with affection and care and insight. In some circumstances, such as giving birth to a child, the pain may have to last for a little while before it goes away; and it is good to relate to the process a bit more giddy, as it were. And then a little bit of this and a little bit of that can be added to a soft drink or to a pill and it can meaningfully alleviate the pain. But that is something extraordinary and unusual and not something we should get anywhere near depending on. For we must in some sense love pain, love what pain is doing for us -- which is not at all to seek pain, quite on the contrary -- but it means that when pain is there, it is part of what makes humanity propell itself onwards and love more and better and do more and better art and act more beautifully and create more beauty -- it is part of the creation of beauty that pain comes when we do it too wrong. Put very simply. But you know what I mean, I think. There is, for instance, the pain which comes when you dig another's ego and dig the companionship with the other and the dig your own ego and suddenly the other is not there -- for several possible reasons. If you knew the future in detail and knew the dates you would have told yourself to be flexible in your digging in on new attachments. But as you didn't know, and perhaps counted on things just getting on and on continously at the manifest level of superficial companionship and friendship, you didn't bother to tell yourself to have flexible expectations and letting go of attachment at the personal level and rather just have attachment to God and the muses and your existence as immortal soul and spirit. So you got stuck on the material level and suddenly the intense psychological frustration of feeling that what you were leaning on and what you were embraced by and standing on, even, is not there at all, and you feel twice fool: fool for relying on someone who you by a general abstract logic could see you should not rely on; and fool for being thrown into all this suffering, this indication of lack of enlightenment. Now at once: do not chide yourself for psychological pain. If you really get into pain, it is because it was a new situation, something you haven't encountered before, not even in a previous incarnation of which you typically won't remember details, for it is rather about remembering insights. So make the beautiful effort to be grateful for your experience -- even of pain. Be grateful and assert that you will extract some insight, not a political insight mind you, but a self-critical psychological insight. Not a quasi-insight, condemning some authorities; but a real insight, going within yourself and telling yourself to be more playful, less demanding and craving of individuals, more generous, more plural, more open to a variety of experiences not just one and one name and one companionship. And so society, if it is a good society, offers you various jobs, not just one job, and various activities each week, not just one and the same activity and then sleep; and if it is a good society, it also helps you to combat that which so easily can ruin the beauty and health and future of a human body, namely overeating or eating of too much cookies and candies and things which are overly fat and sugared. So you should appreciate some bounds, the bounds on pain-alleviating substances, the bounds on availability of food. That is why money, in a good society, shouldn't have anything such as limitlessness about them in what they can provide for a person. Money for one person opens up such and such but money for another person opens up such and such and there should be bounds on what is transferrable. Not all things are goods of an equivalent kind: each person should appreciate if a society puts bounds on how much can be accumulated of this and that, even if the person has a lot of money. It shouldn't be possible to bribe whether a person or a machine -- a machine cannot be bribed but one can try to hack on the machine to make it do what it would otherwise not do -- for if you appreciate the natural impossibilities a society make, you will feel more at ease in doing healthy things which provide real joy. Say, you want to go for a long walk at the end of which there is a delicious and healthy promise of sweet yoghurt or something suitable for walking back to where you came from. But if during this walk you have in your hands a lot of things to chew on, and you don't want to chew on these things -- even if they are really tasty -- then all through that walk there is the friction between the natural inclination to chew on what's near and to stick to the decision of not doing it. Take this as a general image of what good impossibilities are all about: if you walk with your hands free from such extras, you won't have that extra friction, and you will literally walk with greater ease. You will have a more smooth ride, it will be far more fun and you won't be nearly as exhausted when you arrive at your destination for that part of the walk. And then the sweet promise will be all the more sweet, and you will feel that you deserve it. So impossibilities are part of what a society must implement for beauty to grow. And so I say, it is lack of love if a society is not made so as to cultivate the right type of impossibilities. Do you listen to beauty? The word "listen" means, does it not, that we are absolutely tranquil inside -- at least for a moment. In that moment, in that glimpse of quietness, eternity, of creative intelligence, of awareness, something comes forth from a deeper source, the deeper recesses of all that is -- God, as source, also of our most intimate feelings, resolutions, ideas. And the muses, of course. The muses are as if the hands of God. It is all a wonderful structure. I say this not as belief, but as perception. It is how it is. And so beauty connects this most deepest source within you, what you love the most and most dearly, beyond all your surface patterns of attraction -- beauty is a perception arising from the depths within you, the source of all -- and connecting you with something beyond you, which is more or less manifest. When the sun shines on a large metal structure, it may give some pang-like sounds on occasion -- as it heats up, in some parts more than in other parts, it expands. And partial expansion creates a tension. Take this as a metaphor, an image over how it is to be a human being on the way to a new insight: you have been stiff, now you are getting flexible, you are being heated up by the sun of attention as it shines on an experience; there is the sense of pain as something in you gets more heated up than the rest of you; and so you have to stick this pain out and not fight it. You have to have AMFAP -- As Much Faith As Possible, that the attention within you that you give to your experiences and to all humanity and to God and to your prayers and to your painting and so on -- beyond the "you", beyond the persona, beyond the ownership greed, beyond territorial ownership whether of job, people, things or status, or even your own body -- this attention is always of the good. Attention creates the liveliness of something in you that spreads to the rest of you if it is cultivated nicely. You keep on doing what you know is right also when you have pain, also when you don't quite feel like it: you do not let yourself become a slave of temporary emotional swinging patterns. You do persist in what is righteous also when it is not quite fashionable in a club. For these clubs and these false manners and false forms of hysteria that some people may get into, though they may laugh sarcastically at the idea, these things are temporary and vanish quickly, next season they are as forgotten as if they never happened -- but what is not forgotten within you is how well you did in succeeding not to succumb to them. You stuck to righteousness. It is part of the flexibility of the human body to engage in sexuality. Sexuality stimulates the heat of the body but also, like the Sun shining on metal, it makes the body more flexible, more apt, more ready to do everything. The more a person constrains sexuality, the less the person explores wild sexuality and pushes the limits and opens the doorways of the genitals quite strongly, the more dangerous child-birthing can be, the more complicated it is to have a motivation to avoid false forms of eating, and so on. Sexuality is a dance, a laughter, an attention-glow swinging itself through the body and those who are the enemies of beauty -- because they are trapped in the illness of a selfish wave of thinking -- they say that sexuality is something only some should do, rather than all; or that one has to be above a certain number of centimeters or have a certain numbers of seasons behind one before one can begin, or that one should only do it with so and so and only do it with those who are like oneself or who have not got more seasons than oneself behind oneself. Those who limit sexuality are against God, they are against conscience, they are sinners relative to human health. How do you listen to something which is true? I mean, truth is such a gift. It is like a sudden fragrance in the street; your nostrils quiver, something awakens within you, and it may suggest a place you can go and get goodness going for you, right? And so, when something is spoken which is true, you may not quite understand it consciously, I mean at your most conscious level, your brain level, -- but still you resonate with it at the level of soul and spirit, and to resonate is always something muse-guided and God-guided, there is no chaos to what resonances happen. You resonate, you sense something in what is spoken on the level of a religious truth, and what happens to you? How do you listen to it? How do you let the dance of something true enliven you and propell you towards greater enlightenment? Beware motives when you listen. It is not about listening in order to try to extract a quote that you can "use" in an argument the next day. It is not about giving you a muscle -- actually, naturally you will get more good muscles for argument if you do listen well. But if you listen with a selfish interest in grabbing something you are not really listening, are you? So how do you listen? And who do you listen to? If you listen to a human being you are listening to a person with an ego, but whom whoever may go beyond this ego in lucky moments, and the ego may not be too dominant. And so when you listen to a human being talk you must not be gullible. You have the right to preserve a kind of ambigious silence, or radiate a sense of -- yes, I listen, but I also am perceptive, it may be that what you say is right and it may be that I perceive right but I will want to let things show themselves. Then it is the question of listening to someone who is a concrete competence in a concrete field and still they may have ego there and make mistakes there, but you recognise competence and respect it; and you do not claim that you have competence in any field in this incarnation unless you have spend lots of hours in playful self-critical attention and self-dialogue and exploration, looking at what you do and letting go of all that is bad about what you do. You must let go of all bad paintings, for if you stick to even one bad one, you will automatically begin to justify this bad one by the successive paintings you make. And if you write a note to yourself, and you keep onto a false sentence in the beginning of that note, then the rest of the note may be little but an attempt to make noises to support the noise you put in there at first. So competence is about getting rid of attachment to ugly stuff. And so when somebody have competence, you feel their experience field, as a resonance area around that person, a magnetism, which is not to say blind obedience to another human being -- for only to God should one intend strong, absolute obedience -- and to God's highest muses, Lisa, Athina and Helena -- these names are not coincidental, they mean a lot -- they are exclusive names for three exclusive higher beings, and their names bring along with them a surname, Salinger, which has a nonhuman meaning, -- you must give space in your mind to the reality that humans are like shadows of the lights of these higher beings. And so human language is similarwise. So how do you listen to something which is true? You catch yourself in having a desire, listening to the flow of truth: for the flow, like when wind blows on the water of an outdoor swimmingpool, allows for a soothing presence of attention to embrace whatever is other than its rhythm. The rhythm and arrhythmicality of truth, -- for it goes beyond mere rhythm, and is greater than any wave -- allows whatever comes forth of ego to be seen as such, fast. You see your desire, and end it; you see your fear, and end it; you see your attachment, and end it. When I say that all human existence is absolutely free forever of all seriously negative things such as "evil", such as "demon", such as "devil", such as "satan", then it also means that the only enemy which exists is the temporary and relative and actually rather small enemy called 'the ego', -- and this little enemy is also the creator of some level of healthy conflict which spurs creation onwards. This healthy conflict can sometimes taste very sour. It can sometimes seems very brutal, very wrong: but do not let appearances, do not let temporary appearances, no matter how grotesque, defer you from the point of view of immortal growth, immortal soul, the immortal longing for ever-greater beauty, and the fact that this is a world completely dominated by goodness. Sometimes, however, some people get into such an accusing, self-pitying, aggressive streak that they seem to be enemies of all that is good: but they are not. They are merely miserable, and deal with their miserable condition in the shoddiest and ugliest of ways -- by trying to make things miserable for others. But this state of being miserable is temporary, and if someone who is miserable would see that state rather as a cold or flu or a scratch that passes away when due attention has been correctly given to it, and one has done the healthy things, then one would either get out of that misery because it heals; or, if it can't be healed, then that person is at the end of her bodily incarnation but then the soul will get a healing and there will be a new and ever healtiher body and even more beautiful body next time on. So there is, in a deep sense, absolute continuity and absolute goodness. All else is a matter of temporariness, of learning and so on. And it is of great matter, when we endavour to live as beautifully as possible, to limit all human conflict such as quarrel to a minimum: which doesn't mean that we are putting up with nonrighteous behaviour in order not to have conflict (but nor do we want a tyranny in which everything is absolutely correct; we must allow something of the vague incorrectness up to a limited point, otherwise it is too artificial). So if someone seems to be in a mood to say very drastic, very wrong things, make an effort inside you not to get into a similar mood -- but merely point out that it is wiser to avoid saying such strong things. What you say will stick; what the other say, if they are very bad things, will be things that the other has to apologize for -- at least to the muses (and that's where it matters). As soon as the quarrel resides, make an effort to avoid needless reference to it; go beyond it; exude an as positive body language as possible; do some easy practical things which tend to put you and others into a good mood; and soften it over. If something is seriously wrong it will always be healed quickly, and the more quickly the more seriously wrong they are. That is the nature of goyon, of life. The word "goyon" means strong and good synchronicities or karma -- it means the way in which cause-and-effect is an appearance, that there are deeper patterns of ethical lawfulness in all events which exhibit themselves through remarkable so-called "coincidences", and also as luck for those who have been most good. To this you must put your trust when you desire revenge and so on: you mustn't try to put yourself up and above as judge. There is only one judge, God, and his muses, and they are totally ruthless when they have to be in order for things to get going the way they want it to be, and they are the origin of all and have the right to set the course and no human being has the right to influence that in any other way than in good ways. So goyon means that you build up your luck-potentials by being righteous. And being righteous doesn't mean to merely avoid pleasures. Some pleasures, like sex, between anyone and anyone, are always right when it is practical time for it and practical room for it. Some pleasures, like food, are only some times a day, and then only in some forms, right. Some pleasures, like enacting fierce stamash force in the line of duty may be rare or hardly occuring at all, from one season to the next, and totally wrong to go and look for. Some pleasures, like making a club of people who are so lazy and stupid that they have absolutely no rules governing themselves, are always wrong. And there may be fascinations, fantasies in sex, which on the level of fantasies have some righteousness about them but if put into practise -- the eating of a body -- would be rediculous. Many pleasures co-exist with small or large pains, at times or always. If you are righteous, you do not put up with the pain of dressing in a way that portrays you ugly, if you have the time and the means to dress in a better way; or if it is a hot day, and the laws of society are as liberal as they should be as to how one dresses, you may go out on the street clad in a g-string and high-heeled shoes and that's it: and this you do if your body is a generous act of beauty, lifting up the spirits of others. Because you have meditated, you have eaten well, you have got massaged and done sex well and exercised well and walked much, so your skin is toned and your legs look fit -- and you don't fool yourself. You are objectively beautiful. So you radiate this objective beauty into society and make everything work out more beautifully. This is part of righteous pleasures. It is also righteous to tell yourself over and over and over again to appreciate, when you are a girl, the beauty of other girls; and even be eager for it, no matter how dangerous the beauty of others can be relative to your own options. This is a great meditation, to embrace beauty, to be dedicating yourself to beauty as greater than own survival. To go beyond your self, and live up to beauty, also sexually: that is a masterpiece of meditation, of God-prayer. Beauty is absolutely immortal and absolutely right. And so also is protection of beauty completely right, even when that protection has in it components which seen in isolation are very ugly -- like when someone is trying to upset a good society. : I wonder at people, sometimes. I mean, in relationships, or what we call it -- friendships, presumably friendships -- and then there are people who want to control. So shamelessly, -- that's how I find it. I wonder why -- what is control all about? How can it be attractive for anybody to exercise control over other people? I don't mean professionally, where somebody is paid to be an assistant or something. I mean privately, in love affairs, and this issue of so-called "loyality". The lengths to which some people can go.. sorry, perhaps I'm rantering. / No no. Go on. Or rather, let's crystallize a question. You are saying -- asking, rather -- what is control? What is control all about, in human affairs? : Yes. Exactly. / You rightly drew the line between a professional situation, where somebody is hired as -- slave, whatever -- it is a temporary assignment, there are rules governing the situation, there is usually a payment involved; after a month or a week or an hour there is a freedom which is regained and all through it, there is the liberty within of knowing that this is merely a job one has taken on -- a well-defined job, perhaps. And you are asking about something different, namely the subtle control, the control which hides itself under the cloak of loyality or generosity or a wish for others to be generous. Hidden control. : Yes. It can also be relatively much in the open. I mean, it seems some are without shame about this. They seek control over several people who are gathered freely, fill up the time with boring stories which do not have any point other than to nail somebody down psychically. They do so and appear filled with themselves. And naturally they appear so filthy, so far from worthy of being loved, when they act like that. Had they been a little humble, they would have reached that approval which they perhaps seek. So is that it? That they seek approval? / No. I don't think one who seeks control really seeks approval. : What is it then? It must be something. It is not control for its own sake. / I agree, it's not for its own sake that control is sought. There is a motive there, surely. It is, of course, to get the energy of others -- an energy that the controlling individual has not deserved. : I see. Yes that makes sense. One of the interesting features about human orgasm is that, though lusty, it does look -- and sometimes sound -- from the outside as if the person who undergoes it has some pain. In many cases, naturally, there is indeed some pain involved; but even if it isn't, the same characteristics appear -- the tension, the cry or tendency to cry, the look that has a peculiarly acute expression, neither obviously glad nor sad but vaguely shocked, perhaps pleasingly shocked, perhaps indeed also with smile and laughter but not at all necessarily so. If the person does laugh, it is on top of it, with it like a dance; and if the person does smile, it is a smile more as in a trance than the smile in a dialogue. It is an expression of oneness, a freedom from duality. : I wonder about that term "equanimity". I take it to mean that in relationship you are completely calm, unruffled, not upset, no matter how you are fared with -- or what? Is that an illusion? / Yes, I think that is an illusion. I mean to say, I don't think it is an appropriate ideal in full. It is too stringent. It has to be an inclination, merely. Being calm relative to that which is nonsense is obviously extremely valuable. And if someone is undignified, then one may find it right to be very polite and gracious but impersonal, not getting entangled. But in some cases, to lay the foundation for future good collaboration, one have to state something about how one thinks communication ought to go. And this may not be entirely equanimous -- if that's a word. It may have some level of engagement, agitation in it -- and on some occasions, it is righteous. But that is not to say that both sides are righteous. It is quite often so that only one side is right. It is rarely so that a balance between two agited sides are right. : But is there -- not a trick, but a method, or an approach or something to keep on to one's harmony more generally, I mean more often? / You mean, if somebody is insulting, days in a row perhaps, and you have to be around this person more or less -- can you somehow step out of it? Can you have a harmony even when exerted to a disharmonious influence? : Exactly. Is it possible? / Certainly. You will have to take on a perspective on what's happening, a grander perspective. You do this, naturally, after carefully looking into whether you are really acting righteously enough yourself. Or whether there is indeed something you have done or are doing which somehow righteously unleashes this insulting behaviour from another. If there is no lack of generosity in yourself, but you are subjected to an ungenerous, grumpty treatment by another, then you are subjected to what we can call "dis-information". But that means, disassociate yourself from it. It doesn't concern you. Disinformation is just that: it doesn't have any information content for you, no relevance. It is nothing. It is the other talking to herself. The condemnation which exudes from the body language or the direct words or actions by the other is a condemnation of an image the other has in her own mind, it is she condemning herself, -- it is disinformation, it doesn't concern you. : That sounds like it. But how can I.. take on this perspective, as you say? / It may at first be difficult -- let's grant that there is an evolution in mind. This is part of the flexible spirit. You'll get at it, better and better. : Is there any limit to what is beautiful? / How do you mean? : I mean, is there any limit to what is.. I should say, what CAN be beautiful -- for instance as regards violence, the terrible, all that? / Could you be more precise, miss? : I have heard you speak of harmony, health, prestine youth, dance -- all such coherent good things as part of beauty. But then also scenes with a nightsky of stars, or ripples of waves. How about let's say a stamash action? / It can be beautiful, oh sure. If it isn't, it isn't stamash. : But how far can one go? Suppose there is a police officer.. / Ah, I think I know what you are driving at. : Well, can it? / Can what? : Suppose there is an annihilation of life.. / Is it righteous? For if it is not, it is not a beautiful action; and so it doesn't have beauty, it is not beautiful. : Whereas if it is righteous, then even if it is an annihilation,.. / If it is righteous, it is coherent. It is part of the universe ebb and flow of what protects its future unfoldment. Only in the nonlogical "tyranny of the immediate" perspective is it then possibly somewhat non-beautiful. : The righteous action -- even as killing -- is beautiful. Has beauty. Is art. / Yes, there is no doubt; except that you need plenty of doubt as well as faith and great intuition to pinpoint that which is righteous. But then, if somebody in the line of duty as police, say, does martial arts so as to delete even human life, then, even as it is from a near-sighted point of view terrible, we cannot deny that, as far as righteousness, it has great, even enormous beauty. : I believe I once heard you say 'all sex is right'. / What? If I did, it was a statement I came with given certain -- shall we say, preconditions. For instance, what do you mean by the word "sex"? Do you mean merely the physiological exercise? But then obviously the statement is wrong; not that I could possibly say it in that sense!!! But if you by sex mean that you are acting out of the tantric flow of all that is without restraint based on bourgeoise inhibitions, without boredom radiating from the ego, without nervousness based on lack of experience or some experience of pain -- then, naturally, it is also right, rigtheous, good. For if it really comes from a deeper conscience, it is also not in conflict with the boundary we must set for ourselves in all action, so that important duties for society and for our physical flourishing are not upset. So this is sex in the ULTIMATE sense -- that you are not restraining, based on meaningless fear, that which is the real impulse. / What about the sizes of genitals, growth of the person, opening up, virginity, all that? : As anyone who has worked a lot with any type of muscular exercise, be it dance, stamash, stretching or whatever, whether one is preteen or teen, knows that the body is in constant flux. It is changing based on what we do. The mind is learning and the body is learning -- or shall we say adapting -- and those who ignore such work have unflexibilities and restraints and lazinesses in their bodies and/or in their mind making them unfit for most forms of action. So we need hard great education and work on body as well in order to accomodate the greatest of experiences, to make room for them. : Without that.. / Obviously -- without that there is no point. For instance, a very young girl getting pregnant when she's hardly had any dildo experience might be too tight to be able to give any birth at all, and so puts herself as well as upcoming child to danger. One mustn't condemn sexual practises, one mustn't condemn wild masturbations with tools and all such things, and then on the other hand condone, support, pregnancy and birth. For if the latter comes without the former, there is danger. / Will the beauty of sex enable selflessness for an art student? : You obviously think about something there. Speak your mind!!! / I mean, I have had sex experiences recently which has made me see so many things -- in the days, hours, even perhaps weeks after -- which before was closed to me, -- also in painting. After the sex, I saw that I was stuck in one way of doing things, and suddenly, as a spiral of learning, I didn't seem to have.. self, if that's the word. / A letting go of ego in sex. Marvellous. Of course. The mind attains to a young brilliancy of going infinitely beyond any stale pattern when it is exposed to the beauty in sex. Which is not merely the performance of sex. : No, it is the beauty of the bodies, threesomes, foursomes, really attractive girls, as I'm bisexually attracted to, you know.. / I know, girl!!! : So anyway these girls make my mind less made-up about what's what, if you know what I mean. Intuitions start racing in about new forms of beauty, new constellations. Just as you can see stars in a new way, drawing new imaginary lines between them, so also can I see so many things after sex. / You feel like opening up. : Exact. Opening up. Is it real? Is there a real selflessness there? / It is an intimation of it. I mean to say, if it is not in sex -- of a great, diverse, young-cultivating kind -- not merely as hormones and all that body chemistry which keep you in shape, but also that -- as touching, visual, dance, scent, all of it, and the mind-play, and the laughter, -- if it is not there you get a sense of that absoluteness at bottom of all reality, then where can you get it? And simultaneously, there is the truth that this sense of the absoluteness has mindfulness and awareness about it. It is not that you NEED this or that physical activity but you need a right ripe full life and then it spurs on this meditation. : I think you often talk of "purification" and likewise, in connection to meditation and also in connection to sex and, if I understand you right, so as to have a beauty perception. / Of course. : But -- if you forgive the silly question! -- how does one begin purifying oneself? I mean, practically? / It is not a silly question at all. I think that before we start doing anything about purification of oneself practically, we would do well in spending some minutes reflecting, as deeply as possible, perhaps, over the whole theme of pureness and purity and such philosophically. So we understand it more thoroughly -- not that you aim at full, complete, absolute understanding. It is not a matter of categories at all! The total understanding is only for God and his muses. But we can approach it at the humane level by saying that your body obviously knows the difference between good health and having an infection, such as a wound which hasn't healed yet; and in some sense, the wound represents a lack of purity and in some similar sense, being in good health represents purity. Or coherence. You follow this line of reasoning? : Yes, I think I do. What is coherence exactly? / Coherence is the well-being of hanging together, put very simply, firmly and excellently with oneself, and beautifully so, and without any much noise or trash. The word "cohere" is composed of "co", meaning together, as in "compassion", and "here", which is a root also found in such words as "adhere" -- such as when we say, please adhere to the principle of being a good listener! So you connect with yourself -- co-here. It is a refined word, ultimately it reflects physics, imagination, the universe as is the mind of God in the berkeleyan sense. All that. It is a lovely word. Wholeness is related, as far as concepts go. You are a whole human being, you have a whole body. : I see. And so purity, where does purity come in? We have this wholeness or coherence. / Wait, do you really have it? For you ought to intend to have much of it, and more each millionth year, say. It is a growth towards enlightenment, then a growth in enlightenment, to increase in coherence, and that there is universally less pain and suffering, stepwise. The ego is about suffering, the ending of the ego is not lasting in a full complete total manner for any human, but the ending of the ego is a cleansing, a purification, a deletion of noise, of psychic trash, we might say. And that is an increase of coherence. : Enlightenment is an increase of coherence. / Naturally. : Would you say that sex purifies? Or is that that one must be purified to really have sex? / Both. The means are the end in all good things. : What turns a young girl on? / You mean, what turns a young girl on sexually? : Yes. Really on. What is the key? / You want to know so you can entice her for the unfoldment of all your lesbian dreams -- you and your other girlsfriends? : Exactly. / Well, nothing wrong with that motive. Let's go into it all. But first, let us pay a little bit attention to a phenomenon not entirely peculiar only to the 20th century, because it has gone on for as long as there have been humans around, but it was especially noticable then. There were guys such as Osho (as he called himself), who attracted thousands and yet more thousands of admirers, disciples, they donated all their big or tiny wealth to him, he grew fabulously wealthy and looked like an old, greedy, self-interested wrinkled man in the end, and he died early, of drug abuse; and threw drugs into the air where he orchestrated enlightenment talks, so-called, for his many folks. Now there was a laughter over him, for sure; and he was a professor, no less, in religious studies or philosophy or some kind of thing like that -- I am no expert on him, thank God. Anyone who is in the slightest serious about truth, love, the quality of compassion, the growth towards nirvana, the deepening of meditation beyond the frontiers of thought and desires, must know that the old web that this man Osho wrought around himself stunk with ego. And those who don't see that, don't want to see anything seriously well at all. They are simply looking at somewhere else. And it is not so easy as what Jiddu Krishnamurti said -- about him, it seemed -- when he said, -- there are these gurus who say that you can do what you want -- and of course they grow immensely popular. For it is not a key to become popular merely to say, Do what you want. That is not the key point. The key point is rather the whole context, if we shall give such a worthy word to these rotten, decayed anti-teachers of the past where Osho sort of crown the lot, with his ninety or so Rolls-Royces in stark contrast to the filth and utterly severe poverty of the India which he came from -- an India where kids get a hand or leg cut off so they can extract more pennies as beggars during day-time, when they are not picking bits and pieces from the mountains of trash, or are asleep together with tons of insects in the street at night. The utter insensitivity of the man Osho is all the more amazing because people with a great deal of training, education, cultivation supported him and supported his claims that he was enlightened; and indeed that he perhaps was the only one enlightened around. They took his laughter over the misery of the world as a token of his greatness. How did it all come about? What was going on there? Now, is this at all interesting to you? I promise we'll come around to your highly interesting question about sex soon enough. : Pray go on. I am all ears for this. / Then all is as it should be. Well, I'll try to put it brief. You see it is interesting to put a diagnosis on the situation, rather as when you have caught a certain cold or flu and got rid of it after some days or weeks of minor or strong fevers or colds or throat pains or headaches, then you have built up a superb extra resistance in the body for just that virus. You have become immunized. Now I suggest we should look to Osho in order to dissect the virus that Osho represented -- a particularly filthy type of ego. And we should do so all the more since there were some avenues where he had got the rather right teaching -- put in rough words (such as his lack of condemnation of group-sex for the very young). And so, if you now know something of what I call "simulation space", where there was a certain simulated battle between a good side and a side which cannot exist in this real world of ours -- : ..I have heard you talk about it, yes. I find it more clear now than before, but it is still a bit complex to me. / All right. In any case, if the good side -- let's say that at the time of Osho there was still a battle between a good side and a not good side. Are you with me on this? : Sure. Go on. Which side was Osho on? / Obviously the bad side. Right? Now, however, -- and this is the interesting point -- he used, with expertise even, all the words belonging to the good side. At least more or less. I mean, he parsed through all the variety of commonly known religious teachings. All of them. He talked with a professor's knowledge of a great deal of themes, and they recorded and printed hundreds of volumes with his talks. It is not that he was entirely lazy. No, he was very intense. But if you look at that intensity, you begin to see something interesting: he was able to portray, with prestige, a break-down of everything good -- to be what goodness is all about. A break-down of enlightenment -- to be what enlightenment is all about. It is no longer the combatting of desire. It is now suddenly -- in Osho's distorted mind -- rather that you are living out your desire, not bothering about the effects. : How terrible! / Yes. But do you see the trick on the mind? In the name of goodness, in the name of enlightenment, he calls -- and that is his "context", by the way -- that is what I meant by introducing the word "context" a little earlier on when I talked about Osho -- his context is knowledge about goodness, put very simply. And this knowledge -- the prestige, rather, surrounding this knowledge -- allows people to shamelessly give up their struggle for wisdom, for righteousness, for goodness, for the awe of humility, for true beauty, for enlightenment -- and still get all the prestige of those who engage in that struggle. At least, that was their hope. Of course it didn't work for long -- or at all. But it worked to some extent, at that time (simulation space). Do you see? : Interesting. You are saying that these people -- his disciples or whatever -- in some sense perhaps knew what was going on? But went with it all the same, because they didn't really want enlightenment, only the prestige of being associated with someone who is enlightened and to be near that and possibly in that? But that they really saw through it? / Obviously they did. : So you say that a whole bunch of people in some sense threw themselves to the flames of badness, of evil, while shouting, with pride, that they were pursuing a great and noble path of enlightenment? / That is what I say. Do you sense it? : Yes. It sounds like the arch-ego. / Don't name it as that. There is no arch-ego. There is just the varieties of noise, silly oppositions to the flow of goodness. Now, in any case, all that shit of Osho is gone, gone, gone, forever, though there are some wrinkled old disciples trying to sell his books here and there still, and some are sticking to the ugly names he gave them still. But to destill it, to spell it out so clearly as at all possible: when someone is very intensely pursuing a certain project, a certain programme, a certain politics, a certain ideology, a certain idea, it may not be because they believe in it themselves. It may be that they rather want to have the popularity that otherwise would befall God. : Right. / So they put up an alternative to God -- darwinian evolution, marxism, boundaryless capitalism, complementarity, subjectivism, intersubjectivity, constructivism -- and they don't really believe in it themselves. They know, instinctively, they are entirely on the wrong track as far as reality goes. But they hope to divert attention long enough, for many people enough, that a whole lot of people will grow less certain about God and his plans. Instead of meditation, instead of God's intent -- beauty -- they will gather people around themselves so as to discuss the importance of their new Concept. Contemporary art. Maoism. Structuralism. Modernism. Postmodernism. Globalism. Fluxism. Whateverism. They gather people, they get popular for a while, they get some party invitation and some invitations to influence people, they get a sense of belonging with someone -- and it all hinges upon the illusion, the hypnosis, the mass-conditioning being sustained for a certain while, suppressing the deeper sentiments about God, goodness and reality. : Gosh. / Yes. That's the shape ego may take. And so you must watch out. You must really watch out when someone has that cold intensity in her eyes -- speaking again and again about something. Next season it might be about something else. The point is to distract from righteousness, and get the popularity of God -- well, you see the point. Now what was your question again? : What turns girls on. / Yes. So let's use that word "on" in the adverb sense also. Right? As adverb it describes other adjectives. If something is a hot party, -- well, that's good. Parties shouldn't be cold, they ought to be hot. But in what way hot? If we say "on hot", that means that they are tantrically enlightened. They are tantrically high-going. They are sexually stimulating. And so you as a girl want to make other girls on hot on you. : On turned on. / Haha. Or something like that. All right. So you are asking this with an enormous flexibility of mind. For it is not that you work out a recipe and you try it out and get sad if it doesn't work. Like painting, you must flirt with yourself and the painting and with the time of the day you paint, or time of night, and -- it just has to be a cosmic flash, a synchronistic flash, it is suddenly right. Beyond desire; even though there was a righteous intent, born of meditation, to come into a high state of attractiveness. Nothing is wrong with that. You are a generous individual if you radiate beauty, if your breath is fresh, if your smile is symmetric and your face is glowing and flushed prettily when you smile; and you have the sensitivity to say the extra bit it takes to get a flirt going when another is ready. But the same person may have a headache or her period or be concerned about something, or not had her bath or whatever, the next day. You cannot demand your attractiveness to work with equal efficiency at all times nor in a fixed way in relation to anyone. : I need to be flexible. / Very, very flexible. So it is not about the total flexibility which God ultimately has -- God and his muses, in all their renewal and infinite rejuvenation. It is about learning how to adopt to circumstances as well as grounding all your activity on righteous intents. You see, that means -- in a sense -- no desire. So here we break with Osho. Desire is a fixed thing -- a person can say to herself, 'I am beautiful' ten million times and that lack of improvisation, that stale repetition, that fixed desire, breeds an ugly radiance; and the person lacks self-perceptiveness, lacks self-criticism -- and so gets pain -- and so takes to daily use of drugs (like Osho did). Without the drugs, their state of mind fall to depression; which means, they are already depressed. And depressed people are the lowliest types of beings. They have nothing to contribute with at all. Anyone who loves God does not allow herself to get depressed. The extent of happiness will vary, but depression -- never. : Never ever? / All right, we can discuss the word "depression". Sadness at some times, yes. But not getting into months of sulking. Of alcohol-drinking. One must really watch oneself from falling to an atheistic path just because one has had one or two complicated experiences. For it can destroy the patterns of the brain which allow joy to come naturally. And there is nothing attractive about the depressed person. A joyous person, a normally joyous person who has an hour of sadness can attract because this is not depression, this is curable, this is not apathy or gloominess or sulleness, or the coldness of the virus of self-pity. A sudden sadness can be cured, the girl is beautiful with all her joy, she wants to be cured, you can cure her, for you are beautiful yourself, and you do it, if she allows you to, and all that. : So that brings us back to the question: what gives me the attractiveness that turns other people on, for real? / You see, this is the dance of beauty in our minds, to ask such questions. Beauty, like coherence, is something infinite -- I'd say nothing is more infinite. And I'd say that if you are going to be truly attractive, you need to know about beauty from so many angles you entirely forget about yourself, and that you are able to see yourself from a third perspective as it were. You can see yourself with an artist's eye. You can see the girl you are standing in front of, or sitting beside, or whatever, with an artist's eye. And the artist's eye is full of perspectives. It is not just this one or the other one. It is not thesis and anti-thesis, that marxist stuff, nor is it one type of beauty, one type of waist-line, one type of tit, one type of foot, one type of leg, one type of jaw. Rather, you awaken yourself to beauty. You watch hundreds of very young very tantric on hot photos every day. You paint or draw or read sexually and you engage your body genitally and bring yourself to orgasms and you vary; you don't do it with just one, just do it wildly in mind and not quite as wildly in manifest reality, but wildly in the sense -- you bath, you swim, you drink the ocean of a pletora, a pleroma, a plurality of wildly different yet totally beautiful, totally young, totally coherent glowingly beautiful porn images and beauty feelings when you see young girls around you. You must KNOW beuauty -- which is to say, resonate with it, resonating over dancers -- you know that phrase. Resonating over dancers. Your mind must be like the horizon, fleeting over the sun-tanning golden nude bodies, fondling them, caressing them, these dancer legs, these thighs, these shapely feet, these long slender lines, these perfectly rounded thigh muscles, the flat stomach, and the pregnant stomach, the shapely jawline, the massively curly or straight and shining hair on the head, the sparkles of lust and fun in the young eyes, the straight teeth, eager to bite a nipple. You must awaken yourself. You must love to love life. You must do a lot of this preparation, so much you forgot about when you begun. You must learn to enjoy this beauty entirely without jealousy, entirely without envy, and yet not declare yourself entirely without jealousy nor entirely without envy for it is beyond human capacity to be rid of such things altogether entirely. But you have the right and you have the duty to strive to get beyond envy and beyond jealousy. That is really the key. : Thank you. : I wonder.. I am sure it is a foolish question.. / Sometimes the foolish questions are the really, really good ones. Clever questions may get you nowhere. Try the philosophical ones. Drop the political ones. : But is there a key to beauty? / Is there a key to beauty? Is that your question? I don't think it is foolish. : No? / No. : Well, is there? / All right. So the question is lingering in our minds -- is there, or not, a key to beauty. You may have asked it ten million times before, counting all your reincarnations. And is there such a thing as to have the beginner's mind to a particular question? Can you be completely young relative to a question, even though your soul has propelled itself through the millions and yet more millions of seasons and incarnations and all that? At some time it will -- though humankind is a new-born race at present -- and will then the question have any less relevance? You follow? : Yes. You can always ask it anew. / That's it! Always. Which doesn't mean you just ask it and leave it there. You may ask it -- or any other question -- and leave it at the threshold of conscious, manifest, normal thinking about it, having the intent to get into it. And then your mind subtly organises thoughts around it, if you don't drug yourself, if you stay on hot and all that. : But if I ask it, I always think of a certain girlfriend of mine. She's SO beautiful. / You think that? Well that's good for her, that you think that, you are beautiful yourself. But see, if you want to ask about beauty, you should also ask about ideals -- and about being playful -- and not getting stuck in any ideals. She may -- this girl you talked about -- she may have some features you earnestly would like to see more of. Right? : Right. Yes, that's true. / Now there may be other things, other features, other quests, -- and entirely different ideals meet up to them. So beauty is not just that girl, -- right? So you fight your own attachments, your own longings, and you fight also any tendency to compare simplistically. There is then an infinity of beauty. Not that everything is beautiful, not that everyone at all times, are beautiful. The fullness of beauty is a coming together of much good goyon, it is a result of earlier good actions, the cosmic budget accumulating through and across incarnations. : I wonder about how it is that I can find even a street with city buildings, evening-time, with rain pouring down, lights here and there some reflecting in the wet street, some reflecting in the metal of the buildings -- how I can come to find something like that so intensely beautiful. I mean, it is not sexual at all, is it? / I know what you mean. I feel that way, too. But beauty is not dependent on things being fully organic. And anyway, there is, I find, something intensely organic about how lights reflects both in water and on shining metal surfaces, bronze or steel or such. Imagine the same scene with only cement-dry buildings, and streets which were equipped with some kind of strong pump leaving not a drop on them, even as it pours down. Then the wet, delightful city night would be a dry night, despite that it pours down. Reflection is a playfulness that reminds us perhaps of lovely blonde curls in a sunny day, or of the sparkles of the arch of good-looking eyes in a symmetric, free, frank, and sexually inviting smile. : I wonder about sarcasms. The irony that aim at striking others, with a mischievous smile. How is it that anybody can be so cruel -- and so shameless, so ugly in themselves that they attain to a sarcastic radiance and wear it even with pride? I just don't get it, how some people are. / Now let's say as Jiddu Krishnamurti used to say -- "you are humanity, humanity is you". He said a lot of things which are woven into more nuanced expressions, based on more profound and more real insight, in what I say -- all right, that is not a modest statement, but this it how it goes, how I see it. But when we speak of people being so and so and how terrible it is, then let us also keep in mind that singular identity: that there is a greater fact than the fact that you are an individual, and that is that you are a member of the rose of humanity. You are partaking in making up the lovely flower of humanity, the lovliest flower there is. And if you know anything about fractal similarities and fractal contrasts, then you will appreciate that an artwork has got to have some measure of moderate conflict to be real. If it comes too easily onto you, if it argues too little with itself, -- then it is a re-presentation, rather than a presentation; an artwork must have the immediate in it. Now we are using the word "immediate" in a positive sense, as beyond the mediate, beyond media, beyond measure, beyond thought. So the artwork is real, direct. And humanity is God's artwork. And God's mind contains this artwork -- that is the berkeleyan philosophy, -- which is not to say that we say it is all in the mind, it is not all in the human mind. Rather, the human mind and the human body and nature and all the muses even are all in God's mind, and this is vast and encompassing and a wonder even to God himself. So let us keep in mind the vastness, the infinity, even as we look at some more finite aspects of humanity, its social life, its commercie, its coins and dollar bills of legal tender, and other legal tender things, such as young elegant females. Now why are anybody sarcastic? Do you have any idea? : Well, that is what I was asking about. / But surely you must have some idea. Have you never been sarcastic yourself? : I have, yes. / Why? Do you recall? : Hm. Yes. I felt that some girl had achieved great social prestige and influence without deserving it -- and it looked like this would continue for months and yet more months, so that all circulated around her; and I saw a crack in the facade, and pointed it out -- and I did so with a smile. For I knew the girl was up to something non-good. It turned out to be the undoing of that prestige, eventually it came all into the open. But for a while I couldn't even critisize without myself being harassed. Then suddenly it changed. Soon after I was sarcastic. I am not saying I caused it. But I say that I didn't feel like apologizing to anyone for that sarcasm -- it was something that had to be cured, in our social environment. / All right, all right. Yet perhaps it is always important to have a note of doubt in oneself later on, so that you are prepared -- you are surfing the thousand millenias of reincarnation, and in between each, and also within each, there are judgement moments. There is a balance, of goyon. The judgement is harsh, but fair; and if it is not harsh, then humanity would fragment, fall apart, and greater enlightenment would no longer its future. So harsh justice at a synchronistic, goyonic level is a necessity. This is more than merely being vaguely fair. Now I am not judging you in what you did. From what you say -- and I don't presume that I want to look into it now -- it sounds like you did the right thing. You were hitting, psychically, at someone who were full of ugly ego-radiance. I imagine you did the right thing. : Thank you. / Anyway, why are people sarcastic? There is a very simple reason why wrong sarcasm comes into being -- in contrast to a righteous sarcasm, which can delineate the pathways of the anger and aggressiveness which protects a higher truth. The righteous sarcasm is a psychic stamash, a psychic kick-boxing. The non-righteous sarcasm is something entirely different -- it is a diversion tactics. A person wants to distract attention from something. : I see. From what? / From -- whatever the person is ashamed about. : It seems to me that many of the most horrific incidents in the 20th century, and even some wars -- also in the 19th century, and early 21st century -- are related to the apparently insatiable thirst humanity has for drugs. Could you say something about that -- and about your attitude on this issue? / Yes. You are right -- there are countries such as Mexico, Columbia, Afganistan and many others where no less than the entire population is in a sense held hostage by the tremendous amount of violence and killings associated with drug dealing. And those defying laws and using drugs e.g. in the U.S.A. or middle east or Europe or Australia may be tender young lovely girls about to enter a dance hall, popping a pill for some dollars and allowing herself to do things more fluidly and with less fear than she perhaps would otherwise have done. Now a recent research in the sexual behaviour of girls in Australia revealed that there is a tendency -- which, in an isolated sense nobody should condemn -- of younger and younger girls having more and more sex -- with reports of those who are twelve or fourteen and have had certainly more than twenty sexual partners already. They define the word "tween" as in-between adolescent and pre-adolescent, and find that tiner and tiner children are being dressed up as sex dolls by parents eager to comply with the new types of needs. Now some people connect drug abuse and sexuality: I do not. But there is a truth in the fact that certain drugs alleviate fears -- and humanity has an absolutely barbarious past in ugly muhammedanism, ugly christendom, ugly judaism, and other ugly religions whose main focus has been the absolute condemnation of the free-wheeling sexuality of women. The good parts of these religions I have discussed elsewhere; but as I see it, it is the residue of those imbecile, low-brained condemnations which still infiltrate the human psyche and which lead people to go to drugs including alcohol in order to get a temporary sense of shamelessness where their more healthy interests in beauty, also the beauty of nude other young and also adult young human beings, are being explored. So the drugs may be seen to have some such purpose, we might say: namely to tell the human mind that the condemnations of the past are insignificant. Do dance! Etc. But then there is the other feature of drugs -- I once wrote to a newspaper and got it inserted, a little comment, where I said something which got quite a lot of attention, it created quite a lot of stir. I said that it is not that drugs make immoral behaviour, but it is rather that parties shouldn't anymore be defined in terms of a little or big hardcore which regards with suspicion those who do not use drugs or alcohol, and who regard non-drug-users as "outsiders". For those who do not use drugs, I said, want to preserve their natural human brain instead of getting a cheap substitute type of brain which comes by intoxicating the natural synaptic connections of the brain by strong chemicals. I completed the little comment by saying -- "-- with all respects" -- with regard to the author of the article who was in favour of allowing people to "pop a pill" before entering a dance hall. Of course, it was a crashing, crushing type of comment -- for after implying that the author of the newspaper article himself had a 'cheap substitute brain' I say, "with all respect". Peculiarly, it made me very popular with a certain segment of the population who want to preserve their intelligence and their conscience and their wholesomeness and who still want to enter the wildest, most sexually liberated dance places and parties without being labelled as non-normal intruders just because they don't touch intoxicating drugs. And so this is as far as I can tell the real real reason for the use of drugs: it is to try to balance out in a lazy-man's way the residue of the ugly parts of the religions which have hypnotised the human mind to regard sexuality as a "sin", as "evil", whereas sexuality is an exploration of beauty. And so, putting this in perspective, we see that drug use have a long history. Sigmund Freud was reputedly a drug addict; and the fictious stories about Sherlock Holmes -- thought drawing vaguely on some inspiring characters that the author knew -- implies that Holmes is some sort of drug addict; and this was written in the 19th century. It is said that England bombed China until Hong Kong was given to it, for a century or so -- of course China got Hong Kong back later on -- but that this was all due to China not wanting England to indulge in its drug trade; and the drug trade again found a fountain of supply for England in its conquests also in India. So we see that at least in recent history, drug use has defined wars -- and there are wars going on with hundreds of people being killed every months at present, in Afganistan and other places, which are more or less defined by opium trade. : But you seem to say that there is a feature of drug that might have some use, occasionally? / Yes. No. I don't quite know. I know that there are pains which are at some medicinal stages quite pointless to endure, for health issues which will cure themselves in a matter of days if left to themselves. Pains which are so intense they should be alleviated at least somewhat; so that the body can get some sleep and rest and some pleasure so its healing fluids can more quickly do their work. : But when does it become an addiction? / You see that's the point. Most drug abuse began by people who wanted to say to themselves, 'this is easy to control, I do not succumb to this.' But in the words of the sister of the present prime minister of Norway, who I once had the fortunate opportunity to ask about the matter, as she had a luxurious flat next to mine -- a girl who has become well-known in media for being frank and forthright about her heroine abuse -- she told me this: It is not that the heroine becomes an obsession because it is so great, so ecstastic. It doesn't. Perhaps the very first times. She went on to say that the key point is rather that "without it, life seems pointless. One comes into taking it in order to come back to normality. Without it, all is a great minus. One comes back to the zero-point by taking it -- it is not about it giving happiness." I am grateful to Ninni Stoltenberg for being so honest about this; it is about the only time I have talked to anyone who has use this perhaps the most strong drugs in the world; and I have no experience at all of any drugs whatsoever except the weakest of them all, cannabis, and then only a handful of times long in the past. And so that is the tragedy about the decay that too much use of too strong drugs is all about. People decline inwardly, and the drugs which at first seemed to open up something new, become expected by the brain chemicals so that without them, the brain doesn't even function at the normal level. This is what I mean by getting a 'cheap substitute brain'. But I have had many friends who have been using the most weak drugs on a daily basis. One might think that they get only good things out of them -- certainly they would easily say that themselves, several of them. But watch them after a year, and you'll catch their hands shaking uncontrollably so they can't even hold a cup of coffee -- and the coffee only makes them worse. A key point in detecting who is on drugs is often -- not always, but often -- that they don't stand coffee. The coffee is a very very mild drug, but it tends to accellerate the effects, such as nervousness, that other drugs may create. : But can any drugs be right in a non-medical sense, in order to enhance certain experiences? / Vaguely, on occasion, I would say yes. Tobacco is a very mild drug -- one might also say that the key chocolade substance is a very very mild drug -- and, a very slight exposure to something like this -- and perhaps also alcohol -- no more than a minute once a week certainly cannot create any problem with the brain; but it may create a sense of an 'on hot' party. : Tell me about goodness and beauty. / Goodness and beauty. Goodness, beauty and silence. We should explore the three together, I feel. Three is a wholesome unit. Four also. It is important not to emphasize 'the one and the other' too much, we mustn't fall into the pitfall called 'dualism'. Dualism meaning that two, two, two is emphasized -- as thesis, antithesis. Rather, we must explore the order of cosmos. : The order of cosmos. Like the stars in heaven? / Like the patterns of the stars in the nightskies, also. But the order of cosmos is also your body, your face, your mind, it is the structure of a flower, the way a rose smells. It is the sweetness of your thought, the length of your legs, the shapeliness of your feet. The cosmos is all this, all humanity, all muses, all planets. Cosmos is the mind of God. And so, when we talk about the order of cosmos, we are talking of -- well, a tiny element in God's much vaster mind, to be more precise. And it is a wonderful element. When you look into a fractal structure, -- fractal meaning that there are patterns of similarity and patterns of contrast which repeat -- such as in the very simple program called Spring in the Lisa GJ2 Fic3 programming language -- Spring shows you something through the computer. : Yes. I have often wondered where all that -- order, I suppose it can be called, comes from. / Exactly! Now without the mind of God there would be no computer. Do you see that simple point? : If all and anything is within the mind of God, then also the computers. / True. But see also that there could have been a different reality, where the computers weren't possible. So the computers are there by intent. This is something entirely other than what the materialists, who would like to flatter themselves with sweeter words -- 'metaphysical naturalist', for instance -- in the 20th century, would accept. They think of the computer as a construction which is done primarely by human mind and human thought. They don't realize how it is all far more deeper than that, how anything and everything came into being through an immense simulation, with the mind of God, in a berkeleyan sense, driving it all -- and then suddenly it shifted gear. Simulation became actuality. Which meant that God stepped more fully in, took over; his intent is goodness, goodness rules. So, insofar as beauty is goodness, beauty rules. : What, then, is the source of conflict? / It is an important question. But once you admit the shallowness -- even from a physics point of view -- of the materialist position, and do not succumb to the fairy tales in the so-called bibles of the past -- then you will see that the mindfulness of the entire existence flows on and on also through some moderate degree of conflict. Not all was taken away, by going from simulation to actuality. But goodness, relative goodness and the total goodness of God himself directly, with his top three muses, rules in a sovereign manner. There is nothing else but relative goodness and absolute goodness. And within that relativity there can be a moderate degree of conflict. : Something can be more good, and something rather less? / Yes. : But nothing can be very much less? / True. Goodness is now, and forever, the only force. The force of life, the force of love, the force of anything that exists. It is goodness that decides the fate of a star, the creation of a planet, the swift changeover from focus of one galaxy to another, as for human life -- and these changes always goes on. It is a graceful journey towards something ever-greater; this duration, this process of evolution is beyond the little time that is thought. It is the greater sense of time, within the determinism of goodness, of God's intent. So that's one meaning of the letters and digit "GJ2" -- a graceful journey towards -- something evergreater. A greater fiction, God's fiction, a threesomeness which shows that there is always an onwardness, and always a multiplicity. Threesomeness implies foursomeness implies fivesomeness, and so on. It is not just one and not just two. It is God holding the threesomeness and letting it evolve, and the threesomeness is many-some-ness. So it is a kind of actual fiction in operation, in flux, and so that can be one meaning of the letters FIC3. A graceful journey, GJ2, towards the evergreater God-fiction with threesomeness and many-someness, FIC3. The God-fiction being our manifest reality, your manifest world, and all the more subtle levels of reality which holds your immortal soul and spirit and the activity of all the muses. : Does one ever meet a muse in the manifest world? / There are some questions like that -- I'd better say, "yes!" -- but which perhaps you should leave gently into the tenderness of innocence. Or else you'll see half humanity running around with claims that they have met muses on the street and the muses said so and so and we get a circus going. Let some things be very sweetly inside your prayers, inside your meditations, not talked too much about. For insofar as they are real, and very very powerful, far more so than you could ever imagine, they do not like disrespectful talk, and once anyone gets into the mood to chatter about them, it can so easily become disrespectful. Chatter is something which belongs to the simulation past. Wars were created through chatter. By chatter, people got maimed by other people. One must have the fear of God and fear of muses which make one not chatter about greatness, just imply that you honor it through most or many or sometimes all of your actions, and inclinations of tone voice, and what you say and what you don't say. You see? : Yes. Thank you for your guidance on this. Could we say something more about beauty and goodnesss -- and silence, the third? / Yes, for sure. You see, the more important a theme is, the less we plunge into it, the more we make sure that there is no noise or debris or chaos around it. We must not try to get a grip on a theme. No theme of importance can be controlled. Reality is not for control by human thought. So, in a living reality, you must endavour to clean away your ego, as much as possible, so as to flirt with the more deep features of reality. And then the muses come forth and help you, subtly, by coincidences, synchronicities. There is great beauty in that and, as you know, they have great beauty. The greatest beauty there is. So when a human being aspires to beauty, it is never a total beauty, and one must have the humility to avoid using words or indicating things by action which could be contrary to this. You can dream about the muses, you can masturbate over them, over them and their consort, God, and you can endavour to get new insights into the flow of beauty, into beauty in its essence, that way -- and there is no end to it. And my claim, my sincere claim, is that every thousand millenia, there is a fundamental deepening of beauty and goodness and silence and truth and love and enlightenment for all humanity. For you, too. You have something concrete to look forward to. : Will I remember much of what I have done earlier? / The most important you always know that you know, know that you have known, know that you have been through and understood -- the most beautiful feelings, once they come, come easily again. There are several ways in which there can be concrete memories inside that, and some may be having a beautiful validity for goodness in the future, and then those memories are carried on. But the human brain, even the human mind or soul, and even also the human spirit -- the vastest of all three -- must have an economy of limitation in how much is carried over. : Is that what is called karma? / I don't quite feel the word 'karma' is so fitting as the more precise word 'goyon'. For 'goyon' means good synchronicities. It means also that you deserve good synchronicities, good luck. And so you build up goyon by good actions, by cultivating a flowering in goodness, by avoiding temptations to breed conflict, avoiding dualism, avoiding trying to assert your little self up against the greater beings -- humanity must look up to the submuses, and even more to the top three muses and to God most of all, and this humility gives goyon. So you see this word 'goyon' doesn't have duality. It is clearly on the side of the good -- the goodness of the yoni, or the female genitalia, is one of its key essence meanings, or the most essential meaning. Yoni, a sanskrit word. But it is the female vagina in a holy sense, not just the particular body you have now. Whereas the word 'karma' as introduced in ancient India and talked much about also by Gothama Buddha can mean also bad things are carried on and they have to be 'worked off'. But Buddhism, however sweet in ethics at some points, lack God. They can say that God is just meditation, just silence, just the force of love, but that is not the full insight into the being at the essence; and not both points of view can be true. So buddhism, as such, is false; and we can still respect that some buddhists have had a great deal of openness for alternative understandings of the universe than that which Gothama the Buddha came with, as he himself said that he himself should be doubted if reality turns out to be other than what he said. At least, legends have it that he said something to that effect, and most buddhists have acknowledged that statement as authentic. And so I say, the Buddha was wrong about the essence of reality. He spoke of it as impersonally pantheistic. This is not how it is. Reality is not a mere emergence in a fluid, decadent mind without structure. It is not like ice which emerges of water which cools. Rather, there is a brilliantly active and fantastically creative and inventive being who daydreams not just the manifest universe but all of spaceduration, all the levels underneath the manifest. : He creates also the muses? / He does, and that is why the word 'goddess' does not have any real reference. There is no goddess, unless it is spoken about in a sexual sense for the sake of entertainment. But a muse has so immense powers, yes infinite, that she is a goddess relative to the feeble power alloted to human beings. But it is part of their immense respect for God that they do not play around with such words as imply anything to the extent that they are greater than God. : Does such a God-concept exist in the simulation past of humanity? / Here and there somewhat. You have Zevs or Zeus, who became in name-traditions, Deus, said to be fair and honest and yet ruthless in his judgements over all others -- nobody was more powerful -- and he was very sexual, and so Pallas Athena, the beautiful warrior goddess that the greek city Athens was dedicated to, in some sense was a muse relative to him as God. Since at that time English wasn't a manifest language the words must be given a shift when translated anyway. Then there is Skandia, with many similar features, in India, and hinduism has every sort of myth for every taste of the ego and some of them are touching, like Skandia, on the notion of one personal being daydreaming all reality into existence by his mind. There are interpretation possibilities in judaism and in christianity -- especially coptic christinanity -- along this way. There are remnants of Zoroasterianism which possibly might indicate something like this. There are fairy tales or stories about Gods, such as Tor, in the Norse mythology, which are akin to Zeus in several regards. A modern myth, Tolkien, has a gay named Bombadil, of all things, which probably is who Tolkien saw as the real but somewhat secretive God of goodness with at least one muse consort at his side, the blonde leggy girl who all the hobbits, the little human-like fellows, fell so in love with. Tolkien was a believer in Christ, in Christos, as a representative of God, and he was a believer in angels, too. So he re-represents the atrocities of human war in simulation past as a fairy tale of very silly, very ugly, very life-hating beings against not very silly, more good-looking, more life-loving beings -- associating total goodness and total power over the snare of the ego -- the ring -- with this fellow Tom Bombadil, who can change shapes of himself and make the ring of power vanish and re-appear and who seems unconcerned with all except with beauty; but who clearly is The Ruler, you might even say The Ultimate Bomber -- for God is the most powerful, and can be said the only winner of any war. So if God doesn't approve of something, it is by synchronicities bombed to pieces. This is the ruthlessness of God that God must have in order to fortify goodness. To avoid criticism of the ruthlessness, the tyranny of God, is a necessity if you want to be a member of his creation. Any other attitude by God would be to allow bad segments to grow and go to war against good segments. That doesn't happen in actuality; it used to happen in simulation space to a limited degree. The real goodness always is a total winner. : What then is all the war-like activity at Earth in 2009 all about? / It is the bad against the bad. Not the absolute bad, for no such thing exists. There is no devil, no demon, no satan, no demon-helpers, nothing demonic, no evil. There is only goodness. But something in this goodness has less of that goodness manifest in itself -- less goyon. And so, as a temporary phase, people with little understand fight, and they fight against people with little understanding. It is stupidity set against stupidity. It is not anything really bad about them. And so the war is not really a war. It is just idiotic childish stupidity armed with weapons that they shouldn't have got in the first place. It is an expression of an idiotic societal structure, with too much liberty in terms of violence, and too little liberty in terms of sensual intensity, way too little. Half the media are concerned over whether a guy who has been on the run while making the greatest artworks for thirty years should be jailed, possibly for many many years, over the fact that he had perfectly harmless sex with a teen or preteen thirty years ago -- and the other half of media, except when there is an earthquake, is concerned about how this and that chap bombed eighty or eight thousand people in this or that region of the globe. And the two idiotic things are connected. The first idiotic thing is that people live in an age where they claim to be sexually liberated but there is nothing more to that sexual liberation than that some has had more sexual partners than one or zero. The second idiotic thing is that weapons are around, so that one person's slight anger can mean that next day he has killed fifteen people at his school and then himself -- because he got into his grandfather's arsenal and picked a kalashnikov or AG-47 or whatever silly names they give to these penis-compensations called "guns". So all the bloody violence doesn't mean one little thing. It doesn't mean that there is any real war going on -- there isn't. All the real wars were in simulation past and so not real either. They were merely a clearing up, before creation happened for real. This reality is based on people who are all rather similar, all rather good, only that some have decayed into some bad habits, -- for some people e.g. the pirates off Somalia coast, these bad habits involve pointing guns at large ships containing valuable containers. And so they get hold of these containers or get some ransom money and they are off and buy a car and show it off to the girls. This is not evil -- it is just silly. Silly games, but armed with weapons humanity shouldn't have and won't have. It is a temporary phase. It won't keep on for long for obviously this planet will be finished off as far as life possibilities go before too long, due to this and that and the other thing, all boiling up together -- it is entirely obvious for all to see, if they bother to look at it at all. Whether it is this summer or the other one or three hundred summers from now is not for me to say and not for anybody to say for there are certain levels of the determinism of reality which are not to be exploited in human thought and made part of what the human ego can devour and fiest upon. But it is certain that humanity has an infinite future, and that that future must involve an infinity of varities in terms of planets and even, at rare occasions, change of galaxies. So that humanity can find new rest-places in a playfully restless universe in continual self-recreation, and not get stuck in their own pollution so to speak. : I see. How many people do you think see it how you just said it? / Hardly any, for it is too unpleasant and too wierd compared to the hypnosis projected daily in the tons of fragmented and trashy news media and the amateur journalists with their so-called "writing web logs" and all that -- and, as you know, I don't want to form a sect either, because there is no truth in trying to get into the discipleship and closed commitee kind of thing, and truth is truth and truth takes care of itself, it doesn't need an organisation of truth. And yet anyone will admit every one of the points I say if you calmly have a dialogue with the person on a friendly basis over some hours, with good coffee and great walks included. It is just that taken together it is too much of a package for people, they are afraid they will get nuts if they try to hold it all together. I mean, there are exceptions -- you, for one -- but most do not hold it consciously together in the least. : You seem to be saying that in some sense, all agree at bottom. / Absolutely. They do. Humanity is really one. They don't really have all these assumedly Big Contradictions. They are really in great, huge, almost embarassing agreement. But it is a sentiment that is, as of 2009, extremely rarely expressed. So you have to see that the human mind has a chatter level. This chatter level can contain the nastiest of words. It can say of peole, even of whole nations, that they are evil. For instance, in the antisexual, book-based tyranny called "Iran", they have a kind of God-praying event where it is almost considered as important to say of God that God is great as to say of USA that USA is satan and death to USA. So they chant it, tens of thousands idiots chant Death to USA, while they really are chanting, We are Idiots. For USA is just a bunch of loosers just like any other nation on Earth. Earth, humanity, are loosers in the game of ego. Earth's nations are all looser-nations. Not one of them have any glorious future. That is an absolutely obvious point of view if one has any level of intuition or insight at all. Iran, USA, Europe, Norway, South Africa, you name them -- these are all merely entirely temporary structures and not one of them are evil. They are just idiotic names for idiotic groups of people without any significance whatsoever except so as to make some entertainment in the daily news. And so the chanting that God is great is good, is the only thing that makes sense; but the chanting that a nation is saton or demonic or evil is the proof of the brittleness and untruth of the past religions -- that they can lead anybody, and let alone tens of thousands, into such mass hysteria is just fantastic. By the way, any human society that is built so as to let tens of thousand human beings chant together is built for self-destruction. It is like an enormous weapon, and that weapon will spell the end of that society. For the ego of one person can then get into a hysteria accelerated by the egoes of the thousands around this individual, and so we get mass-hysteria, which is mass-stupidity. The mass-stupidity is found also in christianity, in hinduism, in marxist or communist China, everywhere. At the same time, there are more and more atom bombs, and when the time comes that egoes get so sulking and so insane that they like Dr Strangelove in the Peter Seller movie want to use the atomic bombs to appeace their insane minds, that is the end of human civilisation -- at least when it happens in the core rulership of one hugely atomized nation like USA. So there are an infinity of possibilities for humanity to self-destroy as far as Earth go. And so this is bound to happen. It is entirely deterministic, entirely obvious. And it is also entirely obvious for anyone who has prayer, who has intuition, that there is not going to be any kingdom of heaven merely at the soul level. If there is going to be any kingdom of heaven it has got to be so as to allow reincarnation into a material society which has to be free from the idiotic features of the past; it has obviously got to be a distributed compassionate anarchy, but with the strict bounds necessary to disallow the ego to re-arm itself and re-group itself. It has to be utterly satisfying sexually for all involved, totally, and that has to be blended with religiousness and art in an absolutely convincing way, without hatred. And it has to have the mercy of God and the ruthlessness of God in preventing decay. This obviously is meant to be and obviously not on Earth but obviously it is meant to be a human real manifest existence, and human beings on Earth are obviously the only human beings we've got. So it means that Earth will have to be left and of course there a certain role of mechanics and all comes in, but it is not enough with mere mechanics, for there are no suitable alternative places for humanity anywhere near. Nowhere near in the Milky Way, anyway; and beyond some gas molecules, no human being has managed to warp any sizable material structure far away crossing the speed of light limit. Gas molecules have shown nonlocality; that's as far as mechanistic physics has got and that is about as far as it will ever get. There is a component they don't have and that component is the benevolence of God, and without that, nothing will work for real. God must be in a warp otherwise there will be no warp. And this little bit is not something any equation can handle. They don't even have got a nonmessy mathematics for their present little tricks. They are entirely without a foundation in reality, these physicists; and their logic is either poor or they pretend that they don't see the illogic of it all. : Still, you say, it is all relative goodness. / Yes. It is ego-entertainment. Science at present is ego-entertainment, like most other things. Few things are essentials. Sex is an essential. Beautiful art is an essential. Vegetarian healthy food and supplements are essentials. The laughter of young girls and their musical voices are essentials, not merely to make more and more music, but to find the real good quintessential and perhaps rather arrythmic music and then understand that all else is the sweet melody of girls talking and girls reading stories about sex to each other. That is the akin to the muses in many ways; and that is pleasing for this origin. And so human civilisation at Earth is an utterly temporary phase; rediculous, empty, shallow, producing nothing anymore of any import to speak of. And so if you want to live a good life, you mustn't at all worry in the slighest about what's on the news. You mustn't even worry about your own bodily existence. You must dedicate yourself to the feelings which flow from the grand and glorious future, beyond all the religious books of the present, beyond all the news of the present. And this beautiful feeling, this silence, is what you get in meditation, with long long walks without thinking about who is enemy or whatever, for there is no enemy. There is only this fantastic beauty of the future which drags all souls towards it, and they must not look at the trash of the present. There will always be something trashy about all present moments, speaking relatively, but one must learn to love the future and drink a salvation from it, so as to clean up and purify the present. : Interesting. Now what you say implies to me, then, that if anyone shouts to another that he or she is evil, then the shout is having no meaning. / It has no meaning. It is absurd. It is rediculous. Which is not to say that it doesn't imply something one ought to pity, for any such attempt at invocation of the bygone past of dualism is indicative of the person not having real contact with himself or herself. : Is the person insane? / That may be likely. But it can also be, given the present climate, that the person is merely engaging in a habitual type of temper tantrum which is having no other element in it than mere manners of talking picked up from the environment. : Is someone who is insane also not evil? / There is no evil, nor can there ever be. There is nothing at all that is contrary to God's intent. God's intent, which is the meaning of the word "goodness", is the only thing that exists. In this intent there is evolution, meaning also some level of moderate conflict. Can some people die in this conflict? At the bodily level only. Can a part of this body die before the rest? Obviously. And so if the brain ceases to be that multi-dimensional transformator for the subtler levels of reality it is like a computer running away on its own, without the grounding it should have in being part of a network which is cared for by proper programming. The proper programming of human souls and spirits are done by muses and their submuses. But if the brain is not coherent enough to be a receptor for this work, but spins off on its own, there is soulless behaviour. And this soulless behaviour can often emerge as a result of a mixture of bad genes, much drugs and plenty of disappointments sexually, while in an environment hostile to alternative ways of thinking about wholeness -- alternative relative to the trash materialistic culture, that is. : Bad genes doesn't mean "bad" in the sense of not good? / You are right in correcting me there. Bad genes in this sense merely means that they do not have full adequate stamina at some points, and allow then the infection of a breakdown of coherence of the brain to take part. : Is there no treatment for this? / You see, I have an entirely different perspective on it. As I see it, there is no experience in a person without the soul being there and doing the experience. I mean this literally. Steer into the water, if you like, or steer at a flower, or at somebody's face or foot or pussy, if they agree with you as an experience. Steer and then feel you staring. Feel the fact that you are indeed gazing. Don't goggle. Never goggle. Be relaxed, don't stare in the sense of being a starer. Have relaxed eye-lids, have a ready smile, move if you like, but have some seconds without looking strange in which you simply see. But check how you look privately with a camera first so you understand how to have a relaxed meditative gaze, an artistic look while you do it, for you must watch over your own radiance, you are an interactor, not merely a spectator. And while you have this seeing going on, let all thoughts be silent if they wish; and if they don't wish to, emphasize silence. Watch it all. If you like, bring in the word GOODNESS again and again but gently, with a pause, and with an uncertainty when you are going to say it, inside, as a whisper in thought. When you are about to say it to yourself, don't say it: and then wait and either say it or don't say it as a surprise to yourself. In each such surprise to yourself there is an intensification of attention. This is something I have talked about in that foundational little booklet of mind called JOY and the Human Brain as a Quantum Unit. You have to get your mind into the state where it is utterly sensitive relative to the least energy element in the brain. Then attention pervades more and more -- coherence takes more and more over. The rediculous school of meditation called 'Maharishi Transcendental Meditation' or something to that effect -- utterly rediculous like all other schools of meditation, of course -- nevertheless had some elements of simple truth in them when they spoke of the brain coherence as increasing when one does samyama, or the togetherness of attention with the whisper of a solidly good intent. They were overcooked on hinduism and wanted a world government and all that, but there were some elements -- not treated in terms of honest scientific work, unfortunately it was presented as scientific when it was just positive affirmations of what they wanted to have achieved, mostly -- but still, there were some elements there. Naturally Maharishi, like the advaita vedanta teacher Klein, and most other guru-groups across the world, saw their teacher or teachers become senile after a while. Anyway, let us not have the connotation of liers and guru-groups and self-important therapy-groups and wishful thinkers about intuition and so on when you are endavouring to explore silence. Silence is your contact with God's mind. It is the miracle of creation. If your silence doesn't feel ecstatic, then your silence is not quite silence, but it has subtle ego-noise in it. It is at those points you should find a fresh creative word each day in meditation, and allow it to blend a little if you like. Perhaps not every day but once in a while. Not repeat Hare Krishna or Hare Rama like the idiotics of the nonsensitical Krishna Consciousness society did -- making people stupid as if they were on cocaine or metamphetamine or something because they wouldn't change the sound. The same sound over and over again makes people stupid -- Krishnamurti rightly pointed this out, Jiddu Krishnamurti that is, not the self-over-cooked lier called U.G.Krishnamurti. So you watch -- the text in hinduism I most care for is that called Yoga Sutras, but it is not absolutely true, it is just a weak beginning, it too must be completely left behind -- but it speaks of watching with a seed, and without a seed, and the union which comes when the flow of attention no longer is fixed by the ego. And when you watch -- the foot, the wave, the cloud -- you watch that you are watching. You can do this with enormous intensity AFTER you have meditated with closed eyes and you can meditate with closed eyes AFTER you have had sex or masturbated, which is also a form of sex, and done so with great delight and with a great deal of computer images of great-looking very young girls without any decay about them -- so they are muse-like, angelic in their elegant faces, smooth in their long thighs. So you get all your energies going, they becomes rhythmically and arrythmically coherent, you meditate, and you watch. And as you watch, you watch the watching, not speculate over it, but as in a new dimension. You watch the watching and that stream IS the soul. And its most subtle features IS the spirit. And so, you can ask yourself, as Ramana Maharishi -- another Maharisha, not so circus-like as the other one I mentioned -- 'who am I', -- without taking the word 'I' too seriously. So you realize that in being present to your watching, there is a quietude there, a wholeness there, a fullness there, even elements perhaps, at least sometimes, of an ecstasy there, and this is what you are most about -- and that is immortal. And so, you don't stop there. You then realize that you are having a sense of life which is not "I" against the "You" nor against anything such as "It". Rather, it is -- as they say in Bob Marley's songs -- I-and-I. The one I that is I-and-I. I is watching I-and-I. The soul of what you watch, if you watch another human being, is like another leaf of the same tree of goodness, the same tree of humanity which springs directly from the mind of God and his muses. Do you understand? : Yes. I think so. It is very complicated but perhaps I understand it a little bit. / That's the spirit. I mean, that's the attitude. To be affirmative but yet appreciate that there is more to it than what you consciously fathom -- at any point now, or anytime, anywhere in the universe. There is always an on-goingness, which is not a thing of the ego. Jiddu Krishnamurti was very, very wrong whenever he over-stated the absence of cosmic time -- and the only time he began correcting this bad habit of his was in his conversation with David Bohm in the Ending of Time towards the last seasons of his life. For one cannot deny evolution of the soul even though the ego finds it a pleasing thought that there is evolution. Whatever the ego finds pleasing may be an illusion or it may be fact, but one cannot draw an inference from the fact that something is in danger of being an attachment from the point of view of the ego to the conclusion that it is in itself a barren illusion. The ego must stop to try to control time. The ego of Einstein had to be stopped -- as I did with the proof in my exam thesis -- the ego that tried to hold to time and twist it to become a kind of fixed icy non-time. The materialists then come with their idea of coincidences and noises which are the off-spring, they think, of causes operating from the past -- or from, in the more sophisticated cases like Ilya Prigogine, a statistical indeterminism. But both these causes-from-behind and this statistical indeterminism are but facets of atheism, denying the deeper cosmic order which is the real source of I-ness, soulfulness, spiritedness, and love and sexual love also. So Ilya Prigogine was as wrong as Niels Bohr and as wrong as Albert Einstein. David Bohm was fuzzy, I am not saying he was clearly wrong but I suspect his conception had some level of determinism at bottom which lacked a meaningful godhood and in some sense was a kind of polished materialism. I give nothing more to Louis de Broglie but I saw in how de Broglie took Bohm's work in the early 1950s and used it to break clearly and completely and forever (and in a way de Broglie spelled out affirmatively in the decades to come, with full force, also in the 1980s), that de Broglie broke utterly with the Niels Bohr Copenhagen Interpretation and found his way around the von Neumann proof by means of Bohm's work, by introducing nonlocality, by realizing that the pilot waves of his has gotta reflect the world nonlocally and not through einstein's lens of the speed of light. And this became in turn the starting-point for formulating a source of the pilot waves in terms of a modelling over the models from which reality emerges, a super-model concept, the supermodel theory as I published it in 2004, privately. This intuitively I speak of as how God has organized reality in his mind, and it is the textbook of the muses, I would say, as for the most general features of spaceduration. These are huge, grande words, and if any simple human you met on the street said it that person would naturally be called megalomaniac and insane. But I am seated in the safety of all my coherent productions, my smile, my rejuvenation, the respect that naturally comes to all my works at all levels -- the fact that I enjoy all this respect and still happens to be perhaps the only ardent writer that is fully honest and fully fearless -- allows me to say also such enormously grand things and they stand, they are simply what I have said before in a more explicit form. I am not saying that all my words are truth entirely. I am saying that all my words are truthful, but when I say something not entirely true, it is to protect a greater truth that must be protected, not because I don't know better nor because it would be better to say it other than how I say it. So, you watch, you meditate, you end the time of thought -- its expectations -- and you come towards the time of God, the cosmic order. You sense yourself as alive, as lively to your own perception, your own seeing. You see that long thin ankle, that shapely foot, you feel a tingling of all the energies your sex and your meditation have coherently released in you, and you feel the quietness in you is bursting with creative awareness, with effortless wakefulness, with great intelligence, with great silence, the great samadhi, the great wholeness. Some days this come much easier. Some nights, after a great deal of sex, you will find that the energies of such meditations can come for hours into the early day, and then you have to sleep, for the brain gets so exhausted on occasion by all this. It is hard, cosmic work for a human being to meditate. And you don't talk too much about what you do. When I say what I say, I say it after tens of thousands of earlier productions not just as informal texts, but in terms of investigations into science, in terms of programming of computers, in terms of talks I have given on so many occasions, in terms of healings I have done, in terms of all the intuitions I have correctly given to people on concrete things and which have proven themselves on several occasions with enormous intensity -- and so there is not any sincere accusation against me for being in a peculiar kind of rapture of illusion or self-delusion or anything like that when I say what I say on the nature of essential reality. But you who look into it from a more sweetly innocent angle, you must not suddenly talk as if you were me, for you must take it lightly or else the burden of too much talk about this will make others burden you with propositions about your brain falling apart. So you must do this quietly, swim in this ocean of my works as much as you like but exercise and laugh and go to parties and make spring black/impressionism paintings and try to win some money on currency transactions and massage your feet in the morning and do exercises and masturbate plenty and, if you are young and healthy and know a little what you are doing, and take responsibility for yourself, have lots of groupsex and dance yourself and your girlfriends into groupsex and do so without reliance on drugs -- and so also swim in these words. Drink them in, let them honor your meditations, but don't speak about them, if I can most respectfully point it out, as if others hadn't heard about them; or as if whenever another say something contradictory to what you think I say, that is necessarily a contradiction also in meaning. For the same meaning can be said in innumerable ways, and one thing said can have almost as many meanings. But you go back to watching the other human being. You sense your "I". And it is something I wish to press onto you now: give it time, regularly. It is not something which will have much meaning if you quit it after fifteen seconds. If you are tired of it, try it another day, but don't give in to the constant noise and rush of non-meditative living. Non-meditative living is merely a forerunner of self-killing. Self-killing, or euthanasia, is something a body should do when it is right and then without a word or a whisper to another and without any preparation in terms of how one is living. One should do it because the body isn't right to support one's soul and for no other reason. One shouldn't do self-killing half-ways for years and years by drugs and lies and non-meditative living and meat-eating or cannibalistic eating. The muses eat spirit-stuff, they can convert any material beautiful body to spirit-food which they drink in with a smile, without getting fat, without getting the negative types of hormones that eating killed beef can give. But humans cannot eat meat without becoming rather rotten inside. Only the muses, in their sexuality, can be fully vampyristic or cannibalistic, the muses and the submuses, and so the fantasies of all human beings can dance with this but a human being cannot do such a thing in manifest reality without becoming a whack-job, whacko, a nuthead, off her rocker. So human beings must go to soy beans and extra their omega-3 from it and sesame seeds and make yoghurt based on soy and get plenty of nuts and raisins and wheat and oat and barley and all such things, and potatoes and lots more -- without the dogmatism whether of socalled macrobiotics or Rudolf Steiner or anything else -- and raise from the cannibalistic ego-structures which crave meat. One must watch calories, and deny oneself food beyond a certain level, relative to how much exercise. One must limit food, otherwise the decay in food will make one decay in all other actions in life. And one must sleep a lot, and appreciate the types of music that are harmonious. All these things come more and more easily as enlightenment comes, and then enlightenment refines itself -- in common jumps for all humanity each thousand of millenia. These things are true, you can try to deny them but not for long. It is so it is, it is bound to be realized more and more by all. But so you watch another, you allow silence and love and goodness and beauty and truth to come into the watching. You sense the reality of you watching. And then you look to the sheer existence of the other -- Das Ding An Sich -- which is something you sense immediately, it is not so that you actually by mere human sensory organs fully take in more than an appearance -- but rather, denying Kant and kantianism, you embrace Das Ding An Sich interobjectively, as Du, but not merely in the dualistic sense of Martin Buber's Ich-Du, nor merely in the triadic sense of his Ich-und-Du-und-Gott, but rather, you appreciate that it is in some sense your own essence which is God, and that God actually creates the other to which your human sensory organs have been so kind as to give you some glimpses of. These organs are good to guide attention. But attention is non-kantian. Attention is immediate. It is not about trying to be empathic. It is not that you in any way mirror the other. This has got nothing to do with mirrors. This is not a trick of the neurons. This is not something a darwinist nor a neo-darwinist nor anyone obsessed with trying to get a grip on human dialogue or altruism or the breakdown of it can understand -- for it goes beyond the domain and field of human speculation and ego. In your silence, there is the fullness of existence, and essence; you feel, by all the preparation -- yes, you must in contrast to what Jiddu Krishnamurti said, but in alignment with what he himself ardently and without fail practised, prepare -- by all this preparation you meditate as you are using your good eyes and good human sensory organs in appreciating the other. Then there is nothing about I and You and the other is not merely into your own companion space or anything like that. It is rather that in the full berkeleyan sense of a flowing existence which is all in God's mind, a leaf on the tree of goodness is quivering together, quaking together -- I am not for the Quakers, by the way, with their hypocritical notion that they are friends with Jesus by their silence -- but one leaf is quaking together with another, and then with yet another, and with more and more. You sense another human being also coming into it. And a fourth. And a fifth. You sense, by your mind, that more and more humanity is coming into your attention field. And all of Nature, all the stars, all the planets. All existence. You can move your gaze, you still feel that the tree of goodness is all that is, the essence of it is the mind of God, and the mind and heart of God is everywhere, and his muses, they are nonlocally rather everywhere also, ruling all, guiding all, also this moment. You feel it? Do you feel it now? How you as one meet the other and there is two, and then you go to zero, neither you nor the other, at the same time as you leave the two and come to three, to four, to five, to allness of existence. There is a meditation in that. There is silence. There is beauty. Whatever you do which rather fully expresses this sense, in a self-critical yet playful manner, and which you feel this way about the next day, and the next week also, might be superbly good art, art really worthy of your soul/spirit at its best. : I can feel the beat of it while you talk. / The beat. Quite. So in the 20th century, some who tried to write into meditation called themselves beatnicks, or something like that. Speaking about the beautification of existence, of attention. But we don't have to call ourselves anything in particular. The process is universal, it exists beyond any -ism in any phase of humanity. : Is it the arrythmetic? / Rhythm and the natural going beyond of rhythm belong together. Sometimes rhythm brings you nearer to what you need to sense the meditation fully, sometimes the beat of the arrythmic -- like the little informal piano piece I did record once, which I call my own Koeln concert, with all my typical lack of modesty -- since it was inspired by a thousand listenings of the first ten minutes or so of a real concert in Koeln by K. Jarret -- but without the contemporary aggressiveness he tends to put into his improvisations -- anyway, sometimes the beat of the arrythmic will take you where you have to go. If you stick too much to rhythm, you may find that the ego comes into a control position. So when one should dance to loud music, that loud music ought not to have a mechanical fixed beat. But when the radio is on in the background as a vague and creatively stimulant fluctuation of sorts with its news and its sensual stories and musical voices it can also have some minutes of regular beat without that becoming a source of egotism. The radio has a little speaker, a weak amplifier, it doesn't impose itself with its regular beat whenever one of the songs with regular beat comes on air. But the loud dance hall music, the loud dance music in a loud and happy party, if that has a regular, or mechanical-rhythmic beat, it will support the ego: and it is then people take to drugs to combat the ego, but that's the wrong way to combat it -- it actually benefits the ego in the long run. For it deprives the brain of the coherence it needs to fight that ego from within. A very mild drug administered at occasions which require fearlessness of an extraordinary kind and not availble whether in ordinary stores nor on any so-called "black market" or market which happens in secrecy wouldn't be a thing of the ego, when done righteously and with a meaningful understanding of all that is involved. So also for a reincarnation station etc. You see these things I explore with the Anaiis Blondin writings. When I write the stories, a lot lot lot lot more has happened than what I write. The stories I write are really tiny excerpts of a vast matrix of events. I run them rather fully -- not so fully as manifest space -- but I run them fully, to see how people react, to test how humanity would respond to such and such technology, and there is a great deal of individuality to the emotions there. In some sense, then, it is a real training ground. Similar but at another, more erotic-dynamic level, with the Manhattan Transformation. We might say the latter is more the spirit, the former more the soul. And the manifest reality needs of course both for the fullness of its depth. It is not just manifest reality and then God as Martin Luther, author of protestant christianity, seemed to would have it. He rightly protested against the corruption of the catholic priests, but his alternative was even less sensual than the already barren catholisism, which still exists with all its hypocrisy, -- anyone member of catholisism today is an enemy of humankind. So when you meditate, you stand free from gossip, fully free from organisations. You are not the member of a political party, you do not vote on political parties. If you vote, it is to liberate sexuality. Anyone calling themselves "christian" in terms of politics today must be kept out of office for they are even worse than the socialists, they are even more selfish than the social democrats, trying to limit people with anti-pedophilic laws which ultimately limit all people's goodness intensity and full sexuality artistic vigor -- so the christian parties perpetuate drug abuse and wars, for they are still wrapped up in anti-sensual anti-child ancient dualism. They do not understand that they are enemies of human life, the christian political parties. The narrow-minded mild not-too-big capitalism social democrats are slightly better; not that I vote on any such shit. But they are slightly better, and of course much better than arch-socialists, who think they know anything about compassion when they put their ugly anti-beautiful politics into place in order to ensure that people don't become jealous of beautiful people by trying to get the beautiful people away; and rather just protect nature and animals. Compassion is only won by laying off politics. The way humanity has made politics, it is something one shouldn't have much off. And so when we leave the rhythm of politics, which is not evil, it is just not so good as much other things which can be good -- politics is really only about what laws should be given to the police -- and the police when it has good laws is good, but not so on Earth, of course, -- when we leave the rhythm of politics, we come into the truer rhythm, and also transcendence of rhythm, which is meditation. One cannot like Maharishi Mahesh Yogi try to make a political party out of natural laws, out of meditation. It is not ever going to be a party. As long as there are parties, civilisation has not yet truly started. And so we need to have an anarchistic understanding of beauty, and of meditation, and of love. We must be violently against violence, violently against ugliness, but otherwise anarchistically liberated from the categories of thought, Kant or Einstein or Bohr or otherwise, marxist, darwinistic, neodarwinistic or whatever. There is no Islam. There is no Hinduism. There is no Judaism. There is no Christianity. There is no Daoism. There is no Buddhism. There is only God's mind and heart, carrying all existence, and these little folks inside that existence shouldn't brand themselves and their little books with the label "truth". That is hubris. It is hubris to say, "I am a muslim". It is hubris to say, "I am a christian". It is hubris to say, "I am a hindu". It is hubris to say, "I am a buddhist". It is hubris to say, "I am a daoist" -- or marxist, atheist, darwinist, or whatever, socialist, capitalist. What you have to say is that you don't know. You want to have faith -- say that. You want to have faith. You hope to have more and more faith in God. You don't come along with these brands unless you are a clown. But reality is not a circus and you are not a clown. : There is just this beautiful existence. Beautiful people. Beautiful flowers. / Well, flower child, that's it. But then within this existence there is expectation. And when you expect, you are trying to beat the beat of existence without your own thought-frequency, so to speak. You are not playfully lingering on to next moment's meditation, rather you are trying to cement an earlier's moments form as if it could contain meditation, as if it could contain ecstasy. And so enlightenment is about the intent of teaching to yourself, with yourself as the only disciple and only guru, apart from God and his muses, and the truest statements written, with yourself as disciple you teach yourself to let go of specific expectations and yet have great hopes on behalf of all humanity for all souls and all future. : Can I have ambition? / Naturally. You are young, you feverently want to learn to make better feet in your sketches, you make yourself an ambition -- next month I'll get it! That's an ambition. Or you have never really practically understood currency trading, what it means to have a good exit strategy or what it means to put in a proper upper and lower bound on prices when you want to reap some profits. You haven't understood it and you say, wihtin this season I will! And that's ambition. Now can you have that ambition without putting self in it? You see what I mean? : It means I can let go any moment. / Well, let's not overstate it. But it is something like being able to let go -- quite easily, shall we say, -- and also so that you don't do a thousand things to prevent others from getting just as good or even better, and you don't get irritated and angry just because somebody is a bit demanding of attention from you just when you are working on this. You must be humane and compassionate as adult and as child, not separation there -- there is no truth to the notion that some are juveniles, and others are adults. All human beings are children; all children have immortally aged souls and spirits and are adults; but all must respect the changes of body and the importance of training and education and time for meditation and, sometimes, times for mild recovery of light bruises. And then there are bruises which lead to bodily death, and that is one of the many many events which a human being must learn flexibility and fearlessness in relation to. So you have ambitions but you can redesign them, when it is called for: that is your intent. And it may be called for because you in meditation sense that your conscience wants to re-direct your course. You must not then say, 'steadfastness in my early plan no matter what is most important.' Most important is obedience to goodness, loyality to your conscience with goodness, loyality to God and his muses. It is not so important what you planned -- except when that plan is good, and pressures from the environment are more of the slightly chaotic kind, to use that phrase. : Would you say that such slight chaos in the environment is still part of goodnewss? / Yes, nothing is not part of goodness. All is part of goodness. But you must weigh carefully in your honest love-meditation, when you are saturated with love and joy after sex and after good exercise or after good sleep, what has more goodness in it and pursue that. You must incline towards the highest goodness that you appreciate, and not assume that it is ever absolute. But it is to be firm and steadfast in being above the lower forms of relative goodness. And this means that you are utilizing your human existence to your fullest capacity. For an animal like a bird, or even more a nature plant like a flower, cannot have all this flexibility of decision and judgement in its existence, for it lacks not only the richness and fullness and capacity of the human brain and her very refined and beautiful body -- the most beautiful thing in manifest existence -- but also the soul level and the spirit level. So nature, however rich in beauty, exudes its perfumes in perfection as an honoring of human joy, human beauty, human altruism, human compassion, human care, human love, human dialogue, human sexuality, human meditation, human truth -- by which I mean, the highest truth that humanity can have in this world which is entirely based on relative goodness and absolute goodness without any room, ever, for anything such as evil, demon, devil or satan. There is no death-impulse in existence, there is only righteous-impulse, and this righteousness can have as impulse to eradicate something which has fallen a bit low in relative goodness, -- and it operates on a mild level when you say 'no' to an artwork you just have done. So you push the delete button and prefer a higher goodness. This is the human truth. The human beauty is all the beauty you are dancing in, when you see human being, from when it has soul, as sexual, sensual, dancing, without counting seasons or years, without trying to put people into age-groups, without counting the number of sexual partners or sexual experiences. It is very important to leave off counting that which shouldn't be counted. Do you see that? : I always try to avoid counting where I don't have to. I think it is so rediculous when someone tries to convince others of having more status by citing how many of this and how many of that they have in their past. / Exactly. So numbers have a role -- such as, when you number a series of sketches you have drawn in the LAB program in the computer, and you have them in a folder, and you have a certain order to them. There is a natural order to how you read the pages in a book, you have perhaps a number for the book as well. Or you are doing a job together with others, or which others rely on that you do on a certain standard time, and so you count the minutes and hours enough to keep on to that schedule with a fair amount of persistency. That is meaningful counting. But whether it is two or four or five seasons since you last fucked someone, does it matter? Does it not matter more that you are wishing all the beauty in this day and in all upcoming days and nights, let's also say nights -- than that you go on counting the past? So this is part of beauty, silence, goodness. That we count what ought to be counted but don't attribute any significance to these simple finite numbers beyond that they order some things. They should never order people. : I agree. Is that also what you mean by the arrythmic? / Yes. Precisely. Bravo. For the arrythmic is only a transcendence of rhythm is if it a transcendence of what can easily be counted. So that was one of the goals with the Koeln piano session for me, forty-five minutes, after quite a lot of earlier experimentation -- to make it so that one couldn't really tell all of it by any form of notation. And it reached that, I feel. : I like it enormously. It has some sadness in it, though, also, doesn't it? / I am glad you point that out. Yes it does. A bit too much perhaps? But that's how it goes, without the human melody, with just those tones: for it has to be real, it is not the fullness of the suffering in the couple of minutes of the Erbarme Dich aria. But it has an intimation of that seriousness of meditation which goes all the way back to God's pain also. There is a pain in material existence. You know what it is composed of? : The stuff, the atoms and all that? But I thought you said that it is part of God's mind. / It is. But what part? Have you thought about why it had to be a simulation space at all? Why it had to happen all the things that had to happen there? And have you thought about what had to be done about that which no longer exists, which never can exist -- that evilness or dualism which was part of simulation space? All of it -- and them -- and Satan -- was grounded to unconsciousness and yet there was a pain left in all that, impersonally, and it became the material existence. It couldn't be taken altogether away without only the joy of God's mind existing, but in this joy, all is dancing with absolute enlightenment. So the inertia of matter, to put it by that peculiar label -- inertia, the sluggishness of matter -- it had to come by means of some pain. Do you see now? : Oj. / Yes. It had to come from somewhere. So the 8-sphere theory, it is really very complex, and entirely linked with what I say of simulation space; and the Erbarme Dich, Mein Gott song, tells not just of the ending of all evil, and Satan and all Demon-helpers and all that, but it tells of the ending of all those people which God after all had created in a temporary form -- God had created his little opposites, nurtured them for a little while, which apparently was stretched out for fifty thousand years and fifty billion years and so on. It apparently was stretched out but it was a pain of half a day's creation, and all these beings had to be eradicated and yet not absolutely. That tiny little bit which is left of them has got no consciousness nor can it ever re-gain that, the person aspect of it is gone, but there is a little bit pain. And that is the noise-element of the ego. That is the tendency of some synchronicities to work out some pieces of problematic temptations towards the not quite righteous which still exist. : And when there is more enlightenment, there is less pain? / Exactly. There is less universal pain. The pain of matter, the residue of the simulation space dualism, becomes reduced -- stepwise -- as a result of the collective effort of humankind to reach more enlightenment, and then stepwise more and more refinement of enlightenment. : I have to ask just so I have asked it, but I am sure it is a very silly question, why not give total enlightenment to all at once? / For then there would have been no evolution, and so no duration, and so no entertainment, no growth, no aspiration, no conflict, just the fun-joy soup of nothingness playing with itself inside the imagination of the fun-loving God behind all that is. So he needed to stretch something out -- that's the 8/16-sphere -- all that. But it is only possible to stretch something out if something is prevented from full free flux. It has to have a firm limitation. And this limitation could only come by means of some kind of lasting, infinitely lasting but gradually more endurable punishment of sorts. It sounds perhaps a bit strange to put in the word 'punishment' but the point is that God really has no mercy, cannot have, if there is going to be a true driving onwards towards ever-greater enlightenment. There has to be a metering out. One can pray for mercy but what will happen is that, at best, one will get a way to meet what one has done so as to improve one's goyon in relation to it -- but if it is not done, it has to be met then within the space of two incarnations. And that will be torture of the soul, so it promises aloud not to repeat such lack of enlightenment. Now this is terrible, but the joys are meant to gradually increase more and more, and if there was no initial conflict, no initial dualism in simulation space which now is entirely over, there would have been no possibility for something to stand out as more beautiful than anything else, and so the stretching-forward towards the growth in goodness, the flowering in goodness, is only possible by means of the relativeness. : Fantastic. It is such an order to it. I feel it now, the way you speak. / Well, that's encouraging. I hope we got somewhere. It is quite an ordeal for me to spell out so many things without it getting an edge to it that can be too severely misinterpreted. But I needed to say enough that we cover so many areas of shall we say daily concern of people that we could link it all up with just about every field of endavour that we -- or some of us, anyway -- have talked about earlier, including computing, including physics, including the subtle finesses of meditation, as well as the grander views of metaphysics. It might be seem like a patchwork otherwise, and it is rather an intensely and very critically correct woven whole, in which goodness forever is all that rules all, without any exception. : Unity. / Or wholeness. It is a rich word, wholeness. Healing means, going towards more and more wholeness. So the word 'healing' is what you should stick to when you have pain, rather than the word 'blame'. Healing of yourself, healing of your goyon, healing of what you have done, healing of your plans. So it coheres more and more with that infinite goodness with is God. And the muses are here, all over the places, trillions of them, to help you. They are your rulers, your masters, under God but infinitely stronger than humans. Humans are entirely weak compared to the weakest of submuses. And so there is a hierarchy of strict goodness, a hierarchy of strict determinism, in which only a few facts at any time are meant to be understood, and in which at times great challenges occur so that all must look to their ego within and see if they can defy their ego and encourage themselves to have even greater faith in God. Without giving God the ugly names of the past world religions. Of all the names of the past world religions which make any sense at all, except perhaps Zeus to some extent, the greek word Christos but understood in the coptic-ethiopian sense as one and the same as God and not merely a human incarnation of God, have something to it. The other words, Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma, Brahman, Allah, Dao, Ishwara, and all the rest of it, Krishna too by the way -- all the rest of the names of God and gods can go. Samadhi is nice as an expression, of wholeness and joy and acceptance; nirvana as more purely ecstatic a word. God works because is it so woven into natural good English and English is by far the best language for faithful human strong thinking about God and goodness that humanity has encountered in themselves. So the word "God" is a good one, naturally. But the brands of the world religions MUST be left aside if humanity is to come fully to an AMFAP, As Much Faith As Possible. And this is the key to come to real meditation. Real sex. Real tantrism. Real drugfree joy. Real progress in enlightenment. This has always been an undercurrent in what I said but I have said it with increasing expliciteness as the seasons went by. You must be able to say, "I do not know" at the same time as you say, "I endavour to have as much faith as possible". I do not know is not a negative statement if you by it mean that you only have relative knowing, which lingers towards truth without capturing truth. But you must lean on the faith in the absolute God as the one totality.