Economy column of yoga6d dot org: 
Completing page


By S R Weber

{Soulful texts SHOULD have at least one 'fast-typing' issue about it, and
nobody should believe fully in any text which has no grammatical issues,
in our opinion; there's plenty of soul in what follows ;-) } 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
===========>You are now viewing the ARCHIVE SECTION of the 
Yoga6dOrg EcoNomy column, its significant PAGE 10.
A number of key articles about philosophy,
art, physics, intuition and many more themes
are here.====================
{All written by S.R. Weber, the preferred pen name for Stein Henning Br. Reusch  
and who also use the pen name Aristo Tacoma and some more}


The world's rich are facing one common problem: what is
the most ethical--not just legal, but ethical--way to
handle their surplus money? A bank account is fine, but
it provides very little interest rate, generally
speaking. The few of the rich who have no trace of
ethical concerns look to the statistics as how stock-
oriented funds are doing it, and pick the ones that make
the most of their money.
  As Abraham Maslow and many others have pointed out,
wealth is an opportunity to be philosophical--to do such
things as those who are too focussed on survival cannot
have the spare energy or resources to do. And those who
are philosophical, naturally (like not few of the world's
richest) would like to do something to benefit the
upcoming generations, and they would like to do less of
the things that create havoc on the planet.
  So, in addition to giving some money away for what they
consider to be "good causes", they are trying to make more
money from the money they have, and, generally speaking, 
there are few obvious alternatives to stock trading.
  There is currency trading, of course, but there are some
myths surrounding it. One of these myths is that it is
hard to earn money on currency trading, and easy to waste
it. Let's dispell those myths--or, more precisely, those
misconceptions (for "myth" is inherently a positive word).
  It is only easy to waste money if one trades badly. And
there are very many more than George Soros who earns a
good 25, 30, 40 or 50 percent yearly by doing a bunch of
currency trades each year. That's generally as good as,
or better than, what stock funds tend to offer. (To be
precise, the Quantum Fund of Soros typically diversifies
somewhat between approaches.)
  Now why should currency trading be a better solution
than stock trading?
  There are two reasons, broadly speaking: one is the
ethical one, and the other is the long-term steadiness of
the approach. When, in 2008, the world's stocks had a
phase in which their value were cut sharply, the
physicist-turned-billionaire Soros had a bad year--he only
had about 30 percent profit. So 30 percent revenue qualifies 
as a 'bad' year in currency trading terms. Now, compare that 
to the recent stock gains by investing in some of the largest
and, in Wall Street terms, most successful companies. The 
stock traders are falling upon each other with congratulations
about this or that fabulous stock when the earnings report
support the notion of an increase, compared to the previous
year, of about 20 percent the company value (apart from 
inflation). That's ten percent less than what a good 
currency trader can reckon to make duing a bad year.
  As for any long-term steadiness of the approach as for 
stocks the simple story is that, in the long term, it
doesn't quite exist. The reason is that world's stocks 
are traded on much the same premises as Los Angeles casinos. 
As long as people flock to the casinos with optimism, money 
spins around. If they don't flock there with optimism,
money don't spin around. In other words, stock trading is
entirely flock and mood dependent and this to a much larger
extent than the world's biggest currencies, which have to
function no matter what. And so the largest funds are doing 
wise in spreading over to other things than mere stocks--
real estate, for instance, or gold. A billion can be cut 
into two-thirds of it given some sort of not impossible 
crisis, natural or political or somehow systemic. Given 
several such crises, money invested in even a broad spectre 
of stocks may be reduced to a fraction of it.
  Now consider the ethical dimension: and let's quickly
list three factors. First of all, if you have any sense at 
all of connecting causes and effects, there is no doubt that
if you own a bit of a company and partake in raising its
value by buying stocks, you are entangled into what that
comapny is doing. What that entanglement MEANS for you
depends on your religion, or lack thereof. Most have some
sort of faith in some sort of karma or whatshallwecallit,
and, put in easy terms--your karma gets tied up with what
you invest in.
  Secondly, the investment in stocks is, more often than
not, a contribution to putting a premium on 'endless growth' 
of companies. Most companies that have grown enormously have 
become enormously arrogant relative to customers. These 
companies think they get income no matter what, and they 
put up more and more fences against direct communication 
with those who work in it. They are typically happy about
using technology so that individual citizens have less of
a say over them. They remove cash and try and make 
themselves immune against customer enquiries, such as by
automated responses. They look to statistics and if a
certain thing is demanded by only one in ten customers
they may, after achieving a monopoly, cut out that thing
which, when the companies were many and diverse and
competing, was easily available all over the cities. The
streamlining of their business model against the diversity
of customers may mean that they drop physical stores in
favour of internet-via-post delivery, and use only stores
to sell some standard objects or just to showcase what's
sold digitally. That means income for them and less
nuissances such as employees. 
  This leads us to the second factor: what type of society 
do we want to have? A society of dinosaurs? Of monopolies?
Whether you regard it spiritually or not, that is an
important question to many. And there is no law of nature
that says that a very rich person should automatically
favour the trend of Wall Street to support, more than
anything, the businesses that are already too big. This
question of 'what society do we want to have' is also
discussed in the third ethical factor, that we list next.
  The third ethical factor is one that has been discussed
ever sense the introduction of stocks in the first place,
and is generally recognised as a serious one: when staff 
owns the company they are working in, they know more, care 
more and work harder for it, and generally the company 
becomes more interesting to have in a society and more 
interesting to meet for a customer. This type of company 
which you by natural ethical considerations may want to 
see more of isn't at all up for long or short bets at the
biggest stock exchanges. 
  The company owned by its employees or, if small, owned
privately by a person actually involved with the company
and knowing all employees first-hand, haven't entered the 
casino nor, perhaps, do they want to in the future. Their
premium is on relationship, responsibility, excellent
work, and connectivity to staff. Such a company can get
relatively large and it can get wealthy and yet it avoids
being listed on the stock trades. If you want to see more 
of this type of companies in the world, then you shouldn't 
put your vote to Wall Street stock exchanges or their
sub-sects around the world.
  Let us add another factor speaking against stock
trading which is chiefly psychological:
  To surf on the slopes of the stock values of a set of
companies, there is no end to the gossip you must parse
through often. Every little insignificant bit of fake
news may shake the stock value of a company for enough
days to make it vastly important to have full knowledge of
these bits of unwisdom. As for individual companies on the
stock exchange, there is no limit to how rediculous an
illusion floating on the winds of public internet forums
may be: it is the intensity of focus the illusions get, not
their truth value, that determines their immediate effect 
on the stock. And what psycholological influence does all
this have on you? When survival of your money is dependent
on unmotivated, unwarranted, unsupported gossip? And let's
bear in mind that for some, gossip-making and prolification
is big business. Indeed, in a way, that's what the socalled
"social media" is mostly about, as seen from the perspective
of most of their owners.
  And so one sees, does one not, that the most ardent stock 
traders are generally people who work like machines, sleep 
little, detoriate fast, eat much, and pump up their brains and
bodies with chemical artefacts for them to be wakeful
enough to carry on for yet another season. These people won't
learn from experience because learning (another point that
Maslow made, to continue to refer to him) depends on a surplus
energy that they never get and can't get via the methods
they choose. Is the support of such mis-cultures that which
is the best you can do with all your surplus money? Come on!
  In some cases stock trading is called for: for instance,
when there is meaningful reason for one person to work 
towards taking over some companies in order to do good
work together with these companies. I'm not fanatically
against stock trading, but I do think that the case should
be made strong for something else as a general vehicle for
holding surplus money in general.
  So, having going beyond stock trading, let's now look
at the misconception that it is hard to earn money with 
currency trading, and easy to loose there. But before that, 
let's briefly look at the ethical aspect.
  The currencies, the biggest ones, are every day in such
demand and they are exchanged in such giantic quantities
that the ethical components are correspondingly smaller.
The dollar may be used as much to support buying land in
Amazonas to protect the trees on that land as it can be 
used to buy a field for fracking. The trillions exchanged
every day in Euro, Dollar, Yen, Renminbi etc are like
oceans: the little stone you throw into them isn't by
any means shaking these currencies. Not unless you are
both trading exclusively in terms of billions of dollars
and, on top of that, using a very big leverage and in 
addition doing it at particularly sensitive moments.
  So, in a way, the big currencies are as the blood flow
of the world society, or, to be more moderate, as one type
of blood flow, complelementing all the other types of
interaction that makes society tick.
  How do you earn money on this in a way that offers a
fairly small risk?
  By reading the news and having a good framework within
which to trade. And if you don't want to do this, find
somebody who does do this, and let them handle the money
for you, given that they have good track records.
  Reading the news means, here, briefly, focussing on the
news which concern the biggest currencies, such as things
the governments are saying and doing, and what challenges
they are getting, and whether there are elections that are
seen to creating uncertainties and so on (in which case
one may want to not do any trade before election is done).
  When trading is done, it must be done within a certain
framework, a framework decided perhaps primarely from past
experience. Only with a good framework within which logic
and your intuition can operate, can risk be minimal. If
one wishes to experiment with trading without a framework,
one must do so with game accounts. The real live accounts
requires a real live framework that you stick to through
all sorts of currency weathers. 
  A framework might say, for instance, "do not maintain
a bet on a currency raising relative to another one for
more than this many days". After this number of days, the
bet you make may come off and bring a profit, or it
may have been a bad bet and there's a loss, but with a
good frameowrk, the loss isn't that great and with good
betting much more common than bad betting, the profits
will add up neatly. Good betting requires an interest and
a degree of logic and also a component of intuition. But
no trader is infalliable, and so the framework must be
made so as to handle bad bets also, so that, over a period
of, say, two months, a profit is typically showing.
  The framework may also say which of the biggest currencies
you are going to trade with. Smaller currencies are highly
dependent on individual governments. Of course, even the
U.S. Dollar is highly dependent on the decisions of the
U.S. Federal Bank and the U.S. Government, but the price
is set by means of an interaction with all the world's
biggest bankers and biggest currency investors, moment
by moment, and, ever since the gold standard was set aside
some decades ago, the shared sense of a needed stability in
the largest currencies have typically worked to provide the
needed stability for everything else--and that 'everything
else' includes stock trading.
  The absence of a framework isn't advisable: for instance
there have been stories of some people who have betted on
a period of half a year or so that the dollar is going to
slide or increase relative to another currency and when
it didn't, they didn't understand how much loss they had.
Also, one can argue that Soros before year 2000 did a
number of rather 'framework-less' bets that could have gone
as bad as they went good--as it was, he had luck and good
timing and all that--but the types of earnings we see
from Soros after year 2000 are, as I understand it, rather
made from a number of far more careful bets. These carry
with them much more moderate risks and they give more
moderate earnings but still the earnings are greater than
that of most stock-trading funds.
  Abstractly, long-term bets in general can have some role 
relative to such as companies you really love and support 
no matter what--for instance your own company or companies--
but relative to currencies, the logical approach, as I see 
it, is to go from one week to the next so that earlier 
bets are all completed as you start a new week. This makes 
sense also because, what with the internet and all sorts 
of things like that, so many things can happen that may 
affect the currencies in just a few days.
  There are some companies, typically companies physically
situated near the biggest stock exchanges, that have become 
somewhat notorious for their interest in doing what can be
called "milliseconds-trading". Here, they have special 
agreements in which their proximity to such as Wall Street 
computers are utilized in what one can call a 'parasite'
form of stock trading. These companies profit from the 
digital information that a certain company, within one or two 
seconds, are going to be exposed to a large investment, 
or a large sell, relative to the value of the whole stock,
so that scripts go in and do dealings just before this
order comes along to the stock exchange--perhaps from their
own customer. As far as I can tell, this is precisely one of 
those things that makes the stock market a poor place to 
put surplus money for the rich.
  In the currency trading market, there is another, though
related challenge, and one must apply conscious thought
to meet it: the currency exchange price in any second is
something that is not regulated by any official body. This
means that if the quantity of trades you do each day on
the Foreign Exchange, or Forex Interbank market, is huge,
you are highly dependent on just who you are collaborating
with to make those exchanges. The banks or brokers are not
obliged to give you a fair price. A high-integrity bank or
broker will give you a fair price, also to avoid having
gossip about them on the Internet that they are swinging
prices at the last moment to cash in some extra beyond the
agreed-upon margins with their Forex customers. A still
more high-integrity solution would be for the bank or
broker to publish all the prices operated with for all
customers, without naming these customers, all the time,
say, for the last month or so, so that everyone can see
and compare the prices they got--also that with other
banks and brokers. Perhaps in the future, we'll see a
regulation of this sort, leading to an increased
transparency in the market.
  The solution to the price-swinging dilemma, it appears to
me, is threefold: first, pick the solidest high-integrity
bank or brokerage you can find. Second, keep quantity of
trades pr month as low as you can. In that way, you are
not dependent on second- or minute-peaks at all. You are
rather concerned with the broad swings. Third, beware of
the 'stop loss' autoclosure mechanism. This mechanism is
meant as a safeguard but it is the most vulnerable element
in all currency trading, as it just takes a one-second
peak of a currency curve to close a trade, and these
one-second peaks can be artificially generated by a broker
and this without breaking the law. Instead, you must be
willing to operate with such a small leverage that in case
of your 'take profit' parameter doesn't lead to a cash in
for a certain week, and you must manually close the trade,
that manual closing of the trade leads to a modest loss,
a loss that you make up for by averaging many weeks after
one another.
  In looking for solidity and integrity, you should, as a
rule of thumb, use a company that has a steady profit, has
had it for many years, which has a huge backup capital
to rely on, and which have a large quantity of customers
and a great desire to be seen as a high-integrity company.
In order to mitigate what is known as counter-party risks
(ie, to reduce risks associated with the possibility that
the brokerage cannot handle some of the buys or sells you
are doing), you should have the twofold approach of 
avoiding to trade during weeks that COULD BECOME stormy 
in the currency area (which requires you to have good 
intuition as well), and in addition only trade through a 
company that has a backup capital that is at the very least 
thousands of times greater than the sums you trade with, 
and then only trade at a very modest leverage (like a dozen 
or so). You must continually check up on the integrity and
financial balancies and backup capitals of the bank or
brokerage you have chosen. This means that the options for 
safe trading for millionaires are generally larger than 
the options for billionaires. When you aim to earning by 
cashing in on moderate swings on the most stable of the 
world's currencies and you have a track record that shows 
that you can do so with small sums you can then move to 
larger and larger sums.
  In sum, the currency trader must have a steady
approach, and a non-greedy one: by going for, let's say,
30-45 percent of yearly profit, one is never trying to
make five hundred percent out of a single bet but then one
is also not taking pointless risks. This is the steady
approach of professional currency traders, and this is the
approach with which it is easy to make money on currency
  Finally, those who feel that only money made connected
to work that one really loves is worth it, let me counter
that and say that in order to do love that you really work
you need a lot of funds coming from somewhere else--
because, apart from some extraordinary exceptions (maybe
BodyShop is one), most people's enthusiasm cannot be cashed 
in on in the type of society we have in this world. The 
way the world works, as I see it, is this way: in order to 
make money, you must do something or other, usually not that
totally interesting; and in order to follow the pathway of
your heart, you must be ready to spend money more than 
earn it, at least for a very long time. The balanced approach, 
then, is to fund the projects of your heart by something that 
is a surer and safer way to earn money than the projects of 
your heart, but which isn't entirely contrary to your heart
either (ie, it's ethical enough). Currency trading can, when 
done right, be a way in which good things can get the sponsorship 
they deserve, in this world of many people and moderately 
many resources.

Reproduction of whole unedited essay in educational settings
and such is permitted. Contact info to author is in the link
above as for reprint permissions.

How right was the ancient hellene myth of Olympus?
And notes about philosophy of science, and Tolkien

It has baffled, puzzled, and--to use a word that comes
from the same root as the word "muse"--amused those
writing about the dawn of european philosophy in ancient
Greece, that no matter how rational, logical and concerned
with pure reason the various greek philosophers were,
mostly all of them--including Aristotle, who sometimes
spoke as drily as any modern professor with a dozen
ph.d.'s on his resume--took it more or less for granted
that the supreme beings of the Olympus do exist.
  More than that, it was more or less taken for granted
that human beings as we see around us are, at best,
rather like shadows of the light of these beings.
The teacher of Aristotle, Plato, very vividly described
a view that could imply such an understanding in his
metaphor of the Cave of Lights. A few people, Plato
suggested, in one of his writings calling on the voice
of Plato's teacher, the bohemian anarchist Socrates,
raise to see the light as it is, for a few moments.
In those moments, Plato claimed, they see that all that
is taken for light in amongst fellow citizens is but
shadows of the play of these higher beings, which again
refer, somehow, to higher ideas or forms as the source 
of all creation.
  The Olympic realm held many forms of supreme beings.
In a parallel development in the myths around all the
world, the more modern concepts of God arose out of the
idea of one supreme being who was more powerful than
all the others. Thus, for instance, the Hebrew God of
the Jews, Jahve, was, in earlier myths, a god amongst
many, but a stronger one, who defeated the others. And
so Zeus was the God of gods in Olympus, and the Olympus
had other gods and beings as well, such as the muses.
With the advent of the revision of Hebrew religion that
Jesus undertook while the Greek culture was still
flourishing, despite increasing pressures from Rome,
Zeus became the Roman concept of Deus, while supreme
beings of the Olympus such as Pallas Athena--the warrior
goddess of Athens--kept inspiring the roman folklore
and their interpretations of events.
  For instance, at the time of the beginning of
Christianity, with Deus and its (related word) monotheism,
--in a way, a christianized Zeus made into the top God
and as a furthering of the jewish concept of Jahve--
it was assumed that people you hear chatting together
while they pass you and your friends on the street might
occasionally convey messages from these supreme beings
directly to you, to solve concrete challenges you have
in your own life. How could this happen? While C G Jung
many centures later would formulate the concept of
"synchronicity" (ie, meaningful coincidence), the romans
had a very concrete, substance-oriented way of handling
this question: they imagined that the supreme beings can
take the form of any normal person they'd like, be it
friend or stranger, and in that way be in your
surroundings, in your environment, and give you messages
physically, and then go up in their higher, more sublime,
more essential and subtle etheric regions of the universe
where they do all the things they do--which in both roman
and hellene awareness involved plenty of copulation.
  Fortunately or unfortunately, christianity had thinkers
whose main agenda seemed to be, without entirely clear
roots in the original and rather sparse teachings of the
Jesus character, to clamp down on sexuality. Thus, while
Zeus (or Zevs) was well-known for not only being a fair
though also sometimes very ruthless judger of man and gods
he was also passionately and often incestously engulfed
in the wildest schemes of seduction of the beauties of
his realm. And his realm, indeed, was the universe. So
great was the power of Zeus that he had captured time
itself, Chronos, and enslaved time. Zeus, being male,
gave birth to some of his most beautiful supreme beings
through his thighs. But his main form was pure force, pure
energy, like Tor the Norse God of Thunder. So when Semele,
one of his consorts, a tender girl, asked to see Zeus in
his most truest form, Zeus recommended to her that she
shouldn't ask for that; it wasn't a wise thing to ask.
  Yet Semele insisted: seated on his knees, she flirted
with Zeus until Zeus gave in and let her see him as he
is. But as with the legend of Moses on the mountain, being
told by God from behind that he cannot both see God and
live,--the God that, like Tolkien's fairy-tale figure
Tom Bombadil, "is who he is", "eldest, that's what I am"--
Semele could only get her wish fulfilled by being struck
down by the lightening that Zeus most essentially were.
For suddenly she was seated on the knees not of an
attractive, powerful male, but on the sharp corners of
a sizzling burst of lightening, stronger than Earth,
capable of splitting the Heavens.
  In the more modern language, with Zeus--Deus--Theos--or,
if we like, God--or Allah, Jahve, whatever name we'd
like (and the Sanskrit parallels are many)--by far the
mythically most powerful of the supreme beings, it makes
far less sense to speak of the other beings in the realm
of Zeus as 'gods', and much more--in a modernized mytho-
logy, inspired by the hellene scheme--to speak of the
other beings as a generalized form of muses. They may be
more or less male-ish in their character, but given the
powerful inclination Zeus has for females, it makes most
sense to speak of all his fellow beings as his girls, his
angels--if we like--or his muses.
  And as modern, rational beings, with a hundred theories
of fundamental physics, chemistry, biology and brain
science behind us, or to stand on the shoulders of, we'd
like to know, of course--how much sense does it make?
Are the muses real? And in what way could they be real in
ways that might fit with at least some interpretations of
some of the most widespread modern religions?
  As for worldview, let us at once point out that the
Christianity that has its roots in Rome is more rich and
open to possibilities of other supreme beings than God
in their worldview than most lutherian interpretations.
Having said as much, there are many other branches of
modern christianity that are more willing to see sex as
part of divinity rather than a hellish thing; indeed,
roman christianity seems obsessed with speaking about
the Satan character all the time, and especially when
money or sex are involved.
  Some of the branches of Islam share this obsessiveness
with characterising some things as dark and evil with
roman christianity; while other branches of Islam, notably
what we may call Rumi (or Sufi) Islam, have more liberal
views on some of these themes. Turning to other religions,
there are interpretations of some branches both of Jainism
and Sikhism, Hinduism and Buddhism, Shinto and varieties
of Zen, as well as less-documented religions such as
Zoroasterianism, that have a glad openness to the view
of sexuality rather as Zeus saw it, and not as much as
the roman St Augustine saw it.
  The questions, in order to rational intellect to go
through them all, require more than one, or even a
thousand essays of this size, to go through. But let us
say something that is old news to some, but intuitively
and rationally pretty evident to this writer, and perhaps
unusual in some people's horizon: that it is in a way
an insult toward the view of God as omnipotent to imagine
that he has as much struggle with a Satan character as
the roman catholics or the darker forms of muslims would
have it. Obviously, with Zeus infinite powers, over,
indeed, the very force of time itself,--and as the judge
over the other gods--there is nothing existing that is
not approved of by Zeus, by Deus, by Allah, by God.
And there is no use for any big bad Devil or Satan
character. There is enough capacity for interesting
devillery in natural man, in egotism, in the noise and
pettiness of having a messy, bored, pleasure-seeking,
fame-seeking, alcoholized decayed brain. Why invent a
master character of badness? Noise is noise; it has no
particular intelligence, just a bunch of ad hoc schemes,
however potent they may temporarily appear to be. There is
no need in this universe to invent a Master Noise.
  So, rationally, only an impotent God would admit to a
dualism with a Devil. A Zeus-inspired concept of God
doesn't admit to impotence at all, not now, not before,
not ever. Whatever appearancies there might have been in
mythic past of a battle with demonic forces, the infinite
strength of Zeus, God, has dealt with it all. And it is
logical, then, that the natural inclination to associate
beauty with also procreative sexuality as appealed to
people of such character as Plato and Aristotle should
be considered part of what the natural human being has
been blessed with, from the very origin--from Zeus and
his consorts, or muses--directly.
  Alright, but how does it fit with science? The question
has a simple solution, if we take a truly grand picture:
science concerns the finer analysis of some of the surface
scratches that humankind is able to do in its tiny little
corner of the universe. When some people who call them-
selves scientists dare to speak of the number of galaxies
in the universe as known, or that they dare to speak of
the size of the universe as known, or that they have
nearly, or recently, found or theorized over the 'God
particle', or that they regard their little manmade "laws
of physics" as pretty much "complete", they they are
committing very understandable, but not defendable acts
of extrapolating from their ignorance into pompeous
unscientific forms of reasoning. Humanity knows hardly
anything about anything: and science, though big and huge
and sometimes distastefully AND meaninglessly pompous--
and never more than when there are prizes like the
so-called "Nobel Prize" involved--is a tiny little surface
map over a vastness that humanity has no knowledge about.
  Douglas Adams called Earth--as seen by an intergalactic
space traveller--"mostly harmless". It had taken this
traveller many years to change "harmless" into "mostly
harmless", by means of study of the planet. It would have
been just as well to say of Earth's people that their
knolwedge of the universe is "nonexisting". After many
years of study of science we may edit the phrase, likewise
--"mostly nonexisting".
  The quantities of galaxies is NOT known. The size of
the universe is NOT known. The age of the universe is
NOT known. The future of the universe is ABSOLUTELY not
known. And so most cosmology and writings in physics along
the lines of talking in cocksure notions about the
"missing black matter" and "the fundamental forces and
particles of the universe" and "the beginning of time"
should be relegated to the portion of libraries called
"fiction", and their books should be called short stories
or even "novels" instead of "factual".
  That is a belief held by many scientists and respectable
philosophers of science. I repeat, many scientists have
the belief that science hardly knows anything about
anything--and they are right, as I see it. Many
respectable philosophers of science also have this view.
Scientists, however eager writers may sometimes present
this group, is not a homogenous group. There is no
universeal worldview of science. Indeed, many respectable
philosophers of science have the point of view that
a scientific theory CANNOT produce a "worldview" at all.
A worldview, they will argue, is something done by
human imagination. A scientific theory concerns some
numerical correlations. The pathways between the two are
comprised of so many assumptions that there can be no
verification nor falsification. This has been written
forcefully about by a number of philosophers of science.
A lot of scientists agree. (As an early example, consult
"The Possibilist and Pluralist Aspect of Science", by
Arne Naess, who was a visiting member of the Vienna
circle on philosophers of science in the first half of
the twentieth century, and respected by such people as
Niels Bohr.)
  Of course, there are other ways of interpret science
than the mainstream interpretations. This work we can
begin on once we admit the truth of a central thesis of
the philosophy of science: that to any set of data,
we can make infinitely many theories that fit with them.
There isn't a mechanical procedure to select which one
is the best, the simplest, the most interesting or
the most necessary, without throwing in a number of
invented assumptions in each case, and closing in the
context. Ultimately, this also means that there is no
machine intelligence. There is no artificial intelligence.
Mind can only be alive, if there is to be mind.
  In the fairy tale, or modern myth, as created by J R R
Tolkien, the Hobbits symbolize perhaps children, and
perhaps also those meaningful synchroous events, or
synchronicities, that change the powers of the world
without the powers of the world being able to predict
them, control them, or shape them entirely. These Hobbits
are not easily seen, but they may be essential to the
deeper flow of patterns, and the victory, in Tolkien's
view, of Light over Darkness, or--in more scientific
terms--of coherence or wholeness over noise or
fragmentation--in the unfolding history of the world.
A key feature, as postulated by Tolkien, of the darker
forces is that, like the Orcs, and like Saruman, they
can often work at odds with one another. In other words,
noise can split noise, and fragmentation can fragment
fragmentation; but good music doesn't fight with good
music, and wholeness can fight ALL fragmentation.
  The questions in the heading of this essay cannot be
answered conclusively by any chain of reasoning here. But
I appeal to the interested reader to gently, and
wholesomely, divide the answering approach into two:
  * rationally, if you do have some kind of faith in
a God-like origin somewhat like Zeus, Deus, what makes
most sense AS SEEN FROM THE PERSPECTIVE of this origin?
  * intuitively, without pushing it by means of desire,
childhood teachings, cultural conditionining, or the
opinions of your friends or mothers or fathers, what
is it that you are most at ease with thinking of as the
truth of the matter?
  As for the second answering approach, this requires
time, meditation, dance, waiting, patience, quest, prayer
and a contact with art, nature, beaches, and a willingness
to find out what is right beyond mere likes and dislikes.
  As for the first answering approach, I'd like to suggest
what I think is a worthwhile notion here: that it would
be a bit peculiar, don't you think etc, that an infinite
source like Zeus, with all the sensous natural divine
lust playing in his whole sizzling being, would be at
ease with MERELY having this messy humanity as his main
creation. Surely, he would want to have his consorts,
his muses, his supreme beings, who could stand more of
his lightening power--even if, like Semele, they must be
on the watch if he shows too much of it.
  And would it not make sense for Zeus, Deus, in having
his consorts, his muses, his god-girls if you like,
somehow along the lines of the vaguely hierarchical
forms suggested by some forms of the ancient hellene or
greek stories? I am thinking, for instance, of the
glorious beauty and power of Pallas Athene; I am thinking
of the fountainhead of love and beauty of Aphrodite; of
fierce strength yet feminine beauty of Helena; and of
how the various muses--be it trillions of trillions of
them, when all comes to all--might not in a way perhaps
being the offspring of Zeus with just these three; rather
as humanity, its souls and spirits, as if are the
offsprings of the child-muses, or submuses if we like
again. Helena {or Helene} is, according to 9th Edition of 
Encyclopedia Britannica {cfr eg for quote}, 
"daughter of Zeus and of Leda the wife of Tyndareus king 
of Sparta, was sister of Castor, Pollux, and Clytemnestra
  Such a metaphysical worldview is quite compatible with 
the ancient Greek myths, in a slightly modernized form, 
and --armed with the insights of philosophy of science--
we can say as the physicist of David Bohm (in a comment
to the indian thinker J Krishnamurti in "The Ending of
Time": I know of nothing in science that says that this
cannot be right.
  I propose, further, that the muses WANT to be known,
and honored, and that there should be an element of
caution when we compare mere human beings with supreme
beings. The ancient Greek concept of "hubris" is all about
this: it is not given to mere human beings to even have
right in trying to live infinitely, whether in time as
immortality, in mind as the ultimate machine intelligence
or in beauty as being the princess of the universe or
anything like that. There is, then, hubris in simply
saying of a pretty girl that she is a muse or angel,
there is hubris when a big company says it is developing
artificial intelligence, and also when such a company, or
a sect like Scientology says that its members are
immortal. These statements they come with--when said in
a serious, pompeous tone--are such as are wont to be
challenged by synchronicities; if the muses do exist,
they are likely to strike down on people who harbour such
forms of hubris most dominantly.
  At a lighter tone, if the muses want to be known, then
they must have names that fit with the modern languages,
and English is by far the most dominant language. In this
language, Pallas Athena easily becomes "Athina", or
pronounced "ath-ee-na". Helena is easy to use in modern
language, Helena is Helena. The long name "Aphrodite",
as been connected to a large number of love-associated
words and has suffered by overuse; its original sense
was derived from greek words indicating love, but if we
think out a simple name, fitting remarkably well with
Helenea and Athina that ALSO resonates with the modern
word "love", it is obviously Lisa. So Lisa, Athina and
Helena, L.A.H., may be the mantra you wish to invoke
to come to the tranquility to see more of the muses. But
as even the muses must be watchful as to the Semele-
effect of the lightening that is at the source of Zeus,
so must there be a caution of mere manifest folks that
not too much of the muses, these higher human beings,
should be seen. The effects of seeing Lisa, Athina and
Helena too much would be perhaps as the effect of
cryptonite on Superman. It is not that seeing them is
impossible, but it is rather that, as Plato also
indicated, you may have trouble relating to the shadows
after you have gazed directly into the light.
  And so, in this rational approach to thinking about a
form of religion unfettered by the often self-centered
and patriarchic ways of thinking in the most common
world religions nowadays, we can see a rational reason
why the ego, or egotism--the noise of fellow human beings
--must exist, and why, therefore, also violence must
exist, stupidity, ignorance, quarrels, and all the rest
of it. The noise is like the noise on a radio, preventing
the pure reception of the music of the transmitter. But
if we have a creation in which the light of the source is
so strong it easily dumbfunds the intellect of mere
mortal people, then it is good that mortal people makes
noises so as to block out portions of this light. The
noise prevents the reception of the melody of the
origin; and does so, partially, as a self-protection; it
is an irrationality, perhaps, but an irrationality that
protects the brain again wrecking itself in too much of
religious ecstasies--what the Indians (never at loss with
making up new suitable religious words) call "Kundalini
  In this situation, then, we may suggest that also such
appearently modern and appearantly very logical thinkers,
speaking much of direct perception and befriending also
scientists such as David Bohm--I am thinking of the
aforementioned Jiddu Krishnamurti--may have overestimated
the capacity of the human brain; perhaps also his own,
albeit admittedly amazing brain. His repeated postulate,
in various forms, for many decades at least, was that
a human being can have absolute insight, enduring total
insight, absolute perception, and come to enduring
awakening of a kind that cannot be shattered. The
postulate makes sense to investigate whoever said it.
He may have been deceiving himself and believing himself
to be having such insight, and still the statement can
make sense independently. There is no particularly strong
reason to imagine that Jiddu Krishnamurti had anything
such as absolute insight, by the way.
  It is my own perception, or understanding, that the
statement that 'absolute insight is possible'--if we take
it to mean in an 'enduring' way, so that persistent
'awakening' to divine features of reality is totally and
absolutely the case, all the time--is a false one. It
doesn't bear up to rational investigation, and it is also
false when seen by means of intuition, as I take it
(although Krishnamurti disliked the word "intuition"
and would rather speak of "intelligence" in the same way
that most people use this word--however the words do
not matter as long as we use them with awareness).
  However, we may still imagine that humanity is able to
go ahead on the path to enhanced understandings--in the
plural, and in a non-absolute sense. We may even speak
of a (relative) Enlightenment--not as something that
happened centuries ago, but as something that may happen
in what to Zeus or Deus must be a mere eyeflicker in
terms of time horizon--say, a thousand millenia ahead.
A mere million years. (Such time perspectives are, as it
is known to some of my readers, entirely commonplace in
some forms of buddhism.)
  Creating something like the universe, again seen by the
perspective of Zeus, takes a mind that is fully willing
to call on all sorts of hierarchies in order to make it
work out. Thus, for instance, the biology of the human
brain has in it elements of chemistry that it plays upon
hierarchically, while the chemistry of the same brain
has elements of subatomic processes that this chemistry
again calls on hierarchically. Also, the big interactions
in nature bears evidence of a capacity to call on
hierarchies of many forms.
  In this view, manifest humanity--people made of stuff,
living inside the cage of gravitation on a planet--may
form a class in a hierarchy of Zeus God-like creations,
that is pretty far underneath the higher beings, the
muses, and he Himself. Another view, then, of striving
towards absolute insights is this: it cannot be done,
because it would be punching far above one's weight.
  With my own knowledge of science, which is, perhaps,
somewhat wider and deeper than that which is the
average (speaking immodestly, but faithfully to fact),
I know myself of nothing to disprove the possibilities
of such notions as put forward in this essay. However,
what is implied in what is said is that the universe and
our human existence together is so remarkably complex
that it would be a vaste to imagine that any such set
of notions are all we have to think about to set further
about in life's journey. There are many things to do.
Some of them involve boredom. And indeed, boredom--whether
it may involve working with machines such as cars, or
machines such as computers, or computers with arms and
legs and cameras such as robots, or concern such daily
things as hygiencs and so on--may have an important
function. Boredom, whatever its unpleasant features,
has the merit of giving the brain, our minds, a rest and
respite and come to a clarity of a different, although
less divine kind. Boredom, indeed, is something that
provides an opportunity for our bodies and brains to
recharge. We must invoke boredom, even endorse it: and
in that way, we become also able to handle practical
things in life, even as we reserve a room regularly,
perhaps even several times a day, for going into vaster
themes, divine, or sexual, or both.
  When we go from a mode in which we do routines, perhaps
as that we can call a Business Mode, into that which
concerns the wholeness of existence, we may find, as many
tantric explorers of the divine, that there may be truth
to seeing things holistically as including the sexual
perception; that, indeed, the orgasmic sense of perception
is at once both the religious perception AND the sexual
perception. This approach to religion is complicated to
handle for some, for they may get so worked-up with the
sexual that they loose sight of the religious aspect, and
also loose sight of the legal, the laws of society, and
how to relate to them at the same time. But here we need
to assert, if indeed the mode of divine exploration is
ALSO what we can call the Porn Mode, then we certainly
must be able to splice our activities and thoughts
and priorities suitably to also adhere to laws and to
manners. For this, in our present era, the computers may
be magnificent vehicles to prepare us for the next parts
of our journeys.
  Tolkien, in Bilbo's words, reminded his readers that
the very path you see outside your own home, wherever it
is, be it the Shire or somewhere else, can take you to
all the most exciting places in existence--that very same
path, that road. But in setting out, we may meet people
who may be far from the most obvious helpers--like the
Aragorn, or Strider, the "ranger", who also was to become
the radiant healing king of light in the completing volume
of the Lord of the Rings. While cultivating the depth of
intuition of an unprejudiced kind, we must be willing to
set aside rash judgements to connect to the right people.
  Indeed, I would say of Tolkien's books that these
constitute in many ways a map of life, more suitable than
any movie and more suitable than most books, to remind
ourselves of the importance of going for the deeper
truths, and the paths of wisdom, where other forces--
egotism, not satanism (for the latter is an illuion, and
fits only in a fairy tale)--can do its works.

Copyright -- redistribution
You are granted the right to redistribute any
such essay from without
asking on the condition that the context is
respectful and that no deletion or addition
or change of text takes place, and that this
notice is included.
*** *****
[This redistribution license extends to the 
archive section, and to all related pages in the set of sites, and you can copy 
and paste this notice to any essay that doesn't 
already have it on it.]


Ever since S Freud undertook the complicated beginnings
of investigations into the various impulses and instincts
connected also to the erotic realm of the very young,
humanity has tottered along in, at most, half-certitude
about conventional morals. But every time there have been
a somewhat pervasive attitude towards rethinking the
whole issues, political/emotional thinking driven often
by nonscientific agendas interested in entirely
different things than the general well-being of all
human beings have come in and slammed the doors on open
investigations. It has to be said that a modern reader
can get much out of eclectic bits of Freud's works, while
other parts must be cautioned as preliminary and informed,
or misinformed, by conventions of his time more than by
objective empirical material.
  And when Freud was challenged by the somewhat younger
C G Jung to start taking spirituality more seriously than
merely a mathic, primitive form of misconstruing the
reality of causes and effects, Freud had had it: the
strain, perhaps, of what he had sought to challenge of
the conventional morals of his european societies, had
hammered him into a person who did not want to open yet
another corridor of potential conflict with conventional
morals. On the other hand, though Jung worked out such
as--in particular--the interesting concept of
"synchronicity" (defined as a coincidence to which we
attribute, rightly or wrongly, deep meaning)--he didn't
for real extend and deepen what we almost certainly the
most complicated part of Freud's investigations, namely,
those of the libido of the not-yet-adult.
  Now when we seek, deliberately, to be "scientific"
about anything, we must take into consideration that what
by a mainstream comes to be defined as scientific isn't
exactly produced by a rigorous procedure of the kind
that is taught as ideal in the field called "theory of
science". Indeed, while Freud, and with some right,
regarded his works as scientific, there exists very
readable books almost entirely devoted to showing that
the criterions Freud used as to what is scientific are
so flexible that just about any human behaviour, no matter
what it is, can be explained by some part or other of
some of Freud's works. But as K R Popper forcefully
suggested, science ought to have a vulnerability about
it--he held up a quote by A Einstein as a noble example.
Einstein, after his publications of his first works, but
before some rather decisive observations and experiments
had been undertaken, had replied to a journalist that if
his predictions didn't come out as expected, there was
nothing to but just put his whole theory to the trashcan.
  This possibility of some degree of 'falsification', or,
as R Carnap and A Naess preferred to put it, 'instances of
disconfirmation', came to Popper to be regarded as one of
the chief characteristics of a scientific theory. It is
clear, by the way, that this means that speculations about
things that are extremely far from possibility of direct
observation in any manner cannot properly be called
"science" in this sense, and that much of speculations
about the vastness of the universe, its origin and its
future, therefore clearly don't pass the criterions Popper
set up for proper scientific theorising. In other words,
Popper's criticism attacks 'cosmology' not merely Freud.
  However, Popper isn't the last word on what science can
be all about. It may be that in at least some
interpretations, Popper's view of what can be regarded as
scientific was unnecessarily restrictive. The physicist
D Bohm (who I met several times) had a more open-minded
definition of science, but yet one that subtly is highly
demanding of any individual: it is the attitude of
intending to see facts beyond any question of likes and
dislikes. But, perhaps leaning on Popper, Bohm also
wrote about the 'importance of the vulnerability of ideas'
and clearly had a shared belief with J Krishnamurti, the
indian pantheist thinker, in the reality of human
  Indeed, if we go to more ancient philosophical
writings, before the more sensory/empirical writings of
the 19th and 20th century scientifically oriented
'natural philosophers' such as B Russell, we find that
the theme of intuition is a recurrent one. In between the
ancient writers and the more modern ones, we find that
for instance R Descartes spoke of self-evident or clear
ideas or intuitions relative to the fact that his own
existence can be deduced from the fact that he observes
that he is doing thinking. He went as far as to postulate
that this fact is more self-evident even than the
phenomenon of material existence. In other words,
Descartes regarded the fact of thinking as a more
trustworthy fact than the to him more vague fact that
the world exists, that bodies exist and so on.
  Looking to ancient philosophers, we find that both
such figures as Socrates in the West, who is one of the
earliest hellenes that we just may happen to have a lot
of information about (through the earliest writings of
his student Plato), and Patanjali, Vyasa and Shanakara,
and indeed a number of other indian thinkers (where the
texts, handed over in a verbal auditory tradition for
centuries, before they took physical form as written
papers, notoriously make them more hard to date),--all
these subscribe to the notion of using intuition, indeed
what we can call a somewhat both spiritual and artistic
intuition, and not merely logic in deciding essential
questions in life. Moreover, they shared the attitude of
the aforementioned Bohm that going 'beyond likes and
dislikes'--indeed, going beyond all the emotional patterns
of more self-centered structures as we may call, vaguely
(but not in the freudian sense) "the ego", are some of the
greatest challenges in bringing forth pure intuitions
and deep meditations (in contrast, Freud used the word
'ego' more in a practial rather than emotional sense;
he preferred to speak of unnecessary and often trauma-
based emotions as part of strains in the psyche which he
called such as a 'neurosis' or, when deep, 'psychosis').
  In the last decades or two of the nineteenth century,
but far more forcefully in the first decades of the
twentieth century, it became clear that something about
the more mechanical or machine-like view of reality,
and also the body and its brain, that a number of
assumedly 'modern' thinkers had applied as to their
general view of life, human beings and the universe
had to be somehow drastically revised. Einstein's
contributions turned out to be part of this, but only
a part: and a variety of other contributions, loosely
tied up in a bundle called, roughly, The Copenhagen
Interpretation and then more broadly, Quantum Theory,
seemed to be called for. In terms of engineering, these
new contributions, and some more numercial and
equation-oriented works done since have led to a sense
in which even such as the core of all modern electronics
have to be explained not quite in classical mechanical
terms EVEN IF these indeed are certainly, in all
practical sense for us, constituting parts of machines
such as cars and PCs and phones.
  Looking more closely at the clash of ideas behind the
perhaps slightly more dull and uniform typical views of
physics as presented in textbooks and in popular science
magazines, we find that the history of ideas in physics
since then and up until now is not only intensely
complicated, but, at many extraordinary essential points,
entirely without a solution. It runs, by and large, as a
ten-volume if not fifty-volume books of a single Sherlock
Holmes story where things get more and more mysterious
until we reach the point that even the great Holmes have
to admit: "I simply don't know. This baffles me. This,
Dr Watson, is certainly more than your typical three-pipe
problem." (A three-pipe problem is one that can be solved
during a meditation which involves the smoking of three
pipes in succession without further investigation. Holmes,
as is know, solved the mystery of the Red-Headed League
in this manner.)
  One of the four or five most significant contributors
to the first ripe form of quantum theory was the french
L de Broglie, and it is his name that attaches when one
speaks of 'the wave propererties of matter' and one
calculates the frequency of "the de Broglie wave".
  W Heisenberg, who with N Bohr and a few others did the
other parts of this early work, mentioned in late-life
diaries that the young de Broglie was deeply unhappy with
Bohr's notion that matter didn't REALLY have wave
features--that these waves were only a reflection of
some statistics, and not a key feature of the universe.
At this point, Bohr and Einstein agreed, but at almost
all other points, they disagreed. After a visit by the
young D Bohm to Einstein, Bohm wrote some articles where
unusual ideas of quantum theory were exposed. de Broglie
found in these a way to rephrase the uneasiness he had
with Bohr's view--and indeed with mainstream quantum
theory--as a young, and were able to find a harmonious
and fairly consistent way of arguing for the reality of
the waves after all. This 1950s rebirth of de Broglie's
socalled Pilot Wave interpretation wasn't taken further
by Bohm, who pursued a related but not as drastic approach
in what was first called a Causal Interpretation and then
called other things, including 'an interpretation
involving a quantum potential' and 'an ontological
  E Schroedinger, who helped shape some of the formulas
indicating how these waves, or this statistics, or
whatever it is, shape themselves, didn't exactly
participate in the debate on the reality vs the non-
reality of these waves. But he did feel that our view of
life as a whole somehow ought to be affected, deeply,
by these findings. And many later writers who have been
highly knowledgable both about physics and about such
fields as biology, brain science and psychology have
urged that the after all STILL UNSOLVED questions about
the underlaying relaties of what the quantum physical
equations refer to may have profound implications, once
solved, for our understanding both of the flow of
consciousness and for the evolution of the physiology and
anatomy of the human beings. It goes without saying that
this, in turn, reflects how we see art forms including
such as dance, photo-modelling, painting, general design,
architecture as well as have profound implications for
how we should frame our human self-education relative to
our steadily more sophisticated machines, and also as to
what extent we should ever relegate decision-making in
society to what perhaps rather irreflective thinkers
claim is "Artificial Intelligence".
  In what is regarded as mainstream science in 2015 there
isn't a single agreed-upon well-documented repeatable
type of scientific observations that breaks with the
view that human beings and indeed all life on the planet
may be, in a way, some sort of machines without any
element of soul, spirit or holistic animalistic wave
about it or any such thing. But as many theoreticians
of science have pointed out, what surfaces in mainstream
science as acceptable facts go through many filters
some of which are the already-accepted frames or
paradigms within which theories are formed. And once
one begins to look for cracks in these frames, there's
no end to how many 'instances of disconfirmation' one
might find: but to each one of these there are
alternative forms of explanations. For instance, any
so-called 'after death' experience report by someone who
is patently a living human being begs the question of
whether the experience, which in some cases almost
certainly are both real, phenomenal and involves
perceptive abilities that are intensely intriguing,
cannot somehow have been generated by exceptional
and perhaps as-yet-unknown capacities resident in the
'machinery of the brain'. Because of the dual
explanation possibilities in all these cases, and the
lack of a torrent of convincing demonstrations of any such
more obviously hard-to-explain-away pheonomenon as
telepathy {or even more sensational phenomena like
polstergeist or telekinesis}, the mechanical worldview
has come to dominate much of mainstream science. There are
--it has to be said--very intensely religious scientists
even in the field of physics, some of whom are also highly
respectable in terms of mainstream criteria--but these
usually have found a way to reserve a portion of their
intellectual unfoldment for a more 'mechanical' pursuit,
and keep the religious aspect of their life somehow
remote; perhaps by means of suggesting that God has
an existence in a realm wholly other than matter, which
runs rather on its own principles.
  Then there are some people, highly aware of the
possibility of fooling oneself in terms of biased
interpretations of experiences in everyday life, and
aware also of the complications of going from any view
chiseled out in the laboratories of physicists and up and
over to everyday life phenomena and so on, find themselves
living in what appears to them to be an 'ocean of
direct evidence' of such as telepathy and clairvoyance.
It is typical of these individuals that those who know
them well cannot fail to entertain some belief in the
supernatural. Indeed, it can be argued that one of the
early legendary physicists, W Pauli, was one such person.
And that it was he, perhaps slightly more than C G JUng
himself, who came to lead Jung to a faith in the spiritual
--and to their rather collaborative notion of the
synchronistic as the 'acausal' feature of daily life.
It was said that quantum physical experiments carried
out at universities had a statistically exceptionally
large possibility of showing up with wrong results if
the very same Wolfgang Pauli was in the proximity. However
--which is nearly always the case with such anecdotes--
one can easily speculate about the psychology of the
scientists, knowing about the "Pauli field effect",
contributed to making this a more and more self-fulfilling
  Yet, when one experiences that a person is able to
handle questions of conceptual complexity in a harmonious
manner exceeding this person's knowledge, and does so
consistently, if not every day then at least many times
pr week, then such an experience goes beyond mere
self-fulfilling prophesies of the "Pauli effect" type.
These individuals tend to work best, of course, with
other individuals who share such abilities. When they
team up, whole societies may change. But then, not
everybody has met anyone such person, at least not that
they know of. And perhaps, by inversive self-fulfilling
prophesy, such people as are riding on a fame wave
with the sole agenda of pulling apart any hint of
indication that the mechanical worldview is all wrong,
are perhaps the least likely to even come near being
aware of the existence of these individuals.
  About a hundred years since the explorations of the
de Brogle matter waves, or pilot waves if you please,
begun, it has to be said that if these waves are real,
they are indeed utterly subtle. They do not have a weight,
it seems; they do not have any restriction of any known
kind in terms of their distance; they do not seem to be
restricted by the speed of light; and yet they have a say
in the functioning of even the smallest particle in the
universe; and there is no planet revolving around any Sun
that doesn't obey the whim of these subtle matter waves.
Unless we had seen numerous examples of some of the
features of some more material forms of these waves in
the daily life of those who experience some forms of
technology, they could easily have been dismissed as
merely a statistical funny feature. Indeed, Einstein
seemed to mostly regard the de Broglie waves as such,
and yet it is exactly due to the coherent features of
some such waves that such phenomena as high-speed trains
with super-magnetically elevated rails can exist. This
super-magnetism is brought about by a certain type of
complex form of chemstry that for not altogether clear
reasons is able to bring about a strong quality of
wholeness or coherence in the de Broglie waves. As a
result, the train lifts up and can shoot forward at
near airplane speed without touching the rails.
  Also, though not suitable for information transfer nor
for computation, speed-of-light transcending coherent
de Brooglie waves embracing a few particles such as
photos or phonons (particles of sound) or electrons
have been routinely demonstrated ever since the 1970s.
  David Bohm, whose mind was influenced by a desire to
go beyond mainstream dogma about the mechanical worldview,
and whose textbook on Quantum Theory impressed the ageing
Einstein sufficiently to invite him for a two-week stay
with Einstein, offered the point of view about the
possibilities of the supernatural: the supernatual, he
proposed, if it does exist, exists by means of something
which is having its own presence by analogy with the
quantum (or de Broglie) features of reality, but it is
not the same features exactly. I had a chance to ask him
about such things a couple of times in Birkbeck College
and later, and I have also read through most of his
publications in various journals as well as most of all
his books.
  His point of view, as I take it, is that the quantum
theory, as we know it, deals rather mechanically with
the patterns of reality. Even if it is strange, it is
not quite connecting to the human consciousness level
in any natural manner so that it would seem to be
exactly it that is involved in any paranormal situation.
He regarded telepathy as a certain form of telekinesis,
generalising this to an influence of matter beyond the
involvement of material causes, driven somehow by the
quality and subtlety of mind--and this led him to
explore the concept of "meaning" as a possible key to
such possible phenomena.
  He offered the notion that there is much in common with
such as the wave functions in quantum theory and to our
own experience of mind and consciousness, but he did not
by that postulate any identity. Rather, he suggested that
mind constitutes a different level of reality and that
while there must be overlapping should such paranormal or
supernormal phenomena arise, these are capable of having
some degree of independent existence.
  I mention this also because there is a fairly large
number of people who have heard about this legendary
physicist David Bohm but who also have the notion that
he regarded quantum theory as somehow the great skeleton
key to consciousness. He didn't. He was very sober about
the lack of far-reachingness of quantum theory.
  However--and this is at the philosophical level again--
the worldview that quantum theory indicates as more real
than what we could be led to if we listen solely to his
friend Albert Einstein is one of universal interconnected-
ness in which there is a real and highly active hidden,
implicit, or "implicate" order. He saw it as natural to
regard the manifest reality as somehow more or less like
a wave structure on top of an ocean of fantastically
powerful energies, each of which have orders of their own.
  In Bohm's view, then, time doesn't stretch forward nor
backward as one or two or n dimensions. Rather, time has
to do with a 'depth' dimension, in which all things have
a potential for getting entwined. This is essentially how
far he got when he died in the early 1990s in his 70s.
  And, clearly, this is a great work. He has managed to
sift through the equations well enough to change the
life story of Louis de Broglie, one of the founding
fathers of the most significant works in science ever (and
which lead de Broglie to be regarded as a total outsider
by the remaining members of the Copenhagen Interpretation
in the 1950s--see my notes elsewhere about this; and note
also that there are unique challenges with de Broglies
theory notably connected to the reality of the photon
particle). Bohm managed to keep his head calm in
dialogues with highly self-aware teachers like Jiddu
Krishnamurti and the present Dalai Lama, and insist on
the possibility of the scientific attitude of going beyond
'likes and dislikes' as combinable, somehow, with a
profound spiritual quest. Instead of making one crazy
theory about the universe after another, he settled on
refining the expression, together with Basil Hiley and
others, of his 1950s work as a solid alternative pathway
for quantum theorising, and of clarifying what can be
called a 'metaphor over the universe' in terms of the
various ideas of the implicate order. In the Copenhagen
Institute in the 1990s, one professor there told me that
exactly this bit of Bohm's work--the Implicate Order--
could not really be challenged. It was rather what it
meant when pulled down to the human level that was a
point of discourse and, also, disagreement with Bohm.
  Those who, like philosopher A Naess, disagreed with the
importance of quantum theory on philosophy, usually
has what can be called very roughly for an 'empirical'
attitude to science. It may not be along the lines of
Popper--for instance, Naess disliked the use of the word
'falsification' (arguing that the pathways from theory
to empirics and back are too complicated that any
theory is ever solidly falsified),--but broadly speaking,
this type of 'empiricist' or 'logico-positivist'
attitude rarely finds quantum theory an argument for
rethinking a more mechanical worldview. And this is,
broadly speaking, much what Popper's attitude to
science was all about. Though Popper in footnotes and
such subscribed positively to the notion of human
intuition, and though Popper strongly advocated the
notion of theory as something which can be simply
formulated by anyone, with ease, even without standing
inside a scientific community, Popper's general approach
favour non-intuitive observations and has what we can
call an atheist-sceptical slant.
  This led me to suggest that we should perhaps stand on
the shoulders of the works of Popper but consciously
invite a refined concept of somewhat (by intent) objective
and egoless intuition into the concept of science, as a
possible stance to take in the field of theory of
science. This I have longed called 'neo-popperianism'.
It is in attunement with Popper's works that I formulated
this approach without looking over my shoulders for how
much support I got. I formulated what I think is meaning-
ful and then I preceeded to put it to use relative to what
I have as a personal 'ocean of empirics' relative to my
own daily life experiences, namely, that of using
intuition and naturally having as much telepathy as could
I ever wish under all circumstances.
  By taking the advice of Bohm seriously--to intend to
go beyond likes and dislikes--I undertook to ask again,
and more clearly, as I took it, what would be a more
natural worldview--in some detail--after a century with
the developments in modern physics, which more or less
begun with Einstein and which includes the varities of
the rather unexplained (although well-tested) quantum
  In this work, I have been aided by my experience since
childhood as a computer programmer. A program is a pattern
--with much structure--and yet it doesn't quite exist
anywhere in particular. Its most pure shape is in mind.
It may get a realisation on a computer, but the program
isn't ever identified with any such realisation. And once
it is present somewhere, it acts--perhaps rather subtly--
to direct movements such as of a printer, or on the light
on a screen, or in some cases of the movements of a robot.
Obviously, there's a lot of analogies one can think of
between quantum or pilot or de Broglie waves and the
various experiences one has of being a programmer, seeing
how shapes subtly affect larger structures while them-
selves somehow being ultimately more identified with a
pureform. I don't mean that they are more than an analogy:
but the analogy is fascinatingly close in some cases.
  It is also the case that such computer programs can
affect one another. Some can arrange other programs. This
is hard to represent in mathematics, but not hard to do
for any skilled programmer using a good programming
language such as my own, G15 PMN.
  It seems to me that when Bohm speculated that mind, or
consciousness, could reflect a separate realm with some
overlapping in some cases to the more 'material' features
of the quantum, he was touching on a division that easily
could be argued to be too sharp to fit with my own
intuition. So, instead, to accomodate my own personal
sense of an ocean of empirics in favour of some forms of
the supernatural, I sought to imagine that the waves of
the de Broglie type somehow corresponded to a set of
programs, upon which--in cases such as telepathy or such--
other programs play.
  By this, by imagining programs operating upon programs,
as some kind of super-programs, and substituting the word
model for program, I arrived at the conception of the
supra-model or super-model theory, as a metaphor or
informal view of what might be a suitable worldview taking
the quantum phenomena into account. By additional
structuring of these thoughts, I worked through what could
be seen as a natural, and compatible, form of some of
Einstein's thoughts, visions, and equations by means of
related concepts.
  This fits very easily with an artistic viewpoint, a
viewpoint of esthetics. For it is my own experience that
when there is a sense of harmonious wholeness of an
embracive, even loving kind, with no sense of inner
conflict but rather a lucid, and logical clarity as well
as inner tranquility, that also the most astounding
perceptions of the aforementioned type arise. That fact--
that those who are accustomed to experiencing telepathy
usually get such experiences mostly in states of mind
associated with natural, fluid meditation and ease of
being and such, a dance of the mind in which body isn't
detached but not is distracting--could be associated to
a concept of coherence by analogy to the coherence
found in quantum theory. Coherence, or wholeness, is
indeed the pathway for microscopic phenomena tying
individual particles together in tiny de Broglie wave
functions, to act together as one whole with such
startling effects as supermagnets, or any of the other
effects associated with such as coherent light,
superelectricity, or nonlocality.
  Yet the fields associated with any normal human brain
are too numerous that strong coherence can arise while
the brain is still alive (for the energy effects would
wreck the brain--think of a thousand or a million small
flashlights all shining at the same spot for even one
split second). So, while we must agree with Bohm that the
brain, as matter, has matter fields that do have a
relative autonomy, one can nevertheless theorise about
the possibility of just how overlapping takes place:
it takes place when the consciousness is sufficiently
emptied of noise and sufficiently charged up in an ultra-
harmonious way that it reaches fruitful 'tipping-points'
in all directions--we can think of the star-like shape.
When the brain is so quiet that the pulsation change of
even one or a dozen of neurons can make a noticable
impact for millions of neurons, and there is, at gradually
smaller levels, a similar 'amplification' of smaller
motions 'upwards' to brain consciousness, then one can
surmise that we reach the point where even individual
quantum-steered particles, with quantum-like fluctuations,
can have a profound say for manifest consciousness of
that person.
  It is of course the nature of fluctuations that these
can go in all directions. However the experience of those
who personally have masses of private empirics in such
domains as spontaneous telapathy (in a way which has been
purified against possibilities of biased interpretations
based on likes and dislikes and such), is that sometimes,
in suitable states, there are fluctuations that are
distinctly meaningful and also useful. It may be imagined
that something--something very subtle--sort of 'hooks up'
to the quantum field of something a neuron is listening
in to. This 'hooking up' may happen over a period and then
perhaps there is a relaxation of the connection, in some
way (though some may argue that it is easier for the
hooking up to take place than the reverse, and this could
lead to interesting philosophizing over possible forms of
evolutions of consciousness for all humanity by means of
the intensity of such experiences).
  In my own metaphor of the universe, then, it would be
natural to propose that one super-program or super-model
hooks up to that of another, a lower form of one, one
driving the matter in the brain (or in the gut, or
whereever). But what would be the criterion for such
hooking-up to take place?
  In doing a sober study of coherence phenomenon found in
quantum laboratories, one could suggest that one of the
features required is a similarity or a consistent
contrast in terms of such as frequencies, form, times
and places of connectedness locally, and more such;
however the data in this regard have not been very much
sorted out in mainstream science.
  In turning to a neo-popperian approach again, we can
rather submit--beyond the question of like and dislike--
the question of such hugely significant "hooking-ups" as
may seem to take place in the postulated phenomenon of
telpathy--the question to intuition: what is it that
leads to a connectedness, a coherence, between these
subtle organic rather immaterial 'pilot waves' that may
seem to surround and penetrate all existence at all
  Here, interestingly, a whole host of the ancient and
somewhat more modern philosophers, especially those who,
like J W von Goethe, concerned themselves with the
organic, comes in with a number of interesting proposals.
Organically, by means of a kind of 'univeral perception',
what is the key gestalt organising principle? But if we
make of this principle a machine, it can be manipulated;
and as a manipulated machine, it will be subject to
questions of what would happen if such a machine started
to manipulate itself. These types of themes bring in the
works of K Goedel, who showed that it is an essential
features of structures that refer to themselves that
given adequate complexity and sharpness of these
structures, they either fail to be consistent or else
fail to refer to themselves completely. We might suggest:
a mechanical gestalt principle cannot be self-aware; just
as a robot, by virtue of being a machine, must be always
trapped in severe incompleteness as regard all forms of
its recognition (or 'seeing') possibilities; and, as
such, a robot is cut short of any REAL self-awareness as
a matter of principle.
  Fascinatingly, it is a central notion of just that
artistic feature of wholeness associated with spending
time with--whatever it is, the waves of the ocean, the
patterns of own breathing, the fluidity of a dance, the
golden ratios of a beautiful painting or photo, or the
making of any such 'mandala' or 'yantra' as the eastern
traditions of Yoga speak of, that self-awareness reaches
a kind of peak just as the notion of 'self' somehow
becomes less central. Thus, we find such as the Zen koans
and the haiku poems as timeless elements of Japanese
culture,--even independent from religion--as indicating
the state of light as associated with 'having no self'.
  Such a state of mind, when created by hard work, by
art, by the logic of being friendly with facts and
going beyond the falsely hyper-active emotions associated
with societal (and often political) structures, can
resonate as a whole and provide, as it were, an ocean of
open quietness in which any thought is seen as a distinct
ripple and where perception can go all around it,
three-hundred and sixty degrees, all angles.
  Finally, this is the bridge to the types of questions
indicated in the title of this essay. I wish to start
outlining this bridge by stating a question:
  Can the sexual and the meditative naturally be
regarded as one and the same state of mind WHEN ELEVATED,
or are they necessarily connected to different parts or
aspects or organs somehow of the human being as a whole?
  The answers vary, depending on which tradition one
consults. But in consulting intuition, and even logic, I
think the answer pops up simply enough: the whole notion
of dividing any part of the body away from the meditative
state can only be entertained when the meditation hasn't
reached a full state of nondivisive harmony. It is almost
true pr definition. When someone is in need of therapy and
when meditation is a pathway to this therapy, and the
sexual energies are, as Freud pointed out, with some
people, highly repressed, then the person might have
elements hystera and these may be most amply dealt with
by not pressing the issue too fast. But once meditation
has properly 'invaded' the mind, at some point it ceases
to merely a thing of the head or of this and that part of
the body and it is rather a state of mind in which, as
Krishnmurti and also many in the Advaita Vedanta tradition
pointed beautifully out, 'the observer is the observed'.
This dry formulation of what in ancient Sanskrit is
written more like Tat Twam Asi--Thou Art That--can be
given fiercely exalted descriptions in relgious terms,
and Rumi, the poet of the best brand of Islam, and
Meister Eckhardt, the medieval poet of the best brand of
Christianity, give as it were flames to this cut'n'dried
and almost technical definition of meditation.
  Now it is the human state that the brain cannot be in
such a vast state of overriding clarity and fluidity and
totality for hours and hours without getting severely
exhausted. Rather, it is of great importance that such
what we can call spiritual-tantric states of mind (the
use of the word 'tantric' is here intended vaguely, by
means of our lending of an indian term to indicate the
type of sexuality which is felt as permeating the whole
body in a healthy and also ripe way), give way to other
modes, not just sleep, but modes that perhaps have a
deliberate component of the boring in them. We can speak,
then of an element of deliberate 'cultivation of boredom'
as the necessary complement to an existence in the
meditative tantric realm. For someone who finds a
meditation also in the best of the best of the best of
porn as art, the same applies: get out of it and into
business mode, before exhaustion sets in; deliberately
focus on the business mode actions for such a long time
that the brain can set itself ready, as a battery with two
distinct poles intact, to connect to the higher tantric
  It takes but a little browsing of the biographies of the
most astounding artists and inventors and scientists of
the ages to see that most of them, insofar as their
private lifestyles have been accurately indicated, were
powerhouses integrating just such features and modes and
polaric complementarities of life as just indicated.
  It is clear, then, at least to me who, as I take it,
have managed to find a clarity about these themes, that
the experience of beauty admits to easier pathways into
meditation; and that beauty is not solely in the eye
of the beholder; but that it is a question of resonance
and a unique combination of all that should be combined
in the moment, as a perhaps surprising sense of
overarching harmony. This must fit with laws of a kind
that aren't human-made. We're talking of entertaining
the notion of a universal esthetics, as a potential
source also of ethics. In doing so, we must be aware
that the laws we make to keep these societies going here
on Earth are, at best, temporary gatherings and not
true and universal principles and that they are often
forged as a result of much hotheaded debate rather than
as a crystallised expression of radical truth emanting
by means of a wise process. I am in this essay not
concerned with practical implementations but of what we
as law-abiding citizens might regard as the deeper laws
of meditation and well-being from within, well aware
that it is only by restricting the expressions of some
of these inclinations we can entertain connectedness to
the present perhaps not overly enlightened societies we
  The philosopher Arne Naess, who I have before referred t
in this essay, and who I had to fortune of travelling with
much when he was in his eighties (generally to his
mountain cottage, but also once to San Francisco), had an
interesting viewpoint about lying. He regarded lying as
not in all circumstances wrong, but he categorised
different forms of lying. One was to lie to others and
to be aware of this. Another, more serious, was to
engage in what he called 'meta-lying': to lie to others,
and to lie to oneself about this fact. In other words,
if false or biased words are given to others and you
tell yourself you are telling the truth, you are doing
more than lying double up, you are doing meta-lying,
lying at a deeper level of your being. It's better to
admit it at once to oneself that a lie is a lie, put
  This point of view is of value in exploring themes of
esthetics: if we find as esthetically true, and in some
deeper sense also ethically true, something which, if
expressed, would offend what seems to be the morals to
some others, it may be fruitful to lie to others; but then
--to take the naessian point of view--fruitful to tell
oneself than one is telling others a lie, rather than
double-up the lie at a meta-level.
  I rarely quote from the christian Bible, but there's a
phrase that comes to mind--give the Caesar what belongs
to him, and God what belongs to God. Your consciousness
deserves perhaps more of the truth than society. And in
this way you can keep your job and all that and still
be free to explore what is most conscientously the right
stance to take at all deeper issues. These should not
be determined by the repressed emotions of neurosis or
psychosis but by the calm-headed harmonious loving
insight brought about by sustained natural inner
  The rejuvenating features for the body of somebody
engaged in a natural inner exploration of truth of this
kind is usually evident, as I see it. Artists of a kind
who engage first-hand in an honest exploration of the
reality of beauty, of meditation, and the tantric,
do find in themselves a torrent of good energies that
come in and replenish features of the body that others
might find are washed away only too quickly by the
tides of time.
  The exploration of meditation leads a person naturally
to ask: what are the key principles of esthetics? What
roles do such as the golden ratio have in the experience
just prior to peaks of meditation? Though there are some
people who offer the point of view that enlightenment
glimpses do not have to rely on any factor whatsoever
whether outside or within, even these people are often
insistent on some form of harmony in their living
conditions and, in my own experience, meditation is a
luxury of healthy existence that comes as a peak when
one has one's house pretty much in order and isn't likely
to arise in a chaotic, sloppy form of degenerating
existence. Having said as much, it makes a lot of sense
to suggest that one must be well aware that meditation
as such cannot be a question of fostering new dependencies
but rather must be a light that can fit anywhere, at any
time. I do not believe in those who say they have total
light or imply as much, nor have I seen any evidence that
any human lives or has ever lived in total meditation
all the time. We may however imagine, and with sanity, as
I take it, that the glimpses of such inner light may have
better and better, and even vastly better, conditions to
flourish when we speak of the coming millenia. Here, we
can imagine different societal structures altogether; and
we can easily imagine that this can only take place after
such a time as somehow nonlocal bridges to distant
galaxies do exist without the inconvience of having to
spend time in cold outer space.
  Apart from such perhaps vague and fleeting visions of
possible futures, artists and people who are engaged in
any form of design or creative work whatsoever, including
those lucky enough to give humanity that delight called
modern dance, can ask themselves: are there objective
criterions of the conditions, including in our environ-
ment, in our paintings, in our photoshoots, and so on,
that lead more simply to the astoundingly important
glimpses of holistic meditation of the tantric and
interconnected and telepathic kind?
  Of course, one may argue that in the present state of
affairs as reported by general newsheadlines this is
a question for an elite. But then, the elite also
consists of real and sensitive individuals, people with
feelings, and it can hardly be better for everyone if
there was no caring towards those lucky enough not to
live in the mud or on the pavement or in a temporary camp.
The elite, doing meditation, also requires care. And this
care-taking means that the lofty types of philosophizing
and meditations come to have positive role, as I see it,
also in our present societies here, on this planet as
it is.
  In submitting the above type of questions to my own
intuition, and restricting the scope of the answer in this
essay in particular to that art form which involves
generating the best of the best of the best photos,
I have, after weighing them a considerable amount of time,
worked out the following postulates. Anyone who has begun
at the start of this essay and gone with us all the way
to this point will probably now just want the essences
and then proceed to work further with them through own
heart and head, and so I will not bother to explain much,
but just state them:
  Yes, an affirmative yes, there are general esthetical
criterions suitable for harmonious meditative holistic
tantric stimuli.
  Yes, an exploration of the 8:5 (or, far more exactly,
89:55) type of ratio, connected to the notion of having
shapes that invites a sense of self-resonance within the
shape in a spiralling way, is a key ingredient in all art.
  It is a fact that such ratios are found both in young
adult women in the absolute best of the most meditative
photos found of some of the models commonly regarded as
the most beautiful. These ratios play along their shapes
from tip to toe, from bud to stem, in leg-length versus
torso, and in the similarities and contrast also
fractically playing in the various facial features. But
even with such models, only a very slight permille of
the photos taken can be said to match the meditative/
tantric characteristics.
  One can see such esthetics in all ages, of course, and
in a beyond-gender sense, whether as in the queer theory
or in other gender-as-performance views. And there is
indeed a possibility of the timeless, or the meditative,
of arising through absolutely anyone, and not just through
the celebrity models--naturally.
  But what is of matter to those who wish to go far in
this quest is that they get actual activation of the
whole range of resonant beauty experiences, quickly, and
practically so, through daily life.
  Is there then just one type of female beauty character-
istics, of the meditative kind, as exhibited in the elite
fraction of the best of the best of photos such as some-
times arises eg in fashion circles?
  Again, going to essences, no, there is not just one
essence. The quintessential nothingness meditative-tantric
horizon has two poles in it, the CM pole and the YAM pole,
as we can call it.
  In the CM mode, we can speak of a wave that has a free-
dom, while in the YAM mode, it is encircled. The wave,
or field, we speak of in the child model doesn't have
a binding to the body. It is part of the necessary
beauty of the young adult model that it is connected
deeply to the shape of the anatomy.
  Bringing in Freud, who spoke of the libido, I wish to
intuitively postulate that the libido has a kind of
directedness in CM that is rather up, while the libido
has a kind of directedness in YAM that is rather forward.
These are complementary directions of the tantric force.
These can be felt intuitively, by the artist. The
intelligent brain relates to both, spontaneously, and yet
brings forth, in own body, not both, even though both
connect to nothingness.
  Seen from a different angle, we can say that the CM form
of beauty is distinct from the YAM form of beauty,--now
speaking of the best of the best of the best of photos
as a way to appreciate this meditatively with a few select
well-trained harmonious healthy individuals, in a proper
contect of such as dance or beauty photography--in that
in YAM, the temperament is more sophistically engraved
in the skin whereas in CM it is free from intentional
specifics (I must necessarily be vague here and use terms
that the artist will intuitively pick up if at all).
  Then, finally, from yet a different angle, we are
speaking of anatomically a different set of proper
(remember, in each case we are talking of the best of
the best, the most harmoniously successful photos for
YOU as an observer that, upon seeing it, finds that it
is an observer-is-the-observed proper moment of samadhi)
golden ratios.

Copyright -- redistribution
You are granted the right to redistribute any
such essay from without
asking on the condition that the context is
respectful and that no deletion or addition
or change of text takes place, and that this
notice is included.
*** *****


In other words, what language most benefits human 
philosophical development, intelligence, "dance in
thinking", as well as meaningful fun?

Let me explain the title of this essay. As for the main
title, the word 'beatnik' is, I think (despite objections
by Allen Ginsberg) better in the long run than the word
'Beat', for the latter word seems to mean too many other
things whereas 'beatnik' (Beat + SputNIK) is, many decades
later, still without ambiguity. I mean by beatnik the best
of the Beat type of poetry and philosophy and have nothing
to say in favour for the less noble features of it, of which
there were many. 
  As for the subtitle, implying elevation of English: Without 
claiming to know more than a fraction of a fraction of a 
fraction of all the spoken languages on this planet, and 
knowing only a couple of them well at that, I have long felt
that some form of English has in it more freedom of
shall we say poetic thought than any other language. By
this I don't mean to say that the greatest poems
necessarily have to have just the word-sounds found in
English. It is rather a question of the freedom-bit.
English is messy, crazy, wild and rich enough to allow
any structure be planted on it. Able in English, you are
poised to conquer the world by means of thinking freely
about anything and everything. True, there aren't many
dozens variations of the concept of "love" in English,
as it obviously is in ancient Greek or Sanskrit. But by
being apt and diligent about digging into the root
meanings of the various English words, and having a
context where can begin to define, more or less, your own
intended meanings with the word -- not a telegram-sized
format, but more the format of a text editor without
a spell checker program -- you can, if you have the
intent of doing so, wander into just about any avenue
of thought.
  In so doing, you may want to know a bit of grammar, but
the type of English you are using must have a great deal
of liberty about it; it cannot exactly conform to the
dictums of style as defined by Oxford University circles
in the mid-20th century; it must go beyond that.
  It is here where American English has something to offer
--and this was perhaps made more clear with such erotic
writers as Henry Miller than by poets such as Whitman or
the much later beatnik poets--perhaps because all of
American English is the result of an expedition away from
the British Isles with its monarchy and layers of cemented
aristocracy and appropriate language use rules.
  This also has to do with humor. It isn't enough to
saturate the language with irony, as has been too often
the tendency with British English. Nor is it enough to
saturate the language with sarcasm, as has been too often
the tendency with American English. There are innumerable
forms of humor and those which subtly (irony) or not so
subtly (sarcasm) mock fellow beings are but two of them.
When Miller thinks about life, his women, the women of
his women, and sees a duck, and writes: "Fuck the duck."
Then this is neither irony nor sarcasm. Read in the proper
frame of mind, it is laugh-out-loud comment. Humor allows
the turning around of perspectives, surprisingly, and with
a sense of a fresh connectedness to fact, or to at least
a sort of possible fact; and yet with a connotation that
this fact is disclaimed at the same time, at least quite
possibly. This requires a great deal of mindfulness (to
use a buddhistic term).
  When you notice that somebody isn't laughing, nor even
smiling, about something which sort of, at least in your
own feeling, ought to be rather objectively funny for all,
then it is hard not also to feel that the person is
prejudiced if not also in a way hypnotised. One might say,
as the old saying goes, that the limits of your humor is
equal to the limits of your wisdom. And yet religion comes
in and, to varying degrees, cautions against hubris: there
may be things which ought to be beyond at least the
mocking type of humor.
  When a wild, rich, nature-and-mind-and-sex loving type
of flourishing American English is taken and given a kind
of crystallised, technical, political, commercial format,
one might get a lot structures, speaking now socially,
which are sucking up a bit of intelligence from the
language but putting it to egotistical purposes. Yet this
is exactly why a portion of the planet has got rather fed
up with features of North American politics and business
practises. However, such a perhaps just judgement over
selfish practises in portions of the North American
societies, often centered on California and Washington DC,
should not lead to a sense that there's nothing to be
gathered from attending to what we can call a rough
beatnik type of inspired, explorative, funny, mindful,
rich and subtle American English.
  Let us also appreciate that it is not just a result of
travelling over the seas, away from Oxford, and having
Whitman's one work under one's pillow, that has led to
the evolution of English to this beatnik rough American
English--let us call it BRA-english, for instance.
Obviously, it is also the influence of the musicality,
humor and longleggedness of the african genes; it is the
rawness, and willingness to engage in penetrate seeing
(and the smoking of peace pipes), of the American Indians;
it is also the mixture of religious sects and impulses
from every part of the corner taking place in what in the
20th century truly was big melting pot in a positive
sense, namely New York, Manhattan. These days, a kind of
quasi-clever technologised superficial commerciality are
ruling over streets which before saw such giants of human
expression as the beatnik poets. There are other places on
the planet, such as big cities in Continental Europe,
which today have the fire of more bohemian thinking and
philosophical freshness, and the honesty of dialogic
  Location apart, there is however a need for a proper
language, and English is a good one--but not just any
English--to produce such philosophical explorations, so
important for the development of natural human
intelligence and art, also art as that quintessence of
culture called "modern dance". The BRA-english meets
the requirements--as it did in the last half of the 20th
century, and as it can do now. It doesn't have to be
put into the frame of Tibetan Buddhism or any other kind
of buddhism, nor does it have to be atheistic, or tied up
to scientists who are extrapolating wildly from their
little studies on Earth to what they (so falsely, in my
opinion) are the beginnings and endings of this universe.
The language can be an instrument in any kind of dialogue
which has a degree of honesty and humor in it, and
willingness to shed away too many crude rules.
Copyright -- redistribution
You are granted the right to redistribute any
such essay from without
asking on the condition that the context is
respectful and that no deletion or addition
or change of text takes place, and that this
notice is included.
*** *****


-- These themes are perhaps best handled by means of long
words, and yet they concern the daily life of many people,
and certainly all those involved in any form of art or
design or architecture, as well as spirituality in its
manyfold forms

The title, "the validity of the healing intent and the
lack of validity of satanism" sums up what this essay
wishes to say. I will first begin by explaining these
terms as I see them, and then set about to give certain
scientific, philosophical and religious arguments why
it may be the way the title says. What I say is in
tune with other such little essays found around on the and sites, and even in some texts
connected to some technology stuff we come with also.
  I suppose I should say something of my background first,
so as to better enable new readers to understand where
these sorts of insights, as I take them to be!, are 
coming from.
  Perhaps it is right to say that I am a sort of artist
and technologist having a healing intent; and behind me,
I have a great deal of research and development work
which, for the past decade, has taken place in places
which has afforded a munk-like solitude to some extent.
That doesn't mean that I am in the least trying to be
a munk nor that I subscribe to the buddhist idea of
abandoning sensuality; indeed, I find many errors with
most promiment forms of spirituality and have extracted
bits which do make sense when put together in what you
might terms a kind of 'christianity with a reincarnation
flavour'. However I do not do this according to a guru
or a book or a set of books, but according to a process
which I call "intuition", and which I have checked in
a number of circumstances in life and found to have
tremendous and surprisingly good validity. In other words,
my religion is my own. I am not subscribing to any
teacher, master, buddhistic or christian or otherwise.
Nor am I inclined to spell it fully out, unless asked
very courteously in real face-to-face meetings in happy
harmonious dialogues about a particular point of it.
For it would be very voluminous to spell out completely,
and even if I did it by means of many volumes, it would
just too easily get misinterpreted and made into a
formula or method of some rediculous sort.
  This intuition also concerns bodily healing processes
of myself and others, and it touches also upon -- indeed,
quite intensely -- how we ought to shape our technology,
and also our rooms, houses, artworks, and so on and so
  However I insist that on each point where there is an
intuition on a large number of such general, practical
themes, there are also logical, even scientific reasons,
which will exist to back them up when you are aware of
that possibility. There are cases where I act on
intuitions long before I have logical reasons to back
these up, but there are few intuitions I've had that
haven't come to show themselves meaningful, harmonious
and indeed also rational and logic AS TIME GOES BY.
And that is the first point I would like to offer as a
helpful advice to anyone connected to both spirituality
and design: give it time, see how things work out, don't
bee too cock-sure about any one point, and see that you
are not swathed in the hype around a particular idea of
"style", however many millions on this confused planet
Earth which may strongly support that style. The path
of wisdom is sometimes a lonely one. Eventually, people
will come along if it's right.
  By "healing intent" -- a phrase in the title of this
little essay -- I mean something not quite a desire,
but more a plan, or a harmoniously held goal, or noble
ideal of sorts, held up: and what is intended, or planned
for, is that what is done will have effects so as to
create harmonious conditions for all that which we
generally regard as most meaningful. The word "healing",
as used also when somebody calls themselves a "healer",
connects of course to its root, as "hale", "hail", and
such, going back to words meaning "whole, having
integrity, sound, healthy". You see in the word "healthy"
that its first four letters are "heal". So for instance,
when you create a new school-building and its interior,
how can you encourage the fullness of health and happy
learning and good development of the best of all the
pupils? The HEALING INTENT covers also such in its vast
range. To be an artist of a healing intent means that you
are not wedded to a commercial attitude; of course you see
money as vital, it is in most society-forms made in human
history for the past millenia and more, -- but you are not
willing to sacrifice the healing intent on the altar of
money. You want money which is compatible with this
higher, nobler goal. In some cases it may mean that you
have to let go of certain quantities of money -- but
that will then be a token of your integrity (again, a
word which means much the same, ie, wholeness).
  The healing intent also concerns our communication
processes. It also concerns how we relate to each other
when we ask each other for help to get something done,
whether as informal companions or as a boss asking a
an employed person to do something which is part of the
job definition. Human beings are deeply affected, as we
know, by HOW things are said. It is not necessary for
a boss always to command that which the boss have a right
to command. The suggestion may be enough, and may be far
more a token of respect for the wholeness of the other
person; the command voice can be spared for vital
situations where it is naturally called for (if that
ever rises). Between companions who are not related as
a boss to an employee it requires a democratic attitude
to collaborate about any common project: one feels
through things, and comes up with proposals, but not
with commands.
  So all sorts of things like this goes into the healing
intent. As a painter, a lot more understanding of the
processes of the human psyche and heart are called for,
for what I put on the canvas MUST make sense during the
infinitely many life situations which unfold themselves
in front of my paintings. The painting must embrace and
upheld that which is good and whole, and support
creativity and intuition and good reason as well, without
imposing its own solutions.
  I am not terribly interested in those who cultivate
satan or in particular twists of their concepts associated
with doing so, but I think I understand well why they
do it, I hazard to say -- better than they themselves.
Just in case you don't know: in one form or another,
satanists constitute quite a significant minority of the
population on this planet. And perhaps even more
significantly, what they do tend to create a lot of shall
we say "greyzones" between them and people of more chaotic
spiritual leanings, including those who try not to believe
in anything spiritual (the so-called "atheists").
  A person of -- to use the vocabular of this essay -- a
healing intent ought to know about satanism and its
symbols, and know why it is important to steer more than
a little bit clear of these, even if there is not a bit
of belief in any so-called "arch-enemy" or "satan" --
for instance, I have no belief whatsoever there being any
reference from these symbols to such a being. And still
I know that the healing intent should steer clear of them.
This also concerns our language -- that we don't engage
in curses. And programmers should steer away from ancient
Greek words and such meaning entirely different things but
too easily in our subconscioius minds associated with
satanism -- such as the word 'daemon' (meaning a subtle
being, not necessarily any bad at all); technologists
should avoid naming things so that it can be associated
with satanism (for instance, hard disk drives of the
so-called "Sata" type have obviously a name which doesn't
express a vivid healing intent); and advertisers should
try and make money without throwing in phrases such as
"the devil is in the details" (used a year or two ago
in Norway when they advertised on big posters all across
the city the coming of a new Mercedes model); and finally
musicians should find ways of expressing the free and
lovely and sensual life and the variety of feelings
without throwing in satanist-leaning symbols for
'emphasis'. Satanism isn't a sort of chili-spice. It is,
in contrast, -- to stick to the food-metaphor -- a kind
of rotten fish stench, and not something to be added to
anything when we work from the healing intent. This is
as I see it, and I will try and give some arguments
for why this intuition is so strong.
  I think that when these arguments have been given, it
will be possible to see why we should only point five-
stars up, and not use them in cases where the topmost
point of it is easily turned around; and why we should
stay away from giving the appearance of horns or "two
things sticking up from a head" in our general design;
and why, also, the use of colors leaning towards grey
must be moderated by the healing intent. All these themes
belong together and it is, I think, somewhat more
interesting to see them as one whole 'package' of design
ideas (and ideas for other life expressions), which we
can work out whole, coherent and beautiful intuitions
relative to.
  First I'd like to give a reason why putting in an
element of destructiveness EVEN WHEN UNINTENDED isn't
such a smart idea, if you're a religious believer of
any sort -- calling on that idea which can be said to
be found in EVERY world religion: you get what you
deserve. Just that. If you put in something which is
associated in the subconscious mind, at least, with
destructiveness, in your surroundings, or in your art,
or in your talk, or in anything you radiate to the
world, then obviously it'll flash back on you and
your soul and your luck. You may think that you can
control these influences, but YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE.
That's the religious impulse -- give something golden,
something lovely, and you get such; give someone an
undeserved pain and it'll mirror back to you, whereas
the other will get twice what he or she otherwise would
have got of good things. That's pretty much the logical
justification, with some important qualifications, you can
find in every world religion.
  But suppose you aren't a believer in a religion in this
way, suppose you are half-way between atheism and some
form of rather undefined spirituality -- "agnosticism"
perhaps, you choose to know that you don't quite know --
or "gnosticism", you hope that by refining your mentality
and purifying your emotions you can come to knowing --
then what about the symbols of satanism, can't you simply
ignore them? Love all, hate nothing, love and embrace
also these symbols, and skulls, and downward-pointing
stars, and horns and other such cute things?
  For in some people's somewhat perhaps superficial
spirituality, "loving all" is the only dictum, the only
motto, and that offers a kind of lack of resistance to
such symbols. "Aha, that looks like horns. Well, so
what? We hate nothing. We love all. Let the horns be
there, and bless them as much as all the insects, and
the rotten apple, and all other things of decay."
  I am going to suggest what is a more perhaps scientific
reason why this isn't a very good path. "Loving all" is
a nice theory, but if it implies full democratic embracing
of decay, I think that there are some pretty fierce
arguments why this path should be left alone.
  First of all, let us consider that life is a miracle,
and that the human being, as the star of nature, the
pearl of existence, is a magnificent structure and
process immensely and utterly beyond what any laboratory
in humankind has come up with, or ever will come up with.
Human science can HELP birthing processes, and even, for
those who think it is a good idea (I do not) the
conception processes, but it cannot itself give birth
to the human being. Human science, with all the pride
some people give to it, hasn't an inkling as to most
of the things which mean most to human living -- what
it is to perceive the stars at night, what is the
consciousness that tells us of the sense of heat and
delicious scent of the passionate girl engaged in
sex, and why, indeed, sex is so central to all human
beings (as Freud and others pointed out) -- even if only
in not-quite-understood "spasms" (again, Freud's word,
in connection with a paper where he indicated that the
little child relates to all people and things sexually)
-- let alone the sense of meditation upon seeing the
waves, or the taste of a droplet of cold water when
really thirsty. This, and so many more things about the
human being, are features of its wholeness, or -- to use
this more science-related word (also used in quantum
theory, including in my own rerendering of it), -- its
coherence. Coherence is about 'hanging together with
oneself', put very bluntly. It is the least understood
feature of reality, and yet when we endavour to explore
how the least energy processes of matter compose larger
and larger units of matter, up to, including, for instance
our own living bodies, then coherence comes into play.
  Could it be that in exploring the coherence concept,
and its related concepts (such as "nonlocality", or
"alocality", -- that which transcends distance, even
the socalled "speed of light") -- we are touching upon
what could hint upon the true soul concept? Are we indeed
touching on the distinction between life and death,
beyond a more technical set of symptoms of death?
  So living human beings, coherent human beings, seeking
whole, meaningful, coherent lives -- we are talking here
of tender processes, tender flowers as it were. Right?
Far more mechanically are the metals of machines, and
far more easy it is to burn something to pieces, and
rip apart. And so, once we consider this whole picture,
and also take into consideration that subconsciously we
see a lot more of the art in our surroundings and the
art of the body language of each other, and of the
implications in what is said and done and so forth, --
is it not clear that it is an ethical duty that we
emphasize coherence -- that we emphasize the connection
to the constructive and rejuvenating and harmonizing
and life-protecting forces in this complex myriad net
of phenomena which we call "life".
  And if this is so -- we do not thereby regard the
facts also of decay as nonexisting or something which
should be treated with total aversion or blind hate.
It is possible to have a powerful emphasis on coherence
and life and youth without trying to pretend that decay
doesn't take place. One can have a large mind, for --
to bring in the word love in a more refined sense than
earlier in this essay -- love is the grander, which
can include awareness of that which isn't exactly love
for life. This awareness can coexist with an equally
aware emphasis on life.
  In this context, fancy styles emphasizing grayishness
should be thought about as styles emphasizing something
more machine-like, more metal-like, than the main
rejuvenating processes of human life. The existence of
such styles may be seen as the expression of an ageing
human population desiring to be more loved, desiring
symbols of its own decay elevated to a form of high art.
However, anyone who is alive will perhaps find it most
meaningful to be generous to the most lively features
of oneself, and the greatest capacities one has to be
harmonious, and generous also to the fullness of young
life in young human beings (and this hasn't to do with
these "age numbers" people like as constructions placed
upon themselves by many societies) -- in order to get a
sense of peace within, a peace where one can also listen
within, and find out what is harmonious to do.
  So, to sum up, it is a greedy attitude on behalf of
the decaying part of a human being that wishes to project
symbols of decay into the surrounding, but this will not
be of "selfish benefit" at all to this individual -- it
is simply bad manners, and, as I see it, will turn
against such an individual and give this individual bad
  I mentioned that I understood the reasons of satanists
pretty well. I think that it is not necessary to go deeply
into these reasons here, but for completeness, I'll
sketch three reasons very briefly. The first is sexuality,
that most conventional religions are rediculously
restrictive and this is a way to crave more freedom.
The second is aggression against authorities in general,
where one takes to any symbol -- any whatsoever -- to
indicate a general dissatisfaction with all and everything
and perhaps the leaders of society or the flock one has
been somehow born into. The third is that some cool people
appeared to do it, and one does it to attract these people
-- which is not a small portion of those concerned; and
they haven't really thought about what these symbols or
signs do mean.
  As for the third point, I'd suggest, all of this is
worth thinking and feeling through and learn about as
the seasons go by. Sleep on it.
  As for the second point, aggression against stupid
authorities may be in a sense well founded, and certainly
there are many stupid societies on Earth! But if you are
able to formulate an approach which has some promise of
good living inside it without being too damn focussed
on knives and horns and so on, you may find that it could
have more real force and less self-destructiveness in it
-- for you can't control certain fires once they spread.
  As for the first point, that main religions are silly
as for sex -- yes, true, they are; so make better
religions, founded on the ONLY TRUE AXIOM, that God, as
much as Zeus, just TOTALLY LOVES that thing you know --
sex was put into every human being from birth for it to
be a factor we shouldn't fear. There's no justification
for those parts of the classical scriptures which
refer the origin of sex to something less divine and
less holy than God himself. Right? Stick to the thought
of revising religion in wise ways so as to make a powerful
new room for sex and freedom to unfold it wildly if you
are so inclined -- your own conscience and your own
intuition will be much more with you if you do it with
a sense of penetrating human folly and going beyond
old silly cloistre-like illusions, throwing away the
fetters of St Augustine and other munks and priests and
imams and gurus who have tried to impress themselves or
others by denying this part of their nature. This isn't
about decay, but about human intelligence and a feature
of love. True, there are more features to the religious
life than sex, but it is part of it -- tantrically --
and there's ABSOLUTELY no need to relegate ANYTHING of it
to some imagined dark and mysterious force in reality.
  God is mysterious enough -- and it is quite possible,
logically (see my other essays) to regard all existence
as 'more or less good' in each part, in freedom from
the false dichotomy of evil/good. In this view, only
God is really totally enlightened, and human beings --
well, obviously, -- pretty far from even the first
inkling of a bit of enlightenment (I say this in clear
contrast to what some gurus say or imply about themselves
at present).
  As a painter, I feel that what really lifts up daily
life of human beings are glimpses of God's own, and
absolutely enlightened muse-girls, his sublime etheral
beings, and can't we use the freedom of some impressionistic
dance of paintbrush upon canvas to sketch what we feel
can be part of their free movement in their own deep-space?
This is a fresh wind, lifting us up and above human
polemics and simplistic comparison and attempts to
mimick reality. Of course, we should then look to greatly
beautiful model girls if we like to gather inspirations
and ideas for these sketches, but, before they are complete,
we must endavour to look within more than without to
find a touch of perfection to the impressionism. I would
argue that we can use strong colors here, rather than
on computers; for computers can easily make the human
mind and brain somewhat confused, whereas paintings on
the wall, with the obvious sense of paint on wood or
classical canvas cannot confuse, they are more obviously
what they appear to be. They are SUPERFICIAL (thanks to
Frans Widerberg, painter, for suggesting several years
ago that it could be an idea that I allow myself to be
more, indeed, superficial) -- superficial, in the sense
that they have a sur-face which makes sense. (I think
this 'making sense' and 'being humane' is also much of 
what painter Odd Nerdrum wanted to emphasize when he  
sought to reinvent the meaning of the word 'kitsch'.)
  As the Fluxus art thinker Ken Friedman suggested to
Siri Berrefjord and me at a cafe in Oslo (during the 
time I was co-running "Flux magazine" in Norway) 
EVERYONE has a very lively subconcious mind picking
up a lot more than what may have been consciously
intended with any shape out there in reality. This being
so, I would suggest that for those who haven't really
thought about how much antagonism and decay are 
associated with an upside-down five-star and with
a human being like form whose horns are more prominent
than, well, heart and head and eyes, -- well, they
have a bit of contemplation to do, and this has nothing
to do with any belief in the slightest in any rediculous
concept of satan, demon and devil -- all antique
illusions in this context of us up and about modern
beings doing design and art. Whether there can be
a role in mythological pasts to the present via a
kind of religious creation story involving certain
elements of antagonism to God is a whole other matter:
but not one which concerns the present moment AT ALL!
  And why not? Briefly, because fire -- a symbol of
breakdown as such -- has to have something to consume;
there isn't any fire 'as such' -- and so what it has
to consume is that which is other than fire. That's
logical. In other words, to shift metaphor, an apple
that is too rotten isn't an apple anymore. In yet
other words, that which has wholeness -- and this
cosmos obviously has wholeness, when you meditate you
know this by heart -- only has elements within it
which has something pretty strongly to do with
wholeness; and decay is just a falling away into parts
that which has before existed together. This decay
isn't a very smart process. It is somewhat random.
It isn't something to be cultivated. It isn't 
miraculous, and it is seldom very beautiful. One can
understand decay without cultivating it. It is not
about suppression to emphasize glowing vitality and
uprightness, it is about recognizing the miracle of
fresh self-rejuvenating and self-healing life for what
it is. The healing intent reflects the awesomeness of
the life process, the other is a misplacement of our
intelligence and our efforts when overdone.
  In this light, then, we find that the most holistic
approach to life, art, design, painting and even
communication involve having the healing intent, that
this is what has validity -- and that any other type of
intent must be called on only very precisely, and not
as symbols and attitudes thrown around recklessly.

Copyright -- redistribution
You are granted the right to redistribute any
such essay from without
asking on the condition that the context is
respectful and that no deletion or addition
or change of text takes place, and that this
notice is included.


When David Bohm, physicist who contributed to a
renewal of an alternative pathway in thinking about
quantum physics after spending two weeks with an
ageing Einstein, on invitation by Einstein, centered upon
the proposal that the world we see, the explicit or, as 
he phrased it, 'explicate' world, is existing within the
higher-order 'implicate' world -- a not visible yet
subtle and powerful world -- then he also spanned a
series of developments in areas including architecture,
music, linguistics, program design, and so on. You may
wonder why the worldview of a physicist may influence
things in the daily life of most people. But isn't it
always so, that the worldview imposes itself on whatever
we do or make? Are not the most costly buildings in the
world reflecting the worldviews of its makers?
  After "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" was published
in 1980 (three decades after Bohm's visit to Einstein),
Bohm came into fashion. A number of also earlier developments
was sought to be compared to this worldview of the subtle
universe generating and governing and listening in to
the manifest universe. Karl Pribram sought to see the
activities of consciousness relative to the brain as
one somehow akin to that of a hologram, which again
could be said to exemplify an implicate order. There was
a resurgence of ideas involving religious interpretation
possibilities, while such as the organisational doctrine
of Peter M Senge's group at MIT wanted to see business
life develop according to more organic principles --
aided, explicitly, by Bohm's implicate order also. The
computer explorations into what senior researcher at
IBM, dr Mandelbrot, called 'fractals', involved finding
geometrical patterns which didn't quite repeat themselves.
  In the 1990s, while these developments in many strands
came to a head, personal computers and their networking
also came to a vast commercial surge and the programs
made on these computers -- not necessarily always in the
most enlightened of ways -- came to influence design and
art, and many fields besides, at least as much as the
above-mentioned philosophy. This intensified with the
start of the 21st century.
  The notion of that which doesn't quite repeat itself--
self-similarity rather than self-identity, we might say,
to lend from the vocabulary of Dr Mandelbrot--speaks of
a liveliness we see all around us in wild, beautiful
nature and in the natural lively activity and shape of
the healthy anatomy of the beautiful young girl. True,
there are symmetries, but these symmetries are played
upon by the natural 'jam session' that the arrythmic
involves in any natural posture or dance. Rhythm, when
mechanical, becomes pace. Rhythm, when creatively
broken, to reflect subtle orders, becomes the arrythmic.
  The arrythmic involves trusting that order can emerge
in spontaneous and new ways when there is a certain
anarchistic, or non-control-freak approach to the designs
we implement in daily life.
  In contrast, cheap design involves such as symmetrical-
looking 'modules' which are plugged into one another, but
each module itself made under a mechanical paradigm,
without sensitivity for subtle orders or the arrythmic.
Most microchips are fashioned in this way, and the tacky
idea of letting 2nd-hand design become as if 1st-hand
design in the 'Project Era' of Google's mobile phone
computers, exemplify the barreness of the mechanical.
  Indeed, any use of symmetrical modules in architecture
and interior design, or in computer programs, or in
machines in general, typically reflect a mechanical
worldview, one which lacks the subtle sensitivities
involved in having the openness the the Implicate Order
view calls for.
  Now computers are contributing in several ways here,
some beneficial to open more for the arrythmic, while
some ways narrow the allays to contribute to more of the
stale control-freak approach to design. We have already
seen Dr Mandelbrot's "fractals" give a new theoretical
clout to the arrythmic, by such new phrases as self-
similarity. What is 'similar' and what has 'contrast'
are a matter of perception. Both require that one doesn't
do mindless repetition.
  When people start to program computers, they may at
first be intimated by the whole enterprise, and so, unless
the languages and design are thought through really well
--as I hope the G15 is---they will easily be forced into
what my father Stein Braten termed the "model monopoly"
of the people offering these 'solutions'. The latter will, 
in his terms, be the "model strong" people; learning what
they have to offer means giving THEM power, whereas it
may be presented as an empowerment of oneself. This can
explain why much cheap and mechanical-rhythmic design
has implanted itself on all avenues of human society
with the advent of the vastly spread personal computers
and their mini-versions embedded here and there.
  At the same time, computers have made photography
more widespread, both the action of photography and the
means by which photos are spread. This contributes to
an increased presence of healthy, good pornography as
well as artistic nudes and artistically well-done
fashion photos of various kinds. All this, combined
with photos of nature and so on also, become an
impulse towards the protection of the more natural
and more--in a sense--infinite order in real life.
  Also, we see with some ways of using computers, again
I hope that G15 is at the peak of this--that new
arrythmic orders come out of creative and easy work
with them, for instance in working on photos to do
what we can call a rerendering of them, or as novel
computer graphics. This in addition to the impulse of
the fractals, which of course is a strong one.
  The key feature of the very many spiritual worldviews
which can be fitted into the Implicate Order approach is
that of a lively universe, one in which, in most cases,
the human being is seen as part of an infinite order.
It goes without saying that there is something beyond
the machine, beyond the symmetry, beyond the simplistic
program, about the human being and the mind of the human
being, and this can, in some suitable interpretations,
such as the ones I prefer -- with a kind of combination
of eastern notions of reincarnation with a prosexual
interpretation of eclectic parts of Christianity in my
way -- be seen to be beauty-oriented, young girl oriented:
indeed the highest orders, the subtle universe, may be
envisioned as populated by angelic beings, the muse-girls
or muses, and as such human beings have superior ideals
by virtue of their sheer existence. In such a worldview,
the arrythmic, then, when well-chosen, allows a bridge
between the daily life of a human being and the higher,
more synchronistic order which it is natural for a
human being to attain to.
  A key point in this is to find the type of design and
type of interior and type of architecture, type of
machines and types of program that allow the best of
the 'explicate' order of our daily lives to connect
fruitfully to the highest of the 'implicate order'.
And in a spiritual interpretation, we would ask, for
instance: what is it with a room that encourages
artistic and humorous playfulness of children? Or of
the dancer, such as when photographed? Or of the
writer, when organising thoughts in a more professional
business mode of mind, which nevertheless is listening
in to the subtle orders of existence?
  The arrythmic approach is then to be sought: rather
than sterile, mechanical, over-controlled-in-thought
approaches to design and architecture that could lead
to a sense that human beings are mere small objects,
enclosed within a vast scheme of categories. What is to
be around one mustn't have the stamp of mere human
thought on it. The sense of the infinite must blend with
the presented forms. To come to such design, we must go
beyond the need for the self-identity in such as sharp
corners and monochrome-painted elements; we must go
beyond the need for a fixed placement in thought of each
thing to be had in our surroundings; and we must go
beyond the need for each item to have to have a story
associated with it, a quote, a reference to something
regarded as 'trendy'. Things must be allowed to exist
on their own. This gives them a first-handed-ness, and
which allows true and genuine projects -- not the tacky
'project era' of an advertisement/tech firm, but the
first-handedness that comes from working with things
which aren't chockfull either of microchips or of things
manufactured under the model monopoly of a mechanistic
and sterile worldview. Whether we speak of cars or
computers, cameras or paintings, art as such or interior
deisign, architecture or the meeting-points between
nature and the human habitat, we must take care, I feel,
to always honor the arrythmic and the lively, that which
goes beyond the simplistic thought-model and the cultural
time-bound reference. Only in this way can our designs
contribute to genuine human happiness, which is, after
all, what we all want.

-- And notes on the philosopher Berkeley's view of God
and the universe

Whether beauty as in the glory of a morning sunrise over
wild nature and salt water, embraced by a horizon of
endless light blue, or beauty through other sensory
pathways, or in other forms of human activity -- music,
by reading or listening to a story, by meeting people
who gives rise to a sense of beauty, or through artworks
or photos, or in the atmosphere of a pleasant interior
or around a meal, -- in all these cases, the mind may
have questions about the tomorrow, about the future,
as to wether this beauty, or anything like it, can keep
on existing, and whether oneself will be around to
experience any of it, and questions of this sort. While
the experience of intense and deep beauty in a sense is
timeless, a question connected to 'the tomorrow' is
a question that brings time -- what is called 'the
temporal' -- into the picture, into the mind.
  This is true no matter the age of the person. Anyone who
thinks about the future, and who has concerns about the
future -- and, to some extent, all humans do! -- may find
themselves thrown into questions about the tomorrow when
faced with great beauty. Let us not condemn it, nor regard
it as necessary, but it is a fact that in such cases the
pure joy of the beauty may be meshed with a sense of
potential loss, -- the mind may sour into its ideas of
the future, and find that perhaps this beauty isn't there,
or fear that it isn't there, and this fear may cause
tears, a sadness that can be strong enough and deep
enough that it can even be called sorrow. I repeat that
this experience can arise even in the youngest of people:
all it takes is a mind that can indulge in various
pictures of the future, in which the present glory doesn't
seem to fit.
  For instance, a young girl may find herself overpowered
with the joy of being with another person -- all sorts of
harmonious sensations rise to a peak, and in the midst of
the peak, the question may arise: will one be able to
be with this person say, a year or two from now? And then
the idea arises, -- and more powerfully so if it has been
nurtured for a while -- no, perhaps not; -- and suddenly
the tears of loss invade the totality of the beauty
  So if you ever wondered why some people seems to fear
beauty, -- right? -- it is really not so complicated. It
is the messing about of the temporal into the timeless;
it is the invasion of future scenaries into the now.
  There are some people of a spiritual inclination who,
perhaps also for such reasons, have sought to raise the
word "now", and similar words, such as "the present",
and "in the moment", to a kind of god-like concept; and
there are whole books devoted to how one can learn to
"live in the moment", as it were; these books cultivate
the notion of now and keep on doing it as if the word
was a piece of hypnosis, or a formula, or a sort of holy
word, or a key to buddhism or to some even greater
spirituality. In the wake of such books, dedicated to
raising a piece of daily life language into a godhood,
we then see megalomaniac over-rich advertisement companies
and their associated technology companies make programs
and gadgets dedicated to grabbing the now, making the now
as it were a trademark of their filthy self-centered
ambitions. In the least tasteful of these cases, they mess
about with their phoney ideas of 'artificial intelligence'
at the same time. Let us avoid any such formula made out
of the concept of 'now', if I can point it out. Let us
-- in freedom from such bad-taste books and gadgets and
programmes -- rather explore a simple question, which is
  Is there a perspective on what is to come -- the
tomorrow -- which is both accurate, as far as it goes, and
which allows the beauty of the present moment, when the
moment does indeed have beauty, to come forth radiantly,
and with less sense of overpowering potential loss?
  The question is simple, although I use many words -- for
a simple reason: not all forms of sorrow should be just
clipped away in our enquiry; a touch of it may be just
what is right in some circumstance to even deepen the
beauty experience. What I do question is the need for
constantly weeping eyes or similar feelings on any
encounter of great beautuy. So, is there a perspective,
-- not dependent on psychanalysis or pyschotherapy, and
not belonging to somebody who tries to make "Now" into
a sort of formula -- which is true enough, and which is so
that questions of the tomorrow are gently laid to peace?
  I think it is. First, I would like to offer the point of
view that when an experience of beauty is direct and deep
and real, it calls on something within you that is not
merely a machine, something which is not mechanical, and
not merely a question of chemistry or brain cells, however
lofty these brain cells may be in their advanced
functioning. Obviously, the brain is part of such an
experience, and whatever it does, it must be in a
sensitive state to allow the beauty experience to come
fully forth. But I do propose that the beauty experience
itself is not centered on the brain, nor on the body.
Rather, it is something which is at such times capable of
communicating with the brain and the body, which is
suddenly bursting forth and making itself strong and
manifest. Some religions will no doubt call this "soul".
Some psychologists, with a spiritual slant -- such as the
freudian-turned-spiritualist Carl Gustav Jung -- will
call this "self". In any case, it isn't identical to the
sense of egotistical self-centeredness, -- it is not the
ego. This higher experience you have in such circumstances
is self more than ego, or soul more than body and brain.
I could go into scientific reasons, and a finer analysis
of what the word "coherence" means when it comes to go
beyond mere cause-and-effect in the energies in the brain
in such moments, and how something going beyond even the
most advanced of quantum physics may be called for in
order to speak of this relationship -- but I do think that
an intuitive sense of it is enough to those who are not
cloth-headed enough to call themselves "atheist".
  For all it takes is an openness to reality. Atheism, of
course, is a faith -- a faith in nonpossibilities. And
the atheists, it is easy to see, are also the most
self-pitying and sentimental of all people, for they have
nothing but sorrow when faced with beauty. Their ego is
to the  atheists all they've got. The books they will read
will speak of such rediculous things as "The Virtue of
Selifishness", and their main esthetical ideal is easily
gray if not also skulls. The atheist has a self, but the
ego chatters on about a nonfaith in all but selfcentered
existence, and so the brain of the atheist falters in
meeting with great beauty. That is why no true great
artist ever has been atheist -- is it not so? I suggest
that it is so.
  The self experiences beauty, the ego must be quiet to
allow this experience. The soul, in other words, is the
energy that comes to the fore, when there is great beauty.
All manifest human beings will, as far as their bodies
and brains go, wither. There are those, like scientology
and others, who think that by endlessly repeating to
themselves, and doing various tricks with their bodies,
they will find that they live on and on for millenia:
they won't. Scientologists are mortal, just like all the
other human bodies in manifest humanity. We have however
no reason to be sure that the higher self or soul or
whatever we call it -- the "it" that witnesses the
greatest beauty -- is at all mortal. Why should it be
mortal? The soul doesn't eat, it doesn't get sunburned,
it probably doesn't even have weight -- why should it not
be immortal? I mean, despite the fact that mostly all
religions stick to the thought that souls are immortal,
isn't it simply -- and intuitively -- the case, that the
experiencer of beauty, when the ego is not -- that the
not-self-centered experiencer or witness or whatever word
we chose, when the now is rich in beauty, -- is something
that will be at work to experience just equally intense
beauty also a trillion years from now? Why not? The body
is mortal, the soul isn't. Combine it with any slant of
religion you like, or with a simple act of pushing away
the faith in the ego that atheism is all about, and
leaving the world-questions all open.
  Let us then -- trying to avoid making it into a formula
that then becomes a computer program and a gadget in this
crazy human society we have -- let us then try and spell
out a perspective on the future that is true enough, and
that puts the future to rest, so to speak, so that the
beauty in the present moment can speak fully:
  Beauty, just like the higher self that experiences
beauty, are always there, always in the future. This
higher self -- the TRUE sense of "I", which is not merely
the little plans you have, but the fullness of feeling of
existence in such moments -- that sense is immortal, and
it will always go on. Your truest "you" will always go
on, and such beauty will always come again and again:
with various slants, of course, and with variations in
names and forms, to some extent. But beauty, and the soul,
are immortal. That is the central fact that one can stick
to when overpowered by glorious nature or glorious faces
and bodies, muse-like bodies if you wish.
  So that is the perspective on the future. To go one step
further is then tempting, because it then becomes more
like a systematic faith, in a positive sense of the word.
  In other words, one thing is to deny atheism, out of the
plain logical scientific reasons to do so. But we can
surely go one step further, and outline a faith that
includes some view of God and the role of matter. For if
beauty is going to be experiencable in all future, then,
in some sense, it is meaningful to say that the universe
-- or the multiverse, if we wish -- is going to exist
forever, and life within it, obviously, also. This is in
fact a statement that can make logical sense given certain
possible interpretations of astronomical and physical
data, but it isn't always the interpretation that appears
most "simple" to an atheist brain. What is simple and what
is not simple, when it comes to physics, is itself not
a simple question, however -- and this point of view has
always received a nod when I have questioned even rather
atheist-leaning theoreticians of science about it.
  Some of my readers will know that a philosopher and
christian bishop, regarded among the great classical
philosophers in Europe, bishop George Berkeley, regarded
the manifest universe as a kind of day-dream, thought-
invention, by God. The TRUE existence of matter is in
some advanced and stable and lovely sense actually within
God's mind. That means that whatever patterns and laws of
cause and effects, and also of the quantum nonlocal which
goes beyond cause-and-effect, and the relativistic
gravitational affects on the process of time, are all
consciously thought aspects by God. The miracle of matter
is then that this process goes on and on, whereas it is
extremely easy for God to create sudden changes.
  God then, has the most "real" body in existence. All
other bodies are woven of mental stuff of God. They are
as waves in the ocean of God's mind. One can logically
adapt such a view and still retain good sense with all of
this reality -- it is, in other words, not a madman view.
  In many religions, there's a question of the "Coming",
ie, the coming of God into viewable existence, as one
amongst us. In some scifi writers' viewpoints, God may
exist without God being human-like; here I will only say
that my own sense of it is rather more in alignment with
most religions on this point: that humans are God-like.
That they are the result of a willed process, not a result
of merely this or that coincidental mutation which just
happened to work out pretty neatly, survivalwise. This
willed process can admit to the existence of a lot of
appearant "roots" of the genes, and the existence also of
what eppears to be a great, vast past to the universe,
going -- or so it looks -- even billions of years back.
Why not? If God is the ultimate, well, then, God is the
ultimate, and no such appearance should present the
slighest difficulty to God. The arguments for them may be,
for instance, that the human mind can only persist if it
gets a pretty solid faith in cause-and-effect, even if
some parts of it are rather illusory in core.
  So the Coming may be a real thing: God, having a body
that is primordial and not of the same stuff that all
other bodies are made of -- for all other bodies are made
of his mind -- can surely place himself (yes, I would say,
"himself", fully aware that the religions mostly tend to
this view even while genders aren't exactly as real,
perhaps, to a sole creator of all, also of the gender and
gender variations, the transsexual, and so on) -- himself,
then, in amongst his created beings. It is a mind-twister
to see how this can be done. But, after all, do we not
all have dreams in which we have dream-bodies more or less
looking like our physical bodies? And the dream-body may
have the same name as the real body, and interact even
in much the same way with other dream-bodies as in the
normal, wakeful existence. The Bishop Berkeley point of
view, as I choose to interpret it anyway, is that God can
maintain a wakeful state with wakeful dreaming, and that
inside of this dream, he can also maintain an immortal
coming. The coming of himself into his creation. After all
-- many would argue -- a reasonable thing for God to do!

-- Almost every form of activism is implanted upon you;
but what are the alternatives? Here's what the schools
won't tell you

There are many forms of activism, most of them are really
a passifism, if that's the right word -- for they are
woven by your country's leaders, so as to make it
comfortable for them. The facts are presented to you at
school, suitably modified, biased, fixed on, so that --
if your young hormones should cause you to want to leap
out on the street with big posters, you will at least
leave your country's rich and influential people more or
less in peace. Most environmentalist activism in wealthy
countries has this sort of bias. It is extremely hard to
detect for a youth -- it is a matter of hypnosis. (And I
am more positive to nature-conservation than most.)
  To see this, let us first analyse the behavioural
patterns of many rich and influential people:
  * They avoid giving compliments when it matters, for
these may cause people to want monetary reward or such
  * They look for potential accusations around them,
gathering them up their sleaves, and throwing them about
at random if they themselves are accused
  * They use their money or influence as a sledgehammer
upon society, to implement what they know in their hearts
are wrong, by means of a power that most loyal people
don't dare challege
  * Those who are not directly in support of them are
quickly labelled anything from 'self-centered' to 'whacky'
  * They build things and places which, in some cases, may
be presented as being so as to bring empowerment to the
many, and honoring noble ideals, whereas in fact these
are mostly about power to themselves, and about reaping
some kind of honor for themselves
  A handful of these people are in charge of each country,
no matter whether it calls itself a dictatorship or a
democracy. A democracy is usually the shifting
dictatorship between two clans, which share most values,
but do so secretly.
  The schools in each country are shaped by the rich
and influential, often directly, but in all cases by means
of myriad influences. They know that the youth are of two
types: those who are loyal to the old and unethical, and
those who want to have a phase where they say to
themselves, 'I am no slave; I have high ideals; I work
for them, actively; and I love what I do and I'm willing
to give all for it' -- or something like that. To the
latter, they lay out the map. Here, here, and also here,
they say, are places where you may demonstrate and write
as many posters as you like without offending us ugly,
rich, self-centered, influential and powerful. Why don't
you set up a tent? That will make you feel excellent;
you won't change anything; and when you grow weary of your
padding of the streets like that, you'll settle in and
become part of the brickwall of this society, and serve
us like all the other loyal slaves in our society.
  It is part of the layout that some parts of technology
is presented as properly "belonging" to the youth. This
illusion may be fostered by consciously avoiding
propagandizing this technology to an equal extent to the
parental class. But behind this technology is the same
gang of the powerful, the old, ugly, rich and selfish
people. It is their latest trick on the upgrowing classes.
  There are those who see through this, but who do not
know any alternative. For them, there are drugs, prisons,
and such psychiatrists as Phillip K. Dick battled with.
In one of his science fiction novels, a psychiatrist is
a talking suitcase, which a person buys whenever there's
a need to get whacky -- such as when drafted for a public
  Alright, so these are the hard, flat facts. No positive
thinking was employed in laying them out. I always find
positive thinking to make more sense if one has a contact
with reality first. What, indeed, can one do if one sees
something of all the institutionalised self-centeredness
and hypocrisy and mediocrity of our societies, our
countries, and one respects life enough, and harmony
enough, to want to do something with it, and maintain own
healthy and clarity and self-respect?
  The sects are there, but they offer no solution, only
an escape. The sects, whether christian, jewish, islamist,
hindu, buddhist, or such as scientology, always have some
really charming people with charming voices. These voices
speak of their illusions with an hypnotic intonation, as
if these were incontrovertible facts, shared by all wise
people from time immemorial. These people have nice smiles
and offer soothing comfort for those who say 'yes' to
the hypnosis. It is, however, the character of hypnosis
that it only works with consenting people. If you don't
want to get hypnotised, you won't.
  What would not be a waste? First of all, youth is the
ONLY period where anybody really learns anything. Forget
life-long education -- it doesn't work. The brain shrinks
some decades after you've 27. It calcifies. Middle-aged
people are constantly nervous, whether they show it or
not. Nothing can be learned, except superficially and
slowly, in that state of mind. So the first axiom should
be, learn something. But something that isn't nothing.
Economy, for instance, is nothing. Market economy is about
joing waves of hysteria, it doesn't work rationally; it
doesn't respect the principles of the Swedish Nobel
Laurate commitee in economy -- it respects only human
idiocy. So learn something, rather than nothing. Learn
something that can be with you even if you live alone
on an island without any society around you -- how to draw
or fix a car or build a house, something extremely first-
hand and real and not phoney. Your youth may even extend
when you are first-hand engaged. Dance, complicated dance,
is something that also can be part of you -- worth doing
for a girl even if you feel extremely attractive also
without dance capacities. For dance teaches you many
other things, unlike economy.
  Second, tend to your cash income, somehow -- but not
by grandiose schemes which promises you the wedding of
soul and business -- there is no such wedding. Business
is soulless, hard, and typically miserable. So find a
limited, but working plan.
  Thirdly, don't believe in humanity all that much.
Believe, if you can, in something much grander and nobler
than humanity can ever be, -- go find a quiet place
within for a sense of the ultimate perfection, the
ultimate of goodness and beauty, call it God or what
you want, and spend time making yourself less self-
centered, and more open to this. It is tough work. It
means looking at all hotheaded neurotic ideas and getting
relaxed enough to think afresh, through all life, about
all the world. Don't overestimate the importance of
doing this together with others, because that too easily
mean settling into a nice kind of groupy half-sect
which doesn't go deep enough.
  Fourthly, when things are meaningless, don't change
all and everything too fast, but wait it out. And in the
meantime get all the healthy sex and the wildest porn you
legally can get hold of, and build up a capacity to see
beauty in the natural, uncultivated anatomy of the human
body and spirit also in the sexual act. There's much dance
and intuition, tranquility and insight, as well as
true empowerment of your hormones in that.
  Fifth, walk much, exercise much, stay skinny, and sleep
much. Sleep long enough that you get brilliant ideas and
fantastic energy. For this you need to addict yourself
a little to extra vitamins -- and totally avoid all drugs
and mostly all alcohol.

-- The Dante type, the subtle type, and the soup type

With all respect (or maybe not) for huge swaths of the
belief-system called 'buddhism', I would call it as
belonging to what we can call the "soup type" of
spirituality. I say this knowing that there are branches
of buddhism which are absolutely different. Buddhism
has so many branches that, in a sense, you can find
most forms of most religions, even violent ones, in
some form or another having a happy existence out there
on the branch of the vast buddhist tree. There is, simply,
no form of religion that there isn't a form of buddhism
to embrace, inhale, and blend with. Yet, the dominant
forms of buddhism are of the soup type. Let me explain.
  The 'soup' type of spirituality admits to reincarnation,
but has a great difficulty in admitting to very many more
principles. True, there's some foggy notion of getting
what one deserves, but in the typical buddhist stance,
there's no cathedral of higher beings overseeing this,
nor some vast spiritual computer residing in a subtle
realm of cosmos to handle it justly and fairly. The
buddhist approach to life-after-life is that, well,
plenty of things happen and you'd better be flexible.
Clothed in great many different words, it boils down to
pretty much that.
  We'll put this in contrast to what I call the "subtle"
type and the "Dante" type.
  The Dante type is easier to explain than the subtle
type. So I'll have a go at the subtle type, and then
finish this little essay with outlining the Dante type
of spirituality.
  The word "subtle" has some roots in clothing -- sub and
textere, or texture, as in textiles. Imagine that you
are much taken in by a particular piece of knitted or,
woven cloth, eg a sweater. You see more obvious patterns 
in it -- we might say "manifest" patterns, -- coming, 
again, from the word "mani", relating to "hand", and 
"fest", as fasten or hold. So there's a pattern you can 
easily discern from about one meter's distance -- that's 
the manifest pattern.
  However, you suspect there's something funny going on 
with the textile, and you take a closer look at it -- you 
see the finely woven structures, with their near-invisible
warps of fine thread going across the manifest pattern.
This is the sub-textile, or the subtle. It is in contrast
to tha manifest. And the subtle spiritualist divides
the world into the manifest world and the subtle world,
and gives the role of the subtle world that it governs
the manifest world in great and fair detail, with much
attention to beauty.
  Spirituality in the subtle type assumes reincarnation,
or life-after-life, but not 'self-organised', not
suspectible to voodoo or mere blunt will-power; rather,
a believer in the subtle world assumes that there are
far more beings in the subtle world than in the manifest
universe, and that these beings are far smarter, wiser,
more powerful and more beautiful than anything or anyone
in the manifest, and they are enforcing a subtle order --
hard to see, but it's there (synchronicities). And so
one must strive to make oneself sensitive enough to be
receptive to their impulses, or else one will be taken
through a very tough series of events -- just to teach
one. The subtle spiritualist is 'sinless' relative to
views of sex, like many of the soup spiritualist type:
they do not regard sex as a separate category, but one
blended with all other actions; but they regard all
actions as subject to close scrutiny -- sex is just one
type of very many possible actions. In a certain take
on the subtle type of spirituality, sexuality is 
reflecting the beauty ethics, and is a peak form of
action, the opposite of what is to be condemned.
  The Dante -- or dantish, perhaps -- type of spirituality
suits those who hate life. Those who hate life won't like
either the soup type nor the subtle type of spirituality.
(Of course, only one of these types are nearer the truth;
and so, in that sense, the truest of the types -- and I
myself put my money on the subtle type -- ought to suit
  Dante, of course, was the author who took a degenerated
and farmish nonurban dialect of late Latin and elevated
it into the symphony and opera that eventually became
Italian. Put simply, before him, it was Latin; after him, 
it was Italian. And he managed to do this because he did 
it religiously -- thus receiving the blessings of the more
or less all-powerful dualist form of christianity existing
at that time. Dualist, for it could not but believe in
anything other than the end of the world after which the
two countries citizens may inhabit are either Heaven or
Hell -- and a Limbo just before the advent of the messiah.
As is well known, Dante pictures the various compartements
of heaven and hell with great and imaginative detail.
  In Dante's view, life is taking place as if in a house
with a high ceiling. Above it, is death: and eternity.
The dantish view of spirituality is death-after-life, but
not the atheist nothingness after life, rather an 
instensely architectured and regulated death, it is the
structured-death-after-life view.
  For Dante, there is no return to life. There's only
death, and death has tremendously much structure to it,
and no fairness at all -- unless one agrees in the narrow-
minded ethical code set down by such folks as St Paul and
St Augustine, who found it nice to threaten eternal
damnation of those who even just desires nonmarital sex.
As the logician and professor Lewis Carroll pointed out in
an essay, it makes no sense that say that God is
compassionate if one at the same time has an ethical code
that implies eternal pain for a temporary slip.
  The notion of a house with a high ceiling is that life
-- like the life of an atheist, a nonspiritualist --
can take many forms. What happens after life is sharply
divided off from this, although, in the case of a dantish
spirituality, it is ruthlessly evaluated by these
elaborate beings with their structures occupying the
domains of Heaven and Hell. Life, according to the dantish
spirituality, is moving from one room with a tall ceiling
into another, guided by beings who are sticking to their
own idea of ethics, and who really have little interest
in life as such. For them, life is just a period during
which a human soul gets drafted, so to speak, to apply
for citizenship in the beyondness. The 'memento mori'
type cum spiritualitist typically is dantish.
  The dantish spiritualist is therefore critically
different from the soup one. But also from the subtle
type. The subtle type of spiritualism has no hell in it,
and it has an ethical code that is woven together with
the view of an immortal soul that somehow -- despite
the ideas of some perhaps not extremely clear-headed
physicists -- must go together with the notion of a never-
ending manifest universe. Literal interpretations of
Islam, with its fondness for war, is easily a dantish
form of spirituality.


Let us use the suffix -oid to mean, here, 'not genuine',
'maybe looking like it, but not the real thing'. I wish
to propose that there's a huge distinction -- which every
rational person ought to make -- between believing not in
God and belonging to what we can call an "atheistoid cult"
such as those created in the wakes of books, whether they
are called Nietzsche or Dawkins or whatever. These cults
may also arise around people of charisma and magnetism,
who simply claim that 'all religions are rubbish', 'this
wasn't created by anything', 'only atheism makes rational
sense'. These people are creating cults around themselves,
intentionally or not. Membership in these cults constitute
something -- whatever it is -- but what it constitutes is
saying hardly nothing about the real worldview of the
  For what is it to not have any belief in God, nor in
any such thing as a spiritual realm? What does it mean to
not merely have doubt, but a calm, settled attitude that
radiates certainty around the point that what we see is
all we have, and there's nothing more to existence? Only
the latter is atheism. If one is fond of books by someone
who claims to be atheist, to the extent that one wishes
to say the same, one is a cult member -- maybe not in
terms of explicit membership, but in terms of wanting
to be with the horde of believers in this thingy, this
whatever-it-is-but-it-seems-a-bit-fun, which then is
named, and misnamed, "atheism". Obviously, what drives
people to roll in for membership in cults is often a
sense that one's life needs a bit of added hot chilli,
and that it seems to be people out there who have got a
following by saying some mumbo-jumbo. In some cases, this
mumbo-jumbo is, "I am an atheist". Some seems to get a
more interesting life by saying such a thing -- at least
for a while. And in this interval, other people may want
to imitate them, without further thought. This is
then membership in an atheistoid cult. A deep interview
would disclose that these members aren't really engaging
in thought. They are engaging in cultivation of some
people, more or less as in politics or as connected to
various sports clubs such as football.
  For that matter, a deep interview with a cult leader
may also reveal that the cult leader of an atheistoid
wave isn't, in fact, atheist. This was brought out in the
BBC direct transmission of the conversation between the
former Archbishop of Canterbury with the Darwin-follower
Richard Dawkins. Dawkins could not admit to certainty
that God doesn't exist. That means that in that interview,
he confessed to agnostisism. And this is probably because
Dawkins, by profession a scientist, wants to be honest
when faced with direct questions like the ones he got:
it is honesty that revealed that the cult leader of the
atheistoid cult called "Dawkins-style of atheism" himself
isn't atheist. He tried to repair the error a little later
by saying, at a cult meeting with fellow charismatic
athistoid book writers, that it is important to be
arrogant to faith.
  But this is not a modern thought. Do we not have many
kilograms of worthy thoughts going back and forth between
openly thinking, rational-seeking philosophers of various
slants between the ancient hellenes? Indeed, sceptisism --
for instance as made explicit by the agnostic thinker
Arne Naess, involves a rational wonder, a willingness to
ask, a willingness to divide complex argments into a set
of many simpler propositions and look at each one
individually. This isn't atheism. Atheism is a surefooted
worldview which has happily closed itself to a vast range
of alternatives, sticking to the mantra that it is most
rational to be closeminded. All alternatives to this
is agnostisism -- and religion.
  Just for the record: the impulse for the human mind, for
mostly any human mind, to look for a central organising
principle means that most people look for a leading person
-- whether imagined person, or an actual person in the
surroundings. Agnostism easily leads to a kind of
pantheistic spirituality, and a pantheistic spirituality,
at depressing times, easily becomes satanism -- for the
same reason as just mentioned, that there's an inclination
towards finding an organising principle, even if something
as absurdly unphilosophical and low-minded as the satan
concept. As is well known, satanists cannot claim that
they are atheists, however much they want to claim that.
They are religious believers, it is only that for some
reason, perhaps associated with personal trauma, they
are preferring the somewhat irrational stance that instead
of life having a holistic source, there's life and
something having a consistently inconsistent radiance
towards the rest of life. They partly adopt such a stance
for fun, thinking that it cannot hurt, and it is a bit
more thought-provoking than a simple, sheer absence of
belief in anything spiritual of any sort. Of course,
given the muddy low-mindedness of the quasi-logic of
satanism, it does hurt. But this is the type of worldview
that, in practise, both Nietzsche and, later on, the
ignoble writings of Richard Dawkins, often lead to.
They do not lead to a belief in nothing, merely to a
cementation of sarcasm inside the mind so that it
refuses to do the obvious, which is to explore by
own intuition.
  However, let us grant that it is easy to be arrogant
against literalism. This includes christian and, even more
obviously these days, islam literialism. It includes also
a willingness to challenge also such as the Pope in the
Vatican, who, despite an obvious liberal-mindedness in
himself, refrains from the altogether obvious and
rational steps it is to do such things as to embrace
full use of prevention in overpopulated areas, and to
give full blessings to a freer sexuality than the
irrational narrowmindedness of St Augustine. The lack
of rationality of the denial of bisexuality and the lack
of rationality in denying the sexual life of children
were brought forth with great strength in the best parts,
eclectically speaking, of Sigmund Freud's works in the
earliest decades of the 20th century. The Pope is still
steeped in literalism -- a form of extremism. A religious
believer, seeking also the honesty that Dawkins would
like to associate with science, would, like Dawkins,
suggest that the Pope isn't worthy of belief. I do agree.
But that is going against the cult of the Vatican, it
has nothing to do with worldview directly; nor does it
say anything about the existence of God; and, hence, not
about atheism or its alternatives either.
  And just as it is part of the islam literalists to find
quotes and passages in their scriptures that condemn jews,
and hence, Israel -- despite that, in the very same
scriptures, "Israel" is also the name of a muslim angel,
-- there are literalists amongst jews who, like islamic
literalists, would easily take to violence to defend their
faith against insulting practises -- as news have told
about. In this regard, it is to be noted that the idea of
"judaism" and the idea of "jews" -- a branch of the
semittic, just as muslisms in a sense is another branch
of the semittic -- is not one cult, but a set of cults.
Some of the jewish cults have strongly embraced
bisexuality and indeed have done great positive work for
increased rationality at this point. The very same cults
may, in part, entertain certain traditions associated
with the jewish cults, but without the component of
religious faith in it. In short, judaism isn't as much
a religion as a set of cults, or a set of sects, and a
large amount of scriptures, although some -- very few,
perhaps, who employ the notion of "jew" -- in fact are
engaging in the concept as a worldview and religion. Let
us say that just as practising yoga is compatible with
being, say, a Buddhist or a Hindi (indeed the Buddha
himself did yoga, it is said), it doesn't mean that
practising yoga is the same as having belief in buddhism
nor in hinduism. One can, like the many catholic nuns
who engage in eastern forms of meditation and training,
for instance be a christian; and indeed many in the West
who do yoga are either christians or agnostic, and some
are believers in islam and some in jewish scriptures,
-- and there are other variations as well, of course.
  It is probably the case that in these days -- hopefully
soon belonging to the ancient past -- where socalled
'social media' is dominating many people's lives --
a superficiality about worldview fits the makers of these
social media. They want, for advertisement and
surveillance purposes, to put people in categories.
Their as-if statistical studies of the population,
doled out to society by means of news stations, invites
superficial thinking about worldviews, and assumes that
simple statements like "I am atheist" in fact do make
sense -- when a deep interview would, in most cases I
believe, show with manifest clarity that the statement
doesn't have grounding in that person's psyche at all.
For most people, the moment of truth, then, will be in
the seconds they imagine that the body has had it: it will
be the thoughts coming up at this instance that speaks of
the true worldview. Most people, unless in such an
instance drugged or without brain capacity, would then
-- perhaps shamefacedly -- realise that they are, indeed,
believers in a God after all. This I submit. For what it
is worth, let me also add that after studying mostly all
of what has gone on with the more important trends in
science since the various inceptions of science and
natural philosophy, up to the most advanced physics
studies of the present day, it is a perfectly rational
thing to be a believer in God; and it is also perfectly
rational to refrain from believing that the postulates
offered by neo-darwinists go anywhere near in explaining
the intelligence of the structure of life (see my 
comments on the computation of 'randomness' in various
essays inside this column and in its archieved
pages, for example).

/////Quote in this wind

  The fight against the twartedness of mind that
  we may call 'ego' is chiefly a fight against
  envy and its related forms, as jealousy: and
  what must be victorious in this fight is
  generosity, -- not just any generosity, but
  the generosity that is the victory over envy.
  And for a young person, life cannot offer a
  better laboratory of research into generosity
  than healthy groupsex.



Granted, the human mind isn't perfect. But at least,
it has the POTENTIAL to grasp a situation, and relate to
it intelligently -- every human mind has this capacity.
And every computer is forever bound by the rules given to
it, no matter how cleverly made rules it has got. There
may be rules for how to make new rules; and rules for
how to make rules for how to make new rules. But the
computer can never step out of itself and ask, "What is
it really that I'm doing?" It is forever bound within its
non-mindfulness. There's nothing real about the apparent
"real-time" of a computer.
  But that doesn't mean that it isn't possible to fool
human minds into believing that the world is sort of
consisting not only of natural minds, but also of
artificial intelligence minds. This foolery is what every
intelligent tech journalist ought to have put behind
herself, or himself. It is a foolery that can be cured
if one spends time with this simple question: what is
it that distunguishes a mind from a machine?
  A mind, put simply, can put itself in parentheses. It
can refer to itself, in a flash, and in that same flash,
without use of such artefacts as 'random generators',
step outside of itself, and produce an insight into what
it is, and what is going on, and what is the intelligent
response. This is what minds do all the time say, when
driving cars, and other objects do not behave as expected,
not even nearly as expected; or when the car itself
doesn't behave as expected.
  Do we not hear nerds and ad men say that more than
"ninety percent" of traffic accidents come from what
they with glib self-assurance call "human error"? Just
think of what they are REALLY saying. They are saying
that all the very many thousands, or tens of thousands,
or hundreds of thousands of percent of accidents that
never occurred because humans did just the right thing,
is to be ignored and the focus is to be on the cases
where drivers were drunk or asleep or texting on their
cellular. All the world's great car traffic proceeds as
it does, with the ENORMOUS well-being it produces, and
the fantastically low rate of incidents, due to the
magnificence of the human mind. The statistics is
just staggering: compared to the potential number of
incidents, the actual number is a tiny fraction of
a fraction of a fraction. And this is because the human
mind works so fantastically well.
  We have the experience also from airplanes: it has been
shown that when pilots sit behind an over-automated
autopilot for airplanes, they gradually get stupider and
stupider, and when the errors -- the computer errors --
set in, as they always do, only the pilots that have been
constantly trained to take manual control over the air-
plane in all sorts of circumstances are well able to
handle what is going on and ensure that there won't be
an airplane crash. There was some over-enthusiasm on
behalf of autopilots in airplanes for as little as
five or ten years ago. Then it gradually dawned on the
world's airplane makers that human pilots are best when
it matters, and that has got to be how all cockpits are
constructed: to give the human pilots regular sharpening
of their talents and abilities, a refreshing of skills,
because the computers won't always do it right.
  The modern-day struggle between computer and mind is
not a real struggle. The mind has won -- logically,
conceptually, and absolutely, after there was a quiet
academic war in the 1920s and 1930s about this. As for
instance Roger Penrose, Oxford mathematician, told in
his classic textbook "The Emperor's New Mind", the whole
computer concept was wrought in a vain effort by Alan
Turing to defeat the result by the German mathematician
Kurt Goedel from the beginning of the 1930s -- a result
which stated that no mechanical route procedure can ever
refer to itself. It gets caught in an infinite loop. Alan
Turing wanted explicitly to do away with the need for
human intuition -- these are his very words; and in this
effort, he conceived of the abstract "Computer" idea, and,
as Penrose and many others of reflection and thoughtful
consideration have pointed out, Turing only succeeded
in strengthening Goedel's original result.
  In short, the human mind is touching an infinity when
it rescues a situation from being at the merce of silly
rules. The computer is always at the mercy of silly rules,
no matter how much ad folks and nerds may want to cover
up this fact and confuse the realities in order to sell
in their products. This is what every tech journalist
ought to know, so that we get a meaningful development of
technology in the human welfare society in the upcoming
decades and centuries, as I see it.
  [[[Technical note: there are some who argues against
the interpretation that Goedel's result shows that the
human mind is beyond a machine, but most of those who have
argued against this interpretation have done it on a
mechanist agenda, without proper insight into the
potentials unleashed by the worldviews associated with
quantum phenomena for what mind can be in this world.
It is also safe to say that those who argue that all
minds are mechanical probably are cementing their own
functionality into a very narrow field: it is to be hoped
that such folks never get a foothold in the mainstream,
for that could damage the minds of many more. Healthy
philosophers and reflective thinkers on the mind/machine
questions agree that the human mind is likely to have a
huge potential which goes beyond the machine in principle,
as well as in praxis. For more about Goedel's incomplete-
ness theorems, see for instance my own work at -- the
text document which is found there about Goedel.]]]


-- And that which goes beyond the temporary fluctuations
of social interest

In its roots, the word "philo-sophy" means, of course, the
love of knowledge or wisdom, for instance as represented
by the ancient Greek muse-being (or "goddess") Sophia. In
modern English, as we know, the word "philo-" is also
used as a suffix, sometimes playfully, to indicate
enthusiasm (a word meaning "God within, en theos") perhaps
a hobby or a pleasantly eccentric activity. Thus, for
instance, fans of whiskey may perfectly well construct
a concept such as whiskeyphile and no eyebrows raised. 
There are uses in medicine of -phile which signify a
reckless, sick enthusiasm, but then even the concept of
'falling in love' has got a place in the diagnostic
standard manuals in such as psychiatry and who takes
psychiatry seriously anymore after all the nonsense 
among the professionals in the field revealed through 
eg famous court cases (eg the one against A Breivik)?
  Aristotle held that the conquest for knowledge has a
value in itself, and not merely a value inasmuch as it
can give us more power in the world or make us better at 
this and that. This quest, he maintained, has its own 
rewards, its own meaning. While we are physical human beings 
who must, by virtue of being physical, tend to physical and 
social reality to some extent even every day, it is part of 
the life of the philosopher -- as we can call anyone devoted
to the love of wisdom for its own sake -- to set aside
time and physical working space for this pursuit. The
mythologist J Campbell spoke of this as a 'mythic time',
or mythic hour, where we so to speak -- or even sometimes
literally -- draw a circle around ourselves and seek to
go deeper, in contrast to going outwards.
  Let us consider, in light of such a soothing space of
questing for deeper insights into wisdom and myths and
branches of philosophy, what it means to partake in
social life -- and the quest for fame and fun in the
social realm.
  While some would maintain that the sole purpose of the
social is -- especially for those with much testoteron --
solely a subtask under the mastertask of getting laid,
there are plenty of others who would speak of the social
as a source of meaning. Occasionally one can hear some
declaring the social to be the very source of meaning
for any human life. I hope that when we hear this, we also
take mental exception about this statement: a person who
says this probably has very little private space, and
would be at the mercy of social fluctuations -- with
little initial capacity to cope should the world become
indifferent to this person all of a sudden. The world --
the social world, that is -- does fluctuate a lot. It has
phases, a somewhat frenetic (and not very enlightened)
activity may center around a certain thing or person or
set of persons, and may do so in ways which make it seem
that just about nothing else matters than being part of
the frenzied run.
  In this frenzied run, in the 20th century, we saw for
instance that socialism, in its various forms, come to
be one of the social things of frenzy; scientific
conferences and publication in journals was another social
thing of frenzy; and early in the 21st century certain
branches of the internet of computers and phones have
become social things of frenzy. Elements of superficial
but socially amiable and fun and fest-like living can
persist within such frenzy and that part of it can be
stimulating for anyone to engage in, philosopher or not.
It is when the persistent rushing into something
exclusively social becomes a twarted form of fascism and
a form of escape from taking life seriously -- and a
distraction, a pillow so that one doesn't feel the
actuality of how one is working, how one is meditating --
or avoiding to meditate -- how one is eating, or over-
eating -- and so on -- it is then a warning finger should
be raised. Philosophy is, in a sense, also an 'escape',
but it is an escape that may fortify all aspects of one's
life, including the social ones -- it is, in a sense,
an escape that works. It is a deepening of appreciation of
all life, not so that one begins to hate the social
(though there are philosophers, such as Shopenhauer,
who may have inclined in such a direction), but so that
the timeless can get a place in everyday life. And in
between the timeless, or eternal, and this day, there are
other considerations, such as -- what will your next life
look like, if you keep on living like this? -- what, if
anything, is the good of what you're doing today seen
in a perspective of decades, centuries, millenia -- does
it really benefit humanity?
  These big questions aren't easily solved. And that's
part of the reason why philosophy is an infinite pursuit.
There's also little doubt that philosophy will, at times,
touch on the questions of God, soul, origins, muse-beings,
spirituality, intuition, the cosmic meaning of such as
the concepts of beauty, love and sex, and other such
things. Ultimately, human beings aren't capable of
absolute knowledge, only glimpses of such: and there's no
logic that can, without illogical ideas at the bottom,
declare that life has no meaning or that it is certain
that God doesn't exist or stuff like that.
  Philosophy, just as a 'mythic hour', should meaningfully
start with a grand sense of cosmos, in the sense of awe
and wonder -- akin to being suddenly exposed to a vivid
starnight after many days of cloud or spent in citystreets
where electric lights and posters shield the full
perception of stars, stars as one can see with shocking
clarity on such as a relatively wild beach at a calm
night. Just as it makes sense to say that we don't know
the stars, but have glimpses of them, so also can we say
that we don't know the answers to the greatest questions,
but -- by intuition, at lucky moments -- have glimpses
of the answers. This is a positive sceptisism, or an
open-minded -- and logical -- wonder.
  When one spends some time doing this, one tends to get
back to certain 'tenets', if that's the word I want --
I wouldn't want to say 'axioms', for it is a too pompous
word. 'Core ideas' is perhaps a better phrase. In order
for a philosophizing hour -- perhaps with elements of
writing, reading, music, watching some art and photos,
doing some drawings, or the like -- to have good sense,
-- in order, then, that such an hour, or couple of hours,
to be soothing, some core ideas tend to come in again
and again -- not just in my own philosophizing, but in
that of a number of writers in the field of philosophy
throughout the ages. And these are --
  * There is an origin of all that is,
  * and to this origin such as beauty matters,
  * and humanity is both part of this beauty process,
  * and can contribute to it
  * and related words in this is also: love, joy, goodness
and truth
  * and this conquest goes beyond the existence of merely
one particular body, so one shouldn't identify too much
with it, but look beyond it
  * and art, including engaging in use of language as art,
make sense within this grand perspective

A soothing philosophy hour (or hours), can then build on
something very roughly as this, and it can be part of
this time to identify some means, however small and
anonymous, in which one can contribute to a sense of
something beautiful existing -- now, or by sowing a seed
somehow, in the future; maybe in the vastly distant
future. We can bring in the notion of 'butterfly effects'
here: the little effects, the mere change of the flow of
air at some place, go into the flow of causes and effects
and, the further we go into the future, the greater the
implications become. It isn't as if the value of the
action diminishes -- in a certain sense, it increases.
But it may not contain your name-stamp on it: it can be
perfectly anonymous. This should be okay with you: this is
exactly how one can see that philosophy can go beyond the
dependency on the temporary fluctuations of the social
realm. In the social, some things are hot and others
aren't; but seen with a philosophical angle, an action
can contribute to future beauty and partake in deep

/////Quote in this wind

  The easy healthy barefoot gait of the slim longlegged 
  young girl has more power in it than all the careworn 
  scriptures of this world.

/////Quote in this wind

  There are two types of religiosity in this world --
  the type that preceeds the transition of "Zeus" into
  "Deus", and the type that come after it. The type
  that prceeds it has God -- Zeus -- wildly sensual
  and sexual and seductive and fun-loving, even while
  God -- Zeus -- also is a judge, and a harsh judge.
  The types of religiosity funded on the Latin concept
  of "Deus" have retained only the 'harsh judge' part
  of Zeus.

/////Quote in this wind

  Power cannot replace innocence.

-- Invoking the worst of metaphors

It is said that -- and I think it is credible -- that both
big companies and many, or most, states have great fun
storing data without perhaps even knowing how to delete
any of it. They think, perhaps, they are very clever.
They think, perhaps, that they are doing something sound
and sane. And there are people -- a growing number in the
world -- who think that there is something essentially
and deeply wrong about the excessive data storage. That
it is, in some way they perhaps aren't quite able to
express, part of -- human dignity, societal welfare, and
a kind of spiritual upliftedness to let bygones be bygones
and not let dust accumulate on records of past deeds of
all and everyone.
  But so far, I haven't seen this expressed in terms of a
devastating metaphor. I have heard many descriptions of
the practise, and most of them in negative terms, but
for all who have provided a poetic image of the activity
it hasn't been really bad. We have heard prosaic -- strong,
but still just prosaic condemnations of such as Facebook's 
(and now also Whatsapp, Instagram and such) storing even 
of what is typed and THEN deleted and re-typed in one of 
their cooled servers at Iceland or whatever for each of 
their supposedly trillions of active users. And Google's 
storing, perhaps quietly with the support of those who 
are not only in the employment of Google, but in the 
employment of some too-secret-service-to-mention as well 
-- everyone's searches, and gmail emails, and Youtube 
activities, for at least three decades. And it is well 
known that companies like Apple and Oracle, and even 
more so Microsoft one can guess, do not even know of 
any difference between secret services and their own 
companies. . The frontdoors are the backdoors and the 
backdoors are the frontdoors. Any service, furthermore, 
set up in Spooky Silicon Valley, such as PayPal, is 
probably also having an identity problem relative to 
such surveillance agencies as NSA. They make people put 
in private info about themselves in order to bring 
back forgotten passwords -- and this info is safely 
tucked into databases which, perhaps, or probably, 
are stored under the "never forget" slogan, and made
available to these agencies which presumably set up 
some of these services, or at least supported their
setting up, just to gain more privacy-offending data,
which, in their private reports to themselves, is
sometimes called "light". The sum total of this folly
is denoted "Intelligence".
  Russia, China, USA, Britain, and probably most
countries in the world all have their share, some
worse than others, of practises which contradict the
foundations of citizenship, equality under the law,
and right to private lives of citizens not guilty
of anything. Each of these countries have companies
set up by the state to give 'free' services to the
public, while in practise being nothing but the
filthy arms of the privacy-offending surveillance
agencies. Each of these countries censor the net,
not just for terrorism but for lack-of-clothes and
for just anything that pops into the heads of the
leaders as unwanted. Of course, in dictatorships
things are generally less liberal than in the states
that at least with a modicum of honest can call
themselves 'democracies'. In Russia, for instance,
any website with a quantity of followers in excess 
of about one-thousand of a percentage of the 
population must now register as "Mass Media Outlet" 
and conform to the rule of not saying anything to 
the dislike of Kremlin, or have its outlet shut 
down. We are sure that if Russia could afford it, 
they would have been much less liberal -- one-thousand 
of a percentage is, after all, lots of people. 
Why not simply say, any website opened by as much 
as ten people during a year or so is "mass media"? 
Get the weed away. That will mean much less immoral 
Hooliganism of the type Pussy Riot involved. Singing
in a church against the leader! What state of affairs
the country has come to!
  A brisk office woman interviewed on BBC -- one who
worked for a supposedly successful 'social media'
oriented advertisement company, put it this way: It
occurred to people that there was less trouble not
deleting the data, rather than deleting it. She seemed
quite happy about it, bitch. She even went as far as
to compare the use by companies such as hers of the
socalled "data exhaust" of individuals using the net
to a form of "recirculation", rather like the reuse
of Coca-Cola bottles; perhaps she hoped for protection
under environmental agency for their privacy-offending
  However, -- and I do this, as you notice, with some
caution, -- there is a metaphor. It is, I find, a
metaphor of a certain type that I am myself extremely
hesitant about using. I writhe in disgust when I hear
rappers rhyme over the word, and I think that, by and
large, there's too much medical gossip around, and people
should reserve talking about bad illnesses for the medical
profession and not make it into a headline thing.
  But since the data storage enthusiasts are going on --
perhaps with some more resistance than before, thanks
to the famous snowdenian effects -- they are going on with
their own type of passion, and they are still earning
money, although perhaps not such vast quantities as
before, when 'privacy' wasn't that hot topic -- I have
decided to lift into the public eye a certain metaphor
of the very worst kind. Again, I wish to say, I do it
hesitantly, for I hate medical metaphors. But something
has got to be done, and so I serve this metaphor hereby:
  There was once -- this is reality, by the way -- there
was once a famous russian brain researcher named Luria. 
At least one of his books was translated into English, 
and his story of a famous case has been mentioned in 
mostly every university college level psychology 
introduction book for decades.
  You can look it up, but I think the pseudonym, chosen
by Mr Luria of his case, was "S".
  This person "S" was, on the face of it, quite fantastic. 
For a while, "S" worked in some company where it was 
important to write exact reports of meetings, something 
he appearantly did, to perfection, some time after the 
meetings -- without ever using notes. 
  The brain researcher, Mr Luria, explored this person 
"S", who had come into his attention, partly as a 
phenomenon, and partly -- as we shall soon see -- as 
a patient. It turned out, as Mr Luria presented it
at least, that "S" never forgot anything. ANYTHING. 
Everything experienced, visually as well as in terms 
of exact sequences of words heard and other experiences,
was available, ALL THE TIME, in the sense of FULL RECALL.
  Mr Luria explained however, that on some occasions,
"S" found it important to forget things. "S" had invented
mental techniques for doing so. They included such
mental apparatus as the image of a trashbin. "S" would
mentally move thoughts he wanted to forget into his idea
of a trashbin, and force his overcooking brain to
forget it thereby.
  So far, so good. But "S", as it turned out, wasn't 
healthy. It is here we see the transition from phenomenon 
into patient. He couldn't keep on for long. And it is here 
we touch upon the promised metaphor. "S" had brain cancer --
a big bad brain tumor. So, that's the metaphor for these
big companies and these privacy-offending states -- which
includes Britain with its GCHQ, and such databases of
sadness as Dun & Bradstreet. Storage without deletion
of anything is like the man "S" -- a brain entirely out
of order, a brain affected with the worst disease of all,
the brain of a person whose life couldn't unfold. It is
part of the beauty of life to forget -- and forgive. It
is part of the dignity of a state, and of a company, to
give people new chances, and leave it to higher
authorities than these material institutions to judge
over people. It is part of the promise of life to let
bygones be bygones, to meet the other without a past, to
relate to neighbours without a fixed image of them, and
start each day with a fresh sense of freedom from the
past, combined with a responsibility that stretches deep
into the future. It is this responsibility that we as
human beings with very powerful computers now must
live up to. Computers, whatever their merit, must be
kept in check. We mustn't rely on them too much in any
way; we mustn't overprogram them; we mustn't make them
into objects of addiction, and we mustn't program them
so that they become addictive, not for individuals, not
for states, and not for surveillance agencies, who, in
a limited and precise sense, do have a right to engage
in some computer use, obviously.

-- A conservative point of view

Given the international situation as to the regulations,
or lack thereof, concerning the currency market, one must
consider certain possibilities in order to be positive
to the options of, after all, engaging in currency
trading in a meaningful way.
  Let us first note that legality is, for most
institutions, number one premise, under the top-goal of
making a profit; but for institutions with a wider
group of activities than just one, solidity and
trustworthiness come high up on the list of premises.
This indicates that one should choose something like a
bank rather than a dedicated broker, in order to get
a connection to the 'solidity' premise.
  Let us further note that it is in national interest
for most nations, as they define themselves, to make the
most of the potentials of secrecy as to the exact
currency trading values -- such as dollar vs this or
dollar vs that or some other pairs -- so as to contribute
to the stability of federal funds, national banks and
such. Thus, for instance, you may find, if you look
around (e.g. in Wikipedia), that you find links to
a statement such as by U.S. Federal institutions as for
a 'daily spot price' of the dollar versus major
currencies -- but you may also find that this is published
only after the day, if not also after the whole week has
passed. If you find a link to a place that offers
second-by-second update, that place will at once be a
power factor in the field, and that power will lead to
potentials for making extra profit for those operating
that power. Since the prices aren't regulated, you can
take it for granted that such changes -- or, if you
wish, "manipulations", -- are the order of the day.
  However, if the institution, as said, is a bank, it
has a trustworthiness reputation to tend to. It may be
at times tarnished by the activities in certain sections
of the bank, but banks, at least those that operate
actively in the potentailly vast retail market, must
tend to their reputation and must try and repair
impressions of any other than top solidity, and this
has a moderating influence on the degree to which they
would like to engage in legal but very narrowly
self-interested movements in the currency market.
  A big bank with a reputation of solidity may find,
indeed, that nothing less than a percentage of the
reserve currency capital of a nation is put into an
account -- courtesy of the government of that nation
(the same nation, or a foreign one). In order to
maintain trustworthiness relative to such possibly
very wealthy customers, the prices, even in the
internationally unregulated and decentralised
currency trade market, must make more than a little
sense -- even if there is no objective second-by-second
text dump of the prices from one objective disinterested
tender of the world's currency prices to compare with.
  Add to that that some banks are headed by people of
a faith of a kind which emphasises honesty and brotherly
and sisterly love and plenty of thoughts of the
hereafter: this may lead to internal regulations being
tightened up and followed up to a greater extent than
banks devoted to 'carpe diem' types of materialistic
philosophies. However this is perhaps not entirely
a point to be trusted all the way through. I may have
got the facts wrong here, but I do think that the
very valuable program MetaTrader, which has a classic
version named 'MT4' in today's jargon, is a product of
Utah, and presumably then a product by christians of
the mormonic slant. This program, as I've said, is
valuable. It is pretty good. But it is also the case --
and any trader using it or any other trading program
should know this -- that from the point of view of a
broker, it offers very cosy opportunities for very
advanced manipulation of prices which is so that even
people of relatively thin capacities to program may
be able to do cunning things with it.
  Still, MT4 may also perfectly well be used honestly, --
it is, I think, not intrinsically manipulation-oriented;
but it is quite limitless, put that way.
  Let us imagine that you would want to use a trading
program like MT4 to handle what amounts to a portion of
your wealth. If you then would like to minimize chances
of being in a constant state of cyberwar with unknown
scripts at the other side of the MT4, why not choose
a bank that delivers bad prices instead of a little
broker that delivers unbeatable prices? A bank that
takes a solid fee by shoring up a solid 'spread' -- ie,
buy/sell difference -- is apparently wanting to earn
money pr each transaction rather than by funny prices.
A broker that pays you money to trade with them is pretty
sure that their scripts can't be beaten. They may in turn
be a customer with a bank that has much heavier prices.
They have got to make up for it, somehow.
  Let us further imagine that where the justice system
isn't pushed around by governments, nor is practically
non-existent, you will have companies that think twice
before doing things severely the wrong way. That speaks
in favour not just of banks, but of banks situated e.g.
in the E.U., just to give one example.
  But still this isn't enough. Whether you want to trade
with a thousand dollars, or a million times that much,
you are still facing a whole world of fluctuating
prices without a common ordering principle to them,
without, indeed, any commonly set measurement standard --
for currencies, there is no atomic clock box in a
British Museum, there is no laser light determined size
of the meter, nor is there, at a more mundane level,
any Nasdaq or the like with official prices. There's
just money floating around, and banks trying not to
float around, and all the rest of us. Add to this,
after Turing ill-fated attempt to break with Kurt
Goedel's disproof of the notion of the intelligent
computer, Turing invented the computer concept and
elevated it to a sufficient degree that computers are
now everywhere, contributing to the money flow, and,
in a certain sense, also polluting it. Turing, who
committed suicide, didn't show that artificial
intelligence was possible; he didn't disprove the
notion that intuition is necessary; but he did imagine
that very cunningly made computers could be made --
indeed, computers which could fool (a bit stupid) people
into thinking that they were thinking.
  So in a sense, it is Alan Turing's fault that we have
MT4 today, and all the other trading platforms. But this
we have to live with. The fact is that this 'turing
factor' connected to money amounts to a more or less
irresistble impulse to fix on prices which legally can
be fixed on, to serve the self-interest of a company or
a person. And we have got to be realistic about this:
we have got to calculate it into how we plan, so we don't
waste our money on meaningless schemes.
  The further advice then, is this: don't try too much
of anything that smacks of 'gambling', due to the turing
factor. Rather, think in terms of investment. Don't
merely read the long-term predictions by financial
news stations. Here, let's bring in what the german
thinker Kurt Goedel proved (and what Turing failed to
disprove), namely -- intuition (cfr his Second Incomplete-
ness Theorem; the portion of the book 'The Emperor's
New Mind' by Roger Penrose devoted to the explanation
of Goedel is eminent; Penrose was Stephen Hawking's
tutor and professor at the University of Oxoford).
  You must sense how long-term developments are going
to go. That requires a lot of capacity within yourself
to be sensitive and also to push aside persuasive
arguments without substance to them. When you get a
sense of how things are going, you must then consider
the currencies, and certain relationships, and see if
you get a consistent prediction-sense about a major
currency there. In such a situation, where you have a
portion of money that you do not in any way depend on,
but is there for imaginative use -- with gain or loss --
you might then consider a low-leveraged currency trade
over a period of, say, half a year to a year. The lower
leverage, the more it will be a question of earning
percentages (or loosing percentages), rather than
looking to any doubling or tripling of wealth. But this
is, I think, a necessity for any serious long-term
currency investment. The clue, here, is to do as few
trades as at all possible, with as little as possible
of scripts involved -- whether from your hand, or from
the other side of those who operate the trading platform,
be it MT4, MT5 or some other platform, or just an HTML
internet page -- or even a visit to your bank contact.
The fewer things you do with the platform, the fewer
things can be manipulated. If you then choose what is
supposedly very stable currencies, you will perhaps see
it possible not to put in any 'Stop Loss' parameter.
Any such parameter would increase the temptation of those
in charge of the trading platform to produce a 'spike'
in the currency prices in what is for you the wrong
direction, at least in such cases as where the company
you trade with is weathering your currency bets without
itself going further into the Interbank market.
  So this is an advice also for personal traders.
  Since I happen to know that a great many of
this world's governments gather themselves and call of
all other activities whenever I write something,
so as to destill new drops of wisdom from my words,
I will add some comments for just those governments.
  At a national level, there's a great amount of pride
associated with national currencies, and these are used
in order to create local economies. However, time and
time again one sees that small national currencies as
easily can undo the wealth of a whole generation in that
country. It is perhaps naive, but I think it is far more
realistic for a small country to get things economically
right in the decades to come by officially doing a
constant balancing of some three or four currencies and
abolishing any tiny national currency. It won't do to have
just one currency if it is not one's own -- obviously --
for then one becomes liable to be manipulated by the
nation or nations who can move the prices of just this
currency. But in having a small handful of currencies,
and an imposed differentation between these three
throughout the country, with prices typically given in
all three for any ware or service sold or bought in
that country, that country, by being apt at currency
trading at the national level, can handle the future
vibrations better than by clinging to one small national
currency which may quickly empty itself of content
if the nation's main source of income is suddenly
powerfully reduced.
  At least, if I was a dictator, I would have no less
than three currencies in my realm. How much more fun than
just one! And it would increase the capacity in the
population to THINK about money, and CT -- Currency Trading.

For the observation that a solid bank not doing manipulation 
may be more likely to offer a rather bigger spread in CT pairs
I acknowledge comment to me by Ms Antje Wagner, Varengold Bank,

-- Currency trading can be an honorable way to put
one's intuition up against the development of the
world's currencies -- but then we must have regulations
so that the brokers aren't betting against their own

In California, such as Los Angeles, where, for a large
part, the car is King, the car-radios are the advisors
in the King's Court. Listen in to such as CBS broadcasting
in the L.A. area and you hear NOT 'The dollar is up dot
four percent against the Euro' every hour, but more than
once every hour, in business hours at least, you'll be
reminded which california IT company has the most growth
in stock value, and just how much up during the past
hour or so. In listening in to CBS L.A., one gets the
impression that those who don't trade in stocks are
outside of society; by the same measure, those who
trade in currencies are oddballs.
  Why is this so? Why is it that buying and selling stocks
of companies in which one has hardly any insight,
partaking in those companies ethics -- or lack thereof --
by means of stocks bought and sold -- is so vastly
a preferred means of earning money by the many compared
to currency trading, which, abstractly, is a far
'cleaner' sport?
  The answer is twofold: currency day-trading requires
more of the trader's intuition than stock trading, for
world currencies, especially in active hours of the
week, are like oceans compared to the mere ponds and
inland seas of the largest stocks -- and so it's a matter
of listening more to the voice of the ocean, so to speak,
rather than to gossip and to the degree to which a guy
like Elon Musk smiled more than reasonably much in the
most recent interview at CNN or such.
  The second part of it is that -- amazingly -- and to the
utter surprise of all who are new to the currency
trading field -- there's no official value of any
currency anywhere. There are only degrees of officiality.
The stock value given at Wall Street or similar such
places is given in flaming red or green or blue letters
for all to read, and for the world -- including such
parts of the world as CBS L.A. -- to report. The value
of the dollar vs the euro given by any currency trading
broker is, amazingly and astoundingly, a matter of that
broker relative to that customer. In the most honorable,
and, some would say, the most important area of financial
trading, there isn't any regulation whatsoever to speak
of -- if we exclude attempts to curb the leverage that
a currency trader can invoke. Many Western countries have
curbed it to a degree of 50, so you'll find, if you
consult such as as to any broker announcing
that it has a Swiss bank account and is backed up by
grand legislation, that it is typically registered in
countries with country codes you've never heard of.
There's a scattering of tiny islands with great
governments and just the anarchy that brokers want so
that they don't have to live up to the meagre regulations
the Western countries have imposed on them.
  But what's the point of choosing a Western broker when
the West hasn't bothered with making currency values
official? True, there is such a thing as 'benchmarks'
of currencies; equally true, there has recently been
fines to various banks for manipulating these benchmarks
when pension funds and other supposedly noble
institutions have called on them to invest something in
a currency. They have waited some minutes to do so, and
in just those minutes they jerked the benchmarks a little
bit, while doing some private trading in the seconds
within those minutes.
  But even as the West and other parts of the globe move
against the largest sharks in the currency trading
market, I'm at a loss to understand why they cannot deal
with the core issue: why cannot the currencies -- the
largest, anyway -- have a standardised value across the
planet? What on Earth is preventing governments for
agreeing on this entirely simple and foundational
principle for making what must be billions of daily
currency transactions more fair?
  In order to see what is at stake here, compare trading
in currencies to the type of intuition that a gambler
must muster in herself or himself when seated at a
casino -- and, yes, let's have no prejudices against
that, when done in moderate degrees. Take, for instance,
such an instrument in these casionos as a wheel with
numbers marked in black or red, a wheel turned by a
member of the staff and which stops at a number -- and
the betting at such as a right number will lead to
income for the better, and loss for the house. At the
table, or on the wall, is a record of the recent history,
as of the past few hours, of the turning of that wheel.
In this way, anyone strolling along to the table where
this wheel is operated, can check that history chart
for any bias the wheel may have. He or she can ascertain
that the wheel both looks and sounds all right, and
that IT LOOKS FAIR. If there is, in some houses, a secret
extra button that can jerk it away from an otherwise
winning number in some cases, that's against the
regulations, and one might imagine that the intuitive
gambler would steer away from a wheel which is capable
of such an illegal and criminal adjustment.
  Go now over to the area of currency day-trading. You
trade, say, on the currency pair of Swiss Franc relative
to British Pounds. You bet that, say, Franc is going to
go up relative to the Pound in the next day or so. In
what is called a Straight-Through Broker, the broker isn't
allowed to trade against you. The broker company, the
'house', is going with you, into the socalled Interbank
market -- the nearest thing we have to an approximation
of objective currency trading values, and connected to
the aforementioned 'benchmarks'. The broker faithfully
places YOUR money there, increased by a leverage -- what
is in praxis a virtual loan, doubling, tripling, or
pentupling (leverage=5 in that case) the value -- and
next day you either have gained or lost some money, when
you 'close' the trade. How does the broker earn money
in this case? In the obvious, fair, honest way: by
putting in a margin of difference, some points earned
'by the house', on each transaction. In the typical
jargon of brokers these days, it's a question of a
difference in 'pips', a difference between the 'buy' and
the 'sell', between the 'short' and the 'long' trade.
In other words, if, miraculously, there is no change at
all between the British Pound and the Swiss Franc, there
would still be something to be paid to the 'house': a
transaction fee, we might say.
  So that's a Straight-Through Processing broker. But
this is not a regulated term. It is just one of several
such terms, which may be honestly invoked or not, or --
adding to the confusion -- so may half a dozen other terms
meaning more or less the same. The alternative is that
there's a bunch of computer programs, and cunning human
operators, that change the value of the Swiss Franc and
the value of the British Pound AS PRESENTED TO THEIR
TRADER in order to ensure that their customer gets less
income than he or she deserves. These brokers don't bother
about going to the Interbank market except for large
orders. Their business idea is to present the illusion
of currency trading to people who pay them a hundred or
a thousand dollars or so, while ensuring that after a
not too long period, there's nothing left of those
hundred or thousand dollars. This is -- as a conjecture --
the typical case.
  And how is one to know? How is one to know, when eg the
term Straight-Through Processing isn't regulated? How can
a person who is interested in using Internet to
faciliate the means of his or her Medium or Small
Business Enterprise, or to increase personal wealth,
be able to check, and countercheck, currency values which
fluctuate perhaps even more than once pr second? The
broker is at liberty to delay a second, or more, or less,
between the decision of their customer to bet on a CT
pair: in this little second, all sorts of things may
happen to the price, both at the Interbank benchmark
rates, and, significantly, by means of scripts written
in Java or whatever which the broker hovers over in order
to make life uncomfortable for their traders. It is,
for a private trader, a great moment to put in a bet.
It isn't likely that a private trader of moderate means --
which is to say, any one of the millions who perhaps could
consider currency trading a way to increase own income --
is able to detect, exactly, that the prices received are
fixed on so that the 'house' is going to have better odds
than their gambling customers. The machinery required is
big enough, and the time required to set it up pretty big
also, and all these things are likely to interfere with
the actual process of betting well. But, anyhow, what's
the point of it, when there are no laws against fixing
on the currency prices in this way? There's no place one
can go to, no authorities in the area to which one can
report. One can only, by such a monstreous arrangement
required to detect 'fixs', conclude that one has been
silly in the first place to roll in as a customer to
just this company, and try and get the rest of one's
money of them -- which in some cases aren't nearly as
easy as to give them money.
  The solution to all this is NOT for politicians and
state institutions to speak of the sadness of the low
ethics dominating the currency trading brokers. Nor is
it to create new laws limiting this domain of societal
economic exploration from being a domain of possible
growth and enjoyment and extra income to the many
millions who honestly could want such extra income. Rather
the right response is to find out what the currency
trading customer wants -- and to create sharp laws shaping
the companies in the country, and, if possible, also
worldwide -- to cohere with these laws. Laws that makes
the 'houses' liable to criminal action if they fix on
the odds, if the bet and deal against their own customers,
and to standardise such terms as Straight-Through
Processing so that anyone can consult a list as to just
which broker is a licensed STP broker: a list of which
companies is willing to be WITH you, rather than against
you, when you try your luck connected to the surfing
at the world's currencies.
  There are many societies that have laws and leaderships
which proclaim a faith in some sort of spirituality, and
some sort of justice according to higher principles. In
life, as in facing fairly honest markets, there's the
necessary component of some sort of luck -- if that's the
name we give it (consult the term 'synchronicity') --
as a supplement to experience, insight and analysis,
whether manual analysis by the human mind or the element
of support by some digital means. The laws of a country
ought to make it easy for this type of 'spontaneous
fairness' that a faith in some degree of luck of this
perhaps spiritual type should have a capacity to prosper.
The participation in the great flows of the great
currencies, being able to sense where they are going and
to put in bets on them -- not just once every half-year
but perhaps many times a week -- ought to be considered
within the domain that citizens can meaningfully engage
in, and the laws should make it possible for this
engagement to happen on meaningful and fair principles.
The challenge here belongs both to such institutions as
the WTO and the World Bank, and to independent nations
as well as union of nations such as the EU, to realise
that the Internet has opened up for a new avenue of
personal engagement in earning money by the many --
an avenue that, as yet, is extremely lacking in the
necessary regulations to make it prosper in the right way.

[note: see the article just above on this 
same archive page, written a little while
after this, which takes these points of
view into consideration and offers a 
moderate way out by means of long-term
currency betting. srw]


December 12, 2016

by S.R.Weber 

There are those who say that when one lets egotism rule
stuff, then stuff works out pretty well, on the average.
Taken into politics, it means, usually, let businesses
fight each other out, and let'em grow or vanish, and
don't interfere, and it will be pretty good not just for
the owners for these businesses, but for the population
as well.
  The simplicity of the thought is ensnaring. And perhaps
most of us has seen how the mini-capitalism at, say, a
street market of some quality leads to pretty good results
--including, for instance, how sellers strive to be extra
polite, for politeness is attractive; how they strive to
have extra many wares for sale, for diversity is
attractive; how they strive to have low prices, for low
prices is attractive, and so forth.
  Let us bring this positive experience of laissez faire
capitalism into a meeting with another experience that I
think most of us have had: namely that the larger a
business is, the more powerful a business is, the more it
can afford to overlook the particular needs of the
customers and rather work to change the premises of the
market it is operating in.
  For instance, when there is only one bank of importance
in a country, then if the owner personally has a dislike
of cash, that owner can remove cash and enforce a
hasty, cold digitalism across the whole swath of the
money system simply by making cash rather inavailable.
  And if any one tele-operator is so huge that it can
pretty much do what it likes, regardless of the hundreds
of thousands of customers that depends on it, then it will
pretty much do what it likes. It isn't the charming
dependency on the positive whims of the potential
customers that determines the course of action of the
giant business. Rather, it is the distinctly uncharming
dependency of the whims of the owners and leaders that
decides, say, whether the customers--who have to stick
with the giant because it is the only one of importance
in the market--should have such and such invoice form or
another form; how often the invoices should be sent; and
what petty fees should apply to these invoices.
  One may try, perhaps inspired by the slogan, so
intensely false when it comes to giant businesses, that
"the customer is always right", to speak to the giant
company. One will, with luck, get to speak to a bored,
arrogant underling in the company, who is as fed up with
the company as everyone else, but more than anything fed
up with having to talk to customers about it. This bored
underling will inform the customer, politely or
impolitely, that everything suggested is impossible and is
likely to remain impossible and that this sort of thing
cannot be modified. The underling doesn't have to add,--
it is understood--"and anyway I don't care".
  The giant companies, then, except when they have had a
course in how to treat customers--trying to implement a
scheme of fanatical politeness, as a thin sugar coating
on top of it its supreme arrogance--might as well adopt
the slogan, "You have a problem? We don't care!". That's
the truth of it. They don't have to care, because they
study the statistics over how little that goes on in the
country they are in that isn't controlled by them; because
the giant company is a sort of bizarre community of
thousands or tens of thousands or even more people who
put up with the ugliness of being part of the company
because it feeds them and dines them and gives them, with
luck, a car. If the company pays an advertisement company
to advertise for working in that company, one won't see
the bored, probably rather overweight, underlings,
chewing on some stuff while trying to get customers not to
talk to them. Rather, one will see a handful of supremely
happy, well-trained, good-looking models who would never
have gone a mile within working within the giant company,
pretending to chat nicely to customers and enjoying it.
"This is us--this is who we are", the ad will tell. And
the logo of the giant company will appear, signing the lie
the way it signs the invoices that are sent by a machinery
nobody has any influence over.
  The following scientific proposition is hereby made,
  the quantity of arrogance radiating from a company is
proportional to the extent it has overtaken the market.
  This is not news--many people are saying it. And for
that reasons, politicians try, half-heartedly, to create
measures to 'have some competition'. But it is not merely
about 'having some competition'. It's about realizing that
a market of individual human beings and small businesses
cannot relate, in a face-to-face two-way decent manner to
giant companies at all; and that when three giant
companies have overtaken the market, that's only
marginally better than having a situation than when one
giant company has overtaken the market.
  Therefore, let's add the proposition:
  a truly small business is never within reach of
overtaking the market it's operating within; and when a
market has only and exclusively truly small businesses
operating in it, then capitalistic freedom provides good
results for customers
  As a conclusion, then, the type of political system that
would rescue countries from the continual detoritation
that obviously goes on, from one decade to the next of
giant-friendly capitalism, is a political system that
implements lawful restrictions on sizes of companies, not
just vaguely, but fiercely; and so that it strongly
encourages small companies in all senses.
  Part of encouraging small companies is the protection of
physical cash and to create rules for which hired labor
can be paid by cash without requiring paper work to an
exponential degree. Small companies want to pay people
fast and giant companies want to have everything put into
a system, their system, and so are not friendly towards
cash. There is some understanding of the importance of
cash in some countries, like Germany; and there is a
strong tendency in several countries to let the giant
banks and giant companies set the agenda of the day and
the same countries (such as Norway) has a fierce cutting-
away attitude as to physical cash, that will sooner or
later crush the diversity of the small businesses unless
there's a voice of change.
  What sort of law could ensure the existence of a
diversity of very small businesses? What sort of political
party would embrace it? On the left side, as on the right
side, the ideas as to what sort of big companies or
institutions that may or may not be right are splintered.
We need a new political dimension, a yellow or violet one,
or some other color, in which the small-vs-giant element
is spoken about without this nessarily done in an angry
marxist/atheist tone. One can be optimistic about certain
forms of capitalistic games when the rules of the game are
good. The challenge is to get the rules good.
  The solution is obvious for an absolute ruler, for a
total dictator: simply forbid companies to exist if they
have more than such-and-such number of employees, say, 50
or 150. But for every other type of political system, we
have to think step by step. The first step, I believe, is
a willingness for those who think compassionately about
society to think through when capitalism does work--such
as on small markets--and to create new political
directions in which this is given a voice heared by the
multitude of people. A triangle political dimension, the
old socialist-capitalist line on bottom, and a new peak
up where the big-small issue is talked about in fresh ways
--we want a small enough state, and small enough companies
to make capitalism work in a person-friendly way. That's
something which requires groundwork amongst future
politicians, theoretical work, and work in terms of
finding ways to make such themes public. In the long term,
this may contribute to a more healthy balanced economy
also as regards questions of ecological survival. Small
countries like Norway may be, in some ways, infinitely
stupid about such themes, but just when the country is
small, it may also turn more quickly once they idea gets
around; and big countries like Germany or Australia may
have some more insight into these themes already, and thus
may be able to build on these insights more fruitfully
than that which before has been seen e.g. from the new
type of green parties. The green parties COULD raise these
concerns, but as it is, they typically come forth as being
overly concerned with making energy costly and are not
seen as intellectually stimulating as regards market
economy. If the green parties somehow revolutionised
their thinking on markets, they could however be vehicles
for a new mini-business-popularity wave and that could
pave the way, blaze the trail, for laws, through the
democratic election systems, that limit the upper sizes of
companies to some civilized norm.

[This article, although in the permanent part of archive 
page 10, has a date since it lashes out a bit strongly 
against some tendencies in some countries with a reference
to how it is when it is written, and with luck things can 
change for the better.]

Reproduction of whole unedited essay in educational settings
and such is permitted. Contact info to author is in the link
above as for reprint permissions.

-- And how one might make some progress towards it

What is "rationality", exactly? Superficially, it is what
reasonable, sane people think, it is common sense boosted
by good logic and science. But as the word is, from time
to time, used to defend a package of thought as the only
one possible, in heated arguments pitting for instance
biology against this or that religion, it is, I think,
a very rational thing to look at that word, rationality.
  So we have this word-pair, "rational" and "rationality",
and the word-root, "ratio". The ratio of 3 to 5 is about
the ratio of 5 to 8 and this is about the so-called
golden ratio, a proportion which tends to come up where
fine spirals occur in nature -- but not just in nature,
but also in art. There is also an ancient use of the
word ratio -- reflected in fairy tales, for instance
connected to the stories of Askeladden. The idea is
that a human being is not merely a result of
conditioning, but can suddenly leap "out of the ashes"
(askeladd, aske-ladd, the lad in the ashes), and do
brave things, perhaps even heroic things. And this, in
a word-usage which is rare, but which speaks a lot
about the word-root of rationality, was said to reflect
that person's "inner ratio". One could say "inner voice",
but "inner ratio" lends emphasis to the sense in which
there's a seed-like hidden information, latent and deep
in the mind, perhaps related to Jung's collective
archetypes, and this ratio can come to the surface and
take over that person's dominant action-perspective.
  Now, in looking to the history of science, Isaac
Newton has an interesting double role. His most well-
known role, perhaps, is that of a founder of a series
of postulates about the interaction of mechanical forces,
involving push-pull effects, friction, and more such.
These postulates he managed to give a numberic form and
he polished their expression until they reached a
diamond-like sharpness. At the same time, he regarded
mind, life and the universe as a whole not subject
merely to such mechanical forces. And he was equally
ambitious, but not equally successful, in the area of
alchemical studies, mixed with theology. In other words,
Newton regarded it as good sense, a logical worldview,
and, we might say, he regarded it as "rational", to
consider that whereas machines work according to
mechanical forces, life as such has more subtle laws.
  But readers of Newton in the years to come -- at least
some vocal, dominant readers -- found more inspiration
in his mighty expression of mechanical relationships
than with his attempts to find alchemical patterns of
reality -- and boldly declared that, as a programme, they
wished to understand all of life, all of "bio" -- life --
also the living human body -- as a machine. Eventually,
as some progress was done in this area, a not
insignificant portion of the population came to regard
it as rational to take the mechanical point of view,
-- also as regards life, the universe and everything --
and this socalled 'mechanical worldview' has in it
certain assumptions within which it is rational to think
machine-like about human bodies, brains and in some sense
also minds, and irrational not to.
  These people then conceptualised "science" to fit with
such a set of assumptions.
  We can then say that this is a certain set of
assumptions, so as to yield certain suggestions "rational"
and others "irrational" -- ie, they fit or they don't
fit with these assumptions.
  It is then a question of whether these assumptions are
correct or not. Let us then bring in Isaac Newton again,
who regarded some of these assumptions as clearly wrong.
In other words, the rationality that made Isaac Newton
do alchemy sprung out of a different set of assumptions
than the rationality that made later thinkers such as
Charles Darwin declare that he sees no design in nature,
only brutality, coincidence, the struggle for survival,
and the evolution over time of the species.
  The set of assumptions which led to biology was
challenged, in part, by Albert Einstein, Max Planck,
Louis de Broglie, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schroedinger,
Wolfgang Pauli and some others some decades after the
progression in biology by Charles Darwin.
  It isn't that a new set of assumptions were worked out.
Rather, the challenge on mechanistic worldviews were
raised, and found to be -- as such -- rational
challenges in themselves. No doubt Isaac Newton himself
would have appreciated this feature of the quantum
theoretical challenges worked on, and quarrelled about,
in the 1920s and 1930s. These quarrels were never given
a commonly agreed-upon solution. Albert Einstein died
in complete disagreement with the direction he felt much
of physicists had taken. My own conversations with one
who met him in his later years, David Bohm, confirmed
that Einstein was passionately against the developments
of conventional, and by then mainstream quantum theory;
but Einstein had his own set of assumptions as to
rationality, and was found by Bohm to be inflexible as
regards certain other assumptions. Louis de Broglie,
on the other hand, who had been helped by Einstein
to get his doctorate thesis through on the wave- and
particle duality of reality, picked up on some of
Bohm's work and while Einstein didn't approve of Bohm's
attempt to revise some assumptions, de Broglie found
them partially valid, and developed the entirely
different interpretation of quantum reality that he
himself had played with in his youth, but not succeeded
with then. Alas, mainstream physics haven't bothered to
seriously investigate the works of de Broglie.
  I mention these complexities to make this point:
it is rational to challenge some of the assumptions
within which other people operate; it is rational to
take apart the bundle of assumptions within which
something is irrational and something else is
irrational, and so threaten to turn the whole paradigm
around. It may not be easy to challenge assumptions
meaningfully, and one may not get other people with one
in doing so, but there isn't one set of assumptions in
human mainstream thinking that's "untouchable".
  And this is all part of science, the root of science
relating to the root word of "consciousness" and
connecting to meanings such as "knowing".
  Rationality flows out of a set of assumptions, but
it isn't irrational to operate with some other sets of
  For instance, let us look at one of the assumptions
that mainstream atheist biologists tend to have -- namely,
that some hundreds of millions of years of procreation
and CHANCELIKE mutations are a sufficient mechanism,
given the survival of the more fitter products of this
procreation process, and the formation of babies of these
fitter products, -- to explain every smart feature of
the human body. This is a more generous assumption than
what Charles Darwin worked out, and more in tune with
what can be called 'neodarwinism'.
  There are people who have worked much with chancelike
changes in permutation cycles spanning billions -- not
of years or days, but of computer clock ticks. These
people have a completely different relationship to the
notion of chancelike, or coincidental, or random patterns
than people like Charles Darwin, who lived before the
computers started coming around. Most people who live
amidst computers don't program them. Those who do
program them may have encountered the notion of a
(badly named) 'random generator', or more precisely named
'relatively free fluctuation generator', without having
worked much with it. Some (like this writer) has done
quite a few programming experiments with such processes,
RFFG processes as I call it in my programming language,
G15 PMN. And it is my feeling that all those who have
worked a lot with such processes find it extremely
unlikely that some hundreds of millions of years are
adequate to come up with the almost unfathomable smart
complexity of the human body, starting with some plants,
some shrimp-like creatures, some insects, and such.
While of course coincidence leaves room open for luck,
the computer works with average distributions and can
create graphical patterns and other patterns, also such
that build on each other in a 'survival of the fittest'
kind, and any hotheaded assumption of any marvels to
arise from such fluctuations is quickly cooled. Most
random stuff is noisy, is to be dumped, has little
validity. And it isn't impressive to multiply it by
a billion, a trillion or more. We need a whole other
range of duration in order to really come up with
entirely intelligent products. One of the marvels of
the scientific research programme into the human body,
in its open-minded sense, is that one has got a
beginning of a map of a universe of intelligence built
into this body. No doubt Charles Darwin himself would have
been surprised about all the stuff biology has worked out
to be the fact, the amazing fact, about the human body.
Despite lots of talks of genes, and lots of talk of
mapping and decoding of genes, the genes and their
epigenetical features, and their relationship to such as
brain growth, largely remain a mystery which is only in
tiny trivial bits unlocked as regarded concrete
manipulative features. The whole construction is a marvel,
one that defies all construction efforts by mainstream
humanity -- a trillion times over, one can safely say.
  To imagine that a bundle of mutations each time a creature
makes an offpspring -- and coincidental mutations at that
-- can come up with, even given loads of survival
of the fittest reflections, a lot of thinking about
interactions between genes and environment, --
something as vastly fantastic as the human body, is
indeed requiring a bit of a stretch of thought. Put in
other words, it is irrational to assume that it is
impossible to challenge the assumption that chancelike
mutations coupled with survival of the fittest over
some hundred of millions of years brought about the
human body.
  There is, then, a need, when we speak of rationality,
to consider what set of assumptions are surrounding
or laying underneath that rationality.
  When we then look to various religions, these cannot
normally be considered to be fully good substitutes for
science. For science is not merely the following of a
mechanistic programme. It is the pursuit, also, of
honest reports of observation and interesting objective
experiements eg with the nature of light. What can come
from studies of empirical reports are interpretation
possibilities, and these can give weight to various
rationalities, various ratios, we might say.
  So when we look at a religion, we must distinguish
between various sets of assumptions in the various
branches of interpretation. These assumptions may then
have to be explained in terms of yet more assumptions.
By negating even a single one of these assumptions
a whole new interpretation of religion may arise.
And science can, when one knows how to extract non-
mechanistic findings, help one to find out which
assumptions it makes more sense to negate. But one
cannot regard it as irrational as such to assume that
the reality was created 'with a past' all the time
one cannot regard it as irrational to doubt that this
past could have 'caused' the present in the manner
sought to be theorised over in neodarwinism.
  Most people find that they haven't time to do this
thought-work seriously. This easily lead people to seek
up some that they regard as gurus or teachers, whether
of one kind or another kind, hoping that they have done
the job that they themselves don't find time for, or don't
believe that they have the capacity to undertake
  In order to progress, however, given all the viable
alternatives, all the not-yet-created interpretation
alternatives of religions and sciences and all in between,
and all the pompous self-important caliphs, gurus,
messiah-wanna-be's, boddhisattva-wanna-be's, and so on
and so forth -- and the same type within neodarwinism
and atheistic physics and such -- it may be of value
to emphasize the breakdown of sets of assumptions into
single assumptions, coupled with development in oneself
of a dispassionate attitude that also has in it a
calling for a spontaneous sense of the rational, what
we may call 'intuition'.

/////Quote in this wind

  All the classical scriptures -- but none more so than
  the ancient hebrew and arabic scriptures -- idolize
  the male, and contain numerous viewpoints to the effect
  that the role of the female is to produce more male
  soldiers and more male believers and otherwise shut up.
  This is entirely consistent with the practise in some
  dark corners of the world, and dark corners of also
  most big cities, to clip off the clit, the major 
  control-rod for own sexual satisfaction in the female.
  It is not religion as such that's irrational, but
  rather the rediculous idolization of males -- the very
  same males who are source of most decay in this world.
  The believers in most religions would have a chance to
  develop a deeper and more genuine religiosity -- one
  that doesn't condemn the girl, but rather lifts her to
  the proper role -- far above males -- by taking, so to
  say, the book less seriously. Don't face the book, but
  face life -- and through life, the God that's beyond
  those learned in the scriptures.


-- God can only be disproved if the concepts of God are
adequately narrow

It is a feature of ancient classical Western philosophy
-- consult e.g. the writings of the medieval century
Archbishop of Canterbury, Anselm, -- to attribute
the maximal imaginable (and, indeed, unimaginable)
intelligence to God. And all other worthy attributes
as well, in equal excess.
  A kind of trade-off was done between the church
theologies and the newly emerging mechanicist 'natural
philosophers' (renamed 'science', at some point) in the
18th and 19th centuries: God was given a less resplendent
role, while machines a (gradually) bigger one.
  There can be little doubt that as the attributions to
God were diminished, so also did demon exorcists get an
easier job to do, missionary-wise. For with God having
a remote role, perhaps wise in principle but not with
an intelligence carried out everywhere, it was easier
to convince people that they need pseudo-doctors like
themselves. The present version of catholic christianity
seems to have developed no further than the 18th and 19th
century as for their views of these things even in the
present days, in the earliest decades of the 21st century.
They are doing all sorts of attributions of mischief to
demons and to the devil, as if God had largely lost
control with the world.
  On the other hand, the machine people, despite the fact
that once and for all Kurt Goedel, in the early 1930s,
and subsequent follow-up research by Alan Turing, Emil
Post and others, made it absolutely clear that machines
never can learn for real, they can never deeply perceive,
and never really be intelligent, -- the machine-loving
people, the people portraying computers and other various
entities as possibly very intelligent or smart or whatever
word they feel is fashionable and trendy enough to use,
these have had a gradually easier time convincing the
population that they must have faith in machines.
  Simultaneously, we find that the development of
neodarwinism and its convenient marriage with a certain
strand of post-bohr quantum theory bridged in terms of
crude equations with some of gravitation theory to form
what is pretentiously called 'cosmology', has led to the
following postulate: since there is so much evidence
that time has passed, what with the discovery of fossils
of flying dinosaurs and what not, and a million other
hints of a vast past, then surely, if God exists at all,
then there seems no reason to imagine that this God has
done anything but, at most, preparing some equations and
put them in motion. Theology must be all wrong, they
say. One cannot have a creation that is new all the time
all the evidence points to a long past.
  One can imagine importing a medieval saint like the
thinker Anselm, with his attempt to prove God's
existence by an intelligent use of the idea of 'et
cetera', and, assuming that he is deeply noncorrupt,
making him evaluate all this newfound evidence. He would
then probably exclaim: what wonderful intelligence God
has! He has certainly put people to the test, with all
this evidence slung around to confuse those of lesser
  And, after all, the anselmian view of God is entirely
logical -- and, to some of us who have worked much with
relatively free fluctuation generators on computers and
who find it unlikely that neodarwinism have got more than
a fraction of the truth as to the actual way the human
body and nature as a whole came to have the form and
the physiological process that they do have -- we have
to also say, indeed possibly a far more logical point
of view than neodarwinism plus cosmology.
  The presence of intelligence in the world is not due to
machines, but the presence of illusions of intelligence
is due also to machines: that is a direct implication
of the works of Kurt Goedel, properly understood, as this
(and many other) writers see it. What, then, is the source
of all intelligence? And given that the anselmian point of
view of God makes sense, there is nothing that couldn't
have been an elaborate hoax as far as the 'layout and
design' of the universe and its life goes. There may be
innumerable reasons, or numerable reasons but reasons not
given explicit form in any theology as yet, why reality
ought to have this flavour of what the ancient indians
called 'maya' -- a veil of illusion between appearance
and actuality.
  As for the present-day so-called 'cosmology', it is
wedded to a bohrian and neobohrian interpretation of
quantum empirics, and Einstein would not have been
impressed -- not at all! One of the young members of
Niels Bohr's clan, Louis de Broglie, worked out a
pilot wave interpretation that has in it seeds of
a breaking with the speed of light limit treasured by
Einstein and still by and large one of the more or less
hidden assumptions in modern cosmology, despite some
more or less sincere attempts to break with it. The
de Broglie alternative has in it a flavour of possible
wedding with such as anselmian and berkeleyan (from
George Berkeley's philosophy) views of reality, for it
doesn't chop reality up like Niels Bohr did -- in a
classical part and a quantum part. Nor does he chop up
the equation like David Bohm did -- in a classical
potential part and a quantum potential part. So while
de Broglie learned from the early 1950s work of Bohm,
the pilot wave theory of de Broglie is sharply
different than the quantum potential interpretation of
Bohm, and the idea of calling this "de Broglie/Bohm"
or "Bohm/de Broglie" theory is a statement which can
only make sense if one hasn't properly studied the
productions of de Broglie from about 1955 and almost
for three decades onwards. This is a picture of quantum
reality that leaves many questions open but it is
intuitively hitting the right points where modern
cosmology and self-assure neodarwinists don't ring
equally true to this writer.
  The works done to develop this intuitively and
informally -- thus in accordance with Kurt Goedel's
proof on the rediculousness of too much formalism --
and to bridge it with a deeper reflection on biology
and on gravitation and time and much else besides
was done by this writer in 2004, and this 'supermodel
theory' offers a genuine alternative for those who
aren't impressed by the many twists and turns of
mainstream science -- nor by the clans and leagues
formed around some of those who have strayed away from
mainstream science, and who tend to lump together stuff
which ought not to be lumped together. To lump together
Bohm's work with that of de Broglie is to miss out on
many key points; and about all this, you'll find that
by far most physicists, no matter how many titles they
may have got, haven't got the first clue about it all.
It is in part also this that has led this writer to call
for an alternative form of education than the so-called
'universities', which more than anything seems to be
a reinforcement of established stupidity.


-- In the wake of the state condemnation in Malaysia
some months ago as to the use of the latter word by 
christians to designate the same as the former word 
-- a condemnation regarded as quaint by most scholars 
across the world, linguistics and semantics must be
coupled with intellectual theological thought to 
thresh out some clarity

If by the word "God" we simply mean "the highest, the
greatest", and we by the word "Allah" also simply mean
"the highest, the greatest", then, by definition, these
two are absolutely identical and that's that. But when
we look into religious texts associated with christianity
and consider the concept of God, or Deus -- which originally
derived from the Zeus or Zevs who was the most powerful god 
of the Olympic Gods -- and contrast these to the religious
texts in islam, notably the Quoran, that introduce the
concept of Allah, -- do we also then reach an identity
in meaning? That is to say, apart from the connotation of
priests, apostles, imams, and so on, and apart from 
the concrete rules involved, and the concrete condemnations
involved, -- when we pick out the pearl from the oyster,
so to speak, is it the same pearl? Or two different?
  In order to evaluate this, we must raise above the
cloud of words, and get a sense of the overall worldview,
as if it were geometrically, and ask: what is it that the
word "God", or "Jesus Christ", which in the christian
(esp coptic) understanding is one and the same thing, 
roughly delineate in that context, and what is that 
"Allah" roughly delineate in the islamic context?
  And in this pursuit, we must raise against the polemics
which especially the Quoran is full of. The Christian
bible doesn't argue back because it was made earlier than 
than the Quoran, so all the polemics has to be simply
disregarded for the moment, in order to calmly see the
central question and its answer or answers clearly enough.
  The phrase "Allah Akbar" or, more correctly, "Allahu Akbar",
is a combination of the word "Allah" with a certain grammatical
inflextion of the word Kabir, or "great", so that it forms 
what in conventional grammar is called the "elative" and
so the phrase literally means "Allah is greater". It is
silly to attempt to back-translate this to 'great', for
that is not what is being said. The concept of greater
means something: since this is the central thesis of the
natural submission to the holy sought in islam, we must
not try and make a crude translation, but rather see it
as a key-point which can shed light on whether the notion
of Allah is similar to that of God, or somehow different.
For instance, is one a special case of the other? Or is
the other a general case including the former?
  Let that matter rest for a second: it is pretty clear,
given a number a statements in the Christian bible, that
to christians, God denotes the totally transcendent source
of all beings. It has a slant in judaism towards 
control over all details in daily life, but then it is
not certain that this the same concept anymore, as there
are different facets of God with different hebrew names
when the Torah outlines how to dress, how to wear one's
hat, what not to eat and so on. But in Christian thinking,
God is the transcendent totality, akin to the Brahman in
Hinduism, or the Dao of Lao-Tse, and we find here a notion
that the faith relates to residing somewhat peacefully in
an immensity that doesn't come around with exact rules
in the form of a bible-book. Rather, the rules are to be
gathered somehow from more manifest beings, or things, and
are not stated except in vague general forms in the 
Christian bible. However, the bible is clear about the
importance of doing things right. Those who do it wrong
are punished severely by the higher beings, somehow: even
though this bible doesn't say much about what's right and
what's wrong except in terms that are extremely wide in
interpretative possibilities (for instance, that which
in Norwegian is called "bifili", in English "bisexuality",
or in Norwegian "homofili", in English "homosexuality",
is by some readers of the bible regarded as something
that the author named "Paul" appearantly finds fault
with -- but others either interpret him differently or
else doesn't pay much attention to that writer at all,
for he wasn't one of the disciples of the physical Jesus).
  So all in all, CG -- Christian God -- is the transcendent
source. But the islam, or muslim concept of Allah -- let's
call it MA -- surely is different. It includes the notion
of the transcendent source, that is clear enough from the
Allahu Akbar phrase. If MA is what is greater -- greater,
that is, than anything thought -- then it is nothing it
doesn't include, and hence, by sheer logic, it must include
the transcendent source of being, whether that is a quantum
ocean of nonlocal energy or a personal being -- and the
latter concept is the one preferred by most MA thinkers,
as well as most CG thinkers.
  Paying now attention to the full MA context, we see 
here something that distinguishes this context sharply
from the CG concext: the MA context is as full of rules
as a military camp, more or less. It tells what one is
to wear, how one is to handle various people, who that
possibly deserves their heads chopped off -- you name it, 
it is all there, like it or not -- and I do not condemn 
this fact. It is not that MA leads to worse action than CG,
but it certainly has a lot more determination about
concrete actions in it. CG has its share of blood and MA
is possibly bathing in more of it, but this is not the
point, we are not trying to do a moral comparison at all
here. What we are saying is this: MA is presented in a
context of sorting out what's what in daily life to an
extent that is almost infinitely greater than the CG
context. In other words, whereas CG clearly is the 
transcendent source of all being, the MA concept is far
more inclusive, and includes all sorts of more subtle
existence between human living and the transcendent source
of all existence. If for the moment we envision the classical
greek scene of the Olympic Beings, where Zeus enact the role
of the fair, but somewhat (or very) harsh judging God --
when he's not out copulating with pretty females --
then Zeus is more or less CG, whereas THE WHOLE OLYMPIC
SCENE INCLUDING ZEUS is more or less MA. So it would make
sense for one in the classical greek religious scene to
say, thinking of the olympic beings -- they are greater,
they are greater, they are greater. It would be the proper
humble ode to the vastness they represent, their infinitely
greater knowledge, also of the details of human affairs.
The Allahu Akbar then means: all the greater, all the
supreme beings, all the way up to the infinite source
of the totality; whereas when the Christian say "God",
the reference is to the top-point of Allah.
  In that sense, the Malaysian state had got a slight
point: there isn't a total identity between the two concepts.
God is the higher concept, included in the more comprehensive
concept of Allah, which in a certain sense is the more
general one, in which God (we might say), is a special
case. The Christian, eager with interfaith thoughts,
would then say: well that means that Jesus Christ is
the top-point of Allah, -- and it is not altogether 
impossible to see such combination with some statements
in some parts of the Quoran (even as others lead themselves
to pretty much the opposite).



One thing has to be absolutely clear: isn't a
suitable medium for expression, or treatment, of feelings.
It is not a suitable medium on its own for intellectual
discourse. One cannot 'think' by means of Twitter. Any
such attempt would curb one's natural thought processes.
And those who rely on as a medium for
communication, should think over what they mean by
'communication'. These things have always been clear to
me. But when this is said, there's always a sweetness
about limits, when there's an understanding of how to use
these limits.
  The limit of 140-something characters, maybe to be
slightly loosened up when it comes to links and such, can
be fitted together with an image. On that image, you can
type--you can make an image out of text by any such thing
as Photoshop or Gimp, and include it in your message. That
way you go beyond the limits. You can also maintain such
as a website, and include a link to a page in it for
"further reading" about any topic you introduce by some
keywords, as a slogan, as a Twitter message--or "Tweet",
  By being aware of what Twitter can do--exchange
headlines, images, and links--it is possible to consider
it a free marketing medium where one doesn't have to
render up all details of one's existence to the bosses:
one can choose freely a variety of things, and in that
sense Twitter is as Tumblr, only that Twitter is populated
by the world's strongest media forces. provides
something to the net that other's don't, but its chief
strength--it's anarchistic attitude--is marred by a
consistently undermanned staff, which have to spend most
of its days using the delete button on sites, creating
much anger in their attack on what they see as weeds in
the Tumblr garden.
  When it is clear that one cannot communicate whole
articles--not even a decent chain of thought--by means of, then one can use without feeling
any complications about the limited size. Using this
together with having one's own website, or something like
a Wordpress-site, supplemented by a couple of emails,
at least one of them public, seems to me to be much better
than putting up with the quasi-websites of the
monopolistic and manipulative social media where the
texts can be long and where people submit 'likes' to one
another's trivialities so as to create a cosy, lazy, fat
sense of imbecile togetherness.
  For these reasons, it is easy to understand why
journalists all over the world are so happy about Twitter.
Journalists have other mediums for their expressions of
long thoughts, and they are workers, and haven't got time
for posting nonsense. They may have time to post a hint
and scan some headlines, but they don't rely on Twitter
for emotional recreation; they don't try to do self-
therapy on it (at least, most don't); and, besides, they
aid their business by doing a decent bit of propaganda
for their business.
  If there's one thing that ought to be outlawed--and, in
my opinion, this is far more important than to outlaw what
Tumblr calls 'NSFW' images from such sites--it is the
false pretense built into the algorithms that portray
their foolish outputs as to be real human stuff. These
algorithms--or 'bots', as they are called--appear to me
like poorly destilled homebrew filled up on bottles that
says, eg, Scotch Whisky, 12 Yrs, Authentic Recipe. once called the bots, in a headline, "The
Bots that are Rotting the Internet". There are some
companies--I won't mention name, we all know which they
are--that propagate bots and claim that bots are the
"Next Big Thing". They use finer words and concepts they
don't understand themselves, that suit their business
interests, including this infernally reductive phrase,
"Artificial Intelligence", but in effect, they are wedded
to the idea that the human mind is an expendable object,
which could and maybe should be exchanged for their
miserable products. Politicians shouldn't be impressed.
Voters shouldn't be impressed. Laws should come again the
mimicking of human minds before we get as stupid as
machines, not having alternative perspectives.
  But that is a different theme--how it is scientifically
rationally to work on such as robotics without using
concepts like "AI"--I have proposed "FCM" instead, a
no-nonse concept of First-hand Computerised Mentality,
which is humble to the greatness of human mind, soul,
feelings and unique capacity to think--and not the main
point in this article. However, the bots that mimick human
behaviour ought to be banned, harshly, and fast, before
they overwhelm the net and also Twitter completely. They
contribute with nothing except at best faintly pleasing
increase of counts of followers and such. They are like
spam with electric legs. There should be a botfilter,
just as every email has a spamfilter. The authors of such
bots ought to be subject to the same treatments as the
authors of the worst computer viruses: for bots are a form
of viruses, and, in the long term, maybe even the worst
kind of them.
  Will survive? They aren't earning much money
and like Yahoo's Tumblr, may find themselves being gobbled
up by the control freaks who run the monopolies of this
world. Let us hope that the anarchism of the World Wide
Web will counteract the monopolies and protect
and its relative integrity, after all, from the gobblers.
  Next is the account I made a few days ago.
If you happen to be human, I suggest you join up to this
one as a follower--for already a dozen bots or more have
signed up as followers to my account, and I wish to shift
the percentage in the direction of humanity ;)

Copyright -- redistribution
You are granted the right to redistribute any
such essay from without
asking on the condition that the context is
respectful and that no deletion or addition
or change of text takes place, and that this
notice is included.
*** *****

/////Quote in this wind

  Some eat only that which they love (considering it
  a blessing to the food that it is so lucky that it
  is being eaten). Is that not a more worthy attitude
  than to eat only that which one hates?

/////Quote in this wind

  The observer is the observed.
  -- J. Krishnamurti.


-- and those who despise their young: who is best?

***A personal brief autobiographical series of comments
about meetings with masters in physics and philosophy,
and a call for the ending of the last of the taboos,
moving beyond the quasi-puritanism still existing in
USA and United Kingdom; and a quest into an 
enlightenment transcending the paradigm of such
as Jiddu Krishnamurti, bringing in millerian
and niinian sexuality***

[As of 1::A::2014::3::7 (morning in terms of GMT hours)
Author of this comment can 
contacted at]

There is a variety of anatomical details that the
artist MUST know in order to draw elegant artistic
cartoons, such as with our Curveart program. These
presuppose skinny healthy girls showing much skin
and with muscles well toned, so that various 
contours can show, exact shades etc. Ballerinas,
dancers, all ages, are obviously entirely to the
point in order for the artist to meet the greatness
of the human body. The human eye deserves such a
fiest for artistic inspiration also. The artistic
context lifts any action -- ANY action or activity
WHATSOEVER (also the erotic or violent) out of what
could otherwise be a tacky context and makes it
possible for perception to yield, as it were, 
effortless gold.
  Ultimately, the artist is a supplier of energy,
force (both brute force, and just, as well as
elegant and subtle) to the society. Fuel for the
mind comes by art: a fuel making drugs unnecessary.
It is a dictum that drugs is a (bad) compensation
for artistic greatness: therefore, art must never
be at the mercy of the market, it must never merely
correspond to what people pay for. It must correspond
to what gives a glow to the eye, a twinkle, a spark,
whether it's the fashion and the law to pay for it
or not.
  Can art in some forms also give money income? Yes,
in some forms, it MIGHT, and that is not to be
condemned, but warmly approved of -- as long as 
there is no attempt to identify one's activity
in art with what is sold. If need be -- and that
need is usually there, for most people who 
indulge in making art, or surrounding themselves
creatively with art and artistically inspiring
photogenic girls, -- one supplies, or even 
completely funds, one's monthly earnings on
other things so as to keep that spirit going,
for that spirit, as the very core essence of
life itself, goes beyond mere birth and death,
and has to do with a conscience that's 
ultimately religious.
  In all cultures, in all recorded history, some
fields of human activity and especially display
of human activity in some areas to the wider
public have been taboo. But, significantly,
what has been taboo in one place has not 
necessarily been taboo in another place -- or
another time, in the same place, or for the
same society. The notion of 'taboo' can usually
be seen to be regarded not, then, as an 
absolute insight -- of the type that say that
"God is beauty" or "Love is God" -- but rather,
taboos can be seen to have a practical 
function, viz., to steer society outside of
a course that by the dominant folks of that
society is regarded as unlikely to sustain
that society in the long run. In other words,
there is a 'societal survival' notion 
which leads certain taboos to be cultivated
as if they were religious standards -- and,
in almost all known cases, there have been
an attempt to use whatever there is of 
'holy texts' or fashionable scientific or
philosophical theories to as if 'justify'
these taboos. 
  When in much of the world gayism became --
from being a taboo -- and from being illegal
-- something regarded as a natural human
activity, it reflected a growing understanding
that sexuality of human beings (unlike that
of animals in general) is an intrinsic part
of being human, and female liberation saw to
it that female sexuality was getting the
upper hand, while male muscular dominance
using women rather as slaves incorporated in
an institutionalised marriage came more and
more to an end in these same societies. This
was a time (the 1970s) where technology began
knitting together many but not all human
societies, and so one can speak of a movement.
  This is not to say that ancient prejudices in
male-dominated religious practises and 
religious habits of thought automatically got
done with in an insightful way. On the contrary,
even as lesbians gradually got not only 
acceptance for public display of their beautiful
activity not merely in artist's atelier's in
Vienna and Paris {cfr e.g. the ateliers of such
folks as Gustav Klimt, Pablo Picasso and Salvador
Dali, and the corresponding writings of Anais Niin
and Henry Miller -- Opus Pistorum of the latter,
and the writings of how Niin willingly sought up
her still young father as an adult girl in order
to seduce him, which she successfully and, one
must say (despite a lot of heated argument about
Niin), with pride and both self-reverence and
diginity} -- even as all these cultural and
political and philsophical activities unfolded,
and legalities were challenging a number of
taboos, a counter-reaction set in. The female
liberation front began hardening, also as lots
of its young and seductive forefront figures
began hardening, both in thought and in body,
and looked with what in some amounted to rage
againt pretty newcomers who, as it were, could
dance on the table now that the mice of the
old laws and old rules were gone, but without
reverence for the tough work these early 
heroines had put in -- there was, we must say,
whether we like it or not, clearly a counter-
reaction against the liberated type of
sexuality in the very core women liberation
movement. What had been a free young dance of
the 1970s hippie kind became a hardened elite
of tough female thinkers who proclaimed a right
to dominate female liberation in a certain way,
which included locking girls into lesbian
marriages more than announcing young female
beauty to be worthy of unashamed reverence and
public display. 
  When advertisement business moved in on the
scene and began using the new-found freedom to
show female genitalia to the public in order
to sell more and make their fat bosses even
more fat, the female liberation front, now
already hard with envy against the lazy pretty
newcomers, got even harder. Worse, they turned
seriously marxist. They made a powerful 
hypnosis that said, essentially, if there is
going to be female liberation we must have an
end to all this cultivation of young sexuality.
For this is a men's thing. It is not that they
got the pretty lazy and rather nude-happy
girls to agree with them, but they got a lot
other folks, also dominant folks in society
to agree with them. A new taboo, which had 
existed for a long time in the same societies,
which in some sense can be called 'Western' 
but it is far more than merely european,
dominating also Russia, Latin America etc
etc -- eventually encompassing China, India,
Japan, all the technologised world -- became
cultivated by the hardened school of 
so-called (but now corrupt) 'female
liberators': they became aggressive against
the very THOUGHT that young splendidness should
be cultivated artistically OR sexually. {As with
all generalisations over populations of this sort,
there are significant minorities, and we find,
in addition to the hardened old female liberators,
also some -- albeit MUCH more rarely -- pro-nude 
young female 'compassionately anarchistic' groups here 
and there which exhibit the 1970s type of political
urge to set society free from the fetters of 20th
century hierarhicalism.} Worst of all, for these
ex-liberators, would perhaps be to go as far as Anaiis 
Nin and Henry Miller went, where, despite the immense
writing capacities of these two (sometimes 
spending much time together), and the fame they
got as authors, one finds that they willingly
and strongly and yet with a proper prudent 
element of tantalising shame describes themselves
as children and other children in some of their
many sexual adventures. So their manuscript work
were even sometimes prepaid -- each erotic adventure 
page, fantasy or self-documentary or in between, gave 
them such and such amount of dollars and cent from  
the publisher, knowing the dangerous stuff would sell
well. And it might even sell better if, like Opus 
Pistorum -- now in 2014 available freely in all major 
booksellers in non-totalitarian societies like the
Western Europe and USA -- and the times of its banning 
seeming now to belong to the mirky medieval ages of 
the 20th century -- the book had to be secretly published
and sold on the condition of total privacy, with
all newspapers agog with feverent condemnation of
such intolerable freedom to think about sex. As is
known, these authors were in phases able to maintain 
a rather high life given the circumstances by doing 
little but writing and, we might assume, engaging in 
a certain element of what we can call 'sexual 
services' relative to some wealthy erobelievers.
  No, such free-wheeling love of the youngest
became more taboo than ever, even as in 
countries like USA and Britain, there were
groups associated with the governments 
exploring, right after gayism became formally
legal, whether or not the sexual activity 
involving children, or children and adults
together -- the love, 'phili', as in 'phil-o-
sophy' -- the LOVE OF WISDOM -- and 'pedo', as
in 'ped-a-gogics', the TEACHING OF CHILDREN,
could not became a LEGALISED PEDOPHILE liberation
just as LEGALISED GAYISM had become the case.
For a while, especially in Great Britain, these
groups managed to gather a following. The notion
of this being a taboo was understood, but it
was also understood that the degree to which
it was a taboo was associated with traditional
family structures, and what would keep societies
glued together, more than in particular science
that objectively and apart from what (the
Norwegian Supreme Court Lawyer) T E Staff 
describes as 'society making people sick' by
telling them over and over again that they
'ought not to have been experimenting with
sex as young'. In an interview in the Norwegian
conservative newspaper Aftenposten in February
2014 (with front-page photo of the ageing
famous lawyer), he put it plainly: if young
folks are experimenting with scientific
things, they get a prize from society for
brillance, but if they engage in experimentation
with sex esp. with adults, they are told that
they must regard themselves as victims and that
the adults are rapists and that all about it
all is sick and that they ought to feel bad
about it. So, he proposes, one cannot do
objective studies of these things in a 
society that 'aims to make people sick' if
they engage in an activity it wishes to
understand. He then drew the line to the
female liberation front, and said that their
present stance was one of 'bashing sexuality'.
  Psychologically, as one who enjoys contact
with many young women, I notice a tendency in
the young adult girls to be actively 
appreciative relative to other beauties:
whereas when the girls mature from being
splendidly young adults to adults who must
work more to sustain their facial radiance
and bodily harmony and firmness and such,
there is a series of new attitudes that easily
creeps in unless they watch it {but all who
I have known intimately have managed fully
to stay clear of any corrupt attitude later
on}, and it takes a magnificent effort to stay 
clear of the virus of thought that has infected 
the female liberation fronts, which says that 
young beauty is somehow a bit immoral and that 
anyone adult who cherishes the youngest
beauty is anything but beyond all morals.
Those who are most philosophical and, one
has to say, also most awakened to the truth
that there is a tomboy-glamour which girls
can awaken in order to truly attract young
beauties themselves, even as they age a little,
are the most positive to pedophilia of those
who are older. But those who have not yet
reached such a state of body where they
must struggle more to maintain attractiveness
typically see it laughingly easy, lazingly
lovely: beauty is beauty, beauty is fun,
and beauty is experimentative, and what the
fuck about ages anyway, it's time to live
and girls just wanna have fun. That's an
attitude that seems reckless and lazy and
unwise and characteristic of the very
young and in a way 'spoiled', but it is 
also matching with the greatest philosophical
and religious insights of all times, including
some slants of interpretation, at least, of
the cultivation of the child divinity concept
in hinduism, to which also the surprisingly
Jesus-like blue Krishna character has more than a 
little presence; and a variety of shamanistic
societies, including several in Africa, as
has been documented but which may no longer
exist due to the spread of cities and their
technologised standardisations also have 
elements of various forms of cultivation of
this sort. Joseph Campbell explains, in his
interviews by Bill Moyers, that a shamanistic
tribe had their way with sexual initiation of
the youngest, giving a pure young but 
perhaps indeed willing girl of splendid
integrity and radiance a key role to the 
extent that when she had tantrically opened 
all the rest, she and her final partner, in
a moment of copulation, was instantly and
completely killed by an arrangment around
them involving the cutting of ropes: after
which the remainder of the tribe had a banquet
over these youths, cannibalistically 
devouring them, a blessing for all that these
orgiastic young spirits are shared in this
long-pig repaste. "You can't beat that!", the
late Campbell exclaimed, after laying out
the main features of the story to Moyers 
{The Power of Myth}.
  I have no formal education in art, but I
have had the immense pleasure of having 
spent considerable discussion and also, to
some extent, 'learning' time with masters
in their fields, including the fields of
painting, philosophy and physics. I have 
noticed that the twinkle and radiance of
artmanship they radiated went along with
a whole lot of freedom from conventional
taboos: that their humour and psychic
nutrition belonged together and shared
with me a sense that beauty as such is 
the Right type of "drug", no matter where
your masterliness or tradecraft lies or,
as an aspirant, is going to lie. Notably, 
my three most important mentors, even if
I met the latter of the three rarely 
compared to the other two, is the painter
Frans Widerberg, the philosopher Arne
Naess, and the physicist/philosopher
David Bohm; the two first completely
dominant on the national scenes in Norway
at the time of their most active careers,
while the latter at times a world figure.
Bohm, of course, worked under Oppenheimer 
co-developing the atomic bomb. But this
physicist -- who befriended the ageing 
Einstein and, on his inspiration, opened up
for a new era of re-interpretations of
quantum theory along the lines of Louis de
Broglie by successfully challenging a half-baked 
impossibility theorem from the 1920s -- this eminent 
thinker was removed from possibilities of serious 
job in USA's network of academic institutions once 
they suspected Bohm for having communist
leanings. This led David Bohm, despite being
of jewish descent, to leave USA rather 
permanently. After a period in Argentina, then
also in Israel where he met Sarel {who became
his wife}, the Bohm's settled eventually in 
Britain and Bohm got a professorate at Birkbeck
College, the University of London and began
a long and fruitful collaboration with physicists
including Basil Hiley, David J Peat, and inspired
people such as Nobel Laurate Ilya Prigogine, who 
even proposed Bohm for the Physics Nobel Price. 
{I interviewed Prigogine after Bohm's death just 
when this russian thinker was going to have a seminar 
with the Scientific and Medical Network in London,
including with Basil Hiley; his views that the
statisticality of quantum theory didn't quite go
deep enough but still implied a determinism that
was too narrow made deep impact on my own thinking
which I later crystallised into what I called, and
still call, and still feel is The Right approach to
to modern physics and to formalisms -- "super model 
  I think now it is fair to say that Bohm in London
after having lost both Princeton professorate and
also not gained support whether from Niels Bohr's
folks nor from Albert Einstein with his job at 
opening up for new interpretations, became one who
at some subconscious level at least had plenty 
spite against 'the establishment' -- thus, inspired
by a Krishnamurti book Sarel picked out in a library, 
where she thought it had something to do with quantum 
physics as it used the words, so often there mentioned, 
of 'the observer' and 'the observed' -- he sought out the
Indian rather pantheist thinker Jiddu Krishnamurti and 
a number of valuable books were published by them more
or less in collaboration, reflecting an intellectual
and spiritual friendship spanning decades.
  Was Bohm indeed communist? Nobody could really tell, 
as I gather -- for Bohm never talked politics. This, 
for instance, his collegue Basil Hiley, also physicist,
told me durin a visit I made to the University of London
after Bohm's death in the early 1990s. But when Bohm got 
into a well-documented depression due to the 'fall of 
Krishnamurti' when, after the death of the latter, a 
child-abortion-rich thick book entitled 'Lives in 
the Shadows with Krishnamurti' was published, Bohm 
confided to me that when the Soviet Union fell and became
Russia, this increased his depression further; also, 
Saddam Hussein had just invaded Kuwait and all these
world events were jarring at his sleepless nerves
(it was against sleeplessness doctors tried, very 
foolishly in my opinion, no less than electro-shocks on 
him). I was surprised at this -- it was during a walk around 
the parking lot and mini-garden around the hospital 
belonging to King's College, University of London,
he said this (which is where he got his drastic 
treatment a season or two before he died -- I visited 
him there together with Mr G Wikman, head of the Swedish
Herbal Institute in Gotenburg, Sweden.)
  So I asked David why he would consider it a problem 
that the Soviet Union was no more. After all, that 
totalitarian society seemed so radically at odds 
with the efforts and aspirations of Bohm, I thought,
not in the least represented in Oslo during the Dialogue 
Weekend seminar there {which I helped Sven Bjoerk,
Nadia MacLaren and also Henrik B Tschudi to arrange, 
after I had invited Bohm on behalf of what Bjoerk had
coined as his 'Forum 2000', which also regularly
invited people like the far-ranging biological
thinker and philsopher Rupert Sheldrake and a number
of thinkers who contributed to a sense of there being
a new time, era or age, something perhaps more experienced
by many now than then. I invited Bohm since I had
yearly visited him since 1986 anyway.}
  For in his latter years, Bohm talked ceaselessly about 
creating a new form of deep Dialogue in all society
and with science, religion, philosophy and so on included, 
with a great emphasis on bringing hidden assumptions into 
suspension, suspended thought, suspended 'felt' or feelings
or emotions, so as to create change. All this amounts to
much other than the totalitarianism that Russia then, as
now, has too much of to be a totally welcome impulse to
the world. So he replied {and it took me much time to figure
out that he had a big point} -- he didn't like the new 
world order because now there is no global big alternative to
USA when it comes to power domination. That was the gist 
if not the exact words of his short reply to me during 
that little walk, which was the last I saw of him {though
I had a couple of phone conversations with him afterwards;
last one on the theme of 'suspension', when he told a zen
koan about a suspended munk, about to fall down a cliff.
As for me, after Bohm's death, Mr H T Tschudi and I put
together a magazine in Oslo we called the "Flux Magazine" to
deal with all themes of dialogue and rethinking of science
and such; we accepted the name after Sonia de Zilwa 
suggested it, and of course there was Bohm's insistence 
on the world not only being in flux but being flux itself. 
During that period, the contact with Naess and Widerberg 
and also the dancer Monica Emilie Herstad began, as well 
as contact with a number of other highly interesting people, 
some masters in their field, and some just almost muse-like
in their sweet beauty and suitable for a self-annointed
editor-in-chief so as to enable the creativity to flow better.
It was, all in all, a period of great, but highly stressful fun,
with a sense of much loyality after all to surface trends
in order to make the stuff popular enough to sell etc. All
this pleasantly culiminated April 17, 1996, in the opening 
speech I gave  that morning inside the Norwegian parliament 
building Stortinget, in a seminar for parlamentarians and 
government members -- Gro Harlem Brundtland's government
still -- on information technology in the service of the 
welfare society}. Having done that, and having published,
I felt, one too many interviews with Naess and having
a sense of having interviewed 'everybody' at least once and
so to speak having sucked the national intellectual field 
dry, I felt it was time to move on to more authentic stuff.
I wanted no more 'skimming the surface' but felt I had to
write and program, train -- also in yoga -- and get it 
together anew from within; much travel ensued, and a 
discovery that, amazingly, I find the sunshine in the 
morning reflecting on the very tall buildings of Manhattan 
so beautiful it kept me wanting to be there again and again,
months after months, writing intensely -- over-intensely,
some claimed, but no, just the right intensity, I say. 
Anyway, it was a total immersion in the field of more
fluid english than I had ever been near to having been
exposed to before this. It was a submerging into what
appeared to me to be a representation of the collective
consciousness of Man at the time: Manhattan. And I was
pleased to see that being a nobody with good looks with
no money was enough to make one survive for a year in
one of the world's most expensive places without ever
touching anything even remotely criminal nor acting
against one's heart. Good friends and luck kept that
process going, and the Manhattan Transformation, as I
always had as working title for whatever I wrote, then
eventually in 2006 became the Firth platform or OS,
which is as wild an operating system as Manhattan was
then, in those bohemian days. The main folder, then,
is also called BOEHMIAN, a mixture of 'bohemian' and
'bohmian', the latter being a term sometimes used about
the type of physics my mentor developed. Firth is as
wild as one can get, but having looked it very carefully
over after having much experience with entirely other
types of platforms of all sorts, including the best of
Linux, Ubuntu, I can only say that Firth is, and keeps
on being, much better than I think it is. I use it eight
percent of the time, and right now bought a new expensive
laptop ONLY to run it.
  But I have let enthusiasm lead me astray. I said that
Bohm came with a slightly puzzling statement about how
necessary it was for the world to have a counter-balance
against USA, even if it lacked many or most of the features 
one could call 'demo-cratic' or 'people-ruling'.
  Only later, reflecting over a number of his statements 
together with the renewed insights into the intense 
secret collaboration behind closed doors in USA and also in
the United Kingdom etc so as to re-render the whole scene 
as one of COLLUSION, can I see more deeply what he was
emotional about. For we are talking of revelations, the
well-known 2013 Snowden revelations, which speak of 
stuff going back a long while in the 20th century. We're
talking of, amongst other themes, COLLUSION -- yet another 
word that Bohm often talked about -- he said one could 
translate it more or less, at least by means of rhyme and 
by metaphor to its roots, as 'false play', the wrong type 
of play, where 'ludere', play, can be a good thing when 
there is  attention in it. I often think that those big 
advertisement companies that tries to stupify the
population so as to sell more -- which often includes
endorsing of censorship of taboo activities, and thus
a cementation of bygone types of societal impulses; while
also, most disgustingly, these companies tries to project the
thought that they have intelligence machines -- I often think
that these companies engage in 'false play'. And that's worthy
to fight, for all. {E.g.: write a big poster and hang it up
over a high-way which says: NEXT TIME YOU SEE AN AD ON THE
has to be fewer words, but that should be the gist of what
we want to see more of, instead of the advertisement 
targeting monopolies we have still in 2014.} When we see a 
country that speaks intensely about free and open market 
competition but which yet, -- as revealed esp. by E Snowdon's 
smuggled-out top secret spy papers, published electronically 
and bravely spread worldwide by UK's the Guardian, but also by 
New York Times, Washington Post, Spiegel, and several others 
in 2013 -- which yet engages in massive collusion -- not just
between themselves, but wrapped up with their government, 
then one can understand more of how people can get an
almost permanent sense of spite about it all. There are
people in USA, we know in 2014 but didn't in 2012, who
thinks they have the right to snook in and copy every 
foreign intellectual's productions and store in their own 
archives and toss it around between themselves, whether for one
reason or for another reason. We're talking of a radical
ethical decline in the spy business, it has become a tool
for a country to make an impact on the world in all senses,
while the ostensive reason is military self-protection.
They haev made more or less a govnerment of big USA and more or
less a company also of the whole thing, and the propaganda
about free market competition something they don't listen
to themselves -- except for the always existing exceptions.
However true the generalisation is, it is in any case a
fair counter-view for people like myself who have
been consistently trying to believe in their approach as
at least a modicum more enlightened, a glimpse albeit in
miniature over the paradise to be of freewheeling Age of
Aquarius world. Instead we see now moralists and greedy
private fighter jet owning advertisement-slash-search
engine owners flying their stuff with Pentagon fuel
(consult Fox News for the story about Pentagon -- Google)
and with fiber optic cables going between the Secret
Services and their very humane, very service-minded
product which is 'free for all to use': we see a sleezy
side, which may be worse than what is obvious or better
than what is suggested in the Snowden papers, which 
goes all the way to the Edgar J Hoover that Dusko
Popov in Spy-Counterspy once and for all made clear
was a jerk. A jerky New York, the New Jerk, the USA
that is US against Aliens, not the free market world
that the movies like to talk about. USA is just a much
more successfully propagandised China, but just as much
communist as them; yet it has to be said, with much
less totalitarianism, which sets them apart also from
present-day Russia, which has severe problems with
a number of key issues. Some of these issues seem to
have their existence in an overdone attempt to be
Different. Russia ought to become more eclectic, and
not automatically equate everything USA-like with
something bad, in its state propaganda, for else the
state propaganda, and the mafioso techniques used
to subdue to most popular alternatives, becomes more
and more heavy, less and less convincing. This is
what brought Soviet Union down, and so it should be
regarded as an experiment that was carried out, and
that failed, and that should not be repeated again.
  For instance, Russia needs to embrace lesbianism.
All else is detoriation and the leaders know this
very well indeed.
  Anyway, the Bohm was probably no less than shocked
by the reality of the power structures in USA -- seen 
from the inside during his Los Alamos Manhattan Project 
which he had enrolled in on the condition of life-long
total secrecy -- despite the fact that these power 
structures were dominated by people sharing his type 
of roots in many ways. {'Bohm' was an invented name 
his german-speaking family took when he immigrated 
to the United States.} So Mr David Bohm seemed to imply 
that a totalitarian society would be of greater value 
than the absence of one such, if it could counter the 
co-luding USA. It may be that Plato was right in his
stark, furious criticism of democracy as a free license
for egotists to do egotistical things: but then we need
a discussion over just what type of totalitarian society
we have to have, for it to be as totally meaningful
as can be, and which can yield the true feeling of
freedom as Plato wanted people to have. 
  As for Bohm, it seems quite clear that aspects of 
the physics of Bohm didn't work out to the great 
popularity he had hoped for, and that Krishnamurti was much
less a God and far more a human than he perhaps had 
secretly wished for: for J.Krishnamurti, though far from
ever against free sex, radiated a type of 'being beyond 
sex' associated with more ascetic forms of hinduism --
however, an hinduism he did not wish to subscribe to
in those words. While it appears clear and objective 
as fact that Krishnamurti (also possibly under his visit 
to Oslo ca 1930) had an active and flourishing and child-
aborting relationship to woman married to Mr Rajagopal,
his editor, and possibly to other women, as a hidden -- 
shadow -- aspect of his life, the book tainted the
sense with which Krishnamurti was associated with
honesty, effortlessness, simplicity (there was nothing
simple about those abortions, if the book 'Lives in the
Shadows' is true at those points), freedom from burning 
desires (he seemed to be just as full of those desires 
as any other, and yielding to some of them quite much 
too) -- and it made many people think that e.g. the teacher 
in India who named himself Osho, and who died the same year 
after having propagandised free sex for decades, perhaps had
more to him than Krishnamurti. To me, this wanted
thinking over. The result is that I felt that as for
sex, Osho had more to him; but both Osho and Krishnamurti
didn't perceive more than half the universe at most, if
I can trust my own intuitions on this. To me, pantheism
is a phase one can go through if one likes in order to
perceive better: but with both, and with Bohm, it was
pretty much a hidden dogma, as I view it now, much
  In other words, Krishnamurti wasn't wrong for doing his bit
with pretty young ladies in just the right way, but his 
teaching on spirituality to large crowds should have
incorporated his insights into sex and even elaborated
on them and the lack of this feature calls into question
the authenticity of some other aspects of his spirituality.
The claim one heard about Krishnamurti's teachings from some
philosophers -- that he made half-truths seem to be the whole
truth -- comes to mind. Poetically, it rather worked; but
practically, it falls short of matching the totality of
existence of the human psyche in its fullness; but it was
a noteworthy attempt, however clearly faltering it was as
far as enlightenment goes. Indeed, the whole enlightenment
context cannot be separated from the view of the universe,
or the multiverse as it is better called in the view of many.
Only the Krishnamurti of his latter years, after the book
'The Ending of Time', with Bohm, in 1980, had a personal
God-like faith element in it, but only weakly, and not
tightly integrated at the intellectual level with all the
immensity of earlier poems (or talks) about love, life, etc.
  This brings the whole little essay back to the point 
of art. For there was a sense of glamorous art about 
the radiance of young Krishnamurti. {This must be read, then,
in the context of knowing that soon after Krishnamurti's death
ny cancer in 1986 there was the subsequent publication of 
the 'Lives in the Shadows' by the daughter of his earlier 
editor, which spoke with detail and depth, and with photos, 
about a Krishnamurti entirely at odds with the very much
mythic picture he had carefully allowed being built up of him
over many years. After a while, a confirmation was published
by his british foundation. It said that the Foundation 
'had been informed about the relationship' by Krishnamurti 
some years before he died (booklet published by Brockwood 
Educational Centre, Hampshire, and given together with 
their seasonly bulletin, just after the publication of the 
book. So that was that.}
  As for this glamour -- a word that means 'secret code' in its
etymology -- one can now associate that glamour, that laughter, 
not merely with the often guru-self-important radiance of pantheism
and buddhistic schools of thought -- where there is no higher 
God making one humble as manifest human to this greatness --
but rather, this laughter, this shine, may have been associated 
with a rich sexual life and can be seen to associate itself
more to such figures as Salvador Dali and Pablo Picasso. But 
there is a crucial difference: Dali, Klimt, Miller, etc etc
made women stand forth in their nude splendor as part of their 
lives' work, whereas for gurus like Krishnamurti who has 
to appeal to a taboo-rich society, it was a shadowy aspect. 
  This brings us fully back to the point raised in the 
beginning: that art as beauty as young girl splendor is fuel
for the psychic energy of society, all society, -- and all 
human beings inasmuch as they are able to transcend their own
envy. Anyone who claims that some parts of beauty attraction 
ought not to be sexual should question where they got that
assumption from {viz., the hardened old thinkers of the female 
liberation  movement}.
  And when someone gets depressed with society, is it not 
rather a depression  with one's own contact with the innocence
of the future as reflected in the shining faces of the 
upcoming generation of  sensually uplifting faces? And, let's add,
BODIES. So we are talking dance, not just dance as 
ballerina-like flexible dance, but also dance as gymnastic, 
also dance as wrestling, also dance as martial arts,
as fighting -- which brings one into an aspect of living 
of young women that has yet to reach the popularity it deserves
in post-female liberation times -- we are talking also porn, 
the 'porn mode', the BANQUET OF YOUTH, that the psyche of
every soul must have to awaken oneself to that fountain 
of generosity which according to Baruch de Spinoza (as Naess
laid Spinoza out, anyway), characterises FREEDOM. So 
freedom is not to conform to society, it is to conform 
to the surprise of the day -- to see that greatness of
young beauty never before seen, because beauty is the only 
thing that is always new: and it can only be seen on this 
premise, not as an artificial newness, not as the newness 
brought about by greed, but by the perceptive depth of the 
skilled observer and sexual interactor, in meeting with the
infinity-in-movement that the temple of the beautiful 
golden-ratio-proportioned slim longlegged young well-
trained girl, whether adult or pre-adult, whether teen,
post-teen or pre-teen, can exhibit in the mind of those 
whose capacity to think is so that they dominate and influence 
their society.
  Perhaps some would say -- and I dare say, there are some 
who have at least hinted it earlier on -- should I, as being 
one who has some influence, much or little, should I spend so 
much time and energy cultivating such beauty and sexuality, 
is it "serious" --? They would maybe suggest I should spend 
more of the energy in 'purer' scientific things, or
'purer' computational things, or 'purer' philsophical 
or religious things, and give the impression, to at least
a mild extent, of some head-shaking; and perhaps some would
even go as far as to advice me to look into such as buddhism,
or perhaps they are merely informing me that they themselves
try to get into the attitude of buddhism and see the fact
that I am perfectly happy without it. Yet, as the decades 
go by, if I can shed a bit of modesty and excell in the
opposite for a moment at the completion in this little or
logn tale: I, who happen to spend 'too much time' on young 
beauty and going beyond boundaries and exploring the theme
of the erotic happens to also get more things done than 
anyone else they can point to other things -- including
the toughest of programming efforts, including prose stuff,
including also staying totally renewed in what I do (in
contrast to the typically quickly withering buddhists that
seek to repeat to themselves, watching in their little
mirrors, that everything is transient, and they too).
Buddhism as presented is wrong, I feel, at two points:
it doesn't love sex, and it has a pantheism that makes
people who indulge in it -- as sometimes with Sufi as
well -- try to put themselves up as God. For the human
psyche needs God, and if it isn't around, it becomes
themselves. This is the typical problem, the typical
lack of laughter in Buddhism: it is a cult around people
who are seen as demi-gods, by disciples who are there
for one reason only, to become themselves cultivated.
  And so let me conclude by saying, do not think human 
intelligence can be extracted and put into a sardine
box the way some scientists have sought to do. It is
not a fruit to be digested in the the cut'n'dried form 
that some universities -- shame to that name! -- have
done when they dabble in their misnamed intelligence
measurements -- that misuse of the word 'intelligence'
applies to them as well as to the spying communities,
who think they have anything going that can be called
'intelligence'. They don't. Neither these folks nor the
artificial intelligence folks have any idea what 
intelligence is. It is not their rapid manipulative
perceptiveness that can crack codes that never needed
cracking for they were open all the time.
  Intelligence is what Bach manifest, or Vivaldi, or
Haendel -- but also what girls manifest, when they dance,
draw, make society shine up with their sweetness, not
only when sing with such perfect harmonious skills 
and deep-felt mature sexuality as what the what the russian
pro-lesbian almost preteen group Tattoo did some years
ago, in their All The Things She Said, quite possibly
one of the most richly harmonious pop songs anyone 
has ever made. love is beauty, flows from contact with youth,
as something holy, or representative, at least, of the
holy, of that heavenly kingdom which only belong truly
to those who either are children or AS them. And much as
God and his muses are infinitely beyond all that is 
manifest, then surely there is more God and his muses in
the youngest and prettiest than in the hardened writings 
of those who are anti-youth and anti-sex at the same time. 
And when one lets oneself be reverent to the queens of 
the female sex, consciousness leaps and sometimes touch
with the equal reverence the majestic beings at core
of reality have for one another -- and for the future
of humankind. THAT's my official non-pantheistic
perception, take it or leave it.


-- It is the very attempt to map the social by 
digital databases that in itself has an incurable 
wrongness about it.

What is the view of the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle a thousand years from now? Whatever it is,
it will probably not have the same status then as the
flat-earth theory has now. 
  It is one of the bits of modern physics, that jigsaw
that nobody seems to be able to make into the castle
that some physicists like to say that it is. There are
regularly reports on the hunts for the building blocks
of the universe and all that blah, but physics is a
total mess, even a misery. It is a failed science,
except when it comes to producing bombs and providing
complicated equations for university students. There is
not one iota of wholeness about physics theories. 
The Star Trek like notions of 'dark matter' are no
better than the epi-cycles invented to rescue the
wrong theory that all heavenly bodies move in perfect
circles. They say 'dark' because they themselves are
in the dark about how to make it all hang together.
But to be that honest about the failed field of
physics is not in the economical interests of 
scientists whose daily bread depends on sustained
income from a scientific institution. For this reason, 
we should trust Einstein on the point that science is 
best done outside of scientific institutions. He himself 
was employed at a patent office when he did most things 
with some enduring significance.
  But it isn't that one cannot be eclectic. There are
pieces. There are, for instance, photons -- a likely
name to survive, even with changed meanings in the
upcoming millenia, just as the word atom has changed
meaning since its inception (meaning indivisible).
  Photons are the webwork of existence, the flow of
a total information beyond human control. Our bodies
are more electrons than photons, but photons 
surround and penetrate everything. Electrons is the
matter part of physics, practically speaking; while
photons the forever elusive touch of the infinite,
the nonlocal. 
  Yet due to a series of studies which can be studied
as empirical data -- as honest reports of experience --
beyond theory, beyond theoretical interpretation, 
it seems pretty clear that also in a thousand years
one will admit that there is a fluid wave-like nature
to electrons just as there is a particle-like nature
to photons. And somehow there may still be something
much like the HUP (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle)
to weave some of it together in our thoughts and
  There is a flux to electrons, and there is a fix
to photons: this flux-fix complementarity is part of
the living pulse of the universe. HUP says: if you
fix a lot, off goes the flux. (Conversively, if you
flux a lot, off goes the fix.)
  In contrast to money, which wouldn't exist without
at least some degree of fix, social things wouldn't
exist without at least some degree of flux. Social
things, then, map the metaphor of photons. Money is
more like electrons, in the same metaphor. 
  But when the world of San Francisco driven 
billionaires hire computer programmers to make you
part of a fixed machinery of counted likes and 
counted friends, they are in praxis inviting you
to un-flux your social life, even as they promise
exact the opposite. And would they know what they
are doing themselves? Or is it an invasion of nerds
upon the human scene? Nerds are human, granted, but
they are more in love with fix than with flux. When
they implant their bits and bytes upon the social
realm, it may be that there isn't any social realm
there. You don't take a military vehicle into the
woods to study the flowers. You walk by foot. You
must be lightfooted. And there is something both
heavy-handed and heavy-footed about counting friends,
followers, likes and such. 
  Perhaps, also, the notion that a 'like' is a 
practical thing which has certain features, and
that it is either/or, is itself a drastic 
attempt to flatten the rich subtle nuances of
emotion and feeling that flow through human beings
and make human beings into human beings and not
androids, not mere digital brains. There are 
professors trying to develop artificial brains and
journalists, having nothing better to do, they think,
report on this over and over again, and the professors
are very proud of all their little boxes and the
wires between them. And as-if philosophers who are
mere propagandists for a barren scientificality
with no depth and little honesty do a lot of blah-blah
on the socalled 'hard question' of whether computers
ever can think. There is nothing hard about the
question. One must be very soft in the brain to
even regard it as a hard question. The answer is,
of course, no. And for those who want the answer
the hard way, spend a year with Kurt Goedel's
second incompleteness theorem and all attempts to
disprove it. 
  I know of at least sixteen dimensions to my own
emotions, and each one of them allows a scale no
less than one to thousand. But would I ever try to
map those emotions along those dimensions exactly?
Only if I couldn't care less about what those
emotions concern. It is an almost autistic thing
to try to map emotions on a computer. And yet that
seems to be part of the false ideology of the biggest
buck-making advertisement companies at present. They
seem to co-exist in an hypnosis which rely on the
notion that the human pscyhe is mappable in digital
terms. They sell each other maps, and so think that
they can convince the sellers of REAL things, not
fake maps, that by using these maps, these vast
databases hosted by whoever, they can more
easily get their wares sold to real people with
real feelings. At the same time, the global
economy is sputtering. Is it strange it is sputtering
when the flux is flattened by nerds? And when much
of the world's population are letting the nerds
hypnotise them to put in those outrageously silly
'counters' of things which any person with any taste
at all ought to leave uncounted?
  The uncountability of the social is -- as I see 
it -- a direct result of a philosophical metaphorical
application of HUP, the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle, -- on the human psyche. It is not part of
hard science to apply HUP on psyches. It is however
a meaningful philosophical inspiration to apply
something fairly much like a poetic rendering on
HUP on psyches and social selves. Whether this 
ultimately can be shown to have some ground in
what will be hard science is not the point right
now. Right now it is the point to indicate that
this whole paradigm of trusting the flux to be
more flux and dance, and avoid the distasteful
attempt to count one's social relations, and line
up digitally (and with free lines to NSA and other
surveillance agencies which have even less taste
in their databasing) what one feels like -- the
whole paradigm, in other words, of letting the
social be social and not social 'media', is in need
of encouragement before the social life of too many
humans rot into facebookish pieces.
  In a way, ANYTHING done by any human being is
social, and obviously that goes more for things which
are available for others -- such as when you publish
things on a website -- than when you conceal it.
In that sense, all websites are inherently social.
No particular TYPE of website should claim ownership
to the 'social' concept. There is no eco-system
associated with digital phones, -- they are digital,
hence not eco-logical, merely part of the pollution
of ecology and eco-systems. The whole language is
a mess, branded and manipulated, and this stupidity
creeps into schools because underpaid hypnotised
bored lonely teachers furnish the crap of the times
into children. Where has the cry of Pink Floyd --
Teacher! Leave those kids alone! -- gone? 
  Some are apparently imagining that progress
involves changing from walking around and socialising
by means of pleasant interactions and intuitions and
coincidences to sitting hunched over small displays
while tapping fingers on these little things and
eating cookies at the same time. Facebook follows
up by banning the celebration of slimness, removing
images of people who celebrate getting into half
their previous weight. Fatbook. On the other hand,
if only the face shows at their so-called "profile",
who cares about the rest of the body anyway? It's a
completely wrong paradigm of human interaction:
and that goes for most use of phones anyway. 
  And what is wrong and right cannot be reduced to
a mere question of counting 'likes'. It is not about
making it sick enough that it becomes a virus on
something inherently sick like Youtube, and become
'viral'. Rightness and wrongness are psychic 
insights that depend on a certain dance of mind,
a freshness of being, and an uprightness of body
that has the meditation of walk and the freedom
from unnecessary fixing and unnecessary counting
of things which ought to have flux and exist as
momentum more than position (to use a language of
  It's not merely that the particular maps that the
advertisement- and spying- motivated databases 
have over humanity are wrong. It is the very attempt
to map the social by digital databases that in itself
has an incurable wrongness about it. It is the 
wrongness of allowing off-beat nerds to try to
connect to the beat; the notion that this 
connection is innocent; the notion that this beat
isn't smarter than that; the notion that one can
comfortably build person data databases over 
people who haven't asked for it without deep
consequences at many levels in this reality.
  Computers can be, and in limited areas have been,
a blessing in human society, removing the need for
certain definite forms of overly repetitive work.
But the only way to regain a sense of healthy 
progress in the wealthy cities now is by realising --
also at the city-planning level -- that computers
have become very much TOO popular. They are 
damaging people, fattening people, sickening
things. One thing is to have a large computer
monitor in front of one where one can have a
dialogue with oneself such as in a text editor
when one writes something. Something else 
altogether is to find that no place in the city
is without digitalism -- the wireless pollution
in the air, and the hunched people staring at
their little screens and the little texts going
hither and tither with little other consequence
than making of the social realm more emulation
and virtuality than reality.
  The only way that humanity can get the upper
hand again is that societies which have gone into
digitalism fully start a self-re-education process,
beginning harshly with all schools: these must
demand of the kids that they learn how to program
the computers, at the same time as the USE of
computers are largely prohibited. For we see an
era of stupid users of supposedly smart things.
What we need is an era of smart interactors and
winners over these incurably stupid things that
computers are, and always must be, for computers
to be a blessing. To learn to program is to learn
to mould the dough of computers. They will 
convince less. It's like learning a little bit
of the nuts and bolts of science so as not to
be too easily convinced by popularised science.
When you learn to program, you can fight other
programmers -- and also programs -- and that
includes advertisement programmes. You can fight
back (both mentally and then also gaining the 
capacity to have bodily health to find energy in
such as martial arts -- something increasing
confidence in REAL social interaction, and 
obviously of enormous importance for girls) -- knowing 
that you have also a technological strength which 
isn't dependent on wallowing in a scheme of fake 
friends and fake counters. It's about programming
so to be as properly bored with the digital that we
with ease can switch it all off, and make zones
free from computing and free from mobile phones
all over the cities, so as to switch on the real
flux of the social realm, free from the digital fix.



Anything published, written, said, spoken in any way whatsoever 
on (or in some cases even near) any type of computing technology
might as well be shouted out in a cafe. For it is bound to be
available to more people than what you intended, unless you
intended just that.
  Those who have read the news of 2013 with any sentient mind
at all, and who have had some freedom to go for leisurely walks
and think over what it means, will find it interesting to think
about increased use of real-life public spaces in 2014. One
might as well, when it appears that the biggest technology
companies of the world have collaborated with the biggest 
governments of this world in shaping a set of tools that 
do all sorts of things other than what they are said to do,
including making a semi-public space out of your private
doings with these tools. Governments that we thought were
interested in honest competitive free market practises have
been found to do all the dirty tricks and cheating at games
possible, just because there wasn't a law preventing them
from doing so: while apparently being so concerned with 
fighting terrorism threats, they have had an orgy of snooping
while populations all across the globe have had an orgy of
SmartPhone use and engagement with browsers with privacy
settings and with websites that apparently offers increased
security and encryption. And these governments have licensed
out these orgies of cheap meaningless surveillance to private
companies and, in praxis, operated as mafia-states more than
as the human rights dignified institutions they want to appear
  Each government, and each big technology company, has what
one could call a Snooping Exhaust. There are those who remember
what shock it was to the world when reported that
they in fact store what everbody searches on and intend to
keep it to about 2030. This happened in the early years of Since then, the Snooping Pollution has just 
increased, not just from, but from all sorts of
companies and governments that many thought were beyond it.
  Today, because people are slow to digest new information,
statistics don't show enormous changes. People are still 
imagining that they can have private lives and go around
tapping on their little computer-enabled telephones to do
all sorts of things.
  Meanwhile, advertisement companies have learned to 
collaborate, in a worldwide synergy with the snooping
agencies, to come upon ways -- for companies and for
governments -- of earning money that has little to do with
honest competition or of, in case of govnernments, little
to do with the stated goals of national security and such.
They pry on the hypnosis that still exist, namely that 
an up-to-date individual in a fairly affluent part of the
world, at least, should upload chunks of one's life to the
SmartPhones and the socalled Social Media.
  Thanks to the heroism of some -- Mr Edward Snowden should
in particular be mentioned, of course -- 2013 was the clear
beginning of the exit of the just-mentioned hypnosis. The
snooping pollution, the surveillance exhaust, of all sorts
of companies and agencies are bound to be reduced because
people won't sign up as eagerly before and because many
people will actively start putting computerised phones
to where they really belong (in the fridge, for instance,
where Mr Snowden insisted on having them put during his
first meetings with people about this in Hong Kong, some
news articles would have it), and instead start getting a
grip on real-life face-to-face communication again.
  Some may always have felt that mobile phones are something
more likely to damage most people's lives than otherwise,
speaking statistically, and giving of course room for those
situations of vital need for small units capable of wireless
communication. All that was wrong with mobile phones were
multiplied as these phones was turned into items for the
privacy snoopers, -- and in ways that cannot easily be 
turned off. One has got to come up with new technology in
order to get out of that situation. But the fact is that
with all the expenses involved in generating such new
technology, it is likely that it is the same old set of
bastardly companies and governments doing the making of
such new technology, if new technology about this is indeed
made. And so it is unlikely that we get out the situation
where we simply don't have privacy in the realm of phoning
anymore. The same has ALWAYS been said about email, but 
those who at least have an email not associated with one
of the big bad companies having gone to excesses as for
snooping exhaustion, the pollution into people's privacy,
can possibly get at least some slight relief here. The
whole projects of the social medias was to unprivatise
people's lives and the net effect has been to make a lot
of people's lives less social; and more transparent to all
sorts of folks whose interest in other people aren't 
purely altruistic, put mildly.
  To draw a line behind all the idiocies, one should regard
computers-in-net -- and wireless phones are also computers-
in-net -- as a way to talk aloud in a public space and that
has a role, just as the famous fruit boxes in Hyde Park 
that political agitators just to speak from, according to
such as P.G. Wodehouse, did have a role. There's is a 
delightful anarchy in the capacity that internet has in
getting things published that otherwise wouldn't easily
get published -- and we're talking of much quality stuff,
not just stuff under the limit.
  The net, computers-in-net, is a means of getting things
across to a wide section of people. But computers-in-net,
including typical phones as of today, aren't a way of
getting one's private live sorted out. It isn't a good 
way to organise one's private contacts. It isn't a good
way of creating a party. It isn't a good way of running
a business -- or, in the case of the snooping on Angela
Merkel's mobile phone -- a good way of running a
  Also, it isn't meaningful to think that when various
services switches from http to https or from so many
bits encryption to twice as many bits encryption this
has ANYTHING to do with privacy AT ALL. It is merely
a gimmick. In most cases, https is a gimmick, just as
the privacy settings on many browsers is gimmick, and
just as the apparent idealism of is gimmick,
when pays literally hundreds of millions of
dollars to browser makers to make privacy settings 
either more complicated or removed altogether, and to
enforce the presence of their own NSA-infested might
onto the list of search engines (such as has recently
happened with the formerly independent Norwegian 
search engine Opera, where, once the list of search
engines have been edited, up pops Google on top again
next time one starts it up -- at least in the present
Ubuntu version as of some weeks ago).
  Mozilla boosts of having 'invented' the 'do not 
track feature' but they don't at the same place, when
this is announced on the front page, announce that
there is virtually no effectiveness of this feature.
They boost of having a way to scan who is watching what
one is doing, but they run away from what they promised,
namely to have third-party cookies turned off as the
standard setting: all the while is pumping
money into them, just as their love-partner NSA is
pumping money into companies giving NSA privileged
access to their servers and data, and probably having
a bunch of cheap tricks to do away with the profits
of the companies that don't succumb to the near-mafia
institution that NSA-USA has transmutated into,
beginning with the Edgar J Hoover years in FBI. 
Can President Obama do away with NSA? Obviously not,
NSA has everyone in their pockets, and in Britain,
GCHQ has everyone in THEIR pockets. A politician 
will have his or her life mapped more than anyone
else in case they dare propose the beginning of 
fairness and integrity and noble ideals as for the
core goals of their institutions dedicated to cheap
tricks to further the national economies -- apart 
from the maybe 10 or 15 percent devoted to anti-
  As a result, both Britain and USA in 2013 have become
countries of the past, impotent countries, and their
biggest technology companies having enduring question-
marks having over them: to what extent are they
partners in the mafia-like snooping institution game that 
many of us perhaps were foolish enough to think belonged 
primarely to such states as China, Russia and middle-east 
dictatorships? Which CEO is NOT on NSA's or GCHQ's 
multi-billion dollar/pound payroll, speaking of the
influential technology companies?
  The economy, then, in 2013 has swung for real: away
from USA and away from Great Britain to some extent,
because economy in this world is associated with trust.
It hasn't gone 'over' to China, because China has
always been associated with the type of thing one
associates dictatorships with. It has gone over to
continental Europe -- not EU -- definitely not EU --
but to the various nations, smaller and not that 
small, which constitute the perhaps slightly more
trustworthy governments with more conventional, and
hopefully more stupid surveillance agencies. Agencies
where resources are limited, and where the resources
are used either on ineffective pursuits, or on 
things that REALLY connect to national security of
some sort that isn't about winning worldwide 
technology contracts and such by cheap tricks such
as spying over industry leaders participating in
betting over the same contracts.
  So, for instance, Brazil buys jets from Sweden
instead of from Boeing in USA. That's the type of
result the snooping exhaustion has created. That's
the type of insightful maneuver that we will see 
more and more of. It would have been different if
a total strong and unconditional apology had been
stated by David Cameron of UK and Barack Obama of
USA: we'll stop with this shit, this nonsense, we'll
close down those damned institution and forever 
ensure that the budgets are tightly woven up to
strictly anti-terrorism measures and nothing but.
Instead, the meak meagre sparse comments, with the
polished smart words and inflexion of verbs in
subtle ways, -- that package has been perceived,
worldwide, and certainly in contintental Europe
and nowhere more than in Germany -- to be a sheepish
response, totally and fully inadequate to meet up 
with the realities that have been revealed 
especially by the collaboration between Edward Snowden
and the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington
Post and some others.
  And all this has an apparently trival, almost
rediculous effect, compared to the scope of the
revelations: Cafees are going to have a good time
again. After having been closed down and replaced
by those utterly sterile and boring chains which offers
fat lunches and wireless connections for people 
escaping out of office for half an hour, or replaced
by enormous sections of streets bought up by 
investment banks or real estate agents or other
such bacteria that infest a deserted city, we will
find that cafees are going to open again, they are
going to take cities back again. For the one single
big threat against cafees have been the over-focus
on computers-in-net. By means of computers-in-net,
people have been buying things, chatting, and
exchanging ideas, creating plans, and doing work.
Computers-in-net are lovely but they have now been
given a more clarified role: they are tools for
making things public in a vague way -- more public
than one might think, unless the computer is totally
unplugged and used within a box made of solid lead.
And the disgust, the natural disgust people have with
this -- not fear -- but simply sheer disgust, leads
people to leave the SmartPhones and such at home,
-- it is bound to -- and to go out in freedom from
them, out to where real experiences in a more 
actual transparent way where the publicity is more
obvious, not forced upon one but invited, -- and
there meet actual people like oneself. Not merely
meet people who sit with bowed heads and flickering
restless ideas and tap on things in order to 
regulate their lives, but to meet people who have
raised oneself above the idiocy of such as Mark
Zuckerberg's Facebook and Instagram, and such as
Apple's iPhone and Google-connected companies' various
Android phones, or Microsoft-Nokia's version of the
  This is indeed the beginning of a more meaningful
way to use the computer: also outside of net, as a 
tool for dialogue with oneself, as a tool to sharpen
thinking while doing programming. Not always a 
programming that is net-oriented. But a programming
that allows one to express certain features of one's
thinking so as to get a feedback from a model that
then can run on the computer. So the stand-alone
Personal Computer, -- once again more personal, as
it is disconnected from the net -- and the stand-alone
personal individual, without the Smart-Cum-Idiot-Phone,
those are amongst the winners that begin to emerge 
after the wild surveillance pollution revelations of
2013. We will see a fresh bout of genuineness and
small-is-beautiful-ness in 2014 and it will increase
for years to come, for there is absolutely no
clearing up of the mess without such deep changes
by people, and people are obviously extremelly ready
for it -- this is more obvious in some countries
than in others -- but it is there, in all.


-- Nothing new has been revealed, except that the report
called 'Case Closed' released under Bill Clinton's presidency
was written while covering up the existence of the place
that figured in the other half of the Roswell rumours

The TV public in USA and many across the rest of the planet was
charmed by the freshly inaugurated president Bill Clinton in the
first half of the 1990s when he responded to a kid asking him,
live, Did aliens crash at Roswell and military hide them?
  He said, "I don't know and I would like to know, too."
  This evoked a laughter and a sense that a new era has come.
If there is a secret, we will be told. The kid's question
concerned a larger story, and in the larger story there figured
a phrase, "Area 51".
  The rumours -- cultivated feverently by various cults of
conspiracy theorists everywhere, and ground for the X-Files
TV series, had it that the initial report by an army officer
was right, not wrong -- that some non-human living beings had
indeed been found -- and that this or these or the remains
then had after some time been transferred to a place not 
admitted to exist, the Area 51.
  After Bill Clinton's charming stunt, nothing more was heard,
but a great deal of work -- it turned out -- was going on
in the background to answer to his live challenge to his own
military establishment. The military under president Bill
Clinton then released reports (a few years apart): 
-- entitled, respectively, The Roswell Report (a much larger
and just very slightly more open-minded report), and (since it
left a bit too many uncomfortable questions open), 
The Roswell Report: Case Closed. The full content of both
are available another place -- here's the full .pdf loadable, 
and it is a gigantic sized report:
and the 'Case Closed' summary is here:  
  Prior to the 2nd release, CNN commented the moods and 
development in various articles e.g.:
  Those who review esp. the 2nd military report get a feeling 
that it is insistent, it is like one side in a court case 
where the other side is left out. The Case Closed report
starts with a conclusion, then provides one instance of 
another in defense for that conclusion, insisting on one
particular interpretation -- which relies mostly on dummies
in experimental US-led shoot-ups being mistaken for real
life in non-earthian space vehicles. One has the feeling 
that those who wrote the Case Closed report were not in the
position of objective bystanders looking into archives of
which they knew nothing. Rather, one gets the feeling that
they had a case to make, and were eager to get it done with
and get it over with. EVEN SO, Roswell sort of went out
of fashion fairly much after that. One got the feeling that
Bill Clinton wanted the truth to come out, more or less, 
  Though Bill Clinton and also George W Bush on occasion had
done the briefest possible mention of some military activities
at a "location near Groom Lake", the conspiracy theorists
kept on being active talking about Area 51 and they were not
convinced about the report. Area 51 was indeed dismissed as
'yet another conspiracy theory'. And, of course, in the past
few days it is clear that Bill Clinton wasn't all for getting
all the truth out. Area 51 does exist. Parts of what it does 
is still secret. CBS News: "CIA finally acknowledges Area 51's 
existence -- It took repeated requests to get the CIA to confirm 
that the top-secret test site does exist -- but that's all it's 
saying about it." Here's the link (it's the textual intro on the
search links for CBS News connected to the news video with 
date Aug 16, 2013, time 7:15 PM):
  Here's a link that describes something of the recent release,
at George Washington University, Washington D.C.:
  Up until the revelation that Area 51 does exist, one could
have gone along with the Case Closed report, lacking clear
contrary indications. The fact that a clear-cut cover-up of
a full fifty percent of the rumour did happen -- and probably,
then, with Bill Clinton's knowing -- since he did speak about
the existence of some such location without referring to it as
Area 51 -- cfr quote about Clinton and Bush here --
-- does suggest, coupled with the current sense that a lot is
going on that only thanks to whistleblowers or what they are
supposed to be characterised as, -- it does suggest, does it
not, that there were two sides to the events following the
fresh president Bill Clinton's live stunt in the 1990s. One
side was the fact that he saw to it that a report was 
published, one that looked into every of the main accusations
concerning the initial part of the Roswell incident. The second
side was that he was briefed on something and told not to tell;
this something concerned the area not named, but now named,
but still only partially described -- namely as a testing ground 
for such as stealth-like aircrafts. What he didn't tell may
well be a great big yawn. It may be that such and such top
secret weapons research is going on there. But it is also
quite possible that he was told of something that made the
whole military establishment feel very, very uncertain about
itself and about the universe -- that they would have to wait
and see if more of this nature happens. Right? Logically it is
within rational possibilities without having to subscribe to
a conspiracy sect? After all, in the 1980s we had a president
who famously told the world that it makes sense to prepare
against an alien invasion: "I occasionally think how quickly 
our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing 
an alien threat from outside this world" -- Ronald Reagan at
the United Nations. This quote is found e.g. here:  
  Now many simply thought Reagan, in that speech, was a bit
off his rocker. But he was the president of the United States, 
one who no doubt, too, had been briefed on that which neither 
Bill Clinton nor George Bush told, namely that there is an 
extremely costly site in the middle of nowhere that at least 
in its earliest use was called, is called Area 51. 
  So can we not, again without subscribing to any conspiracy 
idiocy, regard this as a possible way for the outspoken 
Mr Reagan to let off some steam of some secrets he didn't 
really want to keep secret?
  Now let me be clear as to what is my own intuition: (1)
this universe has lots of planets with oxygen, but the
reason no exciting news transmission have been picked up
from anyone of them despite the vast programme still
going on and initiated by the astronomer Carl Sagan and 
others is that it's mostly about grass, trees,
and maybe a bit of fish. I don't believe in alien
civilisations. That's a firm intuition I have. And I
tend to have good intuitions.
  (2) the military might have been scared about something 
they encountered, and which they thought maybe was some 
kind of advanced hoax -- and they still haven't figured 
out what it was, or is -- even though we're speaking of 
more than half a century of steady study. They were scared 
-- is my intuition -- and they didn't know whether there 
would be more of the same to be scared by. Maybe another 
military somewhere was also scared, likewise. To all 
apperancies, it may have been something that they 
concluded, not unlike the first army officer who gave 
the first Roswell report, that it was some kind of 
nonhuman intelligent life not quite from Earth. So maybe 
it was. I don't believe it came from an alien civilisation,
that's all. It's also clear that Roswell, thanks to the
management or mismanagement of facts and apparent 
frankness and openness by former president Bill Clinton,
is not a 'Case Closed' at all anymore. Bill Clinton 
covered up something. What he and the presidents before
and after him covered up hasn't been told yet. It may 
be a yawn and it may be very much other than that.


/////Quote in this wind

[..] Irving Newton, Major, USAF (Ret), was located and
interviewed. [..] In a signed, sworn statement (Atch 30)
Newton related that "...I walked into the General's
office where this supposed flying saucer was lying all
over the floor. As soon as I saw it, I giggled and asked
if that was the flying saucer... I told them that this 
was a balloon and a RAWIN target.." Newton also stated
that "...while I was examining the debris, Major Marcel
was picking up the pieces of the target sticks and
trying to convinece me that some notations on the sticks
were alien writings. There were figures on the sticks,
lavender or pink in color, appeared to be weather faded
markings, with no rhyme or reason [sic]. He did not
convince me that these were alien writings."

[From the main text of the report; note that Major
Marcel was also the official army person who reported
the finding and that after he had carried the finding
off from its crash site, he still insisted on the
interpretation first given -- but met with sceptisism
amongst such as Major Newton. The Roswell Report, 
page 24, pdf page 41]

RW: [..] "Marcel would later say that the
material was like nothing he had ever seen and the
metal was as thin as newsprint and as light as a
feather. It was flexible but very strong. [..]"

[The Roswell Report, Attachment 18 -- Col 
Richard L Weaver's interview with Lt
Col Sheridan D Cavitt, USAF (Ret), PDF Page 173]

The tape was about two or three inches wide and
had flower-like designs on it. The 'flowers' 
were faint, a variety of pastel colors, and 
reminded me of Japanese paintings in which
flowers are not all connected. 

[Bessie Brazel Schreiber, 14 years old at
the time, who lived at the farm where the 
light material was found.
The Roswell Report, page 24, pdf page 41]

As a physician I have done personal/private research
[..] There has been rumours [.. that ..] 4 alien
bodies were recovered [.. ] several miles from the
rest of [the] debris. [..] The bodies were described
as the body of a small humanoid, tan (or sunburned)
in color, approximately the size of a ten-year old
[..These were examined..] at a laboratory [..] on 
23rd Street in New York City. [..] Reportedly, 
shortly after the discovery of this vehicle and its 
occupants -- it prompted then President Harry S. Truman 
to appoint (on Sept. 18, 1947) a committee of twelve 
individuals -- called the "Majestic-12" or MJ-12 to 
secure and study the crashed UFO debris and its 

[The Roswell Report, Attachment 6 -- copy of
a letter from a private person, a physician, 
demanding more information about the rumours 
he mentions, PDF page 41. It is to be noted that
the Roswell Report states specifically in the
beginning that ONLY Air Force archives have been
declassified in the matter. The fact that this 
letter from a private person is included -- and
it contains references to some individuals who
supposedly were in that group -- is one of the
main reasons, we suppose, why the release of
the report gave a sense that the case is not
just open, but vastly and entirely open. Still,
it was not closed by the report issued a couple
years later.]

[All quotes from the transcript of the official
U.S. Air Force Roswell Report as downloadable 
998-page PDF at the University link that after
this bracketed comment that we have inserted here. 
It is to be noted that a couple of years later, the
'Case Closed' report didn't objectively narrow
down the interpretations of the quotes above --
which are not the only examples (for instance,
the 'script' described as 'disconnected flowers'
figure several places and one army observer even
tried to reconstruct these). The main bulk of
the last sections of the large first Roswell report 
is devoted to proving that the Air Force did a lot 
of weather balloon research and it has very
beautiful AM transmitter diagrams, and is quite
readworthy in many senses, both as entertainment
and source of insight. But the quote above 
indicates that even the sceptical person very well 
acquianted with all weather balloon research wasn't 
absolutely sure what to make of the script found, 
and he wasn't necessarily in a state of total 
recognition of what he saw. He saw a similarity
and has to be honored for that; but he didn't say,
'Oh this is Major so-and-so's experiment 5a in
weather balloons.'
  The second Roswell report, insisting on
'Case Closed', merely argues in favour of the fact
that a lot of research, especially from 1949 and
onwards, but possibly some before that point also, 
involved plastic dummy humans stuffed into flying 
vehicles for various research purposes, some of 
which were secret. It doesn't close, it merely 
suggests some interpretations. We repeat our own
interpretation: CASE UNCLOSED. It is an open 
question and must remain so given this US Air Force
information (esp. given what all now know 
in the post-Snowdon/NSA case e.g. of the handling
of the material in possession of the british
newspaper The Guardian of how people are persecuted 
if they talk honestly and openly of classified 
things or merely are in possession of such items). 
When information is classified, it is illegal not
to lie about it. And if there was any substance to
such as the physician's claims, and U.S. Major 
Marcel's interpretation -- which he stuck to -- 
then it became classified more than anything else
has ever been classified, obviously. CASE UNCLOSED!]


/////Quote in this wind

"For several years, the workers say, they labored 
in thick, choking clouds of poisonous smoke as 
hazardous wastes were burned in huge open trenches 
on the base."
-- [R Leiby, Washington Post, July 20, 1997: 
Area 51: Secrets under the sun, page 2]

"Bill Clinton certainly did not kill Wally Kasza, but 
he has been forced to deal with his angry widow."
-- [R Leiby, Washington Post, July 20, 1997: 
Area 51: Secrets under the sun, page 1]

"President Clinton invoked the military and state 
secrets privilege, specifically exempting [Area 51]
from disclosing any pollution reports. [..]
Clinton doesn't want these crimes made public, 
says [George Washington University law professor 
Jonathan] Turley."
-- [R Leiby, Washington Post, July 20, 1997: 
Area 51: Secrets under the sun, page 5]


"Back in the 1990s, the Clinton administration fought 
fiercely to prevent the Area 51 workers from going 
forward with their case. President Bill Clinton signed 
an order exempting Area 51 from disclosing its 
pollution records [..] Of course, it was never called 
Area 51."

Richard Leiby, Washington Post, August 16, 2013





I, for one, believe that there's nothing like learning
something new while having a stack of books around
oneself. I agree with the great Norwegian mysticist and
seer of the 20th century, Marcello Haugen, who offered
the point of view that "books can be as friends". Also,
when you're about to learn something new, what you want
is hand-held samples, picked not at random but by gut
feeling, to get you going. When you know what you want,
the computer is an excellent source of information. When
you are endavouring to learn something complex, you'll
gain a lot if you can find some friendly books, some
books that gives you what Robert Pirsig called 'gumption'
-- the good glow of a sense of quality and relationship --
to the physical objects that paper-printed books are.
  Let me be clear: I love ebooks. I have, like many or
most others, also some favourite novels, which I know so
well that I can open them more or less at any place and
starting reading from there with enjoyment. It is like
looking at different spots of a masterpiece of a painting
in different lights and in your own different moods. 
You know the painting, but it still generates something
new and fresh for you each time you bother to, so to say,
extra-perceive it.
  Here, too, the computer can be of great help: for an
ebook, a book which you have in a textual format inside
something like a text editor, doesn't wear out by reading
it. The pages don't gradually yellow or get over-thumbed.
  But when you are setting out to get connected to
something new, something which requires a lot from your 
brain, nothing is like also having the substance of paper 
with the printed ink of letters on them, bounded in a way 
that pleases your spirit. Learning can involve a great deal 
of tension, and we need all the help we can get from making
our learning environments friendly. And to select the books
that can give your own private learning a peak experience
requires something more than merely the digital. It 
requires the real reality of physical books, working in
conjunction with your own intuition.
  And so, every city in the world, for as long as there
has been cities not completely under the sway of
literalist priests, but which have had a sense of
the secular and of abundance, have offered the public
free open libraries.
  And these free open libraries offer huge stacks of
books you'd never knew existed. When you're about to
learn something, you can linger in front of row upon
row of the stuff, pick something, bring out your loan
card, and bring it home with you for further study for
some days. As long as you don't throw a cup of coffee on
the book, nor actually bath with it, you will be able to
make good use of the book and give it back to the library
and all is well.
  Now that is at least the theory. In practise, one cannot
enter most public libraries in the cities which exist
today without wading through people who think that they
live there. There are people making all sorts of smells--
or, if the library has rules against people being smelly--
there are people chatting there about their illnesses,
people who have taken their shoes of, who have fallen
asleep, who snort and sigh and worse so loudly that it is
hard for anyone spending some minutes in there standing
in front of a book row to focus on the books. Worse, in
going in there another day, or another season, if one has
sharp memory one will maybe see exactly the same sick
people still living there, sprawled over the same set
of chairs, and one can sense the tension between these
people who believe the libraries are an extension of
their sickbed, and the poor staff, incapable of doing
anything -- they don't have enough rules, and even if
they did have enough rules, some of the sick people are
looking terribly self-important and willing to bully to
get their own ways.
  So what rules, and what enforcement of rules, are
necessary to make of public libraries places where the
healthy part of the population can get a pleasant access
to quality books in a quality way? That is to say, also
sick people should be able to borrow books, of course:
but they shouldn't be allowed to live there. And they
should, like most others, just fetch the books and
get outta there -- or, at most, sit very quietly and
decently and nonsmellily for some minutes.
  I can think of nothing else than strict rules to bring
such decent public open libraries about. The rules must
say -- well, it's free, but each person, who in any case
has a loan card tied to the person, can only use the
libraries for so and so many minutes pr month, and then
most of those minutes standing -- each chair having some
kind of loan-card automat inserted into it, to allow it
to be used as chair. And if a guard detects as much as
a whiff of foul smell, or a too load snort or sigh or
bit of medical gossip discussed, it is out -- for the
rest of the month, without any complaint possibility.
To enforce this, the loan cards, which should be free,
should be the automatically minute-counted door-opener 
to the library as well, and to the free, hygienic, simple
restroom facilities any library should offer. Also,
a library should be there to honor physical books, in 
my opinion. Get ALL computers out, put lead inside the
ceiling and walls to prevent the noise from the Facebook-
and Instagram-dominated little walkie-talkie gadgets so
popular amongst the bored part of the population, and
make it the total concept of full attention to physical
books. Make the loan cards refer to the library physically,
rather than something which exists also digitally. By
keeping the loancards away from the internet, and 
connected solely to one person's use of one library,
one can add rules ensuring the privacy of the users,
a privacy that internet-enabled loancards can never give.
The strictness of the rules is supposed to give the 
majority a greater freedom to associate with quality
books, it is not supposed to go along with surveillance.
  Some might argue that with such strict rules, the public
open libraries won't be "open" anymore. Well, openness is
not simply one thing, existing in abstraction. They would
still be free, not requiring money unless one screws up
a book. But they won't be open to misuse. They won't be
mistaken for hospitals anymore, and that would be an
enormous relief to the vast majority of the population.
It would imply a new type of fantastic openness for those
thousands and thousands who would never even vaguely think 
of misusing a library nor would consider them a sort of
extension of their own living-room, but who could, given
a decency public libraries perhaps never before have attained 
to, surely think of using these fresh, quiet, cleared-up, 
quality libraries where real printed quality books about 
any subject can be borrowed and enjoyed without a cost.
It is an application of mindful rules to a necessary
component in any society dedicated to the welfare of the
majority. A sufficient density of quality free-for-cost 
libraries, with well-thought, privacy-aware quality rules, 
super-strictly enforced, is a necessary element in any part 
of any affluent society, and a foundation for the true
meaning of freedom. And this might given inspiration for
a whole new class of cafees, for the domain of cafees --
also instrumental for a city to feel like a place of
well-being surely have a set of similar, although in some 
respects milder, challenges of this sort associated with 



Super-model theory is a rather detailed and rather complex
theory which is so that it lends a visualisation and a 
set of consistent, imaginable ideas to all the patterns
of energy transfers in the known universe, and in a way
which is compatible with all essential findings in the
various branches of empirical physics. I say 'empirical'
in front of physics because although it is a physics
theory, it disagrees in most presumptions underlying the
theorizing of physics from Einstein and Bohr to the
present day. But it is part of the approach of science
to be willing to say that for any set of data, an infinite
amount of theories are possible, and we are at liberty to
construct holistic theories that summarize the data found
in nature without paying tribute to past authorities in
any field. This according to the vastly dominant science
theoretician Karl Popper as of mid twentieth century, and the
extended and refined version of this approach as described
elsewhere at, and associated sites
is called 'neo-popperian' science.
  Super-model theory has in it a number of aspects that
however may be correct in a more 'extreme' sense, in
which there are aspects of the theory that could lend a
non-material but nevertheless real feature to daily life
-- which is 'macroscopic' compared to the (sub-)atomic
  The theory is indicated informally (as is the proper way
in neo-popperian science, as the formal -- such as 
programming -- merely is there to illustrate an aspect
of the theory, rather than capturing its core in any way)
in other writings here and there at my sites.
  This little essay takes as starting-point the notion,
which will only appeal to the non-sceptic, that the super-
model theory is not only correct in replicating empirical
findings of mainstream physics through its own informal
viewpoints, but that it is correct in launching a paradigm
of perspective on human daily life. That's not something
earlier emphasized in most of the articles from my hand
(although hinted on many places), because we're then into
a realm that will simply make no sense at all for 
mainstream scientists of the type that prefers a mechanistic
worldview of some kind.
  This article then has sentences in it that I would only
like to see quoted elsewhere if the title of the article is
both included and explained in these terms. For it is not
representative of the major bulk of presentations of the
S.M. theory.

In saying 'introducing' it means, that notion is new to the
context of S.M. theory, but it doesn't mean that there aren't
a lot of more or less similar concepts around (indeed cfr the 
acknowledgements in the earlier S.M. writings for the most
obvious ones). Let us also be so bold as to say that q-field
is a correction to the asian Feng Shui approach.
  While a super model (or super-model, or supermodel) in the
S.M. theory is a very general concept, suitable also for 
strong fields of quantum resonant entanglement as found e.g.
in the molecule, or -- more spectacularly -- at distances
such as in the EPR/Aspect experiments -- we here give unique
attention to a kind that presumes a number of simultaneously
existing fields nudging towards various kinds of wholenesses
(or coherencies) of a kind which is very hard to trace by 
conventional mechanical methods of mechanistically 
oriented empirical science. These gently modify, or nudge,
a level of apparent coincidental fluctuations towards a 
certain key result (usually in organic and sensitive

Rather than attempting to give formal definitions, I will
define the q-fields by example. These examples, as stated
in the introduction, only make sense if we assume a that
an extreme form of my supermodel theory has been found to
be valid, at macroscopic levels of human experience. (In
contrast, quantum theory has no generative way of asserting
its type of entanglement or quantum coherence at macroscopic
levels other than the mechanistic either-or kind that arises
from energy processes first being in local contact, and then
only under highly specific and noiseless conditions.)
  The kind of car design associated with late 20th century
and early 21st century can be sumsummated under the heading
of 'designing cars with the q-field of a drop' -- with some
mild and some strong exceptions. The shapes of a drop of 
water, ethanol or oil are more or less similar while subject 
to normal planetary gravitation and normal air pressure. 
These are sharper behind and tend towards the surface of 
a sphere in front. The lines of the drop, slices of the drop,
and permutations of the drop, are all part of the q-field of
a drop, and in one way or another, with one mutation or 
another, most cars after the rectangular Volvo 240 series  
went out of production can be said to be within the model 
monopoly of the drop -- this may not always be obvious 
before you actually put a car entirely outside of this
q-field beside a drop-oriented car, and sense the esthetical
paradigm break.
  The kind of car design, on the other hand, associated with
such a period as the 1960s, especially for large american
cars, is entirely and altogether different. The design
perspective was not how to make slight twists over the 
q-field of the drop, so as to squeeze in an extra milage
on a fixed amount of gallons of gasoline or whatever power
source the engine has. Rather, the design took as 
starting-point that the car is a vehicle affecting people
outside and inside the car at a psychological and spiritual
level, and it was sought an inspirational design, giving
a sense of richness of ideas. And indeed, such as in the
case perhaps most sensationally with the Lincoln cars at
that time, we see that more than there being any particular
q-field of an existing structure that associates with these
cars, there is instead an association with a series of 
plates. Not just rectangular plates with straight corners,
but plates with also other angles and somewhat other shapes,
and indeed also such as semi-parallel lines and elongations.
But there isn't a q-field associated with a "plate". A
plate forms rather a tentative q-field together with a
vast array of other q-fields. You may liken this to how
a paragraph in a great literary work of fiction may evoke
a vast number of different imaginations, whereas even the
greastest possible illustrated work of fiction -- the X-men
comics classics of the late 1970s and early 1980s in
particular -- can only give rise to a limited number of
imaginations, the illustrations 'locking' the association
range rather as the late 20th century 'drop' and 'droplet'
cars lock the imagination.

Just as there with lively sea waves aren't found a single
straight line, not a single circle in the geometrical,
conceptual sense, nor a single square, so also can art
on the wall be judged according to its associations at
the subtle perceptive level. If it is too repetitive, 
too simplistic in its shapes, or so deliberately 
over-messy that it is uniform in its messiness, then
the art on the wall forms a q-resonance with but some
features of this world. By such limitations, the art
on the wall will act to lock thinking and perception
into some channels, rather than suggest possibilities.
  A variety of lines, lines which are not quite lines,
and of different lengths, can however form q-fields
together with such as human anatomy, which is one of
the key vehicles for all perception. 
  Many companies have fallen deeply into the trap of
having what they with typical ignorance of the results,
and with typical hyped and nonsensical language, call
a 'company logo'. If their company presentation was
by means of a text, in plain normal font, then the
mind could associate to this text quite freely. Instead,
fatness inducers in humanity like McDonalds have 
gone into the fallacy of making logos that look like
a fat butt and put it up on the walls around their
places of degeneration so as to encourage such locking
of thought towards the regarding the fattening body as
a kind of norm.
  But it isn't only companies that often succumb to
locking q-fields needlessly much. One of the key features
of a photogenic longlegged slender young woman is that
her face and body associates richly, not narrowly, 
because of the many dancing, youthful lines -- not 
quite straight lines in general -- at various sizes that
can suggest nudgings of q-fields without locking the
field. But if she's dressed up in a particular manner
and displayed without a playing on her angles etc in the
environment she must, in her anatomy, carry the 
burden of opening up the stimuli, even while there
is much more space the photograph that could be used
to assist the nonlocking openness of the core object
or objects. If such a photograph is used over and over
again, it becomes a needless focus on person; but if
the photo is manipulated (or has such an environment
in it that make manipulations unnecessary) so as to
play on perceptive possibilities without locking the
q-field, it is more art and less the dull concept.

Is the website 'easy to understand', 'obvious how to
use', and 'properly commercial looking'? Well then,
the wise person would never touch the website unless
forced by practical necessity. For the wise person
would want a nudging towards possible perception,
not a locking into the geometry of spheres, ovals,
and squares, and such, that characterise the
superficially 'easy to understand' website. It is
easy to understand because there is nothing to
understand there; in other words, it offers nothing.
It's an energy sucker.
  A website with a variety of nudging towards q-fields
doesn't lock the q-field into simple geometry. It
rather looks to the range of perceptive possibilities
and what percpetions of life is most called for, 
from the perspective of wholeness. In finding open
not manipulative ways, yet also refined and subtle,
in encouraging such perception, the technical usefulness
of the site may be slightly reduced by its sense of
contributing to a sense of liveliness about things
is enhanced.

A q-field seeks to complete itself, if it is nonwhole. It
follows that a q-field which is whole in itself, and yet
part of a non-whole larger q-field, is such that the
larger q-field seeks to complement the q-field with 
a contrasting q-field. 
  If you were able to digest this simple fact (which is
derived from the PMW principle in S.M. theory when we
extend it as indicated by the title of this article),
you will see why any news portal that aims only at giving
positive news will be complemented by news portals that
aims at giving mostly negative news; why people who are
unable to point out positive things in reality will 
find themselves all to often stumbling into people who
are of the overly cheery kind, who speaks only of
gratefulness to 'what is'; and why those who proclaim
mechanist science to be the only truth will find 
themselves bombarded with non-mechanist non-science.
  The contrast aspect of q-fields acts so as to create
good and meaningful contrasts where the original 
content q-fields are in themselves meaningful -- a
particularly obvious example is in food, where an
excellent item of food must sometimes, despite its
excellence, be complemented with an absolutely
contrasting item of good in order to give a wholesome
  If all the world was of gold, gold would be trivial.
As it is, when gold is rather sparse, its qualities to
form q-fields together with such things as sunrise and
sun shining in the blondest of blonde hair, and tanned
skin healthy from a recent bath on a beach, makes it
a token of wealth and health. But wealth and health 
are themselves aspirational qualities that come easily
only giving the simultaneously satisfaction of a vast
number of criterions that civilisation only at its
very best can offer human beings. So gold is in some
cases not only a q-field with some things in the
present, but also it can form a q-field with some
things people usually are willing to work very hard
for, -- it's a q-field, in other words, with the 
future, the ambition, -- and in terms of wholeness of
mind and good feelings about life in general, also
spiritually so.

More or less crystalline molecule scents such as caffeine,
nicotine and laboratory produced lemon, rum, vanilla, 
almond and cherry scents are able to form q-fields 
together with mental states as a whole. This is again
significant when the creative worker seeks to enliven
herself by reminding herself of certain key learnings
and experiences.
  Let us note that while we can recall some numbers,
we do not remind some numbers. We can recall some
statistics, but we do not remind some statistics.
Thus, a memory is recalled, but rather we remind
ourselves of an experience. So the action we call
'to remind' involves our being, while the action we
call 'to recall' is more a mechanical action. It is
more a brain-thing to recall, and more a mind-thing
to remind.
  Another way of putting this is that when we remind
us of whatever it is -- it can be to remind ourselves
of the importance of gratefulness and seeing the
cheery and uplifting sides of things, and putting
words to these, or to remind ourselves to be 
tranquil and not needlessly upset and such, -- when
we remind ourselves, we are engaging more of our
organism, possibly of all of it. Merely to recall
happens to a larger extent with a portion of our
organism. When we've had an insight, we can remind
ourselves of it later. Socrates, the ancient greek
bohemian philosopher, apparently suggested that all
insights ultimately have their foundation in 
us reminding ourselves (from past lives).
  A scent, derived from a more or less crystalline
molecule -- and crystals have clearer q-fields than
more cluttered molecules, obviously -- is in rather
direct contact with the molecules of the nose -- in
a chemical sense also. This directedness of influence
is of key help in order to stop oneself from eating
anything rotten just in time. Thus, the sense of smell
is far more instantaneous in its effects than most
other sensory possibilities that the body offers to
the brain and mind. 
  Thus, the crystalline, pure, beautiful scents of
coffee, lemon, rum and vanilla involves q-fields
-- at the level of reminding, not merely recalling --
together with the healthy experiences and fruitful
actions associate with these uplifting scents.
  But these q-fields are not merely there in their
activation through their action on nostrils. Indeed,
it is likely to assume that the q-field associated
with any crystalline item, whether as scent or as
some other things, all the way up to a crystal stone,
are active in subtle ways also when untouched, or
about to be used in some way. Is there then a way
to loosen a q-field? But q-fields are sensitive to
such as vibrations. The q-field of a car that has
been driven for many hours is entirely and 
altogether different than the q-field of a car 
that has just rolled out of a factory. Indeed, one
cannot properly 'know' the car without having it
exposed to the normal vibrations associated with
driving for a good while. Only then it becomes 
properly its own. It has to be literally 'shaken 
loose' from the factory and its suppliers. 
  A q-field of a shaken item is so in general
freer than a q-field of a non-shaken item. The 
shaking is a shape all of its own, spread out in
the first duration dimension, the fourth dimension, 
rather than spatially, in the first three dimensions.
The shaking must take place then somewhat more than
five times if the item is very uniform indeed, and
very much more than that if the item is a complex
device of engineering. This is then a suitable 
'treatment' of wares with unsuitable q-fields. For
q-fields may also form q-fields together with some 
people; and it may be important to loosen these to 
benefit from the presence of these objects in your 

Of key importance to a house is that the play of lines
are so that the house properly belong to itself, in its
q-field: that the q-fields are not divided into one area
which is gold, another which is entrance, another which
is kitchen, another which is working room, another which
is toilet, and so on. Of course, there are areas of such
subdivisions, but in terms of design, the key and the
quest is that there is a lack of locking of the q-field
as a whole, while there is a wholeness of the various
q-fields composing the house so that the q-field won't
seek to change itself so as to make itself whole. But
beyond this, there aren't grand design features that
must be implemented for the q-field of a house to be
good. One can say -- often emphasize the clockwise
direction of circulation for most things associated
with health and food, but have some contact with the
anti-clockwise as well. The clockwise is associated,
again, with the fact that reading goes generally
from left to right, from heart side of body to the
logical writing hand side of body, when on top of the
circle that rotates (not just with solar rotation on
Earth). The key is to avoid fragmentation into 
conceptual departements scrubbed clean of the stimuli
of not-quite-square corners and not-quite-straight
lines. The organic house design isn't easy to construct
by a ruler, isn't easy to explain except by metaphors,
but it shows itself to work by the creativity and
richness of stimuli to the mind. But it is also 
relatively free from dualism: neither dragons' heads
nor the doubleness of pairs of bottles or lights or
such are allowed to dominate either interior or
exterior, for dualism speaks of an unfulfilled q-field,
that will seek towards the unity of such as three, four
or five. (The four is more mechanical, like the necessary
four wheels of the car, but in its place it's entirely
called for.) 
  The colors of the house, interior as exterior, must
be seen in connection to surroundings and to functional
activity. In general, white signifies nothingness and
lack of holding capacity therefore. Black in large
quantities may also signify nothingness if we speak
walls. To properly hold the q-field in place, some
organic color is necessary so that the objects in the
interior are not as if floating in nothingness but
rather kept there pleasantly.
  There is, of course, infinitely more to explore about
q-fields -- from golden ratio to the beauty of swimming;
from sexual perception through porn to the beauty of
exquisite cleanliness such as through long baths;
from contrast exploration such as feline long skinny
legs against the gentle roughness of cut jeans shorts
to the deeper understanding of essence number theory;
from the austere and somewhat cold elegance of high 
cheekbones to the sometimes extra exhillerating smiles 
on the very same face -- etc etc.


  To be concerned with survival, getting food
  and getting friends, all belong to the
  lower levels or what is called 'deficiency mode'.
  In being or abundancy mode, self-actualisation and
  deeper questions of fact and truth are what motivates
  a person. 

  -- the gist of the philosophy of A Maslow

-- Ever since the fallen '5th generation' program of the
Japanese, dedicated to rediculous Artificial Intelligence
aims, -- and indeed ever since it was proven in 1930 that
general intelligence machines cannot exist -- it ought to
have been clear that AI is an illusion

I'm a great fan of stimulating the brain -- that's not just
an intellectual thing, but a sexual thing, as brain science
will eagerly tell anyone looking into the matter. The brain
is the organ of sensation, an entity situated between the
world of matter and the world of consciousness. One doesn't
have to apply a mechanistic worldview in order to listen to
tidbits of brain science with an eclectic attitude.
  And one of the things brain science is clear about is that
reading and listening to radio is more stimulating to the
brain than dumbly watching videos or TV.
  So listen e.g. to, -- but even this station, which
is very free from such desperately negative advertisements as
the various CBS radios spews all across internet -- has its
share of rediculous sponsors. Currently, we are told that
if you go into a site called nothing less than
you'll find artificial intelligence operating on big data in
an advertisement context; at the site, there are papers on
such humble themes as Total Economic Impact.
  Now, one wonders why they don't also say -- which is probably
just as true -- that they've got five-dimensional printers that
actually creates paying customers of a loyal kind -- or that
they offer a free weekend with hanggliding courses in the
sweet atmosphere of Jupiter. The difference is, of course, that
the lie about artificial intelligence that is
coming with, is a lie that many others -- including,, and like to say or at least imply
to the many stupid buyers of their advertisement offers.
And it is a lie that is all the better for lack of serious
competition. The more these monopolies on advertisements --
worldwide monopolies, not merely in USA -- are saying that AI
is powering their spewing of the ad-spam to desiring customers,
the less easy it is to disprove this rediculous claim by 
looking at alternative advertisement data -- for there isn't
any data not tainted by the lie of AI.
  Decades ago, the japanese government spent what amounts of
the equivalent of billions of dollars today in what was called
a Fifth Generation type of computers chock-full with artificial
intelligence. Of course, the only thing that came out of it was
some half-working speech recognition bits of software similar
to the half-working speech recognition that Apple, Google and
so on are offering rather for free these days. 
  Yet since ca 1930 -- see my article on mathematics and Goedel
-- it has been clear that AI is an illusion, and will forever
be. It is then fortunate for the sellers in these falsifying
advertisement companies that their customers are gullible people
without education. For only gullible people without education
can be so silly as to pay money for artificial intelligence,
five-dimensional printers of paying customers, or hang-gliding
tours in Jupiter's gaseous atmosphere.
  Or perhaps the customers after all have insight and education?
That can maybe explain why the earnings report as given today
by Google shows by-them-unexpected decline in earnings of the 
last season, and so a fall in their share prices.



-- And a more appropriate response to the 
question of how to reduce the quantity of 
teens and preteens who die while giving
The past few months have seen a flurry of
writing over how to reduce the staggering
quantity of teen and preteen girls who every
year, on Earth, die while giving birth: and
all the most-published writings have centered
on such as distribution of condoms and teaching
girls to just say no. It should be apparent to
anyone who has a little bit sense of how the
world and societies at large are developing that
such responses to this genuine problem are 
entirely off the mark. A more fearless and 
real and less frigid understanding of where the
youth in this world is moving is called for.
  And as background, we must first get a hold on
why child sexuality is real thing and not just
a thing of some sick people's imagination.
  The photographic difference between a prettily 
flat-chested, healthily skinny, and proportionally 
long-limbed female of a post-teen type, the teen 
type, and the preteen type involves eg. minuscle
variations in relative sizes of head and feet
to the rest of the body. Some christian church
fathers, such as St Augustine, very wrongly 
called women for 'shortlegged': it shows his
lack of experience. It is true, however, that
a sporty, exercise-oriented style of living
(such as that which characterises RSG girls in
Russia) emphasises hormones of the testoteron
type that do prolong leg length. The writer
Desmond Morris, who has produced works comparing
animal and human sexuality behaviour, has 
conceeded that women can be longlegged but
he doesn't seem to realise that they can be
proportionally very longlegged before puberty,
and so much of his reasoning around sexuality
perception in others, seeing the proportion of
leg length to torso length, must be considered, 
at best, highly approximate. Also, there are
other characteristics of sexuality, such as
having good breasts, good lips, or a shapely
rump that come in -- and only as for the breasts,
and only as for size of rump, does puberty play
a role, speaking photographically.
  Speaking in terms of behaviour and psychology,
sexuality in the earliest years is connected to
four challenges, broadly speaking. The first
and second challenge is the physical weakness
of a child compared to an adult sexual person,
and the psychological advantage of the adult
mind over the child mind in being usually far
more able to manipulate the latter. The third
challenge is the readiness of the genitals for
any level of advanced sexuality. The fourth
challenge is that when a very very young girl
gets pregnant, then she sometimes has a size 
problem, housing and then giving birth to an 
infant requires ample size. 
  So photographically, it is only a sick mind
that can claim that it is sick to see a preteen
and not only a teen or a post-teen as a sexual
object, for, photographically, the minute
proportional diffences are not a question of
sickness of but of artistic variations and
the modern enlightened pan-sexual woman or
girl in this era generally is entirely clear
on this issue: the looks of children can be
more than sensual, it can be sexual, and it
takes a great deal of inner repression and
illusion to live in denial of that fact.
  As Sigmund Freud and many others have pointed
out, children are also extremely sexual through
and through in psychology and behaviour and
bringing up children in denial of this fact
is to deny them the right to grow into mature
adults. They become hysterical as adults if
they are shut off in their sexuality as kids.
  However, in any society that regards violence
against an innocent person as a criminal offence,
and especially against an innocent person who is
also weak and/or easy to manipulate, there is no
doubt that a sexual relationship between an
adult and a child can easily become a situation
of violence, and hence be criminal. This is not
to say that it is any sicker crime than any other
crime which involves violence against someone
who is innocent and possibly also weak physically
and/or can be manipulated easily psychologically.
It needn't be exactly rape. Many forms of 
sexual interest glide into various forms of
violence and so where violence is regarded as
wrong, then it is not unnatural to regard the
area of child sexuality as something that can
attract possibilities of violence relative to
adult sexual behaviour.
  Yet with the fact of the intensity of sexuality
in not just post-teens and teens but also pre-
teens, combined with the fact of the statistics
recently produced as for the enormous quantity,
in the present anti-child-sex societies on Earth,
of very young girls dying while giving birth,
indicate that an enlightened approach to the
matter should handle the issue with a greater
leverage for alternative pathways than those 
typically given at present (as encapsulated
in lawbooks, and how they are interpreted by
judges and police, and propagated also by
dinosauric journalists and editors in some
tabloid-like news stations around the globe;
with a very explicit photo-and-name harassment
of those adults who have been convicted of
inappropriate sexual behaviour relative to
  For there is little doubt that, again as
shown by the hard-training gymnasts, the young
girl body is enormously able to accomodate
a variety of pressures when these are given
in small amounts many times a week over several
years. The acrobatic capacities of the girl
body as revealed in sports is showing what
the girl body can do also when it comes to
handling enhanced capacity for giving birth
to children at an early stage given tremendously
accurate and fearless education and regular
training. It is part of the condemnation of
adult-to-children sexuality around on this
planet that leads children to be entirely
uncared-for in this regard, apart from 
fearfully made cartoon-like educational
books tossed at them by equally fearful
teachers, -- and it is the lack of a proper
sexual education of an absolutely intense
kind that leads the child to have an 
entirely undeveloped body if the teen,
or preteen, becomes pregnant very early on.
  There is a genuine thirst for sexuality
in quite a few and there is no reason to 
believe that this thirst is unnatural, nor
any reason to believe that this thirst, once
unleashed by a naturally enlightened type of
environment with rich impulses, can or should
be slaked. It is entirely compatible with a
focus on a radiance of innocence and virtue,
a radiance of childlike golden youth, to also
have a sexual activity for a child. Adults who
read this have either had such themselves or
not: but if they have not, they mustn't think
that they have any right to set the norm, for
they don't know what they missed.
  There is a magnitude of focus on sensuality
in the child that is reflected in the overall
grace of her movements, when she is happy
and healthy, and in good shape. This grace is
not intoxicated by such peculiarities of this
world as condoms. Condoms are an invention by
folks whose sexuality is centered on a 
particular form of genital intercourse; but
the pan-sexuality now penetrating humanity
more and more finds that particular type of
sexual action as but one of very many. Nor
does it fail to drastically alter the quality
of the sexuality. As some girls of thirteen
so aptly put it in the norwegian newspaper
Aftenposten some years ago, 'You don't eat
the chocolate with the wrapping on it.'
  What is the case is that a great focus on
health and freedom from drugs must go together
with a real enlightened teaching on sexuality,
for drugs, even of apparently fairly mild types like
marihuana or amphetamins, so often tend to lead to
states of mind and states of body activity
where sexual diseases do spread. Any type of
laziness, obesity, over-drinking, indulgence
in too-large quantities of sugars, and so on,
lead to a degenerate state of the child body
so as to lead it far more vulnerable for
sexual diseases. The general climate is also
such as to not promote measurements for sexual
diseases except to those who are way up in
their teens, and then only in situations where
they are subject to humilitating questions from
frightened doctors and nurses, who feel obliged
to moralise should the occasion to do such 
relative to one 'too young to be sexually
active' occur.
  Instead, disease testing equipment should be
freely available to all children, alongside
free equipment that can train the child to
enhance her vagina size e.g. with dildos and
vibrators, and make her come across to her
own sexuality in a fearless way, without anymore
being too easy to manipulate. Should she be
intensely lustful for much of the sexual
feelings and experiences, it makes only great
sense to provide her with all the equipment
for her to do so healthy and by herself, 
instead of depraving children for these means
so that they can only satisfy themselves by
going to others. Any element of masturbation
is an element of disease-preventation; and many
elements of masturbation are elements that
actively train the genitals of a young girl
to handle childbirths better.
-- Is it even a scientific question? Then it must 
be checkable; but it isn't. 
The English language, with some obvious and some 
not so obvious shortcomings here and there, is, 
I think, the best language humanity has come up 
with for clear thinking -- reaching fact -- which 
also implies doubt -- looking at alternative 
points of views, weighing them. 
  The diversity of words combined with the capacity 
of grammar and convention to put together ever-new 
phrases -- even if not all of these sound as  
'natural' as some of the more often-used phrases -- 
allow a sense of attention to flower hither and 
thither, without always having to flow in the 
same channels. 
  All other languages as I have encountered them -- 
not always in detail but always with a depth- 
interest -- convey a message. They may speak of 
the greatness of feeling, or the pride of a  
nation, or the glory of a particular narrow 
faith, or of the fluid interconnectedness of 
absolutely everything with absolutely every 
other thing, or else of the coming and going 
of the seasons of wild nature, or of the  
intricacies of being in the center of a group 
versus being on its periphery. The languages may 
convey bits and pieces of beauty and truth in 
a way that cannot easily be translated, only 
repoetrised, when conveyed into another language. 
But common to all other languages than English 
as far as I can see is that they are not merely 
an instrument for thinking, but they are an 
instrument for conveying a hidden or overt form 
of propaganda and worldview. 
  English has been brutally kicked in the ass 
by so many conflicting cultures that it has  
steeled itself to encompass all possible thoughts. 
No other language has had to do this. All other 
languages has had a purity maintained by some 
core group of relaxed winners. These have  
maintained the clarity of the language against 
its fallen corrupted states as spoken amongst 
people far away from this group. English has  
had an explosion of its centre. It is no longer 
owned by Oxford, by London, or by the dictionary- 
makers of USA. It is owned by people, all people, 
who bother to get an education in it -- and in 
pure thinking, and cross-cultural, essential 
and also scientific dialogue. 
  But there is no doubt that as for worldviews, 
there are few languages with which such ease 
atheism can be expressed as in English. If  
someone says, 'Consciousness is based on a 
physical process in the brain,' as I heard 
someone recently do, then the language doesn't 
shout back at the person and calls on the 
person to correct the grammar or purify the 
use of the idioms, the phrases. The language 
doesn't defend any worldview any too strongly. 
It rather calls on dialogue, on other  
participants, to come in and do work. And 
since someone has the crust to utter such a 
thing as 'Consciousness is based on a physical 
process in the brain', and even go as far (as 
this person did) as to say that this is what 
science has found out, then someone has got to 
have the crust to look at it and, if need be, 
challenge it. 
  Science is either just what hotheaded people 
who for the wrong or right reason has come into 
a job-position associated with the word "science" 
has as opinions, or science is a noble ideal, 
that of checking each statement and looking into 
each of the assumptions of each statement, and 
the theory-horizon, and as far as possible also 
check each of these assumptions; and clarify 
how these are checked, not merely check them in 
an esotheric manner not open to others. 
  There are various ways of fine-tuning this 
statement of what science as a noble ideal is -- 
the best work I have seen by others, by and  
large, was written by K R Popper and what I 
found lacking in this, I have contributed with, 
and reworked the approach into what I call a 
'neopopperian' approach (writings elsewhere on 
this, in plenty). 
  But in any case, the work by K R Popper,  
extremely well known and very well appreciated 
and to a large extent accepted as foundational 
for the best of science, does say that a theory 
-- which can also be, informally, such a  
statement as 'A is based on a physical process 
in B' -- is only scientifically a proper  
theory, or is only a scientific statement, 
if we can also check it. And when it is checked, 
we will pay attention to instances of  
confirmation, without saying that the theory 
has been proved, and we will pay attention to 
instances of disconfirmation, without falling 
too easily into the trap of saying that the 
theory has been 'falsified'. In matters of 
purer logic, statements of logic about logic, 
we can more easily appreciate the situation 
where we have falsified a statement. In the 
domain of life, it is better to speak of 
instances that confirm and instances that 
suggest it is wrong, that it is disconfirmed. 
(This vocabulary also goes back to Rudolf 
Carnap and others, and I was taught it by 
Arne Naess, before I read more about it.) 
  It is perhaps at this point highly 
valuable to say something about what we  
can call 'the atheistic worldview'. In this 
worldview, physical processes are what is, and 
the rest is just a kind of interplay or  
complexity phenomenon arising more as an 
appearance than as a reality. So if we 
say, 'Consciousness is based on a physical 
process in the brain', then the atheist will 
-- if honest -- say: You have merely stated 
a particular case of my worldview, that A is 
based on a physical process in B, for with  
my atheist worldview, this holds for all  
processes A that they are based on some 
physical process related to some physical B 
  But can it be tested? 
  Normally, a whole worldview is hard to put 
to test. But one can point out that a lot of 
complications may arise if it is taken seriously, 
and these complications may be solved if  
another worldview is adapted, especially if 
there are many instances of confirmation for 
the latter and many instances of disconfirmation 
for the former. 
  When a scientist has a more classic K R Popper 
point of view, the focus is on what we sense of 
physical data, ie, physical processes. So we  
have to look at these and theorise over these. 
(In my own expanded neopopperian view, we have 
another, different source in addition.) 
  It is typical for the atheist point of view 
to take to a classic Popper point of view when 
it comes to science. But is -- within this 
horizon -- 'consciousness is a physical process 
in the brain' -- checkable? Ie, can there be 
instances of confirmation of this, and can 
there be instances of disconfirmation of this? 
  Certainly in a vague sense there are  
instances of confirmation found in the fact of 
some correlation between some processes reported 
by people to be consciousness and activity in  
the area between the ears, as measured by some 
sensitive apparatus. And those who don't have 
brains, are in some technical sense dead. 
  But in order to actually test the full  
proposition that consciousness is BASED on  
physical processes -- whether in the brain or 
in the thumb or elsewhere -- we would have to 
conclude that there is no consciousness  
possible when there is nothing of the physical 
process, and, in addition, prove that there are 
no other types of non-physical processes that 
are necessary in addition. 
  Neither of these things can be proved. 
  The body is unable to express itself unless 
the body is intact, and verbal expressions as 
datum of consciousness requires the presence of 
a brain. Few would doubt that such is the case, 
no matter worldview -- at least if we by 'verbal 
expression' mean the normal thing, ie, talking, 
sounds with meaning and intelligence and insight 
coming through vocal chords, tongue movements, 
lips, breathing, all that, or something at least 
adequately matching up to that. 
  However, in the more atheist view of reality, 
which could hold such a statement as the above 
-- that 'consciousness is a physical process 
based on the brain' -- there is no way to  
measure consciousness directly, because by 
its very definition it is beyond the sensory 
realm. It is the experiencer, also of the  
sensory realm, or what in sanskrit was talked 
of (in some writings) by a root word which can 
be translated as 'witness'. The witness is not 
measurable. One can measure talk, but one 
cannot measure consciousness. One can infer 
consciousness, but not measure it, and the 
inference, moreover, might be entirely mistaken. 
Consciousness is something that is the most 
intimate to a person, it is the center of  
being, or more or less at the center of being. 
  So how can anyone ever hope to prove, by 
looking at statements which refer to measurable 
things, things measured by the sensory organs 
-- even if equipped with microscops and  
telescopes and various electromagnetic and 
radioactive measuring apparatus -- that  
consciousness is 'based' on any physical 
process anywhere? 
  It boils down to the fact that one cannot 
measure the consciousness of another person. 
One can ask the person, but the person might 
be like a tape recorder, answering something 
without consciousness. It is you yourself who 
has consciousness and you yourself who must 
measure, not by looking to any sensory  
apparatus, but by looking at the looking,  
feeling the feeling, and experiencing the 
experience, whether this particular feature 
can exist without brain or other body elements. 
You yourself can gather instances of confirmation 
and instances of disconfirmation, but only in a 
context of neopopperian science -- where you  
bring in the immediacy of fine-tuned intuition; 
and then you may find that consciousness is 
indeed not merely based on a physical process 
in the brain.  
  But in turning again to someone who claims 
that 'consciousness is a physical process based 
on the brain' within a sensory-organ measurement 
oriented classic K R Popper framework, we have  
to say: this statement cannot be checked for you 
have no element such as 'consciousness' as part 
of the framework of phenomena that you study. 
You may work on the correlation between speech 
utterances and physical processes in the brain, 
fine. But that is not a study which can mandate 
you to say what consciousness is 'based' on . 
It merely mandates you to talk of what a typical 
expression through the body might be based on. 
Since consciousness is not a sensory datum, it 
is not a datum in the scientific investigation 
of the type that requires sensory data for all 
significant part of the scientific statements. 
One may try to define consciousness pr some 
sensory data, but then this definition can be 
strongly, and successfully, challenged by  
looking at it and discussing it from the point 
of view of various worldviews; it can be shown 
that it contains hidden assumptions and that 
the study merely becomes an exercise in circular 
thinking, having the conclusions reached within 
the definition of that which one asks a question 
-- an important parallel involving incoherence 
in two dominant avenues of present human endavour 
There is, I think, a fairly interesting parallel 
between two typically considered widely separate 
human endavours in the 21st century (incl late 
20th century): investment banking, and physics. 
  The change in investment banking, or, more 
precisely, in banking as such, came about around 
the time when, in the late 20th century, more 
and more politicians (even slightly to the left 
of the centre in politics also in Europe) got 
the idea that money can be an adequate 
performance monitoring factor, instead of far 
more subtle and perceptive ways of monitoring 
activities, e.g. in state-run companies, even 
in universities. 
  This change in politics was widely announced 
in dramatic terms which included the big, 
misleading phrase, "the ideologies are dead". 
The notion had in it connotations such as  
a money-oriented society also becomes a more 
human rights oriented society, and less  
tyrannic -- for the simple reasons that even 
dictators need money, and the rules governing 
monetary transactions are so as to soften 
even the worst of dictators. 
  Hence, China got membership in WTO, in order 
to cure China, and every part of societies which 
earlier prided themselves in stable big state- 
run phone companies, electricity companies, and 
banks, converted these items into privately 
owned companies, so that money could cure them 
and heal them and make these items work 
  This, in turn, meant that banks, which earlier 
had been founded on the concept which for many 
years now has been seen as obsolate and antiquated, 
namely that banks are there to protect the money 
of the people and companies in a society, now got 
the assumedly more enlightened function of being 
just another greed-based instrument to wrest 
as much money as possible out of society so as 
to give to its shareholders, whether or not 
that involved reckless high-risky speculation 
with the money that innocent people have put into 
the assumedly safe bank accounts. 
  China, as we know, didn't become a democracy 
as a result of more money, rather they bought 
themselves into Africa for instance by giving 
the dictator of Zimbabwe military jets. There are 
however features of China which have indeed 
evolved because of money, and just as with the 
universities, the introduction of a money- 
measuring scheme has done things which are not 
exclusively and entirely negative in all senses. 
But compared to expectations, money has not 
acted as a purifier on the world -- rather it 
has contributed to a sense that nobody who has 
power has any much ethics, and it is a direct 
source of the Occupy Wall Street movements and 
its very very many analogies around the world. 
  In physics, I am not going to argue that money 
has taken over although I know of a fair number 
of individuals who are willing to make that case. 
For instance, I am not going to say that the 
sole reason the Cern research institute chooses 
to publish research results via a press  
conference and invited science celebs rather 
than via boring, scientifically correct articles 
in boring, scientifically correct journals is 
because Cern needs renewed funding; but obviously 
such an argument can be made. 
  Rather, I am taking money in the sense of 
metaphor or analogy for the general preoccupation 
that today's physicists have with numbers and 
equations. Just as in much of society during the 
last couple of decades, the assumed 'death of 
ideologies' led to the introduction of money 
all over the place -- which is but another 
ideology, of course -- we see that in much of 
physics, the enterprise of philosophical physics 
died amidst the quarrel between Niels Bohr and 
Albert Einstein and, during the last fifty years 
or so, has been replaced with a number-crunching 
fixation, as if numbers can cure and heal physics, 
and as if numbers are free from philosophical 
problems. But just as the introduction of a 
money-fixation in many places of society constitute 
an ideology, so does the number-fixation in 
physics constitute a particular -- and, as I 
see it, intensely wrong -- philosophy. 
  For those who have understood something of the 
intense groundworks being led by Albert Einstein 
in all of modern physics -- he initiated the 
impulses which led Louis de Broglie to come up 
with matter waves, after proposing the notions 
of photons -- they must also appreciate this 
fact: not in one single publication from Einstein's 
hands from the late 1920s until the last published 
conversations and letters with him in the 1950s 
did he regard quantum theory as a theory. It 
wasn't even a bad theory -- it wasn't a theory. 
It wasn't a theory and it certainly wasn't a fact, 
it was simply a bundle of incoherent thoughts 
with associated formulae. He did not directly 
challenge the numerical elements of these  
formulae, and some of these formulae Niels Bohr 
presided over and drunk status from whenever  
they got confirmed in laboratory experiments,  
but rather he challenged the thought-form, or 
the philosophy, indeed, of them. And to Einstein, 
a theory of physics had to be a theory of 
reality involving a view, a mental human view, 
of reality. The lack of content of such thought- 
elements in quantum theory meant that he did 
not regard quantum physics as a proper development 
of physics. He was entirely clear about this and 
he never diverged from this view. 
  And yet, there would be absolutely nothing of 
the celebrations done in such bad taste and with 
such silly summarisations in the mainstream news 
media -- which are really disvalidating themselves 
each time they so unquestioning relate what these 
folks are saying -- unless they had totally 
disregarded Einstein's view and adopted the point 
of view that quantum theory is a theory. For 
there would be no talk of symmetry nor super- 
symmetry nor standard model nor quarks nor  
neutrinos nor bosons nor fermions without 
the bundle of incoherent thoughts, the nontheory, 
called 'quantum theory'. 
  And if you think I who speak this is in favour 
of Einstein, be sure to note that I am not at all 
in favour of many aspects of Einstein's works. 
I think him stubborn for not being willing to 
appreciate that the numerical results of quantum 
physics or what we shall call it involve a 
'ghostly action-at-a-distance' (as he called it) 
that calls for NEW PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING instead 
of a theorising that aims at removing that 
component, which much later, in the 1960s, got 
the now famous name of nonlocality. 
  There are those who think that the philosophical 
problems e.g. connected to the 'collapse of the 
wave function' in Niels Bohr's works were more 
or less 'solved' by later works e.g. by the son 
of Bohr, Aage Bohr, or by other developments such 
as those by Richard Feynman. Not so. The 
problems merely got moved to another location 
in the numerical crunching of the physics events. 
There are perhaps some who thinks that since there 
are so-called 'relativistic' (ie, pertaining to 
Einstein's theory of special and/or general 
relativity) effects incorporated in modern  
quantum theory and in such developments such as 
string theory and M-theory and also in the so- 
called standard model of particles, then it 
means that a bridge between Einstein's theory 
of physics and the theory of physics by the 
Copenhagen Bohr institute camp has been forged. 
Not so. 
  I will try to explain why by means of a  
metaphor. Imagine a top expert in a company who 
boasts of how good he is at programming. As  
anyone knows, a good programmer can program 
anything at ANY piece of hardware, he or she is 
not dependent on a particular computer. It is 
the thought, the logic of the program that matters. 
As long as the hardware is in top condition,  
and able to run what Alan Turing called 'the 
universal idea of computing', then any piece 
of hardware will do. If this programmer, in 
order to solve a typical challenge that often 
comes up in this company, always has to use two 
widely different computers -- one computer for 
one program, and another, differently shaped 
computer, for another program, it means that he 
has no control over the programming process. 
He is able to conquest the challenge -- e.g. 
sorting out a database of numbers -- but he is 
not engaging in superbly thought high-level 
  Now in physics, its idea ground or philosophy 
is as its hardware, and the equations is as the 
programs running on this hardware. When physicists 
work in the Einstein horizon, they operate with 
thoughts involving a fixed maximum limits on 
speed of signals, -- this is one example, but 
there are several more such. This is used to 
produce certain results that the physicists 
studying atomic processes need, especially when 
they try to go deeper than before, explore  
unknown particles by particle collisions and 
the like. When physicists, in contrast, operate on the 
horizon associated more properly with what  
(loosely) can be called 'quantum physics', 
they are using an entirely different piece of 
philosophy, in which holistic processes are 
entwined at assumedly infinite speeds across 
distances, and in which such precision as  
Einstein's physics requires is no longer allowed 
for all is subject to Heisenberg's fluctuations, 
put very simply. 
  So the philosophy of Einstein gives one set 
of equations. The philosophy from Bohr's group 
give another set of equations. When the physicsts 
then focus on getting new results in modern 
physics merely by focussing on equations and 
experiments, as is the situation in ninety- 
nine percent of all mainstream dominant budget- 
big mass media big foundational physics, they 
are doing so on the cost of coherence: they are 
swapping the machinery, the hardware of their 
minds back and forth, back and forth, between 
essentially incoherent philosophies, trying to 
pretend they are doing real coherent science and 
trying to pretend they have no problem in doing 
so and trying to pretend that physics is all 
about making equations, predictions and checking 
them in the laboratories. 
  In order to conceal the lack of coherence in the 
underlaying ideas giving a kind of mental substance 
to the equations, there has been a number of highly 
erudite mathematically oriented physicists, esp. 
in USA, who during the last couple of decades have 
sought to honor themselves with the phrase 'we now 
have a unified physics' -- while trying to ignore 
that Einstein would turn in his grave if he heard 
what fragmented ideas they claim constitute such 
a "unification" that he himself so often declared 
that he sought. 
  One cannot cure a lack of coherence between a 
precise continuum limited by the speed of light 
with a nonlocal fluctuating self-entwined quantised 
field by adding more and more dimensions and by 
inventing obscure ideas that fit with bridge- 
building equations. It is like trying to make a 
masterpiece drawing out of a poor drawing by  
adding more and more elements until one forgets 
the underlying idiocy. 
  Equations which exists outside of a well-defined 
area of clear ideas can never be checked as such 
for coherence, for that would require infinite 
time on a computer, if not also infinite size of 
the computer. If by means of formalisms one is able  
re-produce some or all of the results of a physics 
which is of the einsteinian type AND ALSO all of 
the results, the numerical results, of a physics 
which is of a quantum type, then it merely means 
that one has succeeded in temporarily obfuscating 
the issue. One has focussed on how to make two or 
even more than than two programs, running on two or 
even more than two widely different computers, seem 
to be one coherent program running on the universal 
idea of computing, while in fact it is merely a 
patchwork of different programs requiring different 
idea horisons. 
  So, in the metaphor of the programmer boasting 
of how good he is, while he is not able to make  
a single program run on a single fast computer to 
do the job, may be able to make a coordinating 
program on a third computer that controls the 
activity of the other two computers as if it is 
all one big beautiful program, a "unified" program. 
  And all associated attempts of unification of 
physics are merely extrapolations of Bohr's 
impulse to take predictions more seriously than 
thought analysis. Bohr never meant it in such 
extreme senses that today's physicists seem to 
often take for granted; but already in Bohr's mild 
expression of them in the 1920s, he got the blue 
lights blinking in the foremost physicist of his 
time, namely Einstein. 
  The focus on numbers and on formalisms begun when 
Bohr, after coming with a wrong picture of the atom, 
was able to destill some at the time unexplained 
'traffic rules' for some aspects of atoms. 
  These traffic rules were explained by de Broglie's 
pilot wave theory, but that pilot wave theory was 
in need of a subtle but radical improvement. Instead 
of helping de Broglie along with this in the best 
spirit of scientific collaboration, Bohr saw it as 
a threat to his programme and brought in other folks 
to produce a magnanimous impossibility proof  
concerning ANY theory that allowed a realistic 
step-by-step picture between measurements. 
For Bohr knew that if they began tampering with 
the speed of light, the direct consequence of this 
would be that, given Einstein's theory, the present 
of one process could affect the PAST of another 
process, and vice versa, leading to inconsistencies 
in what the physicists meant by 'past' versus 
  So de Broglie's theory was quenched instead of 
taken as an interesting suggestion for further 
thinking. This was done by means of an impossibility 
proof that many decades later was revealed as 
merely a proof showing that locality is inconsistent 
with the numerical predictions of quantum physics, 
when particles have positions between measurements 
(hidden variables). 
  So instead of helping de Broglie,  Niels Bohr 
happily extracted de Broglie's equation, ditching 
the intellectual explanation de Broglie had for 
that equation in the first place. So what others did 
to Bohr's theory -- ditching the explanation, 
extracting the formalism -- Bohr did himself with 
de Broglie. Then Schroedinger came up with more 
stuff which could have further propelled a view of 
real waves, but Bohr did the same there, too. 
Heisenberg, on the other hand, never seemed to 
fully realise the enormity of nonlocal effects 
that in fact underlied his own incertainty 
relation: so Bohr was instrumental in ensuring 
that Heisenberg didn't trivialise physics. 
There is a stupidity surrounding most of  
Heisenberg's attempts to explain quantum theory 
that carries over also to Feynman, who was able 
to skip over nonlocality when he, in his  
technically brilliant and charismatically humorous 
way, was giving the stupid masses his lectures on 
what the essence of quantum theory is all about. 
Feynman also contributed to the enormity of false 
self-confidence amongst physicists by saying the 
utterly false thing that quantum theory, or its 
slightly extended form in quantum electro- 
dynamics, had been 'tested' all the way from 
'the subatomic' up to 'the galactic'. If he had 
been a geographer of Earth, he could have said the 
same, with equal accuracy, if he had mapped some 
grains of sand at the beaches of Sydney, and also 
got an idea of how many continents there are, 
allowing everything in between to be a big blur. 
For that is how it is: the equations of physics 
are so overly complicated -- perhaps a bit like 
the interactions of subprime default swaps and 
similar such in investment banking, when seen as 
an interactive whole of global financial idiocy -- 
that these equations say nil, nada, nothing about 
any MANIFEST piece of matter, with any NORMAL 
level of complexity. 
  If you go deeply into what de Broglie did in  
terms of pilot wave theory three decades later, 
after learning of the brilliance of nonlocality 
in its implicit form, you will also see that 
there are numerous challenges to this theory,  
but they can each be met. There are, indeed, 
new questions. The key point that physicists  
must realise is that as long as their physics 
theory states little of concrete nature concerning 
actual things in the human measurable world, then 
it is also far from a checkable theory; and so 
the key aspects of the world as indicated by 
free associations over such as nonlocality 
experiments in physics involve theorisation which
is utterly beyond the rediculously narrow-scoped 
equations of mainstream modern physics. 
  This also means that a rephrasing of physics 
which is good is one that LENDS ITSELF towards 
new physics theorising which BREAKS with physics, 
after more work, and in a checkable manner. 
  For instance, in de Broglie's revised, post 
1955 pilot wave view of quantum phenomena, it is 
implied not only that light has a particle as well 
as a wave nature at all times between measurements, 
and that there is a nonlocal resonance between the 
particles and the light, but also that this particle 
has -- despite Einstein's claim -- some, albeit 
extremely tiny -- mass, in the "rest mass" sense. 
  This is such an absolute clear breaking with 
the whole idea of bosons in quantum theory as you 
can get, and one could imagine that if physicists 
bothered to be serious about the idea level of 
reality through such novel suggestions over a 
century, it would lead to a theory that not merely 
incorporates the best parts of relativity theories 
and of quantum theory-or-physics-or-what-we-call-it, 
but which also breaks radically with parts of it, 
perhaps -- interestingly -- e.g. in the living 
biological domains such as of DNA molecules where 
there are some vague indications of coherence that 
have never received theoretical treatment given the 
mess that the state of physics is in. 
  And it is here, of course, that I have put in the 
main trust of my own work, which on intuitive and 
coherent grounds drawing on ideas which are clear 
and, though in many ways simple, also complex enough 
to handle all the diversity of clear-cut  
measurements so far reported, by and large, in 
physics, -- and I begin by ascribing a beyond- 
material real reality to pilot waves and also to 
waves organising pilot waves in a 'super' or 
'hyper' manner, -- changing, in the process, the 
word 'waves' to 'models', thus arriving at the 
more fun term 'supermodels'. I claim that the 
fundamental processes of this world -- the  
assumed continuum that Einstein theorised about -- 
is not at all a continuum, but rather a matrix 
woven of just such supermodels. I claim that 
there is an organising factor of speed of light, 
but no clear speed of light limit. I claim that 
time is beyond the dimensions we can list, and 
so I change the notion of time as the fourth 
dimension to 'duration' (cfr H Bergson also) 
as fourth dimension, as one of several dimensions 
that organise events without assuming that this 
organisation matches consistently what we call 
'past' and 'present'. In that way, I avoid the 
inconsistencies with Einstein's theory, -- not 
by, as Bohr did, concealing nonlocality by 
clever words, but by refuting the absoluteness 
that Einstein gave to his own statements as to 
how everything is relativised around the speed of 
  After having developed this supermodel theory, 
I then explored a meta-philosophical or higher 
philosophical background that could fit with the 
views of George Berkeley, and found that this gave 
it a flavour that meditatively seemed to be entirely 
what was sought for. The principle underlying the 
nonlocalities, the Principle of a tendency  
of Movement towards Wholeness, or PMW as I called 
it, became, bringing in Berkeley's view, an 
actual -- and living -- perceptive aspect of the 
mind of the origin, thus also bridging to the 
view of the mental underlying the material as 
Francisco Varela sought (cfr the Norwegian Flux 
magazine in one of its 1996 numbers, the final 
issues edited by me and Tschudi together, for this 
  The bad news for physicists is that my starting- 
point is that the formalisms they have betted on 
are not called on in what I call coherent physics, 
due to the treatment of infinities which is an 
ingrained part of their integrals, derivatives, and 
various forms of analytical geometry and calculus, 
and even probability theory. So another take on 
the wrong steps of physics is that they got lost 
in infinities, and at exactly this point, Feynman 
has indeed said something exactly to the point -- 
although, at other points, as said, he did the 
grave mistake of avoiding to pinpoint nonlocality 
as a key feature of all essentially quantum  
  The future of physics, as I see it, lies in  
closing the shop of physics, closing the book on 
physics, declare it a big venture of philosophy 
that got too hotheaded and self-centered and too 
selfishly oriented towards measurements and, also, 
noticably, a field that got taken over by the 
engineers which more or less directly became funded 
by the military budgets of this world after the 
atomic bomb scare in 1945. All this physics 
is poppygock, has little to do with reality, and 
any person of a rational instinct must drop all 
further developments of this engineering,  
numerical, fragmented type of physics, and rather 
start calling it by its proper names (for 
instance, 'collision studies for engineers'). 
  On the other hand, humanity must never forget 
but always renew the sense that nonlocality is, 
clearly, at the foundation of reality in an  
even deeper sense than the speed of light is 
an organising factor for reality; and add to this 
other such niceties and fun concepts like that of 
the equivalence of acceleration and gravitation, 
and the slowing of duration in gravitation. 
  The nature of nonlocality must be understood by 
means of an openness for a whole avenue of  
phenomena beyond the possibility of human study, 
but which involves the notion of resonances between 
fields at several levels beyond the material. 
Those who think this too complex now may find it 
easier to think about another season, after  
experiencing life more; for physics, in this  
sense, involves the birth of understanding of 
reality, and thus is a grand aspect of philosophy -- 
the two were never separated. In contrast to  
the time of Aristotle and Plato, we now have 
the presence of many numerical results on 
speed of light, on gravitation and also on 
nonlocality, as well as studies of atoms, 
and we also have the clarified view of logic 
as the notion of the algorithm working on not 
exactly 'the universal idea of computing' but 
rather on the far more universal idea of 32-bit 
computing in such as in my own Gamev language. 
  The good news is that not so many take   
investment bankers and today's professional 
physicists so seriously anymore. Let me be 
clear: I am all for money in its proper well- 
founded ethical forms in society, such as in 
SMEs, Small and Medium Sized Enterprises. These 
SMEs deserves stable, boring, state-owned banks, 
banks so boring they are one fantastic big yawn. 
They deserve money which is garantueed for 
by the state. Much, much money. The only type 
of company that doesn't deserve to make big, big 
money is, obviously, the banks. 
  And, let's also be sure: I don't regard all that 
the physicsts are doing in their laboratories as 
total hoax. Obviously they are touching some  
phenomena. Only that they haven't got the slightest 
understanding of what they are touching, nor do 
they have a proper relaxed credibility in handling 
the diversity of interpretations of these. They 
leap on quick results if they fit with their 
programmes -- that's the opposite of the scientific 
spirit of proper sceptisism. So, no, Cern has NOT 
found any new particular particle in physics lately. 
They have merely celebrated their incoherence. 
-- And a bit (not too little) on religion as well 
The best scientist I have ever met was the  
physicist David Bohm. He had this peculiar 
combination of exceptional openness and  
exceptional sceptisism. 
  For instance, in one of my visits to him at 
his very messy office at Birkbeck College at 
the Univ. of London, I asked him whether it is 
not so that the brain is mechanical since it is 
composed to a large extent of neurons and they 
behave mechanical. 
  'But that is an assumption,' he replied,  
smiling and opening his hands up, as if to 
suggest you could extract the whole lot of the 
rest of the answer simply by a bit of open 
questioning about it. 
  I was doing a bit of psychology studies at  
the time and began reciting some stuff about 
synapses being inhibitory or exhibitory or 
whatever the book said. 
  He replied, 'Nobody really knows what a 
neuron is.' 
  Again the smile. And the knowing that this 
guy had worked on the Manhattan Project, had 
spend some three weeks with the seclusive 
Einstein on Einstein's special invitation after 
Bohm's book Quantum Theory, and had been 
thrown out of his accellerating Princeton 
career for befriending too many communists, 
and also upset -- later -- both the Bohr camp 
and the Einstein camp by injecting a nonremovable 
component of nonlocality into physics, but 
to the jubilation of Louis de Broglie, who 
authored one-fifth of quantum theory in the 
1920s -- all this added up to make that little 
comment quite an enormously grandiose one to me. 
  That was decades ago and I have much more now 
a feeling of 'just starting out' than then. I see 
features of Bohm's work I didn't see then or  
didn't want to see then, and I understand more  
about why Bohm's works were by so many pushed 
aside, why physicists in mainstream regarded it 
as a wrong step. There were TWO things they 
didn't like about Bohm's work: [1] nonlocality, 
[2] nonelegance. 
  Nonlocality is the principle that at least  
some (and possibly at essence all) processes in 
this universe are entwined across distancies 
(possibly also across duration or timelike 
spaces) in a way that suggests something such as 
a mystical union between anything and anything. 
This principle is almost the exact opposite of 
the entire scientific programme, and yet, after 
the work J. S. Bell did in the 1960s on Bohm's 
work, but with more explicit references to work 
by 'EPR' -- Einstein/Podolsky/Rosen -- we have  
had a very large number of confirmations in 
physical laboratories of a great variety of 
nonlocal phenomena, first by A. Aspect in the 
late 1970s. Confusingly, it was announced by 
some leading news organisations at the time  
under a heading that said, 'Bohr was right, 
Einstein wrong, things can go faster than 
light.' But Bohr never said that things can 
go faster than light. He merely said that  
the quantum processes are of a different nature 
than those that can be analysed in classical 
terms, and that the speed of light condition 
applies only where we have those classical 
  That was in the early 1980s. After that, 
there has been absolutely no official rejection 
of the nonlocality results. In contrast, they 
have been extended, albeit not dramatically so. 
New York Times in 1997 or 1998, in the  
Science Section (according to Ray Strano, who 
had read the N.Y.Times just earlier that 
tuesday, when we were talking about physics 
while walking up Broadway), could however 
report that the original A. Aspect experiment 
on photos some metres apart had been extended 
by means of a fiber optic cable. They wanted to 
find out whether they could more accurately 
determine whether the speed of light limit 
transcendence was dramatic, or merely moderate. 
They found that the so-called Bell's inequality 
feature was the same when the speed of light 
limit was challenged one thousand times as  
in the A. Aspect's experiment.  
  So even if nonlocality is possibly not  
absolutely instantaneous (and in my own works, 
I have found some theoretical reasons to  
distinguish between levels of nonlocality, 
but I do this work as consciously amateur 
philosopher, ama-teur in the sense of having 
love for thinking, not as a professional 
physicist who has learned to repeat all the 
mistakes of the physicists of the 20th century 
by passing all the rediculous physics exams 
at the universities), it is at least  
reflecting something -- whatever it is, and 
however elusive it is -- that acts at speeds 
one thousand times the speeds of light. 
  This, however, is a phenomena that otherwise 
very carefully edited news articles in  
news agencies such as Reuters, CNN and BBC 
completely avoided to mention in the main 
articles that debated whether or not the 
Italian research a year ago, about, had or 
had not made a mistake when a subatomic particle 
was found to go 'a little bit faster than the 
speed of light'. Again and again these news 
articles reflected an understanding that simply 
revealed either stupid ignorance of the whole 
tremendous development of nonlocality since the 
first EPR article up until the experiments 
involving other particles than photons in the 
late 20th century, or an aggressiveness against 
anything that can upset the simplistic  
mechanistic mainstream view that some atheistically 
oriented journalists think it is proper to 
inject into the populace. 
  Whatever it is, it is bad philosophy to avoid 
reminding the populace of the grand openness 
surrounding the grand questions. The speed of 
light limit concerns a class of phenomena while 
it is firmly established without any official 
doubt lingering anywhere that nonlocality  
constitute another class of phenomena. As Bohm, 
with his friend and collegue over many years, 
Basil Hiley, pointed out in an article, it is 
however so that while Einstein's work on the 
speed of light concerned how fast a signal 
can be transferred, the statistical nature of 
the nonlocality work in quantum theory is so 
that it doesn't allow signal transference. It 
is merely a question of a correlation that is 
found to exist after very many experiments have 
been done, of a type that can be added up. 
This is the format of the experiments, anyway, 
as Bell worked them out, when he made the 
famous 'Bell's inequality'. For background 
about Bell's attitude to David Bohm's writings, 
see also Bell's book 'Speakable and Unspeakable 
in Quantum Theory.' 
  As Bohm's physicist friend David F Peat wrote 
in a book giving his highly personal account of 
some of Bohm's life, Bohm died much earlier -- 
in his 70ies -- than many had hoped for (he had 
however had years with heart issues before that), 
and he had a couple of years of a rather 
depressive existence involving hospital right 
before he died, although he also kept on working 
on that which, in the early 1990ies, became his 
last book, with B. Hiley. He seemed to suffer 
from something that touches a certain percentage 
of young people, namely that the normal balance 
of energies involving a relaxation of the brain 
activation during a portion of the night so as  
to allow deep sleep becomes complicated by a 
sense of constant over-activation. Some chinese 
qi gong healers tried to alleviate this but it 
didn't prevent exhaustion from growing and this 
possibly triggered a worse heart condition. 
When a friend of mine and I visited him at 
King's College Hospital in London and went for 
an outdoors walk with him, Bohm expressed a  
sense that after the Oslo seminar (some of us 
helped arranged a seminar in Oslo where also 
Donald Factor with wife and Peter Garret with 
wife, friends of Sarel and David Bohm, attended, 
around 1990), he had a kind of enthusiasm that 
led to an over-wakefulness that in turn  
deprived him of sleep. From this, one thing 
led to another, bringing him to his present 
  My friend, Georg Wikman, of the Swedish 
Herbal Institute, who had been friend with the 
Bohm's for years, suggested that it was as if 
the focus on nonlocality by Bohm had lead to a 
nonlocal activation of his brain -- so that it 
was entwined, beyond his control, with energies 
of other people.  
  We had to leave it at that, for there were no 
sure ways of exploring this further, nor helping 
our master science teacher further. But since  
then I have encountered several people who has 
had a certain type of insomnia just after 
what could be called an overexploration of the 
meditative arts, possibly in combination with 
overuse of some herbal stimulants which in more 
moderate amounts do not act wrongly. One is  
also reminded of a phrase I found in the brain 
scientist's Oliver Sacks's book, 'B12 junkie'. 
  Insomnia leads to a gradual fortification of 
the presence of dream-like and also nightmare- 
like thoughts impinging on wakeful consciousness. 
This is not, despite eager psychiatrists, a 
wrong thing. It is merely cause-and-effect. Sleep 
and dreams do have a great and radically 
important purpose. There are activities in mind 
and/or brain that requires sleep also sleep with 
dreams. When these are denied over a period, they 
come anyway -- right in the middle of what is 
otherwise normal wakefulness. This involves the 
dream-like intensity of visualisation as a  
feature that competes with sensory input. It is 
normal and sane to have such experiences when one 
has slept little. It is for that reason the use 
of otherwise healthy stimulants can lead to  
states of minds which may scare those who are 
uninformed about this. I have myself done much 
of my best works by learning of the greatness of 
mind intensity that some periods of well- 
controlled sleep deprivation weeks can give, 
when one lives healthily, exercises much, takes 
a great variety of vitamins, and avoids all use 
of alcohol in such a phase.  
  All religions have parts of them where the 
studies of that which is presumably beyond the 
material takes place, by deliberately calling 
forth and honoring also such mental intensities 
as sleep deprivation can give -- and especially in 
otherwise enormously healthy young adults without 
any heart issue nor any tendency towards  
being depressed. These things are not always 
working well out -- confer what some indian 
writers say about 'premature kundalini awakening'. 
But they are a component in every branch of every 
religion, and there is little question for those 
who have had authentic bits of it that it tends 
to involve a sensory capacity that turns upon 
extra-sensory perception, or ESP, -- with unusual 
aptitude to pick up pieces of knowledge that  
appears to be beyond what both senses and  
experience and logic and inference from  
experience can give, and which is more than mere 
lucky guessing. 
  Indeed, it is a recurrent phenomenon that those 
who have had harmonious and nondepressive highly 
intense and even ecstatic meditative experiences 
possibly with a combination of light sleep 
deprivation do have a sense of direct connectedness 
across distances which tends to bear out in at 
least some well-qualified empirical investigation 
afterwards. In other words, the word 'nonlocality', 
but here not applied to Bell's inequality but 
rather applied in the philosophical sense (which, 
as my friend Henrik B Tschudi agreed, could be 
called 'a-local' or 'alocal' so as to make a  
point of distinguishing from the technical sense 
of the nonlocal in quantum theory), seems to 
sum up something of what extraordinarily sensitive 
mental states is all about. 
  But what then is the brain? Obviously there are 
features of the brain that allows to some extent, 
at least, some analysis of the cause-and-effect 
type. Bohm, alongside very many others, including 
Stephen Hawking's teacher Roger Penrose, are clear 
in suggesting that a proper scientist must  
be willing to concede that brains with their 
neurons and other types of cells such as glia 
cells must be regarded as organic entities,  
entwined with the rest of the body, that possibly 
harbour characteristics that defies pre-quantum 
physics and also defies mechanistic chemical 
analysis. With my girlfriend at the time, in 
the mid 1990s, Anna Kathinka Dalland Evans, we 
interviewed Roger Penrose on his views on the 
neurons on of the brain relative to the possibility 
of quantum phenomena. He argued with great care, 
knowing that many brain scientists are ready to 
attack with verbal intensity anyone who proposes 
that the brain is not just a machine, albeit 
a very, very, very complex machine. 
  His arguments had been carefully sorted out 
during also conversations with Stuart Hameroff, 
who belongs to those very few who has managed to 
get mainstream journals to publish quantum thoughts 
on the brain.  
  One of the things that makes a person exploring 
the nonlocal in terms of meditation so easily can 
say things that those not doing such exploration 
can call 'wacky' is that few has a discipline 
along the lines that another scientist or  
philosopher I let myself be much influenced by 
in the 1990s, Arne Naess, represented: that of 
avoiding too much exaggerations and rather be 
intent on spending extra attention and time on 
getting each formulation, each articulation, 
even sometimes each sentence, as fitting to exact 
sensory impressions at at all possible -- without 
getting overly boring. The notion of 'being friends 
with facts', taking seriously the attitude that 
K. R. Popper wrote so much about, which Bohm 
simply called 'the scientific attitude of 
preferring facts rather than what one likes or 
dislikes', is so very necessary the more one  
explores the enormity of the potential of 
the nonlocal. 
  Otherwise, we get what we have seen too much of 
in all religions, also in Tibetan Buddhism: that 
those who do explore ESP get dogmatic about it, 
just because the rest of the folks are so  
altogether ignorant about ESP. 
  I interviewed Francisco Varela in his office 
at the University of Paris, where, after his 
work with Umberto Maturana on biological wholeness 
he had a professorship at cognitive science and 
regularly attended seminars with the Bohm-friend 
Dalai Lama. Varela spoke with great intensity 
about the possibility of a meditative discipline 
involving great carefulness so as to shape out 
a methodology in order to sift correct impulses 
or intuitions from incorrect one, by analogy with 
the same type of empirical discipline the logical 
positivists (of which Arne Naess in some sense 
was one) had relative to pure sensory data. He 
argued that meditative folks must not think it 
is any easier just because that discipline has 
not had much of a following yet, at least not 
in context of modern science. 
  I think the impulse of Varela in this regard 
is entirely right: meditation and the exploration 
of the nonlocal is enormously complicated and 
yet enormously important, it must be done and 
one must do it without thinking it is something 
one can jump into without finetuning of  
capacities; it is an art, an art that requires 
the greatest of attentions. 
  Why is it that brain science spoke with such 
eagerness in portions of the last half of the 
twentieth century about the possibility of reading 
or scanning thoughts directly out of the brains, 
and that they spoke of mapping what areas of the 
brains do what, and that they spoke of getting 
to know just how thoughts and feelings arise in 
the brain with an air of progress and of 'soon 
being there', while still there is hardly any 
more results on the table than then? There is 
a tremendous work on the brain in terms of number 
of people involved in it, there are all sorts of 
technological endavours associated with brain 
science, there are every type of measurement that 
conventional science can think of. And still it 
is rediculously little that can be read out of 
  What it boils down to is something very much 
like this: if you train yourself to jerk a certain 
muscle so as to trigger a certain signal in a 
biofeedback-like machine measuring your motions, 
you can in principle connect this measurement 
device to some machine and use your jerking motion 
to control the machine -- AND IN THE SAME WAY FOR 
CELLS. This is a point that not many has emphasised 
as any other than a peculiarity, but it is a fact 
that muscle cells and neurons are two of a kind, 
a flip of a kind. 
  Indeed, David Bohm used to explain something of 
his implicate order concept -- which is a way to 
illustrate or conceptionalise the grander nonlocality 
of manifest matter, as he saw it, -- by pointing 
out that some people who from birth have been 
deprived of hearing but who have been trained in 
sign language by hands are engaging in what he called 
'thinking with their hands'. They moved their 
hands in intricate motions communicating with 
themselves by a motion of the hands when they did 
thinking. And, as he pointed out, this was not 
merely external to their thinking, for when they 
wanted to hide what they were thinking but still 
go on thinking they could put their hands on their 
back and go on with their motions there, hiding 
it from those standing in front of them. 
  I am going to propose that the main reason why 
there is any activity in the brain at all --  
rather than in the hands -- when there is what we 
call thinking -- is the proximity of the 'muscle 
cells' of the brain to the lips, the ears, the 
eyes, and such. 
  There will NEVER be ANY possibility of getting 
to the root of thinking or feeling by doing any 
amount of scanning of ANY part of the body incl. 
the brain, I will further purport -- and I do this
not by relying simply on D. Bohm's works, but on 
leaving Bohm and going instead to Louis de Broglie's 
works on nonlocality after he had read Bohm's 
works and published his own first booklet on the 
subject matter in the 1950s. This is a book that has 
been ignored by mainstream physicists for too long. 
In this book, the founding father of the equation 
leading to the concept of 'matter waves' or 'de 
Broglie waves' in quantum theory, implies that the 
way Bohm deals with classical physics relative to 
quantum potentials in Bohm's post-Einstein-visit 
paper entitled '..a causal interpretation..[of 
quantum theory]..[in terms of]..hidden variables' 
is, indeed -- as most other physicists had said -- 
  This nonelegance compells de Broglie to push aside 
about half of the work of Bohm. But the other half 
-- the implicit acceptance of nonlocality, although 
not yet in those words -- he picks out and uses to 
combine with the early attempts de Broglie had  
with trying to imagine the quantum processes by 
means of what he called a 'pilot wave'. This was 
at the time not possible to get to work because 
de Broglie divided the measurement machinery up 
from that measured on, and so in effect denied 
nonlocality effects, leading to bad numerical 
results compared to Heisenberg's, Bohr's, and 
Schroedinger's model. So for a number of years, 
which included the devastating use of also quantum 
theory in making the atomic bomb in the Manhattan 
Project, the dominant physicists didn't quarrel 
about the interpretation of quantum theory.  
However, as Heisenberg, who had clearly turned 
out to be a Hitler-friend, later revealed in his 
sometimes critical comments on the dane Niels 
Bohr after the second World War, de Broglie was 
never happy with the way Bohr had bullied the 
young de Broglie to drop his pilot wave attempts. 
  So, a decade after the world war II, and with 
the dominant older physicsts being obviously too 
old to revolutionise their thoughts coherently, 
de Broglie was still young and agile enough in 
his mind-and-or-brain to learn from what the 
much younger David Bohm came with. (Bohm himself 
-- he expressed while in Oslo -- was dismayed that 
both the Bohr camp and ALSO Einstein didn't like 
what he did just after meeting Einstein, although 
his own thought at the time of writing his 
Hidden Variable thesis was to build a bridge 
between the Bohr and Einstein camp). 
  Indeed, in published letters between the 
also significant physicist Max Planck and Albert 
Einstein, Planck writes that after such and such 
work by such and such physicist, '..Bohm is dead'. 
Meanwhile, Bohr confined his comments about Bohm 
to a sarcasm: it may be that under certain 
conditions, given certain assumptions, 2+2=5. 
So Bohm had three errors: he was possibly 
a communist, he challenged speed of light, 
and his works were not elegant. 
  Louis de Broglie, however, accepted the 
challenge of the speed of light and that should 
have caused front-page news across all the major 
world's news agencies but it didn't. The only  
reason I came across the de Broglie works was that 
the University of Oslo's Physics library gave me 
free access to their vault of unused physics 
books in the cellar, where I found that the Bohr 
fanatics of the University of Oslo had stuffed 
both the English translation and the French 
original of de Broglie's mental bombblast  
alongside tons of works by unknown writers. 
  Thanks to internet, the academic original 
hierachies of publishing have been fragmented; 
the universities, which before was the major 
production centres for the all-dominant  
scientific journals, no longer have any such 
function, since no journal in science is all- 
dominant anymore. Universities worldwide are 
in a decline for they are now mostly seen as 
educational centres. 
  However, brain science has not had a  
revolution in being sceptical about the local, 
as they ought to have, after the fact that de 
Broglie produced a version of quantum theory 
which is so that a more conscious understanding 
of nonlocality can come into chemistry, and by 
proper inferences and additional assumptions, 
also into brain science and indeed into body 
science, or biological human science. 
  In de Broglie's works, however, there is  
little more than a reframing of all known  
quantum physical data. There is not the 
philosophical groundwork that takes in the whole 
lot of physics as one shebang and rewrites the 
tenets of our worldviews. This type of work Bohm 
did in his latter years something of, but he was, 
as I see it, hampered by his hidden variable 
interpretation in its original form. He stuck too 
much to it, instead of -- as I feel (now) he 
should have done -- to become a disciple of 
de Broglie's novel work, where de Broglie made 
use of about half Bohm's work as I said above. 
  So neither de Broglie nor Bohm made anything  
like the active model theory, or supermodel theory, 
that I have spent much philosophical time on the 
past -- well, almost decade. In this, it is 
possible to see the role of light in a fresh 
and clearly rethought angle. I have explained 
this much elsewhere and it is as complicated as 
it can get and so I don't have more room in this 
little piece for elaborate explanations. But 
suffice to say that in this theory of existence, 
manifest matter such as that of the neurons of 
the brain or of the hands, are constantly in 
interaction by very subtle means, hard to detect 
and often cloaked in statistical fluctuations 
which only as an afterthought look "nonlocal", 
with a kind of hyper-pilot-wave. So it is a  
theory that takes the point of view of the nobel 
price winner Louis de Broglie, co-author of 
quantum theory, more seriously than de Broglie 
took his own view, namely that pilot waves 
-- Stuff for those ready to break with every 
Either the universe is full of life or it ain't. 
If it is full of life either this life came about 
without any super-organising principle or it came 
about by some super-organising principle. Science 
as depicted by some socalled "mainstream" journals 
doesn't theorise along the lines that grant a 
super-organising principle as for biology --  
although absolutely every wierd feature of sub- 
atomic physics cannot do without such principles. 
  If there is such a super-organising principle 
either it is in turn organised by sentient  
beings, or it is more like an impersonal  
principle, as if standing on its own -- if that's 
  Around the points just mentioned, you can 
classify all the world's religions and also  
other worldviews which are not religious. 
  Let's also add that in the notion that there 
is a super-organising principle which in turn 
is organised by sentient beings, there is the 
possibility that there are many, some or just 
one sentient being having the rulership -- God. 
  Now, much of science admits to the possibility 
of life many places in the universe, and in the 
past few years more than ever before. Religions 
typically admit to such possibilities as well, 
some branches of some religions in profusion. 
  Much of the great but unsolved (as far as  
mainstream goes) conflicts in deep thinking in 
and around physics in the 20th century up until 
this day concerns the question of whether the 
(nonlocal, or much faster than light, or 
instantaneous in some sense) superorganising 
principle found operating on the subatomic level 
all the time can in fact have implications for 
larger scale phenomena such as human life. 
  However much of mainstream science regards 
the question as too spiritual and too speculative, 
since such folks as Niels Bohr and also Albert 
Einstein both, but in different ways, put forth 
opinions in favour of keeping such principles 
out of biology. Others, in many ways just as 
important, including E Schroedinger and, more 
and more (as he evolved his own thinking helped 
by D Bohm's works), L de Broglie, were not so  
sure biology could be spared from exposure to 
the new drastic phenomena of nonlocality 
pervading all of the physics after all at the 
core of life. 
  But what with enormous complexity at the 
subatomic level of the mathematics there, and 
even greater complexity when it comes to making 
adequate measures of anything very subtle  
operating at speeds no less than a thousand 
times the speed of light (as one study of an 
enhanced A Aspect / EPR experiment found,  
using photons going along fibers to quite a 
distance before the correlation was shown), 
it requires a momentous effort with many 
scientists working very hard together to come 
up with real studies that can show any such 
super-organising principle operating on life. 
  However, it cannot be excluded that some such 
principle in fact is behind every significant 
feature of the DNA molecules of Earth's life. 
  That might mean that the universe might be 
full of DNA life. Not just any type of life, 
but the same type of life. Even the same type 
of trees. 
  Then, if this principle operates as if on 
its own (supposing now, as is the postulate  
from my own neopopperian enquiries, that this 
principle do exist -- consult "PMW" in what 
I call 'supermodel theory' elsewhere on these 
sites), one might imagine that the life found 
on Earth, including humans, is also found 
all sorts of other suitable places in the 
very vast universe indeed, with so many 
trillions of inhabitable planets. 
  In the religious or meta-physical point of 
view, the super-organising principle do exist 
but it is in turn ruled: by beings, and these 
super-beings ultimately by God. This is 
forever beyond what science can work out. It 
is not illogical. It may in fact be more logical 
than to suppose that the principle exists on its 
  The coptic christ model is to say that there is 
a particular likeness of God to humans, and a 
possibility of physical presence -- in some 
sense -- of God among humans.  
  This is not coptic christianity in its modern 
form, which has been watered out after the long 
dispute over the view of christ with the other 
main branches of christianity. Essentially, the 
original coptic view was that of a physical 
nondivisiveness of God and christ. This is not 
different from those in hinduism who assert  
that (in some branches) Krishna created the 
world and then put himself into it. It is of 
key significance to see that the conflict 
involved whether God merely 'infused' a human 
body with a particular God-persona, to make 
up Christ -- as the catholics wanted it. In 
the coptic view, something very more drastic 
is going on: the absolute being beyond all is 
not merely beyond all, but in amongst all,  
in physical form, as nonhuman but human-like 
flesh. This is -- if one meditates over it -- 
leading to a whole different feel of the shape 
of christianity and view of the past. (Confer 
my notes on the past as a kind of simulation 
at the long frontpage). 
  The coptic christ model, then, in a way  
which is abstracted from all the other (more 
typically christian) notions in coptic  
christianity as it exhibits itself in Ethiopia 
and Egypt and so on, but connecting to the root 
discussions in the 3rd century A.D., and so  
forth, says that humans are shaped in order to 
provide the creator with companions. This is 
a view which implies that there isn't any 
strong reason why there should be any such 
thing as human beings on other planets that do 
have life, because there is no mechanical or 
automatical process giving rise to humans. 
The rest of nature is providing humans with 
an opportunity to live and prosper, and the 
resources of a planet will be exhausted at  
some point and so there will be means and ways 
to find existence elsewhere, in what we can 
call a planetary nomadic existence. Any such 
development requires obviously close guidance 
of a subtle kind that doesn't interfere with 
that very deep human yearning that humans have 
for having a sense of self-determination and 
freedom of will and freedom of action, -- yet 
nevertheless a guidance that for sure involves 
a proper transition from the pre-space age, that 
humanity despite its little experiments is 
still in, to a space age proper. The notion of 
nonlocality indicates that the universe is 
in some way self-entwined and that there is 
a possibility of some such 'hyperjumps', in 
one way or another, as I Asimov writes about 
in the Foundation scifi trilogy. 
  To ensure that humanity makes it over to 
such an existence is, one can imagine, an 
enormously complicated task -- especially if 
this has to be done without anybody really 
noticing that it is done; confer Matrix scifi 
  Given this complexity, but also the vast 
entertainment of this complexity, it does not 
seem an appropriate set-up to have humanity  
co-created on a number of planets; that would 
either mean dropping several of these or doing 
such an enormously complex process several times 
over, but in different ways each place. The 
first seems cold while the second seems 
unnecessary and not so entertaining.  
  The enormity of the universe nonetheless,  
one cannot escape from the postulate that  
G Berkeley came with -- some time, by the way, 
after Anselm published his works on the infinity 
of God being greater, and more real than, the 
finiteness of the imaginable -- namely, that 
God may be the infinite day-dreamer who in his 
mind uphelds all reality as his ideas. 
  This is metaphysically compatible literally 
with every religion, and it is a kind of  
assertion of 'mind over matter' or 'mind as 
more fundamental than matter' that is highly 
compatible with some of the most astounding 
thinkers in all realms. 
  In such a view, there is a relativeness to 
creation, because of cause-and-effect operating 
locally to produce a kind of chance and a kind 
of noise and a kind of freedom, but there is 
no deep evil, -- in fact, no evil at all!!! 
  Rather, there is an unfoldment, by means of 
the mind of God and all the higher beings he 
imagines-slash-creates as prior to the more 
manifest levels of matter, complete with all the 
machinery required to handle the very vast 
amounts of causal interactions. 
  The focus of attention of God must in some 
sense have a bit of affinity with the focus 
of attention that any one of us has when reading 
a novel or short story; humanity comes into 
being by his 'reading' of the story of -- at 
present Earth -- and I intuitively feel that 
it is also rational to assert that it is both 
highly likely there is life all around in the 
universe, just as much as there is no  
intelligent life at the manifest level to  
match humans, anywhere.  
-- Intuition, not merely analysis, going beyond 
traditional opinion-groups, must guide energy decisions 
in upcoming decades
We were just a few seated together over a bit of food 
and some coffee and such, without any agenda, and with 
all possibilities of friendly dialogue, when we touched 
on the point that (and as a major United Nation 
committee concluded just some weeks ago) within some 
decades water sparsity can be the major source of 
conflict on Earth. For instance, Asia has the majority 
of the world's population, but -- according to U.N. -- 
less than a third of the available water resources.
  With all the possibilities of relaxed friendly 
conversation, and with all the willingness to think 
openly that we had -- and we did indeed manage to think 
both in friendly and open and relaxed terms -- within 
half an hour, we touched on many complexities that 
came along by logical necessity -- questions of 
deforestation, oil versus coal versus nuclear versus 
wind versus solar panels, diesel versus gasoline versus 
biofuel, electricity consumption saving versus the fact 
that most people on Earth can only get up to a 
foundamental level of luxury by vastly increased 
electricity production -- destillation of sea water -- 
handling of nuclear waste -- greenpeace fanatism in 
Germany -- etc. And though we managed to sort of agree 
on the main solutions, it suddenly appeared to me that 
the complexities involved are so great it is no wonder 
that the global conversation on these points is so 
  For instance, since most of Earth consists of sea 
water, as far as its surface goes, and since it only 
takes the cooling of the damp of cooked water to produce 
drinkable unsalt water from sea water, clearly, by 
increased availability of electricity humanity can 
regrow forests and also grow food where there today is 
desert. Also, the thinning and polluted essence rivers 
of the planet can be replenished with good water in this 
way. But most Greenpeace groups as they are governed 
today in Germany and elsewhere are not putting up 'More 
electricity to all humanity -- indeed, a million times 
greater electricity production than today' on top of the 
priorities. Instead, they focus on such as saving a 
little electricity here and a little there. They focus 
on wind power, biofuel and solar power. These things are 
wonderful and would have been adequate, together with 
such as hydropower (from rivers), if there were some 
hundred thousand people on this planet, instead of seven 
thousand millions people -- and counting. 
  What science cannot really easily show, but which one 
must call on intuition to realise, is that the 
proportions involved as for the real actual energy 
requirements for humanity are devastating, unless we are 
radically increasing the safety and very radically 
increasing the quantity of nuclear electricity 
production. Add all wind, solar, hydro, biofuel and so 
on together -- it is not a third, not a tenth, but more 
like a millionth of what is necessary, even if vastly 
extended compared to present production levels -- if we 
are talking of giving fresh water to all human beings on 
this planet, and enough air conditioners for all who 
live in tropical areas, and enough fridges to keep the 
food fresh, and also seek to have enough destilled 
seawater available and transported along great pipelines 
over vast stretches of land to replenish and renew 
desolate areas and barren rivers. We need an enormity of 
electricity to combat the literally muddy airs of 
chinese, indian and other mega-cities, for only 
electricity in enormous, and free quantities, can drive 
the machines of factories and the engines of cars 
without filling the airs up with every sorts of 
pollution, where CO2 is the least problem.
  Suppose a more or less former Greenpeace member comes 
along to our dinner table, and says, 'Alright, I hear. 
But what of this nuclear power plant activity? It is 
tremendously dangerous, just look at Fukushima, it makes 
tons of nuclear waste materials, it is really a thing 
not belonging to the future.'
  Then, first of all, I would say, but of course you are 
right. A million years into the future is there any 
nuclear plants? Obviously not, humanity has managed to 
get every life quality element without having to either 
split nor fuse atoms in dangerous reactors.
  Then, secondly, I would say -- as I did say -- 
handling nuclear reactors safely and handling nuclear 
waste safely is ONLY A MATTER OF COST. We are not 
talking of absolute safety but of a practical level of 
safety that is adequate.
  Our Greenpeace member would perhaps say, 'I don't 
believe that. This is what the nuke camp always say, 
that they know how to do it, they have learnt of past 
mistakes, that Fukushima was previous 'generation' 
  But -- and this also came out in our dinner 
conversation -- is entirely correct -- there IS a nuke 
camp, pro-nuke experts, who argue just in this manner. 
And nothing works more against proper use of nuclear 
power than the pro-nuke viewpoints, as they are 
presently presented.
  The pro-nuke people merely want to preserve status quo 
-- they want to, in other words, keep on doing what they  
are doing, and gently extend with more and more plants. 
Thereby, the rediculous low-safety approach of all the 
reactors in France, China, USA and so on are being 
continued, and more reactos are being built along the 
same rediculous safety criterions as at present. These 
reactos are open to attack, they are vulnerable to 
various forms of extreme weathers, they are vulnerable 
to general breakdowns of electricity and/or computer 
networks, they are vulnerable to the always 
unpredictable earth quakes and many of them are 
vulnerable to tsunamis or forest wires, and every one of 
them are vulnerable to human error as well as computer 
errors of various kinds. Add up all these 
vulnerabilities, and the sum total is: SHEER FOLLY. This 
is why the pro-nuke experts are sealing the opposition 
against nuclear electricity. They are defending the past 
of nuclear electricity, not its obvious future 
development. And Greenpeace, in the past, has been 
locked into a rediculous opposition against what could 
have served its purposes more than any other single 
technological invention. 
  Increase the cost of building nuclear electricity 
plants vastly, and increase the cost of handling nuclear 
waste vastly, and we are talking the necessary 
foundational costs and the necessary foundational 
technologies for creating a worldwide free electricity 
enterprise. Every nuclear plant can go wrong. Make it 
thefore sealed from the start, by drilling it deep into 
hard mountain rock, rock that can be used to shield 
against even a full-scaled explosion of the plant, and 
keep it from touching any underground water and also 
keep it from ever polluting any river or any nearby air 
-- no matter what happens, whether in terms of attack or 
in terms of extreme weather, technological failure or 
human mishandling, or devastating quakes, tsunamis, 
  Then use all the space rocket technology so far 
developed to find a safe deposit route of small 
explosion-safe containers of radioactive waste. This is 
only possible given a realisation that only by producing 
enormous amounts of electricity, an amount that only 
nuclear power stations can make, can the enormous costs 
be justified -- by the necessity of protecting humanity 
as a whole from the onslaught of severe pollution and 
severe drastic resource-based poverty and consequent 
wars in the upcoming century.
  During our conversation, the point was also raised 
that surely there must be new ways of creating fresh 
water by now. Indeed there is. But when we talk of 
producing enormous quantities, it is -- according to my 
intuition -- nothing that beats sheer destilling. 
  Another point raised was that of CO2. CO2 is one of 
the natural components of air, alongside oxygen and 
nitrogen and flavours such as the healthily 
electron-charged oxygen molecules that arise as a result 
of the interaction between the sun in the morning and 
the green electron-rich leaves of trees with roots going 
deep into the ground. I have long had a self-produced 
electron-to-air generator in my main working laboratory, 
to produce good ionized air. We not only need to 
replenish too much carbon dioxyde with oxygen, but we 
also need to replenish the machinised air which too 
often has a lack of electrons with electron-rich air 
(so-called "negative ions", for historical reasons, 
although there is nothing negative about them, in this 
  So green leaves of trees and plants, due to the 
enormously complex processes associated with their 
typical bright-greenness, are able to transmute the 
energy of the Sun so as to split carbon from oxygen and 
thus in practise 'chew up' CO2 and release oxygen, 
complementing the processes of the breathing of human 
beings and mammals and also complementing the burning 
processes of combustible engines.
  CO2, used to create sparkling water in cola and such, 
is harmless when it is not too much of it. That which 
makes such as the air in Shanghai 'dirty and muddy', so 
much so that jogging becomes a hassle, is not CO2 but a 
whole host of other substancies, and many of these are 
produced also by the burning of diesel, derived from 
fossile oil, which propels a vast quantity of the moving 
vehicles on Earth today. They COULD have been running on  
electricity given a tremendously costly infrastructure 
investment which must go along with the also 
tremendously costly nuclear power electricity investment 
which together are necessary to ensure a better life for  
all humanity. But we must keep in mind that electricity,  
unlike substancies like water, cannot easily be stored 
for long in any quantities. The electricity that is to 
be used now, should -- speaking of the vast percentage 
-- be produced now. Batteries must be recharged all the 
time and the only working arrangement speaking the big 
proportion for the oversized cities and all areas, also 
far away from them, where we want elcars to dominate 
fully, must have a leasing-approach where one can pick 
up a new elcar around every corner and leave one's 
previously leased or loaned elcar just about anywhere, 
without any much pause and without any heavy price.
  But to reach these priorities, mere dialogue over the 
available assumptions and the available empirical data 
reports are not enough. One must have a responsibility 
to listen to the very real capacity that the human mind 
has to relate to intuition, in the finely tuned way that 
we advice in scientifically oriented ways (see, if you 
like, the methodology called 'neopopperian science', in 
our news archive sections as well as some published 
  It is this intuition that can say 'no' to the present 
positions both of the camp of Greenpeace groups as they 
at present dominate e.g. in Germany, which is shutting 
out nuclear power without a genuine dialogue on new 
forms of nuclear power safety, and also 'no' to the 
present lazy criterions of the pro-nuke experts, and 
'yes' to extremely costly but entirely necessary 
programmes along the lines that are indicated here. Note 
also that we must then also allow certain debates which 
have proven to be rather stale, namely on measurements 
and global production levels of CO2, to simply reside 
deeply into the shadows; there are far more concrete 
issues than CO2 to be handled, and far more directly 
than through any abstract discussion of what humanity 
has contributed to as for climate changes over the past 
hundred years. In order to do our best for the next 
decades for all the billions of human beings on this 
planet, where at present only a minority has adequate 
quality of life luxury criterions satisified, we must
raise above the camps of fanatical too-easy opinions. We  
must weigh real proportions and not get stuck in wishful  
thinking about technologies that won't do the trick. We 
must weigh real safety criterions and not accept sloppy 
criterions that cannot possibly have any relevance when 
a vast expansion of the use of a technology is required.
  Our dinner conversation finally turned on the question 
of whether there is any hope that global conversation 
can become 'intelligent'. The point was raised that 
occasionally, billionaires can change global 
conversation at some points, because they can put their 
money force into promoting a point that otherwise would 
have been just one point of many. 
  It is perhaps then of validity to point out that for 
billionaires to start reaching deep into their pockets 
for idealistic reasons, they must resist the 
Forbes-magazine-propagated idea that rich people 
constitute a 'class'. There is nothing classy about a 
person of low tastes and bad manners and poor health and 
looks who suddenly has a magnificent sum of money in his  
bank account. Class is a question of distinction through  
perception, and anybody who employs even the lowliest 
standards of perception would not say of any one of the 
hundreds of people who are classified as top 
billionaires that they have any much distinction at all. 
Consequently, there is never any such thing as 'class 
warefare' when somebody accuses -- as the Occupy Wall 
Street movement does -- the rich of being selfish.
  Rather, in contrast, there is the point of view among 
many whose level of reflection goes deeper than those 
who like to shout that they are 'atheists', that 
everyone has a form of narrow egotism or 'ego', put 
simply, within, and that human dignity and worth 
involves constantly being at war within one's own psyche 
against one's own ego. That is the real class of 
elevation -- to fight own egotism. The class warfare is 
against the lowly class of overdone egotism within 
oneself, and this class warefare happens on behalf, we 
can say, of the higher form of being which is the 
authentic 'self', or conscience, or spirit, if we follow 
the terminology, for the moment, of C. G. Jung (who also  
authoried the 'synchronicity' concept, which many are 
looking into as a source of inspiration related to the 
beauty concept -- and beauty, more than anything, and 
certainly infinitely more than money, truly 
distinguishes class or higher taste).
  So within a decade, with luck, a turn-about of global 
conversation as reflected in mainstream news, on all 
these issues, can indeed arise; but it begins by each 
individual reaching deep into own intuition and start 
challenging typical assumptions as propagated by today's 
mainstream news on the issues of energy, pollution, 
nature, poverty, nuclear safety, etc. So, cautiously, 
let's be optimists. In one way or another, humanity will 
make it, and in one way or another, there is progress. 
--Science is an ideal of purified wonder, reflection and  
intuition that is rarely reached even in infinitely more  
trivial matters 
When last week, or two weeks ago, who British news 
media referred to (quoting the mediator of the 
conversation between present Archbishop of Canterbury 
and present most-talked-about darwinist or neo- 
darwinist) 'the most fameous atheist of the world', 
astounded those present by declaring that he could not 
honestly remove a component of uncertainty whether God 
exists -- becoming magically -- and in own words, an 
"agnostic" instead of head of a horde of angry atheists 
-- then we saw a glimpse of real dialogue and of the 
real art of science. 
  It is not a moment, though, that I hail as a true 
breakthrough of understanding in humanity. I mean, come 
on, EVERYONE knows that absolute certainty has NEVER had 
ANYTHING to do with what we call a 'scientific 
attitude'. And this concerns infinitely more trivial 
matters than God, soul, angels -- or muses -- and such 
lofty things of philosophy and theosophy and theology 
and religion. But, then, all the more so, this 
uncertainty concerns the greatest things.
  But I take it that what professor Dawkins really is 
arguing against is what he referred to as a 'literal' 
interpretation of the creation story in the christian 
bible by the present Pope. And, fortunately, the Pope is 
not the leader of christianity. He is but a leader of an  
organisation, a business corporation, and a kind of 
country, possessing vast wealth and which is 
orchestrating a sometimes not uninterestng and sometimes 
not un-beautiful and sometimes not un-artistic set of 
divine rituals. 
  There is a vastness of exploration in humanity, where 
people may try and declare themselves as leaders of 
islam, or christianity, or buddhism, or hinduism, or 
other religions, -- and there are millions, certaintly 
-- but one must always feel entirely at ease with 
dividing between these people (with their organisations 
or networks), and, on the other hand, THE TYPE OF FAITH 
that they are exhibiting an example of. 
  The mild-manneredness of the present Canterbury 
Arch-bishop, Mr R Williams, gives him a capacity and 
flair for dialogue that was not lost on his science 
debattant. It is the refusal of dialogue that most 
angers those of a scientific inclination -- if this 
refusal of dialogue is coupled with insistence of 
literal interpretations of bygone texts.
  As for science as a pure ideal of sceptical wonder 
with a plurality of theories to mount explanations, of 
sorts, for a very great diversity of data, it is, as 
said, rarely achieved. And it is this 'fallability' of 
human thinking that currency trader and physicist George 
Soros has most emphasized about his teacher Karl Popper,  
the latter of whom laid the brickstones of pluralistic 
theory-thinking in early 20th century university 
science. Going back to Popper, and working on 
understanding what he said and then reflecting over 
whether he has been open enough about the capacities for 
human beings to have intuitions about empirics that go 
beyond research data, lead me to suggest a number of 
approaches informally summarised as a 'neo-popperian' 
approach to science -- and to religion.
  It is then of importance not to overestimate the word 
'necessary', as when physicist Mr S Hawking or 
biologist Mr R Dawkins say things like, "I don't think 
God is necessary here" -- referring to the beginning of 
the universe, or the evolution of life. For the word 
'necessary' (meaning ethymologically 'cannot flow 
otherwise', or something like that) is typically 
associated with just such absolute certainty as people 
of such different approaches to science and philosophy 
as Bertrand Russell and Karl Popper agreed that is not 
true to the scientific attitude or ideal or norm.
  The word 'necessary', moreover, is just such a word as 
those people who are in love with weapons, such as Mr A 
B Breivik who bombed Oslo and then used semi-automatic 
rifles on youngsters in summer 2011, tend to use and 
overuse in their own scribbling to themselves of their 
reasons to do what they do. If they had contemplated on 
what physicist David Bohm (in seminary we had with him 
in Oslo in ca 1990) called 'the concept of the false 
necessity', or what he (when writing with physicist F 
David Peat) called 'false play' or 'il ludere', as an 
inventive translation (not ethymology, if I am to 
believe my friend H B Tschudi at this point) of the word 
"illusion" -- they would have dismantled some of the 
hierarchies of their theories of reality and action. The 
same applies to those who bombed New York City and some 
other places with tourist airplanes in 2001. They speak 
of necessities. They speak also, of course, of literal 
interpretations -- or rather, they enact certain literal 
interpreatations of some sentences here and there in the  
Koran. At school, this Mr A B Breivik had been 
physically threatened by young angry guys who had an 
enthusiasm, an angry sick enthusiasm, fostered by the 
late mr O B Laden. For some years, Mr O B Laden 
influenced many young people. Young people are now, 
thank goodness, turning to sufi islam rather than the 
evil sharia islam, -- if "evil" is the word we want (it 
probably isn't, as it refers, in my own neo-popperian 
enquiries, to absolutely nothing at all!!!).
  Sharia islam is a debasement of the human spirit, of 
girls, in favour of old and young males whipping their 
way by means of quasi-ethical courts where the best of 
islam is totally ignored. One who consciously puts 
sharia islam to the dustbin, alongside the literal 
interpretation of ANY religious text as a whole or in 
excerpts, can perfectly well find in sufi islam or in 
rumi islam (as is a more open-minded expression, for 
'sufi' has been too many times systematised), a full 
belief in Jesus as son of God and saviour of all 
humankind and of the human being and prophet Muhammad as 
one who did a nice job, on behalf of just the same 
spirit as that which drove other great spiritual 
teachers to do something -- without at all in any way 
assuming that Muhammad did everything right or said only 
right things, and without in any way assuming that 
neither the jewish Torah or other hebrew texts, nor the 
Christian greek new testament, nor the arabic Koran or 
Q'uoran, nor the sanskrit Bhagavad-Gita or Vedas or 
Upanishads, nor any other such classical text, reflects 
God's own words except in lucky bits and pieces here and 
  Turning to things which are of more intellectual 
interest to young good thinkers: can science say 
anything about the birth of the universe? 
  I think it is fair to say that if the universe is of a 
(much more) recent date than the billions of years 
typically ascribed to its duration by some dominant 
present physicists in this early 21st century, then it 
is not just an artwork, but an artwork that is full of 
deceptive tricks to an absolutely enormous and 
staggering extent -- where everything essential about it 
is, in ways too clever for humans to even begin to 
understand, wrapped up in false appearancies. And that 
is, as perhaps you the reader already know, if you have 
followed my writings during some of the time since I 
begun after my first meetings with David Bohm as a 
psychology student back in 1986, at his office in 
Birkbeck College in London, -- exactly my stance. Or my 
intuition, call it that way.
  This is not a novel thought at all. Bertrand Russell 
was very clear about the possibility (although he hated 
it). Douglas Adams, scifi author, made it commonplace in 
the 1970s, with Dr Slartibartfast.
  It is however not at all the typical interpretation 
among the typical leaders of the most prominent 
religious institutions of this day -- and, hence, we 
find such outbursts as version 1.0 of Richard Dawkins, 
before his quiet phase -- version 2.0 of Richard 
Dawkins, results in version 3.0 of Richard Dawkins, 
professing agnotisism in a direct-transferred 
conversation across internet and relayed in british 
media quite faithfully. 
  But in order to shape theories that account for 
religious reality in such a way -- which, though 
unusual, is well-known to any extremely well-read 
mythologist along the lines of the late Mr J Campbell -- 
cfr for instance ancient sanskrit-written creation 
stories -- we must first do away with any suggestion 
that an easy quick version of 'necessity' or any easy 
quick version of 'simplicity' can be applied when 
practising either popperian or neo-popperian science. We 
need an anti-occam's anti-razor, to erect grand 
alternative approaches of theories, where we reserve a 
right to look for simplicity and to occasionally use the 
word necessity but on a meditative, reflective 
foundation, -- not applied as an instrument of debate 
and discussion.
  The problem Mr K Popper repeatedly raises is then: how 
do we select one metaphysics before another, when these 
are so full of unrefutabe, un-falsi-fiable things? But 
we must not -- and I say this to G Soros also -- fall in 
love with the word 'fallible' or 'refutable' or 
'falsifiable'. As also my friend Mr A Naess pointed out, 
it is very complicated for any theory to become 
falsified, for the number of assumptions bridging a 
theory with a concrete piece of sensory observation may 
be many, and everyone of them may have to be modified.
  But in contrast to the late Mr A Naess, we mustn't 
fall in love with the idea that theories can't be 
falsified either. Mr A Naess shares with mr K Popper a 
vague but -- as I take it -- as yet immature belief in 
intuition, which must be refined into a ripe faith in 
the power of human intuition to partake in an 
open-minded pluralistic type of falsification and also 
verification about concrete elements also of big, grand 
theories such as a metaphysical theory. The key point is 
then to be eclectic, and honest about this eclectisism, 
and not try to regard a package of thoughts as holy -- 
especially if we, as is my intuition, that human beings 
are not only relatively right, but by a deeper necessity 
they cannot be absolutely right. This deeper necessity 
has to do with protecting a level of chaos and 
fluctuation in the human psyche. If this is reduced too 
much, and coherence enhanced too much, it blows the 
human brain out in a negative way (not the positive way 
of the sense of the ego being pleasantly reduced to 
allow more generous feelings).
  So, I take it, it is a coherent set of assumptions to 
say, yes, my intuition is that God exists, and then why 
not a whole realm of a subtle pre-matter and pre-space 
nature, with a whole avenue of God-near beings -- call 
them angels or, as I think is much better, "muses" -- 
and that there is an intuition that also says, whatever 
they have done to create the manifest universe, it 
certainly is done so as to make them appear to be hardly 
present for those who go around with lenses, 
microscopes, telescopes and such to look for them. In 
contrast, if indeed the billions of years of the past 
is, for the most part, a complete illusion -- as I 
intuit that it is -- then it is also the most elaborate 
cover-up project that anyone has ever conceived. Mere 
human scientists must then feel a bit pride, since so 
much work has gone into making appearancies speak of 
millions of years of slowly evolved life from the 
dinosaur to the bird, from the fish to the mammal, from 
the primintive mammal through the apes to the human race 
as a whole, with all its inner interesting contrasting 
diversity of skin colors. 
  In other words, if this is a created world, it is a 
created world where humans are not only allowed to 
forget God once in a while, but it is called for that 
they forget God once in a while. Reality allows its 
participants to get pleasantly confused. It CALLS for 
  Turning the to far more mundane questions, but which 
nevertheless -- somewhat peculiarly -- are among the top 
three divisive questions in the absolute hottest of 
american top politics -- is it bad to kill the unborn 
baby, or not? It is a living little being inside the 
young pregnant female. She may not be able to support 
the individual, she wants it gone. Is she therefore a 
terrible killer? Or a good killer? A fisherman kills 
fish, a vegetarian kills tomatoes, and abortion doctors 
kills unborn human beings, and so it is not a question 
of whether it is a killing or not, but whether it can be 
considered ethically good. And if ethics derives from a 
larger worldview, ultimately bringing in the question of 
God and muses, then by this practical question of 
abortion, we are in a way voting on religious issues.
  And this, again, turns on the question of souls and 
spirits and such. It has often been mentioned that the 
earliest forms of the christian new testament contained 
references to 'soul and spirit' that became 'soul' -- by 
an editing which cannot be said to be done in the same 
spirit as those who claim every bit of it is God's 
  In fact, much of the history of all big religions tend 
to make priests and gurus and such instruments of 
providing an easier time to get heavenly goodness to the 
human being, founded entirely on the idea of the 
identity between human body and a particular soul. 
  If a human body has ten souls, or a thousand souls, 
and it has in addition ten spirits, or a thousand 
spirits, -- as is a logical alternative proposition in a 
neo-popperian dialogic context -- the whole power-play 
of the priests and gurus and rabbies and imams and such 
become more of a question. Still more so if we say: the 
truth is one of day-incarnation, that one day the human 
body, you, may exhibit some souls, another day some 
other souls, and spirits are a more deep level of this, 
-- and these souls and spirits may partake in several 
human bodies in plurality -- SEVERAL AT ONCE. If we give 
such a more complex point of view and say, as I 
obviously do, that this is what I hold as intuitively 
correct, the whole power-scheme of priests-to-aid-your- 
soul falls to the ground with a big bang, a real big 
bang, unlike the illusory big bang of too-quick 
non-popperian science.
  But as all good biologists know, in questions of life, 
whenever there is a possibility that a complexity exists  
such that this complexity could account for an ability 
-- such as seeing, in the formation of the retina -- 
then this complexity do exist. It is in biology often 
found that a combination of theories is necessary to 
account for the appearance of a single phenomena, such 
as seeing. You may find it interesting to look at the 
history of biological science in theorising over the 
structure of the retina of the eye, with its both 
color-sensitive rods and its b'n'w (black-and-white, or 
intensity) sensitive rods.
  The question of souls and spirits relative to the 
human body is of a nature that involves what we can call 
a theological or theosophical (not using the word 'theo-  
sophy' as according to any organisation of theosophy, 
but in the root sense of 'wisdom of God / Deus / Zevs") 
expansion of biology, a theosophical biology.
  The substance matter, put that way, of souls and 
spirits do not have a proper theoretical ground in the 
very early, brittle stage of early 21st century 
mainstream physics and biology, where this physics is, 
for the most part, little but 
decimal-comma-modifications of 20th century physics, and 
the physics called on within biology for the most part 
reeks of stale 19th century newtonian illusions on 
causality and chance.
  The substance matter of souls and spirits requires, as 
I see it, a theoretical foundation in a completely 
reworked form of physics, what I informally call 'super- 
model theory', and which is (cfr works on essence 
numbers and infinity) a physics of a new kind that 
cannot be properly formalised as a matter of PRINCIPLE.
This is not an attempt to popularise an interpretation 
of quantum theory, or to make a metaphor over a bridge 
between einsteinian physics and quantum physics. Rather, 
it is an attempt to take seriously the need for coherent  
ideas in the underlaying number logic when coupled with 
the need to account for the vast diversity of empirical 
data summarised in the research reports by the physics 
workers of the 20th century, no matter which theoretical 
paradigm they worked under -- that of Mr N Bohr, that of  
A Einstein, or any of the several others. But it is most  
near to what Mr L d Broglie worked on in his youngest 
years, and also in his last thirty years after he had 
accepted the proposition by D Bohm that quantum theory 
must involve a form of (what Bell called) nonlocality.
  In this super-model theory, there is a substance to 
soul and a substance to spirit that is equal in many 
ways to the substance of the wholeness of the hologram, 
or the substance of the wholeness of a radio, or the 
substance of the wholeness of how a planet acts 
collectively in gravitation to pulls its components back 
to itself. The fact of the whole, when coupled with an 
understanding that this whole completely transcends the 
speed of light -- unlike the informal works of A 
Einstein, but compatible with (some of his) formal works 
-- suggests a type of reality akin to what is sometimes 
called de Broglie waves, or what he in his last thirty 
years called a 'modified pilot wave theory'. What we 
also can call nonlocal pilot waves.
  But this is not to say, unlike Mr F Capra, that it is 
little more to soul and spirit theory than what is 
suggested in quantum theory and such. On the contrary, 
the notion of super-model theory as I extended it after 
first giving the most complicated notions a book-form in 
2004 (available as a.htm in yourtext in Firth platform 
released in 2006, together with notions there, in scifi 
form, that the past is a form of simulation, and 
religiously expanded in texts first produced at but also available at Norwegian 
national library along the 2004 book cfr 
on my various pen names) -- this notion of super-model 
theory suggests that the concrete forms of what David 
Bohm broadly called, in his seminal 1970s work on the 
Implicate Order concept, "the enfolded order" or "the 
implicate order" -- are vastly more complex than any 
empirical sensory data. In working on an extension of 
the implicate order concept together with F D Peat in a 
late 1980s book, called there the 'generative order', 
they suggest that a computer game monitor is a bit like 
the manifest explicate order of the world, while the 
background computer hardware and program AND indeed also 
the person operating it, altogther constitute an image 
of a much grander implicate or generative order behind 
it all.
  However it is a vast difference between, as Bohm often 
did, going in a buddhist-pantheistic direction (confer 
also Bohm's discussions with the buddhist monk Dalai 
Lama as edited by Ms R Weber and earlier conversations 
with Bohm in Mr K Wilber's 'The Holographic Paradigm and 
other paradoxes', and also notes on this in books from 
same period such as by Marilynn Fergusson e.g. on 'Age 
of Aquarius' as also sung about in the Hair music) -- 
and reworking, as I have done, the whole notion of a 
vast subtle order behind einsteinian and bohrian aspects 
of the universe towards a (modified) G Berkeley view:  
  In becoming profoundly a God-believer, all of 
pantheism becomes of a subset within a much more 
structured metaphysics. And within this subset, again, 
we find a place for souls and spirits and ethical orders 
of a cosmic scheme. We find a place for the question -- 
is the human girl looking a bit like a shadow of much 
higher beings, created by the origin directly (and my 
answer, intuitively, as often stated, is 'yes, 
naturally') -- and we also find structures (similar but 
not identical to what buddhists call 'karma'), as I call 
'goyon' -- which can be intuitive parameters to judge 
the objectiveness of beauty, art and the goodness of 
  In such a picture, any bible of any world religion 
must be seen as nothing more complete than, say, a 
one-page cartoon can be complete when it comes to 
depicting all healing medicinal practises that do work.
And in the bible-as-cartoon view, it should be a relief 
to appreciate that it may be that human beings are 
simply not meant to (yes, "meant to", in the sense of 
theological intent) have absolute certainty or absolute 
understanding, ever. But still there can be an evolution 
of relative understanding. Even to some extent "guided",  
and to some extent "pre-ordained", not as a T Chardin's 
"omega point", but in the sense of steps of infinity, an 
infinite progress of relative understandings. 
  More about this elsewhere. But to cook it into its 
essence on the political thing, abortion, good or not?
  Grandly, whatever else one's faith about God and 
angels or muses may be, it is EITHER the case that the 
human unborn or new-born infant is identical to one, and 
only one soul, in theological essence, in a unity that 
is lasting until this human body dies, OR it is so that 
the soul-situation is other than that. It is not 
necessary to take the point of view that soul is not. It 
is intuitively right, I feel, to say that souls are real  
and that spirits are real and it is also, I feel, 
intuitively right to say that when the human young 
infant is finished growing the first structure of the 
human brain, and the body has enough strength to begin 
to stand up, THEN the human being enters into the domain 
of spiritual ethics. I think it is correct, therefore, 
to say that the human unborn infant is completely 
without soul and the removal of it is not more wrong nor 
right than to remove an organ from a living body. After 
a year of existence in breathing space, at earliest, it 
is a human being proper, with a brain that has grown to 
a proper size to be able to begin to accomodate the real 
complexities of the world. The legs are beginning to be 
long and walk-worthy. The first words are uttered for 
real. Before one and a half years, before eighteen 
months, then, in this spiritual world, the very tiny 
girl, when she smiles, it is the soul-smile we see, not 
merely the genetic impulse to attract survival 
behavioural patterns from the surrounding world. This is 
my firm intuition. Consequently, I would very strongly 
caution those who seek to work towards a more 
spiritually enlightened world to be even slightly 
against abortion, and this especially in this crazily 
overpopulated planet that certainly will buckle under 
before too many centuries unless a handling of 
over-population takes place. This is, as I take it, also 
the view of the origin. To the origin, Life is primary, 
and the coming and going of human bodies is merely a 
flickering on blades on a tree that is everlasting, and 
it matters that the blades are neither too few nor too 
many and that those that do grow, grow well and do so 
splendidly and as happily as the blades can bear.
  It is also, I take it, entirely unnecessary for human 
beings to try to map this universe, of which they know 
so very little, and -- as I take it -- the present 
existence of human beings is very much off-center. Most 
of the universe is absolutely beyond the scope of the 
strongest telescopes known to man. All calculation on 
universe sizes, which are necessary in all other 
calculations on universe durations, are taking too much 
for granted about the extent to which human beings have 
managed to map anything of that greatness. It is not 
infinite, the physical universe, but it has very little 
do with the particular finitenesses of the physicists of 
this unenlightened era. Also, while Einstein obviously 
was completely the fool on nonlocality, human beings 
won't ever harness the power of nonlocality for warp 
space travel themselves -- that is my intuition. My 
scifi writing on warp travel happens, therefore (unlike 
the hyperspace travel of Isaac Asimoc or similar in the 
lovely writings of Arthur C Clarke, a knower of beauty), 
on the premise that warp travel can only begin by a real  
presence of the origin among human beings, rather along 
the ideas of a (very modified) coptic version of 
christianity (which speaks of the flesh of the origin). 
Confer also holy grain mythologies and fairy tales: they 
sought a cup of some holy blood in order to get a kind 
of 'warp' effect to their little lives. The notion that 
warp must be deriving from an essence, beyond matter, 
rather than by a technology that human beings themselves 
can come up with, has evolved in me over a long time, as  
a neopopperian intuition. This tells me also that while 
the universe is full of extremely inhabitable planets in 
plenty, human technology is forever absolutely out of 
touch with all possibility of getting to even a single 
one of them. It is here Einstein after all had a point 
with his blah-blah on the speed of light limit. These 
planets are so far away that only nonlocality can do the 
trick but nonlocality is at the essence level and not 
within human manipulative level except in rather trivial 
  A warp-driven spacecraft transcending any distance 
in the blink of an eye requires something beyond 
manifest existence as its core engine, if "engine" is 
the word I want. It requires, said in cartoon-like 
terms, a stamp of approval in each case and a 
certificate authorised by the origin of reality. Without 
that, the activity will be too incoherent to get anyone 
to any remote place alive.
  I also have an intuition about the physics of a solar 
system, which may or may not be hinted at in some 
results in present forefront physics, but which I have 
had for a long time. It is this: the particular 
coherence that biological living being requires nurtures 
itself of a form of nonlocality that is sustained within  
the narrow confines of a solar system. In a word, a 
"solar system" is the only system that exists. All 
beings living within a solar system are participant 
sub-systems. If they put themselves on a rocket set on 
course outside of a proper solar system realm, they will 
find their human cells withering away with a devastating 
speed as if confronted with a radioactivity that they 
cannot shield themselves from. But it is not 
radioactivity at all -- plain lead can shield against 
that. This is a question of the very coherence that 
distinguishes a living healthy human body from body that 
is falling apart and that is dead or quickly dying. This  
coherence is a substantial wholeness which requires a 
subtle support system, I intuit. This support system, I 
further intuit, is not at all existing in interstellar 
realms, nor can it be artificially or technologically 
induced. So if you cannot reach another inhabitable 
planet by warp-travel, in a blink, without any 
tourist-like pausing in interstellar space to take in 
the grand views, you cannot reach another inhabitable 
planet at all. But warp-travel without theosophy is pure 
scifi. If you, however, expand in the spiritual 
dimension and reach a refined worldview with plenty of 
room for prayer and intuition as well as logical 
analysis of the best of science (cfr super-model 
theory), you will, I am sure, agree with me in this 
  Human beings are meant not only to survive, but have a 
more and more splendid, beautiful existence, evolving in  
beautiful ways forever. And they are not only meant to, 
but -- rather effortlessly -- this is indeed how it will 
be. And Earth is just a starting-up station, not meant 
to be the base for very long.
  I take it, therefore, that "heaven" in the 
cartoon-like human-written bibles and korans is merely 
a metaphor for a universe where warptravel has begun, 
but in a way that is not controlled by mere human 
egotism, but somehow authorised directly by the source 
of existence. This is a view that one can find a 
rational room for in a theosophy that also calls on 
eclectic components of first-hand neopopperian science.
It is also a view that is necessitating a form of notion  
of "day-incarnation" idea, where the human girl and her 
souls and spirits are seen to be subject to a scheme of 
fairness (in that the soul is the proper experiencer
both of the good and the bad). The view of a cosmic 
fairness is not compatible with a one-soul-pr-body in a 
fixed way view, when we look very quickly at the news. 
It is therefore infinitely more logical, consistent and 
clear to adapt the day-incarnation view, if one is a 
God-believer, in the sense of God being active and not 
merely a lazy instigator of a game-like creation in a 
mechanical sense.
-- A prediction relative to the vast future which may 
help too-tech-happy and also too-rich people to get the 
spark of sexual timing
The prediction relative to the vast future is this: no 
fuckin' phones. No damn social websites. No bikes, and 
hardly any jogging. Just dance, walking, swimming, 
playing, fiesting (not "partying", for it is not 
divisive), and all such things, and a bit of work and 
education and voting and contesting and fighting -- and 
meeting by chance. Something those who always rely on 
pre-agreed appointments which are then modified 
incessantly as the time and place approaches by gadets 
and phones and portable computers and made unsexy by 
overuse of cars and taxis and limos don't get any much 
  You can't buy yourself into great synchronicities: but 
you can turn off the stuff you have bought, which were 
meant to make it easier to contact people and rule over 
your life, when you find that it becomes more clumsy to 
use these artefacts to contact people.
  People in cars, biking people, people who constantly 
phones, or send messages by phones or social networking 
sites, -- what happens to their timing? It becomes an 
artefact, a number, like the millions they don't need on 
their account.  
  But timing is sex. Timing is what gives the perfect 
dance, the tuned orgasm, the meeting that sparkle with 
the unknown richness of partaking in a field of duration 
which has a dimension beyond all technology. 
-- A world of free dialogue and free criticism of all, 
not just some, macho-fascistic structures and religions 
must engage beautiful masculine-feminine female dancers 
to show the weakness of the male fist
What is stronger than words? Dance. Nietzsche is but 
words, but words of a kind that resonate with 
sharia-islam as well as stalin-fascism, 
mussolini-fascism and every other kind of macho-fascism 
including militant anti-islam and hitlerism. Nietzsche 
is the archpoet of male aggression against God and 
females, against anything that denies male power from 
grabbing the uppermost point of the human psyche, in a 
constant state of greed-with-oneself that he so 
drastically mistook for enlightenment. Wagner built on 
this. Nietzsche is exactly opposite in God-view relative 
to sharia-islam but exactly identical in the rediculous,  
unsexy constant appraisal of male power. 
  Greater than this is the strength-within-the-beautiful 
feminine which came across with Naomi Campbell as 
supermodel in the fashion industry, longlegged and 
strong yet slim and softlipped, oval-faced yet with an 
arrogant slant of her young eyes when she in the early 
1990s changed the sense of the coverpages of fashion 
  If Nietzsche had had a sister like Naomi instead of 
the over-adoring and racially twarted sister he had, he 
would had praised God for his Greatness in building 
Females -- or else this sister would have bashed little 
Nietzsche, before his mind bashed him in 
self-destruction and he became the perfect autist.
  What particular form this dance must take is up to the
genius of the particular dancer. But the general impulse
is vital to combat the tendency to remove creativeness
and true pluralism in the cultural dialogue worldwide
when militant extremist action takes place. The general
impulse is not just for any year but for every year, for
every millenium: dance must constantly and in ever-new
ways, not as a recipe but as a service to God, combat
the staleness of political extremism whether it takes
place in a theistic or an atheistic context. It is the
duty of any state with respect for life, dignity,
the fun and humour of both a shared coherence and a
healthy pluralism of culture to support the exhibition
of female longlegged feline dancing freedom so as to
make the human mind come to peace with itself, and see
the littleness of any alternative. Dance must not merely
be a reflection of the whims of old people's wish to
carry on traditions or whimsically try to prove that
everyone, no matter how plump and out of training or
out of youth someone is, they can still tap their feet
to a rhythm. Youth is not a matter of counting years, 
for those of few years can be very old if they live
wrongly, and those of many more years can be very
young if they have the divine spark of selfrenewal
for a good while. Dance must biologically reflect the
best and most convincing of female strong beauty to
combat the tendency in some to cultivate own power.
  The particular form of the dance will be naturally
changed and improvised to reflect the state of awareness
and enlightenment beyond any imitation. But it is the
task -- the truth-task -- of any state to use very 
generously of its funds to pump the best of beyond-
tradition dance of longlegged skinny females into the
consciousness of humankind in the humble opinion of
this writer. This dance will not reflect the average
body: it will inspire, however, the average to reach
new energies in all good forms of work and leisure.
It is not a mirror of the turmoil but a greatness
which is similar to such infinities as sensed when
one is at a wilderness beach. No matter how much 
favour of voting and a relatively open and sexually
free and in some key ways a centrum-political 
arrangement one is, one must never put dance at a
lower level than at the peak level: it is there to
kill mediocrity inside the mind by showing to it
the importance of such beautiful beyondness as only
the best of dance, and most divinely shaped dancers,
can reveal to the mind. Instead of putting enormous
resources into a painful, over-medicined prolongation
of life for everyone, one should instead pump up the
enjoyment of the divine spirit through dance, that
the dance shows one there is nothing to fear, that
all reincarnates, that greater than pain is the 
enjoyment of the best of dance, by the most golden
ratio-loving female proportions set alive to music.
-- Why the cultivation of the circle in modern design 
shouldn't go too far
The world economy -- a large part of it, not crude oil 
and such, but a large part of it -- is spinning around 
design, in all from cars to computers, food containers 
and software, toys for kids and industrial fashion 
  Take bottles of milk in a fridge. There are two 
schools of thought: bottles of milk should be round, and 
bottles of milk should be square. The argument for the 
former is, I suppose, that it is nice. The argument for 
the latter school of thought -- viz., the square milk 
bottle school of thought -- is that you can stack more 
milk close up that way, for squares touch all the way, 
don't you know.
  Square airplanes, on the other hand, seems to be out 
of fashion. It seems to be a reason for it: air bounces 
better of a sleek long & oval plane. And though cars of 
the autobahn kind ought to have something of the 
aerodynamic finesse of the airplane, city-cars might 
well be squarish.
  But in most cases, design is a statement of taste, not 
of mechanical friction science or storage room science. 
And there are those of us who question whether the sexy 
square -- or rectangular, rather -- "open-up" phone of 
the Matrix movies are really outwitted, in terms of 
taste, by the rounded-shoulder type of phone which 
accounts for the greatest income of the phone-maker 
companies this season.
  Any vulgar design book will tell you that circles are 
eternal symbols of union and femininity, while squares 
represent a kind of hardened mechanical view of the 
world. They will further suggest that if all peace 
dialogues took place across oval tables, there would be 
no more wars, and that squares tend to accentuate 
conflict and bring about disassociation.
  And nothing could be further from the truth -- 
speaking generally. As for tables, though, I grant the 
point: soften the corners and it might be conducive for 
  But in terms of esthetics, nothing is more a stopper 
than a circle. A square provides movement -- a squarish 
form like a rectangular shape can hold the 3 to 5 or 5 
to 8 proportions, more or less like Visa cards and such, 
which spiral both inwards and outwards in our 
subconscious perception of them. In contrast to the 
circle, which is patently two-dimensional, a rectangle 
invites the visual parts of the brain and mind to play 
with it. What happens if you e.g. chops off a square? 
Will the remaining form be interesting? The beauty of 
the approximate form of 1.618 is that the resulting Visa 
card, if you cannibal a square of it, is a mini-Visa 
card (no longer useful if you want to use it, but now we 
are talking high art and not trivial use). Or add a 
square to a Visa card, and you get a giant version with 
still the same proportions. 
  Turn now to the beautiful face. It too, is like the 
golden ratio, but in infinitely more subtle ways, and in 
ways that resonate and vary also infinitely. You see how  
a slight slant of the eyes may play on the chin so as to  
give a resonance with one part of the lips; and how the 
lower lips may have the same angle as the jaw; or how 
the eyes resembles the oval of a part of the face, or 
again the lips -- and so on and so forth. The beauty you 
can't get enough of invites a variety of 
self-similarities, to borrow a word from fractalism, and 
some of these may again play on the 5:8 golden ratio. 
  Good paintings are not framed, in general, with soft 
shoulders so as to make them better. Rather, they are 
put in the proper rectangle, on the assumption that 
their femininity and circles-within-circles of living 
forms come better forth in contrast to the frame. If the 
frame starts taking the role of the content art, it may 
reduce the clarity of perception of the artwork. So I 
ask, what happens when computers are getting all 
circular and softy? Will this enhance, or, in contrast, 
actually make the content less visible and clear and 
  A circle, geometrically, is static: which is good when 
it is a table, for the real beings are OUTSIDE of it. 
But the beings themselves, the femininity and 
masculinity is an ever-changing infinite question of 
fine-tuned resonances, which sometimes give the symphony 
of beauty in the eye of the observer. But then the 
frames of our technology, the boxes and designs of our 
containers, must not impose their own static curves on 
this living interplay. The squarish design is less 
invasive, and the hard corners sparkle with a playful 
gist, inviting ever-new perceptions.
-- With an aspiration towards the healthy which in young  
people is motivated by the sexuality of good-looking 
symmetrical health, and with a sense of the word 
'theorem' as defined in terms of, 
a new theorem about art is here introduced
1. In this discussion, the notion of brilliant 
good-lookingness in the sense of a dancer's splendid 
health -- even if pushed to limits e.g. in BDSM -- is 
taken as granted as premise in the sense of motivation 
(i.e., that healthiness is a natural end-goal).
2. While art can be both abstract and nonabstract or 
what we can call naturalistic, mildly or intensely -- 
such as in particular in the sketch or sketch-painting 
or photo of human beings -- it is the naturalistic art 
which is here discussed (though there are similar lines 
of reasonings possible about abstract art e.g. abstract 
mini-sculptures or abstract light shapes on tall 
street-side buildings at night).
3. The word 'theorem' as defined in (and published in booklets 
referred to at, is not only a 
proposition or suggestion or guess, but one that has a 
line of deduction from definitions and some kind of 
axioms to itself -- however in the sense of there being 
in fact much too many symbolic logic premises that these 
can all be spelled out in anything less than very many 
thick volumes. So we are talking of a vague 
meaning-oriented (semantic) type of 'proof' and type of 
'theorem' though not excluding that a more formal and 
intensely long deduction of mechanical kind COULD be 
made. It is then a kind of INTUITIVE deduction. 
(Sherlock Holmes fiction involves this type of deduction 
of course.) 
4. An axiom here: Art is either re-presentational (what 
we can also call 'pointer art', in that the art points 
to something else which is to be imagined by the 
observer), or self-presentational (what we can also call 
'simulation art', in that the art aims at simulating a 
bit of reality and require less to be imagined).
5. Definition: Contexual art is art whose 
re-presentational (pointer) meaning is highly dependent 
on the context in which it is presented, both spatially 
(e.g. its position in space among things, tales and 
people, and such) and in terms of duration (when it was 
made, how long ago, is it still fresh etc).
6. Theorem (Contextual Art Theorem) here introduced: 
Contextual art more easily conveys health.
7. That contextual art more easily conveys health, as we  
will indicate by an intuitive deduction from the axiom 
and definitions, doesn't imply anything derogatative 
about simulation art -- such as photography -- when done 
professionally and with superb care. 
8. Before we show the Contextal Art Theorem deduction --  
in other words, before we 'prove' it -- in a certain 
sense -- let us dwell on what we can call 'degrees of 
contextuality'. I am going to propose that you intuit 
over the following proposition, at this point: Namely 
that photography when presented on a luminous computer 
monitor is more contexual than when presented on 
something solid (what is called 'chemical reflection 
light', for it is light reflecting e.g. on paper or 
wooden plate). Also, we will here regard as a branch of 
photography when somebody tries deliberately by manual 
pen or paint brush strokes to mimick photographic 
technology. (Contrast this with such sketch-oriented 
art, which we can also call 'cartoon-inspired' -- or 
'comics-inspired' -- art as talked about in what this 
writer has introduced as BI Spring or Spring BI art.)
9. For the computer monitor is self-luminous and few 
objects except light bulbs and sun and stars and such 
are self-luminous; in particular human beings are not 
self-lumionous and so when computer monitor luminously 
(e.g., by radiant light) presents a form, it doesn't 
seem to be as much a self-presenation as when the same 
form is transferred to paper or something solid. In 
other words, the mind incl. the human brain feels and 
picks up the fact that it is a re-presentation -- a 
pointer to something which is to be imagined -- when 
seen on a radiant computer monitor (esp. light green vs. 
black tonation), but when the same photography is 
transferred to paper, it is much more claiming to be a 
piece of reality which then is in effect a simulation of 
reality, and thus a self-presentation. 
10. Having gone this far, let us now relevate the 
proposed theorem and see if we can, by 
meaning-deduction, prove it. The theorem goes like this: 
contextual art more easily conveys health than 
simulation art. And we have just suggested that 
contextuality is a question of degrees, going from the 
re-presentational to the self-presentational.
11. We are speaking art as experienced as part of the 
reality of young people whose inclination to sex is part 
of their temperament, their physical, biological (also 
hormone), and psychological make-up, all naturally. 
Without the necessity of extra lip-stick-color, they 
LOOK for health for they look for sex and it is the 
abundance of this which allows for the exploration of 
the intensity of BDSM -- or SM -- and such things as 
allow health to be challenged. It would not make sense 
to challenge health unless it is exuberantly present. 
And so in this light we can also understand dance when 
liberated from stiff ballerina patterns but yet elegant 
and longlegged, soft and hard and all that -- both 
rhythmic and arrythmic, both dialogical and trialogical 
and more, and monolithic at times.
12. And so we can clinch the theorem perceptively -- 
semantically as follows: the natural inclination for the 
mind and body rhythm of just this make-up -- the brain 
patterns, their wavelengths also, one might presume (for 
the questions of waves is not merely a classical physics  
question but a coherence supermodel physics agenda) is 
to tend to interpret towards health what can be 
interpreted towards health when there is a full openness 
for it (since, as said, it is sexual to do so). But such  
openness is greatest exactly when we have to do with 
re-presentational more than self-presentational art -- 
in other words with contextual art. It is now proved.
Pompeously, let's declare: Quod Erat Demonstratum -- QED
-- Latin: This has now been demonstrated. (Of course,
see this writers repeated attack in various successful
ways on both the notion of how infinity has been 
attempted to have been 'handled' in the misguided
attempts from Euclid through Cantor then Russell
and others to engage in deductions over numbers;
and also on the imbecility of regarding manifest 
matter as capable of holding mind.)
13. But this doesn't mean that art which is more 
self-presentational doesn't allow the exploration of 
health, only that since it claims more and points less, 
since it fills out more and is less merely indicative in 
broad lines, it is far more demanding.  
14. We can then speak of the professional photographer, 
who knows how to delete the vast amount of 
miscallibrated wrong-shadowy wrong-lighted wrong-colored 
photos that naturally arise, and retain only the best of  
the best. 
-- Passion, also as love, and the enthusiasm for doing 
something right, and generosity of various kinds -- 
including but not limited to oneself -- keeps 
propelling world economy
A human being is not merely alive, but passionately, 
soulfully inspired, enthusiastic, full of glow relative 
to urges, both hidden and more manifest, to live life in 
the fullest, to experience love, truth, beauty, 
goodness, the intensity of various feelings -- the 
beauty also of some forms of pain -- not excluding 
sexuality at all.
  It is only in the decayed state of mind, where nothing  
seems to matter much anymore -- for a while, prior to 
any future reincarnation -- that the smaller pleasures 
and the avoidance of some pains grow into those very 
temporarily overriding things called desires, greed, 
anxiety, frustrations, depressions, and fears. It is 
this state of mind, rather like a cold or a fever can 
grab the body harmony for a while and twist it out of 
form, which leads to the decay of empathy so as to lead 
to mass-murder or just plain criminal cynicism which has 
no attention to other people's hearts or lives, nor to 
the future of humanity. We need not concern ourselves 
with such decayed states of mind other than to 
understand that they are temporary, in one way or 
another they will always, for each person, quickly go 
  Rather, we must focus on the positive in human living, 
that which is forever beyond such decayed competition as  
darwinistic atheists try to set up as the motor in 
economy. There is a competition also when there is 
passion, but it has a laughter in it which is the 
laughter of having fun, of feeling good, of watching 
beauty, of experiencing wholeness, it is not merely that 
sad sarcastic laughter of those who have lost their 
charm and hope to see that others lack charm, too.
  In wholly other words, there is a tremendous drive in 
all of us to do things, to buy things, to sell things, 
to make things and events and processes and adventures 
which has nothing whatsoever to do with self-pity or 
egotism. In this which some has called 'the abundance 
mode' (named so by Abraham Maslow however he did so in a 
theoretical context which has, as I see it, many errors 
in it), the brain and the body function at the maximum. 
Each one of us is, in the abundance mode, entrepeneurs. 
We make life, we make money, we create the interesting, 
novel fluctuations that make society tick, that make the 
world of interactivity economy prosper. 
  To be an entrepeneur is then something completely 
beyond greed and fear. It is not that such things as 
greed and fear, also as panic, don't come in at all. 
For human beings are never absolutely enlightened. But 
these smaller factors, though they are always there in a 
latent form, can be constantly harassed within oneself, 
in what one can call -- lending a word from rumi islam 
-- a kind of 'inner jidhad', the holy war within oneself 
against that which is small within oneself, viz., the 
ego. But this inner war must also be a war against all 
political mass movements, all hysteria centered around 
any bible or more modern form human manifest of idiocy.
  The world of interactivity economy -- this world -- 
has a dancing, artistic economy which enables humanity 
to prosper and enjoy, and at times here and there suffer 
a little bit, when luxury availability is present 
alongsside with strong leashes on over-use, over-eating, 
over-travel, over-growth of companies, over-growth of 
own money. Much as every human being merely by being 
alive and up-going deserves a house and a monthly income 
good enough to live in splendour and health, so must a 
meaningful world economy has in it ALL the rules and 
regulations to apply the whip, metaphorically, on all 
excesses. It is in this balance between luxury and 
limitation that greatness of character is born, that the 
most beautiful of personalities are fostered. Overdone 
luxury leads to a spoiled, bored, ungrateful existence; 
while poverty leads to a constant narrow focus on merely 
staying alive, on making it still one more week. The 
abundance mode must exist both with an understanding of 
the need for limitations -- for 'sanctions', we might 
say, against greed and also fear and such -- and with a 
faith in life as such as forever greater than the life 
of any one individual body -- reincarnation provides a 
sense of dignity greater than those who believe in the 
foggy illusion of an afterlife -- so that there is 
always hope, given wise action, and so that humanity is 
sensed to be part of an awesome order, infinitely 
greater than itself.
  So world economy, the interactivity of all society, is 
having a natural energy and harmonious unfoldment in 
something far greater than greed, fear or other such 
things of the ego, when conditions are right.
  Nobody therefore can "own" or "possess" or "copyright"
the word 'entrepeneur', for entrepeneurship is part of 
humanship and part of the link between soul/spirit and 
world interactivity economy. 
-- Long-term strict rules to avoid storms and rather 
ensure pleasantly inspiring currency waves
When the world economy offers more and more participation 
as more and more people are online with computers 
registered as traders, inherent weaknessess about the 
20th century style of regulations become more and more 
obvious and have to be adressed before too long. One must 
avoid rules which appear to be 'ad hoc' or 'knee-jerk', 
but at the same time one must have rules that make the 
games come out as good games, rather than constantly 
unfolding nightmares founded on the illusions of Adam 
Smith and others (whose meagre insights must never be 
generalised to be a foundation of economy, see my 
comments on the alternative to greedy demand and greed 
for money as root causes and patterns of interactivity 
economy in numerous notes elsewhere).
  One must be as generous as one can to the spark of fun 
that individuals, also individuals representing 
companies, want to have in trying to make more money out 
of some money by good timing and swift intuition and 
clever logic. But this generosity must be within
boundaries or constraints so that it is not 
self-destructive from the perspective of society as a 
  Here are the rules I intuit as right, and -- sooner or 
later -- a necessity. Let us be critically aware that 
psychology of moods must never be able to wreck a city. 
This means that we must avoid giving credibility to 
areas of economy where increased participation by all 
interested individuals in the world means that world 
economy can be wrecked if the participants -- out of a 
solar storm, false gossip, hacking, wrong news, whatever 
-- have a depressed week. The little we have seen of 
this so far will be very much amplified as the world of 
computing most righteously and most importantly enable
more and more people to be responsible and active 
players in the form of traders.
  So, the proposed rules:
  >>> Absolutely no trace of stock trading anymore. 
Neither long term nor short term. Those who work in a 
company partake in its fate. Those who don't work in 
doesn't partake in its fate through any long-distance 
  >>> Over some minutes, allow CT (currency transactions) 
or betting: Short-selling and long betting on CT pairs 
many times a week are entirely good and right and proper 
in all ways as long as each individual (or organisation) 
doing this do this in total independence from all 
others, without collusion nor any conspiracy to 
manipulate world prices, and with a quantity of money 
which is insignificant compared to the total quantity of 
money available in the currency market. (Remember that 
short-selling and long betting on currency pairs are 
technical words relative to how the currency pairs are 
constructed, and so the meaning of these phrases do not 
at all have the type of meaning they had with stock 
trading.) In addition, state-run organisations without
private group-orientations can balance the waves.
  >>> Long-term currency investment must not be ruled 
out, since any investment of any kind in some sense 
involves one currency more than another; and this can 
also include long-term CT. But since we must here allow 
a larger sum of money, we must also insist that the sum 
is kept through fluctuations unchanged, with no option 
to change it often. In other words, long-term CT 
(whether as short selling or long bet on a currency 
pair) is acceptable given a freeze of the sum and of the 
completion day, with only some relatively limited 
options of extending the completion day before the sum 
is cashed out. Let us note that this long-term CT must 
not have any automatic cancelling of the trade even if 
it involves riding currency curves which temporarily can 
even reduce the sum to a quarter of its orginal sum. The  
stability thereby ensured will allow those who trade 
with smaller sum to have more beautiful curves.
  >>> To further reduce the possibility of manipulation 
of currencies, rather inspired by the notion of a 
state-run lottery, the price at each minute ought to be 
adjusted, as for each currency pair, according to a 
computation which involves officially transparent and 
well-programmed RFFG -- Relatively Free Fluctuation 
  >>> Finally, going beyond the notion of nationship 
entirely, and seeing the currencies as simultaneously 
existing with equal proportions in all places where 
humans interact, obviously there must be a yearly 
equalisation of the currencies relative to one another, 
with a forced closure of all long-term bets not closed 
already before the year's annual equalisation date. This 
equalisation doesn't mean a 1:1 relationship but rather 
a more lively relationship reflecting the natural 
variations the currencies have at the start. Too small 
currencies ought to be closed, or the number of currency 
pairs will be too big, for the latter to be a practical 
policy; but there must be more than three currencies to 
have a rich enough fluctuation interaction.
  There are other natural constraints which must be 
implemented together with such measures, and this 
includes the right of each person to handle several 
currencies and the right of each shop, also, to do so; 
as well as other instruments of stability and 
transparency such as combining physical money with 
digitally registered money, neither allowing full 
virtuality of money nor merely paper-cash (see other 
notes on this by same writer).
  With this wise framework, money can serve the 
enterprising spirit of all in a generous and 
income-oriented way, and so that each can find many 
things to do -- everyone can have, in some senses, jobs.
--Rather than wait for such traditionally hysterical 
institutions as the World Health Organisation to put 
bans on addictive aspects of internet -- as they have 
done, clumisly, on both cigarettes and cigarillos -- 
self-censorship is valuable
A long time ago, it was understood by advanced smokers 
that there is an utterly vast distinction to be made 
between cigarettes, which typically are full of many 
dozens of sticky, addictive chemical addictions, which 
leaves the human skin stinking of smoke, and which 
involves a series of health implications -- and 
cigarillos, and their larger brothers, cigars, -- which 
are in many cases made by Indian Tobacco in its pure 
form, in aromatic blendings.
  Those of us who find it appropriate to work many hours  
pr week in rooms as small as some 4 times 2,5 meters, 
stuffed with machines and cups and monitors and what 
not, sooner or later come to appreciate cleaning as one 
of the conditions to do good work. Another is to keep 
the brain clear and happy -- no alcholic beverages 
except some gulps, at most, at weekends. Yet another is 
the preservation of superb atmosphere. In order not to 
smoke -- which is something I regard as a weekend luxury 
and then only extremely minialistic -- but to cleanse 
and purify the working-room, I have learned that getting 
a cigarillos lighted up, then blown at -- rather than 
sucked at -- from the outside, towards the glow -- acts 
miraculously well to cleanse the air.
  If only cafees, after the hysteria of the W.H.O., had 
the wisdom to do something similar for their atmosphere, 
their business would flourish greatly. As it is, 
however, the W.H.O. mini-empire got its way and has more 
or less seen to it that even pure tobacco -- which 
unlike cigarettes doesn't easily leave a stink -- and which 
are more likely to be applicable in a non-addictive setting 
-- cannot have a place in many of Earth's cities. I am 
sure they are very proud, while a whole youth generation 
are deprived of the atmosphere of meaning. Is that an 
over-statement? I think not.
  [[[Note: I advise that you check things out if you
follow any advice here given on tobacco and incense.
After asking several cigar shops, which all
said that cigars and cigarillos only have tobacco, 
I contacted the danish producers of an inexpensive
and widely available cigarillo-type in scandinavia,
named Blue Cafe Creme, and got a statement that it
contains nothing but many types of tobacco and a
neutral tobacco-glue to keep it together. State
officials may also help, if you contact them. The
Yoga6d dot org search engine will be vastly expanded
to cover many such things nearer 2012 or before.]]]
  In South Korea, the BBC World Service could tell this 
week, which is generally a technologically advanced 
society, internet addiction has reached status as a 
clinical definition. There are pre-addiction weekend 
camps; there are medical groups dedicating themselves 
fully to clinical medical treatment of the people who 
has gone too deep into the mire of internet gaming. 
There is legislation, after so-and-so o'clock, children 
are not allowed to do so-and-so with internet, 
especially concerning local online computer games.
  Notice, please, the most dramatic lack of nerve to 
apply concepts of distinction in the above account, 
which is fairly near the news report. It is not always 
one speaks of computer game -- one speaks of INTERNET. 
One doesn't distinguish between games and games: there 
exists (I know, for I have made one of them, the Yoga4d 
game, as which can be started with the 
language f3 as installed at games 
that are made so as to be non-addictive, yet -- over a 
matter of two or three minutes -- stimulating. And 
scroll ahead and I wouldn't be surprised, unless we now 
start a properly anti-W.H.O.-hysteria process, if the 
W.H.O. doesn't get its maniac ways with Internet also, 
after some years: Imagine that BBC suddenly reports, 
'The W.H.O. has succeded in convincing the governments 
of the E.U. and the U.S.A. to outlaw all use of internet 
in public places, and restrict private use of it to 
three hours, but then only with a warning being 
displayed as soon as the computer is switched on.' Okay, 
a bit over-statement, but I think you can see that 
greater things might be afoot when you look at events, 
such as in the advanced country of South Korea, and 
extrapolate them a bit.
  I find that it is best to be constructive, when one is 
a bit alarmed. And the way, I think, to be constructive 
about addictions of the type that are not very severe, 
is to apply fine distinctions, find the golden middle 
pathways, and then appeal to producers to apply them in 
a spirit of self-regulation. At most, politicians then 
only have to put a ban on those producers who do not 
engage in self-regulations, instead of clamping down on 
  Firstly, I would suggest that any computer site or 
computer program which is even vaguely near being in 
some expanded sense a "game" states of itself to what 
percentage it is a game. Then, I would suggest that it 
states of itself to what extend it is typically an 
addictive type of program or site -- and in the case of 
games, this will be of importance: that a recommended 
maximum duration is given. Never mind age groups. 
Children's minds are enormously capable when given a 
chance and adults' minds are enormously incapable on 
  This, then, is an ethical framework which would be 
fruitful for all game producers and all producers of 
sites which involve game-like features -- including the 
much-overused type of site which at present calls itself 
'social', while very often being in practise exactly the  
opposite. The sites which involves 'scores' of friends, 
and such things. The earlier the programmers realise 
that self-regulation is the way to go, the less 
hysterical will be the laws in the upcoming decades.
And nobody wants hysterical laws. We want a 
compassionate anarchy, don't we? (If you like, cfr a
very early text of mine, some passages of which require
a bit of flexible interpretation I have to say --
in any case, it's hand-written while relaxing in some
sunny areas and getting a tan, beside a pretty 
girl-friend of mine -- named The Compassionate Anarchist, 
-- it is always at
--The West must find its own raw power in a force which 
makes fascism seem weak, which sums up something of what 
was begun in 1969, but left unfinished business 
Nothing really came of the 1960s except some fantastic 
elements which were drowned in glossy commercialism -- 
or in drug use -- and, as it is not allowed to smoke 
even outdoors in New York -- the rules and regulations 
commitees all across the world also as driven forth by 
News Corp., -- added to the drowning of the best of 
these impulses.
  But what was unleashed -- here and there with some of 
the enterprises of 1960s and 1970s -- Bob Marley, of 
course, and California Dreamin' by Mamas and Papas -- 
but with an almost desparate urge to get the best 
expressed of whatever they could express, since Beatles 
was about to close the shop, -- something here and there 
in the Abbey Road album by Beatles managed, in some 
peculiar way, to reach a kind of sexual force and 
physical force and feminine force greater, I think, than 
the dark drugged force of the The Doors, and -- if taken  
seriously to-day -- could point, to the West, a way 
where the urge for sheer force -- can be harmlessly 
  Nietzsche was wrong in putting up the anti-religious 
fiesting anti-loving force as greater than everything 
else, but his point -- that priests behind desks, men in 
robes quoting books they have never lived, never danced 
-- that point, in isolation, stands. But the West -- 
indeed every affluent society I know of -- has not 
managed, for real, to find the greater coherence of a 
force both tantric and fiesting, both full of awesome 
sexuality -- bi-sexual girl-singing sexuality also -- 
and also of the religious. AND SO, we see men no longer 
in their early twenties, afraid of their own withering, 
falling in love with weapons, with machines, with 
fascism. To cover up their own quick decay, they put on 
medals or fine titles, they write horrific manifests, 
and utilise technology to show how well the instruments 
of fascism look when adorning their artificially 
pumped-up bodies.
The XXX that 1969 has, but which the American Family 
Association doesn't have, is the understanding that love 
in the religious sense, and love in the fornification 
sense, must go beyond death and know also the energy of 
moderated violence, that of BDSM or SM, that of the myth 
of the vampires -- which can be removed from the 
rediculous medieval age noncoptic-christian mythology of 
zoombies without souls. It is about the blood of union, 
the union as in the church: that of human sexuality with 
the greatness of going beyond fear of what happens to 
the body, a sexuality which can, when taught wholeness 
and true coherence from a revolution within the mind, 
speak to those who sense that the West must not become 
desktop-glamorous, uniformed pop, uniformed religious, 
uniformed non-religious -- it is a theme explored also 
in films such as by Laura Gemser and Ursula Andress in 
the same decades (on Cannibalism). 
-- And what would happen if it is taken more seriously? 
A background commentary on the quest for beauty 
There might be two obious reasons why one should not 
make images of something awesome -- as in the ancient 
commandment, in King James translation of the old 
testament translated with such famous words as, 'thou 
shalt not make any graven image of' -- God and his 
angels and indeed everything truly important.
  The first of these obvious reasons is be that the 
images may fall severely short of the grandour they 
ought to relay, and so defame what must not be defamed.
  The second of these obvious reasons is that, on the 
chance that an image actually got it right, the beauty 
involved, the ultimate perfection and ecstasy involved, 
might involve such a consciousness power as that of a 
laser ray that nobody can be exposed to the image 
without going completely mad.
  The Vatican and indeed much of the renaissance art of 
Italy, and also portions of the pre- and 
post-renaissance art of Italy, aims strongly at going 
against the ancient commandment. It is clear that far 
from creating a dangerous laser ray of too-much beauty, 
the art of Italy with its plump manly women and its 
self-righteous, big-nosed, big-jawed, and often 
thin-lipped angels, arch-angels, Jesus-characters, 
Maria-characters, God-characters and disciple-characters 
rather constitute one vast bulk of defamation of 
everything spiritual. It is this heavy defamation that 
perhaps explains how the self-righteous Vatican can go 
on, for century after century, with its corrupt, 
over-ritualised, circus-clad ways, claiming to have 
religious power while being little but a clownish 
demonstration of the worst of corruption of religious 
occasions, one finds that some people who have the gall 
to call themselves 'scientific' claim that such as 
'symmetry' is what beauty is about, or who, from a 
superficial computerised analysis of some Cleopatra 
sculptures, produce what look like a nightmare version 
of Cleopatra that they say is the 'true look' of 
  Cleopatra, surely, -- in what she was, not in how she 
has so falsely been depicted -- had something of that 
beauty that makes people's mind go crackers. This chick, 
who made much of the land of what is now called Italy 
rather fall and crumple over her radiant, longlegged 
influence over two of its emperors, who descended from 
one of the pupils-turned-generals under Aristotle's 
pupil-turned-emperor, Alexander the Great, through a 
long series of in-breedings, was described by one of the 
historicians at the time: "Aristotle said there were 
only a couple of ways to flirt, but Cleopatra knows a 
thousand ways to flirt.' For flirt, here, read 'seduce', 
'mesmerize', 'control', 'dominate', etc. 
  Enter on the stage, then, some time after Cleopatra 
and her fatal flirtations, a Jesus who in the coptic 
tradition was no other than the essence of reality, in a 
physical form -- not as reincarnation into a human form;  
who, therefore, would signal the future coming -- in a 
certain modification of what is now called 'optic' -- of 
this essence in immortal flesh-form, not human flesh, 
but as physical presence: not in an etherical heaven, as 
depicted by da Vinci and Michelangelo and Raphael and 
other of Vatican's pet artists, but "not so that one can 
point on it, and say it is here, or it is there, but in 
between us, and within us." (Again, the latter quote is 
more or less from the King James translation, this time 
a quote associated to Jesus himself, in the new 
  The possibility of this Jesus character (though the 
name was not exactly "Jesus") being absolutely not 
correctly depicted in any of the graven images, nor in 
any of the easily re-producable crucifiction linens, 
must be seriously considered. Not just because some 
quotes of the obviously much-erroneous christian bible, 
both its O.T. and its N.T. testaments, indicate that no 
such image can be appropriate, but also because -- 
reasonably, if one has any even vague sense of the 
reality of God at all, the reality of that greatness 
would be such as to make all humanity go complete 
crackers -- all off their onions -- absolutely wacko.
off-spring, or foundationhead, of pure insight. When you 
look through your intuitions into whatever phenomena is 
at hand, it is your sense of beauty that tells you to 
change your opinion, to fine-tune and elevate your 
perception. Beauty goes beyond symmetry. Beauty goes 
beyond rhythm. Beauty goes beyond any instrumental 
ideal. Beauty, indeed, must be relative in the human 
spheres, and the more one attempts to achieve it in an 
absolute or systemic or foundational way, the more one 
looses one's contact with reality.
  One may look at the activity of the fashion magazines,  
therefore, such as Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Elle, Vanity 
Fair, Numero, W, and so on -- in free sequence -- and 
ask oneself: however much one agrees in the utter 
importance of the extremely important ideal of thinness 
and fatlippedness and longleggedness, and such, does one 
agree in the over-colorisation, the over-smoothing, the 
conceptualisation, the industrial-clothes-fashionizing, 
and the persistent tendency of these magazines, when on 
the web, to wrap up their photos in excessive 
simulation-like graphics programs such as Flash, instead 
of giving unmodified, unglossy, plain and also more nude  
images AS IS? In that way, the best of human beauty -- 
which ought to be claimed to be just that, when it is so 
-- will not be subject as much to the ego of the editors  
and the stylists, the photographers and the clothes 
industry. It will be truer, and it is an important voice 
to have in a truer form. 
  Proceeding along the same lines, one can also 
reasonably ask: if graven images of what is the most 
important should not be made, should one not limit the 
excessive use of photography -- such as by iPhone -- so 
as not to create too much of heavy egotism around these 
images? One thing is to have, at hand, a camera that 
looks big and bulky, or is part of a computer 
environment in a way which does not conceal itself, and 
to use it to take many photos, most of which are 
immediately discarded as simply way too ugly, and to 
keep a couple for a while, as a statement of intent of 
greater beauty in one's life. But another thing is to go 
on amassing 'evidence' of one's acitvities, 
tourist-like, as if travelling and meeting people and 
eating things is all about getting more photo-evidence 
of it to show off to other people, instead of relishing 
in the truth of the experience.
  And so, the same 'graven image' warning extends to 
computer games -- do not compete so much with reality 
that reality becomes second-hand -- and to videos and TV 
and such -- do not overload the brain with sequences of 
images which purport to show what dance and fun is all 
about, while in fact it is but a motorised engine 
reeling of fixed images in quick sequence, making an 
illusion of movement where there is hardly any movement 
at all. And to further developments in technology -- if 
it looks too much like reality, discard it.
These dimensions are open and great and they must be 
experienced by means of honoring the possibility that 
the reality of the subtle world beyond the world, the 
source of the synchronicties and meditations, and 
prayer-answers of this world, encompasses a beauty that 
a human being cannot steer into directly, for the beauty 
would kill. So the real, open dimensions of the human 
mind, the human heart -- not merely the ego, but 
including the ego to some extent -- can come forth by 
being careful about graven images, and by instead 
learning how to experience the world through also the 
open-minded creative essential beyond-science concept of 
  If you have ever read a fantastic fiction story, then 
forget it. Forget it fast, and deeply, learning only 
what you have to learn from it, to progress in your 
overall insight. For then you can re-read it, and 
re-enjoy. Don't carry the graven images even from that 
fiction story, for they would clutter your 
  And by analogy, when you plan your travels, plan also 
your non-travels: cultivate getting the most out of very 
similar circumstances for days in row, so that you can 
come -- perhaps a morning where you have been awake 
through the night -- to a bit of wilderness, a beach 
area, and experience the waves as if for a first time. 
Never mind what size beach -- you don't go carry the 
images of other images. Rather, the contrast is the 
beach versus non-beach areas. It will therefore be of 
great help if you don't build up a photo-archive of the 
places you have been a tourist to. For the greater the 
archive, the more complicated it will be to find 
ANYTHING that acts sufficiently as contrast to what is 
already in the archive to give you a real experience.
  Similarly, relative to God and his -- muses, as I 
think is the correct modern term for angels, though 
ancient Greek use of the word were, here and there, very 
different, -- relative, then, to these beings of higher 
beauty and higher powers and higher understanding than 
what human beings ever can, or should, fathom -- I feel 
it is right to say that each human being is ordained to 
have sudden joyous glimpses of what can be handled of 
this, every now and then. But a life that is to be lived 
religiously must be kept, somewhat, in leashes, so that 
this tendency to be religious in the sense of such 
ecstatic glimpses does not become a sick craving for 
what the human mind cannot truly appreciate without 
loosing its own integrity. So it makes sense to say: 
keep most days of the week free from too much religious 
exploration, but nurture a flame, perhaps each Sunday 
for some long, tough, self-critical, humble, muse-and- 
God-honoring minutes, -- and then let the flame quietly 
be there, with intermittent prayers, in the rest of the 
week. But let go of the too-strong religous impulse, 
even as one can ecstatically come to such experiences as 
may be, just about, a bit too much of a good thing. 
  What, then, do you do if you have got a bit too much 
of such a good thing? What do you do if you have got a 
glimpse of a beauty that you thought could not possibly 
exist, and which makes everything else seem, all of a 
sudden, absolutely insignificant? In ancient India, they 
called something like this for 'kundalini overblow' 
(though the concept is slightly different). Many people 
have got this. They have had a quest that has not only 
been earnest, but too earnest -- in the sense of TOO 
successful. They tracked the stream of beauty till they 
came to the foundationhead, and drunk of it, and found 
that they could not, unlike Plato's cave story, return 
to the land of shadows (as it then appears to them). But 
what with causes and effects, they have to return, all 
the same. If they survive at all, they will then find 
themselves perhaps wrapped up in rage, a rage that what 
was so great just suddenly is not there. Or a 
frustration, or depression of sorts. Those who see this 
rage, frustration or depression for what it is -- a 
post-perital effect of having just had the birth of 
God-intoxication in them, so to speak, or the hang-over, 
in more brutal terms, of the drug of seeing a bit more 
of the muses or even of God than that which is safe and 
sane for the human mind and heart and brain and body -- 
may be able to cope somewhat better. They will keep up 
normal routines, waiting for fog of the hang-over to 
lift. After, say, a month, with luck, they can even get 
back into a fresh ecstasy experience of the religious 
kind. Each such experience is what truly deserves being 
called a 'birthday', for it is a birth of a kind that 
scientists as long as they merely deal with logic cannot 
have, that economists as long as they merely deal with 
money cannot have, and that has got nothing to do with 
counting of calendar years since this or that childhood 
-- And what is the role of technology and gadgets in 
this otherwise highly spiritual quest?
If there is one clearly spoken form of passion, or urge,  
amongst the young generations apparently everywhere, and  
apparently for as long as there has been people around, 
then I think it can be neatly summed up in these words:
  'I, too, want to participate in humanity, and feel 
appreciated for what I do and what I am.'
  With the invention of any new technological gadget 
that is launched with the claim that it can give just 
such participation in humanity, and appreciation of what 
one is, and what one does, again and again one can see 
some degree of mass-hysteria arise. The gadget becomes 
the pet of the masses. In these days, that gadget may be 
not just something one can touch, but it may be a piece 
of software, or a homepage on the computer network. 
Still, if something promises participation for everyone, 
and appreciation for what one is and what one does, it 
may have a mesmerizing impact.
  Alas, nothing of gadgets so far produced in humanity 
has delievered on these promises. Everything so far 
produced has been a disappointment. Instead of 
garanteeing participation for everyone, with 
appreciation of just what one is, no matter what one 
does, each gadget has in fact come with a fine print, a 
set of conditions. And though a large percentage of the 
population in some areas may pretend they are not 
touched by these conditions, in fact, the conditions 
always influence all: towards conformity. And this 
influence towards conformity makes those -- many -- who 
do not fit with the mainstream condition -- feel even 
more estranged from the world than ever before. The 
gadget which promised salvation for everyone and to make 
everything easier for everyone makes it doubly hard for 
those who find that the gadget, after all, does not like 
  I am sure some of those who read this at this moment 
would like to say to me: For God's sake, say which 
gadget you are thinking about!
  But my main point in this article doesn't concern any 
gadget or computer network site as of this day. It 
merely concerns the far more general question, which is: 
isn't it the case that no technological gadget EVER can 
deliever on the premise of allowing ALL to participate 
in humanity in a way that involves appreciation for what 
one is and what one does? 
  Muse over this -- if I can point it out. 
  And I muse over this, and here is what I come up with,  
now: any gadget introduced with such a promise as to 
allow everybody to participate in humanity in a way that 
is appreciated full, no matter who on is, no matter what  
one does, is likely to cause a set of very damaging 
feelings in a whole lot of people -- in fact, it is 
likely to cause a torrent of emotions in some to just 
tear as much as possible of mainstream society down.
  For consider the alternative world: one in which 
nobody is subjected to the promise of salvation by any 
gadget. In this more humane, more open world, there is 
an on-going conversation about what it is to be human 
and what types of mental contemplation and meaningful 
actions can elevate the feeling of being alive to 
something more ecstatic, more often. It is acknowledged 
that this is not always easy. And it is just in this 
context that a spiritual enquiry can begin in a way 
which I call 'neopopperian': it accepts that reason, 
logic, and checking against experience (the popperian 
approach, outlined also by K. Popper) is to have a role, 
in addition to fine-tuned, self-criticial awareness of 
intuition and synchronicities (the neo- or "new", 
"novel" approach, leading to neo-popperianism).
  This, then, can lead to nonfanatical understanding of 
religious core values. I claim it leads to a kind of 
coptic christianity expanded with reincarnation 
thoughts, but it takes many books to explain why this 
comes about logically, and not just as a leap of faith 
(though to some extent, some leaps of faith are always 
necessary -- however guided by personal intuition).
  I also claim that this religious pursuit, as here 
outlined, is essentially collective. The quest in 
humanity for enlightenment is essentially a quest BY 
humanity, calling on each and everyone, no matter who 
they are or what they are doing, to contribute in a way 
which is appropriate to just who one is, and relevant to 
just what one is normally doing. This enterprise of 
collectively working (first) to achieve enlightenment, 
and (successively, in steps which each may involve a 
time unit no less than what we can call a 'T.M.', as 
acronym -- one thousand millenia) refinements, stepwise, 
of this enlightenment ad infinitum, involves an 
appreciation of everyone, a participation of everyone in 
humanity, calling on the action of all to be modulated 
by a sense of what is right or righteous relative to 
this deeper quest. This deeper quest, then, is not 
designed around a gadget, not designed even from within 
humanity; it is rather humanity living up to its inner 
design, instead of running away from it and dance around 
the golden calf of a gadget falsely promising salvation. 
  More than once, I have given suggestions vaguely along 
these lines to individuals over some time, and then the 
question has been, in earnest, been relayed back to me 
(by the same people): What you say makes sense, but if 
so many around are occupied by some kind of mainstream 
illusion (such as this gadget), then it seems that you 
are requiring of people that they must stand alone, and 
this is very tough indeed. They may go on to add that 
'life is short' and that they want to 'be a part of the 
world, now'.
  I think the easy answer to this is also a rather tough  
one. No, life is not short. That is a statement of 
belief -- a wrong belief. Life is infinite, not short. 
You are already part of a world -- a world in which 
there is cause and effect of multiple kinds, a world in 
which souls and spirits exists in human bodies and a 
world in which these more subtle aspects do not die, but 
forever participate and always have to take 
responsibility for their actions, and face the pain of 
wrong decisions, as well as reaping the joys of right 
decisions. Life is long, and longer, and indeed -- at 
the soul-level -- never-ending and infinite. It is 
horrifically wrong to support illusions which keep 
people running away from essential questions, which make 
them go around in a semi-mesmerized state where they 
think -- due to some gadget or the like -- that they are 
participating and appreciated when in fact they are 
opting out and, relative to the essence beings, not 
appreciated very much. The running-away is creating a 
hellish pain, and it has got to be met, and it won't be 
nice to meet. One has got to come into essential 
reality, free from the propaganda of gadgets, seeing 
through the illusions which may make a hysteria in the 
mainstream, and then, only, is one truly participating 
in the wrold; and appreciated -- if not always by the 
world of human beings, then at least by the essence 
level beings -- and THAT is what matters. It may not be 
easy too see, this deeper fact; not easy to touch; not 
easy to measure. But then, life is not made to be 
exactly easy, though it can be joyous, at times, and 
more and more so -- with each incarnation.
  So there is a subtle atheism -- or denial of the 
essence -- in being one of the perhaps at times many who 
dance around the golden calfs of new gadgets which 
promise participation in humanity and appreciation for 
everyone. This denial may give a temporary relief, like 
a wrongly applied, but temporarily apparently effective 
drug, but the headaches that will come when the effects 
of the drug wear off are so severe as to not justify the 
small, convenient pleasure of the gadget. 
  The person who reads this and says to herself, 'There 
might be something to this', may then want to make a 
small list: what type of gadgets or gadget-like 
illusions are at present the escapist notions of today's 
mainstream society, if any? And then for each such item 
on the list, begin to become aware of the negative 
aspects of them. Then take a stance, to push them enough 
away that a truer, more religiously authentic spirit in 
oneself can have a chance to grow. By analogy -- but you 
don't set yourself up as preacher -- some others may 
come along, in this deeper dance of more true 
participation and more true appreciation of what we are, 
than what technological gadgets can ever give. 
-- Rather, it amounts to a falling away of the 
possibility of enlightenment for that body
Numerous people associate -- falsely, in my mind -- the 
notion of a siddharta or buddha-like enlightenment with 
the chopping off of the inner organ of empathy. 
Buddhists have contributed to this idiocy by speaking in 
high terms of the notion of indifference (rather than, 
for instance, speaking of the notion of freedom from 
being easily ruffled).
  Hermann Hesse did his bad contribution by prescribing 
seekers of enlightenment to a dose -- a big dose -- of 
plain hedonism, or pleasure for pleasure's sake. Or, as 
a poetically inclined friend of mine would have it, 
intensity for intensity's sake.
  But the real antithesis of enlightenment, but spoken 
of in terms which can inject some much-needed 
testoterone into failing men, are the works of 
Nietzsche. He very falsely associates the notion of 
enlightenment for human beings with going above the 
human condition, and among his incoherent ramblings, he 
manages to speak in terms of compassion but far more 
strongly in terms of laughing at weakness and denying 
all compassion with lower beings -- apes, as he calls 
those beings not at his level. His level, as 
historicians can tell, amounted to complete madness, a 
state of severe insanity and closure from all human 
  Men are not beautiful and the best of men honors 
women, not other men. But in the tradition created by 
Nietzsche, we find men cultivating not men, but 
cultivating men who lacks even the most elemental forms 
of empathy. For empathy, to them, is a womanly thing.
It is part of Nietzsche's tradition to think, therefore,  
in terms of the higher human being as something other 
than womanly. This leads girls -- influenced perhaps 
indirectly by poets who incline to Nietzsche -- to look 
away from tender femininity and true girl bisexuality 
and rather make of themselves rough sports types with 
sun-fried leatherly skins who stick around with 
testoterone-pumped-up muscle men with little thoughts in 
their heads. And so, Nietzsche has a dual influence: it 
leads girls to avoid an essential esthetical education 
in themselves, avoid cultivating an essential 
bicuriosity and true sexual instinct for the holism and 
compassion as embodied by the young, slim, tender, 
longlimbed girl with massive shining hairs on her head, 
and rather, she -- with her testoterone-oriented men -- 
marries into a tradition of cultivating a robotic type 
of manliness. This robotic type withers away quickly, 
for it is more sub-human than super-human. 
  Enlightenment, if that word is to be used at all (and 
I think it should), must mean an exalted condition of 
being in a constant capacity for atonement, at-one-ment 
with not just the universe but its God-source. The inner 
antenna of what is right to do is called "conscience". 
True strength is to have super-activation of the nerve 
of conscience -- and this goes beyond fear of death. It 
is a conscience which by empathy not just with fellow 
human beings but with the higher beings can engage in 
all sorts of goodness and all sorts of -- where it is 
called for, in alignment with the coherence with the 
depth of being -- also the military-like action of 
killing. But this cannot happen from an ideological 
foundation that aims to gain political scores out of 
such actions. It cannot happen from an inspiration which 
derives back to such sub-human or insane thinkers as 
-- A background comment on relationship of brain and 
such as consciousness in light of supermodel theory
A human being, awake to the fact of the inherent sense 
of mystery about the very fact that we are sentient, 
sensible, aware, conscious and experiencing, naturally 
would like to reflect, from time to time, on this 
research question:
  -- how can something as convoluted and localised as 
the brain relate so intimately to something as lofty, 
sublime, etheral and expanded as consciousness (incl. 
the subconscious, conscience, souls, spirits, whatever)?
  Some decades ago, brain researcher Karl Pribram 
postulated a holographic theory. Bits and features of 
this are here extracted and reframed.
  First, though, let's get it said that brain is 
clearly intertwined with heart, gut, muscles, etc. This 
includes obviously all sensory activity and to an 
extreme extent the organs of sex, which ultimately is 
the whole body.
  Then, what is a hologram? (The word "holograph" 
relates to the word "hologram"). Physically, it is 
a perhaps not all that important photographic technique 
which involves shining highly consistent light at a 
certain angle on a plate (transparent or reflective), 
which evokes wave patterns which, when watched from a 
certain angle-area, give rise to a 3d-like tight 
appearance of a whole.
  The fruitful approach is to regard the holographic 
notion as a metaphor only, and concerning the research 
question it applies only to this extent:
  --consciousness is an appearance, a reflection of a 
tight whole. As finite numbers are suspended in 
infinity, by analogy, the brain is suspended in the 
consciousness process.
  In the context of supermodel theory, a perception 
process of a universal kind is pervasive, so there's no 
question of 'who's watching the appearance'; for 
watching is natural.
  The brain is a manifest active model (super-model), 
and relates to nonmanifest supermodels incl. 
consciousness, soul, spirit, etc.
  The nature of the relationship, then, is indicated by 
the holographic notion.
-- Advices for leaders of big companies and nations who,  
without good reason, sleep too well during the night 
Advice number 1. Any item -- company or nation inclusive  
-- is not less vulnerable but more vulnerable when they 
cease to have moral foresight, and so they hit the 
ground harder when they fall. Advice number 1 is 
therefore, let go of notions of moral superiority, and 
rather focus on what's good -- in the sense of goodness. 
The Soviet Union was tamed then splintered by the 
sequel Gorbatchev then Jeltsin. According to Gorbatchev 
himself (he was quoted about a year ago, if I remember 
correctly), the whole process began when that which was 
unthinkable to the most superior nation on Earth, namely 
a crippling nuclear disaster, did happen -- in 1986.  
2. A company or nation's weakness is not contradicted by  
summing up its strength, but by realising how weak the 
weakest of the ten (say) legs it stands on are. The 
advice number 2 is therefore, bask in glory if you don't 
have any enterprises which involve lack of moral 
foresight, even if what you are leading is small, but 
don't get wrapped up into notions of 'greatness' in the 
sense of being 'big enough to bully', for no item is big 
enough to bully -- rather, one has to be very small to 
bully to have any chance (like an ant) to get away with 
it. Case in point is Murdoch's removal from the upper 
echelon of the world's most influential people due to 
one particular tabloid newspaper, despite owning Dow 
Jones and Wall Street Journal and a dozen other bigness 
items, including the notorious Fox News. 
3. After a while, people aren't fooled. This statement 
works to contradict a more common view that some leaders 
appear to have, namely that people can be manipulated to  
believe and fight for all sorts of things. No, they 
cannot. After a while, wisdom prevents. So the third 
advice is, it is more convincing in the long run if you 
restrict your propagandizing to that which doesn't 
benefit you very much. A case in point is the gradual 
withering away of the extent to which Berlusconi is 
taken seriously the more laws he changes, since a 
portion of these laws -- which he propagandises for as 
something which will help Italy forward -- clearly seems 
to have been shaped with the sole purpose of helping the  
career of Mr Berlusconi, rather than people at large. 
4. People likes better things which do not control very 
much. In the greed to control, one may loose focus for a 
while. A dominating item which tries to extent its 
dominance beyond its righteous borders, will get clipped 
off here and there until they learn. Advice number 4 is 
therefore, keep remembering that this world is not made 
so as to allow the existence of big control-freaks. In 
this completing advice, I will give two examples of 
items -- one company and one nation -- which have had 
its existence butted on so as to lead to, in one case, a 
kind of necessary taming of ambitions, while in the 
other, the process is right now going on but it looks 
like the view of the historicians, in the future, will 
be that they, too, had to have their ambitions tamed. 
The first example is the clipping of Microsoft's agenda 
to dominate the world of computing completely by the 
justice departement actions under the government of Mr 
Bill Clinton. This lead to a somewhat more humble, 
somewhat more -- edible, let's say -- company -- than 
that which appears to have been originally outlined in 
those years by its then-leader Mr Bill Gates. Today, 
though, I am sure Mr Clinton and Mr Gates easily can 
enjoy a (quick) lunch together. The second example, of 
course, is China, which, after Mr George W Bush led 
China into full WTO-membership and thus total freedom to 
trade for a while looked like the brightest new nation 
on the planet, in the eye of many investors. The 
intensity of the clipping away of voices of dissent to 
the "all-loved" communist party is so intense, so 
disgusting and so revolting that nobody today can invest 
anything in China without thinking thrice; this is all 
due to the vision of a total dominance by the leaders of 
this (otherwise) great nation. They are being tamed by 
inflation, by redicule, and by the bad fortune of the 
poorly thought-through Tepco nuclear industry in a 
neighbouring country, which has put a new type of fear 
into the region. They are likely to become tamed at the 
very best, or dissolved like the Soviet Union, but at 
present they are little but a Burma multiplied by a 
million in terms of size and by a thousand in terms of 
prosperity. The party plans of China seems, at the very 
best, to be not quite in touch with realities.
  The title refers to the sheer, raw superpower of moral  
foresight. The word 'superpower', at Earth, really have 
no concrete reference. No item along the lines here 
discussed -- any typical big company or nation -- is a 
superpower. The real superpower is that uncontrollable 
force of meaningful concidences, what Jung called 
"synchronicities", which have an enormously happy 
tendency to teach the lessons that have to be taught to 
those that need it. Moral foresight makes one DESERVE 
synchronicities -- which doesn't necessarily mean 
anything along the lines of the goals set by small 
companies to become big then disgustingly big, and which 
has for years, and for too long, been advocated by the 
likes of Wall Street Journal and the 
Let-All-Industries-Grow-Fat-It's-Spring attitude of the 
so-called "christian" (but in praxis valueless) 
conservative right in the U.S.A. 
  As I see it, christians should not censor sex, but 
they should censor too-big industries: they should not 
mimick the likes of St Paul (so-called "Saint"), but 
rather, like president Abraham Lincoln, compile a resume 
of digestible quotes by Jesus himself, and throw the 
rest to the dustbin. Out of this small booklet, one will 
find much which is along the lines of Schumacher, the 
philosopher, and little which goes along the peculiar 
lack of willingness to impose ethical schemes on 
industries such as that Fox News like to champion. It is 
probably correct to say that the hard core of the 
conservative christian right in the U.S.A. really are 
atheists with a bluff, just as many dictators in the 
Middle East, while holding the book of Muhammad, really 
are atheists carrying out a big bluff. Then it gets much 
more easy to understand how intense they can be in their  
willingness to avoid thinking moral implications of what  
they are doing.   
-- An attack on guruism 
I define 'guruism' to be that branch of egoism which is 
full of attachments to the idea of having spiritual 
power over followers. In my own seeing of the facts 
connected to several such cases of guruism, guruism is 
revolting to the extent it can be said to be almost the 
exact opposite of beauty. (I say 'almost', for in this 
world of so subtle an order, beauty is an encompassing 
  The human mind is quick to make power evaluation 
hierarchies within itself. It is not 'landscape'-
oriented unless the top-point of the hierarchy -- now 
speaking spiritual might of glory -- is assigned to 
somewhere else. In other words, the human being who 
tries to have the view of godhood as spread around 
everywhere, has a problem.
  The problem for spreading around godhood everywhere is 
that, when pantheism is regarded as a goal in itself 
rather than as a bridge to greater insight, some see 
(and agree) to such a worldview more than others. In 
particular, those who try to spread such a worldview 
will, due to their passion, naturally regard themselves 
as more prominent in having successfully implemented it 
in themselves than others. And in that way, this form of 
pantheism effectively reverses itself: it becomes a 
virtual attribution of godhood to the pantheist 
preacher. In other words, it becomes guruism.
  For when pantheism is not merely an encompassing view 
of the material existence as hinging upon the spiritual 
existence, -- with what there is of higher beings, 
higher than human beings, the muses in other words (in a 
cerain vocabulary), and God on top -- but rather taken 
to be the primary form of understanding, there is no 
clear God to fear and be humble towards. So those who 
have a foggy, vague view of God and his ruling beings, 
beyond and above human beings completely, but a clear 
view in favour of pantheism, can become, very easily, 
the worst egotists.
  This, then, is due to the natural capacity of the 
human mind to look for hierarchies, where no obvious 
hierarchies present themselves at first. 
-- A brief comment on beginnings (Goedel, Turing) and on  
why the digital computer is limited, unable to touch 
fully on the natural (quantum) infiniteness of the human 
Once upon a time, there was natural language and logic 
and machinery but no digital machinery, in other words 
no computers. But there were attempts to imagine that 
instead of mind, we can simply develop and refine logic 
to be a kind of master equation, a formula to answer all 
-- secretly, the great fictional narratives about 
Sherlock Holmes inspired this attitude to deductions and 
logic. Leaping over many developments, before and after,  
we come then to Kurt Goedel, who in the years between 
WWI and WWII in the 20th century, showed that there are 
limitations in principle to what logic machinery -- 
whether imagined or implemented in the form of an 
electronic box -- can do. He showed this without 
changing the premises of the present-day logic (which to 
my mind need modifications, but still the general type 
of result that Goedel produced holds, in an important 
  Goedel imagined logic in a very wholesome way, 
described it more like a machine than his predecessors, 
and, though thinkers about such machines and even bits 
and pieces of experimentative machinery of such a kind 
had been seen for millenia earlier on, his work created 
a surprising avalanche of new thinking -- and led to 
depressions among those who had had false ambitions.
  Alan Turing wanted to disprove Goedel, and Turing went 
even further than Goedel, building on Goedel, in 
imagining and describing and even partaking in building 
an electronic computer. But he did not disprove Goedel.
  Goedel's most important result involves showing that 
certain types of logic machinery which involves 
statements such as 'for all values of the variable x, 
there is a value of the variable v, so that a particular 
relationship between x and v holds -- which we describe 
with such and such formal symbols' -- this is a very 
broad and abstract description indeed, and it fits 
indeed with what one might easily describe as a 
'programming language' of sorts -- for all such logic 
machineries, there is an infinity of true but 
un-producable and un-provable statements of the 
above-mentioned sort. 
  Roger Penrose, a professor at Oxford University (who 
with Stephen Hawking worked out certain implications of 
believing in what this writer does not believe in, 
namely singularities or 'breaks' in the field imagined 
by Albert Einstein to underlie matter and energy), has 
made a visualisation of this (his book The Emperor's New 
Mind is worth the while in showing someone who is more 
subtle about thinking about mind than Stephen Hawking, 
and contains Penrose's unique take on this). In 
Penrose's visualisation, he draws a kind of fractal 
island (hinting on infinity) of what is 'provable', and 
a fractal island outside of that, containing the former, 
of that which is 'true', and a yet larger fractal 
island, containing both former, of that which is 
  Turing thought that Goedel's worked showed that human 
beings can't do without intuition, and, for personal 
reasons, he regretted that point of view, and -- as 
Penrose describes, and I quite agree with him, Turing 
only succeeded in strengthening Goedel's original result 
the more he tried to disprove Goedel. 
  Turing tried to make a computer program describe 
another computer program, so as to get around the 
lack of capacity a computer has for self-reference. 
Self-reference, or instant understanding of the whole 
which includes the understander, is intuitively 
acknowledged to be an essential ingredient in all real 
mindful understanding of anything at all by humans, in 
an essentially alive way. 
  There have been many who have tried to argue that 
anything looking like real infinity about the human mind 
is a mere illusion, and that whatever Goedel found to 
apply on limits of computers, that must apply on human 
minds as well. Of course, these thinkers, the more they 
believe this self-narrowing thought, are nothing less 
than doing a senilification of themselves. They are 
making themselves more into machines than they have to 
be, and in so doing, fulfilling their own narrow 
premises. They will look into themselves only in a 
fragmented way, and as such get a certain invalid type 
of quasi-confirmation of their limiting view of human 
intelligence. However, they may be very clever computer 
programmers, and clever also about marketing, and one 
must watch out for the implicit belief about mind and 
machine that people put out on the market place -- for 
these have grave ethical consequences.
  In my own further studies (what I take to be further 
studies) of what Goedel and Turing worked on, I have 
come to regard the result that Goedel achieved as 
something, while essentially correct, being reached in 
unnecessarily complex ways. Before I spell this out here 
in a fairly simple way, let me however mention at this 
stage what some people have -- mistakenly, as I see it 
-- thought to be a way out of the dilemma that Turing 
was wrapped up into. For some people think that a new 
type of not-quite-digital computer, namely a 'quantum 
computer', is going to have less limitations than a 
digital one. 
  It is the feature of all reality when it is not 
heavily concentrated into eletronic channels such as the 
case for the typical essential digital computer 
components such as transistors, capacitors, coils and 
switches, that this reality involves a kind of 
uncontrollable infinity of finely woven fluctuations, 
also called, sometimes, quantum fluctuations. These have 
a nature that is not merely that of chancelike 
coincidence, for they sometimes act orderly, and in some 
sense these fluctuations are so steadily waving around 
that they act as a kind of 'glue' for all the molecules 
of life. In other words, the foundation of reality is 
something extremely rich in movement and order, and 
deeper studies reveals many dimensions of organisation: 
in fact, as scientists such as Richard Feynman has 
pointed out, many years ago, these quantum phenomena are 
so peculiar that one can pretty much affirm that any 
person who says that she has understood these phenomena 
certainly cannot have understood them at all!
  Also, Feynman noted that the logic, the arithmetic, 
keeps getting 'unwanted infinities' that has to be 
constantly 'renormalised' in a way that in itself is not 
logical but is the only thing that so far tends to work 
in the tested situations. He also stated many other 
things which are not scientifically correct, to my mind, 
such that quantum theory has been tested on every level 
from the picoscopic to the gigascopic -- but in fact 
quantum theory only really lends itself to testing in 
the conventional form when the conditions for testing 
are extremely artificial, put bluntly. The real and 
actual movements of the subtle quantum fluctuations of 
the living human brain have not been truly investigated 
in the true living context: rather, bits and pieces in 
isolated cases have been studied, such as in Alain 
Aspect's experiments in the 1970s and 1980s, to show 
that quantum phenomena are well capable to hold 
situations which involve a full transcendence of the 
speed of light.
  It is this latter feature, combined with the marvels 
and mystique of the quantum fluctuations in their 
apparently spontaneously intelligent behaviour, that is 
hoped to be harnessed in what is called 'quantum 
computer'. But apart from some isolated experiments, it 
is clear that human manipulation capacity of these 
fluctuations is at a breaking-point. They are doing what 
they are doing but they don't necessarily -- like 
dolphins -- do what humans command them to do 'unless 
they want to'. And this brings me back to the work which 
I think has some relevance to the understanding of 
essential reality, which includes quantum phenomena and 
fluctuations in every sense, without being limited to 
  For throughout 20th century, when quantum theory was 
built up, and with the little bit that has been added in 
the early 21st century to it, the type of logic 
machinery that has the principal problem that Goedel 
showed has been used many times over -- as if Goedel 
never did his work. And when one looks at the question 
of infinity as used in the number variables -- cfr the 
phrase used above, 'for any value of the variable x' and 
so on -- it is clear that it is taken for granted that 
the human mind is doing and good and clear and 
meaningful and wholesome and coherent thing when it 
visualises variables which can hold any finite number as 
deriven from an ocean of only finite numbers, but all 
finite numbers, and nothing but finite numbers. 
  In other words, all through Godel, through Turing, and 
through quantum, we find 'the infinity of all finite 
numbers' to be an idea used without question. What Godel 
showed, and Turing contributed to showing, making the 
digital computer as a kind of side-product while showing 
it, is that most big type of logic machines can never 
'understand themselves fully'. They can only produce a 
limited set of results, which is infinitely short of all 
the results that ought to be produced -- within the same  
framework. But my analysis of the essential quality of 
numbers involved shows me that the confusion begins as 
soon as we in thought begin to blend the notion of the 
finite and the infinite carelessly, such as when we say, 
'here's a variable that drinks of the ocean of the 
infinity of all finite numbers'. Such a thought is 
sloppy, and it is shown by a very simple argument, which 
can be given several various forms, and which on its own  
acts to give a much purer result: 
  A digital computer is only well thought about if we 
consistently think of it within a well-defined range of 
  -- this reality need not be founded on such 
well-defined ranges of finite numbers. Rather, the 
foundation may well be a kind of living infinity, within 
which finite structures -- such as computers -- arise as  
if by a 'friction' within the infinity. 
  This led me to call the computer language, which 
eventually became named (for the most part) Lisa GJ2 
FIC3, for "Uncomputer" -- and implement in it a command, 
also called 'uncomputer' -- which is where human 
attention is called on the essential structure of a 
program in order to go beyond it. (This is both part of 
the MYWEBOOK.TXT linked to at the front of 
and also part of the first version of programming 
language Firth Lisa as still exists in the 2006 & 2007 
version listed at; the MYWEBOOK goes 
back still earlier, for the most part, and also has the 
famous rejected exam thesis of mine reproduced in full 
original text with a short Java program to discuss -- in 
early form -- the problem with the idea of the infinite 
collection of all finite numbers, delivered to the 
University of Oslo in 2003 and, I am proud to say, 
formally rejected there -- telling me to rethink the 
foundations for the scientific activities going on in 
the loyalist camps called 'universities' quite 
seriously, as I have done since -- however the essential 
point contained therein has not been doubted by those 
professors that looked into it, even at the very same 
institute, and nobody has later on come up with any 
other than agreement to the simple proof-work done 
there, when reproduced in some more elegant ways.)
  What I am driving it this: the quantum fluctuations in 
their very apparently uncontrollable yet orderly 
infinity are NOT merely another set of finite numbers 
permuted through some kind of as yet undechiphered logic 
machine born as if of nature in the quantum energy. 
Rather, the different type of numbers we must cultivate 
in our primary understanding as underlying even 
arithmetic must involve an irreducible infinity 
involving, as a capacity, to create within it 
finite-ness as a kind of appearance, or illusion, or 
friction -- depending on metaphor. I saying that the 
quantum fluctuations proper ARE such essence numbers of 
the infinite type, and that the 20th century brand of 
mathematics has no chance of touching on them except in 
superficial manifestations, and then only in artificial 
  And this also shows why the notion of 'quantum 
computer' is not really ringing very true. First of all, 
the digital computer -- not as visualised, a bit 
clumsily, by Turing, for he spoke carelessly about 
infinite aspects of it -- but as manifest, is always 
finite in every sense. Nothing about a digital computer 
in isolation and in abstraction is infinite. Then, the 
quantum field of fluctuations is a field of extremely 
well-organised mystery, with many dimensions and in 
which the faster-than-light aspects are, likely as not, 
masking themselves and not at all within any easy reach 
of any human device, except by after-calculation over 
the statistics of many experiments repeated thousands of 
times. If there is any equation that a digital computer 
can solve, that some kind of quantum field can solve 
faster, it doesn't mean that one has got a 'quantum 
computer'. It merely means that one more of the 
infinitely many mysterious properties of the sub-world 
or super-world of the quantum has been touch upon, but 
human beings are still as far as before from HARNESSING 
the quantum phenomena. These phenomena are not like 
radio waves (though they underlie them, too, of course 
-- just like everything else), which we can fine-tune 
and adjust. They are of a nature that simply has not 
opened to even the best of the most eager minds of human 
beings since they begun to unfold at the very completion  
of the 19th century for real. 
  However, to take a step towards our real living 
interacting reality, full of delicious synchronicities 
and with human beings, some of whom are NEITHER 
belonging to the republican party of the U.S.A., NOR 
believing in the theology of darwinism (which the most 
fat-headed believers speak arrogantly about not as a 
theory, but simply Evolution, with capital E, as if that 
random-order-wedded mechanistic poorly thought 
scientific theory of Charles Darwin and his latter-day 
priests and elaborators, such as Richard Dawkins is the 
only way anyone in any universe can think about this 
very broad, lovely, wide, rich, real and deep concept of 
evolution) -- in this real reality, then, full of living 
coincidences, of impulses from a deeper order within us 
-- from conscience, from intuitions, from feelings, from 
ego, from what people say, and so on -- from muses, 
right? -- we include all possibilities, then we are 
calling on digital computers in such a rich context that 
this context AS A WHOLE is infinite. Right?  
  As a whole, the context of the living organic world 
including digital computers within it is not in itself a 
digital machine, nor a logic machine, nor a finite 
machine. Rather, the fluctuations -- such as the 
fluctuations involved when you call on the Yoga6d dot 
org look engine on a keyword or a set of keywords -- 
involve something about your own sense of timing, your 
own gut in the moment to type this rather than that, and 
as a whole, we are speaking of infinities, then. 
  This means that a digital computer made by a person 
who is sensitively aware of the importance of the human 
mind not making any much blunder about finiteness and 
infinities, is a digital computer which works more 
-- Personal computing, in whatever forms it takes in the  
future, must see its future as essetially different from  
its past 
We have heard it over and over again: every so and so 
many years, computational speed is multiplied so and so 
much. Now hear this: the speed is of an order -- a 
general level -- which contains within it the fulfilled 
maximum of human technology in this century.
  It is a very simple proposal, and it is simple to see 
that it is true. The universe has a subtlety which 
allows for infinite variation. But human beings are able 
to harness only a level of scale of it with any 
sophistication. That level has been pushed a lot, driven 
by commerce, put simply. By being clever about what has 
already been done, one can do a little more. Just as, by 
being clever about how quickly or how lightly one can 
ascend a certain mountain range, a human can do it a 
little bit quicker, or with a little less equipment, but 
the ORDER of the peak effort has been achieved. The same  
thing can be said, barring a change of rule to allow 
jet-engine implants in one's running shoes, for runners 
in the 100-meter field.
  They talk of nanotechnology, those economically 
oriented enthusiasts who are without much knowledge of 
science. But 'nano' -- the level above 'pico', among 
small things, just as 'tera' is the level above 'giga', 
among big things -- is a name for an area that in fact 
has been touched on throughout the 20th century 
subatomic physics. And the more the field has been 
touched on, whether by public decent scientists or by 
those with a scientific education who lurks in the 
military corridors of the secret billion-dollar budget 
buildings of all big nations to try and assemble some 
scifi idea they call a 'quantum computer' -- the more it 
has become vividly clear that this is a field that 
defies human manipulation. What Heisenberg dubbed the 
indeterminacy or uncertainty principle -- though a few 
philosophically interesting specks of light has come 
forth on the issue since the early 20th century by some 
empirical studies -- this principle is still making a 
mess of all human attempts to mess about with subatomic 
stuff for real. All things small enough fluctuate in 
ways transistors are not allowed to. So the computer is 
a machine, only as long as it is not made smaller than a 
certain size. When it is gets too small, it becomes a 
wave on an ocean of fluctuating near-real pilot waves 
that interlink statistically in ways which transcend all 
speed measurements, though not so as to allow 
point-to-point signal transmission. In short, reality is 
not a machine, -- and biological matter need not to be 
AT ALL mechanical, seen through the glasses of coherence 
dancing on the oceanic field of fluctuations in the 
electron level of our bodies and brains -- but 
computers, which must be a machine, need to have a 
clunky enough size to override these fluctuations.
  As metaphor, try to imagine that you cut up ice in 
smaller and smaller bits, because you are, at a certain 
vaguely cold temperature, building a kind of structure 
out of ice. But then imagine that, by applying 
microscopic or even nanoscopic knives on that ice, while 
watching in microscopes, the ice, when cut, simply 
refuses to stay icy. It melts. For ice is a structure 
which requires more than some bits of water, which 
coldly clings on each other in a crystalline format
(the chemical truth is somewhat other, though).
  Software makers should stop growing too-big programs, 
programs made to work on computers which they imagine 
will come, but which only works on particularly 
expensive computers in the present, which by very many 
fans, and much program put in hardcore form to pump up 
the speed with a little bit turbo injection into what is 
otherwise the same-sized cyllinders as everyone else is 
using, because the future may be more like the present 
than what they have grown used to think.
-- Science, in the 21st century, must be seen -- also in  
light of the foundational arguments within the 
institutions which have called themselves 'scientific', 
-- as open process of research, not as profession
It is a perhaps charming feature of most institutions 
which call themselves 'scientific' -- those that usher 
papers to people to tell them that they have done some 
pieces in science, and/or give people jobs to make them 
do more science, that these institutions generally and 
typically declare such approaches to science as taken in 
The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl R Popper as 
foundational. For, just as a friend of K R Popper, 
Albert Einstein, suggested -- if you want to science, 
you better stay away from scientific institutions.
  A person (Popper used Freud as an example, but see my 
comments on Freud relative to sexuality elsewhere) who 
has papers from institutions claiming that this person 
can do science, may not do science after all: science is 
not a profession, but it is rather the quality of a 
certain process as encapsulated in a certain piece of 
  This is relevant to world economy, as when -- after 
the food poisoning (as it is assumed that it was) in 
Germany and elsewhere, to some extent, which led to 
causalities, had people with their papers in order, 
ushering words in the name of science that turned out to 
be not just guesswork, but bad guesswork at that. 
As a result of this bad guesswork, Spain has lost a 
considerable source of income for a while -- its green 
exports. For news media tend to influence people's 
minds in ways which are not always easy to correct 
quickly, when mistakes about something potentially very 
serious are spread. 
  If the people who produced the bad guesswork in the 
name of science had been people outside of the rather 
meaningless definition area called 'science as 
profession', their utterances would not have been 
regarded as scientific, and that would have been the 
correct view. 
  A Norwegian thinker with a voice in academic 
philosophy throughout much of the 20th century, Arne 
Naess, didn't reach nearly as clear and intelligent 
views on science as Popper, in my own estimates now -- 
though, before I had studied Popper's works more 
seriously, I was particularly drawn to a distinction 
Naess argued strongly for (I have had numerous 
conversation with him in various contexts, a small 
portion of it led to some published 
magazine-interviews). He proposed that whereas science 
typically refers more to the social realm -- in other 
words, more to the profession -- the word "research" is 
such that anyone can contribute to research. I have seen 
works by Rupert Sheldrake which argue strongly in favour  
of the notion of contribution to research by anyone, in 
order to break with prevailing dogmas (Sheldrake 
disagrees much with darwinism and neodarwinism in his 
particular way). 
  And Naess published a book, printed, if I remember 
correctly, by the University Press of the University of 
Oslo, where he not only summarises 'ten great 
accusations against science', but also speaks pretty 
much in favour of every one of these accusations. 
(I published, aided by my co-editor Henrik Tschudi,
a work-through of all these ten points in a Norwegian
magazine we were running -- in 1995, if I remember
  However, Naess makes a scientific theory be defined by 
means of so many criterions that few things pass through  
that filter. Popper has a more meaning-oriented and less  
formalistically inclined view of the essential stuff 
that science is made of, and is clearly far more 
drastically oriented towards the Open Society. And then, 
as said, Popper's texts are regarded as far more 
influential and foundational than the texts of my late 
friend Naess. 
  Science has empirics, openness in sharing -- not 
wanting to put patents on ideas, not trying to give 
people a submission to loyality or secrecy vows -- and 
honesty in clear-minded formulation, no more complex nor 
any more difficult than necessary, as well as good 
meaningful informal theory making and, where suitable, 
illustrations of some features of these theories by 
formal motors -- I would suggest the f3 formalism or 
computer language as infinitely more coherent than 
mathematics -- as the nuts and bolts of science. Those 
who produce a piece of research -- the example that 
Naess came with, often, was that anyone can do research  
on butterflies, and produce honest reports of value,  
real research -- or, as another example, when J. S. Bell 
used arithmetic and clear thinking over an argument that  
von Neumann had produced some decades earlier to try to 
work out why, as he wrote, Bohm had managed to do what 
von Neumann had proved impossible -- these people who do 
research, who do contribute to the open process of 
science, they are thriving in a field of shared open 
meaning. [[[Bell, by the way, showed that von Neumann had 
been too quick and included a hidden assumption which 
precluded faster-than-light connections. The analysis 
that Bell did over a certain thought experiment which 
went all the way back to Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen 
led to absolutely ground-breaking further results. His 
work with arithmetic led to a series of empirical 
studies decades later which once and for all showed that 
faster-than-light connections are an intrinsic feature 
of all quantum phenomena, though it is not at all easy 
to pinpoint. This feature is, obviously, what is called 
nonlocality, and when it is pervasive, it leads to what 
is called coherence. Coherence is a word that must not 
be defined in a smallish manner to satisfy the purposes 
of consultancy groups when they want to maximalise 
profits of some companies they work for -- it is rather 
in essence infinite and indefinable except in a very 
broad, vague, pantheistic and meditative way.]]]
  The inclination for people to contribute en masse to 
science does however involve the question of what 
quantity can do to quality. I asked several people who 
had just finished or recently finished a full-blown 
boring standard university education in physics whether 
they made sense of any paragraph pointed to at random in 
any of the most normal journals of their profession. 
Generally, hardly anything of hardly any paragraph made 
any sense to any one of them. In this view, science as 
profession can be sarcastically suggested to be the 
profession of people who do not understand science.
  More than once, I have had to spend time with highly 
educated people moving through the essentials of 
theory-building and confirmation and instances of 
disconfirmation, the role of the formal (if any), and 
the necessity of cautioning the overuse of the formal 
not only after the work by Goedel in the 20th century, 
but also from the evaluations I have done myself over 
the questions of whether the infinite set of all numbers 
is properly dealt with in what is broadly called 
'mathematics'. And more than once, I have had to go 
through the essentials of what led to the concept of 
nonlocality, with people who has had many years doing 
physics, also teaching of physics, at very serious 
scientific institutions indeed, at least judging by the 
standards that those who have had science as profession 
have liked to employ.
  I have tried, in each such case, not to show my 
embarassment. But more and more, I have come to see it 
that it is an important point of view to make proudly 
entirely public, namely that in the evolved society with 
internet, with computer programming avaiable to all who 
bothers to read programming tutorials and type stuff in, 
line by line, and try and vary programs, -- indeed, in 
all societies where there is affluence and abundance 
enough to allow some leisure time for intellectual 
pursuits, then science is ONLY an open process and NOT 
AT ALL primarely defined by the papers or job offered by 
particular institutions. This is the way out of the 
fragmentation seen with the enormoush quantity of 
over-technical and over-specialised works seen, and 
which is a world of diminished meaning in science 
compared to the meaningfulness which pervaded the 
scientific jouranlists in the first half of the 20th 
century, where the global conversation over the big 
themes had a sense of being overviewable and many 
important parts of it -- indeed most -- having informal 
features of philosophical discussion.
  Science is primarely an open process of high quality, 
high integrity, a sharing of checkable propositions, and 
a sharing of data which might be relevant to such 
propositions, in a spirit of being open-minded about 
bias and about fakes and about bad guesses, also such 
that hide themselves in what Bohm called hidden 
assumptions, and also a sharing of what formal works -- 
notably, a limited-number formalism (rather than unlimited 
number size as in integrals, differentials or continuity 
theorems as, with not any much coherence, have pervaded 
all the branches of general relativity physics and of 
quantum theory and without which, the Big Bang theories 
and the black hole theories would be nought and nil and 
void, and that goes also for super-string theories, M 
theories and more such, produced in the name of a 
unification of physics -- by sloppy ideas and a lot of 
equation-crunching without thinking through 
foundations).  The primary limited number formalism is 
Lisa GJ2 Fic3, for it is the only big working formalism 
made entirely on the foundation of the insights into the 
dangers of trying to formalise the limitless in the ways  
that have earlier been done in such excesses, and it is 
the simplest way of doing it, as well. And the coherent 
view of the whole universe and its essential levels are 
the proper area of physics, when kept at an informal 
level, and that is found, as I see it, only by means of 
the works which I have created in what I call 
super-model theory -- at any rate, it has not been fully 
ripe, not nearly so, anywhere else before this.  
  But as several great thinkers in physics in the first 
half of the 20th century asserted, after WWII, we cannot 
anymore believe in Aristotle who argued that knowledge 
is a good for its own sake -- not when it comes to 
physics. Any further specific instrumental formalised 
bit of knowledge in physics can led to new risks in 
human self-destruction, beyond even atomic bombs and 
such by far. The call of ethics must not go out only 
after the WWII, with its Hiroshima and Nagasaki 
bombings. The call must be kept vivid: no more deep 
energy physics. Cern and such should close their 
stations and see the risks involved -- one of the 
founders of early string theory, professor Holger Bech 
Nielsen at the Niels Bohr Institute, has a broad range 
of almost sci-fi-ish logical arguments showing implications 
of taking the view that time indeed IS the fourth 
dimension seriously (a view I think is wrong, but it is 
not uninteresting to see the implications of this view 
so eminently logically spelled out as Nielsen does it).
It is enough to say that Nielsen regards it within the 
realm of physics not just to remove a small portion of 
the manifest universe, such as one planet, but indeed 
also all of it, more or less. I think that this is not 
correct, and the reason is that I have a completely 
different theory of the universe at the level that 
matters, namely the informal level, where no such thing 
is possible. But I do completely agree that physics of 
deep energy kind, and also nanotechnology works, are 
unethical in the extreme and should be cancelled from 
any state sponsoring entirely, if it were up to me.
And whatever views Nielsen has on Cern -- I do not
know whether or not he has any view on Cern in general,
though I read with interest some of his views as
spelled out in a newspaper about a recent experiment
some time ago -- I know that there are quite a few
of us who very easily share this view with me. Those
who do not have a professionalistic motive or hidden
agenda usually completely agrees that many forms of
science ought to be closed down. If I remember
correctly, the leader of Sun Microsystems at the
time Sun Microsystems was, so to speak, in the Sun,
and Java language was fresh and young and f3 didn't
exist yet, and all such things, and they were not
bought-slash-saved by Oracle db makers, Mr Bill Joy,
pronounced that certain types of scientific activities
and related technology types including nanotechnology
could create an all-out destruction for all humanity.
A related danger is that when the formerly enthusiastic
persona of the now more power-oriented Steve Jobs
figure, who tries to portray himself as a kind of
messiah of computing, moves alongside other people
whose motivation is just as shallow and unethical
as that of himself, and works towards putting Personal
Computers away in favour of centralised 1984 Orwellian
control by their own central mainframes, 1960-style.
Apple has become an aping, it is no longer innovating.
And the "i" they put in front of their "iCloud" no
longer signifies uniqueness or personal fun, but rather
that the I or the ego of greed has overtaken. There is
a bit more ethics to how Microsoft does some of its
things than how Apple, Inc is trying to deliver its
rotten apples to humanity.
  However, when it comes to more moderate forms of 
science, with less militaristic potentials, -- such as 
light inorganic chemistry, first-hand electronics, 
organic crop cultivation alternatives, and aspects of 
machine-making which touch also on inventions or 
innovations in robot technology, it is, when done with 
ethical awareness and not in excesses, also not in 
excesses relative to the publication intensity, science 
is an open process which clearly is a benediction to 
humanity. For the sake of the diversity of the 
activities and the need of pluralistic stimuli of the 
minds and hearts of people who also contribute to open 
science as a process (and see my points about how to do 
science in the section), science 
ought simply not to be a full-time profession. Nobody is 
artistic all the time in every sense, nobody is -- let's  
hope not, that would be terrible! -- scientific all the
time in every sense -- nor is anyone formalistic, thank 
God, all the time -- rather, the need for diversity in 
daily professional duties is essential, just as much as 
the need for diversity in complementing duties with free 
time devoted to whatever one pleases to do, which is 
legal enough, and which appeals for one reason or 
another, or is just entertaining to be part of. So I 
suggest that it is part of a meaningful evolution of our 
thinking about society that we learn how to recognise 
whether a piece of work which professes itself to be 
worthy of being seen as a contribution to science do 
seem to live up to the criteria that I have given (as a 
summary of the best and most wise parts of the popperian 
teachings with some extensions leading to the 
neopopperian approach to science).
-- The so-called 'christian conservatives' have no right  
to try to make a package out of a retarded view on 
sexuality mixed in with their over-belief in St Paul
The christians are supposed to believe in Christ, not in  
anything lesser: and much in the christian bible is 
obviously lesser -- and it is made even more petty by 
overindulging in a hateful interpretation of the very 
human person, very much in err, compared to the Christ, 
who, in some of his "letters", speak of the importance 
of not engaging in "unnatural sex" or the like. This 
person, with his "letters", did not have first-hand 
knowledge of his master. But since there is so much 
easier to indulge in reading the very voluminous and at 
times poetic language of the human Paul, rather than 
sticking to the much more complicated practise of 
improvising prayers to Christ, and trying to listen -- 
also very complicated -- the petty, retarded "christian 
conservatives" try to trademark religion as something 
which is heavy-handedly anti-gay. Whereas, religion 
proper, is anti-greed. 
  One can become fat in spirit with belief in small 
human prophets like St Paul, instead of being poor 
enough to say: I really don't know, I have to enquire. 
  And those who enquire into the deep aspects of 
Christianity with all they have of heart and soul, will 
find that the true immortal notion penetrating those 
teachings involve the transcendence of smaller desires, 
going beyond smaller desires, smaller things, going 
beyond a mere flame of the senses, in order to come to 
the grand passion, beyond all greed -- which William 
James in his Varities of the Religious Experience (cfr. speak of as a flame of the soul.
  This flame of the soul burns away the attempt to reach 
God by means of identifying some particular ITEMS of 
desire. It is not that this or that desire is 
particularly wrong, it is not -- for instance -- that 
there is anything inherently wrong with money, again in 
contrast to what the human, erring human being St Paul 
wrote. But this part it appears that christian 
conservatives have figured out a bit better than the 
other part of his condemnations.
  It is rather to be corruptly set on earning money 
before anything else that is wrong, not because it is 
money but because one is corruptly set on it, and because 
it is put BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE, in other words, before 
the spiritual quest. A person who indulgates in food 
before anything else has a BIG challenge. So also with a 
person who indulges in sex before anything else, with 
whatever of the available genders. It is not the object 
in the sensory world which a person of nervous, strong, 
reckless, corrupting greed do crave that is to be blamed. 
Naturally, is the greed-as-dominance that a person must go 
beyond. But to go beyond this greed must happen in a 
spirit of gratitude to the beauty of this world. For the 
world, according to the Christian faith, is created, and  
-- as the founders of pointed out 
in a BBC radio shortwave program some seasons ago, -- 
God made the world and saw that it was good, and it is 
through the natural world that one meets God, more than 
at the Tesco supermarket, however beneficial Tesco and 
other places are for those who need cheap food.
  The natural world includes also the beauty of young 
people, and both -- or all, to be more modern -- genders 
have a tendency to agree in a worldwide, trans-cultural 
sense that female beauty is immortal in itself, although 
all humans, also believers in scientology and in 
Maharishi and Harold Camping and Maya, are mortal. The 
beauty of the natural world, moreover, is so that it 
lifts the gaze from smaller pleasures and allows a 
spiritual dimension of gratefulness to suffuse a person.
  It is not the human body but the human soul that is 
immortal, and the soul is composed of something which  
one must go to a more subtle physics worldview than 
either that of Albert Einstein or that of Niels Bohr 
or any of the many proposed ornamentations,  
elaborations, modifications and embellishments of 
views of this essentially mechanistic kind that have 
been produced. (See my notes on neopopperian approach 
to science and to time.) It is not the higher, loftier  
aspects of the souls or spirits that has an issue 
with envy and jealousy relative to those whose obvious 
features of splendid radiant health, mobility, purity 
and symmetry and capacity to dance in suave ways, 
enlisting musical and artistic harmonies for all  
around them. Rather, it is the ego that tries to live
without humility relative to the origin, without 
a view of time as infinite, as the time also to face 
up to the effects of one's actions as infinite -- 
I myself intuit that the approach each must learn to 
take is that of trusting reincarnation, not just the 
classical interpretation of a God in a western sense -- 
-- it is the ego, not the essence of the human being, 
that has an issue with jealousy and envy relative to 
beauty. But when you suffuse yourself with the 
humility that beauty, objective beauty, belongs first 
and foremost to that which is beyond matter, ie, to 
God and his higher beings or muses, as I think they 
should be called, then you will feel a participation  
in the wholeness of existence which is so that you in 
some sense drink of this fountain of beauty -- and, you 
know that you need to be reminded of it, to awake your 
senses to the flowers of this world each day anew. 
When you do this with humility not just to the essence, 
but to beauty as a flow and flux of meditation, you 
transcend something of your own ego, and that is the 
true 'poorness' of spirit that involves glimpses of 
the joys of enlightenment. In contrast, the approach of 
fat-headed marxism has been to say that all that could 
cause the ego to become envious, ought to be removed, 
-- meaning that marxism involves a materialism of a kind 
that has no true vision of an infinite time or future, 
no vision that can allow a meaningfulness to be spurred 
within one from the approach of the beauty of Nature, 
and of children, and of bikini models, to wash away 
smaller desires from your being, your soul. It is the 
fundamentalist sharia-like interpretation whether of 
hebrew texts, greek new testament christian texts, 
or other bibles such as the koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, 
the yoga sutras, and so forth, that matches up with 
marxism in attempt to blindfold the human beings  
it preaches to so as to close their eyes to young 
hair and skin which speaks of the sun and of a 
glowing health that could make each day happier for 
ALL, not just for the possessors of this beauty. 
Is it not easier to pretend that 'everyone is ugly 
and beauty is entirely subjective'? Only for one whose 
whole psyche is eaten up with going on drugs and living 
on food, not on truth. Where we find those who go 
beyond drugs, we must allow girls to indulge with 
girls -- we don't have to speak of gay marriage but 
when the Pope announces that after all his decades 
of praying that is the quintessence of what he thinks 
is real christianity, he is making a clown of himself, 
with all due respect for bits of his teachings -- his 
denial of gay marriage is, just as his sloppy  
willingness to work against overpopulation rather 
than making a physical conception event as holy 
as the health of born walking human beings -- and 
so on -- all this shows that a thousand years of
steady thinking in one organisation may amount to 
sheer senility, rather than truth. Abandon the  
catholic church, is the suggestion I would make to 
all people in it. Abandon all churches, for they 
are but power-houses of poor stale thought, and rather 
unleash the power of beauty- and flower-loving 
naturist thinking, grounding oneself in prayer and 
in a love of coherent thinking, rather than the love 
of dusty books that do not stand up even to a half 
  The problem of conventional christianity is that it 
has no convincing interpretation of the past that would 
stand up to the desire for a coherent view of the 
existence of an appearance of billions of years gone by. 
Another problem for conventional christianity is that 
the bible seems to be full of hints that the heaven 
to come is just around the corner, so much so that 
it appears that it speaks with conviction that those 
alive at the time of its production were supposed to 
see it while still bodily alive. This leads to a number 
of partly fantastic interpretations that are then 
brushed under the carpet, leading a large number of 
people who call themselves 'atheists' but who are 
more properly called 'unconvinced' consider this 
religion belonging to a broad clownish category of 
'irrationality'. Their concern is a real one. The 
answers that can be given must be as tentatitive 
as they must be, but they cannot speak of something 
which is poorly thought through -- as the Pope's 
so-called 'Catholic' interpretation is, and as the 
other types of teachings, whether of mormonism or 
the socalled 'Angelic' communities or any brand of 
conservative christianity will have it. One must start 
with a real concern for wholeness in thinking, and 
add to that the type of patience for deep enquiry 
which doesn't characterise those who think it is fun 
to call themselves 'darwinists' or 'evolutionary 
biologists' have. 
  What the mechanical-oriented people have in common 
with traditional and also charismatic christians is 
lack of humility for the greatness of cosmos. They are 
politicizing a field which ought to be considered 
too important for being handled along the same line 
as what policy would lead to the least increase of 
food prices. Once we grant that the questions are real, 
and that any answers -- also such attempts to get 
a glimpse into the possible reality of the Infinite 
as one may, in a wise and meditative mood, grant 
that Anselm tried to convey (see my own notes on 
essence numbers for a more coherent bold approach 
to Infinity as real relative to numbers), -- any 
answers must be capable of being looked at by a 
coherent, rational mind that doesn't look back to 
quotes from a bible -- then it is also possible to 
say: it may be that it is important to accept, for 
one reason or another, that the totality of reality 
is not QUITE to be understood by the human mind. 
Even at the level of essential intent -- speaking 
now of the intent of that which is underlaying  
reality, and which I do think it is genuinely  
possible for every sensitive meditative undrugged 
person with a young clear brain and eager heart to 
explore with her own inner dynamics of questing for 
truth. And among the questions that are really tough 
to answer will be the ones that will be asked about 
fairness of it all, with the appearance of so much 
misery on Earth. Right? And also here, it may be  
possible to get insights -- see my notes on the 
more flexible view of reincarnation (as something 
that happens within the life-span of a human body) 
that I have argued for elsewhere (also front-page Put very briefly, it may be that a  
person in her most sensitive moods, where the feeler 
of pain -- the soul -- is most acutely present, is 
also experiencing the greatest goodness of reality; 
in other words that insensitivity is acutely necessary 
when material conditions are so as to expose a certain 
number to a very large stress. This insensitivity is 
naturally beginning when a person experiences little 
beauty, and beauty is associated not just with  
health, but also with splendid architecture, well-cared 
gardens and unpolluted well-tended beaches and so on. 
The key questions on fairness must however ultimately 
be submitted to an intuition that may report things 
which are tentative as far as logical explanations 
go -- for the mentioned reason that it is perhaps 
necessary that the human mind doesn't try the hubris- 
like thing it is to grasp the quintessence of existence. 
That would amount to absolute enlightenment and I 
maintain that the approach humanity must take is that 
of approaching, then deepening, relative enlightenment, 
and this collectively -- it is not a matter of 
finding an enlightened guru for there isn't any. 
  In this view, the exploration of beauty must be 
said to be natural for all healthy young people and 
in this light, such as girl lesbianism ought to be 
entirely strongly approved by all who has any ambition 
whatsoever to anchor themselves in a coherently 
well-thought version of Christianity. All other  
forms of Christianity is an abomination of faith. 
A moderate but regular dose of porn is also something 
people who want to dampen greed but experience beauty 
as background for more intelligent and aspiring 
work must allow themselves without in any way feeling 
that they are doing any degrading. And those who are 
running the governments of this world ought therefore 
to ask themselves what on Earth they think they are 
doing when they, in the name of some kind of clownish 
dignity, try to censor the presence of healthy nudity 
of those who are most displayable in the sense of 
health, in favour of throwing an "XXX" label on it 
all and making only worn-out over-mature porn available 
to its population. It is a beauty starvation they are 
instigating, and every government and every police 
departement has a responsibility to think afresh 
over what true alternatives the population has to 
indulging in over-eating and overuse of drugs, and 
not do censorship merely because it is so easy or 
because this follows the dictums of the old priests 
they had at school. Grow up, let nudity of a healthy 
and also sexual kind free, and speak of matters of 
true ethics, not the quasi-ethics of such as these 
letters of the bullying St Paul are dominating the 
christian bible with. Christ was infinitely better  
than St Paul, was and is. No human can represent Christ.



The future -- let us affirm, and hope -- is for people,
and for machines honoring people, helping people, doing
nasty tasks such as spraying toxic paint on car
components and cleansing up in polluted areas. The future
is for people, and people engages machines, uses radios,
computers, phones etc, in a way that benefits people, not
merely the richest of the richest, sitting on top of their
advertisement-or-whatever-it-is empires, mining data about
people in order to hypnotise them into buying meaningless
products. The future, then, let us hope, has a fairness
about it. It is in this picture that the conventional,
also called "analog" radio, has an obvious role. This
type of radio can stand solar storms of a type that would
wipe out chips as easy as dewdrops dampens away in hot
weather. This type of radio, such as the AM with the
medium and short waves, and the FM, can be made of simple,
inexpensive components and work all over the world,
tying the world together also through eminent broadcasters
who, like DeutschlandFunk and BBC, engage shortwaves,
medium waves and FM alike to keep up the debate between
the nations, between the ethnic groups, between the
religions, and which are promoting culture and reflection
about both global and local themes. Some of the time,
these radios cross national boundaries, despite the
attempts by some nations to block the radio waves. One
cannot count the number of Nobel Peace Price laurates
on one hand who have had the analog radio as a primary
source of strength during periods of political oppression.
  And when big electricity grids breaks down, perhaps due to 
some form of catastrophic weather, digital equipment, and their
centrals stations and servers, even satellites, have a
tendency to be swapped out of function -- but conventional
radios, which has been with us throughout much of the 
20th century, require but a little local battery electricity
and can still roam the world and pick up the transmissions
from afar which are still going on. It is as natural as
for a country to have a capacity of self-defence that they
also have classic analog radios and radio transmitters
in a pervasive manner.
  It must be tempting for prime ministers and presidents
who want the support of digital empire bosses to yield
to the pressure of pushing aside all analog, privacy-
friendly, safe, stable radio types, and go for such
nonsense as DAB digital radios instead. It must be
tempting to put chips which can only be programmed by
the international empires into the homes of every person
by means of the pressure of national law: a law that says,
"we don't want analog radios anymore, they are forbidden."
It is bad enough that TV has gone down this commerical
drain in many countries. Now all responsible folks must
stand up and protect the radios from going the same
pathway. The forces of stupidity are upon us: now
intelligence must awaken in the population, and embrace
the solid analog devices, including the radios and
declare their everlasting presence into the future,
against the oppression of those who have never read "1984"
by George Orwell except as light entertainment.
  Only analog radios have privacy-friendliness and
obvious duration. The firmware chips in digital radios
are brittle, controllable, unreliable -- and, without
exception either over-commercialised or ruled over by
totalitarian governments with an absoluteness that only
the digital can give.


--Throwing the bibles away and redoing the concepts
of "Father", "Holy Spirit" and "Son"
Aristo Tacoma

I myself am a believer in the human capacity to make grand
and true philosophies. Not just grand--true, too. Because,
this follows from my belief in human intuition. It is an
intuition that can span cosmos. It can penetrate, go
beyond. It can encompass the wholeness, the totality of
existence. It may require a lot of fine-tuning and so on
and so forth; and I also admit that most of what has been
produced of metaphysics in the name of intuition is sheer
gibberish. But I do believe in the capacity that we all
have, as living beings--not machines, not computers, not
merely clever, not merely political, not socialist or
capitalist or whatever--but as beings with a deep sense
of awareness of existence, and in that awareness,
capacities to reach inward, turn within, and touch
realities entirely beyond what the human body can sense
by means of its sensory organs.
  In this sense, then, I do believe Kant was wrong, if he
meant to push away metaphysics except the lonely
metaphysics of the person who is unable to connect to the
world except through sensory organs and their implanted
conditions and categories. I believe Marx was wrong, in
trying to convince people that everything that smacks of
religion is but a drug, and has no truth content to it.
Obviously, to go into religion, so as to find truth rather
than merely to join a group to recite a worn-out scripture
we need an intuition that can tell us whether there's a
creator, or whether it's all a soup, or both a creator
AND a soup, and if there's a soup, what kind of soup.
  So to me, religion has nothing whatsoever to do with
literalism. Literalism is the attitude that says of
Bhagavad-Gita, Dhammapada, Quoran, Torah or the Christian
Bible that nothing was written by human hands, that it is
all a dictate of absolute truth and if it has been edited
then that editing was by means of absolute truth as well.
(In this list, Dhammapada is the least assertative of its
own origin, and the most pleasingly open to intuition.)
  Literalism isn't intuition: it's quite the opposite.
The only thing that literalism has in common with religion
is that both concern that which is beyond the sensory
organs, and supposed at the root and core of all being,
in essence. But religion, as I see it, is actual contact
with reality. Literalism is an attempt to hypnotise
oneself because the world of human beings seems so
rediculous. In this hypnosis, by endless repetition of
a certain text, one gets into a foggy state of mind in
which there's something a little bit looking like
happiness on occasion. But the mind is as fearful and
incapable of relating to the fullness of reality as ever,
despite prayers and speaking tongues and dancing with the
dervishes and doing the voodoo drums.
  To get into intuition, as I see it, can only take place
when the mind is doing many powerful generous actions to
the world and yet not getting exhausted by it; it has an
order to itself, and in this order a sense of abundance,
and, as a luxury, almost uninvited, come intuitions, and
one has a skill in separating illusions or guesses from
intuitions coming from all the practical activities in
daily life that do require (a more mundane) intuition.
  All this is the background for the following postulate
(I offer it in the spirit, "is it not so?" -- and, "why no
check for yourself, go around the corner and have a look
for yourself".):
  God is not one but three. For purposes of simplicity,
I will use words typically used in some religion or other,
but intending to refer to perception--not to faith as
a hypnosis.
  The three are organised so that there's a deepest level.
It's the essence of the essence of God. It is the being
whose dream-thought is everything that is, in addition to
this being. It is a personal being and can meaningfully be
called male--and so also for the other two levels to God.
  To meet this level of God in one's own mind is no more
easy than for a human body to visit the core of a star
without any protection. It is an instant burn.
  At the second level, we proceed from--borrowing freely
from this or that bible--from the Father to the Holy
Spirit. There's some degree of innocence in the Holy
Spirit as regards creation--for the Holy Spirit is created
by the Father. And as such, is inside creation, and not
therefore at all times possessing total knowledge of
everything. This is a most interesting development for
God, for in order to experience something, an experience
must have a component of surprise, and surprise can only
come to someone who doesn't know abosolutely everything in
all details. The Holy Spirit looks like the Father, is a
personal God, held by the Father.
  Still sticking to this vocabulary, we proceed to the
third level, the manifest level, the Son. Also looking
like the Holy Spirit and the Father, the Son has even less
knowledge about the totality of existence, and, as such,
can experience even more of its dynamic unfoldment with
genuine surprise and all the feelings associated with
  As is in the Greek (the ancient Greek) scenario, God--
at all three levels--are in love with girls. The supreme
beings we can call, of course, the Muses. These have
contact with God at all three levels. (Even they must
apply care when visiting the essence of the essence level,
of course.) This, as I see it, is the Olympic pleroma,
creating the levels that eventually become the manifest
universe with us chickens in it.
Copyright -- redistribution
You are granted the right to redistribute any
such essay from without
asking on the condition that the context is
respectful and that no deletion or addition
or change of text takes place, and that this
notice is included.
*** *****

* * * * *