<< . . .

-- In a society oriented towards a reckless pursuit of 
money and similar overcoming of other deficiencies, what 
does it take to have a dignified spiritual lifestyle?

In "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", the
I-persona, presumably reflecting at least some of the
views of the author (Robert Pirsig), speaks of the
importance of studying maps before one sets out for a
good ride. One will then pay attention to roads which
aren't straight, and which appears extraordinarily
cumbersome ways of getting anywhere: and choose just
  This book was (as Mr Pirsig explained when he visited
Oslo a long time ago, in connection with the translation
to Norwegian by Pax Forlag, an arrangement including
Live Slang, Pax, and Dagfinn Follesdal, professor of
philosophy, as well as a local motorcycle club) published
after more than one hundred publishing companies turned
it down. It is entirely unreadable, unless you regard
ramblings over Aristotle as readable: but it that's
quite alright, as it doesn't set out to be readable. It
is still a good story, and the parts of it that are
readable are eminently well framed by all the hazy
reflections over quality. One can skip twenty of these
pages at a time and still consider oneself an ardent
reader of the book. It is speaking well for those who
consider humanity worth betting on that it then sold in
the millions, and is by now regarded as an undying cult
  Why would anyone set out on a path that is 'less
travelled on', that isn't straight, that doesn't get one
from A to B fast? To some, it is a mystery that anyone
could even contemplate this approach to action. To others,
it is a mystery that it ever could be a mystery: they
consider it essential to move upon paths where the means
are the end, where the process of travelling is by far
more important than where one is travelling to.
  More generally, we can think of the two types of
travelling-through-life folks by means of the concept
of 'being' versus 'deficiency', as the psychologist
Abraham Maslow proposed. To do something because it gaps
a need, is 'deficiency motivation'. To do something
because it is rewarding in itself is 'being motivation',
also called 'abundancy mode' or 'abundancy motivation'.
The A-to-B types of folks want to get to B because,
they imagine, there isn't enough of whatever they want
at A, and presumably more at B. But then there are those
who set out to travel because the process itself is a
meditation and a joy, if only they are allowed to proceed
in ways which offer solitude, excitement, unusualness,
and connection to the wholeness of life, to spirituality,
and to the physical matter, such as the physical matter
of -- in Pirsig's (not mine) case, a motorcycle, -- or
the physical matter of any other things engaged in the
  The person rushing from A to B to do something is
probably of the kind that doesn't LOOK before acting:
nor is there any much thought -- "Is this the right thing
to do, in this universe, now?"; "Are there other ways of
doing this?"; "Does the singing of the birds suggest
another, not obvious way?" -- etc. Instead, they leap at
whatever they want to leap at, and if they are supposed
to press buttons, they stretch out their hands before
they think, and click before imagining that there could
be something entirely wrong about clicking just there.
This not-just-fearless-but-careless action type may get
rewards or punishments or no reaction at all for all the
action, and there is no doubt occasions in a human life
in which this type of action is called for. However, if
mindfulness, soul, spirit, deep alive consciousness and
penetrating quietude within, are things that sets us,
as human beings, apart from more primitive forms of
existence, then one can argue that the rushing ahead
from A to B isn't the proper mode of being. It is very
clearly 'deficiency' mode. Something is lacking, and
something is going to lack, still, after getting to
whereever one thinks one is getting.
  However, there is the thing called money. For all
except the excessively few who belong to the class that
can be called 'the idle rich', money-aquisition influences
all levels of behaviour and thinking so deeply that it's
hard indeed to have a meaningful quest for a life in
unity with the being mode all day long, each and every
day, however beautiful a vision it may be. For most,
getting money means relating to a society which is
through and through characterised by deficiency modes of
every kind. Getting a job in such a society means, in many
cases, to make oneself one of the gang of the deficiency
mode people, where rushing is good, and 'thinking about
life' a luxury one cannot afford. It is true that some
sects here and there are trying to live in a way that
involves no compromises, even in the area of money. It is
said that the Buddha adviced those most advanced in
spiritual seeking to become beggars. But one thing is to
attempt such a thing in a society in which there is a
general affluence -- as presumably, to some extent, could
be said of at least some parts of ancient India -- and,
moroever, a society in which the concept of a spiritual
beggar is considered with extreme reverence, as being
something worthy of admiration -- and another is to
imagine adopting such an attitude where the beggars are
the saddest spectacle in the world. But the point, that
we more abstractly can pick out from this, is that the
question of monetary survival is not just now, but also
some two thousand five hundred years ago, considered to
be a fundamental challenge for earnest seekers.
  There is a trend, and indeed, especially since the late
1960s and 1970s, there have been many trends, in which
it is suggested that society is able, now, if one just
thinks about it for a while, to offer such jobs as combine
being with monetary income. This is reflected in the
superficial, and to some, terrible language of the
most 'hip' companies, that seek to blend the notion of
salvation with the notion of having an employment in
just this company: they seek people who have a 'passion'
for this company, and more such nonsense.
  Perhaps it is a fairer notion to assume that the only
companies that can ever get near being truly hip, are
those that are entirely without any inertia -- thus,
nobody in the company works there for years, and those
who work there don't even work there for much of a week:
these companies are like mountain streams, always new,
new not because of themselves, but because the people who
visit the company in order to carry out a piece of work
for it have gathered perhaps some meditative refreshment
from entirely different sources, and they get out of the
company again before they have exhausted their inner
reservoir of mental abundance. For instance, I know of a
store where, every saturday, but, as far as I know, no
other days, a girl works, who certainly isn't a supermodel
but that's only a fault of her own ambition. The fact that
she works in one of the least charming groceries, and
probably earns next to nothing, makes one think of her as
a flower that has penetrated stone -- and though the
company still is as unhip as it possibly could be, one
cannot argue against the possibility that going there at
saturdays has a certain glamour to it.
  And so one could argue that an element of deficiency
mode should perhaps be adopted as a cloak, in order to
gain some money -- without being any much of a beggar --
from this terrible, corrupt, and rather pointless
society of ours, with all its absolute nonsense done also
by means of technology and internet. A degree of
participation may be necessary. And it may be necessary
for those who are actively proclaiming the 'being mode' as
primary to realise that unless we give some room for the
deficiency mode, something much more serious can arise:
a number of people may start actually CONFUSING the two
modes. They may think that they have a being mode 'more
or less' the whole time, while in fact they have a very
grave case of deficiency mode. Their entire set of
actions, from morning to night, is self-centered,
goal-motivated, and infiltrated by money-greed, but in
ways that escape their own attention. They may try and
set themselves up as gurus, but do not even know that
they are trying to do so; they may enroll themselves as
friends, collaborators or even disciples of some others,
again thinking it is their being mode that compells them
to do so, not seeing that this, too, is all a rushing
from A to B, a bridging of the mental gap within them
of deficiency; it is tainted by little thoughts and by
motives they haven't sorted out. And all this only
because they started out proclaiming that they wanted
being mode all day long, without being tainted by the
deficiency mode.
  In order to test oneself -- whether one is willing to
do something in pure being mode -- one should first, then,
admit that stepping into a deficiency mode some part of
the day may make sense. Then, as one steps out of it,
one must probe. Can one, for instance, find it meaningful
to focus on something which is beautiful in itself, as
according to one's own heart, even if it gets one nowhere
-- as it appears, at first -- in the social realm? In
other words, can one look aside not only from money
questions, but also from the quest to overcome loneliness,
restlessness and so on, -- and bring oneself into contact
with something entirely worth focussing on, regardless
of the possible absence of positive effects of a goal-
getting type? And, let's at once say: we do not mean
merely as a twenty minutes meditation. That's not enough.
Twenty minutes of anything sounds like an exercise.
To test oneself profoundly, we must grab a portion of
one's wakeful life, and put the test there: and not just
once, and not just entirely privately, but in some ways
on-going and at-display. This may in fact make some people
turn away from oneself: and that's fine. Being mode is
like that: it scares those addicted to the deficiency
mode away. Let them be scared. Being mode takes care of

. . . >>

Onwards in this text we talk about the questions of nudity
and what's valuable as impressions, in additions to such
as good music, for decent living, good work, splendid
entertainment, and also good spirituality. But let us
cover some other questions also -- before turning to the
fascinating theme of nudism, buddhism, and other such

So in the next shortest essay the word 'context' and 
'contextual' is used, in connection with the phrase 'search 
engines'. This is something that gets more important the
longer the digital era has kept on, and the more programs
have been made that might seem, if one looks at them without
reflection, to mimick mind or mimick natural human behaviour
--but a little reflection and analysis would show that 
nothing man-made is really like humans, nothing is 'android',
in other words.
  Put simply, a keyword search engine searches up individual
words that it locates here and there in the world wide web,
regardless of what other words are around in those locations.
If you type in a word like "WODEHOUSE", you may find, for
instance, that the location www.gutenberg.org does have some
Wodehouse texts. Then, inside www.gutenberg.org, if this has
an 'internal search engine' you can type several words, and
pinpoint an exact document. Or if you type "IBSEN" into
www.wikipedia.org, it may guide you to a page where you will
find a link to a brief characterisation of one of Henrik
Ibsen's play "An Enemy of the People", where -- if you consult
the original full text for this such as at www.gutenberg.org -- 
a Dr Stockmann gives the question we've translated below ("Who 
constitute the majority of citizens in a country? Is it the wise 
people, or is it the stupid people?"). In contrast, a contextual
search engine does much more work and attempts to single out
just those locations that have more than one word gathered
together -- a whole 'context', not just a 'keyword'. This is
a work that has the same problems with it as 'artificial
intelligence' has -- AI is, put roughly, a nonexisting, 
illusory approach to computing. A good search engine, in the
opinion of the makers of the Yoga6d.org search engine, provides
moderate help not overly strong help, so that each exploration
of new knowledge requires further action in a diversity of 
sites. (Inside a site, a contextual search may not at all be
any "artificial intelligence" bogus, because the text gathered 
inside that site may perfectly well be organised so that they
allow an efficient mechanical algorithmic search on more than 
one word at the same time, without having to simulate context.)
  Well, that was a long explanation -- anyway! -- here's the
little essay, clipped from our yoga6d.org/economy.htm:

<< . . .

-- Beware the contextual, 'super-simple', over-efficient
search engines spanning the world wide web, what they do
to your mind

There's little doubt that if you felt you had to work out
something like Newton's laws of friction and force and
such stuff all from scratch, AND you actually did work
out these laws, then you would have gathered a piece of
knowledge that would stick more firmly to your mind than
any piece of knowledge merely suggested to you in a book.
So that's one extreme -- to work it all out for oneself.
The other extreme is not to bother to work at all, but
let as much as possible be done such as by machines.
This other extreme is as foolish as the first. The wise
point of view is to be willing to work to keep the mind
alive and knowledgable, in small as in great things, but
not set aside all and any help to that work. There are
degrees of help. A moderate degree of help is ok. Too
much help to the mind is a stupification of the mind.
  The dawn of computers in humankind must not become a
stupification of humankind: this is, at the general level,
something I think we all can agree on, as a point of
wisdom. But the direct implication of this is that we
should consciously steer away from using the too helpful
tools. Even if we admit that computers can have a role
in many forms of verbal learning, we must then allow the
component of own thinking and own work -- beyond the work
of typing in a question on a line and pressing a suitable
button afterwards.
  BBC World Service reported, some time ago, about a
piece of scientific study indicating just the above point:
when we use computers, we tend to learn more at just those
points where the computers offer some resistance. In other
words, as for knowledge relative to computer use, we find
that we're in an 'easy come, easy go' situation.
  Let us also say that although, as human beings
interested in the common good for humanity, we don't
want humanity stupified, it is not in general the case
that all businesses would prosper equally from a
development in which humanity is, at the level of mind,
awakened and constantly sharpened. In particular, it seems
pretty clear that a number of advertisement approaches
are oriented in particular to those in humanity who are
perhaps worthy of being called 'less bright'. It is easier
to sell things to those who are more easily convinced,
-- also called 'gullible' -- and if there were means to
make a larger percent of humanity more susceptible to
suggestions, more easily convinced -- a more gullible
humanity -- then a number of business bosses would, if
they have little sense of larger spiritual values,
easily support just those means. In particular, it is not
surprising if we find that somewhat megalomaniac
advertisement companies would be quite happy if they
could find legal, effective ways of stupifying
humanity. And indeed, providing more and more help for
humanity in finding out just what is the case with
less and less need for own thought is just such a way.
  It is at this point that the quickly swinging moods
coming upon the youth of any society is to be betted on:
if this youth suddenly regards it as tacky and in various
ways quite distasteful and simply not worthy of being
thought of as upbeat to use contextual search engines
spanning the world wide web whenever they wonder about
anything, the aforementioned stupification of humanity
will be avoided.

. . . >>

P.S. As for much more in depth about why digital machines 
can't do AI, consult the essay about Goedel's work, which 
is found in the 'essay' section below somewhere if you 
search within the page at: fic3inf3.htm And as for how it is 
that attempts to go beyond digital into the socalled
'quantum analog' have never produced, and will never
produce, a better computer than the conventional
digital one -- despite attempts, and much money
poured into it, and misused -- please consult the
essays about the quantum phenomena which are linked
to at the economy.htm column. There are
also writings, even in the form of a book that more
or less clearly show similar points, if you look 
around at the links that are at these pages, for
those who wish to understand the quantum phenomena
in light of the informal theory called 'super-model
theory', and which, in the understanding of this
writer, does the job better than any formal theory
does account for it, and indeed, better than any 
formal theory CAN account for it.

After the next essay comes the notions on nudity
and spirituality and why non-censorship must be
the noble stance here. But first, a rather longer
essay, which speaks about Tolkien's books as infinitely 
superior to movies about  Tolkien, and the more general 
themes of why Internet should not be about videos and 
movies AT ALL, but about texts, images, music and 
other things which activate us holistically -- in the
sense of 'yoga', which in Sanskrit means 'whole,
pertaining to the whole', also 'healing' -- in
addition to more flavours of meaning. This, then,
explains more of what is emphasised in this 
yoga6d.org/look.htm search engine and in the search 
engine portal.

<< . . .

-- There's only one way to activate the brain, and that's
by using it, not drowning it in recordings

A long time ago, perhaps for the lack of other things to
say, there was a type of slogan, or motto, that went
like this -- perhaps some are still using it -- "The
medium is the message".
  It seems to be an idea, shared by a vast proportion
of the technology-using part of the population, that
any idea, if it can be spread at all, can be spread by
means of videos; and any thought, if it can be received
at all, can be received by means of watching videos.
  And I wish to say, Nay, the medium is the message.
When you're watching videos, what you're doing is watching
videos, and that's that. Videos constitute a medium that
is uniquely unable to convey any pure, interesting,
uplfiting message of any deep type. I don't want to quote
again the numerous studies on the level of brain
activation that compares how the brain is activated
when a book is read, something is watched on video or
television, something is heard on the radio (showing that
video ranks lowest). Let's take something as simple as a
so-called 'animated cartoon', compared to a cartoon with
talk bubbles or such, perhaps as printed on inexpensive
pulp paper. Let's imagine a child leaning back in a sofa
watching and hearing an animated version of something
that first existed in drawn form. There is no text there,
so that means that one doesn't have to bother about
activating the text-reading part of the brain. The
sounds -- the squeeking and such -- are pleasant
indulging the brain with a minute stimulation of the
auditory area. There is no reason to visualise what is
going on from one scene to the next as when a cartoon
or comics strip or comics book gives one scene after
another, filling out the gaps by mental visualisation.
For the gaps are already filled by those who have made
the animated cartoon. It is true, perhaps, that the
cartoon is animated, but the brain isn't.
  Statistics affirm this, on the average. There is no
doubt that if you have read a dozen books by an author,
it could be interesting to hear, not just read text, by
the same author, if only for ten minutes; and perhaps
even watching a recording of her or his body language.
In such a case, even a video would definitely provide
a stimulation. In the normal case, there's little doubt
that all the extra work that goes into making a video,
and all the shortcuts, all the eaten camels and all
that, will make the video an exceedingly poor substitute
for almost every other kind of brain activity.
  One thing is to know this and admit this and still
use videos, and watch such as fiction movies. Another
thing altogheter is to be faced with what seems to be
a modern fact: the intense arrogance associated with
those who have familiarity of themes mainly through
videos, news clips, movies, and game 3d animations,
and who claim that this is more than enough, and that
there's little more to be known.
  There's no evidence like the first-hand evidence you
can generate yourself. I wish to call attention not to
Star Wars, which was based on extracts from numerous
earlier myths and scifi tales and then put together into
a new movie script -- a script made for the purpose
of making a movie -- but rather, to J R R Tolkien's
Lord of the Rings. This series of fiction stories,
deriving in part from the same Norse myths as underlaid
Wagner's giant operas, but reset ingeniously in the
mythic third age forests of a rather medieval Britain,
was written by Tolkien with an attention to details that
can never fail to marvel. Indeed, Tolkien's attention to
details was so great that the whole thought of putting
anything of the story, let alone the whole story, to
movie form, should at once be considered not merely an
indecent proposal, but one of the worst proposals of
the world. What has happened, of course, is that while
these movies have, to an extreme degree, 'popularised'
Tolkien, they have also created a veil between the
population and the books that didn't exist earlier on.
The galaxy of details and finer shades of meaning in
the highly spiritual and subtle thinker J R R Tolkien
have become twisted into a sensationalist ball of fire,
powered by the world of nerdian 3d simulation programmers
and given adequately rediculous interpretations at enough
points that it could make a hit at the box offices.
  People, in a plural sense, as far as video watchers go,
now happen to 'know' Tolkien. Only they don't. They don't
do anything of the sort. They know, in fact, much less
than if they had never heard of him. Because such is the
arrogance of the video era: it imparts not only a
deceptive type of familiarity, devoid of the insights that
own first-hand work with the material would give, when
calling on own head and heart, but also a false sense
of knowing, that conceals ignorance. Indeed (as the
philosopher Ann Kerwin and others with her suggested in
different contexts some time ago), it would be more
wisdom in standing by the stance of ignorance; for the
assumption of non-ignorance is maybe the worst folly of
  It is of course a well known thing that movies don't
adequately reflect books written for the love of it. This
is not only the case with Tolkien, of course, but even
applies to how Ian Fleming saw his James Bond character
made into more or less a circus clown by the movies he
let his books inspire. Anyone who thinks she or he knows
James Bond simply by having seen some of the classic
Bond movies should spend some time with Ian Fleming's
brilliant, witty, often sarcastic, and always technically
excellent writing style -- and there will be nothing of
the technological clownisness that was added to the
movies, and which, no doubt at that time, seemed to be
a good idea and was impressive enough in the early
decades of TV.
  But Tolkien is a more serious issue. Tolkien set out
to bring about a holistically thought, spiritually
meaningful myth properly situated right in his homeland,
and for him, it is clear that it was a calling, and,
as innumerable writers don't stop pointing out -- a
calling that he achieved masterfully. There's more
spiritual depth in what he did than in most professorial
books either on spirituality or on philosophy, whether
published in the academic settings or outside of them,
for a wider public, or inside a theological clan of sorts.
Tolkien, who believed in God and who was a christian,
managed to put both God and Christ inside his novels but
did it so that few noticed it. For he did not believe in
going along a preset range of names. He invented
languages and name-mythologies as he went along, and
wanted people to uncover 'the gold that does not always
glitter', to paraphrase Bilbo's words about Aragorn.
The movies haven't received the damning criticisms they
deserve; on the contrary, in an era of too much videos,
these have by many otherwise thoughtful critical writers
been crowned the king of videos. But had Tolkien somehow
been woken up and given a glimpse of the movies, he
would no doubt had been shocked to the core. Their mere
existence is such as to make everything worse: before
there was no myth of the kind Tolkien had made, then
Tolkien made his myth, but then the so-called "Tolkien
movies" came and made the golden myth into the steel of
box office coins, and left it at that -- a mere orc 
taking over the ring brought by Bilbo and Frodo to
destruction; let that orc's productions and popularity
vanish, and the lure of power-rings again be destroyed!
  There is no consolation whatsoever for Tolkien that
it has made Tolkien popular. Tolkien didn't set out
chiefly to be popular, however magical and mysterious
that statement may seem to those who are influenced by
the billion-dollar-making digital advertisement
agencies with their biased use of numbers and
statistics to serve the god of cash. Tolkien set out to
make certain forms of insights come around in humanity.
He didn't entertain the notion of the hobbits to have
a digital era movie-maker transform it into a little 
clownish figure in a Disney style; nor did he entertain 
the Gandalf shape so that those impressed by
cheap magical effects on the movie-screen could be
impressed and dazed and leave it at that. He didn't deny
himself, or the reader of the books, the little
pleasures, but it would have made him turn over in his
grave to see that those little pleasures would become
the chief minutes of the petty few hours allotted to
a movie supposedly reflecting his life-work, and
arrogantly named after it. In that sense, there's much
more to be said for the works of George Lucas, with his
Star Wars: he didn't say that this is going to cover
Asimov's Foundation, or such and such construction by 
other scifi authors such as A C Clarke -- for the better 
or worse, (as far as I know) he didn't acknowledge such 
sources very much but rather made up new names and all 
that. But in that sense, he didn't smear his box office 
stuff all over some of the greatest literary productions 
in the 20th century. That he then sold the stuff to the
Disney corporation that already has spewed its idiocy
over the X-Men pulp fiction legacy with a number of
quite unhealthy, unfashionable, thick-set, shortlegged
people who would have made Kitty Pryde have wrinkled
her cute nose, shows that he didn't take himself nor
his Star Wars all that seriously, unlike the nuts who
made a religion out of his jedis -- out of, to be
clear about the concept, the Second Foundationers in
the Asimov trilogy. Lucas then gave the money for that
sale to idealistic institutions, also a pretty good idea:
it underlined a relaxed attitude, after all, to what he 
had done, and a wish to refocus on the myth aspect, which,
after all, had influenced the young Lucas also by his
friendship with Joseph Campbell. In that sense,
Lucas did something involving far less of a pretence
than the movie-makers behind the present Tolkien
productions, the so-called "Tolkien" productions.
  Campbell, by the way, was wrong in saying that no myth
works anymore. Tolkien's myth still works: so does the
hidden christanity, not the catholic nor lutherian
christanity, nor the christanity belonging to this or
that sect, mormonic or Jehova's Witnesses or such,
but the subtle, not-only-western-but-also-indian
style of spirituality which extracts the best parts
of the classical texts and discards the rubbish about
the devil and about the condemnation of the sexual.
The fight between good and non-good is not fight
between good and evil but between good and the
slightly lesser good. This is shown, too, in how 
Tolkien treats the Gollum character, who helps in
the moment even Frodo becomes too sick to be as good
as he set out to be. 
  In order to read J R R Tolkien, then, one must first
of all engage in a self-hypnosis of forgetting whatever
one has seen of the movies, if anything. Few are so
blessed as having seen nothing at all of them, not even
a clip; but even they may have read something about
Tolkien that really is about those movies, not about
Tolkien. Then, after reading the Lord of the Rings a
sufficient number of times -- after some years --
together with a large number of other also philosophical
works, you may be able to begin, honestly, and
nonarrogantly, to say that you 'know' Tolkien. You will
also then probably have been cured of all desire to
ever watch movies again, or mostly any type of video,
ever again: for your brain, having been turned on,
cranked alive by the books of Tolkien and other masters,
tells you to shut off the anti-brain device called

. . . >>

Well! Then, as promised, we arrive at notes the importance 
of freedom of exploration of thought and the absence of 
censorship on porn. (Let us just, for the record, say
that the pulp fiction cartoon series, with a game score
component, which is included with our G15 Avenuege PC
production and software, sets out a brain-stimulating
way of doing this which hasn't the negative features
of videos nor of 3d simulations.)

First of all, let's note that the human brain has not
just its usually somewhat more verbal, analytic, logical
side (for most people, the left side of the brain, wired
to the right hand and right side of the body), but also
a more musical, dance-and-rhythm-and-emotion oriented
and visual side (for most people, the right side of the
brain, wired to the left side of the body including the
heart). Then again, the backside of the brain is associated
with visual perception, sensation, also sexual sensation --
a lot of nerves on the backside of the brain up to the top
centre are wired there to the sexual organs and lips and 
nipples -- while the forefront is associated more both with
planning, foresight, carefulness but also with strong
action, also sexual action, muscular action, e.g. as in
dance or martial arts.

To be a full human being with a fully awakened mind means 
that one engages in meaningful holistic challenges covering 
the whole range of brain activity. For instance, in a week
rich in stimulation one may do not only such as reading
and dabble a bit with programming, but also in drawing
nudes. In exercise, one may turn to martial arts and also
dance, as well as more detailed musuclar work such as 
electronics tinning -- what we call 'Elsketch work' or
associated chemistry what we call 'Atomlite work'; all
these aspects of the human being is cultivated in each
student in what we call the G15 Multiversity approach.
  In expressing new forms of activity, we would naturally
seek new forms of impression. But then we must have access
to a large range of experiences, including mind-stimulating
pulp art drawn cartoons with a game-like feature, beautiful
variation in cafees which have life in them not just during
weekends and not always associated with alcohol, experiences
of various parts of nature, some more tamed and others more
incredible like a horizon line of the ocean without any end
to it, a library of books so big it will stretch our minds
in every possible sort of direction, jobs which can vary
often enough one year to another that we find new powers 
in ourselves, and to meet a variety of people who are 
not all falling for the same false fashion at the same
time, but which exhibit a real and lively individuality
without meaningful constraints. 
  And, also, we would want art stimuli, including photo
stimuli, to evoke artistic powers and new work energies and
fresh ideas about life and God and reincarnation and what
not in ourselves. We would want photos which aren't pre-selected 
according to a common mediocre set of patterns in a way
that makes them familiar already before they've seen, photos
not merely made by robots or by those who think like robots.
We must come upon freshness in experience so as to enlist
new powers in ourselves. The chief programmer of the
Yoga6d.org search engine, Aristo Tacoma, alias Henning Braten
Reusch, and with other aliases as well, has spend a lot of
time in conversation with artists, and also has had a kind
of apprenticeship under more than one artist for a considerable
time, before engaging in own regular artistic works, such
as painting and drawing. In this perspective, what is input
to sexual activity as porn and what is input to artistic
activity such as drawings or paintings naturally -- and
rightly so! -- blurs. Though 'NSFW' -- "Not Suitable For
Work" -- is by a cultural convention applied to the most
obvious porn-like of images, it is nevertheless so that
some artistic activity certainly is work and some of this
activity certainly can have a great advantage of porn-like
  But what range of porn-like images? If this range is
limited to what leftist women liberation political
activitists deem to be 'properly moral' images, then
what type of art emerges from that? In contrast, we must
evoke a willingness to engage in art that connects to the
whole human being in a non-leftist, non-marxist, and 
thereby also non-atheist sense -- that the spiritual whole
human being from birth is both a temple of God and the 
muses, and also, by virtue of this wholeness, a piece of
matter which is at once both spiritual and sexual. This
sensuality mustn't be censored away as input to the
artist's mind. And self-censorship in this area we've 
seen too much of -- thereby we find also that the 
G15 PMN Yoga6dorg programming language enterprise has
in it a natural calling for the freedom from any too
much self-censorship. This is the language which, of
course, underlies the Yoga6d.org search engine, in its
FDB routines.

For questions of the extent to which we embrace the
whole human being, from birth to death, as a sexual,
not just spiritual human being, and that it is the
artist's plight, and indeed also a healthy thing, to
go beyond any petty morals denying the wholeness of
sexuality from blending with the activation of the
spiritual mind, we can also say this: it is part of
the spiritual quest to deny fragmentation; to come
upon wholeness -- e.g., along the lines indicated in
(my mentor's) "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" by
David Bohm, but expanded upon along the lines far
more developed in such as the traditions of tantric
kundalini yoga and in certain strands of mahayana
buddhism, as well as jainism, as well as in features
of mostly every other religion. That this is at odds
with the augustinian and, even more, the lutherian 
attempt to divorce the human being from the spiritual,
and that it may be at odds with the laws in some
societies, makes us say: you should be fully aware
of the laws in your country, and relate to them with
dignity, even as you work, utilising whatevery you
may have of freedom of expression to change what must
be changed according to your intuitive perception and
your own experience through your own heart and with
your own logic. But one thing ought to be clear:
nobody can meaningfully claim that you are breaking
any law if you in private watch a variety of computer
display elements also of porn, and reflect over these,
so as to make up your own mind. (Paying money to a group
producing such porn, or even communicating any details
with them, is legally another issue altogether, but
that, too, one can legally work to change -- for
instance by totally removing all banning of prostitution 
at the level of societal laws, which are amongst the
most hypocritical laws in existence.) Remember the quote,
always, from a character in an Ibsenplay. We have given 
one version of it somewhere else, here is another way to 
translate the same (from Norwegian):

  "Who are in majority, is it the wise, or it is the
  -- Henrik Ibsen

And then, having covered the general ground -- how the
wholeness of the human being, a born temple of the
divine, reflected in the greatest artworks and, by virtue
of artistic work throughout the ages, coming to light
by getting a sense of an also meditative order through
the order of nature, also the nature of the splendid
young nude human being, usually a girl -- we must also
then ask: what type of society do we want, relative to
nudity? What do we WANT to be the education of our
youngest, and how do we wish that their minds evolve as
they grow up?
  If I can be personal about a couple of points, I will
at once saying that when I went to school as a kid, I
learned that most about school was hell, that most
teachers -- not all, thank God, -- but most, were so
despicable that it became an ethos amongst me and my
friends to do things against them. One must do MUCH
against them, each week, or else the universe will seem
to get sort of knocked out of kilter. For fun, I once
or twice returned to my old school as a temporary
teacher, just for one or two days. I must have recounted
something of how I felt relative to the teachers, because
in the following weeks, I kept running into kids I
didn't recognise, but who must have been in one of my
classes. One of them had her parent beside her as she
said: "You're the first teacher I've met that knows how
much it is possible to hate the school."
  It was also quite clear to me -- and I was horrified
to see that it covered that area to me -- that EVERYTHING
including drugs that teachers held as bad was held as good
by a plurality of the kids. (This also at some other
schools I tried, for some days, to be a step-in teacher
in.) I tried to draw the line and say that there's
a difference between this, that and the other thing, but
there was an absolute fascination in their eyes at the
barest mention of drugs. And these were kids from
relatively affluent families.
  In the area of sex, then, what is the case is that
the bourgouoise morals (however that terrible b-word is
written) held by teachers is automatically negated by
many or most of the pupils. This signifies the following:
the teachers don't have credibility. And this translates,
of course, to the attempts of the governments in the
various societies -- such as seen in the United Kingdom
-- to censor sex. Their inherent lack of credibility
echoes that of the teachers relative to pupils. They are
merely cementing their absence of moral leadership by
engaging in such censorship. And the unsavoury marriage
between governmental leaders and the leaders of the
advertisement-based billion dollar companies to 'root
out the evil' of the net merely enforces a sense that
the majority of the population hasn't got anything at
all to look up to, as regards spiritual light or any
ethical flame, when it comes to the leadership; it is
just such petty acts that enforces that not just some
healthy minorities, but ANY minority may come to be
attractive to the population.
  I can say that I hate drugs, -- not because of what
they've done to me, because I haven't ever used any of
them but enough whiffs of marihuana to know the funny
feeling it can give in the spinal chord and the extra
musical sense of perception it can stimulate to -- and
when I say I hate drugs, because I see it ruins the
brains and looks and general health of people, it does
make an impact on those who I say it to, I can say that.
But that's because I don't have the stamp of a censoring
authority on me. I have a credibility, also because I
am willing to separate A and B from C; I think it is
utterly disgusting that the most wonderful creation in
this universe, or multiverse, the young untainted-by-
culture human body is censored away, and its sexual lusts
are connected to some kind of demonic impulse instead
of being seen rightly, as a divine and good and angelic
impulse -- I think censorship of the images of the nudes
and the sexual activity of the nudes whether from adults
or kids, whether during work hours, study hours or
leisure hours is absolutely disgusting and worthy of hate.
But I also think drugs should be hated, in the sense of
what they, like much cultivation of food, can do to a
body merely within a couple of seasons. There is another
way of doing drugs, in a society we haven't seen yet,
where minute elements are used elegantly and in ways that
are randomized so as to prevent the knowledge that goes
along with addiction -- quite in contrast to the 'open
source' approach to all things alcohol, tobacco, and
drugs in these days. (More about this elsewhere, or at
another time).
  But much drugs make a sexual person unsexy, and does
so very quickly. Also because the drugs at once do
wierd things to the brain, if done regularly and over
many months, and these wierd things in turn make the
person gain something other than a good sense of
discernment in clothes, in dance, in modes of expression,
and ways of acting in general. And sexuality is the
expression of the full fitness of the human being,
however much we fathom the timeless concept of the
stupid blonde.
  There's also the question of violence. Somehow violence
is not censored as much as sex: does not that speak
volumes of what is going on here? Sex is censored out of
a number of purely irrational impulses which have been
bundled together at a partially subconscious level in
humankind. And it is just such repression, suppression,
when mirrored in the psyche, the inner psychological
society, of the human being and human child, that paves
the ground for adult hysteria, for peculiar and also
insane behaviour for those who have grown up with such
internalised irrationality. There are those who claim
that the typical suppression of sexuality in the modern
societies -- and it IS suppressed, even if the degree
of suppression varies sharply from the most barren
societies to the various european ones -- that this
suppression is a leftover of earlier fundamentalist
rigid religious views. Thousands of years of rigid
denial of sex do make an impact even on people who
strive to attain to nobler meditations than those of the
sex- and women-denying writers on which Augustine and
Luther are topping the list.
  Personally, every adult I have had the fortune to know
who have had a liberated, uncensored and even wild time
sexually as kid has developed personality traits of
unusual generosity, exceptional insightfulness, and
expressive capabilities ranking them as some of the most
brilliant citizens, also in public life.
  Those who stamp children out of the realm of exposure
to the diversity of human behaviour also sexually are
stamping themselves out of respectability and
credibility, and they are shutting out the possibility
for themselves to have the innocence as that of a child,
which, according to the Bible, is necessary to enter that
sought-for Kingdom of Heaven. Translated into another
vocabulary -- that of karma, or, as I call a related
concept, goyon, -- those who prevent children from being
in contact with the refined expressions of lofty
sexuality are getting stains on their karma; all good
karma goes to those who work for a compassionate anarchy
in the realm of sexuality and many other related themes.
When this is the practise, for the societies so lucky
that this becomes the practise, then we'll see that the
drug-thing and the extremist-thing can be related to in
wholly new, and much less complicated ways. For all the
opposition to the 20th century-like established
authorities feed on each other and nothing is more
damaging for the human brain than being exposed to a
society that is opposed to the blending of childish
innocence with healthy sexuality.
  Let's also remind ourselves that the best of science,
and the best of classical psychological writing, are on
our side when we claim the right to work for what I
call, and have called since about 2003, a compassionate
anarchy. It is in every family's interest to explore
such a long-term tolerant view of spiritual sexuality
in which childishness and the youngest members aren't
denied, and there must be a breaking, before long, with
the bonds to the repressive extremist past of humanity,
and its torrents of quasi-morality and pseudo-
spirituality. This also must mean that we must make
clean breaks with all typical establishments in the
spiritual area -- not merely with extremist sects.
We must do this in quiet, but strong ways, in ways which
respect privacy, and which work long-term, and in ways
which are willing to risk unpopularity, for it isn't
always possible to combine wise action with popular
action. But the inner quality of joy when there is real
progress in such an area is, surely, insurpassable.

Well well! As for the quote above,
  "Who are in majority, is it the wise, or it is the
  -- Henrik Ibsen
let us be clear that the Norwegian source-word in
this sentence -- "klok" -- cannot be translated into
"clever" or "smart" in this context, and thereby I
challenge the Gutenberg.org translation of this
play. The word "klok" is used in the same connotation
as the word "vis", and both are associated with concepts
such as wise and sound and fair behaviour, whereas the
notion of "clever" typically belong to another word-group

Anyhow, whatever the majority is, be wise! And it is 
plausible, and not illusory nor hubris, we feel, to 
suggest that the non-mind-imitating relaxed approach to 
computing taken with yoga6d.org search engine, and the
use of the Yoga6d.org/look.htm search engine portal,
and the associated offline Personal Computer tools of
the G15 kind that we've made, can be part of a wise 
person's standard toolset. Good luck with it always!