Original rendering by Aristo T.
of an ordinary photo from www.supermodels.nl


Link to page 2
(in this archive, highest numbered page has newest 
articles, while page number 1 and 2 are foundational 
and kept stable, with higher-numbered pages regularly
updated as articles find their way into Big Art
Booklets or other permanent publications)

For copyright conditions of these archived
news articles by S Henning W B Reusch, whose
artist name is Aristo Tacoma, see the topscript
of where they first appeared, namely at the
'comments on general features of breaking
news in world economy section' of the worldwide
standard search engine Yoga6d.org (and its
various entirely identical entry-points,
which are named after many of the near-ascii
languages it is supporting, -- we use these
various entry-points so as to distribute the
traffic to this search engine. Cfr
www.yoga6d.org/economy.htm. To get into
anyone of the search entry points, click at
the 'search now' drawing at the front of
yoga6d.org, then click on the next image,
the one about 'saving humanity', and you
(upper as lowercase are the same), optionally
with digits inside, for a selection of words
found on top at the front of most webpages.
As for how to anglify a word written in another
language, you have to try out what works -- the
rules for translation into the ascii set e.g.
from something like the rather different russian
language are simplistic and not done according
to the context in which the letters appear.
Once you learn how to work with this search
engine, and learn how to do search-within-a-page
when you get many results with the browser
'find-text-in-page' command, you will see that
your overall productivity in all areas of life
is enhanced, and the freedom from imposed
simulations of 'contexts' (such as by boolean
'AND' across a lot of the internet) essentially
turns out to be stimulating, because it is
predictable, straightforward, and honest in
a computer program mechanical way that you
can and will learn to harness.

But now, for the archive. In the archive,
we keep the same type of sequence as in the
economy.htm news section -- namely, the newest
on top. 

[[[Spelling variations are part of the
soul of writing and convey information
on its own, as does variations in lineshift

[[[Once in a while we will remove something
from this archive section so the overall
quantity is at all time quite moderate;
for those who wish reprints of earlier
works they will then with some level of
probability be able to trace them as
chapters in published nonfiction books
by this author.]]]


-- People who are scientists in name only try to make a 
career out of more-or-less doomsday predictions in the 
wake of natural occurrencies of extreme weather
[As of 2011:1:16 (early morning, as for GMT hours)]
Author of article can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
Science is too important to be left to scientific 
institutions. We need meta-science, or metascience: here 
we ask: 
And in this regard, we pick the best bits of the more 
mature writings of Karl Popper, which are accepted 
worldwide as pretty foundational for all scientific 
institutions, and say that:
  * science is a quality of certain formulations and 
certain observational activities related to checkable 
statements, it is not a quality of certain people or 
  This has to be said because -- again -- science is too 
important to be left to the scientific institutions, and  
to those people who have got some papers, thinking 
themselves star-high in intelligence (but the papers 
were given them on Earth), where it says that these 
people are scientists, and USING THE PRESTIGE OF THE 
WORD SCIENCE they usher forth publications and give 
interviews and rake in the goods of social prestige and 
money by offering also not very noteworthy observations 
in the cloak, with the hat, in the name of science. 
  In particular, some scientists -- or, more precisely, 
some very human human beings -- are, each time there is 
a flood or some extreme weather, trying to cash in on it 
by interpreting it in a way which fits their own 
  It is however so that the next hundred years of 
technological development and intercontinental 
collaboration and, indeed, the whole integrated world 
conversation on what humanity must do next, in order not 
to sink into: extreme pollution, extreme waste, extreme 
lack of natural forests, extreme lack of clean water, 
extreme lack of useful soil, extreme lack of food, 
extreme lack of fundamental vital facilities, and 
extreme quantity of people thrown together with few or 
none rivers, little of such as fridges, housing, 
electricity, transport means, computers, telephones, air 
conditioners and so on and so forth -- in order, then, 
not to sink into all this, we must do science -- all of 
us -- and apply a level of scientific dialogue with a 
certain willingness to express checkable statements and 
honor the diversity of possible interpretations. 
  Cfr the acknowledgement, it cites some example of how 
people using the hat of science try to convert disasters 
to fortify some very narrow propositions. But when they 
do so, they typically say things which, as a by-product, 
convey support to that gloomy view which at present 
pervades teenagers across the globe, and which prevents 
action, namely that it has gone too far already.
  I have proposed certain humane extensions of the best 
bits of what Popper suggested towards (much) greater 
inclusiveness of intuition which is harnessed in a 
sophisicated way. What with all this and with my own 
studies of the world's environment through reports, 
through thinking them over, and by my own intuition, it 
is to me clear that the stance which it is fruitful to 
broad sense, letting go of any particular focus on 
shifts in climate, but rather working on ALL PARTICULAR 
  In order to do this, we must explore each 
environmental area without having a general pervading 
sense of irreversible changes for the worse in the 
overall background of things. Yes, there are some global 
temperature changes and sea level changes and yes there 
will be more. But it is a waste of time to try to 
control Earth as a whole -- and, in addition, quite a 
megalomaniac stance to take. All the focus on CO2 is 
like trying to wash the floor of a house where 
everything else is in disrepair. The real focus must go 
to a BUNDLE of concrete concerns, together with a 
realisation that -- possibly to a larger extent than 
before -- there will be extreme weathers and also vast 
disasters, here and there, both natural and human-made 
and in between -- and so we must build up all sorts of 
meaningful dialogues and plan and then put into action 
these plans for a multi-faceted environmental balance 
contribution approach which surely is at least as 
important as the focus on world peace and which go hand 
in hand with a will to benefit as much as possible the 
quality of living for as many as possible.
  In order to do this, we need science -- all of us. But  
then we must realize that with all the reports of what 
goes on in so-called scientific institutions of 
corruption, fakes, coercion and a general lack of 
willingness to engage in pluralistic discourses -- and 
we can readily imagine all that is not reported -- 
it must be clear that all humanity needs science, a good  
science, a science that is too important to be left to 
the scientific institutions.
  In order to liberate science from the also the higher 
institutions (such as the rediculously named Royal 
Society in Britain which is dominated by hysterical 
people like Richard Dawkins who humours himself trying 
to put the Pope to jail, no doubt out of the best 
motives), we must cultivate a discipline of metascience, 
where each one in freedom from the cliques and elitist 
structures can learn to discern what is scientific 
checkable in what ANY person comes with, from that which 
is narrow-minded, biased, and so forth. The scientific 
spirit, obviously, as a normative ideal -- which is not 
reflected in any of the so-called leading scientific 
journals at all, not Nature, not Science, not any one of 
them -- is to honor wonder as the primary form of 
perceptive openess about the world. 
  To honor wonder means that one must put one's own 
assumptions in parentheses, as best one can, rather than 
engage in thesis and anti-thesis on the level of 
  One must also appreciate when others are pointing out 
that such and such is not put forth in a spirit of open 
  What is rational must then be open to exploration. It 
is scientific to be open-minded, and nonscientific to 
declare whole classes of alternative perspectives as 
nonscientific in the absolute sense. Rather, each
viewpoint that a fanatical person offers -- such as
those who stick to fundamentalist creationist viewpoints
according to an ancient book -- can be divided into
pieces out of which something can be extracted which
can be converted to checkable propositions, such as
Brian Goodwin has done, and many others, who do not
agree with darwinism nor with neodarwinism; but the
dominant scientific institutions around the globe
have, most of them, declared from the outset that
all alternatives to the THEORY of darwinism is per
se nonscientific. But it is this declaration that
is nonscientific. The THEORY of darwinism in its
many modifications is one of thousands of logical,
coherent, rational, consistent possible propositions
to make about the existence, background and upcoming
evolution of living biological organisms including
humans. The fact that some people are hotheadedly
in favour of some ancient rubbish doesn't mean that
nothing IN PRINCIPLE of alternatives cannot be
scientific. It is this PRINCIPAL OPENNESS that
Karl Popper, in his The Open Society and Its Enemies,
declared as the normative definition of science, and
-- in fact -- this has been accepted. It will now
have to be applied, and when we apply the criterion,
we see that scientific institutions are, in general
and by and large, not worthy of being called such.
  We need therefore a new education, and journalists
must all get it -- a philsophical kind, involving
what traditionally but somewhat lamely was called
'theory of science' or 'philosophy of science', but
which more forcefully can be called meta-science
or metascience, where we can also speak of 'tools
of metascience' (such as the F3 language, with a
new scientific tutorial being made at present for
it, for release on norskesites.org/fic3 soon).
  This must be rephrased until we change the present
mesmerizing influence of people who are scientists
in name only, but not in content. So: It is scientific 
to say of each person, also child, that each person can 
engage in scientific work, contribute to science in the 
REAL sense of science, outside of all universities and 
magazines. Indeed, in this sense, each person who 
schools herself in meta-science, or the question of what 
science both is and what it should be, is a kind of 
walking, independent university in her own right. 

ABC Television in New York, North America, 
(found through a link by www.wn.com),
dated 2011:1:13 and entitled
"Raging Waters In Australia and Brazil Product of Global Warming
-- scientists: climate change no longer a theory, it's happening".


-- Young girls are looking to web xxx for esthetics, 
with the traditional leg&face fashion magazines considered second 
[As of 2011:1:13 (early morning, as for GMT hours)]
Author of article can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
We all know it -- at least if we think twice about what 
each one of us who live in any internet-dominated city 
have experienced the past couple of seasons. We do not 
need any statistics. Some breaking news -- such as in 
the extremely well-known example (used by 
environmentalists of the less optimistic type) of the 
frog which is fried so slowly it doesn't jump -- come so 
slowly that nobody jumps (not even the American Family 
Association, in their vague league with all the magazines 
which used to have a copyright claim of sorts on the 
prettiest girls, the so-called supermodels, but on the 
AFA condition of them swaying away from anything 
playboy-like, submitting to censorship of their finer 
organs). And this has come so slowly that few has 
jumped, -- in fact, this is a different type of fry, one 
that permits life to succeed. It is more like a tan, no 
need to jump.
  For instance, the girls you have spoken to -- young, 
skinny, good-looking, some rich by inheritance, some a 
little bit rich, some having to put up with a job at the 
supermarket, but lacking nothing in glamour for that 
reason -- who, either with flushed faces, or with an 
innocent prettily shameless face speaks / admits that 
porn is quite inspiring to them. Webpornpages. 
  And that they themselves or their best friends quite 
often, or at least once, have done something -- for fun. 
In contrast to The Fashion Industry, which is literally 
an industry, complete with factories in less democratic 
places such as Burma, -- pornwebsites are not always an 
industry. They may be purely for sheer fun, though some 
make a profit, big or small.
  It is at the pornwebsites you find the supermodels of 
the 21st century. It is at the free no-credit-card 
necessary xxxsites-all-our-virgins-are-above-18 type of 
pages (but turn off cookies and javascript and flash, 
because a huge percentage of them got viruses) -- we 
find the prettiest girls looking at photos of the 
prettiest girls, without as much as a g-string for five 
bucks on them, in order to get an inspiration for their 
daily life and nightly partying, and in how to dance, 
how to move, and what to emphasize about themselves.
  Before Internet, there was Naomi Campbell -- I mean
before Internet totally took over the world. She was the  
first final complete manifestation of the absolute end 
to any racism that could possibly have existed at the 
essence level of the fashion industry. She reigned 
supreme, ever since she equipped the front of the 
then-also-reigning Time Magazine with all her colors and 
all her skinniness and all her new female strength. 
  She was the ultimate IDEA of the supermodel: and that 
energy, beyond any particular name or persona, now lives 
in this blessed thing we call The World Wide Web. 
  Across all the world, girls are relishing in a sense 
of what it means to be blossoming in their youth, 
without having to have landed a ten-million-dollar 
contract or picked up by chance at the beaches of Los 
Angeles or wherever. Each one of them knows that there 
is an ocean of free beauty into which they, too, with a 
little bit luck of the camera settings, the lights, and 
their recent diet and training scheme, can have a swim 
-- possibly a long swim in. 

-- In the next hundred years, preparedness and 
balance summarised in nine points -- this is written
for politicians, voters and scientists alike 
[As of 2011:1:12 (early morning, as for GMT hours)]
Author of article can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
Twelve months ago today, as I write this, a major 
earthquake hit Haiti and created a humanitarian 
disaster, and Haiti is as yet still in total crisis.
  And the past week has seen Queensland at the 
Australian continent flooded in the extreme, in floods 
which are at least the worst in decades.
  Every year there are situations which call for 
rethinking. Let's do the rethinking.
  First of all, let's concede that humanity has come to 
stay. There will be no disaster that finishes off 
humanity as a whole. Earth will persist. Etc.
  Though some money-hungry film-makers tried to make a 
great point out of the fact that some otherwise 
resourceful Maya indians centuries ago ran out of paper 
(or the equivalent to paper) when they tried to make a 
calendar complete with all bank holidays and other 
festivitas going into the 21st century, stopping around 
2011, 2012 or 2013 or so, this shouldn't make anyone believe 
in any apocalypse. (If the Mayans were so great and wise  
in every sense, why did they make such a mess out of
their own once-ripe civilisation? And don't come with
the mythical answer. They were a superstitious lot.)
  Also, Nostradamus wasn't extremely genious for 
predicting that the religious types of conflicts he
saw in his own time would also exist in the future.
Exit Nostradamus. (If you want a watered-down version
of Nostradamus by a psychic person, read Ingo Swann's
book The Nostradamus Factor, published in the 1990s,
but I am not conceeding that Swann's got everything right,
not by any means.)
  And there are plenty of quasi-gurus and quasi-priests 
and quasi-rabbis and quasi-imams (and you name it) who 
try to get their followers even a bit more fanatically 
following them (and giving them even a bit more dollars) 
by claiming to have some divine right to predict an 
apocalypse -- if not with certainty, then with a 
likelihood UNLESS the sect gets to do its work, and 
pretty fast at that. Bullshit. Poppygock. Rubbish. There 
is to be no apolypse. No UFO will come. There will be 
just us chickens around, and what deeper miracles the 
universe have to offer at the meditative level, and Earth
has to cope with 9 billion people etc and etc and so
forth, before there is some kind of humane and meaningful
overall motion towards a truly more green balanced society
in absolutely every sense, a long long time into the future
-- but not so long you can't identify yourself with it
and get an enthuasiam that can make you stronger in the
face of much pain, confusion, hard discussions and also
for some people at some times, some very hard living 
conditions. Identify with humanity and get energy from
it, it is an old trick, just consult the books by the
philosopher Bertrand Russell. And avoid legal highs,
not just illegal highs. Natural highs are better, the
natural highs that comes from belief into the FAR
future, although NEAR future for many sometimes can
seem bleak and grim indeed; and from working on this
in ways which preserve the spirit of playfulness for
there is more wisdom in this than in fanatical idealism.
  So, we have to cope with the fact that we all have to 
live with the consequences of our actions. There is no 
total death of soul, no nothingness, no nihilism, there is 
only the on-goingness of human lives and our conscience 
will have to be conceded to be persisting, into all future 
decades and centuries and, well, there is no escape
from that, no point in dangling those skulls, rather
focus on life. No point, therefore, in starving oneself to 
death nor eating oneself to death: rather, do -- as Arne 
Naess suggested, in his private interpretation of 
Spinoza's ethics -- anchor yourself in Generositas 
(which ought to, extending Naess's vision, to include 
compassion and empathy) and Fortitudo. Generosity and 
Strength. Keep being generous, keep being strong.
  In order, then, for humanity to make it as best as 
humanity can -- allowing for a tremendous amount of 
bodily pain, but also allowing for more subtle schemes 
of justice than that which is open to human thought (not 
all bodily pain is soul-pain, far from it, and 
soul-pain, as Socrates pointed out, is incomparatively 
worse than body-pain), we have to make some points. 
These points we must clarify and provide a focus at in a 
positive language, where possible, and when need be, a 
bit negative, but not more negative than it has to. For 
in hard times -- and much of humanity will have a hard 
time, no doubt, in the 21st century, which we have seen 
the first 1/10 of, -- and the ambition must be that 
humanity will have a better time in the 22nd century and 
on, by a sense of intelligently intended evolution of 
human joy.
  But let's get to the points.
  The floods of Queensland, of India and elsewhere in 
recent seasons, of New Orleans some years ago, the 
quakes and their corrollary tsunamis of Indonesia and 
Java and Pakistan, and so forth in recent years, and the 
quake of Haiti, -- these and many more pieces of 
reported events must be seen in togetherness with the 
extreme exhaustion levels of cities with mile-long car 
queues and constant smog and all that -- so as to 
propose, as a package, these main points. I will -- to 
honor the diversity of thinkers and scientists and 
politicians who want to give their own interpretations 
of these points, not interpret the following points, but 
merely emphasize that hard, tough dialogue on 
qualitative content of holistic measures must go BEFORE 
any dialogue on quantitative and fiscal measures, 
without being stuck in the language of the 20th century 
about these things. Generositas, and Fortitudo. Here we 
go [and acknowledging the 8 points of Deep Ecology by 
Naess and others as inspirational background for some of 
this, also recent works by Gaia-theoretician Lovejoy, 
with still other acknowledgements found in my Norwegian 
and English publications which are already, with more 
being added for 2010]:
[Note: you are free to copy an distribute this text as long as you 
keep the whole of the text fully intact, including this note, which 
says that this article was first published at www.yoga6d.org/economy.htm 
January 12, 2011. The article will be included in a paper 2011 
for a Big Art Booklet later this year. You can also translate 
this light article as long as you bring the original version written 
in English alongside it, entirely unchanged, -- also as for 
any grammatical issues.] 

-- Rumi-islam is among the winners, sharia-islam among loosers 

[As of 2011:1:3 (early morning, as for GMT hours)]
Author of article can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
Most of the world is disgusted with sharia-islam, the 
type that is infatuated with putting images of blood on 
frontpage-news, and which is working tightly with 
heroine-drug-lords eg. in Afganistan to invoke a rule 
which considers acid in girl's face a better approach 
than giving them education.
  Let us be precise: most of the world, including the 
islam parts of the world, is disgusted with 
sharia-islam, and most of the world is a bit awed about 
rumi-islam. True, there are parts which FORMALLY are in 
favour of sharia-islam, but in praxis this is so 
watered-down version of sharia that it is all about 
  What is rumi-islam? It is the mythic understanding of  
such as: 
  * the fight within each human being between the true 
passions of the spiritual heart against the smaller 
temptations of the ego
  * the awe of beauty 
  * how beauty inspires an understanding from within 
that God, or Jahve, or Allah -- beyond these names -- 
is within the heart
  * the feeling of unity among all human beings 
  * the feeling that the presence of the new world of 
potential and actual understanding of the messianic type 
is ALREADY here, where the metaphorical notions of 
transition to a heavenly thereafter are taken to refer 
to the struggle in the past which is simulation in 
humanity to come to the present understanding which is 
actualised now
  * and the importance of meditation, going beyond all 
  * with the notion of all humanity being together as if  
in a common ark 
  * where one must leave aside mere words for words 
sake, leave aside aping after teachers, and rather find 
the creative awareness in each moment afresh
Such sentiments spring from rumi-islam -- or Rumi-Islam,  
or Islam-as-the-poet-Rumi-more-or-less-would-have-it -- 
and this has penetrated the best parts of the ancient 
positive descriptions of islam, and it has, despite the 
eagerness of sharia-islam around the 2001:9:11 attacks -- 
which no longer should be called "9/11" -- because these 
numbers have a much greater function than referring to that 
date in the year 2001 when the World Trade Centers and the 
Pentagon were attacked by tourist airplanes in the USA 
-- despite all the misplaced enthusiasm in some hyper- 
apocalyptic misguided (and probably both drugged and 
threatened, in many cases) people here and there to go 
in for sharia-islam, rumi-islam is among the winners in 
the world religions.
   Simultaneously, luther-christiantiy and 
pope-christianity do not seem to be among the winners, 
rather more enigmatic, charismatic african and also 
ethiopian (coptic) forms of more poetic and in key cases 
also more reincarnation friendly versions of 
christianity, bridging to hinduism and buddhism, are 
among the winners.
  It is part of the economical and healthy environmental  
development of this planet that politicians recognise 
the abounding importance of the absolute sharp division 
between the rather bygonish sharia-islam and the poetic, 
wellcoming, compassionate rumi-islam, and that they 
contribute to actualising the understanding that the 
world wants sharia-islam expunged, and rumi-islam 
welcomed, as the only REAL presentation of islam 
anywhere where islam is to be presented, as an 
educational initiative and a cultural initiative.
  There are some bloody dictatorships on Earth which 
have not conceded much value to rumi-islam, but which 
are rather sharia-islam-like: however one might consider 
these dictatorships in the light that dictators grab 
whatever at hand -- be it a bible, a koran, Stalin's 
memoirs -- whatever it is -- and try to use it to keep 
on to power. But this doesn't mean that the population 
at all agree to such nonsense. 
  It is also rediculous to think that such attempted
scholastic divisions as 'sunni', 'shi-ite', 'sufi' and
the other types are of any interest to anyone whose
interest is humanity and God: they are hardly more
interesting than the various divisions within the
mormonic sects, competing in how fundamentalist they 
are. Sufi, of course, keeps within it a positive focus
on Rumi but the whole concept of "sufi" is stale with
overuse and overdescription. 
  The notion of Rumi-islam as a penetrating notion is
that of eclectically picking out the glimmers of true
insights and leave the mass of incoherent blunders in
the scripts alone to themselves -- the ONLY viable
approach. Here, one is no longer able to say: since
I am inspired by such-and-such approach, I "am" a
muslim, a jew, a christian, a buddhist, a hindi, anymore
than God is a muslim, a jew, a christian, a buddhist or
a hindi.
  Statistically, therefore, sharia-islam is probably in 
many senses from the 21th century and onwards quite 
negligible. Rumi-islam plays together with the other 
world religions in ways which can go together with what 
this writer has termed "neopopperian science", in ways 
which calls for pluralism and diversity of perspectives 
and worldviews.

-- Anything addictive and not very toxic can be 
good when sweetly worked-through to moderate addiction 
[As of 2010:12:27 (evening, as for GMT hours)]
Author of article can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
If anybody wonders why all the great books were written 
in the 20th century (and before), and why there is such 
a flourish of -- shall we say -- uninspired books 
(albeit experimentative, like japanese books, or 
voluminous and sensible, like Franzen) in the present 
century, look to the former prime minister of Norway, 
Gro Harlem Brundtland, for answer.
  Few like her has eradicated the possibility of smoking  
around the world, through her expert leadership of the 
World Health Organisation with a monomanic, self-asure 
  All the greatest books of the 20th century was written  
due also to the inspiration of connecting to many public  
places full of that sweet odour of cigar, cigarillos and  
cigarettes. As of today, in many countries, one has to 
put up with a combination of frisky deoderant smells 
with natural human exhaustion gases inside dance places, 
clubs, bars, airports, offices, canteens and so on. 
  The argument in an ISOLATED sense is meaningful: 
expansive exposure to intensive tobacco smoke increases 
the chances of severe illnesses. 
  Let us now widen the scope of enquiry far beyond that 
of mere tobacco -- and let me also have it said that 
this is not one who does any daily cigarettes who writes 
this. If anything, I have a reputation for being a 
health maniac.
  In order to talk health -- the agenda, we suppose, of 
the World Health Organisation, we need to talk not just 
in terms of what we eat, drink and breath, but also in 
terms of the quality and richness and plurality of our 
  What is good for a society, and this is the crux or 
the dilemma with just about every type of not too-toxic 
addictive process or thing -- is that its population 
engages in a variety of meaningful activities which 
contributes to a healthy, inspiring outlook on life, 
with sensible intuitions, empathy and perspectives 
constantly refreshed by creative input, and that the 
duties and work functions are done as well. ALL this is 
challenged by ANY type of addictive behaviour which is 
so that a person does nothing but one or two things all 
day long, every day of the week, practically speaking.
  And this is therefore a question far greater than 
merely how to make one person more healthy: it is about 
the health of society, the future of humanity: its 
relationship to all things addictive.
  In a Wall Street Journal article, the journalist (cfr 
acknowledgement) speaks, in passing, of why he let go of 
a certain computer gadget (which has in it the capacity 
to be used for all sorts of noble, meaningful purposes): 
it has, he writes, TOO ADDICTIVE games. He also observes   
that computer games is an addiction many people are almost 
trying to get into, instead of quitting.
  Imagine a person who, without a whiff of a cigarillo, 
say, a couple of times a week, would do nothing except 
sulk, carry out daily duties, and in general lead a 
boring existence, full of grudges and 
what-could-have-been: but with some whiffs, not only 
writes novels, but also is such a daily dose of shine 
that other people gets a tan merely by being in the 
proximity of this individual. Scoff then at the 
arguments of our otherwise fairly high-integrity former 
norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland: it would 
be absolutely idiotic to leave it all away. 
  On the contrary, a society which welcomes such 
activities as are intensely satisfying when done but on 
an extremely moderate level -- be it with alcohol, mild 
drugs, pure tobacco, bdsm, computer games -- in all its 
public quarters could open up to far, far greater health 
of its population. It must then also chuck all those 
negative affirmation -- the vain attempt to scare -- 
which by law has gotten into the labels of many types of 
products, be them sexual, alcoholic or tobaccoish. 
  The question which must be addressed however is then: 
how can one moderate addictive processes and things? 
What does it really take?
  It takes something far more drastic, yet more 
acceptable to any rational person, namely to work 
through each and every product with an orientation to 
combat addiction, and ensure moderation.
  For instance, in terms of tobacco, it would mean 
leaving out all of the tobacco which enhances its 
addictiveness -- so to move from cigarettes to the very 
smallest types of cigars, also called cigarillos.
  It means in terms of computer games that there is some  
talk when starting up the game in non-moralistic, fun 
terms that this is not intended to be addictive; that 
the game calls for an early quit of itself; that it does 
so leaving the person with a feeling that, even if it 
were just two minutes play, it was certainly worth it.
Article by BRETT ARENDS from Wall Street Journal, 
Dow Jones & co, (owned by Murdoch group), USA, 2010:12:21.

-- What with a greater percentage of the world's population, 
it seems, being believers in some form of God or another, 
is this significant for world economy development? Obviously 
-- And about cars
[As of 2010:12:13 (afternoon, as for GMT hours)]
Author of article can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
 We already know of at least one very clear example where  
world economy is affected by a religious belief code: 
the not insignificant amount of banks which have 
accomodated at least some of the zero-interest rate 
approach to loans which is part of the muslim faith.
  And in several prosperous countries where the 
christian populatiion is in majority, a not 
insignificant proportion of the GNP goes to further the 
activity of preachers, or to their more or less 
idealistic enterprises inside and outside their country.
  But there is a whole more deeper tack on this: which 
is to say, the actions and interactions of an economical 
and also ecological kind (these two are always 
intertwined) are pervaded and suffused, influenced by 
and in many ways regulated by, the worldview that each 
person has.
  For instance, more than seven out of ten in the USA 
are said to believe in God: this is a worldview. Atheism 
is another worldview; there are cases of overlappings of  
these two also.  
  Economical theory often operates with the notion that 
people seeks to maximize their own profit. But worldview 
is affecting the very concept of what we consider most 
properly our own, or ourselves. 
  In order to have any real consciousness of the 
variables and parameters, the functions and motives, 
which contribute to cause at least part of the dance of 
the world economical currents, one must look entirely 
beyond merely egotistical stances, for the simple reason 
that in most countries, these are not merely far from 
the only stance people take, but indeed far from the 
stance that the majority take.
  In other words, only a holistic-as-well-as-egotistic 
perspective of the motivational patterns of the human 
being is rich enough to point to the reality which rules 
all the giant economical curves on this globe. 
  Many economical thinkers have pointed out elements of 
this -- such as, when, several years ago, there were 
conferences inspired by buddhism focussing on 
compassionate economy. But the very simple point I am 
making here, because I rarely see it emphasized, is that 
the holistic stance is not merely a moral stance: it is 
the nuts and bolts of world economy as it already is, 
although -- it is true -- it is at times very hard to 
clearly get into focus. It is there, though, and 
percentagewise it influences in ways so strong that 
without the perspective of holism one simply has got no 
compass at all. Indeed, this is what I earlier sought to 
include in what I then called (some years ago) in the 
concept of 'interactivity economy' (see mywbook.txt). 
  It is part of the understanding of the realities of 
economy that we also realize that the patterns in 
reality are very much greater than what any human mind 
can encompass. However, some forms of spiritual 
worldviews are very positive indeed as to the 
possibility for the mind to engage in intuitive 
perceptions. These perceptions, which may be connected 
to a sense of partaking in a field of generosity (in the 
sense that doing good builds up the potential, or goyon,  
to reap in the rewards of good intuitions also on 
economy), may come from sensitivity and intuition 
training -- for instance, psychokinetics (where subtle 
changes in muscle strength are explored together with 
mental yes-no questions, on the principle that strength 
of a muscular kind, and mental coherence, go 
synchronously together).
  However -- and this is part of the whole point -- it 
also means that when anybody in the majority which 
exists at least in most countries which offer a 
believable statistics (and with a very high degree of 
likelihood also in large atheistically ruled countries 
like China), the majority, I mean, which has a spiritual 
or religious worldview, a belief in God -- when anybody 
who has such a worldview does economical transactions, 
it may be motivated as much as by the spirit of 
enterprise and participation as much as by the idea of 
reaping in goods for oneself.
  As an example, think of what James Bond as conceived 
in the books by the writer Ian Fleming would be without 
the notion of participation in casino-like gaming with 
money. The Casino Royal spirit infuses the writings of 
Mr Fleming in mostly everyone of his hard, brutal, 
elegant, classical books to an extent which entirely 
overshadows any question of Bond himself reaping in 
financial goods. Obviously, participation in the world 
as a whole can also happen by something such as currency 
day-trading. This connectedness has its own joy, and the  
natural extension of the egotistical form of economy to  
embrace something like this would be to say, in the 
words of Jiddu Krishnamurti, that joy is greater than 
pleasure and pain. Economy, in other words, is not a 
proper field of research, unless we realize that the joy 
of participation may be much, much greater than the pain  
losing money, and also much greater, of course, than the  
pleasure of getting money.  
  The approach of the double bottom line, therefore, is 
the 21st century necessity in economical thinking: the 
two lines signify -- yes, we are interested in budget 
balance, AND, yes, even more importantly than short-term 
budget balance, as long as we can endure it, is holistic  
participation, the balance of joy -- and indeed, the 
love of one's neighbour.
  In this understanding, we should look afresh at what 
the most reasonable technological developments are 
likely to be, for instance with regard to ecologically 
sound cars.
  In the early 1970s, big, square, gasoline-thirsty cars 
such as the Lincoln were beginning to get phased out in 
favour of what eventually developed into the little 
bubbles with hundreds of computer chips and several 
engines and several types of batteries and gasoline 
and/or diesel and/or gas intake as well. But what we had 
up until about 1975 was a living first-hand ecological 
relationship to the engine along the lines indicated by 
Robert M Pirsig in his classical book, which sold in 
millions after having been turned down by more than one 
hundred publishers, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle 
Maintenance (he and his wife visited Oslo in the 
mid-1990s and I had the joy of listening to his lecture 
co-arranged with a motorcycle assocation in Oslo, where 
he pointed out how difficult it was to get his book 
published before, obviously, it sold in many millions).
We then re-arranged his talk into interview style, with 
the blessing of Pirsig and his wife, and published in 
the magazine I was one of two main editors for at the 
time, and which I had been one of three to initiate, the 
norwegian Flux magazine (this interview form was 
produced by Ida Nathalie Kierulf).
  The notion of first-hand is this: it is not so damn 
difficult to handle a machine which is made to be 
handled by a layman. But what we have seen with the 
hybrid 2010 ecological style of car is that if anything 
goes wrong, the module has to be replaced, for it is put 
together in a high-tech laboratory somewhere. 
  While a short-term economical thinking may like people  
to avoid, like the do in Cuba, do their own repairs, it 
is very unlikely that the sense of lack of participation 
in the daily life machines is accomodating the type of 
ecological/economical holistic development that the 
world -- this Earth -- need in the 21st century.
  I call for a loosening of how strict measures of an 
ecological emission / electricity consumption kind is 
put on electric cars, and -- though Tesla car is cute -- 
a re-introduction of the sense of love of the square and  
big and bulky and Lincoln-like, alongside the first-hand  
type of mechanics that one can fix on oneself, -- in a 
context where the whole world gets together to not only 
get better and safer batteries, but also more 
inexpensive electricity supplies, and more intensive 
availability of electricity (about the latter, parts of 
Israel has been able to go further than most other 
countries in making city-places friendly to elcars).
  In having bigger cars, we can have plenty of safe 
old-style batteries, as long as the new types of 
batteries (which, unlike laptop batteries -- are 
mostly very safe and very well-tested) have not come 
yet. These batteries, filling up some of the bulk of the 
cars, can go together with pure electrical engines, 
which are easy to fix, and which are not in need of 
airtravel with new modules and throwing old modules on 
the trashheaps. It is however the role of the state not 
only to make regulations which consciously emphasize 
first-hand mechanical buildable pure electric big cars, 
but which also lay the grounds for very inexpensive 
electricity and a great deal of availability of 
electricity. In building a new type of extremely safe 
nuclear electricity generating stations in a standard 
way, overseen by United Nation agencies with a huge 
budget, these can not only create a whole new rise of 
elcars all across the world, but this electricity can 
also be used to extract clean drinking water both from 
salt sea water and from dirty lake water for instance in 
Africa, China and India.  
  Politically, it means that a completely new set of 
priorities ought to get into the environementalist 
groups. For instance, Greenpeace, while obviously doing 
a bit of good with their animal-protecting actions, are 
among the groups that could strongly influence the world 
if they suddenly realized what a bonus to Nature it 
would if world electricity became virtually a free item, 
alongside big, bulky el-cars which each can fix on for 
themselves. Their capacity to influence politicians and 
voters by startling actions could be harnessed within 
such new priorities. I do believe this is a golden mean 
-- the obvious way -- and not a compromise. Free world 
electricity and much more clean available water 
everywhere would also take away very many tendencies at 
present to wars. The present companies, such as BP, 
which have a focus on oil, could be part of the 
spearheading towards a nonoil economy. The present 
companies, such as GM and Toyota, which have a focus on 
cars, could be part of a spearheading towards a 
first-hand big squarish bulky elcar development. And 
those countries which today have the most economical 
advantages of oil production could be the ones who most 
ardently and with the most political power get to set 
the new standards for the terrorist-safe electricity 
generating power plants of the nuclear kind.
  All this, then, as natural and obvious part of what we  
can call a holistic economy, or an interactivity 
economy, where affluene is not merely what one has got 
one's bank accounts, but there is also such as 
intellectual capital, integrity capital -- call it what 
you want.

-- An Open Society With Limits Has Better 
Chances of Avoiding Wars 
[As of 2010:12:10 (evening, as for GMT hours)]
Author of article can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
When is an action right? It is right when it is founded 
on good intentions, and, broadly speaking and as far as 
we can tell, has good effects. In a world which is 
extremely more rich in content than human knowledge can 
even begin to cover completely, the codification of some 
actions into lawful and others as criminal or unlawful 
must, no matter what, have masses of compromises in it.
  Karl Popper wrote about The Open Society and Its 
Enemies (and listed, as is known by quite a few, marxism 
as one of its enemies). Here, ideas important for 
humanity are to be shared AND criticised, in order that 
they get tested against reality in a variety of ways -- 
some ways in which I have proposed extensions of, by the 
way, in what I call a "neopopperian" approach to 
  There is at present a very public conversation -- 
engaging also leaders of several countries -- as to 
whether someone, like Mr Julian Assange, who has got, "as 
a gift", a couple of CDs with petty diplomatic stuff of 
the classified kind, classified not just because it is 
secret, but also because it is dumb -- whether someone
who has got such a gift is engaging in a criminal
action by giving it further, in the form of mass-
  As Hillary Clinton, USA's Secretary of State, pointed 
out, there is a sharp distinction between what is 
implemented policy and what is thought to be a possible 
policy during such time as internal documents are
written. If the latter is presented as the former, 
this is extremely unhelpful. In the present context, ABC 
News indicates that Mr Assange will possibly be charged 
under some espionage law in the USA for his release of 
masses of classified diplomatic papers -- given to him 
by somebody else, this somebody else clearly engaging in 
a breach of law. But Russia has gone so far as to 
propose that Mr Assange ought to have the Nobel Peace 
Price for his contribution to democratic freedom of 
information. Naturally, they liked that some of the 
lettes Mr Assange published seemed to corroborate a 
suspicion that Russia has long had, namely that Nato is 
a bit more aggressive in its thoughts against Russia 
than what is purported explicit policy by Nato.
  In any case, a number of people have brought forth 
support of Mr Assange's actions to the level where we 
can speak of these people favouring what we can call an 
Open Society Without Limits.
  I will argue here that an Open Society With Limits is 
less likely to lead to war, generally speaking, and so 
much so that there ought to be laws preventing an 
absolutely free flow of ALL information, and laws making 
it criminal to put SOME information further -- even if 
it is "given as a present" by someone else.
  A side-issue is that Mr Assange, perhaps for entirely 
misconstrued reasons, perhaps as result of plots, and 
then again perhaps not, are facing other problems with 
the law. If he could prove that he has been subjected to 
an unlawful plot by the same who wants to accuse him of 
criminal offences of the espionage kind, he would make 
his overall case very much stronger. But that is another 
issue; the question in this little article is simply 
this: should the ideal laws support Open Society With 
Limits, or Open Society Without Limits?
  People who have used much drugs, or who are affected 
by alcohol and in a bad mood, may find that they are 
unable to avoid expressing what they know are pointless, 
insulting, and indeed unfounded accusations against 
others. People who are in this state of mind may create 
violence simply by their lack of suspension of their own 
expressions. Some buddhists recommend a counting to one 
hundred, if one is angry, before expressing anything, 
and then meditation rather than expression. No doubt a 
very wise advice for quite a few ill-tempered people.
  When a government decides on action, it OUGHT to look 
to a very large number of alternative action pathways, 
and think about them. Some of these would be very 
insulting indeed if made public, to the extent that they 
could make war if made public. The metaphor with the 
ill-tempered person without limits on own 
self-expression should make this point very easy to 
  Since survival, and indeed quality of life, is more 
important than any ideal about communication -- for 
communication must be a servant to the higher goal of 
surviving, and surviving well, it is clear, then, that 
such forms of communication as must happen internally 
but which could lead to massive breakdown at an 
international level if channeled onwards through open 
distribution, should by law be considered entirely 
criminal. A hyperactive practise around such laws, or
hyperallergic formulation of such laws, would however
make society so constrained it would be devoid of
happiness. But just as anarchism doesn't make sense
without police and defence of the foundation of society,
so also doesn't the open society concept, and indeed
the democracy concept, make sense without proper
limitations applied, and enforced.

-- Motivate by the in-born love of beauty
[As of 2010:12:8 (late evening, as for GMT hours)]
Author of article can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
How can one get children to be educated in such a way as  
to make a positive difference when it comes to taking 
very, very long-term responsible decision when they are 
grown-ups? This has been a constant question for 
decades, intensifying with each couple of years. And 
there are no obvious successes to speak of whatsoever. 
Every child loves nature, every adult -- except a steady 
percentage of fanatics of the population -- cares not. 
These are the dready facts, despite that, when decisions 
not involving their own personal bank accounts are 
involved, the talk may be all in favour of nature.
  At the same time, people who have the crust to call 
themselves religious, in Australia, in USA, in Europe, 
in Asia, in Africa, are censoring the experiences that 
could motivate really deeply, censoring -- also relative 
to children -- the experience of human living beings in 
their shiniest tender most flower-like prestine beauty, 
-- censoring just that which actually could make a 
  For let's be clear: there is only survival in the many  
decades, and indeed centuries, if there is quality of 
life persistence in these decades, and indeed centuries, 
to come: for quality of life means nondesperate, 
meaningful, wise decisions. But this quality of life, 
this heightened responsibility and extension of 
compassion to include the vaster environment, must come 
from a poetic ecstasy of caring for life. If the source 
of poetic ecstasy as the embracal of human living 
anatomy in its nude form also is cultivated in every 
school for all children on Earth, and not censored away 
from teens and grown-ups either, then -- to put it into 
context -- Mexico, and other places ridden will 
drug-gangs, will clear up and be healed. For then drugs 
won't be so important -- after all, let's face it, every 
intensive use of illegal drugs means that something is 
severely wrong with the ideas of happiness put into the 
children at schools. Drugs are escapes from the pains of 
not getting the right type of ecstasies. They are 
quasi-ecstasies, brains trying to lift themselves up by 
stupid means because nobody came along with the wise 
means. Because the so-called "religious" people -- who 
are usually over-eating fanatical power-hungry 
fundamentalist book-readers and not spiritual all -- are 
making sure that children, who are more at ease with 
nudity than everyone else, are shielded from the best of 
what humanity can offer in terms of evidence that life 
is worth loving: the experience of nude healthy free 
enjoying loving people.


-- Focus more on obvious science data, less on CO2 theories
[As of 2010:12:8 (evening, as for GMT hours)]
Author of article can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
There are two types of natural science, broadly and 
carelessly speaking: the one -- such as when they talk 
about big bangs and black holes -- which is but 
metaphysics cloaked in the jargon of post-newtonian 
theorizing, but as far from empirics, at least, as 
Plotinus and Boethius; the second, such as when they 
talk of the quantities of pollution in the atmosphere of 
large cities, the quantities of trees remaining in the 
rainforests, and so on, which is hard, tough, good, 
serious, important, honest and policy-commanding 
  In between the two -- the blah-blah metaphysics and 
the good tough stuff is latched the question of whether 
or not the innocent-seeming gas which are producing 
bubbles in coca-cola and pepsi-cola and such -- CO2 -- 
is, or is not, seriously contributing to what may in 
larger or smaller parts be a humanity-driven global 
temperature change, in some direction. 
  I have a hunch, and the hunch is that we should focus 
on the more obvious parts -- because, see what could 
happen if we don't. If there is a semi-metaphysical 
discussion about CO2 each time the word "nature" is 
flashed on the political agenda, nothing will happen.
  Whereas, focus on the obvious things -- such as 
producing more electricity of the type that destroys 
less trees and waterfalls and which lets out less toxic 
stuff to waters and airs; producing more masculinely 
interesting, more well-functioning battery-driven cars, 
with less chips and more sound-generators and less fuss, 
develop anti-terrorist measures around new types of 
nuclear power stations safely encapsulated inside 
mountains and get commercial space companies to shoot 
the toxic radioactive waste out of Earth's presence -- 
and handle the waste more smartly, not just in Italy. 
  One of the minimum safety conditions for rockets
transporting nuke waste out into the open universe
is that they transport the material by means of bundles
of very small and extremely tough containers, which have
been proven by real explosion tests to withstand any
rocket explosion incident.
  A practical policy issue is to get oil, gasoline and
car-making all entirely controlled by the environmental
ministers, with a common regularatory body that ensures
that business interests for the next five or fifteen
years for company and/or country is not overshadowing
survival interests for the next 100 years or so for
humanity. Every gasoline car at present is infinitely
more sexy than any battery car and that must change,
and every oil industry is ruled by such interests as
find CO2 metaphysics highly amusing and fit to their
needs to increase their vast oil fortunes still more.
Norway as well as all other oil-producing countries,
and Japan, USA, China, India, Sweden, France, Germany
and all other car-producing countries, need to get their
think tanks together where the bottom line under the
bottom line is that it makes sense in terms of all
obvious, good, hard policy-commanding data on how to
save the lovely forests, increase the amounts of 
fresh clean water to all -- River Ganges, for instance,
how to clean it, and the Nile, how to refurbish it
with fresh water -- and, while working out these
things, a standard free safe nuclear power plant with
regulated waste disposal should be organised so that
one doesn't find that Iran and other countries exploit
the loopholes of ambiguity with such supreme ease. Iran
has a full total right to electricity and the fact of
the existence of atomic weapons is a regrettable evil
which must be moderated and it is only the stupidity
of the United Nations commitees and the laziness of
the world's ministers which have allowed there to be
a mixing of the two themes, as this extremely humble
writer sees it. 
  The role of water in everyone's life is obvious, and
it is also obvious that rich rainforests contribute to
the overall flux and motion of moisture on the planet,
and so ensures the renewal of rivers, as well as contribute
to a great tourist experience, possible medical uses, 
life quality for shaman tribes, adventurous possibilities
for the young, and a sense of mystery and richness of
meaning of life on Earth. We don't need the metaphysics
of possible slight temperature changes over some centuries
-- however right it may be in parts -- to justify that
the rainforests need to be seen as holy bank accounts.
  Focus on what is obviously an environmental issue, and 
leave the CO2 researchers to do their quiet, persistent, 
well-founded work in the upcoming decades. But I 
wouldn't, if I were this world's political ministers, 
put half the environmental budget into limiting a 
nontoxic gas when there are so many other concrete 
things in the environmental agenda that cry for action. 
Then, you might possibly find that the CO2 emissions are 
moderated as well.  

-- Fresh take on world conservation and good economy

[As of 2010/11/17 (european before-noon-hours).
Author of article can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]

Despite the enthusiastic declarations of the nonthinkers  
employed at various astrology faculties -- oops, sorry, 
astronomy faculties, that is, of various universities -- 
that 'they are now so fortunate as to witness the birth 
of a black hole' or a 'baby universe' or even 'the big 
bang' -- despite all this, the fact is that the world is 
woven together synchronistically and nonlocally and NOT 
in a way elaborated by such religious/atheist fanatics 
as Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins.
  Take ANY such pronouncement: "we are now witnessing 
the birth of a black hole." Ask the scientist: "are 
there other interpretations of this data?" Either the 
scientists answers like a corrupt politiican, or the 
answers admits, "yes." Ask then how many such 
alternative interpretations and the person will quote a 
journal which has listed at least one other such 
interpretation. Bravo. Among the likely ten million 
alternative interpretations, mainstream scientists are 
able to come up with more than 1, that is, they are able 
to count as high as 2. One, two. That's something, I 
  But once you look at REAL reality, not the reality 
depicted by narrow-minded religious atheists -- for 
atheism is a religion, interested in putting the pope to 
the court (Dawkins), interested in extrapolating 
inferences about God from what's seen in telescopes and 
microscopes and such (Hawking) -- once you look at REAL 
reality and not the reality as purported by those 
narrow-minded scientists, who in the name of their 
nonpopperian mainstream books are trying to get more 
income to their faculties by appealing to journalists -- 
then we have to do with another reality altogether, and 
one in which there is a reality also to intuition and 
where we can ask questions both about economy and on 
world conservation -- and other spiritual dilemmas.
  Carl Gustav Jung defined "synchronicity" after a great 
deal of conversation with one of the quantum physics 
founders, Wolfgang Pauli, to be a coincidence -- 
possibly the result of something 
other-than-typical-causal-effects -- which for us humans 
has meaning. That is not biocentrism or other atheist 
poppygock. It is a plain rendering of something which is 
lying on the fine line between the subjective and the 
objective, -- as David Bohm, another who has contributed 
to something of the foundations of the quantum theory 
employed so haphazardly by Hawking and not at all by 
Dawkins, told me, when we arranged a seminar for him in 
Oslo decades ago (he died in the beginning of the 1990s, 
but had had time to collaborate with Albert Einstein and  
in a certain sense of the word can be called Einstein's 
last pupil).
  Bohm, like the French Nobel Physics Price winning 
quantum physicist prince Louis de Broglie, and like 
Pauli, all suspected that all reality is interpenetrated 
by a nonlocality or connectedness which even goes into 
the dimension of upcoming events. Einstein himself did 
not concede this with any clear thought, for Einstein 
considered all upcoming events as laid out statically; 
but quantum theory suggests that before an electron 
enters into a configuration waiting for it, so to speak, 
it in a way refers back to the present with a summary of  
likely upcoming potentials. This involved for de Broglie  
a new type of "resonance". The physicist J.S.Bell, in 
the 1960s, later worked out how quantum empirics means 
that any working quantum theory must have a component of 
"nonlocality" -- something in praxis proved empirically 
in the late 1970s by french physicist Aspect (utilizing 
Bohm's photon version of a thought experiment by 
Einstein/Podolsky/Rosen originally shaped around 
  Richard Feynmann said -- something which Hawking and 
Dawkins ought to take to heart -- that any human being 
who has understood quantum theory has not understood it.
  In any case, when faced with any decision, human 
beings have gut feelings and a large number of the more 
clear-thinking and more honest of scientists concede 
that in gut feeling there may be a component of a 
prescient sense in some way which is not understood by 
the muddy darwinistic biology as of today, but which 
requires a sense in which the neuronic impulses at 
various levels are seen in relation to the possibility 
of quantum coherence. This entails levels of complexity 
beyond what present mathematics in quantum theory can 
handle. However by a philosophical re-description of 
quantum reality without mathematics but with precision 
it comes in naturally, in ways I have elaborated under 
the heading of "super-model theory", and which I find 
quite coherent in itself and with facts.
  The vision we must have of the human being doing 
economical transactions is therefore not that of a 
selfish island of mechanical ill-informed impulses. 
However confused a human being may be, there may also be 
something entirely fresh and nonconfused. Something 
which can inform actions at a level which can make sense 
in a greater whole. 
  It is a feature of quantum empirics that the concept 
of coherence, or -- as David Bohm put it -- wholeness -- 
makes sense in a new way not understood by that 
newtonian mechanics which still dominates the thinking 
both of biologists and economists, as well as many 
  In this wholeness, there is a direct immediate 
relationship between the activity of some of the parts 
(for instance the neurons, parts of our brains and guts 
and hearts), and the whole, and this whole may extend 
beyond what is locally near -- in other words, into the 
nonlocal -- and it may extend into the upcoming field of 
events, and so not merely concern itself with the 
present moment, but give information on what is to come. 
This is not something which follows by mathematical 
mainstream quantum theory. It does however follow by a 
philosophical re-rendering of quantum data without the 
idiocy and half-coherence (at best) of the mathematical 
equations of present quantum theory.
  It is also coherent with what a large number of people 
from all walks of life and all spiritual inclinations 
have reported. Some has even done some level of initial 
empirical research on this (confer studies at Cambridge 
University by Rupert Sheldrake also as reported at BBC).
But the sensitivity involved is something which -- to 
put in the words of Francisco Varela, whom I interviewed 
once in his Paris university office, after he had 
started collaboration with some buddhists -- which 
involves a new type of scientific training that has not 
yet been done in mainstream science. (Varela contributed 
significantly with H. Maturana to systems thinking in 
  To take a long step -- and jump over many long chains 
of reasoning which one ought to spend some months 
elaborating -- all this has very concrete implications 
for a person engaging in economy and engaging also in 
the goal to save nature and the world environment as a 
whole, both individually and as part of what we can call 
'hardhitting successful small enterprises'.  
  Here is a list:
  * It makes sense for a person anchored in listening to 
synchronicities on the foundation of being anchored in 
values of caring for wholeness to engage in long-term 
income, but:
  * It makes also sense to allow short-term non-income 
in order to enhance certain coherencies and certain 
  * ..including also new intuitive sensitivities,
  * ..and also including getting time to accomodate an 
understanding of how to best preserve nature in each 
case, while allowing for growth out of poverty
  * It is in alignment with this picture that human 
individuals can suddenly act with ferocious generosity, 
but that is not a generosity which is chancelike or 
selfishly impulsive, as much as grounded in clarified 
meditations and good synchronicities
  * ..and this also can involve currency day-trading, in 
which the action of engaging in a relatively quick 
action of betting with a moderate leverage over a major 
currency pair of one's surplus money has its own energy 
and vitality and joy, whether or not it leads to a 
short-term increase of income
  * The above-mentioned generosity also allows the 
formation of new types of goals felt to be coherent 
giving an unusual stability and (what Arne Naess called) 
"robustness of feelings -- or glow" -- where one 
overcomes pains due to real enthusiasm
  * ..and this can lead to the formation of hardhitting 
small enterprises which acts in a world where not only 
egotistic elements dominate participants.
In understanding all this, one must realize the immense
importance of nature conservationists to get into touch
with economical realities. As the founder of deep ecology
movement in academic philosophy put it (again, Arne Naess),
'once there is a war, everything else is set aside -- 
including years on saving nature, and enhancing women's 
rights.' Poverty, when it penetrates badly enough, through
and through a state, leads to war, inevitably. If we don't
save world economy in its major features, all Earth will
be a somaliland of local gangsters doing their local
sharia-shit. However, when we do preserve world economy,
we do increase the pressure on Nature in significant
ways -- and yet this is a necesary option, as war will
always be more devastating for Nature, with its 
lawlessness, burning of oil fields, and what not.
So we have got to engage in such things as being
responsible relative to how the major currencies are
developing, AND we have to got to realize how important
it is that NEITHER the preposterous religious fanatics
whether of islam or christianity or hinduism NOR the
religious fanatics of atheists get the upper hand --
the news media should have the guts to ask the questions
of the scientists with a more stern tongue. Scientists
are just kiddoes like everyone else, and not always
nice kiddoes either. 
  Still, in this perspective, we must also realize the
fallacy of taking the stance so often associated with
what is called the "christian right" in some countries,
namely that "to create many jobs we must allow the
richest to make large industries before everything else."
It is but a self-fulfilling or self-defeating assumptions
which underlies this: once conditions are set so that
small enterprises and generous creative individuals do
not get the upper hand, the only way we can get jobs
is by means of the large industries gobbling up all
smaller industries and the rich ugly beasts ruling
them will be the ones who ensure most jobs. But the
whole society vision must change, because it is a
proven issue that the very big enterprises do not
allow the quality of life sought by young people all
across the world. The smaller enterprises (sometimes
called Small and Medium Enterprises and abbreviated
to something like SME or SMES) can be extremely
inspiring (confer the Internet of the four years
right before year 2000), and drag the multitudes
with them, -- and (unlike the 2000-dot-com-bubble)
this can be done responsibly given a spiritual worldview.
  My often-repeated attacks on any overuse of alcohol
and any use of drugs is therefore not founded at all
on any moralistic interpretation of any bygone text:
it is founded solely on an understanding of the vast
mystery of the human brain and nervous aspect altogether,
in a synchronistic world, where we need to protect more
than nature: we must also protect the finer fibres of
which mainstream science know very little (and indeed
appears very little interested in, given the dominance
of such folks as Dawkins and Hawking in the academic
communities), -- the finer fibres that allow us to be
'synchronistically online', not merely electronically
online to internet. But synchronistically attuned to
a larger world, a more subtle world -- extending also
into that which might to some seem chaos, but which
indeed is not chaos: the upcoming events. So there
is no need to be 'chaos pilots', strictly speaking:
rather, there is a need to be 'subtle order pilots',
and this subtle order allows also long-term income
when applied for speculation over currency data --
given a responsibility relationship to short-term
goals that are not frustrated by losses in the short-term.
  So this is a rough outline of a spiritual hardhitting
successful small enterprise economy, inspired by
the neopopperian science of the undersigned. Be
welcome to it. It is your own world already.

Link to next page on top of this page, under image.