TOP PHILOSOPHY -- unbounded by earlier cultures "There is a difference between infantile arrogance and the interesting, sophisticated arrogance which is humble at the right spots." Aristo Tacoma ...a living enquiry into the world [Note: there are several images on the main pages www.yoga4d.org and www.yoga6d.org which is not on this somewhat more text-oriented version of the same page.] atiroal@yahoo.com aristotacoma@yahoo.com www.yoga4d.org www.yoga6d.org geocities.com/atiroal geocities.com/aristotacoma Yoga4d von Reusch Gamemakers, or Yoga4d:VRGM, orgnum 985230560, Scandinavian-based (Oslo etc). //Note to those who fear sensuality: leave this site, NOW, and put on all and everything called "family filter" on respectable sites such as google.com and msn.com, and put on telly, and go to sleep. This site is for people with a real heart.///
Stein Reusch, who has Aristo Tacoma as letter-by-letter composed
artist name. Enquiries into ancient greek later on indicated
that the proper ethymology is 'Aristo ta Cometes', meaning 'best of
(philosophical, sometimes longhaired) comets.' Lately, despite his
blue eyes, he has fallen in love with the concept of toning his hair
black, and, most curiously, finds that it is easier to develop new
software that way. Another peculiarity is that, although programming
involves handling numbers all the time, he hates applying the concept
of an age number to himself -- and generously extends this to others,
as long as it doesn't break a law. At least, no number higher than
"eighteen and some more": how much "some more" depends on whether
he is in what P.G.Wodehouse would have called "mid-season form".
The best way to ensure friendship with this guy is NEVER to talk
about birth dates, years, and age groups, and such, except when
formalities demand it. At least never after eight. His main asset
is, peculiarly, also what he is most often critisized for: that
irritating, unfailing happiness of his. Some people thinks he is
called "Henning" but that's just an ancient middle name; or that
"Reusch" is constructed but it goes no further back than it being
mother's maiden name. "Braten" is still applicable, of course.
But, much like when it comes to numbers, his idea about names are:
the more, the better, for then it becomes so confusing they vanish,
and REALITY APPEARS ;)
Sensuality, by the way, includes sexuality
(something the human being is born with, and by).
PART I
Aristo Tacoma
M Y N E W L I S A G J 2 F I C
L A N G U A G E
ON STAMASH, SPIRITUAL QUESTIONS, COMPUTING:
WEBPAGE PRODUCED APRIL 18, 2008
UPDATED AUGUST 24, 2008
[Click on image beneath for previous website content -- there is
the full operating system / platform for Y2000-compliant
PCs of Firth234 Lisa and more. See also geocities.com/atiroal
and geocities.com/aristotacoma for Lisa GJ2 installation
info. You will find inside yoga4d.org several gigabytes of
honestly programmed original open source. The image, by
the way, is a drawing in one of the earlier Lisa programs -- one of
my favourites, used also in the Yoga4d chess-like games
which are among the several products I provide on the side
for stamash students, girls 18-24 yrs.
This text replaces the earlier plan for a book shown
under yoga6d.org/prices (at 'taste of this book').
The second image (beneath) links to the yoga6d.org earlier content,
and there is some overlapping between these gigabyte sites.]
[The following document is re-rendered to Courier in
the Internet Excerpt of this document.]
[PRODUCED BY YOGA4D VON REUSCH GAMEMAKERS, OSLO,
ORG.NUM 985230560, REGISTERED AS PUBLISHER, OWNED BY:
ARISTO TACOMA HENNING BRATEN REUSCH WHO ASSERTS THE
COPYRIGHT OF THIS TEXT, WORLDWIDE, ON ALL FORMATS.
STAMASH, YOGA4D, FIRTH AND LISA GJ2 FIC ARE TRADEMARKS
(INFORMALLY) OF THE YOGA4D VON REUSCH GAMEMAKERS COMPANY.
NOTE THAT THE 'TASTE OF THIS BOOK' GIVEN AT MY SITE
WWW.yoga6d.org/PRICES, IS A VERY SUITABLE INTRODUCTION
TO THE SUPERMODEL THEORY AS FOUND IN MY 2004 BOOK,
PUBLISHED UNDER MY PEN NAME STEIN VON REUSCH, WITH
ISBN 82.996977.0.0 (ALSO AT NB.NO), ENTITLED 'PASSION
WITHOUT GREED OR HATRED; RESONATING OVER DANCERS;
CREATING NEW PHYSICS'.
MY WEBSITES ARE NOT COMPLETELY UPDATED, BUT I REGARD
THE INTERNET APPROACH AS A KIND OF LIBRARY BACKGROUND.
THE MORE FORMAL APPROACH IN THE 'TASTE OF THIS BOOK'
EXCERPT WAS FOUND TO BE NOT FULLY COHERENT WITH THE
STRONG INFORMAL PHYSICS AND OVERALL SUMMARY FOUND
IN THAT WHICH I INTUITIVELY REGARD AS A COMPLETE ACCOUNT
OF MY SUPERMODEL THEORY IN PHYSICS (THE 2004 BOOK), WHICH
BRIDGES GRAVITATIONAL PHENOMENA, BIOLOGICAL COHERENCE AND
QUANTUM PHENOMENA IN A NEOPOPPERIAN WAY. STUDIES OF
SCIENTIFIC QUALITY HAVE RECENTLY CONFIRMED WHAT I EARLIER
WROTE ON WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO SCIENCE PUBLICATIONS --
WHY THEY DON'T MATTER SO MUCH ANYMORE, FOR THE QUANTITY
AND FRAGMENTATION HAVE OVERTAKEN AND RENDERED THEM SUBSTANDARD;
MY ENERGIES ARE NOW DEVOTED TO MORE THAN A DOZEN PROJECTS
INCLUDING ALSO NEW HARDWARE TYPES AND OTHER PROGRAMMING
AS WELL AS STAMASH MARTIAL ARTS DEVELOPMENT, FICTION
WRITING AND SO ON, RATHER THAN THE OTHER PROJECTS
HINTED AT IN SOME OF THE LISTS AT yoga4d.org AND yoga6d.org;
HOWEVER THE LISA GJ2 LANGUAGE IS USED THROUGHOUT
AND VERY ENTHUSIASTICALLY SO -- IT HAS OVERWHELMINGLY
GONE BEYOND ALL EXPECTATIONS!!
THE 2004 BOOK HAS SINCE MARCH 2006, WHEN THE FIRST
FIRTH OPERATING APPROACH FOR COMPUTERS WERE RELEASED
ON THE INTERNET AND STILL PART OF yoga4d.org/DOWNLOAD,
BEEN PART OF THE ELECTRONIC MANUSCRIPTS THERE, AT
YOURTEXT/A.HTM, ALONGSIDE THE MANHATTAN TRANSFORMATION
MANUSCRIPTS WHICH SETS FORTH THE METAPHYSICAL NOTION,
AS FIRST PRESENTED (AND WHICH INSPIRED A FRIEND TO DO
A DANCE PERFORMANCE WITH HER GROUP ON A TITLE WHICH
DERIVED DIRECTLY FROM A CONVERSATION WITH ME, AS SHE
DOCUMENTS IN HER TALK PUBLISHED TOGETHER WITH A. JANIK
IN A SEMINAR AT THE UNIV. OF BERGEN -- 'PAST IS SIMULATION' /
HERSTAY, SEE HER EXCELLENT AND ORIGINAL WORKS AT HERSTAY.NET),
NAMELY THAT THE PAST IS, UP TO A POINT,
AFTER WHICH SPACEDURATION TOOK ON ACTUALITY, A KIND
OF SIMULATION. MORE ABOUT THIS HERE AND IN OTHER WRITINGS. AT]
[GENERAL TEXT INFO:
THE FONT USED FOR THIS TEXT PRIMARELY
IS MY B9 ARRYTHMIC CHARACTER FONT
(SOMEWHAT LIKE THE TYPE USED ON BLACKBOARDS)
WHICH SPELLS OUT STRONG CONTRASTS IN WHAT
MIGHT BE CALLED A 'SLIGHTLY ATONAL' MANNER,
IF ONE COMPARES TO MUSIC; A FONT WHICH AN
INCREASING NUMBER OF YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE LEARNED
TO ENJOY AND READ AND WRITE FAST WITH. THE
PAGE NUMBERS ARE ON THE PAPER-VERSION AS
NONEXISTING AS ON THE ELECTRONIC CD VERSION,
WHICH IS SUITABLE FOR THE LISA PROGRAM.
THE PAGE-SHIFTS WHEN READ WITH LISA PROGRAMS FOLLOW
COMPLETELY THE FLOW OF THE ORIGINAL "UNPLUGGED"
TEXT WHICH HAS, LIKE THE FONT, FEATURES OF THE
ARRYTHMIC. THIS DOES NOT AIM AT A LAYOUT ON
THE PAGE AS IF EACH PAGE WAS A UNIT OF THE
TEXT; RATHER, IT AIMS AT ALLOWING "PAGES" TO
HAVE AS LITTLE IMPORTANCE AS POSSIBLE,
EMPHASIZING THE TEXT AS AN ORIGINAL FLOW,
IN WHICH AS LITTLE HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM
THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT FORM AS POSSIBLE;
AND ONLY THOSE SPELLING MISTAKES WHICH COULD
CAUSE SEMANTIC CONFUSION ARE CORRECTED.]
(( ))
(( ))
Welcome! Whenever I use the (( )) I indicate here a
(usually untitled) paragraph which, in many cases, can
be a starting-point if you open this text quite freely,
and start anywhere -- and the theme will usually be more
or less completed, at least in some sense, at the next
(( )). So the (( )) notion is a grouping of ideas, and
this symbol I also use within my programming language
Lisa, also in its newest edition, the GJ2 FIC edition,
planned (2008) to be the basis of the GJ2 PC hardware
built from solid components of a non-micro kind also as
an illustration of first-hand mechanics and electronics.
The Lisa GJ2 programming language is available at the
Internet, at www.yoga6d.org/caa-academy/science/gj2.zip
and the GJ2 FIC edition extends on this and is provided
along with other programs.
These versions are syntactically basically
the same, but there are some luxuries and beauties about
FIC and these other programs illustrate these (notably
the SF Space Fiction programs). These programs
provide solid proof of just how good this language is --
and I will illustrate a little of the language and
discuss most of its features here. The spiritual
discussions involves a brief visit of the philosophy
of my new martial arts form, related to yoga and aikido,
called 'stamash', as well as touch on other philsophical
themes. This might have interest for some kind of
forward-oriented consciousness-expanding type of
educational organisations, and for these I can provide
programs available for whole classrooms very
inexpensively.
(( ))
(( ))
What is a programming language? Now, if you meet some
kind of animal which you suspect have no idea of written
language, it would take some time to convey that idea;
and be sure it wouldn't evoke much interest in most
situations. One has to come up with something such as a
concrete use -- or, at the very least, a sense of beauty
about it. A flower may not be of much use but it has
beauty, the beauty may suggest that we learn something
about it. I would say that my relationship to computer
programming languages from the very beginning, when I
dabbled with the language Forth made by Charles Moore in
the 1960s for very tiny computers had something of this
sense, this artistic longing for formal beauty about it
-- and I am happy to say, and admit, that in Lisa Gj2
FIC I get the full monty. It is over-flowing with
beauty. It is useful if you find a computer useful as a
stand-alone unit in which you want a creative
environment which invokes a sense of wholeness as you go
along, which can be shaped by those whose brains are
technically apt and ready to devote time to it, also
meditatively. But I wish to call right now on the sense
of beauty, as an introduction. Let us briefly remind
ourselves what a prime number is. The whole numbers are
numbers such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9. The prime
numbers are numbers such as 3, 5, 7, 13, 11 and 19.
Some begin with 1 and 2 for the prime numbers also but
I think it is fully coherent with the overall thinking
about prime numbers to begin at 3, regarding 1 and 2 as
foundational numbers to shape the whole number series
and regarding prime numbers as a subset of odd numbers
above 1 which do not have any possibility of being
divided without causing decimal digits to appear, if
what they are divided by is a whole number.
So 4 is not a prime number for it can be divided by 2,
which is a whole number, and it gets a result which is
2, without any reminder or modulus or what we in Lisa
calls a MOD. The MOD is zero, for there is no overflow
if we try to calculate the number back. Take, on the
other hand, the attempt to divide 7 to 3. We get, by
whole number thinking exclusively, shaving away decimal
numbers after the dot, as a result, 2. Multiplying 2 by
3 gives us 6. The MOD or reminder here is 1, since we
didn't get to 7, only to 6, and 6 plus the MOD gives us
7. Now since no number less than 7 and greater than 1
can be divided into 7 without getting a nonzero MOD,
then 7 is a prime number.
That's dry stuff maybe. But let's just think very
slightly about it. It appears that prime numbers are
fluctuating, yet they are absolutely stable. Their
distances are fluctuating. We are not talking random
fluctuation as much as a sense of the arrythmic -- like
this font, the B9 font which I have drawn, inspired by
the Sanskrit sense of vowels as more important than
consonants, and separating out numbers like 1, 2, 3 from
the more upright letters (e.g., in Sanskrit, a is the
most important sound, so here a is bigger than e.g. e).
The prime numbers fluctuate, I say. An example, take a
look here, at the first few prime numbers above 100000:
100003 100019 100043 100049 100057 100069 100103 100109
Just watch this lovely sample. We see that their
distances are
100003 100019 100043 100049 100057 100069 100103 100109
16 24 6 8 12 34 6
Since each of the prime numbers are odd numbers it is
not very surprising that their relative differences are
even numbers. Apart from that, and apart from a slightly
general trend that they increase with higher number
(statistically speaking) -- at least I think they do --
these fluctuations have the appearance of a completely
free and fun dance. What are they really? Where do they
come from? Considering that the natural numbers can be
presented as
I II III IIII IIIII IIIIII
how come we suddenly gets this free-jumping? This is an
expression not just of the natural numbers but of the
applications of multiplication and division, which are
in some sense extensions of the ideas of addition and
substraction. We can call these 'elementary
arithmetics'. So take the natural numbers (which I will
say something about later, relative to infinity),
together with elementary arithmetics, and we get a type
of novel order which has some interesting arrythmic --
but not completely random -- features. This order
expresses itself by the prime numbers. And so, with the
prime numbers, we are touching on something which
lingers near the idea of the indefinite or even the
infinite in some sense -- and yet, there is no question
that given a concrete prime number candidate, it is
possible to put the computer to a certain type of work
-- the type of work that makes its fans go faster, for
it gets quite hot by it, especially if you give it
hundreds of thousands of these tasks -- to find out,
doggedly we might say, whether the number is prime or
not. But take any number like, 11311 or 1117111, and say
by intuition, are these primes? Indeed they are. But
1113111 is not prime nor is 11711. It doesn't seem to be
any rule which at all times works to filter out all
candidates of the odd numbers which are not primes, and
leave only the right ones -- except that all that ends
in the number 5 are divisible by the prime 5 and so they
are out, along with the even numbers. The only rule that
has been found that works for sure is the rule to check,
ALL the relevant divisions, and so the making of prime
is a kind of quintessential computer task.
I have not used before now the word 'mathematics' nor
will I use it to describe the thinking we just did. We
did something now which involved no such invention as
the bag-concept of 'mathematics', which has a lot of
assumptions this writer does not go along with. What we
did was to talk only of whole numbers, not whole numbers
in terms of set theory or anything; nor talk in any
cock-sure manner about infinities; but merely discuss a
clear range of them, at a time, with some operations,
like division, found to apply meaningfully within this
range. In the Lisa GJ2 Fic language, this means up to
two billion, roughly (the 32-bit numbers, signed, are
just a little more than that, plus and minus).
And when we do computer programming, we are doing a
programming which is supposedly human psychologically
readable -- and this means that we should talk of
something which is adequately clear, and not
fussy-headed. We can talk of 'first-hand programming'
when we have functions which work in a way that we can
think clearly about, without having to deal with
assumptions such as those which characterise the
supposedly continous graphs in analytical mathematics
with differentials and integrals -- and a lot of hogwash
thinking which, as far as this writer can tell, is
incongruent, incoherent and nonwise to engage in.
Instead of mathematics, let us talk about good, clear
ideas, and our intuitions into them, and not leave it to
bygone textbooks to elucidate assumptions in a way which
presumes authority to them.
So in the first-hand manner, let us now appreciate
this sculpture of thought, in Lisa GJ2 Fic:
(LET IS-PRIME BE (( >N5 ))
((
(( N5 ; 2 => DIV
(COUNT
(( N7 ; N1 => INC => MOD => ISBASIS = RMS ; RMS ; N => => ;
EXIT === ))
COUNTUP) ))
(( Y => => ))
)) OK)
I will boldly refer the ardent would-be programmer to
the manual, which is, with my FIC source, more than 8000
lines. Here, watch it like a rose, not trying to
understand it all; or like an orchid, without having to
know every detail about its copulative organ-threads.
But watch the N => => and the Y => =>. These are what
they look like: an attempt by the function to give an
answer to the question. The => => usually means that
this value is supposedly sent out of the function. The
(( .. )) is meant to group ideas and the => and ;
indicate relationship between elements in the language.
The Lisa Gj2 Fic language is radically different from
Forth and looks in many ways a little more like the LISP
language (which goes back even before Forth). But unlike
LISP, which also has the parentheses-love, the ordering
of the functions are so that parameters come before the
functions as in Forth. But yet, unlike both Forth and
Lisp, the numbers and texts can be treated as one and
the same thing, and instead of lists in Lisp, we have
something we call 'warps', which is an extension of a
latent idea inside both Forth and C, which here
consciously takes the place of object orientation as
found in Simula-67 and e.g. in C++ and Java (indeed I
had many conversations with Kristen Nygaard around
1998-2000 when I worked on the first phase on this
language, Nygaard with Ole-Johan Dahl made the notion of
object orientation with their Simula).
My experience is that the Lisa GJ2 Fic language is
incomparatively better than all object-oriented
languages and also all non-object-oriented languages
that I have tried, and I have tried basically all the
langauges that have ever been made for the computers
insofar they have reached a certain popularity, at
least. (Including, but not limited to, C, C++, Cobol,
Fortran, Basic, Pascal, Lisp, Java, C#, Forth, Prolog,
Scheme, JavaScript, Perl.)
Here is the function in a slightly quicker version:
(LET IS-PRIME-FASTER BE (( >N5 ))
((
(( 20 ; N5 => INTGREATER = N5 => IS-PRIME => => ; EXIT === ))
(( N5 => LENGTH => CHN => SWITCH => RM ; 53
=> EQN = N => => ; EXIT === ))
(( N5 ; 7 => DIV ; 5 => ADD
(COUNT
(( N7 ; N1 => INC => MOD => ISBASIS = RMS ; RMS ; N => => ;
EXIT === ))
COUNTUP) ))
(( Y => => ))
)) OK)
Note that whenever there is a = to be found in this
function, you also see a === pretty soon thereafter.
This type of thing, the = .. === is what is called a
'conditional expression', an expression, that is to say,
which is performed by the computer on the condition that
it gets an affirmative input, a Y type of input, rather
than a N type of input.
The (( )) after the (LET xxxx BE holds some indication
of what is expected by the function, defined to have a
new name in that line, after the (LET, to be given as
input to the function. If it is one number only, there
is usually something like >N5 or >N7 or something, which
means that the number is put to the so-called 'simple
stack', which is on the side of the text/number main
stack of things, where each function has N1..N11 as 11
free slots in this simple stack automatically allocated
rather like local variables. This notion I worked out in
going from the first form of language, when I called it
the Yoga4d language, toward the Firth language, I used
originally Pascal to experiment towards a compiler
before I, with the help of the DJGPP tools, achieved
basically an assembly-near version which I refine
towards assembly in an even purer form now that I am
working on the GJ2 light tube computer.
The line
(( N5 => LENGTH => CHN => SWITCH => RM ; 53
is an example of the ease with which text and numbers
are treated in a similar way -- yet in a fairly fast way
(that can not be said of Perl).
N5 => LENGTH means, give the length of the number, ie,
its amount of digits. If we give the number 1117111 to
it, we shall see 7. The function CHN says, let's get the
ASCII character number for what's there, and those who
are so initiated knows that 48..58 holds the numbers for
the digits themselves, 0..9. We are after filtering out
any number which holds 5 as the final digit, and 5 is
ascii 53. So you see 53 appears on the line. All in all,
those first lines filter out those numbers we don't want
to look more on by the present function.
Then the function does a (COUNT .. COUNTUP) in which
it tries to divide a lot of numbers, up until the
seventh of the number and a little further, just to be
sure. If the MOD anywhere is 'basis', our
positive-affirmation word for 'zero', -- this is shown
by the function ISBASIS -- then we have something which
is nonprime, and in that case, the function exits
rapidly. The RM removes stuff at the main stack and RMS
removes at the simple stack, we also have more stacks.
The (COUNT .. COUNTUP) function uses N1 and N2 at the
simple stack and so for a quick'n'clean exit from it one
does RMS RMS before the EXIT there. If it loops through
all the numbers without getting to the notion of a zero
reminder, then we can safely say that this is a prime.
Now, for even more speed, we should not divide with
all the numbers, but only with all the prime numbers.
That takes a little bit thinking. Are we going to do it?
Answer: of course. We want to do it, because given the
natural pleasant speed of a good 32-bit first-hand
computer, which is something like a gigahertz in CPU (it
should not be superfast for then the programming is no
longer having a first-hand relationship to duration to
the natural psychological times for the complexity of
the programs one would like to do with meaningfully
sized data banks -- more about this elsewhere), then
filling up with a goodish amount of prime numbers to a
database shouldn't require a week of constant running.
We want it to take, let's say, four-five hours. For that
I made HEFPRIM3. Wanna have a look?
((DATA LONGLEGGED-HEALTHY ))
((DATA SCR-POS-X ))
((DATA SCR-POS-Y ))
((DATA MILLION-MATRIX ))
((DATA MATRIX-POS-X ))
((DATA MATRIX-POS-Y ))
((DATA QUANTITY-NOW ))
((DATA AMOUNT-IN-MILLIONS ))
((DATA COUNT-MILLIONS-HOUSE ))
((DATA HIGHEST-IN-MILLIONS ))
((DATA GLOW-HEALTH-HOUSE ))
((DATA PRIME-YET-FASTER-UP-TO ))
((DATA FOUND-TO-BE-PRIME ))
(LET IS-PRIME BE (( >N5 ))
((
(( N5 ; 2 => DIV
(COUNT
(( N7 ; N1 => INC => MOD => ISBASIS = RMS ; RMS ; N => => ;
EXIT === ))
COUNTUP) ))
(( Y => => ))
)) OK)
(LET IS-PRIME-FASTER BE (( >N5 ))
((
(( 20 ; N5 => INTGREATER = N5 => IS-PRIME => => ; EXIT === ))
(( N5 => LENGTH => CHN => SWITCH => RM ; 53
=> EQN = N => => ; EXIT === ))
(( N5 ; 7 => DIV ; 5 => ADD
(COUNT
(( N7 ; N1 => INC => MOD => ISBASIS = RMS ; RMS ; N => => ;
EXIT === ))
COUNTUP) ))
(( Y => => ))
)) OK)
(LET GLOW-HEALTH-ESSENCE BE (( ))
((
(( LONGLEGGED-HEALTHY >>> ;
V11 => MOD => ISBASIS = 5 => TOV2 ; 200021 => TOV3 ;
FOUND-TO-BE-PRIME => SETBASIS === ))
(( V11 ; PRIME-YET-FASTER-UP-TO >>> => INTGREATER
= 5 => TOV2 ; 200021 => TOV3 === ))
)) OK)
(( }GLOW-HEALTH-ESSENCE} => ? GLOW-HEALTH-HOUSE <<ASSERT ))
(LET GLOW-HEALTH BE (( ))
((
(( FOUND-TO-BE-PRIME => SETDANCE ))
(( LONGLEGGED-HEALTHY >>> ; 2 => MOD => ISBASIS
= FOUND-TO-BE-PRIME => SETBASIS ; EXIT === ))
(( 20 ; LONGLEGGED-HEALTHY >>> => INTGREATER =
LONGLEGGED-HEALTHY >>> => IS-PRIME => NOT
= FOUND-TO-BE-PRIME => SETBASIS ===
EXIT === ))
(( LONGLEGGED-HEALTHY >>> => LENGTH => CHN => SWITCH => RM ; 53 => EQN
= FOUND-TO-BE-PRIME => SETBASIS ; EXIT === ))
(( LONGLEGGED-HEALTHY >>> ; 7 => DIV ;
5 => ADD PRIME-YET-FASTER-UP-TO <<ASSERT ))
(( 0 ; 5 ; 200021 ; # => PM ))
(( GLOW-HEALTH-HOUSE >>> ; # => FORVPM ))
(( 0 ; 5 ; 200021 ; # => PM ))
)) OK)
(LET IS-PRIME-QUICK BE (( ; ))
((
(( MILLION-MATRIX >>> => & ))
(( ; LONGLEGGED-HEALTHY <<ASSERT ))
(( GLOW-HEALTH ))
(( FOUND-TO-BE-PRIME => VISDANCE => => ))
(( && ))
)) OK)
(LET HEFPRIM3-INIT BE (( ))
((
(( 5 ; 200021 => RAM-PM MILLION-MATRIX <<ASSERT ))
(( 3 LONGLEGGED-HEALTHY <<ASSERT ))
(( SCR-POS-X => SETDANCE ))
(( SCR-POS-Y => SETDANCE ))
(( MATRIX-POS-X => SETBASIS ))
(( MATRIX-POS-Y => SETDANCE ))
(( QUANTITY-NOW => SETDANCE ))
)) OK)
(LET RUN-HEFPRIM3 BE (( ))
((
(( MILLION-MATRIX >>> => & ))
(( CLS ))
(( GOLABEL4: ))
(( GLOW-HEALTH ))
(( FOUND-TO-BE-PRIME => VISDANCE
(MATCHED
(( MATRIX-POS-X >>> ; 5 => EQN
(MATCHED
(( MATRIX-POS-Y => INCVAR ))
(( MATRIX-POS-X => SETBASIS ))
MATCHED) ))
(( SCR-POS-X => VISDANCE ; SCR-POS-Y => VISDANCE => AND
(MATCHED
(( CLS ))
MATCHED) ))
(( LONGLEGGED-HEALTHY >>> ;
SCR-POS-X >>> ; SCR-POS-Y >>> => B9-POP ))
(( 200 ; SCR-POS-X => ADDVAR ))
(( MATRIX-POS-X => INCVAR ))
(( QUANTITY-NOW => INCVAR ))
(( LONGLEGGED-HEALTHY >>> ;
MATRIX-POS-X >>> ; MATRIX-POS-Y >>> ; # => PM ))
(( SCR-POS-X >>> ; 924 => INTGREATER
(MATCHED
(( 50 ; SCR-POS-Y => ADDVAR ))
(( SCR-POS-X => SETDANCE ))
(( SCR-POS-Y >>> ; 668 => INTGREATER
(MATCHED
(( SCR-POS-Y => SETDANCE ))
(( KEYTOUCH = MANUAL-CLEAR-KEYBUF ;
&& ; EXIT === ))
MATCHED) ))
MATCHED) ))
MATCHED) ))
(( LONGLEGGED-HEALTHY => INCVAR ))
(( LONGLEGGED-HEALTHY => INCVAR ))
(( LONGLEGGED-HEALTHY >>> ; 2000000000 => INTGREATER ;
QUANTITY-NOW >>> ; 1000000 => INTGREATER => AND => NOT
(MATCHED
(( GOUP4 ))
MATCHED) ))
(( && ))
)) OK)
(LET COUNT-MILLIONS-ESSENCE BE (( ))
((
(( AMOUNT-IN-MILLIONS => INCVAR ))
(( V11 HIGHEST-IN-MILLIONS <<ASSERT ))
(( V2 MATRIX-POS-X <<ASSERT ))
(( V3 MATRIX-POS-Y <<ASSERT ))
)) OK)
(( }COUNT-MILLIONS-ESSENCE} => ? COUNT-MILLIONS-HOUSE <<ASSERT ))
(LET COUNT-MILLIONS BE (( ))
((
(( MILLION-MATRIX >>> => & ))
(( AMOUNT-IN-MILLIONS => SETBASIS ))
(( HIGHEST-IN-MILLIONS => SETBASIS ))
(( COUNT-MILLIONS-HOUSE >>> ; # => FORVPM ))
(( && ))
)) OK)
(LET LOAD-IT BE (( ))
((
(( HEFPRIM3-INIT ))
(( MILLION-MATRIX >>> => & ))
(( }MILLION.TXT} ; # => FILENUM2PM ; RM ))
(( COUNT-MILLIONS ))
(( HIGHEST-IN-MILLIONS >>> => INC INC
LONGLEGGED-HEALTHY <<ASSERT ))
(( AMOUNT-IN-MILLIONS >>>
QUANTITY-NOW <<ASSERT ))
(( && ))
)) OK)
(LET SAVE-MORE-MILLIONS BE (( ))
((
(( MILLION-MATRIX >>> => & ))
(( }MILLION.TXT} ; # => PM2FILENUM ; RM ))
(( && ))
)) OK)
(( LOOKSTK ))
(LET HEFPRIM3 BE (( ))
((
(( }STARTING UP HEFPRIM3.. (THIS FAST-EXPANDS YOUR MILLION)} => POP ))
(( }THIS IS ONE OF THE HEF-MOD / HEF-CHEMS EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC} ;
=> POP ))
(( }PROGRAMS CREATED BY ARISTO TACOMA IN HIS LISA PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE.}
=> POP ))
(( }HEF-MOD, HEF-CHEM, AND HEFPRIMS ARE AMONG THE TRADEMARKS OF}
=> POP ))
(( }YOGA4D VRGM, AND THESE PROGRAMS ARE SUBJECT TO LEGAL COPYRIGHT.}
=> POP ))
(( ENTERPLS ))
(( GJ-ON ))
(( CLS ))
(( }WELCOME!! HEFPRIM3 PRESUMES YOU ALREADY HAVE MADE MILLION.TXT WITH}
20 ; 20 => B9-POP ))
(( }HEFPRIM2. THIS WILL EXTEND IT, USING RELAXED BUT SLIGHTLY FASTER}
20 ; 60 => B9-POP ))
(( }ALGORITHMS. IT WILL THEN WRITE THE EXTENDED VERSION BACK TO SAME.}
20 ; 100 => B9-POP ))
(( }HEFPRIM3 EXITS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN AFTER A KEYPRESS EARLIER.}
20 ; 140 => B9-POP ))
(( A-KEY ))
(( CLS ))
(( }OKAY TO READ THEN WRITE TO (OVERWRITE!) FILE MILLION.TXT?} ;
10 ; 10 => B9-POP ))
(( 10 ; 40 => B9-YNIN
(MATCHED
(( LOAD-IT ))
(( }FOUND } ; AMOUNT-IN-MILLIONS >>> => CONCAT ;
} PRIME NUMBERS IN MILLION.TXT} => CONCAT ; 10 ; 70 => B9-POP ))
(( }WHERE HIGHEST NUMBER IS } ; HIGHEST-IN-MILLIONS >>> => CONCAT ;
10 ; 100 => B9-POP ))
(( 10 ; 130 => B9-ENTERPLS ))
(( AMOUNT-IN-MILLIONS => VISBASIS
(MATCHED
(( GOFORWARD4 ))
MATCHED) ))
(( RUN-HEFPRIM3 ))
(( SAVE-MORE-MILLIONS ))
MATCHED) ))
(( GOLABEL4: ))
(( GJ-DONE ))
)) OK)
(( LOOKSTK ))
(LET AUTOSTART BE HEFPRIM3 OK)
Okay, if I am going to quote many more programs, there
won't be space for any writing in this text, so I guess
I better hold back a little. I will not apologize but
explain why LONGLEGGED-HEALTHY is a variable, rather than
PRIME-NUMBER-CANDIDATE or something like that.
The reason is very simple: programming as far as the
computer goes has need of consistency in naming;
programming as far as the human heart goes has need of
fun and spiritual optimism in meaning. For doing the
HEFPRIM (which lists), HEFPRIM2 (which stores to a
file), HEFPRIM3 (which expands the file much, much more
rapidly than HEFPRIM2 could go on creating it) and
HEFPRIM4 (which does quick look-up in the same database)
beginning yesterday morning -- and now it is nighttime,
and it all works, after plenty of back and forth, -- it
even looks good on the screen -- and perfectly tested
for hundreds of thousands of primes -- means that one
expose oneself again and again to these phrases. To keep
a bright outlook, to encourage oneself to think about
the form of playful intelligence which makes one bright
and happy while one works that much, one cannot only and
all the time stick to technical naming notations -- and
the computer don't seem to care what one calls it, as
long as one is consistent. Right? Call it
GREEN-VEGETABLES-ARE-NOT-AS-NICE-AS-FRUITS or
THE-SUPERNAL-STRUCTURE-OF-SUBTLE-FEELINGS and the
computer is just as happy with it.
Of course, while I program, I use the editor B9,
written in this language, and I use the font, drawn by
the program MAKEFONT also written in this language, and
we're talking of thousands of hours of programming so I
have a certain amount of empirical grounds for saying
that this approach really works. However, if all
variables have funny names, rather than some of them,
the meaning of the program starts getting a bit wild.
Also, one must be careful not to have too many names --
that's why the N1 N2 and so on are so important, so that
there is some sense of division between the words which
are predefined and which actually do something, and
those things which merely holds a variable.
Now what are warps? It is a philosophy which is in
manys the key to the heart of first-hand programming;
this I can say, for I have coined the notion of the
use of 'warp' (as far as I know) in programming
languages, and I have also coined the phrase
'first-hand programming', and the way I apply these
words these are related in just that way. I will
quote a bit from a very warp-friendly program,
my Hobby Electronics Fun with playful MODelling
package, the HEF-MOD, which does a modelling of
electronic design with many components together,
like this
(LET ASCII-107-K-LIGHT-OFF BE (( ))
((
(( IT-RIGHT-E ; IT-LEFT-E => SUB => ABS ; 1200000 => INTGREATER ;
IT-RIGHT-P ; IT-LEFT-P => SUB => ABS ; 1200000 => INTGREATER
=> AND
(MATCHED
(( 108 => FRESH-MANUFACTURE-KNOB ))
MATCHED) ))
(( 1700000 => MODULATE-THIS-MUCH-E => LOVE-THIS-LEFT-RIGHT-E ))
(( 1700000 => MODULATE-THIS-MUCH-P => LOVE-THIS-LEFT-RIGHT-P ))
)) OK)
(( }ASCII-107-K-LIGHT-OFF} => ? 107 FANTASTIC-WARPS >>> => %PUT ))
(LET ASCII-108-L-LIGHT-ON BE (( ))
((
(( IT-RIGHT-E ; IT-LEFT-E => SUB => ABS ; 1200000 => INTGREATER ;
IT-RIGHT-P ; IT-LEFT-P => SUB => ABS ; 1200000 => INTGREATER
=> AND => NOT
(MATCHED
(( 107 => FRESH-MANUFACTURE-KNOB ))
MATCHED) ))
(( 1700000 => MODULATE-THIS-MUCH-E => LOVE-THIS-LEFT-RIGHT-E ))
(( 1700000 => MODULATE-THIS-MUCH-P => LOVE-THIS-LEFT-RIGHT-P ))
)) OK)
(( }ASCII-108-L-LIGHT-ON} => ? 108 FANTASTIC-WARPS >>> => %PUT ))
**** Many more components here. {
(LET SMOOTH-ELECTRICITY BE (( ))
((
(( SMOOTH-ELECT-UNIT-NUMBER => SETDANCE ))
(( SMOOTH-ELECT-COMP-NUMBER => SETDANCE ))
(( ACTIVE-LINES-UP-TO >>>
(COUNT
(( 79
(COUNT
(( N1 INC ; N3 12 MUL ; # => GM => >N5 ; N5 => ISBASIS
= RMS RMS GOFORWARD4 === ))
(( N5 => IS-LOWERCASE
(MATCHED
(( N1 INC
GOOD-FUN-X <<ASSERT ))
(( N3 ; 12 => MUL
GOOD-FUN-Y <<ASSERT ))
(( N5 ;
FANTASTIC-WARPS >>> => %GET => HYPERCONNECT ))
(( SMOOTH-ELECT-COMP-NUMBER => INCVAR ))
)(OTHER
(( N1 => ISDANCE ; N5 ; 42 => EQN => AND
(MATCHED
(( SMOOTH-ELECT-UNIT-NUMBER => INCVAR ))
MATCHED) ))
MATCHED) ))
COUNTUP) ))
(( GOLABEL4: ))
COUNTUP) ))
)) OK)
(( LOOKSTK ))
Now pay attention, please, to the line
FANTASTIC-WARPS >>> => %GET => HYPERCONNECT ))
above. The funny word is just a variable, a holder,
and this line
(( }ASCII-108-L-LIGHT-ON} => ? 108 FANTASTIC-WARPS >>> => %PUT ))
which is found higher up in the program, is one of the
many lines in HEF-MOD which shoves stuff into that
variable -- which is really an array of numbers, or
warps. These warps are functions. So the functions are
connected to an array, the array has that which in
Pascal or C would be called a 'pointer'. The notion of
warp is similar to that of pointer only it is more
strongly present in the program in an effortless,
worked-through, noncomplicated, standardized manner. In
this, we learn from the easiest of object-oriented
languages, such as Java and Python, to do things rather
straight-forward.
For instance, let us make two functions, which does
something ultra-simple, like printing out two different
words on the screen, then we'll look at the warps and
connect to the warps -- by the word HYPERCONNECT or the
letter H. To find the warp for a function, we use the
question-mark, ?. Just watch now:
(LET PRINT-A-WORD BE (( ))
((
(( :JOY-KING => POP ))
)) OK)
(LET PRINT-ANOTHER-WORD BE (( ))
((
(( :SUN-KING => POP ))
)) OK)
Suppose now that we want to get these two functions into
an array. We'll then make the array.
((DATA OUR-ARRAY-OF-FUNCTIONS
10000 => %MAKE OUR-ARRAY-OF-FUNCTIONS <<ASSERT ))
It's made, we gave it ten thousand slots, why not? Let's
fill up the first two with warps:
(( :PRINT-A-WORD => ? ; 1 OUR-ARRAY-OF-FUNCTIONS >>> => %PUT ))
:PRINT-ANOTHER-WORD => ? ; 2 OUR-ARRAY-OF-FUNCTIONS >>> => %PUT ))
Now we have put the warp of the functions into slot 1
and 2 of our new array. In order to allow the interactor
with the program at run-time to select which of the two
functions we want to have performed, we could do
something like this:
(LET INPUT-MENU BE (( ))
((
(( }HI AND WELCOME TO OUR GRAND PRINT-MENU!} => POP ))
(( GOLABEL4: ))
(( }WHICH DO YOU CHOOSE? (1 OR 2 OR NONE FOR EXIT)} => POP ))
(( READLN => >N5 ))
(( 1 ; N5 => INTGREATER = EXIT === ))
(( N5 ; 2 => INTGREATER = 2 => >N2 === ))
(( N5 ; OUR-ARRAY-OF-FUNCTIONS >>> => %GET => HYPERCONNECT ))
(( GOUP4 ))
)) OK)
One thing one must do well when one does warps is to
make sure that we hyperconnect only to places which are
real and safe. That is why, when the interactor has
given a value which we put to N5, we check really well
on N5 -- is it less than 1, the program exits, is it
more than 2, it is set to 2. Warping is great fun -- it
has the feel of machine language and yet when done so
clean as here it becomes an extremely versatile way of
programming, which can be called on exactly as much as
one wants, without compulsion, and which allows plenty
of such things as modelling of many parallel processes.
One of the brilliant features of the Lisa language,
which sets it apart from languages in which functions or
objects have to be spelled out before the data to them,
is that it is easy to test things in a very relaxed
manner line by line with the language fully operative,
program loaded. Whenever one wonders how a function is
doing things, then instead of looking up in manual, one
can type it in, with some example values, and get them
out on the screen. A program which behaves odd at some
point can be stopped, by commenting out the rest, and
then one can proceed to manually look into what is in
the variables if one has a suitable graphical mode.
Now, in HEF-MOD, there are many things to warp to --
the light-component is able to go from an off-state to
an on-state and vice versa depending on whether
electricity flows in to it from both connectors or not.
(( 107 => FRESH-MANUFACTURE-KNOB ))
This line is the type of thing that does that. You see
the number 107 is referred to, which is the ascii number
of the letter in the HEF-MOD modelling package for
electronics fun which indicates a light. And this same
number is used to organize the warps in the array in
this case. The FRESH-MANUFACTURE-KNOB is defined this
way:
(LET FRESH-MANUFACTURE-KNOB BE (( ; ))
((
(( ; GOOD-FUN-X >>> ;
GOOD-FUN-Y >>> ; # => PM ))
)) OK)
And this simply means, put the number given to the
function (indicated with a semicolon inside the (( )) at
the first line), to the present X and Y in the active
matrix of the fun-package, PM short for put into matrix.
The # refers to the most current used matrix at the
moment, at top of the so-called variable stack. One puts
things to this stack by the & operator and, when done,
cleanses it away with either RMV or the && operator,
which are synonyms.
In any case, we see here something which sets
warp-friendly programming entirely apart from all more
stylized, schematized forms of programming including
object-oriented programming, which is that these
programs can modify their own structure at run-time
without complications and without any loss of speed. The
numbers used for warps are easily and directly
accessible and changable. There is no overlay such as a
lot of checking operations in the language. The
programmer defines inside the same program text, higher
above, the meanings of the arrangement and sticks to
that and it is easily checked for consistency merely by
looking in the very same text.
So with the Lisa GJ2 FIC language you get not only
that huge manual, but also the B9 editor, the I9
first-hand image editor, the WORDWRAP and TIMING and
CONVBAT utility programs, the latter which does batch
conversions of any sign alphabeth into any other sign
alphabeth -- or phrase change -- as well as a drawing
program, the LAB, which makes matrix out of each
drawing. The HEF-MOD extends the B9 editor so that one
can draw electronic circuits diagrams in it and then
emulate some features of these so as to check the
results before one starts doing things in the workshop,
where pieces might burn if connected wrongly. The
HEF-CHEM uses warps in a similar way to show a number of
key examples of organic chemical reactions. The Yoga4d
game, also another commercial program in this language,
enables a combination of photo-art, drawn art (erotic
kind), and a strategy-type of board game which is far
more active than chess, far quicker, and kinder (the
computer plays against you in a varied way, but yet
allows you to get the upper hand basically all the time
-- however how it does it is interesting due to its
particular variation each time). These, and many other
programs, illustrate the joy and craft of warp-friendly
programming as something which works as a coherent
whole, realized to completion -- with a fantastic
esthetics -- in the Lisa GJ2 FIC language. Nothing else
in the computer world can be compared to it.
(( ))
(( ))
Next follows what can be said to be just about as
different style as writing as possible. But it is true,
I find, that nothing is more stimulating for meditative,
perhaps, with luck, poetic thinking/writing, with
metaphors and flow, done on a more artistic basis,
than the work with ultra-sharp programming in which
consistency is king, and meaning a mere sharp product
of what you by your consistency weaves.
(( ))
When we meditate, we are in the world, and it's not the
same world when we've done with our meditation, but a
healed one, more or less. This is a simple statement,
meditation is not simple. At least, it's not simple to
explain, although perhaps on occasion very easy to do
(just do nothing, what could be simpler than that?).
When we meditate, we must deal not only with own
thoughts, but that of others also -- at least to some
extent. For all minds are areas of interconnectedness
and motion, with feeling streaming through, endlessly.
This is love, to see all this. There is no condemnation
of sex orgies, then.
(( ))
(( ))
Meditation is a flower of love, born in your heart, when
you have left your ego aside. There is an intelligence
of love which is so that you can trust it, when it's
there, as a higher security, a manna from heaven and the
stars at night.
The world is benevolent; grasp that simple, elementary
fact (that there is no evil nor satan), and you'll see
cunning for what it is: an expression of boredom; and
boredom again an expression of an illusory division
between yourself and the world, leading to clinging to
social relations (socialism, marxism, communism). Don't
be a groupie. Be a sexy, charming cosmos-individual
intead.
(( ))
(( ))
Reincarnation isn't as buddhism will have it at all. Nor
as hinduism nor ancient egyptian books will have it.
Each of these prescribe the one soul, one individual
view, instead of two, three, four or five, or more,
individuals pr soul, which is usually the case, of
course. None of these traditions really talk of God's
endless opportunities for rotating the combinations
within an instant. Their karmic laws are too mechanical,
their view of the possible human future manifest
existence too grim. Many branches of buddhism speak of
leaving manifest existence altogether as a goal: that is
wrong, and ungodly. Creation is like an eternal flower
in ever-young new, refined unfoldment, with manifest
humanity as its petals around the manifest immortal God.
(( ))
(( ))
I say these things not because I've read them, or heard
them elsewhere, but they are given to me, by my own
subtler natures. I do not presume you'll take my word
for it, but I'll say it anyway: I know all this. These
things are unshakeable, ever-robust facts to me, more
rock-solid than the fact that there'll be sunlight
tomorrow or soon enough, when it's not cloudy. For so is
my nature, that there is no level between me and
essence. So rely on this, it'll always be there for you.
(( ))
(( ))
You are most God when you're a dancer. In your gait, you
must always:
(( )) Feel the heat of your skin, firmly,
(( )) Feel, and make sure you (only) use, the
periphery of your footblades, grabbing ground with toes,
where toes rise as foot rises (even within shoes),
(( )) Walk not too wide, but a little wide, with,
(( )) Shoulders enough back, and stomach flat, that
the torso is felt as a strong whole, perhaps with just a
little 'strutting of the butt',
(( )) Though girls naturally undulate-sway a little
from the hips, not too much of this sway while walking /
dancing,
(( )) Rather, in dance, the forward-backward sexual
thrust is the quintessential tomboy esthetics which
works for both genders.
(( ))
(( ))
There are days of ecstasy. They may start by surprising
but convincing sexual flirt between young people,
connected to the good looks of having trained stamash
well, also with massage, and intuitively selected the
right clothes, and whispered 'I am the world lover girl'
(or boy -- the word 'boy' can be used by girls who wish
to strengthen their shoulders and their thigh
musculature towards the tomboy esthetics), as the
photogenic intent of radiance. It is then sex is right,
ripe, healthy, holy, relaxed, an ease, a way to forget
oneself, yet fulfill oneself.
(( ))
(( ))
Some have said, with eloquence -- but misguided -- that
themselves or others are / have been enlightened or
awakened. But nobody in humanity up to including 20th
century has ever been even nearly enlightened. True,
there has been meditations (and each orgasm is a
meditation). Also true, there has been glimpses of
awareness into what enlightenment is about, on a purely
intellectual level. Also, there has been flashes of
divine love. But nowhere there has been, in any human, a
realised enlightenment -- obviously not. It's all been
ego, though perhaps very subtle, cultivated, and
convincing for mostly all but God. And thousands of
centuries later, no longer counted sequentially,
individuals will be enlightened, more and more (it
starts then) -- and then all souls. And after this,
still more progression, in infinity.
(( ))
(( ))
Punishments are there to help the ego, or even the
enlightened individual, not to yield to really
nonrighteous temptations. What one tells oneself again
and again is impossible one does not long for, and thus
not get sad for not having or getting. But rewards are
of another nature. They quickly conceal the real joy of
doing something truly orderly and rightly, bearing the
stress of a rewarding pleasure external to the action,
into the action. That is why capitalism (the
money-centered society) doesn't work (although a little
bit rewards now and then of course is nice and
harmless, and gifts of joys which are surprising
infinitely good.
(( ))
(( ))
Sex is not a being of pure essence, but very near it,
when it's good and lovely like a playful dance, without
motives or fears or rewards or competitions entering
into it at all. Then sex can advance your godnearhood.
It can give you a statesmanslike character strength, a
new friendliness, a new sense of brilliant light
permeating your body day and night. This is real.
Sullenness, darkness of soul, sluggishness, apathy are
unreal, put simply (but if very prolonged, they send a
signal to the body to wither, that it is to be cast off
like worn-out clothes and a new body, before it's
eighteen months and after it's twelve months, after
physical birth, must be found).
(( ))
(( ))
Hunger is not the state of mind of having no ego, but it
lingers near it. The state of mind of having no ego
permits a channeling of messages like these direct from
God or his muses or their submuses, into your life,
through whispers in your brain, operating in parallel
with sensory impressions and the rather voice-like
'self-controlled' thought in the brain.
(( ))
(( ))
When you see a really beautiful face, a face which
sheds a light on you, then it's your beauty, your harmony
within which either has just found or will (very soon)
find a new artistic shape. And so the artist is an
"orgyist", finding ecstasies and never trivilities in
young people's faces. (The same artist, honoring the
fact that each has soul, spirit and inner worth, does
not send out waves of arrogance towards faces not so
appealing. But one has the right to look at what one
looks at -- namely, that which is beautiful; one does
not focus on the other.)
(( ))
(( ))
As this author sees it, there is only one object of art,
and that is the beautiful, young girl, whether as face
portrait or with slender gaits and long limbs in dance,
or these in some act of orgy. What is elsewhere in a
work of art is but to enhance perception of the beauty
of the young, graceful body and its dancing elegance,
arrythmically, lively.
The beauty is not feminine vs. masculine, but the
tomboy girl, slender hips, small breasts (except when
pregnant and a time after), perhaps strutting nipples,
long thin relatively straight ankles and slender,
attractive feet, a cute uptilted or not too powerful
nose, not too long jaw in profile, flat stomach, massive
mane of hair (but shaved elsewhere on body, to smooth
perfection), hair which is curly or not, black, brown,
golden or blonde, the girl is slender, skinny -- also
under jaw -- her eyes large and/or slanted, mouth full
(wide or not), pure complexion without spots, unwrinkled
but smiling or laughing (yet peacefully so, even if
exalted), and very long legs compared to torso. This is
objective, God-decided, an orgasm beyond ego for all who
are good.
(( ))
(( ))
Meditation occurs in freedom from worry. Children's play
and pleasant cries are part of the dance of the
nonworrying mind -- the word 'distraction' has no role
in that type of meditation. This is able to focus yet
not exclude. It's about will, but not ego-will; but the
will fostered by earlier resoluteness and insight into
the urgency of meditation.
(( ))
(( ))
The truth of young love is that it belongs to human
happiness quite apart from -- high above -- any fruitful
aim this love may lead to. Love is its own goal --
that's one of the key insights in enlightenment. This
love is the process of loving beyond names, the force,
the energetic activation, the embracing of life it
involves. There is but faint truth in the idea, for one
who is young, in assocating contact with one individual
in some form of semi-permanent relationship of sorts.
Only the relationship to God is permanent for all -- and
that is from within, knowing you are, by your body,
carried within the mind and heart of God and his muses.
(( ))
(( ))
Meditation is when you have discovered that you are
one with all life. Then God is, for you, in that
meditation an intense aliveness beyond all dogma, fairy
tales and cults. It is no longer merely a question of
belief, it is a fact of existence, without any
loneliness. You do not measure your soul by money or
prices, then, for if it is but a droplet in God's ocean
it is infinitely worthy and will always exist.
(( ))
(( ))
Those who know my theory of active models -- or
supertexts -- or supermodels are not surprised when I
say that by a certain finesse of quantum coherence, a
large-scale object like a house or a thousand of them
can vanish in an instant and re-appear millions of
lightyears away, safely, and with all its animate life,
perhaps human beings, completely healthy in all ways.
This is not easy, and mere technology is not enough. It
is a collaboration of technology with the more subtle
forces of coherence at the roots of life and mind which
is called for.
When I say, therefore, that humanity has an infinite
future, it is not idle talk, but something which it is,
peculiarly enough, easy for me to have a role in (for I
master this coherence movement, also called "warps").
When you have a larger faith, you'll easily see what I
really imply. We're alive, we'll be alive, and happy,
and when the birth-planet is no longer habitable, then
you'll have a place to reincarnate.
(( ))
(( ))
When Alexander the Great, Cleopatra and Julius Caesar
shaped ancient Greece, Egypt and Roma as cultural
empires, they did so in a context of a mythology of
godlike beings, muses and helpers, whose sensuality,
female beauty, and sexuality were a natural part of this
worldview, at the time considered rational. Was it so
much more rational to make the cults around the
sterilized forms of godhood one saw in the newer, more
modern religions of the world, the two thousand years
later on? Did mind ever evolve in isolation from the
senses? Can one really believe in an originator without
sensual lust?
It was the faith of noble Socrates that each child is
born with insights coming from an infinitely recurrent
past, related to the pure ideals of wisdom, and to the
godhood within, which has to be 'remembered'. Though all
I associate strongly with are adults above eighteen who
declare, by contract, that they follow and cherish the
ideals of my 'stamash' (as I call it), forever, do we
not all see traces of this wisdom of the feminine which
Socrates hinted at in all children?
(( ))
(( ))
So I sense that a human being has infinite worth, is
capable of salvation, an enlightenment going beyond the
more (slightly morbid) ideas of transcendence in certain
far east versions of the story. Life is not something
one should wish to transcend, but rather open up to,
wisely, and with righteous concerns. Do we not get
happiness by giving happiness -- especially when we give
good to those who are so good that they maintain the
balance of the natural inward justice in things?
In meditation -- on goodness -- and more so, in each
reincarnation, a joy (which never needs any drugs or
anything narco-like) can be found; a joy which is also a
love for all, which knows, trusts, and feels good about
this solid, infinite fact: we all meet again, infinitely
many times.
(( ))
(( ))
I do not know whether you have thought on the various
branches in Christendom in history; how they divided,
and why. I have; and I don't presume that you haven't,
but will you hear what I have to say about it?
One must admire the folks in 300 A.D. and 400 A.D. who
discussed, hotly, whether Jesus was two natures -- human
and divine -- or one single unique person made of some
different substance than humanity. The Coptic church --
the ancient Egyptian version of Christianity -- with
close connections especially to Ethiopian churches --
decided on one unique person of a different substance
than humanity. This was tolerated, then faded out, then
largely excluded from both Roman and Eastern
Catholisism. Not quite coherently, several influential
church writers and also, later on, the Protestant Church
talked of bodily resurrections, which, abstractly, resonated
slightly with the Coptic idea, but they did not think it
through to the bottom, like these folks in 300 and 400
A.D.; so they kept on saying that Jesus was two natures
in one person.
Why did it matter so much? Isn't it completely a
purely verbal fight without any consequences, whether
the saviour figure was human+divine, or a physical
deity? Turn your attention to the future, -- their
future -- with their notion of the coming-back of the
saviour, and you'll see why it matters. It matters, in
fact, so much you get an entirely different brand of
believers out of the two.
Those who believe that Jesus was divine plus human,
two natures, are likely to believe that they will meet
Jesus again in the after-life, not in the manifest life.
As a consequence, they will not think much of manifest
life. Their orientation becomes their image of the
etheral kingdom of heaven. They regard their existence
on this (or on any planet) as of no more consequence
than their waiting for a train at the train-station --
something to be endured, with all the paraphernalia
around the glorification of suffering and tough work.
The various inventions of a 'temporary stage' between
the coming-back of the saviour became, by and large, in
the dominant real understanding of christianity -- and
taken further in islam -- the etheral type of kingdom
of heaven.
On the other hand, take the notion that the saviour
figure is physical. Not merely a prophet, like Muhammad,
not merely enlightened, like the Buddha, not merely
wise, like Socrates, not merely poetically pure, like
Lao-Tse, or brilliant, like Aristoteles, or visionary,
like Moses, or intellectual, like -- for that matter,
Leonardo da Vinci or Einstein or my teacher (on
occasion) David Bohm, but something more like the
Krishna figure in ancient Sanskrit songs -- someone, not
human, but like human, yet purely God, and all of God.
(Or Allah, or Samadhi, or Brahma, or whatever we call
the essence of all life, if one has such a belief at
all, -- which, if one takes a very calm, dispassionate
look at the whole map of existence, also as elucidated
by modern science, can make a whole lot more rational
sense than the atheistic platform of ideas, however much
intellectual effort has been put into this platform by
ingenius neodarwinism -- me believing more in neo-
popperianism).
I do not know if I make myself clear. This is a subtle
issue, yet rich in implications. Are we at all a
believer in some kind of great origin, pulsating and
vibrating with life, overseeing the synchronicities
which mould, by quantum fluctuations and still more
subtle fluctuations, the apparently chancelike events
which bring about the beauty and resillience and
mindfulness of humanity and all life in general? Then if
we believe in this origin, and sense it, and in
meditation perhaps, if we are so gifted with brain
cells, also feel it, then do we have any notion that
this origin could be physical present among us? That is
the quintessence, as I see it, of the early schism in
Christendom -- termed then, as now, 'monophysism' --
'one nature'. And the Coptic Orthodox Churches, existing
even to-day in Alexandria and in cities in Ethiopia and
elsewhere in the near east, teach that monophysism is
right; and that was also what Haile Selassie Ras
Tafari, who inspired Bob Marley so much, felt.
One sees then that those who reject monophysism do not
look for much of anything divine in manifest life; one
sees then that they may not cherish manifest life so
much; one sees then that their faith may be very
other-worldly, in a way which makes them long to
something else. But unlike India, those in Christianity
who reject monophysism do not have the refuge, the
dignity, of looking forward to reincarnation into a next
body; for Christianity is beset with the idea of 'one
soul, one body'. Their salvation is then either to get
this soul to an etheral kingdom of heaven, or it is to
get the body up from its dusty condition again.
Contrast this to e.g. Tibetan Buddhism, which teaches
that one certainly will get enlightened, after perhaps a
million summers or so, -- with lots and lots of
experiences in bodies according to the justice of a
larger law of goodness in it. Do they not at least touch
a truth -- even if not perhaps the way they want it?
According to Gothama the Buddha's teachings, in the
survived forms, enlightenment for them consists in
breaking with the reincarnation cycle. Why? Why would
not enlightenment be within manifest life, a life in
which one is reincarnated, -- why would it mean leaving
it all? Is it necessary to be so cold against manifest
life as buddhism often is? And so perhaps buddhism is
not fully the light they want to be; and so perhaps
Christianity has something to tell them.
But then, which version of Christianity or
Christendom? Monophysism or not? If we rescue the very
logical, natural idea of reincarnation and do not merely
say that it is an illusion of the far east, but a very
principled, dignified understanding that mind and heart
and spirit are more subtle than matter, and that the
feeling of being, always young, is immortal, and
survives bodily death, and is subject to a completely
exact scheme of giving great joys to those who give
joys, while those who send out pain must feel it
themselves -- non-autistic, we might say! -- if we
rescue this understanding, which lingered in some parts
of early Christianity, and bridge it with Coptic
Christianity, what do we get?
We get an honoring of manifest life, of the human
body, and of the possibility of human life to always
have a future -- in the bodies to come -- and that these
bodies will be together with the divine origin, called
Jesus or whatever; the divine origin being human-like
but of a divine 'mono-nature', this time coming to be
immortally present.
I ask you to not consider this merely a personal
ideosyncracy of the writer, who knows what it is to
apply the cleansing and purifying factor of doubt and
dialogue, of waiting and meditation, of rational good
work and contact with empirics, but something you can
weigh over in your own time. Know then, also, that there
may be a certain humour in creation. You who know well
the Greek dramas of the Olympic beings also know of how
they enjoyed veiling their activities; your friend,
walking beside you on the street, might suddenly be
beautiful young Athene, taking the form of your friend.
For I agree in one thing: if all of humanity's history
happened as recorded, in every unfolded detail, then
Elie Wiesel was right: God must have forgotten about
humanity, and left it to its own devices. But if history
is there rather as the first page of God's own novel,
implying a vastness of history which had to be put there
in order to give the confluence and reverberance of
great meaning to the present, then can you not admit
that past is a simulation? Pure logic teaches us this
much -- even the atheist Bertrand Russell admitted that
the fossils of dinosaurs might have been put there, for
fun, by a God wanting to delude humanity as to the past
of life on the planet. And those who talk with such
certainty of the Big Bang, what more do they really know
except that two dozen very precise measurements
indicate that there is a certain increased distance
between stellar processes? They reason with dozens and
dozens of ad hoc hypotheses, never bothering about the
fact that on their way, they employ theories, such as
Einstein's, which never were properly met at the
idea-level with other theories these scientists uses
quickly -- namely the quantum theories. They assume that
some day, these theories will coherently meet at the
idea level, and that they know well enough how to bridge
them in a rough manner, relevant to the discussion of
the origin of the universe. Tell them that they are
guessing, when they talk of the number of billions of
years since the Big Bang, and their cool scientific
heads will grow red with anger: for they are the real
zealots of this day, not those who voice the many
perspectives.
So turn it over, if I may point it out, letting go of
your original ideas of God as an angry old goat with a
stick, sending some flames into a human body making it
Jesus for a while. Rather, take the monophysism of the
Coptic Church seriously on its own, quite apart from
what else it may teach. Perhaps the face of the real
Jesus was exactly the creator -- physically -- though
not maybe the narrow-faced sufferer depicted in the
various artworks long after he had gone. Perhaps this
was the presence among people of the one who had made
these people. Miracles or not, it is a logical
possibility, right? And so, if these people turned
against him, naturally there would be some millenia with
trouble -- or else there would be no balancing out of
that deed, would there? -- again, please, just look at
it calmly. I am saying that if you intuit it all, you
will find that some elements of Coptic Christianity may
have touched on something far, far more significant than
any scientific discovery in the 20th century or later.
Something which speaks of an entirely fresh, optimistic,
promising way, bridging the dignity of trusting
reincarnation as a justice in which there is no eternal
damnation -- with the delight of knowing that in
manifest life, sensual, lovely, and ever-more happy with
each reincarnation, there is the presence of the
physical God, immortally there, immortally young, as an
immortal young man of a different flesh, yet similar
enough to have a lot of fun with. Possible, eh?
Now, for those, like me, who has worked many thousands
of hours with building computer programming languages
and advanced modelling, they know that a simulation, of
certain types anyway, can have a lot of extremely
precise elaborations of events within them, which, to
almost all appearances are alike actual events. But
there is a tremendous different between, say, a
simulated universe and an actual universe: the actual
universe is full of feeling and duration, whereas the
feeling of a simulation is far more, shall we say,
superficial. For instance, a simulation may span two
thousand years in five minutes. It still has feeling --
in it being observed. And this is how I (largely in
accordance with Bishop Berkeley and to some extent the
Archbishop of Canterbury, Anselm) suggest that much up
to, and including, the 20th century and a little bit
onwards, took place. Metaphysically, it is possible.
Logically, it cannot be refuted. Finally, it is a
question of intuition.
In this grander balance of events, then, you may find
that an analysis of the past less in terms of
individuals and more in terms of finding the right
modifications of events so as to provide a rich enough
stimuli for the new, enlightened human mind to arise,
may make sense. Let us with this perspective boldly ask,
then, for the role of Islam. You may at once notice that
the arguments of Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, are
fully in concordance with Islam: God, or Allah, is the
ever-greater. This greatness means that in some sense
God is the container, or, as Bishop Berkeley would put
it, the visualiser. The day-dream of God is our reality;
he day-dreams also our minds, our bodies, our souls, our
spirits, and all of the material world with its plants,
planets, and animals; and this sophisticated mind
naturally also has a heart -- there is, as Spinoza said,
a wholeness of free movement in it, with compassion and
joy, what he termed 'hilaritas'.
Now after the schism in early Christianity, God, Jesus
and all important things became etheral, relatively
unreal. There is no doubt that this feature of
Christianity led to a cultivation of a combination of
sexuality and atheism which is peculiar to Europe, such
as in vampirism, and not reasonable for instance in the
rich sensual context of the Krishna-influenced Hinduism,
in which their Jesus-like character was fond of lovely
young girls. The dark minds of the dark medival priests,
many of them, saw to it that noble heroes like Joan
d'Arc were burned for what they called 'black magic'.
They misused the work 'black', which is really a lovely
word, the word of a color incorporating, like white, all
colors, and thus warmer than blue, yet not so fire-like
as red, and, as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe pointed out,
in the vibration field between black and white, all
colors arise. Black is not evil, evil is not black. What
is evil is not the product of any arch-satan, for there
is only God as the greater, but rather, when something
shields itself from God it becomes a darkness, a shadow
of attention -- like the shadowy figures in Tolkien's
enormous writings -- and it is this darkness, not
blackness, which leads them to associate lovely young
Joan, founder of France, with something which is against
God -- she, who is more in favour of God than perhaps
any person before her.
So by their burning of Joan and other people like her,
Christianity in its anti-monophysism version proves its
fatal lack of sensuality: and the premonition of this
leads to the arisal, I propose, of Islam, as a Great
Corrector on this issue. It stays very, very near the
teachings of Christendom in very many senses, but it
callibrates the notion of Kingdom of Heaven to something
vastly sensual, in which young female beauty acts as a
reminder that God is -- as pointed out even more
strongly in its Sufi direction -- extremely sensual, and
an artist, indeed the maker of the lovely young female
body and realizing how important it is to both genders
to look up to it. So thereby the tremendous force and
vitality of the revelations to the prophet Muhammad,
and, indeed, he could say he was the last, for, with
that enormously significant ingredient, humanity could
at last breath, and say: it is all here, now it is up to
us, considering all the eclectic elements at our table,
we have left nothing out. We have it presented here,
with various names, in various shapes, with various
schisms and alternatives, and now each individual must
reach skyhigh and call for a new form of faith and
intuition, the intuition into what the Mind of God
wishes the Mind of the Human to think -- about what it
is to be human, relative to what it is to be God,
including what, indeed, is the shape and physical format
of God.
(( ))
(( ))
Sensuality is not in itself evil. Nor can one say of
the condemnations e.g. in ancient Greece or the modern
Vatican of some forms of sensuality that they are wise,
enlightened, or right. Was it wrong of Alexander the
Great to be homosexual? Was it wrong that the Northern
Greek general who took over Egypt after him founded
three hundred years with close-breeding, keeping the
Macedonian brother-sister-bride, the philodelphis, as an
archetype of Egypt for that long, producing wonders such
as beautiful, sensual Cleopatra?
This girl, and her sister-brother grandparents before
her, in several generations, proved that sex is greater
than military might. One might say that it came to
nothing since she didn't make it beyond some 38 years or
so; but what 38 years! She practical evaporated Rome
with her seductiveness, getting first Caesar, then
Antony to slave for her, making them forget their own
elementary principle of state security. The alternative
would easily have been the Roman invasion of Egypt, and,
if it had not been for her, the Roman empire might have
been the controller of Earth to this day. It is not
improbably that she was more than the dot over the 'i'
which led to Caesar's downfall. Intoxicated with her
sexual charm and finesse, her sensual lips, her sexual
grace, cultivated since childhood, in an obviously
sex-loving aristocracy, they thought of sex as worthier
than personal security. Was it wrong?
Yet this has to be said: without human existence --
and human existence is allowing for greater beauty when
civilised rather than in a primitive tribal sense, I
think we should admit -- far greater beauty -- though
some might protest -- then we have no sex, no worship of
God. We must live to have sex. We must live to worship.
We cannot simple let things fall apart around us. And
this, then, is the danger of intoxicating sexuality. Not
that it is bad in any sense in itself, neither in the
close-breeding version which produced beautiful
Cleopatra, nor in the aspirant-loving-teacher version
dominating the pupils of Plato and Aristotle, including
Alexander the Great, nor in the Sapphic poetry at the
island Lesbos, with schoolgirl crushes on schoolgirls
lifting language to new heights of love. Jesus himself
reputedly found more quality of character and strength
of soul in a beautiful girl whose career consisted in
charging money for sex than in those learned in the
scriptures, the scientists of his day.
But sex, and sensuality, must be tempered. I think few
who are noble and enlightened would deny that sexuality
is the quintessence of the woman. It is womanhood. This
sexuality procreates the human race, but it is also a
meditation of the body, leading to dance, and related to
the meditation of the head which is prayer, also the
prayers of forgiveness, the melting away of the
unnecessary forms of sentimentality, the dissolving of
unnecessary fears, so one does not fear death, does not
fear reincarnation, and finds the freedom of being
obedient to the sensual, lusty, yet wise creator -- God,
whatever names humans are giving to God.
In ancient days, the mythology of the horse without a
rider, versus the horse with a rider, signified
sensuality gone off the rockers, not steered by a mind,
versus sensuality blended with reason, piloted, steered.
The corruption of the animalistic idea -- the beast --
involved the being who has two horns but no head in
between those head which is cool and rational and
enlightened enough to guide. The third element, between
the two horns or arms (or whatever) must be that
temperatedness which cools down sensuality, and brings
an order, a frame, -- something which says, enough is
enough, at certain points, at certain days, at certain
times, so that society is sustained.
If all past was an experimentation, what does it teach
us?
It teaches us, I think, that all human being in its
ultimate essence lies with the young girls, that all the
vivacity of their leaping and dancing youths must be
what society will honor; that they wishes their bodies
to be as their souls, always young; and so, as Marilyn
Monroe is always young for she sent herself into a
recinarnation before she became something she did not
want to be, and Virginia Woolf also, and countless
others, so one must never condemn those who have the
powerful sentiment to be always young by an always new
body, rather than prolong and prolong with a thousand
specialisit medicinal techniques. The condemnation of
those who commit self-euthanasia must stop: but it is the
duty of all to honor good life, to honor it strongly and
vividly and beautifully and not to focus at all on
morbidity or death. It is but a pointless drudgery of
self-therapy to speak of such idiotic nonsense as
'memento mori'. Those who love life strongest love
youthhood and those who focus on youth rather than on
fallenness sustain their youth and find it easier to
stay on for a good while; those, as the Greek myths
loved to tell people, do not mistake the immortality of
one such as Zevs to be your own, that would be hubris,
avoid that.
In any case, Zevs, becoming the Latin Deus, and
related to the Egyptian god Ammon, becoming the Latin
Christian Amen, is the archimage of what God means to
Christianity. It is Zevs who is in the mind of those
Christians who associate God with a particular type of
man who is unshaven and quite a ruffian and with a stick
and what not. One has to say: not all Greek myths nor
sculptures were right!! But it is interesting that the
Northern Greek Macedonian instigated a powerful era in
Egypt lasting for centuries, not decades, in which their
lives resembled remarkably, for the better as well as
for the worse, almost all the Greek myths. Then is
it as Joseph Campbell suggested, that the myths are
there to extend human consciousness towards God, and
that one must keep myth going on an enlivened,
enlightened basis so as 'not to get stuck in the
metaphor'?
If Cleopatra can teach us something, and I think she
can, then, very briefly, I would put it like this: let
girls be girls, let them copulate wildly, unlimited, but
-- realizing their fantastic beauty, and letting art be
inspired of all this -- keep them away from the
rulership of the society. Let that be a firm person,
whoever much in love with the senses, not dominated by
one girl. Let the society be a girl-society,
sapphic-style; let the one who is the immortal be
the king who lets beauty not become ego, who puts
goodness first, sensuality second.
(( ))
(( ))
The philosophy behind stamash martial arts involves a
very clear faith in the force of goodness, and in that
it has a source -- that all life, in fact, has a source,
a male, personal source, call it Samadhi, God, Brahma,
Dao, Allah or what you want. Stamash is a physical form
of prayer, and its powers come from that source.
So stamash owes its "magic" not to any cunning tricks,
but to an obedience to conscience, to the protection of
what's good and innocent, allowing this source to act
through you. You fortify your action by training in
fighting, by honing your capacity to hit and kick in air
and on certain moving targets, but it is all a dance of
meditation. And so to learn about, know about, and try
meditation helps stamash, and stamash, as a form of
prayer in action, must be on the side of good, -- it
cannot be misused.
There is a validity to beauty, exploring beauty also
within, and beauty in physical body, -- the two goes
together, for only a truly good person is shapely
physically in an impressive way in the long run. So
exploration into harmony and bodily anatomy -- as art,
also -- is part of getting a contact with the powers of
meditation.
This universe has amazingly complex structures. As you
probably know, even each cell of the body contains
enough information about what the healthy body should
look like, how it is to be maintained, how it is going
to experience sex and produce offspring, and so on, --
the "DNA" molecule, so-called -- which, if translated
into written natural English would fill many, many
books. In the air, there is not just this and that
substance, but almost innumerable many tiny substances.
And all this universe as manifest is merely a tiny part
of a far greater subtle form of existence, which, in my
so-called "supermodel theory" or "theory of active
models" or "theory of supertexts", I call
"spaceduration". Here, the implications -- among other
things -- of what's about to potentially happen has an
influence on what might appear to be coincidences.
Meaningful coincidences we call, as you perhaps know,
"synchronicities".
It is possible for the sake of primitive discussion to
speak of all this structure as something which has, so
to speak, created itself (atheism). However the
emotional grounds to argue in favor of atheism are
usually the narrowness and unlikeliness of a stale,
twarted form of spirituality as represented by one book
(e.g. the "Christian Bible", so-called). A rich, ripe,
real spirituality doesn't condemn sex orgies, doesn't
trivialize theories of cosmos, and yet can be rational
in its assertion that spaceduration is in some way part
of the mind of a being, God.
In (my version of) socalled "coptic christiantiy",
this being, God, is understood to be within his creation,
physically (always). This is the approach taken with
stamash, of course.
Now, in this spirituality, synchronicities and
causality (cause-and-effect) are the two ways in which
things happen.
The causality is in a sense derived from
synchronicities (ref. my presentation of "quantum
phenomena" in supermodel theory for how this happens, in
a way which is related to the concept of "nonlocality"
or "alocality" -- that beings can move about, given
certain conditions, across spaceduration -- also
socalled "warps").
Put relatively simply, it means that God ensures that
each gets the deserved events, -- including the deserved
body. This happens by synchronicities. This cannot be
tampered with -- there is no "voodoo" -- but one can
pray (and each good artwork is a reminder or affirmation
towards good prayers) -- and God or his muses will
always respond, in some way.
(( ))
(( ))
A brief note on consciousness expansion relative to
drugs. As I see it, inner freedom is compatible with
certain forms of physical freedom, but not with all
forms of physical freedom. The physical freedom to be
orgiastic, yes. The physical freedom to do drugs, no.
What dance -- tantrism -- vegetarianism -- food
concentrates incl. B12 -- coffee -- meditative reading
-- painting -- dialogue -- etc can give, esp. to the
young person, is fantastic. The brain can come to new
forms of sensitivity. For some, they may find themselves
too disharmonious, perhaps due to childhood issues, to
make it through a period when the brain starts getting
self-active; for most, it will work fantastically well.
But those who even once touch a strong drug like
cocaine or amphetamine or ecstasy do get, I think, an
irreversible reduction of the finer brain fibres which
are important for enlightenment. One can recover from a
little bit of mild marihuana or from the occasional
alcohol-experience easily enough. I myself have never
even once touched anything stronger than alcohol and but
a few times marihuana, which a little stronger than
tobacco. But my intuition is that those who have touched
anything stronger must accept that they have become more
robotic, less smart, and less able to experience
religious states. That is why I confine my teaching work
to those who are young -- hopefully, too young to have
been corrupted by drug-infested groups in society.
(( ))
(( ))
Perhaps you associate spirituality also with prayer --
and rightly so, in my opinion. Now, if you want to be an
expert in prayer, then good luck!! Even after a trillion
seasons, and ditto reincarnations, you'll find that a
trillion more are needed to get further in learning
about it. For prayer is great art. It is about
communication with higher beings -- the muses -- and the
highest, God. (Instead of muses we might say angels, of
course.) So your communication must be genuine, and seen
so: in intent, and also by your improvised, dignified,
suitably humble words. After a request, some five
minutes of meditation in which -- semi-consciously as it
were -- a negotiation with them takes place. Then, the
sense, the idea, of a suitable action to settle the
terms of negotiation; in a society with perfectly
righteous laws, the GJ2 society, the action will always
be fully legal (clearly so), while in a society with
more fuzzy laws as far as righteousness goes, the action
may sometimes break them. It is important not to fool
oneself on this. Any desire / fear complex must be
blocked for the passageway from the creative intelligent
source to be clear in your consciousness. The
understanding of all this will always be relative in a
human being, as enlightenment will be relative (only God
has absolute light).
There is in your mind a kind of "elite" of thoughts,
aims and goals, and this is normal, it sets a direction,
it encourages learning and progress -- at least it can
do so, this "elite" or peakpoint of all your intents and
aims. When this elite area in your mind and heart is
aligned with God, to be an artist expressing, ever-more,
the highest beauty you can, you are on your way to
enlightenment, or to more and more enlightenment. The
aims must not be mechanical, nor bitter, nor
self-contradictory, nor based on a selfish interest like
quenching loneliness.
In an objective creation, an objective and
interobjective process by God and his muses, in which it
is all, in a sense, God's imagined artwork, made stable
by God's imagined computers, one doesn't go around
saying "beauty is subjective". Hard subjectivism is
merely a feature of atheism, of the silly denial of
life's and love's divine origin. Up to a point in time,
the past is a form of simulation, a preparation by God
to unfold the actual universe by equipping it with a
tantalizing past, a set of opening challenges. This
shift, I maintain, happened in early 21st century.
Still, the past is not subjective nor intersubjective
but, simulation or not, has a steady objectivity
(changable only by God) which determines your karma --
do not lie about it!! For only in being earnest about
it, you have grounds for right prayers for forgiveness,
showing how ashamed you are.
From time to time, even in a perhaps enlightened
society, a group of people can get infected by what can
be called a "bourgeoise attitude"; ie, they are the
bourgeoisie.
The bourgeoisie, like a bacteria causing an easily
spread cold, vary -- in rhythms, in manners of speech,
etc. There are some common features, however. One such
feature is that they are quickly sarcastic (albeit not
always showing it) relative to all those not belonging
to their own group, typically by a form of dry,
mirthless laughter, accompaigning a "reminder" of what
it takes to "qualify" for membership in their group,
which supposedly, according to them (despite the fact
that it is lowest on the scale of worth as seen by God),
is highest in society.
It is a hobby among the bourgeoisie to pick on those
who appear to be half-way within their group, so as to
"expose" these individuals. A way is to ensnare them
into making promises shaped so cunningly that these
promises cannot be fulfilled by these half-bourgeoise
individuals. These may then be called "loosers" by the
bourgeoisie, in all the sick shamelessness of the
bourgeoisie.
In God shaping consciousness of humanity, simulation
space was made, where some stages or pillars, as it
were, in consciousness evolution was established. I
sense that it is fruitful to regard these as reference
points to understand the map of consciousness also in
the future.
I will begin with Daoism. Here, sexuality is
postulated as essence.
Then Judaism. Here, the anger of the Creator is spoken
about so as to incite fear against doing wrong. (The
pantheism of so-called "Kabbalah", however, can be seen
as little more than glorified atheism -- an attempt to
say about the manifest universe that it is "God".)
So Hinduism. Here (as in the Greek and Egyptian
religions, which are aspects of it) the muses ("gods")
are understood as well as reincarnation.
Then, Buddhism. In it, the personal fight against the
ego is detailed to a fair degree, with reincarnation
also of insights in progress toward enlightenment.
A fifth stage is the female sensuality inside Islam.
Here, with the prophet getting his child-bride, Aisha,
the ultimate goal is spoken about in terms of God's
creating of so many young girls in overflowing
sensuality.
The far, far more mature, sixth stage, is the notion
of the Christos, with Christianity, in which the
important correction of the overly angry picture of the
Creator in Judaism occurs, and in which God is portrayed
(esp. in the Coptic way), as immortally a young, loving
male. All the foregoing stages must be combined with
this (e.g., God is also the harsh judge on occasions;
reincarnation also happens, young girls in a bisexual
sense is preferred, etc).
Historically, the sequence couldn't have Christianity
before Islam (even though the seed elements of
Christianity preceeded Islam with six or so centuries),
because the Christianity I talk of is encompassing also
of a global variety of eclectic approaches it took
computing technology to gather and present as one whole
(rather than kept apart geographically). That is, I do
not regard any of Roman Catholisism, Protestantism, or
other institutionalized forms of early Christianity as
any other than fragmented elements.
This writer, of course, speak from an intuition which
effortlessly encompasses the six stages or pillars in
human consciousness. This, I claim, flow from my own
nature, which I initially, to myself, called The
Buddhahood. The power of it came leaping through in my
consciousness as I explored synchronicities, and I
learned also telekinesis -- that it directly controls
lightening etc. Anything was (is) open to it -- total
telepathy also. As it became clear it sourced duration
(and could change earlier parts of it), at a
consciousness level I connected with what the
semi-consciousness wanted to express, thereby the name
Aristo Tacoma, its -- or mine -- truest name, correcting
earlier names, including Christos. This statement, I
know, has -- and rightly so -- when modified and put in
the lips of a human, been seen as hubris or lunatisism.
For the Christ principle is one of monophysism.
(( ))
(( ))
Then to something far, far dearer to many people than
metaphysics: how to make money ;)
For a long time I have been inspired by some features
and some aspects of what George Soros, who studied also
quantum physics and worked directly with Karl Popper,
did with his Quantum Fund in terms of earning money not
by exchanging stocks in other people's companies, but by
exchanging one currency for another, having a sense of
the resonances and reflexivities as the curves dance up
and down, and as the world's currencies fluctuatate in
ways which are significant when you operate with large
sums.
As has been written many times for many many seasons,
Soros single-handedly affected the status of the GBP,
the British Pound, in the European monetary market
collaboration, by forcing it to swing in a certain
direction that even the central bank in UK could not
supercede -- thus earning himself billions which he has
later also spent in philantropical work. My fascination
with all three items -- quantum physics, Popper, and
money -- led me to constantly think about this
possibility even as I ventured into one non-money-making
project after another, sponsored a little here and and a
little there by relatively well-to-do friends -- some
who had earned money by real estate, some by selling
paintings, and some by consultancy work.
In the first Firth operating approach for computers,
as of 2006 (as said, still found at
yoga4d.org/download), there is, then, a 'monetary
pattern recogniser' which, in a preliminary way,
suggests some way in which an individual can study some
of the many possible patterns which are found within the
fluctuating world currencies. I have now developed a
much more far-ranging program in Lisa Gj2 Fic, called
CTIN -- Currency Transaction Income maker -- and, at the
moment of writing, I am preparing for doing real work
with real money, by running a series of hypothetical
investments.
It has occurred to me, as I have contacted various
banks and spoken with various people about earning money
in this way, that not many, even of those with
economical education and profession, really understand
much of what day-trading or spot-trading with currencies
is all about. This surprised me; I thought everbody but
me knew everything about economy -- but several
conversations with bosses in banks recently has
convinced me that there is not still that culture around
thinking about making money based on currencies that
people have an easy time thinking about it. And so, in
this series of reflections which I hope can be useful on
occasion for some, sometime, I thought I might as well
include some observations also on this.
Let me motivate it a little bit by indicating why I
find it offensive to buy and sell stocks in other
people's companies as a way of making money -- and so,
why currency transaction work can be a far, far more
ethical way of making money, albeit often a slower one,
since it involves, typically, relating to curves which
swing more slowly than stock trading, at least if we
speak of the grand, stable currencies. Thus, even when
one says that a certain currency, even dollar or euro,
is 'very low these days', it doesn't usually mean that
it is affected more than a couple of percent, at most.
IF a stock is very low, however, it may be that it has
been reduced to maybe a tenth of its former value. So
working with currencies involves typically a robust,
stable, safe way of earning money, in which, the more
you have, the more you can earn, and even if you don't
act so smart as you could, you still usually won't have
much of a risk element. It is somewhat comparable with
having money in a bank account with a very, very high
interest rate, with luck; and with a not so high
interest rate if your currency transaction works are not
so well done.
But compare it to what it means to trade in shares of
other people's companies. As long as you buy just a
percentage of a percentage of a company, you do not
affect that company much, usually. But if you happen to
earn a lot of money, then suddenly your buying and
selling actions, whether you like it or not, starts
affecting that company. And so, you are affecting more
and more people the more affluent you are, doing these
types of transactions: and if you have an ethical
understanding of life, in which you stand in
relationship to the pains you send out, and must face
the consequences of these and even reincarnate so as to
work out what has not been worked out before, then you
do not merely want to make a lot of money quick: you
want to make what you make of money right. And it is not
possible in any easy way to gauge what is right,
ethically speaking, as for the effects of buying and
selling stocks. The effects are big, but monitoring them
is simply a too huge job generally speaking -- exactly
because it is not your own company. If your selling and
buying means that you contribute to the exit of the
founder of the company from that company, is that a good
or bad thing? That is something you will have to stand
in relationship to if you are an affluent person buying
and selling shares on the world stock market. But if you
say, 'I don't want to have any relationship to that,'
then you are no longer in this interconnected web of
reality, you are living in a little dream-world, and
you'll have to face your karma when your time comes
around, and good luck to you.
Take, on the other hand, the fact that every day, many
times every day even, there is a slightly altered
relationship between the vast currencies, such as euro,
pound, dollar, yen and such. This slightly alterered
relationship is the product of hundreds of different
factors of great magnitude and this relationship is even
for affluent investors not very greatly affected by them
-- unless they lend a lot of money and deliberately try
to affect a certain currency in a certain way. Whether
what Soros did then was ethical or not I do not want to
give any judgement of here; but the fact is that you can
operate even with several billions of euro or dollar and
still not have much impact on the overall flow of the
currency relative to other currencies (if you stay away
from lending so as to "gear up" the investment and thus
also increasing the risk -- the type of CT I talk about
involves changing the ground currency of your own money,
not trading with a gigantic sum lent from a bank with
your own money as risk-base).
So, suppose your natural currency is kroner, or euro,
or dollar, or rubles, or canadian dollars or whatever.
That is the currency you want to have as much as money
in, after the completion let's say of an 11-month period
of good work with day-trading or weekly trading with
currencies in what is called the "spot market", perhaps
by an e-market account in a very solid bank offering
good relative rates for buying and selling currencies
relative to one another for your account, operated
quickly and easily from a computer.
But inside that period, let's say of 11 months, you
shift the currency ground. Perhaps dollar is on the rise
this week, according to the forecast of your own
program, or your intuition, or you read that this seems
to be the case. Early in the week, then, at a time
during the day when the exchange rate from the currency
you had the week before to the new currency is a good
one -- and you have maybe five, seven or ten seconds or
so to decide, before the price fluctuate again, as you
operate the computer -- you switch the ground currency
into dollar.
Maybe next week, it seems that the dollar is not
rising more relative to your own currency, but that the
euro is going up. So you switch to euro at a fruitful
moment. If you are wanting to do many other things than
earning money, you will want to do this not too many
times a month, and remember that the bank takes a margin
of your money each time relative to a midprice between
buying and selling prices for currency -- perhaps along
the range of 0.1 percent, bad banks exceed 0.17 percent.
The fewer transactions, the less you pay to the bank for
your service, in other words.
So perhaps you had, say, a million euro to start with,
in a local currency, perhaps kroner, other than euro.
This you regrounded into, let's say, australian dollars.
You find that at the end of the week, if you convert
euro to your local currency, it would give you a million
and, let's hope, fifty thousand extra euro. But you
don't got to your local currency yet. You want to keep
on working it up, this sum. So you go to dollar instead,
because the dollar seems to be on the rise. Again, let's
say, you have luck. Your forecast program, CTIN or
another one, pointed out that the value of dollar
rightly was going up; and, lo and behold!!, if you
convert it to your local currency after that second
week, it is even more money available: a million one
hundred thousand euro, for instance. But still you don't
convert it, you keep on working: and after this period,
let's say 11 months, maybe you collaborated with other
people who contributed some sums, they taking the risk,
but you sharing the profits with them if it worked out
to a higher sum than they contributed with, you might
have come up with twenty percent more money than that
which you started with. You see that after a couple of
years this way you can, if you are good at it, multiply
sums of money. And all the way, you have steered out of
dealing with companies involving lots and lots of jobs;
you are focussing on intelligent relationship to rather
stable, robust curves, aiming at skimming the best of
the up-curves, switching as often as it can be seen
right to do. Unlike the stock markets, the currency
market is not based (much) on gossip. These things are
tough things when we are talking the big currencies.
There is a lot of work to be done in coming to
understand the numbers involved. Economists might have
many concepts which in some cases confuse the issue --
for instance, they may say that if a currency changes
from 5.0100 to 5.0200 it is a change of '100 points' or
the like; but this is not a great way to look at numbers
-- for if another currency changes from 1.0100 to 1.0200
it also changes '100 points' but the fact of the matter
is that the change, measured in percent, is five times
as large as in the former.
When people type in numbers manually, type in
decimals, and work with numbers in a sense that makes
them acutely aware of the actual sizes of numbers, we
can speak of a first-hand arithmetic, or a first-hand
relationship to numbers, in analogy with that which I
for several years has called a first-hand form of
programming. Numbers tell a tale: we do not always need
a fancy name or gossip around it in order to get a sense
of what a number says. You can learn about numbers and
this is not engaging in "number magic": there is no
voodoo about it, and, no China, four is not a bad
number. Each digit-number has a function, and you must
realize the function, and understand the lovely
flower-like fractals in spelling out the digit series,
and listen to them, take them deep into your gut
feeling. So it is important not to make too many things
automatic, not too many things must go by the computer;
one must watch out for overuse of computers, and
consciously, very consciously, restrict the degree to
which one lets oneself be un-empowered by the computer.
(The same can be said for too heavy reliance on text
messaging, mobile phones, or stupefying headphones
full of pumping music instead of listening in to the
dance of synchronicities in spontaneously meeting people
at street and at cafees, learning how to relate to new
people and not fortifying cliques based on a primarely
second-hand technological way of relating to each other.)
To strike a positive note at the completion of this
reflection over making money by currency transactions,
or spot day-trading in the currency market, let us see
currencies not as emblems or symbols of nations or
countries, nor strive to unify all money in a digital
sense, but rather let us see pluralism and fluctuating
curves as indicative of an interesting human sphere of
communication -- a sphere which invites the first-hand
approach of making money simply by sensing the
relationships and being with the up-curves.
In this understanding, we can see the digital
pluralism of several currencies as part of what makes
money interesting in itself -- its very diversity is
part of the natural culture of trust we have in money --
and this complements the type of more informal
currencies we have of the more solid kind, including
direct trading in gold and diamonds and other such
entities of natural intrinsic worth.
It is my sense of the human spirit that each is born
to be an artist, and find joy in knowing that a new day
is a new day to make art in; in order to achieve a
realization of a society which allows this and which
assures -- not equality at a socialist mud level -- but
equality in the sense that each has IDENTICAL LUXURY as
any other, we can still engage in money-making as a form
of art: and then, the fact of fluctuating curves
relative to various forms of currencies is part of what
makes this art possible.
(( ))
(( ))
April 18, 2008 Oslo
Aristo Tacoma / Henning B Reusch
With a couple of corrections August 24, 2008 Oslo.
**************
IT IS INTENDED THAT THIS PAGE WILL SHOW ALSO AS
INFORMATION TO THOSE INTERESTED IN THE STAMASH EDUCATION
-- PLANS WHICH COMPLETELY SUPERCEDE ANY OTHER PRACTICAL
PLANS INDICATED INSIDE THESE SITES. THOUGH I AM PERSONAL
IN MEANING, AND HINT HERE AT FORMS OF TECHNOLOGY I HAVE
BUT TOUCHED BRIEFLY, WITH A CERTAINTY WHICH MIGHT SEEM
SLIGHTLY SUSPECT UNLESS YOU HAVE SEEN IT IN PRAXIS,
I MEAN HERE ALSO TO LAY THE GROUND FOR AN IMPERSONAL
STYLE OF EDUCATION COMBINING ARTISTIC THINKING WITH
SPIRITUALITY FOR MARTIAL ARTS COURSES FOR GIRLS 18-24 YRS.
Note: The information above, as for practical matters, may be subject to change without further notice on this site. Further note that the copyright pertains to all elements on this page unless otherwise specifically indicated.
PART II PHILOSOPHY, NOTES, BIOGRAPHY, IDEAS, SUGGESTIONS, AND INFORMATION ON HOW TO STORE FILES IN MINILISA ADDED NOV./DEC. 2008 Beneath you will, if you have Java runtime in your browser, get a miniversion of Lisa. Java runtime can be installed from Sun Microsystems, who has developed and trademarked Java, first called, and perhaps more aptly, Oak -- inspired by object-orientation and by C and more similar in vein to C than Firth Lisa is to Forth. Consult sun.com/getjava. Runtimes for Java you have the right to distribute alongside your own programs in Java. A runtime which is fast and good and much newer than the version required for the window beneath is here, copyright Sun Microsystems, and read their license when installing. Runtime Java for Konqueror in Red Hat 8.0, go to sun.com/getjava also, or select Save Target/File by right (or ctrl)-clicking here. They can work with Internet Explorer, Firefox, Konqueror, Google Crown, Opera, other browsers, and some versions of Mozilla (not the earliest when we talk RH8). The Red Hat 8.0 compatibility I have tested through and through -- it is extremely well done by Sun Microsystems, their Java product there, so with the j160.rpm.bin you find a tested full-fledged Java 1.6.0 working with this Y2000 classical platform standard. Consult very clearly the license agreements from Sun if you have any questions as to the usage of the programs listed in this paragraph -- these are entirely their own origin and copyright and they have their own type of licensing, which has worked well to establish Java as a kind of side-religion to the other types of computer religions, the Microsoft type, the Apple type, and the Unix/Linux type, and such. Be sure we respect the copyright license agreement as indicated in the startup of these classical runtimes. The trick to install the j160.rpm.bin is to put it to /root, then do cd /root then chmod 777 j160.rpm.bin and finally ./j160.rpm.bin and you are of course logged in as root as explained in the INSTALL.TXT somewhere for the R CD's. It will install to /usr/java/jdk1.6.0_10/jre/bin where the command java is the one that you should feed to any browser later than Mozilla 1.0. The Konqueror in RH8 works fine. Red Hat 8.0 is as you perhaps know the free GNU GPL version made for Y2000 PCs and a kind of world standard, unbeatable, used by PC factories all over the world to test if their machines are worthy to be called "a real PC", just like perhaps some factories are by now using the Firth Lisa_OAC as I have woven it with FreeDOS binaries and tons of other things and many many novel things by myself into a first-hand coherent honest programming environment for the meditative creative intelligent individual. Consult of course the yoga4d.org/download for the "R" CDs, which became the free Fedora -- open source, with the
MINIVERSION ADDED NOV./DEC. 2008 IN FOLLOWING WINDOW (CLICK REFRESH BUTTON / CHECK PREFERENCES / CHECK COMMENTS ABOVE ON JAVA.POLICY / RESTART BROWSER IF YOU FIND THAT THE SPACE IN THE FOLLOWING IS NOT FULLY THE STARTUP IT SHOULD BE):