Original rendering by Aristo T.
of an ordinary photo from www.supermodels.nl
WELCOME!!!
Link to page 2
(in this archive, highest numbered page has newest
articles, while page number 1 and 2 are foundational
and kept stable, with higher-numbered pages regularly
updated as articles find their way into Big Art
Booklets or other permanent publications)
For copyright conditions of these archived
news articles by S Henning W B Reusch, whose
artist name is Aristo Tacoma, see the topscript
of where they first appeared, namely at the
'comments on general features of breaking
news in world economy section' of the worldwide
standard search engine Yoga6d.org (and its
various entirely identical entry-points,
which are named after many of the near-ascii
languages it is supporting, -- we use these
various entry-points so as to distribute the
traffic to this search engine. Cfr
www.yoga6d.org/economy.htm. To get into
anyone of the search entry points, click at
the 'search now' drawing at the front of
yoga6d.org, then click on the next image,
the one about 'saving humanity', and you
can search using ascii ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
(upper as lowercase are the same), optionally
with digits inside, for a selection of words
found on top at the front of most webpages.
As for how to anglify a word written in another
language, you have to try out what works -- the
rules for translation into the ascii set e.g.
from something like the rather different russian
language are simplistic and not done according
to the context in which the letters appear.
Once you learn how to work with this search
engine, and learn how to do search-within-a-page
when you get many results with the browser
'find-text-in-page' command, you will see that
your overall productivity in all areas of life
is enhanced, and the freedom from imposed
simulations of 'contexts' (such as by boolean
'AND' across a lot of the internet) essentially
turns out to be stimulating, because it is
predictable, straightforward, and honest in
a computer program mechanical way that you
can and will learn to harness.
But now, for the archive. In the archive,
we keep the same type of sequence as in the
economy.htm news section -- namely, the newest
on top.
[[[Spelling variations are part of the
soul of writing and convey information
on its own, as does variations in lineshift
usage.]]]
[[[Once in a while we will remove something
from this archive section so the overall
quantity is at all time quite moderate;
for those who wish reprints of earlier
works they will then with some level of
probability be able to trace them as
chapters in published nonfiction books
by this author.]]]
[[[Note: THE TEXTS TO BE ARCHIVED ARE AS
A RULE PUT THERE RATHER AT THE SAME TIME
AS THEY APPEAR IN THE MAIN ../economy.htm
NEWS SECTION. THESE USUALLY HAVE FEATURES
INVOLVING FOUNDATIONAL THOUGHTS ON WHICH
MUCH THINKING APART FROM WHAT GOES ON
JUST WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN CAN BE FOUNDED.
THEY ALSO USUALLY APPEAR AS CHAPTERS IN
THE ALWAYS FRESH BOOKS EACH YEAR SIGNED
BY ARISTO TACOMA. THESE BOOKS ARE SOLD
ALSO AT PHILOSOPHICAL TALKS WITH LIGHT
SEMINARS ARRANGED THE SAME DAY AS
SPRING/BI PAINTING EXHIBITIONS OPEN,
WITH THE CHARACTERISTIC APPROACH OF
SPRING/BI WITH A WOODEN BACKGROUND ON
WHICH BLACK AND SPRING GREEN ARE
APPLIED WITH PLEASANTLY UNRULY LINES,
AS BRIEFLY INDICATED AT THE DICTIONARY
yoga4d.org/super.]]]
SCIENCE IS TOO IMPORTANT TO BE LEFT TO SCIENTIFIC
INSTITUTIONS
-- People who are scientists in name only try to make a
career out of more-or-less doomsday predictions in the
wake of natural occurrencies of extreme weather
[As of 2011:1:16 (early morning, as for GMT hours)]
Author of article can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
Science is too important to be left to scientific
institutions. We need meta-science, or metascience: here
we ask:
* HOW IS SCIENCE DONE?
* HOW SHOULD SCIENCE BE DONE?
And in this regard, we pick the best bits of the more
mature writings of Karl Popper, which are accepted
worldwide as pretty foundational for all scientific
institutions, and say that:
* science is a quality of certain formulations and
certain observational activities related to checkable
statements, it is not a quality of certain people or
institutions.
This has to be said because -- again -- science is too
important to be left to the scientific institutions, and
to those people who have got some papers, thinking
themselves star-high in intelligence (but the papers
were given them on Earth), where it says that these
people are scientists, and USING THE PRESTIGE OF THE
WORD SCIENCE they usher forth publications and give
interviews and rake in the goods of social prestige and
money by offering also not very noteworthy observations
in the cloak, with the hat, in the name of science.
In particular, some scientists -- or, more precisely,
some very human human beings -- are, each time there is
a flood or some extreme weather, trying to cash in on it
by interpreting it in a way which fits their own
projects.
It is however so that the next hundred years of
technological development and intercontinental
collaboration and, indeed, the whole integrated world
conversation on what humanity must do next, in order not
to sink into: extreme pollution, extreme waste, extreme
lack of natural forests, extreme lack of clean water,
extreme lack of useful soil, extreme lack of food,
extreme lack of fundamental vital facilities, and
extreme quantity of people thrown together with few or
none rivers, little of such as fridges, housing,
electricity, transport means, computers, telephones, air
conditioners and so on and so forth -- in order, then,
not to sink into all this, we must do science -- all of
us -- and apply a level of scientific dialogue with a
certain willingness to express checkable statements and
honor the diversity of possible interpretations.
Cfr the acknowledgement, it cites some example of how
people using the hat of science try to convert disasters
to fortify some very narrow propositions. But when they
do so, they typically say things which, as a by-product,
convey support to that gloomy view which at present
pervades teenagers across the globe, and which prevents
action, namely that it has gone too far already.
I have proposed certain humane extensions of the best
bits of what Popper suggested towards (much) greater
inclusiveness of intuition which is harnessed in a
sophisicated way. What with all this and with my own
studies of the world's environment through reports,
through thinking them over, and by my own intuition, it
is to me clear that the stance which it is fruitful to
take is PAY ATTENTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE in a
broad sense, letting go of any particular focus on
shifts in climate, but rather working on ALL PARTICULAR
AREAS WITH GREAT ZEST.
In order to do this, we must explore each
environmental area without having a general pervading
sense of irreversible changes for the worse in the
overall background of things. Yes, there are some global
temperature changes and sea level changes and yes there
will be more. But it is a waste of time to try to
control Earth as a whole -- and, in addition, quite a
megalomaniac stance to take. All the focus on CO2 is
like trying to wash the floor of a house where
everything else is in disrepair. The real focus must go
to a BUNDLE of concrete concerns, together with a
realisation that -- possibly to a larger extent than
before -- there will be extreme weathers and also vast
disasters, here and there, both natural and human-made
and in between -- and so we must build up all sorts of
meaningful dialogues and plan and then put into action
these plans for a multi-faceted environmental balance
contribution approach which surely is at least as
important as the focus on world peace and which go hand
in hand with a will to benefit as much as possible the
quality of living for as many as possible.
In order to do this, we need science -- all of us. But
then we must realize that with all the reports of what
goes on in so-called scientific institutions of
corruption, fakes, coercion and a general lack of
willingness to engage in pluralistic discourses -- and
we can readily imagine all that is not reported --
it must be clear that all humanity needs science, a good
science, a science that is too important to be left to
the scientific institutions.
In order to liberate science from the also the higher
institutions (such as the rediculously named Royal
Society in Britain which is dominated by hysterical
people like Richard Dawkins who humours himself trying
to put the Pope to jail, no doubt out of the best
motives), we must cultivate a discipline of metascience,
where each one in freedom from the cliques and elitist
structures can learn to discern what is scientific
checkable in what ANY person comes with, from that which
is narrow-minded, biased, and so forth. The scientific
spirit, obviously, as a normative ideal -- which is not
reflected in any of the so-called leading scientific
journals at all, not Nature, not Science, not any one of
them -- is to honor wonder as the primary form of
perceptive openess about the world.
To honor wonder means that one must put one's own
assumptions in parentheses, as best one can, rather than
engage in thesis and anti-thesis on the level of
conflict.
One must also appreciate when others are pointing out
that such and such is not put forth in a spirit of open
wonder.
What is rational must then be open to exploration. It
is scientific to be open-minded, and nonscientific to
declare whole classes of alternative perspectives as
nonscientific in the absolute sense. Rather, each
viewpoint that a fanatical person offers -- such as
those who stick to fundamentalist creationist viewpoints
according to an ancient book -- can be divided into
pieces out of which something can be extracted which
can be converted to checkable propositions, such as
Brian Goodwin has done, and many others, who do not
agree with darwinism nor with neodarwinism; but the
dominant scientific institutions around the globe
have, most of them, declared from the outset that
all alternatives to the THEORY of darwinism is per
se nonscientific. But it is this declaration that
is nonscientific. The THEORY of darwinism in its
many modifications is one of thousands of logical,
coherent, rational, consistent possible propositions
to make about the existence, background and upcoming
evolution of living biological organisms including
humans. The fact that some people are hotheadedly
in favour of some ancient rubbish doesn't mean that
nothing IN PRINCIPLE of alternatives cannot be
scientific. It is this PRINCIPAL OPENNESS that
Karl Popper, in his The Open Society and Its Enemies,
declared as the normative definition of science, and
-- in fact -- this has been accepted. It will now
have to be applied, and when we apply the criterion,
we see that scientific institutions are, in general
and by and large, not worthy of being called such.
We need therefore a new education, and journalists
must all get it -- a philsophical kind, involving
what traditionally but somewhat lamely was called
'theory of science' or 'philosophy of science', but
which more forcefully can be called meta-science
or metascience, where we can also speak of 'tools
of metascience' (such as the F3 language, with a
new scientific tutorial being made at present for
it, for release on norskesites.org/fic3 soon).
This must be rephrased until we change the present
mesmerizing influence of people who are scientists
in name only, but not in content. So: It is scientific
to say of each person, also child, that each person can
engage in scientific work, contribute to science in the
REAL sense of science, outside of all universities and
magazines. Indeed, in this sense, each person who
schools herself in meta-science, or the question of what
science both is and what it should be, is a kind of
walking, independent university in her own right.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
================
Article by LINSEY DAVIS and JENNIFER METZ, ABC News,
ABC Television in New York, North America,
(found through a link by www.wn.com),
dated 2011:1:13 and entitled
"Raging Waters In Australia and Brazil Product of Global Warming
-- scientists: climate change no longer a theory, it's happening".
THE NEW FASHION AND THE NEW SUPERMODELS ARE WEBPORNSITES
-- Young girls are looking to web xxx for esthetics,
with the traditional leg&face fashion magazines considered second
[As of 2011:1:13 (early morning, as for GMT hours)]
Author of article can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
We all know it -- at least if we think twice about what
each one of us who live in any internet-dominated city
have experienced the past couple of seasons. We do not
need any statistics. Some breaking news -- such as in
the extremely well-known example (used by
environmentalists of the less optimistic type) of the
frog which is fried so slowly it doesn't jump -- come so
slowly that nobody jumps (not even the American Family
Association, in their vague league with all the magazines
which used to have a copyright claim of sorts on the
prettiest girls, the so-called supermodels, but on the
AFA condition of them swaying away from anything
playboy-like, submitting to censorship of their finer
organs). And this has come so slowly that few has
jumped, -- in fact, this is a different type of fry, one
that permits life to succeed. It is more like a tan, no
need to jump.
For instance, the girls you have spoken to -- young,
skinny, good-looking, some rich by inheritance, some a
little bit rich, some having to put up with a job at the
supermarket, but lacking nothing in glamour for that
reason -- who, either with flushed faces, or with an
innocent prettily shameless face speaks / admits that
porn is quite inspiring to them. Webpornpages.
And that they themselves or their best friends quite
often, or at least once, have done something -- for fun.
In contrast to The Fashion Industry, which is literally
an industry, complete with factories in less democratic
places such as Burma, -- pornwebsites are not always an
industry. They may be purely for sheer fun, though some
make a profit, big or small.
It is at the pornwebsites you find the supermodels of
the 21st century. It is at the free no-credit-card
necessary xxxsites-all-our-virgins-are-above-18 type of
pages (but turn off cookies and javascript and flash,
because a huge percentage of them got viruses) -- we
find the prettiest girls looking at photos of the
prettiest girls, without as much as a g-string for five
bucks on them, in order to get an inspiration for their
daily life and nightly partying, and in how to dance,
how to move, and what to emphasize about themselves.
Before Internet, there was Naomi Campbell -- I mean
before Internet totally took over the world. She was the
first final complete manifestation of the absolute end
to any racism that could possibly have existed at the
essence level of the fashion industry. She reigned
supreme, ever since she equipped the front of the
then-also-reigning Time Magazine with all her colors and
all her skinniness and all her new female strength.
She was the ultimate IDEA of the supermodel: and that
energy, beyond any particular name or persona, now lives
in this blessed thing we call The World Wide Web.
Across all the world, girls are relishing in a sense
of what it means to be blossoming in their youth,
without having to have landed a ten-million-dollar
contract or picked up by chance at the beaches of Los
Angeles or wherever. Each one of them knows that there
is an ocean of free beauty into which they, too, with a
little bit luck of the camera settings, the lights, and
their recent diet and training scheme, can have a swim
-- possibly a long swim in.
NECESSARY SOCIETAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 21ST CENTURY
-- In the next hundred years, preparedness and
balance summarised in nine points -- this is written
for politicians, voters and scientists alike
[As of 2011:1:12 (early morning, as for GMT hours)]
Author of article can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
Twelve months ago today, as I write this, a major
earthquake hit Haiti and created a humanitarian
disaster, and Haiti is as yet still in total crisis.
And the past week has seen Queensland at the
Australian continent flooded in the extreme, in floods
which are at least the worst in decades.
Every year there are situations which call for
rethinking. Let's do the rethinking.
First of all, let's concede that humanity has come to
stay. There will be no disaster that finishes off
humanity as a whole. Earth will persist. Etc.
Though some money-hungry film-makers tried to make a
great point out of the fact that some otherwise
resourceful Maya indians centuries ago ran out of paper
(or the equivalent to paper) when they tried to make a
calendar complete with all bank holidays and other
festivitas going into the 21st century, stopping around
2011, 2012 or 2013 or so, this shouldn't make anyone believe
in any apocalypse. (If the Mayans were so great and wise
in every sense, why did they make such a mess out of
their own once-ripe civilisation? And don't come with
the mythical answer. They were a superstitious lot.)
Also, Nostradamus wasn't extremely genious for
predicting that the religious types of conflicts he
saw in his own time would also exist in the future.
Exit Nostradamus. (If you want a watered-down version
of Nostradamus by a psychic person, read Ingo Swann's
book The Nostradamus Factor, published in the 1990s,
but I am not conceeding that Swann's got everything right,
not by any means.)
And there are plenty of quasi-gurus and quasi-priests
and quasi-rabbis and quasi-imams (and you name it) who
try to get their followers even a bit more fanatically
following them (and giving them even a bit more dollars)
by claiming to have some divine right to predict an
apocalypse -- if not with certainty, then with a
likelihood UNLESS the sect gets to do its work, and
pretty fast at that. Bullshit. Poppygock. Rubbish. There
is to be no apolypse. No UFO will come. There will be
just us chickens around, and what deeper miracles the
universe have to offer at the meditative level, and Earth
has to cope with 9 billion people etc and etc and so
forth, before there is some kind of humane and meaningful
overall motion towards a truly more green balanced society
in absolutely every sense, a long long time into the future
-- but not so long you can't identify yourself with it
and get an enthuasiam that can make you stronger in the
face of much pain, confusion, hard discussions and also
for some people at some times, some very hard living
conditions. Identify with humanity and get energy from
it, it is an old trick, just consult the books by the
philosopher Bertrand Russell. And avoid legal highs,
not just illegal highs. Natural highs are better, the
natural highs that comes from belief into the FAR
future, although NEAR future for many sometimes can
seem bleak and grim indeed; and from working on this
in ways which preserve the spirit of playfulness for
there is more wisdom in this than in fanatical idealism.
So, we have to cope with the fact that we all have to
live with the consequences of our actions. There is no
total death of soul, no nothingness, no nihilism, there is
only the on-goingness of human lives and our conscience
will have to be conceded to be persisting, into all future
decades and centuries and, well, there is no escape
from that, no point in dangling those skulls, rather
focus on life. No point, therefore, in starving oneself to
death nor eating oneself to death: rather, do -- as Arne
Naess suggested, in his private interpretation of
Spinoza's ethics -- anchor yourself in Generositas
(which ought to, extending Naess's vision, to include
compassion and empathy) and Fortitudo. Generosity and
Strength. Keep being generous, keep being strong.
In order, then, for humanity to make it as best as
humanity can -- allowing for a tremendous amount of
bodily pain, but also allowing for more subtle schemes
of justice than that which is open to human thought (not
all bodily pain is soul-pain, far from it, and
soul-pain, as Socrates pointed out, is incomparatively
worse than body-pain), we have to make some points.
These points we must clarify and provide a focus at in a
positive language, where possible, and when need be, a
bit negative, but not more negative than it has to. For
in hard times -- and much of humanity will have a hard
time, no doubt, in the 21st century, which we have seen
the first 1/10 of, -- and the ambition must be that
humanity will have a better time in the 22nd century and
on, by a sense of intelligently intended evolution of
human joy.
But let's get to the points.
The floods of Queensland, of India and elsewhere in
recent seasons, of New Orleans some years ago, the
quakes and their corrollary tsunamis of Indonesia and
Java and Pakistan, and so forth in recent years, and the
quake of Haiti, -- these and many more pieces of
reported events must be seen in togetherness with the
extreme exhaustion levels of cities with mile-long car
queues and constant smog and all that -- so as to
propose, as a package, these main points. I will -- to
honor the diversity of thinkers and scientists and
politicians who want to give their own interpretations
of these points, not interpret the following points, but
merely emphasize that hard, tough dialogue on
qualitative content of holistic measures must go BEFORE
any dialogue on quantitative and fiscal measures,
without being stuck in the language of the 20th century
about these things. Generositas, and Fortitudo. Here we
go [and acknowledging the 8 points of Deep Ecology by
Naess and others as inspirational background for some of
this, also recent works by Gaia-theoretician Lovejoy,
with still other acknowledgements found in my Norwegian
and English publications which are already, with more
being added for 2010]:
NINE POINTS FOR SOCIETAL TECHNOLOGY OF 21ST CENTURY:
***1*** GENERALLY, CONTRIBUTE TO ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE, GENEROUSLY
***2*** PROPAGANDISE VERY HUMANELY TO MODERATE POPULATION GROWTH
***3*** CONTRIBUTE TO EXTREME WEATHER PREPAREDNESS TECHNOLOGY
***4*** CONTRIBUTE TO DISASTER PREPAREDNESS TECHNOLOGY
***5*** CONTRIBUTE TO PROTECTION OF FORESTS INCL VERY WILD FORESTS
***6*** CONTRIBUTE TO CLEAN WATER AND FOOD AVAILABILITIES TO EVERYONE
***7*** GET ELECTRICITY INEXPENSIVELY TO EVERYONE, IF NEED BE
BY EXTREMELY SAFE STANDARDISED NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY STATIONS
WITH INTERNATIONALLY AGREED-UPON MEASURES TO HANDLE THEIR WASTE
***8*** CONTRIBUTE TO CLEAN AIR BY SWITCHING TO ELECTRIC CARS
AND PROPAGANDISING FOR USE OF NONPOLLUTING COLLECTIVE TRANSPORTS
***9*** CONTRIBUTE TO POLITICAL REGULATIONS WHICH STANDARDIZE
TECHNOLOGY, FOR INSTANCE AS FOR CARS, TOWARDS THAT WHICH
CAN BE REPAIRED OFTEN BY OWNER RATHER THAN REPLACED
[Note: you are free to copy an distribute this text as long as you
keep the whole of the text fully intact, including this note, which
says that this article was first published at www.yoga6d.org/economy.htm
January 12, 2011. The article will be included in a paper 2011
for a Big Art Booklet later this year. You can also translate
this light article as long as you bring the original version written
in English alongside it, entirely unchanged, -- also as for
any grammatical issues.]
BREAKING NEW WORLD RELIGION UNDERSTANDING:
THE ABSOLUTE SHARP DIVISION BETWEEN RUMI-ISLAM AND SHARIA-ISLAM
-- Rumi-islam is among the winners, sharia-islam among loosers
[As of 2011:1:3 (early morning, as for GMT hours)]
Author of article can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
Most of the world is disgusted with sharia-islam, the
type that is infatuated with putting images of blood on
frontpage-news, and which is working tightly with
heroine-drug-lords eg. in Afganistan to invoke a rule
which considers acid in girl's face a better approach
than giving them education.
Let us be precise: most of the world, including the
islam parts of the world, is disgusted with
sharia-islam, and most of the world is a bit awed about
rumi-islam. True, there are parts which FORMALLY are in
favour of sharia-islam, but in praxis this is so
watered-down version of sharia that it is all about
rumi-islam.
What is rumi-islam? It is the mythic understanding of
such as:
* the fight within each human being between the true
passions of the spiritual heart against the smaller
temptations of the ego
* the awe of beauty
* how beauty inspires an understanding from within
that God, or Jahve, or Allah -- beyond these names --
is within the heart
* the feeling of unity among all human beings
* the feeling that the presence of the new world of
potential and actual understanding of the messianic type
is ALREADY here, where the metaphorical notions of
transition to a heavenly thereafter are taken to refer
to the struggle in the past which is simulation in
humanity to come to the present understanding which is
actualised now
* and the importance of meditation, going beyond all
rituals
* with the notion of all humanity being together as if
in a common ark
* where one must leave aside mere words for words
sake, leave aside aping after teachers, and rather find
the creative awareness in each moment afresh
Such sentiments spring from rumi-islam -- or Rumi-Islam,
or Islam-as-the-poet-Rumi-more-or-less-would-have-it --
and this has penetrated the best parts of the ancient
positive descriptions of islam, and it has, despite the
eagerness of sharia-islam around the 2001:9:11 attacks --
which no longer should be called "9/11" -- because these
numbers have a much greater function than referring to that
date in the year 2001 when the World Trade Centers and the
Pentagon were attacked by tourist airplanes in the USA
-- despite all the misplaced enthusiasm in some hyper-
apocalyptic misguided (and probably both drugged and
threatened, in many cases) people here and there to go
in for sharia-islam, rumi-islam is among the winners in
the world religions.
Simultaneously, luther-christiantiy and
pope-christianity do not seem to be among the winners,
rather more enigmatic, charismatic african and also
ethiopian (coptic) forms of more poetic and in key cases
also more reincarnation friendly versions of
christianity, bridging to hinduism and buddhism, are
among the winners.
It is part of the economical and healthy environmental
development of this planet that politicians recognise
the abounding importance of the absolute sharp division
between the rather bygonish sharia-islam and the poetic,
wellcoming, compassionate rumi-islam, and that they
contribute to actualising the understanding that the
world wants sharia-islam expunged, and rumi-islam
welcomed, as the only REAL presentation of islam
anywhere where islam is to be presented, as an
educational initiative and a cultural initiative.
There are some bloody dictatorships on Earth which
have not conceded much value to rumi-islam, but which
are rather sharia-islam-like: however one might consider
these dictatorships in the light that dictators grab
whatever at hand -- be it a bible, a koran, Stalin's
memoirs -- whatever it is -- and try to use it to keep
on to power. But this doesn't mean that the population
at all agree to such nonsense.
It is also rediculous to think that such attempted
scholastic divisions as 'sunni', 'shi-ite', 'sufi' and
the other types are of any interest to anyone whose
interest is humanity and God: they are hardly more
interesting than the various divisions within the
mormonic sects, competing in how fundamentalist they
are. Sufi, of course, keeps within it a positive focus
on Rumi but the whole concept of "sufi" is stale with
overuse and overdescription.
The notion of Rumi-islam as a penetrating notion is
that of eclectically picking out the glimmers of true
insights and leave the mass of incoherent blunders in
the scripts alone to themselves -- the ONLY viable
approach. Here, one is no longer able to say: since
I am inspired by such-and-such approach, I "am" a
muslim, a jew, a christian, a buddhist, a hindi, anymore
than God is a muslim, a jew, a christian, a buddhist or
a hindi.
Statistically, therefore, sharia-islam is probably in
many senses from the 21th century and onwards quite
negligible. Rumi-islam plays together with the other
world religions in ways which can go together with what
this writer has termed "neopopperian science", in ways
which calls for pluralism and diversity of perspectives
and worldviews.
WHAT TYPES OF ADDICTIVE THINGS ARE GOOD FOR SOCIETY?
-- Anything addictive and not very toxic can be
good when sweetly worked-through to moderate addiction
[As of 2010:12:27 (evening, as for GMT hours)]
Author of article can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
If anybody wonders why all the great books were written
in the 20th century (and before), and why there is such
a flourish of -- shall we say -- uninspired books
(albeit experimentative, like japanese books, or
voluminous and sensible, like Franzen) in the present
century, look to the former prime minister of Norway,
Gro Harlem Brundtland, for answer.
Few like her has eradicated the possibility of smoking
around the world, through her expert leadership of the
World Health Organisation with a monomanic, self-asure
mind.
All the greatest books of the 20th century was written
due also to the inspiration of connecting to many public
places full of that sweet odour of cigar, cigarillos and
cigarettes. As of today, in many countries, one has to
put up with a combination of frisky deoderant smells
with natural human exhaustion gases inside dance places,
clubs, bars, airports, offices, canteens and so on.
The argument in an ISOLATED sense is meaningful:
expansive exposure to intensive tobacco smoke increases
the chances of severe illnesses.
Let us now widen the scope of enquiry far beyond that
of mere tobacco -- and let me also have it said that
this is not one who does any daily cigarettes who writes
this. If anything, I have a reputation for being a
health maniac.
In order to talk health -- the agenda, we suppose, of
the World Health Organisation, we need to talk not just
in terms of what we eat, drink and breath, but also in
terms of the quality and richness and plurality of our
activities.
What is good for a society, and this is the crux or
the dilemma with just about every type of not too-toxic
addictive process or thing -- is that its population
engages in a variety of meaningful activities which
contributes to a healthy, inspiring outlook on life,
with sensible intuitions, empathy and perspectives
constantly refreshed by creative input, and that the
duties and work functions are done as well. ALL this is
challenged by ANY type of addictive behaviour which is
so that a person does nothing but one or two things all
day long, every day of the week, practically speaking.
And this is therefore a question far greater than
merely how to make one person more healthy: it is about
the health of society, the future of humanity: its
relationship to all things addictive.
In a Wall Street Journal article, the journalist (cfr
acknowledgement) speaks, in passing, of why he let go of
a certain computer gadget (which has in it the capacity
to be used for all sorts of noble, meaningful purposes):
it has, he writes, TOO ADDICTIVE games. He also observes
that computer games is an addiction many people are almost
trying to get into, instead of quitting.
Imagine a person who, without a whiff of a cigarillo,
say, a couple of times a week, would do nothing except
sulk, carry out daily duties, and in general lead a
boring existence, full of grudges and
what-could-have-been: but with some whiffs, not only
writes novels, but also is such a daily dose of shine
that other people gets a tan merely by being in the
proximity of this individual. Scoff then at the
arguments of our otherwise fairly high-integrity former
norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland: it would
be absolutely idiotic to leave it all away.
On the contrary, a society which welcomes such
activities as are intensely satisfying when done but on
an extremely moderate level -- be it with alcohol, mild
drugs, pure tobacco, bdsm, computer games -- in all its
public quarters could open up to far, far greater health
of its population. It must then also chuck all those
negative affirmation -- the vain attempt to scare --
which by law has gotten into the labels of many types of
products, be them sexual, alcoholic or tobaccoish.
The question which must be addressed however is then:
how can one moderate addictive processes and things?
What does it really take?
It takes something far more drastic, yet more
acceptable to any rational person, namely to work
through each and every product with an orientation to
combat addiction, and ensure moderation.
For instance, in terms of tobacco, it would mean
leaving out all of the tobacco which enhances its
addictiveness -- so to move from cigarettes to the very
smallest types of cigars, also called cigarillos.
It means in terms of computer games that there is some
talk when starting up the game in non-moralistic, fun
terms that this is not intended to be addictive; that
the game calls for an early quit of itself; that it does
so leaving the person with a feeling that, even if it
were just two minutes play, it was certainly worth it.
Acknowledgement:
Article by BRETT ARENDS from Wall Street Journal,
Dow Jones & co, (owned by Murdoch group), USA, 2010:12:21.
DOES WORLD-VIEW MATTER FOR WORLD ECONOMY?
-- What with a greater percentage of the world's population,
it seems, being believers in some form of God or another,
is this significant for world economy development? Obviously
-- And about cars
[As of 2010:12:13 (afternoon, as for GMT hours)]
Author of article can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
We already know of at least one very clear example where
world economy is affected by a religious belief code:
the not insignificant amount of banks which have
accomodated at least some of the zero-interest rate
approach to loans which is part of the muslim faith.
And in several prosperous countries where the
christian populatiion is in majority, a not
insignificant proportion of the GNP goes to further the
activity of preachers, or to their more or less
idealistic enterprises inside and outside their country.
But there is a whole more deeper tack on this: which
is to say, the actions and interactions of an economical
and also ecological kind (these two are always
intertwined) are pervaded and suffused, influenced by
and in many ways regulated by, the worldview that each
person has.
For instance, more than seven out of ten in the USA
are said to believe in God: this is a worldview. Atheism
is another worldview; there are cases of overlappings of
these two also.
Economical theory often operates with the notion that
people seeks to maximize their own profit. But worldview
is affecting the very concept of what we consider most
properly our own, or ourselves.
In order to have any real consciousness of the
variables and parameters, the functions and motives,
which contribute to cause at least part of the dance of
the world economical currents, one must look entirely
beyond merely egotistical stances, for the simple reason
that in most countries, these are not merely far from
the only stance people take, but indeed far from the
stance that the majority take.
In other words, only a holistic-as-well-as-egotistic
perspective of the motivational patterns of the human
being is rich enough to point to the reality which rules
all the giant economical curves on this globe.
Many economical thinkers have pointed out elements of
this -- such as, when, several years ago, there were
conferences inspired by buddhism focussing on
compassionate economy. But the very simple point I am
making here, because I rarely see it emphasized, is that
the holistic stance is not merely a moral stance: it is
the nuts and bolts of world economy as it already is,
although -- it is true -- it is at times very hard to
clearly get into focus. It is there, though, and
percentagewise it influences in ways so strong that
without the perspective of holism one simply has got no
compass at all. Indeed, this is what I earlier sought to
include in what I then called (some years ago) in the
concept of 'interactivity economy' (see mywbook.txt).
It is part of the understanding of the realities of
economy that we also realize that the patterns in
reality are very much greater than what any human mind
can encompass. However, some forms of spiritual
worldviews are very positive indeed as to the
possibility for the mind to engage in intuitive
perceptions. These perceptions, which may be connected
to a sense of partaking in a field of generosity (in the
sense that doing good builds up the potential, or goyon,
to reap in the rewards of good intuitions also on
economy), may come from sensitivity and intuition
training -- for instance, psychokinetics (where subtle
changes in muscle strength are explored together with
mental yes-no questions, on the principle that strength
of a muscular kind, and mental coherence, go
synchronously together).
However -- and this is part of the whole point -- it
also means that when anybody in the majority which
exists at least in most countries which offer a
believable statistics (and with a very high degree of
likelihood also in large atheistically ruled countries
like China), the majority, I mean, which has a spiritual
or religious worldview, a belief in God -- when anybody
who has such a worldview does economical transactions,
it may be motivated as much as by the spirit of
enterprise and participation as much as by the idea of
reaping in goods for oneself.
As an example, think of what James Bond as conceived
in the books by the writer Ian Fleming would be without
the notion of participation in casino-like gaming with
money. The Casino Royal spirit infuses the writings of
Mr Fleming in mostly everyone of his hard, brutal,
elegant, classical books to an extent which entirely
overshadows any question of Bond himself reaping in
financial goods. Obviously, participation in the world
as a whole can also happen by something such as currency
day-trading. This connectedness has its own joy, and the
natural extension of the egotistical form of economy to
embrace something like this would be to say, in the
words of Jiddu Krishnamurti, that joy is greater than
pleasure and pain. Economy, in other words, is not a
proper field of research, unless we realize that the joy
of participation may be much, much greater than the pain
losing money, and also much greater, of course, than the
pleasure of getting money.
The approach of the double bottom line, therefore, is
the 21st century necessity in economical thinking: the
two lines signify -- yes, we are interested in budget
balance, AND, yes, even more importantly than short-term
budget balance, as long as we can endure it, is holistic
participation, the balance of joy -- and indeed, the
love of one's neighbour.
In this understanding, we should look afresh at what
the most reasonable technological developments are
likely to be, for instance with regard to ecologically
sound cars.
In the early 1970s, big, square, gasoline-thirsty cars
such as the Lincoln were beginning to get phased out in
favour of what eventually developed into the little
bubbles with hundreds of computer chips and several
engines and several types of batteries and gasoline
and/or diesel and/or gas intake as well. But what we had
up until about 1975 was a living first-hand ecological
relationship to the engine along the lines indicated by
Robert M Pirsig in his classical book, which sold in
millions after having been turned down by more than one
hundred publishers, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance (he and his wife visited Oslo in the
mid-1990s and I had the joy of listening to his lecture
co-arranged with a motorcycle assocation in Oslo, where
he pointed out how difficult it was to get his book
published before, obviously, it sold in many millions).
We then re-arranged his talk into interview style, with
the blessing of Pirsig and his wife, and published in
the magazine I was one of two main editors for at the
time, and which I had been one of three to initiate, the
norwegian Flux magazine (this interview form was
produced by Ida Nathalie Kierulf).
The notion of first-hand is this: it is not so damn
difficult to handle a machine which is made to be
handled by a layman. But what we have seen with the
hybrid 2010 ecological style of car is that if anything
goes wrong, the module has to be replaced, for it is put
together in a high-tech laboratory somewhere.
While a short-term economical thinking may like people
to avoid, like the do in Cuba, do their own repairs, it
is very unlikely that the sense of lack of participation
in the daily life machines is accomodating the type of
ecological/economical holistic development that the
world -- this Earth -- need in the 21st century.
I call for a loosening of how strict measures of an
ecological emission / electricity consumption kind is
put on electric cars, and -- though Tesla car is cute --
a re-introduction of the sense of love of the square and
big and bulky and Lincoln-like, alongside the first-hand
type of mechanics that one can fix on oneself, -- in a
context where the whole world gets together to not only
get better and safer batteries, but also more
inexpensive electricity supplies, and more intensive
availability of electricity (about the latter, parts of
Israel has been able to go further than most other
countries in making city-places friendly to elcars).
In having bigger cars, we can have plenty of safe
old-style batteries, as long as the new types of
batteries (which, unlike laptop batteries -- are
mostly very safe and very well-tested) have not come
yet. These batteries, filling up some of the bulk of the
cars, can go together with pure electrical engines,
which are easy to fix, and which are not in need of
airtravel with new modules and throwing old modules on
the trashheaps. It is however the role of the state not
only to make regulations which consciously emphasize
first-hand mechanical buildable pure electric big cars,
but which also lay the grounds for very inexpensive
electricity and a great deal of availability of
electricity. In building a new type of extremely safe
nuclear electricity generating stations in a standard
way, overseen by United Nation agencies with a huge
budget, these can not only create a whole new rise of
elcars all across the world, but this electricity can
also be used to extract clean drinking water both from
salt sea water and from dirty lake water for instance in
Africa, China and India.
Politically, it means that a completely new set of
priorities ought to get into the environementalist
groups. For instance, Greenpeace, while obviously doing
a bit of good with their animal-protecting actions, are
among the groups that could strongly influence the world
if they suddenly realized what a bonus to Nature it
would if world electricity became virtually a free item,
alongside big, bulky el-cars which each can fix on for
themselves. Their capacity to influence politicians and
voters by startling actions could be harnessed within
such new priorities. I do believe this is a golden mean
-- the obvious way -- and not a compromise. Free world
electricity and much more clean available water
everywhere would also take away very many tendencies at
present to wars. The present companies, such as BP,
which have a focus on oil, could be part of the
spearheading towards a nonoil economy. The present
companies, such as GM and Toyota, which have a focus on
cars, could be part of a spearheading towards a
first-hand big squarish bulky elcar development. And
those countries which today have the most economical
advantages of oil production could be the ones who most
ardently and with the most political power get to set
the new standards for the terrorist-safe electricity
generating power plants of the nuclear kind.
All this, then, as natural and obvious part of what we
can call a holistic economy, or an interactivity
economy, where affluene is not merely what one has got
one's bank accounts, but there is also such as
intellectual capital, integrity capital -- call it what
you want.
THE ETHICS OF INFORMATION SUSPENSION
-- An Open Society With Limits Has Better
Chances of Avoiding Wars
[As of 2010:12:10 (evening, as for GMT hours)]
Author of article can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
When is an action right? It is right when it is founded
on good intentions, and, broadly speaking and as far as
we can tell, has good effects. In a world which is
extremely more rich in content than human knowledge can
even begin to cover completely, the codification of some
actions into lawful and others as criminal or unlawful
must, no matter what, have masses of compromises in it.
Karl Popper wrote about The Open Society and Its
Enemies (and listed, as is known by quite a few, marxism
as one of its enemies). Here, ideas important for
humanity are to be shared AND criticised, in order that
they get tested against reality in a variety of ways --
some ways in which I have proposed extensions of, by the
way, in what I call a "neopopperian" approach to
science.
There is at present a very public conversation --
engaging also leaders of several countries -- as to
whether someone, like Mr Julian Assange, who has got, "as
a gift", a couple of CDs with petty diplomatic stuff of
the classified kind, classified not just because it is
secret, but also because it is dumb -- whether someone
who has got such a gift is engaging in a criminal
action by giving it further, in the form of mass-
distribution.
As Hillary Clinton, USA's Secretary of State, pointed
out, there is a sharp distinction between what is
implemented policy and what is thought to be a possible
policy during such time as internal documents are
written. If the latter is presented as the former,
this is extremely unhelpful. In the present context, ABC
News indicates that Mr Assange will possibly be charged
under some espionage law in the USA for his release of
masses of classified diplomatic papers -- given to him
by somebody else, this somebody else clearly engaging in
a breach of law. But Russia has gone so far as to
propose that Mr Assange ought to have the Nobel Peace
Price for his contribution to democratic freedom of
information. Naturally, they liked that some of the
lettes Mr Assange published seemed to corroborate a
suspicion that Russia has long had, namely that Nato is
a bit more aggressive in its thoughts against Russia
than what is purported explicit policy by Nato.
In any case, a number of people have brought forth
support of Mr Assange's actions to the level where we
can speak of these people favouring what we can call an
Open Society Without Limits.
I will argue here that an Open Society With Limits is
less likely to lead to war, generally speaking, and so
much so that there ought to be laws preventing an
absolutely free flow of ALL information, and laws making
it criminal to put SOME information further -- even if
it is "given as a present" by someone else.
A side-issue is that Mr Assange, perhaps for entirely
misconstrued reasons, perhaps as result of plots, and
then again perhaps not, are facing other problems with
the law. If he could prove that he has been subjected to
an unlawful plot by the same who wants to accuse him of
criminal offences of the espionage kind, he would make
his overall case very much stronger. But that is another
issue; the question in this little article is simply
this: should the ideal laws support Open Society With
Limits, or Open Society Without Limits?
People who have used much drugs, or who are affected
by alcohol and in a bad mood, may find that they are
unable to avoid expressing what they know are pointless,
insulting, and indeed unfounded accusations against
others. People who are in this state of mind may create
violence simply by their lack of suspension of their own
expressions. Some buddhists recommend a counting to one
hundred, if one is angry, before expressing anything,
and then meditation rather than expression. No doubt a
very wise advice for quite a few ill-tempered people.
When a government decides on action, it OUGHT to look
to a very large number of alternative action pathways,
and think about them. Some of these would be very
insulting indeed if made public, to the extent that they
could make war if made public. The metaphor with the
ill-tempered person without limits on own
self-expression should make this point very easy to
understand.
Since survival, and indeed quality of life, is more
important than any ideal about communication -- for
communication must be a servant to the higher goal of
surviving, and surviving well, it is clear, then, that
such forms of communication as must happen internally
but which could lead to massive breakdown at an
international level if channeled onwards through open
distribution, should by law be considered entirely
criminal. A hyperactive practise around such laws, or
hyperallergic formulation of such laws, would however
make society so constrained it would be devoid of
happiness. But just as anarchism doesn't make sense
without police and defence of the foundation of society,
so also doesn't the open society concept, and indeed
the democracy concept, make sense without proper
limitations applied, and enforced.
GET THE NEW GENERATION TO CARE FOR FUTURE LIFE
-- Motivate by the in-born love of beauty
[As of 2010:12:8 (late evening, as for GMT hours)]
Author of article can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
How can one get children to be educated in such a way as
to make a positive difference when it comes to taking
very, very long-term responsible decision when they are
grown-ups? This has been a constant question for
decades, intensifying with each couple of years. And
there are no obvious successes to speak of whatsoever.
Every child loves nature, every adult -- except a steady
percentage of fanatics of the population -- cares not.
These are the dready facts, despite that, when decisions
not involving their own personal bank accounts are
involved, the talk may be all in favour of nature.
At the same time, people who have the crust to call
themselves religious, in Australia, in USA, in Europe,
in Asia, in Africa, are censoring the experiences that
could motivate really deeply, censoring -- also relative
to children -- the experience of human living beings in
their shiniest tender most flower-like prestine beauty,
-- censoring just that which actually could make a
difference.
For let's be clear: there is only survival in the many
decades, and indeed centuries, if there is quality of
life persistence in these decades, and indeed centuries,
to come: for quality of life means nondesperate,
meaningful, wise decisions. But this quality of life,
this heightened responsibility and extension of
compassion to include the vaster environment, must come
from a poetic ecstasy of caring for life. If the source
of poetic ecstasy as the embracal of human living
anatomy in its nude form also is cultivated in every
school for all children on Earth, and not censored away
from teens and grown-ups either, then -- to put it into
context -- Mexico, and other places ridden will
drug-gangs, will clear up and be healed. For then drugs
won't be so important -- after all, let's face it, every
intensive use of illegal drugs means that something is
severely wrong with the ideas of happiness put into the
children at schools. Drugs are escapes from the pains of
not getting the right type of ecstasies. They are
quasi-ecstasies, brains trying to lift themselves up by
stupid means because nobody came along with the wise
means. Because the so-called "religious" people -- who
are usually over-eating fanatical power-hungry
fundamentalist book-readers and not spiritual all -- are
making sure that children, who are more at ease with
nudity than everyone else, are shielded from the best of
what humanity can offer in terms of evidence that life
is worth loving: the experience of nude healthy free
enjoying loving people.
PROTECTING NATURE FOR THE NEXT 100 YEARS OR SO
-- Focus more on obvious science data, less on CO2 theories
[As of 2010:12:8 (evening, as for GMT hours)]
Author of article can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
There are two types of natural science, broadly and
carelessly speaking: the one -- such as when they talk
about big bangs and black holes -- which is but
metaphysics cloaked in the jargon of post-newtonian
theorizing, but as far from empirics, at least, as
Plotinus and Boethius; the second, such as when they
talk of the quantities of pollution in the atmosphere of
large cities, the quantities of trees remaining in the
rainforests, and so on, which is hard, tough, good,
serious, important, honest and policy-commanding
science.
In between the two -- the blah-blah metaphysics and
the good tough stuff is latched the question of whether
or not the innocent-seeming gas which are producing
bubbles in coca-cola and pepsi-cola and such -- CO2 --
is, or is not, seriously contributing to what may in
larger or smaller parts be a humanity-driven global
temperature change, in some direction.
I have a hunch, and the hunch is that we should focus
on the more obvious parts -- because, see what could
happen if we don't. If there is a semi-metaphysical
discussion about CO2 each time the word "nature" is
flashed on the political agenda, nothing will happen.
Whereas, focus on the obvious things -- such as
producing more electricity of the type that destroys
less trees and waterfalls and which lets out less toxic
stuff to waters and airs; producing more masculinely
interesting, more well-functioning battery-driven cars,
with less chips and more sound-generators and less fuss,
develop anti-terrorist measures around new types of
nuclear power stations safely encapsulated inside
mountains and get commercial space companies to shoot
the toxic radioactive waste out of Earth's presence --
and handle the waste more smartly, not just in Italy.
One of the minimum safety conditions for rockets
transporting nuke waste out into the open universe
is that they transport the material by means of bundles
of very small and extremely tough containers, which have
been proven by real explosion tests to withstand any
rocket explosion incident.
A practical policy issue is to get oil, gasoline and
car-making all entirely controlled by the environmental
ministers, with a common regularatory body that ensures
that business interests for the next five or fifteen
years for company and/or country is not overshadowing
survival interests for the next 100 years or so for
humanity. Every gasoline car at present is infinitely
more sexy than any battery car and that must change,
and every oil industry is ruled by such interests as
find CO2 metaphysics highly amusing and fit to their
needs to increase their vast oil fortunes still more.
Norway as well as all other oil-producing countries,
and Japan, USA, China, India, Sweden, France, Germany
and all other car-producing countries, need to get their
think tanks together where the bottom line under the
bottom line is that it makes sense in terms of all
obvious, good, hard policy-commanding data on how to
save the lovely forests, increase the amounts of
fresh clean water to all -- River Ganges, for instance,
how to clean it, and the Nile, how to refurbish it
with fresh water -- and, while working out these
things, a standard free safe nuclear power plant with
regulated waste disposal should be organised so that
one doesn't find that Iran and other countries exploit
the loopholes of ambiguity with such supreme ease. Iran
has a full total right to electricity and the fact of
the existence of atomic weapons is a regrettable evil
which must be moderated and it is only the stupidity
of the United Nations commitees and the laziness of
the world's ministers which have allowed there to be
a mixing of the two themes, as this extremely humble
writer sees it.
The role of water in everyone's life is obvious, and
it is also obvious that rich rainforests contribute to
the overall flux and motion of moisture on the planet,
and so ensures the renewal of rivers, as well as contribute
to a great tourist experience, possible medical uses,
life quality for shaman tribes, adventurous possibilities
for the young, and a sense of mystery and richness of
meaning of life on Earth. We don't need the metaphysics
of possible slight temperature changes over some centuries
-- however right it may be in parts -- to justify that
the rainforests need to be seen as holy bank accounts.
Focus on what is obviously an environmental issue, and
leave the CO2 researchers to do their quiet, persistent,
well-founded work in the upcoming decades. But I
wouldn't, if I were this world's political ministers,
put half the environmental budget into limiting a
nontoxic gas when there are so many other concrete
things in the environmental agenda that cry for action.
Then, you might possibly find that the CO2 emissions are
moderated as well.
HARDHITTING SUCCESSFUL ECONOMY AND SOUND ECOLOGY
WITH SPIRITUAL SMALL ENTERPRISES & GENEROUS INDIVIDUALS
-- Fresh take on world conservation and good economy
[As of 2010/11/17 (european before-noon-hours).
Author of article can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
Despite the enthusiastic declarations of the nonthinkers
employed at various astrology faculties -- oops, sorry,
astronomy faculties, that is, of various universities --
that 'they are now so fortunate as to witness the birth
of a black hole' or a 'baby universe' or even 'the big
bang' -- despite all this, the fact is that the world is
woven together synchronistically and nonlocally and NOT
in a way elaborated by such religious/atheist fanatics
as Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins.
Take ANY such pronouncement: "we are now witnessing
the birth of a black hole." Ask the scientist: "are
there other interpretations of this data?" Either the
scientists answers like a corrupt politiican, or the
answers admits, "yes." Ask then how many such
alternative interpretations and the person will quote a
journal which has listed at least one other such
interpretation. Bravo. Among the likely ten million
alternative interpretations, mainstream scientists are
able to come up with more than 1, that is, they are able
to count as high as 2. One, two. That's something, I
suppose.
But once you look at REAL reality, not the reality
depicted by narrow-minded religious atheists -- for
atheism is a religion, interested in putting the pope to
the court (Dawkins), interested in extrapolating
inferences about God from what's seen in telescopes and
microscopes and such (Hawking) -- once you look at REAL
reality and not the reality as purported by those
narrow-minded scientists, who in the name of their
nonpopperian mainstream books are trying to get more
income to their faculties by appealing to journalists --
then we have to do with another reality altogether, and
one in which there is a reality also to intuition and
where we can ask questions both about economy and on
world conservation -- and other spiritual dilemmas.
Carl Gustav Jung defined "synchronicity" after a great
deal of conversation with one of the quantum physics
founders, Wolfgang Pauli, to be a coincidence --
possibly the result of something
other-than-typical-causal-effects -- which for us humans
has meaning. That is not biocentrism or other atheist
poppygock. It is a plain rendering of something which is
lying on the fine line between the subjective and the
objective, -- as David Bohm, another who has contributed
to something of the foundations of the quantum theory
employed so haphazardly by Hawking and not at all by
Dawkins, told me, when we arranged a seminar for him in
Oslo decades ago (he died in the beginning of the 1990s,
but had had time to collaborate with Albert Einstein and
in a certain sense of the word can be called Einstein's
last pupil).
Bohm, like the French Nobel Physics Price winning
quantum physicist prince Louis de Broglie, and like
Pauli, all suspected that all reality is interpenetrated
by a nonlocality or connectedness which even goes into
the dimension of upcoming events. Einstein himself did
not concede this with any clear thought, for Einstein
considered all upcoming events as laid out statically;
but quantum theory suggests that before an electron
enters into a configuration waiting for it, so to speak,
it in a way refers back to the present with a summary of
likely upcoming potentials. This involved for de Broglie
a new type of "resonance". The physicist J.S.Bell, in
the 1960s, later worked out how quantum empirics means
that any working quantum theory must have a component of
"nonlocality" -- something in praxis proved empirically
in the late 1970s by french physicist Aspect (utilizing
Bohm's photon version of a thought experiment by
Einstein/Podolsky/Rosen originally shaped around
electrons).
Richard Feynmann said -- something which Hawking and
Dawkins ought to take to heart -- that any human being
who has understood quantum theory has not understood it.
In any case, when faced with any decision, human
beings have gut feelings and a large number of the more
clear-thinking and more honest of scientists concede
that in gut feeling there may be a component of a
prescient sense in some way which is not understood by
the muddy darwinistic biology as of today, but which
requires a sense in which the neuronic impulses at
various levels are seen in relation to the possibility
of quantum coherence. This entails levels of complexity
beyond what present mathematics in quantum theory can
handle. However by a philosophical re-description of
quantum reality without mathematics but with precision
it comes in naturally, in ways I have elaborated under
the heading of "super-model theory", and which I find
quite coherent in itself and with facts.
The vision we must have of the human being doing
economical transactions is therefore not that of a
selfish island of mechanical ill-informed impulses.
However confused a human being may be, there may also be
something entirely fresh and nonconfused. Something
which can inform actions at a level which can make sense
in a greater whole.
It is a feature of quantum empirics that the concept
of coherence, or -- as David Bohm put it -- wholeness --
makes sense in a new way not understood by that
newtonian mechanics which still dominates the thinking
both of biologists and economists, as well as many
ecologists.
In this wholeness, there is a direct immediate
relationship between the activity of some of the parts
(for instance the neurons, parts of our brains and guts
and hearts), and the whole, and this whole may extend
beyond what is locally near -- in other words, into the
nonlocal -- and it may extend into the upcoming field of
events, and so not merely concern itself with the
present moment, but give information on what is to come.
This is not something which follows by mathematical
mainstream quantum theory. It does however follow by a
philosophical re-rendering of quantum data without the
idiocy and half-coherence (at best) of the mathematical
equations of present quantum theory.
It is also coherent with what a large number of people
from all walks of life and all spiritual inclinations
have reported. Some has even done some level of initial
empirical research on this (confer studies at Cambridge
University by Rupert Sheldrake also as reported at BBC).
But the sensitivity involved is something which -- to
put in the words of Francisco Varela, whom I interviewed
once in his Paris university office, after he had
started collaboration with some buddhists -- which
involves a new type of scientific training that has not
yet been done in mainstream science. (Varela contributed
significantly with H. Maturana to systems thinking in
biology.)
To take a long step -- and jump over many long chains
of reasoning which one ought to spend some months
elaborating -- all this has very concrete implications
for a person engaging in economy and engaging also in
the goal to save nature and the world environment as a
whole, both individually and as part of what we can call
'hardhitting successful small enterprises'.
Here is a list:
* It makes sense for a person anchored in listening to
synchronicities on the foundation of being anchored in
values of caring for wholeness to engage in long-term
income, but:
* It makes also sense to allow short-term non-income
in order to enhance certain coherencies and certain
flows,
* ..including also new intuitive sensitivities,
* ..and also including getting time to accomodate an
understanding of how to best preserve nature in each
case, while allowing for growth out of poverty
* It is in alignment with this picture that human
individuals can suddenly act with ferocious generosity,
but that is not a generosity which is chancelike or
selfishly impulsive, as much as grounded in clarified
meditations and good synchronicities
* ..and this also can involve currency day-trading, in
which the action of engaging in a relatively quick
action of betting with a moderate leverage over a major
currency pair of one's surplus money has its own energy
and vitality and joy, whether or not it leads to a
short-term increase of income
* The above-mentioned generosity also allows the
formation of new types of goals felt to be coherent
giving an unusual stability and (what Arne Naess called)
"robustness of feelings -- or glow" -- where one
overcomes pains due to real enthusiasm
* ..and this can lead to the formation of hardhitting
small enterprises which acts in a world where not only
egotistic elements dominate participants.
In understanding all this, one must realize the immense
importance of nature conservationists to get into touch
with economical realities. As the founder of deep ecology
movement in academic philosophy put it (again, Arne Naess),
'once there is a war, everything else is set aside --
including years on saving nature, and enhancing women's
rights.' Poverty, when it penetrates badly enough, through
and through a state, leads to war, inevitably. If we don't
save world economy in its major features, all Earth will
be a somaliland of local gangsters doing their local
sharia-shit. However, when we do preserve world economy,
we do increase the pressure on Nature in significant
ways -- and yet this is a necesary option, as war will
always be more devastating for Nature, with its
lawlessness, burning of oil fields, and what not.
So we have got to engage in such things as being
responsible relative to how the major currencies are
developing, AND we have to got to realize how important
it is that NEITHER the preposterous religious fanatics
whether of islam or christianity or hinduism NOR the
religious fanatics of atheists get the upper hand --
the news media should have the guts to ask the questions
of the scientists with a more stern tongue. Scientists
are just kiddoes like everyone else, and not always
nice kiddoes either.
Still, in this perspective, we must also realize the
fallacy of taking the stance so often associated with
what is called the "christian right" in some countries,
namely that "to create many jobs we must allow the
richest to make large industries before everything else."
It is but a self-fulfilling or self-defeating assumptions
which underlies this: once conditions are set so that
small enterprises and generous creative individuals do
not get the upper hand, the only way we can get jobs
is by means of the large industries gobbling up all
smaller industries and the rich ugly beasts ruling
them will be the ones who ensure most jobs. But the
whole society vision must change, because it is a
proven issue that the very big enterprises do not
allow the quality of life sought by young people all
across the world. The smaller enterprises (sometimes
called Small and Medium Enterprises and abbreviated
to something like SME or SMES) can be extremely
inspiring (confer the Internet of the four years
right before year 2000), and drag the multitudes
with them, -- and (unlike the 2000-dot-com-bubble)
this can be done responsibly given a spiritual worldview.
My often-repeated attacks on any overuse of alcohol
and any use of drugs is therefore not founded at all
on any moralistic interpretation of any bygone text:
it is founded solely on an understanding of the vast
mystery of the human brain and nervous aspect altogether,
in a synchronistic world, where we need to protect more
than nature: we must also protect the finer fibres of
which mainstream science know very little (and indeed
appears very little interested in, given the dominance
of such folks as Dawkins and Hawking in the academic
communities), -- the finer fibres that allow us to be
'synchronistically online', not merely electronically
online to internet. But synchronistically attuned to
a larger world, a more subtle world -- extending also
into that which might to some seem chaos, but which
indeed is not chaos: the upcoming events. So there
is no need to be 'chaos pilots', strictly speaking:
rather, there is a need to be 'subtle order pilots',
and this subtle order allows also long-term income
when applied for speculation over currency data --
given a responsibility relationship to short-term
goals that are not frustrated by losses in the short-term.
So this is a rough outline of a spiritual hardhitting
successful small enterprise economy, inspired by
the neopopperian science of the undersigned. Be
welcome to it. It is your own world already.
Link to next page on top of this page, under image.