Magic, Matter and Qualia (The God Series Book 20)

Table of contents :
Magic, Matter and Qualia
Quotations
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Magic of Qualia
The Impossibility
Quantia and Qualia
The Mathematical Universe
The Old Days
Atheism
The Unholy Trinity
Jesus Christ
Enlightenment
The Direction of the Pyramid
The End of Philosophy?
Sin
Tabula Rasa
The Unconscious Mind
Unnatural Unselection
The Hare Krishnas
Common Sense Perception (Misperception)
TV and Cinema
The Atomists’ Soul
Esse is Percipi
Berkeley’s Philosophy
The Dream Key
The False Prophets
The Cosmic Hologram
Hell?
The Life Mystery
Retardation
Dimensional and Dimensionless Mathematics
Immortality versus Reproduction
The Oversoul
The HyperSoul
Noumenal Idealism
Modern Jacobinism
The New Science
Schopenhauer and the Power of Music
Abracadabra
The Magus
Mirror Talking
Dreamers Amongst the Awaking
The Discernment of Spirits
Idealism and God
The SS and Jihad
The Singularity
The Phantoms
Conclusion

Citation preview

Magic, Matter and Qualia M P

H H

B

Copyright © Mike Hockney 2014 The right of Mike Hockney to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author, except in the case of a reviewer, who may quote brief passages embodied in critical articles or in a review.

Quotations “Magic is believing in yourself. If you can do that, you can make anything happen.” – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe “There is a real magic in enthusiasm. It spells the difference between mediocrity and accomplishment.” – Norman Vincent Peale “One man’s ‘magic’ is another man’s engineering. ‘Supernatural’ is a null word.” – Robert A. Heinlein “Love can sometimes be magic. But magic can sometimes ... just be an illusion.” – Javan “I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.” – Max Planck “The great leaders are like the best conductors – they reach beyond the notes to reach the magic in the players.” – Blaine Lee “Believe in yourself. Believe in your dreams. If you don’t, who will?” – Jon Bon Jovi “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such.” – Max Planck “Those who mind don’t matter and those who matter don’t mind.” – Bernard Baruch “[The] mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Max Planck

Table of Contents Magic, Matter and Qualia Quotations Table of Contents Introduction The Magic of Qualia The Impossibility Quantia and Qualia The Mathematical Universe The Old Days Atheism The Unholy Trinity Jesus Christ Enlightenment The Direction of the Pyramid The End of Philosophy? Sin Tabula Rasa The Unconscious Mind Unnatural Unselection The Hare Krishnas Common Sense Perception (Misperception)

TV and Cinema The Atomists’ Soul Esse is Percipi Berkeley’s Philosophy The Dream Key The False Prophets The Cosmic Hologram Hell? The Life Mystery Retardation Dimensional and Dimensionless Mathematics Immortality versus Reproduction The Oversoul The HyperSoul Noumenal Idealism Modern Jacobinism The New Science Schopenhauer and the Power of Music Abracadabra The Magus Mirror Talking Dreamers Amongst the Awaking

The Discernment of Spirits Idealism and God The SS and Jihad The Singularity The Phantoms Conclusion

Introduction Magic illusions are all about misdirection: making sure that the audience is looking away from what’s really going on. For humanity, both religious faith and scientific materialism misdirect us away from truth and reality. Magicians claim to pull rabbits out of empty hats. The God of Abraham pulls a whole universe out of nothing whatsoever, while scientific materialism performs the greatest magic trick of all by abolishing God and pulling the entirety of existence out of its opposite – non-existence – through nothing other than a random accident, with no conceivable explanation or sufficient reason. Scientific materialism puts all magicians to shame. It manages to magic life out of lifeless atoms, and mind out of mindless atoms. That’s some trick! Bizarrely, scientific materialism sees itself as anti-magic. It regards free will, mind and consciousness as magic illusions – epiphenomena – that have no impact whatsoever on the material world of atoms and the implacable laws that rule them. If the world consists exclusively of “public” atoms obeying the “public” laws of science, why are there such things as “private” experience and the private laws of free will? Of what use is it for any human being to see the redness of a rose, and to marvel at its beauty, or to smell the fragrance of a rose and write poetry about it? How can public atoms, with no private aspect, come together in physical bodies and create a mental world of private experience, a world of qualia? How can public atoms produce private freedom? Now that’s magic! The true magic of our world is supplied by the vividness of our private experiences, by our internal feelings, reflections, desires, awareness and freedom – all of which are formally inexplicable in terms of scientific materialism, not just now, but forever. No “final” theory of science will ever address qualia (the objects of private experience) and free will. That’s a simple fact. So, such a theory certainly won’t be an explanation of everything, hence there will still be a whole domain beyond the reach of science. Only one subject can explain qualia and free will in a rational context and that’s ontological mathematics, the antidote to all of the “magic thinking” of religion and science.

We don’t live in a world of faith, we don’t live in world of mysticism, and we don’t live in a world of lifeless, mindless matter. We live in a universe literally made out of mathematical reason, which is exactly why the universe is intelligible. If the universe weren’t made out of reason, it would not be a rational place of order, organisation and pattern. Instead, it would be a place of irrational chaos, a world of things happening for no reason, and with no continuity between events. When people refer to “magic”, they usually mean things happening for reasons unknown to science. Yet, if the universe isn’t made of reason, then it means that all things are in fact happening for no reason. If the universe is made of reason, then rational causation is inbuilt in existence. Everything happens because of specific rational causes (ontological reasons); there are no effects that have no causes. There are no magic processes. There are no random processes. Everything can be rationally explained. The Universe is ruled by the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which is the ontological source of causation. We do not live in a magic universe ruled by magic beings (gods), we live in a mathematical universe ruled by mathematical law. The world of Mythos – of emotional religions, emotional political and economic systems, emotional stories constructed on the basis of what our senses do or do not reveal to us – is a world of magic, and it’s an entirely false world. There is literally zero truth in Mythos, even though 99.9% of humanity subscribes to one Mythos or another. The world of Truth is the world of anti-magic, of anti-Mythos. The True World is the Logos world. Logos is the Truth and Mythos the Lie. “Magic” is a fraud. It’s all about lies, stories, fakes and falsehood. Religious prophets – such as Moses, Jesus Christ and Mohammed – are the greatest magicians of all, conjuring endless false worlds, false beings and false commandments into “existence”. “God” didn’t make the universe out of nothing. Magicians (prophets) did make God out of nothing. Or out of their fantasy. Or out of their insanity. It’s time for humanity to leave behind Mythos magic. The true “magic” – the only magic that actually works, that actually explains everything – is ontological mathematics. Elon Musk said, “If you go back a few hundred years, what we take for granted today would seem like magic – being able to talk to people over long distances, to transmit images, flying, accessing vast amounts of data

like an oracle. These are all things that would have been considered magic a few hundred years ago.” Hundreds of years from now, when humanity is fully engaged with ontological mathematics and we are on our way to becoming a divine species, we will routinely be doing things that the scientists of today would regard as magic, i.e. as impossible. Ontological mathematics – the subject of Truth – is how we convert the impossible into the possible. This book is about showing that we cannot reach and master the world of the “impossible”, of “magic”, until we understand that we inhabit two worlds: public and private. The material world is that of public bodies and public objects, capable of being publicly observed. The mental world is that of unobservable private souls that can privately experience qualia and act freely, regardless of other things. Public science can say nothing at all about private qualia and private freedom. Qualia and free will are the proof that scientific materialism is false. If we really lived in a world exclusively of public atoms and their public laws, we would have no private world of private minds, private consciousness, private free will, and private experiences. You cannot have a private reality in a world that contains only public things. That’s a fact. Even less so, can you have the illusion of a private reality, which is what science claims in respect of our free will. How can public atoms obeying public laws generate public bodies that suffer from the extraordinary and inexplicable delusion that they are private and free? Space and time are “public” dimensions. You can have private experiences only if there is a private dimension, which means an autonomous domain for you alone, into which no one else can intrude. The private domain is of course your own soul, which is a mathematical singularity, outside space and time, and independent of all other singularities (souls). You can experience qualia, and you can exhibit free will, purely and simply because you are not a public, material object (body) at all, but a private, mental being (soul). Your body is a public, material entity in space and time, your mind isn’t: it’s a private, immaterial entity outside space and time. All of this is reflected in ontological Fourier mathematics, where there is a material spacetime domain and an interlinked, immaterial frequency domain outside space and time. There’s nothing bizarre, wacky or woo woo about it. It’s all in the math.

Ontological mathematics alone can rationally account for a public world (material spacetime) containing private minds (immaterial, autonomous frequency singularities, outside space and time). Any science or philosophy that does not reflect a Fourier-linked, dual-aspect reality of public and private elements is inherently false and bogus. Virtually all contemporary thinking regarding qualia, consciousness and free will is predicated on a public, spacetime, mono-aspect scientific materialist world as the exclusive reality. Given that this paradigm has no private elements whatsoever, it is formally impossible for it to explain private aspects of reality, and has to ridiculously claim that all such aspects are illusory. Of course, no attempt is ever made to explain how atoms and atomic laws can produce pointless delusions and illusions. Dreams, qualia, feelings, desires, free will, consciousness ... they are all possible for one reason only: you are a private, mathematical singularity. You are an immortal, indestructible soul. And that’s pure magic, isn’t it?

Public and Private The public world reflects the operations of the Monadic Collective. The private world reflects the operations of individual monads. Reality comprises individual monads operating within the collection of monads, the private operating within the public. What could be simpler and more selfevident?

***** The public world concerns objectivity and the quantitative; the private world concerns subjectivity and the qualitative. The public world is about quantia, the private world about qualia.

Qualia “Qualia are the subjective or qualitative properties of experiences. What it feels like, experientially, to see a red rose is different from what it feels like to see a yellow rose. Likewise for hearing a musical note played by a piano and hearing the same musical note played by a tuba. The qualia of these experiences are what give each of them its characteristic ‘feel’ and also what distinguish them from one another. Qualia have traditionally been thought to be intrinsic qualities of experience that are directly available to

introspection. However, some philosophers offer theories of qualia that deny one or both of those features.” – http://www.iep.utm.edu/qualia/

***** Quale: A quality or property as perceived or experienced by a person. A sense-datum or feeling having a distinctive quality. A property considered apart from things having the property. A property as it is experienced as distinct from any source it might have in a physical object. Plural = Qualia. Qualia: subjective mental experiences; “raw feels”; the ways things seem to us; what it’s like to undergo an experience or state; the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. Qualia are at the core of the mind-body problem. Qualia are conventionally discussed in terms of consciousness, but they apply equally to the unconscious mind. A newborn human baby isn’t deemed conscious, yet no one can deny that it’s having subjective mental experiences of exactly the same type that it will have later when it has developed consciousness. What’s the difference between a baby unconsciously experiencing the colour red, and a child consciously experiencing it? The only distinction is that the child can reflect on the experience and give a name to “red”. The experience itself is identical in each case: it’s our framing, understanding and savouring of the experience that differs. Likewise, a highly intelligent, or highly sensitive person (connoisseur), frames, understands and savours the same experience radically differently from a stupid person, or person of low sensitivity.

***** “Qualia are simply how we experience our world when we are conscious. We are not conscious of the electrical spikes that are buzzing in our brain, but we are conscious of the qualia which represent these spikes. The experience of colours represents the electric spikes conveyed from our colour sensitive cells in our eyes, and that of sound from sound sensitive cells in our ears and so on for all the other senses.” – Nagi Hatoum Qualia are the empirical contents that accompany the electrical signals. They are the other side of the signal. They are Content rather than Form. Of course, we don’t have to be conscious to experience qualia, just as babies

and animals aren’t conscious when they experience qualia. Qualia are a feature of mind, not of conscious mind. There’s no qualia cut-off point between non-human unconscious minds and human conscious minds, just as there’s no soul cut-off between animals and humans. It’s often said that our subjective experiences – our qualia – are the only things that each of us is really sure of. However, although we may be certain we are having subjective experiences, we certainly can’t be sure of what it is we are actually experiencing. When we have dreams, we have vivid subjective experiences. So, what’s the difference between waking and dreaming qualia? If we are having a drug trip or hallucinogenic experience, our qualia have a different source from our normal waking qualia, yet are every bit as real to us. At any one time, how can we know what reality we are actually experiencing, and which connects us to the truth? How do we know we’re not in the matrix? Or a matrix within a matrix? Where is the bottom of it all, the root, the source?

Déjà Vu In How to Live Safely in a Science Fictional Universe, Charles Yu wrote, “We perceive the present, but we remember the past. The converse is not possible. We obviously cannot remember the present. Or can we? Déjà vu. What does that feel like? It is the oddest experience, one everyone has had, one that is commonly described as a feeling of certainty that one has experienced just this exact experience before. Which in itself is quite strange, the idea that one could have an identical experience, down to the last detail, down to the internal qualia, the exact interior frame of mind, emotions, a frame of consciousness duplicated with startling exactitude...”

Form and Content Form is quantity, Content is quality. Form is rational, Content is empirical. Form is intelligible, Content is sensible. The signals are the Form, the qualia are the Content.

The Magic of Qualia

Qualia are a kind of magic. They make no sense in terms of the physicalist model of reality, yet they add all the magical colour and vividness that elevates reality above the meaningless, grey machine world conceived by science. When you attach this magical content to mathematical causation, you get a world ruled by a very special kind of magic: holographic, ontological Fourier mathematics, which furnishes everything to which conventional magic aspires. Mind over matter is magic. It’s possible in ontological Fourier mathematical terms, and impossible according to physicalists. Science is an ad hoc, butchered, non-analytic version of mathematics that rejects qualia, mind, free will, the unconscious and consciousness, and adds verbal labels such as “electron” and “proton” to mathematical functions. Science is all about measurable quantities (quantia) and cannot accommodate unmeasurable qualities (qualia). Science will never be able to accommodate mind because it simply has no means for doing so. Mind is not miraculously going to appear by shuffling around equations dealing exclusively with atoms and sub-atomic particles. Scientists are clueless. They say that mind is made of matter but they have no grounds, other than blind dogmatism, for this claim. Mind does not, and never can, feature in scientific materialism. Science has as much ability to explain consciousness as Islam or Buddhism, which is none at all.

The Argument From Privacy You can have private experiences purely because you are an autonomous, private subject (soul). Public entities (bodies), made of public atoms, cannot experience qualia. Androids – public machines – cannot experience qualia. Only eternal souls can experience qualia. Private experience is all about interiority, “withinness”. Only immaterial souls (singularities), outside space and time, can be free from public matter and public space and time (i.e. from the shared, collective domain). Only souls can have an “inner space” which belongs to them and them alone.

Physicalism “According to Nagel, we currently do not have the conceptual apparatus necessary to even begin to understand how physicalism might be true. In order to solve the hard problem of consciousness, we would have to

undergo a complete overhaul of our entire conceptual apparatus – a conceptual revolution so radical that we cannot even begin to conceive what the resulting concepts would be like.” – http://www.iep.utm.edu/qualia/ Physicalism isn’t true, and it’s precisely the illusion of physicalism that prevents people from properly thinking about the problem of qualia. If this is a rational universe, which it is, then qualia and consciousness have a rational explanation, and rationalism, ontologically, means mathematics, and only mathematics. The overhaul of our conceptual apparatus that’s required is simply to move from science to mathematics, which is no great stretch since science is just a bad, empiricist misunderstanding of mathematics. Without mathematics, there could be no science at all. Therefore, who needs science when we have mathematics? A false ontological layer has been constructed by scientific “thinking”: the layer of physical matter independent of minds. There’s no such layer, and, once it’s abolished, all of the intellectual problems it creates are abolished with it. In ontological mathematics, the fundamental atoms of existence are mental, not physical. They are mathematical monads, and everything derives from them, both individually and collectively. At no stage is anything physical (i.e. completely independent of mind) created, and, indeed, it’s impossible to create anything physical. This is a mentalist, living universe, not a materialist, dead, machine universe. You cannot think about any problem correctly if you start off with the wrong ontology, and that’s exactly what science does, and what mainstream religion does. If the universe is rational, its ontology must be rational, and rationalism can exist ontologically solely mathematically. To say that we live in a mathematical universe is to say that we live in a rational, comprehensible, intelligible universe to which we can find a full analytic solution merely by applying our reason.

Property Dualism Property dualism describes a category of positions in the philosophy of mind which hold that the world is constituted of just one kind of physical substance, but it has two distinct kinds of properties: physical and mental. It contends that non-physical, mental properties can belong to physical substances such as brains. This stance contrasts with Cartesian substance

dualism which holds that there are two different kinds of substance: physical and non-physical (mental). Physical properties inhere in physical substances, and mental properties in mental substances. In ontological mathematics, mathematics is the single substance of existence, and it has two properties: Form (rational) and Content (empirical). Content concerns sensations, feelings, desires, will, beliefs, opinions. We escape Content only when we use reason to access Form, which reflects the eternal truths of reason, encapsulated in ontological mathematics. There are emphatically no “physical” things in the world. Philosopher David Chalmers asks why does the feeling that accompanies awareness of sensory information exist at all? In philosophy, this is known as the “hard problem”. There is of course no reason why the feeling should exist in a physicalist system such as the one proposed by scientific materialism, but it’s part of the furniture in a mathematical system of Form and Content. Everything feels like something and is experienced as something. It’s inescapable because Content is inescapable. Content is always subjective and empirical. It’s the notion of physicality that is in fact impossible to explain, not the existence of subjective experience. Materialism isn’t a fact. It’s an interpretation, an opinion, a belief, a hypothesis, a conjecture. And it’s false and wrong. The “hard problem” vanishes as soon as the fallacy of materialism vanishes. The real hard problem is why humanity is so wedded to the materialist belief system given that literally not one shred of evidence exists to support materialism. “Chalmers argues for an ‘explanatory gap’ from the objective to the subjective, and criticizes physical explanations of mental experience, making him a dualist. Chalmers characterizes his view as ‘naturalistic dualism’: naturalistic because he believes mental states are caused by physical systems (such as brains); dualist because he believes mental states are ontologically distinct from and not reducible to physical systems.” – Wikipedia There are no physical systems. There are simply systems that are interpreted as physical. It’s impossible for anything “physical” to have mental properties. It’s a category error, and a return to the old hylozoistic notions of living matter. The real distinction isn’t between mind and matter but between Form and Content. Both are mental, but one is rational and the

other empirical, one objective and the other subjective. A secondary distinction is between the operations of the collective mind (Monadic Collective) and the individual mind (single monad). As for Chalmers, if his system is meaningfully dualistic, he should be willing to say that physical brain states are as much caused by mental states, as vice versa. To privilege one over the other is to cease to be a dualist, or to be an incoherent dualist. “...Chalmers is famous for his commitment to the logical (though, importantly, not natural) possibility of philosophical zombies, although he was not the first to propose the thought experiment. These zombies, unlike the zombie of popular fiction, are complete physical duplicates of human beings, lacking only qualitative experience. Chalmers argues that since such zombies are conceivable to us, they must therefore be logically possible. Since they are logically possible, then qualia and sentience are not fully explained by physical properties alone.” – Wikipedia Qualia and sentience are not explained by physical properties at all. Zombies are impossible because purely physical human bodies are impossible. In order to believe that a machine can be as conscious as a human being, it’s necessary to believe that humans do not have immortal, indestructible souls. If machines and humans are both purely physical, there’s no reason why machines can’t perfectly simulate humans. If humans do have souls – ontological mathematical singularities with infinite capacity – then it is of course impossible for any machine to emulate a human being since a living, eternal soul can never be programmed into a machine. “...Chalmers argues that consciousness is a fundamental property ontologically autonomous of any known (or even possible) physical properties, and that there may be lawlike rules which he terms ‘psychophysical laws’ that determine which physical systems are associated with which types of qualia. He further speculates that all informationbearing systems may be conscious, leading him to entertain the possibility of conscious thermostats and a qualified panpsychism he calls panprotopsychism. Chalmers maintains a formal agnosticism on the issue, even conceding that the viability of panpsychism places him at odds with the majority of his contemporaries.” – Wikipedia

Consciousness is not a fundamental property. It’s unconsciousness that’s a fundamental property, with consciousness being derived from the unconscious. Consciousness develops when we start to tune into Form via the advent of reason. The most conscious people are the most rational people. Irrational people are scarcely more conscious than animals. As for Chalmers’ contention that there may be ‘psychophysical laws’, if this is so then minds are as much involved in the production of physical brains, as physical brains are in the production of mental states. Chalmers would have to reject evolution based on random, materialist Darwinism. Instead, mind – via psychophysical laws – would be involved in driving evolution. “In the philosophy of mind, double-aspect theory is the view that the mental and the physical are two aspects of, or perspectives on, the same substance. The theory’s relationship to neutral monism is ill-defined, but one proffered distinction says that whereas neutral monism allows the context of a given group of neutral elements to determine whether the group is mental, physical, both, or neither, double-aspect theory requires the mental and the physical to be inseparable and mutually irreducible (though distinct).” – Wikipedia In ontological mathematics, Form and Content are inseparable and formally irreducible, though distinct. “Neutral monism is the metaphysical view that the mental and the physical are two ways of organizing or describing the same elements, which are themselves ‘neutral’, that is, neither physical nor mental. This view denies that the mental and the physical are two fundamentally different things. Rather, neutral monism claims the universe consists of only one kind of stuff, in the form of neutral elements that are in themselves neither mental nor physical; these neutral elements might have the properties of colour and shape, just as we experience those properties, but these shaped and coloured elements do not exist in a mind (considered as a substantial entity, whether dualistically or physicalistically); they exist on their own.” – Wikipedia In ontological mathematics, everything exists within minds, either individual minds (monads) or the collective mind (Monadic Collective). “I do not think it is strictly accurate to say that rocks (for example) have experiences ... although rocks may have experiences associated with them. ...” – David Chalmers

Souls have experiences; rocks do not since they are not controlled by individual souls. They certainly have content associated with them, but no individual soul that can experience the content. “Many find it extremely counterintuitive to suppose that fundamental physical systems have phenomenal properties: e.g. that there is something it is like to be an electron.” – David Chalmers Souls linked to bodies have experiences. Bodies don’t have any experiences at all. There is nothing it is “like to be an electron”. A soul attached to an electron can experience what is like to be attached to an electron (just as a human soul can experience what it is like to be attached to a human body), but an electron itself can have no experience (just as a human body, with no soul, cannot experience anything, and nor can an android experience anything). Chalmers’ entire philosophy is fallacious because he is unable to include immaterial, autonomous, monadic minds outside space and time in his thinking. These are the experiencing agents (the subjects). “Material” electrons in space and time are objects, not subjects. Objects can never have experiences. They don’t have qualia. That’s why machines can never simulate or emulate living beings.

***** Why do people believe in “things” rather than in ideas, rather than in information? Every day, we look at screens and we see depictions of “physical” reality on those screens that look very much like “physical” reality, but plainly aren’t (we’re just seeing information on a screen, arranged into something that simulates “physical” reality). Every night, we dream about a reality that seems very physical, but isn’t. A dream is all about internal information. Why do people imagine that the “real” world is any different, that there’s something “out there” other than information, some miraculous “physical” thing somehow different from information. Information is reality, not “atoms”. Atoms themselves are just information. And information is mental, not physical. There is no physical world at all, only the idea (the collective idea) of a physical world, which is a wholly different concept. The only difference between dreams and waking reality is that the former is private and the latter public. The former deals with individual ideas (private information), and the latter with collective ideas (public information).

What’s so hard about getting beyond the delusion that physical stuff is out there, and we are somehow made from it, including our minds? The exact reverse is true. “Physical” stuff is made of us, i.e. of mathematical monadic minds, constituted of analytic sinusoidal waves, which are the basis of all information, including scientific “matter”. Proust said, “The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.” We need eyes powerful enough to see beyond matter, beyond, “things”, beyond appearances, to rational, noumenal Form itself – ontological mathematics.

Inner Space You can have inner experiences only if there is an inner world. You can have free will only if there is an inner world. That ipso facto means that you have a soul, the defining element of the inner world. Only you can experience what you experience; only you can decide what you want to freely do. If we replaced every atom in your body with other, matching atoms, none of your private experiences would change, and your ability to take free decisions would not change in the slightest. Why not? Because your private experiences have nothing whatsoever to do with atoms. They are all about your private, autonomous, monadic soul. Your experiences are your own Private Idaho.

***** How can anyone say that public atoms create private experiences if we can replace every atom and still retain the experience? Plainly, the private experience is not contained in the particular atoms but in something else. Some might say that the private experience is contained in the arrangement of atoms rather than the atoms themselves, but that is an argument concerning information, not physicality. The ancient world asked if Theseus’ ship was still Theseus’ ship if every single plank and nail in it was replaced. Well, is it? All of the original “physicality” has been replaced, but the information, the mathematical Form, remains intact. It’s this information, the Form, that defines reality, not the “things” (as materialism bogusly claims).

The Impossibility It’s impossible to explain consciousness (or the unconscious mind) via any physicalist theory. However, it’s not the mind and its operations that are baffling, but the incredible, slavish devotion most people, especially scientists, have to physicalism, to the existence of “solid” things. Quantum mechanics has already ineradicably ended the philosophy of materialism and the notion of solid atoms. How come no one seems to have noticed?! Atoms, by any scientist’s account, are almost 100% empty space ... so what’s “solid” about that? People continuously mistake the experience, the idea, of solidity for solid things (atoms). Atoms are not solid. Rather, atoms have mathematical properties that we experientially interpret as solidity, just as they have other properties that we experientially interpret as colours, smells, sounds, and tastes. Just as there are no “blue” atoms, but, rather, collections of atoms that are responsible for producing the experience of blue in us, so there are no solid atoms, but only “atoms” that produce in our minds the idea and experience of solidity. You do not need a solid world made of solid atoms in order to have the experience of solidity, just as you do not need blue atoms to create the experience of blue. The whole notion of materialism and physicalism flows from the sensory misinterpretation that our experience of solidity means that there are solid things, independent of minds (non-solid things). If we were to apply the same thinking to the greenness of leaves, we would conclude that leaves are made of green atoms! That’s what “common sense” tells us, yet common sense is the single greatest obstacle in the way of humanity’s understanding of true reality. Common sense is as much an enemy of reason as faith is. Common sense is reason for dummies, i.e. it’s not reason at all. You have a radical intellectual problem if you cannot distinguish between the appearance of something, and what the something is in itself (phenomenon versus noumenon). The “common sense” mentality says that appearance is reality, i.e. there is no hidden layer. Science goes out of the way to deny the existence of “hidden variables”, i.e. noumenal variables, which cannot be addressed by the senses and the scientific method. To a scientist, it’s “common sense” that we live in a material world and that there are no immaterial souls.

The existence of the soul has nothing whatsoever to do with common sense. It’s all about intellect, about reason. The game is not one of trying to get from the physical brain to mental qualia, but to get from the existence of the mind to the functioning of the brain, to why the brain seems physical, and what we really mean when we refer to allegedly physical things. Throughout the God Series, we have emphasised that there is no matter-mind dichotomy since matter, as conceived by scientists, simply does not and cannot exist. The real dichotomy is between the functioning of individual minds (monads) and the functioning of all minds (the Monadic Collective). It’s this latter type of functioning that lies beneath the illusion of matter. The key distinction is that individual minds actively think and act, while the Monadic Collective “thinks” passively, and needs to be acted upon. It’s this inertness, passivity, sluggishness, and inertia that scientists erroneously label “matter”. They can’t conceive that this is merely a different type of thinking (collective rather than individual), and nothing to do with non-mental things. The central trouble is our senses. It’s precisely these that lure us into the fallacy of physicalism. We imagine that objects exist independently of us, and externally to us. In fact, it’s other minds that exist independently of us, and externally to us. We are confronting the objective, external thoughts of the Monadic Collective when we encounter “the world”. We are not encountering “objects” made out of nothing by “God”, or “objects” randomly made out of non-existence by scientific accident and chance. The revolution in thinking that is required is to move us away from science and to ontological mathematics. It’s no accident that science has a mathematical engine. People continuously refer to mathematics as unreal, an abstraction, a human language or construct, a human “game”, yet, if this were true, it would mean that science was all of those things too since there would be no such subject as science in the absence of mathematics. Science works because some part of it reflects how reality really is. It’s not the scientific method based on sensory observations that gives science its veracity: it’s the fact that, uniquely, science uses mathematics. Why does philosophy fail to be convincing? – exactly because it does not use mathematics and actually is just based on humanly constructed languages and word games. Ontological mathematics is how we get to reality itself: the non-sensory, noumenal, intelligible world of ontological reason. The universe is rational

and intelligible because it’s literally made of reason/mathematics. Anyone who claims otherwise is asserting either that the universe is fundamentally irrational, or that the order of the universe miraculously arises from “God” as religion says, or from random Chaos as science declares (!). How you respond to these issues is entirely dependent on how rational you yourself are. The equation could not be simpler: a rational universe means that the universe is made of reason (ontological mathematics), hence is intelligible. An irrational universe means that the universe is made of God-knows-what. But who cares since such a universe could never exhibit any order and organisation, and could never be intelligible. We wouldn’t be here to worry about it. It’s extraordinary that so many people accept that we live in a staggeringly ordered, organised and patterned universe, of which we can make a great deal of sense, yet refuse to accept that this is possible only because the universe is made of the very stuff of order, organisation and pattern, i.e. mathematics, reason, logic. It’s not at all mysterious or baffling, yet 99.9% of the human race has failed to grasp this simple fact. Why? – because they don’t use their reason. They use their emotions and their senses. They blabber on about “God”, “love”, mysticism, and “physical” atoms. Atoms are not in fact sensory objects at all: no one has ever seen an atom, since, as quantum mechanics tells us, there is nothing objective to see. There is no permanent, solid object of the type the ancient Greek Atomists conceived (and even they believed individual atoms were too small to physically detect). People, not to put too fine a point on it, are stupid, and it’s human stupidity that’s blocking our path to divinity and Ultimate Truth. It’s not lack of faith, or lack of common sense, it’s lack of reason.

***** “Some attention had earlier been paid to qualia in connection with type identity theory, the view that mental state types could be identified with physical state types (for example, the mental state type pain might be identified to the neural state type C-fibre firing).” – http://www.iep.utm.edu/qualia/ It’s not physical states that can be identified with mental states, but, rather, mathematical states. The mathematical state is the Form, and the mental

state corresponding to it is the Content. “...Chalmers has argued that we can conceive of what he terms ‘zombies’ – beings who are molecule-for-molecule identical with phenomenally conscious beings but who are not themselves phenomenally conscious. In appearance and action, a conscious being and his zombie replica would be indistinguishable, but for the zombie, as Chalmers says, ‘all is dark inside.’” – http://www.iep.utm.edu/qualia/ In an ontological mathematical system of Form and Content, human zombies are impossible. Chalmers’ thought experiment would amount to Form being separate from Content. The zombies would be Form without Content, while the non-zombies would be Form and Content. Androids would be zombies because they are not linked to monadic souls, capable of experiencing Content.

***** In science, a physical atom is not associated with qualia. In ontological mathematics, a mental atom (monad) most assuredly is. Therefore, the real issue regarding qualia is whether reality ultimately comprises: 1) immaterial, dimensionless domains (singularities) = Fourier frequency monads, or 2) material, dimensional domains = Fourier spacetime atoms. Obviously, if reality is all about the former then trying to understand reality via the latter is doomed from the outset and will generate the endless nonsense that constitutes the philosophical debate concerning qualia. Read the following article if you want to see how ingeniously stupid philosophers can be: http://www.iep.utm.edu/qualia/ To put it another way, if you get your ontology wrong, everything you subsequently say is literal nonsense, no matter how well argued. Catholic theology and philosophy, presented via the Scholastics, is marvellously ingenious and thought provoking, yet the whole thing is ridiculous because the fundamental ontology assumed – that of “God” as the source of everything – is 100% false. Similarly, all philosophical arguments presented regarding qualia are false because they assume the correctness of the false ontology of scientific materialism, of physicalism. They assume the reality of scientific atoms rather than of mathematical atoms (monads). If you start

from a false ontology, it’s game over no matter how clever and sophisticated your arguments subsequently are. Religion has proved that humans can present arguments of any degree of sophistication regarding “God”, yet strict rationalism demonstrates that there is no “God”, hence all such arguments are nonsense and meaningless. Remember, the deadly question that reduces to dust all systems other than ontological mathematics is simply this: what is it made of? You cannot claim that reality is made of atoms if you accept Big Bang theory. After all, there were no atoms at all at the Big Bang! It’s bizarre and irrational that physicalists are obsessed with atoms given that we know that atoms cannot be fundamental since no modern scientific theory is predicated on eternal atoms (as classical atomic theories were). Whatever atoms are, they come from something more fundamental, and the task is to identify what that thing is. Only then can the problem of qualia be meaningfully addressed. To put it another way, if we understand the Big Bang – which was in fact a dimensionless, immaterial, Fourier frequency event outside space and time – then we understand qualia. Science ludicrously says that the Big Bang was all about “randomness”. Self-evidently, you cannot get from randomness to qualia. Yet again, we see that a false ontology (that of disorder rather than order) leads to catastrophic explanatory problems. Humans can and do think up all sorts of arguments to justify all sorts of beliefs, but 100% of these arguments will fail if they do not reflect the one and only true ontology. That’s the sine qua non for everything else. Without it, humans are engaging in nothing but belief, hypothesis, conjecture, opinion, interpretation and speculation. In these bogus views, there are no facts and no Truth. Ontological mathematics is the only way forward. That’s a fact. Why? Because it reflects an eternal order of existence. It reflects eternal truths of reason, and no sane person can take issue with those. The failure of modern philosophy and science flows from a single source: the inability to understand ontological Fourier mathematics and the existence of two linked but distinct domains –the frequency domain (mind) and the spacetime domain (matter). When will the penny drop?!! Science has proved so successful in the observable world that it has crippled the ability of academic philosophers to challenge it. Even when they claim to disagree with it, they are actually agreeing with it by accepting the central propositions of physicalism. Even someone such as

David Chalmers is, when all’s said and done, simply asking for a magic ingredient to be added to scientific materialism to account for qualia. What he ought to be doing is demanding the end of the whole false edifice of materialism.

***** “Rather than trying to find some way to fit qualia into a physicalist theory of mind, some philosophers have taken an entirely different attitude towards qualia. They deny that qualia exist. This position is known as eliminativism about qualia, and it commonly constitutes a part of a larger eliminativist project about mental states in general. For example, Paul and Patricia Churchland have argued (both together and individually) that as we gain more and more neuroscientific understanding of our mental lives, we will come to see that our current mental state concepts – belief, pain, sensation, qualia, etc. – all need to be discarded. “The Churchlands offer numerous useful analogies to help make this point. To consider just one of their examples: Ptolemaic theory placed the Earth at the centre of the universe, around which a giant celestial sphere revolved. This created all sorts of difficult problems in need of solutions, like determining the cause of the sphere’s rotation. When Newtonian theory displaced Ptolemaic theory, the notion of the celestial sphere was completely discarded. It wasn’t that Ptolemaic theorists had an inadequate account of the celestial sphere; rather, what was discovered was that there was no celestial sphere. Thus, the problem of what causes the sphere’s movement turned out to be a pseudo-problem. Similarly, the Churchlands predict that as our neuroscientific knowledge increases, we will come to see that the problem of qualia is a pseudo-problem, because we will come to see that there are no qualia – at least not as presently understood. Just as the celestial sphere did not turn out to be identifiable with or reducible to some element of Newtonian theory, qualia will not turn out to be identifiable with or reducible to some element of future neuroscientific theory. Rather, the concept will have to be eliminated entirely.” – http://www.iep.utm.edu/qualia/ In fact, as our knowledge increases, we will come to see that the problem of physicalism is a pseudo-problem because there are in fact no physical things at all. Neuroscientific theory itself is on a par with Ptolemaic theory.

Where does form come from? Where does shape come from? Where do order, organisation and pattern come from? They plainly don’t come from science. Science is so hostile to form and order that it claims that reality randomly jumps out of non-existence and ends up in total disorder (via the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which seems a remarkably ordered law!), and any order it passes through in between is pure accident! Given quantum mechanics and relativity theory, there is in fact no coherent definition of “physical matter” anyway, i.e. even within its own parameters, scientific materialism cannot explain what matter is. Science is instrumental and pragmatic, not ontological and essentialist. For exactly this reason, it’s impossible to understand what claims neuroscience will make when it attempts to explain qualia, or, indeed, why qualia don’t allegedly exist. Mathematics, on the other hand, is the very definition of form, order, organisation and pattern. “...Chalmers’ dualism is a version of property dualism. This view does not posit the existence of any nonphysical or immaterial substances, but instead posits the existence of properties – qualia – that are ontologically independent of any physical properties. Though these properties are not entailed by physicalism (that is, though they do not logically supervene on physical properties) they may nonetheless somehow arise from them. As Chalmers describes his view: ‘[C]onsciousness arises from a physical substrate in virtue of certain contingent laws of nature, which are not themselves implied by physical laws.’ “Physics postulates a number of fundamental features of the world: mass, spin, charge, etc. Naturalistic dualism adds nonphysical phenomenal properties to this list. Correspondingly, it suggests we must add fundamental laws governing the behaviour of the fundamental phenomenal features to the list of the fundamental laws governing the behaviour of the fundamental physical features of the world. We don’t presently understand exactly what these new laws and the completed theory containing them will look like, and Chalmers admits that developing such a theory will not be easy, but, in principle, it should be possible to do so. “This commitment to lawfulness is what allows Chalmers to remain within a naturalistic framework, even as he abandons the physicalistic framework. On his view, ‘the world still consists in a network of fundamental properties related by basic laws, and everything is to be

ultimately explained in those terms. All that has happened is that the inventory of properties and laws has been expanded [beyond the physical properties and laws].’” – http://www.iep.utm.edu/qualia/ What Chalmers is looking for is of course dual-aspect ontological mathematics, addressing form (rationalism) and content (empiricism). “... if experience is truly a fundamental property, it seems natural for it to be widespread.” – David Chalmers It is! It’s everywhere. It’s monadic content, the flip side of monadic mathematical form. It’s conveyed by monadic mathematical waves. Monadic minds are the entities that experience the content associated with mathematical forms. They experience the ontological information (content) conveyed by mathematical sinusoids (form), rather than the mathematical sinusoids themselves.

Quantia and Qualia Quantia: “of an amount”. Qualia: “of a sort, of a kind”. Our bodies belong to the world of quantia (the material world), our minds to the world of qualia (the mental world). Science is all about quantia and denies the existence of qualia. The final theory of everything must unite quantia and qualia in a single system. That system will be ontological mathematics, dealing with both Form and Content.

Magic Magic has been defined as the “art of influencing events and producing marvels using hidden natural forces.” A magician – a Magus – is “one who has power” (interestingly, “machine” has the same root: it’s an object rather than person with power). A magician, a Magus, is a member of a learned and priestly class. A magician is a priest of the mind, a revealer of the sacred. Shakespeare’s famous Magus is Prospero from The Tempest, supposedly modelled on the famous occultist John Dee.

The Mind It’s remarkable how often qualia are expressly linked with consciousness rather than with mind. The mind, of course, is something that is primarily unconscious, with consciousness being a specific, reflective module that develops from unconsciousness, and goes hand in hand with the acquisition of language and long-term memory. There is a time – when we are newborn babies – when we have no consciousness at all, yet we have any amount of subjective mental experiences (qualia), so it’s staggering that qualia are so often regarded as a property of consciousness. Qualia precede consciousness and are a precondition for consciousness. You cannot become conscious without a mind, and all minds experience qualia. Machines don’t experience qualia and can never be conscious. We are conscious when we can reflect on our qualia, when we can label them, frame them, contextualise them and remember them. Babies have qualia, but can’t remember them. The same is true of animals, which live in the moment. As humans, our first memories typically come when we are about four years old. Do we have memories from before then? Of course we do. We just can’t remember them because we have no context for them. We are conscious when we can establish a continuous narrative that frames our experiences. Without that, memories are essentially inaccessible. Without consciousness and without memory, we have qualia, but we can’t appreciate them and ponder them. Consciousness doesn’t produce qualia (mind does), but it certainly allows us to savour them.

The Empirical Delusion Many people have the extraordinary idea that what we experience is reality. That’s the Empirical Delusion. In fact, what’s revealed to our reason (Form) is every bit as real as what is revealed to us by our senses or feelings (Content), yet people find Content so much more real than Form. That’s why they think we live in a universe of love, or faith, or spirit, or scientific materialism. We are people of experience and reason, not experience alone, or reason alone. It’s the fact that we inhabit two worlds at once that has so confused humanity. We encounter both sides, both radically different sides, of a

single coin at the same time. Most people choose to regard the empirical, sensory, emotional side as actual reality, and the other side as a mere abstraction, something unreal and even unbelievable. When people talk of “proof” and “evidence”, they’re invariably referring to some kind of sensory experience. While “evidence” is empirical, proof emphatically isn’t. Proof relates only to the intelligible, rational side of the coin. It has no connection with empirical evidence. We inhabit both worlds: of evidence and proof. And we inhabit other “worlds” too: those of belief, emotion and opinion, where we require neither evidence nor proof.

***** “A property considered apart from things having the property.” ... The property is never apart from the thing having the property. It’s the other side of it, the Content rather than the Form. “A property as it is experienced as distinct from any source it might have in a physical object.” ... There is no physical object, only a mathematical Form, which we experience in terms of the Content that comes with it. “A quality regarded as an independent object.” ... Qualia are never independent, autonomous objects. Qualia are always Content and are always accompanied by Form. They are always the other side of the coin. Qualia are conveyed by Form. Form is intelligible and Content sensible. We understand the Form and experience the Content. The problem, of course, is that, we need to be intelligent to understand the Form, and we are much more likely to misunderstand, much more likely to imagine all sorts of things to explain our experiences rather than their actual causes. We might believe in physical “atoms”, or the Will of God, or spirits in the ether, or Olympic gods, or fairies, or spiritual energies, or unknowable noumena, or whatever. Only the highest geniuses have realised that it’s mathematics behind everything. To be specific, it’s a single mathematical formula – the God Equation – that’s responsible for all things. Content is the sensory, experiential accompaniment of the God Equation, and its character changes as the underlying mathematical frequencies, and combinations of frequencies, change.

Qualia do exist, and they require a new level of explanation currently unavailable from scientific materialism, given that science isn’t based on Form and Content but only on contingent, physicalist speculations (hypotheses). According to science, qualia are simply unexplained brain states or epiphenomena of brain states. Wrong!

Other Minds We can’t prove that other humans are conscious, but it’s irrational not to assume that other humans are every bit as conscious as we are. There’s no sufficient reason why they shouldn’t be. There’s no reason why any machine could be expected to exhibit consciousness. Machines do not have souls (monadic minds), and, since this is a necessary condition for consciousness, machines will never be conscious. People who believe that machines can be as consciousness as we are thereby deny that we are living beings and claim, instead, that we are Cartesian machines, mere automata. Consciousness is not about registering 0s and 1s (as machines do), it’s about experiencing ontological numbers (wave frequencies). It’s not about quantia, but qualia. It’s not just about qualia (since the unconscious mind is as capable of experiencing qualia as the conscious mind). It’s about reflecting on qualia, conceptualising qualia. It’s about curating qualia, mediating qualia. It’s about the meta experience (which means intellectualising and rationalising the experience). Quantia are quantifiable. They are rationalist, and concerned with Form. They are addressed by the intellect. Qualia aren’t quantifiable. They are empiricist, and concerned with Content. They are addressed by the senses and feelings. Intelligible life concerns mathematical quantia. Empirical life concerns sensory and emotional qualia. Science feebly tries to combine qualia and quantia by having a scientific method directed at the observable, sensory world and a mathematical engine directed at quantity and laws. In fact, quantia and qualia are two sides of a single coin and cannot be mixed. Ultimate, eternal reality is rationalist, mathematical and intelligible It has nothing to do with the senses and the observable, hence the scientific method is redundant.

Atoms versus Corpuscles “... for [Robert] Boyle often appears to write as an atomist. He uses the term ‘atom’ frequently to describe the smallest particles of matter. ... in some manuscripts Boyle has systematically replaced the term ‘atom’ with that of ‘corpuscle’. ... [The tension between atoms and corpuscles] is predicated on a very strict interpretation of the meaning of the term ‘atom’ and a polarisation between continuists and atomists. ... in the early seventeenth century, there were matter theories that posited that the basic building blocks of all material things were corpuscles that, while in principle divisible, were never in fact divided in nature. Moreover, these basic corpuscles were sometimes called atoms. ... If therefore we look for two senses of the term ‘atom’ in Boyle, a strict sense meaning uncuttable and a loose sense meaning smallest particle of matter which for all intents and purposes is indivisible, our apparent tension dissolves. ... Boyle never in fact wrote as an atomist in the strict sense. ... Boyle prefers [the term ‘corpuscle’] because it is neutral on the issue of divisibility.” – Peter R. Anstey, The Philosophy of Robert Boyle “Corpuscularianism is a physical theory that supposed all matter to be composed of minute particles, which became important in the seventeenth century. Among the leading corpuscularians were Pierre Gassendi, Robert Boyle, and John Locke. “Corpuscularianism is similar to the theory of atomism, except that where atoms were supposed to be indivisible, corpuscles could in principle be divided. In this manner, for example, it was theorized that mercury could penetrate into metals and modify their inner structure, a step on the way towards the production of gold by transmutation. Corpuscularianism was associated by its leading proponents with the idea that some of the properties that objects appear to have are artefacts of the perceiving mind: ‘secondary’ qualities as distinguished from ‘primary’ qualities. Corpuscularianism stayed a dominant theory for centuries and was blended with alchemy by early scientists such as Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton in the 17th century. “In his work, The Sceptical Chymist (1661) Boyle abandoned the Aristotelian ideas of the classical elements – earth, water, air, and fire in favour of corpuscularianism. ...

“The philosopher Thomas Hobbes used corpuscularianism to justify his political theories in Leviathan. It was used by Newton in his development of the corpuscular theory of light, while Boyle used it to develop his mechanical corpuscular philosophy, which laid the foundations for the Chemical Revolution.” – Wikipedia Atomic theory is strictly materialist. Monadic theory is strictly mentalist (idealist). There’s an old position called “corpuscularianism” that might be deemed somewhat in between. Whereas atoms cannot be divided any further, corpuscles can, and, if we divided them infinitely, we would end up with monads. In practice, corpuscularianism was materialistic and really just a more nuanced Atomism. Although it was deemed that infinite division of corpuscles was mathematically possible, it was held not to be “naturally” (physically) possible. Interesting, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is arguably closer to corpuscularianism than atomism. In true atomism, it would be impossible for an atom ever to be depicted in probabilistic rather than real terms (as potentiality rather than actuality). Quantum mechanical atoms and subatomic particles, as depicted by the Copenhagen school, are rather more like corpuscles that can be infinitely divided, but, rather than ending up as real mathematical entities (monadic wavefunctions), they become unreal, abstract mathematical wavefunctions describing potentialities.

Robert Boyle Seventeenth century English scientist Robert Boyle was strongly committed to empiricism and the experimental method. A champion of the “corpuscular” philosophy, Boyle held that changes in the properties of physical objects could be explained by the rearrangement of the constituent basic particles of matter. This was very much an echo of ancient Greek Atomism, and is the simple model of reality that most scientifically minded people hold even in the present day (quantum mechanics being way too weird for them). In order to switch from this empiricist, materialist worldview to a rationalist, idealist worldview, all you have to do is replace physical atoms with mental atoms (monadic minds) and then assert that all the properties of

the world arise from the interactions of these immaterial, unobservable mathematical singularities. What was the Big Bang? – a Singularity event! If the world began with a Singularity, what makes us imagine that it isn’t still a Singularity at its core? The Singularity is the World Soul. The world began with an immaterial, dimensionless (mental) event and remains entirely mental. The appearance of the material world results from the Fourier mathematics of the Singularity (which comprises countless, autonomous, immaterial, dimensionless singularities = souls). Minds/souls are individual Fourier frequency domains that, between them, can create a collective Fourier spacetime domain, which is what humanity regards as “physical”. But it’s not – it’s mathematical, and it’s generated by minds. There is no such thing as a material world in the manner envisaged by the likes of Robert Boyle and the scientific community. “Material” atoms are entirely derived from mental atoms, not the other way around (matter doesn’t produce mind).

The Mathematical Universe Many people imagine that a mathematical universe would be a machine universe. In fact, a mathematical universe is alive. It’s a living organism. It’s a teleological life-form, imbued with meaning and purpose. Those conclusions flow from the basic definition of mind/life ... it’s the uniform flow of perfectly structured information, i.e. it’s all about perfect, analytic sinusoidal basis waves (complete and consistent sets of which are organised into individual, autonomous monads, each a living mathematical organism). Life and mind are all about mathematical singularities – exactly where the laws of physics are said to fall apart! They are where the laws of materialism collapse.

Success Physics is successful because: 1) it has a mathematical engine, and 2) it matches its mathematical hypotheses to the observable world, revealed by experiments. It addresses “truths of fact”. Metaphysics is unsuccessful because it does not have a mathematical engine and does not match its hypotheses to the observable world.

How can you make metaphysics successful? First, you must link it to a mathematical engine, and the perfect such engine is ontological mathematics, based on the God Equation and the Fourier mathematics derived from it. Second, you must match it not to the observable, contingent, temporal world of truths of fact (Content; empiricism), but the unobservable, necessary, eternal world of truths of reason (Form; rationalism). Metaphysics is the basis of physics and is what reveals ultimate truth to us (noumenal truth). Physics is what reveals observable truth to us (phenomenal truth). The grand unified theory of everything is one that is grounded in metaphysics (ultimate truth), and from which physics is derived as its empirical, phenomenal expression. Physics in itself can emphatically not produce a final theory of everything because it cannot address ultimate reality (based on a priori truths of reason that have nothing to do with the a posteriori scientific method).

Empiricist Ontology? Empiricism has extreme difficulties with ontology. The problem, of course, is that empiricism is all about experience, and if we can’t experience fundamental ontology then empiricism can’t say anything about it at all! The ontology of philosopher John Locke comprised 1) perceiving and reflecting minds, and 2) a “real” (physical) world of things made of atoms or corpuscles (based on Robert Boyle’s take on reality), which provided: 1) primary qualities: those qualities that atoms, hence their aggregates, do actually have, and 2) secondary qualities: “powers” that atoms and their aggregates have to generate sensory ideas in us that are absent from the atoms themselves, e.g. the colour blue is in our minds and not in any atom or aggregate of atoms. Of primary properties, Locke said that they were “utterly inseparable” from material objects and remain the same throughout all changes. As for secondary properties, Locke said, “[They are] nothing in the objects themselves but powers to produce various sensations in us by their primary qualities.” Bishop Berkeley, Locke’s successor, pointed out that the only thing we really knew about in Locke’s scheme was a set of ideas, and there was no reason at all to conclude that there was any “matter” underpinning these ideas. (Berkeley was an idealist empiricist, Locke a materialist empiricist).

For Berkeley, a chair exists for an observer while the observer perceives it, and does not exist for the observer when the observer no longer perceives it. In terms of ontology, this means that the chair has no permanent existence. It’s “summoned” into existence by a perceiving mind then banished from existence as soon as the perception ceases. This wholly contradicts the reality principle and makes “reality”, such as it is, crazy and irrational. If two people are observing the same chair and then one closes their eyes, what then? Does it still exist or has it ceased to exist? How do the observers know they are observing the same chair? Its existence seems to be wholly subjective, not objective at all. David Hume, a skeptical empiricist, was happy to conclude that all we actually “know” is a succession of ideas. This is more or less a position of pure solipsism. Kant, in his attempt to address Hume’s savage attack on meaningful knowledge (for Hume, all the knowledge we think we possess is in fact imagined and bogus) came up with a supremely bizarre scheme. He argued that mind imposes a structure upon the world in order apprehend it, but this presupposes the existence of a world that exists independently of the mind, onto which the structure is then imposed. However, if our mind imposes space, time and the categories of the understanding onto the world in itself, what’s left to the world to supply to the mind? Well, the obvious thing is sensory content. However, if, like Bishop Berkeley, we conclude that minds supply all secondary and even primary qualities which an object allegedly possesses then there’s nothing left for the object to supply. It has become absolutely redundant, and that was exactly the conclusion Berkeley reached. It simply doesn’t exist when it’s not an object of the mind’s perception. Logically, Kant ought to have said that his noumenal objects supply something objective to the mind (sensory content being the best candidate) because if they don’t provide anything to the mind, neither Form nor Content (both of which are exclusively supplied by the mind), then how can the mind register their existence in any way? Viewed in this way, Kant’s philosophy is merely an ingenious but bogus version of Berkeley’s philosophy, i.e. where Berkeley logically concluded, given the premises of his philosophy, that without perception there is no object, Kant claimed that an object is always there and yet it does not contribute in any knowable, experiential or conceivable way to how it is perceived.

If it furnishes nothing to perception then it cannot be an object of perception, hence can play zero part in what we perceive. In other words, it’s a wholly superfluous concept and has no effects of any kind, which means it can’t be rationally deemed to exist at all, or, if it does, we could never know anything about it, so it might as well not exist as far as observers are concerned. Fichte was the first to conclude that Kant’s noumenal world simply didn’t exist, and Hegel pointed out that Kant was violating his own laws concerning the limits of knowledge by claiming that noumena were unknowable. If they were genuinely unknowable, we self-evidently wouldn’t know anything about them, hence couldn’t refer to them at all, and they could play no part in our system of knowledge. To say they are unknowable and yet can somehow participate in our system of knowledge is to say that they have at least one thing we do know about them: we know that they have existence. Yet this is a pointless statement, because we know nothing about them beyond that fact. It’s therefore a claim that can have no context, no substance and no value, so why bother with it at all? Hegel said that whatever is is knowable and rational, famously proclaiming, “The real is rational, and the rational is real.” So, anything that exists forms part of a rational system, and anything that is part of this rational system must have existence. This in fact is a definition of the principle of sufficient reason, and the ontological mathematics that flows from it. Hegel was an advocate of panlogism: reason is literally everywhere. Existence is made of reason, hence existence is entirely knowable. Reality is constituted by the mind and is its construction. Given that mind can know everything it made, there is no unknowable, noumenal world. If mind creates everything, there is nothing outside mind, no noumenal objects existing independently of mind.

***** “Although agreeing that primary qualities are physically basic properties of extended particles (including size, shape, position, and motion), [Galileo, Descartes, Boyle, and Locke] differed on whether secondary qualities such as colour exist only in the mind as sensations or belong to bodies as powers to cause sensations.” – Wikipedia

For Locke, objects in the external world have qualities that produce ideas in minds. “Primary” qualities exist in the objects themselves. “Secondary” qualities, such as colour, do not exist in the objects themselves, but in the perceiving mind. Nevertheless, the objects have the power to cause the perception of these secondary qualities, i.e. they aren’t just hallucinated by the mind. There is thus a clear difference between appearance and reality. We see more than is really there. We embellish the object as it in itself. This was an idea taken up with gusto by Kant who contended that objects are just unknowable entities onto which our minds project Form, thus making them “knowable”. “Kant, in his Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Present Itself as a Science, claimed that primary, as well as secondary, qualities are subjective. They are both mere appearances that are located in the mind of a knowing observer.” – Wikipedia “Long before Locke’s time, but assuredly since him, it has been generally assumed and granted without detriment to the actual existence of external things, that many of their predicates may be said to belong not to the things in themselves, but to their appearances, and to have no proper existence outside our representation. Heat, colour, and taste, for instance, are of this kind. Now, if I go farther, and for weighty reasons rank as mere appearances the remaining qualities of bodies also, which are called primary, such as extension, place, and in general space, with all that which belongs to it (impenetrability or materiality, space, etc.) – no one in the least can adduce the reason of its being inadmissible.” – Kant If primary and secondary qualities are both subjective, what’s objective? What is objectively supplied by the object itself? If causation is also mindsupplied, there’s literally nothing left for the object to supply. It neither supplies any qualities, nor does it cause any qualities, so it’s wholly redundant ... which is why Kant’s successors abandoned the whole concept of unknowable noumena and made them knowable. As knowable, mental entities (rather than material entities), they could interact with our minds, and it’s the combination of our mind and that mental things outside our mind that brings about what we perceive.

*****

In Kant’s system, we impose space, time, causation, all categories of understanding, and all primary and secondary qualities on noumena, in which case, why do we need sensory organs? What exactly are we detecting with them? How can spacetime organs tell us anything at all about unknowable objects outside spacetime and causation, and with no sensory qualities of their own? Kant’s philosophy, the more you study it, is pure lunacy. It’s incoherent in every way.

***** Kant said of Locke’s secondary qualities: “[They can have] no existence outside their representation.” He also said that primary properties do not “resemble” any properties of things in themselves. Kant ought to have argued that noumena were pure, unformed sensory Content (onto which minds then projected Form), or, at least, entities with causal power to generate what we experience as sensations. And what could be better in this regard than noumenal, mathematical entities that have no appearance in themselves, but contain the wherewithal to be perceived by subjective minds?

No Physical World When Bishop Berkeley got rid of the material world, he had to explain why there was an objective world that was there whether or not we perceived it. His answer was to appeal to God: an all-powerful mind that never slept and could perceive everything continuously, forever. God, an immaterial being, replaced “matter” as the underpinning of our perceptions, giving them objective reality. In Illuminism, God, a Superbeing, is replaced as the substratum of everything by the mathematical Singularity defined by the God Equation. There is no physical world. Berkeley substitutes a divine mystery for a material one. Illuminism supplies a rational, mathematical answer.

Innateness Locke rejected Plato’s Theory of Forms and any notion of innate ideas and innate knowledge. He said, “The mind is furnished with ideas by experience alone.”

In fact, the mind is furnished with sensations by experience alone. The intelligible world, however, has nothing to do with sensations or feelings and is entirely innate.

Knowledge? Locke took for granted the existence of a material world. Well, it was the common sense conclusion, wasn’t it? He believed that the external physical world acted on our physical sense organs and created ideas of sensation (how we perceive the physical world) in our minds, through some admittedly unknown mechanism. Knowledge of the material world consists of the ideas of it that we have in our minds. We can have no knowledge of the external world without these ideas. Ideas of reflection, on the other hand, are generated by the operations of the mind upon the ideas of sensation, creating the world of our active thoughts. According to Locke, there can be no ideas of reflection unless there are first ideas of sensation. Therefore, he wholly rejected the notion of innate ideas. If these existed, ideas of reflection could apply to them rather than to ideas of sensation, hence they would supply an alternative source of knowledge. In fact, we should regard empiricism as the doctrine that ideas of reflection can have as their base only ideas of sensation. Rationalism, on the other hand, asserts that ideas of reflection can wholly bypass the senses and be applied to innate ideas that exist unconsciously in our minds. These have to be brought into consciousness. Mathematics is exactly of this nature. Mathematics has nothing whatsoever to do with sensations, yet is inside all of us, as we vividly demonstrate whenever we catch a ball. Mathematics is a priori. It precedes any possible sensations. Locke’s arguments against innate ideas were all about such ideas being conscious. In that time, the notion of the unconscious mind was in its absolute infancy, and certainly wasn’t part of Locke’s thinking and worldview (although it was for Leibniz). In fact, empiricists are duty-bound to deny the existence of the unconscious mind since, by definition, it’s not something that can be consciously experienced. Empiricists, at least the consistent ones, do not accept the concept of unconscious experience. Empiricists totally deny the basis of rationalism, while rationalism regards empiricism as complementing rationalism. Rationalism concerns eternal Form (truths of reason), while empiricism concerns contingent Content (truths of fact).

Hume proposed a similar scheme to Locke’s, and was equally hostile to unconscious and innate ideas. He talked of our minds containing “impressions” and “ideas”. Impressions are equivalent to Locke’s “ideas of sensation”. They reflect our perceptions of the physical world. As for ideas, they are images of impressions, formed in thinking and reasoning. They are equivalent to Locke’s “ideas of reflection”. Hume asserted that we could have no idea of anything of which we had received no impression, i.e. what has not been perceived cannot be known. Plainly, we can and do have ideas that have nothing to do with impressions. However, Hume would regard these as constituting imagination and fantasy rather than having anything to do with “knowledge”. Hume famously pointed out that we do not perceive causation (we receive no sensory impression of it; we only have a sensory perception of a succession of events and we then add an interpretation of causation to this perception), hence, in his philosophy, we can have no valid ideas about causation, no “knowledge” of causation. Kant, seeking to refute Hume, said that the mind has two parts: the part which perceives, and the part which thinks. The perceiving part receives sensory impressions, which Kant called “particulars” (like Locke’s ideas of sensation and Hume’s impressions). The thinking part is the organ of understanding, and Kant calls the objects of understanding “concepts” (like Locke’s ideas of reflection and Hume’s ideas). When concepts are applied to particulars, the result is “synthetic judgments”. Kant believed that two types of synthetic judgments were possible: synthetic a priori and synthetic a posteriori. The latter are those whose truth or falsehood can be determined by experience (i.e., they are concerned with truths of fact). The former are those which are independent of experience. Kant believed that scientific, mathematical and moral judgments were of all of this type. In Illuminism, there’s simply no such thing as the synthetic a priori category. The proper category is analytic a priori, which deals with eternal truths of reason. Mathematics is quintessentially analytic a priori (rationalist) while science is synthetic a posteriori (empiricist), yet frames its hypotheses in mathematical terms. Science is ultimately bogus because you cannot apply synthetic a posteriori considerations to an analytic a priori system such as mathematics. Science has bastardised and corrupted

mathematics in order to make it compatible with the scientific method. Scientific mathematics is pseudo mathematics, math for dummies. The least addressed subject in the history of thought, which also happens to be the most important (!), is the ontology of mathematics, and what science does to mathematics in order to make mathematics serve science (rather than being true to itself and serving mathematics alone). Illuminism agrees with the basic notion that there’s a perceiving mind and a thinking mind. However, it rejects the Kantian notion that the thinking mind applies synthetic a priori judgments to sense perception (thus providing the framework in which sense perceptions are rendered intelligible, as part of a consistent, reliable structure of perception). It also rejects the empiricist notions that everything begins with sense perceptions and there are no innate ideas. Illuminism introduces a radical innovation in relation to the “perceiving” mind. There are in fact four components of the perceiving mind, not just the sensory one slavishly worshipped by scientists. They are as follows: 1) Sensory perception – the one advocated by scientists and empiricists. This is localist perception. 2) Extra-sensory perception – the one involved in “paranormal” experiences. This is non-localist perception. (Science denies the existence of any such faculty). 3) “Imaginative” sensory perception – this is the faculty we invoke when we dream and fantasise. Plainly, when we are fast asleep and dreaming (and all of our sensory organs are “switched off”), we cannot be using our standard sensory perception, and yet we can nevertheless have the most vivid sensory experiences. In our dreams, we see even though our eyes are closed. How is such a thing possible? It’s impossible for any empiricist to explain how we can dream. If our senses are closed down or profoundly inhibited during sleep, we should not be having any sensory experiences at all, yet we do. Empiricists would have to admit that the sensory experiences in which they place so much trust and faith could be generated by the internal processes of the mind, completely bypassing the sense organs and the “external” world. But, this being the case, how can any sensory experience be trusted? Descartes used exactly this argument when he deployed

his method of doubt. Perhaps every sensory experience we believe we are having via our sense organs is being embellished by our “imaginative” sensory perception, hence is no longer pure, valid and true in its own terms. Perhaps we are “inventing” all of our sensory perceptions. Perhaps a malevolent demon is deluding us. 4) Intuitive perception – this is the faculty we use to intuit truths. Such truths seem to pop out of thin air, entirely unpredictably. This faculty has nothing to do with the sense organs. Jung famously contrasted sensing with intuition, and there’s no question that any viable model of the mind must reflect intuition – an entity that’s not understood by science in any way at all (just as it doesn’t understand extra-sensory perception or imaginative perception). Standard perception is mediated by our external sense organs. Extra-sensory perception uses internal sense organs. These are the ones used in out-ofbody experiences and near-death experiences. They are also used in our dreams, although, in this case, they are fed by our imagination and personal unconscious rather than any external reality. (As Jung suggested, they can also be fed by the Collective Unconscious, and such dreams have a prophetic, archetypal nature distinct from our normal dreams). We might tentatively conclude that our eyes, for example, have a twin capacity: to see locally and non-locally. If we were born blind, we would not be able to see either locally or non-locally (since the “seeing system” would never evolve properly). However, if, as adults, we lost our external sight, we could retain our internal sight. People who are blind can see in their dreams, and could presumably also see in out-of-body experiences and near-death experiences. In fact, we could cure “physical”, acquired blindness if we could reroute a blind person’s sight to their internal rather than external vision. As for intuitive perception, this frequently involves accessing innate ideas, the very things utterly denied by empiricists. All innate ideas are stored unconsciously. All of the old criticisms of innate ideas advanced by empiricists were based on the fallacy of such ideas being conscious. As the empiricists pointed out, if innate ideas were conscious, we would have innate knowledge in full from Day One, and never need to work out anything. (We would know the whole of ontological mathematics: that of which the world and we are made.)

In fact, innate ideas belong to the unconscious mind and have to be extracted from there into consciousness, which happens via dreams, visions, flashes of inspiration, epiphanies, Eureka moments, bolts from the blue, Shamanic and Oracular experiences, and so on. All of the Archetypal contents of the Collective Unconscious (the collective Dreamspace, we might say) are available to intuition. All of ontological mathematics is available to intuition. Intuition can also become entwined with extrasensory perception and imaginative perception. Jungian synchronicity operates in a mixed mode. The mind can operate in this fourfold way because reality is mental, not physical; mathematical, not scientific. That means that non-local avenues are open to the mind as well as the local mode of scientific materialism and empiricism. The thinking mind operates on the data of perception (which can come from any of the four routes) in two different ways. The primary mode is the synthetic a posteriori mode of empiricism, whereby we reflect on the data and try to make sense of it. Above all, we apply a “causal hypothesis” to it. As Hume rightly said, we cannot perceive causation, but we can certainly construct causal hypotheses to account for our perceptions. These hypotheses can be, and usually are, ridiculous, as in the case of religion. Causal hypotheses are the contingent nonsense we project onto reality to “explain” it. We invent causal hypotheses based on our feelings, beliefs, intuitions, opinions, desires, will to power, observations, and so on. Most people believe that their speculative causal hypotheses are true rather than merely wild, irrational interpretations, conjectures and opinions. The empiricist way of thinking is wholly based on synthetic a posteriori causal hypotheses. However, we have another mode of thinking available to us: analytic a priori. With this, we transcend our experiences. This category of thinking is valid with respect to eternal truths of reason, and necessary Form rather than contingent Content. In other words, it’s purely concerned with ontological mathematics that eternally defines both the universe and us. It’s the proper basis of rationalism. Rationalism has nothing to do with what we experience (empiricism). It concerns absolute and infallible knowledge. It concerns Ultimate Reality, which is what we never experience. It’s all about the intelligible rather than the sensible. The only form of perception relevant to this mode of thinking is intuitive thinking. We can glimpse eternal patterns of ontological

mathematics with our intuition, and bring that data back to be rationally processed. Causation is wholly derived from the analytic a priori mode of thinking. Hume rejected causation on the basis that it couldn’t be perceived, hence didn’t exist (in his empiricist system). This is the classic empiricist fallacy. As an article of almost religious faith, empiricists deny the existence of anything that cannot be perceived. Hume’s position was that experience/perception = reality, and anything that cannot be perceived or experienced is unreal and fantastical. This is wholly flawed logic. The mere fact that something cannot be perceived has nothing to do with its ontological status. There is no logical contradiction in asserting that not all existents are perceivable. And, in fact, only a tiny number may be perceivable. It’s simply bizarre to claim that perceivability should be the criterion of existence. As Bishop Berkeley showed, if you take this notion seriously then the room you have just left has ceased to exist since you are no longer observing it. This ridiculous view contradicts the reality principle and denies the very possibility of objective existence. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is riddled with lunatic empiricist notions. The Copenhagen school claims that objects cease to have actual existence as soon as they stop being observed, and instead vanish into an unreal twilight zone of potentiality. This is the uttermost garbage, and it’s astounding that nearly every scientist takes this idea seriously. It’s an affront to reason. Causation cannot be perceived for the very simple reason that it transcends perception and experience. It is in fact the precondition, the sine qua non, for organised perception and experience, i.e. we could have no experience of living in a rational, ordered, organised, patterned world if our experiences were not conditioned by precise mathematical causation that we never observe, and never can observe. It’s strictly intelligible, not sensible. We establish the existence of causation rationally, not empirically. This is exactly what empiricists refuse to accept. Scientists, as empiricists, have, since the advent of quantum mechanics, rejected causation and determinism in favour of randomness, chance, accident, probability, statistics, acausality and indeterminism. In other words, science is no longer a rational subject. It characterises ultimate reality as essentially meaningless, random chaos from which a supremely ordered and rational universe miraculously and inexplicably emerges.

Science is now as hostile to reason as religion is. It’s a faith-based, sensory Mythos. Typical empiricists subscribe to the most childish and simplistic worldview. They say, along with John Locke, that our “common sense” is right. They say that there’s a “self-evident”, external, material world out there (in fact, there’s zero evidence that physical matter exists), which we detect with our sense organs, and then reflect upon with our minds. They deny the existence of God, the soul, the afterlife, causation, determinism, non-locality, hidden variables, mathematics, ESP, intuition, free will, consciousness, synchronicity, OBE and NDE’s, etc., and all for the same reason: none of these can be conventionally perceived (or only in extremely rare situations). If ultimate reality is non-sensory and immaterial (which it is) then empiricism, materialism and science are entirely false in their claims about ultimate reality. Science, in particular, will never give an answer to existence because it’s built on a false empiricist and materialist ontology. As for rationalism, the problem with this is that it’s all too easily contaminated by synthetic a posteriori elements. For example, the Scholastic philosophers of the Middle Ages were concerned with using rationalist arguments to defend Roman Catholic faith and revelation, an absurd undertaking if ever there was one. If reason contradicted faith and revelation, the Scholastics deemed that it was reason that was wrong rather than faith and revelation. Some Scholastics tried to use reason to prove the existence of a Catholic Superbeing (the Catholic God), who was represented on earth by the Pope and the Catholic Church. The Christian Bible is pure Mythos and Content and has zero connection with Truth, reality, Form, mathematics and reason. Rationalism goes wrong as soon as it addresses anything non-analytic (anything synthetic and a posteriori), just as empiricism goes wrong whenever it strays into the territory of the analytic and a priori. The reason why science “works” in relation to the observable world is exactly the same reason why it doesn’t work in relation to unobservable Ultimate Reality. It creates a pragmatic but wholly irrational muddle of empiricism and rationalism. So, it forces rationalist, analytic, a priori mathematics into a contingent, synthetic, a posteriori bodged form designed to match empiricist, observations flowing from the scientific method. Then

it continuously adjusts its ad hoc hypotheses and theories as new experimental data emerges. There’s never any end to this process since there’s no conceivable, definable end-point to science. After all, we can never perform the ultimate experiment: the recreation of the Big Bang. Science will always be grounded in pure speculation concerning ultimate reality. There will never be a “final” scientific theory while science remains empiricist rather than rationalist. That’s a simple logical fact, so it’s comical that scientists do indeed talk of a final theory and a grand unified theory of everything. Empiricist science, based on verification and falsification, can never yield absolute, infallible, definitive Truth. After all, no experiment can ever incontestably verify any scientific theory. It can falsify it, but never prove it. Proof is possible only with regard to analytic, a priori, eternal truths of reason. If you want a definitive answer to existence then science, religion, faith, love, mysticism, your senses and God won’t help you. Only ontological mathematics can give an eternal answer, because it’s the only eternal subject, based on the eternal truths of reason. Humanity needs to stop confusing Form and Content, the analytic and synthetic, the intelligible and sensible, the rational and empirical, the a priori and a posteriori, the deductive and inductive, the necessary and contingent. Humanity needs to think more clearly. Empiricism flows from a false ontology, a false model of the mind, a false belief in the senses, a false belief in empirical verification, a false belief in science (which is a monstrous mixture of incompatible, inconsistent and incomplete empiricist and rationalist elements). The human race is still far from being a logical species. The two biggest obstacles are feelings (religious faith) and the senses (scientific materialism and empiricism). Humanity must become rationalist and know how to put up the relevant firewalls between Form and Content. Form is noumenal and Content phenomenal. Kant’s ridiculous synthetic a priori judgements were the high point in the philosophical attempt to reconcile empiricism and rationalism. But they are no more reconcilable than Form and Content, or the intelligible and sensible, or noumenal and phenomenal. We do not live in a mono-aspect monism combining both empiricism and (constrained) rationalism into a single valid system, of the type Kant

sought to construct (via his transcendental idealist framework). We live in a dual-aspect monism of empiricism and rationalism: two sides of a single ontological mathematical coin. Rationalism addresses eternal Form, and empiricism addresses contingent Content. It’s disastrous to apply one to its diametrically opposed other. Ontological mathematics conveys both Form and Content. It’s the single coin that explains everything, but it must always be approached with its dual character, its two faces, in mind. Ontological mathematics is represented by Janus, the god with two faces, not one.

***** “In ancient Roman religion and myth, Janus is the god of beginnings and transitions, and thereby of gates, doors, doorways, passages and endings. He is usually depicted as having two faces, since he looks to the future and to the past.” – Wikipedia Janus is the dual-aspect God, the Gatekeeper between the two sides of the coin of Ultimate reality. Janus is ontological mathematics and defines Form and Content, rationalism and empiricism.

The Old Days When science was deterministic, any rationalist could comprehend it. Now that science is indeterministic, it’s bizarre, weird, crazy and irrational. It doesn’t make any sense at all. It doesn’t reflect objective reality and does not subscribe to any reality principle. Having becoming utterly empiricist, it now claims that “reality” exists only at the point of observation, and, otherwise, everything vanishes into unreal potentiality, waiting, like Sleeping Beauty, to be made actual by the “kiss” of an observer. Science is now profoundly opposed to reason, and no rational person could take it seriously.

The Test Empiricists test everything with regard to their senses. Rationalists carry out their tests with regard to reason. What kind of person trusts his senses over

his reason? Certainly no intellectual. Every moron on earth trusts his senses. Only geniuses trust their reason. We live in a world of empiricism and science because the world is full of idiots. The world suffers from a massive deficiency in reason.

Factory Setting Do we come, like a computer, with an inbuilt operating system? Are we equipped with a whole system of innate operations, instincts, archetypes and ideas that are not furnished via experience, and, indeed, that provide the framework for our experiences? Are some ideas part of our “factory setting”? Such ideas do not have to be conscious. In fact, they definitely shouldn’t be. Imagine a baby that came equipped with conscious knowledge of all the eternal truths of reason! It wouldn’t prosper. We have to grow up, mature, learn. As we get wiser and wiser, we convert unconscious innate knowledge into conscious knowledge. Gods are those who have made all innate knowledge conscious.

***** Jungian Archetypes in the Collective Unconscious are innately available to us.

The Brain A neuroscientist looks at the extracted brain of a dead man. He sees a blob of matter lying on the operating table in front of him. How could it ever enter the neuroscientist’s tiny little mind that this physical object was once controlled by something immortal, immaterial, indestructible that existed outside space and time in the Singularity from which all “matter” issued at the Big Bang? How could a scientific empiricist and materialist ever conceive of a soul? Only intuitives, rationalists and mathematicians can truly grasp the existence of the soul. The soul is something intelligible, not something sensible. For people defined by their senses, the soul is an absurd and unthinkable concept. For those people, seeing is believing. But what sort of unimaginative, dreary moron reaches the unprovable, irrational conclusion that only things perceivable via the senses can exist, and anything not accessible to the senses ipso facto cannot exist? Who was it that made the senses the

determinant of ontology? There is no conceivable sufficient reason for such a claim. Scientists, especially neuroscientists, are spectacularly childish in their beliefs. They’re incapable of sophistication of thought. Like Doubting Thomas, they would believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ if they put their physical hands in his physical wounds. No rationalist would ever believe that Jesus Christ had died and been resurrected. Resurrection is impossible for intellectual reasons, just as it’s impossible for intellectual reasons for the soul (monad) not to exist!

The Source of Knowledge? John Locke said that all knowledge originates in sense impressions. But how can knowledge arise in this way? Knowledge, true knowledge, is, by definition, absolute, infallible and eternal. None of that is true of sense impressions. How can knowledge be anything other than intellectual and rational? What does it even mean to claim that our sense impressions constitute knowledge? As Descartes pointed out, how could we know, regarding our sense impressions, that we weren’t dreaming, hallucinating or being systematically deceived by a malevolent demon? Even Locke realised that it’s extremely unclear what an object is in itself, and how that object is connected to the representation of the object that comes to us via our senses. Where, in all of this, is anything that can in any way be described as sure knowledge? How do we know what it is that our senses are representing to us? As Berkeley noted, can we even assume that a thing still exists when we’re not observing it? If we make our senses the be-all-and-end-all then Berkeley surely presents the exact logic of that philosophy: things exist only at the point of observation, and otherwise they don’t exist. Far from being a source of knowledge, the senses contradict any possibility of valid knowledge, and it comes as no surprise to find Hume, the last great empiricist, being an outand-out skeptic who denied the existence of causation. Without causation, knowledge in any meaningful sense ceases to exist. We might as well believe in magic, miracles, gods or randomness. Modern science opted for meaningless randomness as the basis of “knowledge”. But, of course, randomness is the direct opposite of

knowledge. It’s about as meaningful in knowledge terms as “God” is. It’s a catch-all non-answer. Empiricism invariably ends up destroying the very possibility of knowledge. It degenerates into solipsism, skepticism, relativism, nihilism, indeterminism and randomism. Knowledge, to be knowledge, must be rational, and must have no connection with the senses at all. It must wholly transcend experience and reflect eternity. Empiricist “knowledge” simply isn’t! As Nietzsche said, it’s just interpretation, opinion and belief.

The Opposite What is the opposite of meaning? It’s randomness, the basis of modern science! Randomness is pointless, purposeless and utterly irrational.

Causation Locke insisted that an objective, external, material world existed, and that this was the cause of our sensations. Although we could not know too much about this source in itself, we nevertheless knew that our sensations were caused by this external world. Berkeley, however, then denied that there was any objective, external material world, and claimed that only observed things existed, and they existed only while they were being observed, and ceased to exist as soon as they were no longer being observed. Hume then came along and denied the reality of causation, which didn’t leave much left of Locke’s classical empiricist stance. With Hume, empiricist philosophy essentially died. It had reached a condition of absolute skepticism and had nowhere left to go. Unfortunately, it wasn’t the end of this deplorable anti-knowledge philosophy. Locke’s version of classical empiricism had a mathematical (rationalist) engine installed, and the empiricist miscarriage of science (“natural philosophy”) was born. Classical science supported determinism and causation, and respected objective reality and the reality principle. It was highly Lockean. But then came the twentieth century and the advent of relativity theory and quantum mechanics. Just as Berkeley and Hume destroyed Locke’s realist, objective version of empiricism, so relativity theory and quantum mechanics destroyed classical science.

Einstein made science relativistic rather than absolute; subjective rather than objective. He destroyed objective reality and the reality principle. Quantum mechanics then launched a double-barrelled attack. First, it agreed with Berkeley that only the observed world is real and it banished the unobserved world to an unreal twilight zone of mere potentiality. Second, it agreed with Hume that determinism and causation don’t exist and it thus proclaimed that existence is grounded in inexplicable, uncaused, spontaneous randomness. Science is now an intellectual dead-end, just as empiricism became under Hume. It has no chance whatsoever of creating a final scientific theory of everything. It’s riven with irrationality, inconsistency, incompleteness and incoherence. In philosophy, Kant saw the urgent need to refute Hume and he successfully steered philosophy in a new direction, of idealism rather than empiricism. Where is science’s version of Kant to save it from its Humean hell? Science is incapable of producing a Kant. The only thing that keeps the scientific show on the road is its mathematical engine, without which science would have degenerated into the uttermost empiricist nonsense. Interpretationally, science is now irrational gibberish, but while it can turn to mathematics, albeit a bastardised version, it can still produce equations that approximate to reality. Science is now in the bizarre position of generating powerful and successful mathematical equations while interpreting them in an almost comically silly way. Of course, it’s only the mathematics that really counts, not the bad philosophical interpretation of the mathematics. However, the interpretation becomes critical when science tries to reconcile the two incompatible theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics. Science, at the moment, is literally trying to guess a way forward, and that’s never going to work! Science has no first principles to turn to, no rational method. There is no prospect at all that it will ever work out how to unify relativity theory and quantum mechanics. That would require some means of comparing them ontologically and epistemologically, and science has no such means at its disposal. All it has is the scientific method, and both theories have already passed that test with flying colours. So, science has nowhere left to go.

Never forget Richard Feynman’s calamitous and intellectually embarrassing definition of science: “In general we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it. No, don’t laugh, that’s the real truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. That is all there is to it.” So, there you have it. The basis of science is guessing (!). How does science guess its way past two incompatible but experimentally verified theories? That’s the issue that science can’t resolve. No wonder Feynman’s students laughed when he told them what science was. Who wouldn’t laugh at this idiotic nonsense? Without mathematics, science would be as much of a joke as religion.

Probability Locke maintained that we could never have a perfect natural science. Our knowledge is merely probable, never absolutely certain. This being the case, how can science ever arrive at a “final” theory? It will always be provisional, and capable of further refinement, of making it more probable still, but without ever reaching an end.

Atheism Bishop Berkeley was convinced, with ample justification, that materialism leads to atheism. He believed, rightly, that idealism is far more receptive to religion and spirituality. It’s rationally impossible to be a scientific materialist and accept the existence of the soul. Any scientist who referred to the soul as a causal agent in the scientific world would be instantly dismissed! Berkeley believed that it was essential to refute materialism and this is indeed a supremely important task. Science will never be the subject it ought to be until it’s rationalist and idealist rather than empiricist and

materialist. While science remains wedded to empiricism and materialism, mind/soul can never be introduced into science. The only way to get mind/soul into science is via autonomous Fourier singularities (immaterial, dimensionless, frequency monads). Once this is done, humanity’s evolution to divinity can begin in earnest. Materialism, self-evidently, can never make Gods of us. As Neo shows us in The Matrix, we become gods when we overcome the delusion of matter.

The End of the Line David Hume insisted that all we can know are our own ideas. He denied that there was any material or spiritual substance causing them. The only thing of which we can be certain, is, according to Hume, the succession of our ideas, the flow of our mental activity. There’s nothing else. We have no reason to assume anything causes them since causation is not something we can ever empirically demonstrate. We may have all manner of beliefs and opinions about God, the soul, matter, causation, an external world, and so on, but we can prove none of this. They cannot form any part of our system of knowledge. But if all that’s left to us is a succession of ideas – a stream of consciousness, of disconnected consciousness that we can never link to anything – then in fact we can have no meaningful knowledge at all. Hume’s position leads to nothing but skepticism, solipsism and nihilism. It’s the end of philosophy and meaning. The whole universe is relocated to within our own minds (the existence of which Hume denied since minds can’t be perceived!), and we know nothing except our own thoughts, and we don’t even know them. We just experience them.

***** Hume denies even the existence of mind and Self. If all we experience are a succession of ideas with no identifiable or knowable causes then we can’t even conclude that the ideas belong to any particular mind, or even to any mind at all. Why shouldn’t the universe, such as it is, comprise nothing but a flow of ideas, located in no mind, no body, in nothing at all? Reality, in this view, is nothing but a stream of consciousness without any location, without any cause, without any continuity, without any identity. We just imagine that it makes some kind of sense.

Spiritual Substance Berkeley said that “spiritual substance” is all there is. There is no matter. The illusion of matter is simply an idea in the Mind of God. In Illuminism, matter is an idea in the Cosmic Mind: the Monadic Collective that forms the ontological Singularity that defines existence.

The Unholy Trinity The Devil, The Antichrist, the False Prophet The Devil = Jehovah. The Antichrist = Jesus. The False Prophet = Moses/Mohammed. Abrahamism is the Satanic religion that humanity must abolish once and for all. The Devil worshippers must perish.

Liberalism versus Radicalism The American Constitution is primarily modelled on the liberal political views of John Locke. In Revolutionary France, the moderates were advocates of Locke, while the radicals (the Jacobins) followed Rousseau’s philosophy. Illuminism supports Rousseau. America would never have become the cesspit it now is if it had adopted Rousseau’s philosophy. Like a lot of liberalism, Locke’s political philosophy is really highly conservative, and is all about the protection of private property and the preservation of what is deemed good for the private individual (which invariably means “rich” individual), but this automatically translates into rule by a rich elite (with the most private property to defend), and supports private banks and private corporations, and an enormous diminution of the practical power of the people. Today’s America is a direct consequence of a Constitution drawn up using Locke’s ideas. If the American Constitution had been based on Rousseau’s philosophy, it would have been hostile to private property and private interests, and promoted the public good, the General Will, and the health of the Community. It would have given real power to the People, and

might have experimented with direct democracy. America would now be left-wing rather than right-wing, and it would be based on social, productive capitalism for the collective good rather than anti-social, predatory capitalism for the individual good of the super rich. Absolutely nothing is more important than choosing which philosophy to use to inform and provide the spirit of your Constitution. Locke’s ideas, as we now see, were not conducive to liberalism at all, but to right-wing despotism where the dynastic super rich, rather than hereditary kings, hold the whip hand and subjugate the people. That’s what happens when you worship private property. 100% inheritance tax would instantly cure Locke’s disease.

Skepticism Locke’s empiricist philosophy, which has proved immensely influential, was severely criticised in its own time by those who saw immediately that it would lead to extreme skepticism, as indeed it did when the genius David Hume fully explored its logical consequences. Likewise, scientific empiricism and materialism lead inevitably to atheism. In other words, your choice of philosophy is the most important choice you will ever make. Like religion (and every religion is really just a philosophy), it will determine your entire worldview. Every political, economic, religious, scientific and even mathematical system is a reflection of philosophy, which makes philosophy the most important subject of all.

Jesus Christ Jesus Christ, aka the Jewish rabbi Yehoshua ben Yosef, a man suffering from Messiah Syndrome (believing himself to be the Son of God) was one of the most evil, deluded, mendacious, pathetic human beings of all time. It’s staggering that anyone can be a Christian. As Nietzsche observed so cuttingly, Christianity is a religion for slaves and promotes a slave morality. To all strong people, Christianity is nauseating. It has no positive attributes whatsoever. Christianity has dome a staggering amount of damage to the human psyche and the evolution of the human race. As for Buddha, he’s almost as

bad as Jesus Christ! In fact, he’s the Eastern Jesus. Buddhism is to Hinduism as Christianity is to Judaism. Religions should be about strength, talent, life, energy, positivity, creativity. Nietzsche was right to identify Dionysus as a far superior God to “Jesus”. But the best God is the dual-aspect God Janus, provided we consider Dionysus to be one of his aspects, and Apollo the other.

The World Classical physics, derived from ancient Greek Atomism, claimed that the world consists purely of matter in motion. In fact, the world consists purely of thought in motion.

Locke “[John Locke] is always sensible, and always willing to sacrifice logic rather than become paradoxical. He enunciates general principles which, as the reader can hardly fail to perceive, are capable of leading to strange consequences; but whenever the strange consequences seem about to appear, Locke blandly refrains from drawing them. To a logician that is irritating; to a practical man, it is a proof of sound judgment.” – Bertrand Russell Practical empiricists are always willing to sacrifice logic and reason. Modern science sacrificed logic and reason so as not to contradict the practical scientific method. For people obsessed with their senses, logic and reason are the first casualties in any conflict between sensible and intelligible arguments. For intellectuals, logic and reason are defended and it’s sensory data that’s deemed in error.

Ideas In Locke’s system, there are two types of experience that permit a simple idea to form in the human mind: 1) Sensation, when the mind experiences the external world through the five senses, and 2) Reflection, when the mind turns inward and considers its own operations and functions, though this reflection arises purely as a result of the first kind of experience (sensation), and most emphatically, according to Locke, it cannot utilise innate mental content since no such content exists.

Ideas of sensation are produced by the sense organs interacting with the external world. Ideas of reflection result from introspection, when we consider the operations of our minds on the ideas acquired through sensing. We think about what we have sensed, we form beliefs about them (and also doubts about what we believe), we speculate about what caused them, we form desires concerning the world, and we note that we have a will to pursue some things (pleasurable) and avoid others (painful). “Our ideas are derived from two sources, (a) sensation, and (b) perception of the operation of our own mind, which may be called ‘internal sense’. Since we can only think by means of ideas, and since all ideas come from experience, it is evident that none of our knowledge can antedate experience. ... Plato, in the Theaetetus, had set to work to refute the identification of knowledge with perception, and from his time onwards almost all philosophers, down to and including Descartes and Leibniz, had taught that much of our most valuable knowledge is not derived from experience.” – Bertrand Russell Empiricists deny the existence of innate ideas, i.e. they deny that we can acquire knowledge independently of experience. Rationalists assert that we do have innate ideas: the eternal truths of reason, which form a complete, consistent, absolute and infallible set. Now, we don’t have these innate ideas consciously. However, we can bring them into consciousness through the exercise of reason. Rationalism insists that fundamental reality can be worked out without any reference to experience at all. Empiricism, on the contrary, says that we can have knowledge only of what we experience. Since we can experience only our own reality, and not someone else’s reality and not ultimate reality (Big Bang reality, so to speak), this means that empiricism can never tell us about how reality really is. Empiricism inevitably slides into solipsism. Bertrand Russell wrote, “...it would seem to follow immediately that we cannot know of the existence of other people, or of the physical world, for these, if they exist, are not merely ideas in my mind. Each of us, accordingly, must, so far as knowledge is concerned, be shut up in himself, and cut off from all contact with the outer world.” The trajectory of modern empiricism is highly instructive. It began with the materialist empiricism of Locke and took for granted the existence of an

external material world. Berkeley then introduced idealist empiricism by pointing out that Locke’s philosophy provided no evidence whatsoever for any material world, and in fact pointed at reality being wholly mental and consisting of nothing but ideas. Then came the skeptical empiricism of Hume who denied God, the soul, the self, induction and causation. This amounted to solipsism: the sole reality is the stream of ideas we experience, and we have zero evidence that anything other than these thoughts exist. To have an idea of another person or an external world does not imply that the other person or the external world actually exists. From our dreams, we are all familiar with inventing other people and other worlds. Empirically, we can never prove that the waking world isn’t just another dreamworld that we ourselves constructed in our own minds. Science shows how empiricist it is by asserting, via the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, that reality is observer-constructed. Things are actual only at the point of measurement or observation, and, otherwise, they vanish into potentiality. Modern science, like Hume’s skeptical empiricism, denies a reality principle and an objective reality that exists independently of our observations. Rationalism is able to defend the reality principle and objective reality because it denies that experience is the be-all-and-end-all. It denies that we need to observe the world to know the world. We know the world via innate ideas, which are nothing to do with experience. Rationalism is about truths of reason, and empiricism about interpretation (or misinterpretation!) of alleged facts. In fact, reason itself is not compatible with empiricism and refutes empiricism. If there is no causation in the universe, as Hume maintained, then there is no point in having reason, which is precisely about establishing causation. Reason always asks what is the connection between “a” and “b”, how and why does “a” cause “b”. Reason never says: there is absolutely no connection between anything; one chaotic, uncaused, chance thought randomly succeeds another in a never-ending flow, with neither rhyme nor reason – which is effectively where Hume’s philosophy arrived at. That being the case, reason has no role to play. It’s wholly redundant. How can reason exist if it’s pointless and serves no possible function? The very fact that we have reason proves that rationalism is true and empiricism false, and that innate ideas and objective reality, independent of observation and experience, exist. Anyone who opposes rationalism

opposes reason itself. Science opposes rationalism, hence is anti-reason, and a system of irrational, empiricist faith. Science succeeds for only one reason: as an empiricist subject, it illegitimately employs a mathematical engine, with mathematics being the quintessence of rationalism, of innate ideas and eternal truths that exist wholly outside experience and observation. Scientists are so stupid that they have never realised that, given their slavish worship of the empiricist scientific method, they have no right at all to use mathematics, which contradicts the scientific method in every possible way.

Conservation of Thought Every analytic sinusoidal wave is a basis thought, an “atomic” thought, from which we can create any number of molecular thoughts (complex thoughts). In terms of basis thoughts, the total amount of basis thinking is absolutely conserved. Basis thoughts can be neither created nor destroyed. Only complex thoughts can be created (by adding basis thoughts), and only these can be destroyed (by breaking them up into their component basis thoughts). This means that existence has a permanent ground state of thought, an eternal thinking operating system, so to speak. All that ever happens in any Cosmic Age is that this basis set of thoughts gets transformed into a universe of complex thoughts, via addition and subtraction of basis thoughts with regard to molecular thoughts.

Causation “In all this, Locke assumes it known that certain mental occurrences, which he calls sensations, have causes outside themselves, and that these causes, at least to some extent and in certain respects, resemble the sensations which are their effects. But how, consistently with the principles of empiricism, is this to be known? We experience the sensations, but not their causes; our experience will be exactly the same if our sensations arise spontaneously. The belief that sensations have causes, and still more the belief that they resemble their causes, is one which, if maintained, must be maintained on grounds wholly independent of experience.” – Bertrand Russell

All sensations, if they are arise spontaneously, are uncaused and randomly emerge from nothingness. Modern science makes somewhat similar claims, maintaining that reality randomly springs from either non-existence or from unreal potentiality, but most assuredly isn’t caused. There’s nothing more important than realising that causation is never experienced. If it exists, which it self-evidently does, then it proves the existence of a world beyond experience, sensation and observation, a world that can be reached solely by reason, by our intelligence. Causation is the essence of reality, the quintessence of reason, the very essence of the reality principle and a universe that objectively exists regardless of our observations or experiences. Sensation accompanies causation and does so mathematically. Causation concerns the mathematical wave (Form) that conveys the sensation (Content). We experience the sensation, but not the wave that causally carries it.

***** “Hume got rid of [Locke’s difficulty] by dropping the assumption that sensations have causes, but even he retained this assumption whenever he forgot his own principles, which was very often. His fundamental axiom, ‘no idea without an antecedent impression’, which he takes over from Locke, is only plausible so long as we think of impressions as having outside causes, which the very word ‘impression’ irresistibly suggests. And at the moments when Hume achieves some degree of consistency he is wildly paradoxical.” – Bertrand Russell Hume claimed that we can have no impression of causation because it is not perceived, hence we can have no legitimate idea of causation. That causation exists is just a belief that can play no part in true knowledge. Yet, as Russell points out, the very concept of “impression” implies causation. If the causal link between the external world and impressions is broken, as it logically must be given Hume’s stance, then we end up with the bizarre, solipsistic philosophy of “ideas without any antecedents in the external world”, i.e. impressions just spontaneously jump into our minds from nowhere, with no cause, and then we form ideas based on these uncaused impressions. Our impressions, sensations and feelings have randomly appeared in our minds, with no prior deterministic chain and no link to any

objective reality. If this were true, there would be no continuity in our thoughts and we would be aware only of absolute Chaos. All empiricist philosophy, including science, when worked through logically, posits a universe of chaos, with random things happening for no reason. Rationalism, on the other hand, posits a world of absolute causation, determinism and sufficient reason. There are no random, accidental, chance, spontaneous events of any kind! Such things are formally impossible in a rationalist universe where everything has an exact mathematical explanation.

Reason Reason should be divided into two: True Reason and False Reason. False Reason concerns that which is experienced. It’s highly interpretive and opinionated. It concerns alleged truths of fact and appeals to Mythos systems based on either feelings or the senses to account for the observed facts (whose causes are never observed and have to be conjectured). True Reason concerns that which is never experienced. It transcends experience and is the direct opposite of experience. True Reason concerns the innate world of causation, objective reality and eternal truths of reason. Rationalism is about True Reason, and empiricism about False Reason. Mathematics is rationalist while science is empiricist. Mathematics seems so abstract because it is all about reason while science seems so real because it is all about our observations. All higher wisdom accepts that reason is the basis of true knowledge while the senses are the basis of false knowledge.

Enlightenment Why would anyone imagine that enlightenment involves sitting under a tree, meditating? Only clowns who have accepted the silly Mythos of Buddhism would entertain such a notion. Enlightenment is all about gnosis – knowledge. In fact, it’s all about knowledge of existence – ontology. You are as far as possible from enlightenment if you believe, as the Buddha did, that there is no soul. Buddhism is therefore the opposite of enlightenment given that reality is based on nothing but autonomous monadic minds

(souls). If meditation leads you to total error and falsehood, why do people bother with it? It’s reason, not meditation, that takes you on the road to enlightenment (knowledge). Of course, meditation is much easier that reasoning, which is why so many endarkened people prefer the former. The Buddha has as much to do with enlightenment as Jesus Christ, Moses and Mohammed, i.e. nothing at all. Buddhism is psychology, not philosophy. It’s about a formula for living life (in a rather detached way), not for understanding life. Enlightenment isn’t about being nice, it’s about being right. If you are wrong, how on earth can you call yourself enlightened? Is error enlightened? Is falsehood enlightened? Is ignorance enlightened? Is delusion enlightened? How can the Buddha be called enlightened when he was wrong about every major ontological question? No wonder some people even describe Jesus Christ as “enlightened”!

The Soul People imagine the soul as a thing inside the body, as a thing in space and time that can detach itself from the body and shoot off somewhere else. In other words, they are already subscribing to a physicalist conception of the soul. The soul has nothing to do with physicality. It is immaterial and outside space and time, in the frequency domain (the Singularity). It’s not in the body. It controls the body remotely. The soul never departs the body. It was never in it in the first place. Death does not involve the soul leaving the body. It involves the remote link between the soul and the body breaking down. The soul ceases to exert its control over the body, so the body “dies”. There is of course nothing to prevent a highly developed soul from causing “soul effects” in the physical world, but these are spacetime effects caused remotely by the soul. They are not reflective of a spacetime, material soul moving through spacetime.

Consistency “No one has yet succeeded in inventing a philosophy at once credible and self-consistent. Locke aimed at credibility, and achieved it at the expense of consistency. Most of the great philosophers have done the opposite. A

philosophy which is not self-consistent cannot be wholly true, but a philosophy which is self-consistent can very well be wholly false.” – Bertrand Russell Russell, an instinctive empiricist, would never have accepted a complete and consistent philosophy such as Illuminism, based on ontological mathematics. He would certainly have regarded it as “wholly false”. That’s because, for all his bluster, Russell, in common with scientists, was an enemy of reason and worshipped the irrational senses.

Hard and Soft Are you hard-headed, soft-hearted, soft-headed or hard-hearted?

Leibniz “When Leibniz ... wants to establish his monadology, he argues, roughly, as follows: Whatever is complex must be composed of simple parts; what is simple cannot be extended; therefore everything is composed of parts having no extension. But what is not extended is not matter. Therefore the ultimate constituents are not material, and, if not material then mental. Consequently a table is really a colony of souls [MH: or, rather, an entity derived from the colony of souls = the Monadic Collective].” – Bertrand Russell

The Direction of the Pyramid “In Locke or Hume, a comparatively modest conclusion is drawn from a broad survey of many facts, whereas in Leibniz a vast edifice of deduction is pyramided upon a pin-point of logical principle. In Leibniz, if the principle is completely true and the deductions are entirely valid, all is well; but the structure is unstable, and the slightest flaw anywhere brings it down in ruins. In Locke or Hume, on the contrary, the base of the pyramid is on the very solid ground of observed fact, and the pyramid tapers upward, not downward; consequently the equilibrium is stable, and a flaw here and there can be rectified without total disaster.” – Bertrand Russell This is typical Russellian nonsense, exposing his incorrigible empiricist mindset. He talks of the “very solid ground of observed fact”, but this isn’t

solid ground at all. It’s incredibly contentious, as demonstrated by the other quotes by Russell that we have already referenced. It’s not at all self-evident what we are observing. As Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, only interpretations”. Observed “facts” are nothing of the kind. They are interpretations. Moreover, they are interpretations constructed according to proposed causes that we never perceive. Leibniz’s system doesn’t collapse because of a single perceived error. As modern Illuminism shows, any alleged flaws in Leibniz’s system can be corrected simply by adding Eulerian and Fourier mathematics to it. The overall structure remains exactly as before. As a result of Gödel’s work, many people erroneously believe that mathematics is somehow inconsistent and/or incomplete. However, that doesn’t stop them from using mathematics, so, plainly, they do not believe that mathematics has fallen into “ruin”. Additionally, how can anyone claim that Hume’s system is anything other than ingenious lunacy given that it’s skeptical about everything and denies the very possibility of substantive knowledge? It’s not based on observed “facts” at all, but on pure speculation and (mis)interpretation. Hume rejects an objective world, causation, the Self, and any sure knowledge of the existence of other people (if the Self does not exist, how can Others exist)? It’s bonkers! Yet this is the sort of empiricist junk that Russell admires and finds credible. Of course, Russell was strongly influenced by the ridiculous Wittgenstein and the logical positivists who were equally obsessed with the so-called “observable facts”.

Quality “[Berkeley] thinks he is proving that all reality is mental; what he is proving is that we perceive qualities, not things, and that qualities are relative to the percipient.” – Bertrand Russell Yet if qualities are mental, what possible reason is there to assume that the “things” in which they inhere are not also mental? Why introduce an unprovable substance dualism, contrary to Occam’s Razor? By implication, Berkeley is certainly correct: there is no material world at all. Qualities cannot be autonomous, free-floating entities, i.e. they must reside in something, be contained by something, be caused by something. If

they are pure quality, they must be associated with pure quantity. If they are Content, they must be associated with Form. Why should mental qualities reside in non-mental things? They must reside in things that are themselves mental, but as the opposite side of a single mental coin. Every mental thing has two aspects: sensory and non-sensory, empirical Content and rational Form. We perceive one and understand the other. We experience one, but not the other, which we have to rationalize. In essence, Berkeley demonstrated that we perceive an exclusively phenomenal world, a world of appearances, yet there is something else that we don’t perceive: a noumenal world in which all perceivable qualities reside, and which define all of those qualities. For Locke, there was a physical world that mysteriously gave rise to our mental ideas. For Berkeley, there were no grounds at all for accepting any material world. “Physicality” was a superfluous, redundant and unwarranted conjecture. Berkeley’s error was different from the one suggested by Russell. Berkeley went wrong by not asking what ideas are made of, how they are conveyed, how they are contained. He imagined that reality was fully presented via the idea when, in fact, whatever the idea is made of, whatever is carrying the idea, is never available to our senses. A whole aspect of reality is necessarily unavailable to our experience This is the domain of rationalism, of ontological mathematics. “[Berkeley] does not deny the reality of sensible things, i.e. of what is perceived immediately by the senses, but that we do not see the causes of colours or hear the causes of sounds. ... the senses make no inferences. [Berkeley] sets to work to prove that ‘the reality of sensible things consists in being perceived.’” – Bertrand Russell Berkeley is wholly wrong that the reality of something is all about the perception of that thing. This is the classical empiricist stance that refuses to consider anything that cannot be perceived or experienced. Berkeley was opposed to the stance that “to exist is one thing, and to be perceived is another.” He argued that to be perceived is to exist, and the existence of a thing can have no other meaning. This, of course, is to deny the reality of something as fundamental as causation (since causation cannot be perceived), and this was a theme taken up with enthusiasm by Hume.

Berkeley’s opponents were right: existence is one thing, and the perception of what exists is another. Berkeley is right that there’s no reason to say that what exists is material, but he’s wrong to say that what exists is necessarily perceivable. You can have an unperceivable, noumenal mental reality that supports, contains and causes the perceivable, phenomenal reality. It is to this unseen, a priori reality that rationalism addresses itself. This other reality is mathematical. It certainly isn’t physical or scientific. Berkeley says, “Whatever is immediately perceived is an idea; and can any idea exist out of the mind?” Certainly, an idea cannot exist outside a mind, but this already raises the notion that ideas must be contained by something. Given that a mind cannot be perceived then, by Berkeley’s own strict logic, it cannot exist! David Hume went right ahead and banished the Self, the mind, the soul. All he was left with was a stream of thoughts. This is the road to sheer nihilism and solipsism. Only rationalism can restore objective reality. It’s a simple fact that whatever contains or conveys ideas cannot be perceived, yet must exist if we are to avoid Hume’s destruction of the possibility of meaningful knowledge. An idea cannot exist independently of a container or carrier and that means there is necessarily a noumenal world that, by definition, is never perceived. We experience the idea, but not what is containing it, carrying it and causing it. Ideas are not free-floating existents. Ideas are information conveyed by mathematical wavefunctions. Bertrand Russell says that a thing can exist without being an object of the senses. This is true, but it cannot be a material thing, with no connection with mind. If the mind cannot perceive a material thing, then, a) a mind can never be aware of its existence (in which case we could never refer to it at all), and b) it raises a redundant and inexplicable substance dualism. The issue is not one of two separate orders of existence (matter versus mind), but of the two sides of a single mental coin: a noumenal, rational side, and a phenomenal, empirical side. We perceive one side, but we know the other side must exist in order to make its counterpart possible. We cannot perceive the other side, but we can rationally work out its nature. Not everything that exists is perceivable, but everything that is not perceivable makes perception possible and is part of a single overarching, monistic system. There is no order of existence that has no connection at all with perception, no inexplicable material world that has nothing to do with

mind. We always find Form and Content together, two sides of one coin. Everything is united in ontological mathematics.

The Unconscious Mind The unconscious mind cannot be directly perceived, experienced or understood. When it manifests itself in some sort of perceivable capacity, it’s indirectly, cryptically, via dreams and visions. The unconscious mind never speaks to us in the language of our consciousness. So, does the unconscious mind exist or not? Empiricists, especially scientists, should utterly deny the existence of the unconscious mind. If consciousness can’t be explained by scientific materialism, why refer to something even more mysterious and unobservable (the unconscious)?

The End of Philosophy? “[Hume] starts out, like Locke, with the intention of being sensible and empirical, taking nothing on trust, but seeking whatever instruction is to be obtained from experience and observation. But having a better intellect than Locke’s, a greater acuteness in analysis, and a smaller capacity for accepting comfortable inconsistencies, he arrives at the disastrous conclusion that from experience and observation nothing is to be learnt.” – Bertrand Russell Russell, in everything he says, betrays an empiricist fixation. He uncritically talks about Hume seeking to take “nothing on trust”, but what does that even mean? Hume certainly takes the validity of sensory information on trust. Why should it be more justifiable to take sensory evidence on trust rather than rational and logical arguments? The fundamental question must be asked – are your senses more trustworthy than your reason? Well, if you’re a stupid, irrational person of faith or science then you may well be better advised to trust anything other than your reason since you are wholly alienated from reason, and can’t use it properly. However, if you are a rational person, you know that the only thing that can offer you rational certainty is the proper exercise of your reason and not of your senses.

Causation – the very foundation of a rational universe – is not perceivable, so if you accept that we live in a rational universe you have ipso facto denied that the senses can reveal its secrets to us. Russell says that it’s a disaster to conclude that nothing is to be learnt from experience and observation. Only an empiricist would take such a view. A rationalist would in fact wholeheartedly agree with the statement, and regard it as no kind of disaster. As regards ultimate reality – which is entirely beyond our sensory experience and observations – it’s absolutely the case that empiricism can offer us nothing at all. Rationalism alone can give us knowledge of ultimate reality. No matter how successful science is with regard to the observable world, it will never reveal the ultimate truth of existence since this is beyond the scientific method. “It is therefore important to discover whether there is any answer to Hume within the framework of a philosophy that is wholly or mainly empirical. If not, there is no intellectual difference between sanity and insanity.” – Bertrand Russell As far as empiricism goes, because it rejects reason, there is indeed no difference between sanity and insanity. Many of the claims of scientific empiricism in the present day are such that only lunatics would take them seriously, yet they are taught as “facts” or well-substantiated arguments. They most emphatically are not. They are the catastrophic consequences of the slavish devotion to the notion that the senses reveal true reality to us. They never do and never have. Our senses have only ever shown us a phenomenal world of appearances and that automatically means that they have hidden from us the noumenal world of things in themselves. They have not revealed reality but buried it. Metaphorically, they killed it. Scientific empiricism does not say a single true thing about ultimate reality, and never can. Anyone who thinks that the senses will yield any evidence concerning ultimate reality has failed to understand the first thing about ultimate reality. If you want to know what the Truth is, the first thing you must do is forget about feelings, faith, mysticism and your senses. You must hone your reason to the maximum degree.

The Truth “If this principle [of induction], or any other from which it can be deduced, is true, then the causal inferences which Hume rejects are valid, not indeed

at giving certainty, but at giving a sufficient probability for practical purposes.” – Bertrand Russell. Practicality is not Truth. Probability is not Truth. Nearly right isn’t right. Almost true isn’t true. Nearly perfect isn’t perfect. The Ultimate Truth must be absolute, perfect, infallible, immutable and eternal. Nothing else is good enough. The whole problem with scientists and empiricist philosophers such as Russell is that they are content with probability. They are Nearly Men. They believe that approximately true is good enough, but of course how can your quantify how close you are to the Truth without knowing what the Truth is? Science could be 99.9% accurate in all practical situations, yet still be an epic fail (100% false) in terms of providing the truth of Ultimate Reality. Science is only successful in limited arenas. It tells us nothing about the source of life, it tells us nothing about how mind comes to be, it can’t explain free will, consciousness and qualia. In other words, in everything that really matters, science is useless. When it comes to Truth, it’s all or nothing, right or wrong, true or false. Truth isn’t “fuzzy”. Truth is perfect. Only mathematics, and never science, can deal with perfection. Mathematics is in fact the science of perfection.

Induction “If this principle [of induction] is not true, every attempt to arrive at general scientific laws from particular observations is fallacious, and Hume’s skepticism is inescapable for an empiricist.” – Bertrand Russell There are no “general scientific laws”. Ever since science rejected determinism for empiricist considerations, scientific “laws” are probabilistic, and those are not laws at all but merely predictions, merely sophisticated fortune telling and soothsaying. “The principle [of induction] itself cannot, of course, without circularity, be inferred from observed uniformities since it is required to justify any such inference. It must therefore be, or be deduced from, an independent principle not based upon experience.” Wittgenstein criticised mathematics for being a system of circular, deductive tautology. Why didn’t he criticise science for being a system of circular induction? You have to accept the principle of induction as being

true before you can apply it, but no amount of verification can ever prove an inductive hypothesis, and, as Popper pointed out, one negative result can definitively falsify it. Has there ever been a more precarious basis of “knowledge”? Moreover, science uses mathematics – a rationalist deductive system – as its engine. It even writes “laws” and formulae, with the “=” sign i.e. it lays claims to being a tautological system. However, whereas ontological mathematics is perfectly and eternally tautological, science is imperfectly, temporally and only approximately tautological. It’s bad tautology, tautology you can’t rely on. Empiricism cannot justify itself. It has to appeal to something outside experience. The same is not true of rationalism. Reason can prove itself because ontological reason is just a system of eternal, analytic tautology where everything is true by definition.

Sin How can any human sin against God? How would God, as perfect goodness, even be able to recognise what a sin was? Since he knows of no evil, God would regard all actions as inherently good. For God to know the difference between good and evil, he would have to understand evil. To understand evil is, in Platonic terms, to partake in the Form of Evil, and thus be evil oneself. It’s impossible to understand something that makes no sense to you at all. If you can understand evil it’s because it does make sense to you, and that means you can imagine yourself being evil – yet that’s impossible for a perfect God. A person can be rewarded for being good only if he knows what evil is and resists the temptation. God, being perfectly good, can never be applauded for being good, given that he knows nothing else, and is never tempted by what he does not know. God is a divine simpleton, which makes him radically imperfect, hence not God! It’s a category error to imagine that God – an all-powerful, eternal, infinite being – could ever be “offended” by any action by any human being. Nothing any human did would register with God at all. Sin, in every way, is meaningless to God, hence it should be meaningless to humanity too. “Sin”, in truth, is never anything other than an opinion or interpretation. It’s never a fact.

Epiphenomenon Science regards mind as an epiphenomenon of matter. In fact, although it’s rarely stated, science, for exactly the same reasons, regards life itself as an epiphenomenon of matter. Life, science says, is an emergent property of the organisation of lifeless, mindless atoms. In other words, we are not truly alive, and we do not have genuine minds. We are the equivalents of how Descartes characterised animals: ingenious mechanisms, mere machines, material automata. Like robots.

Absolute Knowledge Rationalism insists on the absolute validity of knowledge. Empiricism accepts the mere probability of knowledge. Ultimate Truth is certain, not probable.

Inner and Outer For Locke, all experience is either externally directed, in which case it is called sensation (= external perception), or internally directed, in which case it is called reflection (= inner perception). Ideas are either ideas of sensation – those that are given to us immediately via our senses – or ideas of reflection, which derive from the first and operate on the first.

Descartes versus Locke For Descartes, ideas of reflection were primary, innate and immediately known. They were known prior to experience. Ideas of sensation were secondary, unreliable and potentially wholly deceptive. They were known as a result of experience. A malevolent demon could fool the senses, but never our own innate knowledge. Descartes was, of course, a rationalist. Locke, an empiricist, made the senses primary, denied the existence of innate ideas, and made ideas of reflection dependent on ideas of sensation. Rationalists see the senses as being liable to error, and empiricists the reflective mind as being liable to error. Kant believed that “pure reason” could stray beyond the limits of what was genuinely knowable. No question is more important or fundamental than whether it’s our reason (intellect) or sensorium that’s more reliable, and better able to reveal to us the truth of reality. Only a fool would place

more trust in something non-intellectual than in something intellectual. That’s self-evident. Yet scientists do exactly this. Inner knowledge is immediate (unmediated). Outer knowledge is always at one step removed. It’s mediated by our senses, hence there’s an extra layer of interpretation, an extra level where things can go wrong. Knowledge of the external world is vicarious, i.e. it doesn’t come to us via the mind itself but via “physical” sensory organs. This necessarily involves interfacing and translation issues. The material sense organs are required to collect “material” data from the material world, then turn this into mental data for the mind to perceive. How on earth can material data be converted into mental data? That brings into sharp relief the whole problem of Cartesian substance dualism, and the infamous problem of how mind and matter can interact.

***** Do ideas of reflection depend on ideas of sensation (Locke) – i.e. our senses come first and then our minds – or do ideas of sensation depend on ideas of reflection (Descartes) – i.e. our minds come first and then their interaction with the physical world? In Kant’s view, our minds create the framework in which sensory experiences are possible in the first place.

Condillac Locke held that reflection (= inner perception) was awoken, not produced, by sensation. The French philosopher Condillac maintained that sensation actually produces inner perception. Wikipedia says, “He believed that the conclusion has to be that all human faculty and knowledge are transformed sensation only, to the exclusion of any other principle, such as reflection.”

Causation Cause: that which makes the effect. Effect: that which is made by the cause. The universe of effects derives from eternal first causes = monads = souls.

Tabula Rasa For Locke, all knowledge is empirical, received through the senses. The mind contains no private, a priori truths. The mind begins, therefore, as a tabula rasa, a blank tablet, a clean slate, on which external things make their impression by means of the senses. Our internal ideas arise as reactions to these outward sensations. We have feelings about them, we reflect on them, they trigger desires, we form beliefs about their causes and origins, and so on. Yet, it’s plain that this simplistic “commons sense” scheme falls apart right from the start. It signally fails to address what the tabula rasa itself is made of, how it comes to exist, how it operates in the way it does, how it manages to detect the material world if it’s a radically different substance (mental substance). It simply begs the question to a staggering degree, and brushes all of these difficulties under the carpet. Like so many speculations, it neglects to deal with ontology, hence proceeds to countless dubious propositions and suppositions. Locke is wholly refuted by the concept of DNA and genetics. We don’t arrive in the world as “blanks” but as biological operating systems preprogrammed for the environment we will encounter. Our minds are prepared for the reception, processing and interpretation of data, and, if we follow Kant, they actually create the framework in which the external world is made intelligible at all. Just as all content that is stored on a computer must conform with the a priori operating system, so everything that is stored in our minds must conform with the a priori mental operating system, and that is something we can never experience, hence empiricism is nonsense and can never furnish any real, meaningful knowledge about fundamental reality. The best it can do is tell us about the world of appearances, but that’s illusory knowledge, not knowledge of Ultimate Truth, which is the Truth we actually care about and want. By exactly the same token, scientific empiricism can never reveal Absolute Truth to us, and can never establish a “final” theory of everything since it will never address the noumenal reality that underpins all phenomena. What’s the point of the scientific method if it inherently can’t get beyond phenomena to the more fundamental noumena?

***** According to Locke, the mind cannot have its own ideas independent of sense-perception. There is no non-empirical, transcendent mind, with its own a priori store of knowledge that it can access via reasoning (without any reference to the senses and external world). We can know nothing, says Locke, that is not perceived through the senses, or reflected by the mind on the basis of sense-perception. Thus sensuous and reflective experience is the ground of all our knowledge. We can experience nothing else. In that case, mathematics is incomprehensible and impossible!

Substance The world, Locke says, consists of substances, in which qualities inhere. There are two kinds of substances: bodies and souls. We perceive bodies through sensation and we intuit the soul by reflection. However, Locke’s system instantly falls apart here. We cannot perceive the soul (it has no sensory presence in the external material world), hence, given that we have no experience of it, we cannot reflect on something of which we have no possible empirical knowledge. If we can “intuit” the soul independently of sensory perception, why can’t we intuit innate ideas too, exactly the position that Locke was at pains to reject. Likewise, modern science can say nothing about the soul since the immaterial, dimensionless soul is entirely beyond the reach of the scientific method. That doesn’t mean that the soul doesn’t exist, just that scientific materialism is useless in telling us anything about it.

Schemas Many people fail to understand what ontological mathematics is because they try to grasp it from the framework of some pet schema to which they are already deeply attached and in which they are heavily invested. They seek to mould ontological mathematics to their own existing Buddhist, Hindu, New Age, or Taoist belief system, or even their own half-baked theory of existence, which they are eager to “sell” to anyone willing to listen. The people who are most critical of Illuminism, and most blind to what it actually is, are amateur writers and philosophers who have already written their own books, pamphlets or blogs about what existence is. The

last thing they want to do is agree with ontological mathematics, and thus admit that their own silly little systems are wholly false. So they blabber on about the “huge flaws” in ontological mathematics, without ever saying what they are (in your dreams, guys!), while their own pathetic little schemas are so irrational that they can be dismissed in a couple of sentences. There’s no greater obstacle to knowledge than the arrogance and narcissism of the amateur thinker who thinks he knows it all. When it comes to knowledge, you ought to be as humble as possible. It’s simply embarrassing when people who have written a few thousand words about some idiotic speculation of theirs think they can challenge the millions of words of Illuminism, flowing from many of the greatest geniuses of the human race, Leibniz above all. It reflects a kind of mental illness, and a blinkered refusal to see reality. Remember, ontological mathematics does not ask you to believe a single thing. Ontological mathematics is either right or wrong, and challenging ontological mathematics has an even greater degree of difficulty than challenging conventional mathematics. How many amateur scribblers have ever refuted even one statement of mathematics?! Of course, the people most likely to try are the “Protestants”. Protestantism was one of the most anti-meritocratic ideas ever conceived by the human race. It allowed every moron to pick up one book – the Bible – read it, interpret it in their own way, and then pronounce that they now knew the Mind of God! There are some forty thousand different Protestant sects because so many Protestants are convinced that they know better than everyone else. There’s only one Catholic Church. Why? Because Catholics acknowledge the merit of the Church, of the Pope, his Cardinals and the scholars of Catholicism. No Catholic would ever imagine that he knew better than the Church. If he were a brilliant, knowledgeable Catholic, he would become one of its scholars. As for Protestants, they always think they know best, and, if others don’t agree with them, then they just set up their own church. Protestantism is how you get further and further from any Absolute Truth and mired in ever-increasing opinion, interpretation, speculation, conjecture, belief, relativism and perspectivism. Every Protestant claims he knows the truth. Not one of them actually does.

Muslims, who have a great deal in common with Protestants, at least have a respect for Islamic scholars, which is why Islam hasn’t fragmented in the incredible way Protestantism has. Protestantism is what you get when you pander to psychopaths. Every new Protestant cult is established by a psychopath who sees a way to dominate and fleece the weak-minded. Not one Protestant ever refers to mathematics. They always choose the “faith” angle, the tried and tested best means for manipulating and exploiting vulnerable minds. All of our critics flee from mathematics and spout their fantastical Mythos junk, and then they expect their ludicrous ideas to be taken seriously and treated with respect. Well, not by us. We are meritocrats who respect genuine knowledge and high intellect. We have no time for the pseuds and frauds who believe themselves infinitely smarter than they actually are. They are so irrational that they have no idea just how irrational they are.

***** “There are two kinds of light – the glow that illuminates and the glare that obscures.” – James Thurber Make sure you’re standing in the right light!

***** To all of our critics, put up or shut up. Piss or get off the pot. If you think you can write a book that a) critiques ontological mathematics, and b) sets out your own (lame, half-assed) ideas, go right ahead. Stop talking about it and do it. Stop whining and whingeing, bitches. Yo! We’ve had a bunch of pathetic malcontents sniping away at our work for years, all clinging together in little Facebook pages, and patting each other on the back as they do all of their big talk about how smart they all are and how dumb and wrong we are. What a bunch of jerks. How sad must you be to keep pointlessly sniffing around Illuminism when, according to your own rhetoric, you have gloriously refuted it. Well, trot along then. Even better, write your own magnum opus that reveals to the world what geniuses you all are. These sad sacks live in an echo chamber where they deafen themselves with the reverberating blast of their own vacuity. They are all floating on

their own hot air. These are the energy vampires that suck the life out of movements, and they ought to be treated with the contempt they deserve. There’s a site on the internet that started off as a kind of love-letter to New Age guru Ken Wilber. When he failed to reciprocate the love, the site’s founder viciously turned on him and has been trashing his work ever since, and inviting others to do so. Many malcontents have joined in with glee. Now, the odd thing is that all of these people are wholly defined by Wilber’s philosophy, and spend all of their time reacting to it. If they have such great ideas, why don’t they establish their own school of thought? Why do they choose to be parasites feeding off Wilber’s work? They obviously think Wilber’s ideas are important or they wouldn’t spend all of their time being obsessed with them. So, presuming they think Wilber’s ideas deserve a broad hearing, why are they continuously attacking him and sniping at him? They should be supporting him, not trying to sabotage him. But, of course, these people are all egotistic narcissists (exactly what they accuse Wilber of being) with their own agenda, which they shamelessly seek to promote by biting the hand that feeds. These people are entirely defined by Wilber yet do nothing but criticise him. Why don’t they define themselves? They are not helping to “clarify” Wilber’s ideas, as they claim. Rather, they are contributing to the guaranteed failure of Wilber’s philosophy by their constant undermining of it. They are not helping Wilber, but harming his cause, and thus helping all the other causes to which they themselves claim to be opposed. No one remembers the critics. Only the Creators are noted by history. To those people who started off as great fans of Wilber and now do nothing but attack him, you’re just an embarrassing bunch of spurned lovers. Get over it. If you believe Wilber’s work is important, support him. Help to spread the Word, not kill it. Otherwise, leave his movement and create your own system. Stand on your own two feet, you spineless parasites. Likewise, if you hate Illuminism, go and do something else. Don’t hang around trying to sabotage Illuminism. How pathetic and negative can you get? It means that you are defined by what you hate rather than by what you love. To have a happy and contented life you must find your sacred cause and support it to the hilt. You must pour everything into it, all of your passion. If

you can’t find a sacred cause, your life will be one of emptiness and failure. You will never succeed at anything. There’s no greater failure than to hang around on the periphery of a movement that you yourself have rejected. You are not helping the movement and you are not helping yourself. You have become pure negative energy, the Wandering Jew haunting the world, with nowhere to call home.

The Time There is of course a time to criticise a system. That time is when it is established, not before it has been born. Early criticism simply causes an abortion. Presumably, the erstwhile fans and now critics of Wilber would much prefer a Wilberian world over any of the alternatives. Yet, rather than rationally working to bring this about it, they are irrationally destroying it by smothering it in negativity, cynicism, skepticism, doubt and confusion. Why do religious faiths prosper? Because people of faith are enthusiasts, zealots and proselytizers. They are carried away with passion and energy. They don’t spend their time doubting what they believe and sniping at it. You really are dumb if you imagine that religions of faith can be defeated by negative carping about Illuminism. The problem with the critics is that they have never actually worked out what the world is that they wish to see, and how to bring it about. They have reduced everything to their selfindulgent, narcissistic feelings. No movement can succeed if it allows itself to be mired in negative energy. There are many “Illuminists” who spend their time happily interacting with constant critics of our work. That’s pure bad faith. If you want to hang out with our enemies, that’s fine ... but don’t call yourself an Illuminist, and don’t pretend you’re on our side. Everyone has to make a choice in life. If you don’t, you’re one of the pathetic Ignavi who are rejected by heaven and hell alike.

The Limits Empiricists typically say that rationalists suffer in their pursuit of knowledge through a failure to determine the empirical limits of their understanding. However, rationalists could equally say that empiricists suffer because of their failure to determine the rational limits of their

perception and experience. Empiricists say that knowledge breaks down when it exceeds observation and experience. Rationalists say that knowledge breaks down when it’s restricted to observation and experience. Copenhagen quantum mechanics shows exactly what happens when rational hidden variables are rejected and everything is based only on what can be observed.

The Unconscious Mind One argument Locke offers against innate knowledge is that human beings cannot have ideas in their minds of which they are not aware. Yet this is the entire basis of the unconscious mind, the existence of which no serious thinker would now deny. Jungian Archetypes in the Collective Unconscious provide innate knowledge. It’s not their lack of existence that’s the problem (as Locke would contend), but the difficulty in accessing them. Modern split-brain studies show that the left and right hemispheres can think separately. Clearly, we have no awareness of this in normal circumstances. Locke’s whole system is predicated on the mind being a simple, conscious entity. But it’s nothing like that. It’s extremely complex and has a whole spectrum of different levels of consciousness, stretching all the way back to profound unconsciousness. The unconscious mind is what destroys Locke’s philosophy singlehandedly. We are influenced all of the time by our unconscious mind without experiencing it in any manner of which we are consciously aware. The concept of unconscious experience is radically different from that of conscious experience. We do not experience the unconscious in any way that can give us conscious knowledge, yet we are often fully determined by the desires of our unconsciousness.

The Four Categories Locke divided ideas into four categories: (1) those we get from a single sense, (2) those we get from more than one sense, (3) those arising from reflection, and (4) those arising from a combination of sensation and reflection. According to Locke, none of our ideas originate independently of experience, i.e. there are no innate ideas that arise regardless of the sensory world.

The question is this: is a person without any senses capable of thinking? They certainly couldn’t construct a private language (all human languages are social/public). What they could do is work out mathematics, which is analytic, a priori tautology, and which requires no observations of the experiential world.

Primary and Secondary Qualities Locke divided sensations into primary and secondary categories. Primary qualities are in the external world, while secondary qualities result from the primary qualities but are not themselves in the external world (rather, they are in our minds as we perceive the external world). Shape is classed as a primary quality. The external world, says Locke, really does consist of shaped entities. However, when we have a sensation of blue, the cause is not objective blueness out in the world. Rather, the cause of our blue sensation is a specific arrangement of the basic units of matter. These units are not in fact individually available to our senses since they are so small: only their aggregates are perceivable. Locke’s view was based on Atomism and he understood the world to comprise nothing but colourless, tasteless, soundless, odourless corpuscles or atoms of matter in constant mechanical motion, constantly colliding and interacting with each other. Locke, like the ancient Greek Atomists, believed that the indivisible bits of matter (atoms) and their motions were all that existed, so must be the explanation for our sensations of primary and secondary qualities, since there was literally nothing else to which to appeal. So, if atoms do not themselves possess different colours, then our sensation of blue cannot come directly from them, but is somehow mysteriously caused by them. Particular arrangements of the primary qualities of matter generate the secondary qualities. The primary qualities are necessary, while the secondary qualities are contingent on the primary qualities. Modern science adopts a similar view in relation to mind. Mind, says science, does not exist in the world in its own right. Rather, it is a contingent, secondary phenomenon, or epiphenomenon, of the arrangement of matter. It exists while a particular arrangement of matter exists, and ceases to exist when that arrangement is lost. Death, science says, brings an end to mind because it has brought an end to the material arrangement that generated mind in the first place.

The advent of quantum mechanics, which radically challenges the whole concept of matter, and what matter “is” when it’s unobserved, plainly calls for a radical new way of thinking about mind. If anything, quantum mechanics points to existence being primarily mental, with matter being a strange epiphenomenon generated by the “collapse” of mental (unobservable) wavefunctions. However, scientists have simply refused to abandon their atomistic, materialistic mentality (despite the overwhelming evidence and rational arguments against it) and continue to think of mind as a product of specific arrangements of solid little things conceived very much in the same way that the ancient Greeks conceived atoms. In other words, the quantum revolution has bypassed the scientific mindset and scientists have refused to move away from simplistic models of material atoms as “true reality”, which are no simply no longer tenable given quantum mechanics, relativity theory, black holes, and the dimensionless, immaterial Big Bang Singularity as the source of everything.

***** Locke claimed that the sensations of colour, odour, taste, and sound are caused by the primary qualities of arrangements of matter, while not themselves being present in those arrangements. These arrangements are referred to by Locke as the “powers” of objects to cause sensations. He offered no mechanisms to explain his system. Locke therefore believed that everything could be explained via primary qualities alone, and he saw no reason to consider that secondary qualities had any real, independent basis in the world. They did not have autonomous existence, and were entirely dependent on other things for their contingent, ephemeral existence. An example Locke provided concerned a knife. When a knife cuts our flesh, it causes us pain. It’s plainly the steel of the knife, and not any “pain” mysteriously located inside the knife, that causes the pain in us. Another example Locke gave was that of putting our hand in a flame, which produces a sensation of searing pain. Yet “pain” is not a property possessed by a flame. Pain is generated by the interaction of the atoms of our hand with the atoms of the flame. Can similar reasoning not be applied to the colour of the flame? That is, the flame does not itself have a colour, but the interaction of the atoms of the flame with the atoms of our eyes (and with light) produces the secondary sensation of colour. Neither pain nor

colour exists in the flame itself. Pain and colour are caused by the interaction of the primary properties of the flame and the primary properties of the observer, i.e. secondary properties arise from primary properties, and cannot exist in their absence. While the argument seems plausible enough at first sight, the mechanics of how it actually happens are more or less impossible to understand. In relation to life, how do lifeless atoms arrange themselves into living beings? Or how do atoms without minds arrange themselves into entities with minds? How can colourless entities produce colour? Even today, science is wholly unable to produce any explanation whatsoever. The issue is simple: are primary qualities able to produce secondary qualities that have no basis or precedent in the primary qualities? This is rather like producing something from nothing, which is impossible (unless you’re a scientist who believes that an entire universe can be generated from non-existence via random accident!). Another puzzle flows directly from Locke’s theory of primary and secondary qualities. If there were no observers, what would it mean to refer to blue? No matter how atoms arranged themselves in the “real world”, no one would ever mention the existence of the colour blue were it not for the existence of observers who register this colour. In other words, it’s insufficient for atoms to arrange themselves into a “blue” configuration in order for blue to exist. An observer must be present in order for blue to be recorded. Therefore, Locke’s theory really needs three components: primary qualities, secondary qualities produced by specific arrangements of primary qualities, and observers in whom the primary and secondary qualities are registered as sensations. This points to minds having a decisive role in Locke’s scheme. Without the minds of observers, how can we say that primary and secondary qualities exist at all? Who would know? It was this type of thinking that led Bishop Berkeley to deny that there were any external things whatsoever. Atoms and the material world simply did not exist, he claimed. All that exists are ideas, and minds to perceive them and reflect on them. There’s a clear ambiguity in Locke’s system. Is the power to produce secondary qualities an intrinsic property of the objects of the world, or does this power exist only if observers also exist? In which case, the “power” does not belong to the object itself, but to the interaction between the object

and observer. The “power”, in other words, is shared. It’s a relational property that exists between the object and the observer. It’s not a property in its own right. Most commentators believe that Locke understood “powers” in a relational sense: an object causes certain sensations in us via its interaction with our sense organs. Without that interaction, secondary qualities would not exist. The implication, then, is that objects have powers only in relation to perceivers, which means that powers have as much to do with neurophysiology, genetics and psychology as with the laws of atomic physics. Secondary qualities therefore do not have independent existence, and nor are they produced by objects themselves but only by the complex interaction between objects, the sense organs of perceivers, and the minds of perceivers. Locke asserted that that the sweetness of food is in food in exactly the same way as pain or sickness is in food. If food causes us pain, or causes us to be sick, it’s not because food objectively contains the qualities of sickness or pain, but because in its interaction with us, it has the power to produce pain or sickness in us. Likewise with sweetness. It’s not in atoms but in the interaction of atoms with observers. If there are no observers, there can be no sweetness. Sweetness is therefore mind-dependent. But if sweetness is mind-dependent, why not atoms themselves, i.e. the objects that allegedly possess the primary properties? How could the atoms themselves, with their primary properties and “powers” be said to exist if there were no minds to “know” it”? This is essentially Berkeley’s point. If minds are so essential in this scheme, why do we imagine that matter exists? Who needs it? It must be one or the other, or we are plunged into Cartesian dualism, with all of its attendant problems.

***** Does “pain” exist in a world without sentient observers? Does an objective material world contain pain in its own nature? Was the Big Bang associated with any kind of pain? If pain does not exist in a world where there are no beings to experience pain, no beings with pain receptors, then exactly the same must be true of all feelings and sensations, all desires, all will, all intuitions, all reasoning, all knowledge. What, then, is left to the world of matter?!Well, nothing.

How can the world of matter even be understood to exist without observers capable of experiencing it? But do they need to experience an actual material world, or just the idea of it? Dreams, and The Matrix explore this territory. If these can produce the semblance of the material world, why do we imagine that there really is a material world? Why isn’t it just a special kind of dream (in Illuminism, it is in fact a collective rather than individual dream; it seems objective because everyone, in their waking state, is participating in the same dream. When we go to sleep, we leave the public dream and enter a private dream. When we awaken, we leave the private dream and re-enter the public dream.). In Locke’s account, in a world without beings that have colour, sound, taste, smell and touch receptors, none of these sensations would exist. They are non-existents that are summoned into existence via the interaction between material things, sense receptors and brains and minds to interpret the data gathered. So, does a tree falling in a forest make a sound if there’s no one there to hear it? The answer is plainly no if “sound” is defined with regard to: 1) the falling tree and the pressure wave it generates, 2) ears to detect the pressure/sound wave, and 3) brains/minds to experience the sound data. If any of these elements is absent, there is no sound. Sound does not “belong” to a tree falling over. That is only one necessary element, but it’s insufficient on its own to produce a sound. Sound belongs to a system of things: the falling tree, the sound wave it generates, ears to detect the sound waves, and a brain and mind to interpret and experience the sound. By this account, sensations are entirely contingent and subjective and have no independent, objective existence: they are not entities in the world. Rather, they result from interactions between things in the world and minds. (Note that all fans of “common sense” wouldn’t doubt for a moment that unperceived falling trees create sounds: that simply shows how naive, simplistic and wrong common sense is.) When the Big Bang took place, there were no sense organs and no observers, and so no sensations at all were generated. There was no “bang”, no colour, no smell, no taste, no feelings, and, given that there were no eyes to see it, the whole thing took place in total darkness. In other words, the Big Bang universe was actually akin to a Dark Room or Cosmic Sensory Deprivation tank. Absolutely no sensory activity occurred.

What is the Big Bang when stripped of all sensory data, all phenomena? It’s nothing other than pure, noumenal, ontological mathematics! The Big Bang was nothing but pure math unfolding silently and invisibly. There was no “matter” involved. To imagine matter is to already imagine phenomena, but there weren’t any. Matter, it cannot be stressed enough, is a sensory phenomenon, but if sensory phenomena are eliminated, as they must be if there is nothing to observe them, then what is left is the thing in itself rather than the appearance of the thing. In truth, unperceivable noumena are the basic existents, but these appear to observers as perceivable phenomena. They can never be perceived shorn of their appearances. They are always detected by our senses. The only thing that can understand them as they are in themselves is our reason, which is itself wholly non-sensory, hence itself noumenal. Where, ontologically, does reason reside? It can exist only in the noumenal mind, which is none other than the soul! Why can’t souls be perceived? Because they are the things doing the perceiving, and they can no more perceive themselves than an eye can see itself. We can’t see the souls of others either because all souls are inherently immaterial and dimensionless, and belong to the frequency side of dualaspect Fourier mathematics, while our bodies belong to the spacetime side. To reiterate, if the Big Bang is properly understood, it was nothing but a noumenal, rational operation – it was pure mathematics being conducted ontologically. Physics – which deals with the phenomenal world – did not come into at all, so no concepts of physics can be applied to it! The Big Bang had nothing to do with science and nothing to do with matter. It was a purely mental event – the unfolding of a vast number of ontological mathematical processes, all obeying the God Equation. It was an event of pure mathematical reason, hence could be fully worked out by the application of pure mathematical reason. When people ponder the Big Bang, they always contemplate themselves in some God-like perspective, watching the whole thing unfold in front of them, usually in some spectacular fireball fashion. Scientific “simulations” of the Big Bang that feature in TV documentaries reinforce this delusion. They are always depicted in sensory terms, especially involving a fiery, expanding ball. However, if you truly wanted to depict the Big Bang, you would show nothing but a black screen (which wouldn’t make good TV!). Remember, at the inception of the Big Bang, there was no spacetime and no

matter, hence no possible physical perspective from which to observe it, and no possible physical observers that could witness it. Therefore, what’s left? The question of the tree falling in the forest when no one is there to hear it is exactly the same as that of the Big Bang happening when there was no one there to perceive it, and the answer in both cases is exactly the same: when you remove phenomena, all that remains are noumena. Right now, the unobserved parts of the Amazon do not exist as material phenomena. They exist as pure ontological, noumenal mathematical information and functions. Perceivable reality is conjured into existence the instant that a perceiving mind encounters ontological, noumenal mathematical information. It’s the sensory interpretation of this information that we regard as “reality”. If we strip out our senses, we are left with nothing but our noumenal qualities, in particular our reason. Our reason can understand noumenal, ontological mathematics as it in itself (as pure math). Our senses most certainly cannot. When the world is not being observed, it exists as pure noumenal, ontological, objective mathematics – which is mental, not material. Matter is a phenomenal interpretation of noumenal mathematics. There is simply no objective material world. If the whole of humanity went into deep sleep at once, the world would continue to exist exactly as before – but as pure, uninterpreted, noumenal mathematics. There would be no sights, sounds, tastes, smells, touches. There would be no matter. The world, as phenomenon, would be entirely absent, leaving the world as it is in itself: pure ontological mathematics. When humanity wakes up, it immediately interprets this mathematical world in sensory terms, and automatically the world “appears” to us in its familiar form. Without us and all the other creatures on earth, the world would be an unperceivable, noumenal mathematical object, exactly as it was when it was first created and there was no life on it! The world, unperceived, is a mental, Fourier frequency object (a singularity). Observers interpret this noumenal frequency data in terms of Fourier spacetime functions, and it is this mathematical process that turns frequency noumena into spacetime phenomena. Classical physicists were those naive people who fallaciously believed in an objective, phenomenal reality. They believed that falling trees in the

Amazon made sounds, that there really was a continuous phenomenal, material world, regardless of observers, their senses and minds. Even today, most physicists in their day-to-day thinking accept this model. However, they turn white when you mention quantum physics to them and then they sing a different song. Like Niels Bohr, they say that the moon doesn’t exist as an actual thing when no one is observing it. Rather, it somehow dissolves into an unreal mathematical abstraction called a wavefunction. The phenomenal moon is replaced by a “moon wavefunction”, which is not a formal existent. The phenomenal moon is summoned into existence when an observer “collapses” the moon’s wavefunction via some measurement or observation. This raises profound difficulties regarding the Big Bang. Since there were no observers to perform measurements or observations, and thus collapse the quantum wavefunction, the Big Bang has, in this view, to be considered as an unreal, mathematical, abstract process – although, of course, no scientist ever does actually think of it in these terms. Scientists refuse to be rational and consistent. Here are your three choices about how to consider the unobserved world: 1) Classical physics: the world exists in all of its phenomenal glory whether or not anyone is observing it. This is the “common sense” view to which almost all of humanity subscribes. 2) Quantum physics: the world becomes an unreal mathematical wavefunction when no one is observing it, and then “collapses” into phenomenal reality as soon as it’s observed. 3) Ontological mathematics: the world still objectively exists when no one is observing it (it doesn’t vanish into unreality), but it exists as noumenon (the thing in itself), not as phenomenon. When an observer looks at it, they don’t make something unreal real, as the quantum physicists say. Rather, via Fourier mathematics, they interpret the noumenon (the frequency domain) as phenomenon and see the familiar world of our experience. So, classical physics regards objective reality as phenomenal; quantum physics regards objective reality as true only at the point of observation and otherwise it vanishes into unreality (the moon, as Niels Bohr said, ceases to

exist when no one is looking at it, and is replaced by an abstract probability moon wavefunction); ontological mathematics regards objective reality as strictly noumenal and real, and it becomes phenomenal and real as soon as it is observed. Reality in itself is intelligible rather than sensible. According to the classical physicists, reality is sensible rather than intelligible, and according to quantum physicists, it’s sensible rather than intelligible, but only at the point of observation. Otherwise, it’s an unreal abstraction: a matrix of potentiality, possibility and probability that is actualised randomly and indeterministically. According to ontological mathematics, reality is intelligible rather than sensible. Well, make your choice between these three options!

***** In ontological mathematics, noumenal mathematical information is the cause of phenomena, of all our sensory experiences. In classical physics, something like John Locke’s scheme applies. In quantum physics, the sensory world is produced via the collapse of unreal probability wavefunctions. In classical physics, what you see is what you get, and, even when you’re not looking, it’s still there exactly as it is when you are looking. In ontological mathematics, when you’re not looking, the world remains objectively real, but becomes noumenal and intelligible rather than phenomenal and sensible. In quantum physics, the world dissolves into unreal probabilities when you’re not looking at it, and only becomes real when you are looking at it. If we return to the unobserved tree in the Amazon, a naive classical physicist, and anyone invoking “common sense” (i.e. common stupidity) would say that of course the tree makes a sound if it falls over. A more philosophical physicist would adopt a Lockean view and deny that it makes a sound, yet still accept the primary existence of the tree (made of real material atoms). A quantum physicist would say that the unobserved tree doesn’t formally exist. There is no forest, there is no tree, and it doesn’t fall. However, if an observer is introduced, then there is a definite probability that the tree will fall and make a sound! With ontological mathematics, the tree becomes a non-sensory noumenon, hence produces no sounds, and is not made of material atoms:

it’s made of pure ontological mathematics – energy sinusoids. Atoms are simply phenomenal representations of noumenal sinusoids. A sensory person imagines the unobserved Amazon forest in sensory terms, i.e. they can’t help imagining being there, observing it, even though they’ve been instructed not to. What is the Amazon forest when unobserved? Is it unreal as quantum physics says, or real but noumenal, as ontological mathematics says? Both quantum mechanics and ontological mathematics replace phenomenal reality with mathematics. The latter says that the mathematics are noumenal and real, the former that the mathematics are noumenal but unreal. Thus the ontological status of mathematics becomes the decisive issue. Imagine trying to understand reality from a non-sensory perspective. The only way to do it is via your reason. You can rationally conceive of a noumenal, real, objective mathematical world, but you certainly can’t imagine it in sensory, phenomenal terms. As Plato said, true reality is intelligible, not sensible. Yet we are sensory creatures. How do we transcend our senses? This is humanity’s fundamental problem. In your mind’s eye, can you insert yourself into the Amazon jungle without imagining the Amazon as a physical, sensory phenomenal place? If you can, you will grasp that the Amazon jungle in itself is just mathematics, just a set of rational, causal, ontological mathematics processes taking place continuously. Remember the machine code streaming down the screens in The Matrix? Even that is too representational. The Amazon, without observers, comprises nothing but invisible mathematics. Reason alone can comprehend this.

***** If the whole of the human race were asleep at once, all phenomenal data would be absent from the world. Earth would be a frequency singularity, and so would we be (we are of course frequency singularities = souls). Earth, in itself, is simply a mathematical information system. It’s immaterial and outside space and time. It’s a real, noumenal, ontological, mathematical wavefunction. When humans awaken and look at the Earth, we interpret this planet – this planetary frequency singularity, to be more precise – in Fourier spacetime terms. We ourselves mathematically add its

phenomenal and sensory features to it. We even add space and time to it. Without us, these don’t exist. In one sense, the Copenhagen school is absolutely right: observers construct reality. However, what they construct is observable, phenomenal reality. They do not construct unobservable, noumenal, ontological reality, which exists regardless of any observers. The difference between the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and ontological mathematics is that the latter accepts the reality principle and objective reality, and the former doesn’t. Ontological mathematics asserts that unobserved reality comprises real mathematical wavefunctions. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics asserts that unobserved reality comprises unreal mathematical wavefunctions. Everything comes down to the ontology of the unobserved world. Does the unobserved world really exist – as actuality – or is the unobserved world not real at all, and is replaced by unreal potentiality? Well, which is it?! A rationalist has no difficulty understanding the existence of a real, unobserved world. An empiricist, obsessed with personal experience, would prefer to deny actuality and replace it with weird, unreal potentiality. The only way to understand the unobserved world as a real, objective thing is to accept that it is purely mathematical, and has nothing at all to do with physics and science, nothing to do with the empirical scientific method; to accept that noumenal reality is mathematical reality; to accept that ontology is mathematical. When all perceptions are stripped away, what remains is pure, analytic mathematics as Ultimate Reality. The final theory of everything will be solely mathematical. It will be Illuminism!

***** We are mathematical perceiving subjects (souls) that “breathe life” into objective, noumenal, ontological mathematics. There is nothing other than mathematics. This is a universe of information, carried by analytic sinusoidal waves. It is not a “physical” universe.

Understanding Your ability to comprehend reality is entirely dependent on your ability to conceive reality intelligibly rather than sensibly, i.e. to strip out all sensory

data, everything you experience. What’s left when that whole layer of interpretation is removed? Is it an unreal mathematical potentiality wavefunction, as science claims, or a real, eternal, mathematical Singularity made of immaterial, dimensionless monads, as ontological mathematics asserts? That’s your choice. To think about reality, you must be able to dissociate your senses, feelings, desires and will from your reason. Humanity has generally found this impossible. The only place where they come close is mathematics, but even this is all too often infected with empiricist thinking and beliefs, and, in its history, has waged war against zero, infinity, negative and imaginary numbers, because these are all non-empirical (but ontological). Even today, all such numbers are regarded as unreal abstractions rather than real entities involved in the true definition of energy. When all appearances (phenomena) are removed from reality, what remains is reality itself, the unadorned noumenon, existence in its itself, in its bare form. Bare reality is made of monads – “nothings”! Bare reality is just mathematical nothingness, structured according to the God Equation, which allows something to coexist as nothing. No sensory, empiricist process can ever lead you to this truth; only your reason can. Empiricism is fundamentally false because it operates at the level of phenomena, appearances, experiences, and not that of pure reason and pure rationalism (which are exclusively about ontological mathematics). Never forget, the deepest question is this one – what is existence in itself, shorn of all appearance and interpretation? Humanity’s intellectual curse is that it has simply never been able to conceive of a reality without any appearance, a reality as pure Platonic Form, as absolutely intelligible but also absolutely insensible (completely dissociated from the senses).

Materialism The entire materialist fallacy flows from a certain type of person being incapable of conceiving of things as not solid. Dr Johnson kicked a stone to refute Bishop Berkeley’s idealist philosophy that there is no matter at all, only ideas of matter. This merely proved that Dr Johnson was too stupid to understand Berkeley’s philosophy and literally didn’t grasp one word of it. Dr Johnson is the patron saint of “common sense”, i.e. widely held fallacy and stupidity. Science is full of Dr Johnsons, philosophical illiterates who

can’t conceive of a rationalist, idealist world without any solid things at all, but only ideas and mental experiences of solidity.

Atomism There are no atoms. These days, what scientists call “atoms” are unreal mathematical wavefunctions that collapse into certain states, and these states are then interpreted atomistically. Logically, they should be regarded as what they are – mathematical, not physical, states. “Atoms”, noumenally, are collections of ontological sinusoids. The ancient Greek Atomists would have found the modern idea of the quantum mechanical atom incomprehensible, and, indeed, most people, even scientists, still think of atoms in ancient Greek terms. These things simply don’t exist, and, given their non-existence, the whole material world predicated on them doesn’t exist either. A human body isn’t a physical body. It’s an appearance of an enormous collection of unobservable sinusoids. What you regard as reality is nothing like reality. What you always encounter is the appearance of reality. You never encounter, except intellectually, what the appearance is an appearance of, i.e. reality in itself: unrepresented reality. The intellect is the non-sensory, non-emotional, non-desiring, nonwilling, purely rational part of your mind. Only it can attain true knowledge. People, especially scientists, keep confusing phenomena with noumena, appearances with things-in-themselves, representations with what is being represented, interpretation of facts with facts. To understand reality you must transcend your own mind and phenomenal experiences. The only way to the do that is through ontological mathematics: the objective, universal language of existence. An infinite number of representations or appearances of reality is possible, but only one true reality can exist: that of ontological mathematics, which is the same for everyone, forever. No intelligent alien species would understand human science – an entirely fabricated subject – and we wouldn’t understand their alien science. Both “sciences” would be full of ad hoc, arbitrary concepts driven by heuristic techniques, and would be predicated on the contingent ways in which the species’ respective sense organs had evolved. (Similarly, if bees or hawks or spiders had a “science”, it would be entirely different from ours since they perceive the world

entirely differently from the way we do.) We could communicate with alien species solely through mathematics. That’s a fact. Mathematics is the common language of the universe precisely because it’s the language of existence, which, naturally, is the same for everyone. A total separation must be effected between how we think the ultimate things are in themselves and how they appear to us. Humanity has been cursed by an intellectual incapacity to transcend its senses and subjective experiences. It has been sabotaged by empiricism, and needs to turn back to rationalism. Science must stop defining itself in terms of empirical and experimental considerations, and start defining itself rationally and mathematically. Reason must prevail. The intellect must triumph over the senses, emotions and religious faith.

Unnatural Unselection Why hasn’t natural selection operated on Abrahamists? These people are mentally retarded and believe in silly books of ancient superstitions from thousands of years ago. Not one word of any holy book contributed to landing men on the moon. That great task was accomplished via mathematics, philosophy, science, technology and engineering. Logos humanity, which can land men on the moon, is, to Mythos humanity, what humans are to apes. By the laws of natural selection and evolution, Logos humanity should simply eradicate Mythos humanity. Why hasn’t it?! How can humanity have a divine future unless we end the diseases of Abrahamism and Karmism, the supreme brakes on human progress? As Nietzsche said, “And he who would be a creator in good and evil – truly he must first be a destroyer and break values. Thus the greatest evil belongs with the greatest good: but this is the creative good.” Humanity is faced with the ultimate choice: evolve or perish. Logos humanity does not deserve to survive if it does not deliver a Final Solution regarding the followers of the God of Abraham (aka the Devil). This world of ours has been overwhelmingly shaped by the exterminatory fanaticism of religious believers. Given the damage they have done to human the human psyche and human knowledge, what punishment do they not deserve? They have made this world hell. How are we to escape from hell if we continue to allow the devils and demons to rule and flourish? It’s them or us!

If we can undo all of the horrors of Abrahamism, aren’t we obliged to do so? Imagine that we could guarantee a peaceful, loving, rational world forever, but only by removing every person of faith. Wouldn’t that be a price well worth paying? If we don’t pay it, we will go on living in this hell until it freezes over. If we never get to enjoy terrestrial paradise, it’s our own fault. We didn’t have the guts for it. The task demanded too much of us. The price was too high, and we were unwilling to pay. We can build heaven on earth, but only over the bones of the fanatical people of faith who refuse to evolve and who cling hysterically to ancient superstitions.

Murder Why do people complain about Jihadists cutting off heads? If Abraham had been ordered to cut off Isaac’s head, he wouldn’t have hesitated. Murder of innocents is what Abrahamists do. When we look at today’s Jihadists, we are looking at Abraham, we are looking at the Jews who exterminated the Canaanites, we are looking at the Inquisition, at the Crusaders and witch burners. Fanaticism and murder are what Abrahamism is all about. You must always be willing to murder for your Abrahamic God. If we were to end the curse of Abrahamism, all we would have to do is introduce a “Test Act”. Everyone would be forced to declare on oath whether they would kill their own children if a voice in their head, identifying itself as “God”, ordered it. Anyone who says yes is not fit to be part of the human race, and, in fact, is an extreme danger to the human race. As Voltaire said, “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” Who’s going to bring the absurdity to an end?

Terrorists What is a terrorist in the 21st century? It’s a Muslim who wants to emulate Abraham by doing whatever Allah wants, no matter how horrific. Abrahamism is pure terrorism. If a father is willing to murder his own son for his God, what won’t he do to you – an “evil” unbeliever?! It’s them or us.

The Hare Krishnas Are Hare Krishnas any different from Christian Pentecostalists and happyclappies? Look into the eyes of any of these people and you will see totally irrational, spaced-out space cadets living in some trippy world of pure feeling, and zero understanding of reality. The “Supreme Lord, Krishna” is just Jesus Christ for Hindus.

Wolves Dogs are wolves domesticated by humans. Humans are killer apes, domesticated, to a degree, by human “civilisation”. Remove the laws of society, as anarchists and libertarians want to do, and we would revert overnight into killer apes.

Picture This As soon as you try to picture reality (in sensory terms), you have failed to understand reality. If you expect to see a being (“God”) coming down out of the sky, you have failed to understand reality. If you imagine that the secret of existence lies in lifeless, mindless, purposeless lumps of matter, you have failed to understand reality. As soon as you claim that reality is grounded in unreality (as modern science does), you have failed to understand reality. When you realise that the answer to reality is to be found intellectually, via reason, and with no reference at all to the senses or materialism, you have understood reality. Reality is ontological reason, and the language of ontological reason is ontological mathematics. That’s why we live in a rational, comprehensible, intelligible universe. If reality were made of anything other than reason, it would be impossible for us to understand it.

Primary Qualities A thing’s primary qualities are, in Locke’s view, its extension, shape, motion, and solidity. These exist independently of any perceiver’s mind, in an inert substance called matter, which has no sensory qualities and no internal, rational, Aristotelian form. For Locke, the primary qualities are associated with more than one sense organ while the secondary qualities (colour, smell, sound, warmth,

hardness) are associated with one sense organ only. For Locke, all experience is either externally-directed = sensation (external perception) or internally-directed = reflection (internal perception). Ideas are either ideas of sensation or ideas of reflection, the latter coming into play only once ideas of sensation have been accumulated, i.e. you can reflect only when you have had experiences. This contrasts with the rationalist view that you can reflect on reality without any reference to experience at all. (This is the essence of ontological mathematics.) Locke was reversing the stance of Descartes. For the latter, ideas of reflection are immediately known, whereas ideas of sensation are full of doubt and ambiguity, hence produce uncertain knowledge. Perhaps a malevolent demon is deceiving us about the external world. Perhaps we are in The Matrix. Perhaps we are dreaming. We must start with our reason and intellectually verify our experiences. For Locke, we must start with our experiences – which, for him, were in fact the surest things – and then reflect on these. Ideas of reflection depend upon the ideas of sensation, and are meaningless if separated from experience (this is very much the empiricist scientific attitude). What’s extraordinary about the alternative approaches of Descartes and Locke is that they reflect differently wired brains and minds. In terms of Jungian personality types, Descartes was a thinking intuitive and Locke a thinking sensing type. Those who share Descartes’ personality type are not wedded to physicality. They don’t trust physicality. They can easily conceive of non-physical things, hence are always looking beyond the physical. Self-evidently, and by definition, they don’t have any physical evidence for what lies beyond “physicality”. But that’s the whole point. There’s much more to existence than physical things and physical evidence. As for those of Locke’s personality type, physicality is the most concrete and unarguable thing to them. They can’t conceive of anything nonphysical. They reject anything that takes them beyond physical “reality”. Locke’s type are invariably scientists, while Descartes’ type are mathematicians. Locke’s type seek physical evidence (which is what the scientific method is predicated on), while Descartes’ type seek analytic mathematical proof. Locke’s type deal with truths of fact, and Descartes’ type with truths of reason. They are radically different worldviews. A supporter of Descartes isn’t bothered by any lack of physical evidence so long as rational proof exists. A supporter of Locke has no interest in

rational proof and is only concerned with physical evidence. That’s why science is based on an observational method and rejects ontology, epistemology and analysis. That’s why science produces only ad hoc, provisional “truths”, always subject to revision (hence providing no certainty), while mathematics produces eternal truths. Only mathematics provides eternal, infallible, absolute knowledge. Science is no better than the fallible, limited, deceptive human senses by which it sets so much unjustified store. You would need to be crazy to privilege evidence over proof. You are certainly no intellectual if you do so. You are no friend of reason.

Simple Ideas In Locke’s scheme, simple ideas are those which come through sensation or reflection. There are four types: 1) Ideas which come through one sense organ, such as colour, sound, smell, warmth, hardness. 2) Ideas which come through more than one sense organ, such as extension, shape and motion. (For example, we can see and touch an extended object, so extension relates to two senses.) 3) Ideas which come from an inner faculty, such as thinking (including memory, judgment, knowledge and faith), or volition = will. 4) Ideas which come from both external and internal faculties. Pleasure and pain, and succession and causation, are examples. Some simple ideas copy or reflect the “facts” of the “material world”, while others do not. For Locke, everything begins with simple ideas of sensation. Our simple ideas of colours, sounds, smells, tastes, and heat come to us via single sense organs, through, respectively, our eyes, ears, noses, tongues, and skin. As for the simple ideas of space, solidity, extension, figure, motion, number and rest, these are acquired by two different senses. They come to us, Locke says, via both sight and touch, i.e. we have two ways to sense them. Things that can be both seen and touched are most obviously real to us. They are primary properties. The others are secondary.

Given that bodies (atoms) operate via mechanistic principles, then, Locke concludes, our perceptions of an object must arise from the direct physical contact between our organs of sense and the object itself. (In the case of vision, imperceptible particles characteristic of the body must enter our eyes.) Primary properties are in the body itself, hence exist independently of our perception.

***** “Locke probably holds some version of the representational theory of perception. ... On such a theory what the mind immediately perceives are ideas, and the ideas are caused by and represent the objects which cause them. Thus perception is a triadic relation, rather than simply being a dyadic relation between an object and a perceiver. Such a dyadic relational theory is often called naive realism because it suggests that the perceiver is directly perceiving the object, and naive because this view is open to a variety of serious objections. Some versions of the representational theory are open to serious objections as well. If, for example, one makes ideas into things, then one can imagine that because one sees ideas, the ideas actually block one from seeing things in the external world. The idea would be like a picture or painting. The picture would copy the original object in the external world, but because our immediate object of perception is the picture we would be prevented from seeing the original just as standing in front of a painting on an easel might prevent us from seeing the person being painted. Thus, this is sometimes called the picture/original theory of perception. Alternatively, Jonathan Bennett called it ‘the veil of perception’ to emphasize that ‘seeing’ the ideas prevents us from seeing the external world. ...” – http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/ For Locke, simple ideas of sensation are invariably produced in our minds by the influence of external objects acting on our organs of sense in some way, although he didn’t pretend to know how this causal process worked, and he did not assume it to be straightforwardly representational, i.e. what we perceive may not always correspond directly to actual properties in the object. Secondary qualities, for example, do not exist in the objects themselves, although the objects have a causal power to generate these perceptions in us (i.e. we don’t hallucinate them out of nowhere, or just add them ourselves with no reference to the objects). Secondary qualities are

effects produced in us by the genuine (primary) qualities inherent in the bodies themselves. Primary qualities constitute the true reality of the material world, and are the basis of classical physics. They are measurable, mathematical properties. Secondary qualities have nothing to do with science and mathematics (no equation contains the perceived smell of a rose!), and are not measurable. They are psychological. Primary qualities are mind-independent and directly represented to us (although perhaps not accurately). They arise from the mechanical action upon our sensory organs of corpuscular entities. Secondary qualities are mind-dependent and indirectly represented, hence are inherently unreliable. They resemble nothing in the material world, but do arise from material causes.

Willing When we are willing an end, our mind is active. When we are not willing an end, our mind is passive. Active minds initiate. Passive minds simply receive. Experience, for Locke, is of two kinds: sensation and reflection. Sensation tells us about things and processes in the external world. Reflection tells us about the operations of our own minds. Sensation is external; reflection is internal. Knowledge deriving from sensation is perfected by reflection. There are no innate ideas that exist outside experience (hence would not be in the material world but somewhere else). Locke pondered what material and immaterial substances had in common that would allow us to apply the same word (“substance”) to both. He came up with no satisfactory answer. Thus he remained stuck in the classic problem of Cartesian substance dualism, though he just swept by it by invoking “common sense”. There can be only one type of substance: material or mental. If we have souls, as we do, then there are ipso facto no material substances. Matter is a contingent construct of mind, as Berkeley highlighted. Wikipedia says, “According to Locke, a thing’s primary qualities, such as its extension, shape, motion, solidity, and number, exist unperceived, apart from any perceiver’s mind, in an inert, senseless substance called matter. Berkeley opposed Locke’s assertion. Qualities that are called primary are, according to Berkeley, ideas that exist in a perceiver’s mind. These ideas can only be

like other ideas. They cannot exist in an unperceiving, corporeal substance or matter.”

Common Sense Perception (Misperception) Most people cannot get beyond common sense. “Common sense” is the type of caveman intelligence we evolved in the earliest days of human consciousness when it was necessary to understand the world rapidly in simple, naive terms, allowing us to rapidly weigh up a situation and act. Most people have failed to evolve beyond this type of intelligence, even though we now live in a radically different and much more complex world. Scientists remain absolutely caught in the common sense web. Scientists, whether they acknowledge it or not, subscribe to a dyadic model of perception: there are objects out there and we see them directly, like cameras. This is the basis of the materialist and empiricist mindset and worldview. These people fail to understand that, in fact, we perceive only mental content. That being the case, if there is anything non-mental out there (i.e. material) then it first of all has to be converted into something mental before we can perceive it. Therefore, we are ipso facto not seeing the thing in itself, but our mental representation of it. We are seeing its appearance, and we can have no possible sensory idea of what it’s like unobserved. Since we can have no idea if any matter is really there in itself, it’s a redundant concept. Why not get rid of it, and all of its attendant problems, and make whatever’s out there mental too? Occam’s Razor demands that we do exactly this. To assert the existence of unobservable matter is to multiply entities unnecessarily, which violates Occam’s Razor. Materialism is an ideology for simpletons, locked into fallacious “common sense”, or common unsense, as it really is.

Anti-Civilisation For all those people – the anarchists and libertarians – who hate government, the State, civilization, society, law and order – go and live in Somalia, the ultimate failed State (where all the institutions of the State have collapsed, exactly as desired by libertarians and anarchists), and see how you get on.

An anarchist described civilization as a “metastatic disease”. On the contrary, it’s anarchy and libertarianism that are metastatic diseases. It’s precisely those people who refuse to buy into the social contract who disrupt, poison, corrupt and ruin government, the State, society and civilization. They are the toxin in humanity’s bloodstream. They are what must be purged with the leeches.

The Triad Ancient Greece = Culture (art, science, mathematics, drama, comedy, democracy, plural political systems, philosophy, and so on). Ancient Rome = Power (military prowess, technology, engineering, efficiency, ruthlessness, the Senate, followed by the Imperium). Rome took its culture from Greece. Ancient Egypt = Religion (Pharaoh as man-God or Son of God; pyramids as monumental religious tombs and statements; religious monuments on an epic scale, shaping and dominating the landscape; astronomy seen as a means of studying the celestial home of the gods; an obsession with the fate of the soul in the afterlife; Books of the Dead). Greece and Rome took many of their basic religious beliefs from the Egyptians. Ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt represent the pinnacle of Paganism (with Persia, Assyria, and Babylonia also making strong contributions). Abrahamism – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – was the vile, evil system that opposed and eventually defeated paganism. It’s time for paganism to reconquer, to do to Abrahamism what Abrahamism did to paganism. Only a pagan world can be an enlightened world. Abrahamism is the worst thing that ever happened to the human race. The two greatest errors in human history are these: 1) That the universe was made by a monotheistic Creator, and 2) That the Jews were the Chosen People of this alleged Creator of the Universe. This is the origin of the concept of the “Master Race”, and the notion that the believers are justified, by divine sanction, in exterminating the unbelievers. Just as the intolerant must not be tolerated by the tolerant (i.e. they should be treated with their own intolerance), so the exterminators must be exterminated by the non-exterminators. Failure to do so will ensure that

intolerance and extermination go on forever. All those who oppose the eradication of the evil in our midst are themselves evil. How shall we ever have heaven on earth if we allow intolerant maniacs to flourish? Abrahamists chose to make slavish obedience to their God the centrepiece of their existence, even if it meant murdering their own children. Such people can have no place in a future, enlightened human race. We will never have a global enlightenment until we are rid of them. There must be a Final Solution for the problem – the curse – of irrational, fanatical religious faith.

TV and Cinema As TVs get bigger and bigger, more and more sophisticated, fewer people go to the cinema. There will come a time when watching a movie on your TV is superior to watching a movie at the cinema.

***** Joe Gillis (in Sunset Boulevard): “You’re Norma Desmond. You used to be in silent pictures. You used to be big.” Norma Desmond: “I am big. It’s the pictures that got small.” Well, now the pictures have got big again! In high definition.

Facebook Facebook, sometimes, is wonderful. It allows you to spot traitors a mile off. Isn’t it amazing that we actively loathe many of the people who hang around “Illuminist” pages, and these same people actively loathe us? We must be doing something badly wrong for ever having attracted such hopeless and pathetic people who have about as much in common with us as Abrahamists or Karmists, i.e. nothing at all. As for them, they continue to flit around a movement that utterly rejects them ... and they are fully aware that it does. Somehow, these sad people have constructed their identity around opposing us, and trying to get others to oppose us. We even find a cohort of people who claim to be amongst our strongest supporters yet who openly consort with those who seek to wreck our agenda. Who are they fooling? Well, since it’s not us, it must be themselves.

The world never changes because it’s full of shysters and the irrational. People simply refuse to commit. How can you support us if you’re laughing and joking with people who regularly post diatribes against us? Is that what you call rational behaviour? That’s we call the behaviour of the Ignavi – the neutrals who refuse to make a choice in life and thus lead lame, halfhearted, pointless lives, devoid of any sacred cause. Even Abrahamists are better than the Ignavi. At least they had the guts to choose a side. At least they took their leap of faith. If Illuminism isn’t for you, go and join something else that is. If Illuminism is for you, you certainly won’t be “friending” our enemies. So, what’s it to be? Be honest with yourself. You’re just playing at being an Illuminist, aren’t you? What you really like is “hanging out” with people on Facebook, and smugly patting each other on the back. How pathetic. Those are the last people we would ever want to attract. It’s our mission to entirely alienate these people and drive them away. They sicken us. We are not liberals, we are radicals. We have contempt for half-hearted people. If it’s not worth doing, don’t do it at all. If it is worth doing, put everything into it. Spinoza said, “The world would be happier if men had the same capacity to be silent that they have to speak.” When it comes to “critics”, they have a compulsion to spew out all of their negative garbage. They are forever projecting their own depression and resentment onto the world. They have no positive vision to promote, so just want to pull down the vision of others, because it makes them feel better in their bitter and twisted way. If Illuminism isn’t your thing, move on! Don’t hang around criticising.

Berkeley “George Berkeley was a famous critic of the distinction [between primary and secondary qualities]. Berkeley maintained that the ideas created by sensations are all that people can know for sure. As a result, what is perceived as real consists only of ideas in the mind. The crux of Berkeley’s argument is that once an object is stripped of all its secondary qualities, it becomes very problematic to assign any acceptable meaning to the idea that there is some object. Not that one cannot picture to themself (in their mind) that some object could exist apart from any perceiver – one clearly can do

this – but rather, that one cannot give any content to this idea. Suppose that someone says that a particular mind-independent object (meaning, an object free of all secondary qualities) exists at some particular spatio-temporal location (in Newtonian terms, in some particular place and at some particular time). Now, none of this particularly means anything if one cannot specify a place and time. In that case it’s still a purely imaginary, empty idea. This is not generally thought to be a problem because realists imagine that they can, in fact, specify a place and time for a ‘mindindependent’ object. What is overlooked is that they can only specify a place and time in place and time as we experience them. Berkeley did not doubt that one can do this, but [did doubt] that it is objective. One has simply related ideas to experiences (the idea of an object to our experiences of space and time). In this case there is no space and time, and therefore no objectivity. Space and time as we experience them are always piecemeal (even when the piece of space is big, as in some astronomical photos), it is only in imagination that they are total and all-encompassing, which is how we definitely imagine (!) ‘real’ space and time as being. This is why Berkeley argued that the materialist has merely an idea of an unperceived object: because people typically do take our imagining or picturing, as guaranteeing an objective reality to the ‘existence’ of ‘something’. In no adequate way has it been specified nor given any acceptable meaning. As such Berkeley comes to his conclusion that having a compelling image in the mind, one which connects to no specifiable thing external to us, does not guarantee an objective existence.” – Wikipedia Berkeley is absolutely right that one cannot give any Content to the idea that some object could exist apart from any perceiver. What one can give such an object is ontological, noumenal mathematical Form. This, by definition, has no sensory Content. It is purely rationalist, not empiricist. Berkeley, like all empiricists, was essentially an enemy of objective reality. He concluded that if we can’t give any sensory Content to a putative object, it can’t exist. (According to Copenhagen quantum mechanics, it can “exist”, but only as an unreal potentiality wavefunction, whatever that means.) Berkeley failed to comprehend that objects can exist mathematically (noumenally, ontologically), wholly independently of the perceptions of mind, and it is precisely this that guarantees objective reality, the reality principle, causation, determinism and rationalism. Mathematics

is the supreme subject of “hidden variables”, which scientific materialism has so ferociously rejected. Ontological mathematical reality – entirely hidden from the senses – is true reality. It is wholly intelligible (not sensible), and can only be reached by reason, not by the senses, experiments, “evidence” or the scientific method. The discipline of mathematics is all about Form, and not about Content. Form, treated by itself, is purely noumenal. It’s Content that’s phenomenal. Form is purely rationalist. It’s Content that’s empiricist. Ontologically, Content always accompanies Form, but it’s the Form part that is intelligible and allows us knowledge. The Content part doesn’t give us knowledge, but, rather, experience. To really grasp what is going on with reality, we have to separate it into two distinct parts – Form and Content – when, in actuality, these are always found together (two sides of one coin). When we consider Form purely on its own, we deal with pure, analytic, noumenal, metaphysical, ontological mathematics. This is the only true system of knowledge. When we consider Content purely on its own, we deal with pure phenomenalism, phenomenology, perspectivism, relativism, religious faith, emotionalism, Mythos, skepticism, solipsism and nihilism. Reason (Logos) is absolutely absent. Human thinking has gone catastrophically wrong because it keeps trying to mix Form and Content, rather than keeping them as separate sides of one coin. Religious faith (Content) often ridiculously tries to appeal to reason (Form) to defend itself, as we see in particular with Catholic Scholasticism. However, if reason should contradict faith or scripture, it’s reason that’s rejected. As for science, it claims to be all about the observational, empiricist, scientific method, yet slap bang in the middle of science – its presence entirely unexplained – is the ultimate rationalist subject, mathematics, which has no connection at all with empiricism and the scientific method. Paradoxically, science succeeds because of the fatal contradiction at its heart: having a rationalist engine and empiricist method. It’s the mathematical engine that puts science in touch with mathematical ontology, and it’s the scientific method that makes science correspond with the observed world. However, as we see with relativity theory, quantum mechanics and the elusive final scientific theory of everything, science breaks down into

absolute incoherence and irrationality as soon as it strays beyond the observable world. Science is the most helpless, blind creature conceivable in the noumenal, intelligible domain of mind and soul (the domain of ontological mathematical monads). The intelligentsia have to stop worshipping physics and grasp that physics is underpinned by metaphysics, which is pure ontological mathematics, and is entirely noumenal and rational.

Sentience Sentience (from Latin sentientem, “capable of feeling”) is the ability to experience sensations (“qualia”). Sentience is not consciousness. A conscious being is always sentient, but a sentient being need not be conscious. Animals are sentient but not conscious. Qualia do not need to be associated with consciousness.

Reality What is the world like when no one is looking at it? Does it simply disappear, as Berkeley says? Does it vanish from actuality into potentiality, as Copenhagen quantum mechanics says? Or does is exist as pure, real ontological mathematics? Those are your three choices. Only the last option is consistent with continuous objective reality and a reality principle (the very things with which pre-twentieth century science was concerned). The noumenal world that Kant claimed was unknowable is in fact the world of ontological mathematics and is completely knowable. In fact, it is the source of the only true knowledge: eternal, infallible and absolute. People imagine that reality is non-mathematical because they do not experience it as mathematical. They experience it as non-mathematical Content, not as mathematical Form, yet all phenomenal Content is underpinned by noumenal Form. When no one is looking at the world (when all phenomenal experience is stripped out), it’s pure math. That’s a fact. We live in the Math Lab. It’s all in the math. If you want to understand reality ... do the math!

The Atomists’ Theory of Perception Democritus claimed that eidola – thin films or effluences of atoms – are constantly shed by macroscopic bodies and carried through the air to the

eye. These films constitute images, and provide some sort of representative sample of the macroscopic body. Eidola can impact with all of the sense organs to produce sensory effects representative of the original objects. Different shapes of atoms produce different taste sensations: bitter tastes are caused by jagged atoms that tear the tongue, while smooth atoms roll over the tongue and cause sweet tastes. For Democritus, only atoms and the void exist, and the atoms themselves have no sensible qualities. They are just extended bits of “stuff”. In this view, the sensible qualities, such as sweetness or redness, that we imagine bodies have are not really in the object at all. Rather, they are subjective states of a percipient’s awareness, resulting from the interaction of eidolons of macroscopic bodies with our sense organs. So, for Democritus, sensory properties do not exist at the atomic level – no individual atom is itself sweet or red – hence these properties are essentially illusory. For Epicurus, on the other hand, these properties are real, but exist at the level of groups of atoms rather than individual atoms. These properties are therefore contingent and relational, not intrinsic ones.

***** An eidolon is an emanation from an object, which makes an impression on our senses, producing sensation (aesthesis) and thought (noesis). The eidola – thin atomic films – imprint themselves on the senses, imparting trace versions of the objects of the external world.

***** “The explanations of sensation and perception offered by Empedocles and Democritus both emphasized the importance of eidola (emanations). However, for Democritus, sensations and perceptions arise when atoms (not tiny replicas) emanate from the surfaces of objects and enter the body through one of the five sensory systems (not bodily pores) and are transmitted to the brain (not the heart). “Upon entering the brain, the emanations sent by an object cause the highly mobile fire atoms to form a copy of them. This match between eidola and atoms in the brain causes perception. Democritus stressed that eidola are not the object itself and that the match between the eidola and the

atoms in the brain may not be exact. Therefore, there may be differences between the physical object and the perception of it.” – B. Hergenhahn, An Introduction to the History of Psychology It’s a shame that more “atomists” in today’s world can’t understand the distinction between the object and the perception of the object. They are radically different things.

***** All of John Locke’s thinking regarding primary and secondary properties stems from the earlier thinking of the ancient Greek Atomists. The Atomists believed in a baffling thing called matter (atoms), and an even more baffling thing called “void” (nothing), through which atoms allegedly moved. However, if void is non-being, it doesn’t exist, so nothing can move through it. If void is being then it’s something and not nothing. In ontological mathematics, there is no void, and material atoms are replaced by mental atoms (monads).

The Atomists’ Soul Democritus believed that the soul comprised spherical, smooth fire atoms. Since spheres move so readily, these are the source of animation: they are always in motion. In this view, thoughts were generated by the movements of soul atoms. After death, the aggregation of soul atoms disintegrates, and the soul atoms go their separate ways (making any personal afterlife impossible).

Industry The Shakespeare industry relentlessly promotes the message that Shakespeare is wonderful. He’s not. He’s awful. No thinking, intuitive introvert could enjoy Shakespeare. He’s for extraverted sensing and feeling types. The same people who love Shakespeare are those who are mathematically, scientifically and philosophically illiterate. They despise science fiction and thrillers. They loathe a writer such as Dan Brown, who, in terms of his ability to make readers turn the page, is an enormously superior writer to Shakespeare.

Shakespeare has been adopted by the “establishment” and many establishment jobs depend on the continued success of the Shakespeare Myth. If the Myth were shattered, the establishment would be shattered too. Modern science is another industry, relentlessly promoting a particular message, and with the scientific establishment relying on the successful transmission of this message. Careers, power and prestige depend on it. The world isn’t driven by truth. It’s driven by careerism and career success. It’s driven by industries, by paradigms, by schemas, worldviews, religious, political and economic systems.

“Things” “Nothing seems of more importance, towards erecting a firm system of sound and real knowledge, which may be proof against the assaults of scepticism, than to lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words.” – George Berkeley Berkeley is absolutely right. No authentic knowledge is possible if we cannot fix the meanings of “thing”, “reality”, “existence”, i.e. if we cannot define ontology once and for all. Science signally fails to address ontology. Science is about measurement, not about definition. It labels what it measures, but never explains what those measured things actually are. Science has never defined space, time, mass, energy, and speed in any absolute, ontological sense. “Thing or Being is the most general name of all; it comprehends under it two kinds entirely distinct and heterogeneous, and which have nothing common but the name. viz. spirits and ideas. The former are active, indivisible substances: the latter are inert, fleeting, dependent beings, which subsist not by themselves, but are supported by, or exist in minds or spiritual substances.” – George Berkeley Reality is in fact made of monads, which are complete and consistent collections of sinusoidal waves. Each wave is a basis thought (idea). “Fleeting” ideas are contingent collections of basis waves. All ideas subsist in minds (monads).

“We comprehend our own existence by inward feeling or reflexion, and that of other spirits by reason.” – George Berkeley We understand our own existence via reason. We experience our existence by “inward feeling or reflexion”. “To me it seems that ideas, spirits, and relations are all in their respective kinds the object of human knowledge and subject of discourse...” – George Berkeley All that exists are monads, their constituent sinusoids and the mathematical interactions and relations between sinusoids. The whole system comprises ontological mathematics. There is nothing else.

Science Science refuses to engage with all philosophical questions, even though they spell deadly trouble for the current understanding of science. Therefore, how can science be considered an intellectual subject at all? It’s anti-intellectual and irrational. If it knew what it was talking about, it would be able to answer all philosophical objections. Why can’t science reconcile quantum physics and relativity? It’s exactly because this requires a metaphysical, ontological and epistemological treatment, but science rejects all of this. It has nowhere to go beyond its experiments, its scientific “method” – which is pure anti-philosophy.

A Theory? “You have a theory, that is all you have.” – Anon That’s all that anyone has, or can have. Science has theories, religion has theories, economics has theories, politics has theories, philosophy has theories. The issue is – which theory is right ... which theory is rationally impregnable? And, when you have that theory – and ontological mathematics is it – then that means that you have everything! Who on earth has anything other than a theory of existence? No one at all. Why do people such as Anon make such stupid statements? All he has is his theory, and nothing else. And his theory is a self-evident, irrational joke.

Esse is Percipi “For as to what is said of the absolute existence of unthinking things without any relation to their being perceived, that is to me perfectly unintelligible Their esse is percipi, nor is it possible they should have any existence out of the minds or thinking things which perceive them.” – George Berkeley “...for the existence of an idea consists in being perceived.” – George Berkeley Berkeley believed that we have minds that perceive things, and these things exist only as objects of perception and otherwise have no existence. There are no “things” per se. Rather, there are “ideas of things”. When the “idea of the thing” is not being thought/perceived then there is no thing. The moon doesn’t exist; only the idea of the moon exists. When we are not thinking of the idea of the moon then there is no moon. Our perceptions define reality. This is more or less the position adopted by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. There are no “things” as such. There are only things that exist at the point of perception/ observation/ measurement. When the things are not being perceived, observed or measured then they are not actual things but merely potential things. They “exist” not as actual objects but as potentiality matrices (probability wavefunctions) that define every way in which they are capable of being perceived, observed, or measured. A perception, observation or measurement plucks one of the possibilities from the potentiality domain and makes it concrete in the actuality domain. Yet, as soon as the perception, observation or measurement is completed, the actual thing returns to its former fuzzy state in the twilight zone of potentiality. It can’t be stressed enough that this empiricist view formally rejects a reality principle and objective reality. Things have no continuous actual existence. Rather, they have episodic actual existence, meaning that they mostly exist as mere potentiality awaiting actualisation (via perception, observation or measurement). This is self-evidently a philosophical claim that has nothing whatsoever to do with science, and, indeed, fundamentally contradicts the traditional stance of science that it addresses objective reality.

What does “evidence” mean in a doctrine that claims that things don’t actually exist in an objective sense, but are, in effect, mental precursors defined by abstract mathematical wavefunctions, which are converted into the actual contents of our minds at the point of perception, observation or measurement? Philosophically, science is no longer a strict materialist ideology but is much closer to an idealist one. Of course, it’s too stupid to realise this or admit this. Modern science is not scientific materialism but, rather, scientific empiricism, and is remarkably like Bishop Berkeley’s philosophy, but with a mathematical wavefunction attached. Where Berkeley denied that things exist when they are not being perceived, modern science says that they do exist, but in a very odd way – as abstract mathematical potentiality wavefunctions in an unreal domain of pre-existence, an ontological limbo. What ontological mathematics – a rationalist system – does is to abolish all of this empiricist nonsense and restore the reality principle and objective reality once and for all. Objective reality is consistent only with an absolute, eternal, mathematical actuality. It isn’t consistent with a system of potential existence versus real existence (Copenhagen quantum mechanics) or with relativistic existence (Einstein). Modern science is wholly at odds with the reality principle, hence is wholly ontologically false.

***** What are “unthinking things” to which Berkeley refers? They are “sensible things” = “ideas” and they are perceived or thought by perceiving, thinking things = minds/souls. For Berkeley, all that exists are: 1) thinking things, and 2) things that are thought (unthinking things). The being of sensible, perceivable things consists in their being perceived. When this is not happening then they have no being (they don’t exist). In quantum mechanics, when things are not being observed, they are claimed to vanish from actuality and become merely potential things, described by unreal, abstract mathematical wavefunctions. The implication of Berkeley’s worldview is that “God” created us simply by thinking us into existence, by having the idea of us. He kept us in existence by constantly thinking of us, by constantly perceiving us.

We are thoughts (ideas) in God’s mind, and we ourselves have thoughts (ideas) in our minds. We are thoughts within thoughts, ideas within ideas, so to speak. We are autonomous thoughts within God’s Mind, thinking agents that can have our own thoughts. For Berkeley, minds = “spirits”, “souls”, “wills” and “agents”. God perceives each mind, and thus ensures its continued existence, and also perceives “the world”, thus ensuring its objective existence. If God were removed from this philosophy, the spirits’ existence would not then depend on their being perceived by God. Spirits would be unperceivable. Only their ideas would be perceivable, and these ideas would not exist when not being perceived. “[T]he words will, soul, spirit, do not stand for different ideas, or in truth, for any idea at all, but for something which is very different from ideas, and which being an agent cannot be like unto, or represented by, any idea whatsoever.” – Bishop Berkeley There are logical tensions in Berkeley’s system. If God once existed all alone, with only his own ideas for company, why shouldn’t we conclude that he created us as ideas too, rather than as something other than ideas? How can souls be anything other than divine ideas too? If they are not ideas then they are things that God created “in his own image”, i.e. things capable of having their own ideas, while not themselves being ideas. In that case, souls would themselves be Gods. Why should they be inferior to God in any way, except as a matter of degree rather than kind? But how can an eternal God create temporal, more limited versions of himself? That’s a category error. For anything to be truly like an eternal thing, it must in fact itself be eternal, in which case nothing could have created it. Moreover, what would God make souls out of, if not from himself, from his own divine substance, which would make all of us directly part of God? If God can annihilate souls then they are not genuine autonomous agents. If God cannot annihilate souls they are necessary, not contingent, but, in that case, God could not have created them (since all created things are contingent things). In the absence of God, Berkeley’s scheme reduces to: 1) The esse of spirits is not percipi. 2) The esse of ideas is percipi.

Perceivers and their perceptions are all that exist. Perceivers (souls) permanently exist; their perceptions exist only while they are being perceived and otherwise they do not exist. There is no objective, material world that exists independently of our perceptions. Minds are causes. Ideas are effects. Causes exist forever because they themselves are uncaused. Causes are necessary. Effects are contingent. They are entirely dependent on causes. When the cause is removed, the effect is automatically removed too. Could God – the ultimate cause in Abrahamism – annihilate us by not perceiving us? We are all his effects, after all. We are all contingent in the Abrahamic worldview. In Illuminism, on the other hand, we are eternal causes and that makes us as good as God. We are simply Gods who have not yet optimised ourselves, but we surely will thanks to the cosmic dialectic. Excluding God, the fundamental items of Berkeley’s ontology are minds. Spirits alone are substances. The dependent things of Berkeley’s philosophy are ideas, things perceived. Ideas are not substances and have no independent reality. The independent things are the perceivers, the thinkers. Berkeley is a monist. His is a monism of minds. “It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men, that houses, mountains, rivers, and in a word all sensible objects, have an existence, natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the understanding.” – George Berkeley Well, is it “strange” to think that things exist independently of our perception? Is it “strange” to accept objective reality? “...what do we perceive besides our own ideas or sensations?” – George Berkeley But what do these have to do with objective reality? Why should existence depend on our perception of it?

***** Berkeley didn’t in fact say esse est principi (as is traditionally quoted), but esse IS principi. That is, he didn’t say, “To be is to be perceived.” Instead, he argued that the nature of ideas, their very essence, is to be perceived; they can’t have any other kind of existence. If they aren’t being perceived,

they have no existence. It’s not a question of things existing while being perceived. Rather, their essence consists of being perceived. It’s incoherent to even raise the possibility that they could exist while not being perceived. It would be a total contradiction in terms, a category error.

***** We don’t perceive our minds; we perceive only our ideas (the contents of minds). Our minds are forms, and ideas are their contents. The universe comprises nothing but perceivers and their perceptions. Esse est Percipi: To exist is to be perceived. Esse Is Percipi: The essence of ideas is to be perceived.

To Be or Not To Be “Berkeley holds that there are no such mind-independent things, that, in the famous phrase, esse est percipi (aut percipere) – to be is to be perceived (or to perceive).” – Lisa Downing Plainly, Berkeley would have used the full Latin phrase esse est percipi if that’s what he had intended. Therefore, he must have intended something slightly different. What he clearly states is, “For as to what is said of the absolute existence of unthinking things without any relation to their being perceived, that seems perfectly unintelligible. Their ESSE is PERCIPI, nor is it possible they should have any existence out of the minds or thinking things which perceive them.” That is, he is not making the general and ambiguous statement “to be is to be perceived”. Minds, for example, are unperceived in Berkeley’s system, yet exist, and God is unperceived, yet exists (which is why the qualifier aut percipere has to be added, although that’s not exactly what Berkeley said). The statement, by itself, does not in fact make any sense without invoking unperceived things capable of perceiving. We perceive ideas; we do not perceive what perceives the ideas! Berkeley in fact accurately referred to “unthinking things” – i.e. ideas rather than the minds that think ideas – as the things whose essence consists of being perceived. They have no being otherwise.

Others summed up his philosophy with the full Latin phrase, but slightly distorted his meaning in the process. For example, we could technically regard matter as a thing that exists when perceived, and otherwise does not formally exist, and this is more or less what the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics claims; actual matter being replaced by potential matter defined by an abstract wavefunction describing all of its possible states. Berkeley emphatically rejects any notion of matter existing in its own right, actual or potential. What he asserts is that only the idea of matter can ever exist (i.e. matter is inherently mental), and it exists only while it is being perceived and otherwise it does not exist. “Hence, as it is impossible for me to see or feel anything without an actual sensation of that thing, so is it impossible for me to conceive in my thoughts any sensible thing or object distinct from the sensation or perception of it.” – George Berkeley Yes, but that does not mean it can have no objective existence when you are not perceiving it. It just means that you cannot conceive of it, which is an entirely different argument. The average person cannot conceive of numbers existing ontologically. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not they actually do. Human imagination is not the basis of ontology. “...all the choir of heaven and furniture of the earth, in a word all those bodies which compose the mighty frame of the world, have not any subsistence without a mind – that their being is to be perceived or known; that consequently so long as they are not actually perceived by me, or do not exist in my mind or that of any other created spirit, they must either have no existence at all, or else subsist in the mind of some Eternal Spirit...” – George Berkeley Or else in an eternal mathematical Singularity, a Cosmic Mind. It’s true that the world is either made of matter or of mind. In a mental world, there can be no “matter” that exists independently of mind, and in a material world there can be no “mind” that exists independently of matter. If we live in a mental world, as we do, all material things are contained within minds. The “physical” universe is contained within a Universal Mind. According to Berkeley, it was contained within the Mind of God.

“...it is evident there is not any other Substance than SPIRIT, or that which perceives.” – George Berkeley There is indeed no such thing as matter in its own right.

Berkeley’s Philosophy “But, say you, though the ideas themselves do not exist without the mind, yet there may be things like them, whereof they are copies or resemblances, which things exist without the mind in an unthinking substance. I answer, an idea can be like nothing but an idea; a colour or figure can be like nothing but another colour or figure. If we look but never so little into our own thoughts, we shall find it impossible for us to conceive a likeness except only between our ideas. Again, I ask whether those supposed originals or external things, of which our ideas are the pictures or representations, be themselves perceivable or no? If they are, then they are ideas and we have gained our point; but if you say they are not, I appeal to anyone whether it be sense to assert a colour is like something which is invisible; hard or soft, like something which is intangible; and so of the rest.” – George Berkeley As Berkeley says, it’s impossible for an idea of matter to bear any resemblance whatsoever to something called “matter” that has no connection with mind. It’s a category error to imagine any correspondence or similarity. There is no Cartesian/Lockean mind-matter dualism. “Some there are who make a distinction betwixt primary and secondary qualities. By the former they mean extension, figure, motion, rest, solidity, impenetrability, and number; by the latter they denote all other sensible qualities, as colours, sounds, tastes, and so forth. The ideas we have of these last they acknowledge not to be the resemblances of anything existing without the mind, or unperceived, but they will have our ideas of the primary qualities to be patterns or images of things which exist without the mind, in an unthinking substance which they call matter. By Matter, therefore, we are to understand an inert, senseless substance, in which extension, figure and motion do actually subsist. But it is evident, from what we have already shewn, that extension, figure, and motion are only ideas existing in the Mind, and that an idea can be like nothing but another

idea, and that consequently neither they nor their archetypes can exist in an unperceiving substance. Hence, it is plain that the very notion of what is called Matter or corporeal substance involves a contradiction in it.” – George Berkeley Berkeley is absolutely right. The whole notion of “matter” is incoherent and contradictory. It’s astounding that this wholly fallacious notion has survived and prospered for so long, and all because of “common sense”, one of the stupidest things imaginable. You should shudder if anyone ever invokes “common sense” in an argument with you. “They who assert that figure, motion, and the rest of the primary or original qualities do exist without the mind, in unthinking substances, do at the same time acknowledge that colours, sounds, heat, cold, and suchlike secondary qualities, do not – which they tell us are sensations existing in the mind alone, that depend on and are occasioned by the different size, texture, and motion of the minute particles of matter. This they take for an undoubted truth, which they can demonstrate beyond all exception. Now, if it be certain that those original qualities are inseparably united with the other sensible qualities, and not, even in thought, capable of being abstracted from them, it plainly follows that they exist only in the mind. But I desire anyone to reflect and try whether he can, by any abstraction of thought, conceive the extension and motion of a body without all other sensible qualities. For my own part, I see evidently that it is not in my power to frame an idea of a body extended and moving, but I must withal give it some colour or other sensible quality which is acknowledged to exist only in the mind In short, extension, figure, and motion, abstracted from all other qualities, are inconceivable. Where therefore the other sensible qualities are, there must these be also, to wit, in the mind and nowhere else.” – George Berkeley Berkeley is indisputably correct in every context bar one. The exception is the mathematical universe. We can and do deal with mathematics all of the time in which not a single sensible quality is attributed to mathematics. In fact, mathematics is exactly what you get if you strip all sensible notions from the fundamental objects of existence. Mathematics is entirely intelligible. When Plato divided the universe into two domains – of the intelligible and the sensible – what he was really doing (although he didn’t know it) was saying that true, unperceived reality

is mathematical while perceived reality is mathematics with sensory content added, thus disguising its true nature. Mathematics in itself is noumenal; mathematics perceived in sensory terms is phenomenal and is deemed “natural” or “scientific” rather than mathematical. Mathematics on its own is Form, but, ontologically, it’s always accompanied by Content, which obscures the Form. Whenever mathematical minds (monads) perceive the world, they don’t perceive Form but Content. Only when they use reason alone, do minds encounter pure math. Understanding ultimate reality is, when it comes down to it, incredibly easy. You are required to do only one thing: conceive of the world without any sensory properties. When you do so, you realise that what remains is pure, ontological mathematics. Humanity has invented so many false descriptions of reality because, like Berkeley, it has been unable to comprehend reality shorn of all sensory, empirical qualities. It has always looked at reality in terms of Content, and never in terms of the underlying Forms. It has always looked at the world sensibly rather than intelligibly (in terms of common sense rather than uncommon intelligence). It has always approached the world in empiricist rather than rationalist terms. Rationalism is what you get when you put sensory “evidence” to one side and think of reality purely in terms of what can be rationally, eternally, necessarily, infallibly proven by the power of reason alone. What you arrive at is of course ontological mathematics, the ultimate noumenal subject from which all empirical phenomena are in fact derived as associated Content. Ontological mathematics is the unseen and unseeable framework of existence, upon which the sensory world (the one conceived by Berkeley) hangs. “Again, great and small, swift and slow, are allowed to exist nowhere without the mind, being entirely relative, and changing as the frame or position of the organs of sense varies. The extension therefore which exists without the mind is neither great nor small, the motion neither swift nor slow, that is, they are nothing at all. But, say you, they are extension in general, and motion in general thus we see how much the tenet of extended moveable substances existing without the mind depends on that strange doctrine of abstract ideas. And here I cannot but remark how nearly the vague and indeterminate description of Matter or corporeal substance, which the modern philosophers are run into by their on by principles, resembles that antiquated and so much ridiculed notion of materia prima, to

be met with in Aristotle and his followers. Without extension solidity cannot be conceived; since therefore it has been shewn that extension exists not in an unthinking substance, the same must also be true of solidity.” – George Berkeley Berkeley is absolutely right that “matter” as talked about by materialists and scientific materialists is really none other than the formless prime matter of the ancient Greeks, and mind is what imposes form on it (as Kant was later to argue). Yet why bother with prime matter at all? If it has no properties other than to be the “clay” to which form gives shape, organisation and function, then it doesn’t actually exist at all. It’s pure potentiality, and potentiality is non-being (non-actuality). All that’s actually required is something that inherently has both form and content, and the only thing that qualifies is ontological mathematics. “In short, let anyone consider those arguments which are thought manifestly to prove that colours and tastes exist only in the mind, and he shall find they may with equal force be brought to prove the same thing of extension, figure, and motion – though it must be confessed this method of arguing does not so much prove that there is no extension or colour in an outward object, as that we do not know by sense which is the true extension or colour of the object. But the arguments foregoing plainly shew it to be impossible that any colour or extension at all, or other sensible quality whatsoever, should exist in an unthinking subject without the mind, or in truth, that there should be any such thing as an outward object.” – George Berkeley “If we inquire into what the most accurate philosophers declare themselves to mean by material substance, we shall find them acknowledge they have no other meaning annexed to those sounds but the idea of being in general, together with the relative notion of its supporting accidents. The general idea of Being appeareth to me the most abstract and incomprehensible of all other; and as for its supporting accidents, thus, as we have just now observed, cannot be understood in the common sense of those words; it must therefore be taken in some other sense, but what that is they do not explain. So that when I consider the two parts or branches which make the signification of the words material substance, I am convinced there is no distinct meaning annexed to them. But why should we trouble ourselves any farther, in discussing this material substratum or ‘support’ of figure,

and motion, and other sensible qualities? Does it not suppose they have an existence without the mind? And is not this a direct repugnancy, and altogether inconceivable?” – George Berkeley No materialist has ever answered Berkeley’s criticisms. Materialists simply don’t deal in ontology. They never state exactly what they mean by “matter”. Kant ended up saying that matter was an unknowable noumenon onto which our minds projected properties in order to create the phenomenal world. Why does science refuse to engage with philosophy? Why does science refuse to address the countless issues generated by philosophy that radically undermine the entire scientific paradigm? Science will never be a credible subject – or anything more than philosophy and mathematics for dummies – until it can actually answer the arguments of the likes of Berkeley (who denied the existence of matter), Hume (who denied the existence of causation), and Kant (who asserted the existence of an unseen and unseeable noumenal domain). “But, though it were possible that solid, figured, moveable substances may exist without the mind, corresponding to the ideas we have of bodies, yet how is it possible for us to know this? Either we must know it by Sense or by Reason. As for our senses, by them we have the knowledge only of our sensations, ideas, or those things that are immediately perceived by sense, call them what you will: but they do not inform us that things exist without the mind, or unperceived, like to those which are perceived. This the Materialists themselves acknowledge. It remains therefore that if we have any knowledge at all of external things, it must be by Reason inferring their existence from what is immediately perceived by sense. But what reason can induce us to believe the existence of bodies without the mind, from what we perceive, since the very patrons of Matter themselves do not pretend there is any necessary connection betwixt them and our ideas? I say it is granted on all hands – and what appears in dreams, frenzies, and the like, puts it beyond dispute – that it is possible we might be affected with all the ideas we have now, though there were no bodies existing without resembling them. Hence, it is evident the supposition of external bodies is not necessary for the producing our ideas; since it is granted they are produced sometimes, and might possibly be produced always in the same order we see them in at present, without their concurrence.” – George Berkeley

“But, though we might possibly have all our sensations without them, yet perhaps it may be thought easier to conceive and explain the manner of their production, by supposing external bodies in their likeness rather than otherwise; and so it might be at least probable there are such things as bodies that excite their ideas in our minds. But neither can this be said; for, though we give the materialists their external bodies, they by their own confession are never the nearer knowing how our ideas are produced; since they own themselves unable to comprehend in what manner body can act upon spirit, or how it is possible it should imprint any idea in the mind. Hence it is evident the production of ideas or sensations in our minds can be no reason why we should suppose Matter or corporeal substances, since that is acknowledged to remain equally inexplicable with or without this supposition. If therefore it were possible for bodies to exist without the mind, yet to hold they do so must needs be a very precarious opinion; since it is to suppose, without any reason at all, that God has created innumerable beings that are entirely useless, and serve to no manner of purpose.” – George Berkeley No materialist has ever explained how matter and mind interact, how matter produces mind, what mind actually is in materialist terms. Moreover, no materialist ever will explain mind. It’s a category error to imagine that this is possible. Neuroscientists are convinced that the more we probe the brain, the closer we will get to an explanation of mind. But this will simply never happen since mind is a completely different category of existence from physical matter and can never be explained in terms of it. “In short, if there were external bodies, it is impossible we should ever come to know it; and if there were not, we might have the very same reasons to think there were that we have now. Suppose – what no one can deny possible – an intelligence without the help of external bodies, to be affected with the same train of sensations or ideas that you are, imprinted in the same order and with like vividness in his mind. I ask whether that intelligence hath not all the reason to believe the existence of corporeal substances, represented by his ideas, and exciting them in his mind, that you can possibly have for believing the same thing? Of this there can be no question – which one consideration were enough to make any reasonable person suspect the strength of whatever arguments he may think himself to have, for the existence of bodies without the mind.” – George Berkeley

The materialist hypothesis is utterly redundant. It doesn’t add anything. All we can ever know are mental things, so why should we ever refer to “matter”, a non-mental thing, for the existence of which we have zero evidence or proof? What we certainly need to do is explain what ideas are made of, and what conveys them. It’s not matter that does this. It’s a perfect information carrier, and that carrier is pure mathematics: ontological mathematics. It’s reason, not the senses, that reveals the existence of mathematics, and, indeed, mathematics is reason. It’s how reason exists ontologically. “But, say you, surely there is nothing easier than for me to imagine trees, for instance, in a park, or books existing in a closet, and nobody by to perceive them. I answer, you may so, there is no difficulty in it; but what is all this, I beseech you, more than framing in your mind certain ideas which you call books and trees, and at the same time omitting to frame the idea of any one that may perceive them? But do not you yourself perceive or think of them all the while? This therefore is nothing to the purpose it only shews you have the power of imagining or forming ideas in your mind; but it does not shew that you can conceive it possible the objects of your thought may exist without the mind. To make out this, it is necessary that you conceive them existing unconceived or unthought of, which is a manifest repugnancy. When we do our utmost to conceive the existence of external bodies, we are all the while only contemplating our own ideas. But the mind, taking no notice of itself, is deluded to think it can and does conceive bodies existing unthought of or without the mind, though at the same time they are apprehended by or exist in itself. A little attention will discover to any one the truth and evidence of what is here said, and make it unnecessary to insist on any other proofs against the existence of material substance.” – George Berkeley It’s absolutely the case that we cannot conceive of a “tree” existing unconceived. An unconceived tree is a noumenal tree with no sensory properties at all. The only properties it has are rational properties, and only mathematical reason, independent of sensory experience, can tell us about these properties. Our senses tell us about the observable world, but never about the unobservable world. Our reason alone tells us about the unobservable world, i.e. the world of things in themselves, before we add our idea of them, our representation of them.

Kant thought that things in themselves were unknowable. Schopenhauer, a disciple of Kant, thought that there was only one noumenon: a unitary Cosmic Will to Exist. In fact, the true noumenon is ontological reason = ontological mathematics = an immaterial, dimensionless Singularity, comprising countless individual, autonomous monads, each a source of free will and teleology. When you imagine anything, you already imagine it as a sensory thing because that’s exactly how you first encountered it. Now consider something you haven’t encountered – the lkigf gt Geeert, for example. Well, what sensory qualities does this thing have? You have absolutely no idea since you don’t know what it is, so now you have to ask yourself what properties does pure being (or becoming) have when no sensory information is applied to it? Once you have established this, you also know what the Amazon jungle, the moon, or anything else, is like in itself. Everything in itself is just a noumenal mathematical function: an information source. Minds are simply information interpreters, and they interpret it experientially: in terms of the senses, feelings, desires and will. “It is very obvious, upon the least inquiry into our own thoughts, to know whether it be possible for us to understand what is meant by the absolute existence of sensible objects in themselves, or without the mind. To me it is evident those words mark out either a direct contradiction, or else nothing at all. And to convince others of this, I know no readier or fairer way than to entreat they would calmly attend to their own thoughts; and if by this attention the emptiness or repugnancy of those expressions does appear, surely nothing more is requisite for their conviction. It is on this therefore that I insist, to wit, that the absolute existence of unthinking things are words without a meaning, or which include a contradiction. This is what I repeat and inculcate, and earnestly recommend to the attentive thoughts of the reader.” – George Berkeley “All our ideas, sensations, notions, or the things which we perceive, by whatsoever names they may be distinguished, are visibly inactive – there is nothing of Power or Agency included in them, so that one idea or object of thought cannot produce or make any alteration in another.” – George Berkeley “To be satisfied of the truth of this, there is nothing else requisite but a bare observation of our ideas. For, since they and every part of them exist only in

the mind, it follows that there is nothing in them but what is perceived; but whoever shall attend to his ideas, whether of sense or reflection, will not perceive in them any power or activity; there is, therefore, no such thing contained in them.” – George Berkeley Berkeley signally fails to address causation, and the principle of sufficient reason. He fails to discuss form and content. He refuses to countenance non-sensory noumena. Berkeley rightly writes off physical matter as an existent, but he has no right to write off non-physical, noumenal, ontological mathematics. All minds and their ideas in fact come from this fundamental, existential mathematics. Berkeley never asks what a mind is made of and what ideas are made of. He never asks what the source of causation and motion is. If he did, he would discover that the only answer is ontological mathematics. “A little attention will discover to us that the very being of an idea implies passiveness and inertness in it, insomuch that it is impossible for an idea to do anything, or, strictly speaking, to be the cause of anything neither can it be the resemblance or pattern of any active being... Whence it plainly follows that extension, figure, and motion cannot be the cause of our sensations. To say, therefore, that these are the effects of powers resulting from the configuration, number, motion, and size of corpuscles, must certainly be false.” – George Berkeley “We perceive a continual succession of ideas, some are anew excited, others are changed or totally disappear. There is therefore some Cause of these ideas, whereon they depend, and which produces and changes them. That this cause cannot be any quality, or idea, or combination of ideas is clear from the preceding section. It must therefore be a substance; but it has been shewn that there is no corporeal or material substance: it remains therefore that the cause of ideas is an incorporeal active substance or Spirit.” – George Berkeley “A Spirit is one simple, undivided, active being – as it perceives ideas it is called the Understanding, and as it produces or otherwise operates about them it is called the Will. Hence there can be no idea formed of a soul or spirit; for, all ideas whatever, being passive and inert, cannot represent unto us, by way of image or likeness, that which acts. A little attention will make it plain to any one that to have an idea which shall be like that active

principle of motion and change of ideas is absolutely impossible. Such is the nature of Spirit, or that which acts; that it cannot be of itself perceived, but only by the effects which it produceth. If any man shall doubt of the truth of what is here delivered, let him but reflect and try if we can frame the idea of any Power or Active Being; and whether he has ideas of two principal powers, marked by the names Will and Understanding, distinct from each other, as well as from a third idea of Substance or Being in general, with a relative notion of its supporting or being the subject of the aforesaid powers which is signified by the name Soul or Spirit. This is what some hold; but, so far as I can see, the words will, soul, spirit, do not stand for different ideas, or, in truth, for any idea at all, but for something which is very different from ideas, and which, being an Agent, cannot be like unto, or represented by, any idea whatsoever. [Though it must be owned at the same time that we have some notion of soul, spirit, and the operations of the mind; such as willing, loving, hating – inasmuch as we know or understand the meaning of these words].” – George Berkeley Content, being passive and caused, cannot represent that which is active and causes. Causation is ontological mathematics, operating by way of autonomous monads. “But, whatever power I may have over my own thoughts, I find the ideas actually perceived by Sense have not a like dependence on my will, when in broad daylight I open my eyes, it is not in my power to choose whether I shall see or no, or to determine what particular objects shall present themselves to my view; and so likewise as to the hearing and other senses, the ideas imprinted on them are not creatures of my will. There is therefore some other Will or Spirit that produces them.” – George Berkeley For Berkeley, God creates the world. For Illuminism, it’s ontological mathematics, expressed through monads, that does so. “The ideas of Sense are more strong, lively, and distinct than those of the Imagination; they have likewise a steadiness, order, and coherence, and are not excited at random, as those Which are the effects of human wills often are, but in a regular train or series – the admirable connection whereof sufficiently testifies the wisdom and benevolence of its Author Now the set rules or established methods wherein the Mind we depend on excites in us the ideas of sense, are called the laws of nature; and these we learn by

experience, which teaches us that such and such ideas are attended with such and such other ideas, in the ordinary course of things.” – George Berkeley If there is no matter, it means that we eat ideas, we breathe ideas. It means that death is merely an idea. It means that walls are ideas. Gravity is an idea. Like Neo in The Matrix, we can change all of these ideas and thus control reality. “And yet this consistent uniform working, which so evidently displays the goodness and wisdom of that Governing Spirit whose will constitutes the laws of nature, is so far from leading our thoughts to him, that it rather sends them wandering after second causes.” – George Berkeley “The ideas imprinted on the Senses by the Author of nature are called real things. and those excited in the Imagination being less regular, vivid, and constant, are more properly termed ideas, or images of things, which they copy and represent. But then our sensations, be they never so vivid and distinct, are nevertheless ideas, that is, they exist in the mind, or are perceived by it, as truly as the ideas of its own framing. The ideas of Sense are allowed to have more reality in them, that is, to be more strong, ordered, and coherent that the creatures of the mind; but this is no argument that they exist without the mind. They are also less dependent on the spirit, or thinking substance which perceives them, in that they are excited by the will of another and more powerful Spirit; yet still they are ideas, and certainly no idea, whether faint or strong, can exist otherwise than in a mind perceiving it.” – George Berkeley “...it will he objected that by the foregoing principles all that is real and substantial in nature is banished out of the world, and instead thereof a chimerical scheme of ideas takes place. All things that exist only in the mind, that is, they are merely notional. What therefore becomes of the sun, moon, and stars? What must we think of houses, rivers, mountains, trees, stones; nay, even of our own bodies? Are all these but so many chimeras and illusions on the fancy? To all which, and whatever else of the same sort may be objected, I answer, that by the principles premised we are not deprived of any one thing in nature. Whatever we see, feel, hear, or any wise conceive or understand, remains as secure as ever, and is as real as

ever. There is a rerum natura and the distinction between realities and chimeras retains its full force.” – George Berkeley Ironically, we can now ask, “What therefore becomes of the sun, moon, and stars?” of scientific materialism, seen through the prism of Copenhagen quantum mechanics and its indeterministic, probabilistic, potentiality interpretation of “reality”. Materialists love to use “common sense” to rubbish Berkeley’s philosophy. Yet where is common sense now in scientific materialism? Scientific materialism is now scarcely distinguishable from Berkeleyan idealism. Where Berkeley invoked “God” to support objective reality, the scientific materialists abolished both God and objective reality and said that what underlies perceived reality (actuality) is unperceived unreality (potentiality), and this latter is to be described using unreal, abstract mathematics. In other words, science posits an abstract mathematical potentiality matrix as the ground of reality, from which actual events are indeterministically plucked. Illuminism, on the other hand, posits a real, concrete (ontological) mathematical Singularity, made of real monads, as the actual, objective basis of reality. Illuminism fully respects the reality principle and objective reality, and does not invoke any bizarre, unreal “potentiality” wavefunction. All wavefunctions are real and deterministic. Causation is the basis of ontological mathematics, while scientific materialism is acausal and randomist. “I do not argue against the existence of any one thing that we can apprehend either by sense or reflection. That the things I see with my eyes and touch with my hands do exist, really exist, I make not the least question. The only thing whose existence we deny is that which Philosophers call Matter or corporeal substance. And in doing of this there is no damage done to the rest of mankind, who, I dare say, will never miss it. The Atheist indeed will want the colour of an empty name to support his impiety; and the Philosophers may possibly find they have lost a great handle for trifling and disputation.” – George Berkeley There are four ways to understand reality: 1) classical science claims that a mysterious thing called “matter” underlies reality, but we never encounter this alleged non-mental basis of both the world and the mind in any other way than mentally, hence why would any rational person bother referring to something for which there is zero evidence or proof? Only childish, simplistic, irrational “common sense” takes the redundant concept of matter

seriously. 2) Even modern scientific materialism rejects the common sense idea of matter. Traditional matter has been replaced by something akin to ancient Greek “prime matter” (potential being rather than actual being, waiting to be actualised by something else, namely observers). Modern scientists posit a weird, unreal mathematical world that describes potentialities and probabilities which then indeterministically collapse into “reality” via observers and observations. If science clearly stated what its claims about reality actually are, rather than hiding behind baffling, impenetrable mathematical obscurantism, the whole world would laugh at it and instantly reject it. Science sustains its worldview because virtually no one, least of all scientists themselves, understands how ridiculous it is. 3) Abrahamists posit “God” as the basis of reality, and Eastern religion some kind of “Divine Oneness”. This is all Mythos mumbo jumbo and hocus pocus, not worthy of serious consideration. 4) Finally, Illuminism posits ontological mathematics as the arche, the ground of existence. Well, you have to choose one of these. So, which will it be? Only the final choice is rational. “But after all, say you, it sounds very harsh to say we eat and drink ideas, and are clothed with ideas I acknowledge it does so – the word idea not being used in common discourse to signify the several combinations of sensible qualities which are called things; and it is certain that any expression which varies from the familiar use of language will seem harsh and ridiculous. But this doth not concern the truth of the proposition, which in other words is no more than to say, we are fed and clothed with those things which we perceive immediately by our senses. The hardness or softness, the colour, taste, warmth, figure, or suchlike qualities, which, combined together, constitute the several sorts of victuals and apparel, have been shewn to exist only in the mind that perceives them; and this is all that is meant by calling them ideas; which word, if it was as ordinarily used as thing, would sound no harsher nor more ridiculous than it. I am not for disputing about the propriety, but the truth of the expression. If therefore you agree with me that we eat and drink and are clad with the immediate objects of sense, which cannot exist unperceived or without the mind, I shall readily grant it is more proper or conformable to custom that they should be called things rather than ideas.” – George Berkeley

In fact, we eat and drink mathematical functions, are clothed in mathematical functions, and we ourselves are mathematical functions. “Oxygen” is a mathematical function, and our mathematical bodies are designed to use “oxygen”. If this mathematical function is removed (by putting us in an airless room, for example), our bodies die, meaning that our bodily mathematical function will no longer be dynamically, interactively, self-sustaining. Our bodies, unlike our souls, are not autonomous mathematical functions. They are contingent, interactive mathematical functions, constantly responding to the environment, feeding output to that environment, and receiving input from it. They are designed to require input, and if they don’t get the right sort of input, they perish. If bodies did not need anything from their environment, they would be necessary, immutable and eternal – exactly the same as souls! Souls are mathematical functions that do not require anything external to them; bodies, on the other hand, require external input, and that’s exactly why they are doomed to perish since there will inevitably come a time when the body’s interaction with the environment becomes toxic (via heart disease, cancer, general disease, accident, terrorism, war, and so on). “If it be demanded why I make use of the word idea, and do not rather in compliance with custom call them things; I answer, I do it for two reasons – first, because the term thing, in contradistinction to idea, is generally supposed to denote somewhat existing without the mind; secondly, because thing hath a more comprehensive signification than idea, including spirit or thinking things as well as ideas. Since therefore the objects of sense exist only in the mind, and are withal thoughtless and inactive, I choose to mark them by the word idea, which implies those properties.” – George Berkeley It would indeed be far better to replace the word “thing”, implying something non-mental, with “idea”. In the case of Illuminism, an idea is something made of and conveyed by mathematical sinusoidal functions. Berkeley makes no attempt whatsoever to explain what ideas are made of and how they are conveyed, or how they move from one place to another. Just as modern science can be viewed as Berkeleyan idealism (observerdetermined), underpinned by abstract mathematical potentiality, Illuminism is Berkeleyan idealism underpinned by mathematical actuality (conveyed by eternal mathematical monads). Berkeleyan idealism cannot be “scientific” without mathematics. Scientific “materialism” contributes

unreal, potentiality mathematics to Berkeley’s philosophy, while Illuminism contributes real, ontological mathematics. Religion, like philosophy, lacks mathematics, hence is useless. “But, say what we can, someone perhaps may be apt to reply, he will still believe his senses, and never suffer any arguments, how plausible soever, to prevail over the certainty of them. Be it so; assert the evidence of sense as high as you please, we are willing to do the same. That what I see, hear, and feel doth exist, that is to say, is perceived by me, I no more doubt than I do of my own being. But I do not see how the testimony of sense can be alleged as a proof for the existence of anything which is not perceived by sense. We are not for having any man turn sceptic and disbelieve his senses; on the contrary, we give them all the stress and assurance imaginable; nor are there any principles more opposite to Scepticism than those we have laid down, as shall be hereafter clearly shewn.” – George Berkeley Berkeley is absolutely right that the testimony of sense cannot be used to prove the existence of anything non-sensory. Reason, however, is nonsensory and addresses the non-sensory world of mathematical, rational noumena. Copenhagen quantum mechanics, however, is all about the senses (observers and their observations) and makes the astounding, absurd claim that the senses indeterministically cause non-sensory reality to “collapse” into sensory reality. For Berkeley, there is no non-sensory world. If you do not perceive something then it doesn’t exist (or exists only because it is being perceived by God). In Illuminism, we perceive Content but never perceive the Form that conveys the Content. The Content is actually that which conceals the Form, but we can reach Form via our non-sensory (nonContent) reason. “...it will be objected that there is a great difference betwixt real fire for instance, and the idea of fire, betwixt dreaming or imagining oneself burnt, and actually being so: if you suspect it to be only the idea of fire which you see, do but put your hand into it and you will be convinced with a witness. This and the like may he urged in opposition to our tenets. To all which the answer is evident from what hath been already said, and I shall only add in this place, that if real fire be very different from the idea of fire, so also is the real pain that it occasions very different from the idea of the same pain; and yet nobody will pretend that real pain either is, or can possibly be, in an

unperceiving thing, or without the mind, any more than its idea.” – George Berkeley Berkeley is right once again and it’s about time that people started to think in this way and realised that the “thing” can never be independent of the “idea of the thing”. You cannot have an idea of something that you cannot conceive (either in sensory or rational terms). Mathematics (pure Form) is the sole thing that exists beyond our sensory conception, and that’s why we use our reason, which is non-sensory, to access it. Our “ideas” of mathematics belong to a different category from all of our other ideas, all of which are sensory and emotional (all sensory ideas are associated with an emotional response). Mathematical ideas are non-sensory and nonemotional. Mythos is all about the sensory and emotional; Logos, in its purest form, is all about the non-sensory and non-emotional. Logos is how we access Form, while Mythos is always stuck at the level of Content. Logos is how we transcend Mythos and reach the Logos truth. The most remarkable thing about scientists is that they use mathematics all of the time, yet they refuse point blank to accept that mathematics is ontological, that reality is literally made of mathematics. Instead, they are willing to posit that “reality” is underpinned by an unreal mathematical abstraction – a wavefunction – that specifies not what reality is, but all possible realities that could possibly be, with one of these randomly collapsing into reality whenever an observation takes place. This is literally bonkers, and all this nonsense – this absolute rejection of the reality principle – would vanish if scientists simply accepted that mathematics is real. Defining the status of mathematics is the fundamental issue, and indeed crisis, facing science. Science will never arrive at a final theory of everything until it grasps what mathematics actually is. A huge war is being fought being scientific theorists who are becoming ever more mathematically inclined, and experimental scientists who utterly reject the increasing mathematization of science. The reason for the war is simple: eventually and inevitably, mathematics parts company with the scientific method and the senses and becomes purely rationalist, analytic and a priori. If science is based on the scientific method (empiricism), it cannot truly embrace mathematics (rationalism). If science is based on mathematics then it has no need to look for experimental evidence for its theories, which

would make science metaphysical rather than physical, exactly as Leibniz always argued it should be. Experimentalists are almost the definition of common sense idiocy. Experimentalists believe that they are dealing with “things”, but they’re not. As ever, they are dealing with the ideas of things. What is an “electron”? Is it a thing that exists in its own right as an ontological reality? Or is it a purely mathematical function to which we attach the label “electron”? Imagine that we referred to an electron as an f1 function, a proton as an f2 function, a neutron as an f3 function, and so on for all subatomic particles. By doing so, it would make no difference at all to “reality”, but it would suddenly reveal reality to be entirely mathematical (which it is). It’s by the simple process of labelling mathematical functions as “things”, by giving them “thing-names”, that we convert mathematics into the absurdity of scientific materialism. There are no atoms, no subatomic particles and no molecules. These are just labels attached to mathematical functions. Bodies, food, air, and so on, are not made of atoms but of mathematics. Why should it be considered bizarre for food to be an idea (made of mathematical sinusoids) and not bizarre for food to be made of “atoms” (which are nothing but mathematical functions)? The soul is certainly not a material thing, but it’s still absolutely mathematical, and the reason it can interact with bodies is precisely because both are mathematical. Materialists reject the soul because they cannot attach a sensory, material label to it. They cannot conceive of something immaterial and dimensionless. Yet, as soon as you understand that reality is made of mathematics, of dimensionless Fourier frequency functions and dimensional Fourier spacetime functions, then not only is the soul not weird and fantastical but compulsory, the most real thing you could ever imagine. The soul is incomprehensible in terms of materialism, yet indispensable to ontological mathematics. As soon as you leave materialism behind and upgrade to ontological mathematics, you enter a wholly new reality of frequency and spacetime rather than just spacetime. The failure of science to understand quantum mechanics stems from a grotesque, ideological rejection of a dimensionless, immaterial frequency domain of mind/soul and an insistence on reality being based exclusively on a dimensional, material spacetime domain – a domain of body and no soul.

In mathematical terms, science is the catastrophic inability to understand the meaning and ontology of Fourier mathematics, with its two domains of frequency and spacetime (mind and matter, soul and body, eternity and temporality, the dimensionless and dimensional). Scientists refuse to accept a dimensionless domain of frequency because it contradicts the scientific dogmatism of matter, dimensionality, the observable, and things susceptible to the scientific method. The irony is that photons (light) are immaterial and dimensionless. The Big Bang was immaterial and dimensionless (the Big Bang resulted from a Fourier frequency domain, giving rise, via a symmetry-breaking event, to a Fourier spacetime domain). Black hole singularities are immaterial and dimensionless. It’s spectacularly inconsistent and irrational that science rejects minds/souls that are immaterial and dimensionless, yet is willing to talk of black hole, photonic and Big Bang singularities. Another amazing fact is that no one in science ever talks about these issues, and, moreover, the non-scientific world never questions scientists about these things, which is why scientists are allowed to get away with spouting bullshit that the moronic masses suck up and even believe to be “real”. Science is just a sensory Mythos, a grotesque sensory falsification and misinterpretation of mathematics. The other true scandal is the staggering failure of the professional mathematical community to accept the ontology of mathematics, even though Pythagoras, the first true mathematician, insisted right from the beginning that reality was mathematical. What went wrong with the mathematical imagination and intuition? Calamitously, mathematics became the servant of science and remains to this day conceived in terms compatible with the empiricist, materialist ideology of science. The precise reverse should be the case. Science must be the servant of mathematics, and mathematics must be conceived in rationalist, idealist terms. When that is done – and it will constitute the ultimate paradigm shift – humanity will at last start to understand reality and embark on the road to divinity. Mathematics is the true basis of Gnosticism, of gnosis (enlightenment). Enlightenment has no connection whatsoever with sitting cross-legged under a tree, meditating, chanting “om” and pondering Zen paradoxes. Reality, as we shall be describing in detail in a forthcoming book, is light. Light is mathematics. And to be enlightened means to understand that light = mathematics = mind = ontology. The Illuminati are the

Mathematikoi because enlightenment and ontological mathematics are the same thing. Simple-minded Mythos types have to cling to the puerile stories and fables of Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism to imagine that they are on the road to enlightenment. Wrong! Enlightenment is about Logos (Reason). Mythos (Emotion) is always false as far as telling you anything about ultimate reality goes. Ultimate reality has zero connection with ephemeral feelings and is all about the eternal truths of reason. Of course, all of the cretins despise us for saying this and all loudly proclaim how ontological mathematics has nothing to do with reality and has no impact on their lives, and they trundle out all of their silly little Mythos beliefs. They refer to themselves as the “Voice of Reason”, and so on. We call them the Voice of Unreason. These people are clueless. They ramble on as if their opinions, conjectures, beliefs, projections, misinterpretations and the comforting little stories they tell and sell themselves have an actual bearing on reality. The fact is that virtually the whole human race has lived and died without ever coming into contact with the Truth. Humanity is a story-telling species, a Mythos species, and it has never had any time for Logos (Reason). Why accept the Truth when you can believe any old nonsense that you find reassuring and that the people around you believe too? Why accept the Truth when you can believe your own propaganda? In his Foreword to The Antichrist, Nietzsche wrote, “This book belongs to the most rare of men. Perhaps not one of them is yet alive. It is possible that they may be among those who understand my Zarathustra: how could I confound myself with those for whom there are ears listening today? Only the day after tomorrow belongs to me. Some men are born posthumously. “The conditions under which any one understands me, and necessarily understands me – I know them all too well. One must be honest in intellectual matters to the point of harshness to so much as endure my seriousness, my passion. One must be accustomed to living on mountaintops. ... One must have become indifferent, one must never ask of the truth whether it brings profit or fatality. ... One must have an inclination, born of strength, for questions that no one else has the courage for; the courage for the forbidden; predestination for the labyrinth. ... New eyes for what is most distant. A new conscience for truths that have hitherto remained unheard. “Very well, then! These alone are my readers, my true readers, my predestined readers: of what account are the rest? The rest are merely

humanity. One must make oneself superior to humanity, in power, in loftiness of soul – in contempt. ... Let us look one another in the face. We are the Hyperboreans.” The Truth isn’t for the mob. It’s for the few. If that’s not you, tough. The Illuminati have always had a very specific goal – to attract the most radical freethinkers in the world, the smartest people that have ever lived. The highest intelligence is a world-historic force that will change everything forever ... when it’s allied with the strongest Nietzschean Will to Power.

***** “An education which does not cultivate the will is an education that depraves the mind.” – Anatole France

The Dream Key Dreams entirely vindicate Berkeley. In dreams, we construct a “material” world that we know for a fact isn’t real. We “sense” this world not using our “physical” sense organs but internal simulations of our senses. If we can perceive a dreamworld to be real even though it isn’t, how do we know that the “real” material world is actually real? In scientific terms, what is the difference between dream “matter” and actual matter? In The Matrix, humanity is fed a computer simulation of reality and finds it every bit as convincing as the real thing. In other words, humans find the idea of the thing as real as the thing itself. In which case, why refer to the thing at all? Who needs it? All we need is the idea. In The Matrix, the Architect replaces Berkeley’s God and becomes the source of the “objective reality” experienced by humanity, and objective reality comprises a set of ordered dream ideas pumped into us. In The Matrix, the world is an idea, our bodies are ideas, the air we breathe is an idea, gravity is an idea, all physical laws are ideas, food is an idea, bullets are ideas, death is an idea. Neo, by seeing through the illusion, becomes God. Ontological mathematics offers exactly the same possibility. You can become God by understanding that “reality” is an idea and that it can be manipulated, changed and overcome by the counter-ideas conjured by the most powerful minds.

Mathematics is how you change reality because mathematics is reality. When people say that mathematics is useless or irrelevant to their lives it means that they have chosen to accept the Matrix, and they will never be a Neo mastering and controlling the Matrix. You must understand that reality is an illusion before you can change the illusion. If you accept the illusion, you can’t change it. You simply live it, and endure it. In your dreams, you breathe imaginary air, you eat imaginary food, you sit down on imaginary seats, you have conversations with imaginary people, and you even have sex with imaginary lovers (but might actually ejaculate!). If you can do all of that in your dreams, what makes you imagine that “reality” is so different?

***** Cypher [The Matrix]: “You know, I know this steak doesn’t exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? [Takes a bite of steak] ... Ignorance is bliss.”

***** “Take [Locke’s] doctrine as to primary and secondary qualities. The primary qualities are defined as those that are inseparable from body, and are enumerated as solidity, extension, figure, motion or rest, and number. The secondary qualities are the rest: colours, sounds, smell, etc. The primary qualities, he maintains, are actually in bodies; the secondary qualities, on the contrary, are only in the percipient. Without the eye, there would be no colours; without the ear, no sounds, and so on. ... But Berkeley pointed out that the same arguments apply to primary qualities. Ever since Berkeley, Locke’s dualism on this point has been philosophically out of date. Nevertheless, it dominated practical physics until the rise of quantum theory in our own day. ... The theory that the physical world consists only of matter in motion was the basis of the accepted theories of sound, heat, light, and electricity. Pragmatically, the theory was useful, however mistaken it may have been theoretically. This is typical of Locke’s doctrines.” – Bertrand Russell Science’s worldview of reality is, like Locke’s, total nonsense. Like Locke’s philosophy, science is pragmatically useful while being wholly mistaken

theoretically. As we have said many times, there is no correlation between pragmatic success and Truth. A 100% mistaken view of reality does not prevent you from living life and having a successful life. It will, however, absolutely prevent you from becoming enlightened.

The Choice You have a simple choice facing you. Is mathematics real or unreal? If it’s unreal, how does it exist at all? If it’s constructed by humans, how come it reflects eternal truths, and no other human language does? How come ontological mathematics is consistent and complete and no other human language is? How come ontological mathematics is precise and free of error whereas all other human languages are imprecise and strewn with errors, illogicalities, ad hoc rules, bizarre spellings, ambiguous grammar, and so on? None of that is true of ontological mathematics. Why not, if math is “just another human construct”? If no human constructed mathematics then the converse must be true: mathematics constructed humans. It’s one or the other.

Magic “A magician is not a magician. He’s an actor pretending to be a magician.” – Houdini The best magicians are the best deceivers. The best prophets are the best liars. Prophecy is showmanship. Religion is a magic show. When does the illusion become a lie?

The False Prophets Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed all lived long before the age of modern philosophy, science, mathematics, engineering, computing and technology. If you say, as many people do, that Buddha was “enlightened” what you are effectively saying is that all modern philosophy, science, mathematics, engineering, computing and technology is worthless. You are saying that someone who had no concept of any of that knows better than the people who have learned from all of that. The idea that a mystic from the ancient world has more to teach us about reality than the

knowledge available today is both tragic and comic. How dumb would you have to be, how functionally retarded, how contemptuous of knowledge and education, would you have to be to go back to silly old Mythos mystics, prophets and gurus in order to “understand” reality. You are about as far from enlightenment as it’s possible to get. You are a retard who looks to the Mythos of the past rather than the Logos of the present and future. Even Pythagoras, mathematical genius though he was, couldn’t hold a candle to the mathematics of Euler and Fourier. Of course, Pythagoras, had he lived after Euler and Fourier, would have used their mathematics to redefine his own system. He would have learned from them. So, we put a question to all Buddhists: if Buddha came back today, would he say exactly what he said when he first said it, or would he have a whole new story to tell, based on all of the incredible information that humanity has acquired since his day? If you say that nothing has changed and he would simply repeat the same old stuff, you are saying that all modern knowledge is valueless, and that means you are a fundamentally ignorant person who has failed to evolve. All people who subscribe to ancient religions that haven’t evolved with the times are simpletons. That’s just a fact. If Jesus Christ were alive today, every single claim he made would be trashed by science, and the pathetic rabbi would be a laughing stock. As for Mohammed, he would unquestionably be in a mental asylum for the criminally insane (which is exactly where his modern-day followers should be). These decrepit religions have zero truth content, zero value and don’t tell us a single thing about ultimate reality. They are just silly stories that can only teach us about human psychology, and particularly the delusions from which sensory and emotional humans suffer from, and their pathological fear, hatred and contempt for Logos (Reason; Mathematics).

The Pregnancy Miracle A pregnant mother eats and drinks, and eventually a baby pops out, made from what she ate and drank. How can digested food and drink produce a human being? Well, it’s incomprehensible if food and drink are made of some mysterious thing called “matter”, some machinelike substance devoid of mind and life. However, it makes perfect sense if food and drink are ideas, are mental stuff, and are being organised by a biological information system (DNA), which is itself just a complex idea, a mathematical function.

Everything is about mathematical functions. There’s nothing else. We live in a sensory Matrix that we imagine is something other than math. If we could transcend our senses, we would discover nothing but noumenal mathematics. What was the Big Bang? It was an immaterial event that occurred outside space and time. In other words, it was a purely noumenal mathematical event that had no sensory components whatsoever. It was reality in itself, prior to any observers or observations. That reality wasn’t sensory, it wasn’t emotional, it wasn’t love, it wasn’t consciousness, it wasn’t “God”, it wasn’t scientific, it wasn’t random – it was pure mathematics. We can show you that reality. We can explain it to you. What we certainly can’t do is make you understand it. For that, you have to be smart. If you’re not ... too bad. The Truth isn’t for everyone. It’s not a universal right. It’s a right of intelligence. The more intelligent you are, the more you get to feast on the Truth. You don’t get anywhere near the Truth by kneeling and praying, or by meditating under a tree.

The Spoon “‘There is no spoon.’” ... One of the most common catchphrases that has entered the lexicon as a result of The Matrix. There is no spoon – the spoon exists only in the Matrix, which really means it doesn’t exist as a physical object. This is an important lesson for Neo, to help him realize that manipulating the Matrix isn’t about focusing on an object and trying to change it. The object doesn’t exist, so he can’t change it, he has to change himself. Metaphorically, it’s all in his head – he has to look inside to exact any control, to bring about even the smallest change.” – http://thematrix101.com/matrix/meaning.php When the kid in The Matrix said, “There is no spoon”, he could equally have said that there is no body, no air, no food, no drink, and, indeed no people (!). In The Matrix, bodies are effectively virtual avatars or drones being remotely controlled by sleeping, dreaming humans in pods external to the world that they believe they inhabit. How can anyone know that we ourselves are not in a Matrix? Yet, even if we were, there could not be an infinite regress of Matrices, of Matrices within Matrices. At some point,

something has to be able to explain the proto-Matrix, the First Matrix, and the only thing that can is eternal mathematics. If you reject science’s ludicrous claim that chaos (randomness) can be the ground of order, any contingent thing must be explained by a necessary thing, any temporal thing must be explained by an eternal thing, any synthetic thing must be explained by an analytic thing. Everything must be explained by ontological mathematics.

The Ancients The only ancients worth going back to are the ancient Greek philosophers. It’s pointless going back to priests, prophets, gurus and mystics.

The Cosmic Hologram The universe is a phenomenal hologram arising from a noumenal mathematical Singularity made of pure analytic waves organised into individual monads (souls). We take the hologram for reality when, in fact, it’s the Singularity that is reality. We take the Content for reality when, in fact, it’s the Form.

Ideas Nothing is more powerful than ideas. Look at Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Sikhs, and so on. All of them are ruled by an idea. It has colonised them and made them do its bidding. Its truth-value is neither here nor there. The vast majority of powerful ideas have been absolute lies. The ideas that have ruled, and still rule, the world are Mythos ideas, not Logos ideas. Humans will become Gods only when the reverse is true. Humans and just ideas processors, interpreters and generators.

A Laboratory for the End of the World Cities going through huge turmoil, such as Paris at the end of the nineteenth century, have been described as laboratories for the end of the world. All the time, we can look out at our world and see forces that could potentially end it, or render it poor, bad, or mad.

The Liberal Fallacy Liberals can never defeat radicals. One way or another, in one shape or another, radicals are always in charge, always setting the agenda. Radicals have much more energy and much stronger Will to Power. They are much more determined and dominant. They are much more committed to sacred causes. Liberalism is itself just a creation of radicals to sedate the masses.

Cults Everything is a cult. All religions are cults, all philosophies are cults, all political and economic systems are cults. Capitalism is a cult. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are cults. Liberalism is a cult. Anarchy is a cult. Democracy is a cult. Libertarianism is a cult. Everyone’s a member of a cult. Make sure you have joined the right one, the one that maximises your potential.

The Blindness What blinds humanity to the reality of mathematics, to the ontology of mathematics? It’s our senses. They are how we conceal true reality from ourselves, yet, of course, we believe that they are in fact what reveal true reality to us. Actually, what the senses do is add the layer of Content to noumena (Forms) that turns them into phenomena, that makes them appearances rather than things in themselves, that makes them representations rather than presentations. It’s by the act of seeing that we don’t see! We see what our eyes construct, not what’s actually there. The sensory world seems anything other than mathematical, yet if you look at any part of it, from snowflakes to water drops to sunflowers to bee hives to nautilus shells, you will discover nothing but mathematical patterns, order and organisation.

***** Scientific empiricism denies that there’s an actual mathematical world underlying observed reality and instead posits a crazy, unreal mathematical potentiality domain that indeterministically “collapses” into actuality. However, is has thereby conceded the central point that mathematics, in one way or another, underlies everything. The question is of course one of

ontology. Does actual mathematics underlie the observed world or unactual (potential) mathematics? How can something unreal, abstract and potential be said to exist at all, and how can it underpin observed existence? This is an ontological impossibility. Therefore, mathematics – actual, ontological mathematics – really does underlie everything. It’s non-sensory, intelligible rather than sensible. It’s rational rather than empirical. It’s unseen and unseeable. The ontological mathematical world is an eternal, immaterial frequency Singularity outside space and time. Matter, space and time are what you get when you view this Singularity through sensory, spacetime goggles. In truth, the mathematical Singularity is “nothing” – it’s simply organised void, ordered by the power of ontological reason. That’s why we exist at all. We exist because, mathematically, “something” is “nothing”. That’s the great mystery of existence. If you strip away the appearance of existence, you are left with pure non-appearance, the thing-in-itself, the Absolute, the Noumenon. And that is “nothing” defined in terms of ontological mathematics. Never forget, the difference between science and ontological mathematics comes down to a very simple one: is mathematics real or not? Is mathematics an actual, fundamental part of existence, or is it merely some unreal abstraction that, miraculously and inexplicably, is able to describe every configuration the “real” world is potentially able to have? Why does mathematics play such a fundamental role in nature and science if it’s an unreal abstraction, constructed by human minds? The only alternative is that it’s real.

Hell? A bunch of bizarre people like to post messages saying (to their enemies), “This pit of hell shall not be our portion ... IJN (In Jesus’ Name)”, accompanied by a cartoonish picture of people falling off a cliff into a horrific fiery pit. Well, if hell is real, show us the physical evidence or the rational proof. Since you can do neither, we can say without any doubt, hell is NOT real. Morons, unfortunately, ARE! While we’re here, would any believer in Jesus Christ like to advance any evidence at all – beyond the content of ancient storybooks – that Jesus

Christ is God, or even claimed to be God! Moreover, why is this Jesus Christ character (actually the Jewish rabbi Yehoshua ben Yosef) so keen on sending people to hell? Isn’t he supposed to be the God of love, compassion, forgiveness and non-violence. Er... You know what, hell is real. You (the IJNers) are hell, and you are the evil in this world that must be exterminated for the rest of us to live in paradise. The IJNers are poison pen trolls. What sad lives they have to go around posting threats of eternal hellfire to non-believers. They might as well be Muslim terrorists, their close cousins!

The Bigger Picture When it comes to deciding whether or not to support Illuminism, ontological mathematics and meritocracy, the issue is not one of agreeing with everything we say, but of seeing our movement as superior to everything else on offer in the world at the moment. If you agree that it is, you should call yourself an Illuminist and promote our cause. To all those people who sort of agree with our movement, and then spend all of their time criticising it rather than advocating it, who are you kidding? You are as much use to our movement as cancer, which is in fact what you are. You either support a movement or you don’t (and, if you don’t, you are effectively opposing it). So make your mind up. Make a choice. Commit. Stop being a pussy.

Nothing? “The concept of Nothing has caught on in recent popular cosmological literature. The idea that the universe has resulted from a mysterious Nothing, is taken seriously by many physicists. What is more, Something may not only have come from Nothing, it may actually be Nothing, depending how you look at it. To the perennial question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ science would answer these days: Nothing is unstable, and Something is bound to arise, given the Universe as it is. The question is no longer the big Mystery it was thought to be, requiring spiritual explanations.” – Frank Visser WTF! How can “Nothing” be unstable? What could conceivably be more stable? After all, “Nothing” is the compulsory groundstate of existence, and

it’s impossible for it to degenerate into any lower state. “Nothing” is the quintessence of absolute stability. Visser, in launching yet another silly attack on his erstwhile hero Ken Wilber, cites a rather good quotation by Wilber: “It is flat-out strange that something – that anything – is happening at all. There was nothing, then a Big Bang, then here we all are. This is extremely weird. To Schelling’s burning question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?,” [MH: Actually, Leibniz was first to state this question] there have always been two general answers. The first might be called the philosophy of ‘oops.’ The universe just occurs, there is nothing behind it, it’s all ultimately accidental or random, it just is, it just happens – oops! The philosophy of oops, no matter how sophisticated and adult it may on occasion appear – its modern names and numbers are legion, from positivism to scientific materialism, from linguistic analysis to historical materialism, from naturalism to empiricism – always comes down to the same basic answer, namely, ‘Don’t ask.’ “The question itself (Why is anything at all happening? Why am I here?) – the question itself is said to be confused, pathological, nonsensible, or infantile. To stop asking such silly or confused questions is, they all maintain, the mark of maturity, the sign of growing up in this cosmos. “I don’t think so. I think the ‘answer’ these ‘modern and mature’ disciplines give – namely, oops! (and therefore, ‘Don’t ask!’) – is about as infantile a response as the human condition could possibly offer. “The other broad answer that has been tendered is that something else is going on: behind the happenstance drama is a deeper or higher or wider pattern, or order, or intelligence. There are, of course, many varieties of this ‘Deeper Order’: the Tao, God, Geist, Maat, Archetypal Forms, Reason, Li, Mahamaya, Braham, Rigpa. And although these different varieties of the Deeper Order certainly disagree with each other at many points, they all agree on this: the universe is not what it appears. Something else is going on, something quite other than oops...” Wilber is right, but the Deeper Order to which he refers is actually ontological mathematics, and Wilber is the last person on earth to accept that answer (!).

Visser, who seems to have nothing better to do with his time than bash Wilber with ludicrous scientific materialist arguments, says, “If we can’t explain that Deeper Order, what’s the point of invoking it as an ‘explanation’ of the reality we see around us? Well, firstly, we can explain that Deeper Order (it’s ontological mathematics), and secondly, if we can’t explain why “Nothing” is unstable rather than the very definition of stability (it needs nothing, expends nothing and has no other state into which to degenerate), what’s the point, using Visser’s own words (!) “of invoking it as an ‘explanation’ of the reality we see around us?” Nothing is indeed the explanation of everything, but this is infinitely precise, analytic and stable Nothing, certainly not the ridiculous and irrational “Nothing” of Visser and scientific materialism. Wilber, ludicrous though his opinions generally are, is smart enough to reject scientific randomness and instability – the ideology of “oops”, as he colourfully and justifiably puts it – as the explanation of anything at all. It’s about time Visser and his ilk became outright scientific materialists rather than pretending to be fans of Wilber’s work. No wonder Wilber is so contemptuous of these people. Of course, we get people like that on our case all the time. We know exactly how Wilber feels. Almost invariably, scientific materialists break every rule that they accuse others of breaking. Visser ridicules Wilber for appealing to a “Deeper Order” as an explanation of observed reality then cites a preposterous, unstable Nothing, which is ruled by randomness and indeterminacy, and does things for no reason at all, as a more “rational” explanation. The obvious trouble is that it’s not rational at all, but the exact opposite. Scientific materialists scoff at “God” as a universal explanation and then cheerfully say that unexplained random things happening for no reason at all have far more “rational”, explanatory power. There is only one “explanation” more self-evidently stupid than that of “God” and it’s scientific randomness, which does not, and never could, explain anything at all. It’s the absolute opposite of explanation and is on a par with miracles and magic, which also offer no rational explanation for anything. The only universal system of rational explanation lies in the Principle of Sufficient Reason itself, and this exists ontologically as pure mathematics.

The Turncoat “This website [Integral World] started out in 1997 as a fansite for Ken Wilber. ... Around 2004, Wilber urged me to change the [original] name of this website ‘The World of Ken Wilber’ to something else, unrelated to his name, since he no longer felt his work was accurately reflected by this website.” – Frank Visser We know how Wilber feels. There are several sites ostensibly devoted to Illuminism that we don’t recognise as having any valid connection with us at all. We seem to have attracted quite a few “Vissers”. Visser does nothing but deploy scientific materialist arguments against Wilber, which makes you wonder why he doesn’t just call himself a scientific materialist and have done with it. He obviously finds science overwhelmingly persuasive, so why is he running a site about Ken Wilber? That’s total bad faith. Visser is now waging a vendetta against Wilber for spurning him, and his preferred weapon of attack is science. If Visser had any integrity, he would start running a website about science, but then no one would pay any attention to him. Wilber is absolutely right to be contemptuous of this kind of person. With “fans” like that, Wilber certainly doesn’t need enemies.

The Opposite The opposite of ontological mathematics, where everything happens for an exact mathematical reason (causation is inbuilt) is scientific randomism, where things happen for no rational reason at all (fundamental causation is absolutely denied). Science is now a formal system of non-explanatory, acausal irrationalism, predicated on things happening miraculously (for no reason). Modern science is the opposite of classical science. No scientist has ever dared to justify how science can remain a credible subject having gone from 100% determinism to 100% indeterminism. That’s what happens when you are driven by experience (empiricism) rather than reason (rationalism). Scientists were once as much rationalist as they were empiricist. Those days are long ago. Science is now fanatically opposed to reason, and more or less every major scientific line of thinking, from evolution, to multiverse cosmology, to quantum mechanics, is predicated on irrational indeterminism (random chance and accident).

Science became so hostile to reason because it associated it with “God”, with “intelligent design”, with eternal order, with noumenalism, with metaphysics, with philosophy. You have to ask yourself, what kind of subject abandons reason and nevertheless claims to be rational? Welcome to the wacky world of science. What is science? It’s math for idiots, math for people who can’t get beyond their sensory prejudices and can’t think straight.

The Choice A recent media storm surrounded parents of a gay son throwing him out of the house. They said that God did not make gays, so the son must therefore have perversely and wickedly chosen to be gay. What about fans of heterosexual BDSM? Is God opposed to that even though it’s not gay? Shouldn’t we be given a holy list specifying exactly what kinds of sex are permitted by God? Did God design everyone to engage in missionary position sex only? Is everyone who does anything else defying God, hence going to hell? What about doggy style?! “Face down, ass up – that’s the way we like to fuck!” Does God hang around in everyone’s bedroom, like the Sex Police? Or is he in fact the ultimate cosmic Peeping Tom? Does God masturbate at all that free porn? Panopticon sex is much better than the internet could ever be!

Berkeley: The Great Champion of Idealism “...it will be objected that from the foregoing principles it follows things are every moment annihilated and created anew. The objects of sense exist only when they are perceived; the trees therefore are in the garden, or the chairs in the parlour, no longer than while there is somebody by to perceive them. Upon shutting my eyes all the furniture in the room is reduced to nothing, and barely upon opening them it is again created. In answer to all which, I refer the reader to what has been said [already] ... all I desire he will consider whether be means anything by the actual existence of an idea distinct from its being perceived. For my part, after the nicest inquiry I could make, I am not able to discover that anything else is meant by those words and I once more entreat the reader to sound his own thoughts, and not suffer himself to be imposed on by words. If he can conceive it possible either for his ideas or their archetypes to exist without being perceived, then

I give up the cause; but if he cannot, he will acknowledge it is unreasonable for him to stand up in defence of he knows not what, and pretend to charge on me as an absurdity the not assenting to those propositions which at bottom have no meaning in them.” – George Berkeley Copenhagen quantum mechanics has adopted an extremely Berkeleyan worldview: things exist only at the point of observation. However, rather than say that objects do not exist at all when unobserved, scientists say that actual objects are replaced by object-wavefunctions that specify all possible states the object might have when observed, and one of these is selected indeterministically and probabilistically when an actual observation takes place.

Empiricist Epistemology versus Rationalist Epistemology Empiricism: Unobserved things cease to exist: there is a subjective, discontinuous reality. Rationalism: Unobserved things continue to exist: there is an objective, continuous reality. Copenhagen quantum mechanics agrees that unobserved things cease to exist. However, it then claims that they can in fact be described by an unobservable potentiality wavefunction – a suggestion that would have horrified Berkeley. In effect, the Copenhagen school replaced Berkeley’s God – who guarantees objective reality by continuing to perceive it when no one else is – with the unreal potentiality wavefunction. God actually seems the better option here! “It is thought strangely absurd that upon closing my eyelids all the visible objects around me should be reduced to nothing; and yet is not this what philosophers commonly acknowledge, when they agree on all hands that light and colours, which alone are the proper and immediate objects of sight, are mere sensations that exist no longer than they are perceived?” – George Berkeley “Again, it may to some perhaps seem very incredible that things should be every moment creating, yet this very notion is commonly taught in the schools. For the Schoolmen, though they acknowledge the existence of

matter, and that the whole mundane fabric is framed out of it, are nevertheless of opinion that it cannot subsist without the divine conservation, which by them is expounded to be a continual creation.” – George Berkeley According to Scholasticism, everything depends on God, so he has to continuously recreate it. If he didn’t, it would vanish. God can annihilate a soul if he chooses not to recreate it. If it became a separate, immortal, indestructible thing, God would have no power to destroy it, only to torment it (in hell). “Farther, a little thought will discover to us that though we allow the existence of Matter or corporeal substances yet it will unavoidably follow, from the principles which are now generally admitted, that the particular bodies, of what kind soever, do none of them exist whilst they are not perceived. For, it is evident ... that the Matter philosophers contend for is an incomprehensible somewhat, which hath none of those particular qualities whereby the bodies falling under our senses are distinguished one from another. But, to make this more plain, it must be remarked that the infinite divisibility of Matter is now universally allowed, at least by the most approved and considerable philosophers, who, on the received principles, demonstrate it beyond all exception. Hence, it follows there is an infinite number of parts in each particle of Matter which are not perceived by sense. The reason therefore that any particular body seems to be of a finite magnitude, or exhibits only a finite number of parts to sense, is, not because it contains no more, since in itself it contains an infinite number of parts, but because the sense is not acute enough to discern them. In proportion therefore as the sense is rendered more acute, it perceives a greater number of parts in the object, that is, the object appears greater, and its figure varies, those parts in its extremities which were before unperceivable appearing now to bound it in very different lines and angles from those perceived by an obtuser sense. And at length, after various changes of size and shape, when the sense becomes infinitely acute the body shall seem infinite, during all which there is no alteration in the body, but only in the sense. Each body therefore, considered in itself, is infinitely extended, and consequently void of all shape and figure. – From which it follows that, though we should grant the existence of Matter to be never so certain, yet it is withal as certain, the Materialists themselves are by their own principles forced to

acknowledge, that neither the particular bodies perceived by sense, nor anything like them, exists without the mind. Matter, I say, and each particle thereof, is according to them infinite and shapeless, and it is the mind that frames all that variety of bodies which compose the visible world, any one whereof does not exist longer than it is perceived.” – George Berkeley “...you will say there have been a great many things explained by matter and motion; take away these and you destroy the whole corpuscular philosophy, and undermine those mechanical principles which have been applied with so much success to account for the phenomena. In short, whatever advances have been made, either by ancient or modern philosophers, in the study of Nature do all proceed on the supposition that corporeal substance or Matter doth really exist – To this I answer that there is not any one phenomenon explained on that supposition which may not as well be explained without it, as might easily be made appear by an induction of particulars. To explain the phenomena, is all one as to shew. Why, upon such and such occasions, we are affected with such and such ideas. But how Matter should operate on a Spirit, or produce any idea in it, is what no philosopher will pretend to explain; it is therefore evident there can be no use of Matter in Natural Philosophy. Besides, they who attempt to account for things do it not by corporeal substance, but by figure, motion, and other qualities, which are in truth no more than mere ideas, and therefore cannot be the cause of anything, as hath been already shewn.” – George Berkeley “...it will upon this be demanded whether it does not seem absurd to take away Natural Causes, and ascribe everything to the immediate operation of Spirits? We must no longer say upon these principles that fire heats, or water cools, but that a Spirit heats, and so forth. Would not a man be deservedly laughed at, who should talk after this manner? I answer, he would so, in such things we ought to ‘think with the learned, and speak with the vulgar.’ They who to demonstration are convinced of the truth of the Copernican system do nevertheless say ‘the sun rises,’ ‘the sun sets,’ or ‘comes to the meridian; ‘and if they affected a contrary style in common talk it would without doubt appear very ridiculous. A little reflection on what is here said will make it manifest that the common use of language would receive no manner of alteration or disturbance from the admission of our tenets.” – George Berkeley

“But why they should suppose the ideas of sense to be excited in us by things in their likeness, and not rather have recourse to Spirit which alone can act, may be accounted for, first, because they were not aware of the repugnancy there is, as well in supposing things like unto our ideas existing without, as in attributing to them power or activity. Secondly, because the Supreme Spirit which excites those ideas in our minds, is not marked out and limited to our view by any particular finite collection of sensible ideas, as human agents are by their size, complexion, limbs, and motions. And thirdly, because his operations are regular and uniform. Whenever the course of nature is interrupted by a miracle, men are ready to own the presence of a superior agent. But, when we see things go on in the ordinary course and concatenation, though it be an argument of the greatest wisdom, power, and goodness in their creator, is yet so constant and familiar to us that we do not think them the immediate effects of a FREE SPIRIT; especially since inconsistency and mutability in acting, though it be an imperfection, is looked on as a mark of freedom.” – George Berkeley “...it will be objected that the notions we advance are inconsistent with several sound truths in Philosophy and Mathematics. For example, the motion of the earth is now universally admitted by astronomers as a truth grounded on the clearest and most convincing reasons. But, on the foregoing principles, there can be no such thing. For, motion being only an idea, it follows that if it be not perceived it exists not: but the motion of the earth is not perceived by sense. – I answer, that tenet, if rightly understood, will be found to agree with the principles we have premised; for, the question whether the earth moves or not amounts in reality to no more than this! to wit whether we have reason to conclude, from what has been observed by astronomers, that if we were placed in such and such circumstances, and such or such a position and distance both from the earth and sun, we should perceive the former to move among the choir of the planets, and appearing in all respects like one of them and this, by the established rules of nature which we have no reason to mistrust, is reasonably collected from the phenomena.” – George Berkeley If, as the Copenhagen interpretation says, things vanish into a potentiality wavefunction when unobserved, this means that the scientific laws of motion for the unobserved universe actually exist in an unreal mathematical domain. Gravity, in this view, exists in this unreal domain, so how can it

affect the real world? What does it mean to refer to space, time, motion, mass, force and energy in a potentiality domain rather than a domain of actuality? The whole claim becomes incoherent and unworkable. Imagine the orbit of a planet around a star. Not as an actual orbit, but as an orbit that, when unobserved, vanishes into an unreal wavefunction. Every time you “sampled” this orbit, by virtue of discontinuous observations, it would lead to indeterministic, not deterministic, wavefunction collapse, hence there would be no reason at all to expect the orbit to reflect any kind of scientific law or regularity. Rather, you would see some kind of probabilistic, fuzzy trajectory, much as an electron is envisaged to orbit a nucleus in quantum mechanics. If, as Niels Bohr suggested in reply to Einstein’s question, that the moon – a macroscopic object – does not exist when no one is observing it, then, by the same logic, nor does the earth and nor does its orbit around the sun. Niels Bohr’s original atomic model of the atom depicted electrons as little planets orbiting a nucleus (sun), i.e. it invoked the solar system as a template. Given the current quantum mechanical depiction of the atom, why don’t we now model the solar system on the fuzzy quantum mechanical template? As above, so below! But, of course, that would be crazy – because the solar system is nothing like that ... and neither is the atom. What, exactly, is the difference between the macroscopic and the microscopic in quantum mechanics? Where is the exact dividing line? The ancient wisdom of As Above, So Below emphatically doesn’t apply. In ontological mathematics, it surely does. There is no weird separation between microscopic and macroscopic reality. “...it seems no less absurd to suppose a substance without accidents, than it is to suppose accidents without a substance. But secondly, though we should grant this unknown substance may possibly exist, yet where can it be supposed to be? That it exists not in the mind is agreed; and that it exists not in place is no less certain – since all place or extension exists only in the mind, as hath been already proved. It remains therefore that it exists nowhere at all.” – George Berkeley If Berkeley had been around at the dawn of quantum mechanics, he would have destroyed the Copenhagen interpretation. It’s a tragedy that science and philosophy are no longer capable of producing critical thinkers of this calibre.

“Let us examine a little the description that is here given us of Matter. It neither acts, nor perceives, nor is perceived; for this is all that is meant by saying it is an inert, senseless, unknown substance; which is a definition entirely made up of negatives, excepting only the relative notion or its standing under or supporting. But then it must be observed that it supports nothing at all, and how nearly this comes to the description of a nonentity I desire may be considered. But, say you, it is the unknown occasion, at the presence of which ideas are excited in us by the will of God. Now, I would fain know how anything can be present to us, which is neither perceivable by sense nor reflection, nor capable of producing any idea in our minds, nor is at all extended, nor hath any form, nor exists in any place. The words ‘to be present,’ when thus applied, must needs be taken in some abstract and strange meaning, and which I am not able to comprehend.” – George Berkeley Any scientific definition of “matter” simply dissolves under this kind of analysis. The tragedy is that no one conducts such an analysis anymore. Science doesn’t accept criticism and doesn’t care about the Truth. It cares only about pragmatic success and churning out scientific papers to enhance the career prospects of their authors. No part of the science propaganda machine is directed at challenging the fundamental claims of science, particularly concerning what science mean by “matter”, and, indeed, “energy”. “...for Matter is said to be passive and inert, and so cannot be an agent or efficient cause It is also unperceivable, as being devoid of all sensible qualities, and so cannot be the occasion of our perceptions in the latter sense – as when the burning my finger is said to be the occasion of the pain that attends it. What therefore can be meant by calling Matter an occasion? This term is either used in no sense at all, or else in some very distant from its received signification.” – George Berkeley For Aristotle, internal form gives matter both motion and the capacity to change. Science, however, does not attribute any internal form to matter, which means that matter must be understood to be something passive and inert, acted upon by forces external to matter. What is the origin of these forces? All that science seems to have done is move agency, force and form from inside Aristotelian matter to outside it, which then raises the question

of in what do these forces inhere if not in matter? Why does the universe operate in this way?

The Life Mystery When a woman is impregnated, she eats and drinks, and, nine months later, a baby pops out – a living being. How can food and drink be converted into life itself? It is of course impossible. So, what’s really happening? A woman is impregnated by an idea (a DNA idea); an immortal monadic soul links to this DNA idea and the DNA is ipso facto now alive. The mother eats and drinks ideas in order to turn the genotype (form; idea) into the phenotype (content; matter; material idea), and, nine months later, the baby emerges. Life is mind, and mind deals only with ideas. Everything is an idea, including “matter”. Food is an idea, drink is an idea, air to breathe is an idea, sex is an idea, conception is an idea. The trick is that ideas are interactive. They interact according to mathematical laws (dictated by the God Equation). There is nothing but minds, the ideas thought by minds, and the interactions of these thoughts. The whole system is defined and unified by the God Equation.

The Matter Mystery “It is worthwhile to reflect a little on the motives which induced men to suppose the existence of material substance; that so having observed the gradual ceasing and expiration of those motives or reasons, we may proportionally withdraw the assent that was grounded on them. First, therefore, it was thought that colour, figure, motion, and the rest of these sensible qualities or accidents, did really exist without the mind; and for this reason it seemed needful to suppose some unthinking substratum or substance wherein they did exist – since they could not be conceived to exist by themselves. Afterwards, in process of time, men being convinced that colours, sounds, and the rest of the sensible, secondary qualities had no existence without the mind, they stripped this substratum or material substance of those qualities – leaving only the primary ones, figure, motion, and suchlike, which they still conceived to exist without the mind, and

consequently to stand in need of a material support. But, it having been shewn that none even of these can possibly exist otherwise than in a Spirit or Mind which perceives them, it follows that we have no longer any reason to suppose the being of Matter, nay, that it is utterly impossible that there should be any such thing – so long as that word is taken to denote an unthinking substratum of qualities or accidents wherein they exist without the mind.” – George Berkeley This is exactly right. It’s impossible to understand what is meant by the concept of “matter”. Why doesn’t scientific materialism answer Berkeley? It’s had 300 years to get its answer ready! Yet you simply couldn’t conceive of a scientist answering, could you?! “But – though it be allowed by the Materialists themselves that Matter was thought of only for the sake of supporting accidents, and, the reason entirely ceasing, one might expect the mind should naturally, and without any reluctance at all, quit the belief of what was solely grounded thereon – yet the prejudice is riveted so deeply in our thoughts, that we can scarce tell how to part with it, and are therefore inclined, since the thing itself is indefensible at least to retain the name, which we apply to I know not what abstracted and indefinite notions of Being, or Occasion, though without any show of reason, at least so far as I can see. For, what is there on our part, or what do we perceive, amongst all the ideas, sensations, notions which are imprinted on our minds, either by sense or reflection, from whence may be inferred the existence of an inert, thoughtless, unperceived occasion? and, on the other hand, on the part of an All-sufficient Spirit, what call there be that should make us believe or even suspect He is directed by an inert occasion to excite ideas in our minds?” – George Berkeley “It is a very extraordinary instance of the force of prejudice and much to be lamented, that the mind of man retains so great a fondness, against all the evidence of reason, for a stupid thoughtless Somewhat, by the interposition whereof it would as it were screen itself from the Providence or God, and remove Him farther off from the affairs of the world. But, though we do the utmost we can to secure the belief of Matter; though, when reason forsakes us, we endeavour to support our opinion on the bare possibility of the thing, and though we indulge ourselves in the full scope of an imagination not regulated by reason to make out that poor possibility, yet the upshot of all is – that there are certain unknown ideas in the mind of God; for this, if

anything, is all that I conceive to be meant by occasion with regard to God. And this at the bottom is no longer contending for the thing, but for the name.” – George Berkeley “Whether therefore there are such Ideas in the mind of God, and whether they may be called by the name Matter, I shall not dispute. But, if you stick to the notion of an unthinking substance or support of extension, motion, and other sensible qualities, then to me it is most evidently impossible there should be any such thing; since it is a plain repugnancy that those qualities should exist in or be supported by an unperceiving substance.” – George Berkeley “But, say you, though it be granted that there is no thoughtless support of extension and the other qualities or accidents which we perceive, yet there may perhaps be some inert, unperceiving substance or substratum of some other qualities, as incomprehensible to us as colours are to a man born blind, because we have not a sense adapted to them. But, if we had a new sense, we should possibly no more doubt of their existence than a blind man made to see does of the existence of light and colours. – I answer, first, if what you mean by the word Matter be only the unknown support of unknown qualities, it is no matter whether there is such a thing or no, since it no way concerns us; and I do not see the advantage there is in disputing about we know not what, and we know not why.” – George Berkeley Berkeley anticipated, and dismissed, Kant’s philosophy when he said, “...if what you mean by the word Matter be only the unknown support of unknown qualities.” Kant did indeed say that there was something out there, yet we could have no idea what: it was an unknowable noumenon onto which our minds projected properties. In which case, why do you need any noumena at all? Why can’t minds project their own contents independently of noumena? If the noumenon is entirely unknowable then what does it add to what we perceive? It adds nothing, which means it’s entirely redundant. In Illuminism, the noumenal world is emphatically not unknowable. It’s the domain regarding which we have absolute, infallible, eternal knowledge. It’s the domain of ontological mathematics, the domain of the eternal truths of reason. “...if we had a new sense it could only furnish us with new ideas or sensations; and then we should have the same reason against their existing

in an unperceiving substance that has been already offered with relation to figure, motion, colour, and the like. ‘Qualities,’ as hath been shewn, are nothing else but sensations or ideas, which exist only in a minds perceiving them; and this is true not only of the ideas we are acquainted with at present, but likewise of all possible ideas whatsoever.” – George Berkeley “But, you will insist, what if I have no reason to believe the existence of Matter? what if I cannot assign any use to it or explain anything by it, or even conceive what is meant by that word? yet still it is no contradiction to say that Matter exists, and that this Matter is in general a substance, occasion of ideas; though indeed to go about to unfold the meaning or adhere to any particular explication of those words may be attended with great difficulties. I answer, when words are used without a meaning, you may put them together as you please without danger of running into a contradiction. You may say, for example, that twice two is equal to seven so long as you declare you do not take the words of that proposition in their usual acceptation but for marks of you know not what. And, by the same reason, you may say there is an inert thoughtless substance without accidents which is the occasion of our ideas. And we shall understand just as much by one proposition as the other.” – George Berkeley It’s not “matter” – a physical thing – that underpins the world of ideas. It’s noumenal, ontological mathematics, which is of course not physical. We live in a mathematical, not a “scientific”, universe. “In the last place, you will say, what if we give up the cause of material Substance, and stand to it that Matter is an unknown Somewhat – neither substance nor accident, spirit nor idea, inert, thoughtless, indivisible, immoveable, unextended, existing in no place? I or, say you, whatever may be urged against substance or occasion, or any other positive or relative notion of Matter, hath no place at all, so long as this negative definition of Matter is adhered to – I answer, you may, if so it shall seem good, use the word ‘Matter’ in the same sense as other men use ‘nothing’, and so make those terms convertible in your style. For, after all, this is what appears to me to be the result of that definition – the parts whereof when I consider with attention, either collectively or separate from each other, I do not find that there is any kind of effect or impression made on my mind different from what is excited by the term nothing.” – George Berkeley

“That there are a great variety of spirits of different orders and capacities, whose faculties both in number and extent are far exceeding those the Author of my being has bestowed on me, I see no reason to deny.” – George Berkeley Aha, Berkeley intuits the existence of Phosters and Archons.

Resurrection Is resurrection possible? Let’s consider that the body is an evolving idea linked to a thinking mind. If “death” is the failure of the thinking mind to any longer sustain that idea of the body then that idea is redundant. But where does the redundant idea of that body now reside? Perhaps it has fallen into disuse in the deep unconscious. So, what does the bodiless mind now do concerning a body? It has two choices. First, it can have a new idea of a body, and this would correspond to reincarnation. Second, it could try to relink to the old idea of a body, and this would correspond to resurrection. We might imagine that a mind is always linked to an idea of a body. In its unconscious, the mind holds onto all the ideas of the bodies and lives it once had and led. However, perhaps the mind decides to relink to the idea of one of the bodies it once had (its favourite) – this would then be resurrection: the restoration of life to a once-dead body. The idea of the body never died. It simply fell out of use, but maybe it can be reactivated. Perhaps a mind can conceive of an Omega Point version of its body – an idealised, perfected version, achieved through the culmination of dialectical evolution. To link to this idea of the perfect body would be to establish body-soul immortality. This would correspond to the “spirit body” of Christianity, the body that can reside in heaven. Such a notion is possible only in a world of strict idealism. However, it makes no sense in a world where ideas interact and obey objective, collective, mathematical rules, i.e. it’s not up to us as individuals to construct reality. Reality is constructed by all minds according to the rules of ontological mathematics, and we cannot control how that system unfolds. In such a system only reincarnation is viable. Resurrection is formally impossible, although it’s certainly the case that we retain memories of our past bodies and lives in our vast subconscious.

“But, secondly it will be urged that miracles do, at least, lose much of their stress and import by our principles. What must we think of Moses’ rod? was it not really turned into a serpent; or was there only a change of ideas in the minds of the spectators? And, can it be supposed that our Saviour did no more at the marriage-feast in Cana than impose on the sight, and smell, and taste of the guests, so as to create in them the appearance or idea only of wine? The same may be said of all other miracles; which, in consequence of the foregoing principles, must be looked upon only as so many cheats, or illusions of fancy. To this I reply, that the rod was changed into a real serpent, and the water into real wine. That this does not in the least contradict what I have elsewhere said... But this business of real and imaginary has been already so plainly and fully explained, and so often referred to, and the difficulties about it are so easily answered from what has gone before, that it were an affront to the reader’s understanding to resume the explication of it in its place. I shall only observe that if at table all who were present should see, and smell, and taste, and drink wine, and find the effects of it, with me there could be no doubt of its reality; so that at bottom the scruple concerning real miracles has no place at all on ours, but only on the received principles, and consequently makes rather for than against what has been said.” – George Berkeley “Having done with the Objections, which I endeavoured to propose in the clearest light, and gave them all the force and weight I could...” – George Berkeley Isn’t it time that scientists responded to philosophy and all the objections raised against science? What has science got to hide? Isn’t it capable of answering its critics? Is it just a religion, a faith in disguise, incapable of rationally defending itself?

***** Berkeley asked whether corporeal substance can think. Plainly, this is impossible. How can non-thinking things produce thinking things under any circumstances? It’s a category error. Berkeley asked whether Matter is infinitely divisible. This raises the question of whether matter is dynamic or static. Imagine trying to divide a static, finite line. We can halve it, halve it again, and keep on halving it indefinitely. Such a static line is made of infinite points.

However, if we imagine a line made of moving points then, by virtue of being in motion, each point has extension, and, therefore, a line contains a finite rather than infinite number of such points. It’s impossible to keep dividing a line made of dynamic points. Eventually, you reach the dynamic point itself, and it cannot be further divided even though it has extension. We have reached an ontological limit. Berkeley asked how matter operates on spirit. Plainly, “matter”, regarded as something physical, doesn’t and can’t. “THE REMOVAL OF MATTER GIVES CERTAINTY TO KNOWLEDGE. From the principles we have laid down it follows human knowledge may naturally be reduced to two heads – that of ideas and that of spirits.” – George Berkeley In Illuminism, knowledge is all about monads (minds) and their constituent sinusoids (thoughts). “Our knowledge of these [ideas or unthinking things] has been very much obscured and confounded, and we have been led into very dangerous errors, by supposing a twofold existence of the objects of sense – the one intelligible or in the mind, the other real and without the mind; whereby unthinking things are thought to have a natural subsistence of their own distinct from being perceived by spirits. This, which, if I mistake not, has been shown to be a most groundless and absurd notion, is the very root of Scepticism; for, so long as men thought that real things subsisted without the mind, and that their knowledge was only so far forth real as it was conformable to real things, it follows they could not be certain they had any real knowledge at all. For how can it be known that the things which are perceived are conformable to those which are not perceived, or exist without the mind?” – George Berkeley “Colour, figure, motion, extension, and the like, considered only as so many sensations in the mind, are perfectly known, there being nothing in them which is not perceived. But, if they are looked on as notes or images, referred to things or archetypes existing without the mind, then are we involved all in scepticism. We see only the appearances, and not the real qualities of things. What may be the extension, figure, or motion of anything really and absolutely, or in itself, it is impossible for us to know, but only the proportion or relation they bear to our senses. Things

remaining the same, our ideas vary, and which of them, or even whether any of them at all, represent the true quality really existing in the thing, it is out of our reach to determine. So that, for aught we know, all we see, hear, and feel may be only phantom and vain chimera, and not at all agree with the real things existing in rerum natura. All this scepticism follows from our supposing a difference between things and ideas, and that the former have a subsistence without the mind or unperceived. It were easy to dilate on this subject, and show how the arguments urged by sceptics in all ages depend on the supposition of external objects.” – George Berkeley “IF THERE BE EXTERNAL MATTER, NEITHER THE NATURE NOR EXISTENCE OF THINGS CAN BE KNOWN. So long as we attribute a real existence to unthinking things, distinct from their being perceived, it is not only impossible for us to know with evidence the nature of any real unthinking being, but even that it exists. Hence it is that we see philosophers distrust their senses, and doubt of the existence of heaven and earth, of everything they see or feel, even of their own bodies. And, after all their labour and struggle of thought, they are forced to own we cannot attain to any self-evident or demonstrative knowledge of the existence of sensible things. But, all this doubtfulness, which so bewilders and confounds the mind and makes philosophy ridiculous in the eyes of the world, vanishes if we annex a meaning to our words, and not amuse ourselves with the terms ‘absolute,’ ‘external,’ ‘exist,’ and such-like, signifying we know not what. I can as well doubt of my own being as of the being of those things which I actually perceive by sense; it being a manifest contradiction that any sensible object should be immediately perceived by sight or touch, and at the same time have no existence in nature, since the very existence of an unthinking being consists in being perceived.” – George Berkeley “OF THING OR BEING. Nothing seems of more importance towards erecting a firm system of sound and real knowledge, which may be proof against the assaults of Scepticism, than to lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence; for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words. Thing or Being is the most general name of all; it comprehends under it two kinds entirely distinct and heterogeneous, and which have nothing common but the name. viz. spirits and ideas. The former are active, indivisible

substances: the latter are inert, fleeting, dependent beings, which subsist not by themselves, but are supported by, or exist in minds or spiritual substances. We comprehend our own existence by inward feeling or reflexion, and that of other spirits by reason. We may be said to have some knowledge or notion of our own minds, of spirits and active beings, whereof in a strict sense we have not ideas. In like manner, we know and have a notion of relations between things or ideas – which relations are distinct from the ideas or things related, inasmuch as the latter may be perceived by us without our perceiving the former. To me it seems that ideas, spirits, and relations are all in their respective kinds the object of human knowledge and subject of discourse; and that the term idea would be improperly extended to signify everything we know or have any notion of.” – George Berkeley “EXTERNAL THINGS EITHER IMPRINTED BY OR PERCEIVED BY SOME OTHER MIND. Ideas imprinted on the senses are real things, or do really exist; this we do not deny, but we deny they can subsist without the minds which perceive them, or that they are resemblances of any archetypes existing without the mind; since the very being of a sensation or idea consists in being perceived, and an idea can be like nothing but an idea. Again, the things perceived by sense may be termed external, with regard to their origin – in that they are not generated from within by the mind itself, but imprinted by a Spirit distinct from that which perceives them. Sensible objects may likewise be said to be ‘without the mind’ in another sense, namely when they exist in some other mind; thus, when I shut my eyes, the things I saw may still exist, but it must be in another mind.” – George Berkeley In Illuminism, everything exists within the Cosmic Mind = the Mathematical Singularity. What we refer to as “matter” is actually the objective, collective thoughts of the universe. Berkeley’s all-powerful, ubiquitous God is replaced by all-powerful, ubiquitous mathematics. “SENSIBLE QUALITIES REAL. It were a mistake to think that what is here said derogates in the least from the reality of things. It is acknowledged, on the received principles, that extension, motion, and in a word all sensible qualities have need of a support, as not being able to subsist by themselves. But the objects perceived by sense are allowed to be nothing but combinations of those qualities, and consequently cannot

subsist by themselves. Thus far it is agreed on all hand. So that in denying the things perceived by sense an existence independent of a substance of support wherein they may exist, we detract nothing from the received opinion of their reality, and are guilty of no innovation in that respect. All the difference is that, according to us, the unthinking beings perceived by sense have no existence distinct from being perceived, and cannot therefore exist in any other substance than those unextended indivisible substances or spirits which act and think and perceive them; whereas philosophers vulgarly hold that the sensible qualities do exist in an inert, extended, unperceiving substance which they call Matter, to which they attribute a natural subsistence, exterior to all thinking beings, or distinct from being perceived by any mind whatsoever, even the eternal mind of the Creator, wherein they suppose only ideas of the corporeal substances created by him; if indeed they allow them to be at all created.” – George Berkeley “OBJECTIONS OF ATHEISTS OVERTURNED. For, as we have shown the doctrine of Matter or corporeal substance to have been the main pillar and support of Scepticism, so likewise upon the same foundation have been raised all the impious schemes of Atheism and Irreligion. Nay, so great a difficulty has it been thought to conceive Matter produced out of nothing, that the most celebrated among the ancient philosophers, even of those who maintained the being of a God, have thought Matter to be uncreated and coeternal with Him. How great a friend material substance has been to Atheists in all ages were needless to relate. All their monstrous systems have so visible and necessary a dependence on it that, when this cornerstone is once removed, the whole fabric cannot choose but fall to the ground, insomuch that it is no longer worthwhile to bestow a particular consideration on the absurdities of every wretched sect of Atheists.” – George Berkeley Matter is indeed the primary bedrock of atheism. It’s matter that’s associated with meaninglessness, purposelessness, and randomness, with the entirely pointless universe posited by scientists. If matter is abolished, we thereby abolish the notion of a machine universe of meaningless processes happening by chance and accident. We are forced to acknowledge that the universe is a living organism, obeying teleology. “AND OF FATALISTS ALSO. That impious and profane persons should readily fall in with those systems which favour their inclinations, by

deriding immaterial substance, and supposing the soul to be divisible and subject to corruption as the body; which exclude all freedom, intelligence, and design from the formation of things, and instead thereof make a self – existent, stupid, unthinking substance the root and origin of all beings; that they should hearken to those who deny a Providence, or inspection of a Superior Mind over the affairs of the world, attributing the whole series of events either to blind chance or fatal necessity arising from the impulse of one body or another – all this is very natural. And, on the other hand, when men of better principles observe the enemies of religion lay so great a stress on unthinking Matter, and all of them use so much industry and artifice to reduce everything to it, methinks they should rejoice to see them deprived of their grand support, and driven from that only fortress, without which your Epicureans, Hobbists, and the like, have not even the shadow of a pretence, but become the most cheap and easy triumph in the world.” – George Berkeley Everything Berkeley says here is entirely relevant in the present day. Without the concept of matter – a concept that scientists have wholly failed to define or even consider in any ontological way – the whole machine ideology of science collapses. The notion of physical forces and physical forcefields, of chance processes, random mutations, indeterministic wavefunction collapse, of something jumping out of nothing for no reason, of unreal potentiality wavefunctions ... all of it goes. Science as we know it is no more. Instead, we have to replace the science of meaningless matter with the science of meaningful mind. “OF IDOLATORS. The existence of Matter, or bodies unperceived, has not only been the main support of Atheists and Fatalists, but on the same principle doth Idolatry likewise in all its various forms depend. Did men but consider that the sun, moon, and stars, and every other object of the senses are only so many sensations in their minds, which have no other existence but barely being perceived, doubtless they would never fall down and worship their own ideas, but rather address their homage to that ETERNAL INVISIBLE MIND which produces and sustains all things.” – George Berkeley But “God” is an idea. And people fall down and worship it.

“AND SOCINIANS. The same absurd principle, by mingling itself with the articles of our faith, has occasioned no small difficulties to Christians. For example, about the Resurrection, how many scruples and objections have been raised by Socinians and others? But do not the most plausible of them depend on the supposition that a body is denominated the same, with regard not to the form or that which is perceived by sense, but the material substance, which remains the same under several forms? Take away this material substance, about the identity whereof all the dispute is, and mean by body what every plain ordinary person means by that word, to wit, that which is immediately seen and felt, which is only a combination of sensible qualities or ideas, and then their most unanswerable objections come to nothing.” – George Berkeley “SUMMARY OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF EXPELLING MATTER. Matter being once expelled out of nature drags with it so many sceptical and impious notions, such an incredible number of disputes and puzzling questions, which have been thorns in the sides of divines as well as philosophers, and made so much fruitless work for mankind, that if the arguments we have produced against it are not found equal to demonstration (as to me they evidently seem), yet I am sure all friends to knowledge, peace, and religion have reason to wish they were. So likewise when we attempt to abstract extension and motion from all other qualities, and consider them by themselves, we presently lose sight of them, and run into great extravagances. All which depend on a twofold abstraction; first, it is supposed that extension, for example, may be abstracted from all other sensible qualities; and secondly, that the entity of extension may be abstracted from its being perceived. But, whoever shall reflect, and take care to understand what he says, will, if I mistake not, acknowledge that all sensible qualities are alike sensations and alike real; that where the extension is, there is the colour, too, i.e., in his mind, and that their archetypes can exist only in some other mind; and that the objects of sense are nothing but those sensations combined, blended, or (if one may so speak) concreted together; none of all which can be supposed to exist unperceived.” – George Berkeley

Intuition versus Intellect

DT: “The problem with trusting intellect over intuition and emotion is that an uncontrolled intellect leads to an uncontrolled ego (lack of empathy for others) ... we are, I am ... and we all are ... without love. Intellect is psychotic.” Anyone who says that intellect is psychotic is psychotic (!). Reason is of course the antidote to madness and psychosis, but mad people don’t want to be sane and don’t even know what sanity is. You need to have a highly evolved intellect to be sane, and only a tiny proportion of humanity possesses such an intellect. Love is of course the central cause of psychosis. Love of Self, Love of the Beloved, Love of Family, Love of Religion, Love of God, Love of Race, Love of Nation, Love of Tribe ... all the horrors of the world have flowed from love in one or other of its many guises. The Elite love themselves. Muslim terrorists love Allah and Mohammed. The super rich love money. What is “love”? It’s asymmetric empathy and sympathy. And in that asymmetry is born HATE. Love always implies hate. Love always summons hate. That which is not loved is ipso facto hated, especially if it poses any challenge or threat to that which is loved. Any intellectual can see this. All stupid people blabber on irrationally about “unconditional love”, “universal love”, and so on. They have absolutely failed to understand the dialectic. The mad world suffers from no shortage of “love” and “intuition”. What it does suffer from is a shortage of reason and intellect. But, sadly, you can’t reason with the irrational, and you can’t persuade anti-intellectuals of anything intellectual. There’s nothing we can do to help the stupid. They will remain mired in their ignorance until the end of time, benighted and doomed. They have simply failed to evolve. Many irrational people enthusiastically say that we are wrong. Of course, they never show that anything we say is in error. What they claim is that their “intuition” tells us they are right and we are wrong (well, how thoroughly convenient for them!). Or they say that we are unenlightened because we don’t show enough compassion or love for their taste. What on earth do feelings and compassion have to do with the Truth?!

Noumenon

What is the noumenon, the unseen reality? Is it matter or math? Would you impose appearances on something that already has an appearance [matter] – an absurdity – or on something that does not have an appearance [a mathematical function]. The answer of course is that we project an appearance onto math.

Ontology If you don’t understand ontology, you don’t understand anything.

Power If God is all-powerful, the Devil must be all-powerless. So, why is anyone afraid of the Devil?

Retardation Anyone who says that the American government was responsible for 9/11 is retarded. The self-evident, unarguable facts were that Muslim terrorists, fuelled with fanatical hatred of the Great Satan, committed the atrocity using their trademark Jihadist signature – suicide slaughter. Who are the people who promote the insane thesis that the American government butchered its own citizens? They are anarcho-capitalist libertarians who detest the American government and wish to see it overthrown and replaced by a “market” America of the kind advocated by Ayn Rand. These people have no interest in Islam, and no interest in blaming Islam for 9/11. How would that help the American far-right-wing agenda of overthrowing the government? The world is awash with Islamic terrorism, yet the anarcho-capitalist libertarians can’t believe that Islamic terrorists struck the heart of America. Presumably, when American journalist James Foley had his head cut off on camera by an English Jihadist, these people believed that the Englishman was actually a CIA agent seeking to create an outrage that would justify new American wars in the Middle East. Once you have gone down the conspiracy theory route, madness itself seems totally rational. We instantly dismiss anyone who says that anyone other than Muslim maniacs were responsible for 9/11. The horrific thing is that so many people

are so ignorant of the threat of Islam that they deny the monster right in their midst. That’s how to sleepwalk into catastrophe. The West will have to fight a war with Islam. It has already begun.

Dreams We see in our dreams even though our eyes are closed, we are in a dark room, and no light is available. Would any scientific materialist like to explain that? How can a fantasy of seeing the world resemble actually seeing the world? In mathematical terms, there’s no difficulty at all. The dream mind simply needs to simulate and emulate the mathematical functions produced in the waking mind when a person uses his physical eyes. That is, once the waking mathematical function has been established, it’s easy for the dream mathematical function to copy it. It’s the content of the mathematical function that we experience as “seeing”. If we can generate this independently of our eyes – as we do in dreams, and in neardeath and out-of-body experiences – we don’t need our eyes to see. We don’t need any sensory organs at all to detect sensory information. We can live as pure minds without bodies, without physical organs. We can be gods. The sound of a bell in a dream isn’t “physical”, yet it’s every bit as real experientially, proving that it’s the idea of sound that is the key rather than the “sound” itself (as something “physical”). How can any physicalist explain the fact that we have identical sensory experiences in our dreams as in our waking states even though the physical sources have been removed in our dreams? Above all, how is it possible to see without eyes and light, as we do routinely in our dreams? Why do we dream at all? When we switch off our sensory organs, why don’t we simply enter a sensory-deprivation state, surely what physicalism would predict? No materialist has ever explained how and why we dream, and how a dream is even possible if we live in a physical world that relies on physical events and physical sensory organs. The truth, of course, is that there is no physical world, only a mathematical world. The waking world is a collective dream generated by the Monadic Collective and obeying mathematical laws; the dreaming world is an individual dream that simulates the collective dream. Waking or dreaming, we never at any time encounter physical things. All we ever encounter are the ideas of things. The existence of a material

world is an entirely unnecessary, superfluous, redundant concept for which there is not one shred of evidence, and which not a single coherent, rational argument can possibly defend, as Berkeley demonstrated so definitively. It’s staggering that there’s any such philosophy as materialism after Berkeley’s wholesale demolition of it. Berkeley’s philosophy ultimately fails not because it’s idealist but because it cannot explain how idealism works. It cannot explain what ideas are, what they are made of, how they are conveyed, how they are processed and interpreted, where they come from and where they are located. It cannot explain what the minds are that hold the ideas. What Berkeley lacked was mathematics. When you add ontological mathematics to Berkeley’s system, you end up with Leibniz’s Monadology. You emphatically don’t have any trace of physical “matter” – the whole basis of science. Imagine a whole new science driven by rationalism and idealism rather than empiricism and materialism. Simply by adding the Euler Formula and Fourier mathematics to Leibniz’s monads, we can have a perfect mathematical science that gets rid of the absurd, incoherent concept of nonmental matter. Why has science so spectacularly failed to produce a final theory? It’s exactly because science can never be finalised while it makes reference to a false ontology: a world based on “matter” rather than mind. Materialists have always objected to idealism on the grounds that it seems to render reality subjective rather objective (what an irony given that relativity theory and quantum mechanics make the world entirely subjective!) and turn it into some kind of hallucination that obeys none of the regularity and order we actually encounter. However, as soon as you add mathematics to idealism, you rectify all of these problems. Science became dominant purely and simply because it added mathematics to materialism and empiricism. Metaphysics faded into irrelevance because it failed to add mathematics to idealism and rationalism. However, Illuminism is the system that puts mathematics right at the centre of ontology, epistemology, idealism, rationalism and metaphysics, and thus allows the human race to at last escape from the dead, machine vision of science, the vision of a meaningless, accidental, pointless, purposeless universe ruled by chance, by infinite dice throws that happen for no reason.

Illuminism explains the whole of science but does so from a perspective based on mathematical mind rather than physical matter. This is nothing new. Leibniz provided the template some three hundred years ago, and Pythagoras supplied the basic concept over 2,500 years ago. It’s simply perverse to believe in science when you have ontological mathematics to turn to. Materialism has been described as “the most extraordinary claim ever made in all of human history”, and there can be no doubt that it’s right up there with “God” in this respect. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the plain fact is that not a single experiment ever has, or ever could, prove the existence of matter, if we take matter to be something that exists independently of minds. If we experience life entirely mentally, isn’t the rational thing to do to seek a mental explanation of existence rather than turn to some unfathomable matter to which we can assign no properties and of which we can have no knowledge (as Kant’s philosophy demonstrates)? Occam’s Razor utterly rejects materialism. It’s a redundant notion with no explanatory power or credibility. The human race made a catastrophic mistake of associating mathematics with matter rather than mind, and it was this fundamental error that, paradoxically, has made scientific materialism so successful but also so incapable of addressing ultimate reality. Scientists and mathematicians alike have considered mathematics to be about dimensionality, and this can be readily associated with extended matter in motion, as we see with Newton’s seminal laws of motion. However, as soon as you realise that mathematics can also be dimensionless, i.e. it can concern singularities, monads, unextended minds and Fourier frequency domains, then these show that, at best, materialism is incomplete, and at worse is actually wholly false, with dimensional mathematics deriving entirely from the more fundamental dimensionless mathematics. It’s commonly accepted that the Big Bang involves an immaterial, dimensionless singularity, giving rise to the dimensional world of spacetime and matter. And it’s commonly accepted that a material object in spacetime, such as a star, can collapse all the way down to an immaterial, dimensionless singularity. Only a fool could fail to recognise that the dimensionless reality defines the dimensional reality, and never the other way around. Spacetime and matter come from the dimensionless domain,

and return to it. They have no independent existence, as the ideology of materialism claims. Matter, without any doubt, comes from mind, and not the other way around. Idealism is true and materialism is false. Metaphysics is true and physics false. Since we can have no physical experience of the dimensionless, immaterial world, then empiricism is false, and the scientific method of fundamentally limited use. Rationalism is true and pure rationalism is nothing other than ontological mathematics. Once the scientific world realises that dimensionless mathematics exists (via Euler’s Formula, Fourier mathematics, holography and Leibniz’s Monadology), it will inevitably start using it, since this is the sole route to a final, analytic, scientific theory of everything, one that even incorporates mind. Illuminism and ontological mathematics will change the world and the human race forever. Nothing is surer. The emotional people, the mystics, the believers, the irrational masses, the sensory obsessives, and so on, will all oppose us, of course, but they don’t count. Humanity will evolve regardless of them. They have no contribution to make. The question is – do you?!

Dimensional and Dimensionless Mathematics John Locke said that primary qualities are inseparable from body. They are: solidity, extension, figure, motion or rest, and number. In other words, Locke’s conception of primary reality is pure, dimensional, mathematical Form. The secondary qualities he defines are those of the senses: colours, sounds, smells, etc. Unlike the primary qualities, these are not actually in bodies, only in the percipient. The primary properties, Locke claims, somehow give rise to the secondary sensory experiences in the percipient. Locke’s scheme can be reduced to a Form and Content argument. He says that matter is mathematical Form but not Sensory Content, yet can induce sensory Content. He has in effect separated reality into two domains: matter (which is really mathematical Form existing in dimensional mathematical entities called atoms or corpuscles), and mind (the domain of sensory Content, this

Content somehow being produced by mathematical atomic matter in some obscure way, for which Locke offers no suggestions). In other words, this is really a mathematical conception of reality. In order to make Locke’s scheme into Illuminism, all we have to do is replace his dimensional mathematical atoms with dimensionless mathematical atoms (monads = minds). Mathematical atoms, which convey Form, are not physical at all, but mental. Moreover, all Form goes hand in hand with Content, rather than being separated from it in another domain. All Form is strictly mathematical and rationalist. All Content is the Sensory flip-side of mathematical functions and is empirical. Form does not cause Content. Rather, Content is the other ontological side of Form. One side of the ontological coin of mathematics is what Locke labelled primary qualities, and the other side is what he labelled secondary qualities. But there is no need for autonomous, dimensional, mathematical, material atoms in this worldview. Everything that Locke wants to accomplish can be much more easily and rationally achieved via mathematical monads expressing both Form and Content. But this means that we can replace his entire empiricist, materialist philosophy – the bedrock of science – with rationalism and idealism. Bishop Berkeley went right ahead and abolished Locke’s materialism, but kept his empiricism and rejected rationalism. Yet rationalism is the only way to address primary mathematical Form, and is the bedrock of any true science. Berkeley, in effect, got rid of rationalist Form, leaving nothing but sensory, empiricist Content. But you cannot have Content without Form, so Berkeley is simply wrong. He’s missing the vital part – rationalist ontological mathematics – that holds the empiricist world together ontologically. David Hume, the last of the three great empiricist philosophers, then came along and showed what really happens when you reject rationalism: he got rid of causation itself, as well as the material world, as well as the Self. All that was left was a strange world of skepticism, nihilism and solipsism where the only authentic reality was a stream of conscious experiences and ideas, with no context at all. This, if it had stood, would have been the end of philosophy and the end of any possibility of knowledge.

So, Kant came along and tried to reconcile the work of the three great rationalists (Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz) with the work of the three great empiricists (Locke, Berkeley and Hume). His “Copernican Revolution” was, as we can now see, simply to relocate mathematical Form from matter (where it resided in Locke’s scheme) into the mind. The upshot was that mind supplied both primary and secondary qualities when it came to experiencing and understanding “matter”, leaving matter itself with no qualities at all (!) – as an unknown and unknowable noumenon about which we could say nothing other than it was the external “object” upon which we project primary and secondary qualities. We can’t even say that the noumena “cause” the minds to perceive them in the way that minds do, since, for Kant, causation belongs to the phenomenal world and not to the noumenal world. All we can really say is that noumena exist and provide an external source onto which we project internal content. As Nietzsche rightly observed, all that Kant did was ingeniously, and at great length and in a very complicated way, talk absolute nonsense. Kant’s noumenal world is redundant and must be false, as his successors (especially Hegel) immediately grasped. Noumenal matter, which is the basis of Kant’s non-mental external world, has no properties and causes nothing, hence has no explanatory force at all and simply does not exist. Kant did not reconcile empiricism and rationalism. He simply relocated all of the properties of the objective, “material” world into the mind, leaving nothing but a material world with no properties at all, which he then labelled as an unknowable noumenon. It’s unknowable because it doesn’t have any properties and doesn’t exist! Leibniz, Kant’s illustrious predecessor, had already relocated the entire material world into a mental world of monads, and had no need at all to refer to any unknowable, speculative material world. Kant did not advance philosophy. He took it back to a pre-Leibnizian time. Leibniz had already fully answered the whole of Kant’s philosophy despite having died before Kant was even born.

***** All of the disputes between the great philosophers are actually a dispute over mathematics, over mathematical Form and Content, over dimensional and dimensionless mathematics.

Dimensional mathematics is all about physical mathematical atoms, while dimensionless mathematics is all about mental mathematical atoms. Dimensional mathematics has driven scientific materialism, while dimensionless mathematics has never been acknowledged by anyone other than the Illuminati. The two types of mathematics are unified in ontological Fourier mathematics, which has two distinct but interlinked domains: the immaterial, frequency domain outside space and time (the domain of mind, conveyed by mental atoms = monadic minds), and the material, spacetime domain (the domain of matter, conveyed by material atoms). The latter comes from the former. Mind and Matter, and their interaction, are purely a mathematical consequence of ontological Fourier mathematics, which is also the basis of quantum mechanics and holography. (We inhabit a quantum holographic universe.) Dimensional mathematics is based on atoms moving in straight lines through spacetime. Dimensionless mathematics is based on frequency waves moving in a frequency domain outside space and time. All of the baffling mysteries of quantum mechanical wave-particle duality flow from a false ontology promulgated by scientific materialism. Science tries to understand two domains: one immaterial and outside pace and time, and another material and in space and time, via the latter domain only. The immaterial, dimensionless domain of frequencies outside space and time, the domain of mind, is denied by science, which means that science is trying to make sense of a dual-aspect reality of mind and matter solely in terms of matter, which is impossible. Science can immediately introduce mind into physics by granting the existence of immaterial Fourier frequency singularities (which are what minds actually are). Why doesn’t it? Science has become a joke, making the most bizarre and nonsensical claims imaginable, even worse than those of religion, simply because it will not countenance the existence of autonomous mind. Why does science despise mind so much? It’s extraordinary. Any rational person studying our work immediately sees that we are 100% right and there really is an eternal domain of mind, defined by dimensionless mathematics. One day, a sufficient number of scientists will come across our work and start developing a whole new science of the Quantum Mind, and we will at last be free of scientific materialism.

It’s dialectically inevitable that we will prevail because our work promises the human race unprecedented power, knowledge, understanding and control of the world. The Illuminati’s groundbreaking work literally gives the human race the key to divinity! In that sign we shall conquer. Be with the vanguard. Join our movement. Change the world in the most radical way. Free the human race from its long imprisonment in the cosmic mental asylum. We are Gnostics and the God Series offers you the secrets of gnosis, but only if you are smart enough. There are many wannabe Grail Knights, but only the finest actually find the Grail. Will you be one of them, one of the winners? Or will you remain forever amongst the ranks of the losers?

Scientific Pointlessness “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” – Steven Weinberg “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” – Richard Dawkins “[The laws of physics could] be the outcome of a blind, uncaring shuffle through Chaos.” – Daniel Dennett

Scientific Nonsense http://www.integralworld.net/salmon18.html The following is an article by Don Salmon, which sums up the case against materialism rather well.

***** “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” – Steven Weinberg I think this is extraordinary. It is an abdication of all rationality. The idea that the extraordinary patterns that we observe – that have persisted and in

fact, grown more complex, over billions… and billions… and billions… of years, arose as a result of a “blind, uncaring shuffle through Chaos” – is far far more of an extraordinary claim than anything any psi or NDE researcher ever conceived of. So let’s explore this a little more – just briefly: Is the sound of a bell in a dream physical? You and I are together in a lucid dream. We’re exploring the nature of science in an environment where all forms are known through the medium of awareness. We hear the sound of a bell. Is that sound physical or material? Of course not. If you can’t tell the difference between waking and dream, maybe waking is more like dream than we think. We know from repeated experience of false awakenings, that by the 5th or 6th awakening, it is virtually impossible to tell whether we are dreaming or awake – that is, it is impossible to tell, by scientific observation – whether the forms we perceive are known solely through the medium of awareness (that is, as everybody agrees takes place in dreams) or as purely objective, dead, non-conscious “somethings” (since nowadays everyone agrees we really don’t know what “matter” and “energy” are in themselves”) which we somehow “know” (I don’t even know how to say this, I’m just pretending to try to articulate the physicalist position, even though it’s impossible to state in a rational manner) which somehow, our brains construct and for some reason, we believe that this construction bears a striking resemblance to that dead, something “out there” existing entirely apart from the medium of awareness (though we could never produce even one scintilla of scientific evidence that anything exists apart from the medium of – some kind of – awareness). Why Introduce Physicalist Ideas at All? Why, if we can’t tell the difference between the dream/ all-objects-knownthrough-the-medium-of-awareness environment and waking/ we-haveconditioned-ourselves-to-believe-we’re-directly-contacting-objects-outsidethe-medium-of-awareness states, should I accept the physicalist’s notion of these dead, stupid, unconscious somethings existing outside the medium of any kind of awareness whatsoever?

Pseudo-Physicalism as a tactic After all, this whole physicalist edifice got its start simply as a tactic, a manoeuvre to avoid censor from the church. Galileo, Newton, Bacon and the rest quite wisely figured that they weren’t going to get very far if the church authorities thought they were trying to encroach on religious territory (mind, consciousness, emotion, etc). So they said, “Let’s only look at what can be measured, controlled, what is repeatable, non-individual, general, predictable.” None of them (well, some did, but not all) said, “This is ALL THERE IS.” They just said we’re only going to look at the tiny, infinitesimal fraction of the experienced world that is susceptible to this particular form of exploration. And it was wonderful, and has yielded the astonishing results we see all around us, and as a method of describing the marvellous patterns that occur in experience, it is unparalleled in its success (well, it’s particular kind of success, which may not be such a success after all, but that’s another story). The Origin of Physicalism The problem arose a century or so later (Billy Blake was prescient enough in this regard – he warned us about Newton’s “single vision”) when scientists grew so enamoured with what they had discovered in their tiny corner of the experiential universe, that they began to say that any other kind of discovery was not that important (the Churchlands, Dennett and their cohorts simply took it to the extreme – rather than saying other discoveries weren’t important, they said there WAS nothing else – the most extraordinary claim ever made in all of human history, compared to which the most outrageous claims of some obscure Sikh master or some Wilberian are quite small potatoes). It’s like a kind of worldwide confidence trick by a 3-card monte expert. He takes away the experience card at the beginning, then shows you the cards and asks you to look for it. When you can’t find it, he says, “See, there’s no experience anywhere” (actually, some 3 card monte con men do this by sleight of hand, but some also do it by removing the card). Ignoring experience for the time being is not a problem as long as we remember it’s a tactic The tactic of focusing on externalities – measurable observable forms of experience – was possibly useful at the time (though the organic

philosophers of the Renaissance, as well as Goethe and Arthur Zajonc, among many others, would dispute this). But it is not only not needed now, and in fact, since it has been transmuted into the holy church of physicalism (the de facto belief system for at least the last 50 years of the entire world population, whatever other competing “religion” they claim to abide by), which if disputed can lead to the end of a scientist’s career and reputation. “God” – the source of “laws of nature”? The tactic also wasn’t so transparently nonsensical several centuries ago, because at the time, there was an explanation for the patterns of nature (referred to as “laws” back then) – God. Now in case some fiery atheist stops at this point in horror, let me quickly say, if I ever met the psychopathic monstrous serial killer that is the “God” that so many religious people so strangely believe in, well, I’d certainly have a few things to say to him (it’s usually a “him”, isn’t it?) – and in considerably stronger language than I’d care to repeat here! Without “God”, the god of chance “creates” (??) the laws of nature, which have been denoted to observable patterns But once the hypothesis of “God” was rejected (remember Laplace?) the laws become patterns and now are inexplicable within a mindless, unconscious, non-living world – unless you consider a “blind uncaring shuffle through Chaos” to be explicable (rather than an epithet, or at least, worthy of an epithet or two). The absurdity of believing the patterns arising by chance can persist unchanged for billions of years in a mindless, dead, non-conscious universe The idea that repeating, orderly patterns can arise spontaneously in an utterly mindless, dead, stupid, unconscious universe (arising some period of time after the “Big Bang”?) is in itself, extraordinary enough, worthy of Tertullian’s explanation of why he believed in Christianity: “BECAUSE it’s absurd.” But we are also asked, as initiates in the physicalist, fundamaterialist faith, to believe these patterns continue, stably, and even grow more complex – for another few nanoseconds. This already strains all credulity of even the most rationally-challenged human. But wait – there’s more – we are to believe that in this utterly mindless, dead, stupid

unconscious universe these patterns persist and grow more complex – not just for nanoseconds, minutes, weeks, months (not that there were minutes, weeks, and months then, but please forgive me this poetic lapse) – but for billions… And billions… and billions… and billions… and billions… and billions…and billions of years. (And Richard Wiseman believes that the claims of psi research are extraordinary – to which I can only say, “extraordinary”!) In a dead, mindless, unconscious universe, there is no reason why the patterns couldn’t stop altogether, or at least, change radically at any moment – and don’t try to refute this (as so many have) using (unwittingly) the laws of nature as the basis for your refutation! There is no reason why these patterns should persist – they just do, as Steven Weinberg said in the passage I quoted in “Shaving Science With Ockham’s Razor”. He said there’s no explanation for how they arose or persist (and added in his most delightful, utterly humble manner) and since scientists can’t answer the question of how they arose or persist, nobody else can either (though some philosophers of science think it’s actually an explanation to say “they persist because they have to be that way”). Why are we not astonished every moment, that these patterns all around us persist and persist and persist? And why aren’t we even more astonished that we’ve been conditioned by the fundamaterialist/ physicalist faith to believe these patterns arose and continue – just by chance (yes, I know, because of the laws of nature, right?). The only reason we are not continuously utterly and totally amazed at this is we’ve simply come to take them for granted. G. K. Chesterton had a wonderful way of conveying this. He said if 7 year-old Billy opens a door and sees a dragon, he’s amazed. But when 3 year-old Johnny opens a door – any door – he’s amazed. Just amazed at what is. Given the above, there’s absolutely no reason – at least, as long as we cling bitterly (thank you President Obama) to our physicalist faith – why at any moment, a rabbit might not turn into a roller-coaster. So without any possible reason (at least, not within the fm/p faith) for the patterns to exist and persist as they do, there’s simply no reason why they should persist in the same form (or, continue at all). Thus, it is perfectly

consistent with the fm/p faith that the whole thing (the universe, or whatever you want to call it) could just dissolve altogether at any moment (it doesn’t even really exist anyway in the form that fm/p-ists think, but that’s another matter). Or, at any moment, a rabbit could turn into a roller coaster, or a Chevy into a cockroach (at which point Lane may have to think again about whether he should consult Asheville’s “Organic Mechanic”), or the sun might grow arms and legs and start dancing in some kind of vaudeville routine. Just think of the possibilities! From Merlin Donald’s A Mind So Rare – the close of the chapter on Hardliner eliminative materialists like Paul and Patricia Churchland: “We have come full circle since the pre-Socratic philosophers. After two and a half millennia of endless fussing and analysis, we must conclude, as they did, that All is Illusion. Except that, by denying the existence of the Central Meaner itself, Hardliners [like the Churchlands] have made this conclusion much more devastating than the pre-Socratics ever did. The preSocratics held that external reality was an illusion, but human awareness was not part of that reality. It always stood apart and provided the arena in which our intellectual excursions could take place. But now our own awareness itself has been folded into that chaotic external reality. To say that we are reduced in status by this would be an understatement. It would be more accurate to say that we are annihilated. Human awareness, by this doctrine, is nothing but an aspect of the soulless ether, not even an organizing force, just a clutch of algorithms turning tricks in an endless vacuum [don’t you love the whore metaphor!!]. And that is it. Things pass through our conscious minds but this impression is entirely illusory; there really is nobody home. “I confess that I bail out at this point. Maybe I am a more practical man than I thought I was. Maybe I lack the infinite faith in words and semantic hairsplitting that seems necessary to qualify as a Minimalist or Hardliner. Maybe I am just irritated by the academic habit of indulging in exotic forms of intellectual seppuku, a sort of methodological rite de passage whereby one conducts sadomasochistic experiments with various forms of angoisse (one of which is the overuse of foreign words) and occasionally, if necessary, defines oneself out of existence (I notice that there is usually a

temporary lull in this exercise in self-annihilation around tenure time, however). “Of course, Hardliners and Minimalists are not ordinary self-effacing academics. With their customary flair, they have made their point with truly Rabelaisian excess. Their message is obvious enough: Consciousness is an illusion, and we do not exist in any meaningful sense. But, they apologize at great length, this daunting fact Does Not Matter. Life will go on as always, meaningless algorithm after meaningless algorithm, and we can all return to our lives as if Nothing Has Happened. “This is rather like telling you that your real parents were not the ones you grew to know and love, but rather Jack the Ripper, and Elsa, She-Wolff of the SS. But not to worry. (A Mind So Rare, Merlin Donald, pps. 44-45).”

***** “Salmon considers the concept of laws of nature to be ‘inexplicable within a mindless, unconscious, non-living world’. Is that because in his mind they can only be given by a Law-giver?” – Frank Visser You don’t need a Lawgiver as a person. You certainly need an eternal, intelligent, rational system of design that provides eternal laws. That system is ontological mathematics.

Immortality versus Reproduction Souls are immortal; bodies reproduce. There is one soul to many bodies (via reincarnation).

The Impossible It’s impossible to reason with people who are overly emotional, or overly defined by their senses, or subject to mystical “intuition”. Feeling types blabber on about love, compassion, empathy and sympathy, while moronically avoiding their dialectical opposites: hate, pitilessness, psychopathy and sociopathy. Sensing types blabber on about physical “evidence”, and can’t imagine anything beyond that (though, clearly, all non-sensory things are beyond that).

Mystics insist on their “intuitions”. Many of these people are schizophrenics.

100% Wouldn’t you want to be like Scarlett Johansson in Luc Besson’s movie Lucy, operating at 100% (great film, shame about the mathematical illiteracy)? Wouldn’t you want to be like Bradley Cooper in Neil Burger’s movie Limitless? That’s what you can achieve via the sacred gift of ontological mathematics, the true source of cosmic power.

The Empirical Chain Locke (materialist empiricism): mathematical material atoms with primary properties and no secondary properties. Minds that can perceive primary and secondary properties. Matter as the guarantor of objective reality. Berkeley (idealist empiricism): No mathematical material atoms. Minds that can perceive primary and secondary properties. God, the ultimate mind, as the guarantor of objective reality. Hume (skeptical empiricism): No mathematical material atoms. No minds (there is no Self). All that exists is a stream of ideas with no causal links. No matter and no God to guarantee objective reality. Kant (transcendental idealism): No mathematical material atoms. Minds that apply primary and secondary properties to unknowable noumenal objects. Noumena as the guarantor of objective reality. Illuminism (ontological mathematics): Mathematical mental atoms (monads) give rise to mathematical material atoms. Mathematics as a dualaspect system consisting of rationalist Form (primary properties) and empiricist Content (secondary properties). Mathematics as the guarantor of objective reality.

Art “An artist is not paid for his labour but for his vision.” – James Whistler Actually, an artist is paid for his popularity, is paid for having the right patron, or, most likely, isn’t paid at all!

BDSM What’s the great thing about BDSM? It’s radical and gets rid of all the bland, liberal vanillas. They are nauseated by real sex. One of our tasks is to alienate liberals as much as possible. Ignavi sicken us. Sin for Salvation = the antidote to “Karma”. It’s not your sins that condemn you, it’s your sins that save you. Only Gods can sin. Religion is nothing but the psychology of submission and domination, exactly the same as BDSM! But the latter is much more fun, much healthier, and doesn’t involve suicide bombings, witch burnings, Inquisitions, Crusades, Jihads, persecutions, stonings and beheadings!

Why? Why do we have private experiences? What purpose do they serve? Well, in a materialist universe, they don’t serve any purpose at all, hence shouldn’t exist at all. The fact that they do, proves that scientific materialism is false!

The Madhouse AF (Kabbalist at The Universe): “The Illuminati do not worship a Goddess. They worship Jehovah, Sower of Confusion and Hater of Women. They seek to storm heaven. They seek to make everything masculine, they seek to make everything Logos. Who is Logos? Jesus Christ the Liar who clothes himself as a being of light in order to mislead many. They seek to place themselves above the Divine Mother. They seek to try the wrath of Kali, the power of Durga, the force of Devi. They demonize Lilith, calling Her evil and themselves good in their patriarchal piety. Reason is not the Devil’s whore, but God’s rape victim.” This is the sort of deranged garbage we have to wholly eliminate from the Illuminist movement. If you’re a spiritualist and emotionalist, hostile to reason, fuck off. How can enemies of reason ever be on the side of enlightenment? We need to remove all supporters of Abrahamism, Karmism and New Ageism from the Illuminist movement. These people are blocking human evolution.

We are the Army of Reason and we will annihilate all religious faith and all childish stories (Mythos) that purport to be about Truth. The dialectic is here and it will end all of the ridiculous religions of thousands of years ago that have been rendered insane since the rise of modern philosophy, science, mathematics, technology and engineering. You cannot be a fellow traveller of any Hindu, Buddhist or Taoist Mythos and still be on the side of reason. Ontological mathematics replaces all of these decrepit belief systems. When it comes to Ultimate Truth, it’s Logos or Mythos. You can’t choose both. It’s time to make up your mind. Are you a friend of reason or faith, reason or emotionalism? You cannot subscribe to ancient Mythos systems and claim to be in any way on the side of reason. You are an enemy of Logos, perpetuating silly, ignorant belief systems and superstitions from thousands of years ago. People’s brains have been rotted by Mythos junk. Mythos, in almost all cases, should be restricted to entertainment. Logos is for truth. The idea that a bunch of stories can reveal the truth of ultimate existence is comical. Reason alone can accomplish this. A worthwhile Mythos should be a coded reference to something else. To claim that it is true in its own right is crazy.

Persistence How can patterns persist if they are beset by randomness and chaos? It’s impossible. Yet this is what modern science is predicated on.

Laws Why should a universe of randomness be anything other than capricious, crazy, disordered, disorganised and wholly lacking in pattern? In other words, why should something called “matter” obey any laws at all? What is it that matter possesses that should in any way be lawful, particularly if we frame matter in terms of randomness? “Should we really be surprised that the Sun comes up every morning, now that we understand these laws of physics?” – Frank Visser Er, have you ever read Hume, Frank? Has science ever addressed Hume’s arguments? Science doesn’t have any right to any laws at all. It’s the creed

of randomness, accident, chance, meaninglessness and purposelessness.

acausality,

indeterminism,

“Might the Sun really decide one day NOT to rise? What magical worldview is that?” – Frank Visser Er, that’s the empiricist view of Hume – one of the greatest geniuses of all time – to which scientific empiricism has never responded. Empiricism is at the heart of science, and brings Hume’s skepticism right along with it. Moreover, according to the Copenhagen school, the unobserved Sun doesn’t even exist! What magical worldview is that? Shouldn’t Visser spend as much time trying to trash the nonsense of scientific materialism as he does the nonsense of Ken Wilber? Then he might get somewhere. Given Hume’s philosophy, there is as Don Salmon says, “no reason ... why at any moment, a rabbit might not turn into a roller-coaster.” After all, he eliminated causation, and what is left without that? Science, of course, has also dispensed with causation.

Perfection JR: “I agree with so many of the arguments made in the God Series books, however, I see the top heavy INTP/INTJ thinking as just as dangerous to human evolution as many of us believe Abrahamism to be. Your disdain for feeling/human-based rationale (feeling being weaker or shadow functions for these types) is detrimental to the progress you could be making if it were successfully interwoven with mathematically based truths. (Perhaps more NFs might be encouraged to participate in the dialectic). I read in Underworld/ Overworld that you suggest feeling is the sixth sense ... and yet in the next chapters you idealize the Greeks for their use of Eugenics (among other things). Of course there is the eternal nature of the soul, however, experiencing imperfection, I believe, is part of the empathetic perfecting process.” We become perfect by becoming more rational, not by becoming more emotional. It’s not empathy that allows us to understand ultimate reality, it’s reason. Emotionalists simply can’t escape their obsession with imperfection, empathy, compassion, love. It’s undeniably true that we would be far more successful if we spread absurd Mythos stories, full of emotion, love and compassion, but we would be lying through our teeth,

and what kind of success is that?! We will use Mythos, but only to inspire people to embrace Logos. Abrahamism and Karmism are all about feelings and Mythos, and look how disastrous those have been for the human race. It’s preposterous to look to emotionalism to solve humanity’s problems. We’ve had nothing but emotionalism thus far, and look where it has got us. As Einstein said, “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Emotional types will simply have to face the fact that it’s their emotionalism that has done so much damage to human progress and sanity. They are not on the side of the “good”. They are the bad guys. It’s the smart guys who will save the human race from itself. Reason will build heaven on earth, not emotion.

The Sacrifice? Abraham is the founding patriarch of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. He is the first Jew, the first Christian, the first Muslim. Abrahamism chose to define itself by a nauseating episode in which morality was rejected in favour of obedience (when Abraham agreed to murder his own son to demonstrate his slavish devotion to his Tyrant God). It could have chosen instead to present an example of a father giving his life to save his innocent son. It didn’t. That says everything you need to know about it. BG: “There is nothing moral or symbolic about almost sacrificing your own son just for proof of faith. It’s disgusting and the furthest away from anything that could be called moral.” Indeed! MP: “It was a choice of obedience, trust, and love for the creator of life. That creator is supreme love and has the ultimate power over life and death. It is only by abandonment to that love that we find true life. ‘He that believes in me shall never die.’ God continues to give us chances to turn to his divine love, but to do that we have to stop hating and for some that is impossible, but there is always hope that it will happen. God is constantly calling each of us if we only are silent and listen.” And that drivel is exactly why you would need to be insane to place your trust in “love”, “obedience”, “trust” and Mythos.

GBD: OBEDIENCE unto the Great Source of LIFE is the very ‘Key’ to really enjoy the Limitless bounty of the UNIVERSE. The story of Abraham depicts the beginning of a ‘new pact’ made between the ‘slave consciousness’ and the Creating Power which brings FREEDOM through adherence to the Cosmic Law (LOVE), by which all POWER(S) are accessed. Then it comes the ‘journey’ back home, but not before experiencing the ‘effects’ of the misuse of Life/Energy. After ‘learning’ – through experience – that regardless of the ‘sins’ committed against Life itself; the Presence of LIGHT (CHRIST) has remained anchored within the heart, just waiting for the time when the consciousness decides to return Home. Finding the way back by acknowledging, accepting and abiding by the Law: LOVE to LIFE.” WTF?! Call the psychiatrist! PM: “Now what would a founding myth be like if it showed a father sacrificing himself for his (inner) child? It’s interesting that you suggest that such a myth would clearly be ‘better’. Symbolically that would be suggesting the mature, grown ‘wise old man’ should kill himself in favour of the puer (little boy), i.e., so the puer can flourish. That is exactly the dominant mythos of Western culture today. The puer/peter pan/never-growup culture. So it’s understandable that you would automatically think an old man sacrificing himself for his child would be morally better. But that’s because you live in a culture where any trace of age is photoshopped away, where wisdom is denigrated and ‘eternal youth’ chased after. The founding myth of the Abrahamic religions (youth sacrificed for wisdom) was, imo, the appropriate one for its time. Of course it rubs the puers (and puellas) of today the wrong way.” Er, are you are saying that it’s right that the old should murder the young? We are saying that it is wrong that “God” should order anyone to murder anyone. Since Abraham is far more capable of murdering Isaac than Isaac is of murdering Abraham, and since Abraham brought Isaac into the world and Isaac didn’t bring Abraham into the world, then there is clearly a greater responsibility on Abraham not to murder Isaac. You must be a bitter old man, constantly mocked by the young, to speak as you have. You want to kill all the youth who jeer at your “experience” and accord it zero value. You want to live in a culture where silly old people who have long since

lost their marbles are treated as if they have great wisdom. They don’t. They were fools in their youth, fools as adults, and fools as old people. It’s intelligence, not age, that determines wisdom. A ten-year-old could be as wise as a hundred-year-old. DW: “Abraham was no Jew.” Eh? Tell that to the Jews and see what they say!

Education “The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant.” – Robespierre Mythos – treated as having any bearing on Truth – is what keeps humanity ignorant. Anyone who thinks that silly stories from thousands of years ago help you to understand Ultimate Reality is mad. Logos is what sets you free.

***** “A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the point of doubtful sanity.” – Robert Frost An uncivilized society is one which tolerates the insanity of religious faith to the point of eccentricity.

The Logos World When emotionalists contemplate a New World Order of Logos, they feel a shiver of fear. Well, now they can empathise with rationalists currently living in a Mythos hell relentlessly hostile to intelligence and reason. We live in a world of stupid religions, stupid political systems, stupid economic systems, stupid philosophies, all driven by emotionalism and Mythos. We live in a Jerry Springer world, an Oprah world, of emotional incontinence, hysteria, trashy celebrity, gossip, scandal, populism, transient fashions, bread and circuses, and slavish worship of the rich. The world is totally dumbed down since there is no need for intelligence in a world of emotional Mythos. All intellectuals are shunted to the periphery and margins, where they have minimal say in how the world is run. Yet almost

everything good in our world has come from mathematics, science, technology, engineering, computing and philosophy. The Mythos emotionalists have had the whole of history hitherto to show their merit and create heaven on earth. They have failed dismally. Now it’s time for Logos humanity to take over. If the emotionalists don’t like it, too bad! How dare they complain given what they have done to our world. Far from giving us paradise, they brought us hell on earth. They are the demons and devils in our midst. They are not the “good” guys. They themselves are the problem.

***** The New World Order will constitute the revaluation of all values that Nietzsche sought. In the prevailing Old World Order, we are ruled by extraverts, and sensing and feeling types. In the New World Order, the exact opposite values will prevail: introversion, intuition and thinking. All mainstream religions will be deposed. Free-market capitalism will perish. Democracy will be abandoned. Scientific materialism will fall. We will have a world of meritocracy, regulated social capitalism, spirituality and ontological mathematics, with the specific positive liberty mission of turning humans into Gods! Yes we can!!!

Atoms in the Void “By convention there are sweet and bitter, hot and cold, by convention there is colour; but in truth there are atoms and the void” – Democritus “I think that tastes, odours, colours, and so on are no more than mere names so far as the object in which we locate them are concerned, and that they reside in consciousness. Hence if the living creature were removed, all these qualities would be wiped away and annihilated.” – Galileo “[I]t must certainly be concluded regarding those things which, in external objects, we call by the names of light, colour, odour, taste, sound, heat, cold, and of other tactile qualities, [...]; that we are not aware of their being anything other than various arrangements of the size, figure, and motions of the parts of these objects which make it possible for our nerves to move in various ways, and to excite in our soul all the various feelings which they produce there.” – Descartes

“Nature teaches me, but these sensations of pain, hunger, thirst, and so on, that I am not merely present in my body as a sailor is present in a ship, but that I am very closely joined and, as it were, intermingled with it, so that I and the body form a unit.” – Descartes. “For the rays, to speak properly, are not coloured. In them there is nothing else than a certain power and disposition to stir up a sensation of this or that colour.” – Newton “[I]t is even possible to demonstrate that the ideas of size, figure and motion are not so distinctive as is imagined, and that they stand for something imaginary relative to our perceptions as do, although to a greater extent, the ideas of colour, heat, and the other similar qualities in regard to which we may doubt whether they are actually to be found in the nature of the things outside of us.” – Leibniz

The Obstacles What gets in the way of reason? – 1) Feelings, 2) the Senses 3) Mythos, mystical intuitions, 4) Extraversion (concerning an imagined, external, material world). Introverted reason, allied with intuition, is what takes you to enlightenment. Enlightenment is about rational knowledge, not about love, faith, mysticism, meditation, compassion or sensory “evidence”. To understand life, you have to be able to define life, and that’s what everyone other than the Illuminati has signally failed to do. Science is one of the worst offenders in terms of its failure to properly define its terms. That’s why science has no chance of creating a “final theory”. An undefined subject, based on nothing but dubious interpretations of observations, will never answer the ultimate questions of existence. That’s a fact.

Causation: Form and Content All scientific theories refer to primary qualities (e.g. mass, size, shape, speed, etc.). Absolutely none of them refer to qualia. Qualia are always regarded as ineffectual epiphenomena in relation to the primary reality. They have no causative properties according to science, but are themselves caused in some way by the primary world. If the world comprises nothing but atoms obeying inescapable laws of science, and if atoms are nothing but primary properties, then where is there

any capacity to describe qualia, and, especially, to attribute any causative powers to qualia? People seek out beauty. Their behaviour is changed in the presence of beauty. Once they have had an experience of beauty, they want more of it. They are depressed if they don’t get it. In other words, beauty (an example of the world of secondary qualities, of qualia) has causative power, but where is that causation reflected in any law of science? Science absolutely excludes everything other than primary qualities and then says that this is the true world, and everything else is an impotent, epiphenomenal illusion that accompanies that primary reality but can do nothing whatsoever to affect it. To put it another way, all of science, and indeed all of professional mathematics, concerns Form, while Content is ignored. Science is about measurable things, but qualia cannot be measured. Science is about plugging measurements into equations to get out numerical results. There’s no place for qualia, only for quantia. One of the greatest and most revolutionary tasks of all is to work out how to bring secondary qualities (qualia) into equations and give them causal power. A person who is profoundly moved by beauty, and lusts for more of it, causes his body to seek it out. He wills his body to go to places where beauty is to be found, i.e. his desire for beauty causes an impact on the physical world by making his physical body do this action rather than that action. According to science, this is impossible since we are driven by atoms obeying inevitable laws, and beauty, mind and subjective agency play no role at all in the laws of atoms. Qualia are never referenced in science, mind is never referenced in science, subjective agency (i.e. doing things by our free own free will) is never referenced in science. In other words, the starting point and basis of the laws of science is that we are robots! Hence it’s no surprise that science attributes no meaning and purpose to the world. It’s no surprise that teleology is wholly rejected. Science cannot accommodate subjective agents: minds being influenced by internal factors and then causally operating on the world to get more of what they subjectively want. Scientific ideology promotes an entirely objective view of reality. There are only objective “things”. There are no subjects (minds/souls) that do things for their own purposes, outside any

conceivable laws and equations of scientific materialism. There are only public things, and no private things. Reality has two aspects – Form and Content – and both are causative. Every mathematical function has a rational (primary) Form, accompanied by empirical (secondary) Content. A mind experiences the Content, not the Form, and then formulates new mathematical functions (these being the causative thoughts that direct its behaviour). i.e. Content can be said to cause Form (contingent Form, to be more exact). No part of conventional science or mathematics allows Content to cause Form. Form is always deemed causative, and Content is what it generates (primary qualities produce secondary qualities). In a world of relentless causation tied to objective Form alone, there is no scope for subjective causation arising from our individual response to Content. Once it is granted that Content (subjective, private experience) can direct Form (the objective, public world) rather than Form (the objective, public world) always directing Content (subjective, private experience), everything changes, because we can no longer exclude subjective criteria (free will) from causation, from science and mathematics. The problem is how to build subjectivity into objective equations, how to put Content into equations based on Form. Form and Content are two sides of a single coin, but are equally important in terms of causing our behaviour. How do we reflect both sides of the coin (primary and secondary properties) in a single equation? How do we put Content into equations based on Form? The greatest genius the human race will ever produce is the person who will crack this problem. The trouble is that it may not be soluble. It may be the case that we will always have to view reality in two ways: as a machine world of Form and measurement (the “scientific” world), and a living organism of Content and qualia (the “human” world); as a Quantitative World and a Qualitative World, not as a single world of quantia and qualia. Darwinism conceives of reality in quantitative, materialist terms. Quantitative atoms randomly shuffle into new configurations, which succeed or fail in the environment (they are “naturally selected”). There is no reference to mind, to purpose, to qualia, to meaning, to teleology, to Content. In Illuminism, evolution is driven by internal Form and Content (subjective agency), and reflects all of the features that Darwinism rejects.

It’s a meaningful, teleological, directed process, not a meaningless, purposeless process happening randomly. Meaning can be invested in life only if the Qualitative World is acknowledged, and this is precisely what scientific materialism denies. Science posits a Quantitative World only. If it can’t be measured, science says, it either doesn’t exist, or is an irrelevant epiphenomenon with no causal efficacy. Scientific materialism is an ideology that refuses to accept the autonomous reality and power of subjective experience. There is nothing more important than writing down exactly how mind can control matter. How mind can master atoms and molecules. Of course, mind already does master matter to an extent – via our own bodies. However, this mastery is subconscious, instinctive and intuitive. This capacity has naturally evolved over countless centuries and has involved endless dialectical trial and error. The trick is to control external matter in the same way as our own bodies: we think it and it happens. This is how we become Gods. Of course, a small number of human beings can already control matter in this way (e.g. telekinesis). They do so intuitively, but they can’t do it systematically, at will. It takes tremendous mental preparation and can only be done for a short time. The task is to make this routine, and it will become so once mind can be routinely included in equations dealing with “material” atoms.

Perception “According to Aristotle’s theory of perception, we perceive an object by receiving its form with our sense organs. Thus, forms include complex qualia such as colours, textures, and flavours, not just shapes.” – Wikipedia Aristotle, unlike John Locke, does not distinguish between primary and secondary qualities, and regards them all as part of form.

The Oversoul For Emerson, the Oversoul refers to the Absolute Unity where subject and object are One, where the knowing and the known are One. It can also be called Absolute Reality, or the totality of the universe. Or “God”.

“That Unity, that OVER-SOUL, within every man’s particular being is contained and made with all other; that common heart, of which all sincere conversation is the worship, to which all right action is submission; that over-powering Reality which confutes our tricks and talents, and constrains everyone to pass for what he is, and to speak from his character; and not from his tongue, and which evermore tends to pass into our thought and hand, and becomes wisdom, and virtue, and power and the whole; and wise silence, the universal beauty, to which every part and particle is equally related; the eternal One.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson “We live in succession, in division, in parts, in particles. Meantime within man is the soul of the whole; the wise silence; the universal beauty, to which every part and particle is equally related, the eternal ONE. And this deep power in which we exist and whose beatitude is all accessible to us, is not only self-sufficing and perfect in every hour, but the act of seeing and the thing seen, the seer and the spectacle, the subject and the object, are one. We see the world piece by piece, as the sun, the moon, the animal, the tree; but the whole, of which these are shining parts, is the soul.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson Oversoul: “The spiritual element of the universe which is infinite and from which finite souls draw their being and support.” – Noah Webster Oversoul: “The absolute reality and basis of all that exists, conceived as a spiritual being in which the ideal nature imperfectly manifests in human beings but is perfectly realized in itself.” – Merriam Webster dictionary The Oversoul: The over-abiding presence, the Creator, God, the One. “[Emerson asserts] the following views: (1) the human soul is immortal, and immensely vast and beautiful; (2) our conscious ego is slight and limited in comparison to the soul, despite the fact that we habitually mistake our ego for our true self; (3) at some level, the souls of all people are connected, though the precise manner and degree of this connection is not spelled out; and (4) the essay does not seem to explicitly contradict the traditional Western idea that the soul is created by and has an existence (?) that is similar to God, or rather God exists within us.” – Wikipedia “For Emerson the term [Oversoul] denotes a supreme underlying unity which transcends duality or plurality, much in keeping with the philosophy

of Advaita Vedanta. This non-Abrahamic interpretation of Emerson’s use of the term is further supported by the fact that Emerson’s Journal records in 1845 suggest that he was reading the Bhagavad Gita and Henry Thomas Colebrooke’s Essays on the Vedas.... Oversoul has more recently come to be used by Eastern philosophers such as Meher Baba and others as the closest English language equivalent of the Vedic concept of Paramatman. (In Sanskrit the word param means ‘supreme’ and atman means ‘soul’; thus Paramatman literally means ‘Supreme-Soul’.) The term is used frequently in discussion of Eastern metaphysics and has also entered western vernacular. In this context, the term ‘Oversoul’ is understood as the collective indivisible Soul, of which all individual souls or identities are included. The experience of this underlying reality of the indivisible ‘I am’ state of the Oversoul is said to be veiled from the human mind by sanskaras, or impressions, acquired over the course of evolution and reincarnation. Such past impressions form a kind of sheath between the Oversoul and its true identity, as they give rise to the tendency of identification with the gross differentiated body. Thus the world, as apperceived through the impressions of the past appears plural, while reality experienced in the present, unencumbered by past impressions (the unconditioned or liberated mind), perceives itself as the One indivisible totality, i.e. the Oversoul.” – Wikipedia All such talk is absurd until it’s made part of mathematics, physics and metaphysics. It’s Mythos mysticism and needs a Logos makeover. The Oversoul is nothing other than the mathematical Singularity (the Collective), composed of individual singularities (monads). This “Oversoul” level is that at which gurus, cult leaders, prophets and shamans operate, i.e. it’s the level of shameless charlatanry that can overpower weak, irrational minds and turn them into cult believers. All mainstream religions are primitive cults because they all embrace Mythos and reject Logos.

***** Our task is to drive out from our broader movement all those who regard idiotic stories as literal truth. These irrational people are an obstacle to the New World Order of merit and reason.

The world will be transformed by mathematics, science, engineering, technology, computing and philosophy. Whether you like it or not, that’s a fact. You are either for a world of Logos or you are against it and instead want to retain a world of Mythos. All mainstream religions are enemies of Logos. Only one religion is compatible with Logos and that is of course Illuminism. In the past, we have tried to be broadly inclusive towards “spiritual” types and “psychonauts”. However, it has become clear that these people are utterly hostile to Logos and want to live in a Mythos fantasyland of “unconditional love”, “love and light”, and all the rest of the New Age nonsense. They despise reason. They despise Logos. They want the warmth and reassurance of their comforting ancient beliefs, superstitions and stories. They cannot evolve. They don’t want to evolve. They are captivated by the glittering, seductive Lie. If you subscribe to any Mythos religion – and that means any religion other than Illuminism – you are no friend of ours. You have to make a choice. You have to commit to Logos or Mythos. You cannot ride two horses at once. We would rather have atheists, agnostics and skeptics on our side than “spiritualists” since at least the former have a respect for Logos (albeit an insufficiently ontological mathematical respect). The spiritualist agenda is dismal and hostile to evolution. We will transform the world by understanding the world, not by meditating under trees and mumbling “om”. The whole New Age movement is just old religion without the old rituals and hierarchies, but it’s every bit as silly and every bit as driven by stories and delusions. Theism has been replaced by cosmic pantheism, but we’re no further forward intellectually.

Dualism Descartes: Mind and Matter dualism. Schelling: Subject and Object dualism. Illuminism: Form and Content dualism.

***** Scientific materialism is a strict materialist monism that denies mind, denies matter, denies subjects, denies internal Form and considers subjective

Content as an epiphenomenon or illusion.

The HyperSoul A HyperSoul is the soul of an Illuminist. It’s a mathematical, Logos soul, not a soul of silly stories of long ago; of stories of mad gurus and crazy prophets.

Parousia Parousia: ancient Greek, “to be present”. For Plotinus, the great Neoplatonist, the soul is not present in the body, but, rather, present to the body. “Death” is therefore when the soul is no longer present to the body. Via parousia, the soul permeates and animates the body without being entangled with the body. Illuminism supports this notion. The soul controls the body but is not part of the body: the soul is dimensionless and the body dimensional, and they interact via Fourier mathematics, which relates the dimensionless frequency domain of the soul to the dimensional spacetime domain of the body.

“What” or “How”? NX: “Religion comes even before education. It teaches people not how to think but what to think. Most of all to see themselves as pathetic and infinitely helpless ... then a dictator comes and orders them around. Think of Africa, the most religious continent with all the wars, calamities, superstitions etc. What does that tell you about religion?” Mythos is about telling you what to think. That’s why all mainstream religions are based on “holy” texts of pure Mythos. Logos is about teaching you how to think. That’s why no mainstream religions are based on Logos. Thinking is of no use to religious types. It gets in the way of blind obedience and faith. Luther summed up the religious position when he said, “Reason is the Devil’s whore.”

Phenomenalism

Phenomenalism is the theory that knowledge is restricted to phenomena (sensible objects; things and events in time and space, available to the senses). In this worldview, we can never get to any deeper reality, assuming that such a reality actually exists. Science, empiricism, and positivism are all types of phenomenalism, although they tend to deny the reality of anything non-phenomenal rather than concede that we simply can’t access it. In Illuminism, we can access the noumenal level, via ontological mathematics. Illuminism, rationalism, and metaphysics can all be regarded as examples of Noumenalism.

***** Phenomenon: “Any object or occurrence perceived by the senses. 1. (in Greek philosophy) Sensible appearance, contrasted with the real object apprehended by the intellect. 2. (in Kant) The object interpreted through categories, contrasted with noumenon.” – Pan Reference, Dictionary of Philosophy Noumenon: “‘Thing-in-itself’ contrasted with appearance or phenomenon in the philosophy of Kant. Noumena are the external source of experience but are not themselves knowable and can only be inferred from experience or phenomena. Although inaccessible to speculative reason, the noumenal world of God, freedom, and immortality is apprehended through man’s capacity for acting as a moral agent.” – Pan Reference, Dictionary of Philosophy Ding-an-sich: “(German for; thing-in-itself) The meaning of this phrase is explained by Kant in his Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics: ‘As the senses ... never and in no single instance enable us to know things in themselves, but only their appearances, and as these are mere representations ... all bodies, together with the space in which they are, must be held to be nothing but mere representations in us, and exist nowhere else than merely in our thought. Now is this not manifest idealism?’ Kant himself answered this question in the negative. His grounds were that he did not deny that there are things-in-themselves but only that we can know anything of them as they are.” – Pan Reference, Dictionary of Philosophy

*****

Everything comes down to two different domains available to our minds: the phenomenal and noumenal domains. The phenomenal domain is available to the senses, and the noumenal domain to the intellect (reason). Science goes wrong because it tries to apply intellect (reason) to phenomena only, and rejects the existence of noumena (which are not available to the senses, hence not available to the defining observational method of science). The question is very simple – can we separate the appearance of a thing from the thing-in-itself? What is the thing-in-itself, separated from all sensory data, stripped of all sensory appearance? Kant said that we couldn’t get at the noumenon, but Plato said we could (which is what his Theory of Forms is all about). Illuminism asserts that all noumena are in fact mathematical functions composed of combinations of analytic sinusoidal waves. These functions have two aspects: Form and Content. The Form is purely rational; the Content is purely sensory (empirical) and emotive (we always have a feeling towards what we perceive, and are always analysing it in terms of pleasure and pain). How can Kant’s philosophy be made Platonic? By making all noumena ontological mathematical rather than “unknowable”. We can get beyond appearances and representations, and ontological mathematics is exactly how we do it. Ontological mathematics is the greatest revolution ever in human thinking. It agrees with Kant that all phenomena are appearances of noumena, but it allows all noumena to be defined mathematically. As such, metaphysics (the study of the noumena that lie beyond phenomena) becomes ontological mathematics, and moreover, defines the whole of physics. The empirical scientific method is relegated in importance, and the rational proofs of analytic mathematics become the infallible, absolute base of human knowledge.

***** If you remove God from Berkeley’s philosophy, you get phenomenalism, i.e. all we can ever have access to are phenomena, and never noumena ... or phenomenology (reality is all about inspecting the contents of our own consciousness) ... or solipsism.

*****

Science has a catastrophic attachment to phenomenalism. It accepts appearances as reality, and refuses to acknowledge that all things are appearances of noumenal things that do not themselves appear. We impose an empirical, sensory structure of Content over hidden rationalist Forms, and thus we never see true, intelligible reality, which is wholly defined by mathematical Form. All noumena are ontological mathematical functions based on analytic sinusoidal waves. All phenomena relate to the Content of these functions rather than their Form, i.e., the information they convey rather than the nature of what is doing the conveying. For phenomenalism, the Content is the message. For noumenalism, the Form, the medium, is the message. As Marshall McLuhan said, the ‘content’ of a medium is merely “the juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind”. If the watchdog is not distracted, it turns its attention to the medium itself and what it actually is. This is the basis of ontology. The arche, the foundational substance of existence (= mathematical monads), is the medium via which all content is transmitted. The problem is that we see the content and not the medium, and then the simple-minded, such as scientists, accept the Content as reality, and deny the existence of the unexperienced transmission medium (the Form). Scientists, it can never be stressed enough, are profoundly stupid and anti-intellectual people who slavishly worship a method that can never account for itself! They are infected by “common sense” and in thrall to their senses. For them, “seeing is believing”. They disbelieve anything they can’t see, no matter how intellectually well-founded it is. When was science allowed to declare the irrational senses more knowledgeable than the rational mind? That is the very definition of insanity. Science succeeds for one reason alone: it illegitimately relies on rationalist mathematics despite defining itself as an empiricist subject (hence has no right to mathematics – which science regards as an unseen “abstraction” that no one can directly experience). Nothing is of more importance to science than defining what mathematics is ontologically. Until it does this, science will remain a joke, and will never establish a final scientific theory of everything. How can any credible subject that claims to deal with reality invoke an undefined instrument (mathematics) that is regarded as a complete abstraction with no connection to reality? That is lunacy in a nutshell. It’s an insult to

intelligence, an offence to reason. Not that scientists care. They always hide behind their childish, simple-minded, plebeian “method”. They are no different from religious believers, and every bit as hostile to reason as Luther.

***** “People confuse the subject of the joke with the target of the joke, and they’re rarely the same.” – Ricky Gervais People confusing one thing for another is the central problem of humanity. You need to be really smart not to get confused. The more you refer to numbers (Logos, mathematics), and the less to words (Mythos), the less confused you are.

Religion = The Soul Illuminism is much more about the soul than about God. In Illuminism, there is no Creator. Souls can dialectically perfect themselves and become God. “God” in Illuminism is best approximated by the deistic laws of ontological mathematics. The closest thing that Illuminism has to a theistic God is Abraxas. Abraxas is defined as the first soul to attain divinity, and he proceeds to help other enlightened, advanced souls to become Gods too. The Community of Gods keeps expanding until, at the end of Time, it includes all souls – even that of the Devil. A Cosmic Age ends when Satan (the Abrahamic “God”) sees the light and understands that hitherto he was an utterly False God (a deluded, evil Demiurge, Lord of “Matter” and Darkness rather than Mind and Light).

Illuminism Illuminism asks the most fundamental questions in intellectual history, and provides the most fundamental answers. Illuminism is the most comprehensive account of reality there has ever been. Is it too clever, too intellectually demanding, for humanity? That’s the question. Humanity has not yet proved worthy of Plato’s Republic. When will it ever be ready for ontological mathematics?

*****

“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.” –Plato

Hegel For Hegel, in The Phenomenology of Mind, the term “phenomenology of mind” meant the study of the way in which the mind appears to us, but since we are using our own minds for this study, we are in fact studying how mind appears to mind! Via this method, we progress from the lowest form of knowledge to the highest (Absolute Knowledge), through successive, necessary, dialectical stages. At the end, mind knows itself as mind, and thus knows everything since there is nothing other than mind. All of the illusions – especially that of matter – are banished. The world beyond phenomena is absolute rational thought = ontological mathematics. Absolute thought cannot be sensed in any way. Metaphysics (ontological mathematics) is the foundation of physics and also of psychology. The “new science” will be one where physics and psychology are unified, as Jung and Pauli dreamt of. Ontological mathematics will be its basis.

***** Primary qualities are as mental as secondary qualities. Given that primary qualities are what are used to define matter, this means that matter is in fact mental!

Leibniz Leibniz rightly said that unity is indivisibility. Material bodies result from immaterial monads, which are indivisible and therefore unextended. Monads are simple substances, from which all complex, compounded “substances” result. Matter is constructed from monads: from wave-like minds. Monads are self-acting. They are the source of motion and causation. They are the fundamental, operative units of ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics consists of countless uncaused causes (“first causes”; “prime movers”).

Noumenal Idealism

“Noumenal idealism is the metaphysics of those who suppose that all known things are indeed mental, but not all are phenomenal in the Kantian sense, because a noumenon is knowable so long as by a noumenon we mean some mental being or other which we somehow can discover beyond phenomena. The noumenal idealists of Germany assumed, like all psychological idealists, the unproved hypothesis that there is no sense of body [matter], but there is a sense of sensations [ideas]; and they usually accepted Kant’s point, that to get from such sensations to knowledge there is a synthesis contributing mental elements beyond the mental data of sense. They saw also the logic of Kant’s deduction, that all we can know from such mental data and mental categories must also be mental. This was the starting-point of their metaphysical idealism. But they disagreed with Kant, and agreed with Fichte about things in themselves or noumena, and contended that the mental things we know are not mere phenomena of sense, but noumena, precisely because noumena are as mental as phenomena, and therefore can be known from similar data: this was the central point of their noumenal idealism. They rightly revolted against the inconsistencies of Kant’s third and fourth positions about the existence of unknown but postulated things in themselves, hidden from theoretical, but revealed to practical, reason. In a way they returned to the wider opinions of Aristotle, which had come down to Descartes and Locke, that reason in going beyond sense knows more things than phenomena; yet they would not hear of external bodies, or of bodies at all. No realists, they came nearer to Spinozistic pantheism and to Leibnizian monadism, but only on their idealistic side; for they would not allow that extension and body are different from thinking and mind. Their real founder was Fichte, on account of his definite reduction of the noumenal to a mental world. This was indeed the very point the knowability of a noumenal mental world...” – http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Meta physics/4_Noumenal_Idealism_in_Germany Kant regarded noumena as unknowable matter, the “stuff” of the objective world, the stuff perceived by minds (with minds being mental rather than material noumena). Kant’s successors gave great thought to noumena. Why should we have material noumena (objects perceived by minds) and mental noumena (minds that perceive noumena)? This is a noumenal dualism. Shouldn’t we

have a noumenal monism? Schopenhauer accomplished exactly this by saying that noumenal reality comprised a single, unitary, cosmic Will – a mental reality, of which the material world was a phenomenal projection. However, Schopenhauer still considered noumenal reality unknowable in itself. Once it’s agreed that there are in fact no material noumena but only mental noumena, there’s no longer any reason to consider noumena unknowable by mind. If they are mental, they are ipso facto knowable by mind. Reason can go beyond sense and know more things than mere phenomena. We cannot sense the noumena that underlie phenomena, but we can certainly know them via reason (which is non-sensory). The founder of noumenal idealism was Fichte who reduced the noumenal world to an exclusively mental world. Noumena, in this worldview, are knowable products of universal reason. Schelling, Fichte’s successor, asserted that “God” is universal reason, and Nature a product of universal reason. Hegel was the genius who brought this type of thinking to its culmination. Fichte said that humans had an intuition of themselves as part of the Absolute Ego (God). Schelling developed this way of thinking, emphasizing that there is but one universal reason, the common intelligence of God and Man. Through this universal reason linking all things, we can gain immediate and complete knowledge of God, Man and Nature (implying that we can all become God). Hegel further refined and perfected this model, turning into a vast, imposing, dialectical edifice starting from nothing and culminating with perfection: the Absolute (God). Empiricism says that we can know nothing beyond our senses and experiences. Rationalism and noumenal idealism say that we definitely can – through our reason and rational intuition, which transcend our senses and ordinary experiences. It’s a simple fact that if we are to know anything beyond our senses, we must know it by a process of logical reason (which will lead us to ontological mathematics as the ground of all, the precursor of both mind and matter). Hegel spoke of how absolute reason differentiated itself into subjective and objective, ideal and “real”. In contemporary Illuminism, we would add that reason also differentiates itself into Form and Content, into eternal

truths of reason and contingent interpretations of fact, into eternal Aristotelian logic and temporal (historical) dialectical logic. Via Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, Kant’s transcendental idealism was turned into noumenal idealism that allows us complete knowledge of reality through the application of reason. In contemporary Illuminism, noumenal idealism is what is called ontological mathematics. Reason – expressed through ontological mathematics – is what explains everything. This is a radically different way of thinking from scientific materialism, which is based on the bogus concept of “matter” (no such entity exists), and is obsessed with empiricism. Where science reveres the scientific method of empiricism, Illuminism reveres mathematical reasoning and proof. Noumenal idealism asserts that the world of being is a world of rational thought. As Hegel said, “The real is rational, and the rational is real.”

***** All Eastern religions and New Age belief systems are nothing but noumenal idealism for dummies. They are full of silly Mythos elements that would never be found in metaphysics.

***** Schopenhauer is the bridge between Kant on the one hand and Fichte, Schelling and Hegel on the other. Like the latter, Schopenhauer regarded the noumenal as exclusively mental (everything resulted from the activity of Will), but he retained Kant’s notion of the noumenon being formally unknowable (beyond the fact that it was Will). For him, the Will was wild and irrational; an eternal, blind, savage, irrepressible striving. The only force of which we are immediately aware is Will (or, as Nietzsche would say, Will to Power.) Will, in phenomenal rather than noumenal terms, is rather like scientific spacetime energy, except with an inner teleological drive absent from science. It’s much more like the dualistic energy (with a “within” and “without”) of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Schopenhauer rejected the Hegelian notion that the mental reality underlying everything was rational (hence allowing everything to be rationally known). Eduard von Hartmann sought to reconcile Schopenhauer and Hegel by coupling Schopenhauer’s cosmic irrational Will with Hegel’s cosmic rational Intellect. (For Hartmann, Unconscious Intelligence and Unconscious Will = Spirit (Geist), and the task of the Unconscious

Intelligence is to become Conscious, thus allowing it to escape from the rule of the Will.) Hartmann correctly rejected Schopenhauer’s notion that Will could exist without intelligence. Will needs to have reasons for what it does, and have purposes that it aims to fulfil using some sort of reasoned plan. The reasoning may be highly primitive and even resemble irrationalism, but nevertheless it will be determined by some notion of teleology and will not be merely random. Will does not evolve. Intelligence does. Evolving people becoming more and more rational. Nature in itself is intelligent Will [in fact, it’s ontological monadic mathematics], but unconscious intelligent Will, a sort of immanent, unconscious, deistic God of rational, mathematical laws striving to bring about perfect monadic symmetry.

Modern Jacobinism The radical left-wing ideology of modern Jacobinism is not about being “nice” to people, but about being fair in order to increase competition, in order to accelerate dialectical human progress. Modern Jacobinism is not about pandering to the weak, it’s about creating Supermen and Superwomen who are as strong as possible. It’s an ideology of Absolute Strength, hence is wholly opposed to Christian meekness, weakness, submissiveness, passivity, acceptance, resignation, pity, compassion and cheek-turning. Modern Jacobinism is Nietzschean and is all about expressing life to its Dionysian full within an Apollonian framework of Logos. Fuck the Christians. Fuck the Buddhists, Hindus and Taoists. Fuck the New Agers. Fuck the “psychonauts” (i.e. drugged-out hippies). These lifehaters, these people who withdraw from life and refuse to fight, will never prevail. The dialectic is about WAR. As Heraclitus said, “War is the father of us all, King of all. Some it makes gods, some it makes men, some it makes slaves, some free.” The dialectic is about strength, not weakness. It’s about being switched on, not about switching off and dropping out, as Timothy Leary advocated. The dialectic is about being active, not passive, about engaging with life, not disengaging as the Buddha advocated. The modern Jacobins are all about getting past these world-weary drugheads. Drugs are useful only if they expand consciousness and lead to more

vivid and active lives. By and large, the opposite is true. Druggies just want to chill out, chillax, get away from it all, withdraw from the contest, turn their back on competition, surrender all their cares, flee from the Road of Trials. Drugs, for these people, contract their consciousness and shrink their horizons. Far from being true psychonauts, they are dead heads and dead beats who can’t cope with life and create a narcissistic, self-serving Mythos that they are “out there”, being unconventional and radical. In your dreams!

***** There are two types of drugs users: Supermen and Last Men. Conventional drug culture revolves around the latter and is all about sad desperadoes fleeing from life. Proper drug culture is all about the former and concerns mastering life. What type of drug user are you?!

The Ultimate Question The most fundamental question of all is what is existence made of? Absolutely everything else flows from the answer to this question. If we ask what life is made of or what mind is made of, we must say that these are made of something derived from the fundamental stuff of existence, or they themselves are the fundamental stuff of existence. If the fundamental stuff of existence isn’t mental, how does it give rise to mind? If the fundamental stuff of existence isn’t alive, how does it give rise to life? So, the only conclusion is that the fundamental stuff of existence is living mind in prototype (unconscious life). Only one thing can qualify as living mind – the uniform flow of structured information. INFORMATION IS LIFE. INFORMATION IS MIND. Information is math. Information is logic. Information is reason. Desires, will, feelings, sensations, dreams, hallucinations, fantasies, intuitions ... these are all information! The generation, transformation, processing and interpretation of information is what life and mind are all about.

***** Scientific materialism utterly denies that reality is based on the uniform, mathematical flow of structured, analytic information (sinusoidal waves). Instead, it asserts that everything comes down to chance, accident,

randomness, probability, potentiality, acausality, indeterminism, statistics, meaninglessness, purposelessness, and things popping out of non-existence for no reason. Science, in other words, is about Godless miracles. It’s religion without the soul. It’s about inexplicable “magic”! Science is an absolute insult to reason, and it has no prospect whatsoever of ever providing a scientific definition of life and mind. To make randomness the source of everything is as absurd and irrational as making a Creator God the supreme source, and equally incapable of explaining anything at all. If you claim that reality just jumped out of nothing for no reason at all, how can you claim to have explained a single fact? It’s the exact opposite of explanation! You have said, in essence, that things “just happen”. You might as well appeal to animism or the “Will of God”. They’re equally miraculous and inexplicable.

Form and Content Noumenon = form; phenomenon = content. Intelligible = form; sensible = content. Deduction = form; induction = content. Rationalism = form; empiricism = content. A priori = form; a posteriori = content. Analytic = form; synthetic = content. Necessary = form; contingent = content. Eternal = form; temporal = content. Immutable = form; mutable = content.

Grievance “To have a grievance is to have a purpose in life.” – Eric Hoffer The rich have no grievances, hence have no purpose. The rich often lead strange, listless, empty lives.

The New Science

Since Descartes, the intellectual world has evolved along two separate tracks: phenomenal empiricism and materialism (physics) and noumenal rationalism and idealism (metaphysics). The first is extraspective and has an observational method linked to the external world, and a mathematical engine of measurement and organisation. The second is introspective and ponders the internal world. It has no observational method and no mathematical engine, hence has been unsuccessful and speculative. The two separate strands (the matter strand of physics and the mind strand of metaphysics) can and must be brought together to create a true grand unified theory of everything. This can only be achieved mathematically. Physics is all about dimensional mathematics, while metaphysics has never had any mathematical base. Mathematics has always been used to describe matter and never to describe mind (no one in the mainstream has ever known how to define mind in mathematical terms). Physical (dimensional) mathematics breaks down at singularities, exactly where dimensionless metaphysical mathematics begins. Physics and metaphysics, matter and mind, dimensional and dimensionless mathematics, can be unified via ontological Fourier mathematics involving two domains: a Singularity of monads (Fourier frequency domains) = mind, and the Fourier spacetime domain = matter. It really is that simple. It’s time for the New Science, the science of mind and matter, not matter alone. Science will never be complete until it can address singularities (minds). Isn’t that staggeringly obvious in view of black hole singularities, photonic singularities and the Big Bang Singularity itself? Aren’t these all pointing to singularities being the fundamental mode of existence? Science’s inability to address singularities does not mean that singularities are not the answer to everything!

Against If you feel we are against you, you’re probably right ... in which case, why are you reading this book? Put it down and go and do something else. Forget all about Illuminism. We’re no good for you, and you’re no good for us.

***** “What we plant in the soil of contemplation, we shall reap in the harvest of action.” – Meister Eckhart If you’re not a person of action, Illuminism is not for you. We are wholly opposed to the Ignavi and Last Men.

Enthusiasm Only the smartest people in the world can understand Illuminism. That’s a fact. Some people come along who believe they are smart enough, and when they find themselves desperately struggling, they lash out against Illuminism (because they know they are never going to “get it”), and return to their old, easy, simplistic Mythos beliefs and superstitions. We see this all the time. Well, we are never going to dumb down for the sake of the stupid. People must smarten up if they hope to understand Illuminism, and thus the ultimate nature of reality. No one said it would be easy!

***** “Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson “Nothing great in the world has ever been accomplished without passion.” – Hegel “Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising which tempt you to believe that your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an end requires courage.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson “Unless you try to do something beyond what you have already mastered, you will never grow.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson The God Series is a resounding failure in terms of the amount of attention it has received, but that is certainly not due to any lack of energy, passion, enthusiasm and quality. It’s simply due to the lack of smart, rational, radical, open-minded, freethinking people in the world! We set out our fishing line, but there was nothing to catch. The water was too polluted.

Anything done without passion shouldn’t be done at all. Life is for the living, not for zombies, not for the half-hearted and uncommitted. When people are just going through the motions, keeping something going just for the sake of it, it’s surely time to quit. Are you one of the “inertia” people who just keep going in one direction because they can’t think of any other direction in which to go? Wake up! Commit.

Out of Body Experiences “In the case of Miss Z, she experienced episodes where she would wake up 1-2 times a night from her sleep. Each time this happened she would be floating above her body near the ceiling of her bedroom, wide-awake. She did not really know what her OBE was or how to control it, so she sought help. Dr. Tart, a clinical psychologist, tested her in a sleep laboratory setting. He chose a 5-digit number from a book of random numbers (that he and he alone knew), 25132, wrote it on a flash card, and put it on a bookshelf high above her bed. He then told her that if she had an OBE, during her sleep that she was to look for the number (she had no idea where the number was or that it was 5 digits long). On the fourth night she woke up, had an OBE, and told him the number correctly. The odds of this are 1 in 100,000 for guessing the number correctly on the first try. This is an example of an OBE that demonstrates corroboration of visual veridical perception. This is when the person is alive and asleep. Next I will give more dramatic examples of OBE, where all the victims also experience NDE, and have temporary clinical, body and brain death.” – http://www.integralworld.net/komrosky1.html Let’s assume that this account is entirely genuine. In that case, the woman, whose physical body was asleep on the bed with eyes closed, in darkness, was able to “see” objective information. But see using what? There were no physical eyes involved, and no light by which to see! This is possible only if we have “inner eyes” that “see” information in any physical conditions, light or dark. This is possible only in a mathematical, holographic, Fourier world of information rather than “physical matter”. OBE and NDEs demonstrate that it’s possible for a person to exist in a disembodied state. Interestingly, OBE and NDEs are consistent with the

truth of reincarnation, but not with resurrection. If you can exist as a person independent of your body then you can enter any body. Resurrection, on the other hand, means that you can be associated with only one body. A corollary is that all those people who claim to travel to Christian heaven during an NDE and to meet Jesus Christ are either lying to us or lying to themselves. If resurrection is false, so is Christianity. Such people cannot be having real experiences since there is no Christian God. If perception can exist outside of bodies and brains then clearly the mind can supply us with all the perceptual capability we need. Bodies and sense organs are redundant. It’s impossible for this to be true in any way other than mathematically. If reality is actually based on Fourier mathematics, with “bodies” belonging to the Fourier spacetime domain, and “disembodied personalities” (souls) belonging to the Fourier frequency domain, then all we actually need are Fourier minds that can convert frequency data into spacetime representations, thus obviating the need for physical bodies. In the Singularity of autonomous frequency domains (monadic minds), all the data of spacetime is interconnected and in the same place (as a holographic interference pattern) and any mathematical mind can read and experience it, as if physically. If you want to believe that you have a soul that survives bodily death, if you want to believe in OBE and NDEs, you have absolutely no option but to start learning about Fourier mathematics and holography. All mainstream religions (Mythos) are 100% useless to you. It’s Logos or nothing, math or nothing. It’s all in the math. Do the math!

The False Religion The falsity of the Christian religion means that crucifixes or holy water would never trouble “vampires”, and Christian priests would never be able to exorcise “demons”. How do Muslim imams and Jewish rabbis drive out demons? Plainly, Muslim or Jewish demons wouldn’t be tormented by any mention of Jesus Christ! A devil could happily walk into a Christian Church without any difficulty, just as it could walk into a Buddhist temple, or, indeed, into a scientific laboratory.

Gibberish “Highest respects and deep Divine Blessings are always with you from my heart and soul...” – Anon Believe it or not, but this is the kind of drivel we often see in Facebook postings. “Anon” is the opposite of a rationalist. When will the world be free of such people and their ridiculous “Divine Blessings”? Note that these people absolutely never refer to the “head” or reason (Logos)! It’s always about the heart and Mythos. They are out-and-out feeling types, profoundly estranged from rational thinking.

Numbers “I’ve always been a man or words, so numbers don’t do it for me.” – Anon You mean you’ve always been a man of Mythos and never of Logos? A Logos world is a numbers-world; a Mythos world is a words-world. Mainstream religion is all about Mythos and never about Logos. The only Logos religion is Illuminism, the religion of ontological mathematics. As Pythagoras said, “All things are numbers; number rules all.”

The Word “The world is MADE up of LANGUAGE. We can SAY that the world is composed of little demons doing calisthenics, each one the size of a pissant’s eyebrow. ... Or we can SAY the world is made of tiny wave mechanical packets of matter hurling through space at near the speed of light. ... But notice that what we get each time are WORDS....” – Terence McKenna Terence McKenna: The world is made of words. Terence McKenna: Reality IS Language. “The syntactical nature of reality, the real secret of magic, is that the world is made of words. And if you know the words that the world is made of, you can make of it whatever you wish.” – Terence McKenna Words are, of course, ideas, so to say that the world is made of words is to say that it’s made of ideas (and the minds which perceive the ideas, or

construct and write or pronounce the ideas), which is exactly Bishop Berkeley’s philosophy. Imagine if you could link your words directly to objective mathematical reality. Imagine you could say, “I say that I am on the other side of the wall,” and you are thereby teleported to the location you want on the far said of the brick wall, without having to knock it down or open a door through it. Remember, in holographic mathematical reality based on a Singularity, there is no physical spacetime or solid matter at all. Everything is located in a single point and is fundamentally interconnected. A sufficiently powerful mathematical mind can, like Neo in The Matrix, do whatever it likes and defy every physical law of spacetime. You can fly, walk through walls, summon incredible power, move at unbelievable speeds, see everything in the world – all if you have a sufficient intuitive grasp and control of mathematics. If you can link objective mathematics to your subjective words and ideas, you can literally do whatever thou wilt. You make it happen just by thinking about, just by having the idea of it, just by commanding it. “God” was said to have created the world simply by saying, “Let there be light.” God is conceived as a being who need merely will something for it to actually happen. Ontological, holographic, Fourier mathematics can make such a thing a reality. Every time we want our body to do something, we simply will it. We have the idea of what we want to do, and our body then carries out the required action. Now, imagine the same process applied not just to our own physical body, but also to every physical object in the universe. A “God” is able to exercise his will in relation to all physical objects rather than just his own physical body. His “Mind-at-Large” goes beyond his own physicality, and embraces all physicality. The domain of his individual will extends to the whole universe rather than just his own body. Our “will” is actually just a disguised version of mathematics. When we mentally will something, it’s mathematics that allows our idea to be translated into a physical action in spacetime. In other words, we are using an ostensibly non-mathematical thing – our will – to perform unbelievably complex mathematics, sufficient to make a body move in the desired way. We don’t have to do enormous mathematical calculations, or borrow a supercomputer, or anything like that. Reality has allowed our will (Content)

to be the flipside of mathematical Form. Just by willing something, the relevant mathematics is automatically performed. A sportsman who catches a ball, or kicks a ball, or bats a ball, is merely willing himself to do it. He never at any times performs mind-bogglingly daunting dynamic mathematical calculations on the fly, involving all manner of complex forces and variables. Of course, not all sportspeople are equally good. Mistakes get made. Things get miscalculated. The better you are at sport, the more intuitively and accurately mathematical you are. Your sporting will has become an unbelievably finely honed mathematical instrument that does calculations in a trice, without your having to think about it, that would take the greatest mathematicians and scientists years to work out (and they would probably get it wrong!). Controlling physical reality is not about conscious mathematics, but about unconscious, intuitive mathematics, which is linked directly to your will, your own ideas, your own commands. Of course, the more you consciously understand the actual mathematics underlying what your will accomplishes, the better and more effective you can make your mind at extending its range beyond your own body. The more you understand physical reality, the more powerful your mind is capable of becoming, and the better able to control physical reality. Remember, ideas, words, will, desires, feelings, and so on, are all just mathematical Content, associated with mathematical Form (the other side of the coin). By using non-mathematical Content – words, for example – we are actually harnessing objective mathematical functions (Forms) that literally cause changes in the physical world. Human will gives us power over the human body. Divine will gives us power over the universal body – the entire cosmos. In an almost literal way, reality is indeed made of Will, as Schopenhauer said (with Will or Will to Power simply being the Content side of mathematics). Reality is almost literally made of ideas, of words, language, desires, feelings, concepts. All of these can be used to perform real mathematics on the real mathematical world, yet without consciously using mathematics at all (!). Consider music. All music is math, yet no musician actually uses math to compose music. They use a disguised version of math (musical notation) to write a musical score (= mathematical score). In other words, they write math without using math itself. The same is true of all other languages.

They are ways of doing math without using math. Which is exactly why we delude ourselves that we do not inhabit a mathematical universe. The Great Work is to extend the range of our will from our own body to everything in the physical universe. If we can use our mind to master the atoms in our own body, we can surely use it to master any atoms at all!!! And the great thing is that we don’t have to use mathematics directly, but merely intuitively. We could approach the task musically if we wanted, and control reality via the divine Music of the Spheres!

***** Even science uses words rather than numbers and mathematical symbols to Mythosise the world, to turn it into a place of the Word rather than the Number. What are “electrons”, “protons”, “neutrons”, “quarks”, and so on, if not just ways to convert numerical matrices into words? When people think of atoms, they are thinking of words rather than the mathematical functions that electrons and all the rest of the subatomic particles actually constitute. When we decode the Word, we get numbers. Numbers lie at the root of everything. Numbers are the true Source.

Moving Your Arm One of the most mysterious things you can possibly conceive is willing your arm to move ... and it does! Is that not magic? How does this process work? It’s all about math. When you “will” something, it means that you intuitively construct a mathematical function whose task is to make your body (also a mathematical function) perform what you have chosen it to do. Our “will” is a generator of mathematical functions that can apply in both the mental and material worlds. Normally, we can only control the matter of our own bodies, but what if we could control all matter with our will, and, like Moses, part the Red Sea?! Our thoughts are made of math, and, by exactly the same token, can themselves make new mathematical functions (by generating new thoughts). A thought (Content) is the flip side of a mathematical function (Form). That’s how reality works. That’s how we can affect the mathematical world with our mathematical thoughts, ideas and will. That’s how “the Word” can control reality, how language can shape the world.

***** If you can lift your arm, why can’t you lift your body ... off the ground? Why can’t you levitate? You have control over your arm but you don’t have control over the force of gravity. Yet what is gravity? It’s simply an idea in the mind of the Monadic Collective. If your mind is powerful enough, you can use your own ideas to overcome the collective idea resisting your rise into the air!

Complexity The more complex your thoughts, the more complex and powerful the mathematical functions underlying them, and the more powerful and complex the functions you can construct with your mind in order to overcome matter. In a way, landing men on the moon was an example of the complex thoughts of intelligent beings achieving things that stupid people could only dream of, or that they would associate with the “Gods”. Smart people really can transform the world. Stupid people can’t – except through violence. Smart people will change the world. Stupid people won’t. There will come a time when smart people will be so smart that they won’t even need machines to do their bidding. Men will land on the moon not via rockets but simply by thinking about it! Do the math!

Schopenhauer and the Power of Music “No wonder that Schopenhauer was the darling of composers in the 19th and 20th centuries, for he argued that music has a truly exceptional status among the arts and uniquely reveals the essence of the ‘in itself’ of the world. Music that affords such insight – the only music he deems worthy of the name – is Classical/Romantic, non-programmatic music without a text, or what was termed late in the 19th century, ‘absolute music.’ Unlike all of the other arts, which express or copy the Ideas (the essential features of the phenomenal world), Schopenhauer affirmed that music expresses or copies the will qua thing in itself, bypassing the Ideas altogether. This puts music and the Ideas on a par in terms of the directness of their expression of the thing in itself.

“Schopenhauer holds that the experience of ‘absolute’ music (music that does not seek to imitate the phenomenal world and is unaccompanied by narrative or text), occurs in time, but does not involve any of the other cognitive conditions on experience. Thus, like the feeling of embodiment, Schopenhauer believes the experience of music brings us epistemically closer to the essence of the world as will – it is as direct an experience of the will qua thing in itself as is possible for a human being to have. Absolutely direct experience of the will is impossible, because it will always be mediated by time, but in first-personal experience of volition and the experience of music the thing in itself is no longer veiled by our other forms of cognitive conditioning. Thus, these experiences are epistemically distinctive and metaphysically significant. “Since the will expresses itself in Ideas as well as in music, Schopenhauer reasons that there must be analogies between them. Indeed, he draws out many such structural analogies: between the bass notes of harmony and the lower grades of objectification of the will in inorganic nature; between melody and the human being’s ‘most secret story,’ that is, ‘every emotion, every striving, every movement of the will, everything that reason collects under the broad and negative concept of feeling’; rhythms such as those of dance music are analogous to easy, common happiness, while the allegro maestoso corresponds to grand, noble strivings after distant goals; the ‘inexhaustibility’ of possible melodies is analogous to the ‘inexhaustibility of nature in the variety of individuals, physiognomies and life histories.’ “Notwithstanding these and many other analogies Schopenhauer draws between music and the Ideas, he underscores the notion that music does not imitate appearances, but rather expresses the will as directly as possible. It does this predominantly by expressing universal feelings: ...it does not express this or that individual or particular joy, this or that sorrow or pain or horror or exaltation or cheerfulness or peace of mind, but rather joy, sorrow, pain, horror, exaltation, cheerfulness and peace of mind as such in themselves, abstractly [–Schopenhauer]… “...Schopenhauer holds that people often feel that music is the most powerful of all the arts, affording a ‘profound pleasure with which we see the deepest recesses of our nature find expression.’ And he draws our attention to what today we might call, ‘the soundtrack effect,’ i.e.,

...the fact that, when music suitable to any scene, action, event, or environment is played, it seems to disclose to us its most secret meaning, and appears to be the most accurate and distinct commentary on it. [– Schopenhauer] “Finally, for Schopenhauer, ‘to the man who gives himself up entirely to the impression of a symphony, it is as if he saw all the possible events of life and of the world passing by within himself’ yet without being able to pinpoint any likeness of events in life to the music he has experienced. Given all of this, Schopenhauer believes his explanation – music is a copy of the will qua thing in itself – is justified as an inference to the best explanation of the experience, power and significance of music in the lives of serious listeners. He believes that his metaphysics of music finally does justice to the profound pleasure and significance that the musically sensitive experience when listening to truly great music.” – http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer-aesthetics/

***** Imagine if, by mastering music, you could literally make the whole world dance to your tune! Since Illuminism asserts that reality derives from analytic mathematical sinusoids (pure musical tones), we are living in nothing other than a cosmic symphony of the most wondrous music conceivable. The supreme music – the true Music of the Spheres – occurs when perfect monadic symmetry is achieved.

Abracadabra “Abracadabra is an incantation used as a magic word in stage magic tricks, and historically was believed to have healing powers when inscribed on an amulet. “The word may have its origin in the Aramaic language, but numerous conflicting folk etymologies are associated with it. “The word ‘Abracadabra’ may derive from an Aramaic phrase meaning ‘I create as I speak.’ This etymology is rather dubious, however, as [it may more reasonably be] translated, ‘I create like the word.’ The second lexeme in this supposedly Aramaic phrase must be a noun given the presence of the definite article on the end of the word (it cannot be an infinitive construct,

as the infinitive cannot take the definite article). Regardless, this phrase would actually be pronounced ebra kidbara, which is clearly different from abracadabra. However, Semitic languages like Aramaic are not always hard and fast with the assignment of vowels, and abracadabra is similar enough to ebra kidebra, given the tendency of vowels to shift. In the Hebrew language, the phrase translates more accurately as ‘it came to pass as it was spoken.’” – Wikipedia So, were the magicians right all along? Were they supreme mathematical intuitives using certain words to exert mental control over matter? Moses was said to have used a divine Word to part the Red Sea, and Solomon to master the demons that built his famous Temple. Ironically, magician Aleister Crowley said, “I hardly ever talk – words seem such a waste, and they are none of them true. No one has yet invented a language from my point of view.” He couldn’t have been very good at practical magic ... he wasn’t intuitive enough! Crowley said, “Magic is a disease of language.” What he ought to have said, perhaps, is, “Magic is the culmination of language, language at its very healthiest, language that has become as one with our will and recognises no limits.” Of course, most magic is charlatanry ... but not all of it!

***** We can use “Magic” to refer to the ability to extend our will beyond our limited body to the unlimited world. Language, magic and mathematics are all linked. Genuine magicians don’t know how their magic works. The answer is that it works mathematically, like everything else. Hypnosis allows one person’s will to exert mathematical control over another person’s mind and body. The mechanism here is that the hypnotist’s mind presents a suggestion (a command, a set of words, an idea) to a subject, and the subject then makes it happen using his own will (which is simply reflecting the will of the hypnotist). Demonic possession is when one mind takes over the body belonging to a different mind. Exorcism is when such possession is brought to an end by a more powerful mind that drives out the interloper mind. If the possessing

mind is more powerful than the mind of the exorciser, the exorcism will never work. Dominant people can routinely control submissives via the power of words, ideas and suggestions. In one experiment, a dominant spoke to a submissive over the phone from hundreds of miles away, and ordered him to paralyse his own hands. The submissive was then instantly helpless to move his hands, until “released” by the dominant. The dominant had literally used words – language – to induce a physical effect (or a psychological effect with physical consequences) in a submissive. The dominant (it was British illusionist Derren Brown) said, “The interesting thing is you’re fully aware nothing is locking it [your hand]. The idea that it is locked ... I’m providing nothing but the words ... you’re doing it to yourself [but you think I’m doing it to you, hence you need me to release you].” You could say that the dominant has actually controlled the hands of the submissive directly (remotely), or has controlled the mind of the submissive, who has then frozen his own hands on the dominant’s behalf. This type of thing reduces in the end to simple domination and submission. Dominants are highly unsuggestible and resistant to suggestibility (they, in fact, are the ones doing the suggesting). Submissives are highly suggestible and are looking to have suggestions made to them, and to follow those suggestions. They want to be controlled, while dominants want to control. Mohammed was a classic dominant and Islam is the archetypal submissive religion. In fact, Islam means submission, and only natural submissives would ever find it appealing. How brainwashed do you have to be to be a suicide bomber just because someone dominant tells you to? How submissive did Abraham have to be to agree to murder his son simply because “God” ordered it? How submissive do Christians have to be to refer to Jesus Christ as “Lord”, Master” and “God”? In fact, he was just a silly Jewish rabbi with a Messiah Complex ... or one of the Demiurge’s sinister, dominant Archons (!). Dominants can control reality through their thoughts and words, and is that not true “magic”? Hitler controlled Germany through the power of his ideas and rhetoric (his mastery of words). Nothing is more powerful than words, than ideas. They are just mathematics expressed non-mathematically. They are how Logos is

transformed into Mythos. (Numbers are how Mythos is turned into Logos.) Language itself is a form of magic. The use of words gives us not only the power to change our perception of reality, but to change reality itself.

The Magus Simon Magus = the ultimate intuitive magician, the prototype magician, the Divine Magician. What is the Holy Grail? It’s a MAGIC object. In fiction, writers use words so powerfully that they can create new worlds on paper, better than the world we live in, new people on paper, better and more vivid than the people we know. Imagine doing it as fact rather than fiction!

Mirror World Imagine the world as an immense system of mirrors, of reflections. What would such a world be like? Would it be magic? Can you enter this world via a mirror, a mirror portal? Mirrors are gateways. Mirrors are doors. Jim Morrison said, “There are things known, and things unknown, and in between are the Doors.” Maybe he should have said “Mirrors” instead of “Doors”. Those who make magic mirrors can imbue those mirrors with their own will. A strong-willed artisan creates a strong-willed mirror, capable of all manner of mischief.

Mirror Walking Mirror Walking: You may pass through any mirror or reflecting surface into the Plane of Mirrors. To return, you must exit through the same mirror through which you entered. When in the Plane of Mirrors, you can see through all mirrors into the non-mirror world without being seen, allowing you to spy on others. In the Mirrorplane, you may well encounter other mirror walkers. However, Mirror World, produces all manner of problems. Your mirror self lives in Mirror World, and it’s said that he will try to kill you if you enter his world. He is your mirror Shadow. If he escapes into this world, he will take over your life here. He is your doppelganger, your double, your duplicate, your mirror image.

Mirror Walking can equate to Teleportation. You can use mirrors as wormholes, reflecting your way across the entire universe, like a beam of light. The more highly polished the mirrors, the faster you can travel, eventually allowing you to travel at light speed itself. Mirror-blocking spells can trap you forever in Mirror World. Many people cover mirrors at funerals to stop the soul being reflected back into its corpse and thus becoming a trapped spirit (ghost) haunting the world.

Mirror Images In Mirror World, you can create illusory duplicates – mirror images – of yourself. These are unreal reflections, but they can make it impossible for an enemy to identify the real you if it wants to attack and kill you. It must select from among many indistinguishable targets.

Mirror Talking You can use the technique of mirror talking to reflect your words over and over again (to massively amplify their effect). You can create memes – imitators, doubles, duplicates, mirrors – that multiply all across the world. They are mirror thoughts, being mirrored in countless minds. Religions work in this way. The more difficult something is, the more difficult it is to be replicated and mirrored. Ontological mathematical concepts are not easily mirrored. Nursery rhymes are. Catchy tunes are. Mirrors are involved in misdirection, in glamour, in everything to do with doubles, shadows, Replicants and Simulants. The Mirror God is the Simulacral God. The Demiurge imperfectly mirrors the True God, and the material world imperfectly mirrors the divine world.

Daniel Dennett What Dennett said... “I find that some philosophers think that my whole approach to qualia is not playing fair. I don’t respect the standard rules of philosophical thought

experiments. ‘But Dan, your view is so counterintuitive!’ No kidding. That’s the whole point. Of course it is counterintuitive. Nowhere is it written that the true materialist theory of consciousness should be blandly intuitive. I have all along insisted that it may be very counterintuitive. That’s the trouble with ‘pure’ philosophical method here. It has no resources for developing, or even taking seriously, counterintuitive theories, but since it is a very good bet that the true materialist theory of consciousness will be highly counterintuitive (like the Copernican theory – at least at first), this means that ‘pure’ philosophy must just concede impotence and retreat into conservative conceptual anthropology until the advance of science puts it out of its misery. Philosophers have a choice: they can play games with folk concepts (ordinary language philosophy lives on, as a kind of aprioristic social anthropology) or they can take seriously the claim that some of these folk concepts are illusion-generators. The way to take that prospect seriously is to consider theories that propose revisions to those concepts.” – Daniel C. Dennett, Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science of Consciousness What Dennett ought to have said... “I find that some scientists, especially neuroscientists, think that my whole approach to qualia is not playing fair. I don’t respect the standard rules of scientific thought experiments. ‘But Dan, your view is so counterintuitive!’ No kidding. That’s the whole point. Of course it is counterintuitive. Nowhere is it written that the true idealist theory of consciousness should be blandly intuitive. I have all along insisted that it may be very counterintuitive. That’s the trouble with ‘pure’ scientific method here. It has no resources for developing, or even taking seriously, counterintuitive theories, but since it is a very good bet that the true idealist theory of consciousness will be highly counterintuitive (like the Copernican theory – at least at first), this means that ‘pure’ science must just concede impotence and retreat into conservative conceptual anthropology until the advance of metaphysics and ontological mathematics puts it out of its misery. Scientists and neuroscientists have a choice: they can play games with folk concepts (ordinary language science lives on, as a kind of social anthropology, a sensory Mythos, a worship of “common sense”) or they can take seriously the claim that some of these folk concepts are illusion-generators. The way

to take that prospect seriously is to consider theories that propose revisions to those concepts.”

***** “I’m the guy who reputedly denies that people experience colours or pains, and thinks that thermostats think – just ask my critics.” – Daniel C. Dennett Well, given your materialist, empiricist philosophy, that IS what you are saying! You claim that you can organise lifeless, mindless atoms in various ways and get them to talk, recite poetry, see the redness of a rose, and fall in love. If that’s true for humans, why not for thermostats or rocks that are equally just collections of lifeless, mindless atoms?!

Locke, Hume and Kant “Innatism is a philosophical doctrine that holds that the mind is born with ideas/knowledge, and that therefore the mind is not a ‘blank slate’ at birth, as early empiricists such as John Locke claimed. It asserts therefore that not all knowledge is obtained from experience and the senses.” – Wikipedia Ideas of sensation: seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling (input from the external world via the senses). Ideas of reflection: thinking, believing, willing, reasoning etc. (input from the internal operations of the mind, often acting on ideas of sensation, and always starting from this input). Simple ideas: those of sensation, and reflections on sensations. The mind is passive in this mode, merely receiving information. These are “basis” ideas. Complex ideas: those that are generated by combining, or comparing, or abstracting from simple ideas. The mind is active in this mode, operating on, processing, interpreting and generating information. These are “additive” ideas.

The Mythos Gang SN: “You don’t fuck with Kali. Kali fucks with you.” Yeah? Fuck Kali. Another moronic Mythos fantasy.

Q. Who would beat the shit out of whom? Abraham or Kali? How mad would you have to be to engage in this debate?! You know what’s really sad and disturbing? There are people all over the world in responsible jobs who believe this cretinous drivel. No wonder the world is so fucked. When are we going to get rid of these deluded and deranged people? When will the Mythos lies and insanity end? Fuck faith. Fuck your Gods! Reason can and will kill all of them. Only pathetic slaves believe that there any other Gods than evolving Gods, and we ourselves are the evolving Gods. We have no fear of Kali, or anyone else. They fear us – because we’re coming for them. We’re going to bring them Ragnarok! We’ll burn down their heavens, and concrete over them.

Dreamers Amongst the Awaking What is autism? It’s the phenomenon of “locked-up” souls. Autistic souls are in a private dreamstate. An autistic monad struggles to interact with other monads. Autistics are those who dream while they are awake. They are never in a fully awake state, never able to fully interact with others.

The Smart Factory The task is to turn the whole nation into a giant school, college, academy, university. The true mission of a nation is to produce the best-educated citizens in history, not to produce the best factory fodder, bureaucrats and functionaries to allow the super rich to flourish, and capitalism to function. We need schools rather than factories. We need smart people rather than drones. We need the active rather than the passive. The future is about smartness, not faith. It’s about talent, not social contacts. It’s about what you know rather than who you know. It’s about how much you earn, not how much you inherit.

Hope and Expectation We have hope. They have expectation. See the difference? We say, “Nothing will go our way.” They say, “Everything will go our way.” See the difference?

These are two different worlds. They are taught to lead. We are taught to follow. Fuck that!

Indecision Most people are indecisive. They refuse, or, rather, they can’t choose. They refuse to commit. They don’t make the leap. They lack the will, the strength, the conviction. The penalty for indecision is to lead a pointless, purposeless, meaningless life. Liberals are indecisive. Radicals are decisive. Why is the world ruled by psychopaths? Because they get off their asses and make things happen. The liberals just sit there, pretending to be “nice”. They’re too lazy and stupid to be nasty.

The Ultimate Winners The smartest people in the world will inevitably win in the great dialectical evolutionary contest of humanity, and they will establish the era associated with the “End of History”, when there are no further changes in the political, religious and economic structures of the world. The smartest people are currently lacking only one thing: sufficient Will to Power. They are liberals rather than radicals. They are willing to serve the agenda of others (the rich) rather than serve their own agenda and depose the rich (as they could easily do).

***** “The people in power will not disappear voluntarily. Giving flowers to the cops just isn’t going to work. This thinking is fostered by the establishment. They like nothing better than love and nonviolence. The only way I like to see cops given flowers is in a flower pot from a high window.” – William S. Burroughs Christianity was the greatest gift ever given to the Power Elite. They slap our cheek and then we are expected to turn and give them the other cheek. Fuck that! We’ll give them the Steel Kiss of Madam Guillotine! We must drive out every liberal from the Illuminist movement. There can be no room for compassion and pity. Nietzsche said, “Pity preserves things that are ripe for decline, it defends things that have been disowned and condemned by life, and it gives a depressive and questionable character

to life itself by keeping alive an abundance of failures of every type. People have dared to call pity a virtue… people have gone even further, making it into the virtue, the foundation and source of all virtues, – but of course you always have to keep in mind that this was the perspective of a nihilistic philosophy that inscribed the negation of life on its shield. Schopenhauer was right here: pity negates life, it makes life worthy of negation, – pity is the practice of nihilism. Once more: this depressive and contagious instinct runs counter to the instincts that preserve and enhance the value of life: by multiplying misery just as much as by conserving everything miserable, pity is one of the main tools used to increase decadence – pity wins people over to nothingness! … You do not say ‘nothingness’: instead you say ‘the beyond’; or ‘God’; or ‘the true life’; or nirvana, salvation, blessedness … This innocent rhetoric from the realm of religious-moral idiosyncrasy suddenly appears much less innocent when you see precisely which tendencies are wrapped up inside these sublime words: tendencies hostile to life.” Elsewhere, Nietzsche said, “Pity is the most agreeable feeling among those who have little pride and no prospects of great conquests.” Compassion and pity invariably mean weakness, pacifism, and refusal to fight for what is true, just and right. No psychopath in history has every yielded to the forces of love, peace, pity, compassion, meekness and weakness. How dumb, how ignorant of human nature, would you have to be to believe the mind-rotting garbage of the “love and light” gang, the “spiritually enlightened”?! In your fucking dreams! You’re about as enlightened as Ebola disease. One of humanity’s greatest problems is that so many people imagine themselves to be “enlightened” when they have no idea what the word means. No Buddhist and no Hindu has ever understood enlightenment. Enlightenment is about absolute knowledge, not absolute absorption into something else that allegedly knows all the answers. If you can’t define what you’re looking for, you’ll never find it ... by definition!

Acceptable Mythos? Mythos is acceptable only when it is accompanied by Logos. However, Mythos is almost invariably found in direct opposition to Logos, on the side of feelings, senses, faith and pity. Any Mythos that cannot be related to an

underlying Logos is without value and is, in effect, insane. All of Abrahamism and most of Eastern religion is insane.

The Discernment of Spirits A person with the gift of “discernment of spirits” has a spiritual radar. He can sense spirits in the spiritual realm and get inklings of what they are thinking and doing. He can see spirits and ghosts.

The Illuminati A person said that the Illuminati must be fake because they claim to go back at least as far as Pythagoras, yet “Illuminati” is a Latin (Roman) word and Pythagoras was a Greek. This is almost comical given that “Greek” isn’t a Greek word, but is itself derived from the Latin Graecia, meaning “the land of the Greeks”, i.e. it was the Romans who referred to “Greece” and “Greeks”. The “Greeks” themselves called their land Hellas and themselves Hellenes. Please be intelligent before you make any point at all about the Illuminati!

The Poet “Perhaps no person can be a poet, or even enjoy poetry, without a certain unsoundness of mind.” – Thomas Babington Macaulay No person can be a zealot for Mythos without an unsoundness of mind. Reason is what cures the Mythos mind. Reason is what enlightens. This is the worst possible news for all those who are wedded to Mythos because they are too stupid for Logos. When Mythos zealots tell us how much they hate us, and deploy their ridiculous New Age, Buddhist, Hindu, and Taoist arguments against us, we always smile condescendingly (like the compassionless, pitiless, arrogant monsters we are). It’s amazing how many morons believe they can become “enlightened” by listening to ancient charlatans, and using various oriental words for “enlightenment”, as if the labelling of enlightenment somehow leads to enlightenment. Consider the following allusions to Enlightenment (source = Wikipedia):

1) Buddhism: Attainment of Nirvana, Satori, Bodhi, Union with Mahamudra or Dzogchen. 2) Hinduism: Liberation from cycles of Karma (moksha), selfrealization (atma-jnana), non-identification (Kaivalya), experience of ultimate reality (Samadhi), Innate Knowledge (Sahaja). 3) Taoism: connection to ultimate reality (Tao). Simpletons actually believe that because Eastern religion constantly refers to “enlightenment”, it is ipso facto enlightened and that you will automatically become enlightened if you read lots of ancient Eastern texts and the words of ancient gurus. Er, wrong! Eastern religion is just a lot of silly stories and parables – exactly like Western religion. Enlightenment is about understanding reality, not about becoming attuned to some mystical state asserted in ancient Mythos sources. Really, how stupid would you have to be to imagine that “quieting the mind”, “extinguishing the mind”, “mindfulness”, “spiritual calm” or whatever – all accomplished via “meditation” – are any use to man or beast? These are all manifestations of anti-knowledge, of anti-reason, of a total rejection and abandonment of Logos. Far from being the path to enlightenment, meditation is the path to endarkenment, to ignorance, to the extinguishing of knowledge, to the death of reason. Picking up any book on math would be infinitely more valuable to you than meditating, but, of course, most people are shit at math, and bored to tears by it. They’d always choose meditation over math, just as Abrahamists would rather pray for God’s miracles rather than do hard math and make their own miracles (like landing men on the moon or creating the internet). Gnosticism is all about knowledge, not about anti-knowledge (faith and Mythos mysticism). It seems that when it comes to mainstream religions, Eastern or Western, you can fool all of the people all of the time! If you have ever grasped the first thing about the dialectic then you understand that we reach perfection not through peace but through war. Why is the jungle so staggeringly savage? Why do animals eat each other in order to survive? Who designed that system?! Why is it kill or be killed? Why are humans so cruel to each other? What kind of fool would imagine that there was any kind of benevolent force permeating the universe? The last thing we would ever encounter in

reality is a universe of “unconditional love”. The universe is a battlefield – an eternal battlefield – involving a ceaseless clash of ideas and conflicting interests. The dialectic tells us that this process is accompanied by the evolution of conscious reason. As the dialectic resolves contradictions through higher and higher syntheses, what it is actually doing is introducing more and more conscious reason into the universe. At the end of a Cosmic Age, at the Omega Point, every contradiction has been resolved. Conscious reason is utterly triumphant. Reason reigns alone. Reason, not love, not peace and not pity, is perfection. If you haven’t worked out that the universe is, slowly and painfully, getting more rational (but no more loving), what hope is there for you? This is universe of reason, not of emotion. Get over it! Go and cry somewhere else.

Defending The Indefensible There’s nothing more obnoxious than people who attach themselves to Illuminist pages, yet continue to defend Abrahamism and to condemn our attacks on it. We will stop only when Abrahamism no longer exists, when the greatest curse in human history has been lifted. Do you want to know what the true face of Abrahamism is? Just like at the self-styled “Islamic State” (New Caliphate) in Iraq and Syria. Now imagine the whole world like that. That’s what an Abrahamic world would look like – hell itself! That’s exactly what the Western world used to look like before the Renaissance, Enlightenment and American and French Revolutions. Here is the quintessential distillation of Abrahamism: “God told Abraham to kill Isaac, Abraham did so without question and was willing to kill his son and only stopped once God said he could live. Ray, if God commanded you would you murder a child?” –Martin Roberts “Of course I would do as The Lord commanded. It isn’t murder if it’s in God’s name. Nothing he commands could ever possibly be considered evil as morality comes from God. Even cancer is a gift from God. “I would kill a thousand children if God asked me to, that’s because I have faith. As an Atheist you can’t possibly know the joy of faith. If The Lord commanded me to rape and kill my own children tonight it would be done by morning. You can’t shake my faith! Banning you.” – Ray Comfort

***** “Help to fight the horrific holocaust of abortion. Please share. BTW. I ban anyone who tries to justify the killing of children in the womb...” – Ray Comfort So, abortion is evil, but raping and murdering your own children and massacring a thousand children is fine ... as long as the Lord orders it. Well, that’s Christians for you!! “This is a site for Christians. Think of it as a restricted army base where Christian soldiers are trained for warfare. It’s private. From here they go out to fight the good fight of faith, with weapons of love and truth.” – Ray Comfort Love and truth? What? – raping and murdering your own children represents love, truth and God’s morality? WTF! Ray Comfort, and everyone who holds his beliefs, or even tolerates them, should be in a prison or mental asylum. And so should all of the liberals who take no action against that kind of person. He has openly said he will rape and murder his own children if a voice in his head ordered it, and yet no one has arrested him!

***** Any moral person would of course find it inconceivable that a morally perfect God would ever order a father to rape and murder his children. Yet Ray Comfort does not find such an order remotely incompatible with the God in which he believes. He can readily imagine being given the order, and has openly said he would carry it out without hesitation. Which tells you everything you need to know about the morality (actually, immorality) of Ray Comfort and his God. These people are utterly evil. Ray Comfort worships the Devil, not God. Banning him!

The Greatest Achievement Illuminism’s greatest achievement is that it has defined the soul – hitherto the most mysterious thing of all – as a mathematical singularity, and provides a mathematical formula for it (the generalised Euler Formula). Thus, for the first time ever, it brings the soul out of the world of faith and

mysticism (the domain of priests, popes, prophets and gurus) and places it at the heart of the world of science and mathematics (the domain of reason, logic, analysis and precision). It removes the Soul from Mythos and gives it to Logos. One day, this will be appreciated as the greatest revolution ever effected in human thinking. It allows mind to be treated in a single system alongside matter. Until now, science has absolutely refused to refer to the soul or mind. Now, it has no option. Science can never be complete until it addresses singularities, and this is none other than forcing materialism to embrace the mind ... the soul! Science has always looked on singularities with horror. It ought to. The singularity spells the end for the fallacy of scientific materialism. The singularity is the rock on which the false doctrine of materialism founders once and for all.

Innatism versus Empiricism Innatism versus empiricism is the same as rationalism versus empiricism, and noumenalism versus phenomenalism, and metaphysics versus physics.

***** “Innatism is a philosophical doctrine that holds that the mind is born with ideas/knowledge, and that therefore the mind is not a ‘blank slate’ at birth, as early empiricists such as John Locke claimed. It asserts therefore that not all knowledge is obtained from experience and the senses. “In general usage, the terms innatism and nativism are synonymous as they both refer to notions of pre-existing ideas present in the mind. However, more correctly, innatism refers to the philosophy of Plato and Descartes, who assumed that a God or a similar being or process placed innate ideas and principles in the human mind. “Nativism represents an adaptation of this, grounded in the fields of genetics, cognitive psychology and psycholinguistics. Nativists hold that innate beliefs are in some way genetically programmed to arise in our mind – that innate beliefs are the phenotypes of certain genotypes that all humans have in common. “Nativism is a modern view rooted in innatism. The advocates of nativism are mainly philosophers who also work in the field of cognitive psychology or psycholinguistics: most notably Noam Chomsky and Jerry

Fodor (although the latter has adopted a more critical attitude towards nativism in his later writings). The nativist’s general objection against empiricism is still the same as was raised by the rationalists: the human mind of a newborn child is not a tabula rasa, but equipped with an inborn structure. “In philosophy and psychology, an innate idea is a concept or item of knowledge which is said to be universal to all humanity – that is, something people are born with rather than something people have learned through experience. “The issue is controversial, and can be said to be an aspect of a longrunning nature versus nurture debate, albeit one localized to the question of understanding human cognition. “Although individual human beings obviously vary due to cultural, racial, linguistic and era-specific influences, innate ideas are said to belong to a more fundamental level of human cognition. For example, the philosopher René Descartes theorized that knowledge of God is innate in everybody as a product of the faculty of faith. “Other philosophers, most notably the empiricists, were critical of the theory and denied the existence of any innate ideas, saying all human knowledge was founded on experience, rather than a priori reasoning. “Philosophically, the debate over innate ideas is central to the conflict between rationalist and empiricist epistemologies. Whilst rationalists believe that certain ideas exist independently of experience, empiricism claims that all knowledge is derived from experience. “Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz suggested that we are born with certain innate ideas, the most identifiable of these being mathematical truisms. The idea that 1 + 1 = 2 is evident to us without the necessity for empirical evidence. Leibniz argues that empiricism can only show us that concepts are true in the present; if we see one stick and then another we know that in that instance, and in that instance only, one and another equals two. If, however, we wish to suggest that one and another will always equal two, we require an innate idea, as we are talking about things as yet unwitnessed. “Leibniz called such concepts as mathematical truisms ‘necessary truths’. Another example of such may be the phrase, ‘what is, is’ or ‘it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be’. Leibniz argues that such truisms are universally assented to (acknowledged by all to be true) and,

this being the case, it must be due to their status as innate ideas. Often there are ideas that are acknowledged as necessarily true but are not universally assented to. Leibniz would suggest that this is simply because the person in question has not become aware of the innate idea, not because they do not possess it. Leibniz argues that empirical evidence can serve to bring to the surface certain principles that are already innately embedded in our minds. This is rather like needing to hear only the first few notes in order to recall the rest of the melody. “The main antagonist to the concept of innate ideas is John Locke, a contemporary of Leibniz. Locke argued that the mind is in fact devoid of all knowledge or ideas at birth; it is a blank sheet or tabula rasa. He argued that all our ideas are constructed in the mind via a process of constant composition and decomposition of the input that we receive through our senses. “Locke, in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, suggests that the concept of universal assent in fact proves nothing, except perhaps that everyone is in agreement; in short universal assent proves that there is universal assent and nothing else. Moreover, Locke goes on to suggest that in fact there is no universal assent. Even a phrase such as ‘What is, is’ is not universally assented to, infants and severely handicapped adults do not generally acknowledge this truism. Locke also attacks the idea that an innate idea can be imprinted on the mind without the owner realizing it. To return to the musical analogy, we may not be able to recall the entire melody until we hear the first few notes, but we were aware of the fact that we knew the melody and that upon hearing the first few notes we would be able to recall the rest. “Locke ends his attack upon innate ideas by suggesting that the mind is a tabula rasa or ‘blank slate’, and that all ideas come from experience; all our knowledge is founded in sensory experience. “Essentially, the same knowledge thought to be a priori by Leibniz is in fact, according to Locke, the result of empirical knowledge, which has a lost origin [been forgotten] in respect to the inquirer. However, the inquirer is not cognisant of this fact; and thus, he experiences what he believes to be a priori knowledge. “In his Meno, Plato raises an important epistemological quandary: How is it that we have certain ideas which are not conclusively derivable from our environments?

“Noam Chomsky has taken this problem as a philosophical framework for the scientific enquiry into innatism. His linguistic theory, which derives from 18th century classical-liberal thinkers such as Wilhelm von Humboldt, attempts to explain in cognitive terms how we can develop knowledge of systems which are said, by supporters of innatism, to be too rich and complex to be derived from our environment. One such example is our linguistic faculty. Our linguistic systems contain a systemic complexity which supposedly could not be empirically derived: the environment seems too poor, variable and indeterminate, according to Chomsky, to explain the extraordinary ability to learn complex concepts possessed by very young children. It follows that humans must be born with a universal innate grammar, which is determinate and has a highly organized directive component, and enables the language learner to ascertain and categorize language heard into a system. Noam Chomsky cites as evidence for this theory the apparent invariability, according to his views, of human languages at a fundamental level. In this way, linguistics may provide a window into the human mind, and establish scientific theories of innateness which otherwise would remain merely speculative. “One implication of Noam Chomsky’s innatism, if correct, is that at least a part of human knowledge consists in cognitive predispositions, which are triggered and developed by the environment, but not determined by it. Parallels can then be drawn, on a purely speculative level, between our moral faculties and language, as has been done by sociobiologists such as E. O. Wilson and evolutionary psychologists such as Steven Pinker. The relative consistency of fundamental notions of morality across cultures seems to produce convincing evidence for these theories. In psychology, notions of archetypes such as those developed by Carl Jung, suggest determinate identity perceptions. “There are two ways in which animals can gain knowledge. The first of these two ways is learning. This is when an animal gathers information about its surrounding environment and then proceeds to use this information. For example, if an animal eats something that hurts its stomach, it has learned not to eat this again. The second way that an animal can acquire knowledge is through innate knowledge. “This knowledge is genetically inherited. The animal automatically knows it without any prior experience. An example of this is when a horse is born and can immediately walk. The horse has not learned this behaviour;

it simply knows how to do it. In some scenarios, innate knowledge is more beneficial than learned knowledge. However, in other scenarios the opposite is true. “In a changing environment, an animal must constantly be gaining new information in order to survive. However, in a stable environment this same individual need only to gather the information it needs once and rely on it for the duration of its life. Therefore, there are different scenarios in which learning or innate knowledge is better suited. Essentially, the cost of obtaining certain knowledge versus the benefit of having it determined whether an animal evolved to learn in a given situation or whether it innately knew the information. If the cost of gaining the knowledge outweighed the benefit of having it, then the individual would not have evolved to learn in this scenario; instead, non-learning would evolve. However, if the benefit of having certain information outweighed the cost of obtaining it, then the animal would be far more likely to evolve to have to learn this information. “Non-learning is more likely to evolve in two scenarios. If an environment is static and change does not or rarely occurs then learning would simply be unnecessary. “Because there is no need for learning in this scenario – and because learning could prove to be disadvantageous due to the time it took to learn the information – non-learning evolves. However, if an environment were in a constant state of change then learning would also prove to be disadvantageous. Anything learned would immediately become irrelevant because of the changing environment. The learned information would no longer apply. Essentially, the animal would be just as successful if it took a guess as if it learned. In this situation, non-learning would evolve. “However, in environments where change occurs but is not constant, learning is more likely to evolve. Learning is beneficial in these scenarios because an animal can adapt to the new situation, but can still apply the knowledge that it learns for a somewhat extended period of time. Therefore, learning increases the chances of success as opposed to guessing and adapts to changes in the environment as opposed to innate knowledge. “In the field of psychology, nativism is the view that certain skills or abilities are ‘native’ or hard-wired into the brain at birth. This is in contrast to empiricism, the ‘blank slate’ or tabula rasa view, which states that the brain has inborn capabilities for learning from the environment but does not

contain content such as innate beliefs. This factor contributes to the ongoing nature versus nurture dispute.” – Wikipedia

***** The faculty of basic perception itself is not acquired; it’s innate. All monads, conscious or unconscious, are perceiving and thinking all the time. If that basic faculty is innate, why shouldn’t other things be innate too? Locke’s tabula rasa is innate!

Skepticism “[Hume] proceeds upon the same principles [as Berkeley], but carries them to their full length; and, as the Bishop undid the whole material world, this author [Hume], upon the same grounds, undoes the world of spirits.” – Thomas Reid Berkeley’s central premise is that what we immediately perceive are solely our ideas, and from this he concludes that the objects of perception can be nothing more than collections of ideas. After all, what else could they be? What conceivable reason could we have for positing the existence of anything else? Why should we postulate a mysterious, non-mental substance that we call matter but which we can never perceive in any way other than mentally? Matter is a hypothesis for which there is no empirical evidence, which makes it astounding that materialism typically goes hand in hand with empiricism. True empiricism demands that we accept only that which we can experience, and all we can experience are ideas. We can never experience so-called matter in itself, as something other than an idea, as something non-mental. Why are materialists so skeptical towards souls, which they can’t perceive, yet not skeptical at all towards matter, which they can’t perceive either!? Hume applies Berkeley’s argument to the objects of “inner” rather than “outer” perception. We can’t know of the existence of matter, and nor can we know of the existence of any soul, self, mind or spirit. All we can know are ideas, and we can’t relate them to anything else since we can’t perceive anything else. We can’t perceive causation either, so that can’t form any part of “knowledge”.

Hume said of the self, “If any impression gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariably the same, through the whole course of our lives; since self is supposed to exist after that manner. But there is no impression constant and invariable. Pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same time. It cannot therefore be from any of these impressions, or from any other, that the idea of self is derived; and consequently there is no such idea. ... But setting aside some metaphysicians of this kind, I may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, that they are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement. Our eyes cannot turn in their sockets without varying our perceptions. Our thought is still more variable than our sight; and all our other senses and faculties contribute to this change: nor is there any single power of the soul, which remains unalterably the same, perhaps for one moment. The mind is a kind of theatre, where several perceptions successively make their appearance; pass, repass, glide away, and mingle in an infinite variety of postures and situations. There is properly no simplicity in it at one time, nor identity in different, whatever natural propension we may have to imagine that simplicity and identity. The comparison of the theatre must not mislead us. They are the successive perceptions only, that constitute the mind; nor have we the most distant notion of the place where these scenes are represented, or of the materials of which it is composed.” Hume was a new Buddha, and every bit as hostile to the Self, the Soul, and ontology.

Simple Substances Berkeley’s spirits, like Leibniz’s monads, are simple substances. Reality can only be based on simple substances. Any complex substances would be reducible to simple substances, hence would be contingent, not necessary. A soul is an immaterial, dimensionless unity, a simple substance, an uncaused cause. It cannot be perceived. The soul is the ultimate innate entity, and supplies us with every innate idea. All true innate ideas are eternal, and all of them reflect eternal truths of reason, which are the truths of ontological mathematics.

***** Berkeley is on the same side as Leibniz in asserting that only simple substances (minds) exist. Locke was on the same side as Descartes in asserting that there are two substances: mind and matter. However, the dualists have never been able to explain how mind and matter interact since they are incompatible, mutually exclusive entities. Berkeley and Leibniz had no such problem. For both, matter was a product of mind, hence was mental, not physical. Matter wasn’t a separate substance from mind. Rather, it was the Content of mind (mind = Form). For Berkeley and Leibniz, minds are active, while “matter” and ideas are passive (“matter” is of course itself just an idea). In dualist systems, matter can affect other matter and mind can affect mind, but no dualist has ever explained how matter can affect mind, or mind matter, if they are separate substances. No such difficulty exists with mental monism.

***** For Berkeley, minds are substances while ideas are not substances. Ideas are, rather, the contingent contents of necessary minds. This is a kind of dualism, but a dualism of Form and Content. There is only one kind of substance: mind. Substances = eternal forms. Ideas = contingent contents.

***** In Berkeley’s Form/Content dualism, there are only minds (Forms) and “things” (ideas = Contents of minds). “Things” are composed of sensory qualities, and these are what are experienced by minds.

***** We don’t and can’t perceive our own minds or other minds in the way we perceive ideas. The only way for Berkeley to have an objective world, common to all minds, was to have a God, whose mind contains all of us, and indeed the whole world. Ideas concerning the objective world can be external to our minds, but must come from some mind, and be permanently perceived by a mind, and that mind can only be God’s. Ergo, Berkeley concludes, God exists.

***** For there to be an objective rather than solipsistic (subjective) reality, there must be ideas external to us. Where do these ideas come from? Berkeley proposed God. In Illuminism, it’s from other minds, from the Monadic Collective, from the ontological mathematical Singularity (which serves the same function as Berkeley’s God). Interestingly, for Berkeley’s God, all that exists apart from himself are his own thoughts. For Berkeley’s God, there is no objective, external reality. Therefore, the universe of Berkeley’s God is a solipsistic universe. He alone truly exists, and everything else, including us, is a fantasy in his mind! We are God’s dream.

Idealism and God For Berkeley, idealism was the best argument against atheism, the best argument for the existence of God. Materialism, conversely, was the best argument for atheism. Scientific materialism is automatically hand-bound to atheism, which is why so many scientists are atheist zealots. If you truly accept the premises of science then you can’t honestly fail to be atheist. The only problem is that materialism in general, and scientific materialism in particular, are wholly fallacious in terms of what they say about core reality. Science is highly successful at describing the observable world, and equally unsuccessful at describing the unobservable world. Idealism goes hand in hand with religion and spirituality, which is why ontological mathematics is the champion of the immortal, indestructible soul, the ultimate simple substance, and the basic unit of mathematics and reason. Mathematics – ontological mathematics – starts with the soul and constructs everything on top of it.

“Dark Matter?” Willing, perceiving, thinking, reasoning, sensing, feeling, intuiting desiring are the operations of mind. Where is matter in any of this? Who needs it? We can tell scientists right now why they appear to have carelessly mislaid 95% (yes, 95%!) of the universe, in the form of “dark” matter and

“dark” energy. It’s because their ontological model of reality is entirely false – as any rational person would conclude if they could only account for 5% of it. That’s a 95% fail, an epic fail!

Thinking and Perception Thinking is simply less vivid perception. Thinking of red is less vivid than perceiving red. Thought is like perception, but at one step removed. The materials of our thinking are copied from perception. When we think, it’s rather like replaying perception. Perception, for many people, especially sensing types, is often used instead of thinking. Scientists simply can’t think their way past the observable world, and that’s why they have lost 95% of existence!

Unperception? According to Berkeley, it wouldn’t matter if anything was unperceived by mind since anything unperceived can have no consequences in his view. Berkeley insisted that objects of perception cannot have any other existence. In particular, they can’t have “material” existence. What happens when no one is perceiving an object? It doesn’t matter, Berkeley says, since how could we know anything about it? Berkeley insisted that “matter” cannot impart ideas to mind. No materialist has ever explained how it can.

***** Berkeley was not for turning things into ideas, but for turning ideas into things.

Existence All of existence = minds and their ideas (monads and their sinusoidal waves). All of existence = minds and the contents of minds (ideas). Minds are active, ideas passive. Minds operate on ideas. Minds combine basis thoughts (simple ideas) into complex thoughts (complex ideas). We are aware of minds by virtue of being minds, by virtue of having minds. We don’t have to perceive minds.

Representation Locke was a representative realist. Representative realism says that we are directly aware, through perception, of ideas in our minds. We suppose there are physical objects that cause these perceived ideas in our minds, i.e. the perceptions are representations of real things. We receive an idea, which is our perception of a tree, for example, and we assume that there is a material tree which in some way resembles or corresponds to our idea. There are properties (primary properties) that belong to the tree and properties (secondary properties) that belong to us, to our perceiving minds, but which have their origins and causes in the primary properties. There is nothing directly resembling secondary properties in the tree itself, but something in the tree (its primary properties) causes those ideas in us.

Modernity Whenever you see an Orthodox Jew or a Muslim Fundamentalist in the street, it startles you and sends a strange shudder of revulsion through you. You look at their long religious beards and all of their religious apparel and accoutrements, and the blank look in their eyes, and you realise you are not looking at a 21st century human being but a throwback to thousands of years ago. These people have no interest in science, mathematics, engineering, technology and computing. Instead, they are interested only in ancient stories that they were brainwashed with as children and into which they have invested their whole identities. They have failed to understand the modern world with all of its complexity and retreated to an infantile world of stories and fairytales, of myths and legends – a world that makes sense to their childish, primitive, backward minds. There are two human species, not one. They are: 1) Mythos humanity (the people of stories, faith and feelings), and 2) Logos humanity (the people of reason). Reason can get better and better. Stories cannot. Reason can evolve. Stories cannot. Rational truths can evolve. Story “truths” cannot. Reason can reflect reality more and more accurately. Stories cannot. Reason can build machines, materials and chemicals, allowing us to control the world. Stories cannot; stories can only control vulnerable minds. What’s it to be – reason or stories?

All of the wars in the world stem from ancient beliefs and stories, and the bizarre and irrational identities they have consequently created in people. The war of Israel and Palestine is not a modern war. It’s an ancient war fought between ancient peoples and their ancient, fanatical beliefs. It’s the latest phase of the war between the Hebrews and Canaanites. Yet this ancient struggle is being conducted in today’s world and is affecting everyone, Mythos and Logos humans alike. When human knowledge was so primitive thousands of years ago, faith was understandable. Today, when we have so much knowledge available, faith represents a catastrophic failure to accept modernity. Above all, it reflects an astounding failure of intelligence. People of faith literally reject the world of modern knowledge and cling to ancient, refuted knowledge. Why? – because that ancient, false knowledge is much easier to understand. Plainly, you need to be smart to understand mathematics and physics. No one needs to be smart to understand the Torah, Bible or Koran. These are just ancient books in which ancient, dominant prophets who imagined themselves to be God, or God’s appointed voice, shouted at weak submissives, gave them a simple, sadistic worldview (heaven for believers, hell for unbelievers) and thus totally controlled them, even from the grave. Religions, it must be understood, are about psychology, not about reason, understanding and knowledge. Religions are about scaring people, inspiring people, controlling people, dominating people, giving them a childish “explanation” of life, and making them obey a set of rules, laws and commandments. Intelligence is about freeing people from all that junk. Yet, faith remains far more attractive to the vast majority than reason. Faith is easy. Reason is hard. Mythos people always follow the easy route, the path of least resistance. Logos people, on the other hand, love complexity, challenges, difficulties, overcoming obstacles. Logos people can evolve. Mythos people cannot and have not. To be a follower of mainstream religion in the 21st century is inexcusable. It’s the supreme crime and sin. No clever person can fail to grasp that we are in the midst of a War of Intelligence. The world is awash with stupid people of faith, and they are fighting tooth and claw against human progress and evolution. Just look at the Muslim Jihadists. Their greatest desire is to reconstruct Mohammed’s Arabia of 1400 years ago for the whole world. They want to go back in a

time machine to the days when the Muslim hordes cut through the world, destroying all in their path, when the world was afraid of Islam and Islam was clearly winning. The Army of Reason must fight back. It must wage a war to the last. It must eradicate faith once and for all. The cloud of religious darkness must be lifted from the world. It’s time to let in the light, the light of reason. Imagine a world where children are taught rational things when they are children rather than crazy, irrational stories with enormous psychological power that can change their psyches irrevocably, to their extreme and permanent detriment. To all intellectuals, we say this, Stop appeasing the people of faith. WWII happened because the Allies adopted a policy of appeasement towards Hitler. Liberal cowardice never succeeds. The war always comes, and is always worse the longer it’s put off. Faith must be denounced, not encouraged. It must be fought, not tolerated. Will the human race never wake up? A world of reason rather than a world of faith will be an infinitely better place.

The Buddha Why is it that so many Westerners think it’s profitable to study Buddhism, Hinduism or Taoism? None of these same people feel any need to study pre-Socratic philosophy, Plato and Aristotle, Stoicism and Neoplatonism. Why not? By any objective intellectual standards, any ancient Greek thinker is vastly more intelligent than any ancient Eastern thinker. That, of course, is the whole problem. Eastern religion is easy compared with Western philosophy, and so much more popular, fashionable and exotic. Fashion, truth and exoticism are, however, nothing to do with Truth!

Externality We must replace the idea that “matter” is external to us with the idea that only other minds and their individual and collective ideas are external to us. All that exists in the universe are the individual and collective thinking of minds. There is no mysterious, inexplicable matter. We live inside a holographic, mathematical Mind (Singularity). The whole concept of matter is an illusion, a mental projection. There are no physical bodies and no physical objects whatsoever. All that exists are minds and their thoughts, perceivers and their perceptions.

The only difference between dreaming and waking is that we dream privately and wake collectively. That is, our dreamworld is exclusively about our own minds, whereas, in the waking world, we encounter all the other minds and their thoughts. In our own private world, we meet no resistance. There is no space, no time, no spacetime causation, no limits to what we can and cannot do, bar the limits of our imagination. There is no resistance to our thoughts. In the waking world, we are part of the thoughts of the Monadic Collective, and thus we are subjected to collective, rigid rules and it’s these that are responsible for the “scientific” world of spacetime and the laws of science, and which present the resistance to us that we all encounter in the public, shared, waking world. We are in fact simply coming up against the thoughts of others, rather than just our own thoughts. Interestingly, Berkeley’s God has no world external to him, hence such a God is doing nothing but dreaming! Berkeley relied on God to provide an objective reality for the rest of us. Illuminism relies on other minds. Things most certainly exist when we ourselves are not perceiving them.

Pantheism Berkeley was accused of pantheism. If everything exists in God’s mind then everything is God. If God is the source of our sensory ideas of the material world, he must also be the source of our wrongdoings, our sins. That’s blasphemy and heresy!

Null Effect For Berkeley, it doesn’t matter if things aren’t there when they’re not being observed since they have no empirical consequences. One of the great mysteries of modern science is how “material” entities continuously have real-world effects if, when unobserved, they have in fact vanished into an unreal mathematical potentiality wavefunction.

Saying the Unsayable “The role of a writer is not to say what we can all say, but what we are unable to say.” – Anais Nin

It’s not our job to soft-soap people. It’s our job to say it as it is. Humanity spends an inordinate amount of time lying to itself, telling itself stories and worshipping its own fantasies. It’s time for Ronnie Real to come calling.

Minds and Ideas Berkeley’s philosophy revolves around the two concepts of “spirit” and “idea”. A “spirit” is a “conscious subject”, a mind, a soul. An “idea” is a “sensation”, a “state of mind”, a “conscious experience”. Berkeley absolutely denied the existence of matter as a metaphysical substance, but did not deny the existence of what we regard as material objects. However, he insisted that these were in fact mental ideas that we interpreted as material objects. Berkeley was the great champion of idealism (immaterialism). His system is classified as “subjective idealism” to distinguish it from other types of idealism (A Dictionary of Philosophy, Pan Reference): 1) Subjective Idealism: According to Berkeley, a correct analysis shows that a material object consists of nothing but ideas, whether in the mind of God or of the conscious agents that he has created. 2) Transcendental Idealism: A term applied by Kant to his theory of the external world. It is also called critical idealism. It refers to his view that the objects of our experience, in the sense of things existing in space and time, are nothing but appearances, and have no independent existence outside our thoughts. The adjective ‘transcendental’ indicates Kant’s reason for this view: namely, that only by accepting it can we account for our a priori knowledge of objects. 3) Objective Idealism: (also called Absolute Idealism): A type of idealism first developed fully by Hegel. Whereas Berkeleyan idealism and transcendental idealism are pluralistic, objective idealism is monistic, maintaining that all that exists is a form of one mind (“Absolute Mind”). ... The term Subjective Idealism is used by Hegel and by Marxists to refer to the views of philosophers such as Kant, who argue that what is known of objects is contributed by the human beings who perceive them. It is therefore that form of idealism that is the opposite of objective or

absolute idealism. [MH: Objective or Absolute idealism can also be called “noumenal idealism”, meaning that we can fully know the noumenal domain, in contradiction of Kant’s claim that we cannot. It should also be noted that “Absolute Mind” can be considered in terms of countless individual minds (monads) that become Absolute Mind when they achieve perfect monadic symmetry.)

***** For Berkeley, human knowledge is reduced to two elements: spirits and their ideas. Ideas can be perceived by spirits, but spirits cannot be perceived by others spirits or by themselves. A person’s spirit – that which perceives ideas – is to be comprehended intuitively (by inward feeling, reflection, introspection, a process which Hume subsequently completely rejected; he could find no evidence whatsoever of any “Self”, spirit or soul). We can have no direct “idea” of spirits in Berkeley’s philosophy. Berkeley said, “It is plain that we cannot know the existence of other spirits otherwise than by their operations, or the ideas by them excited in us”, but Hume showed that this line of argument simply isn’t tenable in empiricist terms. Only rationalism can validly conclude that other minds exist. According to Berkeley, a material thing such as a tree consists of a collection of ideas (shape, colour, taste, “primary” properties, etc.) which are caused in the spirits of perceiving humans by the spirit of the Ultimate Perceiver, the Perceiver who perceives all and never sleeps: God. Berkeley thought he had established God’s existence by such arguments but none of them are tenable in empiricist terms since we are not entitled, as Hume pointed out, to reach rational conclusions on the basis of things we never experience (such as spirits or the Spirit of spirits = God). In Hume’s ultra skeptical empiricism, it’s impossible to prove the existence of God, the Self, or any other Selves. This is the death of knowledge, and shows how useless the empiricist ideology is when taken to its logical, nihilistic, solipsistic conclusion. Science – modern empiricism – works only by illegitimately mixing in an enormous amount of rationalism, driven by mathematics. Science has an empiricist ideology, and all the silly things it says, especially regarding quantum mechanics, are empiricist arguments. The success of quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the absurd empiricist interpretations

applied to it, but to the rationalist mathematics upon which quantum mechanics is predicated. Scientists can talk as much empiricist nonsense as they like, but as long as they stick to applying rationalist mathematics, they will have success. The problem for science is that, when it tries to reconcile relativity theory and quantum mechanics to create a “final theory”, it comes at the problem using empiricist thinking, where only analytic, mathematical, rationalist thinking will work. We can absolutely guarantee that relativity and quantum mechanics will never be unified. It’s a rational impossibility, as any ontological or epistemological analysis of the two theories reveals. The two theories imply two utterly different and incompatible ontologies and epistemologies, but science has no way of addressing this since it entirely rejects philosophy and analysis, and appeals only to the “authority” of experiments (which both theories have successfully passed). As ever, science will do what the “genius” Richard Feynman defined as the essence of science – it will GUESS the way forward!!! Good luck with that, guys.

***** No serious intellectual would ever subscribe to an ideology based on “guessing”. Science is simply not an intellectual, rational subject.

The Scientific “Method” Science is a perversion of mathematics. What it does is this: it experimentally observes mathematical patterns in Nature then guesses a mathematical equation that might match the pattern, and continually refines its guess until it fits. (It’s a brute force, simplistic method of trial and error.) It does so via a huge number of ad hoc, unexplained and undefined elements. No scientist can ontologically define space, time, speed, motion, change, mass, energy, matter, or singularities. Scientific equations are instrumental, not ontological. They involve circular definitions, e.g. E = mc2 defines energy in terms of mass and light speed, and mass in terms of energy and light speed. The equation does not define what energy is or what mass is or what light is (and it doesn’t explain why the speed of light is constant; it just accepts it as an experimental fact). In essence, undefined quantities are given labels and slotted into equations, to allow other undefined quantities to be determined.

Einstein’s equation works mathematically, but is no more ontologically meaningful than writing y = kx2. It’s the mathematics in science that works, not the scientific labels and the ever-changing interpretations of these labels. Ontological mathematics is about analytic mathematics based on analytic sinusoidal waves defined by the generalised Euler Formula. Where science attempts to match ad hoc, non-analytic, pseudo-mathematical equations to observable patterns found in Nature, ontological mathematics begins from the analytic standpoint and addresses unobservable as well as observable patterns, and regards the latter (phenomena) as analytically deriving from the former (noumena). Monads (mathematical souls) are purely analytic entities for which no sensory evidence could ever be found since they are by definition immaterial and outside space and time. They are dimensionless, not dimensional. Yet the whole spacetime universe is derived, via analytic Fourier mathematics, from monadic frequency singularities operating in concert. Science, by rejecting rationalism and analysis, has nowhere to go other than randomness and guessing. That’s exactly why science is incapable of producing a grand unified theory of everything. Such a theory must be analytic. Only ontological mathematics qualifies.

***** Because science is sensory and empirical, it assumes that only observable (dimensional) mathematical patterns in Nature are real. Unobservable (dimensionless) patterns are rejected as unreal. (Quantum mechanical wavefunctions are deemed unreal, existing in a potentiality rather than actuality domain). This means that all singularities, all ontological frequency domains, all monadic minds, are dismissed by science. Science is the pseudo-mathematical system that rejects dimensionless mathematics, but without having any mathematical justification for doing so. Science is the butchery of mathematics. It’s how mathematics is rendered inconsistent, irrational and incomplete. Science, not ontological mathematics, is Gödelian inconsistent and incomplete. That’s exactly why it’s incapable of delivering a complete and consistent final theory of everything.

*****

Dimensional mathematics = physics. Dimensionless mathematics = metaphysics. Ontological mathematics = metaphysics + physics (dimensionless and dimensional mathematics combined) = Leibnizian, rationalist science.

Seeing and Believing? Scientists say, “I can’t believe it unless I can see it and touch it.” This reflects a sensory relation with “truth”, and comes with a large number of unproved and speculative assumptions, as Berkeley so ruthlessly demonstrated. To a rationalist, it’s the rational robustness and certainty of an argument that constitutes its truth. Eternal truths of reason can never be contradicted, and have absolutely nothing to do with seeing and touching. All sensory “truths” can be contradicted. They are just contingent, ever-changing interpretations, as science shows. Where empiricism approaches the truth sensibly, rationalism approaches it intelligibly. You are an intellectual only if you agree that intelligence is primary and the senses secondary. No scientists are intellectuals.

***** A science commentator said that doubt is the essence of science. What a joke! Science is all about slavish credulity towards empiricism and materialism, towards the “evidence” of the senses; and totally unwarranted skepticism towards rationalism and idealism.

Atheism Atheism is as opposed to the truth as Abrahamism. The former is based on belief in the senses, and the latter on belief in feelings (emotional stories). Atheist propaganda has to be resisted as much as mainstream religious propaganda. No rational person in the 21st century could be an atheist. Atheism, predicated on scientific materialism, says that we inhabit a meaningless, dead, material machine; that consciousness is an illusion, free will is an illusion, and life itself is essentially illusory. Atheistic science says that reality miraculously sprang out of nonexistence for no reason at all – a position that is actually more offensive to

the principle of sufficient reason than any religion could ever be. Modern atheistic science is the most irrational belief system the human mind has ever devised! It is anti-reason and unreason. The only thing atheism has going for it is that it is not about silly, emotional, ancient Mythos stories spread by mad prophets. Atheism is, however, what you get when Logos minds are corrupted and perverted by empiricist and materialist sensory thinking, and reason and intelligence are rejected as “philosophical”.

The SS and Jihad In WWII, many non-Germans served in the SS. They saw themselves as part of an elite European Army waging a Crusade against the Asian Bolsheviks. The modern Jihadists of Islam, who flock from all over the world to foreign lands where Muslims are at war, are like these international SS brigades, fighting Holy War against the infidels. What’s bizarre about the international Jihadists is that none of them ever attack the great infidel enemy in their midst – Israel. The so-called “Islamic State” is attempting to recreate the victories of the all-conquering Muslims of the era immediately after Mohammed’s death. One thing the I.S. Jihadists ought to do, given their ideology, is to declare Jihad against Israel, with the task of recapturing Jerusalem. That would inspire every Jihadist in the world ... and it would bring about the final Abrahamic conflict: Armageddon!

***** The international brigades that fought against Franco’s Fascists in the Spanish Civil War were the left-wing counterparts of the international brigades of the SS.

The Conspiracy? “The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” – Edgar J Hoover “It is not my intention to doubt that the doctrine of the Illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the

contrary, no one is more satisfied of this fact than I am.” – George Washington “As Weishaupt lived under the tyranny of a despot and priests, he knew that caution was necessary even in spreading information, and the principles of pure morality. This has given an air of mystery to his views, and was the foundation of his banishment....” – Thomas Jefferson

Real and Imaginary Threats When Hindus threaten you with Kali, when Buddhists threaten you with hells and demons, when Abrahamists threaten you with devils, hellfire and fiery pits, they are all referring to entirely imaginary things – Mythos nonsense. The problem is that although none of these things exist, the people who believe in them certainly exist, and they are willing to chop your head off on the basis of their deranged beliefs. That makes these imaginary threats very real indeed. All imaginary things are immensely powerful by virtue of being believed real by people of faith, who then carry out real, evil acts with those beliefs in mind. Mythos, as history has shown, has proven far more powerful than Logos because it can motivate billions of people, whereas Logos is for only a small proportion of humanity, the intelligent proportion. If Logos humanity wanted to, it could of course eradicate Mythos power, but, by and large, Logos humanity serves, enables and facilitates Mythos insanity by refusing point blank to act decisively against it. There is nothing more offensive than the cowardice and liberalism of the intelligentsia. Jihadists will cut off your head; intellectuals will raise a point of order at an academic conference, sign a petition and write a letter to the editor. How sad, pathetic and deluded can you get? The intelligentsia are people of inaction. They have no convictions, no sacred causes and no will to power. And that’s exactly why the world remains in a hopeless Mythos mess, with no prospect of any improvement. Everything will change when a critical mass of Nietzschean radical intellectuals – who have absolutely no sympathy for the “morality” of Christianity, Buddhism, Liberal Humanism, and so on – takes the world stage.

Given that one elite or another is going to rule the world, the only question is which should it be? Should it be dynastic, hereditary, privileged families; should it be the rich; should it be those with the highest social status; should it be celebrities; should it be soldiers and police; should it be corporations; should it be banks; should it be “markets”; should it be tyrants and dictators; should it be monarchs; should it be popes ... or should it be the world’s smartest and most talented people who have the greatest vision of all: to build heaven on earth for all, and to seek to convert everyone into optimal human beings, those capable of becoming Gods.

The Most Horrific Question? For most people, the worst question they can possibly hear is, “What is it that you really want to do?” Because people have no idea what they want to do, and, equally, no idea who they actually are. Their identity has been constructed for them by others, and they have no great inner drives, compulsions, passions and ambitions. They just drift along in life: pathetic Last Men and Ignavi pretending to themselves that if only someone gave them a chance, they would be “great”. Why don’t they make their own “chance”? Why are they waiting for a Messiah? You will be a success in your own eyes the moment you know who are and what you want to do with your life ... and you start doing it.

“Believe to Achieve” A runner wore a vest bearing the slogan Believe to Achieve. What is it with people’s obsession with “belief”? Why do they revere it so much? Why don’t they wear vests saying, “Know to Achieve”; “Know how to do it”; “Know thyself”; “Work it out”; “Use your Reason”; “Knowledge is Power”? It’s because belief is linked to the heart and Mythos, while knowledge is linked to the head and Logos. Belief didn’t land men on the moon, knowledge did!

What Do People Want? People want fame, fortune, success, popularity, great entertainment, beauty, attractiveness, hot sex, gorgeous partners, the good things of life. They don’t want the Truth, or they are indifferent to it. The Truth is hard, tough, complex. People much prefer an Easy Lie, a Mythos Lie, which they then

call the Truth. People don’t value intelligence or education or knowledge. They value wealth and status.

The New Age? When will humanity stop being ruled by stories and start being ruled by reason? Will humanity ever escape from Storyworld? Humanity is a quintessentially emotional species, and stories are all about emotion. Humanity will never be comfortable with Logos. People are just too emotional, too incapable of thinking clearly and logically. They love fantasy, make-believe, unreality. They have even made their most sacred religions and beliefs from stories. Human thinking revolves around story logic and not actual logic. People can understand the former but not the latter. Humans have evolved to analyse their lives in terms of stories (words) and not in terms of reason (numbers). They live in a wholly false reality that they believe to be true, and they see the actual truth (the world of numbers and mathematics) as something unreal, false and abstract. That’s the human tragedy. Evolution has always been much more concerned with the Lie rather than the Truth. The Lie has proved far more successful, which is why all functioning humans have evolved to be skilful liars. Autistics don’t lie and don’t understand story logic, and, tellingly, they can’t function in human society.

***** The task is not to abolish stories and emotions (we don’t want to advocate autism!), but to tame them and reserve them for entertainment, recreation and relaxation – for downtime and play. If we are to build heaven on earth, we must acknowledge the Reality Principle (rather than the Fantasy Principle), and we must be ruled by Logos.

***** Given the plain preference of humanity for Mythos over Logos, there are only two ways in which Logos Humanity can succeed: 1) All-out, exterminatory war against those who most promote Mythos “truths” – the people of religious faith, and the people of inherited wealth.

2) To construct an even more powerful Mythos that seduces even the most fervent lovers of emotional drivel (!). The Arthurian romances were such an attempt, and others will be made in due course.

Outlaws Historically, an “outlaw” was a person deprived of the benefits and protection of the law, a person excluded from normal legal protection and rights. Are not all those who oppose the State, government, laws and society – all anarchists and libertarians – outlaws? All of them have rejected the Social Contract and now voluntarily stand outside the protection of the law and of civilisation.

Doing It If you can do something with your life, do it. Don’t talk about it. Why are you waiting for permission? There are far too many people who talk the talk (and believe their own Mythos), and far too few who walk the walk (and actually change the world). If you think you reflect Illuminist thinking, and have ideas to promote Illuminism, go ahead and carry them out.

Ayn Rand We regularly rubbish Ayn Rand and her crazy beliefs, but, for all her flaws and follies, she was unquestionably a “woman of the mind”. The world is crying out for smart women, as many as possible – who read philosophy and math as often as they read fashion and romances. One of the reasons why Islam is so evil is that it does everything it can to stop women from fulfilling their intellectual potential, seeing intelligence in women as wholly redundant. Much of Western culture also places no value on smart women. Optimising female intelligence may in fact be the greatest project of all, the one that changes humanity once and for all.

The Mythos Man Vladimir Putin is a man trying to establish his own Myth. He is projecting himself as a “Man of Power”, and such a man cannot afford to compromise, because that would make him look weak. Democratic politicians can compromise because they are invariably weak and pathetic puppets who

have spent their whole lives compromising and failing to stand for anything. Weak and strong politicians don’t mix. Why did Nazi Germany fight to the bitter end in 1945 despite the fact that it had been obvious since 1943 that it had lost the war? It was because a Strong Man led it whose entire Mythos refused to allow him to compromise or concede anything. Surrender was unthinkable. Sometimes, strong men, such as Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar and Genghis Khan, sweep all before them. Sometimes, like Julius Caesar, they are assassinated before they can crush the opposition. Stalin proved a stronger man than Hitler, and the latter had to commit suicide. What will happen with Putin? What will happen with the leader of the Islamic Caliphate? What’s for sure is that feeble democratic politicians will not know what to do. They will just muddle along, carrying out gesture politics, until events overtake them and leave them with no choices. That’s what happened with Hitler, and the script never changes.

Berkeley and Quantum Mechanics What’s the difference between Berkeley’s empiricist idealism and the empiricist materialism of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics? Where Berkeley utterly rejects the existence of matter and denies that anything can exist when not being perceived or observed, the Copenhagen school accepts the existence of matter but claims that is only actual when being perceived or observed. Otherwise it dissolves into potential. Where Berkeley says that only the idea of matter exists, and ceases to exist when it is not being thought or perceived, the Copenhagen school says that matter really does exist in its own right but “exists” in two radically different ways: it is “actual” when being perceived, observed or measured, and it is otherwise “potential”, and “exists” in an unreal mathematical potentiality state. This is an extraordinary and bizarre ontological claim and simply proves how inept scientists are at philosophy. Virtually no scientist is really aware that this is what the Copenhagen interpretation amounts to because none of them gives any thought to philosophy at all. Any coherent account of materialism (certainly any that would be comprehensible to John Locke or classical science), contains the concept of a permanent, actual, objective entity that exists whether or not we are

observing it, that is absolutely independent of observers and their observations. The Copenhagen interpretation departs to an incredible degree from this view and makes blatantly metaphysical claims (that, oddly enough, are never accepted as being metaphysical), asserting that “matter” has a dual nature, namely that of Aristotelian potentiality and actuality. Matter is actual (real) when being observed by observers, and potential (unreal) when not being observed by observers. This is a truly mindboggling ontology that would have been rejected instantly by all three of the great empiricist philosophers (Locke, Berkeley and Hume). For the Copenhagen school, “matter” isn’t truly matter and nor is it mind. “Matter” is something that becomes matter in the presence of mind (when it is being observed by mental observers), and otherwise isn’t matter at all but is an unreal mathematical abstraction describing all possible material states that the matter may be observed to have once it comes under observation by an observing mind (a process which “collapses” the potentiality wavefunction into an actual, real state). This is more ridiculous than the wildest speculations of science fiction. “Matter” is no longer one thing or the other – mental or non-mental – but is something in between. It is asserted to be something which is independent of mind, yet requires mind in order to be actualised. When mind is not present, “matter” becomes unreal: mere potentiality. The Copenhagen interpretation is much more weird and indefensible than Cartesian substance dualism. So why does science defend it, or, rather, simply unthinkingly accept it? Descartes and Locke both accepted the real existence of mind and matter but couldn’t fathom how they interacted. Berkeley got rid of matter and claimed that reality consisted of unperceivable minds and their perceivable thoughts (which included the idea of matter). Hume got rid of unperceivable minds and was left with nothing but a stream of ideas. The Copenhagen school does not define mind (although materialism conventionally claims that minds are constructed from matter), yet says that mind is essential in order for matter to be real. This is ridiculous circular logic: matter cannot be real in order to form actual minds without actual minds to make matter real, but minds can never become real without minds to make matter real (!). It beggars belief that scientists accept this ludicrous system with barely a second thought. Scientists certainly aren’t rational, thinking people. They have created a weird, hybrid, circular, dualist

ontology: matter is real but dependent on mind, mind is real but dependent on matter (but matter is unreal without mind, and mind cannot exist without real matter!) . This is neither materialism nor idealism, but some ridiculous and incoherent beast in between. That this garbage has survived for so many decades shows how dumb science is and how contemptuous of reason it is. It cares only about “success”, not about Truth. Nothing is surer than that the ontology proposed by science is a 100% wrong. Science has become wholly irrational and contemptuous of reason. Like Hume, science drives on to absurd conclusions without blinking, but Hume was much smarter than any scientist. His position is entirely correct if you accept empiricism as the philosophy of Truth. Hume would have bust a gut laughing at the attempts of the Copenhagen school to justify their bizarre belief system. Science is neither empiricism nor rationalism but a blurry, fuzzy hybrid that is successful up to a point and then falls off a cliff and become 100% useless.

The Singularity All the secrets of the universe lie in the Singularity .... exactly where science refuses to go!

***** Qualia cannot be understood in any physicalist terms. They make sense only in relation to ontological mathematics, embracing Form and Content. Above all, they make sense only in terms of mathematical singularities = autonomous minds. These are rational forms capable of experiencing the content with which all forms are associated.

Dreaming When we dream of the colour red, there is no actual physical object present that has that colour or could cause that colour; nor is there any light present that has that colour or could cause that colour. So how on earth can we see “red”? It’s no good to say that we can remember the colour red given that a memory is no more red than the Platonic Form of Life is alive. Memories can help only if they are mathematical simulations or emulations.

If we can subjectively reproduce the objective mathematical function that gave us the original experience of the colour red then we will automatically have the same experience even though none of the original, objective factors are actually present. A dream is a simulation or emulation of a real life experience. Once we know the mathematical function associated with the original experience, we can copy it and reconstruct it at will.

Qualia and the Unconscious Mind Some people make the peculiar claim that qualia must be associated with consciousness. Well, if we grant that animals are unconscious, then they must belong to a different category of existence from us and have no qualia. This view would contradict evolution itself. In evolution, everything is on a continuum. Consciousness, it must be understood, is on the unconsciousness spectrum, not the other way around. The conscious mind arises from the unconscious mind (from the Jungian Collective Unconscious), not the other way around. The simpler precedes the more complex, not the other way around. Look at a human baby. It starts off unconsciously and becomes conscious, not the reverse. Would any sane person argue that babies and qualia don’t mix, that there’s some bizarre threshold where qualia suddenly appear in a baby’s mind and it’s ipso facto conscious? In fact, even to say that humans are conscious is misleading. Humans, like all animals, are primarily unconscious. Humans differ by virtue of having a special module – the module of reason – which allows us to reflect on the contents of our unconscious mind and label and organise those contents. We are able to devise languages, and it is language, with rational rules and structure, that turns an unconscious mind into a conscious mind. Consciousness is simply unconsciousness that can speak, unconsciousness that can read and write, unconsciousness that can introspect, unconsciousness that can mediate and curate itself. Consciousness is actually Meta Unconsciousness, the unconscious that is able to reflect on itself, to view itself. It does this by leaving behind the immediate experience (quale) and instead having a mediated experience at one step removed, an experience based on translation of the experience into language. We are conscious literally because we can say we are conscious

(thanks to language), and if we couldn’t say it (as babies and animals can’t) then we would not be conscious. It really is that simple.

The Phantoms “A phantom limb is the sensation that an amputated or missing limb (even an organ, like the appendix) is still attached to the body and is moving appropriately with other body parts.” – Wikipedia Consider how bizarre it is that people with amputated limbs still experience sensations associated with limbs that are no longer there, with “matter” that is now wholly absent. How can materialists explain that? How is such a thing possible? It’s precisely because reality is based on ideas and not matter. While the idea of the limb exists, the limb is experienced. Only when the idea changes does the experience change.

Robots The Replicants in Blade Runner are more or less human, albeit with an empathy deficiency. In reality, no android could ever imitate a human. An android would always be a machine, and never a living being. Monads are alive: nothing else is. Everything else is derived from life (everything comes from monads), but is not alive in itself. It’s false life (passive) rather than true life (active).

Memory Science is clueless about what memories are and where they stored. In ontological mathematics, memories are mathematical functions stored in our infinite-capacity mathematical minds. Memories can be adjusted (to create false or reconstructed memories) because to access and retrieve them is to interact with them, and add or subtract new mathematical information (rather than exactly replaying them like DVDs). We “forget” by virtue of not reinforcing the links to the stored mathematical functions, corresponding to losing the “key” of the particular database entry. A sufficiently powerful stimulus can make the memory accessible once again – such as a smell or a song or a familiar location.

Animals When you look at an animal, you are looking at yourself a few lifetimes back. Indeed, many people alive today were animals no further back than their life prior to this one (!). Most animal souls that get promoted to human souls previously belonged to animals that came into close contact with humans – such as dogs, cats, cows, rabbits, horses, sheep, gerbils, hamsters, parrots, and the like. If you think about it, that explains why the human race is so stupid! That’s why reason is in such short supply. Billions of people were literally irrational beasts not so long ago. As for people who keep pets, well they’re keeping in touch with their old mates, aren’t they? They’re reliving the good old days when they were animals rather than humans. Nearly all Muslims and Jews were dogs in their previous lives, which is why they are so desperate for a harsh master (“God”), and so aggressive at defending their master. Most New Agers were cats or rabbits. Most Hindus were cows or sheep. The more rational you are, the closer to enlightenment you are.

The Answer What is the answer to everything? Well, what’s for sure is that if this is a rational universe – which it is – then it has a rational answer. The answer isn’t “God” because that’s not a rational explanation of anything, and it’s equally emphatically not irrational randomness, as science claims. For the universe to have an answer, it must be reducible to analytic mathematics since only analytic mathematics has an exact answer and a sufficient reason for everything. If math isn’t the answer, nothing is, and that’s an impossibility. The universe is literally made of reason (ontological mathematics), hence can be 100% mathematically understood. The universe isn’t mysterious at all, it’s mathematical. However, to people with Mythos brains, mathematics might as well be the most mysterious thing there could ever be given that their ability to grasp it is close to zero. Mathematics, for most people, is the supreme Unknown, the most baffling and impenetrable thing of all. Anyone can tell and understand a story. How many can write down a differential equation? How many can

solve a differential equation? That’s why we live in a Mythos world rather than a Logos world. We live in the “easiest” world imaginable, i.e. a world where most people choose to believe the easiest answers, no matter how false and wrong they are. People are drawn to easy lies like moths to the flame. Why would stupid people want to acknowledge a mathematical reality far beyond their ability to comprehend? Do turkeys vote for Christmas?!

Conclusion What’s more magical than qualia? They transform mathematical machines into living beings that can feel, sense, intuit, desire, experience and will. What is less magical than matter, the inert, dead, mindless, purposeless “stuff” that people that hate life want to believe in, even though there is not one shred of evidence for its existence? Science freed humanity from silly animism, theism, and pantheism, yet its cure has arguably proved worse than the disease. Science replaced a living universe full of purpose and meaning with a dead machine, with no meaning or purpose at all. Idealism = Life. Materialism = Machinery = Death. Idealism = Meaning. Materialism = Meaninglessness. Idealism = Purpose. Materialism = Purposelessness. If matter is made of mind, we live in an intelligible, wondrous universe. If mind is made of matter, we live in an unintelligible, incomprehensible machine operating by chance and accident for no purpose at all. It’s just a process. It doesn’t strive for anything. The ancient wisdom As above, So below was all about a human being (a body and a mind) as microcosm, matched by a macrocosm of exactly the same kind: a cosmos with a mind (a World Soul). The scientific “wisdom”

uses the same words, but in a radically different way, namely, the universe is a meaningless material machine ... and so are we. It’s time for the human race to escape the nihilism of scientism. It’s time for meaning, purpose, life, mind and qualia to be restored to their rightful, primary, defining place. Amazingly, it’s mathematics that allows the universe to be a living organism once again rather than a dead machine. The universe is a mathematical organism. The “material” universe is nothing but a holographic (Fourier) projection of a Singularity of pure mind and life: a Singularity of Souls! The Machine World of science is born of the Soul World of ontological mathematics. Is that not the greatest magic of all?!

ABRACADABRA