Mind and Life, Form and Content (The God Series Book 19)

Table of contents :
Mind and Life, Form and Content
Quotations
Table of Contents
Introduction
What Is It?
The Cosmic Operating System
The Cosmic Chessboard
Involution
The Refutation
The Psychopath War
Gorillas and Shakespeare
The Cosmic Novel
Life
The Formula
God?
Platonic Form
The Argument from the Form of Life
The Theory of Forms
The Socratic/Platonic Form of Equality
The Shadow
The Cosmic Hallucination
True Knowledge
The Voice of Reason?
The Madness
Episodic Reality
The Challenge
Impersonators
Star Trek
Genotype and Phenotype
Transubstantiation
Prime Matter
Hylomorphism
The Inevitable Failure of Science
Teleology
Radial and Tangential Energy
Hyperphysics
The Sacred Army
The Energy Vampires
The Soul: Plato versus Aristotle
Hell
Illusion
The Ontological Argument
Panpneumatism
The Soul Series
Death
The Empire of the Decaying Map
Celestial Prime Matter versus Terrestrial Prime Matter
Eternity
Mythos and Logos
The Unholy City
Fear
X-Men
The Pretenders
We Faustians
The Game of Life
The Ultimate Detectives
Conclusion

Citation preview

Mind and Life, Form and Content 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 “Life is a predicament that precedes death.” – Henry James “The meaning of life is that it stops.” – Kafka “Life is like a sewer. What you get out of it depends on what you put into it.” – Tom Lehrer “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.” – John Lennon “Life is generally something that happens elsewhere.” – Alan Bennett “To have a grievance is to have a purpose in life.” – Eric Hoffer “Life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced.” – Kierkegaard “There is science, logic, reason; there is thought verified by experience. And then there is California.” – Edward Abbey “Reduced to general theories, mathematics would be a beautiful form without content.” – Henri Lebesgue “It is obvious that an imagined world, however different it may be from the real one, must have something – a form – in common with it.” – Wittgenstein “Design is the method of putting form and content together.” – Paul Rand “Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.” – Einstein “When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but creatures of emotion.” – Dale Carnegie “Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.” –Ambrose Bierce “In life, particularly in public life, psychology is more powerful than logic.” – Ludwig Quidde

“The human brain works as a binary computer and can only analyze the exact information-based zeros and ones (or black and white). Our heart is more like a chemical computer that uses fuzzy logic to analyze information that can’t be easily defined in zeros and ones.” – Naveen Jain “Logic will never change emotion or perception.” – Edward de Bono “Most of the mistakes in thinking are inadequacies of perception rather than mistakes of logic.” – Edward de Bono “In the end, it’s not going to matter how many breaths you took, but how many moments took your breath away” – Shing Xiong “The mind is everything. What you think you become.” – Buddha

Table of Contents Mind and Life, Form and Content Quotations Table of Contents Introduction What Is It? The Cosmic Operating System The Cosmic Chessboard Involution The Refutation The Psychopath War Gorillas and Shakespeare The Cosmic Novel Life The Formula God? Platonic Form The Argument from the Form of Life The Theory of Forms The Socratic/Platonic Form of Equality The Shadow The Cosmic Hallucination

True Knowledge The Voice of Reason? The Madness Episodic Reality The Challenge Impersonators Star Trek Genotype and Phenotype Transubstantiation Prime Matter Hylomorphism The Inevitable Failure of Science Teleology Radial and Tangential Energy Hyperphysics The Sacred Army The Energy Vampires The Soul: Plato versus Aristotle Hell Illusion The Ontological Argument Panpneumatism

The Soul Series Death The Empire of the Decaying Map Celestial Prime Matter versus Terrestrial Prime Matter Eternity Mythos and Logos The Unholy City Fear X-Men The Pretenders We Faustians The Game of Life The Ultimate Detectives Conclusion

Introduction What is form? What is content? You cannot understand what life and mind are unless you can answer these two fundamental questions of ontology. Compared with science’s empiricist way of thinking about reality, form and content furnish a radically different, rationalist alternative that puts mind and life – rather than mindless, lifeless matter – at the heart of existence. Anyone who is dissatisfied with how science addresses the questions of ultimate reality has an entirely new, logical approach available to them via form and content. Where the engine of science is abstract, “physical” mathematics, the engine of form and content is real, ontological mathematics. In the ancient world, matter was regarded as the content for form. Form provided the structure of a thing, while matter was the thing’s content that received the structure. Form constituted the essence of the thing, and, without it, the thing dissolved into amorphous, unstructured potentiality rather than actuality. Form supplied an intelligible container, while matter was the sensible content inside the container. Plato and Aristotle considered matter as shapeless, lifeless and purposeless, while form was what shaped matter and gave it its nature, purpose and even life. Without form, there could be no life at all since matter did not possess the quality of life. This fundamentally contradicts the modern scientific view, which claims that mind and life are produced by particular ways of organising mindless, lifeless atoms – a logical impossibility since mind cannot come from non-mind, or life from non-life. The reason why scientists say that lifeless matter creates life is very simple: they have denied the existence of anything other than matter, hence matter must be the source of life. Of course, no scientist has ever explained how life comes from atoms, just as no scientist has ever explained how atoms generate mind. No scientist has proposed any model, hypothesis or definition with which to even get started. There is nothing whatsoever in the theory of DNA that explains how arranging atoms in this way causes life and mind. Moreover, the emergence of DNA is itself not said to be caused but merely to arise by random accident. If, by some miracle, you could demonstrate how DNA necessarily generates life, mind and consciousness, you would still be committed to a stance that life, mind and consciousness ultimately arise by chance in an

inherently mindless, lifeless, purposeless, meaningless universe ruled by throws of the dice. This is indeed the atheistic, nihilistic stance of modern science. We randomly come from dust (stardust), it says, and we will return to dust in due course. If form defines matter, yet is radically different from matter, then this implies an immaterial reality that scientific materialism is unable to detect, in which case all of the claims of science regarding ultimate reality must fail. The world is not exclusively made of matter, contrary to the claims of scientific materialism. Form, not matter, makes the world what it is. Matter is merely a kind of clay that form acts on to create all of the order, pattern, structure, organisation and life that constitutes meaningful existence and an intelligible cosmos. What conveys form? What conveys content? What conveys matter? Where are matterless form and formless content/ matter located? How do they come together and interact? What are the laws governing them? Are form and content/ matter two separate “realities”, or two sides of one coin? Do they constitute a dualism or a dual-aspect monism? Anyone who cannot define form and content/ matter will never understand reality. Science and religion manifestly fail to do so. Philosophy has tried but failed to reach any definitive conclusions. Only one subject can offer certainty in this regard – ontological mathematics. Mathematically, form and content allow a precise, non-sensory reality to be described and defined, something that’s impossible with science. Above all, form and content naturally lend themselves to addressing the question of mind, an issue with which science has never made any progress, and never can since mind is scientifically unobservable, hence can form no part of the scientific method, based on observation and measurement. Form and content are the means to rationally venture into the unseen, noumenal world that underlies our “common sense” world of appearances, into the world not of physics but of metaphysics (that which comes after physics or lies beyond physics). The soul belongs to the immaterial, metaphysical domain outside space and time, not to the material, physical domain of space and time that science probes. Science can say nothing at all about the soul, and its usual stance is simply to ridicule it and deny that it exists. Metaphysics – comprising the strictly mathematical exploration of form and content – goes

where science cannot, and reveals that this visible world of ours is merely the content of an invisible world of form. This other world is a mathematical Singularity and is none other than Soul World! The visible world is a holographic projection of Soul World. Form and content belong to a mathematical rather than scientific conception of reality, and provide the rational, logical means to defend religious, spiritual and New Age conceptions of reality. This is the incredible story of form and content and how reality is shaped by them, and, most especially, life, mind and existence itself.

What Is It? What is existence made of? This is the most fundamental question of all. With this answer, we can then respond to Leibniz’s famous question: Why is there something rather than nothing? In fact, the two questions are fundamentally connected. Given that “nothing” is the rational ground state of the universe, and the most stable state of the universe conceivably possible (since “nothing” cannot degenerate into a lower state because it’s already at the lowest state), an overwhelming prima facie case can be advanced that there ought to be nothing rather than something, so why isn’t there? The principle of sufficient reason makes it mandatory for existence to have a net effect of “nothing”, since there is no sufficient reason why it should have any arbitrary non-zero value. So, whatever “something” is, it must have one quality of which we are rationally certain: averaged across all of its states, it must result in a net value of exactly zero. With this fact in mind, the question of what existence is made of becomes radically simple: it’s made of whatever can be something while also, overall, being zero. Not close to zero or approximately zero but perfectly zero. Only one subject is capable of defining and providing such a scenario: mathematics. Existence is made of mathematics. In particular, it’s made of mathematics that precisely balances to zero. This is ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics is the mathematics of perfect cosmic symmetry, with “something” being perfectly symmetrical with respect to zero (“nothing”), i.e. something has a positive component matched by an

equal and opposite negative component. Negative numbers are therefore essential to existence. A simple Cartesian grid, with zero at the origin and positive and negative axes symmetrically radiating from it, provides the simplest way of picturing reality. If you symmetrically “rolled up” the equal and opposite axes, you would end up back at the zero Singularity (“nothing”) at the centre of the system. Everything leads back to nothing. Ontological mathematics is expressed through ontological units called monads, all of which are net zeros (singularities). The universe comprises nothing but monads (forms) and their contents. Each monad, and thus the whole universe, is defined by the “somethingnothing” equation – the God Equation – which is infallibly equal to zero, point by point and also averaged across all of its states. When x = π, Euler’s formula, the root of the God Equation, reduces to the most famously beautiful, elegant and astounding equation in all of mathematics: eiπ + 1 = 0. Here, we literally see that “something” (the expression on the left) is equal to “nothing” (the expression on the right). Given that the “=” sign is the symbol of tautology (stating the same thing in different terms), we discover that the secret of existence is that something and nothing are tautological. It’s not a question of there being something rather than nothing, but of something being nothing, but expressed in different terms. Existence is just mathematically structured nothingness, organised void. Everything comes from nothing, and everything is equal to nothing. Existence, like the soul, is eternal and indestructible because it requires nothing and nothing can prevent it. It is necessarily a perpetual motion system because it can never “run down”. It’s a net zero-energy system. It never expends any energy, so it goes on forever. It’s the perfect system for converting energy into motion because it suffers no energy degradation or depletion whatsoever. If this were not the case, the universe would infinitely long ago have suffered Heat Death, and we would not be here. Science tries to get round this by claiming that infinite universes (forming a Multiverse) can randomly jump out of nothing at all. Each runs down in due course, but endless new universes can be magically conjured out of nothing to keep the whole show on the road. If you do not accept that something can miraculously and continuously leap out of nothing at all to create endless universes, each of which is doomed to run out of useful energy, then you are rationally committed to the position that existence is permanently equal to nothing, and, if that’s

true, then it can never suffer terminal Heat Death, and it can never spawn multiple, degenerative universes that run down. There can be only one universe that goes on forever. Such a universe is mathematical, not scientific. In terms of its foundations, it’s a perfect universe that can never crumble. Where the “scientific” Multiverse is the worst possible violation of Occam’s Razor, the mathematical Universe is the best possible reflection of Occam’s Razor. Is existence the least economical system conceivable (as the Multiverse implies), or the most economical system conceivable, as the ontological mathematical universe implies? You simply could not get a greater difference between two conceptions of reality. The scientific Multiverse is based on total randomness while the ontological mathematical Universe is based on total causation. Again, this is the greatest possible contrast.

***** The innermost secret of “nothing” is that not only can it be mathematically defined, it can also be experienced. If it were possible to see the universe from outside the universe (which is impossible because the universe is everything), we would see nothing! Existence is simply an infinitely complex Singularity – an immaterial, dimensionless nothingness composed of countless individual nothings (monads). These are none other than immortal, indestructible souls! The universe is Soul World, the Existential Singularity that does nothing except explore the mathematical properties of “nothing”. Existence is eternal because “nothing” is eternal. Existence is a perpetual motion machine (or rather perpetual living organism) because it requires nothing and expends nothing, hence keeps going forever. “Nothing” cannot suffer from any degradation or “running down”. The Abrahamic claim that God created the universe out of “nothing” is not so ridiculous. However, the truth is that “God” himself, as well as the whole universe, is made out of mathematical “nothing”. Given that existence is all about “nothing”, this means that mind and matter are also made of “nothing”, and life and consciousness are equally made of nothing. Existence is the “illusion” produced by the mathematical properties of “nothing”.

This book is all about how we live in a universe made of noumenal mathematics that we never perceive because there’s nothing to perceive. Rather, we encounter the experiences made from hidden mathematics, from “nothing”. When we think, each of our thoughts is made of mathematical sinusoids, but we never encounter those sinusoids directly. We encounter their content, not their form. We experience the thought, not what the thought is made of. We experience the thought, not the container that contains the thought. This is the tale of the magic and mystery of existential form and content. These go right to the heart of the mystery of mind, matter and life. One of the catastrophic failings of science is that it ignores form and content, and that’s why it cannot explain mind or life, and why its claims regarding the fundamental nature of matter are entirely fallacious. You cannot understand existence if you don’t understand its fundamental character, if you don’t know what it’s made of. Existence is not made of “God”, or of consciousness, or of love, or of anything physical. Existence is not made of anything religious or scientific. Existence is made of mathematics. What is mathematics? It’s eternal perfection. Only perfection suffices for existence that goes on forever. If existence contained a single flaw, there would be no existence. There is no sufficient reason why imperfection would ever be preferred to perfection. There is a sufficient reason why perfection is a necessity: any imperfection would create catastrophic chaos – and we would not be living in an ordered cosmos, or indeed any universe at all. Science’s claim that reality is fundamentally based on randomness is as stupid as it’s possible to get, and wholly irrational. If you accept that this is a rational universe, you must also accept that it’s a wholly deterministic, mathematical universe. And that means that you must reject all of the claims of scientific materialism regarding ultimate reality. A thousand years from now, “science” will be regarded as a postAbrahamic way of thinking that replaced a worldview based on feelings and stories with a worldview based on the senses and experiments. Science is simply the precursor for humanity’s final worldview, which will be based on intuition, reason and ontological mathematics. Abrahamism provides an emotional understanding of reality, science provides a sensory understanding of reality, and Illuminism provides a rational understanding of reality. Abrahamism can be right only if we live in

a world made of emotion. Science can be right only if we live in a world made of sensory things. Illuminism is right because we live in a world literally made of ontological reason, expressed through ontological mathematics. That’s exactly why the world is ordered, organised, patterned, rational and intelligible. That’s why we can work it out. If the universe wasn’t made of reason, it wouldn’t be intelligible. A universe made of anything other than ontological reason is an irrational universe, and an irrational universe is an unintelligible reason. It really is that simple. Anyone who thinks that existence has an answer must accept that, at its foundational level, existence is strictly rational and intelligible, and provides a closed, analytic solution that’s infallibly true for all eternity. Only ontological mathematics is capable of providing such a solution. Only rational people are intelligent enough to grasp that existence is made of reason. An irrational person, by virtue of being irrational, cannot distinguish between rational and irrational arguments, hence cannot understand why the conclusion that we live in a rational, as opposed to irrational, universe automatically means that we live in a universe made of ontological reason = ontological mathematics. Let’s state the argument as directly as possible: if the universe is rational, it must be made of eternal reason (= ontological mathematics); if the universe isn’t rational, who cares what anyone says about it because one irrational opinion is as good as another. Science, an irrationalist subject which denies that existence is strictly mathematical, makes utterly irrational claims about existence. It says that existence comes from non-existence, that life magically comes from nonlife, that mind miraculously springs from non-mind, that consciousness and free will are illusory, that cats can be simultaneously dead and alive, that infinite universes can be born out of nothingness and produce infinite clones of us in infinite parallel worlds, that things can be both in motion and stationary at the same time, that reality collapses out of unreality, that everything that can happen will actually happen, that existence is fundamentally random, accidental and meaningless, that evolution proceeds by way of unobservable chance mutations, and so on. These claims are every bit as stupid and deranged as those of Abrahamism, Karmism and New Ageism. This is what you get when you deny that existence is

governed by the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Science does not care about reason. If it did, it would convert to ontological mathematics. Science rejects reason because it accepts the primacy of the senses and experience. You cannot logically maintain that this is a rational universe if you then claim that whatever you are experiencing with your senses right now, no matter how irrational and delusional, is the truth of existence. When your sensory experiences come to an end – when you die – what then? Does existence end? That, in fact, is the strict logical conclusion that flows from empiricism. Your own death must also signal the end of existence in general because you have absolutely no basis for assuming the continuation of existence when you have defined existence as being all about your personal experience of it. Only rational people, who accept the reality principle, and objective reality based on eternal principles, can logically assert that existence continues regardless of whether one person has died, or the entire human race, or every sensory being in the universe capable of having experiences. In a universe of reason, no observers are required, no observations, no experiences and no experiments. The Big Bang was an event of Reason (rationalism), not of Experience (empiricism). After all, there was nobody there to experience it! Therefore, rationalism, not empiricism, is the means to define the Big Bang. That means the Big Bang must be treated mathematically, not scientifically. The Big Bang was a Singularity event, and singularities are exactly where scientists admit that the laws of physics, as they understand them, break down. Ontological mathematics, on the other hand, starts with singularities. Every monad is a singularity. Zero and infinity, the two numbers banned by science are the two numbers on which ontological mathematics is predicated. Reason alone can accommodate zero and infinity.

Form and Content “The notions of form and content are simple enough, though the uninitiated must first have them explained. ‘Form’ and ‘content’ are relative terms used in different contexts within formal logic. The basic idea is that of container and contained. “In one sense, a word is a form, and the word’s meaning – the real or imagined things it refers us to (i.e. that we intend when we use the word) –

is the content. Thus, the personal name ‘Joe’ refers to an individual man we know by that name; the common name ‘man’ refers to an open-ended group of individuals like Joe, Jim, Nathalie and others. “We can also call any abstraction (or concept) a form and its (perceptual or intuitive) concretes the content. ... “Formalization, then, is just a way to freely study the logical properties of propositional forms, without regard to their content. A ‘form’ is simply a shorthand expression for any number of particular propositions or ‘contents’. What we say about the form applies to all the contents. The wider the form, the broader the range of possible behaviour, and the less rules there are for it. If any content is specified, or a more specific form is considered, the behaviour pattern becomes more narrow, and the rules more restrictive.” – Avi Sion, Logical Philosophy: A Compendium The mathematical monad, the fundamental unit of ontological mathematics, is a logical container for a complete and consistent set of analytic sinusoids, which constitute the fundamental components of mind. Sinusoids are individual thoughts. They are simple, “atomic” thoughts that can be combined into complex, “molecular” thoughts. When individual thoughts are thought, this activity takes places within the private world of an individual monad. The monad is the agent that does the thinking, via its constituent sinusoids. When collective thoughts are thought, this activity takes place within the public world of all monads together (the Monadic Collective). Collective thoughts are what we know as “matter”. Matter, therefore, is mental, but collectively rather than individually. It’s the collective mental nature of matter that makes it seem so different from what we ordinarily regard as mental. Monads and their constituent sinusoids are all that exist. There isn’t anything else. Monads are the containers (forms) for sinusoids (contents), but sinusoids are also the containers (forms) for thoughts (contents). Every individual sinusoid is an individual basis thought. These individual thoughts are like the letters of the alphabet. In themselves, they don’t do much. However, when they are combined, then, just as letters can be combined into words, words into sentences and sentences into books expressing myriad ideas, basis thoughts can be combined into all possible complex thoughts.

Letters (“atoms”) and words (“molecules”) can be combined into sentences, paragraphs, chapters and books (“contents”; “objects”). Letters and words are forms (together with spelling, syntax and grammar, i.e. the proper, valid relations between them and ways of ordering them and combining them), everything else the content. In chemistry, the periodic table of elements provides the forms (atoms) from which all molecules come. We might think of molecules as the contingent content of necessary atoms. Molecules themselves can then be combined to form, for example, human bodies. DNA is a molecular form that gives rise to bodies (content).

***** For Aristotle, the world consisted purely of form and matter, which combined to produce substances. At the bottom of Aristotle’s great chain of being was formless matter (Chaos), and at the top matterless form (God). When form is applied to matter, it gives it shape, order, organisation, and even purpose and life. For Aristotle, each level of his great chain of being acted as the matter for the level above, and form for the level below. Chaotic matter had nothing below it, and God had nothing above him. God was pure mind (pure reason). All the substances below him constituted his “body” = the cosmos. In Illuminism, “God” is replaced with monads, which are eternal mathematical entities that enshrine the laws of ontological mathematics, reflect the principle of sufficient reason and thus constitute reason itself: reason as it’s manifested ontologically.

***** “The wider the form, the broader the range of possible behaviour, and the less rules there are for it.” – Avi Sion The widest form of all is the single cosmic Formula known as the God Equation (the generalised Euler Formula). It’s the supreme Form, the Form that defines all other forms, and all of their contents. The God Equation defines sinusoids, monads and all their relations (the whole cosmos, in other words). It defines Fourier mathematics, quantum mechanics (and thus

science), and holography, and is the true, absolute (not relative) basis of Einstein’s theories. When Einstein’s theories are properly expressed, in a manner consistent with quantum mechanics, his bizarre and impossible principle of relativity (which contradicts the reality principle by allowing something to be considered both stationary and in motion at the same time, depending on subjective perspective) vanishes. We live in an absolute, defined, mathematical universe, not a relativistic, undefined, scientific universe.

***** “A ‘form’ is simply a shorthand expression for any number of particular propositions or ‘contents’. What we say about the form applies to all the contents.” – Avi Sion Every applicant for a job is asked to fill in a form. Each applicant fills in the form uniquely, i.e. the form is identical in all cases, but the content different in all cases. There is a one-to-many relationship between form and content. If we regard the periodic table of elements as the set of basis forms for the material world then we can combine these forms in myriad different ways to produce all of the different molecules and compounds of the world. The ultimate form is the generalised Euler Formula = the God Equation. Each monad fills in this form uniquely, via what it does with its set of basis sinusoids (thoughts).

The Syllogism In logic, a syllogism is a formal deductive argument consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion. This is a logical form into which all manner of contents can be inserted, and, if the contents are valid, the conclusion will be logically valid. The syllogism is intended to produce logical conclusions, although whether it does or not is dependent on the validity of the major and minor premises, and these can be highly contentious. In other words, the logical form does not guarantee a logical conclusion. To say, using the classical syllogism, that all men are mortal (major premise), Socrates is a mortal (minor premise), therefore Socrates is mortal (conclusion) seems unarguable, until we introduce the concept of the immortal soul. Is it true

that all men are mortal? If men have immortal souls then it’s only their bodies that are mortal, and that’s a radically different argument. It’s critical to grasp that perfect form does not automatically lead to perfect content. In fact, usually the opposite is true. Perfect form is usually host to imperfect content. All sinusoidal forms are perfect, but their content can be utterly false. All of the beliefs of Abrahamists are ultimately reducible to perfect sinusoidal functions in terms of form, but the beliefs themselves (the content) are false, absurd and as imperfect as you can get. The gulf between form and content can be, and usually is, a yawning one. Memes are perfectly formed but frequently perfectly ridiculous. Lies, falsehoods, errors, fallacies, opinions, beliefs, guesses, and so on, all have a perfect sinusoidal form but reflect nothing but bad, wrong and irrational content. Imagine combining letters wrongly to form meaningless words. The letters themselves are as perfect as they are in meaningful words, but their particular arrangement is senseless. Similarly, if we use perfect sinusoids in a jumbled way, we get meaningless content. People, unfortunately, might regard the content as meaningful (as in Abrahamism), but that’s a different story.

Form and Content II Ultimate Form, i.e. the God Equation, is Parmenidean, Platonic, eternal, immutable and perfect. It’s pure stasis, pure “being”. Content, i.e. everything dynamically generated by the God Equation, is, on the other hand, Heraclitean. It’s pure change and becoming, mutable and imperfect, dialectical and teleological. The God Equation is the Platonic Form of Thought. It defines how thought exists ontologically, but does not define the content of thought. We inhabit a universe ruled by a supreme Platonic Form (the God Equation). This defines eternal mathematical minds = monads. Each monad is a Platonic living being, a perfect reflection of the Supreme Form. However, its content is not perfect. As soon as a Cosmic Age begins (when perfect, divine symmetry is broken), all monads become pure potential (empty content) and are in need of being perfectly actualised (i.e. achieving perfect content through the restoration of perfect cosmic symmetry). This is

where the Hegelian dialectic kicks in. It drives imperfection (potential) to perfection (actualisation). Viewed in other terms, it converts fallible content into perfect, infallible Form (matterless form = God). The end of a Cosmic Age occurs when Form and Content become perfectly, mathematically, cosmically aligned. It’s when reason thinks only about reason, and everything is rationally understood down to the finest detail. It’s when Absolute Knowledge is attained.

Delivery Mechanisms Old audio and video cassettes were once the Form for delivering music and film content. New Forms – CD and DVD – replaced these, and these, in turn, are being replaced by iPods, smartphones, tablet computers, and the like. The Form for delivering content keeps changing and improving, although the quality of the content is rarely getting any better. If you imagined the perfect Form for delivering content, what would it be? It’s self-evident that existence must use this perfect Form, the perfect delivery system, because there’s no sufficient reason why it would choose anything less than perfect, and anything less than perfect would lead to endless copying errors, mutations and, sooner or later, catastrophe. In real life – considered ontologically – Form and delivery are perfect and never change. Analytic mathematical sinusoids, organised into complete and consistent units (monads), constitute the perfect Forms and perfect delivery mechanisms for content (information). However, it must always be remembered that although Form is perfect, content is not. Content is dialectical. It’s improving over time, and becomes perfect only at the Omega Point, where Form and content become perfectly aligned.

Eternalism We can look at reality in two ways, via Form and Content. Form is perfect, immutable, eternal and Platonic. It’s the 100% sure, certain and perfect foundation of existence. However, Form, by itself, is never meaningful. It’s what Form supports, delivers and distributes that defines the meaning of life. Content is the key to existence as we experience it. Content is king. In relation to a work of art, Content constitutes its meaning or significance as opposed to its style or form. When people talk about the

triumph of style over substance, they mean that the Content has been sacrificed for the sake of the presentation, the packaging, the delivery mechanism. Existence provides, so to speak, the perfect DVD as a technological Form. It cannot be improved in any way. However, the content contained by the perfect container is always in need of improvement. Ontologically, this improvement takes place dialectically. Where perfect Form is all about perfect, immutable Aristotelian and Leibnizian logic, imperfect Content is all about dynamic, messy, dialectical (Heraclitean and Hegelian) logic.

***** Existence comprises: 1) Eternal Form, considered regardless of Content, and reflecting Aristotelian perfection, and 2) Temporal Content, considered regardless of Form, and reflecting dialectical imperfection. (Dialectical content becomes perfect at its Omega Point. The triadic, iterative process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis wipes out, in due course, all imperfections and contradictions.) Rationalism (metaphysics and mathematics) is, when properly understood, all about eternal, perfect Form. Empiricism, when properly understood, is all about Content and phenomenology: how we experience reality rather than what reality actually is, what it’s made of. The problem arises when we imagine, as empiricists do, that our experiences are reality, and the only true knowledge. Empiricists are saying, in effect, that Content is primary, and Form isn’t even secondary: it doesn’t actually exist. Imagine the best DVD movie ever, so good that you are actually in the movie, dynamically interacting with it, as you would in a video game, and even able to get food, drink, and all your needs met within it. The DVD movie provides an environment so realistic that you can’t distinguish it from the real world. You become addicted to this game until you realise that only death will remove you from it. Within this movie, you even have children, and they will live and die exclusively in this film. In other words, reality and the movie have merged and become one. You are in The Matrix. You are in the ultimate dream. You are so preoccupied with the movie that you never once give any thought to what the DVD delivery mechanism is. What is the DVD made

of? What is its operating system? How does the whole thing work and produce the effects it does? Who or what made it and designed it? What’s the difference between waking reality and dreaming reality? What’s the difference between analogue and digital reality? If you were in The Matrix, how would you ever find out that you were in a digital simulation of real life produced by an Artificial Intelligence if no one offered you a red pill? Observing the world, perceiving the world, experiencing the world ... these don’t tell you anything at all about the true nature of the world. You are beguiled by Content and ignoring Form. You have to transcend Content and understand what it’s encoded in and on (its Form). This is a rationalist, not empiricist, exercise. In the rationalist paradigm, regardless of whether you were in “reality”, a dream, or a computer simulation – all of which might seem empirically indistinguishable – you would be able to rationally work out their ultimate Form (foundational existence), and their relative Forms (what distinguishes them) just by reasoning your way through the problem. Extreme empiricists and skeptics such as David Hume and Bishop Berkeley effectively denied that we could ever have any meaningful knowledge of Form, only of Content. And a corollary was that if we could have no knowledge of it, it could not actually exist, or it was redundant to refer to its existence. Modern science asserts that absence of evidence (regarding the soul, for example) is evidence of absence, and anything that cannot be observed, or is not amenable to the scientific method, cannot exist. Extreme rationalists such as Plato and Leibniz asserted, in effect, that true knowledge concerns Form alone, and Content provides only mutable, illusory “knowledge”. True Form is intelligible, while Content is sensible. True Form is metaphysical, while Content is physical. True Form is noumenal, while Content is phenomenal. True Form is deductive, while Content is inductive. True Form is analytic, while Content is synthetic. True Form is a priori, while Content is a posteriori. Form concerns eternal, necessary truths of reason. Content concerns temporal, contingent “truths of fact”. Form is Aristotelian (static, fixed), while Content is dialectical (dynamic; unfixed). Illuminism is a strictly rationalist system, i.e. all of its foundational assertions relate to eternal ontology, to eternal truths of reason, to perfect

Platonic Form, to indisputable, absolute, infallible knowledge. This knowledge can be gleaned through reason and logic alone (as expressed through ontological mathematics). It has nothing whatsoever to do with the senses, experiences, feelings, faith, mysticism, falsification, verification or the scientific method. These all provide illusory knowledge of contingent Content, not real knowledge of absolute Form. Before you approach epistemology – the study of knowledge – you must be able to distinguish between eternal and temporal knowledge, necessary and contingent, a priori and a posteriori, analytic and synthetic, deductive and inductive, necessary and contingent, metaphysical and physical knowledge. Empiricists say that true knowledge derives from what we experience. Rationalists say the opposite: true knowledge derives from what we don’t experience. We don’t experience reason itself. We don’t see it, hear it, smell it, taste it or feel it. We think it. Reason is immaterial and dimensionless. Ultimate reason is mathematics, and we can never perform any experiment to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. This is eternally true, hence beyond all temporal, contingent experiences. Only rationalism deals with true knowledge (truths of reason). Tragically, empiricism has claimed, on the contrary, that it alone deals with true knowledge (truths of fact), and has dismissed truths of reason (Form) as empty tautologies that don’t tell you anything about the world. This was the stance most clearly articulated by Wittgenstein and the Logical Positivists, and is still a highly influential, and totally false, worldview.

***** Kant divided the world into noumena and phenomena. Phenomena are Content while noumena are Form. Kant believed that noumena are unknowable. They are in fact entirely knowable mathematically since they are nothing but ontological mathematical Forms (monads and their constituent sinusoids defined by the God Equation). Rationalism is right and empiricism is wrong. Rationalism delivers knowledge of Form (which is why it relies on reason rather than on the senses), and empiricism knowledge of Content (which is why it relies on the senses rather than on reason).

The catastrophe for humanity is that a bizarre hybrid creature (part rationalist/ part empiricist) – scientific materialism – has arisen, which claims to provide true knowledge using an “infallible” method – the scientific method. The scientific method is all about the senses and is pure empiricism, while all scientific theories are expressed in mathematical language, which is pure rationalism. The scientific method is an empiricist method dealing with Content while the mathematical method is a rationalist method dealing with Form. Science has never understood the difference between Form and Content. Indeed, this is its primary problem. Science, as an empiricist ideology, believes that Content is reality, and Form either doesn’t exist or is fundamentally unknowable (like a Kantian noumenon). If some scientists were to claim that ultimate Form is 1-D strings that can never be observed, or abstract wavefunctions that can never be observed, these would not constitute scientific but rather metaphysical claims, and any metaphysics that flows from physics is in trouble because the cart is preceding the horse! The scientific method is content-driven. It’s unable to access eternal Form, which is necessarily dimensionless (it must be in the cosmic ground state of zero – “nothingness”; dimensionlessness – with its flip side of infinity/ eternity). Form is inherently beyond science, but not beyond mathematics (it is mathematics). Form is an eternal, immaterial, dimensionless Singularity defined by the God Equation. It’s the ground of being. It’s the arche, the source of all other things, of all Content. You cannot have Content without Form. You cannot have Content without a Container to hold it. You cannot have a DVD movie without the DVD. If you are experiencing the Content, you are ipso facto not experiencing the Container (Form). This is the whole problem. If you are obsessed with the Content (empiricism), how can you ever understand the Form (rationalism)? The Form is innate. It is a precondition for experience, but cannot itself be experienced. If we imagine Form and Content as two sides of a coin, one side can never see or encounter the other. They are diametrically opposed. Empiricism denies that the coin has two sides. It does so because it can never experience the other side and is, of course, defined solely by what it

can experience. Rationalism accepts both sides of the coin and seeks to understand the full coin, and how the two sides relate to each other. Science has been fantastically successful precisely because of its inherent contradiction. Science ought to be pure empiricism. If it were, it would be nothing but the philosophy of David Hume, a stunningly ingenious dead end! However, science did what Hume would never have done. It placed a hyperrationalist, unempirical engine at its core – mathematics. Self-evidently, empiricism has no right to anything, such as mathematics, that has nothing whatsoever to do with empiricism. Scientists, being philosophically illiterate, simply ignored the contradiction, and prospered to an amazing degree. Science works because it addresses Form via mathematics and the mathematical method, and Content (the observable world) via science and the scientific method. Yet science doesn’t actually make sense because of the fatal inconsistency at its heart. Science is successful, not truthful. It’s an unholy, illegitimate alliance of empiricism and rationalism. To make science consistent, it must be predicated on Form rather than Content. It must switch from empiricism to rationalism, from science (physics) to mathematics (metaphysics). Physics, with its scientific method, then becomes the phenomenal application of metaphysics, with its mathematical method. The task is to define the Container (Form; rationalism) and then what is contained (the Contents; empiricism). Empiricism tries to work out reality from the Contents alone, while ignoring the existence of the Container (Form). Even if you say that the mind is a blank slate upon which experiences are written (the classic empiricist stance), you are still required to define the nature of the blank slate itself (i.e. the Form, the Container). Empiricism has always fled from this task, declaring it non-empirical!!! As Leibniz advocated, we must start with metaphysics and work our way to physics, start with noumena and then understand the phenomena that result from them. We must not do what science does and start with physics and deny the existence of metaphysics, to start with phenomena and deny that they are representations of mathematical noumena.

*****

Fourier mathematics relates a frequency domain outside space and time – Form – to a material domain inside space and time – Content.

The Cosmic Operating System Form is like a brand new computer, equipped with its operating system, Read-Only Memory (ROM) and a blank hard drive. Content is what gets put on the hard drive and is acted upon by the operating system. Work is done via dynamic, perishable Random Access Memory (RAM), and is then stored long-term on the hard drive. The cosmos itself is like a self-operating, self-optimising, living computer (Form) that begins a Cosmic Age in a pristine condition, with a blank hard drive (maximum potential; minimum actualisation) and blank RAM, i.e. with no Content. It then gradually fills up with content, which is generated via messy, living, dialectical processes. At the Omega Point – the culmination of the dialectic – the Content is full, perfect and in complete accord with the Form. The computer knows exactly what it is. It has attained God consciousness. At this point – when repeated across all the other computers (monads) in existence – the cosmos has nowhere left to go. All of the computers then commit “divine suicide” en masse. (Mathematically, it’s the attainment of perfect monadic symmetry that equates to this stage.) Each clears its RAM, wipes its hard drive and reformats it. However, the computer, hard drive, ROM and operating system remain exactly the same as before (these can never change). And thus the world is born again, ready to start again. The world, at the Big Bang, is always a clean slate (maximum potential, minimum actualisation), and at the Big Crunch is always a full slate (minimum potential, maximum actualisation). The universe simply oscillates forever between these two states: Alpha and Omega.

***** Any manufactured computer has defective, vulnerable parts, is prone to breakdown, can’t upgrade itself, and can’t learn from the environment. Monadic living computers suffer from none of these limitations. They have

perfect, eternal parts (perfect sinusoids) that can never degrade or fail. Monads are always dialectically upgrading themselves, and are always learning from the environment and adapting to it.

The Cosmic Chessboard In terms of chess, Form is the chessboard and the pieces. The Content is how the game is actually played by the players. Cosmically, monads are the players, the rules of chess are the laws of ontological mathematics, the chessboard is spacetime, and the chess pieces are material bodies.

***** Illuminism is all about defining Ultimate Reality (Form) and then analysing Content to see how it fits in, and what it’s evolving towards (its teleology). It works forwards from necessary but blank Form to ever-expanding, contingent Content. Science works backwards from contingent Content and never actually reaches unobservable Form, deeming it non-existent because it’s unavailable to the scientific method. Rather, it reaches randomness, which, laughably, is every bit as unobservable and unempirical as eternal mathematical Form! Not a single person has ever witnessed a random event, or ever could. Plenty of scientists have interpreted events in randomist terms, but interpretation is not evidence. When you ignore eternal and infallible Form (God or the God Equation), you are left with nothing but randomness and chaos as an “explanation” of reality. However, randomness is always a non-explanation, an avoidance of explanation. To explain something is to provide a sufficient reason for it – exactly what the invocation of randomness fails to do. To give randomness as an “explanation” is really to say, “I dunno – it just happened that way.” You might as well appeal to miracles.

The Dialectic In Aristotle’s great chain of being, every link in the chain is the form for the level below and the matter for the level above. Formless matter is at the bottom, and matterless form at the top. However, we could easily invert this

scheme and put formless matter (God) at the foundation, the Source, in which case every link in the chain is the form for the level above and the matter for the level below. Formless matter is at the terminus, the furthest from God. This is like the system of emanations described by Neoplatonism where the “One” is the perfect origin, and emanates the Nous, which emanates the Psyche, which emanates Nature, which emanates bodies, which souls can then inhabit. The further the emanation is from God, the more degraded and less divine it is. Prime matter is the furthest of all from God, which is why it was often associated with evil. In Gnosticism, the material world was said to be created by a degraded God called the Demiurge (Jehovah = Satan) who believed himself the True God but was actually a distant, degenerate emanation and corruption of the True God, much closer to matter than form, which is why he was the Lord of Matter. In terms of form and content, every link in the chain is the form for the level above and the content for the level below. The God Equation is the lowest level, the root, the origin, the arche – the Supreme Form upon which everything else is based and from which everything else is derived. Everything is a projection or emanation of the Supreme Form. In fact, the Great Chain of Being should be replaced by the Great Chain of Becoming and should be conceived as having the God Equation (perfect Form) at the bottom and God (perfect Content) at the top, with the latter being the Omega Point of the dialectical, evolutionary process of becoming. God does not create the universe; the God Equation creates God. The God Equation is the Formula for making God. At the commencement of the Great Chain of Becoming, we have blank, bare monads (maximum potential, minimum actualisation). At the culmination, we have full, complete monads (maximum actualisation, minimum potential). Bare monads are akin to Aristotelian matter (waiting to be formed) and full monads to pure Aristotelian form (fully formed), with every level in between involving a decreasing expression of matter and increasing expression of form. At the Omega Point, the perfect Content of the Great Chain of Becoming is equal to the perfect Form of the traditional Aristotelian Great Chain of Being. The Aristotelian God has come into being.

Involution Involution involves a descent from perfect Form to imperfect Content and Evolution an ascent from imperfect Content to perfect Content (= Form). In this evolutionary scheme, the Collective Unconscious is the matter for the personal unconscious. The personal unconscious is the matter for Consciousness. Consciousness is the matter for God Consciousness. Ego (Lower Self) is the matter for the Higher Self. Anything lower in the hierarchy is the “matter” – the raw material – for anything higher in the hierarchy.

***** Monads are the matter for the Monadic Collective (the collection of all monads), and the Monadic Collective is the matter for “physical” matter. Individual monads can then link to physical matter (bodies), and through them, via a long process of reincarnation, can attain gnosis and become Gods.

Form and Society “I have given you the perfect State, but where are the perfect people?” – Plato We cannot have optimal people until we have an optimal State. An optimal Constitution (perfect political Form) creates a perfect State, which then produces perfect citizens. A disastrous political Form such as democracy produces inferior, dumbed-down citizens. A disastrous economic Form such as free-market capitalism produces vile, lowest-common-denominator consumers. A disastrous religious Form, such as Islam, produces childish slaves with a fanatical hatred of those who haven’t submitted to the same Tyrant. We need perfect Forms to define politics, economics, religion, science, and mathematics. Only when we have optimal Forms can we start generating optimal Content.

Final Theories? Any theory that is content-driven results in relativism. Only a form-driven theory can furnish a definitive answer. There are many content-driven theories (of which science and Mythos religions are examples), and only one purely form-driven theory: ontological mathematics.

Ambiguity There’s enormous ambiguity in language, but not in mathematics, which is absolutely precise and free of all ambiguity. We inhabit a rational universe, a mathematical universe, but we experience it non-rationally. If the universe in itself is rational Form, we experience it as non-rational Content. The Form must be mathematical, but the content can be anything at all, any information that’s conveyed mathematically. So, thoughts, feelings, desires, the will, intuition, and so on, are all made of math – that is their objective form – but that’s not their subjective content, which is anything except mathematics (unless we’re actually studying mathematics). Imagine mathematics as a language: it provides the grammar, syntax, spelling, letters and words. The content is how the words are arranged – into books, poems, documents, theses, blogs, novels, and so on: everything that flows from words. Mathematics is what everything must be communicated in, but it’s not the communication itself. The communication is the arrangement of the mathematics, and mathematical sinusoids can be arranged in infinite ways to convey infinite different experiences. Every day, hundreds of millions of people use the internet, which is an ocean of content. How many people give any thought at all to the internet hardware, software, protocols, networked infrastructure, the coding of the content, the databases for storing content, and so on? The internet as technology is all about Form, but the internet is so successful because the users experience it as nothing but Content. The Internet would never have prospered if it had remained as it was in its early days – ruled by the command-line and obscure geek commands. The invention of the graphic user interface (GUI), the mouse, and so on, revolutionised the internet because they “de-geekified” the internet and allowed the most computer illiterate people to happily and efficiently use the internet. The internet took

off because how it worked was made invisible to the users. Screens showing glitzy content, with easy ways to navigate the content, concealed all of the incomprehensible technology behind the scenes. The average user is oblivious to the underlying Form of the internet and barely knows it exists. Similarly with life. We are all “users” of life. We all experience the Content, but we don’t experience the underlying mathematical Form. Our senses are the equivalents of internet screens and navigation devices. What they do is present a glitzy world of Content, while wholly concealing the underlying reality. What is the underlying reality? It’s ontological mathematics, and we never encounter it directly, just as we never encounter the internet directly, but only its public face.

***** In terms of other people, we encounter their persona – their public mask – but we never truly encounter the ego beneath the mask, the real person, so to speak. We live in a world of appearances, masks, screens and surfaces that conceal true reality, that hide the depths, that prevent us from seeing the workings behind the scenes. Empiricism is the ideology that our experience of the content of the world is reality, and there’s nothing that we don’t or can’t experience, or we can’t have knowledge of anything not experienced. Yet we don’t experience the internet as anything other than Content, but we know for a fact that it has a vast, unseen, technological infrastructure, without which there would be no Content. Likewise with existence. Our senses show us a world of appearances, but not the noumenal workings of the world. You can’t see phenomena and noumena. You only ever see the phenomena, and never the noumena that generate them. However, we know the noumena are there. Rationalism is the discipline that concentrates on the Form rather than the Content, that seeks to get beyond the appearance to the true reality. Rationalism is akin to reverse engineering. Given a world of Content, how can we use the clues provided by the Content to establish what the underling Forms are? This is like trying to work out the entire technology, infrastructure and protocols of the internet purely and exclusively by looking at the Content on screens. Imagine trying to understand TCP/IP and HTML, for example, through no means other than your activity on social

networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. How could you possibly get from a world of Content to the underlying world of Form that allows the Content to exist in the first place? Empiricism chooses to treat the Content as reality, and then doesn’t have to worry about any underlying Forms or hidden variables. What you see is what you get. Seeing is believing. That, however, is a recipe for failing to encounter ultimate reality, which is hidden from our senses and direct experiences. Why is empiricism wrong? – because it mistakes experience and Content for reality itself. Why is rationalism right? – because it goes straight to the intellectual, conceptual Form, bypassing the experience. We can metaphorically express the difference between empiricists and rationalists in the following way: empiricists try to work out reality on the basis of reading the Mythos contents of novels; rationalists try to work out reality on the Logos basis of the language the novel is written in. These are two wholly different ways of apprehending reality. Empiricists try to work out reality from the internet’s Content, while rationalists work it out from the internet’s Form. You can’t work out Form from Content, but you can certainly work out Content from Form since all Content is written in Form. Content can’t exist without Form. There would be no internet Content without programming code (Form) to generate it. Similarly, there would be no empirical world of Content without the unseen mathematical code (Form) to produce it. Isn’t that totally obvious? Yet it has baffled the entire scientific community from Day One. The scientific method goes nowhere near, and never can go anywhere near, the unobservable, hidden mathematical code of existence. However, scientific hypotheses, which are expressed in mathematical language, are how science inadvertently, and badly, addresses ontological Form. Science forces its hypotheses to match the observable world, but thereby ensures that its hypotheses never match the unobservable world of mathematics, the world of Ultimate Truth! Science’s obsession with the empirical world is exactly what prevents it from addressing the real nature of existence. It’s hoist with its own petard! It’s no accident that every putative scientific “ultimate” theory – such as M-theory – is mathematical, metaphysical and untestable. There will never be a final theory of science that is compatible with the scientific method, so why bother with the attempt? It’s a simple impossibility. The final theory of

everything will be, and is, 100% mathematical. And there will be not one shred of empirical “evidence” for it. It will be wholly rationalist. It will be entirely about Form (rationalism) and have nothing to do with Content (empiricism). No experiment will ever demonstrate its truth. Anyone who imagines that the Big Bang can be experimentally tested is insane. The Big Bang can be rationally worked out, but it can never be evidentially tested.

***** Abrahamists use stories to “understand” reality. There’s no science, mathematics or philosophy in the “sacred” texts of Abrahamism. But you cannot work out ultimate reality through Mythos means, or through studying Content rather than Form, or from your sensory experiences, or from experiments entirely coupled to your sensory experiences. Why is science useless when it comes to the big questions of ultimate reality? Because it tries to work out reality from sensory Content, and the senses simply have nothing to do with ultimate reality. (Where, for example, were any sense organs during the Big Bang? Who experienced the Big Bang?) Why does science work at all? Because all of its theories are expressed mathematically, i.e. in terms of the underlying Form. Science is a half-baked hybrid of empiricism and rationalism. Its method is empirical (content driven) while its expression is rationalist (mathematical; form driven). Science has to go one way or the other: total rationalism or total empiricism. If it chooses empiricism and the scientific method, it should logically abandon mathematics (which has nothing to do with experience and the scientific method), but then it would be a total joke. So, logically, science must become pure, analytic, ontological mathematics, i.e. it must concentrate on the form and language of reality, of its letters (subatomic particles), words (atoms), sentences (molecules), syntax and grammar (forces that operate on and between “words”). The content – our sensory, emotional, and mental experiences – is an entirely different subject. It’s derived from the language of mathematics and is ontologically conveyed in that language, but the content is not itself mathematical, just as grammar is not the content of any novel even though every novel uses grammar. No novel is about the language it’s written in (if it were, it would be a Meta Novel, a novel about the novel, a self-referential novel); the language

is used to express something wholly different from the language – ideas, which are conveyed by the language. Scientists have never grasped this difference, the difference between form and content. They have mistaken content for form rather than merely being an expression of form. Only reason itself – the language of form – can grasp form. Reason, when practised correctly, is always meta reason, i.e. it’s always about itself. Reason goes wrong whenever it’s applied to content rather than form. If you apply reason to Mythos, anything at all can result – as we see with Abrahamism. Anything that is not itself reason can reveal nothing about rational form. Senses, feelings, desires, faith, and so on, are utterly useless. Form is always noumenal and content always phenomenal. We can never perceive form (noumenon) in any other way than in terms of its own native language (reason = mathematics). Experience (content) cannot reveal what experience is conveyed in (form; mathematics). That’s like asking the eye to look directly at itself, but “seeing” in the physical world is about looking outwards, never inwards.

Reality Reality is a self-creating, self-optimising network – the ultimate cosmic internet. Its internet nodes are not computers but living mathematical minds: monads. It also provides all of the means to navigate it and enjoy its content. It furnishes us with bodies and senses. It furnishes us with pointing-devices (fingers), portables screens (eyes), auditory equipment (ears) and even allows us a full Sensaround experience by enabling us to smell, taste and touch content. Reality is the Hypernet, providing us with a total sensory and interactive experience. We are trapped in the content and never see the underlying “technology” (form) that produced it. It is of course ontological mathematics that underlies everything.

The Refutation Empiricists claim that all knowledge comes from experience. If we can’t experience it, we can’t know it. In fact, this ideology is staggeringly easy to

refute. After all, experiences must be made of something and what they are made of is not something we ever experience. We have the experience. We have no idea what the experience is made of. It’s always hidden by the experience itself. Moreover, all experiences must be made of the same thing, or they would be unable to interact with each other and flow into each other in continuous, causal succession. Next, we know that experiences must be contained within individual minds. If they weren’t, we would all be able to experience each other’s experiences, which we never can. We don’t see or experience minds that have experiences. Our minds are precisely those unseen, unexperienced entities having the experiences. So, if there are experiences then there’s an unseen order that provides the preconditions for experiences, which makes experiences, orders experiences, and prevents others from sharing experiences, and so on. In other words, empiricism automatically points to a more fundamental, unempirical reality. Ergo empiricism is false and provides false, illusory knowledge. It provides “knowledge” of content alone, but not of form. In internet terms, a user could have the most fantastic knowledge of the content of social networking and yet not know a single thing about the platform for social networking, the underlying technology and protocols, the unseen servers, cables, modems, programming languages, and so on. None of this is ever experienced by a social networker. Similarly, none of the underlying foundations of existence are ever experienced by “users” of existence. Empiricism is the claim that there is no unexperienced layer beneath experience, or, if there is, we could never know anything about it, hence it might as well not exist. Both of these claims are totally false. Both are the province of rationalism and metaphysics, which deal with unseen Form. Experiences are not freestanding entities floating in some “ether”. Experiences are not made of experiences: they are made of something else that generates an experience but is not itself experienced. All experiences are thoughts made of combinations of mathematical sinusoids, located within individual monadic minds – which is why each of us has experiences that others don’t have and can’t share. A narrow, low-energy band of mathematical sinusoids can be shared between monads. It’s this band of sinusoids that gives rise to the material

world. Matter reflects collective rather than individual thinking. The reason why we can experience matter is that matter is itself mental! Scientific materialists claim that matter makes minds, and minds then have experiences (which are undefined in material terms, and seem totally different from and incompatible with solid matter). Yet “matter” itself is just an idea that minds have. No one ever encounters matter except through their minds, so how can anyone claim that matter is non-mental, i.e. belongs to a different order of existence? There is not one shred of evidence that physical matter exists, and, empirically, no one can ever experience matter itself, only the idea of matter. Occam’s razor says that we should not multiply entities unnecessarily, so if all we can ever have are mental experiences, why would we create the notion of something non-mental underlying the mind? In Illuminism, ontological mathematics is dimensionless and immaterial, hence is fundamentally mental, and “matter” is something created by the collection of monadic minds, hence is mental not physical. Illuminism reflects Occam’s razor; science does not. That’s a fact.

***** All experiences are imprinted on something, or encoded on something, or formed from something, or contained by something. To argue otherwise is to contend that experiences exist as actual entities in their own right, as selfdefining, self-making, interactive “objects”. Even scientific materialism claims that experiences are made of something. Bizarrely, it says that experiences are somehow made of atoms, or are imprinted or encoded on atoms, although it provides no explanation whatsoever of how lifeless, mindless, non-mental, solid things can produce or support mental experiences and qualia. It doesn’t even care that it has never come close to offering an explanation.

The Conflict Form and content (rationalism and empiricism) are at the heart of the conflict concerning how to understand reality. You cannot fathom reality until you grasp the distinction between them. People fail to comprehend that thoughts have to be made of something. Thoughts certainly aren’t made of atoms. They’re not made of anything

material. They don’t come from anything material. The very fact that they are made of something is at the root of the problem of comprehending them. We never experience what they’re made of; we only experience what they convey. We experience the thought itself, never what the thought is made of, which is always unobservable and can never be experienced. When we listen to music, we don’t encounter the mathematical waves of which the music is constructed, we hear the music they convey. To reach the answer to existence, we have to transcend our own mental experiences since these are exactly what are preventing us from encountering true, fundamental reality. We’re so busy having the experience that we’re oblivious to what the experience is made of, what it is ontologically. The last thing that anyone who falls in love or lust is concerned with is what his experience of love or lust is made of. He’s far too consumed with his love or lust. There is only one way to get at the thing in itself rather than the experience of the thing: by using our reason. Reason is how we transcend our experiences, how we get outside our experiences and contemplate them from an objective viewpoint. Our rational thoughts are of course made of something too, but, in this case, our thoughts are striving to reflect form rather than content, i.e. to objectify rather than subjectify themselves, to understand the form rather than to experience the content. Reason is about form; sensations, feelings and desires are about content. We cannot use feelings to understand form, though this is what Abrahamism attempts. We cannot use sensations, though this is what science attempts. We cannot use mystical intuitions, though this is what Eastern religion attempts. The only proper way to understand rational form is through rationalism, and rationalism ultimately reduces to ontological mathematics. Mental experiences – colourful, vivid, exciting content – are like a DVD movie. Our own lives are a kind of movie, but one that we inhabit 24/7. We never get the opportunity to take out the DVD and have a look at it, and people soon forget that there’s even a DVD there. They are obsessed with the content and forget all about the form. The form is there all the same. It certainly isn’t a physical form. It’s a dimensionless, immaterial form outside space and time, and unobservable in every way. It has to be something, and

there’s only one thing it can rationally be: ontological mathematics (sinusoids defined by the God Equation). When we think mathematically, we are doing something extraordinary: we are bringing content and form together, i.e. we are thinking about form and not about content: the content is the contemplation of form. Our thoughts, which are delivered via sinusoids, are pondering sinusoids. We are engaged in meta reason.

The Highest “The highest intellects, like the tops of mountains, are the first to catch and to reflect the dawn.” – Lord Macaulay Most people are in caves, not on mountaintops. In fact, most people are crawling in sewers.

The Fallacy Bertrand Russell said of Hegel’s philosophy (which he understood even less well than Nietzsche’s philosophy, which he didn’t understand at all!), “Hegel thought that, if enough was known about a thing to distinguish it from all other things, then all of its properties could be inferred by logic. This was a mistake, and from this mistake arose the whole imposing edifice of his system. This illustrates an important truth, namely, that the worse your logic, the more interesting the consequences to which it gives rise.” Russell ought to have turned his attention to the fallacy of science: that you can give an empiricist subject a rational engine. Any number of fascinating consequences have flowed from this fundamental contradiction. Science resolved the empiricist/ rationalist war by combining them fallaciously but highly pragmatically. In philosophy, Kant’s answer to the war was to invent a bogus category known as “synthetic a priori”. Rationalism (Form) is all about the analytic a priori. Empiricism (Content) is all about the synthetic a posteriori. Kant believed he had bridged the gap with the hybrid synthetic a priori. However, this amounts to attempting to treat Form in terms of Content, or Content in terms of Form; to claiming that something can be both Objective Form (a priori) and Subjective Content (synthetic) at once, in the same context: a simple

impossibility. (Science makes exactly the same error by applying mathematical rationalism (Form) to the empiricist scientific method (Content)). The rational way forward is to define the Form, which determines the nature of the Content, and defines the framework to which the Content must conform, and then analyse its contents. That means that metaphysics comes first and physics second. The mathematical method (rationalism) comes first and the scientific method (empiricism) second. It must not be a question of fitting hypotheses (provisional Form) to observed Content, as science does, but of establishing the ontological Form that all observable Content must reflect. Science is working backwards from Content to Form when in fact it should be working forwards from Form to Content, as ontological mathematics does. Ontological mathematics begins with what must be ontologically and rationally true, and the ubiquitous cosmic formula that encapsulates it, and then considers what this entails for Content. Only by working in this way, from eternal truths of reason to contingent truths of fact, can an answer to existence be found. It’s impossible to use contingent truths of fact to establish eternal truths of reason since there is nothing necessary, analytic and a priori about contingent observations. Why is science a continuously moving target? Why are there countless dead scientific theories? Why are scientific theories always being refined, modified, adjusted? Why can any scientific theory be falsified by any contingent experiment? Why is no amount of verification by experiments ever sufficient to prove a theory? Why are science’s two most successful theories – quantum mechanics and Einsteinian relativity – wholly incompatible? It’s all because working backwards from contingency to necessity is impossible, a category error. Once we have established the necessary truths of existence, using eternal ontological mathematics rather than temporal science, then we can apply our minds to what contingent effects are possible in a dynamic, dialectical, evolving, mathematical universe. All contingency must be grounded in necessity (i.e. the temporal universe must conform to the laws of eternal existence). It’s impossible for necessity to be grounded in contingency (i.e. for the laws of eternal existence to be determined by the latest contingent observations and experiments). Ontological mathematics is about true, incontestable facts. Science is about the interpretation of facts, and trying to

understand observed facts in terms of ad hoc hypotheses that never reflect any analytic, eternal necessity. We must establish by rational analysis and mathematical proofs what ontological Form is. Only then can we apply the scientific method to the Content. If you fail to do it this way around, you end up with the insane claim of science that reality is grounded in a deterministic mathematical unreality that collapses indeterministically for absolutely no reason at all, to produce an apparently deterministic physical universe. You end up with irrational Randomness being proposed as the basis of reality rather than rational Form/ Formula. The “logic” deployed by scientists is a joke, driven by a fanatically empiricist rather than rationalist mindset.

The Competing “Truths” Form is all about rationalism, proof and the mathematical method. It’s associated with infallible, eternal knowledge – true knowledge. Form is all about Logos. Scientific Content is all about empiricism, “evidence”, falsification and verification principles, and the scientific method. It’s associated with fallible, temporal knowledge – contingent, unreliable, flawed, illusory knowledge. Scientific Content is all about a sensory Mythos. Abrahamic Content is about faith and revelation, prophets and “holy” books. It rejects both rationalism and empiricism. It’s pure Mythos – a feelings rather than sensory Mythos. Eastern religious Content is all about faith, mysticism, intuition, gurus, holy texts, and divine avatars. It rejects both rationalism and empiricism. It’s pure Mythos – mystical, intuitive Mythos. Only Illuminism (ontological mathematics) is true. Only Illuminism is correct. Only Illuminism provides the definitive answer to life, the universe and everything.

***** Abrahamism lays claim to an understanding of the supreme ontological Form (eternal and perfect), which it calls “God”. However, it approaches the task without any regard to either the mathematical method or scientific method. Instead, it relies on the ludicrous “prophet method”, by which

some bearded lunatic claims to have heard the voice of God, and who then writes down “divine revelations” in an “infallible” holy book, every word of which must then be believed as literally true. Abrahamists are insane. They are people of Mythos who have rejected Logos. They have zero evidence and proof of their claims. Faith = madness. Abrahamists are story people – which is why their most sacred texts are story books, from which mathematics, science, technology, engineering and philosophy are entirely absent and permanently excluded. You would die of surprise if any pope, priest, imam or rabbi ever started talking about the latest mathematical and scientific thinking. Abrahamists are mental primitives – almost apes – who have simply failed to evolve. Two thousand years ago, given the state of human knowledge, mainstream religious belief was understandable. In today’s world, it’s incomprehensible. How can anyone take seriously these ancient, silly stories? These people can barely be considered human. What’s for certain is that they are not part of humanity’s evolutionary trajectory, taking us to a divine future.

***** Eastern religion also lays claim to an understanding of the supreme Form (God, the “Oneness”, or some eternal divine force). Like Abrahamism, it rejects both the scientific and mathematical methods. Like Abrahamism, it relies on prophets (but it calls them “gurus”), and, like Abrahamism, it has its holy texts. However, its gurus are intuitives rather than the emotionalist prophets of Abrahamism, hence Eastern religion is superior to Abrahamism and much more thoughtful. The more rational a system is, the truer it is, and nothing is more rational than ontological mathematics. The more emotional a system is (such as Abrahamism, which is just a set of stories about tribes and important members of those tribes), the less true it is. Abrahamism has literally zero truth content. It’s merely a story, a kind of fairy tale, folk tale or myth.

***** CB: “By the way, the God of the New Testament is much kinder than the one from the Old. ‘Love your enemies’, ‘turn the other cheek’, ‘forgive’, etc., etc...”

How many morons are going to repeat this drivel? The Bible never claims to be a book about two different Gods. Christianity is a monotheism! Everything done by “God” in the Old Testament is by definition accepted and approved by Jesus Christ. Since Jesus Christ is the monotheistic God of Christianity, all actions carried out by the God of the Old Testament were performed by Jesus Christ himself (in his eternal aspect of “Logos”). If you deny this then you are denying that Jesus Christ is God, or you are subscribing to polytheism, hence you are not a Christian. To reiterate, the New Testament Jesus Christ and the Old Testament Jehovah are one and the same entity, functionally indistinguishable (if Christianity is to be accepted as a monotheism). Christians ludicrously say that there are three persons in one God. Given that the three persons never disagree and never contradict each other, you are forbidden from denying that the actions of Jehovah are in any way to be dissociated from the actions of Jesus Christ. Whatever one did or does, the other did or does too. In legal terms, the three “persons” are guilty of “joint enterprise”: “Joint enterprise is a doctrine of common law dating back several centuries that has been developed by the courts to allow for more than one person to be charged and convicted of the same crime. “If it can be proved that the participants were working together in some way, then they are all guilty of all the crimes committed during the course of their joint enterprise, regardless of the role they played. “Unlike the crime of conspiracy, in which the offence consists of merely agreeing to commit a crime, in joint enterprise all parties are convicted of the actual offence, for example: murder.” – http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/03/31/joint-enterprise-adefinition/ The crimes of Jehovah are Jesus Christ’s crimes too. No distinctions can be drawn. Why would any sane, rational person make any attempt to defend Christianity? Christianity is obscene and must be annihilated. JM: “Jesus may have been a man who achieved Gnosis like the Buddha.” How could Jesus Christ have achieved Gnosis when he called himself the “Son” of the monster of the Old Testament – the Devil, the Demiurge, the

Prince of Darkness = Jehovah? Why do people insist on defending this deceiver and charlatan? He was a Jewish rabbi called Yehoshua ben Yosef who claimed to be the Jewish Messiah. What’s not to dislike? Don’t believe the hype!

The Psychopath War Psychopaths are incredibly powerful and dominant people. How do you beat psychopaths? In truth, you need your own psychopaths. The French Revolution began with tremendously idealistic and enlightened thinkers, yet delivered the notorious Terror. Why? Because real life is full of enemies of progress, of reactionaries, religious fundamentalists, counterrevolutionaries, and selfish psychopaths purely out for themselves. How do you defeat these people? With “harsh words”? If psychopaths are attacking you, you had better release your inner psychopath too. Doves are those who have no inner psychopath and are always devoured by the hawk predators. Retaliators are those who can mimic and even outdo the hawks when the hawks attack. Look at any Hollywood “hero” movie. The hero is always a retaliator against aggression, never an instigator of aggression, yet, by the final reel, he’s far more aggressive and ruthless than the hawks he’s fighting. He beats them at their own game. In Illuminism, predatory psychopathy should always be distinguished from retaliatory psychopathy. Just as retaliators are always doves when no hawks are around, so they are always non-psychopaths when no psychopaths are around. However, once psychopaths are in your midst, they will win unless you use tactics against them that many liberals and dogooders would denounce as themselves psychopathic, exactly as happened in the French Revolution. Don’t be naive. If the Revolutionaries hadn’t implemented the Terror, the Revolution would have been lost. That’s a fact. To win, we need people on our side who are capable of being psychopaths if needs be. If Cartman and Stewie are hawk psychopaths – eagerly initiating aggression – we need our retaliatory versions of Cartman and Stewie, who can be even more monstrous, but with the key proviso that once they have won, they can go back to being “nice”.

Cartman and Stewie are two of the worlds’ most entertaining characters. Comic psychopaths are fun. Political, military, religious and economic ones definitely aren’t! You can’t beat psychopaths by blowing kisses at them.

Design “Which is more likely? That the universe was designed just for us, or that we see the universe as having been designed just for us?” –Michael Shermer Or that the universe is designed out of us – mathematically?! Plainly, if we live in a universe of monadic minds, the universe will be exactly that which is perfect for the expression of monadic minds. There’s no mystery at all. We imagine that the world has been designed just for us, or we see the world as having been designed just for us, because it has been designed just for us – by ourselves. We just don’t know it. We don’t remember it. “Is the universe we find ourselves in a product of intentional design? Are the laws of physics ultimately a complex recipe for life? Or, is the cosmos an incidental contingency? Are we the end product of blind and unconscious processes played out over time in a geometric wonderland of space and time?” – David Lane Or are the laws of mathematics also the laws of life, mind, design, space and time? – and we ourselves are necessary, eternal mathematical beings. “If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...” – Fred Hoyle They do not have to be the outcome of intelligent design (implying a “God”) – they must in fact be intelligent design itself, i.e. ontological mathematics. Monads are pure mathematical design ... and they are alive! “The fundamental claim of intelligent design is straightforward and easily intelligible: namely, there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features

which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.” – William A. Dembski They can certainly be explained in terms of inherently directed natural forces that come fully built-in with order, organisation, pattern, form and design, i.e. mathematical, mental, teleological natural forces obeying the cosmic quest for perfect mathematical symmetry. “The multiverse also offers a refutation of the concept of Intelligent Design. Like Intelligent Design, the multiverse is an idea that accounts for the fact that the universe we inhabit is finely tuned in various ways that permit the existence of life. If certain factors (such as the amount of dark energy in the universe) were a little bit greater or lesser – poof! But if there are an infinite, or nearly infinite, number of universes, some of which are nothing but a cold fog of evenly dispersed particles and others a single, tiny, infinitely dense point, then ours is merely one of a few universes configured so as to allow life. There’s nothing particularly remarkable about our existence in it, because if it were otherwise, we wouldn’t be around to remark on it. Thus, ours is an accidental universe, rather than the inexorable and inevitable result of set laws that can be discovered and understood by humanity.” – Laura Miller Multiverse thinking replaces a single, precise, mathematical, designed universe with an infinity of chaotic, chance universes, one of which (the Goldilocks universe) just happens to be exactly right for us. In ontological mathematics, we inhabit an eternal, necessary universe. In Multiverse theory, we inhabit a meaningless accident! A universe that has no answer is no universe at all. Randomness is no explanation for anything. Randomness is just another name for magic for which no sufficient reason can be given. Ontological mathematics is all about necessary Form first and contingent Content second. Multiverse thinking is all about contingent Content first and no Form at all. Everything is produced randomly out of nothing for no reason – the supreme attack on reason. Multiverse thinking is even worse than religion, and just as unverifiable! “There is a coherent plan in the universe, though I don’t know what it’s a plan for.” – Fred Hoyle

It’s a plan for achieving perfect mathematical symmetry, enacted through mathematical beings made of mathematical sinusoids. We are inside an eternal, living mathematical object (Singularity) that is forever seeking to optimise its symmetry. From the inside, we experience Will to Power; from the outside, the universe exhibits Will to Symmetry. Maximum power is attained at the Omega Point of perfect symmetry. At the Omega Point, the mathematical universe = total perfection = absolute power = God. The universe is all about creating God – via us! We live in the ideal system – a self-perfecting organism. What could be better than that? We live, as Leibniz said, in the best of all possible worlds.

Logic There are two types of logic: Aristotelian and Dialectical (Hegelian). Aristotelian logic is eternal, defined by Form, and never changes. Dialectical logic is living logic, driven by Content, and is always changing. They are different, complementary types of logic. One is the Logic of Form, and one the Logic of Content. One is immutable and the other mutable, but converging on the Absolute. At the Absolute – the Omega Point – Perfect Form and Perfect Content are perfectly aligned. This is the condition of being “God”. Although the creation of God is the universe’s final act of a Cosmic Age, at which point the universe must begin again via a Big Bang, individual monads can attain their own self-perfection at a much earlier stage, and become Gods. “God”, as the Final, Absolute God, comes into being only when every individual monad has become God. “God” is the Monad of monads, the God of gods.

***** Metaphysics = ontological mathematics = Form. Physics = science = Sensory Content. Abrahamism = Feelings Content. Eastern Religion = Mystical Intuitive Content.

Gorillas and Shakespeare Imagine that gorillas found a play by Shakespeare. What challenges would face them if they sought to understand it? Task One is to understand Form. The gorillas must grasp that the physical Form (the book) contains information (Content). Task Two is to understand the Form of the language in which the Content is written (the language’s alphabet, grammar, syntax, spelling, the meaning of words, and so on). Only then can they move to Task Three and address the Content itself, hence understand Shakespeare’s play. Good luck with that, gorillas! When we look at the world, we are encountering sensory Content, not Form. We are encountering phenomena (appearances) not noumena (things in themselves). Our task is to get beyond the content to the underlying Form, and we certainly can’t do so with our senses and feelings, which are all about Content. We only have one faculty that allows us to get beyond the Content to the Form in which the Content is contained and expressed: mathematical reason. Why? Because ontological mathematics is the Form itself. When you have worked out Form – the language of Nature – then you can seek to understand the Content expressed through that Form, in that language. The sensory world is how the non-sensory world appears. It is not the world in itself. It is a representation of Form, not Form itself. It is thus Content. Humanity has two things to do: to work out how reality is in itself – i.e. work out the language of existence (rationalism) – then work out how that language is expressed in terms of the content of the world (empiricism).

The Cosmic Novel If we regard the world we see as a great novel, full of stories and wonders, then, if we wish to comprehend reality itself rather than its representation, we first of all have to work out what language the novel is written in. Only then can we make sense of the Content and establish its absolute, rather than relative, meaning. When we read a novel, we are relying on the meanings that we ourselves (humanity) have attached to the different words. What happens when we

confront the language of Nature, whose meanings we did not construct? With our own human languages, we are in control. With the language of Nature, we are not. We have to work out Nature’s language from how the world appears to us (Content). Yet, as soon as we realise that the world is indeed an appearance then it automatically means that it’s an appearance of something we do not see. Since we can’t perceive with our senses something that is non-sensory, we have to resort to something else, and the only other things we have at our disposal are intuition and reason. These alone can reveal the non-sensory Truth to us, the Form of Existence, the noumenal language of Nature. Intuition and reason lead us inexorably to ontological mathematics as the unseen language of Nature, from which all sensory Content is derived.

***** Imagine a Chinese novel being presented to someone who can’t speak Chinese. The content is mysterious, seemingly unfathomable. However, once the Chinese language is worked out, all of the content becomes comprehensible. So, it is with existence. Everything is written in math, but humanity hasn’t yet worked that out, so it looks to all sorts of other things, especially religion and science, to explain the Book of Life. Religion is about feelings, and science is about the senses. Both are wrong. They need to be about reason if they aspire to understand the Book of Life.

***** Some people search for the ancient “Hall of Records” in Egypt. What are they expecting to find? The answer to existence? All they will find is Content, and Content can never be the ultimate answer. Existence is pure Form, in fact a pure Formula – the God Equation.

Empiricism “Usually defined as the thesis that all knowledge or at least all knowledge of matters of fact as distinct from that of purely logical relations between concepts – is based on experience. The phrase ‘is based on’ is sometimes

replaced by ‘comes from’, ‘derives from’, or ‘has its source in’ – but it has to be admitted that all of these are more or less overtly metaphorical and can do little to specify just what relationship between knowledge and experience is intended.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy The whole problem with empiricism is that it can furnish no definition of what experience means in relation to knowledge. People are having endless experiences all of the time. How many of those experiences have anything to do with the advance of objective human knowledge that is unarguably, eternally true? Er, none at all! Technically, empiricism, upon which science is based, has zero knowledge content. “The popular appeal of empiricism depends in interpreting the key word ‘experience’ in its everyday understanding, in which a claim to have had experience of cows is a claim to have had dealings with mind-independent realities down on the farm. But philosophers have so often construed this key term that merely to have dreams or hallucinations of cows would constitute having experience of cows. “Empiricism can perhaps be better characterised in terms of what it denies. To begin with, it is a rejection of the doctrine, found in various forms in Platonism and idealism, that when the mind first encounters the world it is already furnished with a range of ideas or concepts, that accordingly owe nothing to experience. By contrast empiricists maintain that at birth the mind is, as Locke put it, ‘white paper, void of all characters’, and only experience can provide it with ideas. (Hence the timehonoured problem for empiricism about how we acquire ideas not instantiated in experience, for example, ideas of mathematical points or lines.) Granted that ideas, the raw material of knowledge, originate thus, some empiricists, though not all, have claimed that the truth of factual statements can only be established inductively from particular experiences, and have denied any intuition or Cartesian ‘natural light’ which enables us to grasp general truths about reality independently of experience. The inductive method can, in its turn, be variously interpreted either, more liberally, as justifying claims to truth and knowledge about a mindindependent reality, or, more strictly, as justifying only statements about the immediate data of experience. Understood in this latter fashion, empiricism leads to a radical skepticism about many of our ordinary claims to

knowledge, as is manifest in Hume and the logical positivist school.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Let’s grant that the mind is a blank slate and gets populated with experiences. This immediately raises three fundamental questions: 1) what is the blank slate made of? (it can’t be nothing at all; it can’t be nonexistence; it must be a container for one person’s experiences, and not those of someone else, or we could all share experiences and know each other’s minds), 2) what are experiences actually made of?, and 3) what is the relationship between what the mind is made of, what matter is made of, and what experiences are made of? (they must be compatible in order to interact). No empiricist philosopher has ever said what the mind is made of and what experiences and thoughts are made of. They are all left as bizarre, free-floating abstractions (somewhat like the unreal mathematical wavefunctions of quantum mechanics). In ontological mathematics, all minds are made of autonomous, complete, consistent sets of mathematical sinusoids, and all thoughts, ideas, feelings, desires, sense-impressions and experiences are made of sinusoids too (hence why they can exist in minds). Matter itself is made of sinusoids, functioning within a collective rather than individual mode. So, empiricism is faced with a catastrophic problem: how does it account for what the mind and what experiences are made of, since these themselves cannot be objects of experience, i.e. we can have an experience, but we can have no experience of what the experience is made of, or what medium it’s conveyed through. The eye can look at everything except itself. In other words, we know for certain that there’s an order of existence that’s wholly outside the empiricist paradigm, hence that empiricism is incomplete and cannot account for ultimate reality. Experiences cannot explain what experiences are, what they’re made of, where they exist, how they exist, how they are organised, and so on. All of the same things can be said of science. Science simply cannot reach ultimate reality. It can’t define what things are ontologically. “Empiricism, then, has taken several forms; but one common feature has been the tendency to start from experimental sciences, as a kind of prototype or paradigm of human knowledge – in contrast with rationalism which assigned a similar role to pure mathematics. (Empiricism has

gravitated towards a view of pure mathematics as achieving independence of sense experience at the expense of dealing only in tautology.)” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy The fundamental difference between empiricists and rationalists is that the former are preoccupied with science, experiences, and truths of fact, and the latter with mathematics, logic and truths of reason. Mathematics is a priori (prior to and independent of experience), and analytic (tautological). Empiricists regard tautology as a reason to dismiss mathematics as having nothing to do with the real world. In fact, mathematical tautology is the sole way to have a perfect world, and perfection is a mandatory precondition before there can be experiences in the first place. That is, experiences must belong to a perfect, rational order (they can’t be random, chaotic, freefloating, freestanding abstractions that have no ordered, organised, rational relations with each other). Mathematical tautology is the compulsory prerequisite for experiences. You cannot have the latter without the former. Experiences are all made of mathematics. That’s the medium through which they are conveyed and expressed. Empiricists see only the experience and not what underlies the experience, not what the experience is made of. That’s exactly their problem. All observable phenomena (matters of fact) are underpinned by noumena (which are mathematical and unobservable). And it follows that there are mathematical unobservables – such as monads – which have no phenomenal footprint whatsoever. We know rationally they are there, but we can have no empirical experience of them since they are immaterial and outside space and time. “The development in the 17th and early 18th centuries of what became known as the British empiricist school of philosophy – with Locke, Berkeley and Hume as its major figures, and Francis Bacon and Hobbes as important forerunners – was closely linked with the steadily increasing success and importance of experimental science, and its gradual discovery of its own identity as something distinct from pure mathematics and other disciplines. As a result, empiricism has characteristically seen the acquisition of knowledge as a slow, piecemeal process, endlessly selfcorrecting and limited by the possibilities of experiment and observations,

and has been characteristically skeptical about the claims of all-embracing metaphysical systems.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy The tragedy of empiricism is that it has regarded mathematics as something unreal, while nevertheless using mathematics as the very language in which all scientific theories are expressed – an astounding contradiction that doesn’t seem to bother any scientist in the slightest. The “blank slate” of empiricism is in fact an empty mathematical Form (total potential, no actualisation), waiting to be filled by contingent Content.

***** Having an experience ipso facto excludes experiencing what the experience is made of. If we experienced what the experience is made of, we would have excluded the experience itself. We can experience music as music (the Content conveyed by mathematical waves) or as the waves themselves (the Form), but not both. Imagine both hearing music and seeing music in our minds (as a sort of oscilloscope trace). How would this prove valuable to evolving apes? Evolution is as economic as possible. It gets rid of anything redundant. Tragically, knowing how reality works is redundant to animals evolving in jungles and on the savannahs. It becomes important only when minds have evolved to the state where they’re on the verge of divinity. Then, existence must be fully understood. You cannot be God if you don’t know what existence is and how it operates.

Rationalism “In a narrow sense, [rationalism is] the doctrines of a group of philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries, whose most important representatives are Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. The characteristics of this kind of rationalism are: (a) the belief that is possible to obtain by reason alone a knowledge of the nature of what exists; (b) the view that knowledge forms a single system, which (c) is deductive in character; and (d) the belief that everything is explicable, that is, that everything can in principle be brought under the single system. In a wider sense, the term used to refer to the view of philosophers who accept only b) and d), that is, the thesis that everything is explicable in terms of one system. In the most popular sense [rationalism is], (a) the rejection of religious belief as being without rational foundation,

or (b) more generally, a commitment to reason as opposed to faith, prejudice, habit, or any other source of conviction considered to be irrational.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Ontological mathematics is the ultimate rationalist system. It’s a single system – in fact a single mathematical Formula – that explains everything. Ontological mathematics asserts that there’s a layer underneath physics: a metaphysical, noumenal, analytic, a priori layer. Ontological mathematics is that which science is ultimately made of. Physics is phenomenal metaphysics, i.e. it’s how metaphysics appears to the senses. Metaphysics itself – causation, monads, complex numbers, negative and imaginary numbers, zero and infinity, ontological sinusoids – is never observed. It’s completely outside empiricism and the scientific method. Only the mathematical method – pure reason – can reach it. As Hegel realized, the universe expresses panlogism. Wikipedia says, “In philosophy, panlogism is a Hegelian doctrine that holds that the universe is the act or realization of Logos. According to the doctrine of panlogism, logic and ontology are the same study.” We should perhaps prefer the term panmathematics: the universe is the act or realization of self-optimising mathematics (i.e. of mathematics seeking perfect, universal symmetry). Mathematics and ontology are the same study, hence why we refer to “ontological mathematics”. Ontological mathematics comprises living units called monads, hence is a living, mental, teleological system expressing a will to power, and thus is wholly different from meaningless scientific materialism. Ontological mathematics, unlike science, has no difficulty in explaining life and mind since it’s predicated on them. It can easily explain free will. It can explain eternity, it can explain why “something” comes from “nothing”, and indeed it can explain everything that science spectacularly fails to explain.

Life What is the fundamental basis of life? This is arguably the most baffling of all questions. Abrahamists posit eternal life in the shape of “God”, but this does nothing to illuminate the question of what life is in its essence. What

does it mean for “God” to be alive? Why isn’t he dead? How does he stay alive? In Eastern religion, life is some sort of divine “Oneness”, but all of the same problems apply – we still learn nothing more about the quintessential nature of life. Science says that existence is grounded in meaningless chance, and that life “emerges” from lifeless, mindless atoms that were created by an accidental “Big Bang” (whereby non-existence exploded into existence). No mechanism whatsoever is suggested as to how “emergence” works, and it must, logically, be treated on a par with religious miracles, i.e. it’s preposterous and irrational. Philosophy, too, has come nowhere near explaining life, and has simply assumed it. Plato referred to the “Form of Life” but that still doesn’t elucidate what life actually is. Quite simply, humanity has never had the vaguest idea what life is, and it’s this ignorance that has ruined so much intellectual discourse. Illuminism provides the true, core concept of life, the sine qua non of life. Life is: the uniform flow of perfectly structured information. Life, therefore, is all about information. Any dynamic system of ordered information is a living system. Any system based on randomness, chaos, indeterminism or acausality cannot be living, and therefore it’s no surprise that science, which is predicated on all of these things, finds it impossible to make any sense of life. Given that the ordered flow of perfectly structured information is the root of life, only one thing can produce life: ontological mathematics. Only ontological mathematics is about nothing except the eternal, defined, causal flow of perfect information. The God Equation is the equation of Life itself. It’s the Platonic Form of Life. Life must be defined by a mathematical equation, and only one qualifies – the God Equation. The God Equation defines how something can also be nothing. Life must exist in the ground state of existence, which is zero – “nothing”. There is no sufficient reason for life, or anything else, to be arbitrarily above the ground state. Indeed, it’s impossible for anything to be at any other than this ground state of nothing. The God Equation alone allows “something” to infallibly produce a net result of “nothing”. Since the God Equation defines everything, it has the following consequences: life = mind = matter = ontological mathematics. We inhabit a

living, mental universe. Mind and life are synonymous: it’s impossible to find life without mind, or mind without life. As for matter, it’s just a specific mode of mental expression. As explained throughout the God Series, it’s produced by collective rather than individual mind. Idealism, the philosophy that everything is fundamentally mental, is true, and materialism, the philosophy that everything is fundamentally nonmental, is false. Materialism has never explained mind, but idealism can easily account for matter, as the expression of all minds rather than of individual minds. Existence is panpsychic, i.e. mind is everywhere. You can never not be in the presence of mind. Even when you think you’re not, you are. Existence is rationalist since only a rational (mathematical) system can support the eternal, ordered flow of perfectly structured information. Existence is eternal. There is no such thing as existence jumping out of non-existence, as science ludicrously claims. Everything that has fundamental existence has necessarily existed forever. All monads are eternal.

***** Plainly, there are many things that do not seem alive at all: rocks, sand, air, planets, stars, machines, computers, gadgets, and so on. Even plants do not seem to be alive in any real sense. We typically associate life with selfanimation, i.e. anything that’s moving by its own accord and will is what we normally think of as exhibiting life. Accordingly, we have to introduce an additional concept concerning life. It’s not just the uniform flow of structured information, although this is certainly its fundamental basis. We could have a living universe that was utterly dumb – so dumb as to be effectively meaningless – were it not for one thing. Before we get to this vital ingredient, consider a universe of nothing but moons, planets, suns, solar systems and galaxies. Would we regard this as a meaningful universe, as a living universe? Technically, it would be a living entity, but it would be more like a zombie universe: merely undead rather than alive. What is it that injects true life into the system? It’s the fact that a universal information system can be broken down into individual,

autonomous informational units: monads. A monad is a complete and consistent individual expression of the God Equation. The whole universe is defined by the God Equation, and so is every individual monad. As above, so below. In fact, the universe is simply the entire collection of monads: the Monadic Collective. Monads are all there are, and everything must be explained purely in terms of monads – exactly as required by Leibniz’s Monadology. Monads are individual minds. They are living souls. The secret of life is that it comes in two related forms: the individual and the collective. Individual life is what we regard as true life, while life expressed through the operations of the collective is what we regard as nonliving matter. A rock is an expression of the Collective Mind, not of any individual mind. Since it isn’t driven by its own agenda and will, the rock is passive and inert, and we regard these as the qualities of non-living things. (Interestingly, though, Gaia theory implies that Planet Earth – which at first sight doesn’t seem alive in any way – actually has an individual soul directing it. The same could be considered true of any comet, moon, sun or even galaxy. The ancient Greeks certainly thought in this way.) As for a plant, it’s controlled by an individual mind, but at such a primitive level as not to strike us as meaningfully alive. Only when individual minds can link to self-propelling bodies assembled from the material stuff produced by the Collective Mind can they have a vehicle in the world, which they then animate from the inside. However, animating a body is not the be-all-and-end-all. Insects may be alive, but who wants to be an insect? Life is most fully expressed when minds become conscious. Minds are more conscious the more they express reason. The smartest people are the most conscious people, and those closest to becoming gods. So, the vital ingredient that makes us what we are is that we have eternal, individual souls that can link to temporal, collective bodies, control them, evolve via them, acquire consciousness through them, and, finally, attain God-consciousness (enlightenment) through them. What is reason? Ultimately, it’s the understanding of the uniform flow of perfectly structured information! And thus we come full circle. Consciousness arises when we can reflect on, and comprehend, our own true nature, which is that of existence itself. People who operate via Mythos – emotional stories – are conscious, but not actively, only passively. They believe in all-powerful, external agents or

agencies such as a God or a Divine Oneness, about which they tell crazy, unbelievable stories. They come nowhere near understanding the true nature of existence. To be truly conscious, you must be a Logos person. Hegel said that the highest humans were philosophers. We would qualify this by saying that the highest humans are mathematical philosophers. Mathematics, understood philosophically, leads to true wisdom and true understanding of reality. It’s the sole route to Truth. Religion can’t help you, nor can science, and nor can mathematics treated as a game, an abstraction or humanly constructed language.

***** “The unexamined life is not worth living.” – Socrates To examine life, you have to be as smart as possible. The God Series examines life and existence in a manner unprecedented in human history. It tackles the vital details that all other subjects shy away from.

Defining Life Once you have defined the basis of life as the uniform flow of perfectly structured information, you know that life must be mathematical, and, in fact, sinusoidal. A sinusoidal wave is the quintessential uniform flow of perfectly structured information, for all eternity, and is the sine qua non of life and mind.

***** The last thing people consider existence to be is mathematics. Yet what are the alternatives? Is existence “God”? Well what is “God”? Is existence the “Divine Oneness”? What’s that?! Is the ineffable Neoplatonic “One” the answer to existence? But the “One” isn’t an answer at all. It’s a mystery. It’s perversely defined as that which cannot be defined! How is that helping? These are all just non-explanatory labels. They “explain” merely by repackaging the problem in terms of some other problem that people find more reassuring, but which is equally inexplicable. Labels don’t explain what anything is. They are signs and symbols, not definitions. To “define”

ultimate existence as “God” hasn’t defined anything. It’s a total nonexplanation. “God” must be exactly, analytically defined in order for “God” to be a meaningful concept, and no religion ever does so. In fact, religions usually revel in avoiding any such definition, claiming that it’s “presumptuous” for humans to seek to understand God, and claiming that no human mind is capable of understanding him, thus making him an eternal mystery, and ensuring that existence can never have a rational answer. No rationalist would ever accept this. Equally, no rationalist would ever accept “randomness” as the eternal mystery of existence.

***** Is life something that emerges by accident from lifeless atoms, which, in turn, accidentally emerged from non-existence? – as science ridiculously claims. Science is the worst possible explanation of existence. Incredibly, it’s actually worse than religion. Randomness, acausality, indeterminism, probability, statistics, chaos, chance and accident do not explain reality in any way. Yet these are what science is now predicated on. Any explanation of existence must be based on reason and order – precisely what is missing from the scientific “explanation”, which is formally indistinguishable from asserting that existence and life happen miraculously! You might as well believe in God. It couldn’t be any crazier than believing in science.

Definable Life must be definable. To argue otherwise is to say that life is mysterious, baffling, miraculous, irrational, incomprehensible and impossible to pin down. It’s none of these things! We live in a universe of spectacular order, organisation, pattern, uniformity, reason and comprehensibility. But only one subject is inherently concerned with precise, infallible, analytic definitions – ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics is the only subject that is truly definable and can define existence itself. To all those who oppose our position, we say simply this: Put up or shut up ... piss or get off the pot. If you cannot define life, how can you challenge our position? You literally don’t know what you’re talking about. You can’t say what something isn’t unless you know what it is, i.e. you

must be able to define what something is before you can attack any other position with any credibility. Ontological mathematics alone provides eternal definitions. Either the answer to existence is ontological mathematics, or it has no answer, which would make it “miraculous”. You can be 100% sure that we do not live in a universe of miracles, chance or accident. We live in the most ordered and designed universe it’s possible to get. It’s not ordered and defined by “God”, but by the God Equation.

***** To everyone who rejects ontological mathematics, provide your definition of existence ... or admit that you don’t know a single thing about the fundamental nature of existence. We have provided a precise, analytic, eternal definition and formula for existence, life and mind: the God Equation. Where’s your formula, where’s your equation, where’s your definition? If you don’t have one, and yet you pontificate about “God”, or the “Divine Oneness”, or “Cosmic Consciousness”, or whatever, then you’re a charlatan and snake oil salesman, duping gullible sheep. Knowledge is about definitions. If you have no definitions, you are engaging in Mythos nonsense, and you’re an enemy of Logos. All prophets, all gurus, all scientific “authorities”, are false and crazy. They spout unadulterated rubbish. Reason is the ultimate bullshit detector and bullshit buster. The only thing that reason cannot destroy is the entity that reason itself is made of – ontological mathematics.

The Formula To be credible as someone who purports to know the truth of reality, you must be able to provide a precise definition and formula of existence. That immediately means that you must be in the mathematical game. If you cannot provide a precise definition and formula then you must humbly admit that you simply don’t know, and stop pretending to gullible people that you do. We are of course addressing all of the “gurus” and “prophets” of the world, trying to sucker vulnerable minds into their toxic, self-serving belief systems (invariably designed to make them rich and powerful).

With Illuminism, you are not required to believe anything at all. What we say is either rational or irrational. If it’s irrational, it’s junk. If it’s rational – by which we mean it reflects eternal truths of reason – then it’s incontestable, infallible and constitutes absolute knowledge. Only reason, when applied strictly to the eternal truths of reason, never errs, never lies, never deceives. Only ontological mathematics offers certainty. That’s a fact. Either you accept ontological mathematics as the answer to everything, with all that this implies, or you turn to faith, mysticism, irrationalism, accident, chance, randomness, miracles, magic and mystery. Well, what’s it to be? Are you rational or not?

***** Science signally fails to produce a definition or formula for existence. It turns to chance, accident and randomness as the “explanation” of why we are here, which is of course a non-explanation. Science is the most elaborate avoidance of explanation the world has ever seen. No rational person could treat it with anything but contempt. Science has embraced unreason. It’s just as bad as religious faith, and, in fact, is simply an irrational faith in randomness. Science expresses psychological horror, on the part of scientists, of a universe of eternal design (i.e. the opposite of randomness). Scientists always associate design with “God”. They’re so unimaginative that they’ve simply never considered a God Equation instead; an equation that defines the whole of science!

God? Abrahamists say that “God” is eternal life, but this is simply to label life, not to explain it. What makes God alive? What is that constitutes his life? Why isn’t he non-life? What prevents him from dying? “God” explains nothing unless God is himself explained, and no Abrahamist has even once bothered to attempt to explain God’s existence and life. These are simply assumed, but that’s to beg the question in the most extreme way possible. There’s no point in giving “God” as the answer to everything because you have merely moved the question back one level. You are now faced with finding the answer to God, but this is exactly what all religious people refuse to do. They worship God, but they never attempt to explain God.

That’s why they’re pathetic, irrational slaves. No person of reason would ever accept the existence of an unexplained superbeing. Never forget, labelling something is not explaining that thing. To say that “God” is existence is merely to use a word other than existence for existence. You haven’t explained a single thing. The concept of “God” fails to explain existence. It simply replaces one mystery with an even greater one. What can it possibly mean to claim that God creates the world out of non-existence? How many laws of science and philosophy does that break? Abrahamists are animists. They looked at the world and could find no rational reason for it, so they said that a superbeing must have created it, a superbeing, moreover, obsessed with them! Why would “God” give a damn about Jews or Christians or Muslims (or people who don’t believe in him for that matter!)? Tragically, Abrahamists believe that by labelling existence as “God”, they have ipso facto explained existence. They haven’t explained anything! Abrahamists worship an empty label onto which they project endless, selfserving, irrational Mythos nonsense.

***** Muslims in Syria and Gaza ask why the world isn’t helping them. Er, isn’t that what Allah is supposed to do? If the God the Muslims worship can’t be bothered to help them, why should anyone else be bothered? If the United Nations intervened and saved the Muslims, would the Muslims then worship the United Nations? Rationally, they ought to! After all, it would have done more for them than Allah ever did. However, being irrational, they never would.

Where? Where’s your formula for existence? Are you saying it doesn’t have one? Why wouldn’t it? Where’s your definition of existence, of life, of mind? Are you saying there isn’t one? Why wouldn’t there be? All charlatans hide behind the lack of a formula or a definition. Where Logos is excluded, Mythos reigns, and anyone can say anything at all when it comes to Mythos. Absolutely anything can be offered as an answer. There are as many Mythos “solutions” to existence as there are novels, fables,

fairytales, folk tales, religions, sciences and New Age gurus. We reject every single one of them.

Information To all the “gurus” who imagine they know what existence is, we ask, What is existence made of?; What is life made of?; What is mind made of?; What is free will made of?; What is a thought made of?; What is a feeling made of?; What is an intuition made of?; What is a sensation made of?; What is desire made of?; What is will made of?; What is love made of?; What is the unconscious made of?; What is consciousness made of? After all, they must be made of something. Even fantasies, hallucination, errors, fallacies, beliefs and opinions are made of something. Everything is made of something. What is that something? That’s the fundamental question of existence. There can be only one answer: everything is made of mathematical sinusoids, the perfect carriers of information that give rise to a universe of information. There is not a single thing in the universe that is not concerned with information. It doesn’t have to be accurate or true information, but it certainly has to be information.

Content and Form “Form and Content are philosophical contents concerned with the contrast between the appearance (or significance) of a thing and its essence or existence. Form is the mode of existence, expression or internal organisation of the Content of a thing, while Content is in turn the totality of relations and potentialities of the same thing. “The historically earliest concepts of Form and Content identified Content with a ‘formless’ matter and Form with the structure of that matter, but such a concept which allows reality only to Form and reduces Content to a wholly abstract ‘thing-in-itself’ is conducive towards a metaphysical understanding of things. “Form and Content are a Unity of Opposites: they are two aspects of one and the same thing, which in the process of development of the thing and in its cognition, interpenetrate one another, interact and transform one into the other – Form becomes Content and Content Form.

“There can be no Content without a Form (a thing exists in one form or another) nor Form without Content (everything is connected to other things, is capable of transforming into something else, leads to something else); but a given Form may be more or less true to the Content. “A story which ‘works’ as a movie, may fail as a novel, and vice versa; a given conflict in the class struggle may find fruitful expression in the form of a disciplined organisation, while another conflict may not be resolved at all in such a form. “Natural and social processes exhibit a process of ‘shedding’ untrue forms and taking on forms closer to the content – as if the content was struggling against the form, overthrowing it and becoming itself a new form, only to be replaced by a new deeper content. Contrariwise, an untrue form can overcome the dynamic of the content, suppress it and draw in a new Content more in keeping with the form. “In Hegel’s system, the dialectic of form and content is the negative aspect of Appearance through which Appearance proves to be Actuality.” – http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/glossary.htm

Platonic Form “... the Forms, incorporeal and static entities, are the cause of all things in the world, and all things participate in Forms. For example, beautiful things participate in the Form of Beauty; the number four participates in the Form of the Even, etc. The soul, by its very nature, participates in the Form of Life, which means the soul can never die.” – Wikipedia In Illuminism, there are so no such things as the Form of Beauty, the Form of Justice, and so on. All Forms are exclusively mathematical. Beauty is Content, not Form. Justice is Content, not Form. Anything that involves subjective judgments and opinions is always Content and not Form. Form is objective, eternal and indisputable. Plato’s theory of Forms must be clearly protected from contamination by Content. The God Equation is the true Platonic Form of Life. The God Equation defines the uniform flow of perfectly structured information that constitutes the basis of life. The God Equation is life itself, meaning that ontological

mathematics is life itself. You cannot have life without math. You cannot have life without information flow. You cannot have life without Form. Form is responsible for life. Content – the events of our lives – is what populates that Form (container). Form is eternal and outside space and time. Content is temporal (historical), inside space and time, and obeys the dynamic laws of the dialectic. When we say that souls are immortal and indestructible, we are referring to their Form, but not their Content. Content is reset at the beginning of every new Cosmic Age (at every Big Bang). The Big Bang is a Content, but not Form, rebooting process. Form, being eternal, can never be rebooted. Every monad – the basic unit of ontological mathematics – is defined by the God Equation. No monad can die. No monad was created. No monad was caused. All monads, simply by being monads, participate in the Form of Life, and are immortal, indestructible souls. When Pythagoras said, “All things are numbers; Number rules all”, he was of course thereby linking life itself to numbers. Mathematics defines existence and existence is life. To exist is to live: “I live therefore I exist. I exist therefore I live.” Try to define life without invoking information, without invoking the experience of information, without invoking the evolution of information. Only the Illuminati have ever understood that information is life, and what is information if not numbers and mathematics?! All of your feelings, thoughts, dreams, aspirations, desires, fears, hopes, prayers, loves and hates are all information. There are those who say that mathematics destroys the “poetry” of life. Yet, of course, poetry is also nothing but information! It’s mathematics that creates poetry. Mathematics destroys nothing. Mathematics makes everything possible. Given time, it will even make you God. What is the basic unit of ontological mathematics? – the monad. What is the monad? – the basic unit of life. Welcome to the Math Lab – the laboratory of life itself!

WTF! “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” – Carl Sagan In that case, why is science full of irrational, bizarre, unprovable claims? Science is predicated on randomness. Who, in the whole history of the

universe, has ever witnessed a random (rather than caused, deterministic) event? Such an extraordinary claim requires, according to Carl Sagan (the patron saint and hero of so many scientists), extraordinary evidence. Yet science offers no evidence whatsoever of its claims that existence is random, accidental, meaningless, purposeless, and ruled by nothing but chance. All of these claims are interpretations, opinions and beliefs, unsupported by any authentic facts. Absolutely every empiricist, indeterministic claim made by science can be countered by a rationalist, deterministic explanation. There is never any reason to accept science’s interpretations and claims! In fact, science explicitly contradicts the principle of sufficient reason. It offers no explanations at all as to why anything happens at a fundamental level. It says that entire universes can be generated by accident, by chance “fluctuations” (whatever they might be!). Science has become a formally irrationalist system that rejects rationalism in favour of empiricism. It’s a philosophy, not “science”, and it offers no evidence or proof for its absurd, irrational claims. Why didn’t Carl Sagan make a documentary ridiculing the claims of his own profession? Because he, like all other scientists, was a true believer, a person of faith. His religion was that of sensory empiricism. He believed everything he saw, and rejected anything he couldn’t see. Is that rational?

***** The Form of Existence = the Form of Life = the Form of Mind = the Form of Ontological Mathematics = the Form of the Monad = the Form of the Soul. Ontological mathematics, unlike scientific materialism, puts mind life, evolution, meaning and purpose at the core of existence. The universe is alive. It’s a mathematical organism seeking to become perfect, which means establishing perfect cosmic symmetry. Matter is simply the passive, collective aspect of life and life, which is why it’s fully compatible with active, individual life and mind. There is no Cartesian “substance dualism” of mind and matter. They are not different substances but simply different modes of mind/ life. Matter – passive mind/ life – belongs to the collective mode while mind itself – active mind/ life – belongs to the individual mode.

When a mind links to a body, it is linking the active individual mode to the passive collective mode. The universe ends when all matter has been rendered active. At the Big Bang, passivity reigns. At the end of the universe, after an immense period of dialectical evolution, everything is active. “God” is the total actualisation of the universe: all potential has been converted into actuality. The mathematical universe has attained maximum life.

The Rebirth of Scholasticism “Scholasticism is a method of critical thought which dominated teaching by the academics (‘scholastics,’ or ‘schoolmen’) of medieval universities in Europe from about 1100–1700, and a program of employing that method in articulating and defending dogma in an increasingly pluralistic context. It originated as an outgrowth of, and a departure from, Christian monastic schools at the earliest European universities. The first institutions in the West to be considered universities were established in Italy, France, Spain, and England in the late 11th and the 12th centuries for the study of arts, law, medicine, and theology, such as Schola Medica Salernitana, the University of Bologna, and the University of Paris. ... “Not so much a philosophy or a theology as a method of learning, scholasticism places a strong emphasis on dialectical reasoning to extend knowledge by inference, and to resolve contradictions. Scholastic thought is also known for rigorous conceptual analysis and the careful drawing of distinctions. In the classroom and in writing, it often takes the form of explicit disputation: a topic drawn from the tradition is broached in the form of a question, opponents’ responses are given, a counterproposal is argued and opponent’s arguments rebutted. Because of its emphasis on rigorous dialectical method, scholasticism was eventually applied to many other fields of study. “As a program, scholasticism began as an attempt at harmonization on the part of medieval Christian thinkers: to harmonize the various authorities of their own tradition, and to reconcile Christian theology with classical and late antiquity philosophy, especially that of Aristotle but also of Neoplatonism. “Some of the main figures of scholasticism include Anselm of Canterbury, Peter Abelard, Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus, Duns

Scotus, William of Ockham, Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas’s masterwork Summa Theologica [was] considered to be the pinnacle of scholastic, medieval, and Christian philosophy. ... “The 13th and early 14th centuries are generally seen as the high period of scholasticism. The early 13th century witnessed the culmination of the recovery of Greek philosophy. Schools of translation grew up in Italy and Sicily, and eventually in the rest of Europe. Scholars such as Adelard of Bath travelled to Sicily and the Arab world, translating works on astronomy and mathematics, including the first complete translation of Euclid’s Elements. Powerful Norman kings gathered men of knowledge from Italy and other areas into their courts as a sign of their prestige. William of Moerbeke’s translations and editions of Greek philosophical texts in the middle half of the thirteenth century helped form a clearer picture of Greek philosophy, particularly of Aristotle, than was given by the Arabic versions on which they had previously relied, and which had distorted or obscured the relation between Platonic and Aristotelian systems of philosophy. His work formed the basis of the major commentaries that followed. “Universities developed in the large cities of Europe during this period, and rival clerical orders within the church began to battle for political and intellectual control over these centres of educational life. The two main orders founded in this period were the Franciscans and the Dominicans. The Franciscans were founded by Francis of Assisi in 1209. Their leader in the middle of the century was Bonaventure, a traditionalist who defended the theology of Augustine and the philosophy of Plato, incorporating only a little of Aristotle in with the more Neoplatonist elements. Following Anselm, Bonaventure supposed that reason can only discover truth when philosophy is illuminated by religious faith. Other important Franciscan scholastics were Duns Scotus, Peter Auriol and William of Ockham. “By contrast, the Dominican order, a teaching order founded by St Dominic in 1215, to propagate and defend Christian doctrine, placed more emphasis on the use of reason and made extensive use of the new Aristotelian sources derived from the East and Moorish Spain. The great representatives of Dominican thinking in this period were Albertus Magnus and (especially) Thomas Aquinas, whose artful synthesis of Greek rationalism and Christian doctrine eventually came to define Catholic philosophy. Aquinas placed more emphasis on reason and argumentation, and was one of the first to use the new translation of Aristotle’s

metaphysical and epistemological writing. This was a significant departure from the Neoplatonic and Augustinian thinking that had dominated much of early scholasticism. Aquinas showed how it was possible to incorporate much of the philosophy of Aristotle without falling into the ‘errors’ of the Commentator, Averroes.” – Wikipedia Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose gives a flavour of the Scholastic world. Scholasticism was, in essence, an attempt to justify the Catholic religion through both scriptural analysis and the exercise of reason, with reference to the work of Plato, Aristotle and Neoplatonism. Some Scholastic philosophers were dazzling rationalists who presented magnificently robust and insightful arguments. Leibniz, the supreme genius of humanity, was enormously indebted to the Scholastics. Unlike most of his contemporaries, he didn’t want to reject the “old” philosophy but, rather, find a synthesis between it and the “new” philosophy that was arising from the mechanistic, scientific worldview. The Scholastics invoked the sheer power of the mind. The scientific method was practically unknown to them. On the whole, they never performed any experiments at all. Scholasticism was in due course replaced by modern philosophy and science, and is now regarded as rather ridiculous, especially by those who have never read one word of Scholasticism. In fact, something akin to Scholasticism is exactly what the world needs now. Scholasticism devoted to God has no place, naturally, but Scholasticism devoted to the God Equation ... well that’s an entirely different matter. We need university departments dedicated to ontological mathematics, which is a union of mathematics and philosophy (metaphysics). As with Scholasticism, no experiments are needed. It’s about pure rationalism. And another type of Scholasticism is required: devoted to dialectically challenging the empiricist claims of science. It’s clear that the scientific method has profound limitations. Experiments and peer review, by which scientists swear, have limited value. For example, experiments and peer review can do nothing whatsoever to demonstrate which of the many radically different interpretations of quantum mechanics is right. Experiments and peer review can do nothing to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity. Experiments and peer review have not checked in any way the absurd rise of randomist scientific thinking, and ludicrous

Multiverse theories, which are incoherent even within the scientific paradigm since they have no possible testable and empirical consequences. Peer review leads to groupthink and conformism. Freethinking has vanished from science. Scientists are careerists who know which paradigm they must follow if they wish their careers to prosper. No one in science challenges the scientific orthodoxy. They are as constrained as Catholic popes! We need Scholastic departments tied to every science department, with the specific remit of challenging the reasoning of scientists. If science is a rational enterprise, it must surely be able to meet and address rational challenges. Yet science seems to have no interest in defending itself against philosophy and mathematics. What’s it so afraid of? Why does it flee from reason and dispute? It’s time that scientists learned how to think.

***** Despite its apparent fixation with Catholicism, Scholasticism was really about Platonism, Aristotelianism and Neoplatonism, i.e. with pagan philosophy. Catholicism, unlike Protestantism, could certainly be saved as a religion. All it has to do is abandon the Bible and replace the Jewish rabbi Jesus Christ with the pagan Illuminist Simon Magus and it would be a wondrous pagan religion, with a hugely impressive pagan philosophy to rely on. Protestantism, on the other hand, is just Messianic Judaism with no philosophy and a crazed obsession with “Scripture” (Mythos). It’s a 100% lost cause.

The Argument from the Form of Life “Socrates then proceeds to give his final proof of the immortality of the soul by showing that the soul is immortal as it is the cause of life. He begins by showing that ‘if there is anything beautiful other than absolute beauty it is beautiful only insofar as it partakes of absolute beauty’. Consequently, as absolute beauty is a Form, and so is the soul, then anything which has the property of being infused with a soul is so infused with the Form of soul. As an example he says, ‘will not the number three endure annihilation or anything sooner than be converted into an even number, while remaining

three?’ Forms, then, will never become their opposite. As the soul is that which renders the body living, and that the opposite of life is death, it so follows that, ‘...the soul will never admit the opposite of what she always brings.’ That which does not admit death is said to be immortal. “Socrates thus concludes, ‘Then, Cebes, beyond question, the soul is immortal and imperishable, and our souls will truly exist in another world. Once dead, man’s soul will go to Hades and be in the company of, as Socrates says, ‘...men departed, better than those whom I leave behind.’ For he will dwell amongst those who were true philosophers, like himself.” – Wikipedia In Illuminism, the soul does not really “partake” of the Form of Life. Rather, each soul is an instance of the Form of Life. The Form of Life – defined by the God Equation – is identical for every monad, but every monad has unique content, i.e. all monads are exactly the same Form-wise, but no two monads are the same Content-wise. It’s our Content, not our Form, that differentiates and individuates us. “Plato’s theory of Forms or theory of Ideas asserts that non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality.” – Wikipedia Illuminism replaces Platonic Forms with ontological mathematics. The laws of ontological mathematics are immaterial, immutable and eternal. Monads, the living expressions and units of ontological mathematics, are the highest and most fundamental kind of reality. Monads constitute a rationalist reality, a reality of Form, an intelligible and intellectual reality. The material world of change known to us through sensation (empiricism; Content; science) is not true reality. It’s 100% defined by rationalist, mathematical Form, which is true reality. Humanity’s problem is that it experiences the unique, particular world of Content rather than the identical world of Form. Form constitutes objective knowledge because it’s exactly the same for everyone forever. All Content “knowledge” is subjective, hence not true knowledge at all. It’s mutable rather than immutable. It’s interpretation rather than fact. Only ontological mathematics is factual, true and provides infallible knowledge of ultimate reality.

“Plato ... suggests that these Forms are the only true objects of study that can provide us with genuine knowledge.” – Wikipedia Only ontological mathematics can provide us with genuine knowledge. “Plato spoke of Forms in formulating a possible solution to the problem of universals.” – Wikipedia Ontological mathematics is the basis of universality. All particulars are Content-driven, not Form-driven. Form is universal, but Content is particular. In Plato’s Theory of Forms, there are all manner of Forms, but only one Form of Life. In ontological mathematics, the Form of Life is the base Form, from which all others are derived, i.e. we inherently inhabit a living universe. Why is death impossible? Because existence is life. Bodily death should never be taken for genuine death. It’s just a transition between different phases of immortal life. The sooner you realise that you can never die, the better. As soon as you truly understand your own immortality, which owes nothing to anyone (specially no “Creator”), you realise that you are indeed already on the spectrum of the gods. Jump into life. Commit. Execute. Don’t hesitate. You may lose a body, but you will always get another. That’s what reincarnation is for.

Reason Schools In every country, all faith schools should be replaced with reason schools. Faith has no place in the modern world. People of faith are functionally retarded and actively blocking the progress of the human race. We cannot fulfil our human potential until we are a rational rather than faithful species. Rationality is all about Logos. Faith is all about silly, emotive stories – Mythos. You cannot build starships by reading “holy” books and fables. Mythos offers zero to the advancement and progress of the human race. That’s a fact.

Vox Rationis (Latin, “the Voice of Reason”) Liberals imagine they are on the side of reason and often refer to themselves as the “voice of reason”. They believe that their muddled, half-

baked, negative liberty compromises (which offend the least number of people) are the most rational solutions. They’re not. They’re the most political, the most cowardly. They are opposed to the truth because they seek to dilute the truth to satisfy all of the contending parties. They typically make the absurd claim that all religions reflect the truth, or some element of it. No, they don’t. Only one religion is true – Illuminism. It’s true because it’s ontological mathematics, and ontological mathematics alone is infallibly, immutably and eternally true. Truth doesn’t give a damn about liberalism, about people’s feelings, about giving offence to anyone. It has nothing to do with politics and compromise. The truth is adamantine: totally unyielding. The truth is as harsh as it gets. As Nietzsche asked, “How much truth can you bear, how much truth can you dare?” Only the strongest souls can endure the strongest truths. Liberals are the enemies, not the friends, of truth. They are the voice of unreason. By tolerating the lies of Mythos religions, Mythos political systems, and Mythos economic systems, they promote nothing but lies. Their “logic” is always laughable because their goal is never truth, only consensus. Truth has nothing to do with consensus. In fact, it’s the opposite. Humanity becomes aware of the Truth via individual human beings. Each new Truth is born in the mind of just one person, who then has an immense struggle to overcome consensus, groupthink, vested interests, “common sense”, liberalism, the status quo, religious fanaticism, brainwashing, cultural norms, and so on. It’s remarkable that Truth gets anywhere at all given the ferocious resistance to it. 99.9% of humanity remains wholly estranged from the truth of reality. Only radicals, not liberals or conservatives, can be on the side of the truth. Truth is the most radical thing there is.

Reason versus Faith MI: “‘Both and’ rather than ‘either/or’...” Idiots such as MI have no understanding of logic. In relation to Form, it’s a category error to claim that faith and reason can co-exist. They are direct opposites of each other. It’s one or the other, and only reason is consistent with Form.

Faith is all about Content. The only place where dialectical opposites can co-exist is in the dialectic of Content. The dialectic has nothing to say in relation to eternal, immutable Form.

***** MC: “This is completely subjective information.... welcome to the age of (mis)information.” Regarding Illuminism, we often see comments of this nature from irrational people. On MC’s Facebook page, he says, “Compassion is the highest expression of human emotion and virtuous energy. It is a level of development that takes hard work and serious meditation before it can blossom into one’s life. It is not a single virtue, but the distillation and culmination of all virtues, expressed at any given moment as a blend of fairness, kindness, gentleness, honesty, respect, courage and love. It is the most beneficial energy to share with others.” Er, and this is objective information, is it? Welcome to the age of (mis)information! The trouble with irrational people is that they have no idea that they are irrational. After all, what rational criteria would they invoke to determine this fact given that they do not know what rational criteria are?! Indeed, irrational people are usually convinced that they are the quintessence of rationalism. MC is just a classic example of the ridiculous “Love and Light” gang, who have never once held a view that intersected with reality.

Tolerance It’s tolerant to be intolerant of intolerance. Intolerance of intolerance is a double negative, hence positive.

Reliable or Credible? A witness in a court case may be credible but not reliable. However, because he is credible, his testimony will be deemed reliable. Another witness might be reliable but have no credibility, in which case his testimony will be dismissed. In such matters, reputation is all, and genuine reliability counts for nothing.

Regarding science, it is deemed both reliable and credible, which means that people take seriously the lunatic and incredible assertions it makes concerning ultimate reality. People are simply unable to grasp that while science is certainly reliable and credible regarding the observable world of appearances, it has no contribution at all to make in relation to noumenal reality. Value in one sphere does not automatically extend to value in all spheres.

The Paradox “The acceptance of paradoxes has played a peculiar role in philosophy. It has led some thinkers to deny the reality of the world, and others to reject the laws of logic; it has delighted the Sophists and made mystics of the erudite saints; it is the great weapon of idealism and the reproach of rationalism. “But, in truth, there is no metaphysical virtue in paradox. The laws of logic have not produced it; the world does not contain it. The presence of a true paradox in any proposition is essentially an index of non-significance, and therefore it is a symptom of some philosopher’s muddle-mindedness, not an indictment of Reality or of logic. It is only what we say about Reality or about logic that is absurd, not the subject of the assertion.” – Susanne K. Langer This is exactly right. There are no genuine logical paradoxes, only flawed formulations of logic by human minds labouring under all manner of assumptions, delusions, errors in thinking, false premises, wrong axioms, and failure to frame the problem with sufficiently precise and valid logic. Paradoxes arise when Content is used to analyse Form. It’s impossible for pure Form to generate any paradoxes. Pure Form is always Gödelian consistent and complete. Inconsistency and incompleteness arise whenever fallacies of Content are applied to Form, under the pressure of empiricist ideology. “...one problem seems yet to reduce even ‘scientific philosophers,’ i.e., logicians, to a sort of mysticism: that is the problem of relating the abstract form of anything to its specific content. That a logical form as such is an abstraction, is generally recognized; less generally, perhaps, the fact that every concrete object of our experience is an interpretation of familiar

forms. Interpretation is the converse of abstraction; given a purely formal system of concepts, we are now in search of the form with a content. Interpretation seems to involve a going outside of logic for part of our material. When we interpret an abstract form, we are no longer dealing with this form alone, but find it in conjunction with some non-logical element, the ‘content.’” – Susanne K. Langer This is exactly right again. Form is logic, and Content is the non-logical element linked to it. When Form and Content, logic and illogic, are mixed together, paradoxes, fallacies and errors abound. We must strictly separate Form and Content (rationalism and empiricism) to arrive at the Truth. Form is mathematics, Content is science. Form is rationalism, Content is empiricism. All of the paradoxes and absurdities of quantum mechanics flow directly from seeking to understand Form (noumenal, rationalist reality) in terms of Content “observables” (phenomenal, empiricist “reality”). Science is full of category errors in relation to Form and Content. Only the rationalist mathematical engine of science makes it successful. Without math, science would be a joke. Empirical science, if stripped of mathematics, would not be a subject anyone took seriously. It would be on a par with Alchemy, its forerunner. Alchemy was imbued with spiritualism, philosophy, religion and Mythos. Alchemy was transformed into science only thanks to the injection of mathematics. Mathematics is what makes all the difference to science, not the much-vaunted scientific method, which was abundantly deployed by the Alchemists to no great effect. It’s through mathematics that Form finds its way into science.

***** “Interpretation is the converse of abstraction; given a purely formal system of concepts, we are now in search of the form with a content. Interpretation seems to involve a going outside of logic for part of our material. When we interpret an abstract form, we are no longer dealing with this form alone, but find it in conjunction with some non-logical element, the ‘content.’” – Susanne K. Langer

It can’t be stressed enough that the world of perfect, analytic, mathematical sinusoids is a world of pure Form and rationalism. However, because these same sinusoids are also conveyers of information, of experience, of sensation, emotion, desire, will, and so on, they come attached to Content, i.e. Form is not “searching” for Content. Form comes with Content. Content is the other side of the coin, but it obeys dialectical rather than Aristotelian logic. You couldn’t understand Form via studying Content, but you could in principle understand the Form that applies to each and every instance of Content. We don’t go outside of logic “for part of our material”. Rather, the material ontologically comes with the logic, but is not itself logical. There is no sufficient reason why logical Form should produce logical Content unless the Content we are considering is that relating to eternal truths of reason (eternal Form). If the Content concerns anything other than ontological mathematics, it will not be logical and will not reflect the principle of sufficient reason. The fact that Form has to be logical does not mean that the Content it carries, or contains, has to be logical. Just as language (Form) can be used to produce wondrous novels and non-fiction (Content), so it can be used to produce pulp fiction, schlock, junk and “holy” texts. The language is the same in both cases. The Content is entirely different. Content, ontologically, gets better and better the more it emulates Form, and that means the more rational, logical and mathematical it gets. The further the Content is from Form – the more it concerns Mythos rather than Logos – the more absurd it is.

Logical Language “Every form is relative to a system, or – which is the same thing – to a logical language.” – Susanne K. Langer There is only one ultimate system and one ultimate language of existence – ontological mathematics. All Forms, all logical languages, are relative to ontological mathematics. “If ‘form’ always means a form, then content always means a content, because content is relative to form; content means ‘that which is not given as part of this logical structure.’” – Susanne K. Langer

This is exactly right. Content is that which is not given as part of the logical structure, which is why Content sabotages logical structure. Science is full of fallacies because it has mixed an enormous amount of contingent Content into the logical, necessary structure of eternal mathematics (Form). “Our problem, then, boils down to that of the relation between a logical structure and something which it does not include [the content]...” – Susanne K. Langer This is indeed the central problem. Logical structure accompanies Content (i.e. all Content must conform with sinusoidal functions), but it does not dictate the logic of the Content. Ridiculous Abrahamic Content is as validly constructed in terms of Form as superlative Leibnizian Content. The Form is just a container, and, like any container, can contain something valuable, or cheap junk. A job application Form can be filled in superbly by one candidate and pathetically by another. The Form is not to blame for the Content. “...Kant’s Thing-in-itself; it cannot really be related to the phenomenon because all the categories of form and relation are foreign to it. That is why many philosophers have condemned it as an unprofitable notion.” – Susanne K. Langer This is exactly why ontological mathematics – pure form – must be used to define noumena, and then to relate them to phenomena (Content). Noumena are forms; phenomena are the contents of forms, or representations of forms, or interpretations of forms, or experiences of forms. They are never forms in and as themselves. Only mathematical reason can reveal forms in themselves because ontological mathematics is the native language of form.

***** Form = Infallible Logical Structure. Content = That which is not given as part of this Logical Structure. Form = Ontological Mathematics. Content = Information conveyed by ontological mathematical sinusoids.

Form and Content Quantus (of what size? how much? how great? what amount?) = rationalism, objectivity, measurement, form, mathematics, Logos. Qualis (of what kind?) = experience, empiricism, observation, belief, feelings, desires, will, subjectivity, interpretation, content, Mythos. Science ought to be based on rationalism (Form) but is in fact based on empiricism (Content), despite having a mathematical engine (which is what makes it work). Content and Form are two sides of one coin. They are the inside and outside, the within and without, subjectivity and objectivity, qualis and quantus, how the thing is experienced (phenomenon), and the thing in itself (noumenon). The thing in itself is pure math. The thing as phenomenon is pure experience. Life and mind are the uniform flow of perfectly structured information (mathematical sinusoids). This flow has an objective aspect that can be measured and quantified. It also has a subjective aspect that is experienced and felt. The objective aspect is wholly mathematical (Form) while the subjective experience (Content) is radically unmathematical, i.e. math is not experienced as math, but as all manner of content, just as a movie DVD is not experienced as a DVD (Form), but as the emotive content stored on the DVD. Only when mind thinks about math (and reason and logic) do objectivity and subjectivity start to align. Imagine a DVD movie with a “mind”. Would it understand that it’s actually a DVD (Form) and not the movie (Content) it contains? The Content is far more appealing and vivid than the Form, which is why we live in a Mythos world rather than Logos.

***** You never get Form without Content. Content, we might say, is the inside of Form, how Form is experienced. You cannot experience both Content and Form. You can experience only the Content. Content is all about empiricism. Content constitutes the sensible domain.

Form constitutes the intelligible domain and is the basis of rationalism. Form is what you can intellectually grasp. There is an absolute difference between the intelligible and the sensible, and never the twain shall meet. You cannot rationally grasp experience (Content), and you cannot experientially understand the rational (Form).

The Coin Just as a coin always has two sides, nothing can have an inside alone or an outside alone. One always accompanies the other. So it is with Content and Form.

Evolution Mythos Man, a lower species, necessarily preceded Logos Man, a higher species. (In evolution, the higher never comes before the lower). Mythos Man conceived of the world in the terms most familiar to him, i.e. in terms of himself writ large. He conceived of beings like himself but enormously more powerful – superbeings, gods. He told stories (Mythos) about them, just as he told stories about tribes, tribal leaders, heroes, enemies, and so on. This way of looking at the world reached its culmination with the Abrahamic “God”, the ultimate superbeing, conceived as the Creator of the entire universe. God’s alleged involvement with humanity was presented as a great story, via “holy” texts written by bearded prophets. There was no Logos content at all in these books. Only with the coming of Logos Man was it possible to perform the transition from absurd tales of superbeings to a rational account of the operations of existence. Only with Logos Man was it possible to replace “God” with the God Equation. It is now a simple matter to distinguish higher humans from lower humans who have failed to evolve. All lower humans believe in God and have religious faith. All higher humans are atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and, highest of all, the mathematikoi who understand the God Equation that controls everything. Lower Humanity has failed the test of evolution and now Higher Humanity must assume control of the world and force through the dialectical progress that the Mythos retards are obstructing with their lunatic religious beliefs. Anyone who believes that Truth is contained in

silly stories from thousands of years ago has no place in humanity’s divine future.

***** Mythos Man arose in the Middle East. Logos Man was born in ancient Greece. Logos Man has not yet fulfilled his destiny to rule the world. The reason for that is simple. Logos Man remains overwhelmingly outnumbered by Mythos Man. The lunatics are running the asylum.

The Opposites Argument “[Socrates’] Cyclical Argument, or Opposites Argument [for the soul’s immortality], explains that Forms are eternal and unchanging, and as the soul always brings life, then it must not die, and is necessarily ‘imperishable’. As the body is mortal and is subject to physical death, the soul must be its indestructible opposite.” – Wikipedia Eternal Form is imperishable. Living Content is perishable. The soul, as Eternal Form, is imperishable. However, its living contents are reset at the end of each Cyclical Age, ready for the next Big Bang. “The Theory of Recollection explains that we possess some non-empirical knowledge (e.g. The Form of Equality) at birth, implying the soul existed before birth to carry that knowledge.” – Wikipedia The whole of ontological mathematics is a priori, eternal and nonempirical, and constitutes true, innate knowledge. “The Affinity Argument explains that invisible, immortal, and incorporeal things are different from visible, mortal, and corporeal things. Our soul is of the former, while our body is of the latter, so when our bodies die and decay, our soul will continue to live.” – Wikipedia Rational Form is necessary, invisible, immortal, and driven by the incorporeal. Empirical, scientific Content is contingent, visible, mortal, and driven by the corporeal. “The Argument from Form of Life, or The Final Argument, explains that the Forms, incorporeal and static entities, are the cause of all things in the world, and all things participate in Forms. For example, beautiful things

participate in the Form of Beauty; the number four participates in the Form of the Even, etc. The soul, by its very nature, participates in the Form of Life, which means the soul can never die.” – Wikipedia Form is Causation. It cannot be perceived. It’s eternal and mathematical. All Empirical Content is caused. No Rational Form is caused. Rational Form (the set of noumena) causes all Empirical Content (the set of phenomena). Rational Form provides eternal causation and determinism. Quantum mechanical indeterminism, and scientific randomism, are absurd. Such thinking denies that there’s an unobservable rational order that underpins everything. Why is mathematics regarded as abstract? It’s exactly because it’s noumenal, hence unobservable. Ontological mathematics provides the perfect basis of imperfect Content, just as Abrahamism claims that a perfect God gives rise to imperfect Creation.

The Theory of Forms “Plato’s theory of Forms or theory of Ideas asserts that non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality. When used in this sense, the word form or idea is often capitalized. Plato speaks of these entities only through the characters (primarily Socrates) of his dialogues who sometimes suggest that these Forms are the only true objects of study that can provide us with genuine knowledge...” – Wikipedia The Theory of Forms is one of the greatest theories of all time and its basic concept is unquestionably true. Forms are immaterial, outside space and time, have nothing to do with the senses, and only they can give us absolute, genuine, infallible knowledge. Truths of reason are the only real truths. All “truths” of fact are interpretive, hence cannot be regarded as unconditionally, unarguably true. There is not even one “truth of fact” whose alleged truth cannot be immediately and automatically challenged. For example, every “truth” of science is a truth of fact, and there is no claim made by science that is definitively true.

The scientific method makes this inevitable. Theories come and go. Everything keeps being reinterpreted, and there is never an end to this process. At no point can science present Truth to humanity. All it can ever say is, “Here is our best guess at the moment. Here is our evidence. Here is how we are interpreting this evidence. Here is the Meta Paradigm in which we frame our interpretations. Here’s a list of our assumptions. Here’s a list of all the considerations we exclude because they do not accord with our ideology, dogma, taste, beliefs, and the way the brains our wired.” No one with any genuine interest in Truth would ever take science seriously as a vehicle of Truth. It simply cannot take you to any Truthful destination. Any Truth is eternal, and, if it isn’t, then it isn’t true. No statement of science relates to eternity, hence no scientific “truth” is authentically true. Science is just an enormous system of useful interpretations. Science has proved spectacularly valuable to humanity, but there’s one arena in which science hasn’t helped humanity at all: the search for Absolute Truth. In this regard, the Theory of Forms is infinitely more valuable than science. However, the Theory of Forms over-extended itself. Its proper applicability is restricted entirely to ontological mathematics, and outside that it has no validity. It cannot be applied to morality, taste, opinion, belief, sensations, feelings, mystical intuitions, and so on. Humanity has never grasped the distinction between Truth and the interpretation of Truth. They are radically different things. If you are not making a statement that is eternally and analytically True then you simply aren’t in the business of Truth. You’re in the interpretation game, the Mythos game. Jews make the ludicrous claim that they are the Chosen People of the alleged Creator of the Universe. But there is no Creator, and the Jews aren’t the Chosen People. This is just a silly story Jews tell themselves, yet all practising Jews down the ages have accepted this nonsense as Absolute Truth. Muslims tell themselves that the Koran – an astonishingly idiotic book with zero intellectual content – is the infallible Word of God. If it is, God is a moron, and any human intellectual is superior to “God”. Of course, the reality is that the Koran was the result of the jumbled, incoherent, schizophrenic thinking of an illiterate, uneducated Arab tribesman ... which is exactly why it has no intellectual contribution to make to the world. If you ask a moron to explain the world, you get a moronic explanation. What

could be more obvious? Why is the Islamic world backward? – because the Koran is backward, and every Muslim is brainwashed by the Koran. Cause and effect! As for the Christians, they bizarrely elevated a Jewish rabbi called Yehoshua ben Yosef to the status of “God”, even though he himself never once referred to himself as God. Go figure! Science tells us that “reality” is based on the inexplicable, random collapse of an unreal mathematical wavefunction. WTF! Can’t you see that these are all just self-serving stories that people tell themselves? They’re opinions, interpretations, beliefs and guesses. They have nothing at all to do with the Truth. The Truth has no connection with stories and beliefs. 1 + 1 = 2 exemplifies the character of real Truth. It’s not a story, it’s not an opinion or belief, it’s not a Mythos, not an interpretation – it’s an eternal truth of reason. The “equals sign” is the symbol of tautology. Whatever is on the left is the same as whatever is on the right, just expressed in different symbols. If we write “2” as 1 + 1 then 1 + 1 = 2 is exactly the same as 1 + 1 = 1 + 1. No one in the universe could argue that this is false or an interpretation. It’s true by eternal definition. Humanity’s task is to establish everything that is unarguably, eternally true, i.e. to establish all truths of reason, and then to try to map all observable, sensory truths of fact to these eternal truths. For example, the twin-slits experiment of quantum mechanics proves that we live in a deterministic mathematical universe of eternal truth and reason, yet has been fallaciously misinterpreted by science as evidence that we live in an indeterministic, probabilistic universe that miraculously springs out of nonexistence and unreality. Science has failed to map observations to eternal truths and thus it has got its interpretation of reality 100% wrong. “The pre-Socratic philosophers, starting with Thales, noted that appearances change quite a bit and began to ask what the thing changing ‘really’ is. The answer was substance, which stands under the changes and is the actually existing thing being seen. The status of appearances now came into question. What is the form really and how is that related to substance?” – Wikipedia The ultimate substance is ontological mathematics, which is pure Form. Ontological mathematics stands under all changes, appearances and

phenomena. Ontological mathematics is the arche, the source of all, that which underlies everything, the fundamental substance of existence. Aristotle regarded form as being “in” matter. For him, with his hylomorphic understanding of substance, form and matter were always found together, except in the two limiting cases of pure, formless matter, and pure, matterless form. This means that Aristotle actually posited two ultimate substances – Form and Matter – which were in all normal circumstances found in combination. Aristotle’s theory is really a disguised anticipation of Cartesian substance dualism. Descartes posited two substances: mind (unextended) and matter (extended), which mysteriously interacted despite being incompatible. (Descartes never resolved the problem of the interactivity of mind and matter, and, outside Illuminism, the problem remains unsolved to this day. Illuminism solved the problem with Fourier mathematics.) Aristotle also posited two ultimate, eternal substances: immaterial form and extended matter, but he simply took it for granted that they could be combined into a myriad of form-matter substances, reflecting all the observable stuff of the world. It was only because Aristotle failed to formally define Form as having no extension that he didn’t run into Descartes’ problem, which shows how critical definition is to the progress of any theory. If you don’t assert that Form is unextended then you can entertain the idea of Form being some sort of spread-out spiritual entity that can permeate extended matter. Once you take the Cartesian step and make Form/ Mind unextended then you can no longer conceive of matter as being imbued with Form/ Mind. In Illuminism, mathematics is the only substance and, via Fourier mathematics, it can be expressed in dimensionless (unextended) frequency terms and dimensional (extended) spacetime terms, and the two aspects are automatically, interactively linked. In Cartesian terms, the Fourier frequency domain is “mind” and the Fourier spacetime domain is “matter”. In Aristotelian terms, the Fourier frequency domain is “form” and the Fourier spacetime domain is “matter”. In both cases, an impossible dualism is replaced by an integrated, dual-aspect monism. Where Descartes and Aristotle both looked to separate entities (mind and matter in the case of Descartes, and form and matter in the case of Aristotle), Illuminism has only one substance – ontological mathematics – which can be expressed dimensionlessly (in frequency terms) or dimensionally (in spacetime terms).

Ontological mathematics can be considered in terms of a single coin with two sides (i.e. a dual-aspect single system) rather than in terms of two distinct substances with nothing in common (thus raising the notorious problem of how they can interact). With the Cartesian system, matter has its own form or shape, and minds can (somehow) interact with matter. With Aristotle, matter is formless and shapeless, and needs the presence of form to give it shape, purpose and agency. Aristotelian matter is shaped by receiving or exchanging forms. With Illuminism, form is inbuilt in everything since everything is mathematical and mathematics is form. Leibniz in effect combined the Cartesian and Aristotelian systems. He described fundamental reality as dimensionless (unextended), composed of immaterial monads (metaphysical points), and he put an Aristotelian form inside each monad (thus giving it its own teleology and agency). From these autonomous, unextended points, internally programmed by form, the whole material world was constructed. For Leibniz, matter arose from the “unclear”, passive, potentiality aspect of monadic existence, while form related to the “clear”, active, actualised aspect. Leibniz was thus able to define “God” as the one and only perfectly “clear”, fully active and actualised monad, with no material aspect at all (i.e. equivalent to the perfect matterless form that defined Aristotle’s God). All other monads were contaminated by varying degrees of material passivity, potentiality and unclearness. In the limit, some monads could be conceived as being entirely unclear and “material” (thus being equivalent to Aristotle’s formless matter). These would be the basic, unthinking point-particles of science! It’s a clear implication of Leibniz’s system that any monad can, through intellectual evolution, become perfectly clear and fully actualised, thus joining God. “Form answers the question, ‘What is that?’ Plato was going a step further and asking what Form itself is. He supposed that the object was essentially or ‘really’ the Form and that the phenomena were mere shadows mimicking the Form; that is, momentary portrayals of the Form under different circumstances. The problem of universals – how can one thing in general be many things in particular – was solved by presuming that Form was a distinct singular thing but caused plural representations of itself in particular objects.” – Wikipedia

In Illuminism, the laws of ontological mathematics (which ultimately reduce to the God Equation alone) are the Universals, and all particular things are just individual expressions and actualisations of these mathematical laws. “These Forms are the essences of various objects: they are that without which a thing would not be the kind of thing it is. For example, there are countless tables in the world but the Form of tableness is at the core; it is the essence of all of them. Plato’s Socrates held that the world of Forms is transcendent to our own world (the world of substances) and also is the essential basis of reality. Super-ordinate to matter, Forms are the most pure of all things. Furthermore, he believed that true knowledge/ intelligence is the ability to grasp the world of Forms with one’s mind.” – Wikipedia The problem for Plato and Socrates was that they treated tableness, for example, as an eternal, necessary Form. A table is, however, something entirely contingent. The universe can get by without tables. Tables form no part of any analytic system of eternal, necessary Truth. It’s a category error to treat contingent things as necessary things. Plato and Socrates were, in effect, engaged in the impossible task of trying to place contingent things such as tables, horses, beauty and justice on a par with necessary things (such as 1 + 1 = 2). They wanted an ideal table to have the same status as 1 + 1 = 2. They wanted “tableness” to have eternal necessity and to yield absolute knowledge (of tables). We can have absolute knowledge only of eternal, necessary things. Plato and Socrates sought a system of absolute knowledge for everything. In fact, absolute knowledge is available only regarding eternal necessity, which is ontological mathematics alone. Plato and Socrates were right that intelligence is the ability to grasp the world of Forms with one’s mind”, i.e. genuine knowledge is intelligible, not sensible. Their error was to try to classify sensible objects such as tables as having an eternal, intelligible essence. Tables have no such essence. They are contingent objects in the sensory world. They have no connection with necessary, analytic Truths. The Theory of Forms was correct apart from the fact that it massively overextended itself and started classifying Content as eternal Form.

Immanent and Transcendent

Immanent: “Naturally part of something; existing throughout and within something; inherent; integral; intrinsic; indwelling.” – http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/immanent Transcendent: “Surpassing usual limits; beyond the range of usual perception; free from constraints of the material world.” http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transcendent “A Form is aspatial (transcendent to space) and atemporal (transcendent to time). Atemporal means that it does not exist within any time period, rather it provides the formal basis for time. It therefore formally grounds beginning, persisting and ending. It is neither eternal in the sense of existing forever, nor mortal, of limited duration. It exists transcendent to time altogether. Forms are aspatial in that they have no spatial dimensions, and thus no orientation in space, nor do they even (like the point) have a location. They are non-physical, but they are not in the mind. Forms are extra-mental (i.e. real in the strictest sense of the word).” – Wikipedia A lot of this kind of talk slips into sheer mysticism. The facts are these. Mathematical Forms are outside space and time. They are located in the immaterial, mathematical Singularity, made of monads, that defines everything. They are both transcendent and immanent regarding time and space. You can’t reach the Singularity from anywhere in spacetime (it transcends spacetime). You would have to leave spacetime via, for example, a black hole, to reach the Singularity. Yet the Singularity is also linked to every part of spacetime (it’s immanent). As in holography, the whole is in every part. No part is free of the whole (the Singularity). Reality is absolutely dependent on the Singularity being transcendent and immanent. This explains why we can have a non-physical soul (located in the Singularity) that transcends spacetime (and survives spacetime bodily death), and yet can fully interact with the spacetime world and a spacetime body. The soul is holographic with regard to the body, i.e. the soul is in every part of the body (it’s immanent with regard to the body). “A Form is an objective ‘blueprint’ of perfection. The Forms are perfect themselves because they are unchanging. For example, say we have a triangle drawn on a blackboard. A triangle is a polygon with 3 sides. The triangle as it is on the blackboard is far from perfect. However, it is only the

intelligibility of the Form ‘triangle’ that allows us to know the drawing on the chalkboard is a triangle, and the Form ‘triangle’ is perfect and unchanging. It is exactly the same whenever anyone chooses to consider it; however, the time is that of the observer and not of the triangle.” – Wikipedia Forms are all about eternal, necessary, analytic perfection, and only ontological mathematics qualifies. Existence is based on perfection: mathematical perfection. Nothing else is perfect. There is no such thing as an eternal, necessary, perfect “God” as a being, hence Abrahamism is false by this criterion alone (never mind all the rest of its absurdities). Necessary existence has no need of “God”. “God” is a contingent hypothesis with no analytic necessity. The concept of an eternal God plays no part in ontological mathematics, and is entirely superfluous to the requirements of perfect mathematics. “God” can never be an eternally perfect concept. Only ontological mathematics is eternally perfect, and there is room for only one eternal system of perfection. Anything else would be imperfect with regard to it. As Leibniz understood, all positive perfections must coexist. None can contradict another. “God”, as a concept, is full of contradictions. It’s a concept based on irrational Content rather than rational Form. “God” is nothing but a projection of irrational human minds, and fully reflects all of that irrationalism. “In the Allegory of the Cave [expressed in Republic], the objects that are seen are not real, according to Plato, but literally mimic the real Forms. ...the things that are ordinarily perceived in the world are characterized as shadows of the real things, which are not perceived directly. That which the observer understands when he views the world mimics the archetypes of the many types and properties (that is, of universals) of things observed.” – Wikipedia In fact, it’s not a question of reality versus “unreality” (or less reality), or of a poor, imperfect copy of perfection. Rather, it’s about noumenal and phenomenal, intelligible and sensible, the dimensionless and the dimensional, frequency and spacetime, Form and Content. “The English word ‘form’ may be used to translate two distinct concepts that concerned Plato – the outward ‘form’ or appearance of something, and ‘Form’ in a new, technical nature, that never ‘...assumes a form like that of

any of the things which enter into her; ... But the forms which enter into and go out of her are the likenesses of real existences modelled after their patterns in a wonderful and inexplicable manner....’ [Plato, Timaeus]” – Wikipedia Ontological mathematics provides what Plato was really looking for: something that simultaneously defines the outward shape of things, and also its inward intelligibility and eternal necessity. “Plato often invokes, particularly in the Phaedo, Republic and Phaedrus, poetic language to illustrate the mode in which the Forms are said to exist. Near the end of the Phaedo, for example, Plato describes the world of Forms as a pristine region of the physical universe located above the surface of the Earth (Phd. 109a-111c). In the Phaedrus the Forms are in a ‘place beyond heaven’ (huperouranios topos) (Phdr. 247c ff); and in the Republic the sensible world is contrasted with the intelligible realm (noēton topon) in the famous Allegory of the Cave.” – Wikipedia It’s true that there’s an intelligible realm and a sensible realm. The mathematical Singularity – Soul World – is the intelligible domain, and comprises nothing but eternal monads defined by the God Equation. The sensible world results exclusively from mathematical monads and their mathematical interactions. There is nothing else. “It would be a mistake to take Plato’s imagery as positing the intelligible world as a literal physical space apart from this one. Plato emphasizes that the Forms are not beings that extend in space (or time), but subsist apart from any physical space whatsoever. That is, they are abstract objects. Thus we read in the Symposium of the Form of Beauty: ‘It is not anywhere in another thing, as in an animal, or in earth, or in heaven, or in anything else, but itself by itself with itself,’ (211b). And in the Timaeus Plato writes: ‘Since these things are so, we must agree that that which keeps its own form unchangingly, which has not been brought into being and is not destroyed, which neither receives into itself anything else from anywhere else, nor itself enters into anything anywhere, is one thing,’ (52a).” – Wikipedia Everything that Plato says is true of ontological mathematics, and nothing else. Leibniz’s definition of monads as immaterial, immortal, indestructible unities, outside space and time, is highly Platonic.

“Corresponding to the world of Forms is our world, that of the mimes, a corruption of the real world. This world was created by the Good according to the patterns of the Forms. Man’s proper service to the Good is cooperation in the implementation of the ideal in the world of shadows; that is, in miming the Good.” – Wikipedia Humanity’s proper task is to know the Singularity (defined by the God Equation), thus to know the secret of existence itself, and thus gain complete power over the world ... to become Gods! “No one has ever seen a perfect circle, nor a perfectly straight line, yet everyone knows what a circle and a straight line are.” – Wikipedia Well, are there perfect circles? If so, where are they? They plainly aren’t in the spacetime material world. They are in the perfect, intelligible, mathematical Singularity. Their perfection is mental and intelligible, not physical and sensory. They belong to the intelligible domain rather than the sensible domain. In fact, it would be more accurate to define the perfect circle as a Formula rather than a Form. All circles, without exception, have a circumference of 2πr, and an area of πr2. Every circle obeys every formula relevant to a circle. Every particular circle partakes of the circle formula, or is an instance of that formula. “...men already know the Forms because they were in the world of Forms before birth. The mimes only recall these Forms to memory.” – Wikipedia We are all made of the formulae of ontological mathematics. We know them because we are them. We are ultimately made of reason itself (as ontological mathematics), and the more rational we become, the more we understand what we are, the more self-aware we become. “Plato introduces several forms in his works, but identifies the Form of the Good as the superlative. This form is the one that allows a philosopher-intraining to advance to a philosopher-king. It cannot be clearly seen or explained, but once it is recognized, it is the form that allows one to realize all the other forms. ... This Form is the basis for understanding all other Forms, it is what allows us to understand everything else.” – Wikipedia In Illuminism, the Form of the Good is the God Equation, which is the Form of Life, and knowledge of this provides knowledge of everything, since everything, without exception, results from the God Equation.

“...Plato analogizes the Form of the Good with the sun as it is what allows us to see things. Here, Plato describes how the sun allows for sight. But he makes a very important distinction, ‘sun is not sight’ but it is ‘the cause of sight itself.’ As the sun is in the visible realm, the Form of Good is in the intelligible realm. It is ‘what gives truth to the things known and the power to know to the knower’. It is not only the ‘cause of knowledge and truth, it is also an object of knowledge’.” – Wikipedia What physics is to the sensible world, ontological mathematics is to the intelligible world. Ontological mathematics is the cause and root of physics, physics stripped of all of its observable features. The God Equation defines the intelligible realm. “According to Plato, true knowledge is conversant, not about those material objects and imperfect intelligences which we meet within our daily interactions with all mankind, but rather it investigates the nature of those purer and more perfect patterns which are the models after which all created beings are formed. Plato supposes these perfect types to exist from all eternity and calls them the Forms or Ideas. As these Forms cannot be perceived by human senses, whatever knowledge we attain of the Forms must be seen through the mind’s eye (cf. Parmenides 132a), while ideas derived from the concrete world of flux are ultimately unsatisfactory and uncertain (see the Theaetetus).” – Wikipedia In Illuminism, the Theory of Forms is replaced by ontological mathematics, but many of the same arguments apply. Ontological mathematics, in its noumenal frequency aspect, is perfect, eternal, immutable, intelligible, and wholly beyond the physical world of spacetime. “Plotinus, the founder of Neoplatonism, had principles that were heavily influenced by the Good. His concept of ‘the One’ is equivalent to ‘the Good’ because it describes an ultimate ontological truth. ‘The One’ is both ‘self-caused’ and the cause of being for everything else in the universe. Plotinus compared his principle of ‘the One’ to an illuminating light, as Plato did with the Form of the Good. As a result of Plotinus’ school of Neoplatonism, the bulk of understanding of Platonic philosophy until the 19th Century came through Plotinus’ interpretation of it. The early theologies of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism looked to the ideas of Platonism through the lens of Plotinus.” – Wikipedia

Neoplatonism is indeed a more sophisticated and thoroughly worked out version of Plato’s Theory of Forms. In terms of Illuminism, the trajectory may be said to proceed from Pythagorean ontological mathematics, to Plato’s Theory of Forms, to Neoplatonism, to Leibnizian Calculus and Monadology, to Eulerian and Fourier mathematics, to the Hegelian Dialectic, to ontological quantum mechanics and holography. “There is an ancient anecdotal tradition that Plato gave a public lecture entitled ‘On the Good’ which so confused the audience that most walked out.” – Wikipedia No intellectual has ever had an easy time of it! “...naturalists assert that nothing is outside of space and time. Some Neoplatonists, such as the pagan philosopher Plotinus and the Christian philosopher Augustine, imply (anticipating conceptualism) that universals are contained within the mind of God.” – Wikipedia Universals – the laws of ontological mathematics – are conveyed by eternal monads that exist in an immaterial Singularity outside space and time: a Fourier frequency domain. This is Soul World, the realm of souls. Universals are, therefore, contained within the Mind of the Cosmos, not the Mind of God. “The realist school claims that universals are real – they exist and are distinct from the particulars that instantiate them. ... Platonic realism is the view that universals are real entities and they exist independent of particulars. Aristotelian realism, on the other hand, is the view that universals are real entities, but their existence is dependent on the particulars that exemplify them.” – Wikipedia In Illuminism, an Aristotelian position is taken: the universal laws of ontological mathematics are expressed through the monads (particulars) that exemplify them. The universals do not exist independently of particulars (monads). “Plato believed there to be a sharp distinction between the world of perceivable objects and the world of universals or forms: one can only have mere opinions about the former, but one can have knowledge about the latter. For Plato it was not possible to have knowledge of anything that could change or was particular, since knowledge had to be forever unfailing

and general. For that reason, the world of the forms is the real world, like sunlight, the sensible world is only imperfectly or partially real, like shadows. This Platonic realism, however, in denying that the eternal Forms are mental artefacts, differs sharply with modern forms of idealism.” – Wikipedia In Illuminism, the only eternal things are monads and the laws of ontological mathematics that define them, and which are encoded in them. Since monads are mathematical minds then all universals can be said to exist in minds. They do not exist separately of minds, as Plato believed. In Platonic terms, mathematics, the study of the eternal, necessary world, provides knowledge, while science, the study of the temporal, contingent world provides mere opinion and belief. As for mainstream religion, that is nothing but belief and even fantasy. “Plato’s student Aristotle disagreed with his tutor. Aristotle transformed Plato’s forms into ‘formal causes’, the blueprints or essences of individual things.” – Wikipedia All monads are “formal causes”.

The Formal State “To this end Plato wrote Republic detailing the proper imitation of the Good, despite his admission that Justice, Beauty, Courage, Temperance, etc., cannot be known. Apparently they can be known to some degree through the copies with great difficulty and to varying degrees by persons of varying ability.” – Wikipedia Justice, Beauty, Courage, Temperance, and so on, have no eternal necessity and have nothing to do with ontological mathematics. This is where Plato’s Theory of Forms falls apart, where it extends itself beyond its domain of applicability and becomes Mythos rather than Logos. The evolution of Justice, Beauty, Courage, Temperance, and so on, should be understood in terms of the temporal, historical, evolutionary, Hegelian dialectic. “The Republic is a greater imitation of Justice: ‘Our aim in founding the state was not the disproportional happiness of any one class, but the greatest happiness of the whole; we thought that in a state ordered with a view to the good of the whole we should be most likely to find justice.’” – Wikipedia

Plato’s Republic reflects rational principles of mathematical equality, yet subject to dialectical considerations that reflect how humans actually are (rather than the idealised equality of Marxism). Plato’s ideas give rise to a Meritocratic Republic rather than a Communist State. “...society [in Plato’s system] is a regulated one presided over by academics created by means of state education, who maintain three non-hereditary classes as required: the tradesmen (including merchants and professionals), the [Auxiliary Guardians] (militia and police) and the [Philosopher Guardians] (legislators, administrators and the philosopher-king). Class is assigned at the end of education, when the state sets individuals up in their occupation. Socrates ... allows for mobility according to natural ability. The criteria for selection by the academics is ability to perceive forms (the analogue of English ‘intelligence’) and martial spirit as well as predisposition or aptitude.” – Wikipedia Similar considerations apply to the modern concept of the Constitutional, Meritocratic Republic. The most capable and intelligent people will be in charge. The only type of government the world has never tried is rule by the intelligentsia. The world has always preferred rule by the rich and powerful, by monarchs, dictators, psychopaths, popes, prophets, generals, the “market”, and so on ... everything other than humanity’s smartest people. The stupid do not want to be ruled by the smart. That’s how stupid they are! “The views of Socrates on the proper order of society are certainly contrary to Athenian values of the time and must have produced a shock effect, intentional or not, accounting for the animosity against him.” – Wikipedia Indeed! The same old story. “For example, reproduction is much too important to be left in the hands of untrained individuals: ‘... the possession of women and the procreation of children ... will ... follow the general principle that friends have all things in common, ....’ The family is therefore to be abolished and the children – whatever their parentage – to be raised by the appointed mentors of the state.” – Wikipedia Nothing would bring about a greater revolution that the toppling of the family from its role as the basic unit of society, and its replacement by the community. That’s not to say that the family should be abolished. Rather,

the concept of the family needs to be expanded to reflect the wise old African proverb: “It takes a village to raise a child.” Better parents deserve more time with their children; worse parents deserve less time. It’s a disaster to let bad parents raise children on their own. Their children will invariably reflect all of their parents’ failings and deficiencies, and the rest of society will pay the price through anti-social behaviour, low productivity, stupidity and criminality. “The citizens must not meddle in affairs that are not their business, such as legislation and administration (a hit at democracy).” – Wikipedia Why would any sane, rational State allow the ignorant to legislate, administrate and appoint the government? The whole point of meritocracy is to permit people to vote on what they know about, and not to vote on what they don’t. “The [auxiliary guardians] and the [philosopher guardians] are not to own fine homes or cash reserves but receive a pension from the state.” – Wikipedia Imagine how different today’s world would be if those in charge were forbidden by law from being rich! “Perhaps the most important principle is that just as the Good must be supreme so must its image, the State, take precedence over individuals in everything. For example, guardians ‘... will have to be watched at every age in order that we may see whether they preserve their resolution and never, under the influence either of force or enchantment, forget or cast off their sense of duty to the State.’” – Wikipedia This is the worst possible news for anarchists, libertarians, free-market capitalists and those at the top of society who are committed to self-service rather than public service.

Play “You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” – Plato You can find out more about a person in a minute in a BDSM dungeon than in a year of play. You can find out about a person in a second: by offering

them a bribe.

Empiricist Lunacy “Berkeley’s great contribution (picked up on later by Kant) was to suggest the preposterousness of referencing absolute knowledge, given that all knowledge is gained through contingent sensory experience. In fact, the very notion of finding coherence and permanence within sensory experience was so preposterous to him, that he had to postulate the notion of a God who holds all reality in HIS mind, in order to explain why the world doesn’t just vanish when we stop perceiving it. He was forced, by his extreme empiricism, to posit the existence of God in order to explain our experience of coherence, even though on an empirical understanding of raw sense data, such a conclusion did not follow. In this, he demonstrates the importance and brilliance of Kant’s ‘Copernican revolution’ in epistemology that was to follow. For without Kant, Berkeley was not able to give an account of the coherence of our experience that squared with his empiricism. David Hume tried to give such an account when he proposed that concepts are merely the faded memories of sensory experiences had over and over again, like writing on a page which eventually sinks through to the underlying pages. But this account seemed to threaten the very possibility of science as an objective endeavour and made Kant, himself a scientist, very uneasy. It forced Kant to come up with his theory of noumenal objects as unverifiable but understandable extensions of our immediate sensory experience constructed according to the inherent schemae of our understanding. Thus, in place of God’s role as guarantor of the coherence of the world, Kant posits a faculty of reason structured by the forms of our intuition (our sense of time and space) and the categories of our understanding (like the notion of cause and effect).” – Wikipedia In fact, absolute knowledge has nothing to do with the senses, and no knowledge at all is gained through contingent, sensory experience. This is the scientific route to “knowledge”, but it’s not knowledge, it’s ad hoc interpretation. Absolutely everything in science can be reinterpreted using a different scientific theory. Nothing proven in mathematics can ever be reinterpreted. It’s true forever.

True

“Roger Penrose contends that the foundations of mathematics can’t be understood absent the Platonic view that ‘mathematical truth is absolute, external and eternal, and not based on man-made criteria ... mathematical objects have a timeless existence of their own...’ – Wikipedia Exactly so! Penrose is arguably the only scientist capable of understanding Illuminism.

The Collective Mode What is matter? It’s the unconscious, collective mode of mind, i.e. all minds are involved in the generation of matter (via their collective thoughts), while individual minds are involved in the generation of individual thoughts.

An Oxymoron? MNH: “To say that god/ gods do not have opinions when we are gods is an oxymoron don’t you think?” In Illuminism, “God” is replaced by the God Equation, and is pure Form. God is not a person, but an eternal, infallible mathematical Formula that is the essence and ground of life, mind and dynamism. The God Equation is a Universal, and each monad is a particular instance and expression of it. Each monad can become perfect, and becoming perfect means becoming more and more rational, more and more like the God Equation itself. We are all made in the God Equation’s image. We begin imperfectly, as pure potential, and end perfectly, as pure actualisation, pure Form: our Content as well as our Form reflects the God Equation. “Opinions” aren’t knowledge. They are Content. We can have as many opinions as we like on the way to becoming God, but at the Omega Point (the God Point), we are knowledge itself – Absolute Knowledge.

Nutter MS: “God knows me so well. He knows all my flaws. He knows all my weaknesses. He knows all my strengths. I just can’t help but feel great right now. I feel loved. And while there is stressful and very important decisions to make in my life right now, I know that I will never have to go through

life alone. Because regardless of what I choose. I know he’ll be there. Walking by my side.” Nut job! This is the drivel that pours out of people when they turn “God” into an eternal, conscious person, with whom they then have a love affair. Why is MS so afraid? Why is he so scared of being alone? Why can’t he make his own way in life? What a weak, spineless, pathetic, submissive, passive, non-entity he is. This person isn’t talking about “God”, but about a child’s imaginary friend and substitute father!

Take Me To Your Leader “After one look at this planet any visitor from outer space would say ‘I want to see the manager.’” – William S. Burroughs

Don’t Hurry “Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer.” – William S. Burroughs

The Platonic Argument from Opposites Life and death are opposites. Just as the living must become dead, so the dead must become living. Life and death are in a perpetual cycle. Death is not a permanent end, just the end of a phase. It ushers in a phase change (a new life via reincarnation).

The Platonic Theory of Recollection Learning is in fact recollection. We remember the things we knew before we were born (when we were in the perfect domain of Forms) but then forgot (when we left the perfect domain and entered the imperfect world). True knowledge consists of knowledge of the eternal and unchanging Forms. These are the perfect underpinning of imperfect, perceptible reality.

The Socratic/Platonic Form of Equality

Socrates argued that we are able to perceive that two sticks are equal in length but unequal in width thanks only to our innate understanding of the Form of Equality. Without this, we would be incapable of making a judgement. We never encounter perfect equality in this world, i.e. we have no sensory experience of perfect equality, yet we can grasp the concept of two things being perfectly equal. We know it rationally (innately), not empirically. We know innately of all manner of Forms that we never encounter in experience. This knowledge comes from our previous exposure to the domain of Forms. We recollect immortal knowledge that we had prior to birth. This a priori knowledge implies that the soul’s life extends beyond that of the body’s, and indeed precedes the possession of a mortal body.

***** The Form of Equality was contested on the basis that equality is a relative term. How can the Form be a standalone entity? A thing can be equal only in relation to other things. It’s redundant to say that something is equal to itself.

Failure to Detach Socrates argued that if the soul fails to detach properly from the body, it becomes a ghost, longing to return to the flesh. A philosopher’s soul, on the other hand, readily detaches, and then dwells free of a body in the immaterial heavens. Reason will set you free! Unreason will haunt you.

Itself A Form is perfectly itself. This means that it has no taint of its opposite. The Form of Good, for example, admits no evil. This is why God, if he were genuinely good, could never perform an evil act or take an evil decision. The Abrahamic God, as we see, commits endless acts of evil and is forever taking evil decisions, hence is not God.

Quantity or Quality of Life?

“In the end, it’s not the years in your life that count. It’s the life in your years.” – Abraham Lincoln Well, have you made the most of your life? Have you truly lived? If not, what’s stopping you?

The Platonic Form of Beauty The Form of Beauty possesses no ugliness at all. The Form of Beauty is always and absolutely beautiful.

Animation We are alive because we have a soul. The soul is what animates us. The Singularity of souls is the source of all animation in the cosmos. Each soul is an instance of the Form of Life. The Form of Life absolutely excludes the possibility of its opposite (death). No part of the soul is dead, and no part of the soul can die. Death can never taint the soul.

***** A corollary is that a body is an inherently dead thing (or undead thing!) that is brought to life by the soul, and returns to death (or undeath) when the soul departs. Or, rather, the body is a machine that is operated by the soul, much as a pilot operates a drone. The drone is not alive, only the pilot is.

The Shadow Socrates said that the earth is a poor shadow of the “true earth” above us in the heavens. The earth is a simulacrum, an inferior copy. It’s the imperfect reflection of perfection. It’s perfection seen through a glass darkly.

Mathematical Form Plato’s Theory of Forms was inspired by the perfection, clarity, precision, immutability and permanence of Pythagorean mathematics. Mathematics, uniquely, transcends human experience. Mathematics constitutes the intelligible world, while the sensible world is one of experience

(empiricism). In the simulacral world of experience, nothing is perfect or permanent. This cannot be the basis of existence. The things we find in the world are akin to shadows cast from above, which hint at the perfection to be found elsewhere.

The Platonic Form of Duality How do one and one make two? How does one divided in two make two? Socrates said that both cases involve participation in the Form of Duality.

The Great Chain “The great chain of being (Latin: scala naturae, literally ‘ladder/ stair-way of nature’), is a concept derived from Plato, Aristotle, and Proclus. ... While Christian theological dogma dictated a static view, radical thinkers like Jean-Baptiste Lamarck saw a progression of life forms from the simplest creatures striving towards complexity and perfection. The very idea of an ordering of organisms thus laid the basis for the idea of transmutation of species as formulated by Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.” – Wikipedia We are all climbing the ladder of perfection. At the top is perfection itself – divinity.

***** “Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you help them to become what they are capable of being.” – Goethe In this way we would create a Society of Gods!

Archetypes “According to Jung, some highly developed elements of the collective unconscious are called ‘archetypes’. Jung developed an understanding of archetypes as universal, archaic patterns and images that derive from the collective unconscious and are the psychic counterpart of instinct. They are autonomous and hidden forms which are transformed once they enter consciousness and are given particular expression by individuals and their

cultures. Being unconscious, the existence of archetypes can only be deduced indirectly by examining behaviour, images, art, myths, religions, or dreams. They are inherited potentials which are actualized when they enter consciousness as images or manifest in behaviour on interaction with the outside world. ... Jung’s ideas of archetypes were based in part on Plato’s Forms. ... Jung first used the term primordial images to refer to what he would later term archetypes. ... The archetypes form a dynamic substratum common to all humanity, upon the foundation of which each individual builds his own experience of life, colouring them with his unique culture, personality and life events.” – Wikipedia “In later years Jung revised and broadened the concept of archetypes even further, conceiving of them as psycho-physical patterns existing in the universe, given specific expression by human consciousness and culture. Jung proposed that the archetype had a dual nature: it exists both in the psyche and in the world at large. He called this non-psychic aspect of the archetype the ‘psychoid’ archetype. “He illustrated this by drawing on the analogy of the electromagnetic spectrum. The part of the spectrum which is visible to us corresponds to the conscious aspects of the archetype. The invisible infrared end of the spectrum corresponds to the unconscious biological aspects of the archetype that merges with its chemical and physical conditions. He suggested that not only do the archetypal structures govern the behaviour of all living organisms, but that they were contiguous with structures controlling the behaviour of inorganic matter as well. “The archetype was not merely a psychic entity, but more fundamentally, a bridge to matter in general. Jung used the term unus mundus to describe the unitary reality which he believed underlay all manifest phenomena. He conceived archetypes to be the mediators of the unus mundus, organizing not only ideas in the psyche, but also the fundamental principles of matter and energy in the physical world. “It was this psychoid aspect of the archetype that so impressed Nobel laureate physicist Wolfgang Pauli. Embracing Jung’s concept, Pauli believed that the archetype provided a link between physical events and the mind of the scientist who studied them. In doing so he echoed the position adopted by German astronomer Johannes Kepler. Thus the archetypes which ordered our perceptions and ideas are themselves the product of an

objective order which transcends both the human mind and the external world.” – Wikipedia “Jung described archetypal events: birth, death, separation from parents, initiation, marriage, the union of opposites; archetypal figures: great mother, father, child, devil, god, wise old man, wise old woman, the trickster, the hero; and archetypal motifs: the apocalypse, the deluge, the creation. Although the number of archetypes is limitless, there are a few particularly notable, recurring archetypal images, ‘the chief among them being’ (according to Jung) ‘the shadow, the wise old man, the child, the mother ... and her counterpart, the maiden, and lastly the anima in man and the animus in woman’. Alternatively he would speak of ‘the emergence of certain definite archetypes ... the shadow, the animal, the wise old man, the anima, the animus, the mother, the child’. “The Self designates the whole range of psychic phenomena in man. It expresses the unity of the personality as a whole. “The shadow is a representation of the personal unconscious as a whole and usually embodies the compensating values to those held by the conscious personality. Thus, the shadow often represents one’s dark side, those aspects of oneself that exist, but which one does not acknowledge or with which one does not identify. “The anima archetype appears in men and is his primordial image of woman. It represents the man’s biological expectation of women, but also is a symbol of a man’s feminine possibilities, his contrasexual tendencies. The animus archetype is the analogous image of the masculine that occurs in women. “Any attempt to give an exhaustive list of the archetypes, however, would be a largely futile exercise since the archetypes tend to combine with each other and interchange qualities making it difficult to decide where one archetype stops and another begins. For example, qualities of the shadow archetype may be prominent in an archetypal image of the anima or animus.” – Wikipedia “Archetypes seek actualization within the context of an individual’s environment... Thus for example, the mother archetype is actualized in the mind of the child by the evoking of innate anticipations of the maternal archetype when the child is in the proximity of a maternal figure who corresponds closely enough to its archetypal template. This mother

archetype is built into the personal unconscious of the child as a mother complex. Complexes are functional units of the personal unconscious, in the same way that archetypes are units for the collective unconscious.” – Wikipedia “Archetypes are innate universal pre-conscious psychic dispositions that form the substrate from which the basic themes of human life emerge. The archetypes are components of the collective unconscious and serve to organize, direct and inform human thought and behaviour. Archetypes hold control of the human life cycle. “As we mature the archetypal plan unfolds through a programmed sequence which Jung called the stages of life. Each stage of life is mediated through a new set of archetypal imperatives which seek fulfilment in action. These may include being parented, initiation, courtship, marriage and preparation for death.” – Wikipedia “Stevens suggests that DNA itself can be inspected for the location and transmission of archetypes. As they are co-terminous with natural life they should be expected wherever life is found. He suggests that DNA is the replicable archetype of the species.” – Wikipedia “Rossi (1977) suggests that the function and characteristic between left and right cerebral hemispheres may enable us to locate the archetypes in the right cerebral hemisphere. He cites research indicating that left hemispherical functioning is primarily verbal and associational, and that of the right primarily visuospatial and apperceptive. Thus the left hemisphere is equipped as a critical, analytical, information processor while the right hemisphere operates in a ‘gestalt’ mode. This means that the right hemisphere is better at getting a picture of a whole from a fragment, is better at working with confused material, is more irrational than the left, and more closely connected to bodily processes. Once expressed in the form of words, concepts and language of the ego’s left hemispheric realm, however, they become only representations that ‘take their colour’ from the individual consciousness. Inner figures such as shadow, anima and animus would be archetypal processes having source in the right hemisphere.” – Wikipedia “Henry (1977) alluded to Maclean’s model of the tripartite brain suggesting that the reptilian brain is an older part of the brain and may contain not only

drives but archetypal structures as well. The suggestion is that there was a time when emotional behaviour and cognition were less developed and the older brain predominated. There is an obvious parallel with Jung’s idea of the archetypes ‘crystallising out’ over time.” – Wikipedia “The pagan longings, gnostic impulses, and unorthodox spiritual strivings that have been repressed for hundreds of years in the West are thought to have been released in the form of the New Age movement.” – Wikipedia “A group of memories and interpretations associated with an archetype is a complex (e.g. a mother complex associated with the mother archetype). Jung treated the archetypes as psychological organs, analogous to physical ones in that both are morphological constructs that arose through evolution.” – Wikipedia “My views about the ‘archaic remnants’, which I call ‘archetypes’ or ‘primordial images,’ have been constantly criticized by people who lack a sufficient knowledge of the psychology of dreams and of mythology. The term ‘archetype’ is often misunderstood as meaning certain definite mythological images or motifs, but these are nothing more than conscious representations. Such variable representations cannot be inherited. The archetype is a tendency to form such representations of a motif – representations that can vary a great deal in detail without losing their basic pattern.” – Jung

***** “Thus the archetypes which ordered our perceptions and ideas are themselves the product of an objective order which transcends both the human mind and the external world.” – Wikipedia The objective order which transcends the human mind and observable external world is that of ontological mathematics. In its individual mode, ontological mathematics conveys our perceptions and ideas. It is thus responsible for the psyche. In its collective mode, it generates matter. However, since matter originates in monadic minds, it is itself quasipsychic, i.e. it’s psychoid. The flip side of the matter produced by the Monadic Collective are the psychoid archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. When individual minds (psyches) link to the physical bodies

that result from the Monadic Collective, they also link to the psychoid archetypes that have evolved in tandem with those bodies. The Monadic Collective generates both material systems (atoms and molecules) common to all monads, and mental systems (archetypes: the mental counterparts of the atoms and molecules) common to all monads. Whether we like it or not, we are all defined by the Monadic Collective. The individual contribution each of us makes to reality is vanishingly small compared with that made by the Collective.

Archetypes II In Jung’s system, an archetype is a collectively inherited, unconscious idea, pattern of thought or primitive image. It’s universally present in individual psyches. Everyone is affected by archetypes. Archetypes are not, however, eternal Forms. Rather, they are contingent, evolutionary Forms. If DNA is regarded as having: a) a contingent, evolutionary Form, and b) a psychic as well as physic aspect, then we can easily understand how archetypes are inherited – they are literally encoded in our genes. Genes, when viewed from the mental angle, are psychogenes, and these provide us with all the archetypes that shape our mental life. They constitute our mental rather than physical DNA. Archetypes, as Jung pointed out, are noumenal, but are presented to our consciousness phenomenally. The archetype for “Wise Old Man” does not exist as a common image seen by all people. Rather, the concept of Wise Old Man is common to everyone, but everyone has their own image of what the Wise Old Man actually looks like.

***** If Platonic Forms are static, immutable, and eternal, Jungian Archetypes are dynamic, mutable and temporal. They are contingent rather than necessary Forms. They are evolutionary. Platonic Forms – the laws of ontological mathematics – are responsible for the ontological structure of the universe. Jungian Forms (Archetypes) are responsible for the psychoid interfaces between mind and matter. Archetypes are evolutionary Universals, which are expressed through particulars (individual people). Every human partakes of the Human

Archetype (manifested as human DNA – what makes us human and not any other type of living entity). There is no eternal Form of Humanness, as Plato believed. Rather, the Form of Humanness is the product of evolution. We are all individual copies of this Form. Or, rather, our bodies are copies, and our eternal minds link to these bodies (and the psychogenes with which they are associated). Eternal Forms must link to Temporal Forms in order to operate spacetime bodies. This link is unstable because it involves two different categories of Form. This is the root of what we know as “death”.

Science versus Math “Experiment is the sole judge of scientific ‘truth.’” – Richard Feynman Proof is the sole judge of mathematical truth. Science is said to be founded on the search for general laws that explain the workings of nature. Crucially, it takes experience rather than reason as its starting point. It collects observable facts and then generalises, switching from the particular to the universal. When mathematics proves something, it’s proved forever. Science never proves anything. It builds up more and more evidence for a certain position and calls it a “theory”, but each theory is never proved, and can be refuted at any time, or radically reinterpreted. Science is approximate. Math is precise. Math delivers absolute truth. Science never does. Math is eternally true while science is just a provisional opinion. Science deludes itself that’s it’s about observable “facts”, but, actually, it’s about the interpretation of facts, and that’s philosophy, and even psychology, not science. Collecting facts, performing measurements and observations, is one thing – that’s “science” – but interpreting the results is something entirely different: it’s philosophy, religion, psychology, Mythos. Science has never appreciated the difference. It believes that the empiricist, materialist interpretation of “facts” is somehow about real truth. The test of scientific truth is experiment, but experiments are always contingent and provisional. The test of mathematical truth is proof, and that’s always necessary and absolute. Science is about matching hypotheses to the “real” world, by which science means the observable, sensible world of Content. Mathematics is

about proving the connections in the unobservable, eternal, necessary, intelligible world of Form. Formal mathematical logic is, unlike scientific “logic”, not empirical. Mathematical logic is a priori, while scientific logic is a posteriori. This raises a fundamental problem of how analytic logic can be applied to empirical content. There appears to be a fundamental contradiction; indeed, a category error. Logic deals with the “ideal” real world (intelligible, not sensible), while science deals with the empirical real world (sensible, not intelligible). In fact, it’s never strictly valid to apply formal logic to empirical facts. For example, we might say, using a logical syllogism, that all swans are white; x is a swan; therefore x is white. But, of course, all swans aren’t white, so the argument fails. It’s approximately true, but not absolutely true. In the ideal world, all logical statements are infallibly true. In the empirical world, they are not, hence they are not properly logical. Like everything else in the scientific game, they are approximations. Kant said that the forms of logic must reflect objective reality, or they would be meaningless, but this simply begs the question of what objective reality is. What are Gödel’s Incompleteness theorems about? Ultimately, they are about the problems generated when considerations relevant to the empirical world are misapplied to the logical world. Humans look at the world and produce empirical axioms, which they then attempt to deploy logically. But these axioms are constructed from a posteriori observations, not from a priori logic, hence they are automatically in trouble. You can’t have a complete and consistent logical system based on empirical axioms given that these are not derived from logic and are therefore not necessary in terms of logic. Contingent entities inserted into a necessary system will never prosper. Gödel’s Incompleteness theorems are frequently interpreted as an attack on mathematics, although that’s not how Gödel himself understood them. Gödel was an out-and-out Platonist who believed in the completeness and consistency of Platonic mathematics, but did not believe that the human mind would ever fully crack Platonic mathematics. In fact, his theorems should be interpreted as an attack on empiricist science, and empiricist approaches to mathematics. They are really establishing that science, not

mathematics, is permanently inconsistent and incomplete, and that attempts to “scientize” mathematics will fail. When you attempt to construct logical axioms through empirical means, i.e. by performing observations on the world, you invariably commit an error. Space seems Euclidean, but then along comes non-Euclidean space where not all of the Euclidean axioms are valid. What conceivable set of axioms, established via observation rather than logic, could ever infallibly cater for all possible worlds and spacetimes? The whole project of using empirical axioms in mathematics is flawed. True mathematics – ontological mathematics – must be a fully self-contained system flowing from a single formula that’s by definition complete and consistent since a single formula cannot be inconsistent with regard to itself, cannot contradict itself or be incomplete with regard to itself.

The Form and Content of an Argument The form of an argument is its reasoning pattern or structure. The content of an argument is its specific subject matter. Strictly speaking, this arrangement can never work. Formal logic is only genuinely applicable to mathematical entities, which are themselves pure form. When formal logic is applied to empirical, contingent entities that are not themselves analytic, a priori and necessary, the outcome is automatically interpretive rather than certain. To test a logical argument for validity, only its structure or form needs to be examined, not its contents. Symbols can be used to express the contents, and these could represent anything. The content doesn’t affect the form. Subsequent challenges can be aimed at form or content. Is the form valid? If it is, is the content valid? How can form exist at all if not for mathematics? Form = rational structure; Content = empirical content associated with it. In relation to the world of our experience, you can get good form and bad (invalid) content (most of scientific “logic”). You can get bad Form and bad Content (most of religious “logic”!). With ontological mathematics, as regards itself, you get good form and good content. You can’t get bad form and good content.

Universal Form

All thoughts, feelings, ideas, sensations, intuitions, desires and free will have exactly the same Form – mathematical Form. All sinusoids have an objective form (quantity), and objective content (quality) that’s experienced subjectively. When we add sinusoids together, we create collections of sinusoids that have an additive objective form and additive objective content. All mental experiences have exactly this nature. It’s impossible to have any other type of mental experience. All mental experiences are reducible to sinusoids, which are mathematical “coins”, i.e. they have two sides, one concerning quantity, which is encountered objectively and rationally, and one concerning quality, which is encountered subjectively and empirically. Alternatively, we might say that all sinusoids have an outside (quantity; rationalism) and inside (quality; empiricism). All combinations of mathematical sinusoids are validly, legitimately and properly formed. However, it does not follow that their contents reflect objective mathematical considerations. They are experiential, not rational. They are about quality, not quantity. They are qualia, not quantia. So, the outside – the form – of sinusoids is pure math. But the inside, the content – of sinusoids is not what we conventionally associate with mathematics. It’s not about numbers, functions, equations or rational understanding but about the subjective experience of mathematics. It’s precisely for this reason that although, objectively, we inhabit a 100% mathematical universe, almost 100% of humanity would deny that this is the case. This is because they are viewing reality from the subjective, not objective, perspective. They are being empiricist rather than rationalist. They have failed to address the fundamental issue: not what mental experiences are, but what mental experiences are made of. Mental experiences are not made of mental experiences (i.e. they are not made of themselves); they are made of mathematical sinusoids. Because people are so intent on the experience itself, they fail to consider that it must be an experience made of something. We, of course, have the experience, but we absolutely never have the experience of what the experience is made of. The experience is the phenomenal expression of the noumenal mathematical sinusoidal function. Only reason can reveal to us the unseen, and unseeable, sinusoids. They are inherently unperceivable. Science has committed the catastrophic error of asserting that ultimate reality must in principle be perceivable (by which it means reality must be material). It has simply never grasped that we can only ever have an idea of

what ultimate reality is (implying that ultimate reality is mental, not physical). Given that an idea is non-sensory – it can’t be seen, heard, tasted, touched or smelled – how can it be made of something sensory (something material)? It’s a category error to claim that sensory things can be the ground of non-sensory things, that material things can be the ground of nonmaterial things (such as thoughts). Causes and effects cannot belong to different levels of reality; material causes cannot produce immaterial effects, or vice versa. That’s why, in Illuminism, there is no such thing as matter considered independently of mind. “Matter” is the thinking of the Monadic Collective. When all minds think together, the thoughts they produce are subatomic particles and atoms. These, self-evidently, have a very different character from normal thoughts; not because they belong to a different order of existence but because they are produced by the Collection of monads rather than individual monads. All subjective experiences are hung on objective hooks. You cannot have a subjective world without an objective framework. You cannot have empiricism without a rationalist underpinning. It’s exactly because content/ subjectivity/ experience is nonmathematical, yet is hung on mathematics, that we can create a world of entirely false content: of opinions, beliefs, conjectures, hypotheses and interpretations. The form of all these delusions and fallacies is infallibly correct (pure math), but the content is infallibly wrong because it has nothing to do with mathematics and is not expressed in mathematical language but in manmade languages. Only when the content is about math do form and content speak the same language and come into alignment: only then do we gain true knowledge of reality. All form is mathematical and all content is non-mathematical (or, more accurately, is mathematics expressed phenomenally rather than noumenally, empirically rather than rationally), unless the content is actually about mathematics, i.e. unless we’re studying math.

God By Other Means Those who argue that some kind of “Universal Consciousness” created the world, then interconnected with it and caused it to continuously evolve, might as well believe in the Abrahamic God. It’s just that same God by

another designation. It’s disguised Abrahamism, Abrahamism at one step removed. It’s absurd to claim that consciousness is the foundation of all being. Consciousness is not necessary and eternal; it’s contingent and evolutionary.

The Cosmic Hallucination We are not physical entities that hallucinate minds, as science says. We are minds that hallucinate bodies, and indeed the whole material world. The mechanism of hallucination is mathematics.

What Is It Made Of? What is Mind made of? It’s made of mathematical sinusoids. What is Matter made of? – mathematical sinusoids. What is Life made of? – mathematical sinusoids. Mathematics is the “tertium quid” – the third thing that underlies mind and matter. They are both made of mathematical sinusoids. The difference is that “matter” concerns the collective operations of monads, whereas “mind” concerns the individual operations of monads.

***** The Form of Existence is mathematical. Reason alone allows us to access this Form. What we experience in our day to lives is, however, the content of mathematics. Life and mind are how mathematics is subjectively experienced. We are nothing but mathematical souls in a mathematical universe. Mind, matter and life are all about math. We live in an eternal mathematical organism, and we ourselves are eternal mathematical organisms. It’s solely thanks to math that we are immortal and indestructible. No one created us, and no one is our master.

Consciousness Consciousness is a property of mind. What are thoughts made of? – mathematical sinusoids. Consciousness is a property of thinking. It’s when

thoughts can reflect on themselves (on their own experiences), and it happens via what is known as a “strange loop”. We are conscious when we can say, “I know I am having this experience” rather than simply having the experience. Yet to know we are having the experience is also to become detached from the experience. It loses its immediacy and vibrancy. We are at one step removed from it. A desire to “complete” the experience, to fully immerse yourself in the experience, often has the opposite effect and you stop truly engaging with the experience. You become fake, an actor, an impersonator. The experience has ceased to be authentic. Many brides, deep down, hate their wedding day because, having planned it for so long, they find that it can no longer match their perfect expectations. They are now constantly judging every part of it, and no longer enjoying being in the moment. We have a great time when we “lose ourselves”, when we are fully in the moment and not thinking about being in the moment (which means we are not in the moment!). The best times we have are those that happen spontaneously, without any planning. Drugs often alter the state of consciousness sufficiently to allow proper immersion in the moment, which is one reason why they are so popular.

Bogus Syllogisms Syllogisms are about truths of fact, not truths of reason. It’s a truth of fact that men are mortal. It’s a truth of reason that men have immortal souls. The famous syllogism All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, Therefore, Socrates is mortal is true only if we regard Socrates as a physical body and not as an immortal soul. Syllogisms are typically about content, not form (unless logicians are studying the validity of the form). They are statements about language, about empirical facts, not about ontology. They are statements about beliefs, opinions, interpretations and conjectures. They are not analytic, hence they are not properly deductive. They apply a logical, rational form or framework to contingent, empirical “facts”. Syllogisms, not being deductive in the true sense, sit between rationalism and empiricism, in a strained halfway house. Any true deduction should be strictly about analytic tautology. These are the only syllogisms that definitively work, e.g., All bachelors are unmarried, James

is a bachelor, Therefore, James is unmarried. Given the definitions, the syllogism must be true. Deduction in the very truest sense applies solely to ontological mathematics. Only logic applied to ontological mathematics can be strictly true. If empirical content and synthetic statements are put into logical forms, they can be wrong. When content is mixed with form, inaccuracy and error are sure to result. Only analytic entities can be infallibly consistent with logic. No one can doubt that 1 + 1 = 2. Everyone can doubt that the Jewish rabbi Yehoshua ben Yosef (aka Jesus Christ) was and is God. The Christian schema is based on faith. Mathematics is an infallible knowledge system based on reason.

The Impossible “Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is...you have to see it for yourself.” – Morpheus, The Matrix The whole trouble is you can never see or perceive reality for yourself. You can only rationally work out what the ontological Matrix is. It’s intelligible, not sensible.

***** “I am the Architect. I created the Matrix.” – The Architect No one created the ontological Matrix. It’s eternal and indestructible.

True Knowledge No true knowledge ever comes from the senses. All true knowledge is eternal, a priori, analytic, necessary, deductive and tautological, i.e. it’s purely rationalist and in fact purely mathematical (which is nothing but the principle of sufficient reason as a complete, consistent set of tautologies, whose net effect is “nothing”). Only rationalism offers clarity and distinctness. All sensory “knowledge” concerns opinions, beliefs and interpretations. No sensory knowledge is reliable.

It’s well known that due to “inattentional blindness” a man in a gorilla costume can appear in the midst of a group of basketball players, each tasked with counting how many times the ball gets passed between members of their team, and not be seen be any of the players even though he’s right in front of their faces. What else do we not see? How do we know that we are not systematically blind to certain things: hidden variables, rational unobservables, the non-sensory? The world is made of necessary things (monads) and results from their necessary properties. The God Equation ensures that the universe has specific qualities and properties. Reason gives us epistemic access. Reason is the tool that reality uses to reflect on itself, hence is the ultimate root of consciousness. The most conscious people are the most rational people. Through reason, our thoughts start to align with reality itself, rather than with beliefs, opinions, conjectures, hypotheses, interpretations and Mythos. Empiricists say that the sole originating source of our knowledge is the information the senses provide, yet our senses do not in fact provide us with any knowledge whatsoever regarding true reality. All sensory knowledge is phenomenal, but true reality is noumenal. By definition, it cannot be observed. It’s the stuff of reason and intellect, not of the senses and feelings.

Perception What does it mean to perceive something as opposed to know it? If you are perceiving it, it’s being represented to you. You are not apprehending its form, only its content. Imagine encountering an ontological coin. It has two sides, but your mind cannot encounter each side in the same way since each side belongs to a different category of existence. One side is form and the other content. To approach form is to deploy your reason and intellect. To approach content is to deploy your senses, feelings and desires. To know something is to know it intellectually (rationally). Knowledge has no other meaning in any proper sense. Perceiving with your senses is an entirely different activity from knowing. You have no true idea of what it is you are perceiving since perception is always mediated through your perceiving apparatus. Consider looking at a tree. You take it for granted that a tree is really there, but

maybe it’s not. Maybe you’re dreaming or hallucinating, or being deceived by Descartes’ malicious demon. Let’s grant that some manner of tree is really there. Well, science says that light reflects off it and passes into your eyes, hits your retinas, is transmitted along the optic nerve to the part of your brain that deals with optical processing, where it is interpreted. Is there any reason at all to expect this convoluted set of steps to present the original tree to you? It’s not the tree that enters your eye, but light reflected from the tree, so what you “see” is definitely not the tree but this other thing: “tree-reflected” light. That’s not a tree (!). Moreover, this tree-reflected light is then processed by your eye/ retina/ optic nerve/ brain. So, it’s not even “tree-reflected light” that you’re “seeing” but heavily processed and interpreted “tree-reflected light”. Not only are you not seeing the tree itself, you are not even seeing the light reflected from the tree. You are seeing something highly processed in you know not what way. You are “seeing” the tree at several levels removed from the tree, so why should there be any correspondence between the tree itself and the tree you perceive? There may be barely any link at all. In fact, what you’re seeing is not a tree but a representation of a tree only distantly caused by the original tree. You are seeing the appearance of the tree (the tree as phenomenon), not the tree in itself (as noumenon). The tree in itself is simply a mathematical function, which, when it interacts with light (another mathematical function) and your eyes and brain (other mathematical functions), and your monadic mind (another mathematical function), is finally repackaged into yet another mathematical function, and it’s this final function which you experience as “seeing the tree”. Therefore, what you are actually seeing is a mathematical function that represents the tree. You are certainly not seeing the tree itself. If you stripped away all sensory perception from a tree, all that would remain is a noumenal, mathematical tree function – the tree in itself. It’s not a physical, “scientific”, sensible object at all. It’s an intelligible, mathematical object. We inhabit a world or representation, not of presentation. Reality isn’t presented to us as it is; it’s represented to us via mathematical processing, which adds all sorts of mathematical functionality that is absent from the original “tree”. We can never perceive the original tree. The very act of perception adds mathematical elements extraneous to the tree – such as light (which

interacts with the tree but does not belong to the tree), our eyes (which interact with the light from the tree but do not belong to the tree or the light), our retinas, our optic nerve, our “optical brain” and monadic mind, all of which add mathematical functionality that has nothing at all to do with the original tree. Science, a childishly simplistic subject, believes that the “tree representation” is more or less identical to the tree in itself. In fact, it could scarcely be more different. A “tree in itself” has precious little in common with the “appearance of a tree”, other than being its ultimate cause. Science has simply never grasped the concept of noumena being wholly different from phenomena. It has never grasped what a tree is in itself, denuded of all layers of interpretation and of all added mathematical functionality. A tree in itself is pure math – and nothing at all to do with physics and matter. It’s just a mathematical function, a mathematical signal, a mathematical object. Forget what the world appears like. The real world in itself is nothing like that. Existence in itself is an incredible, interactive mathematical Singularity full of infinite mathematical functions, and infinite autonomous nodes – monads. Science is the delusion that the appearance of reality resembles reality in itself. There’s no reason why it should, and indeed, it doesn’t. If you want to understand what reality really is, you must transcend your senses and feelings. You must liberate your reason and intellect. You must get mathematical. If mathematics itself is just too abstract for you, here are three other ways of contemplating reality: as cosmic music, as cosmic light, or as a cosmic electric circuit. Music, light and electricity are “concrete” ways of thinking about mathematics in itself. They are one step removed from mathematics in itself, but analogous enough to give some idea of what’s going on.

***** Descartes made it clear that we can perceive (by means of the senses) appearances only. Appearances are not reality, despite what science claims. We can know unperceivable essences but only via our reason. “Knowledge” of appearances is not true knowledge because there’s a noumenon underlying it that causes the appearance, but which we do not know

empirically at all. The fundamental error of empiricism is to claim that what we perceive with our senses is true, and everything else is false. In fact, nothing we perceive with our senses can ever be true in any absolute sense. It will always be at the level of representation. Empiricism claims that all true knowledge comes via experience. In fact, no authentic knowledge whatsoever comes via that route since knowledge of representations of reality is not knowledge of reality. As the rationalists asserted, all true knowledge comes from reason and completely bypasses the senses. The thing in itself is rational and intelligible (in fact, mathematical), not sensory, and has nothing to do with faith, feelings, experiences, experiments or “God”.

The Unenlightened There’s nothing more amusing – and pathetic – than the pacifist, hippie, “love and light” brigade who imagine that weakness, submissiveness, cowardice and “absence of anger” are all associated with enlightenment. Anyone who believes such things has no understanding of the dialectic. Don’t kind yourselves: the dialectic is the most violent thing you can possibly get. It’s nothing but war, a continuous clash of opposites until the Omega Point is reached. Some “psychonaut” was ranting on about the Illuminati being “Satanists” because we frequently rage against the evils of Abrahamism, which is what we define as Satanism. This raises two issues. Anyone who thinks that aggressively opposing evil is itself evil has got a screw loose. Such a person is no doubt tolerant of intolerance, thus making him as bad as the intolerant. And anyone who does not denounce the Satanic “God” of Abrahamism in the strongest possible terms is about as far from enlightenment as it’s possible to get. You might as well be an Abrahamist if you don’t condemn Abrahamism. This, of course, is the whole problem. These people are simply Abrahamists in disguise and in denial. Nearly all of them have swallowed to the last dreg the slave morality of Christianity and all of its hypocritical garbage about love, light, peace, poverty, weakness, meekness, self-sacrifice, loving they neighbour, blah, blah, blah. Apart from the obvious fact that no Christian in the world actually follows any of these precepts, and frequently rallies behind the direct opposite, there’s nothing inherently admirable about them anyway.

Nietzsche’s system of audacious, creative, strong, adventurous, daring Supermen and Superwomen is an infinitely superior and more lifeenhancing vision. Nietzsche was no liberal and yet he was more enlightened that all Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and New Agers put together. Anyone who can’t express anger has a real problem with anger. They are suppressing their natural anger because they have been ruthlessly brainwashed by the powers-that-be to do so, or, in fact, because they are so weak, feeble and submissive that they have precious little anger to express in the first place. They love being carpets, being walked on every day. And that makes us extremely angry! The Illuminati do not seek people who fall on their knees to the Jewish rabbi Yehoshua ben Yosef and worship his preposterous “beatitudes”. We seek those whom, like Nietzsche, regard themselves as dynamite. Explosives detonate. If you prefer to sit under a tree, smoking weed and kidding yourself that you’re on the path to enlightenment, here’s the bad news – you’re not. You’re on the path to being a total failure and loser, and the world will assuredly wipe its feet on you. Get angry, and maybe you’ll glimpse, for the first time in your life, the light of the True Path. Everything you have been told by the powers-that-be is a lie, designed to pacify and sedate you, to make you docile, cowed and easily controlled, to ensure that you will never be a threat to the establishment. Get real. Get with the dialectic. Understand that you are in a fight to the finish, and the world is no place for cowards and the weak. This is No Country for the Spineless. Every single soul inhabiting a human body today got here over a mountain of corpses in previous lives. On earth, the human souls are the most savage of all. That’s true now and it was true in previous lives. The only thing that can save humans from bestiality is not “love” or “peace”, but reason.

***** Never listen to any gospel of weakness, only gospels of strength. Always be on a war footing. Never fear a fight. The dialectic is a cosmic fight, and

those with the strongest Will to Power are those most likely to become gods.

Irrationality Irrationality is a type of behaviour, and, like any other type of behaviour, it can be modified by operant conditioning techniques. The billions of people in the world who are irrational would become much less irrational if they were in societies that rewarded rational behaviour and penalised irrational behaviour. One of the greatest disasters to afflict the human race is religious faith – because this explicitly rewards irrationalism and penalises rationalism. By the same token, capitalist consumerism rewards irrational, exuberant consumerism, and always promotes dumbing down.

Strength Nietzsche railed against the demonization of the strong and the celebration of the weak. The task, as he rightly saw, is to build a world of exclusively strong people, not of exclusively weak people (which Christianity, Buddhism, Communism, New Ageism, and so on, all promote). In a strong world, everyone stands up for themselves, and that’s why everyone is fairly treated. The peddlers of the gospel of weakness want everyone to be passive and submissive, so no one will treat anyone badly. This would be a world wholly devoid of ambition and drive, and would inevitably result in humanity sliding back into the primordial ooze. Humanity must reach for the stars, and can only do so by being strong, determined, and greedy for success and glory. All of the people who condemn strength will be dialectically crushed by it. What kind of person aspires to be weak? Such a person could never be admired or respected under any circumstances. Perhaps the most perverse and perverted image there has ever been is that of “God” hanging on a cross, wearing a crown of thorns. “Jesus Christ” is the poster boy of weakness and victimhood. Every strong person has an instinctive revulsion for this Jewish rabbi and his weird religion. The weak and the slaves love him because they see him as an endorsement of their own feebleness and wholesale defeat in life.

The Buddha The Buddha is typically represented in one of the most pathetic poses imaginable, that of total passivity: a morbidly obese man sitting crosslegged, motionless, beneath a tree. Is this really what the multitudes associate with enlightenment?! God help us. Buddha is the opposite of an actualised, active, dynamic, powerful, assertive human being in complete command of his life. Buddha is the representative of passive submission, a state that has to be eliminated from the human condition. Gods are active, not passive.

Jesus Christ Jesus Christ is typically depicted as a tortured man dying on a cross. What kind of masochists would ever represent divinity in such terms? Again, we see passivity, submission and weakness being promoted as good. They’re not. We need a world of active people, actualised people, strong people, people who take no shit. Fuck the prophets, the gurus and the defeated “Messiahs”.

The Revolution “The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall.” – Che Guevara Will you make any apples fall, or are you waiting for them to fall themselves – in which case, who needs you?

Love? “What does it matter how many lovers you have if none of them gives you the universe?” – Jacques Lacan It’s all about getting the universe. Love won’t get it for us. Peace won’t get it for us. Faith won’t get it for us. “God” won’t get it for us. Feelings won’t get it for us. Sensations won’t get it for us. Mysticism won’t get it for us. Meditation won’t get it for us. Reason, intellect and knowledge will get it for us.

It’s staggering how many people refuse to accept this simple, selfevident fact. It’s staggering how many people loathe reason, and, above all, loathe mathematics, the sole foundation of all true knowledge. The reason is simple. Stupid people – the vast majority – always feel disempowered by intelligence, so they will do everything they can to stop the world being defined by reason, intelligence and knowledge. Smart people, not stupid people, landed men on the moon. Smart people can do astounding things. Stupid people can’t. There’s precious little difference between a stupid person and an ape. We currently live in the Planet of the Apes (the stupid). Isn’t it time the humans (the smart) took over?

The Identifier You can instantly identify what kind of nut job you are dealing with. They invariably “sign off” their posts with statements such as “Love and light”, “Peace”, “Love is the Law”, and so on. They never under any circumstances use the word reason. This word is as deadly to them as a silver bullet to a werewolf. They just can’t abide it. They are absolutely alienated from it. It repels them as strongly as an enormous force field. Everything they do is infected with emotionalism of the extremely soppy, bland, vanilla variety. How did Nietzsche sign off his autobiography? – “Have I been understood?” – Dionysos against the Crucified....” That’s much more like it. He signs off with a statement of dialectical conflict! He deploys the dazzling pagan God of Life, Intoxication and Power against the pathetic, lifeless, powerless Jewish rabbi. Yet Nietzsche was wrong. A higher wisdom reveals that he ought to have chosen Apollo, the God of Reason, to oppose the Abrahamists. It’s reason that delivers ultimate power. Reason landed men on the moon, not religious faith, and not wine and partying! Humanity, during the hours of work, must be Apollonian. Only at night, the time of play, should Dionysus be celebrated.

Appearances Empiricism = “knowledge” of appearance.

Rationalism = knowledge of what the appearance is actually an appearance of. One level of knowledge is illusory and the other true. Science is the science of appearances. Mathematics is the science of what’s really there: unperceivable noumena.

Seeing the Universals? Pierre Gassendi, a contemporary of Descartes, contested the classical view that we can know universals, claiming that we cannot perceive anything more than particulars in the world. However, perception via the senses has nothing to do with ultimate reality, so it’s irrelevant that we can’t perceive universals in the world. Universals are intelligible and rational, not sensory. We “perceive” them with the intellect, with reason. Gassendi and many others insisted that all knowledge comes from the senses. This is wholly false. Only knowledge of appearances comes to us via the senses, and we never get beyond the superficial. All empiricists are shallow, beguiled by surfaces, and unable to conceive that there’s anything beneath the skin, anything deep. Gassendi held the view, familiar from modern science, that there are no propositions that we can know with certainty, since, in his opinion, all propositions had to be judged as true or false on a strictly empirical basis, and empiricism can never deliver infallibility. Yet this is absurd as soon as we accept that we live in a rational rather than irrational world. A rational world can be explored in two ways: rationally or empirically, via the intellect or senses. An irrational world can’t be explored at all since it’s pure chaos. Anyone who endorses empiricism is already committing a fallacy since an empirical world is true solely if a rational world is true (no one could have any sensory experiences in an irrational world of permanent chaos). And, if a rational world is true, reason is the proper means to explore it, not the senses.

The Thinking Substance Gassendi, like many others, took issue with how the unextended mind posited by Descartes could attach itself to, or interact with, extended body. Descartes in fact denied that mind and body were attached. Likewise, in

Illuminism, mind and body are not attached: they are linked by the Fourier transform. It’s purely through mathematical means that they interact. In Illuminism, individual minds (monads) link to individual bodies. In Descartes’ system, there are two domains: the extended and the unextended. Since Descartes did not invoke monads, he was in real danger of implying that the entire mental world was an unextended unity (just as the material world was an extended unity), and this amounts to the Averroist panpsychic heresy that the world shares just one mind.

Light Atoms Gassendi believed that light was a property carried by particular atoms – atomi lucificae (“light-carrying atoms”). These, he said were identical with heat atoms. So, certain atoms convey heat and light.

The Battle “Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.” – Wittgenstein Wittgenstein’s intelligence was bewitched more by his senses than by language. Both are absolute sources of error, and, in fact, are extremely closely related since we construct our languages first and foremost on the basis of the objects and actions our senses reveal to us. The one thing that Wittgenstein refused to trust was his intelligence itself, expressed through rationalist mathematics!

Deduction, Induction, Abduction “There are three kinds of logical reasoning in logic: Deduction, Induction, and Abduction. Given a precondition, a conclusion, and a rule that the precondition implies the conclusion, they can be explained in the following way: “Deduction means determining the conclusion. It is using the rule and its precondition to make a conclusion. Example: ‘When it rains, the grass gets wet. It rains. Thus, the grass is wet.’ Mathematicians are commonly associated with this style of reasoning.

“It allows deriving b as a consequence of a. In other words, deduction is the process of deriving the consequences of what is assumed. Given the truth of the assumptions, a valid deduction guarantees the truth of the conclusion. A deductive statement is based on accepted truths. For example, all bachelors are unmarried men. It is true by definition and is independent of sense experience. “Induction means determining the rule. It is learning the rule after numerous examples of the conclusion following the precondition. Example: ‘The grass has been wet every time it has rained. Thus, when it rains, the grass gets wet.’ Scientists are commonly associated with this style of reasoning. “It allows inferring some a from multiple instantiations of b when a entails b. Induction is the process of inferring probable antecedents as a result of observing multiple consequents. An inductive statement requires perception for it to be true. For example, the statement, ‘it is snowing outside’ is invalid until one looks or goes outside to see whether it is true or not. Induction requires sense experience. “Abduction means determining the precondition. It is using the conclusion and the rule to assume that the precondition could explain the conclusion. Example: ‘When it rains, the grass gets wet. The grass is wet, it must have rained.” Diagnosticians and detectives are commonly associated with this style of reasoning. “It allows inferring a as an explanation of b. Because of this, abduction allows the precondition a of ‘a entails b’ to be inferred from the consequence b. Deduction and abduction thus differ in the direction in which a rule like ‘a entails b’ is used for inference. As such abduction is formally equivalent to the logical fallacy affirming the consequent or Post hoc ergo propter hoc, because there are multiple possible explanations for b. “Unlike deduction and induction, abduction can produce results that are incorrect within its formal system. However, it can still be useful as a heuristic, especially when something is known about the likelihood of different causes for b.” – http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Abductive_reasoning Deductive Syllogism All living human beings have a liver. (True)

Socrates is a living human being. (True) Therefore, Socrates has a liver. (True?? – but perhaps Socrates is undergoing a liver transplant!) Abductive Syllogism The lawn is wet. (True) Therefore, it rained last night. (Probably true, but someone might have used a sprinkler on the grass.) Inductive Syllogism All swans known to observer X are white. (True, but this does not mean that all swans are necessarily white). X is a swan. (True) X is white. (Not guaranteed to be true).

Rules, Cases and Results All the beans from this bag are white. (Rule) These beans are from this bag. (Case) Therefore, these beans are white. (Result) If the Result is exchanged with the Rule, a deductively invalid syllogism is generated that can be regarded as an inductive generalisation: These beans are white. (Result) These beans are from this bag. (Case) Therefore, all the beans from this bag are white. (Rule) Exchanging the Result with the Case generates an abductive syllogism: All the beans from this bag are white. (Rule) These beans are white. (Result) Therefore, these beans are from this bag. (Case)

Deductive Syllogism Major premise: All humans are mortal. Minor premise: Socrates is human. Conclusion: Socrates is mortal. Abductive Syllogism Major premise: The jar is filled with yellow marbles. Minor premise: I have a yellow marble in my hand. Conclusion: The yellow marble was taken out of the jar. Abductive reasoning is the third form of logical reasoning and is similar to inductive reasoning since the conclusions drawn are based on probabilities rather than certainties. In abductive reasoning, it’s presumed that the most plausible conclusion is also the correct one.

***** Deduction: Rule, Case, Result. Induction: Result, Case, Rule. (Inversion of Deduction.) Abduction: Rule, Result, Case. (Swapping the Deductive order of Case and Result.) Induction Every swan known to observer X is white. (Specific) Therefore, all swans are white. (General) There is no eternal necessity in swans being white, but empiricism, which is heavily dependent on induction, regards sweeping generalisations as true until they are falsified. This is no route to absolute, infallible knowledge.

Reasoning Deductive reasoning (deduction) allows deriving b from a only where b is a formal logical consequence of a. Inductive reasoning (induction) allows

inferring b from a, where b does not follow necessarily from a. Abductive reasoning (abduction) allows inferring a as an explanation of b. Deduction, induction and abduction are the three major types of inference. In deductive inferences, what is inferred is necessarily true if the premises from which it is inferred are true. In inductive inferences, what is inferred in not necessarily true. Charles Sanders Peirce was the first to divide non-necessary inferences into inductive and abductive categories. Where induction involves inferring a general law or principle from observed particular instances, abduction involves inferring an explanation from observed particular instances. Abductive inferences have been called the cornerstone of the scientific method and to provide the predominant mode of reasoning in medical diagnosis. Scientists look for the best explanation given the observed facts, while physicians prefer the hypothesis that best explains the patient’s symptoms.

***** “Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic or logical deduction or, informally, ‘top-down’ logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion. “Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.” – Wikipedia “Deductive reasoning (top-down logic) contrasts with inductive reasoning (bottom-up logic) in the following way: In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules that hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion is left. In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is reached by generalizing or extrapolating from initial information. As a result, induction can be used even in an open domain, one where there is epistemic uncertainty. Note, however, that the inductive reasoning mentioned here is not the same as induction used in mathematical proofs – mathematical induction is actually a form of deductive reasoning.” – Wikipedia

*****

Deduction relates to Rationalism, Form and Truths of Reason. Induction and abduction relate to Empiricism, Content, and “Truths” of Fact.

Inference to the Best Explanation Abduction is now commonly referred to as “Inference to the Best Explanation.” Gilbert Harman introduced this term, but it does not exactly match the original notion of abduction proposed by Charles Sanders Peirce, which has been described as the free creation of hypotheses that generate predictions, which can be tested by further observations. Harman wrote, “The inference to the best explanation corresponds approximately to what others have called ‘abduction,’ ‘the method of hypothesis,’ ‘hypothetic inference,’ ‘the method of elimination,’ ‘eliminative induction,’ and ‘theoretical inference.’ I prefer my own terminology because I believe that it avoids most of the misleading suggestions of the alternative terminologies. In making this inference one infers, from the fact that a certain hypothesis would explain the evidence, to the truth of that hypothesis. In general, there will be several hypotheses which might explain the evidence, so one must be able to reject all such alternative hypotheses before one is warranted in making the inference. Thus one infers, from the premise that a given hypothesis would provide a ‘better’ explanation for the evidence than would any other hypothesis, to the conclusion that the given hypothesis is true.”

***** The trouble with “inference to best explanation” – the bedrock of scientific thinking – is that it invariably reflects dogma, ideology, paradigms and even religions. For example, Abrahamists believe that their “God” is the best explanation for all the facts of the world. That you cannot find alternative explanations persuasive to you does not make these alternatives false – unless they are provably false. Science rejects rationalist “hidden variables” that would make quantum mechanics objective and deterministic rather than subjective and indeterministic. The only reason for this rejection is that hidden variables refute the centrepiece of science: the empiricist scientific method. If hidden variables are true, the scientific method can say nothing about them precisely because they are hidden, hence unavailable to experimentation.

Once hidden variables are admitted, science becomes an entirely different subject. In fact, it turns into ontological mathematics. So, the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the “inference to best explanation” within the conventional paradigm of science, based on the empiricist scientific method. It is not the inference to best explanation in any absolute sense. Completely different “best explanations” can be offered that reflect different paradigms. Therefore, the whole notion of “best explanation” dissolves into subjectivity, opinion, belief, dogma, interpretation and conjecture. This means that it is not the best explanation, but, rather, just a speculative explanation generated within a certain schema that is itself hotly contested. The “best” explanation is philosophical or even religious, and certainly not anything in which we can place our absolute confidence. In Illuminism, the best explanation must in fact be the only explanation, i.e. the one that reflects the principle of sufficient reason, which fully explains why a fact is thus and not otherwise. When a scientist refers to the “best explanation”, you can be sure it isn’t!

“Leading” Deduction – leading down (to logically infer using a top-down process). Abduction – leading away (to take away the best inference). Induction – leading into (to persuade by observation and sensory evidence).

The Voice of Reason? The Voice of Reason: “Ontological Mathematics remains an irrelevant model, irrespective of its truth. What’s relevant to my life is the set of things I can actually experience.” Thus speaks an out-and-out empiricist. It’s bizarre that this person selfdescribes as the “voice of reason” when in fact he’s the absolute opposite of a rationalist. He should refer to himself as “The voice of my own narrow experience” or “The voice of my own particular, limited perspective” or “The voice of solipsism” or “The voice of relativism” or “The voice of fantasy” or “The voice of empiricism”. He should deny that he’s making

any general points whatsoever, or anything that could ever be relevant to anyone else. When you become a fanatical empiricist, you ipso facto enter into solipsism. The only thing about which you are qualified to speak is your own experience and perspective, and you can’t even assume the existence of other people since that itself is a non-empirical inference, i.e. you have no direct evidence that other people exist. You may have imagined them or dreamt them. How would you know? Schizophrenics can generate hallucinated voices that seem absolutely real to them. Why not visible hallucinations too, including whole worlds? Why do people say they are rational when they are not? How thoroughly peculiar. Ontological mathematics is the common ground of existence. It’s the set of all eternal universals and reflects the principle of sufficient reason in its entirety. To say that ontological mathematics is irrelevant to you is like saying that your breathing and heartbeat are irrelevant because, 99.9% of the time, you don’t actually experience them. Or like saying that the moon doesn’t exist when you’re not observing it. It’s amazing how people can argue themselves into a corner of solipsistic madness ... and claim that they are being rational while they do so. If all you are concerned with is your own experience and perspective, you might as well believe in anything at all ... whatever allows you to waffle on absurdly about your narcissistic, subjective world that contains no objective facts and is built on nothing but your own prejudices and biases. Become an existentialist and drone on self-pityingly about absurdism, being “forced to be free” and being cast adrift in a meaningless, hostile universe that cares nothing for you. Ontological mathematics is provably true. Therefore, it’s neither falsifiable nor verifiable. There is nothing you can do to falsify 1 + 1 = 2. There is no experiment you can perform that verifies, rather than proves, that 1 + 1 = 2. 1 + 1 = 2 has nothing whatsoever to do with observations and experiments. 1 + 1 = 2 is an eternal truth of reason. Many people struggle with the whole notion that Truth can never be falsified or verified. Yet that’s exactly why it’s eternal Truth. All you can do with eternal truths is prove them, and you do so by demonstrating that they are part of the ontological mathematical system of analytic tautology. Anything which is not part of that eternal tautological system can never be eternally True.

Only beliefs and opinions, not Truths, can be falsified or verified. They can be absolutely falsified, but never absolutely verified.

***** The Voice of Reason: “The Truth is irrelevant to my life.” What an astounding admission! The Voice of Reason might as well have said that Reason is irrelevant to his life, which rather begs the question of why he has chosen such an inappropriate name for himself. 99.9% of people have experienced life without ever coming into contact with the truth. Has that been good for them? Is it better for your life experiences to be conditioned by truth or by lies and delusions? Your choice! Is a world of absolute consensus, harmony, peace and love (which, beneath all the bluster, is what the “Voice of Reason” aspires to) – which is based on absolute falsehood, delusion, faith and fantasy – a world worth having, a world worth living in? The search for truth, for Absolute Truth, is the strongest drive of all in a certain type of person, and they will never accept a happy clappy world of comforting lies that would suit the “Voice of Reason” down to the ground. All he cares about, by his own admission, are his experiences. So, why not just hook him up to the Matrix, or some Happy Machine and let him have nothing but happy delusions for eternity in a virtual reality! Given his “philosophy”, he would have nothing to complain about, would he?

***** The Truth sets you free. The Truth allows you to understand the universe and your place in it. The Truth provides you with the significance and meaning of your life. The Truth tells you what your purpose is. The Truth tells you what is going to happen to you. The Truth tells you what the world and other people will try to do to you. The Truth reveals the secret of “death” to you, and the secret of eternity. Nothing can change your life and be more relevant to you than the Truth!

*****

One of New Age guru Ken Wilber’s mottos is, “Everyone is Right.” This is exactly what the “Voice of Reason” would say, and no doubt Ken Wilber would regard himself as very much the Voice of Reason. Yet Wilber could equally have said, “Everyone is Wrong.” Plainly, if people who make wholly contradictory claims are all “right” then there is in fact no right answer. We are plunged into a world of utter relativism. Everyone is right and, equally, everyone is wrong because there’s no absolute standard to be reached, no correct answer. Everyone has “a truth of their life”, which is true for them (but not for anyone else). No one knows more than anyone else. No one is more rational than anyone else. Intelligence is wiped out since the genius is no more right than the village idiot. People such as Wilber and the “Voice of Reason” reduce the world to an idiocracy. They have supreme contempt for reason, knowledge and Truth. Anyone who claims that all religions contain an element of truth is just mad. It’s more or less impossible to find any real truth in any mainstream religion. They are just stories – Mythos. How can storytelling reveal the secrets of ultimate existence to us?! Yet the Voice of Reason would prefer a good story any day over a hard Truth that seems to have no relevance to his experiences.

Education “Education is simply the soul of a society as it passes from one generation to another.” – G.K. Chesterton Education is indeed the “soul” of society, and the better the education system, the better is society’s soul. Everything that opposes rational education – especially religious faith – must be eradicated for the sake of the health of society’s soul. All relativistic claims that “everyone is right” are, of course, profoundly hostile to education and devalue it to the greatest degree possible. If education counts for anything then the best educated are for more soulful and useful to society than the poorly educated. Who are the people who are most motivated to say, “Everyone is right”? – all those who reject the value of education and believe that feelings, love, faith, mystical intuition, and so on are just as valid, if not more so, than reason and ontological mathematics.

The Platonic Form of Tolerance All tolerant people partake, we might say, of the Platonic Form of Tolerance. The one thing with which this Form can have no connection with is its opposite – the Form of Intolerance. No tolerant person can tolerate intolerance (the opposite Form). In fact, what defines a tolerant person is intolerance towards intolerance because that is the sole basis for tolerance. By the same token, a good person cannot partake of evil. He must be good towards everything except evil. Towards evil, he must be evil in order to eliminate it. Whatever you stand for, you must be the opposite towards everything that is the opposite of what you stand for. Every person who stands for tolerance must ipso facto be intolerant towards intolerance. Every good person must ipso facto be evil towards evil.

The Reward: Knowledge versus Ignorance The reward for Knowledge is that you get to be God billions of years ahead of the game. The punishment for ignorance is that you become God only at the very last instant of the Cosmic Age. You’re the last to arrive at the party, just as it’s finishing!

Life If existence is the objective flow of information, life, as we know it, is the subjective experience of this flow of information. Consciousness is the capacity to reflect on both the subjective experience and objective actuality of the flow of information. The flow of information is ontological mathematics, the source of determinism and causation.

***** Love, for all the poetry written about it, and all the tears of ecstasy and misery shed over it, is just information being experienced in a certain way. Hate is just information, as are the deadly sins and cardinal virtues. All the affairs of the heart are just information. Feelings are information, and intuitions, and sensations, and thought, and reason. There is nothing but

information. This is an informational universe, and of all it is conveyed mathematically.

The Biggest Lie The biggest lie in history is that there is a Creator, and that the Jews are his Chosen People. This is Jewish Content (Jewish propaganda), and nothing to do with eternal Form. Don’t believe the propaganda, especially your own!

Success “Successful” people are those who are skilled at generating fanaticism in others, and then exploiting that fanaticism. Religion makes a certain type of person fanatical. They will do anything for their religion, including murder. The prototype of the religious fanatic is Abraham, the ancestor and patriarch of all Inquisitors, torturers, persecutors, Crusaders, Jihadists, suicide bombers and terrorists. Abraham was the world’s first psychopath, and religious faith appeals most to psychopaths. Money makes a certain type of person fanatical. They will do anything for money, including murdering, stealing, intimidating, lying and covering up. “Entrepreneurs”, free-market capitalists, libertarians, Randroids, bankers and CEOs of corporations, are all fanatics of Mammon, the religion of money and greed. Psychopaths love money and the power it brings. Drugs make a certain type of person fanatical. They will do anything for their hit, for their high. They will murder, rob, intimidate, lie and cover up. Sex makes a certain type of person fanatical. They will do anything for lust, even murder, rape, lie and cover up. Celebrity worship makes a certain type of person fanatical. They will do anything for their chosen celebrity. They regard their celebrity as their earthly divinity who can do no wrong. Religion, money, sex, drugs and celebrity drive the world. These are all associated with feelings and sensations, with Mythos. Logos does not inspire fanaticism. Scientists, mathematicians, philosophers and people of reason do not pick up pitchforks! There are no Armies of Reason striding over the world. More’s the pity. People of Logos frequently talk themselves out of action and are thus guilty of tolerating the intolerant, of accepting the irrational. Consider these

remarks by Carl Sagan: “In the way that scepticism is sometimes applied to issues of public concern, there is a tendency to belittle, to condescend, to ignore the fact that, deluded or not, supporters of superstition and pseudoscience are human beings with real feelings, who, like the sceptics, are trying to figure out how the world works and what our role in it might be. Their motives are in many cases consonant with science. If their culture has not given them all the tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us temper our criticism with kindness. None of us comes fully equipped.” This is the voice of nauseating weakness – of the archetypal liberal “last man” who seeks an easy life and refuses to confront and have a conflict with the clear enemy, with a clear and present danger. When a Jihadist is standing over someone like Sagan, ready to chop off his head, only then will that Sagan clone wake up and smell the coffee. When did the Inquisition, the Crusaders, the Witch burners, the persecutors and Jihadists ever extend any kindness, sympathy and understanding to their enemies? If you don’t treat them as they would certainly treat you, you’ll be the dead ones! It’s time for the people of Logos to become fanatical and to deal with their deranged enemies once and for all. The question could not be simpler. Do you want humanity to evolve and have a divine future, or not? That outcome will never happen if we allow the religious and financial maniacs, the legions of psychopaths, to go on ruling the world. It’s literally insane that the human race should still be full of people worshipping ancient, pre-scientific Mythos texts from thousands of years ago. This is the very definition of the failure to evolve. Evolution demands that Higher Humanity takes action against Lower Humanity, or the latter will go on forever, or, rather until humanity becomes extinct, which it surely will with these lunatics in charge. Don’t delude yourselves. This is a fight to the death. The last person Logos humanity needs is Carl Sagan with his liberal bleatings. Logos humanity must become radical. It’s incredible that scientists blabber on about Darwinian evolution and natural selection and yet they bend over backwards not to take the hard, harsh actions that are the basis of evolution. The Abrahamic Fundamentalists – anti-Darwinists to the last man – are infinitely more Darwinian than the scientists. They always instinctively understood the true message of Darwinism: exterminate the opposition!

Why do we still live in a stupid world of Mythos, of Abrahamism and Karmism? It’s because these systems have ruthlessly and savagely promoted their own interests, destroying the opposition and controlling every aspect of people’s lives. Nothing will ever change unless smart people change it, and that means taking decisive action against the Old World Order, against all the forces of the dead past. Abrahamism and Karmism will not exist in a thousand years’ time. Why don’t we finish them off now? Are we waiting for smarter people, with a stronger will to power, to do the dirty work for us? How sad, how pathetic, how liberal. The great Thomas Jefferson said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Never a truer word spoken. Rather Jefferson any day than Sagan. The task is not to “understand” and “relate” to the enemy. The task is to do to them what they would do to us: forcibly convert us or annihilate us. If that’s too horrific for you, go and smoke dope under a tree, rub your big belly and pretend to yourself that you’re “enlightened”. No, you’re just dumb, weak and cowardly – a natural-born slave. Rousseau famously said, “In order then that the social compact may not be an empty formula, it tacitly includes the undertaking, which alone can give force to the rest, that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free...” Logos humanity must force Mythos humanity to be free, or deal with them accordingly.

***** “The annihilation of the decaying races. Decay of Europe. The annihilation of slavish evaluations. Dominion over the earth as a means of producing a higher type. The annihilation of the tartuffery [hypocrisy] called ‘morality.’ . . . The annihilation of suffrage universel; i.e., the system through which the lowest natures prescribe themselves as laws for the higher. The annihilation of mediocrity and its acceptance.” – Nietzsche The question is simple – Last Man or Superman? What’s it to be? What will you choose? The Last Men are forever condemning the Supermen and calling them “monsters”, but what do the latter care? The future is theirs.

For any intellectual movement to succeed it must become utterly Nietzschean and demonstrate an unprecedented Will to Power, such as only the Gods are capable of. Do you think you become divine by preaching weakness, pacifism and love? Grow up. The Abrahamic God showed no mercy to his enemies, and no mercy must be shown to him.

The Madness ‘Religion, with its metaphysical error of absolute guilt, dominated the broadest, the cosmic realm. From there, it infiltrated the subordinate realms of biological, social and moral existence with its errors of the absolute and inherited guilt. Humanity, split up into millions of factions, groups, nations and states, lacerated itself with mutual accusations. “The Greeks are to blame,” the Romans said, and “The Romans are to blame,” the Greeks said. So they warred against one another. “The ancient Jewish priests are to blame,” the early Christians shouted. “The Christians have preached the wrong Messiah,” the Jews shouted and crucified the harmless Jesus. “The Muslims and Turks and Huns are guilty,” the crusaders screamed. “The witches and heretics are to blame,” the later Christians howled for centuries, murdering, hanging, torturing and burning heretics. It remains to investigate the sources from which the Jesus legend derives its grandeur, emotional power and perseverance. ‘Let us continue to stay outside this St. Vitus dance. The longer we look around, the crazier it seems. Hundreds of minor patriarchs, self-proclaimed kings and princes, accused one another of this or that sin and made war, scorched the land, brought famine and epidemics to the populations. Later, this became known as “history.” And the historians did not doubt the rationality of this history. ‘Gradually the common people appeared on the scene. “The Queen is to blame,” the people’s representatives shouted, and beheaded the Queen. Howling, the populace danced around the guillotine. From the ranks of the people arose Napoleon. “The Austrians, the Prussians, the Russians are to blame,” it was now said. “Napoleon is to blame,” came the reply. “The machines are to blame!” the weavers screamed, and “The lumpenproletariat is to blame,” sounded back. “The Monarchy is to blame, long live the

Constitution!” the burgers shouted. “The middle classes and the Constitution are to blame; wipe them out; long live the Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” the proletarian dictators shout, and “The Russians are to blame,” is hurled back. “Germany is to blame,” the Japanese and the Italians shouted in 1915. “England is to blame,” the fathers of the proletarians shouted in 1939. And “Germany is to blame,” the self-same fathers shouted in 1942. “Italy, Germany and Japan are to blame,” it was said in 1940. ‘It is only by keeping strictly outside this inferno that one can be amazed that the human animal continues to shriek “Guilty!” without doubting its own sanity, without even once asking about the origin of this guilt. Such mass psychoses have an origin and a function. Only human beings who are forced to hide something catastrophic are capable of erring so consistently and punishing so relentlessly any attempt at clarifying such errors.”’ – Wilhelm Reich There is only one way to end the madness – through the rule of reason. It’s Mythos that drives people to lunacy. Logos is the antidote and cure, yet in order to bring about a Logos world, Logos humanity will have no alternative but to enter into a Final Solution regarding those who refuse to be free and sane. While these recusants prevail, humanity will always be mad. Only when they are defeated forever will humanity be rational and sane. Just as the tolerant must never tolerate intolerance (or thus be implicated themselves in intolerance), so the rational must never tolerate unreason or they themselves are guilty of irrationalism.

***** The world is awaiting a critical mass of smart people. Imagine a city where 90% of the population were smart rather than the usual situation of 90% of the people being stupid. What couldn’t such a city – Meritocratic City – accomplish? Everything would be possible. It would soon rapidly outstrip all other cities and be a New Atlantis (City of Knowledge) rather than a New Jerusalem (City of Faith). Eventually, it would be all-powerful, a glittering citadel amongst mud huts. The sacred task is to bring about the union of all smart people under one banner, and to dictate terms to the rest of the world. Our way, or the

highway! How do we identify the smart people? Well, everyone who has read the God Series is smart. You couldn’t read these books if you were stupid or infected with faith. Erich von Däniken wrote of aliens coming to our world and being treated as the Gods. What if there were no aliens, simply Logos humans who became so much more advanced than Mythos humanity that the latter started worshipping them as Gods – as the Olympian deities. The Olympian race – Logos Humanity – lived in Sky City, far above the Mythos mob, and this shining city became the template for “heaven”.

The Truth The Truth is true for all time. Only the truths of ontological mathematics qualify. It has always been true that 1 + 1 = 2, and no sane person can dispute this truth. All religious, philosophical and scientific ideas can be, and are, fiercely contested because there’s nothing eternally, analytically and necessarily true about any of these assertions. Ontological mathematics doesn’t require, or depend upon, any observers, measurements, or experience. It’s entirely a priori. It doesn’t require, love, faith, meditation, revelation or anything else. It’s strictly about Form, and not about Content. Philosophy has always been about the attempt to discover the universal truth that explains all particular truths. It turns out that ontological mathematics – defined by the God Equation – is this universal, eternal Truth. Science’s putative Grand Unified Theory of Everything seeks to sum up the universe in one equation. But this task has already been accomplished ... it’s the God Equation! It’s a mathematical, not scientific, summation of existence.

Five “Truths” 1) Nothing is true: nihilism and skepticism. 2) Feelings are true: Abrahamism. 3) Mystical intuitions are true: Eastern religion.

4) The senses are true: science, empiricism, materialism, physics, the phenomenal. 5) Reason is true: mathematics, rationalism, idealism, metaphysics, the noumenal, the principle of sufficient reason. Well, which side are you on? Only one side is right: the side that supports reason. There is no relativity. Each side doesn’t partake of the Form of Truth. It’s all or nothing. It’s winner takes all. There is only one Truth, not several.

Extraversion Empiricism and materialism are inherently extraverted. They are about looking out at the observable world, which they assume is a real, external, non-mental thing. They wholly ignore any internal, intuitive, non-sensory world. Neuroscientists are incapable of conceiving that there’s a non-sensory, immaterial mind controlling the physical brain. It’s literally the last thing that would ever occur to them, or they would ever believe. Their brains are wired wrongly to understand the mind. If you work with the physical brain all the time, it’s self-evident that you are not likely to grasp that there’s something else that controls the brain (an immaterial, dimensionless, monadic soul) that is not itself part of the brain, but which can link to it, animate it and utilize it. The most powerful minds are introverted, intuitive, thinking minds, and these have no difficulty in comprehending that minds are outside space and time, hence beyond the reach of the scientific method, and that matter itself is simply a mental phenomenon. The brain “blob” is not a physical object at all, but a mental object that we perceive as physical. Scientists, above all, are slaves of “common sense”, yet it was Einstein who said, “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.” It’s a pity that the rest of the science community didn’t listen to him. Scientists are ruled by sensory prejudices that they simply cannot overcome, and cannot think beyond. They are unable to think outside of the

sensory box. Yet the stark fact remains that ultimate reality is not sensible but intelligible.

The “Wisdom” of Captain Nemo Thomas Nemo: “If you set out to prove that every night at midnight a troupe of invisible pink elephants comes flying out of your ass (because that’s your dearest dream), you will eventually find proof. Just keep on denying the obvious and inventing baseless abstractions. My advice is to make the lie absolutely preposterous and complex, so no one will ever succeed at staying awake long enough reading it, to actually succeed in verifying anything. Ambiguity also is your friend. Keep up the selfdeception, folks!” Here speaks a total moron. Captain Nemo subscribes to the following Facebook groups: “Global Campaign for Ron Paul”; “Anarchy”; “Psychonauts”; “Pantheism”. Well, we’ve certainly got his number! He’s not in any danger of being a rationalist, is he? Reason is the thing that terrifies him most of all. He projects that fear, that terror, onto the world. All stupid people flee from mathematics and reason. Mathematics and reason stop all of their bullshit. You actually have to know what you’re talking about to make mathematical and rational statements, and that’s no good to the likes of Captain Nemo. Bullshit is his best friend. It’s he who lives in a fantasy world of invisible pink elephants (how can they be pink if they’re invisible?). In a system of rationalism, only rational assertions can be proved, and anything else is nonsense. “Keep on denying the obvious” says Captain Nemo ... and what, er, might that be? It plainly isn’t obvious – except to him, the great solipsist. If only Captain Nemo were right and everything were as obvious as he claims, there would be no disputes in the world. But, as we know, Nemo doesn’t live in the real world. Good dope, man. Why don’t you have another puff? The invisible pink elephants might fly right up your ass, exactly where you want them to be. Anyone who uses a phrase such as “baseless abstractions” demonstrates that they are empiricists to the core, and simply incapable of understanding what existence is and what mathematics is. The real baseless abstraction is that matter exists independently of mind. Even within the strictest

empiricist, materialist philosophy, it’s impossible to prove the existence of matter.

The Contest What people regard as true has no connection with any actual truth, but, rather, with a popularity contest. Easy lies are much more popular than hard truths, so humanity overwhelmingly favours lies. Virtually every belief held by every human being is provably false, yet it doesn’t matter. People such as Captain Nemo will never abandon their delusions.

Newton Newton, so revered by scientists, was described by a contemporary as “artificial, unkind, arrogant”. Well, you never get to the top of anything by being nice.

Fundamental Reality All fundamental things are noumenal and are never accessible to the scientific method (which deals only with phenomena). Science is simply not fit for purpose when it comes to explaining ultimate reality. Physics must give way to metaphysics. The Singularity – outside physics, outside space and time, outside matter – is true, eternal, noumenal reality. It is the Form of Existence. Science prefers that reality should be based on chance and accident rather than on rational, eternal Form.

Anti-Realism Empiricism asserts that knowledge can exist only at the point of experience. If you’re not experiencing it, you cannot know it, so, when you’re not experiencing the world, you cannot know it that it’s even there. If you nevertheless accept its continued existence, you are drawing an unempirical assumption, to which you are not entitled if you are a consistent empiricist. In empiricist terms, you can have absolutely no knowledge of the unobserved, the unperceived, the unexperienced.

The philosophically illiterate Copenhagen worldview – the position of the scientific establishment – asserts that knowledge exists only at the point of observation or measurement, but then posits that the unobserved world (which, rationally, is an incoherent concept in empiricism since, in this ideology, anything that is not perceived does not exist) comprises an unreal mathematical wavefunction that contains all of the possible outcomes that any observation or measurement is capable of producing. The Copenhagen attitude is ultra-empiricist, and yet invokes a wavefunction that is 100% unempirical, thus rendering the Copenhagen interpretation inconsistent, incoherent and irrational. Scientist John Bell said that most scientists believe in an objective reality that exists when they are not observing it, and will exist after their death (when they are incapable of any observations or experiences at all). Functionally, all scientists do indeed behave as if they accept a reality principle, and yet, bizarrely and irrationally, the overwhelming majority also subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation, which rejects the reality principle wholesale. This demonstrates that scientists are in general philosophical ignoramuses who aren’t concerned about how incoherent their views are. “Shut up and calculate!” they like to say, meaning that they don’t much care what their views mean provided they can perform calculations, write papers on them, achieve practical success in the world and advance their careers. Science is anti-philosophy philosophy, and that’s a very peculiar beast indeed.

Episodic Reality Empiricism, the basis of science, is about episodic reality. Something exists while you are experiencing it, then ceases to exist when you are not experiencing it, then resumes existence when you observe it again. That’s the strict logic of empiricism. That’s what you get when you claim that experience is the be-all-and-end-all, the only valid source of “knowledge”. That’s why empiricism is so hostile to causation and determinism, which require a continuous reality. Only rationalism is consistent with the doctrine of continuous rather than episodic existence. Rationalism has no reliance

whatsoever on experience, measurement or observations, or some bizarre, unreal, abstract mathematical wavefunction. The “paradox” of Schrödinger’s cat is formally meaningless within the rationalist worldview because the cat – as a living entity – does not vanish into a non-living cat wavefunction just because you put it in a box (where it allegedly becomes entangled with the wavefunction of a poison capsule which has a 50/50 chance of being activated). Anyone who teaches this silly nonsense is expressing a belief in extremist, anti-realist empiricism. Anyone who takes it seriously is just as stupid. This “paradox” is exclusively concerned with philosophy and has no connection at all with science. It’s all about epistemology, and, in particular, whether knowledge exists only at the point of experience, or whether knowledge pertains to a reality that exists independently of our experience of any such reality. The Schrödinger’s cat paradox says that we can’t know the state of the unobserved cat, so we have to replace our knowledge of the cat with knowledge of something else – a cat wavefunction, which describes all potential states the cat might have, taking into account the states that the poison capsule might have too. Yet, given the empiricist ideology, we have absolutely no reason to accept that any such cat wavefunction exists since it’s wholly unobservable and unexperienced! The rationalist, on the other hand, refuses to replace an unobserved real cat with an unreal cat wavefunction since the rationalist never subscribed in the first place to the empiricist belief that knowledge must be experienced. The rationalist, accepting the reality principle, causation and determinism, knows that if he put a cat in a box then the cat remains in the box and does not vanish into unreality, into a potentiality wavefunction. Observations of the cat have nothing to do with its continued existence. If the box is opened, the real cat will be found dead or alive, depending on whether or not an unseen deterministic process caused the poison to be released. Knowledge/ reality, in other words, exists independently of us. The fact that the cat died because poison was released was a potentially knowable thing. We could, for example, have used a transparent box and simply watched the whole sequence of events, or attached a heart monitor to the cat, or whatever. Even if we did no such thing, the reality principle tells us that the cat died if the poison was triggered, and we will find out if that did indeed happen the moment we open the box, i.e. the fact had already happened and was already knowable before we came to know it. According to the

Copenhagen school, the fact was unknowable before we looked in the box, and, indeed, it was the very act of opening the box that produced the outcome of living or dead cat (!). The doctrine of objective reality says that the living cat remains exactly what it is while it’s in the box. If a deterministic event causes the poison to be released, the cat will die. Otherwise, it won’t. It really is that simple. There’s no mystery. There’s no paradox. When you open the box, you will find either a living cat or a dead cat. Well, what else did you expect? When you closed the box, nothing vanished into the twilight zone. Nothing became “unreal”. A living cat wasn’t replaced by a mathematical abstraction of probabilities. This suggestion by the Copenhagen school is more or less insane. Not only does it contradict objective reality, it’s not even valid in terms of empiricism since, in this ideology, no one can refer to anything at all when it’s not being perceived. To recap, rationalism says that there are knowable things that we don’t know because we haven’t yet extracted the knowledge. There are many hidden variables that we can’t yet access, and maybe we never will. Nevertheless, the whole of reality is in principle knowable at each and every instant, even if, practically, we will never gain such knowledge. Copenhagen empiricism says that there are no knowable things prior to the extraction of knowledge, and it is this very extraction process that creates knowledge. Where the rationalist says that unobserved reality is knowable but not yet known to us, the Copenhagen empiricist says that unobserved reality is in principle unknowable and what we must do is simply list the entire potentiality of the unobserved world via an unreal wavefunction. Our observations collapse the wavefunction and convert unreality into reality, potentiality into actuality. The rationalist insists that reality is always real, actual and generating knowable facts. The Copenhagen empiricist insists that reality exists only at the point of experience, and reality is otherwise replaced by unreality, actuality by potentiality, and there are no facts being generated until we ourselves cause them to be generated by means of our observations. Now, the advocates of Copenhagen empiricism cannot disprove the existence of objective reality, nor prove the “existence” of an unreal potentiality wavefunction (and what does it even mean to claim that reality is underpinned by unreality?), so why should this claim be taken seriously even within its own terms? The plain truth is that it’s chosen for ideological,

philosophical reasons, not for scientific reasons. Without this ideology, hidden variables would have to be accepted into science, and these would belong to rationalist rather than empiricist philosophy, and they would demonstrate that the scientific method and the human senses can never reveal the secrets of ultimate reality. The Copenhagen school preferred to abandon objective reality rather than abandon the scientific method and human senses as the determinant of what is real. Rationalists preferred to preserve objective reality and proclaim the limits of the scientific method and the human senses. What do you prefer? If you are a rationalist, the Schrödinger’s cat paradox has literally no truth value at all. It has no connection with reality and tells us nothing about reality. All it does is perfectly frame the crazy philosophy of Copenhagen empiricism. This paradox should absolutely never be taught as science, but should feature only in philosophy class as an excellent thought experiment to reveal the attitudes of fanatical empiricists towards reality, determinism and causation. The fact that we don’t currently know certain things does not mean that they are in principle unknowable. The fact that we know things when we perform observations does not mean that our observations cause knowledge to come into existence and that knowledge doesn’t exist without our observations. Does reality create knowable things that we don’t know (i.e., the problem is with our lack of knowledge, not with the lack of knowable things), or do we create the reality of knowable things by virtue of our observations? In this latter view, all knowable facts are observable facts. There are no unobservable facts, no unobservable knowables: knowledge simply comprises the collection of particular observable facts. There is no other knowledge. Since zero and infinity are unobservable, and negative, imaginary and complex numbers too, this means that empiricism denies that mathematics constitutes knowledge. Rationalism says that there are knowable things we happen not to know yet, while empiricism says that there are no knowable facts that we don’t know because we create all knowable facts with our observations. (In this view, therefore, scientific theories do not constitute “knowledge” since they are not observable facts but merely contingent predictions!)

Rationalism says that reality exists independently of observers while empiricism says that reality is observer-constructed. Which is the more rational stance?! Do we create reality with our observations or do we inhabit reality that continues regardless of our observations and of us? Science once accepted the latter view and now believes the former, an unprecedented 100% volte-face. In fact, the difference between rationalism and empiricism is even more profound since rationalism trades in eternal truths of reason and regards these as true knowledge, while empiricism trades in temporal truths of fact and regards these as true knowledge. In other words, rationalism does not accept truths of fact as constituting proper knowledge and empiricism does not accept truths of reason as constituting proper knowledge. All truths of fact are highly interpretive and very far from unarguably true. They deal with contingent Content rather than necessary Form. We can know, rationally, the entire basis of eternal existence, and it’s presented to us via ontological mathematics. This is the only authentic, infallible, absolute knowledge. Science is a bizarre, irrational system whereby extreme empiricism is adopted at the point of observation or measurement and then an antiempiricist and also anti-realist stance is adopted to “explain” what is happening prior to observation or measurement. Science posits that an unreal, potentiality world – described by an abstract mathematical wavefunction – underpins the real world of actuality (observations, experiences and measurements), and actuality is plucked from potentiality, reality from unreality. This does not reflect any notion of continuous objective reality. It does not reflect a reality principle. It does not reflect the principle of sufficient reason. Science has become a weird, anti-realist, indeterministic dogmatism that doesn’t make any sense and consistently contradicts itself. It’s crazy how such a ludicrous, irrational system has become so widely accepted. Ontological mathematics asserts that objective reality is true at all times, whether perceived or not. Measurements don’t define reality. Observers are not required for actual things to be happening. Ontological mathematics posits an eternal, noumenal, causative, deterministic mathematical order that constitutes absolute reality. Observations, experiences and measurements relate to the phenomenal order, and the phenomenal is always underpinned by the noumenal, the physical by the metaphysical.

Rather than accept a real, noumenal, metaphysical order of existence, underpinning all phenomena, science claims that the phenomena are the true reality and they are underpinned by unempirical “unreality”. Well, what would you rather have? – phenomenal (observable) reality underpinned by noumenal (unobservable) reality, or phenomenal (observable) reality underpinned by unobservable unreality? How can “unreality” be referred to as any kind of existent, as any kind of sane basis for reality? You can dress it up all you like by calling it a mathematical abstraction, or probability cloud, or potentiality matrix, or whatever, but the simple fact is that if it’s unreal then it’s 100% meaningless and can have no effect whatsoever on reality. The blunt issue is this: is the unobserved world real or not? If it is, science is false because science does not accept the existence of the unobserved and unobservable. If the unobserved world is “unreal” then it’s not there and we are engaging in nothing but fantasy and faith when we fallaciously refer to it. Objective reality is consistent only with ontological, noumenal mathematics. Science, as it is now conceived – in indeterministic, probabilistic, randomist, ultra-empiricist terms – can never reflect any reality principle. It will always have to rely on mathematical abstractions, whose reality it formally denies. Only the wholly irrational and illogical would now consider science to be anything other than a sensory religion, a faith-based dogmatism. Bishop Berkeley said that “to be” is “to be perceived”, i.e. things are real only while they are being perceived, and otherwise they are not real. You can have no knowledge of a room when you have left it and closed the door, so it no longer exists as an object of knowledge, and so it doesn’t exist at all in any meaningful sense. You lose nothing by considering it as formally non-existent because it can have no consequences for you and no meaning for you. It has become a total blank, just emptiness and void. What the Copenhagen school did was to agree with Bishop Berkeley that reality exists only at the point of experience and perception, but then to deny the logic of his stance (namely that the unexperienced and unperceived must be regarded as non-existent since we can have no knowledge of them whatsoever in empiricist terms). The Copenhagen school instead referred to the unexperienced and unperceived world as an unreal mathematical abstraction (a probability wavefunction). Berkeley,

like David Hume (the greatest of all empiricists), would have wholly rejected this desperate subterfuge. You either accept empiricism or you don’t. You can’t, as scientists do, call yourself an empiricist and then refer to unempirical things – such as unreal, unobservable wavefunctions – that supposedly interact with, and generate, observable reality. The only alternative to empiricism is rationalism. Rationalism places no reliance whatsoever on experiences, measurements, observers or their observations. Rational reality continues regardless. Only rationalism is consistent with objective reality and a reality principle. Empiricism inevitably leads to the crazy beliefs of Berkeley and Hume where “knowledge” dissolves into whatever you are currently experiencing, and everything else is unreal and non-existent, including what you were experiencing just an instant ago (which has now vanished into the unobservable, unempirical past). Scientists both do and do not believe in object reality, and that shows how mad science has become, and why science is in desperate need of philosophical literacy. Scientists have become irrationalists, charlatans and snake-oil salesmen. For the Schrödinger’s cat paradox to be taught as science is more or less the same as teaching the resurrection of Jesus Christ as science – it’s pure fantasy and Mythos, with no place in any intellectual system that purports to be concerned with objective truth. Science is irrational, illogical empiricism that refuses to accept the full consequences of its empiricist ideology. If it doesn’t make any sense rationally, how can it make any sense scientifically? Empiricism finally reduces to pure solipsism since you can’t even “know”, or accept as real, the experiences, measurements and observations of others. These others do not themselves exist when you are not experiencing them, so they can be no source of legitimate knowledge. In this ideology, you yourself cease to exist when you are asleep or unconscious, since you are no longer experiencing yourself or having any experiences at all (!). Moreover, all of your past experiences are unreliable since the past is not an empirical object. Empiricism is the route to madness, and Bishop Berkeley and David Hume’s philosophies – despite their ingenuity – are basically crazy and opposed to knowledge and reality. Science now drinks from the same well, but even less logically and consistently.

The Transparent Box The Schrödinger’s cat paradox is framed in terms of a sealed box that we can’t see into. To show the full absurdity of this keystone of modern scientific thinking, all we have to do is replace the dark box with a transparent box. Imagine the Schrödinger’s cat paradox involving two cats, one in a black glass box and one in a transparent but otherwise identical glass box. The Copenhagen interpretation says that in the case of the black glass box – where we can’t see into it – the cat we placed inside it is replaced by a cat wavefunction, which becomes entangled with the wavefunction of the poison capsule, and the outcome of this entanglement becomes apparent only when we open the box and collapse the wavefunction (i.e. our action actually causes the outcome!). Regarding the transparent box, however, we can continuously see the cat, so we know it hasn’t been replaced by any cat wavefunction and it isn’t becoming entangled with the poison capsule wavefunction. So, the paradox, it seems, applies only to the black glass and not to the clear glass. Can any sane person believe that reality depends on the light transmission properties of glass? The Copenhagen school would claim, absurdly, that the use of clear glass rather than dark glass represents “interfering” with the experiment, thus changing its outcome. Well, do you believe them? The Copenhagen worldview makes observers and their observations the determinants of reality. Ontological mathematics accepts objective reality and a reality principle that applies regardless of any observers and any observations. Is reality observer-constructed and indeterministic or mathematically constructed and deterministic?

***** What happens to the world when no one is observing it? Does it vanish from actuality into potentiality, as Copenhagen quantum mechanics proposes? How can there be any continuity of forces, fields and laws if every unobserved part of the world stops being real and is replaced by an unreal potentiality wavefunction??? If the Copenhagen interpretation were correct, the world would disintegrate into chaos instantly. There could be no

possible rational, deterministic continuity. Any system that denies a reality principle – guaranteeing the continued existence of reality whether observed or not – is absurd. Science is absurd since it prefers an Empirical Principle (reality exists only while it’s being experienced) to a Reality Principle (reality exists regardless of whether it’s being experienced).

Truths of Reason versus Truths of Fact Truths of reason are eternal, necessary and unobservable. They are nonempirical. Truths of fact are temporal, contingent and observable. Empiricism endorses an epistemology based on truths of fact, while rationalism supports an epistemology based on truths of reason. These are radically different epistemologies. Rationalism ties its epistemology to its ontology. Empiricism does not formally deal with ontology since it’s readily apparent that ultimate reality, whatever it is, is strictly unobservable. The Large Hadron Collider is perhaps as good as it gets for science, and science may not be able to probe reality any further than that Collider allows. It certainly won’t reach the level of one-dimensional strings, suggested by some scientists as a possible basis of ontology. When it comes to strings, science is more or less in the rationalist arena, using exclusively mathematical arguments, without any experimental input. So why not just switch to mathematics itself!

***** Rationalism and empiricism have different definitions of epistemology. Rationalism says that epistemology concerns that which can be definitively known via deduction and tautology. Rationalism concerns necessary, immutable, eternal, analytic, a priori truths of reason. Rationalism is about intelligible epistemology. Empiricism says epistemology concerns that which can be known via observation and induction. Empiricism involves contingent, mutable, temporal, synthetic, a posteriori interpretations of fact. Empiricism is about sensible epistemology. These are two wholly different and independent approaches to epistemology. Before people discuss what knowledge is, they should state what epistemology they rely on. Ontological mathematics reflects a rationalist epistemology while science reflects an empiricist epistemology.

Rationalist epistemology revolves around what can be proved. Empiricist epistemology is evidential. Rationalism privileges intellect over the senses. Empiricism privileges the senses over intellect. So, do we live in a universe that is ultimately one of reason, or is ultimately sensory? What provides the surest path to certainty – our intellect or our senses? Anyone who thinks their senses are more real than their intellect is a fool. Sensing and thinking sensing types (scientists) place much more emphasis on their senses. They believe what they see. Intuitives and thinking intuitives place much more emphasis on their mind and intellect. Intuitives have no difficulty whatsoever grasping that there’s a reality beyond the senses. If there is such a reality, then empiricist epistemology is completely fallacious. In simple terms, what it comes down to is this: is ultimate reality made of mental, dimensionless things (which are not available to the senses but are available to reason), or material, dimensional things (which are available to the senses, but cannot be fully grasped by reason)? Ontological mathematics asserts that reality is, if properly understood, made of reason. If the universe is indeed made of reason, only reason can unlock its secrets. Science asserts that reality is made of physical things. The mind itself, science claims, results from physical things. Science simply ignores the fact that, by its own account, dimensional reality springs from a dimensionless point in the Big Bang, and the fact that the Big Bang has no rational explanation within the scientific paradigm. The Big Bang, science says, is a meaningless accident. If you follow an anti-rationalist ideology, one that rejects that the universe is made of reason (i.e. of ontological mathematics), you will always end up appealing to either “God”, as religion does, or acausality, indeterminism, accident, chance, randomness, probability, statistics, meaninglessness and purposelessness, as science does. If the world is made of reason, it has a rational solution. If it is not, it does not. If it is not, we live in an incomprehensible, pointless, random accident, just as science says. Well, is science right?

Anti-Rationalism

Science is anti-rationalist because it privileges the irrational senses over the rational intellect. Mainstream religion is anti-rationalist because it privileges mystical intuitions, feelings, faith, revelation and meditation over the rational intellect. Abrahamists believe in a God that they regard as an infinitely wiser power. We should trust in God, they say, as children would in a loving parent. Yet children grow up and stop believing in the omnipotence of their parents. Equally, all rational people grow up and realise that God, if he’s rational, must be using exactly the same reason as human beings, so humans can know everything he knows and thus be Gods too. If God is not rational – if he’s capricious and driven by desires, will and his feelings – then he’s no better than any of us, hence not worthy of worship, and not God. All atheists insist that nothing could be more childish than a relationship in which humans depend on an unseen supernatural power, for which there is precisely no evidence at all. “God” is just the ultimate “imaginary friend”, or ultimate idealisation of parenthood for scared little children. Religion, in these terms, is the quintessence of childishness. And who can doubt that this is true? Humanity needs to grow up. It needs to stop looking to imaginary friends and imaginary parents. It needs to grow a spine and stand on its own two feet. No human should aspire to worship a God. Rather, every human should aspire to become God. The horrors of religion will end when worship ends, and is replaced by divine aspiration. God is not the supreme entity that rules us; God is the supreme entity that we can become if we perfect ourselves dialectically. Religious people do not alter their beliefs in accordance with facts. They alter the facts in accordance with their beliefs. Just look at Creationism. Why was Galileo tried by the Inquisition? – because he privileged his observations over “divine revelation”. Why do humans cling to disproven beliefs? Because they have invested their identity and understanding of the world in these beliefs, and their friends, family and community share these beliefs. They have much more to lose than to gain by abandoning their faith. Why would any Jew, Muslim or Christian abandon their beliefs and accept the universe of meaningless accident posited by atheists? Atheism itself seems ludicrous and unbelievable, so, if it comes to a contest of what is less believable, atheistic science certainly does not look

superior to religion. Why exchange one absurdity for another? Nietzsche argued that humans cling to the lies that they find most life-enhancing, those that afford them the greatest feeling of power. Well, who can doubt that religion is a far better lie than science? Human beings rarely abandon their convictions simply because they are demonstrably false. Humans are experts at doublethink: holding two contradictory beliefs at once. They simultaneously believe and disbelieve. When it’s necessary to believe, they do so. When it’s necessary to disbelieve, they do so. It’s often said that people seek to reduce cognitive dissonance: the condition in which one has beliefs or items of knowledge that disagree with each other. In fact, only rationalists and fanatical believers are troubled by cognitive dissonance because it challenges the paradigm by which they define themselves. Most people are happy to live in a condition of doublethink, which is the opposite of cognitive dissonance. People do not seek to reduce dissonance at all. They switch from one belief system to another contradictory belief system at will, depending on expediency and their current emotional state. Another aspect of cognitive dissonance that is not often discussed is that it’s socially rather than individually conditioned. In other words, a person may deliberately lie or dissemble to reduce the dissonance between their own personal beliefs and those of the people around them. The person is not feeling an internal dissonance but an external dissonance. To be accepted by those around them, people will adopt beliefs they do not genuinely hold, and say things they do not genuinely believe. These falsehoods are accepted as evidence of cognitive dissonance when, in fact, they are evidence of doublethink or outright expedient deception. A person who uses “low-tar” cigarettes is not so much reducing their cognitive dissonance regarding smoking and the extreme health dangers of smoking, but engaging in doublethink. They accept that smoking is dangerous and they simultaneously believe that the dangers will never actually afflict them, though they are willing to make a token gesture towards pretending they are doing something about their habit. In fact, we might coin the phrase “triplethink”. A smoker has three thought strands regarding smoking: 1) “smoking is extremely unhealthy: science says so”, 2) “smoking is great, I couldn’t live without it, and its ill effects aren’t

coming my way”, and 3) “I’ll use low-tar cigarettes because they’re ‘healthier’.” Ordinary people think in such ways all the time, with precious little difficulty. To trouble yourself about the consistency of your position is to have a regard to reason, or to dogmatic belief, that the average person simply doesn’t possess. If people really were the type to acutely suffer from cognitive dissonance, they would all be philosophers, scientists, mathematicians or theologians, and plainly the average person is none of these things. How can you know your position is inconsistent if you never think about consistency, if you don’t give it any priority in your life? Do we see people rushing around wailing about their craving for consistency? Or are they preoccupied with sex, drugs, relationships, entertainment, career, materialism, consumerism, money, status, and so on? Consistency is way down their list and is a negligible consideration for most people. The majority shape their perceptions and behaviour according to what they already believe. They don’t consider the consistency of those beliefs. They don’t look to challenge them. Rather, they challenge anything that is inconsistent with their beliefs, and reject it. People block out from their minds anything that shakes their beliefs and worldview. They reduce cognitive dissonance not by reaching more rational, consistent positions, but by reducing contact with anything or anyone that conflicts with what they already believe. Religious people like to have a consistent set of beliefs, but this does not imply any kind of rational consistency. A Creationist rejects all Evolutionary arguments because, not to do so, would create severe dissonance with their religious beliefs. However, an ordinary person, with bland Christian beliefs, is perfectly happy to accept science on the one hand, and virgin births, water being turned into wine, and resurrection, on the other. There are many ordinary Christians who wholly reject Creationism but accept as “God” a Jew allegedly born of a virgin. Why is Biblical Creationism ridiculous while God coming to the earth as a Jewish rabbi is not? If you accept the latter, why not the former too? If the theory of cognitive dissonance were universally true, people would become either religious fundamentalists or atheists. Instead, most people muddle along as believers when it suits them, and as respecters of atheistic science when that’s more advantageous to them. They are, in other words, doublethinkers.

Just as Nietzsche argued that lies could easily be more life-enhancing than truth, many psychologists believe that people who lie to themselves, who screen out all unpleasant or disturbing facts, might thereby remain more confident, optimistic and healthy, and less prone to depression, negativity and illness, i.e. they enjoy a potential evolutionary advantage and enhanced survival prospects over more honest people. Yet people who lie to themselves are living in a fantasy world. This strategy can succeed only while most of your community inhabits the same fantasy world that you do. If religious belief started collapsing, it would soon collapse everywhere. It must be a primary task of rationalists to induce this global collapse in religious faith. The primary means of achieving this is of course to prevent parents passing on the religious virus to their children. If this happened, mainstream religion would be dead in a single generation. John Maynard Keynes said of his friend Bertrand Russell, “Bertie sustained simultaneously a pair of opinions ludicrously incompatible. He held that human affairs are carried on in a most irrational fashion, but that the remedy was quite simple and easy, since all we had to do was carry them on rationally.” Keynes’ point is absurd. What he assumes is that all humans are more or less the same. He doesn’t recognise that there’s an immense gulf between rational and irrational humans, Logos and Mythos humans. Our world has hitherto been ruled by the irrational. Are we surprised that irrational, Mythos people of faith have committed one folly after another? It would be a miracle if they hadn’t. However, what would happen if the rational intelligentsia were in charge? What would happen if we replaced Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Luther, monarchs, the super rich, psychopaths, and so on, with Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Euler, Gauss, Hegel, Schrödinger, John Bell, and so on? Can any sane person agree with Keynes’ implicit thesis that the latter kind of person would conduct the world’s affairs in exactly the same deranged way as the former kind? Plainly, irrational people rule the world irrationally, with all of the trouble that implies, and rational would rule it rationally, and transform this world. So, Russell was entirely correct on this occasion. The difficulty lies not in the impossibility of humanity behaving rationally but in the enormous difficulty involved in a small number of

rational people overthrowing a vast number of violent, hateful, crazed irrationalists. How, for example, do you solve a problem like Islam, a creed of absolute irrationalism, primitivism and fanaticism? Humanity can become more rational only if rational people are in charge, imposing rational laws on the world. Otherwise, it’s insane to imagine that humanity will get any more rational. We are unquestionably doomed if Logos Humanity – Higher Humanity – does not assume control of the world. That will happen only if Higher Humanity is prepared to use any means to overcome Lower Humanity, and it’s by no means clear that smart humans have the guts or will for any “dirty work”. If they don’t, humanity has no future. “Philosopher” John Gray said, “The notion that human life could ever be ruled by reason is an exercise in make-believe more far-fetched than any of the stories we were told as children. We’d all be better off if we saw ourselves as we are – intermittently and only ever partly-rational creatures, who never really grow up.” With people like that in its ranks, Logos Humanity doesn’t have a prayer of changing anything at all. Frequently, the worst obstacles in the path of human progress are “intellectuals” like Gray.

The Choice Every scientist should be forced to line up behind either objective reality (it exists whether or not you are observing it, and includes entities that are rational but can never be observed, such as monads) or observable reality (only that which is observed right now is real, and everything else is unreal, especially permanent unobservables such as monads). The fundamental question that can no longer be avoided is whether science is rational or irrational and, indeed, anti-rational. If science is rational, it must accept rationalism. Empiricism is an intellectual dead end that leads nowhere but solipsism and insanity. Anything that rejects the reality principle must be rejected. Science now falls into that category.

History Why do people never learn from history? Why does the same pattern keep repeating itself between the Israelis and the Palestinians? It’s because learning requires reason, and the Jews and Muslims, as people of fanatical

faith and no reason at all, are incapable of learning. Everything repeats because exactly the same conditions remain in place: two fanatical religious enemies, which despise and reject everything the other side stands for, in an eternal face-off where neither side can give any ground because to do so is to betray their God, their people and their identity. When it’s better to die for “God” – to be martyred – rather than to find a difficult solution involving a rational compromise then death is exactly what you will get! Where’s the surprise? The only way to end the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict is for the world to impose a compromise on the two parties. And the world will never do that, so everyone should stop bleating. Leave them to it. They have placed themselves outside reason, and a mutual hell is the inevitable result. If you want love and peace, turn to reason, not religious extremism and fanaticism.

The Question The question is not What is consciousness? The question is What is consciousness made of? If you can answer the second question, you can understand the first. Plainly, consciousness is not made of material atoms. Consciousness is of course made of uniformly flowing, perfectly structured, noumenal mathematical waves, originating in monads. The ontological question – What is it made of? – is the one that cuts through all the crap. If you can’t say what it’s made of, you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.

How? In quantum mechanics’ twin-slit experiment, how can an unreality wave move through the slits and interfere itself? What possible ontological meaning can be attached to such a claim? This isn’t science, it’s science fiction! It’s one thing to say that the unobserved world is an unreal, potentiality wavefunction. It’s quite another to say that this unreal, potentiality wavefunction can move, that it can pass through physical equipment and be affected by that equipment. How can it if it’s unreal and mere potentiality rather than actuality? How can an unreal entity affect a real entity? How can a potential entity affect an actual entity? Descartes said that no effect can have a greater reality than its cause. By the same token, the actual world

cannot have more reality than what causes the actual world, so it cannot be based in unreality, as science claims. Nor can the real world have more actuality than what causes it, hence it cannot be caused by mere potentiality. The claims of science are simply bizarre. When science abandoned causation and determinism, it became utterly irrational and much more “philosophical” (in empiricist and materialist terms only) than “scientific”. Science has lost the plot. It has detached itself from reason and now makes mad claims. The only thing that keeps the scientific show on the road is its hyperrationalist mathematical engine, the gift that keeps on delivering!

The Unreal What is the world like when you’re not observing it? Classical science agreed that the unobserved world was exactly like the observed world, i.e. a reality principle applied. Quantum science, however, revealed an enormous dilemma. A reality principle was consistent only with a world where there were hidden variables beyond the reach of the scientific method. If hidden variables were rejected, a whole new worldview had to be adopted. The unobserved world could no longer be regarded as real. Instead, the unobserved world became a place of potentiality rather than actuality, of probability rather than causality. Things were no longer truly there when you weren’t looking at them. Instead, they were replaced by all the possible states that the thing might have. An unobserved thing isn’t an actual thing, but merely a potentiality matrix, from which the actual thing in an actual state is extracted via a measurement or observation. You have two clear-cut choices. If the world is real even when unobserved then it cannot be scientific (in the modern understanding of science), meaning that the scientific method is unable to reveal it to us. In that case, the world is mathematical. Or, if the world is scientific, the unobservable world does not exist as a real thing! It vanishes into a potentiality cloud of unreality, of unactuality – a Limbo waiting to have true reality plucked from it. The unobserved world is a virtual reality, not an actual reality. The implication is that you yourself, when you are asleep alone in your room, dissolve into unreality and are replaced by a matrix of potentialities.

Well, is that what you think really happens to you? Does your alarm clock return you from Limbo to the real world? Does your alarm clock collapse your wavefunction into an actual state? But what collapses the wavefunction of the alarm clock?!

What’s the Point? In the twin-slits experiment, interference effects are observable, leading to the entire mystery of quantum physics. In the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat, no interference effects are observable. The alleged interference effects all occur inside a closed box. How can a “paradox” which has no observable interference effects be taught as if it’s consistent with an experiment that most certainly does have observable interference effects? Is that the paradox? All attempts by scientists to explain away why interference effects do not routinely appear in the macroscopic world are based on speculative hypotheses that rely on unobservables, hidden variables and unempirical considerations, i.e. everything that’s strictly forbidden according to the logic of the Copenhagen interpretation! Take the notion of “decoherence” Has anyone ever observed this? Has any experiment ever measured it and proved its existence? Where does the dividing line lie between coherence and decoherence (and indeed incoherence!)? Science, while dismissing everything not amenable to the scientific method, pronounces, in the same breath, total reliance on ideas – such as unreal wavefunctions and decoherence – which are not amenable to the scientific method (!). In other words, science is now pure Orwellian doublethink: “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” Scientists are both empiricists and (pseudo) rationalists. They are so dumb, they have never realised that they must choose one or the other. All scientists should be given compulsory philosophy classes so that they can learn how to think, surely the first requirement of any true scientist. Science is math for dummies, for those who aren’t rational enough for math and need to cling to sensory data.

Objective Reality

Objective reality is only compatible with rationalism. Rationalism considers reality from both the observed and unobserved perspectives. It accepts the objective existence of both rational observables and rational unobservables. Empiricism, on the other hand, accepts the existence of only that which is currently being experienced, and everything else is “unreal”. Of course, in these terms, reality itself becomes an unobservable. We can observe only a tiny amount of reality – that corresponding to our perceptual field, which may consist of nothing more than the room we are currently in, or even nothing at if we are unconscious ... or dead (!). It’s absurd to reduce “knowledge” to our perceptions. And if knowledge isn’t our perceptions, what is it? It’s definitely not our feelings, nor our mystical intuition, nor our religious faith, nor our pet philosophy. There’s only one thing it can be: eternal, immutable mathematical reason. This constitutes the only true, absolute, eternal knowledge. Rationalism is the only door to truth, but science has gone through a different door, that of the deceptive, solipsistic senses. Objective reality is hidden from our senses, but not from our reason. It’s hidden from our observations, measurements, experiences and experiments, but not from mathematics, which explains everything.

The Challenge “The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.” – Bertrand Russell This is indeed the greatest challenge. And stating the problem in the way that allows the explanation of everything is simply to ask – what is it made of? What is existence made of? What is mind made of? What is matter made of? What is life made of? What is death made of? What is God made of? What is the soul made of? What is free will made of? What is will to power made of? What is the unconscious made of? What is consciousness made of? What is causation made of? This question is so monumental because it invites all of these staggeringly different things to be considered in terms of one thing only – the arche, the ultimate substance of existence. Everything must be made of what existence is made of since there aren’t multiple types of existence

(because then they would generate the classic Cartesian problem of how different existences interact). There’s only one way of existing, and everything is a manifestation of it. So, what must existence be made of in order to account for everything? Is reality all about unreal wavefunctions? Is reality made of unreality (!)? Is it all about potentiality? Is reality all about one-dimensional strings, as some scientists will tell you? Is the human mind a string phenomenon? Is existence made of love (or strings of love!)? But what is love made of? Is existence made of God? But what is God made of? Is existence made of consciousness? But what is consciousness made of? Everything is of course made of mathematics. But what is mathematics made of? Mathematics is made of perfect, analytic sinusoids, defined by the God Equation. And, from sinusoids, we can build everything, as described throughout the God Series. A mathematical universe is a universe of information, a universe of energy, a universe of light, a universe of life, a universe of thought.

The Method The mathematical method is the method of rationalism. The scientific method is the method of empiricism. Thus far, science has been defined by the scientific method, with the mathematical method being used selectively – where it’s consistent with the scientific method – and otherwise being rejected or ignored. In future, science needs to adopt the opposite methodology: the mathematical method must be the defining method of science, and the scientific method should be accepted only where it’s consistent with the mathematical method.

The Nobel Farce Nobel prizes for Physics are awarded only to empiricists and materialists, never to rationalists and idealists; only to physicists and never to metaphysicists. These prizes have no connection with truth and reality. They are fundamentally anti-rationalist, anti-truth and anti-intellectual prizes. Leibniz would never have won a Nobel Prize – which shows how much of an insult they are to reason and intellect. It’s time for a new prize,

for true intellectuals. A Nobel Prize for Metaphysics is required, and a Nobel Prize for ontological mathematics.

Entertainment or Education? “People will pay more to be entertained than educated.” – Johnny Carson We won’t have a sane world until the reverse is true, until we live in a Logos rather than Mythos world. All of Mythos is entertainment, even religion!

Marriage “Married men live longer than single men. But married men are a lot more willing to die.” – Johnny Carson “If variety is the spice of life, marriage is the big can of leftover spam.” – Johnny Carson

Impersonators “If life was fair, Elvis would be alive and all the impersonators would be dead.” – Johnny Carson Never impersonate anyone. Be yourself. Become yourself. Live as yourself. Elvis has left the building.

Brown Noses “The Hollywood tradition I like best is called sucking up to the stars.” – Johnny Carson The whole world sucks up to the rich, famous and powerful. It’s time we pushed them into the sewer rather than raising them on to pedestals. They are all false idols.

Money

“It’s silly to have as one’s sole object in life just making money, accumulating wealth. I work because I enjoy what I’m doing, and the fact that I make money at it – big money – is a fine-and-dandy side fact. Money gives me just one big thing that’s really important, and that’s the freedom of not having to worry about money. I’m concerned about values – moral, ethical, human values – my own, other people’s, the country’s, the world’s values. Having money now gives me the freedom to worry about the things that really matter.” – Johnny Carson “Never continue in a job you don’t enjoy. If you’re happy in what you’re doing, you’ll like yourself, you’ll have inner peace. And if you have that, along with physical health, you will have had more success than you could possibly have imagined.” – Johnny Carson “The only thing money gives you is the freedom of not worrying about money” – Johnny Carson

The Rebirth of the Dog “I now believe in reincarnation. Tonight’s monologue is going to come back as a dog.” – Johnny Carson

Naivety and Crime “I was so naive as a kid I used to sneak behind the barn and do nothing.” – Johnny Carson “Anytime four New Yorkers get into a cab together without arguing, a bank robbery has just taken place.” – Johnny Carson

The Conspirators “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” – Adam Smith

“My Money?” I: “My money is my money... u can’t steal my money.”

There is no such thing as “your” money. You talk as if money is an absolute. It’s not. Money reflects a social system. It reflects what value society, or those who run society, put on things. Money is always relative. If society so wished, it could assign zero value to the work of bankers and CEOs. Communism values things entirely differently from capitalism. Money always reflects ideology. Leibniz’s work is worth more than the whole of capitalism put together!

Star Trek JGM: “Star Trek! [B4 u all fall about laughing, i mean the old TV series, not the movies.] I’m no ‘Trekkie’ but it was visionary. Every race of mankind working together, using science & logic to find new frontiers in space. Even helped by a friendly alien. Not motivated by religion or superstition, only using man’s yearning to reach out & explore new horizons & reach the unreachable dream! The conquest of deep space travel.” The new Star Trek movies have totally dumbed down the whole basis of Star Trek, defaced its vision and rendered it as grotesque as the rest of the output of Hollywood. NL: “When asked why there are no Muslims in Star Trek ... the reply was ... coz its set in the future...” Exactly! Abrahamism simply won’t exist in the future, or it will be viewed in the same terms as the worship of Zeus, El or Ra.

Idiocy MI: “There is no such thing as a group – only multiple individuals on this earth. Life is simple. It takes a human being to complicate it.” Margaret Thatcher declared, “There is no such thing as society.” Anyone who doesn’t believe in society or the group should go and live on a desert island. We will then go to the island in a few days’ time and retrieve the body. All libertarians and anarchists are insane. There are only individuals within groups. There are no “individuals” as absolute entities, as wholly independent of others and their relations with others, as hermetically-sealed

units that operate with no reference to anything else. The individual can be healthy only within a healthy group (society).

Equality MI: “There’s no such thing as equality in Nature – simply observe your surroundings to grasp this. Everything is INDIVIDUAL.” Are atoms of hydrogen unequal? Are electrons unequal? Are photons of the same frequency unequal? Are water molecules unequal? Nature is full of equality via the laws of mathematics and the mathematical equals sign. Science doesn’t hesitate to use the equals sign either. Simply observe your surroundings and grasp that the world is about Universals, which are expressed via particulars. We are all human beings – particular instances of the human Universal. We are individuals within the Collective, not freestanding individuals with no necessary relationships with other things. We are particulars defined by Universals, not free-floating entities without precedent. No one at all is a true individual. It’s impossible for One to exist with no relationship to the Many. Never listen to pseudo-philosophers and sophists such as MI with her simplistic and childish view of society. She is part of it while denying it exists!

Delphic Delphic: of or relating to the ancient Greek oracle at Delphi; a deliberately obscure or ambiguous pronouncement. Only ontological mathematics is anti-Delphic. Only ontological mathematics defines and clarifies.

History Can history make any sense in a capitalist system? Can it have any integrity? Every historian writes a book hoping it will make a fortune for him. He has an eye to the market, and what Content the market will reward. But what does the market have to do with historical veracity? Or a historian will make a TV documentary, and is driven by the need to attract high ratings. But what do TV ratings have to do with historical veracity? Or a historian wants to make a big impact in his career, make a name for himself, and acquire status and prestige. So, he has to be provocative, to create a

controversy, to come up with a new angle that makes people sit up and pay attention. But that means he is engaged with Mythos and propaganda. It means he’s more like an author crafting a thrilling novel than an academic pursuing truth. History is nothing but interpretation, and more or less wholly false.

Form and Content DNA is the form of the body; the body itself is the matter/ content of the form. Form/ matter. Form/ content. Wave/ content of the wave. Primary/ secondary. Inside/ outside. Noumenon/ Phenomenon. Subject/ Object. Genotype/ phenotype

***** Form shapes matter/ content. Form is what makes matter/ content intelligible. Form is rationalist, not empiricist. We understand true reality via Form, not by looking at the world, not by performing experiments. We can work out everything to do with Form simply by rationally thinking about it. Science plays no part in it.

Plato and Aristotle For Plato, Form = Idea. To know the Form of X is to understand the Nature of X. Without an understanding of Form, there’s only belief, opinion and conjecture. Plato and Aristotle both regarded Form as that which made something intelligible, and it could be grasped only by the intellect.

For Plato, Forms had independent existence from matter/ content. For Aristotle, substances had independent existence and these consisted of a union of Form and Matter. Soul is the Form of the body, and the body is the soul’s Matter.

***** Form is what makes Content intelligible. Form shapes Content. For Aristotle, Form + Matter = Substance. Alternatively, Form + Content = Substance. Or Subject (Form) + Object (Content, the Object of Form) = Substance. Content/ Matter is what makes Form sensible. It’s what allows Form to be experienced.

***** Form/ Content = Shape and that which is shaped. Form/ Content = Container and that which is contained. Form/ Content = Formula and that which obeys the formula. Form is the intelligible structure that a thing has when fully developed. The growth of a thing is a striving to make actual its Form. Things inherently want to realize their Form. They are instinctively driven to do so. Form is absolutely inconsistent with the mechanistic concepts of physics. Form is teleological. As soon as you accept the existence of Form, you leave behind the meaningless, purposeless, random world of scientific materialism. Matter, for Aristotle, was simply a bizarre, chaotic element waiting to be Formed. It served no other function than being that which was to be Formed. Matter was content to be shaped, made intelligible, contained. As for Form, it was a matterless element with no location other than that which it took up when it was localised by matter. (Only God = pure reason = pure Form was not localised.) Rather than Matter and Form being considered dualistically, they should be combined into a single, dual-aspect monism. If Form is the subject, Content is its object. On the other hand, Content is that which is subjectively experienced, i.e. the monad (the ultimate subject, agent, soul)

is Form, and it experiences Content. Form is the inside of Content, the inside of Matter. Form is the “within”; Content is the “without”. Form is what experiences Content/ Matter. Form is the inside, Content the outside, yet we might equally regard Content as the inside since it’s always internally, subjectively experienced. Depending on the perspective we adopt, we can say that Form is the rational container for matter/ content, or that matter/ content is the empirical container for Form.

Genotype and Phenotype Genotype: the genetic information that codes for the phenotype. The genotype is the gene sequence. The genes are the genotype of organisms. The genotype is the genetic constitution of an individual. Phenotype: the manifest traits something has. The phenotype is the physical expression of the genotype. The phenotype is determined by the genotype. If you look at any animal body, you see the phenotype. The phenotype is the physical characteristics of an organism. The phenotype has been likened to a photograph. It’s what you actually see. It’s what characteristics the organism actually displays rather than what it could potentially display. The phenotype constitutes the observable characteristics of an individual. The phenotype is how genes are actually expressed in the world. The Genotype is the Form and the Phenotype is the Content. We don’t see genes or DNA; we see the physical manifestation of them. The Genotype is unseen and the Phenotype seen. This is the Form/ Content pattern we encounter over and over again. The ultimate version of this pattern is the unseen and unseeable noumenal world (the Form of the world) underlying the phenomenal world (the world of appearances, the Content of the world). The soul is the unseen and unseeable Form of the body. The World Soul is the unseen and unseeable Form of the universe. The World Soul = the Singularity. Ontological mathematics is the noumenal “genotype”. The observable world of science is the phenomenal phenotype. Empiricism is the delusion that reality is the phenotype, rather than being necessarily underpinned by a genotype. Mathematics is the genotype and physics the phenotype. The

noumenon is the genotype and the phenomenon the phenotype. The Form is the genotype and Content/ Matter the phenotype. Scientists are unimaginative, simple-minded folk who look at the observable phenotype of existence and confuse this for existence itself (the genotype). They invariably fail to comprehend that the phenotype is the appearance of something else that we don’t see: the noumenal genotype. Biologically, we see bodies, but not the DNA that produces them. Ontologically, the phenotype of existence is available to the senses (it’s sensible) and the genotype is available to reason (it’s intelligible). The existential genotype is mathematical, defined by mathematical sinusoids arranged into discrete, autonomous monads (mathematical souls). Just as every cell in a body contains the genotype for that body, so every monad (the ultimate cell of life and existence) contains the genotype of existence (= the God Equation and the full laws of ontological mathematics deducible from it). Everything physical contains the World Soul (Singularity), the ontological genotype. The World Soul, the Whole, reflects the holographic principle: the Whole is in every part. This is possible because the Singularity is dimensionless and immaterial. The Big Bang was a genotype event, giving rise to a phenotype (universe). We should therefore think of the universe as a biological rather than physical system. The scientific method is all about studying the observable phenotype, but all the real power of science lies in rationalist, unempirical mathematics, the engine of science, which studies, albeit indirectly, the unobservable genotype. Scientific mathematics is entirely based on accidental inferences (hypotheses) regarding the unseen genotype (the existence of which is not accepted by science!). These inferences are driven by empiricist, materialist prejudices. They ought to be driven by the rationalism of ontological mathematics and be explicitly about revealing the nature of the unobservable genotype. The ontological genotype is ontological mathematics itself, expressed through monads. The Singularity – exactly where physicists say the laws of physics fall apart – is exactly the location of the ontological, unseeable genotype. Monads are the cells of existence, and the physical universe is the phenotype they generate. The universe is not a dead machine but a living

organism made of living monadic cells. The world studied by physics is the observable phenotype of ontological mathematics. But we don’t need physics at all. This is an unnecessary intermediate between the genotype (rationalism) and the phenotype (empiricism), and is a ridiculous hybrid of empiricism and rationalism. Physics relies on the scientific method (empiricism) and mathematics (rationalism). However, the genotype is 100% mathematical, so we should simply abandon physics. Science should acknowledge that there’s an unobservable, rationalist, mathematical genotype underlying the world, and we get clues to its nature by observing the phenotype via the scientific method. However, the scientific method should be regarded as nothing more than a clue-gathering exercise, from which we get pointers to help us elucidate the rationalist genotype. Ultimately, it’s pure rationalism that will reveal the secrets of the genotype since that genotype is exclusively mathematical. Physics is a classic muddled compromise. It’s an irrational entity that stands between the genotype and phenotype, and tries to combine elements of both. When Richard Dawkins refers to “selfish” genes, he provides an unintended recognition of a teleological, Aristotelian genotype. Phenotype is to phenomenon (appearance) as Genotype is to noumenon (unobservable thing in itself). The genotype of existence is mathematics, not physics. An exhaustive study of the phenotype will never reveal all of the secrets of the genotype. Science is the catastrophic fallacy that it can. The phenotype and genotype, like phenomenon and noumenon, belong to different categories. The genotype is rationalist and the phenotype empiricist. It’s a category error to mix up the two, as science does. Science is all about the observable and simply refuses to accept that there’s anything unobservable. Matter is the phenotype of mind, which is the genotype. What is the information code, the DNA, of existence? It’s ontological mathematics, expressed through sinusoids arranged into self-contained monads. It’s all in the math! The Meth Lab – Let’s Cook. The Math Lab – Let’s Calculate. You want to know the secret of existence? Then do the Math!

Mathematico-Biology Biology, not physics, should be regarded as the natural partner of mathematics. Just as a living body is made of living cells, the living universe is made of living monads. As above, so below. Just as the soul is present in every part of the body, so the World Soul is present in every part of the universe. As above, so below. Life is holography! The whole is in each part. There’s nothing more important in terms of the intellectual evolution of humanity than abandoning the modern notion, which comes from physics, that the universe is a dead, meaningless, purposeless machine. We must return to the ancient wisdom that the universe is a living, striving organism. It’s life is not given to it by superbeings, gods or God, but by the God Equation: ontological mathematics itself. It’s not “God” who defines life, it’s the God Equation, it’s Math. The living universe is imbued with souls – monadic mathematical minds. Math provides the information code of life. Math is the true DNA, the cosmic DNA. Ontological mathematics is life!

Music “Music is the pleasure the human mind experiences from counting without being aware that it is counting.” – Leibniz Music is the phenotype, mathematics is the genotype. Mathematics is the form, music is the content. Music is empirical and mathematics rational. Music is the experience. It’s mathematics as phenomenon. Light is mathematics as phenomenon. Electromagnetism is mathematics as phenomenon.

Matter “Change, for Aristotle, can take place in many different categories. Local motion ... is change in the category of place. Change in the category of quantity is growth (or shrinkage), and change in the category of quality (e.g., of colour) is what Aristotle calls ‘alteration.’ Change in the category of substance, however – a change of one kind of thing into another – is very special. When a substance undergoes a change of quantity or quality, the

same substance remains throughout. But does anything persist when one kind of thing turns into another? Aristotle’s answer is yes: matter. He says, ‘By matter, I mean what in itself is neither of any kind nor of any size nor describable by any of the categories of being. For it is something of which all these things are predicated, and therefore its essence is different from that of all the predicates.’ “An entity that is not of any kind, size, or shape and of which nothing at all can be said may seem highly mysterious, but this is not what Aristotle has in mind. His ultimate matter (he sometimes calls it ‘prime matter’) is not in itself of any kind. It is not in itself of any particular size, because it can grow or shrink; it is not in itself water or steam, because it is both of these in turn. But this does not mean that there is any time at which it is not of any size or any time at which it is neither water nor steam nor anything else. “Ordinary life provides many examples of pieces of matter changing from one kind to another. A bottle containing a pint of cream may be found, after shaking, to contain not cream but butter. The stuff that comes out of the bottle is the same as the stuff that went into it; nothing has been added and nothing taken away. But what comes out is different in kind from what went in. It is from cases such as this that the Aristotelian notion of matter is derived.” – http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/34560/Aristotle/33177/Matter

***** So, what is it that persists when one kind of thing turns into another? It’s not matter, as Aristotle believed, it’s ontological mathematics: monads and their constituent sinusoids. Change occurs via sinusoids adding up in different ways to produce additive wavefunctions, and then sinusoids being subtracted from those additive wavefunctions in different ways. What could be simpler?! It’s all in the math.

Form For Plato, the Forms are ideal and are separate from the inferior, material things of the world, which are mere copies or simulacra of the perfect

Forms. For Aristotle, the Forms are never separate from matter in the observable world of our experience. Aristotle distinguished between “substantial” and “accidental” Forms. A substance necessarily possesses at least one substantial form, and can also possess accidental forms. A substance is an individual thing, such as man or a tree. The substantial form of the substance consists of its essential properties, those properties that the substance’s matter must exhibit in order to be that kind of substance. The accidental forms are the substance’s non-essential properties, properties that the substance can lose without changing into a different kind of substance. For example, a human who lost limbs would still be human, so limbs are accidental forms in these terms. The wisdom or stupidity of a human is an accidental form. Accidental forms can undergo change, or be gained or lost, without changing the substance into something else or causing it to cease to exist. Substantial forms, on the other hand, cannot be gained or lost without changing the fundamental nature of the substance. In relation to Socrates, “human” is his substantial form while his wisdom is an accidental form since Socrates would still be human without his wisdom. However, he wouldn’t be remembered by history without his wisdom, so, relative to his place in history, his wisdom is his substantial form.

Transubstantiation “Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio) is the change whereby, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but also in reality the body and blood of Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that the substance or reality of the bread is changed into that of the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into that of his blood, while all that is accessible to the senses (the outward appearances – species in Latin) remains unchanged. What remains unaltered is also referred to as the ‘accidents’ of the bread and wine...” – Wikipedia “Sacramental bread (Hostia), sometimes called the body of Christ, altar bread, the host, the Lamb or simply Communion bread, is the bread which

is used in the Christian ritual of the Eucharist.” – Wikipedia Protestants, who never understood the sophisticated philosophy of Catholicism, regularly scoffed at the notion that the host in the Catholic Mass could be transubstantiated by the priest into the actual body of Christ. They looked at the host before and after the Mass and saw no difference in its composition. Like scientists, they simply noted the phenomenal appearance of the host and concluded that it had undergone no change. They never once considered the unseen, noumenal aspect of the transition. In Catholic theology, the host never changes in terms of its appearance (its accidents). What the priest effects is a change in the substantial form, changing it from that of the bread of the host to that of the Body of Christ. It’s a noumenal process, not phenomenal. It’s a form-driven change, not a content/ matter-driven change.

***** The priest is an alchemist. Alchemy is all about transubstantiation: changing base metal into gold, changing base humans into Gods.

Israel and Palestine A problem cannot be solved at the same Mythos level that created it, and no higher Mythos level is possible. Only Logos can solve Mythos problems, but Mythos people don’t understand Logos, and don’t accept it. That’s why history repeats itself. That’s why people don’t learn from history. That’s why the problems of the Middle East will go on and on.

The Enemy at the Gates The Enemy is not at the Gates, the Enemy is within the Gates.

Prime Matter Basic matter is called “prime matter”, and has no substantial form. It’s chaotic, formless matter. Prime matter is the ultimate chameleon entity, capable of being made into any substance. It’s the supreme content, in need of form.

Prime matter (materia prima) is the matter that precedes “proper” existence, i.e. substantial existence, where matter has form. Prime matter is untethered content; pure potentiality. We might liken prime matter to classical space (void) – it’s extended but has no other properties (other than potentiality). Substantial Form (Forma substantia) is what gives actual existence to prime matter. However, substantial form is dimensionless, being (in essence) mental. So, dimensionless form (mental actuality) acts on dimensional matter (physical potentiality) to create dimensional substance (physical actuality).

***** Paracelsus said, “An object can be separated from its matter and continue to exist as a pure form which is transferable to matter.” Alchemically, everything can be reduced to prime matter by removing its form, or separating it from its form. By finding the right form, the prime matter can then be transmuted into gold. To make gold, the substantial form of gold must be extracted and then applied to a very large amount of prime matter, to make a very large amount of gold! The Four Elements of earth, water, air and fire are created from prime matter when the relevant forms are applied.

No Creation When a substance comes into being, neither its matter nor its form is created. This means that prime matter is eternal, and so are all forms! We might think of bare reality as comprising: 1) extended space (content; potentiality), and 2) unextended form (actuality). When form acts on space (the dimensionless on the dimensional), substances are created. For Plato, the Forms existed eternally in a domain outside space and time. Aristotle, if he located eternal Forms anywhere, did so in the mind of his God (pure matterless Form, the source of all Form). For Plato, ultimate reality (being) resided in the domain of eternal Forms. Yet there was also an eternal domain of non-being, i.e. formless matter (space). The Demiurge – an eternal being (God, in effect) – imposed Form on matter and thus created the physical world, which, due to the

recalcitrant properties of matter, was a feeble copy of the domain of perfect Forms. For Aristotle, God (perfect matterless Form) was, logically, the host and source of all Forms. God was eternal being, but he coexisted with eternal non-being (matter = space). When Form and Matter came together (via God acting on space, just as Plato’s Demiurge did), physical substances were produced, in accordance with Aristotle’s theory of hylomorphism. One might say that Aristotle simply combined Plato’s Demiurge and Plato’s perfect domain of Forms into “God”, and God was thus the single source of all Form in the world.

Humans What is it that two human beings have in common that makes them both human? Plato says that it’s that they both partake of the Form of Human. Aristotle says they have an identical substantial form (that of Human), but different matter. Matter is what puts into effect the principle of individuation, i.e. the matter of every substance is unique and is what makes one thing different from another thing. In fact, every human being actually has a different Form (as well as different matter): a different, unique expression or particularisation of human DNA (which is the Universal Form).

Change Change, for Aristotle, involves a material transformation: matter undergoes a change of form.

Hylomorphism Hylomorphism is Aristotle’s theory that substance is a compound of matter and form. “Aristotle applies his theory of hylomorphism to living things. He defines a soul as that which makes a living thing alive. Life is a property of living things, just as knowledge and health are. Therefore, a soul is a form – that

is, a property or set of properties – belonging to a living thing. Furthermore, Aristotle says that a soul is related to its body as form to matter.” – Wikipedia “The idea of hylomorphism can be said to have been reintroduced to the world when Werner Heisenberg invented his duplex world of quantum mechanics: ‘In the experiments about atomic events we have to do with things and facts, with phenomena that are just as real as any phenomena in daily life. But atoms and the elementary particles themselves are not as real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts ... The probability wave ... mean[s] tendency for something. It’s a quantitative version of the old concept of potentia from Aristotle’s philosophy. It introduces something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality.’” – Wikipedia Who would ever have imagined that scientists would start invoking Aristotelian concepts, after spending so much time rubbishing him? Why not adopt Aristotelian teleology too?! How can any scientific materialist credibly refer to “a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality”? What does that even mean? How is that different from unreality? It certainly isn’t actuality, and nor is it anything to which empiricism can logically make any reference since it’s wholly unobservable and its actual existence is impossible to define. Heisenberg, unable to offer any rational explanation for his system, simply resorted to mystical, incoherent bullshit ... and got away with it! Why? Because scientists are spectacularly ignorant and irrational people. They don’t care if something makes sense as long as it works.

The Inevitable Failure of Science The greatest intellectual effort in history has gone into reconciling relativity theory and quantum mechanics, yet the union of these two theories is as elusive as ever. Why? It’s because science has only two elements with which to work: experiments and hypotheses.

Relativity theory and quantum mechanics are both highly tested hypotheses that have been promoted to the status of theories. Given their mutual success, but also the fact that they are incompatible theories, how is science supposed to proceed? Well, using the great stratagem identified by Richard Feynman, scientists simply guess at how best to proceed. Yup, they guess. Science, finally, is revealed as just speculating and conjecturing until you arrive at something that looks like it might work. Science doesn’t use any first principles, any rational principles, any logical principles, any ontological principles, any analytic principles, any systematic principles. It just uses lots and lots and lots and lots of guesses! That’s what passes in some circles as “intellectual”. It’s impossible to make any headway deciding between the merits of relativity theory and quantum mechanics since each satisfies all that’s required by science: experimental success. Science can’t turn to logic, epistemology, ontology or rationalism to analyse the two theories since it dismisses such things as “philosophy”. Scientists are so dumb that they haven’t yet grasped that ultimate reality is beyond the reach of any conceivable experiment (no experiment could ever recreate the conditions of the Big Bang), so the final theory of everything certainly won’t be a scientific theory since it won’t conform with the scientific method. The entire basis of science – matching hypotheses to experimental data – cannot apply when it comes to the Big Bang since the Big Bang is not experimentally recreatable. The Big Bang cannot be explained via science. If it’s to be explained at all, that explanation will definitely fall outside science. If rational people don’t want a Mythos “answer” to existence, or a religious explanation, or a mystical explanation, or an explanation based on cosmic love, or cosmic consciousness, or cosmic faith, only one option is left: ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics, because it provides an a priori, analytic, eternal system, can fully explain the Big Bang. The Big Bang is simply an event in an absolutely causal, deterministic mathematical system, whose conditions can be fully recreated intellectually (not experimentally). Humanity will one day understand every single detail of the Big Bang. However, humanity will never have any sensory experience of the Big Bang.

It’s plainly logically absurd to attempt to understand the Big Bang using a sensible subject such as science rather than an intelligible subject as mathematics. The Big Bang was an intelligible event, not a sensible event. It had no sensory properties at all and was purely an unfolding of noumenal mathematical functionality. It’s an absolute fact that science is incapable of delivering a grand unified theory of everything that’s consistent with the scientific method. It’s no surprise that all putative scientific “final theories” are expressed in bewilderingly complex and abstract mathematical terms. So, why not follow the logic through to its natural conclusion and conclude that the final theory will be a purely mathematical theory? The trouble, of course, is that scientists, being sensory fanatics, simply aren’t logical. All attempted scientific theories of everything can logically be stated in advance to be Gödelian inconsistent and/or incomplete, hence false. Only an analytic theory, based on a purely mathematical formula, can be Gödelian consistent and complete. The answer to existence has already been found, of course. It’s the analytic, mathematical God Equation. The number of human beings who can understand this equation is tiny, but the Truth is not a democracy. It’s only for humanity’s greatest minds, the ones that can cope with logic and reason, the ones that can transcend their senses and feelings.

Foreign Policy American foreign policy is predicated on helping nations that reflect America’s values, and opposing and harming those that don’t. America sees its national interest as being best served by making the world as similar to America as possible. Is that a moral foreign policy or one that is about nothing but naked self-interest, hence as far from morality as you can get?!

Teaching It’s much easier to teach children than adults. A Chinese proverb says, “Bend the trees when they are young”, while the Jesuits say, “Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man”. In other words, a person’s identity is shaped by the age of around seven. After that, people are resistant to anything that challenges their identity.

There’s nothing more sinister than the fact that “knowledge” (which, for most people, means religious faith) is tied to identity. People fiercely protect their identity, and that means fiercely rejecting anything that doesn’t fit with their identity. They reject new knowledge not because it’s wrong or false but because their identity can’t accommodate it. That’s why religions are so intent on brainwashing children. Once a strong religious identity has been established, it’s staggeringly hard to overthrow, as evidenced by the tiny number of people who convert from one religion to another. A mind with a strong identity is the biggest obstacle to attaining new knowledge, unless the identity actually centres around acquiring new knowledge, as it does in the case of true intellectuals. Leibniz said, “I would walk twenty miles to listen to my worst enemy if I could learn something.” Most people would walk twenty miles in the opposite direction so that they didn’t hear one word of what their enemy had to say.

Teleology “Aristotle holds a teleological worldview: he sees the universe as inherently purposeful. Basically, Aristotle claims that potentiality exists for the sake of actuality. Thus, matter exists for the sake of receiving its form, and an organism has sight for the sake of seeing. Now, each thing has certain potentialities as a result of its form. Because of its form, a snake has the potential to slither. Hence, we can say that the snake ought to slither. The more a thing achieves its potential, the more it succeeds in achieving its purpose.” – Wikipedia Heisenberg selectively invoked Aristotelian potentiality, but not the teleology with which Aristotle always accompanied it. Why not?! Why do scientists hate purpose and meaning so much? It really is psychotic.

Radial and Tangential Energy Pierre Teilhard de Chardin introduced the notion of two radically different types of energy, one physical and one spiritual, which he labelled tangential and radial. Evolution concerns the interaction of these two energies.

Tangential energy is that of Newtonian physics, obeying mechanistic laws of cause and effect. It’s the energy of “without”. Radial energy, on the other hand, is mental, spiritual, teleological energy. It’s the energy of “within”. Tangential energy: outside or “matter” energy; radiating outwards from the centre (the Big Bang Singularity). Radial energy: inside or “spirit” energy; radiating inwards to the centre (the Big Bang Singularity). If we visualise the organism/ soul as a sphere, we might think of radial energy as the agent of increasing order, organisation and complexity within the living sphere. Radial energy draws the soul towards “ever greater complexity and centricity”. The ultimate aim of radial energy is to pull everything to the divine cosmic centre, the Omega Point = God. Tangential energy is that which relates and connects things to each other externally, but not internally. It “links an element with all others of the same order.” In Bergsonian terms, radial energy is élan vital while tangential energy is that of inert matter. However, Teilhard de Chardin’s radial energy is unlike élan vital insofar as it’s teleological: it has a specific purpose – to effect union between the soul and God at the Omega Point.

***** If the Catholic Church had wanted to remain relevant in the modern world, it would have adopted Teilhard de Chardin’s system. He was a brilliant, prophetic, Jesuit thinker, longing to reconcile the Church with modernity. However, the Church is of course a prisoner of its past. It cannot change its ancient doctrines, which is exactly why it’s destined to perish. No rational person could imagine Christianity, or Abrahamism, playing any part at all in the future of the human race. Abrahamism is a ghost that doesn’t realise it has already died. It’s haunting the world. One day, not too long from now, it will be exorcised. The demon will be cast out once and for all.

Hyperphysics

Teilhard de Chardin referred to his system as “Hyperphysics”, although it’s really just a species of metaphysics. If anything, ontological mathematics is the true hyperphysics. Where Einstein unified space and time, Teilhard de Chardin wanted to unify matter and mind, the physical and spiritual universes, the inert and living worlds. Since it was one step further along than physics, it would ipso facto be “hyper” physics, and it would address more than just physical energy. Naturally, the scientific community rejected Teilhard de Chardin’s work since it postulated a non-physical energy best defined as “spiritual”. Can we relate Teilhard de Chardin’s work to modern physics? In fact, it’s reasonably straightforward. Physics is all about symmetric bosons (force particles) and anti-symmetric fermions (matter particles). Most bosons, such as photons, are immaterial and dimensionless (which raises the issue of why science doesn’t regard them as “non-physical”, hence impossible!). All fermions are material and dimensional. We could easily describe radial energy as bosonic and tangential energy as fermionic. In other terms, we could describe tangential energy as entropic (increasing disorder) and radial energy as negentropic (increasing order). In terms of Fourier mathematics, we can regard the expansion of the universe in spacetime (leading to greater disorder and less symmetry) as the inverse partner of the “contraction” of the universe in the frequency domain (by which we mean the increasing symmetrisation and ordering of the frequency domain). We might say that radial energy is convergent energy, and tangential energy divergent energy. We could say that all chaotic physical energy has an equal and opposite mental energy, working towards order, organisation and symmetry. In all these ways, Teilhard de Chardin’s scheme is perfectly respectable and plausible, and it’s disgraceful that science so readily dismisses such ideas. It dogmatically refuses to consider them at all. Consider how much effort scientists put in to defending ridiculous proposals such as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and how little effort they put in to studying any “alternative” theories. They are not open-minded freethinkers. They are fanatical religious cultists.

Bergson versus Darwin

Darwinian evolution is conceived as mechanistic, randomist and nonteleological. It’s a mindless process serving no purpose. Lamarckian evolution is adaptive and teleological (it has a final goal of perfection). Hegelian evolution is mental, dialectical and teleological (converging on the Omega Point of the Absolute). Bergsonian evolution is conceived as alive and creative. However, it is nonteleological. It has no specific, destined purpose. The creative force is free to achieve whatever it likes, to surge forward to any future it can conceive and accomplish. The vital impulse (the non-material élan vital) that generates life is inherently evolutionary. The élan vital is infused in all matter as its opposite (matter is death and the non-material élan vital is life). Bergson said that the élan vital is a basic force like gravity or electromagnetism, whose origin is inexplicable. It drives life on to higher and higher levels of organization and complexity. The evolutionary theory of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is mental, teleological and involves an evolving noosphere converging, via radial energy, on a divine Omega Point (“God”) where union takes places between God and his Creation. In Illuminism, evolution is mathematical, driven by symmetry. The end of a Cosmic Age is when perfect symmetry is achieved. A new Cosmic Age starts as soon as that symmetry breaks.

Creative Evolution Henri Bergson’s theory of evolution was all about life, about becoming, change, creativity and novelty. He rejected deterministic evolution, whether mechanistic or teleological. Mechanistic evolution involves existing, fixed forces, while teleological evolution satisfies future-directed aims. Bergson’s system is based on the interaction between inert matter and the élan vital (life force). Matter, according to Bergson, proceeds in an orderly and geometric manner while the life force is disorderly, manifesting irreducibly free and unpredictable creativity. The material and living forces

are in direct conflict, matter wishing to impose order and sterility, life trying to escape scientific order and create novelty. Life = élan vital = “creative impulse” = “the vital force” = “living energy”. It’s immaterial and, indeed the opposite of matter. It’s the dynamic or animating energy of the universe, always in a flow of becoming, always creative. Creativity belongs to a ceaseless, unpredictable flux. Bergson insisted that this creative urge, not Darwinian natural selection, drove evolution.

The Gift The ancient Greeks gave the world all the basic building blocks for the answers to existence. Philosophy clarified these issues while religion tried to destroy knowledge via faith, revelation and mysticism. Mathematics was the subject that provided the real, definitive answers but mathematics was commonly regard as “unreal”, abstract, impossibly perfect and precise, and wholly detached from the real, messy world. It was dismissed as “Platonic”. Mathematics was pushed out of the way by science, which claimed to be about the “real” world, but this really meant the observable world of experience: the sensible world rather than the intelligible world of reason. Science is the false claimant, the impostor, which has beguiled humanity and steered it away from the metaphysical, perfect truth of mathematics.

Faith and Fanaticism Nothing has caused more evil and violence in the world than religious faith. The more you believe, the more fanatical, intolerant and dangerous you are. How many wars have been waged in the name of Reason? None at all. All wars reflect some kind of faith: in God, money, class, family, race, monarch, nation, flag, identity, or whatever. No wars have been fought over science, mathematics, logic or reason. The “fidels” – the faithful – are obsessed with converting the infidels, or exterminating them. Imagine a world where the rationalists adopted the same attitude, if, in the name of reason, they desired to eradicate the irrational from the world. If the rational succeeded, the world would unquestionably take an infinite evolutionary leap forward!

***** “An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools.” – Ernest Hemingway “A lot of good arguments are spoiled by some fool who knows what he is talking about.” – Miguel de Unamuno

Advanced Civilization No civilization could be advanced without mathematics. Science would be nothing without mathematics. Religious faith has no connection at all with an advanced civilization, and indeed is usually associated with outright primitivism. Islam is full of people of great faith, and empty of mathematicians, scientists and philosophers. How many Muslims have won science Nobel prizes? You don’t even need a full hand to count them. Nothing could be more beneficial to Islam than to replace the Koran with a book on Fourier mathematics. Mohammed would have been convincing only if he had enunciated Euler’s Formula centuries before Euler. As it was, all he did was plagiarise Judaism and make Arab pagans into Arab Jews who didn’t call themselves Jews!

Starting Over If you were beginning the world again, there are two types of people you definitely wouldn’t have in it: 1) anyone who believes in the God of Abraham, and 2) anyone who believes in karma. Abrahamism makes everyone the slave of a cosmic superbeing. Karma makes everyone the slave of a cosmic moral bookkeeping system of credits and debits. If everything we do is divinely designed and controlled, we are not free. If everything we do is karmically controlled, we are not free. Karmically, all of our actions now are the karmic consequences of our karmic actions of the past. We are prisoners of our karma, prisoners of our past. The theory of karma is absurd because it’s just the theory of scientific determinism, of scientific cause and effect, applied to the moral sphere. As soon as you took your very first moral decisions, before you knew anything, you became the prisoners of those decisions. Your future became more and

more conditioned by those decisions, especially if you did anything majorly “good” or “evil”. Today, you are either being rewarded for your karmic good deeds or punished for your karmic misdeeds. So, in what way are you free? You are a karmic marionette.

Mathematics Mathematics is pure, clean, precise and perfect. That’s exactly why people can’t imagine that it’s the foundation of existence. And that’s also exactly why it is the foundation of existence. The bricks of the universe, unlike the bricks of a house, must be perfect, must fit together perfectly and must do so eternally. A single flaw or error in the universe would instantly destroy it. According to the prevailing scientific interpretation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the foundations of the universe are inherently fuzzy, hazy, blurry, uncertain and infected with randomness. So, those are your two choices. Existence is either perfect order (mathematics) or perfect disorder (science). Well, which is it? Does the order of our universe rationally arise from the unobservable underlying order of ontological mathematics, or does the order of our universe emerge miraculously and inexplicably from absolute fuzzy chaos?

The Dynamic Universe Plato made a fundamental error when he considered the eternal domain of Forms: he imagined it as perfectly static. In fact, it’s perfectly dynamic. It’s perfect mathematics that dynamically generates perfect Fourier basis waves by tracing out perfect Euler circles defined by the God Equation. There’s nothing else.

The Sacred Army The Illumilitia = the Illuminitia = the Illuminati Militia. Join the Army of Reason. The Illuminati army marches behind three black flags, each bearing a white circle inscribed with a symbol:

1) Black flag, white circle, black symbol of pi. 2) Black flag, white circle, black symbol of Euler’s Formula. 3) Black flag, white circle, black Skull & Crossbones. In the name or Reason, in these signs of reason, we shall conquer. Evolution demands, the dialectic demands, that the smartest people in the world seize control. That means putting the dynastically wealthy families out of business – by 100% inheritance tax. That means putting religions out of business, by replacing all Faith schools with Reason schools and banning all parental religious indoctrination, or deliberately subverting all religious teachings. It couldn’t be simpler. Only smart people can make humanity divine. Stupid people have nothing to contribute to the future of the human race, hence are destined to become extinct. Those are the true facts of life. Watch the old black and white movie The Village of the Damned (based on The Midwich Cuckoos by John Wyndham), and ponder the future of humanity. Read The Chrysalids, also by John Wyndham, and ponder the future of humanity. Do the stupid have the right to hold back the smart? What are the smart going to do about it? HyperHumanity will not arise by accident. HyperHumanity will create itself. Are you one of the Creators, are you one of the Coming Race ... the Race of Gods?

***** Not man, Superman!

***** “We, however, want to become those who we are – the new, the unique, the incomparable, those who impose on themselves their own law, those who create themselves!” – Nietzsche What are you waiting for? Permission? Where are the self-actualizers, those who make things happen? – the gods. Are you one of them? Or are you waiting for your Saviour, your Messiah? The gods aren’t waiting for anyone. They are pure action. They don’t talk about their “potential”. They go out and do it. Can you? Or are you all talk?

Star Trek There are no Abrahamists in the Star Trek future, no Karmists, and no dynastically wealthy families. Perfection!

Star Wars The Dark Lord is Jehovah/ Allah/ Jesus Christ, and his prophets (apprentices) are Moses and Mohammed. The dark side of the force is faith, and the light side is reason.

***** Jehovah = the Sorcerer; Jesus Christ = the Sorcerer’s Apprentice. Jehovah = the Devil; Jesus Christ = the Antichrist. Jehovah = the Emperor; Jesus Christ = Darth Vader.

The Wrong Master “It is with our passions, as it is with fire and water, they are good servants but bad masters.” – Aesop

Planet of the Apes Mythos Humanity is an intermediate species between apes and Logos Humanity. Apes can’t land men on the moon, and nor can Mythos Humanity. People on their knees to Jehovah/ Christ/ Allah are useless to human advancement. People who pray are useless. People who have faith are useless. People who immerse themselves in mysticism are useless. People who meditate under trees are useless. New Agers who bang on about “love and peace” are useless. Everything that has helped the rise of the human race has a single source: reason. Only a tiny number of human beings are genuinely people of reason. The overwhelming mass of humanity is not only not a friend of reason, but its downright enemy. Religion did everything it could to obstruct the Enlightenment. Even today, religion is fanatically opposed to reason. No church, mosque, synagogue or temple ever advances the cause of reason.

Reason is forbidden from places of worship. Only Mythos propaganda is ever permitted in these endarkened places. The ancient Greek pagans furnished many of the greatest Logos figures of all time. Yet Abrahamism – the religion of Unreason – brought us the Dark Ages, Inquisition, Holy War, Crusades, Jihad, witch burnings, heretic burnings, persecution, intolerance, suicide bombings, and not one jot of reason. Abrahamism almost extinguished reason. Karmism likewise. Logos Humanity has succeeded despite Mythos Humanity, not because of it. They are two different species. Only Logos Humanity is evolving. Mythos Humanity is barely distinguishable from the apes. Look at many Muslim nations, and how they live in conditions of the utmost primitiveness. The lives of hundreds of millions of Muslims are not so different from those of human beings that lived thousands of years ago. These people have failed to evolve. A massive brake has been placed on the human race’s evolution by Mythos Humanity. That brake must be removed. It’s simply not acceptable for children’s minds to be corrupted by irrational faith and Mythos. It cannot be tolerated. Logos Humanity must wage a Second War of Enlightenment, and this time there must be no way back for religious faith. Human evolution demands a fully engaged, rational human race, not 10% of rational people permanently struggling with 90% of functional retards.

From Torturer to Tortured Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, is a Torture God. Jesus, the God of the New Testament, is a Tortured God. Although this is a mind-boggling contradiction, it works fantastically well in Mythos terms. Christianity is the world’s most successful religion because it covers every base in story terms. If offers something to masters and slaves alike, persecutors and persecuted, strong and weak, dominant and submissive, victimizers and victims, hawks and doves. Christianity is so powerful because it combines God and the Devil, God and his Shadow. It unites Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. It’s all things to all men, the ultimate chameleon, with a story for every situation. Christians

understand reality via stories and parables, not via science, philosophy and mathematics. It’s amazing that billions of people believe that “God” made the world in six days (by an inexplicable miracle) and rested on the seventh – just because it says so in a storybook. These people believe that they understand reality because they are able to understand a story. But Mythos has zero connection with reality, which is purely Logos.

Reality We never encounter true reality with our intellectually (rationally). The senses are mathematical signals. The intellect is mathematical signals in themselves, prior rather than Content.

senses. We encounter it solely all about the interpretation of all about understanding the to any interpretation, as Form

Humanity It would be wrong to say that humanity is the quintessential mendacious species. While it’s true that humans lie all the time, more or less compulsively, it’s also true that humans in general have absolutely no idea what the truth is in the first place. A liar is someone who deceives while knowing the truth. What do you call someone who deceives while not knowing the truth? They’re not betraying the truth since they don’t what it is. They’re betraying a simulacrum of the truth, an imagined truth, a fabricated truth, a Mythos truth, a believed truth. But those are not truths at all. They are power plays. Humanity is the quintessential power species.

The Disgrace What’s the most disgraceful and disgusting thing about intellectuals? It’s that they are almost invariably weak-willed liberals. They’re pathetic, spineless, feeble cowards who are surrounded by maniacs and psychopaths and yet refuse to do anything about it. In fact, by and large, they make their living by serving the religious, economic and political monsters who have utterly ruined our world. We need a new type of intellectual – the radical intellectual. This type of intellectual takes no shit and has no intention of serving anyone. His

purpose is to rule. We will have a sane world only when the smart are in charge rather than the religious or the rich.

***** The only true intellectual uprising in history was the French Revolution, driven directly by the Illuminati, but it was beset by so much opposition from all directions that it never got the chance to establish proper roots. We need a new generation of Jacobin intellectuals, with the same will to do whatever is necessary to protect and spread the Revolution.

Autism Many intellectuals are on the autistic spectrum. They are shy, withdrawn, and find social contact awkward and unpleasant. They like to hide away from the world. They are passive, weak, submissive and isolationist. We need active, dominant intellectuals who want to engage with the world and make a difference. As Marx said, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” The autistic intellectuals would rather work in well-paid jobs for Jewish multi-billionaire Mark Zuckerberg. That’s why the rich rule the world, and not the smart. Vast numbers of intellectuals are guilty of high treason against Reason, and actively collaborate with the enemy. Intellectuals fiddle while Rome burns. Or, rather, they play video games. Then they have the cheek to condemn the likes of Robespierre and SaintJust, who were willing to do the dirty work to change the world, and take the consequences (they both paid with their lives). One Robespierre is worth all the geek coders in the world put together. Who are the people in the world most determined to shape the world in their own image? – the Islamic Jihadists. If only we could give those people a brain and make them fight for the cause of Reason!!! You never hear them bleating like pathetic liberals, Ignavi and last men. Is there anything more embarrassing than quasi-Christian intellectuals and “love and light” intellectuals blabbering on about how we can all be one big happy family? Haven’t these people understood the first thing about the history of our world?! What planet are they living on? It can’t be this one.

***** “The king must die so that the country can live.” – Robespierre

***** In Breaking Bad, Heisenberg is an intellectual who knows what needs to be done, and does it, no matter how horrific. He gets the job done. He doesn’t whine. You can complain about the state of the world only if you’re willing to do something about it. The people who moan and groan and then go back to their video games and smartphones are beneath contempt. Life is all about the active. Who cares what the passive think about anything? These people are simply irrelevant. What about you? Are you relevant or irrelevant?

Semiotics “In semiotics, a sign is something that can be interpreted as having a meaning, which is something other than itself, and which is therefore able to communicate information to the one interpreting or decoding the sign. Signs can work through any of the senses, visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory or taste, and their meaning can be intentional such as a word uttered with a specific meaning, or unintentional such as a symptom being a sign of a particular medical condition. “There are two major theories about the way in which signs acquire the ability to transfer information; both theories understand the defining property of the sign as being a relation between a number of elements. In the tradition of semiotics developed by Ferdinand de Saussure the sign relation is dyadic, consisting only of a form of the sign (the signifier) and its meaning (the signified). Saussure saw this relation as being essentially arbitrary motivated only by social convention. Saussure’s theory has been particularly influential in the study of linguistic signs. The other major semiotic theory developed by C. S. Peirce defines the sign as a triadic relation as ‘something that stands for something, to someone in some capacity.’ This means that a sign is a relation between the sign vehicle (the specific physical form of the sign), a sign object (the aspect of the world that the sign carries meaning about) and an interpretant (the meaning of the

sign as understood by an interpreter). According to Peirce signs can be divided by the type of relation that holds the sign relation together as either icons, indices or symbols. Icons are those signs that signify by means of similarity between sign vehicle and sign object (e.g. a portrait, or a map), indices are those that signify by means of a direct relation of contiguity or causality between sign vehicle and sign object (e.g. a symptom), and symbols are those that signify through a law or arbitrary social convention.” – Wikipedia How do you construct a language? You create a set of signifiers (forms) and attach a matching set of meanings to them (content). As Saussure pointed out, both the signifiers and the meanings assigned to them are arbitrary. They are established by social convention, and they reflect social beliefs, power structures and mores. There is nothing necessary about them. All humanly constructed languages are arbitrary sign systems. They have arbitrary form and arbitrary content. We can imagine wholly different alphabets and words – indeed our world is full of rival alphabets and languages – and, without expert translation knowledge, it’s impossible to convert one into the other, i.e. nothing is obvious about languages. Consider how difficult it was to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics. Why is the Voynich Manuscript still undeciphered in the public sphere despite the efforts of countless wannabe code-breakers? No human languages reflect any eternal truths of reason. They are all about arbitrary signs and arbitrary interpretations of signs. This brings us to mathematics. Mathematics, uniquely, does reflect eternal truths of reason. Nothing about mathematics is arbitrary. Ontological mathematics is a strictly necessary, analytic, a priori system. It’s complete and consistent. It’s impossible for any human mind to construct such a language. Even when mathematicians and philosophers attempt to construct an empiricist means to define mathematics, they fail. They fall foul of Gödel’s Incompleteness theorems. Only the principle of sufficient reason can establish the truth of ontological mathematics, and that’s because it is ontological mathematics. The principle of sufficient reason expressed mathematically is none other than the God Equation – the generalised Euler formula. This explains why everything is as it is and not otherwise. One of the greatest of all fallacies is that mathematics is a human construct. Any language produced by humans is inconsistent and

incomplete. It’s saturated with arbitrariness, reflecting the vagaries of human evolution and culture. All human languages are historical. Mathematics is ahistorical, being necessary and eternal. Unlike any other language, we do not invent mathematics, we discover it, and even our discovery of it is fraught with problems. Mathematicians have had horrendous difficulties with negative numbers, imaginary numbers, complex numbers, zero and infinity. The idea that humans could invent a language that they wholly fail to understand is absurd. All languages are messy and can be “rectified” through arbitrary, ad hoc means. The entire difficulty with mathematics is that arbitrary, ad hoc approaches are forbidden. Everything has to be consistent with everything else. If anyone tried to make up something arbitrary in mathematics (as they do in ordinary languages), the attempt would automatically fail. Any valid mathematical innovation always reflects the ontology of mathematics. Mathematics goes wrong as soon as it departs from strict ontological mathematics – via set theory, formalism, “games”, philosophical logic, or anything else that is not inherently mathematical. Mathematics must be treated as mathematics, and not as anything else. As soon as alien, arbitrary languages are exported into mathematics, its internal cohesion fails. Mathematics must be defined by a single formula in order to be consistent and complete, and this formula must produce an overall result of zero – the compulsory ground state of existence.

***** The letters of the alphabet, which we use to form words, furnish a visual language that we can commit to papers and screens. Hieroglyphics is a pictorial rather than letter-based visual language. Phonetics (representing the sounds of speech with a set of distinct symbols, each denoting a single sound) is about matching a spoken language to a written language. Before reading and writing, languages were purely speech-based. Braille, used by blind people, allows letters of the language to be touched. Sign language provides for a visual, non-written language. If we wished, we could construct languages based on smell or taste alphabets. Any sensory information can be turned into an arbitrary language with arbitrary signifiers and signifieds.

Mathematics, ontologically, is non-sensory. It’s purely intellectual, purely rational, purely noumenal, purely metaphysical. You cannot see this hidden language of existence. All you can see are its effects. As Galileo said, “The Book of Nature is written in the language of mathematics.” This is a language of reason, not of the senses; the language of rationalism, not of empiricism, the language of intelligence. Why has science become so flawed? Because it’s increasingly mathematical (rationalist) while remaining wedded to the scientific method (empiricist). Empiricism is all about the arbitrary, ad hoc interpretation of the facts of nature. No eternalist, necessary, analytic, a priori first principles are deployed in science, as they are in mathematics. Mixing mathematical necessity with empiricist provisionalism and arbitrariness can never succeed in terms of providing a complete and consistent explanation of existence. The answer to existence must be consistent and complete, and only ontological mathematics meets this requirement. Humanity, as a species, is obsessed with meaning, yet it has no idea how to assign the correct meaning, so it just makes up meanings. It invents stories (Mythos), religious beliefs, political ideologies, economic ideologies, scientific ideologies, and so on. It leaves reality and enters the hyperreality defined by Baudrillard, whereby we simulate reality and then become unable to distinguish the simulation from the reality: the map and the territory merge. We establish meanings through signs. We think exclusively in signs. Look at status symbols: they are nothing but signs designed to communicate position in a wealth and prestige hierarchy. Look at all the trappings of the Papacy, of the UK monarchy, of the US Presidency. It’s all designed to project power and status, to let you know who’s in charge. We are awash with signs, and we are all expert sign interpreters. No sign has any intrinsic meaning. Only when we invest it with meaning do we turn it something potent and part of our cultural language. C. S. Peirce said, “Nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as a sign.” A classic sign must include both a signifier and a signified. An uninterpreted signifier is meaningless, as is a signified lacking a signifier. Every signifier (form) must have a signified (content). There can’t be a contentless signifier nor a formless signified. A sign is a recognizable combination of a signifier with a particular signified.

The signifier is the physical form of the sign: it can be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted. The signified is the psychological, sociological meaning. It’s a mental construct. Why are private languages impossible? Because the interpretation of signs is decided communally, not individually. A language is always social. Regarding private languages, Wikipedia says, “If someone were to behave as if they understood a language which no-one else can make sense of, we might call this an example of a private language. It is not sufficient here, however, for the language to simply be one that has not yet been translated. In order to count as a private language in Wittgenstein’s sense, it must be in principle incapable of translation into an ordinary language – if for example it were to describe those inner experiences supposed to be inaccessible to others. The private language being considered is not simply a language in fact understood by one person, but a language that in principle can only be understood by one person. So the last speaker of a dying language would not be speaking a private language, since the language remains in principle learnable. A private language must be unlearnable and untranslatable, and yet it must appear that the speaker is able to make sense of it.” Since we are all inherently social beings, we cannot construct private languages. Autistics would be those most capable of inventing private languages since they are so isolationist and anti-social, but even they simply use public languages badly.

***** In the empirical world, mathematics as it is in itself is converted into mathematics as signs. In particular, as sensory signs. We don’t encounter mathematics as form but as content. We then try to work back from content to form, but this is impossible because form is inherently rational while content is inherently irrational (in the sense that it never reflects eternal mathematical necessity). It’s a category error to use empiricism to understand rationalism. Existence is conveyed by dual-aspect mathematics. One aspect is wholly rational, and the other is wholly sensory (empirical). In other words, mathematics can inherently act as a sign system. It can be interpreted as having a meaning which is something other than its rational self, and which

is therefore able to communicate irrational information to the one interpreting or decoding the sign. It’s this aspect of mathematics that makes it so powerful, and so easy to misinterpret. Because we encounter the sensory, experiential aspect of mathematics (Content/ Matter), we fail to grasp its hyperrational nature (its Form). We encounter the world of content empirically, but we encounter the world of form rationally. It’s this dichotomy that has caused humanity so much difficulty in understanding reality. It tries to comprehend two different things at once, while attempting to treat them as just one thing. We encounter reality in terms of rationalism and empiricism, but we can only experience reality empirically, and we can only understand reality rationally. We can’t experience reality rationally, and we can’t understand reality empirically. Science tries to do exactly this, which is why it fails when it attempts to define ultimate reality. Science commits the error of privileging evidence over proof. Evidence is associated with contingent Content, and, moreover, the contingent interpretation of contingent Content. In other words, it’s very far from Truth. Proof is about eternal Form, and that’s exactly what Truth is. You always know you are dealing with a scientific moron when he demands Content-driven evidence rather than Form-driven proof. Evidence relates to the contingent, temporal order, and proof to the necessary, eternal order. If you want to understand reality, it’s never about evidence and always about proof, it’s never about Content, and always about Form.

The Energy Vampires Energy vampires suck the energy and enthusiasm from you. They are the carping critics, the snipers, the trolls, the sadists, the depressives, the negative cynics, the “know-it-alls” (in their own deluded estimation of themselves). All they seek to do is bring others down. No group can succeed without common passion and zeal, and the members should ensure they get rid of any energy vampires in their midst. All religions exclude those who don’t “share the faith”. This is an entirely rational strategy, and is one of the reasons for the success of religions. The liberal clowns who think it’s wonderful and open-minded to

include all the troll snipers, and let them air their grievances and criticisms, are guaranteed to fail. A group can never build up any momentum if it sabotages itself as it goes along by embracing its enemies. The Illuminati go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that only committed activists and radicals can join the core organisation. We wouldn’t dream of allowing liberals in, and last men, and Ignavi, and critics, and snipers, and those with no energy and no work ethic, the self-indulgent, egotistical, the emotionally fragile, and those without the very highest ambition possible – to rule the world in the name of Reason, in the name of the Enlightenment, in the name of Illumination. The disunited, the disloyal, the anarchic, the extremist individualists, can never change the world. Only a group that is absolutely tight can succeed. The Old World Order realised that long ago. At all times, the dynastic families of power and wealth work together as a single, all-powerful group to force through its agenda. That’s why they’re masters. We have sheer contempt for the blowhards who snipe at our position and our agenda. These people are born failures. They can never accomplish anything. All they ever do is try to drag down others. If you continuously go onto Facebook pages to post negative messages, it’s because you are a negative and depressed person, of no use to anyone. You are projecting your self-hate and failure onto the world. Here’s a very simple lesson in life. If you’re going to use Facebook, find pages where you feel inspired to post positive messages. You will immediately become a more positive and happier person. If, instead, you seek out pages that you oppose and reject, then there’s clearly something wrong with you. Only the perverse and perverted, only malcontents and troublemakers, would rather go to where they are not wanted than where they are wanted. Trolls are either clinically depressed, mentally retarded (usually autistic), or psychopathic sadists.

***** Consider Star Wars’ Order of Jedi Knights. The Order was very hard to join, the Knights all held a similar worldview, were very disciplined and loyal, and dutifully obeyed the orders of the wise Jedi Masters. They were defeated because they allowed an undisciplined and ultimately disloyal

agitator into their ranks, an individualist much more interested in his own agenda than that of the Order.

Form and Content The map and the territory. Universals and particulars. The shapers and the shaped. The container and the contained. The conveyor and the conveyed. The thing in itself and the appearance of the thing. The thing and the experience of the thing. The blueprint and the building. The plan and the implementation. The software and the hardware. Noumenon and phenomenon. Rationalism and empiricism. Metaphysics and physics. Mathematics and science. What it is and how it’s experienced. Primary and secondary properties. Reason and sensation. Intelligible and sensible. Signifier and signified. Analytic and synthetic. Truths of reason and truths of fact. The a priori and the a posteriori.

Deductive and inductive. Necessity and contingency.

***** What something is is not how it’s experienced. This is why the ideology of empiricism is so dangerous. It assumes that experience is reality when in fact it’s a representation, not a presentation, of reality. Experientially, we are always one-step-removed from the thing in itself. The only thing that takes us to the thing in itself is reason. The thing in itself is intelligible and rational, not sensible. The language of the noumenal domain is ontological mathematics.

***** What is an experience? What is it made of? How is conveyed? What contains it? Given that you are experiencing the experience, you can never experience the meta experience, i.e. that which tells you what the experience is made of.

Meta “In epistemology, the prefix meta- is used to mean about (its own category). For example, metadata are data about data (who has produced them, when, what format the data are in and so on). ... The modern sense of ‘an X about X’ has given rise to concepts like ‘meta-cognition’ (i.e. cognition about cognition), ‘meta-emotion’ (i.e. emotion about emotion), ‘meta-discussion’ (i.e. discussion about discussion), ‘meta-joke’ (i.e. joke about jokes), and ‘metaprogramming’ (i.e. writing programs that manipulate programs). “The OED cites uses of the meta- prefix as ‘beyond, about’ (such as meta-economics and meta-philosophy) going back to 1917. However, these formations are directly parallel to the original ‘metaphysics’ and ‘metaphysical’, that is, as a prefix to general nouns (fields of study) or adjectives. Going by the OED citations, it began to be used with specific nouns in connection with mathematical logic sometime before 1929. (In 1920 David Hilbert proposed a research project in what was called ‘metamathematics.’)

“A notable early citation is Quine’s 1937 use of the word ‘metatheorem’, where meta- clearly has the modern meaning of ‘an X about X’. (Note that earlier uses of ‘meta-economics’ and even ‘metaphysics’ do not have this doubled conceptual structure – they are about or beyond X but they do not themselves constitute an X). “Douglas Hofstadter, in his 1979 book Gödel, Escher, Bach (and in the sequel, Metamagical Themas), popularized this meaning of the term. The book, which deals extensively with self-reference and strange loops, and touches on Quine and his work, was influential in many computer-related subcultures and is probably largely responsible for the popularity of the prefix, for its use as a solo term, and for the many recent coinages which use it. Hofstadter uses meta as a stand-alone word, both as an adjective and as a directional preposition (‘going meta’, a term he coins for the old rhetorical trick of taking a debate or analysis to another level of abstraction, as when somebody says ‘This debate isn’t going anywhere’). This book is also probably responsible for the direct association of ‘meta’ with strange loops, as opposed to just abstraction. The sentence ‘This sentence contains thirty-six letters,’ and the sentence it is embedded in, are examples of ‘metasentences’ that reference themselves in this way.” – Wikipedia Noumena are metaphenomena in the sense that they are beyond or after the phenomena (as metaphysics is beyond or after physics). Noumena are not “phenomena about phenomena”. In Copenhagen quantum mechanics, what lies beyond the “actual” world (observable = phenomenal) might be said to be a metaphenomenal world, a world that describes all potential phenomenal states that the world can take on. This metaphenomenal world is not real (is not actual), yet it specifies any possible phenomenal world. It’s like a database of all possible phenomenal worlds, and any actual phenomenal world cannot exist unless it’s first an entry in the metaphenomenal database. Of course, there’s a fundamental ontological problem in grounding actuality in potentiality. How can something that isn’t actual, isn’t real, that doesn’t exist, be the ground of existence? That’s a category error, and it goes all the way back to Plato and Aristotle with their notion of prime matter (non-being or potentiality), waiting to become being when form is applied to it. Prime matter serves a similar purpose to the Copenhagen quantum mechanical wavefunction, except, in the latter case, observation is what

makes it “real” (an observation “collapses” the potentiality wavefunction to an actual state), whereas, in the former case, the application of form is what makes it real. For Plato, the Forms are in a transcendent realm and exist as autonomous things. For Aristotle, the forms are immanent and, in our world, are always found in combination with matter. In ontological mathematics, a true, actual reality underlies the phenomenal, observable world – a Pythagorean world of eternal mathematics. For Kant, this underlying reality is “unknowable” whereas, for Illuminism, it’s fully knowable since it’s just ontological mathematics; it’s pure form. In both cases, however, it’s an actual reality rather than a potential reality. It’s incoherent to claim that potential existence lies beneath actual existence. Actual existence is permanently actual. Monads – the fundamental units of ontological mathematics – are eternal existents. However, at the start of each Cosmic Age, they are reset to a pristine state. At this point, their dialectical content is set to zero = maximum potential and minimal actualisation. The unfolding of the dialectic takes them to their Omega Point = minimum potential and maximum actualisation. They have travelled from Alpha to Omega. So, potentiality and actuality certainly have a role to play, but within immortal existents (monads). You cannot have potential existents. You can have potential properties that adhere in eternal things. Things (monads) are forever, but their properties and qualities are contingent (depending upon how the dialectic unfolds). These properties and qualities will always reflect additions of atomic basis waves within each monad. Monads are form; their properties and qualities are content.

***** Descartes said that a cause must have at least as much reality as its effect. Science claims that potentiality, which is formally unreal, can be a legitimate basis of actuality (reality). This is ludicrous. The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. Science says, in effect, that virtual energy (the energy of unreal, potential existence) is the basis of the real energy of actuality. This is wholly contrary to the First Law. You cannot mix different ontological categories of energy, especially if one of those categories is unreal. Science

simply doesn’t care about being rational and consistent. It makes up ideas as it goes along, and sweeps the mess under the carpet.

***** What comes after physics? – metaphysics. This is equivalent to saying that what comes after physics is ontological mathematics, or what comes after empiricism is rationalism, or what comes after the contained is the container, or what comes after the shaped is the shaper, or what comes after Content/ Matter is Form.

The Lowest Level What are atoms made of? What are sub-atomic particles made of? What’s below sub-atomic particles – sub-sub-atomic particles? Can we keep going lower and lower, to ever more fundamental levels of existence? What’s the lowest we can go? There must be a lowest level, the ground state, below which it’s simply impossible to go. In Illuminism, the lowest level is the monad, with a ground state of zero. According to science’s string theory, the lowest level is an arbitrary one-dimensional string, which is not at the ground state of zero, and nor is it gathered into any balanced units (such as monads), where the net energy of the unit is zero. Actually, ontological mathematics is also based on one-dimensional strings – sinusoidal waves. The key difference is that these are analytic (perfect sine and cosine waves), and they are grouped into monads so that their net energy is always zero. (Sinusoids can be positive or negative, real or imaginary: monads are complete and consistent collections of sinusoids, with an overall result of zero.)

The Purging Platonic Forms exist purged of matter. Prime Matter is matter purged of form. Given that prime matter is non-being, it does not exist per se. It comes into being only when form is applied to it and makes it “something”. The Aristotelian God is pure immaterial Form, pure reason, pure thinking, pure life, pure actuality. In a sense, Aristotle’s God is equivalent to Plato’s supreme form, the Form of the Good, or to Plato’s Demiurge united with the Form of the Good.

Form Imitation? If a white object participates in, or copies, the form of whiteness, does this mean that the Form of Whiteness is itself white? Is the Form of Horseness a Horse? How can it be given that the domain of Forms is eternal, immaterial and immutable? Is the Form of Life alive? If not, how can it be the basis of life? In ontological mathematics, the Form of Life is the God Equation, and every living monad is defined by the God Equation. Each monad is an ontological instance of the God Equation. The God Equation is the Universal, and each monad a particular. In relation to the Form of Horseness, this is not an absolute Form. Rather, it’s a contingent Form. A horse instantiates horse DNA, while a human instantiates human DNA. DNA is not an eternal Form of life. It’s a contingent Form of Life that specifies how a monadic soul links to a body in the physical world. This is an Evolutionary Form, not an Eternal Form. Monads (souls) are concerned with the Eternal Form of Life, while bodies are concerned with the Temporal Form of Life. Reincarnation is a process of Eternal Life-Forms (souls) successfully linking to Temporal Life-Forms (bodies). Bodies die, souls don’t.

The Soul: Plato versus Aristotle For Plato, the soul is an immortal entity that partakes of the Form of Life. An immortal soul links to a mortal body. Body and soul are fundamentally separate things. The death of the body does not mean the death of the soul. For Aristotle, body and soul are a fundamental union and unity. A living creature is a substance comprising body (matter) and soul (form). The soul (psyche) provides the structure, function, organisation and teleology of the body. The death of the body means the death of the soul. Aristotle conceives of the soul as something akin to a program for life, computer software as opposed to its hardware. When the computer breaks down, the software is useless. For Plato, the software can find new hardware through reincarnation and begin again. Aristotle did allow for the possibility that the quality that makes us different from animals (our nous, our reason) does not actually belong to us

at all, but to God, hence does not perish with the body. Reason, for Aristotle, is literally divine. Therefore, irrationalism is bestial. Faith, the enemy of reason, is of the animals, not of the gods. Faith and unreason are exactly those things that must be overcome if we are to become gods.

***** “St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–74) understood the soul to be the first actuality of the living body. [Primary matter is a pure potentiality, and the substantial form is its first determination, its first actuality.] Consequent to this, he distinguished three orders of life: plants, which feed and grow; animals, which add sensation to the operations of plants; and humans, which add intellect to the operations of animals.” – Wikipedia Aquinas, like Aristotle, sees life as ascending a scale of functionality, from primitive to advanced, the advanced building on, and enhancing, the primitive, culminating with God himself: perfection. However, Aquinas, unlike Aristotle, believed in the immortality of the individual human soul. He taught that God created the immaterial soul, which was the vital, intellectual, rational principle of the body. It was added to the body at birth. Aquinas further argued that when the physical body died, the soul formed a new spiritual body, which was its vehicle for the rest of eternity. (In other words, form = soul always needs content = body.) Aquinas allowed animals only mortal souls: “...the souls of brutes are produced by some power of the body; whereas the human soul is produced by God. To signify this it is written as to other animals: ‘Let the earth bring forth the living soul’ (Genesis 1:24): while of man it is written (Genesis 2:7) that ‘He breathed into his face the breath of life.’” (Aquinas, Summa Theologica). Man is made in the image of God by virtue of his intellectual or rational soul, directly created by God. The mortal souls of animals are generated through Nature, not through God. They are natural, not divine. Aquinas’s position is intermediate between that of Plato and Aristotle: 1) Plato: Immortal Soul, separate from body, can survive bodily death; can undergo reincarnation. 2) Aristotle: Mortal Soul, united with body, cannot survive bodily death.

3) Aquinas: Immortal Soul, united with body: can survive the death of the physical body, but then acquires an immaterial, spiritual body.

Primary and Secondary Primary qualities are measurable. Secondary qualities are subjective and experiential aspects of physical reality. They are not measurable. No one can measure how much red they are currently experiencing, the quality of that red, and what it feels like to see red. No one can describe red to a blind person.

The Collective Consciousness “Collective conscious or collective conscience (French conscience collective) is the set of shared beliefs, ideas and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force within society. The term was introduced by the French sociologist Émile Durkheim in his Division of Labour in Society in 1893.” – Wikipedia “The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society forms a determinate system with a life of its own. It can be termed the collective or creative consciousness.” – Emile Durkheim Collective consciousness applies to groupthink, conformism, flock behaviour (sheeple), herd behaviour (human cattle), the “hive mind” (Anonymous), Franchised Jihad/ Terrorism (Al-Qaeda), morality, ritual, custom, “group mind”, “mass mind”, “social mind”, “organisation mind”, the lynch mob, the crowd, religion. “[Collective groups, such as the family, community, organizations, regions, nations] can be considered to possess agential capabilities: to think, judge, decide, act, reform; to conceptualize self and others as well as self’s actions and interactions; and to reflect.” – Burns and Egdahl And to replicate. And to infect, like a virus. Religions are virulent agents of the collective consciousness.

Kill The King

“Peasants you were and peasants you are. You will remain in bondage, not as before, but in an incomparably worse state. For as long as we are alive to achieve this and by the grace of God rule this kingdom, we shall work with our minds, powers and possessions to keep you in such subjection that the abject state of your servitude may be an object lesson to posterity, and that now and in the future men like you may always have before their eyes, as if in a mirror, your miseries, as a reason for cursing you and for fearing to commit similar crimes themselves.” – King Richard II of England in the bloody aftermath of the suppression of the Peasants’ Revolt in 1381 Well, should kings be allowed to talk that way to the People? If not, what are the People going to do about it?

The Collective Unconscious If the personal unconscious is a reservoir of experience unique to each individual, the collective unconscious does the same job for the Collective. The Collective Unconscious for humanity reflects of all of humanity’s experiences that turned humanity into what it is now. While the personal unconscious resides in the monadic mind of the individual, the Collective Unconscious resides in the mind of the Monadic Collective and is available to every monad to access.

***** “My thesis then, is as follows: in addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature and which we believe to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal unconscious as an appendix), there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents.” – Jung In any localist, materialist vision of reality, such as that of scientific materialism, the Collective Unconscious is impossible. In any non-localist, mental vision of reality, such as that of Illuminism, the Collective Unconscious makes perfect sense, and in fact controls and directs psychic

reality. Our personal unconscious and personal consciousness (ego) emerge from the Collective Unconscious, like the tip of an iceberg rising above the surface of the water, while the vast bulk of the iceberg remains hidden. The Collective Unconscious contains within it the entire evolutionary history of humanity, every detail of the dialectic that has brought humanity to where it is today. Jung considered the Collective Unconscious to be personified as a Wise Old Man, a Mentor for all of us with the experience and sagacity of the Ages. The Wise Old Man has seen it all before.

Monopsychism Monopsychism: the belief that all humans share one consciousness, soul, mind or intellect. Eastern religion, especially Buddhism, is heavily influenced by monopsychic thinking. Western Buddhism – Schopenhauer’s philosophy – is monopsychic. In this philosophy, a noumenal, unitary Will is split into a multiplicity of illusory individual wills by the individuating filter of space and time. Most mystical traditions reference monopsychism in one way or another. The Collective Unconscious acts a single mind for humanity, albeit it can be accessed only indirectly, primarily through dreams ... and madness! The mad might be said to be those who have lost their individual consciousness and had it replaced with the Collective Unconscious.

***** Some have suggested that the Collective Unconscious can be equated with the Holy Spirit. This is to anthropomorphise and personalise it. The Holy Spirit is then soon switched from being unconscious to being an allknowing, conscious power (i.e. God), and thus the Collective Unconscious is hijacked by New Age, religious and Spiritualist bullshit.

Enlightenment? MR: “There is a truly enlightened person on this planet now.” Really? What MR means, of course, is that someone has written something that is consistent with her own opinions and beliefs about what

enlightenment is. MR would never say that a book on M-theory or ontological mathematics represents enlightenment because she has zero understanding of these, and they mean nothing to her. It has always been the case that what a person considers “enlightenment” is entirely conditioned by their level of intelligence, their reason and how their brain is wired. The only work which concerns enlightenment is that which tells you exactly what existence is, not something that waffles on about “truth”. Consider this statement by the “enlightened” Michael Smith: “Definition of ultimate truth: It is knowing the truth of life. It is knowing the fundamental, eternal laws of nature, and the nature of the mind which distorts and hides the truth. It is an accurate and complete understanding of ‘that which is.’” But that doesn’t define ultimate truth at all. After reading such a statement, we are not one iota further forward in the search for ultimate truth. Any Abrahamist, Karmist or scientific materialist atheist could make this statement. It’s not a “definition” of ultimate truth. It’s merely someone’s statement about what a person who actually possessed the definition of ultimate truth would know. The definition of ultimate truth is of course the God Equation. Working out all of its implications, its full meaning, and how to use it optimally, constitutes becoming God, i.e. merely knowing the God Equation is not enough; one has to be its uttermost master, and know how to manipulate the ultimate knowledge it provides. We have never once come across any modern material claiming to be enlightened that wasn’t anything other than mysticism, faith, speculation, mumbo jumbo, and hocus pocus, and which didn’t wholly avoid mathematics. As for science, “enlightened” books just selectively use whatever scientific elements suit their purpose. You never learn any actually science from such books. In all so-called enlightened books, you find absolute revulsion for reason, and, in fact, a total absence of reason. All you get is mystical propaganda and emotionalism – which is of course exactly what New Age “spiritualists” lap up.

***** “Beliefs are ideas going bald.” – Francis Picabia

Abrahamic beliefs are so bald, there’s nothing left to grab. “Alice laughed ... ‘one can’t believe impossible things.’ ‘I daresay you haven’t had much practice,’ said the Queen. ‘When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.’” – Alice in Wonderland Abrahamists never do anything but believe impossible things.

Hell Jung claimed that hell, for every culture, is the most disturbing and frightening aspect generated by the Collective Unconscious. “Hell,” as Sartre said, “is other people.” Or hell is yourself.

Necessary and Contingent Form and Content Existence ultimately comprises nothing but analytic sinusoids organised into monads. Every monad is necessary, and so is every sinusoid it contains. Each monad comprises a complete and consistent set of sinusoids that balances to a net zero, i.e. every monad is strictly conserved at “nothing”. Every necessary sinusoid has a necessary form and a necessary content, i.e. each sinusoid has primary and secondary properties, quantity and quality, intelligible and sensible properties, rational and empirical properties. Each sinusoid is, form-wise, available to our reason (intellect), and, content-wise, to our senses. We subjectively experience the content, not the form. The form is non-sensory. We rationalise the form with our intellect, our reason. While each sinusoid is necessary, the combinations of sinusoids that we can produce from the basis sinusoids are limitless and always contingent. When we add sinusoids, then, in relation to their form, we mathematically add their objective mathematical properties to produce a contingent form (it’s contingent because it doesn’t have to exist, and we could decompose into its necessary elements). By the same token, when, in

relation to content, we mathematically add the sinusoids’ experiential properties, we get resultant, contingent content. It’s vital to comprehend that we don’t encounter the necessary world of basis sinusoids, with their necessary form and necessary content. Instead, we encounter a world of contingent form and contingent content, i.e. a world of functions (with rational and empirical aspects), assembled from the basis sinusoids. It’s precisely because there are infinite ways of adding sinusoids that the recurring universe repeats its pattern but never its exact details. Every Cosmic Age is unique. Even though there are only 26 letters in the Latin alphabet, we can write infinite books using them. There’s simply no end to the ways in which the words derived from the letters can be arranged. If that’s the case with letters, consider what it’s like with countless sinusoidal “letters of the alphabet”. Using Fourier mathematics, which allows us to break up a wavefunction into its constituent sinusoids, we can in principle work out exactly what all contingent Forms, and even Contents, comprise. When we perceive the world, we perceive primary properties – the mathematical shapes and structures of things resulting from Form. We also perceive the secondary properties – the Content – and it is in fact the Content that allows us to discern the Form. If all colours and shades of grey were removed from the world, we wouldn’t be able to see the world at all, hence we would have no idea of what its Form was. Content reveals the underlying Form which shapes it.

***** Necessary form is the form of necessary things (sinusoids). Necessary content is the content of necessary things (sinusoids). Contingent form is the form of contingent collections of necessary basis forms. Contingent content is the content of contingent collections of necessary basis contents.

Illusion “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” – Einstein Phenomenal reality is an illusion. Noumenal reality is not. Noumenal reality is perfect, eternal, ontological mathematics. Noumenal reality comprises “atomic” (sinusoidal) Form and “atomic” (sinusoidal) Content, which are absolute, eternal and immutable. By sinusoidal addition, atomic Form and Content can be turned into “molecular” Form and Content, and it’s this type of additive, net Form and net Content that we actually encounter in the contingent world. All molecular functions can be broken down into atomic functions. Ontological mathematical “atoms”, however, cannot be further broken down since they are dimensionless, immaterial monadic singularities – ontological zeros.

Life and Form Ontological mathematics is Form. Life and mind primarily experience the Content rather than the Form, and only encounter Form through Reason, Intellect and Math. Externally, mathematics is energy. Internally, mathematics is content, which we might even refer to as spiritual energy.

Life and Mind Come on now, what did you expect life and mind to be? In order to answer what something is, you must have a clear idea of what the potential candidates are. No “mysterian” positions are permissible since these can never produce an answer. To say, for example, that “God” is life and God makes life is to explain neither what God is nor what life is. There are in fact only two possible answers to what life and mind are. The empiricist materialists (scientists) say that life and mind are derived from lifeless, mindless, material atoms. They have never come anywhere near explaining this stance and make the ludicrous claim that as the complexity of material organisation increases, life and mind miraculously “emerge”. This is, of course, a non-explanation.

The only other possible answer is that what we experience as life and mind is derived from a different type of atom: an immaterial atom (monad) that’s inherently alive and mental by virtue of being all about the uniform flow of perfectly structured information. Monads are dimensionless, immaterial, mathematical atoms with infinite information capacity, and they have existed forever. They are perfect perpetual motion organisms. They are souls. Perfect ontological mathematics is the basis of life and mind. Life and mind experience the content of mathematical “atoms” (forms). Mathematical atoms (monads) can be called the atoms of life, or the atoms of mind. Mind and life are synonymous since all minds are alive, and life exists only where mind exists. Life and mind must be made of something. Are they made of something perfect, eternal, indestructible, necessary, analytic and a priori – i.e. of ontological mathematics? Or of something contingent, temporal, ad hoc and arbitrary, such as the material “atoms” of science? How can life be made of material atoms and how can mind be made of material atoms given that such atoms contain neither life nor mind? It’s impossible. But atoms (monads) of ontological mathematics inherently possess life and mind. There’s no point in asking what life is, or what mind is, until you’ve asked what life is made of, or what mind is made of. The fundamental nature of existence is the first issue to be addressed. Ontology is the “first philosophy”. You can’t proceed to anything else until you know what everything is made of. Everything is made of mathematics, not of science. Mathematics is perfect, eternal, indestructible, analytic and necessary. Science isn’t. Things can be made only of scientific or mathematical atoms. They can’t be made of feelings or faith or hope or love or mysticism or intuition or sensations or philosophy. They can’t be made of Content, only of Form. Even “God” must be made of scientific or mathematical atoms. However, when you ask what scientific atoms are made of, you realise that the answer is mathematical atoms (!). Mathematical atoms, on the other hand, definitely aren’t made of scientific atoms. Mathematical atoms are the only things that can’t be made of anything else. Mathematical atoms are existence itself.

No religious person ever asks What is God made of? Because to ask that question is to make God dependent on something else (that of which he is made). So, believers in God claim that God is not made of anything. He simply exists, they say. In fact, they claim he is fundamental existence itself. Such a claim makes existence indefinable. If “God” or “God stuff” is fundamental existence, we would be just as well off referring to magic or mystery since these are equally indefinable. As soon as you have to define what existence is – define it precisely, without any vague, mumbo jumbo terms – there’s nowhere else to go other than mathematics. Mathematics is the only thing capable of exact definition. Mathematics is eternally defined. Nothing else is. If there were a God, he would be made of mathematics, hence mathematics would be more fundamental than God. To say that “God” is the most fundamental existent is to make two claims: 1) that God made mathematics (but nothing can make mathematics since it’s defined eternally and immutably, hence can have no inventor), and 2) that existence is incapable of definition (since God is incapable of definition). Only irrationalists would ever maintain that existence cannot be defined. Existence has an answer only if it can be precisely defined. If it cannot, you might as well be a person of faith because, if existence is God or anything else indefinable, you will never know what existence is made of, and what existence actually is. It’s math or faith, math or unreason, math or madness. Well, what will you choose? Do we live in a rational universe or an irrational universe? What is science? It’s sensory math, the math of Content. Math itself is noumenal and is about Form. Existence is monadic, and every monad comprises a complete and consistent set of analytic sinusoids, each of which is a net “nothing”, i.e. existence is “nothing” existing in a certain way. Existence is structured nothingness, and the only that can be nothing while also being something is mathematics itself, thanks to its essential properties involving positive and negative numbers, real and imaginary. Have you understood? Mathematics is existence because only mathematics can be something while also being nothing. It’s compulsory for existence to have a net value of nothing since nothing is the mandatory ground state of existence. It’s the most fundamental requirement of

existence that it can never be anything other than a net nothing, and mathematics alone can satisfy this requirement.

The Ontological Argument The ontological argument for the existence of God holds that the existence of the concept of God entails the existence of God. This argument is wholly fallacious when applied to “God”. However, it’s entirely valid when applied to the concept of perfection, and perfection is strictly mathematical. The existence of the concept of mathematics entails the existence of mathematics. Anselm’s famous ontological argument is summarised as follows: Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived. The idea of God exists in the mind. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being – that which exists in reality. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God. Therefore, God exists. The argument goes wrong from the outset. It says that perfection (that than which no greater can be conceived) must reside in a being (called “God”). This is simply false. Perfection can reside only in an eternal, immutable system – namely ontological mathematics. A being can never be inherently and eternally perfect unless that being is ontological mathematics itself, and no believer in “God” regards God as pure math. Moreover, the principle of sufficient reason asserts that if one such God were possible, there would be nothing to prevent infinite such Gods. Anselm’s argument presupposes that there can be only one “greatest being”. Where does he eliminate the possibility that there could be infinite greatest beings, all equal to the first? (The Monadology of ontological mathematics is all about countless monads, equally perfect in their absolute form, but the content of which can evolve differently, via contingent functions). We can imagine something that is greater than God – mathematics. Anselm’s argument is all about beings, but beings cannot be eternally perfect since they are imperfect in content. All monadic beings start out, as far as content goes, as potential (i.e. imperfect) and must become actual (i.e. perfect). Their telos is to achieve perfection – to become God. All monads

are already Gods in terms of their absolute, perfect form, but must become Gods in terms of content too. Form and content are perfectly aligned at the Omega Point, the end of the dialectic. We could replace Anselm’s argument with the following one: 1) Our understanding of “God” is a system than which no greater can be conceived. 2) The idea of the perfect system exists in the mind. 3) A system that exists both in the individual mind (monad) and in reality (in the Collective Mind = the Monadic Collective) is greater than a system that exists only in the individual mind. 4) If the system exists only in the individual mind, then we can conceive of a greater system – that which exists in reality (in the Collective Mind). 5) If we can individually imagine a perfect system, it would be impossible for that perfect system not to exist in reality because then our own minds would contain more perfection than existence itself. Since our minds are caused by existence, our minds cannot be more perfect, or produce more perfection, than existence itself. As Descartes said, a cause must have at least as much reality as its effect. So, if the effect of existence is such as to allow us to individually conceive of a perfect system of existence, it follows that this system must exist in reality. The said system is ontological mathematics – perfection itself. While we could conceive of infinite beings of equal perfection (monads, for example, which are all equally perfect in necessary form), we could never conceive of infinite systems of equal perfection (a Multiverse of rival perfections, so to speak). A system is much more complex than a being, and there can be only one perfect system. Perfection is necessarily a monism. You cannot have rival, competing perfections because then each would be imperfect with regard to the other, hence imperfect, contrary to definition. So, the inexorable application of the principle of sufficient reason leads to a single conclusion: perfection can and must exist, and it can and must reside in a single system, and that single system is ontological mathematics. It’s emphatically a system, not a being. All beings result from this system. The system does not result from any being.

Everything went wrong with the ontological argument when it was conceived in terms of a being. If it’s conceived in terms of a system, all of its absurdities dissolve, leaving an adamantine argument that, if we can define perfection, it must exist since we ourselves are the products of that perfection, and we cannot be more perfect than our “Creator”, or conceive of something that is more perfect than our Creator. We cannot have thoughts that are more perfect than that of which we are made. If we can have perfect thoughts then those perfect thoughts necessitate a perfect system reflecting those perfect thoughts: a perfect system that made us. Not a perfect “God”, but a perfect God Equation, a perfect Formula for existence. It’s impossible for the perfect formula for existence not to exist. The God Equation is a formula than which no greater can be conceived. The idea of the God Equation exists in the mind. A formula that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a formula that exists only in the mind. If the God Equation exists only in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater formula – that which exists in reality. We cannot imagine something that is greater than the God Equation. Therefore, the God Equation exists in reality. If we can conceive of a perfect God Equation then a perfect God Equation must exist because, otherwise, we would have created more perfection than that of which we are made. The effect would thus be more perfect than the cause, an impossibility. The very fact that we can conceive of perfection means that it must exist, but as a mathematical formula for existence, not a person, not a being, not a God of faith and revelation, not a God of mysticism. The only true religion is the religion of the God Equation, the religion of mathematics, the religion of eternal, immutable perfection. These arguments are 100% rationalist. They have no connection whatsoever with Content, with the senses, with empiricism, with evidence, with experiments, with science, with the scientific method, with experience. They are absolutely intellectual. The truth is intellectual. The truth is rational. The truth is intelligible. The universe exhibits infallible truth because the universe is infallible math. Math provides us with absolute knowledge of eternity, with perfect knowledge, with infallible knowledge. Nothing else does.

No one can invent perfect mathematics. If they could, it would mean that they, the Creators, were creating something more perfect than themselves: something, necessary, immutable and eternal. This is impossible. Temporal creatures cannot create eternal things. Contingent things cannot create necessary things. Mutable things cannot create immutable things. Therefore, perfect mathematics exists, and we are its creations. Mathematics is the eternal, perfect foundation of everything else. Mathematics provides the unseen bricks from which the house of the universe is made. Mathematics equally provides the bricks of life and mind. The bricks of existence are sinusoidal waves, which are mathematically equivalent to ontological, dynamic Euler circles. Content is always carried. It doesn’t carry itself. What is the ontological carrier? – Sinusoids. Life must be made of something. Mind must be made of something. Is it made of lifeless, mindless atoms? Or of living mathematical atoms (monads)? What are life and mind? They are perfectly structured, uniform information flow, and, critically, the experience of this flow. Living mathematical minds (monads) are teleological and self-solving. Life is all about the experience of content, but the meaning of life is all about the understanding of Form, i.e. you can’t understand the Content of your life until you understand its Form.

Panlogism Panlogism: “all reason” (Ancient Greek, pan: all + logos: word, reason, study). Panlogism is the doctrine that reason is everywhere at the fundamental level of existence, i.e. we live in a strictly rational universe, with no random, irrational, or chaotic elements whatsoever (in relation to its fundamental constitution). Illuminism subscribes to panlogism in the shape of ontological mathematics. Panlogism asserts that reality consists of the actualization of rational Mind or Logos. It was a term commonly applied to Hegel’s theory of Reality. For Hegel, logic and ontology are the same study, i.e. existence is fundamentally grounded in logic/ reason, but this logic/ reason isn’t static and eternal but dynamic and historical (temporal) – it’s an evolving system, converging on an Absolute condition (Omega Point).

Panlogism asserts that absolute reality is of the nature of logic, logos, reason. Ontological mathematics shares the same core idea. Ontological mathematics is how reason exists ontologically. It is the Principle of Sufficient Reason as a consistent and complete rational system.

***** Panlogism = “all reason”. Panmathematics = “all mathematics”.

***** Panlogism: Thought, Intellect, Logos, Reason, is the Absolute, the Ground of All. We do not inhabit a Mythos universe of faith, love, hope, the senses, the feelings, mysticism, or anything else. This is a Logos universe. Logos = Form; Mythos = Content.

Panpneumatism Eduard von Hartmann proposed that reality reflects a synthesis of the views of Hegel (panlogism) and Schopenhauer (panthelism = “all is will”). Hartmann proposed that the ultimate reality is the Unconscious, which comprises both Will and Reason. (Jung’s concept of the Collective Unconscious is just an enhancement of Hartmann’s ideas.) Panpneumatism (“all is Spirit”) is the doctrine that noumenal reality is both unconscious Will and unconscious Reason (Intellect).

***** Panpneumatism was a term used by Hartmann to synthesize Hegel and Schopenhauer’s views: Thesis: Panlogism (Hegel) = all is Intellect. Antithesis: Panthelism (Schopenhauer) = all is Will.

Synthesis: Panpneumatism (Hartmann) = all is Intellect and Will. The Absolute is Will imbued with Intellect, and operating unconsciously. The evolution of consciousness enables a separation between Will and Intellect to be effected, and for Reason to control Will (for Apollo to master Dionysus). Reason cures primitivism.

***** Hegel: all is Reason. Schopenhauer: all is Will. Hartmann: all is Unconscious Reason and Unconscious Will. Nietzsche: all is Will to Power. Jung: all is the Collective Unconscious.

***** Only Intellect (rationalism) can understand Form. Will – which is about feelings, desires, mystical intuitions, sensations – has no access to reason hence can never understand reality. It can grasp only Content (experience; empiricism). Intellect can transcend the human condition and reach the hidden Form. Will cannot and remains stuck at the level of Content.

Panthelism Panthelism (“all will”) is the doctrine that Will is the Absolute, the basis of existence and the universe. Reason (Intellect) is subordinate to the Will and derived from it. Schopenhauer was the great panthelist.

Panpsychism Panpsychism: “all mind” (Ancient Greek, pan, all + psyche, soul/ mind). Panpsychism is the doctrine that mind is everywhere. Panpsychism is closely linked with idealism, but, whereas the latter says that reality is exclusively mental, panpsychism makes a slightly less extreme claim: that mind is found everywhere.

Materialism asserts that there is only matter and no mind (mind, such as it is, is a strictly material phenomenon or epiphenomenon). Idealism asserts that there is only mind and no matter (matter, such as it is, is a strictly mental phenomenon or epiphenomenon). Panpsychism can assume an intermediate position: it can accept the authentic existence of matter, provided it is always associated with mind. In these terms, panpsychism is a dual-aspect doctrine: matter and mind are two sides of one coin. Leibniz’s system is often described as panpsychic. Whereas idealism regards matter as an idea of mind, Leibniz’s Monadology makes matter a well-grounded phenomenon of mind. The difference is that, in Leibniz’s system, matter, although constructed from mind, takes on a genuinely different character from mind and seems to have separate, autonomous existence. For conventional idealists, matter is never anything than an idea, and it’s a real problem for idealists to explain how different minds can share the same idea of matter. In Kant’s system of idealism, there are noumenal minds and there are noumenal objects, but these noumenal objects must be conceived as a kind of proto-matter: immaterial and dimensionless, but existing in their own right, independent of mind. This is therefore not a panpsychic version of idealism, and it’s not even strictly idealist since it refers to the real existence of non-mental entities. Schopenhauer turned Kant’s system into a proper idealist and panpsychic system by asserting that all noumena in fact belong to a single noumenal, mental Will, outside space and time. In Leibniz’s system, there is not a single mental entity (Will) existing outside space and time, but infinite individual, autonomous mental entities – monads. Leibniz reduced the whole of reality to a collection of independent, autonomous, psychic, energy centres (souls). Through their collective operations and interactions, they generate what science regards as objective matter.

Pantheism Pantheism: “all God” (Ancient Greek, pan, all + Theos, God).

Pantheism is the doctrine that reality comprises a single being (God) of which all things are modes, members, appearances, or projections. Pantheism seeks to move humanity away from theism and the notion of the personal, Abrahamic God of salvation and damnation. Instead, it suggests an organic, interpenetrative relationship between God and the world rather than that of God and Creation as absolutely separate (as in Abrahamism).

Panentheism Panentheism: the world is in God, but he extends beyond its limits. The world and God are not one and the same. God isn’t outside the world, but is nevertheless more than the world. Panentheism attempts to reconcile pantheism and theism. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Palingenesis Palingenesis: “becoming again, born again, rebirth” (Ancient Greek, palin, again + genesis, birth, becoming). Schopenhauer used palingenesis in a Buddhist sense, i.e. it’s not an individual soul that is reborn since there’s no such thing as the individual soul (regarding which Buddhism is 100% in error). The Collective Will is untouched by death, hence can never be reborn. When phenomenal death (the death of a body) takes place, the Will associated with that body finds expression through another body as a new individual. The “individual” Will is of course not truly individual because it belongs to the unitary, Collective noumenal Will outside space and time. Will only seems to become individuated, through being expressed via the phenomena of space and time. For Schopenhauer, as for Buddhism, a living Oneness underlies everything. For Leibniz and for Hinduism, a myriad of eternally individuated souls underlie everything. For Schopenhauer and Buddhism, the One is the root of all. For Leibniz and Hinduism, the Many is the at the root of everything, and yet the Many are collected together into One – the Singularity, Brahman, or the Monad of monads.

Transcendent Views Faith, the basis of Abrahamism, does not offer a transcendent view, i.e. one that allows us to consider humanity and ourselves objectively rather than subjectively, that takes us out of the human condition. The senses, the basis of science, do not offer a transcendent view. Mystical intuitions, the basis of Eastern religion, do not. Love and feelings, the basis of New Ageism, do not. Ontological mathematics does. It’s species-independent, universal and eternal. To think mathematically is to transcend your human limitations and subjectivity. To direct your thoughts to Form rather than Content is to free yourself from the illusory, contingent, temporal world.

Deism Where theism absolutely separates God and his Creation but insists that God is nevertheless obsessed with his Creation and takes an active interest in everything that happens in Creation (even miraculously intervening on occasion), deism says that once God has established his Creation and its laws, he then absents himself from it and has no personal interest in anyone in Creation. Since God has, so to speak, abandoned his Creation, this view doesn’t make much sense, unless “God” is conceived as a set of laws such as those of ontological mathematics. With theism, God is too involved with the world, and with deism he’s not involved enough. Pantheism, by making everything God, makes God involved with everything, and also in union with Creation rather than separate from it. Western faith religions are theistic (as in Abrahamism). Intellectual Westerners were attracted to deism, which was eventually replaced by science. Eastern religion is mostly pantheistic or panentheistic. In the West, the Eleatic school, Stoicism, Neoplatonism and the philosophies of Spinoza and Schopenhauer can all be regarded as pantheistic. In the case of Schopenhauer, however, “God” is rather more like the Devil given that Schopenhauer viewed existence as inherently evil since it was overwhelmingly associated, in his view, with suffering. Averroism, as opposed to the Catholicism of Saint Thomas Aquinas, yielded a pantheistic reading of Aristotle’s philosophy. Spinoza was in

many ways an Averroist.

The Soul Series The God Series provides the knowledge of ultimate existence. But what do you do with this knowledge? How does it help you? The Soul Series is a future series of books about enlightenment, about power, about navigating the universe after bodily death but prior to reincarnation, about becoming the best and most powerful you can be, about reaching your personal Omega Point, about becoming God.

Buddhism “Gautama Buddha stated that questions on the origin of the world are not ultimately useful for ending suffering.” – Wikipedia This attitude is absurd and shows absolute contempt for the Truth. It’s the Truth that sets you free, and you can be free only if you understand the Form of Existence, which is the Form of Eternal Life. Buddhism rejects Form and turns to Content alone. It concludes that Content mostly involves suffering, so seeks to reduce Content to nothing (nirvana) so that suffering ceases. The upshot is that Buddhists have no interest in either Form or Content, and that means no interest in anything at all. Buddhism, when properly understood, is nihilism in its most extreme form. It’s not a belief in nothing, so much as a longing for nothing, or an undertaking to become nothing. This was certainly how Schopenhauer understood Buddhism – it’s the means to escape from existence by ceasing to will, and thus ceasing to be. It’s only because Buddhism is so badly understood that it has any followers at all. When Buddhism is clarified, as it is in Schopenhauer’s philosophy, it’s revealed for what it is: absolute hostility to life and to existence itself. Buddhism is for those who want to flee from life. To sit meditating under a tree in order to escape the suffering – and the joys – of life is to turn your back on life. In which case, you don’t deserve life. The secret of life is not to reject life. The secret of life is to live it. To embrace it. To plunge into it. And, finally, to know what it is in its innermost kernel.

“...In Buddhism, the sole aim of spiritual practice is the complete alleviation of stress in samsara, which is called nirvana.” – Wikipedia Buddhism is the gospel of those who are too weak for the contest of life. They want to leave the contest, but, in fact, that option isn’t open to anyone, so you ought to throw yourself into the contest as enthusiastically and whole-heartedly as you can. Buddhism is predicated on the notion that we have no fundamental Self, hence we can escape from the illusion of our Self, and no longer have to endure the trials and tribulations of the Self. Yet this is entirely false. We are all immortal, indestructible, autonomous souls, and there’s no way out. We can never abandon life and existence. We can never find the exit door from ourselves. We are here for the duration – for the infinite duration. Buddhism, being 100% false regarding the nature of the Self, is one of the worst religions to which you can subscribe. It’s nothing but error, falsehood and delusion, and offers nothing at all to anyone seriously interested in answering the mystery of life, and knowing how best to live. You cannot live properly until you know life’s secret. This means knowing the origins of the world, the very thing that the Buddha said should be of no interest to the Buddhist. When properly understood, the origin of the world is the Self itself. Remarkably, the Buddha was opposed to knowing the origin of the world while he was in fact making his own claim about the fundamental origin of the world – namely, that, in his opinion, it is grounded in the not-Self, or illusion of Self (anatman). The whole of Buddhism flows from the speculative, bogus claim that the Self is not only not fundamental but not even real. It is in fact impossible for anyone to preach any message that is not explicitly or implicitly making some claim about the origin of the world, hence to say that one should not be interested in the origin of the world is absurd. Everything we do is traced back to the origin of the world and if you don’t understand that then you don’t understand anything, and you will live a life of pure delusion, as, indeed, most people do. “Theories regarding a self-existent immutable substantial ‘ground of being’ or substrate were common in India prior to the Buddha, and were rejected by him.” – Wikipedia

What an error. Any ideology that rejects the search for the ultimate secret of existence is deplorable and worthless. Science, like Buddhism, has rejected the search for the Truth by appealing to the ultimate non-explanation of “randomness”. It’s no surprise that many “spiritual” scientists are advocates of Buddhism. The Buddha did not seek a common thread – an arche – for all phenomena, which makes him profoundly unintellectual and antiintellectual. He could easily be classed with nihilistic skeptics and cynics. “[The Buddha] rejects the Upanishadic notion of an immutable substance or principle underlying the world and the person and producing phenomena out of its inherent power, be it ‘being’, atman, brahman, or ‘god.’” – Wikipedia Hinduism, regarding ontology, is far superior to Buddhism, and much more compatible with Illuminism. “In later Mahayana literature, however, the idea of an eternal, all-pervading, all-knowing, immaculate, uncreated and deathless Ground of Being (the dharmadhatu, inherently linked to the sattvadhatu, the realm of beings), which is the Awakened Mind (bodhicitta) or Dharmakaya (‘body of Truth’) of the Buddha himself, is attributed to the Buddha in a number of Mahayana sutras, and is found in various tantras as well. In some Mahayana texts, such a principle is occasionally presented as manifesting in a more personalised form as a primordial buddha, such as Samantabhadra, Vajradhara, Vairochana, and Adi-Buddha, among others.” – Wikipedia It’s impossible for any system of thought to turn its back on the arche, the origin of all. In the end, even Buddhism went down the path of the arche. However, Buddhism becomes less and less coherent, and more and more mystical, as it strays into the profoundest metaphysical territory. The ground of being is the Soul, the Self itself, the very thing denied by Buddhism! “In Buddhist tantric and Dzogchen scriptures, too, this immanent and transcendent Dharmakaya (the ultimate essence of the Buddha’s being) is portrayed as the primordial Buddha, Samantabhadra, worshipped as the primordial lord.” – Wikipedia

It becomes clearer and clearer that Buddhism involves the worship of Buddha as God! Similarly, Islam is really the worship of Mohammed rather than Allah, and Christianity calls Jesus Christ “God” even though he himself never once claimed to be God and always maintained that he was the “Son of God”, meaning that he definitely wasn’t God. No matter what prophets and gurus say, they themselves will sooner or later be regarded as divine. “The Shingon Buddhist monk, Dohan, regarded the two great Buddhas, Amida and Vairocana, as one and the same Dharmakaya Buddha and as the true nature at the core of all beings and phenomena.” – Wikipedia Oh dear! “Similar God-like descriptions are encountered in the All-Creating King Tantra (Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra), where the universal Mind of Awakening (in its mode as ‘Samantabhadra Buddha’) declares of itself: I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the cause of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am ‘the core’ because I contain all phenomena. I am ‘the seed’ because I give birth to everything. I am ‘the cause’ because all comes from me. I am ‘the trunk’ because the ramifications of every event sprout from me. I am ‘the foundation’ because all abides in me. I am called ‘the root’ because I am everything.” – Wikipedia Oh dear (part 2)! Buddhism in these terms starts to resemble Abrahamism! “The Karandavyuha Sutra presents the great bodhisattva, Avalokitesvara, as a kind of supreme lord of the cosmos.” – Wikipedia Mystical drivel! Where’s the math? Where are the eternal truths of reason? This is just Mythos gibberish, as indeed most of Buddhism is. “The Primordial Buddha is ultimately both the individual mind and the immanent omnipresent enlightenment of the macrocosmical reality, the individual and external phenomena being seen as interdependent.” – Wikipedia Isn’t it remarkable that Buddhism is often regarded as “Godless”, yet so many versions of it appear God-intoxicated? When Buddhism refers to the “Primordial Buddha” is that not just “God”?

“In Shin Buddhism, Amida Buddha is viewed as the eternal Buddha who manifested as Shakyamuni in India and who is the personification of Nirvana itself.” – Wikipedia Did you know that Nirvana could be personified? That means that if you seek Nirvana, you are seeking a person, and to be absorbed into that person? Who in their right mind would want to become “absorbed”? You might as well worship the Borg in Star Trek. “In Shin Buddhism, Nirvana or Ultimate Reality (also known as the ‘Dharma-Body’ or Dharmakaya in the original Sanskrit) has assumed a more concrete form as (a) the Buddha of Infinite Light (Amitabha) and Infinite Life (Amitayus) and (b) the ‘Pure Land’ or ‘Land of Utmost Bliss’ (Sukhavati), the realm over which this Buddha is said to preside ... Amida is the Eternal Buddha who is said to have taken form as Shakyamuni and his teachings in order to become known to us in ways we can readily comprehend.” – John Paraskevopoulos, Shin Buddhist priest Incomprehensible! “It is time we discarded the tired view of Buddhism as a dry and forensic rationalism , lacking in warmth and devotion ... By hearing the call of Amida Buddha we become awakened to true reality and its unfathomable working ... to live a life that dances jubilantly in the resplendent light of the Infinite.” – John Paraskevopoulos What Buddhism needs is an injection of dry and forensic rationalism. It needs math! “Huston Smith describes early [Theravada] Buddhism as psychological rather than metaphysical. Unlike theistic religions, which are founded on notions of God and related creation myths, Buddhism begins with the human condition as enumerated in the Four Noble Truths. Thus while most other religions attempt to pass a blanket judgement on the goodness of a pre-fallen world (e.g. ‘He then looked at the world and saw that it was good.’ Book of Genesis, Old Testament, Christian Bible) and therefore derive the greatness of its Creator, early Buddhism denies that the question is even worth asking to begin with. Instead it places emphasis on the human condition of clinging and the insubstantial nature of the world. This approach is often even in contrast with many of the Mahayana forms of

Buddhism. No being, whether a god or an enlightened being (including the historical Buddha), is ascribed powers of creation, granting salvation and judgement.” – Wikipedia Buddhism should indeed be regarded as a psychological formula for living life, rather than an intellectual subject dealing with ultimate reality, about which it has nothing to contribute. “...the very idea of a ‘Buddha’ living in any heaven abode is not possible in early Buddhism, as a ‘Buddha’, by definition, is a being that is no longer clinging to any material or immaterial existence upon the death of the body.” – Wikipedia The “logic” of Buddhism points to exactly this conclusion. But what is the conclusion? If Buddha has no material or immaterial existence then he has no existence at all – exactly what Schopenhauer concluded!

***** A great deal of New Age charlatanry is based on Buddhism. The more a rational person delves into Buddhism, the more nauseating he finds it. It’s false in almost every regard. It’s almost as bad as Abrahamism.

Mathematics Mathematics can only be made of something quintessentially mathematical. It cannot, therefore, be made of something non-mathematical, such as sets. Set theory is an absurd basis of mathematics, driven by the familiar empiricist, positivist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science. Why are so many mathematicians so ignorant about what mathematics actually is?! Why have they allowed their discipline to be hijacked by bad empiricist philosophy? Most university mathematicians are a disgrace to their subject. Like scientists, they are in desperate need of philosophical literacy.

No Form Plato did not properly distinguish between Content and Form. Justice and Beauty, two of his most prominent Forms, are in fact Content, not Form. Plato wanted to assert that we can have absolute knowledge of Justice. We

can’t. Justice is not something eternally, necessarily, analytically defined. Neither is Beauty. These will always be contingent, evolutionary, dialectical concepts, revolving around subjective opinions and interpretations.

Truth Empiricists want the blue of the sky is to be regarded as objectively true, while 1 + 1 = 2 is to be regarded as a strange abstraction, but 1 + 1 = 2 is infinitely truer than that the sky is blue. It’s not at all clear what it means to claim that the sky is blue since the sky is different colours at different times of the day, and black at night, and colour is any case highly subjective. Colour-blind people would have no idea what “blue” meant. This is plainly not an objective statement.

The Soul “The soul is the form of the body, but not as the shape of a statue is formatio et terminatio materiae, for form does not exist apart from material. There is no whiteness without a white object. But the soul is not a form in this simple sense, and in particular, is not the shape of the material it informs. Therefore, the shape of a being does not affect the being’s soul, for then something lower would inform something higher, which is impossible.” – Michael Flynn Form and Content always co-exist. If we call “Matter” Content then Form and Matter always co-exist. The shape of Content and Matter is not in the Matter and Content itself: it’s supplied exclusively by Form. However, Form can never be directly experienced. It’s experienced at second-hand through its perceivable effects on Content and Matter. We understand Form, we experience Content and Matter. Form is rationalist and intelligible while Content and Matter are empiricist and sensible. The error of science is to try to regard Form as Content and Matter rather than as ontologically distinct from Content and Matter (and unobservable). Form is one side of the coin, and Content/ Matter the other side. You cannot understand either side of the coin by contaminating it with its obverse side (as science does).

Death “Death is not in the nature of things; it is the nature of things. But what dies is the form. The matter is immortal.” – John Fowles The exact reverse is true. Life is the nature of things. If death were the nature of things, life would be impossible. Matter, if conceived in terms of atoms and bodies, is absolutely mortal. What “dies” is contingent, temporal form expressed through contingent, temporal matter. Absolute, necessary Form is immortal and indestructible. Necessary Content, the other side of the coin of necessary Form, is itself immortal. Necessary things are immortal; contingent things are mortal. Absolute Form reflects all possible sinusoidal waves: the basis “notes” of existence. All “music” composed from these notes – all combinations of basis waves – is mortal, contingent, and destructible.

Simplification “Isn’t simplification sometimes impoverishment? How to convey the richness of the message with a poverty of symbols. If we oversimplify the form, don’t we kill the content?” – V Y Mudimbe Simplification is always enrichment. The simpler the better. What could be better than reducing all of the apparent mysteries of existence to just one all-powerful, all-comprehensive, all-defining, simple mathematical form that explains everything?! Fourier basis sinusoids provide the richest possible alphabet in the simplest possible way. The simpler the Form, the more complex, the more alive, the Content! Ontological Fourier mathematics is the perfect expression of Occam’s Razor: the law of simplicity and economy.

The Impossible “Forms disappear, words remain, to signify the impossible.” –Augusto Roa Bastos

Forms never disappear, no more than the letters of words disappear. Form is the sine qua non for everything. Existence without Form is impossible, so we have just used words (made of Forms) to “signify the impossible”!

Form is Content? “Here form is content, content is form. You complain that this stuff is not written in English. It is not written at all. It is not to be read – or rather it is not only to be read. It is to be looked at and listened to. His writing is not about something, it is that something itself.” – Samuel Beckett on James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake Form is never content, except where the content is explicitly about the Form. When we engage in ontological mathematics, the Content aligns with the Form. Otherwise, Form and Content are separated by impenetrable firewalls. They are as diametrically opposed as the two sides of a coin. “For Proust the quality of language is more important than any system of ethics or aesthetics. Indeed he makes no attempt to dissociate form from content. Form is the concretion of content, the revelation of a world.” – Samuel Beckett Form and Content are, at the ultimate, necessary level, always dissociated (rationalism versus empiricism), except in the case of the study of ontological mathematics, where all Content is directed towards expressing Form. “...music is the idea itself, unaware of the world of phenomena, existing ideally outside the universe, apprehended not in Space but in Time only, and consequently untouched by the teleological hypothesis.” – Samuel Beckett Teleology is all about time, or, rather, about the sequence of events. There is no teleology in a static universe. The ultimate notes of music are the eternal sinusoids of Fourier mathematics. “Design is the method of putting form and content together. Design, just as art, has multiple definitions; there is no single definition. Design can be art.

Design can be aesthetics. Design is so simple, that’s why it is so complicated.” – Paul Rand Very true – at the temporal, contingent level. “A work of art is realized when form and content are indistinguishable. When they are in synthesis. In other words, when they fuse. When form predominates, meaning is blunted… When content predominates, interest lags.” – Paul Rand Wouldn’t you like to live in a world where all architecture is based on sinusoidal waves? Imagine homes as sections of interlinked sinusoids. Imagine cities of solid waves: the ocean come to the land, as crystallised music. As Goethe said, “Music is liquid architecture; Architecture is frozen music.” “Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.” – Thomas Huxley Science is common sense at its worst. It’s totally inaccurate in observation and interpretation of observation, and is supremely fallacious in its “logic”, being inherently empiricist rather than rationalist. “Better to be without logic than without feeling.” – Charlotte Bronte Most of humanity certainly agrees! In fact, it’s catastrophic to be without either. “People who lean on logic and philosophy and rational exposition end by starving the best part of the mind.” – William Butler Yeats People who don’t are starving the best part of the mind! “What I like about the jokes, to me it’s a lot of logic, no matter how crazy they are. It has to make absolute sense, or it won’t be funny.” – Steven Wright Good jokes are about the precise subversion of the expected logic, but which present an alternative logic that’s as good as or even better than the standard logic. No good joke is devoid of logic. “Never tell your problems to anyone... 20% don’t care and the other 80% are glad you have them.” – Lou Holtz

True. “Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer but wish we didn’t.” – Erica Jong True again. We want confirmation that we need to perform an unpleasant task. “We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves.” – Buddha We are indeed shaped by our thoughts, literally. We are all composed of sinusoidal Fourier waves, which are atomic thoughts.

Best or Worst? “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” – F. Scott Fitzgerald “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” – George Orwell, 1984 The worse your intelligence, the more you engage in doublethink.

Frankenstein Neither God, nor Dr Frankenstein, nor any AI expert can create life. Life in itself is a noumenon that can never be created or destroyed. Only life as contingent and phenomenal (mortal rather than immortal) can be destroyed. Only bodies, not souls, can perish. Souls are necessary and noumenal.

Cowardice “The new courage – no a priori [innate and universal] truths (such truths were sought by those accustomed to faith!), but a free subordination to a ruling idea that has its time: e.g., time as a property of space, etc.” – Nietzsche In fact, all truths are a priori [innate and universal]! Such truths were definitely not sought by those accustomed to faith, but the precise opposite:

by those accustomed to reason. The new courage is to abandon faith and feelings (Abrahamism), mystical intuition (Eastern religion), and the senses (scientific empiricism). Nietzsche was, however, prescient about time being a property of space. Time is simply imaginary space.

The Story The language of a book and the physical book itself are the form of the book. The ideas, words and story of the books are its content. When you analyse anything at all, you should always ask yourself what is the form and what is the content. Abrahamism is the catastrophic belief that the irrational Content of ancient “holy” texts reveals the Absolute Form of existence (“God”). This is a category error. Most errors in life flow from people confusing Form and Content.

The Feelings Problem “The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.” – Thomas Sowell Most people don’t know what thinking is. Most people “think” with their feelings and sensations, but that’s not thinking!

Nothing It has been said that if you teach people to believe nothing they end up believing anything. But if you teach people to believe something – something arbitrary, irrational and ludicrous, such as Abrahamism – then you have in fact taught them to believe anything, i.e. exactly what you feared would be the result of teaching them to believe nothing. No one should be taught to believe anything. They should be taught how to think, how to reason, how to challenge every arbitrary, crazy belief system that brainwashers attempt to impose on them. If you teach people to adhere to reason, they will not believe anything. Rather, they will believe nothing. They will not be people of faith at all, but people of knowledge. Faith must be abolished.

Platonic Form versus Hegelian Form Platonic Form is eternal and immutable. It’s non-evolutionary. Hegelian Form is historical. It has an evolutionary trajectory and a history: it’s a process in time, in history, not outside time and outside history. By the same token, Platonic Content, the flip side of Platonic Form, is eternal while Hegelian Content, the flip side of Hegelian Form, is evolutionary, and converging on an Omega Point. At the Omega point, Hegelian Form and Content unite with Platonic Form and Content. In terms of Fourier mathematics, the Big Bang equates to the breaking of the perfect symmetry of the Fourier frequency domain, leading to the creation of the Fourier domain of space and time. The dialectic then applies to the Fourier space and time domain, and culminates, at the Omega Point, with the return of spacetime to the frequency domain whence it came. It’s all in the math.

Logic Aristotelian logic is eternal and fixed whereas Hegelian dialectical logic is temporal and dynamic. It’s evolving via the clash of opposites, and the synthesis of opposites to produce a higher thesis. Hegelian logic is messy, living logic. The logic of life is war, which is why the jungle is a place of utmost savagery (survive or perish), and why human history is so violent. Everything is about the struggle for power. Living logic works itself out via conflict, not via eternal truths of reason. It’s all about the “facts on the ground”, which are the facts of power. Irrational Content, not rational Form, drives the dialectic. The more rational we become, the more we understand Form, the more we can control the dialectic and start behaving like the gods we are destined to become. But that means that before we can create heaven on earth, before we can establish a Community of Gods, and a Society of the Divine, we have to get rid of all those obstructing the progress of the dialectic.

The Devil

Look into your soul. Can you see the Devil there? If you can’t, you’re a liar. We are all the Devil. We are all the Shadow. The dialectic makes it so. Our task is to transcend the Beast Inside.

Compete “Get out strong. Commit.” – Athlete Lynsey Sharp Life is about committing. Life is about committing to a sacred cause. What sacred cause have you chosen?

Equation An equation is a mathematical statement that says that two expressions have the same value. It’s any mathematical statement containing an “=” sign. An equation is a mathematical sentence that says that two mathematical statements are equal. An equation always has an equals sign. The thing or things on the left side of the equals sign are equal to the thing or things on the right side of the equals sign. Equations are tautologous since whatever is on the right of the equation is exactly the same as what is on the left, except expressed in different terms. Ontological mathematics is about eternal, necessary tautologies while science is about provisional, contingent tautologies (which are not true tautologies since, although the equals sign is used, there is no guarantee that what is on the right of the equation truly is equal to what’s on the left). Science is about approximate tautologies rather than actual tautologies, and that’s exactly why science can never tell us about ultimate Truth.

Formula A formula is an equation that states a rule or a fact. It’s an equation used to describe a relationship between two or more variables. It’s a mathematical relationship, rule or principle expressed in symbols. A formula is a set of instructions for generating a desired result. The chemical formula for water is H2O: to produce a water molecule, join two hydrogen atoms to one oxygen atom. Coca-Cola has a formula: a list of ingredients that when put together in the formulaic way will always produce Coca-Cola. In

mathematics, the Pythagorean Theorem states that for a right-angled triangle a2 + b2 = c2, where c is the hypotenuse. The equation reflects not just the ingredients of the formula, but also the relationship between the different ingredients. Where an equation is intended to be solved (i.e. it contains unknowns), a formula is intended to be evaluated, i.e. you replace variables in it with specific values and get the result of the formula for those values.

Identity An identity is an equation that is true no matter what values are chosen. An identity is an equation that is true for all values of the variables. Identities were sometimes indicated by the triple bar symbol instead of the equals sign, but this is no longer a common usage. Euler’s “formula”, eix = cos x + i sin x is, technically, an identity since it is true for any value of x. It’s also a formula since it states a rule or fact. While an identity is true for any value of the variable, an equation is not. For example, the equation 4x = 20 is true only when x = 5, so this is an equation and not an identity. With such an equation, we are trying to solve it for x, i.e. to find the single value of x that makes the equation true. With an identity, we are not trying to solve for x; we are simply putting x into the identity and thus instantiating the identity for the particular value of x we have chosen (and we could validly do so for every other value of x, whereas, in our quoted equation, only one value of x is valid).

Theorem “In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proven on the basis of previously established statements, such as other theorems – and generally accepted statements, such as axioms. The proof of a mathematical theorem is a logical argument for the theorem statement given in accord with the rules of a deductive system. The proof of a theorem is often interpreted as justification of the truth of the theorem statement. In light of the requirement that theorems be proved, the concept of a theorem is fundamentally deductive, in contrast to the notion of a scientific theory, which is empirical.” – Wikipedia

A theorem is a mathematical statement which is proved using rigorous mathematical reasoning. Euler’s theorem is eiπ + 1 = 0, which we get by evaluating Euler’s Formula for x = π.

Lemma A lemma is a minor result whose purpose is to help prove a theorem, i.e. it’s a step on the path to proving a theorem.

Proposition A proposition is a proved and interesting result, but of less significance than a theorem.

Corollary A corollary is a result derived from a theorem, identity or formula. The result eiπ + 1 = 0 could be called a corollary of Euler’s Formula, when x = π.

Conjecture A conjecture is a statement that is unproved but believed to be true.

Claim A claim is an assertion to be proved. It can be used as an informal, unproved lemma.

Axiom/Postulate An axiom or postulate is a statement assumed to be true without proof. These are the conventional building blocks from which all theorems are proved. However, if the axioms are false, or only approximately true, or only valid in certain situations, all sorts of nonsense can flow from axioms. The central problem of the axiomatic approach to mathematics is that no mathematician has ever found a complete and consistent set of axioms, and indeed no such set exists, as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems

demonstrate. This means that the mathematics “proved” by the chosen axioms of mathematicians are not definitively and absolutely true. Mathematics – true mathematics – must in fact be predicated on a single consistent and complete formula or identity.

Paradox A paradox is a statement that, given set of axioms and definitions, can be shown to be both true and false. Paradoxes demonstrate the inconsistency of a theory. Any theory that flows from anything other than an identity or formula is inconsistent. Informally, “paradox” refers to a surprising or counterintuitive result that follows from a given set of rules.

Function “In mathematics, a function is a relation between a set of inputs and a set of permissible outputs with the property that each input is related to exactly one output. An example is the function that relates each real number x to its square x2. The output of a function f corresponding to an input x is denoted by f(x) (read ‘f of x’). In this example, if the input is -3, then the output is 9, and we may write f(-3) = 9. The input variable(s) are sometimes referred to as the argument(s) of the function ... A function f takes an input x, and returns a single output f(x). One metaphor describes the function as a ‘machine’ or ‘black box’ that for each input returns a corresponding output.” – Wikipedia In mathematics, a function applies to the situation where one quantity (called the input) entirely determines another quantity (called the output).

Input/Operation/Output Input x then apply function f (perform an operation on x) and generate an output, designated f(x).

Form/Formula

In Illuminism, the Platonic Forms are replaced by the Ontological Mathematical Formula = the God Equation. The God Equation plays the role of the Platonic Form of the Good. Everything comes from this Form. We don’t live in a “Formed” universe but, rather, a Formulaic universe. Existence is a mathematical formula expressed through monads, each of which reflects the Formula for Life.

“Physical” Mathematics? “I am of a school where we should be doing physical mathematics – that is, learn from observation and let reality guide your mathematics – this is contrary to mathematical physics, where the math is pushing how we want reality. ... I can tell you now, there are very deep problems and mistakes we have made in physics and mathematics, all because we do mathematical physics and not physical mathematics. There are other ways to look at reality, and if you don’t teach them early in the educational process, you only perpetuate the lies of the past. How many centuries must past before humanity learns these lessons?” – Dorian Sabaz This is the absurd stance adopted by many mathematicians and scientists who have failed to grasp the central fact of mathematics: that it’s the foundation of existence, and the true basis of physics and science. Mathematics must always come before the physical, and never the other way around. Contrary to what Sabaz says, the problem is that far too many mathematicians do physical mathematics instead of mathematical physics. They let the physics drive the mathematics rather than the other way around. And mathematical physics is, in its turn, underpinned by noumenal, ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics is reality. Science (empiricism) is not reality. It’s exactly Saban and his ilk who have utterly falsified reality through their failure to understand the mathematical basis of existence, which is intelligible, not sensible, mental, not physical, rationalist, not empiricist. It’s all to do with reason, and nothing to do with observation.

Schemas Every comment that everyone posts on Facebook instantly identifies what kind of person they are. There are four types:

1) The faith and feelings brigade: Abrahamists, hippies, New Agers, the love and light gang. They always make an emotional case, usually to do with “love” or obeying “God” because he sent his son to “save us” (allegedly!). They are totally unrealistic, fanatical, irrational and regularly quote scriptures or “authorities” or “love and peace” gurus. They instantly reject rational arguments. 2) The sensing empiricists: scientists, skeptics, know-it-alls. They always refer to “evidence” and to concrete, practical, dull things. They reject anything that they deem abstract or metaphysical. 3) The mystical intuitives: Eastern religious types, New Agers, the love and light gang, people who fancy themselves as gurus, prophets, visionaries, unrecognised geniuses. Their style is dreamlike, bordering on schizophrenia. (Sadly, Illuminism seems to attract large numbers of this type.) 4) The rationalists: the Illuminati, the top mathematicians and philosophers. They present very rational, factual arguments, unclouded by emotion and mysticism. They have no time for emotional claptrap, mystical dreams and the scientific obsession with sensory evidence. The first three groups deal with Content. The last group deals with Form, which is exactly why it’s right and the others are wrong. The irrational never defeat the rationalists in argument, but nor do they ever accept that they have been bested. After all, they would need to be rational to recognise a more rational argument than theirs, and rational is exactly what they are not. Rationalists can only persuade other rationalists. That’s a fact. Persuasion, in relation to most people, has nothing whatsoever to do with Truth. People are persuaded by emotionalism, or mysticism, or appeals to blatant self-interest.

The Meritocratic Form 100% inheritance tax is the bedrock of meritocracy. It defines the Form of meritocracy. Clearly, anyone who believes that they should inherit the wealth that someone else earned is the opposite of a meritocrat. Such a

person is a parasite and a supporter of the principle of inheritance, not of merit. It’s staggering how often we see people saying, “I support meritocracy, but this 100% inheritance tax is ridiculous. The State isn’t getting a cent of mine. My family is getting everything I worked so hard to make.” How can anyone claim to be a meritocrat if they want to buy a competitive advantage for their children – to rig the system in their favour – rather than allow natural talent to take its course? They are the enemies of meritocrats. They are defenders of privilege, dynastic power, cartels, nepotism and cronyism. “The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of men change also; and as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it. That which may be thought right and found convenient in one age may be thought wrong and found inconvenient in another. In such cases, who is to decide, the living or the dead? ... Only the living can exercise the rights of Man.” – Thomas Paine When people die, they have no stake in the world, no rights, no voice, no property, no assets, no say in what happens to the living. As Goethe said, “Life belongs to the living.” There is absolutely no legal reason whatsoever why people who have died should have the “right” to buy an advantage for their chosen ones among the living. The dead must never be allowed to rig the game of life. Thomas Paine summed up what happens when merit is scorned: “The aristocracy are not the farmers who work the land, and raise the produce, but are the mere consumers of the rent; and when compared with the active world are the drones, a seraglio of males, who neither collect the honey nor form the hive, but exist only for lazy enjoyment.” Is that not the world of today?

***** “It is by distortedly exalting some men that others are distortedly debased, till the whole is out of nature. A vast mass of mankind are degradedly thrown into the background of the human picture, to bring forward with greater glare the puppet-show of state and aristocracy.” – Thomas Paine

Summer Soldiers?

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated. ... Let it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet and to repulse it.” – Thomas Paine Well, are you no better than a summer soldier? Is that all you have to offer the world? Socrates said, “All men’s souls are immortal, but the souls of the righteous are immortal and divine.” Are you one of the righteous? It’s not living as such that’s important, but living rightly. It’s not the quantity of life that counts, but the quality. The heroes are the fearless ones who know how to live.

Thomas Paine “I dwell not upon the vapours of imagination; I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as A, B, C, hold up truth to your eyes.” – Thomas Paine “I am a farmer of thoughts, and all the crops I raise I give away.” – Thomas Paine “These are the times that try men’s souls.” – Thomas Paine “The times that tried men’s souls are over – and the greatest and completest revolution the world ever knew, gloriously and happily accomplished.” – Thomas Paine “Don’t go home, or you’re a dead man.” – William Blake, warning Thomas Paine to flee for his life. “[Napoleon was] the completest charlatan that ever existed.” – Thomas Paine

“...this loathsome reptile...” – the Baltimore Republican on Thomas Paine “...that living opprobrium of humanity . . . the infamous scavenger of all the filth which could be raked from the dirty paths which have been hitherto trodden by all the revilers of Christianity...” – the General Advertiser on Thomas Paine “...a drunken atheist, and the scavenger of faction...” – the Philadelphia Port Folio on Thomas Paine “... a lying, drunken brutal infidel, who rejoiced in the opportunity of basking and wallowing in the confusion, devastation, bloodshed, rapine, and murder, in which his soul delights.” – Boston’s Mercury and NewEngland Palladium on Thomas Paine

The Empire of the Decaying Map “If we were able to take as the finest allegory of simulation the Borges tale where the cartographers of the Empire draw up a map so detailed that it ends up exactly covering the territory (but where the decline of the Empire sees this map become frayed and finally ruined, a few shreds still discernible in the deserts – the metaphysical beauty of this ruined abstraction, bearing witness to an Imperial pride and rotting like a carcass, returning to the substance of the soil, rather as an ageing double ends up being confused with the real thing) – then this fable has come full circle for us, and now has nothing but the discrete charm of second-order simulacra. Abstraction today is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror or the concept. “Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal. The territory no longer precedes the map, nor survives it. Henceforth, it is the map that precedes the territory – PRECESSION OF SIMULACRA – it is the map that engenders the territory and if we were to revive the fable today, it would be the territory whose shreds are slowly rotting across the map. It is the real, and not the map, whose vestiges subsist here and there, in the deserts which are no longer those of the Empire, but our own. The desert of the real itself.” – Jean Baudrillard

Rather than simulacra being copies of reality, “reality”, in Baudrillard’s dystopian vision, is a copy of simulacra, meaning, of course, that reality as we once knew it has vanished forever. However, did any such reality ever exist? Religions, philosophies and the sciences were always simulacra of reality, various types of Mythos purporting to be about Truth but actually just being popular or plausible lies and fantasies. We live in a world where the simulated copy has superseded the original object. But, in fact, it always has!

The Final Declaration “A declaration of war on the masses by higher men is needed! Everywhere the mediocre are combining in order to make themselves master! Everything that makes soft and effeminate, that serves the ends of the ‘people’ or the ‘feminine,’ works in favour of suffrage universel, i.e., the dominion of inferior men. But we should take reprisal and bring this whole affair (which in Europe commenced with Christianity) to light and to the bar of judgment.” – Nietzsche Does this quotation nauseate you? Then you are no radical and no Illuminist. We can never get to a Higher Humanity if we forever pander to Lower Humanity because of “peace”, “love”, “liberalism”, and so on. Nietzsche highlighted how the slaves had inverted the natural order and demonized the strong. The strong then proceeded to portray themselves as the friends and champions of the slaves, via religion (“we are all equal under God, and equally beloved by God”), politics (“freedom and democracy”), free-market capitalism (elevate the slaves to “consumers” and pretend to worship them), and the age-old tactic of bread and circuses. The slaves now imagine themselves gods, while the rulers of the Earth are the actual gods. This is the ultimate unholy alliance between the slaves and the masters, the supreme toxic brew, one that panders to the slaves even as it puts the manacles and chains on them. The slaves are allowed to inhabit a hyperreality of pure fantasy while the masters ruthlessly exploit them. Yet the masters are as grotesque as the slaves and in many ways defined by the slaves since they have to keep the slaves onside. It’s the task of the authentic Higher Humans to liberate the Lower Humans, not to fleece them and delude them. How can the human race

progress while it’s mired in consumerism, populism, the lowest common denominator, low quality, fantasy, self-delusion, lies, manipulation and exploitation? This vicious circle must be destroyed. Only Higher Humanity can do it, and the ends very much justify the means. No progress whatsoever is possible if people remain wedded to the same “morality” and ideology that produced the current world. History has only one lesson to teach – Power rules. Love has not changed the world. Peace has proved an impossible dream. Liberalism has allowed extremism to flourish. Freedom has led to insane libertarianism where people believe they can do whatever they like, including enslaving others. Democracy – people power – has proved nothing but a con where true power resides in the unaccountable and unelected markets controlled by the banks, corporations and super rich. None of this will ever end until Higher Humanity ends it, and it will almost certainly have to do it via extreme force, just as Nietzsche believed and advocated.

***** The world can go on being a fuck-up forever. Or it can become rational and set itself on the path to divinity. A world of faith, love, and unreason will never get any better. Humanity must be forced to be free. After all, humans love their chains too much. “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.” – Thomas Paine

***** “The intellect of man is forced to choose perfection of the life, or of the work, and if it take the second must refuse a heavenly mansion, raging in the dark.” – William Butler Yeats

Smart? You’re either a smart person or you’re not. We can offer something to smart people, but nothing to the stupid. If you don’t grasp that there’s a war going on between smart and stupid people, that’s because you’re stupid. The smart have only one duty ... to take over!

Trust We see comments by people asking if what we say can be “trusted”. If that’s the kind of question you are asking, you should have absolutely nothing to do with Illuminism, and you should not read any of our material. What we say is either right or wrong. It’s either rational or irrational. Trust never enters into it, and nor does faith. If you haven’t grasped that, you haven’t grasped anything we have said. We would never trust what anyone says, and we would never believe what anyone says. All we ever do is subject what people say to rational analysis and determine whether it’s right or wrong. What could be simpler? If you reject what we say, it should not be because you don’t trust us or don’t believe us but because you have rationally concluded that we have made an error. But to do that you would have to be smarter than Leibniz, the most intelligent and rational human being of all time. Well, are you superior to Leibniz? If you are, the Illuminati would already have recruited you! Since the Illuminati alone have a precise ontology, it’s impossible to outargue us. We can easily destroy all of the speculative opinions of others given that they are not grounded in any eternal, necessary truths, and are nothing but beliefs, conjectures and interpretations.

Power What does a man with power want? – more power. What does a man with money want? – more money. What does a person with influence want? – more influence. What does a famous person want? – more fame. These are the laws of the world. The real question is this ... what do you do to stop people having more power, more money, more influence, and more fame?!

The Stopping At the end of The Matrix Reloaded, when Neo stops the sentinels in the “real world”, this is possible in only three ways: he is still in The Matrix (at a deeper level), or he is now completely linked to the “Source” of the Machine World and can control machines, or he is genuinely God/ the Messiah!

***** “When the Matrix was first built there was a man born inside that had the ability to change what he wanted, to remake the Matrix as he saw fit. It was this man who freed the first of us and taught us the truth. When he died, the Oracle prophesied his return and envisioned that his coming would hail the destruction of the Matrix.” – Morpheus to Neo

Life Life is the experience of Content, the precondition of which is Form.

The Cat in the Box If you put a cat in a closed box and then claim that the cat is replaced by a cat wavefunction in an unreal potentiality space, you have no right to refer to anything actually being inside the box, assuming that you are still presupposing a real spacetime inside the box, rather than an unreal spacetime, i.e. if it’s a real spacetime inside the box then that cannot be the location for an unreal wavefunction. Not even the most extreme empiricist claims that the spacetime inside the box vanishes into unreality along with the cat – even, though, logically, they ought to (!) given that unobserved spacetime is entirely different from observed spacetime unless you assume a reality principle, which empiricism doesn’t. If everything inside the box collapses into unreality – including spacetime and all forces and all fields, and even the quantum vacuum – then what exactly is holding the box together and in position? Why doesn’t it just implode into a singularity? Even as the Copenhagen interpretation makes the cat vanish inside the box, it still assumes the continued existence of spacetime inside the box, and all applicable forces and fields. Where’s the logic? It simultaneously assumes what it rejects, i.e. a continuous objective spacetime reality inside the box. If the unobserved cat vanishes into unreality and potentiality, so does everything else inside the box, including the air, spacetime and the fabric of existence. If scientists really thought through their bogus and ridiculous claims, their entire system would be destroyed by its own spectacular illogic.

Science ignores its own irrationality. No scientists care that their beliefs are absolutely incoherent. That’s why they’re scientists and not mathematicians or philosophers. No one who privileges the senses over their reason can ever be intellectually trusted.

***** In the “logic” of Copenhagen quantum mechanics, why doesn’t the unobserved world simply collapse? Spacetime itself, all forces and fields, all particles, and all bodies made from them, should vanish from actuality and be converted into unreal potentiality wavefunctions that do not exist in the real world. You have to accept an objective reality – that exists whether or not it’s being observed – if you want to maintain any conceivable order and continuity in the universe. You can’t have cats popping in and out of actuality depending on their observational status! This exposes the utter bankruptcy and irrationalism of empiricist scientific thinking. As soon as you accept that reality exists unobserved, you have in fact rejected empiricism and accepted rationalism. You have accepted that experience is not the root of knowledge given that you are accepting the rational existence of unobserved spacetime, the effects of unobserved forces and fields, the effects of unobserved galaxies, and so on. According to the Copenhagen school, everything unobserved ceases to be actual and becomes potential. How can a universal law of gravity be true if the whole universe is not being continuously observed? Gravity, and any other force, should flicker in and out of actuality and potentiality, depending on whether or not it’s being observed, and no universal force could operate in such circumstances. Science has more or less become deranged in its empiricist claims, which go utterly unchallenged within the staggering groupthink of the scientific community. Not a single scientist on earth would be able to respond to our criticisms. And not one of them could care less! Scientists have zero interest in Truth.

Transcendent versus Transcendental “I call all knowledge transcendental if it is occupied, not with objects, but with the way that we can possibly know objects, even before we experience them.” – Kant

“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 “[E]verything intuited or perceived in space and time, and therefore all objects of a possible experience, are nothing but phenomenal appearances, that is, mere representations, which in the way in which they are represented to us, as extended beings, or as series of changes, have no independent, self-subsistent existence apart from our thoughts. This doctrine I entitle transcendental idealism.” – Kant Kant’s philosophy is referred to as transcendental rather than transcendent. The latter is what Kant attacks. Transcendent philosophy, Kant contends, involves pure speculation about things we can never know because they’re beyond the legitimate bounds of our reason. Kant’s transcendental philosophy, on the other hand, means “grounding the possibility of knowledge and experience a priori.” In relation to religion, a transcendent God is outside and beyond the world (as in Abrahamism) and is contrasted with an immanent God (as in pantheism).

Transcendental Idealism Transcendental idealism: “Term used by Kant to characterize one element of his philosophy. Kant attempts to combine empirical realism, preserving the ordinary independence and reality of objects of the world, with transcendental idealism, which allows that in some sense the objects have their ordinary properties (their causal powers, and their spatial and temporal position) only because our minds are so structured that these are the categories we impose upon the manifold of experience.” – Philosophy dictionary Transcendental idealism: “A Kantian doctrine that the objects of perception are conditioned by the nature of the mind as to their form but not as to their content or particularity and that they have a kind of independence of the mind – called also critical idealism.” – Useful English dictionary, 2012

“Transcendental idealism is a doctrine founded by German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the 18th century. Kant’s doctrine maintains that human experience of things is similar to the way they appear to us – implying a fundamentally subject-based component, rather than being an activity that directly (and therefore without any obvious causal link) comprehends the things as they are in and of themselves.” – Wikipedia “Transcendental idealism – the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and later Kantian and German Idealist philosophers; a view according to which our experience is not about the things as they are in themselves, but about the things as they appear to us. It differs from standard (empirical) idealism in that it does not claim that the objects of our experiences would be in any sense within our mind. The idea is that whenever we experience something, we experience it as it is for ourselves: the object is real as well as mindindependent, but is in a sense corrupted by our cognition (by the categories and the forms of sensibility, space and time). Transcendental idealism denies that we could have knowledge of the thing in itself. A view that holds the opposite is called transcendental realism.” – Mini philosophy glossary, 2014 “Transcendental Idealism, also called formalistic idealism: term applied to the epistemology of the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who held that the human self, or transcendental ego, constructs knowledge out of sense impressions and from universal concepts called categories that it imposes upon them. Kant’s transcendentalism is set in contrast to those of two of his predecessors – the problematic idealism of René Descartes, who claimed that the existence of matter can be doubted, and the dogmatic idealism of George Berkeley, who flatly denied the existence of matter. Kant believed that ideas, the raw matter of knowledge, must somehow be due to realities existing independently of human minds; but he held that such things-in-themselves must remain forever unknown. Human knowledge cannot reach to them because knowledge can only arise in the course of synthesizing the ideas of sense.” – Universalium, 2010 “Transcendental idealism represents Kant’s attempt at a synthesis between existing forms of idealism (affirming the reality of a spiritual or ideal realm above that of material reality) and empiricism (affirming the precedence of sense perception over idealistic or spiritual speculation). Kant’s transcendental method bases its approach on the acknowledgment of a

priori (transcendental) mental functions that determine the way people process any information. This method both stresses the reliability of science and the inability to know what transcends observable phenomena. In a sense, it is thus a form of skepticism. The main challenge to Kant’s approach has been that it does not clearly show how it is possible to both affirm the existence of an independent reality and state that nothing can be said about it. “Perhaps the best way to approach transcendental idealism is by looking at Kant’s account of how people intuit (anschauen) objects. What is relevant here is that space and time, rather than being real ‘things-inthemselves’ or empirically mediated appearances (Erscheinungen), are the very ‘forms of intuition’ (Anschauung), i.e., the way people perceive objects. Time and space are hence neither to be considered properties that observers may attribute to objects in perceiving them, nor substantial entities of themselves. In that sense, they are subjective, yet necessary preconditions of any given object insofar as that object is an appearance and not a ‘thing-in-itself.’ Humans necessarily perceive objects spatially and temporally. This is part of what it means for a human to cognize an object, to perceive it as something both spatial and temporal. These are all claims Kant argues for in the section of the Critique of Pure Reason entitled the ‘Transcendental Aesthetic.’ This section is devoted to the inquiry of the a priori conditions of (human) sensibility, i.e. the faculty by which objects are apprehended. The following section, the ‘Transcendental Logic’ concerns itself with the manner in which objects are thought through the so-called a priori categories of understanding (such as the notion of causality). “[Kant] did not deny that there are things-in-themselves but only that people can know anything of them as they are. In other words, reality, as it is known, is determined by forms of intuition (space and time) and the categories of reason, but there is something ‘out there’. Kant never accepted the conclusion of what he called idealism and is generally known as subjective idealism (proposed by George Berkeley), i.e. that reality, being known only through the mind, also exists only through the mind, which naturally tends towards a form of solipsism. If reality of external things, independently from the perception of them, is denied, only the ‘I’ of the philosopher remains real... “Empirical science ... can be trusted (to the extent that it is properly conducted) because it merely recognizes that the laws of the mind apply to

the sensory perceptions by the forms of intuition (time and space) of the mind. Science makes no claim about what things ultimately are, it does not deal with their metaphysical significance, and most especially it makes no claims about notions that do not correspond to any sensory perception (God, eternal life). “Transcendental idealism, Kant’s own philosophical stance, thus makes a preemptive strike against all illusory assumptions. Anything that is known about things is only what is known through the vision of the mind’s laws.” – New World Encyclopedia

***** “There can be no doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience. For how should our faculty of knowledge be awakened into action did not objects affecting our senses partly of themselves produce representations, partly arouse the activity of our understanding to compare these representations, and, by combining or separating them, work up the raw material of the sensible impressions into that knowledge of objects which is entitled experience? In the order of time, therefore, we have no knowledge antecedent to experience, and with experience all our knowledge begins. “But though all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it all arises out of experience. For it may well be that even our empirical knowledge is made up of what we receive through impressions and of what our own faculty of knowledge (sensible impressions serving merely as the occasion) supplies from itself. If our faculty of knowledge makes any such addition, it may be that we are not in a position to distinguish it from the raw material, until with long practice of attention we have become skilled in separating it. “This, then, is a question which at least calls for closer examination, and does not allow of any off-hand answer: whether there is any knowledge that is thus independent of experience and even of all impressions of the senses. Such knowledge is entitled a priori, and distinguished from the empirical, which has its sources a posteriori, that is, in experience.” – Kant Kant’s argument that knowledge begins with experience is absurd. Consider a human baby. A baby is having all sorts of experiences from Day One, but has no knowledge whatsoever, beyond what an unconscious animal would have, which is none at all if we discount instinct as knowledge. It’s only

when a baby starts deploying the quintessential quality of human beings – the ability to reason – that it starts to build up a recognisable knowledge base. That is, it’s rationalism, not experience, which underlies knowledge. Knowledge begins with reason. We apply reason to our sensory experiences, but we also apply to it non-sensory things when we build up our knowledge of mathematics.

***** In Kant’s system, our own minds impose form on the world via 1) the a priori intuitions of space and time, which provide the context for everything, and 2) the twelve categories of thought that structure the way we grasp reality. Together, these provide the conceptual apparatus we use to make sense of the world. They order and make intelligible the content of our sense experience. The content is a posteriori and the form a priori. Our minds themselves provide the a priori forms through which all sensible content is rendered intelligible. The categories are empty forms of thought that, in order to produce knowledge, must be applied to, and filled with, sensory content. If objects of perception are “conditioned by the nature of the mind as to their form but not as to their content or particularity” this means that noumena, in the Kantian view, do not have form in themselves (it’s imposed on them from outside, from our minds) but they do have content. So, one thing we do know about noumena is that they have content and they produce sensory experiences within us, which are always arranged by our minds into a union of form and content. It’s the union we actually experience, not the form alone or the content alone. Kant’s system, when analysed in these terms, amounts to the bizarre claim that noumena exist as pure, free-floating sensory content, and that our minds then turn them into knowable phenomena by imposing mindfurnished form on them. So, Kant’s system involves a complete separation of form and content. Objects have content only while minds have form only. When minds interact with objects, the result is the union of form and content to produce phenomena. Noumenal objects are unknowable in these terms because they wholly lack form, hence are unintelligible.

Where Plato separated Form and Matter and had a Demiurge apply Form to Matter to produce the simulacral world, and Aristotle, via his hylomorphic theory, always had Form and Matter in union, Kant separated Form into noumenal mind, and Matter into noumenal content, with their combination giving rise to knowable phenomena. In effect, Kant makes us each of us a Platonic Demiurge and relocates the transcendent Platonic domain of Forms into each of our minds. The world external to us comprises formless “prime matter”, which has sensory content. For Plato, the Demiurge applies transcendent Forms to prime matter and creates the material world that souls experience. For Kant, each of us is a Demiurge, and, simply by perceiving the world, we mentally impose Form on it. Critically, Plato uses a Demiurge to create an objective material, formed world that all souls encounter. Kant, by making each of us a Demiurge with all Forms in our minds, does not create an objective material world. Rather, he posits an objective, noumenal world of prime matter, which each of thus then perceives as an objective, material world (a phenomenal world of science) because we all view it via exactly the same conceptual apparatus, the only thing that differs being our particular perspective in relation to everyone else. We all necessarily have a unique perspective, so the world appears slightly differently to each of us. Plato and Aristotle both brought Form and Matter together in actuality. Kant did not. He left Form and Matter completely and permanently separate. Minds, for Kant, are Form-imposers, and Matter, for Kant, is that which has Form subjectively, but not objectively, imposed on it. We mentally impose Form on Matter, but at no time does Matter “physically” acquire Form (as it does in the Platonic and Aristotelian cases). This means that we live in an absolutely mind-constructed reality, and science and mathematics themselves belong to this mentally constructed reality, but not to the noumenal world of Matter in itself. Because all we know about the noumenal world comes from the particular way we mentally perceive and make sense of it, there’s plenty of scope to imagine that there are elements in the noumenal world that exist but which we do not apprehend because our mental apparatus isn’t configured to detect them or make sense of them. In this way, Kant ingeniously made room for God, the soul and free will. However, his

system ensured that reality could never be fully known and understood. In his system, we are prisoners of the limitations of our own minds, and we can never transcend these. For the likes of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel – all of whom succeeded Kant – we most certainly can. Their basic stratagem to refute Kant was to deny that there was any noumenal “prime matter”, and to make everything mental, hence knowable, i.e. there is no non-mental, alien, incomprehensible “stuff” out there. There is only mental stuff, obeying the same rules, laws and forms as our own minds. Schopenhauer also replaced Kant’s version of prime matter, contending that all things were in fact mental Will. However, he then applied a Kantian bifurcation by claiming that the phenomenal world we encounter is the only thing we can truly know, and we can never have an absolute knowledge of the underlying, unitary, noumenal Will. The closest we can get to the Will in itself is via our own phenomenal will. Music, like our phenomenal will, is also just one-step removed from the Will in itself, hence its importance in Schopenhauer’s philosophy. Hegel, in particular, accepted no limitations regarding noumena and he dialectically constructed the whole world from a stance of panlogism, culminating, at the end of the dialectic, with Absolute Knowledge. Modern Illuminism reflects Hegel’s philosophy, except it replaces panlogism with panmathematics. Existence can be fully comprehended because it’s 100% mathematical.

***** The Kantian notion that “real” objects are just content without form is bizarre. W. Norris Clarke wrote, with ample justification, “[Kant] has no explanation at all, and can in principle have none, of the miraculous fit between the structures we have imposed on the world, apparently independently of anything in the world, and the way the world responds to our practical action on it based on the predictions thought up by our minds – successfully coping with the challenges of nature, technology, etc. Nor can he explain – in fact he never tries – how we can know other human beings as just as real as ourselves and successfully exchange information with them in interpersonal dialogue. For if it is really I that am structuring your being and the messages you seem to be sending in to me through my

senses, then it follows that you are also structuring me and my messages – which cancels out into incoherence: both can’t be true at once.” Kant has effectively resurrected the ancient concept of “prime matter”, and given it sensory content but no form (the form being supplied by the minds that perceive it). However, prime matter is non-being (it’s potentiality rather than actuality), so how can it be said to exist at all? It’s impossible for form and content/ matter to be separated. All of the problems with Kant’s system vanish when ontological mathematics is brought into play. Kantian minds are replaced by monads, which are made of dual-aspect mathematical sinusoids, each of which has mathematical form and sensory content as two sides of one coin. Form and content are properly unified in the same objects (sinusoids). They are not separate, free-floating entities, as Kant claims, which then have to enter into a “docking” operation to produce phenomena.

***** Philosopher AC Grayling wrote, “The essence of Kant’s case is that the mind contributes substantially to the way the world appears to us in experience, imposing categories of interpretation that give the world its phenomenal character and structure. He (wrongly) suggests that the inner, or underlying, nature of what our cognitive capacities thus order is in principle inaccessible – science tells us otherwise...” Grayling seems not to have understood Kant at all! Or not to have understood science and its fundamental limitations. Kant never denied the efficacy of science. In fact, his whole system was based on rejecting Hume’s skepticism and justifying how we could have genuine scientific knowledge of the world. Nothing science has ever done has in any way challenged Kant’s view that science reflects our mental apparatus for perceiving the world rather than the world in itself. Can Grayling identify a single scientific experiment that proves that science has ever authentically addressed the “inner, or underlying nature of what our cognitive capacities thus order.” Absolutely any experiment Grayling chose could be reinterpreted in Kantian terms. Does the discovery of the so-called Higgs boson reveal noumenal reality to us, or does it simply reflect the way our minds are configured, or, rather, the way scientists’ minds are configured, to think about reality? The Higgs

boson is a speculative entity, not an eternal, necessary fact. A different scientific theory could interpret exactly the same experimental data in a radically different way and dispense with Higgs bosons entirely, just as Einsteinian physics dispensed with Newtonian space, time and matter. Science never rises above the interpretation of facts. It’s all about the representation of the thing, rather than the thing in itself, hence is an archetypally Kantian project in the truest sense. It never gets anywhere near the thing in itself, and never can. Grayling, like so many philosophers, subscribes to the fallacy that science provides real knowledge. It emphatically doesn’t. Newtonian physics had a clear but entirely false ontology. Since the advent of quantum mechanics and relativity theory, it has become impossible to discern any meaningful ontological statements made by science, so, in fact, it tells us absolutely nothing about the “underlying, nature of what our cognitive capacities thus order.” Only ontological mathematics, a closed, analytic system, can do this. Where Kant applied formal minds to formless sensory objects, science – a purely materialist system (although science cannot ontologically define “matter”) – denies that minds exist in their own right. It’s mind-boggling that any philosopher can say that science can in any way qualify Kant’s philosophy given that the latter has no recognisable material components at all in the scientific sense, and is pure idealism. It’s a category error to see any links between them. Kant’s system is all about real, autonomous minds imposing form on real, noumenal objects to produce the subjective experience of phenomena. Science, on the other hand, denies that there are any autonomous minds at all, so it certainly isn’t mind that imposes form on anything. Science claims that material objects are “real” (i.e. they’re not phenomena generated by the mind), and they have their own inbuilt form, and the capacity to cause sensory experiences. The Kantian notion that mind furnishes form is wholly rejected by science. Mind, in science, remains entirely unexplained and seems to serve no role at all in a universe of material determinism (as envisaged by classical science, and even by quantum mechanics on the macroscopic scale). Ontological mathematics acts as the bridge between science and Kant. Ontological mathematics supplies autonomous minds in the shape of

monads, and also says that minds and matter are made of the same things: dual-aspect sinusoids that have both mathematical, rational form and empirical, sensory content. Ontological mathematics solves all of the problems of both science and Kantian philosophy, and does so via Leibniz’s Monadology, qualified by the generalised Euler Formula and Fourier mathematics. It’s time for the world to move beyond philosophers such as Grayling and to produce ontological mathematical philosophers who know what they’re talking about.

Empirical Realism and Idealism Empirical realism: asserts the ordinary independence and reality of objects of the world. Empirical idealism: asserts that the objects of our experiences are within our minds. Transcendental idealism: asserts that the objects of our experiences are not within our minds, but nor are they “ordinary” material objects.

Math Ontological mathematics provides a world of deterministic laws that you cannot perceive with your senses but you can perceive with your reason. Ontological mathematics is the source of causation. Ontological mathematics is the source of motion. Ontological mathematics is what renders the universe intelligible and rational. It’s the source of all order, organisation and pattern. Without mathematics, the universe would collapse into either non-existence, or eternal Chaos.

***** The world is made of reason (which exists as ontological mathematics), and the entire world can be rationally deduced, step by step. The world is made of intellect, which is why it’s intelligible. If it were made of sensory entities, as science claims, it would be unintelligible. The sole reason why science works is that it matches mathematical hypotheses to experimental data, i.e. despite its insistence on empiricism

and materialism, it actually relies on the uber rationalist subject of mathematics to make it intelligible. Science is nothing but a bogus, sensory implementation and understanding of mathematics. To have any connection with Truth and Ultimate Realist, it must approach mathematics rationally rather than in terms of the senses since mathematics is about nothing but reason.

Knowledge Kant argues that knowledge arises from a synthesis of experience and concepts. Our senses allow us to become aware of an object, but it’s unintelligible if we can form no conception of it. Knowledge results from a unified process involving sensory perception and conceptual understanding. Sensibility and intelligibility work in tandem. Sense experience is always tied to pure thought. Kant contends that the exercise of pure reason leads to paradoxes, fallacies and contradictions whenever it’s extended beyond the world of empirical phenomena, i.e. when form no longer has any attached empirical content, but starts generating its own rational content, divorced from the observable world; when reason applies itself only to reason; when form applies itself only to form; when the categories of understanding apply themselves to themselves. When this happens, Kant says, pure speculation and metaphysics are the result.

***** For Kant, reason had limits, and those limits were set by empiricism. Beyond those limits, in Kant’s view, reason ate itself and degenerated into nonsense, or into notions that, while conceivably true, could never be tested, such as God, the soul and free will. Kant argued that for practical reasons we should accept God, the soul and free will as true, but we should never imagine that they were formally provable or guaranteed to exist. It’s certainly true that the proof of the existence of the soul can have nothing at all to do with empiricism. It must be a strictly mathematical, rationalist proof. No one will ever see a soul directly since it’s an immaterial, non-sensory entity outside space and time. The effects of souls are encountered all the time, of course. Every time you think or move, your soul is causing that action. The soul, therefore, is invariably encountered in

the physical world indirectly, via physical bodies. Its existence must be rationally, intellectually, inferred. Humanity’s tragedy is that it has never been rational or intellectual and always looks for direct evidence, i.e. sensory, empirical, physical evidence. Science is entirely predicated on such evidence, which is exactly why it has nothing to say about ultimate reality, which is intelligible, not sensible; noumenal, not phenomenal; rational, not empirical.

Perception For Kant, the human mind comes in two parts: that which perceives and that which thinks. The perceiving mind receives the impressions (called “particulars”) conveyed by the sense organs. The thinking mind (the organ of understanding) processes the objects of understanding (called “concepts”). When concepts are applied to particulars, synthetic judgements are the result. Kant claimed that two types of synthetic judgements were possible: a priori (independent of experience) and a posteriori (deriving from experience). For Kant, scientific, mathematical and moral judgments all belong to the synthetic a priori category. These constitute the structure imposed by the mind on the world, and are thus necessary for all intelligible experiences.

***** In ontological mathematics, a mind is made of mathematical sinusoids and responds to the dual aspects of sinusoids – to the primary mathematical data they convey, and the secondary, empirical sensory experiences that accompany the primary data. So, the ontological mathematical mind inherently has a perceiving and thinking part. The thinking part is rationalist and deals with form, which is all about mathematics. The perceiving part is empiricist and deals with content, which is all about our experiences, about sensations, feelings, desires and will. We have dual-aspect minds that tune into a dual-aspect world, based on dual-aspect mathematics. In fact, we can go even further and say that reality has four aspects: 1) Frequency domain Form. 2) Frequency domain Content.

3) Spacetime domain Form. 4) Spacetime domain Content. Humanity’s problem is that it cannot conceive of any kind of complex reality. Human beings are the victims of “common sense”, and what common sense tells us is that there is a real, sensory, material world out there right in front of us, and we experience it exactly as it is. It’s this type of empiricist common sense that has had such a disastrous effect on science when it comes to understanding ultimate reality.

***** “To study physiology with a clear conscience, one must insist that the sense organs are not phenomena in the sense of idealistic philosophy; as such they could not be causes! Sensualism, therefore, at least as a regulative hypothesis, if not as a heuristic principle.— What? And others even say that the external world is the work of our organs? But then our body, as a part of this external world, would be the work of our organs! But then our organs themselves would be – the work of our organs! It seems to me that this is a complete reductio ad absurdum...” – Nietzsche “Kant was first and foremost proud of his Table of Categories; with it in his hand he said: ‘This is the most difficult thing that could ever be undertaken on behalf of metaphysics.’ Let us only understand this ‘could b’"! He was proud of having DISCOVERED a new faculty in man, the faculty of synthetic judgment a priori. Granting that he deceived himself in this matter; the development and rapid flourishing of German philosophy depended nevertheless on his pride, and on the eager rivalry of the younger generation to discover if possible something – at all events ‘new faculties’ – of which to be still prouder! – But let us reflect for a moment – it is high time to do so. ‘How are synthetic judgments a priori POSSIBLE?’ Kant asks himself – and what is really his answer? ‘BY MEANS OF A MEANS (faculty)’ – but unfortunately not in five words...” – Nietzsche

The Message “‘The medium is the message’ is a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan meaning that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a

symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived.” – Wikipedia Ontologically, the medium (form) is mathematics, and every message (content) is entirely dependent on mathematics. “McLuhan proposes that a medium itself, not the content it carries, should be the focus of study. He said that a medium affects the society in which it plays a role not only by the content delivered over the medium, but also by the characteristics of the medium itself.” – Wikipedia Ontological mathematics is about the study of the medium. You cannot understand the message if you haven’t understood the medium. All of the false beliefs and errors of the human race stem from an inability to grasp what the nature of the medium is via which all messages are communicated. The medium is ontological mathematics: sinusoids. “[The] content of any medium is always another medium.” – Marshall McLuhan And if we trace the hierarchy of media all the way back, what do we finally arrive at? – ontological mathematics. “...in Understanding Media, McLuhan describes the ‘content’ of a medium as a juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind. This means that people tend to focus on the obvious, which is the content, to provide us valuable information, but in the process, we largely miss the structural changes in our affairs that are introduced subtly, or over long periods of time.” – Wikipedia Nothing is more important than understanding the ultimate medium, because that is none other than the ultimate Truth of existence. Humanity has understood the medium of existence to be anything other than what it is (mathematics). Humanity has variously turned to a mystical Oneness as the ultimate medium (Eastern religion), “God” (Abrahamism), and randomness (science). New Agers have suggested that love is the ultimate medium, or cosmic consciousness. If you choose a false ultimate medium, everything you believe about reality is consequently false. Abrahamism, for example, has literally zero truth content. It’s simply a fallacious interpretation of the ultimate medium. Clearly, if there is no “God” then Abrahamism cannot be making a single

truthful statement since the whole of Abrahamism is predicated on “God” as the supreme reality. So, the message of Abrahamism is the medium (= “God”), but there is no such medium, so what remains is a message that is nothing but human fantasy and projection. Abrahamism is about bearded prophets, “holy” books, “divine” revelations, mindless obedience, and faith in lunatic propositions. Imagine if humanity had evolved along Pythagorean lines (i.e. mathematical, scientific, philosophical and rational lines) rather than Abrahamic lines. Our world would now be entirely different, and infinitely superior. In other words, nothing is more important than identifying the ultimate medium, and, if we fail with that, we fail with every subsequent message. “As society’s values, norms, and ways of doing things change because of the technology, it is then we realize the social implications of the medium. These range from cultural or religious issues and historical precedents, through interplay with existing conditions, to the secondary or tertiary effects in a cascade of interactions that we are not aware of.” – Wikipedia Much of modern “intellectual” thinking is contaminated by the atheistic, nihilistic, randomist ideology of scientific materialism, which declares life a meaningless accident. Imagine how humanity would be transformed if it accepted the existence of the immortal soul, but understood the soul in terms of the supreme Logos subject (mathematics) rather than silly Mythos stories and mystical, irrational speculations (religion). Imagine if humanity decisively rejected the Creator God, heaven and hell. Everything changes if the our understanding of the medium, hence the message, changes. Human evolution demands that we correctly identify the true ontological medium of mathematics. The Lie will imprison us. The Truth will set us free.

Perceive Perceive: from Latin percipere: “obtain, gather, seize entirely, take possession of”, also, figuratively, “to grasp with the mind, learn, comprehend”, literally “to take entirely”, from per “thoroughly” + capere “to grasp, take”. “Perceive” is a fascinating word because it can mean “to take entirely” in relation to the senses, or in relation to the intellect. It’s usually given the

former meaning, i.e. it’s typically defined with regard to the senses, but an intellectual interpretation is just as valid.

Matterless Form “But this [which desires] is material, as the female [desires] the male and the base the noble.” – Aristotle In Aristotelian philosophy, “God” (matterless form) might be said to be the raison d’être of Matter. All matter has an appetite (a desire) for the divine form, i.e. it seeks to shed its material nature and become pure form. The teleology of matter is directed towards form. If Prime Matter is the ground of all matter, Prime Form is the ground of all form. For Aristotle, Prime Form is God and he brings form to Prime Matter. In Illuminism, ontological mathematics is the ground of all form, and also all content. Ontological mathematics unites Prime Matter and Prime Form in a single entity: mathematical sinusoids. Prime Matter is pure potency and pure determinability. It’s exactly the same in all material objects. What distinguishes the different substances is their respective forms. Prime Matter is the raw material that form (force) acts upon. Prime Matter is an appetite for the highest form = God. In science, the unreal quantum mechanical wavefunction takes the role of Prime Matter – pure potentiality – and it mysteriously collapses to “actual” material reality (i.e. actualised rather than potential matter). Prime Matter can accept all forms; it can be imprinted by any form. However, it wishes to be imprinted by the highest form of all (God).

***** “If the model is to take every variety of form, then the matter in which the model is fashioned will not be duly prepared, unless it is formless, and free from the impress of any of these shapes which it is hereafter to receive from without. For if the matter were like (homion) any of the supervening forms, then whenever any opposite or entirely different nature was stamped upon its surface, it would take the impression badly, because it would intrude its own shape.” – Plato, Timaeus

Plato’s way of thinking was shaped by matter-form dualism. Matter is formless and is that which is shaped by form. It brings no form of its own to the party because that would sabotage the external form being applied to it. It’s a kind of cosmic clay waiting to be sculpted. In ontological mathematics, a function can take every variety of form simply through the addition of simple basis sinusoids, via Fourier mathematics.

***** If matter is unlike form, then, for matter to desire pure form is to desire its own destruction. Yet matter is eternal, hence can never be destroyed. Therefore, we have an eternal tension, and a universe of “generation and corruption”, as Aristotle put it. “Coming-to-be and passing-away will, as we have said, always be continuous, and will never fail owing to the cause we stated. And this continuity has a sufficient reason on our theory. For in all things, as we affirm, Nature always strives after ‘the better’. Now ‘being’…is better than ‘not-being’: but not all things can possess ‘being’, since they are too far removed from the ‘originative source’. God therefore adopted the remaining alternative, and fulfilled the perfection of the universe by making coming-to-be uninterrupted: for the greatest possible coherence would thus be secured to existence, because that ‘coming-to-be should itself come-tobe perpetually’ is the closest approximation to eternal being.” – Aristotle

Cosmos For Plato, the eternal world is intelligible, and the temporal world sensible. Physical objects are contingent. They have not existed forever. For Aristotle, the cosmos is eternal. It’s in eternal motion established by the eternal Prime Mover (who does not himself move – which is something of a category error: rationally, either everything moves, as Heraclitus said, or nothing moves, as Parmenides said; you can’t have a Cartesian “substance dualism” of motion and non-motion). For Aristotle, the Celestial realm of the cosmos, above the moon, is composed of imperishable, divine matter (the aether). The Terrestrial realm

of the cosmos, below the moon, is the perishable domain of the four elements – earth, water, air and fire. The motion of the eternal heavenly bodies eternally causes generation and corruption in the contingent elements derived from eternal prime matter. The perfect heavenly bodies move in perfect circles. (In Illuminism, ultimate reality is based on perfect Euler circles in perfect, permanent motion, generating perfect sinusoidal waves.) For Aristotle, as for Illuminism, existence participates in an eternal cycle, and this is the most divine that the natural world can be. Aristotle said that all being is in the world, i.e. there’s nothing outside the universe. All natural forms exist within sensible objects, i.e. there’s no transcendent Platonic realm (unless we refer to the transcendent realm of God himself). All sensible objects comprise both matter and form (hylomorphism). Form determines the properties of an object but, without objects, it would exist only in the Mind of God. Matter, in the classical view, is the receptacle for properties. In itself, matter has no properties. It’s a neutral substratum: cosmic clay awaiting a sculptor. It’s pure potentiality and no actuality. It’s not “being” per se but the potential for being (when form is applied to it). In this sense, matter is rather like the unreal quantum mechanical wavefunction, waiting to be actualised, and Heisenberg certainly held this sort of view. If all properties of an object are stripped away, prime matter alone remains. In Heisenberg’s quantum mechanics, if all actual observable properties are stripped away, all that remains is a wavefunction that specifies all possible observable properties. Aristotle, an empiricist, believed that we understood form via the sensible objects of the world. Plato, a rationalist, asserted that we must understand the forms via the eternal, intelligible domain of reason. Aristotle was a prototype scientist, and Plato a prototype mathematician. It always comes back to the question of the sensible (science) versus the intelligible (mathematics). In relation to change, Aristotle said that permanence through change is provided by matter. Any observed change in a sensible object arises from the form changing (while the matter remains the same). Where Plato saw the sensible world as an inferior copy of the intelligible world, Aristotle saw the sensible world as the essence of his system.

To address the famous Parmenidean assertion that change is impossible because it requires something to come from nothing, Aristotle argued that change was actually about the transition of potential being to actual being via form, and not the transition of non-being to being (although it’s hard to see how potential being differs from non-being given that neither actually exists!). This point is highly relevant to quantum mechanics. Does the wavefunction exist or not? If it’s non-being (unreal), how can it be said to exist? What does it mean to refer to “potential” being? Something either exists or it doesn’t. It can’t potentially exist, and be waiting (where?!) to be made actual. The parallels between Aristotle’s views and those of Heisenberg are astounding, which makes it all the more bizarre that Aristotle is normally regarded as an irrelevant old fool in scientific circles. For Aristotle, an acorn possesses an actual form (that of being an acorn), but also comes equipped with the potential forms of being a sapling and then an oak tree. So, an acorn actualises various potential forms as it changes from a mere seed into the final tree it’s destined to become. The acorn carries, so to speak, all of its potential states within it, which is very like the Copenhagen quantum mechanical view of reality. In the Aristotelian system of change, there are two distinctions: 1) a static matter/ form distinction, and 2) a dynamic potentiality/ actuality distinction. Prime Matter doesn’t move, and God (Prime Form) never moves either. All other forms are in motion. Any motion associated with Prime Matter is supplied by the forms imprinted on it. Prime matter constitutes absolute potentiality while God constitutes absolute actuality. God, the Prime Mover, causes the transition of forms from their potential to actual expression. In quantum mechanical terms, this would be like saying that God, rather than randomness, collapses the wavefunction. Aristotle maintained that things undergo change because that’s their nature. Things are what they do. The essence of a thing is to actualise its potential, and it will do so if no obstacles are placed in its path and if it’s deprived of nothing it needs. Aristotle’s system is teleological: it has an inner purpose that it’s seeking to realise. This radically contrasts with the modern scientific view where things happen for no reason, things have no purposes and existence is a meaningless accident.

Only natural things have natures. Unnatural (manmade) things do not. A nature, therefore, could never be programmed into an artificial intelligence. Only natural things can be sources of change.

***** In Illuminism, change is the fundamental reality. Everything is in permanent motion, but this permanent motion is perfectly mathematical, hence gives rise to perfect, eternal, immutable mathematical forms (sinusoids) and their laws of motion. Stasis plays no part in ontological mathematics.

***** Art = techne. Nature = physis. In Art, final causes (those for the sake of which change occurs) are external (dependent on the Artist), while, in Nature, they are internal (dependent on the object). In Aristotle’s worldview, natural processes are internally goal-directed, everything has its place, and there’s a place for everything. The universe reflects a great chain of being. In the Hegelian view, Nature is evolving towards an Absolute condition (Omega Point), equivalent to Nature having a divine final cause. The universe exists in order to transform itself into God. That’s its fundamental purpose.

Potentiality Prime matter is pure potentiality: a state of pre-being without form. Prime matter is “nothing” and yet potentially everything. It’s a “pre-element” from which the actual elements are derived when form is imposed.

***** In Illuminism, there’s no matter-form dichotomy. Mathematical sinusoidal waves are, in their objective, quantitative aspect, the basic forms of

existence. In their qualitative aspect, they provide “potential”, “content” and “matter”.

Celestial Prime Matter versus Terrestrial Prime Matter “If aether is incorruptible two conclusions follow right away, one pertaining to its substantial principles and the other pertaining to its qualities. First, aether’s prime matter and substantial form must be so perfectly united that the latter must actualize and thereby exhaust the potency of the former, insofar as an incorruptible body by definition must lack the potential to become anything else; aether must possess a ‘certain total and universal perfection’ that thoroughly fulfils its potency for existence. Indeed, if one were not to distinguish fulfilled and unfulfilled potencies, one might be tempted to say that the heavenly substance has no prime matter. More accurately, however, one should conclude that, unlike sublunary composites, aether’s prime matter is always perfectly fulfilled, so it is inseparable from its form, and in this sense is not really distinct from it. Likewise, since its prime matter would not be a principle of aether’s coming to be, but only of its being, it would not be the same sort of prime matter that is a principle of mundane substances (which is a principle both of coming to be and of being); it would be called prime matter only analogously.” – Christopher A Decaen Aristotle’s aether was a celestial substance, based on prime matter subject to a form that never changes: it has already wholly fulfilled its purpose and is fully actualised relative to its Nature. It’s a simple substance, not a compound. It cannot be generated, and it’s incorruptible. It’s not capable of growth, development, alteration or evolution. It is always what it is. It’s subject to only one internal principle: remaining perfect forever. If God is perfect matterless form, then aether is perfect formed matter, hence suitable for the bodies of divinities. Aether can act upon other substances, but cannot itself be acted upon and changed. In Illuminism, there’s no Aristotelian prime matter, there’s only prime mathematics, comprising sinusoids, which convey both form and content. All the “stuff” of the world comes from the addition of “atomic” form and

content to produce contingent, “molecular” form and content. All molecular content can be broken down into atomic form and content. Atomic form and content, however, cannot be broken down any further. This form and content is eternal and necessary, while molecular form and content is temporal and contingent. We live in a world of molecular, phenomenal, form and content. Atomic form and content are noumenal.

Eternity Aristotle held species to be eternal, hence he rejected evolution (or, if it did happen, it was infinitely long ago). For Aristotle, no individual life-form is eternal. However, the form of the species, of which the individual is an instance, is eternal. So, an individual participates in an eternal form, but is not itself eternal.

An Oxymoron You hear people talking about having “faith” in reason. But you can’t have faith in reason. Faith is about believing in something without proof. However, everything about reason – provided it’s cast in ontological mathematical terms – is provable, hence the opposite of faith. People of faith never have a good reason for their beliefs. That’s why they’re people of faith. If you have good reasons for what you consider true then are you not a person of faith. You are a person of knowledge. It may be imperfect knowledge, but it’s knowledge all the same because you have a credible case to argue. Someone who says that God communicated with an illiterate tribesman via the Angel Gabriel is not making any rational case whatsoever – simply stating an absurd story. People believe this story not because they subject it to any rational analysis but because they don’t, and because they find it emotionally appealing. This is the essence of belief. It’s precisely that from which all reason is absent. People have faith in Mythos. They know Logos. It’s a category error to treat Mythos as Logos, or vice versa. Faith is exclusively concerned with Mythos and plays no part in Logos. All Logos is about evidence, reason, facts and proof. Mythos is about emotional stories with no Logos basis whatsoever.

No holy book by anyone contains any truth. They are all pure Mythos.

Mythos and Logos With Mythos, you are told a story which you are then expected to believe religiously, and with which you will frame your understanding of reality. With Logos, you are presented with a complex system that you then have to understand. What’s more difficult – believing a simple story or understanding a complex system? Humanity follows the path of least resistance, and that means it follows Mythos rather than Logos. Advanced humanity, Higher Humanity, must be Logos-oriented rather than Mythosoriented. Evolution demands that we move away from Mythos to Logos. Logos landed men on the moon. Mythos caused the Inquisition, the Crusades, Jihad, 9/11, the religious wars, the witch burnings, endless persecutions and intolerance. So, what’s it to be – Mythos or Logos?

Signs All signs are concerned with arbitrary content. As Saussure said, signifiers and signified are arbitrary. All signs are incomplete and inconsistent. No amount of axioms can save them since the system is inherently arbitrary. Mathematics = necessary, analytic content, complete and consistent.

God is Great? When Muslims pull their dead out of the rubble after an Israeli missile strike, they yell Allahu Akbar. When Muslims fire missiles at Israel, they yell Allahu Akbar. When they kill infidel Jews, they yell Allahu Akbar. When they’re cutting off the head of someone who has displeased them, they yell Allahu Akbar. How can anyone doubt that their “God” is a god of war, madness, horror, savagery and death? No rational person could contemplate such a God. Only people of “faith” could. Faith is the most dangerous disease in human history and must be eradicated to the last trace. Faith = fanaticism. Faith = unreason. Faith = anti-education. Faith = intolerance. Faith = violence. Faith = hate. Faith = persecution. Faith = brainwashing. Faith = child abuse.

There’s nothing good about faith. No civilised, educated nation would ever tolerate faith. It’s a shame that people have invested their identities in total falsehoods, but now, in the name of reason, they must be forced to be free. They must be freed from faith. It disgusts us when people aren’t outraged by Abrahamism and when they refuse to condemn it in the bluntest terms. These people are fellow travellers of the Devil-God of the Abrahamists, and every bit as evil. Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” All those who preach “love” and tolerance towards Abrahamists are ensuring the triumph of evil. There is simply no place for Abrahamism in our world, and those who refuse to fight it are welcome to perish with it since they are every bit as bad, and are as much of a brake on human progress. Humanity will conquer the stars through being smart, not by telling stories about desert tribes, bearded prophets, and invisible Sky Gods.

The Dialectic The dialectic is about the march of reason, not the march of love, or faith, or peace, or “God”. Anyone who’s an enemy of reason is an enemy of the dialectic and will be crushed by the dialectic in due course. “Enlightenment” is nothing whatsoever to do with meditation, or with ending suffering and desire. Enlightenment is about understanding reality exactly, and that means mathematically. Knowledge is power and the gods (the all-powerful) are those who have absolute knowledge of the workings of reality, allowing them to control the world at whim. The people who promote love and peace as the basis of enlightenment are as far from enlightenment as the Abrahamists, Karmists and scientific materialists. Reason is what defines the highest humans, and reason is what will make humans into gods. Peace won’t do it, love won’t do it, faith won’t do it, mysticism won’t do it, and Mythos won’t do it.

Matter, Quantia and Qualia Science is a quantitative subject about measurements. The scientific concept of matter is strictly one-sided: there’s no notion of matter being

double-sided, having an unmeasurable, qualitative interior to go with a measurable, quantitative exterior. The scientific method addresses quantity and the observable only. There’s no way for science to get from quantity to quality. Science has no theory at all of interiority and quality. That’s why it can’t explain mind, life, free will, qualia and consciousness. What’s the essence of mind and life as we encounter them? – it’s the experience of quantitative mathematical information from the inside, where’s it’s experienced qualitatively, in terms of sensations, feelings, desires and will. None of these seem mathematical, but every single one of them is harnessed to a quantitative mathematical wavefunction, which is then interpreted empirically and qualitatively rather than rationally. Rationalism is the subject that allows us to transcend our interiority, our experiences, and to view ourselves objectively, from the outside. And what we encounter from the outside is pure ontological mathematics with no sensory qualities at all. We inhabit a cosmic wavefunction, a cosmic mathematical Singularity, a cosmic hologram. “Matter” is an idea, not an autonomous thing. There is no spoon! There’s only a noumenal, real mathematical wavefunction that we interpret as a spoon.

The Electromagnetic Spectrum The best way to think of the dual-aspect nature of waves (i.e. the fact that they possess both a quantitative and qualitative nature, primary and secondary, rational and empirical, mathematical and experiential) is by analogy with the electromagnetic spectrum. Every electromagnetic wave travels at the speed of light. Quantitatively, these waves differ only in terms of their frequency (to which their wavelength automatically adjusts). However, qualitatively, these waves are all markedly different. Some are associated with gamma rays, or x-rays, or ultra-violet roles, or infrared rays, or microwaves, or radio waves, and so on, with radically different properties and effects in our world. Consider, in particular, the visible light spectrum. Each frequency is associated with a different colour, i.e. with a different visual experience. At the Big Bang, where there were no observers, no colour was experienced in the universe. Photons, considered quantitatively, objectively

and externally, have no colour. “Viewed” from the outside, photons are noumenal. There’s no kaleidoscope of red, blue, green, yellow and orange photons. The colour of photons is something that has to be experienced, hence requires observers. Colour is qualitative, subjective and internal. It’s phenomenal, not noumenal. Colour is the appearance of noumenal photons, but only observers can experience this appearance. Without observers, the photon has no appearance and no colour. Philosopher John Locke pointed out that objects do not have a colour. Colour is a secondary, not a primary, property of objects. The reason for this is that it’s the light reflected from the object, not the object itself, that furnishes the colour information. In the dark, the object has no colour at all. We “see” the world, with all of its colours and shades, thanks to light. Without light, we would have a world of non-sensory, noumenal, mathematical things with no appearance. The light that bounces off these invisible objects is what we see, not the objects. We have absolutely no idea what the objects really look like, and, of course, they don’t look like anything. We see patterns of light only. When there is no light, we don’t see anything. People imagine that we see the world. We don’t. We see how light bounces off the world, which is entirely different from seeing the world. We are seeing light, not “matter”. The world as it is in itself is totally invisible to us. Oddly enough, light does not make objects visible, but the opposite! Because we’re seeing light, we don’t see anything else. The light has thrown a veil over reality and forced us to see the light alone. How can anyone suppose that the light patterns we see are anything like the objects that caused the patterns in the first place? In fact, they’re nothing like them. The original objects are purely noumenal mathematical entities, with no appearance at all. Have you seen the light yet?!

***** We naively link colour to electromagnetic waves of specific frequencies. In fact, these waves are only the cause of the colour, but not its true source. Colour is produced only when photons (mathematical functions) have entered our eyes (mathematical functions), hit our retinas (mathematical functions), been transmitted along the optic nerve (a mathematical

function), been processed by the optic region of the brain (a mathematical function), and finally, been processed by a monadic mind (a mathematical function). In other words, we are very far from the original photons. Colours can be “additive”, meaning that they are the effect of the combination of “atomic” colours. “White”, for example, is the combination of all the colours of the rainbow. Yet, once again, the whiteness is only caused by all the colours of the rainbow, but the experience of whiteness itself is generated after the light has been processed by our eyes, brain and mind. It’s as much about us as the light!

***** Kant said, “If our faculty of knowledge makes any such addition, it may be that we are not in a position to distinguish it from the raw material, until with long practice of attention we have become skilled in separating it.” This is very much the problem. We cannot distinguish the raw material of our sensory experiences (light, for example) from the additional processing that we perform on it. Does colour come from the original light, the subsequent processing of the light, or both? How can we tell?

No Church The Church of England is not a proper Church. It has a monarch rather than a religious figure as it head, and it was created purely at the whim of an English king (Henry VIII) for political and dynastic reasons, which had nothing at all to do with religion. The Church of England is fake, phoney and fraudulent. It’s an artificial construct, a simulacrum. It’s not an actual religion, but a simulation of religion for people with no authentic spirituality, but just pretending. How many other things in life are as fake as the Church of England? Is the whole world that fake?

The Contest When you watch any sporting contest, you realize that the contest isn’t in fact between the contestants, but between Nike and Adidas. Everyone is wearing one or the other’s logo. Commercialism, marketing and branding have corrupted almost everything. It surely won’t be long until the Pope wears a Nike papal hat, or the Queen of England an Adidas crown, or until

the President of the United States is sponsored by Goldman Sachs ... er, ahem!

The War So, the West went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan to convert the Muslims to liberal, capitalist democracy. Well, that went well, didn’t it?! The war was supposed to end the influence of Radical Islam, wasn’t it?! Well, that went well, didn’t it? The “Arab Spring” went well, didn’t it? Syria turned out well, didn’t it? And Pakistan. And Somalia. And Kenya. And Nigeria. And Libya. And Yemen. And all the rest. Good to see that the Palestinian problem is so close to resolution (?!). It all turned out splendidly, didn’t it? The simple fact is that Islam was offered modernity and chose the past. It was offered liberalism and chose Fundamentalism. If you want a modern world, you must get rid of all the forces of the past. You must force people to be free, as Rousseau so rightly said. Yet Rousseau, like so many philosophers of true freedom (freedom from indoctrination, freedom from dependency on anything but the rational laws of the Republic) has frequently been branded a totalitarian fascist, just as Pythagoras was, and Plato, and Weishaupt, and Robespierre, and Hegel, and any other philosopher of the positive liberty State. All the people who fear positive liberty always denounce it, yet positive liberty alone is consistent with the advance of the rational dialectic. There’s nothing more certain than that if humanity has a divine future then it’s dialectically guaranteed to create rationalist, meritocratic, positive liberty, Constitutional Republics of Reason. To the “love and light” brigade, we say go to the Islamic Caliphate and tell the Muslim Jihadists all about love and light. We’ll never see you again! We live in the real world. You don’t. You are hopeless, pathetic, embarrassing dreamers, as doomed to extinction as the dinosaurs. You have absolutely failed to understand reality. The jungle is about creatures eating each other in order to survive. In our past lives, we were all animals eating each other. We are all steeped in blood, in horrific, nightmarish violence and pain. “Love” is not the answer to the slaughterbench. In fact, love in all its forms – love of God, love of nation, love of king, love of money, love of family, love of self, love of status, love of purity, and so on –

has been the root of every war and of all violence. “Love” is the quintessence of hate and conflict. Reason, not emotion, is the answer to bestiality. We will have a peaceful world only when we have a rational world. And every rationalist knows that in order for reason to reign, it will be necessary to deal once and for all with everyone opposed to reason, everyone who is preventing the realisation of a rational world. The tolerant must not tolerate the intolerant, and the rational must not bow to the irrational.

***** How do you solve a problem like Israel and Palestine? The Palestinians say the Jews invaded and stole their land from them. The Jews say that their land was stolen from them thousands of years ago. They say “God” gave them the land. They say he promised it to them. But how can the Jewish God have promised any land to anyone? Since when has “God” owned any part of the earth? Since when has he had any legal right to promise any part of it to anyone? Where is the legal deed of ownership? Where is God’s signature? Where can we get in touch with him to contest the claim? In order to take the Jewish claim seriously you would have to be a Jew who believes in the Jewish God. If you don’t then they have no claim. As for the Palestinians, they are Muslims who believe that “God” spoke infallibly to an illiterate tribesman via the Angel Gabriel, thus giving rise to the Koran, the perfect Word of God (allegedly). They believe that if they martyr themselves, they will be rewarded with seventy-two virgins, or seventy-two grapes, depending on interpretation (!). The Muslims revere Jerusalem because they believe that on one magical night, Mohammed came to Jerusalem from Mecca on a steed from the heavens, then ascended from the Temple Rock, through the seven heavens, to converse with Allah himself (!). How can anyone reason with either side when both sides are selfevidently demented?! Only reason can solve problems, but if no one listens to reason, and no one is rational, no problems will ever be solved. With the Jews and Palestinians, we have the clash of two mad fantasies, and there’s no possible answer to such a clash. Imagine setting up a United Nations International Court to hear the conflicting claims of the Jews and Palestinians and to pronounce a neutral,

just verdict. The case would be a total joke because both sides would be blabbering on about crazy claims from ancient Mythos texts. How could any judge or jury pronounce rationally on an argument arising from religious insanity and fanaticism? And who would ever accept the verdict? Religious nutcases would never comply if the verdict went against them. So, let them fight on. Let them exterminate each other. Their own lunatic beliefs brought this fate on them. They have no one to blame but themselves, and both sides are equally guilty, and equally mad.

***** “The whole of Mosul collapsed today. We’ve fled our homes and neighbourhoods, and we’re looking for God’s mercy. We are waiting to die.” – Mahmoud Al Taie, resident of Mosul In the Iraqi city of Mosul, the Muslim Fundamentalists who seized the city ordered every non-Muslim in the city to convert to Islam, to pay a “protection tax”, to leave, or to die. That’s the real world. The love and light brigade do not live in the real world. Once all of the Christians had fled, the Jihadists then raised the black flag of Islamic Jihad over the Christian Churches, replacing the Christian Cross. So it goes. The rationalists will do the same to the Jihadists and replace the black flag with the flag of pi, or of the God Equation!

The Unholy City The Israeli-Palestinian problem is insoluble because two sides lay claim to a single “holy” city – Jerusalem. Even worse, they lay claim to the same “holy” rock (!), where the Temple of Solomon once stood, and the Dome of the Rock now stands. The Crusades took place because a third group of Abrahamists – the Christians – also laid claim to Jerusalem. Thus Abrahamism’s holiest city became its unholiest city, the source of incredible violence, hate, persecution and intolerance. These days, Christians are happy simply to visit Jerusalem rather than claim it as their own. The same is not true of the Jews and Muslims. They will fight over it forever. That’s the price you pay for religious faith and fanaticism. It goes to show yet

again that “love” and faith are the primary sources of hate and evil. As soon as you have “love”, especially love of God, you have war rather than peace. “Love” and “peace” are words that should never be found together. It should always be “love” and “violence”.

Vested Interests Every vested interest, whether religious, political, economic, academic or scientific, is against ontological mathematics Why? Because it puts them all out of a job. It strips them of their power, wealth and influence, so they resist it. The Truth is the last thing any of these people care about. Their personal success is their primary motivator.

Underpowered People today lead such underpowered lives. They barely scratch the surface of what they’re capable of, and have no comprehension of how far they could go if they applied themselves. The thing that most holds people back is never society but themselves.

Inside Some people feel permanently outside themselves. Are you outside or inside yourself? You can achieve nothing unless you’re inside, in control.

Value Society reveals itself by what it values. And society certainly doesn’t value reason, mathematics, intellect, education and Logos. It values junk, fun, pleasure, beauty, entertainment, celebrity, bread and circuses, luxury, status, power, glamour, Mythos.

Fear It’s a simple fact that the brain is more responsive to negative than positive stimuli. Deep down, people fear the worst. If you want to manipulate the

people, make sure you offer them two messages: 1) fear (of whatever) and 2) hope (that you will defeat what you have identified as the cause of fear). In fact, the second message is entirely about fear too since it’s defined with regard to the specific fear factor! Abrahamism offers fear of hell and damnation, and hope of heaven and salvation (i.e. ultimate avoidance of what is most feared).

“We Fearless Ones” – Nietzsche “You tremble, carcass? You would tremble a lot more if you knew where I am taking you.” – Turenne (a great French general) “This lengthy, vast and uninterrupted process of crumbling, destruction, ruin and overthrow which is now imminent: who has realised it sufficiently today to have to stand up as the teacher and herald of such a tremendous logic of terror, as the prophet of a period of gloom and eclipse, the like of which has probably never taken place on earth before? . . . Even we, the born riddle-readers, who wait as it were on the mountains posted twixt today and tomorrow, and engirt by their contradiction, we, the firstlings and premature children of the coming century, into whose sight especially the shadows which must forthwith envelop Europe should already have come how is it that even we, without genuine sympathy for this period of gloom, contemplate its advent without any personal solicitude or fear? Are we still, perhaps, too much under the immediate effects of the event and are these effects, especially as regards our selves, perhaps the reverse of what was to be expected not at all sad and depressing, but rather like a new and indescribable variety of light, happiness, relief, enlivenment, encouragement, and dawning day? . . . In fact, we philosophers and ‘free spirits’ feel ourselves irradiated as by a new dawn by the report that the ‘old God is dead’; our hearts overflow with gratitude, astonishment, presentiment and expectation. At last the horizon seems open once more, granting even that it is not bright; our ships can at last put out to sea in face of every danger; every hazard is again permitted to the discerner; the sea, our sea, again lies open before us; perhaps never before did such an ‘open sea’ exist.” – Nietzsche Are you ready to embark on the open sea? Are you one of the firstlings and premature children of the Coming Age of Gods? Are you one of the born

riddle-readers? Are you one of the free spirits? The Advent of HyperHumanity is at hand. The Age of Superstition is over. The Age of Faith is over. The Age of Mysticism is Over. The Age of the Senses is Over. Now is the time for the Age of Intuition, Now, above all, is the time for the Age of Reason. It’s time for humanity to get off its knees to false Gods. It’s time for humanity to stop worshipping Gods and instead to start becoming Gods. Only knowledge, only Truth, can lead us to divinity. More than anything else, that means understanding exactly what existence is made of, and what laws it obeys. Humanity has had the answer for 2,500 years, ever since Pythagoras had the single greatest insight in history. The answer is mathematics. Religion landed men on hell. Science landed men on the moon. Mathematics will land men on heaven. The Coming Race, humanity’s evolutionary future, is coming into view. Are you part of the future, or a prisoner of the past? New Humanity must have no mercy towards Old Humanity if they get in the way of human evolution.

The Vision Thing What is our vision? It’s that of an optimised society where every single person is contributing to the maximum of their ability, and society has given everyone the means to make that optimal contribution. All for one and one for all.

The Mystery Why is it that a large number of people who take an interest in Illuminism seem to have no understanding of Illuminism whatsoever? They project onto it their own preoccupations, which are usually to do with faith, magic, New Ageism, and so on. We are political Jacobins, and mathematical hyperrationalists. We regard meritocracy as the means to perfect the human race. By day, we are Apollonians. By night, we are Dionysians. Our aspiration is to create heaven on earth, to create a Community of Gods and a Society of the Divine. We can accomplish that only if we bring together all of the smartest and most radical people on earth under a single banner. We aren’t interested in self-indulgent, narcissistic dreamers. We want the

sort of people who really can change the world, but who recognise that they may have to work fruitlessly for a very long time, yet maintain the utmost dedication and discipline. Nothing makes more of a difference to the quality of your life than having a sacred cause to pursue. If your only cause is yourself and your own feelings and beliefs, you are lost. Most people who sign up to Illuminist-type pages seem to belong to the legions of Lost Souls. It’s time to commit. Kierkegaard urged people to take a leap of faith. We require you to take a leap of reason. Get smart. Get active. Get real.

Politics “The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.” – Daniel Patrick Moynihan The central radical truth is that it is philosophy that determines the success of a society. Had the world pursued the pagan philosophy of ancient Greece, we would have had paradise on earth a thousand years ago. The Roman Empire would never have fallen, and the Christian and Muslim Empires would never have been inflicted on humanity. Rome would have dialectically evolved to become a wonder of engineering, technology, science, mathematics, philosophy and metaphysics. As it was, humanity succumbed to the disease of faith and irrationalism, and it took a thousand years for a tiny percentage of humanity to usher in the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason. Yet, we still live in an ocean of faith and irrationalism, as if the Enlightenment never happened. Why did the Enlightenment fail? – because it was liberal rather than radical. The French Revolution was condemned for being radical, yet a French Revolution is exactly what is required if a permanent Age of Reason is to be established. The task is not to co-exist with mainstream religion, but to eradicate mainstream religion. While mainstream religion survives, so does human ignorance and irrationalism. Liberalism cannot cure the world. Only radicalism can. It’s not a question of being “nice”, it’s a question of evolution. Earth will never be anything other than a madhouse and abattoir while faith and irrationalism infect nine out of every ten people. Only Truth and Reason can set us free.

The Horror Abrahamism exerted a stranglehold over humanity’s intellectual development for well over a thousand years, and its toxic effects are still felt today. The horrific thing is that scientific materialism is now exerting an equal stranglehold over human intellectual progress, and is every bit as toxic in its own way. It’s as hard to overcome the falsehoods of scientific materialism, as it was for science to overthrow the falsehoods of Abrahamism. Isn’t that the supreme irony? One blinkered, dogmatic, ideological system has replaced another. The Truth is as far away as ever.

Intelligence The smartest people in the world cannot be defeated ... provided they have a strong will. Unfortunately, most intelligent people are meek, weak, submissive, fearful and often on the autistic spectrum. They have a low will to power and often use their talents in the service of others with much higher will to power. In fact, they frequently serve psychopaths. It’s time that smart people got strong, confident and dominant and sent out an unambiguous message to the world – don’t fuck with us! It’s time that intelligent people became Nietzschean Supermen and Superwomen with a radical, audacious morality. It’s time for a new humanity, a higher humanity, ruled by Logos rather than Mythos. If you don’t like our message, too bad. We couldn’t care less. Our only task is to assemble all of the smartest people in the world who have a strong will. Then no force on earth can stop us. Human intelligence is the most powerful weapon there has ever been. If the intelligentsia unite, they will automatically rule the world. Imagine a small number of human geniuses versus the Planet of the Apes. Who will win?

X-Men Forget the X-men. The true war is between the minority with the mutation for reason, and the majority infected by faith and unreason. The irrational, being irrational, have no concept of how irrational they are, and since they have no standard of reason, they have no comprehension of how rational the

people of reason are. To an irrationalist, all arguments advanced by rationalists are irrational. After all, how would an irrationalist ever grasp what is rational? Reason is precisely what they are lacking. All irrational people live in a world where everything is irrational because they lack any means to discriminate the rational from the irrational. You can’t argue with these people since they simply can’t grasp what an argument is. How can an illogical person recognise logic? The choice facing humanity is straightforward – to be ruled by an idiocracy or a meritocracy. Well, what’s it to be? Are you one of the idiots or one of the smart ones? Where will you stand when the Final War – the War to End all Wars – comes? This is a war that cannot be avoided: the war between Higher Humanity and Lower Humanity, the war between humanity as beasts and humanity as gods, the war between the part of humanity that refuses to evolve and the part that must evolve. Faith and stupidity must be eradicated from the human condition. The Age of Mythos humanity must end. Now it’s time for the birth of Logos humanity, for the birth of the human future. Do you belong to the Coming Race?

Wrong If you believe in God, how do you know you haven’t placed your faith in the wrong God, in a false God? The Cathars said that the Creator of this world was a monstrous Devil and that this was the self-evident reason was why the world was so evil. There was, they said, a True God in a purely spiritual realm, and our sole task was to escape from this material hell to that immaterial heaven by learning the secret knowledge (gnosis) that freed the soul. It’s one of the most remarkable of all facts that the God worshipped by some is regarded as Satan by others. How is that possible if “God” is an unambiguous force for good? What is it that people are actually worshipping? Whatever it is, it isn’t unalloyed, self-evident goodness. In fact, it’s apparent that the human race has only ever worshipped one thing – power.

The very first thing that the Jews established was not the morality of God, but the alleged fact that they were his Chosen People. In other words, it was power and prestige they lusted for, not “goodness”.

The Wars of Reason On which side will you fight when the Wars of Reason begin? Will you stand with the people of Faith or the people of Reason? The human race self-evidently cannot evolve if the vast majority of humans insist on subscribing to ancient, ludicrous, irrational, pre-scientific storybooks purporting to be about the Absolute Truth. All “holy” books are literally valueless. They have more or less zero truth content. They promote not the Absolute Truth but, rather, the Absolute Lie. The human race is neither rational nor truthful. Most people can’t think. What they can do is follow a story. Humanity is a Story species that “understands” reality through stories. Everyone on earth can understand the stories of the Christian Bible. What percentage of humanity can understand Fourier mathematics? People subscribe to what they can understand, not what they can’t understand. So, being stupid, people therefore sign up to stupid but simple and emotionally attractive belief systems – religions. The dialectic can make no progress while the stupid rule the earth. It demands a new configuration of the human race: 1) Thesis: Mythos Humanity, Religious Humanity, Dionysian Humanity. 2) Antithesis: Logos Humanity, Rational Humanity, Apollonian Humanity. 3) Synthesis: Logos Humanity = 90%, Mythos Humanity = 10% (rather than the current state of Mythos Humanity = 90%, Logos Humanity = 10%). The human race is sub-optimal to an incredible degree. It prefers stories to reason. You cannot land men on the moon by reading Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Twilight or the Hunger Games. If humanity is to create a Star Trek society, to do amazing things, to solve the problems of our world with technology, then it must become rational, but it will never become rational while the irrational storytellers rule, and the rational let them.

It couldn’t be simpler. If the human race refuses to mentally evolve then it will perish, and it deserves to. It has signed its own death warrant by refusing to change, by clinging to ancient stories. If you support evolution, and you want humanity to have a divine future, the Smart must wage war against the Stupid. The billions of retarded religious believers are never going to be rationally persuaded, and they will never come along quietly. Just look at Israel versus Palestine. Just look at the so-called “Islamic State”. Is that how you want this world to be forever? The wars of today are all caused by people insisting on living in the past, on believing utterly discredited and disproven things from the past. The dead hand of the past is strangling humanity’s future. If humanity wants to live, to have a future, it must remove the past’s stranglehold. The people of the future, of evolution, must deal once and for all with the people of the past, of degeneration. There is no excuse at all in the 21st century for any human being to believe any ancient “holy” text. It’s an affront to reason, an affront to science, mathematics, philosophy, technology and engineering. It represents a catastrophic refusal to evolve. These people have all looked at the past and at modernity, and they have chosen the past. Hundreds of millions of Muslims literally want to return to the world of Mohammed of 1400 years ago. Well, given that they are brainwashed by the Koran, a book from 1400 years ago, what else would we rationally expect? The Koran makes total sense to them, and the Koran has no need of modernity. These people have failed to understand science and mathematics. they have failed to evolve, and yet they are imprisoning everyone else with their ignorance and fanaticism. There must be a reckoning. The brakes on the Coming Race of Gods must be removed, and the Gods will do whatever is necessary to free themselves. You must choose sides. If you refuse to choose then you have chosen – you have supported the status quo, you have supported Mythos Humanity and irrational faith. That makes you guilty of high treason against Reason, and traitors always get the fate they deserve. Are you with the past or the future? Evolve or perish!

The Worst People

The worst people in human history, the people who have done the most damage to the human race, the people who have most obstructed human progress, are the high priests, the prophets and gurus. They are truly evil.

The Food of the Gods The Aztecs called chocolate the “food of the gods”. Given the prevalence of chocolate in the modern world, does that make everyone a god? If only! It takes a lot more than eating chocolate to become divine. And it takes a lot more than meditating under a tree. What is more likely to make you enlightened? – sitting under a tree and humming “Om”, or studying Fourier mathematics?

The Pretenders Why do so many people imagine they will change the world? Here’s a reality check – they won’t. Only world-historic figures can change anything, and they’re the only people in whom we’re interested. If you send an email to someone saying, “I can change the world”, you definitely can’t. World-historic figures are busy changing the world, not sending emails saying they will. If you believe you can change the world, go right ahead. Impress us. Walk the walk. Don’t talk the talk. The God Series of books will change the world. If will take a long time, of course, but it will happen. We didn’t sit around emailing people. We created something unprecedented by doing an unprecedented amount of work. The three Illuminati authors of these books have worked round the clock to produce this material. We have put in a world-historic effort. What have you done? Isn’t it time to get off your ass? Those who can, do; those who can’t, fantasise about it. We don’t need any fantasists. We need people who accomplish things, who initiate things, who lead. This world is all about follow the leader. In the past, religions, States and monarchies supplied the leaders. Today, the super-rich, banks and corporations supply the leaders. We will change the world only when we have all the intelligent leaders on our side.

We Faustians We Faustians are the bold ones, the explorers, the adventurers. We are those who dare. We embrace the future. We will never stay stuck in the past like the people of faith. We are the Prometheans who will steal the fire of the gods and become gods ourselves. We will never passively, submissively serve any gods. We won’t hesitate to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. We would never let anyone stop us. We will always disobey those who ought to be disobeyed. We long for the infinite. We want infinite knowledge, infinite life and infinite power. To control reality, we must understand reality. Only reason furnishes a definitive, absolute, infallible answer. Faith is the opposite of Reason. To have the future we want, we must stop others – the people of faith – from having the future they want. The Christians want all of us to be “bornagain”, awaiting the Second Coming of their lunatic Messiah. The Muslims want the black flag of jihad to flutter over the White House, and for all of us to be on our bellies to Allah. Fuck that! It’s time for the Second Enlightenment. It’s time for Reason to do what it should have done in the first place ... eradicate Faith entirely.

Faith Faith comes in several guises. The Abrahamists have faith in feelings and stories. The followers of Eastern religion have faith in mysticism, stories and meditation. The scientific materialists have faith in their senses. New Agers have faith in mysticism, stories, meditation, love and peace, with a bit of half-baked science and psychology thrown in. Look at the “Integral World” of Ken Wilber, yet another shameless New Age guru. It’s the same old Mythos junk, dressed up with a touch of self-serving science and psychology here and there, and it attracts the same old helpless and hopeless victims of charlatanry. The feeling types and mystics lap up this drivel. It tells them a story, a new story, that seems more convincing than the old stories of mainstream religion, yet it’s as far from Truth as ever, as opposed to Logos as ever.

Incredibly, some fraudulent “intellectuals” on a Ken Wilber tribute site actually dared to attack our position. Of course, they had no idea of what our position actually was, but since when has that stopped any of the Mythos legions?! You have to be really smart to understand Illuminism, and if you’re the sort of person who takes Ken Wilber, Deepak Chopra, Eckhart Tolle, or David Icke seriously, you’re not smart at all. These are just the latest versions of Helena Blavatsky, with her ridiculous, Mythos-saturated Theosophy. Many people who take an interest in Illuminism aren’t up to the task. They’d be better off with these snake-oil salesmen, or getting a brain transplant! Illuminism reduces to a very simple idea: the only thing in the world that is not bullshitting you is mathematics. Mathematics is absolute precision, absolute perfection, absolute truth. It’s eternally infallible. All true knowledge is mathematical knowledge and everything else is Mythos charlatanry and lies. Sorry, if mathematics is not for you then neither is Illuminism. We try to sugarcoat the pill a little with some of our own Mythos, but, ultimately, Illuminism = ontological mathematics. There’s no way round that. Only the brightest and best people on earth – the Coming Race of Gods – can be mathematikoi. Soz! Lol. LMFAO.

Education “I’m kind of bummed at this stage that I didn’t have a great education because I could really use that these days ... I’ve learned to educate myself at this stage and how to continue my education at any age ... I’m still very thirsty for information” – Katy Perry Prove it, Katy. Read the God Series ... the ultimate intellectual challenge, the ultimate source of information.

The Moon Landing men on the moon was a positive liberty undertaking. Negative liberty capitalists didn’t land anyone on the moon. It takes governments to organise and fund the truly great enterprises. Imagine whole nations being harnessed for magnificent positive liberty projects to transform the world,

rather than sitting back and allowing negative liberty capitalist projects to produce consumer junk and make a tiny number of elite globalists stinking rich.

Quality The universe is concerned with the increase of quality. Quantity is fixed and eternal. The only thing that can evolve is quality (life), from bare potential to full actualisation. Life is the maximisation of contingent content. Form – necessary, objective mathematics – is perfect forever.

The Big Bang According to Illuminism, the universe is made of living, teleological mathematical minds driven by the force of mathematical symmetry, and symmetry breaking. The Big Bang was a mathematical event and it produced a world perfectly suited for life because it’s inherently a living universe. According to science, the universe erupted out of nothing in an unimaginable fireball and from this cosmic furnace came lifeless, mindless atoms, which miraculously arranged themselves – via random collisions – into living bodies with minds that can recite poetry, tell jokes, weep over music, devise ontological mathematics, and fall in love (!). According to science, something comes from nothing, life comes from non-life, and mind comes from non-mind. Oh, and we allegedly live in an infinite Multiverse that spawns infinitely more universes at an infinite rate (!). There are infinite versions of you, even infinite versions of you living exactly your life! You, in fact, are not “you” but merely one of an infinite number of identical units, each of which could claim to be the real you. Well, are you buying it?

Absolute Form and Content Absolute Form = the frequency and amplitude of a wave. This is how to precisely quantify existence. Yet existence also has a qualitative rather than quantitative aspect. We obviously can’t quantify this qualitative aspect. This aspect is empirical, not rational. It has to be experienced rather than intellectually understood. It has

to be lived. In fact, life, as we encounter it, is exactly this ability to experience existence rather than rationalise it. Every quantifiable wave has a specific quality. However, this quality is extremely wide-ranging. Every wave has a colour associated with it, a shade, a sound, a smell, a touch. Consider the electromagnetic spectrum. A different colour is typically associated with each different frequency. Why should colour be restricted to the visible spectrum? Well, it’s not. The ultra-violet spectrum and infrared spectrum all have a colour for each frequency too. We don’t have the capacity to detect these colours, but other creatures do. And just as every wave is on a colour spectrum, so every wave is also on a spectrum for sound, smell, taste, touch, and all other possible sensory experiences. Our eyes extract the colour from the visible spectrum, but ignore the sound, taste, smell, etc. Our noses detect a particular frequency range, and ignore the rest. Our ears hear a certain range and ignore the rest. We have evolved the sensory detection equipment best suited to the lives we lead. Evolution has chosen a sensory palette for us. We could have had an entirely different palette. Indeed, all animals have a different palette. Even different kinds of humans have different palettes. Sensing types have a much more vivid sensory palette than intuitives. Everything has a frequency and amplitude, even feelings and desires. We think by adding together basis waves. We thereby add wave quantities. But we are also adding together the qualitative aspects of the waves. In this way, we can generate infinite different sensory experiences. The qualitative aspects of waves are as eternal and absolute as the quantitative aspect. They are therefore absolute content. The contingent content of life is all about adding absolute form and absolute content in novel ways. Quantify and qualify your life!

Soul Form The soul is the form of the thing. It’s what animates it. A physical body is composed of atoms made by the Monadic Collective. An individual monadic soul is what connects to a body and gives it life. The

soul organises and controls the body. When the link between soul and body breaks down, the body “dies” and returns to its constituent atoms. The soul is transcendent and noumenal. It can never be directly observed since it’s immaterial and outside space and time. The soul is an experiencer, interpreter and generator of mathematical functions. The soul is pure subjectivity, pure agent.

***** We encounter the world empirically, subjectively, not rationally and objectively. We encounter its secondary content, not its primary form. It’s precisely because we encounter the world via sensory content, the flip side of mathematical form, that we imagine that the world is nonmathematical. We only have two modes that transcend our feelings and senses (which are hardwired to content). These are our intuition and reason. These are much more powerful when they are introverted rather than extraverted, i.e. turned inwards to the noumenal world rather than outwards to the phenomenal world. This is why INTJ and INTPs are the best suited to understanding reality. They can grasp rationalism, noumenalism, form and formula better than other types. Certain types of people such as ESTP and ESTJs (scientists) simply can’t escape their obsession with their senses and phenomena.

***** Matter (content) is the thing, the object, the body, the phenotype. Form is the mind, the noumenon, the subject, the genotype.

Making Mistakes “No man ever became great or good except through many and great mistakes.” – W.E. Gladstone So, never be afraid to make mistakes. The road to genius is paved with them.

The Cure

“How small, of all that human hearts endure, That part which laws or kings can cause or cure.” – Samuel Johnson In fact, nearly everything about the human condition can be rendered better via laws, via a properly, rationally, Platonically designed society. When we get the Form (Constitution) of the world right, we will also get the Content of the world right. Humans will become gods.

Prime Experience Plato completely split Form and Matter, putting them in separate realms. Matter was Formless (= Prime Matter) and had to have Form imposed on it by a cosmic craftsman (Demiurge). However, the combination of Form and Matter produced only a feeble, unstable copy (simulacrum) of true Form. Aristotle modified this view by asserting that Form and Matter were in fact always found naturally together, except in two limiting cases. At the bottom of the Great Chain of Being was non-being = prime matter = formless matter = total potentiality. At the top of the chain was perfect being = matterless form = total actuality = God. In their own ways, Plato and Aristotle were both right. Aristotle was right that Form and Matter (= Content) are always naturally found together, but he was wrong that there are two limiting cases of Prime Matter and God. Plato was right that there’s an immaterial, eternal, dimensionless domain and a material, temporal, dimensional domain. In modern mathematical terms, these domains are not separate but are in fact inherently linked by the Fourier transform. The formless matter (= Prime Matter) conceived by Plato and Aristotle is a useful but essentially abstract idea. By analogy, we can also imagine a formless “sensory clay” that can take on any sensory quality in the right circumstances. In some situations, the sensory clay becomes colour or shade. In other circumstances, it’s sound, or warmth, or taste, or smell, or touch, or anything else that can have sensory reality. The determinant of what the prime sensory “matter” becomes is the mathematical wavefunction, based on frequency and amplitude. This is the form that’s always present with “matter”. “Prime sensation” is moulded into whatever specific sensation the mathematical wavefunction it is linked to dictates. Sensation is always the

obverse side of rationalist mathematics, of sinusoidal frequencies and amplitudes. Every ontological mathematical function, no matter what, has a sensory experience associated with it. Absolutely no one can predict in advance what this experience will be. It’s entirely novel. We have to wait to perceive the experience, to discover what the “prime sensation” has been shaped into. Within certain bounds, we can expect a continuous spectrum of experience. However, outside those bounds, at any “phase changes”, at any discontinuities, any kind of experience can be generated. It’s wholly unpredictable. The best way to experience “prime sensation” is to take a variety of drugs, especially hallucinogens. Your sensory reality is spectacularly transformed, often in the weirdest and most unnerving ways. Why do drugs have the effects they do? It’s because they disrupt the normal functioning of our bodies and shake up the chemicals they normally contain. By introducing chemicals different from those selected by evolution, we change the mathematical wavefunctions we experience, and these novel wavefunctions have a radically different effect on us. They can change our awareness and state of mind. They can profoundly alter our consciousness. What we experience in normal situations has been determined by evolution and natural selection. People who are not within a normal range – such as autistics, psychopaths, schizophrenics, hysterics, depressives and sufferers of bipolar disorder – can have markedly different experiences. All genuinely paranormal experiences flow from abnormal genetics, abnormal drugs, abnormal mental states, abnormal minds. The people best able to naturally grasp that there is an unseen, eternal reality beyond this one are the intuitives. Their genes are much better suited to putting them in touch with the rationalist mathematical hyperreality, the domain of zero and infinity. Everything we know, or think we know, about reality reflects the way we are mathematically configured. Only introverted thinking intuitives are wired into the domain of Truth. A few introverted feeling intuitives can access it too. Extraverted sensing feeling types (Abrahamists) and extraverted sensing thinking types (scientists) are supremely alienated from the Truth. Naturally, these are the people who dominate our world! Such is the human tragedy.

Waves All waves, in terms of both their absolute form and absolute content, are noumena. We always experience contingent forms and contingent content, assembled from absolute form and absolute content, respectively. Absolute form and absolute content are both noumenal. We only ever encounter their effects, and their contingent aggregates.

The Law of Form Existence begins and ends with Form; in fact, with an eternal Formula: the God Equation. The Form/ Formula is the root of all, the Source of all, the definition of all. The Form/ Formula is the Origin of all things and the cause of all things. The Form/ Formula is causation itself. It’s the principle of Sufficient Reason itself. Causation = the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Existence is all about Form/ Formula. Life, as we experience it, is all about Content. The Form/ Formula is the perfect, eternal container in which Content resides. Form/ Formula is Platonic, eternal and immutable. It follows Aristotelian logic. Content is dialectical and follows living logic, involving the clash of opposites, raised to higher and better levels by the synthesis phase, and ultimately converging on the Omega Point = the Absolute = God.

***** Mathematics reflects eternal, perfect order. Science reflects the temporal, imperfect order. Mathematics is about the eternal container while science is about what’s in the container. Rationalism focuses on the container, and empiricism on the contained. It’s a category error to try to understand the container via the contained, as science seeks to do. The container is noumenal, unobservable, metaphysical, rational, and mathematical. Reason alone reveals it to us. Only the rational can understand reality. Only the intelligent can grasp the unseen order of eternity. Only the smart can become Gods. Faith and the senses are the very last things that could ever help anyone to become

enlightened. This is a world of knowledge, of intellectual Gnosticism, not sensory science.

Knowledge “[Within experience], we find perceptions which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity and are in a perpetual flux and movement. . . . The mind is a kind of theatre, where several perceptions successively make their appearance; pass, re-pass, glide away, and mingle in an infinite variety of postures and situations.” – Hume “There are two stems of human knowledge, namely, sensibility and understanding, which perhaps spring from a common, but to us unknown root. Through the former, objects are given to us; through the latter, they are thought. . . . To neither of these powers may a preference be given over the other. Without sensibility no object would be given to us, without understanding no object would be thought. Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. It is, therefore, just as necessary to make our concepts sensible, that is, to add the object to them in intuition, as to make our intuitions intelligible, that is, to bring them under concepts. These two powers or capacities cannot exchange their functions. The understanding can intuit nothing, the senses can think nothing. Only through their union can knowledge arise.” – Kant Kant was determined to reconcile empiricism and rationalism, and thus overcome Hume’s radical empiricist skepticism, which seemed to make any genuine knowledge impossible. If rationalism is considered in analytic a priori terms, and empiricism in synthetic a posteriori terms, Kant believed that the answer to how knowledge is possible, and how empiricism can be united with rationalism, is through synthetic a priori judgments. These consist in applying Kant’s twelve categories of knowledge to the objects of sense perception in space and time. However, if these judgments don’t actually exist, and they don’t, then Kant’s entire philosophy fails. Kant argued that synthetic a priori judgments constitute the structure imposed by the mind upon the world in order to apprehend it. So, Kant’s ontology comprises unknowable noumenal objects and unknowable noumenal minds. The former are detected by the latter by virtue of being

sensory entities, and they are made intelligible by subjecting them to synthetic a priori judgments, which provide the preconditions for experiencing the world in a knowable way. Hume’s system lacked synthetic a priori judgments, hence, in Kant’s view, could produce only a chaotic blur of experience that could never reflect the ordered, regular, knowable universe we actually encounter. Kant’s scheme seems suitably ingenious, and philosophers have in general found it extremely impressive, and yet it’s really all smoke and mirrors disguising an utterly false conception of reality. Consider some of the problems it generates: 1) minds and objects belong to two totally different and irreconcilable categories of existence (we thus have a Cartesian substance dualism, with the intractable interactivity problem that accompanies it), 2) how can minds interact with objects at all, i.e. how can they perceive them, how can they detect them, how can they be aware they are there, why should they be aware of them given that they belong to a different and incompatible category of existence?, 3) what are noumenal objects actually made of?, 4) what are minds made of? 5) why are objects and minds different?, 6) where do minds and objects come from?, 7) how do minds and objects come to exist in the first place?, 8) can objects vanish from existence, and minds die?, 9) why don’t objects have their own form, i.e. why does it need to be imposed on them by minds? 10) Why do minds operate the way they do? Why not some other way?, 11) how and why did minds come to construct the twelve categories?, 12) why does the universe involve minds imposing form on formless sensory content? 13) can minds operate in other ways?, 14) how is the structure of mind transmitted to new minds (those of babies)?, 15) why don’t babies instantly understand the world if the categories are there from Day One?, 16) what’s the origin of form?, and so. Kant’s philosophy simply begs the question in every way and doesn’t actually answer anything. In fact, it’s rather like science. It seems impressive until you actually drill down into it, and then it dissolves into total incoherence. In Illuminism, reality comprises nothing but monadic minds made of sinusoids, which perfectly conform to the ontological principle of sufficient reason. Sinusoids are ontological energy, so minds are made of energy. Minds, when they operate collectively rather than individually, can create objective energy entities that we know as material objects. In other words,

minds can detect matter because minds and matter are made of exactly the same thing: mathematical energy. The whole system is defined mathematically, and operates mathematically, so there’s no mystery about anything, and no questions are begged. It’s a complete and consistent mathematical system, with no unexplained, extraneous ingredients. There is no substance dualism or interactivity problem. Kant believed that empiricism and rationalism were two different things that needed to be united in a single system. In fact, rationalism and empiricism are simply two sides of the same coin, with rationalism as the dominant partner that provides the rational answer to existence. Rationalism is analytic a priori and defines existence prior to any experiences. It’s all about Form. Empiricism is synthetic a posteriori and is how we experientially encounter existence. It’s all about Content. Form and Content will always be separate (on opposite sides of the coin). They can’t be combined into a single system via any trick such as synthetic a priori judgments. Form cannot be contaminated with Content, and nor can Content be contaminated with Form. They are always strictly separate. Our minds operate by perceiving Content (empiricism) and understanding Form (rationalism; mathematics). You cannot get to Content from Form, and you cannot get to Form from Content (as science erroneously believes). Science works by accident. It has a Content-driven part (the scientific method involving observations on the empirical world), and a Form-driven part (hypotheses expressed in mathematical formulae). However, the Form-driven part is treated in contingent rather than necessary terms – a category error. Scientific mathematics is a bastardised, irrational, incomplete version of true mathematics, scarred by endless arbitrary, ad hoc elements designed to make rationalist mathematics fit empiricist Content. Science falls apart the closer it gets to ultimate reality because that reality can be understood only in terms of unadulterated mathematics. The answer to ultimate reality is all about rationalist Form. Content has nothing to do with the intelligible answer to existence. Science needs to ditch its Content-driven scientific method as it nears ultimate reality, but it refuses to do so, and this is why it cannot arrive at a final theory of everything. It needs to trade in eternal truths of reason (Form) but it insists on dealing with temporal truths of fact (Content). Ultimate reality cannot be understood empirically, but can be understood rationally. Contrary to what Kant claimed, knowledge of

ultimate reality is wholly beyond empiricist considerations (it’s transcendent), and is defined entirely rationally. Crucially, it’s defined mathematically. Mathematics is the basis of ontology and hence knowledge. Ontological mathematics supplies both Form and Content, as the two sides of its one coin. There is nothing else. Kant tried to create a single reality of empirical rationalism or rational empiricism. In fact, we inhabit a dual-aspect reality, with rationalism telling us about one side of the coin and empiricism the other. We cannot combine rationalism and empiricism into a single system. We must apply each to its own side of the coin: rationalism to the rational, Form side, and empiricism to the empirical, Content side. They will always be independent. There is no synthetic a priori category that reconciles them.

***** “Compare [the Kantian categories] to mathematical functions, such as x2. Until some number is given as x, we have no object. If a content for x is supplied, say 2 or 3, then an object is specified, in these cases the numbers 4 or 9. The categories of substance, cause, and the rest are similar. They are merely operators, the function of which is to unite ‘in one consciousness the manifold given in intuition’.” – Norman Melchert Well, why not get rid of Kantian categories entirely and use mathematics – a complete and consistent analytic a priori system? This is what ontological mathematics does. Mathematics provides all form and all content in a single, grand unified framework that defines the whole universe. This is why we are able to make sense of the world. If the universe weren’t mathematical, it would be the incomprehensible jumble to which Hume’s philosophy points. It’s ontological mathematics, not Kantian philosophy, that answers Hume.

The Incredible Flowing Point A monad is the basic autonomous unit of ontological mathematics, comprising a complete and consistent set of sinusoidal waves, perfectly averaged to zero net energy.

However, the ultimate element of ontological mathematics is not the monad but the flowing point: the active point of a dynamic sinusoidal wave. How do form and content apply to a flowing point? A flowing point has a specific energy, dictated by its primary mathematical properties of frequency and amplitude (these constitute Form). The point exists ontologically as energy. It’s not any kind of abstraction or construct of the human imagination. It’s a real thing. However, being ontological, there’s no sufficient reason why it should be pure Form, with no other properties. It must in fact be accompanied by Content. To put it another way, in what way should mathematical energy actually exist? What properties should it have? Is it limited to having only a frequency and amplitude? A light wave of a certain frequency causes in us the sensation of the colour red. The light wave is not objectively coloured red (the world of light isn’t full of coloured waves, creating an immense kaleidoscope!). Rather, the light wave has the property of exciting the sensation and experience of the colour red in a brain and linked monadic mind. The energy of light of the right frequency is not objectively coloured red but is subjectively experienced as red. Energy of a different frequency is experienced as a different colour. But why should energy be restricted to producing just the effect of colour? In fact, energy of any frequency is associated with the power to produce every conceivable sensory experience. That is, the energy frequency experienced as red also has a sound associated with it, and a taste, and a smell, and a touch, and any other possible sensation that could possibly exist. Our eyes are designed to experience the energy of the appropriate frequency as red, but if our noses were responding to that same frequency, they would experience a certain smell. Equally, if our taste buds were attuned to that same frequency, they would taste it, and if our ears were attuned to it, they would hear it. It also has a definite “touch-force” associated with it that our skin could detect. Every frequency has the primary mathematical property of objective energy, and that energy has the power to be subjectively experienced in every conceivable way by the appropriate detectors (sense organs). A machine that detects frequencies associated with red does not experience the colour red. It doesn’t experience anything at all. The colour red, and

indeed any sensation, can be experienced only by living minds (monads). AI can never overcome that fundamental problem. Energy, ontologically, isn’t just a number (frequency, accompanied by an amplitude). It’s also something that’s experienced by minds in a range of sensory ways. Energy isn’t just calculated: it’s felt, it’s sensed, it’s lived. The experience of mathematical energy is what life is in terms of Content. All we do is experience energy, calculate energy, process energy, interpret energy and generate our own energy functions. Energy is information, both primary mathematical information and secondary sensory information. A flowing point has Content: its energy. We might also call this its “matter”. This content/ matter is what is experienced and observed. It can also be measured up to a point (that point being its real-number aspect). We cannot directly measure zero, infinity, negative numbers, imaginary numbers and complex numbers. Not all measurable quantities can be measured in a world where our measuring instruments are real-numbered, and where the assumption is that only real numbers have actual reality. Every flowing point is controlled by a Form, or, rather, by a Formula: the generalised Euler Formula. This formula ensures that flowing points follow a wave trajectory. The formula cannot be perceived (it’s entirely noumenal), but it can be rationally worked out (it’s intelligible, not sensible). We might regard the formula as the subject and the flowing point as its object, the formula as the form and the flowing point as its content/ matter.

Objective Form and Content The ultimate foundational entity of existence is the sinusoidal wave. This is pure, objective mathematical form. Yet every such wave has an inside as well as an outside. In one interpretation, we might say that the outside of the wave is its objective form, and the inside is its objective content (which is subjectively experienced). The outside is the “primary”, mathematical property, and the inside is the secondary, sensory property. The outside is what we know (it’s intelligible and rationalist), and the inside is what we experience (it’s sensible and empiricist).

*****

Objective Form = mathematics. It’s eternal, necessary, analytic, a priori, deductive, noumenal. It provides the basis of rationalism, and allows us to attain absolute knowledge. It concerns imperishable, immaterial Form. Objective Content = eternal, objective, sensory content of mathematics, experienced subjectively (invariably as contingent, additive Content).

***** Form is available to reason alone; it’s strictly intelligible. Content is available to experience alone; it’s strictly sensible. The great war between rationalism and empiricism is in fact a bogus war. The two camps are talking at cross-purposes, referring to different things, to opposite sides of the same coin. Rationalists are always talking about Form, and the empiricists about Content. Empiricists make the disastrous error of claiming that unless something can be experienced, it can never be known – without realising that what the experience is made of can never be known via experience. We have the experience, we don’t know the experience. We encounter it in a subjective way, not an objective way. We can rationally reflect on experiences, but we can’t “experience” on experiences, so to speak. Rational reflection concerns a different category from the experience itself, which is why the experience doesn’t get in the way of the reflection. Empiricists fail to ask what the experience actually is ontologically. When we are having an experience, what is that experience made of, where and how does it exist, and how does it relate to all other experiences, of ourselves and others? What are the rules and laws that govern the origin, formation, succession and interaction of experiences? No empiricist has ever pondered such questions. These questions cannot be answered at the same level as the problem they are addressing, i.e. you can’t answer what an experience is by appealing to experience. The only arena where questions and answers are at the same level is that of the eternal truths of reason, which are simply a system of tautology = ontological mathematics defined solely by the God Equation. Empiricism fails because the one thing it can never do is refer to what the experience is made of, which is never experienced. It’s somewhat like the eye. An eye can look at everything except itself. Even if we are looking into a mirror, our eyes are not looking at themselves, but at a reflection of themselves. We are always looking out and never in. An experience, on the

other hand, is always experienced internally. We can never view an experience externally and see what it actually is ontologically. Reason alone can perform this exercise because reason is itself non-sensory and nonexperiential. In empiricist terms, we are always the victims of our own perspective. We can’t experientially escape this perspective. However, one thing can give us a God’s-eye view: reason. Reason allows us to transcend experience and individual perspective. We can view everything from a unique, absolute, universal perspective, common to everyone. 1 + 1 = 2 is the same for everyone in the universe at all times. Every experience, on the other hand, is specific to a particular experiencer at a particular instant. Form is always about sinusoids while Content is never about sinusoids (or, to be more accurate, it’s always about the Content, the experience, conveyed by the sinusoid). “Logical” form such as appears in Aristotelian syllogisms is not true mathematical form because it has nothing to do with sinusoids and the God Equation. It’s about trying to fit empirical “facts” into logical forms, an enterprise fraught with danger and problems, and highly interpretive. It’s exactly because we can construct pseudo and quasi Form that we can create all manner of false logic, all kinds of false premises, false conclusions and false arguments. We enter a logical masquerade. Logic becomes infallibly true only when it’s strictly about sinusoids, the God Equation, and everything that mathematically flows from them. Gödel’s Incompleteness theorems are, at root, all about the false analysis of mathematics performed by those who have not understood the God Equation. That’s precisely why inconsistency and incompleteness are generated. The God Equation itself is perfect: totally consistent, totally complete, total stable under all transformations applied to it, and permanently equal to the necessary ground state of the universe: zero. It alone fulfils all of these criteria, hence is the indisputable Truth of Existence. This is not a universe defined by “God”, but by the God Equation. The universe is incomprehensible if conceived as the product of a capricious superbeing who obeys no laws. It’s entirely comprehensible if conceived as the product of a precise equation, which is the infallible, absolute law of existence itself.

If a perfect superbeing created the universe, why does evil exist? If the universe reflects an eternal equation then existence, at the level of objective form, at the level of reason, does not contain any “evil” at all. Evil is purely about content, and is invariably a subjective interpretation, belief or opinion. It has no objective reality. Ontological mathematics cannot be evil. Dialectical mathematical content can produce what we regard as evil since the dialectic inherently proceeds by way of the clash of opposites (thesis and antithesis), and we always regard those on the opposite side of the dialectic from us as “evil”. Evil, in other words, is an inevitable output of the dialectic. As soon as you get anything, you get its opposite. As soon as good exists, so does evil. In this system, there is no mystery at all about the origin of evil.

Subjective Form and Content Ontological sinusoids have objective form and objective content. They have necessary form and necessary content. When sinusoids combine, they create contingent functions, with contingent form and content. In the world of our experience, we always encounter contingent form and contingent content, and we always encounter them subjectively rather than objectively, hence we might refer to them as subjective form and content. Subjective Form = scientific, phenomenal, material form. It’s temporal, contingent, synthetic, a posteriori, inductive. Subjective Content = our contingent perceptions, desires and feelings, based on subjective form. Objective form and objective content are noumenal and can’t be experienced. We always encounter phenomenal form and phenomenal content. The reason for this is that we never encounter any mathematical functions purely. We always process all mathematical functions via our own brains and minds, which necessarily has the effect of adding extra mathematical functions to the raw functions in themselves. This means that we are always experiencing a processed, mediated reality, and never reality in itself.

Interiority

If a flowing point is content/ matter then we can regard content/ matter as the outside, the exterior, the “without” of the entity, and thus form/ formula as the inside, the interior, the “within”. Conversely, if we imagine the flowing point’s entire trajectory as tracing out its form/ formula, then we can regard form/ formula as the outside, the exterior, the “without” of the entity, and thus content/ matter is the inside, the interior, the “within”. If we imagine our body (matter/ content) as our outside, the exterior, the “without”, then our mind (form/ formula) is the inside, the interior, the “within”. However, given that all bodies are contained within the Monadic Collective (Singularity) then we could regard bodies (matter/ content) as the inside, the interior, the “within” of Mind. Does our body contain our mind/ soul, or does our mind/ soul contain our body? Technically, our mind/ soul is in the immaterial, dimensionless, frequency domain while our body is in the material, dimensional, spacetime domain. Given that the mind/ soul is both transcendent and immanent with regards to the body (i.e. it’s not part of the body but links to, and controls, every part of it), we can justifiably say that the mind/ soul is the container for the body, rather than the other way around. With regard to the form/ content dichotomy, we can consider form the container and content the contained. This makes content the inside, the interior, the “within”, and form the outside, the exterior, the “without”. However, when we think of body (content) and mind (form), we are much more likely to think of the body as the container, with mind as the contained. In other words, although, with regard to form/ content, we can create a duality of outside/ exterior/ without and inside/ interior/ within – two sides of one coin – we can change, depending on context, which side is which. We always have a dual-aspect system, but we can change which relative term (inside or outside) applies to form and which to content. In Copenhagen quantum mechanics, the wavefunction is a dimensionless mathematical abstraction and the real, dimensional world “collapses” out of the wavefunction. Is the wavefunction inside “reality”, or “reality” inside the wavefunction? In the scientific materialist world – the world of “common sense” – we always conceive of matter as the external reality, and, in fact, scientific

materialists will usually deny that there is any unobservable inside/ interior/ within. They will refuse to acknowledge the existence of any unobservable mind, soul, form or formula (although quantum physicists are perfectly happy to refer to unreal, unobservable mathematical potentiality wavefunctions!). Words like “inside” and “outside” presuppose a physicality, a physical orientation and relation, that simply doesn’t exist in the real, noumenal, mathematical world. To say that every frequency sinusoid has primary, “physical” properties (= the outside), and secondary, sensory properties (= inside) is only a mode of speech, a way of talking, which might offer extra clarity in some contexts. Should we refer to things having an inside as well as an outside, an interior as well as an exterior? Should we refer to things having an objective character (by which we usually mean an observable exterior such as a body), as well as a subjective character (by which we usually mean an unobservable interior such as a mind)? Yet the body is really just an idea we have in our mind, i.e. is contained by the mind. When people refer to a “body” they are already presupposing something external and “solid”. Yet all we ever actually have is an idea of a body, which is internal and anything other than solid. There is no evidence at all that any physical bodies exist. What’s for sure is that entities external to us exist, but these, in themselves, are actually noumenal mathematical functions. We then interpret these functions in phenomenal terms, i.e. we add an appearance to them by extracting, processing and interpreting the primary form and secondary content with which they are associated. We are noumenal mathematical minds inhabiting a noumenal mathematical world, but we are able to interpret it as a world of “physical” objects. But there’s no such material world. It’s our mental construction, arising from the fact that mathematical entities are dual-aspect, i.e. they have rational form and sensory content. We can and do interpret this combination as a physical world, but, in fact, true reality is entirely mental. Imagine a world of form without any content, i.e. a world of sinusoidal waves that only have frequencies and amplitudes but are not associated with any sensory content. If that were the case, there were be no empirical world, no sensible world, no “physical” world. We would be purely mathematical creatures operating exclusively mathematically in a kind of machine world or computer world. We would have absolutely no doubt that we were

mathematical entities in a mathematical world. It would be an extremely drab world – just a non-sensory “dark room” involving nothing but mathematical calculations. It’s precisely because all sinusoidal waves have secondary as well as primary characteristics, i.e. sensory qualities as well as mathematical frequencies and amplitudes, that we can encounter the world in sensory terms, as if it were completely unmathematical. We do not consider “red”, or the “smell of a rose” or the “taste of a steak” to be mathematical, but these are always the flip side of specific mathematical functions comprising sinusoidal waves. There is no such thing as sensory information in the absence of primary mathematics. However, if, experientially, we encounter only the sensory data and not the mathematical functions that give rise to them, we automatically come to believe that we live in a non-mathematical world of the senses. We simply don’t encounter mathematics directly, so it’s easy to conclude that it’s not there at all. Scientific empiricism and materialism is unable to detach itself from sensory experience and “common sense” and to comprehend that all sensory data we encounter is the flip side of noumenal, unobservable mathematical functions. We can reason our way to the mathematical nature of reality, but we can’t get there with our senses. The notion that we can is exactly the catastrophic fallacy to which science subscribes. The scientific method presupposes a physical, observable world, yet this assumption is wrong. True reality is mathematical, rationalist and unobservable. Sensory data cannot exist without mathematics. However, the very fact and act of encountering the sensory data conceals the mathematical reality.

Addition Mathematical, rationalist addition = primary addition = adding the frequencies and amplitudes of waves to build more complex wavefunctions. Empiricist addition = secondary addition = adding the sensory qualities of waves to build more complex sensory functions. These might be associated with radically new sensory experiences. While we know a priori what will happen when we add primary wave properties, we have no a priori knowledge of what will happen when we

combine sensory properties. We have to actually experience it to find out. It’s an empiricist, not rationalist, process. It’s sensible, not intelligible. Sensory content and the form that shapes it is always experienced subjectively. Only mathematical reason allows us to encounter form objectively.

Prime Matter and Prime Form Prime Matter: non-being; potentiality = the Devil. Prime Form: being; actuality = God. The World: the union of being and non-being, actuality and potentiality, God and the Devil. Our task is to overcome the Devil within us and release the pure God. Reason is our salvation; faith is our damnation. Faith takes us to hell, and reason to heaven.

The “Satanic” Religion of the Yazidis? “[The supreme being of the Yazidis] is known as Yasdan. He is considered to be on such an elevated level that he cannot be worshipped directly. He is considered a passive force, the Creator of the world, not the preserver. Seven great spirits emanate from him of which the greatest is the Peacock Angel known as Malak Taus – active executor of the divine will. The peacock in early Christianity was a symbol of immortality, because its flesh does not appear to decay. Malak Taus is considered God’s alter ego, inseparable from Him, and to that extent Yazidism is monotheistic. “Yazidis pray to Malak Taus five times a day. His other name is Shaytan, which is Arabic for devil, and this has led to the Yazidis being mislabelled as ‘devil-worshippers’. The Yazidis believe that souls pass into successive bodily forms (transmigration) and that gradual purification is possible through continual rebirth, making Hell redundant. The worst possible fate for a Yazidi is to be expelled from his community, as this means their soul can never progress. Conversion to another religion is, therefore, out of the question.” – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-28686607

Leibnizian Matter In his published writings, Leibniz proposed that each monad was a combination of passivity/ potentiality (which equated to “matter”) and activity/ actuality (which equated to “form”). The more it was ruled by form, the “clearer” a monad was. God alone was pure activity and actuality, thus the “clearest” possible monad (pure form). All other monads were unclear to varying degrees. The lowest monads were more or less the prime matter of Plato and Aristotle, with no clarity (form) at all. In Leibniz’s secret writings, matter (passivity) is relocated from inside individual monads to inside the Monadic Collective. In modern Illuminist terms, all individual monads are pure form (pure thought) but they are able to offer a spectrum of low-energy sinusoids to the shared spacetime of the Monadic Collective, and it’s from this shared sinusoidal energy that all the stuff of matter, culminating in atoms and molecules, comes. The material objects are passive rather than active since they are not controlled by individual monads (souls). Only when they are gathered into organised biological systems (bodies) can they be taken control of by individual monads and rendered active (animated). Matter is passive thought belonging to the Monadic Collective, while mind is active thought belonging to individual monads.

***** By making the scientific universe out of monads (force-atoms), with God as the supreme monad (the ultimate force), Leibniz believed he had reconciled the science of his day with the Christian theology of his day. In modern Illuminism, monads are pure math, and that allows them to be reconciled with the scientific world. However, they are also living, selfoptimising mathematical minds, and each has the capacity to become God. In other words, this is a living, evolving, mathematico-spiritual universe that seems scientific thanks to its mathematical laws, yet these same laws also support the dialectical evolution of the universe towards the Hegelian Absolute. God, the perfect monad, did not create the universe. Rather, the evolving universe is a God Factory that perfects each and every monad and turns

each and every monad into God. All monads begin a cosmic cycle in a state of perfect potential, and end it in a state of perfect actualisation. That’s the fundamental nature of existence. We live in a self-perfecting, self-actualising, self-solving, selfoptimising, ontological mathematical system. The achievement of perfection is signified by the attainment of perfect monadic symmetry. However, nothing is more fragile than perfect symmetry in an eternally dynamic system, and the symmetry is instantly broken, thus creating a new Cosmic Age (a new Big Bang universe). The universe simply cycles from perfection to imperfection to perfection to imperfection ... forever. It’s all in the cosmic symmetry. It’s all in the math. “God” corresponds to perfect Monadic Symmetry, which is associated with a universe of perfect light, perfect thinking, perfect unity, perfect integration between all monads, and perfect alignment between all monads. It’s a realm wholly devoid of matter. As soon as the symmetry breaks, the rule of the Devil (the Demiurge) begins, and we are plunged into the hell of matter, ignorance, individuation, selfishness, narcissism and psychopathy, cured only by an immense dialectical process that finally brings people to their rational senses. People’s minds become “clearer and clearer” the more rational they become. Clearness = Reason = Logos. Unclearness = Unreason = Mythos. The dialectic involves a transition from story “knowledge” to actual knowledge. This is a universe that gets better the more intellectual it becomes, and so it is with our world. For the sake of everyone, the intelligentsia must seize control of the world and start running it rationally and meritocratically.

Dual-Aspect Reality The key to resolving the standoff between rationalism and empiricism is to grasp that reality has two aspects: empirical and rational. We experience the empirical, sensory aspect and we understand the rational, mathematical aspect. It’s no accident that science relies on a scientific method that addresses the empirical world, together with a mathematical engine that addresses the rational world. Unfortunately, science privileges the scientific

method (empiricism) over mathematics (rationalism), when it should be the other way around. As science is currently practised, it denies the full reality of mathematics since mathematics is unobservable except in terms of measurements performed on the empirical world. If science were to accept mathematics as the primary reality, all of its randomist, probabilistic, indeterministic nonsense would vanish, and the scientific method would no longer be the be-all-and-end-all. Rationalism constitutes the primary, mathematical reality, while empiricism constitutes the secondary, sensory, “scientific” reality. Rationalism is noumenal (cannot be observed), while empiricism is phenomenal (observable). It ought to be self-evident that sensory reality is conveyed by something else that we don’t perceive. Everything needs a carrier, except the carrier itself. Mathematics is the carrier, and what it carries is its primary, nonobservable data, and its secondary, observable data. We experience what is carried, not the carrier. Experience is about our encounter with observable content, not with unobservable form. When we watch a TV program, we encounter the content on the screen, not the unseen transmission mode of the TV (bringing the content to the screen). As far as we’re concerned, the latter doesn’t exist, or we are entirely oblivious to it. Science is the delusion that content is reality, and there’s no unseen and unseeable form carrying and directing the content.

Defusing the Science Bomb Science deliberately sets itself as far apart from religion and philosophy as possible. It wants to present itself as the unique source of truth and understanding in our world. We subvert this tactic by continuously surrounding science by religious and philosophical commentary, revealing exactly how science exists in well-established philosophical territory (that of empiricism and materialism), and even functions as a quasi-religion, over-spilling with dogmatism and ideology, and refusing to engage with critics. We show how it resembles the Catholic Church in the way it operates, and, like Catholicism, is extremely far from the Truth despite claiming to be all about the Truth.

We philosophically contextualise science and demonstrate that it’s nothing but philosophy. Only two things make science different from standard philosophical speculation: it has a method attached, and it has a mathematical engine. However, it’s nevertheless all about the contingent, fallible, temporal, ever-changing interpretation of its method and engine, and that renders it pure philosophy. Science has never been anything other than “natural philosophy”, the philosophy of the observable world, which has nothing at all to say about the non-observable world, where the actual Truth of existence resides.

The Supernatural Scientists scoff at the notion of the “supernatural”. Well, they would, wouldn’t they? After all, they are “natural philosophers”, not “supernatural philosophers”. If they were more rational, imaginative, intuitive and openminded, they would have no difficulty in accepting rational, metaphysical and mathematical entities beyond observable “nature”. Anyway, scientists believe in the twilight “existence” of unreal (!) mathematical potentiality wavefunctions that exhibit unphysical nonlocality. If such wavefunctions aren’t supernatural, what is?! They certainly aren’t part of observable nature, and it’s sheer speculation and conjecture that they can be referred to at all, making them no better than the products of the most egregious supernatural claims. And to think that scientists consider themselves rational. Ho, ho, ho.

Send in the Clones Imagine that the human race comprised nothing but clones of Adam, the alleged first human. Each clone would have identical Form but different Content. Most importantly of all, each would have a different soul, and all of the clones would evolve separately. Identical twins are clones.

The Game of Life The vast majority of people who play computer games have absolutely no idea of the programming behind the scenes that makes the games possible. They interact with the game, not with the game’s code. They interact with

the world created by the code, not the world of the code (with which only the programmers themselves interact). So it is with life. We interact with the world created by mathematics, and not with mathematics itself, unless we are mathematicians. If a person didn’t know that a computer game had an enormous amount of unseen programming behind it, would he imagine that there was any programming there at all? Or would he just apply his common sense and take the “reality” of the game as it appeared to be (as a self-evident fact), i.e. the game exists in its own right and is not underpinned by something more fundamental. There’s no unseen layer, no unobservables, no hidden variables, no noumenal reality. The believers in the existence of the game as a true reality would scoff at anyone who said that the game actually resulted from a deeper reality, and was mere phenomenon, the appearance produced by something else that we never saw and never encountered. A games programmer can of course access the game code, but no one can directly access the ontological code (mathematics) of existence. We can rationally work out what the code is, and we can understand that we ourselves are made of it, but we can’t go in to a “Developer zone” and start rewriting the code of existence. This code is eternal and immutable. Scientists – the “seeing is believing” brigade – would be the most vociferous critics of any notion that the game was actually the facade or representation of something else. Imagine we were conscious avatars inside a 3D computer game, programmed by Godlike beings so that it was more or less perfectly realistic. The avatars of the scientific types would no doubt devise a “scientific method” that would be all about studying the 3D screen in which the game was played out, and they would deny that there was anything inaccessible to the method, i.e. anything behind or underlying the screen. According to them, the screen is reality and there’s nothing behind it. They would condemn as a “silly religious fantasy” the idea that there was something behind the screen that we could never encounter scientifically, but only rationally. They would promote empiricism and condemn rationalism. They would invent a “pixel theory” of existence and would ponder the forces operating between pixels. The most ambitious of them would seek a Grand Unified Theory of pixels, uniting all the forces that apply to pixels.

With their pixel theory, they might be able to successfully adjust a part of the game screen (change its colour, for example) and thus they would claim that they had understood “reality” and, therefore, that all non-scientists were talking nonsense and clinging to childish beliefs without any evidence. This is more or less the world we live in today! All rationalists know that we see only the appearance of the world and that it results from something else that we don’t see at all: the code of existence, the form of existence, the formula of existence, the God Equation. We experientially encounter content/ matter not form/ formula, but what we experience is not reality. It’s how reality is represented to us, not how it actually is. We can’t discover what reality is by operating at the level of representation (precisely what we are trying to get beyond). We can discover reality only by bypassing the representation, by not using our senses, feelings and “common sense”. We can achieve this via intuition and reason, both of which are non-sensory and non-emotional. This is exactly what science refuses to do. It insists that the empirical world is the true world and only the scientific method can reveal it to us. Science, consequently, is wholly irrational, and wholly lacking in imagination. Science is for people fixated with their senses, by what’s in front of them, and who can’t work out what it means to “see” something. They imagine that we look at the world and see real, material things (the common sense notion). They haven’t grasped that everything we see is in our minds, that we experience ideas in the mind only, and that there’s precisely zero evidence that there’s any physical world at all! Via mathematics, the material world becomes an entirely redundant hypothesis. We just don’t need it. All we need is dual-aspect mathematical reality that conveys both primary, mathematical, rational information (Form) and secondary, sensory, empirical information (Content), and thus we have achieved Kant’s goal of reconciling empiricism and rationalism, not via “synthetic a priori” judgments but via ontological mathematics, i.e. a total, consistent and complete rationalist, analytic, a priori, eternal system.

The Source If we live in a rational universe, which we do, then reason is the selfevident instrument we must use to understand it, not our senses.

Start with reason and establish the Source, the Form, the Formula of Existence. Then work your way forward from there. If we don’t live in a rational universe then believe whatever you like since one irrational view is a good as another in an irrational world. In a rational universe, you cannot go from looking at the world to understanding ultimate reality since seeing is a sensory activity, not an intellectual activity. A rational universe requires the exercise of reason to solve it, not the exercise of the senses.

Red Light Although it’s true to say that light of a certain frequency produces the experience of the colour red, it’s not right to say that the frequency is associated with red. Rather, it’s light of that frequency processed and modified by interaction with our visual processing system that produces the colour red, i.e. we contribute as much to the red experience as the light frequency itself. Consider colour-blind people. They are subject to exactly the same light frequency, yet they don’t experience red at all. The problem, of course, isn’t with the light, which is exactly the same for people with colour vision and those without. The problem is with how the processing of the light frequency is performed by the colour-blind person. Due to a genetic defect or physical disease, the blind process and interpret the original light differently from “normals”. So, the colour experience is as much to do with our genes, health and minds as with the light frequency itself.

A Different Way of Thinking It’s vital to realise that the mathematical Form and Content/ Matter method represents an entirely different way of thinking from the scientific method. The latter starts from what you can observe and measure, and, implicitly, and even explicitly, rejects the existence of anything that cannot be observed or measured. The scientific method is based on “common sense” and takes for granted the reality of what we encounter with our senses. The world of appearances (phenomena) is regarded as reality itself rather than as the representation of an unobservable (noumenal) reality. The scientific method involves matching hypotheses (expressed in mathematical language) to observations of the appearances of things. This is all well and

good at the surface level of reality, but if reality has depth, if it has an ultimate nature that is non-sensory, then the scientific method is literally 100% useless in relation to this unobservable universe. Scientists don’t care about this. They are practical people looking for success in the observable world. They want to be able to “understand” what they observe, and to manipulate it. By their own admission, scientists consider existence meaningless and accidental, serving no purpose at all. They regard death as final, and they ridicule the notion of any noumenal soul. All of this flows from their obsession with their senses, and their rejection of everything non-sensory. All meaning is hidden to the senses. All purpose is hidden to the senses. Causation is hidden to the senses. Ultimate reality is hidden to the senses. Ontological mathematics is hidden to the senses. The soul is hidden to the senses. Everything that counts is inaccessible to the senses and to the scientific method. Plato regarded true reality – the domain of Forms – as absolutely nonsensory, and purely intellectual. Aristotle’s God was pure matterless form, in other words absolute, rational thought. Pythagoras regarded ultimate reality as purely mathematical, not scientific. Leibniz, humanity’s greatest genius, did not appeal to the scientific method but to the work of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Neoplatonism, Scholasticism, Cartesian rationalism and metaphysics. Form and Content/ Matter were at the very core of his rationalist, deductive, mathematical, metaphysical thinking. Leibniz was the last great scientist who adopted a rationalist rather than empiricist approach, and his science was the last that was compatible with religion and the soul. Ever since, science has been an atheistic undertaking. All scientists who profess a religious faith wholly divorce their scientific work from their religious beliefs, and would never dream of invoking the soul as an explanatory mechanism in science, even though they believe that they themselves have souls that define their existence. What’s the point of a soul, and how can it be in any way intellectually justified, if it’s regarded as entirely redundant scientifically? In Illuminism, reality is made of mathematical souls (monads), and the whole of science concerns the operations and interactions of these monads. The difference between the scientific method and the metaphysical, mathematical method (of Form and Content/ Matter) is that the former

asserts that ultimate reality is sensory (which means it’s meaningless, purposeless and has no answer), while the latter asserts that ultimate reality is intellectual (which means it’s meaningful, purposeful and has an answer). You cannot find a rational answer to a sensory reality, only to an intellectual reality, a reality of panlogism (expressed through ontological mathematics). Science is observational and inductive. Metaphysics is intellectual and deductive. The key problem for science is that it inherently has nothing at all to say about the unobservable and non-sensory (and usually denies the existence of any such things, especially the soul). Metaphysics has always had the inherent problem of not being able to provide any sensory evidence for its claims. This was disastrous while metaphysics was based on speculative claims that did not belong to any formal, provable system. These problems are dispelled if metaphysics is equated with ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics provides a perfect, a priori, analytic, provable system, i.e. it escapes metaphysical conjecture. Moreover, mathematics provides the indispensable, hyperrationalist engine of science, and mathematics is itself unobservable, unempirical and undefined by science, despite being the true bedrock of science. The easy way to reconcile empiricism and rationalism is to define mathematics as the ontological, noumenal basis of science, and science as the phenomenal appearance of mathematics. We make metaphysics (mathematics) the ground of physics (science). The synthetic, a posteriori, inductive scientific method is underpinned by the analytic, a priori, deductive method. What could be simpler and more obvious? We match Form and Content/ Matter to ontological mathematics, and then we ensure that all scientific hypotheses used to explain scientific observations are grounded in these ontological mathematical considerations and never allowed to stray from them. When this is done, science changes from being a subject defined by material atoms to a subject defined by mental atoms (mathematical monads). In this way, science and the soul (mathematical monad) are at last brought together in a grand unified theory driven by rationalist mathematics, and not by faith, revelation, mysticism, speculation, conjecture, hypothesis, or interpretation. Of course, this approach involves the repudiation of the scientific method as the be-all-and-end-all. Scientists, as irrationalist, quasi-religious

believers in this method, will never abandon it, just as religious believers will never relinquish their holy books. Mathematics is the only rational way forward. That’s a fact.

***** Science refuses to think in terms of rationalist Form and Content and uses one, extremely narrow and limited approach only – that of matching hypotheses (guesses) to observations, i.e. the scientific method. It’s an entirely ad hoc, sensory rather than intellectual approach, dictated by appearance rather than essence. Form and content, explored mathematically, allow us to rationally break free of the stranglehold of scientific materialism, with its obsession with the sensory world and its rejection of the intellect and intuition. Intellectuals now have a clear choice: between: 1) physics (science) and the sensory world, and 2) metaphysics (ontological mathematics = form and content), and the rational, intuitive, non-sensory world. Remember, the “success” of science is predicated on matching hypotheses to observations (the scientific method). If science cannot perform observations then no scientific hypotheses can be advanced. So, if there’s a non-sensory world, which there assuredly is, then science can say nothing about it and can form no hypotheses regarding it. It’s simply unfit for purpose when addressing anything non-sensory. Ontological mathematics is the tool we use to rationally study the noumenal, unobservable, non-sensory, intuitive, intelligible world, and science is nothing but phenomenal ontological mathematics – mathematics as it appears to the senses. Science runs out of road as soon as observation ceases, and starts making insane claims about unseen cats in mixed living-dead states, unreal wavefunctions, multiverses, random Big Bangs, something coming from nothing, and so on. Ultimate reality is non-sensory, hence non-scientific. That’s a simple fact. The people who keep banging the drum for science are those of the thinking sensing type, whose mindset is entirely tied to their senses and who can conceive of nothing non-sensory (it’s literally an unthinkable concept for them). For thinking intuitives, it’s self-evident that there’s a non-sensory world. They’re in touch with it all the time! They can go where

the thinking sensing types cannot. They can venture into the immaterial mathematical Singularity of zero and infinity that scientists cannot. Intuitives have allowed themselves to be marginalised by the sensory majority (the apes!). They have allowed “common sense” and “seeing is believing” to reign. The truth is that the intuitives are the HyperHumans who can link to the True World, while the scientists are the apes locked into the False World of appearances, and too stupid to grasp that there’s an intelligible world with no sensory characteristics at all. Their senses have rendered them irrational and more or less autistic. As Huston Smith said, “Reality exceeds what science registers.” It does not exceed what ontological mathematics registers. Well, what’s it to be – science or math?

***** “There is no science of the soul without a metaphysical basis to it...” – Fritjof Schuon

***** Plato and Aristotle did incredibly well with their respective Form and Matter theories. Their sole problem was that they couldn’t ontologically define Form and Content, and place them in an ordered, organised, analytic system that made reliable, provable statements. Leibniz worked out where to place Form and Matter, actuality and potentiality, ontologically – inside the basic units of mathematics as it actually exists: monads. Via the generalised Euler Formula, Fourier mathematics and holography, the mathematical Form and Content of monads is transformed – projected – into the visible world of our experience. The phenomenal, sensible, empirical, scientific world can be demonstrated to originate in the noumenal, intelligible, rational, mathematical world. Never forget, science without mathematics is voodoo! So, why not just go straight to mathematics, which has no need of science? Mathematics is plainly more fundamental than science since it can exist without the latter, while the latter cannot exist without the former. It’s time for the ultimate paradigm shift. It’s time for mathematics to assume its rightful place at the apex of human thought.

A valid rational alternative to science now exists, one that has a much longer and nobler intellectual pedigree, and of which science is just one, small, sensory subset. Unlike science, ontological mathematics is consistent with religion, spirituality, life, consciousness, free will and the autonomous existence of mind. It’s time to revisit all of the wise ideas of the ancients, but this time from a Logos, mathematical perspective of reason rather than a Mythos, religious angle of faith and mysticism. Mathematics is the language in which existence is written. It’s the language of the gods themselves. Join the gods. Become one of the mathematikoi, the Illuminati, the enlightened ones.

The Replacement It’s time to replace scientific empiricism and materialism, based on the deceptive senses, with ontological mathematical Form and Content, based on infallible analytic reason. This is critical in humanity’s intellectual development because it allows mind and life to be brought into the new science, something that’s impossible with the old science. The sad fact is that Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus were much closer to the truth than all scientists put together because they allowed metaphysical principles into their thinking – which is forbidden according to the empiricist, materialist rules of science. This approach reached its culmination with Leibniz, the last great metaphysical scientist. It’s impossible for mindless, lifeless, physical, sensory, empiricist atoms to be the basis of mind and life. Only living, mental, non-sensory, immaterial, rationalist atoms (monads) can allow science, the new science, to accommodate life and mind – via mathematics.

The Cause What was the cause of the Big Bang? Given that space, time and matter did not exist prior to the Big Bang, it could not have been anything material, dimensional, empirical or sensory. This is an absolute, inescapable fact. If there is an eternal order – which must be the case if we live in an eternal, rational universe – then the cause of the Big Bang must belong to that eternal order, and be fully definable with regard to the eternal truths of

reason. Only one subject has eternal, necessary, a priori, analytic, deductive validity, and that is ontological mathematics. The cause of the Big Bang was a precise, perfectly symmetric, immaterial, frequency Singularity of monads, outside space and time. It was the necessary precondition, via Fourier mathematics, of matter, space and time.

***** Since science is an empiricist, materialist, sensory subject, it’s forbidden by its own parameters from accepting the existence of an eternal, immaterial, rational, non-sensory order. It plainly cannot accept “God” as the cause of the Big Bang, nor can it accept Reason, or Mind, or Logic, or Mathematics. So, only one thing is left to it, and it has eagerly seized upon this: things happen for no reason at all! Things erupt out of nothing. Something comes from nothing. Whole universes can erupt out of nothing and undergo socalled “inflation”. Therefore, the Big Bang had no formal cause. No rational Form gave rise to it. It happened by chance, by accident, randomly, meaninglessly, purposelessly. So says science, one of the most irrational subjects you can find, as bad as Abrahamism, which at least respects an eternal rational order (in the shape of “God”). Yet science is hoist with its own petard. Even to refer to randomness as the cause of the Big Bang is to acknowledge an immaterial, dimensionless, eternal order outside space and time, one that has nothing to do with empiricism, materialism and the senses, one that can never be observed (you self-evidently can never observe a random event that turns nothing into something, since there’s nothing to observe until the random event has already occurred and something has come from nothing). What are the laws of randomness? What are the preconditions for random events? What character, nature and essence must the universe have in order for random events to be possible? How can randomness (chaos) be accommodated by an eternal order? How can eternal randomness and chaos be consistent with the extremely ordered universe we actually find ourselves in? These are all metaphysical questions, exactly what science ridicules and rejects. So, science relies on randomness as an “explanation” for the

universe, while refusing to explain “randomness”. Scientists are exactly the same as Abrahamists, who rely on God to explain the universe, while refusing to explain God. Randomness doesn’t explain anything, just as “God” doesn’t. To appeal to randomness as the explanation for the Big Bang is just to push back the explanation by one level and create an even bigger mystery. Richard Dawkins makes exactly this argument in relation to “God” as the supposed explanation of the Big Bang, yet he’s so irrational and illogical that he believes “randomness” escapes this logical trap. It obviously doesn’t. Unless you can explain randomness, you can’t rationally deploy it as an explanation of the Big Bang. Scientists do, but that’s because they’re stupid. Scientists such as Dawkins love randomness as an explanation, just as people of faith love God as an explanation, but neither is an explanation, and neither explains anything at all. Dawkins has simply replaced the mystery of God with the mystery of randomness, which isn’t any kind of progress. At least God can confer meaning and purpose on existence. Randomness can’t. Randomness has the virtue that it can’t be worshipped, and people can’t commit atrocities in its name, but it leads straight to atheism, nihilism and a pointless universe. Just as no person who respects and accepts reason would ever turn to “God” as an explanation, neither, for exactly the same reason, would they turn to randomness – it offers no rational explanation of anything, and is a much greater mystery than what it sets out to explain. When scientists insist on trying to explain the world by performing observations on the world (via their quasi-religious scientific method), they are doomed from the start. If you trace back what sensory event caused the current sensory event you are studying, and what caused that sensory event, and so on, where will you end up? You plainly can’t have an infinite sensory regress, so you must come to a “first cause” that is itself nonsensory, hence beyond science and its method. So, science has to go outside science to explain itself. The explanation of science cannot be scientific, hence science cannot be the explanation of existence. That’s a simple rational fact. An instant rational corollary is that there can be no scientific final theory of everything, or grand unified theory of science, because science cannot, by its intrinsic nature, explain itself. Whatever “final” theory science produces will not be able to explain the cause of science,

hence science’s final theory will not be final at all, but will be entirely contingent on something else entirely unexplained by science. Science will never be able to explain randomness since randomness is outside the scientific paradigm. It cannot be studied by the scientific method, and no scientific hypothesis can explain it. Even to resort to the concept of the Multiverse – to claim that everything that can happen will happen; that everything not forbidden is compulsory, does not help. For one thing, the Multiverse is an unobservable, unempirical, metaphysical concept, hence automatically contradicts science. Secondly, it still has to be explained why existence should operate in this extraordinary Multiverse way – the worst possible violation of Occam’s Razor (the principle of economy and simplicity). What metaphysical considerations must apply to existence in order to give rise to the Multiverse, and not to a single, rational universe (such as that of Illuminism)? Science has no answers at all. It’s an intellectual vacuum. Science is good at studying the observable world, and hopeless at everything else. It can’t explain life, mind, free will, consciousness, the origins of existence, what existence is made of, or anything else fundamental. Science can say nothing at all about meaning and purpose, and indeed simply denies, usually gleefully (in the case of the likes of Richard Dawkins) that existence has any meaning or purpose. To deny that existence is meaningful and purposeful is to deny that we live in a rational universe, and to claim that we live in a universe of pointless, random chaos – which we self-evidently don’t. Why can’t scientists simply observe the world around them? Isn’t that what the scientific method is all about? If you look at the world, you see that it’s completely designed and purposeful. It’s not “God” that is responsible for this but the God Equation, the quintessence of reason, order, design, pattern, purpose and meaning. Ontological mathematics has no difficulty in explaining an eternal rational order. Ontological mathematics is the manner in which the principle of sufficient reason, and all of the eternal truths of reason that flow from it, exist in the world. The principle of sufficient reason is inherently eternal. Moreover, reason, uniquely, fully, rationally, explains itself, as we shall demonstrate in a forthcoming book in the God Series.

No rational person would ever look to anything other than the eternal principle of sufficient reason to explain everything. Scientists, however, look to their irrational senses and meaningless randomness. Therefore, scientists are simply not rational people. They are quasi-religious types, whose bizarre, nihilistic “God” is randomness – the ultimate nonexplanation, even more vacuous than “God” himself!

The Superiority of Plato and Aristotle As far as understanding ultimate reality is concerned, Plato and Aristotle provide an infinitely superior starting point than science. Science, bluntly, can’t say anything at all about ultimate reality since ultimate reality isn’t sensory. Plato and Aristotle used rational philosophy to ponder ultimate reality. They didn’t let themselves be driven by their senses and the scientific method. Form and Content are products of reasoning, not of experimenting. The only deficiency of Platonic and Aristotelian thinking regarding Form and Content was that it was not expressed through mathematics, the supreme subject of rationalism. If you want to understand ultimate reality, forget science and go back to ancient Greek philosophy and study it from an exclusively mathematical perspective. Science is a wonderful tool for studying the observable world, but ultimate reality has nothing to do with the observable world! Ultimate reality is noumenal, not phenomenal; intelligible, not sensible.

***** “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

Deluded Surely no one can believe that it will be a cakewalk to establish a rational, Meritocratic State. Every moron on earth will oppose it! The degree of Will to Power required to establish such a State will be unprecedented amongst any group of humans.

***** “The politics of failure have failed. We need to make them work again.” – Kang, The Simpsons “When rich people fight wars with one another, poor people are the ones to die.” – Jean-Paul Sartre

Ontological Mathematics It’s essential to grasp that ontological mathematics is real and dynamic, not abstract and static. When most people think of mathematics, they imagine a static system, unrelated to the real world, which they regard as “physical” and full of physical, dynamic forces. Ontological mathematics replaces both abstract, static mathematics and “real”, dynamic physics. It combines them into a single system of hyperrational mathematics based on the dynamic God Equation that defines the whole of existence.

The Revolution What is the final intellectual revolution that must take place in order for humanity to at last unshackle itself and reach for the heavens themselves? It’s very simple – life and mind must be inserted into the core of science. Scientific materialism and empiricism cannot accommodate life, mind, consciousness and free will. Metaphysical, Leibnizian science based on ontological mathematics can, as we have shown throughout the God Series. Scientific materialism has served a valuable dialectical function, but it has reached the end of the road. It can no longer contribute to the evolutionary advance of the human race. That advance will be mental, not physical or biological. We will become gods via the power of our minds, not the power of our bodies. Scientific materialism doesn’t even accept the autonomous existence of mind, and has no model whatsoever for what the mind is, hence can literally make zero contribution to the new science that places the mind – the soul, the monad – at the centre of existence. We can become Gods only if we can understand what we truly are, and that means understanding what existence truly is.

Existence, in its uttermost kernel, is a living, eternal, immaterial mathematical Singularity outside space and time, composed of living monads, each of which is an autonomous, complete and consistent set of analytic sinusoids defined by the God Equation. No one else has ever given such a precise definition of existence. Science doesn’t give any definition at all. It simply says: everything happens by chance; it’s all one giant accident. No one who believes science can ever become a God. If humanity wishes to become divine, it must reject scientific materialism based on randomness, as it must reject mainstream religion based on a Superbeing. It must accept that existence is all about reason. The Gods are those who understand everything because they have fully internalised every eternal truth of reason. Because we live in an eternal, deductive, mathematical universe, there’s nothing capable of being intellectually known that we cannot intellectually know. Gods are all-knowing, and we become Gods when our minds are fully aligned with the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

The Stranglehold We have to bring an end to the atheistic, nihilistic, randomist, sensoryobsessed creed of scientific empiricism and materialism, predicated on meaninglessness and purposelessness, which has developed a deadly stranglehold over the intellectual agenda. We need to revisit all of the living philosophies of the great pagan thinkers, but this time from a strictly ontological mathematical perspective. We need to revisit modern rationalist and idealist philosophy, again from the perspective of ontological mathematics. Above all, we need to abandon the primacy of science as it currently practised. The new science will be about matter and mind, rather than matter alone. It will be about brain and mind, not brain alone. It will be psychosomatic and somapsychic rather than somatic alone. It will be much closer to Jung’s worldview than that of sterile, dead, mindless materialism and empiricism. Humanity’s further evolution will take place mentally rather than physically, and will involve the mental control of matter. Ontological mathematics alone, with its Fourier monads (frequency singularities), allows – for the first time ever – mind to be formally,

mathematically inserted into quantum mechanics, “relativity” theory and holography, thus making reality psycho-materialistic rather than solely materialistic, and replacing materialistic randomness, indeterminism and acausality with precise, mathematical, mental causation and determinism. What are the ultimate “hidden variables” that need to be inserted into quantum mechanics to save it from indeterminism? – they are immaterial mathematical minds (monads), outside space and time, which obey mathematical determinism. Only by turning science into a Leibnizian Monadology can science, for the first time, start to reflect life and mind as core components of reality, and become all about teleology and meaning. Plato and Aristotle were far closer to a true depiction of reality than any scientific materialist. That’s a simple fact. Science is obsessed with sensory reality, but ultimate reality is nonsensory. Ultimate reality is rational, intelligible and mathematical.

Do It Everyone becomes better at something just by doing a lot more of it. If you want to be great, you have to put in the hours. You have to do the hard graft, the hard yards. No one becomes great by sitting on their ass, or ceaselessly flitting from one thing to another. If you want to be great, choose your project – the one that you wish to define your life – and pour in the hours. Make your choice and stick to it. Don’t keep switching horses. People fail because they have no sacred cause, because they’re lazy, because they keep changing their minds, because they’re terrified of putting in a huge effort and getting no return. In conventional terms, the God Series has had no success in any capacity despite an unprecedented amount of effort. So what? One day it will define the human race. Humanity always takes an Age to catch up with the Truth. Humans much prefer the big lie and the easy option. The God Series will eventually triumph because it will in due course attract all of the smartest people in the world, and then nothing can stop its progress.

The Choice You can’t be a liberal and a radical. You must choose one or the other. The most illiberal philosopher ever was Nietzsche, the self-styled “first

immoralist”. All radicals totally reject conventional morality, especially that of Christians and New Agers (who are just disguised Christians). Fuck “loving your enemies”. Hate your enemies! “Morality is but the herd-instinct in the individual.” – Nietzsche “Fear is the mother of morality.” – Nietzsche “No victor believes in chance.” – Nietzsche “God is a thought that makes crooked all that is straight.” – Nietzsche “All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.” – Nietzsche “What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness.” – Nietzsche “A politician divides mankind into two classes: tools and enemies.” – Nietzsche “Everyone who has ever built anywhere a new heaven first found the power thereto in his own hell.” – Nietzsche

Instrumentalism “Instrumentalism is an interpretation within the philosophy of science that a successful scientific theory reveals nothing known either true or false about nature’s unobservable aspects. By instrumentalism, then, scientific theory is a tool whereby humans predict observations in a particular domain of nature by organizing laws, which state regularities, but theories do not unveil hidden aspects of nature to explain the laws. Initially a novel perspective introduced by Pierre Duhem in 1906, instrumentalism is largely the prevailing practice of physicists today. “Rejecting the ambitions of scientific realism to attain metaphysical truth about nature, instrumentalism is usually categorized as an antirealism, although its mere lack of commitment to scientific theory’s realism can be termed nonrealism. Instrumentalism merely bypasses debate such as whether a particle talked about in particle physics is a discrete entity of individual existence, or is an excitation mode of a region of a field, or whether, reflecting an underlying reality that is not even a field, is

something else altogether. Instrumentalism holds that theoretical terms need only be useful to predict the phenomena, the observed outcomes.” – Wikipedia Most scientists are instrumentalists, and yet the vast majority act as if they are scientific realists, i.e. they think science actually reflects reality rather than being nothing but a predictive model with zero necessary truth content in terms of ultimate reality. “Instrumentalism: a doctrine that ideas are instruments of action and that their usefulness determines their truth. “A philosophy advanced by John Dewey holding that what is most important in a thing or idea is its value as an instrument of action and that the truth of an idea lies in its usefulness. Dewey favoured these terms over the term pragmatism to label the philosophy on which his views of education rested. His school claimed that cognition has evolved not for speculative or metaphysical purposes but for the practical purpose of successful adjustment. Ideas are conceived as instruments for transforming the uneasiness arising from facing a problem into the satisfaction of solving it.” – http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instrumentalism Pragmatism and instrumentalism are of course sensible, useful and valuable up to a point. However, beyond a certain point, they are 100% useless. If you want to understand eternal, ultimate reality, the last thing you would ever do is rely on pragmatism, instrumentalism, common sense, your senses, science or the scientific method. It’s a category error to imagine that these have anything at all to contribute to the understanding of Ultimate Truth. Kant famously critiqued “pure reason”. What a mistake! The only thing that can reveal ultimate reality is pure reason: pure, mathematical reason that ontologically expresses the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which is none other than the Law of Causation.

Weaving the Rainbow “We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones... We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our

inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?” – Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow Science is purely instrumental. At its bluntest, this means that science understands reality through the measurements recorded by instruments. So, if it can’t measure it, it can’t understand it, and, in fact, chooses to deny that it exists. Science is a quantitative subject and has nothing to say about quality. Ontological mathematics, on the other hand, is fundamentally grounded in that which cannot be measured: the zero/ infinity monad. Ontological mathematics, which is both quantitative and qualitative, via Form and Content, can be used to revisit and revive ancient Greek philosophy, Stoicism and Neoplatonism, Catholic Scholasticism, Cartesian rationalism, German idealism, and psychology, especially that of Jung. There will come a time when atheistic scientific materialism will come to be regarded as a strange, nihilistic blip in human thinking, as a weird aberration promulgated by a cult of semi-autistics with badly wired brains. People such as Richard Dawkins will come to seem as crazy, irrelevant, irrational and wrong as the Prophet Mohammed. It’s time for the rebirth of the Mind, of the Soul, of the Spiritual Dimension of human existence. Ontological mathematics delivers all of that. With science, humanity is doomed to extinction. With ontological mathematics, humans can evolve into gods.

***** When Dawkins speaks of “our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred”, what does he mean? Dawkins’ statement is of course an evasion of defining what that state is, and science is completely incapable of offering any explanation. Such questions belong to unobservable, unempirical metaphysics, about which science is permanently silent. The whole universe is eternally alive, with so-called “death” simply marking transitions between different phases of life. How dare Dawkins deny the beauty of the eternal mathematics that defines immortal, indestructible existence?! Science is a subject for plebeians and Philistines with zero imagination, zero intuition and zero ability to reason

their way beyond the common sense world of appearances right in front of their noses.

***** “...that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred...” WTF! Is Dawkins referring to souls? He seems to be suggesting that there’s some vast repository of people just like us, but only we were randomly plucked from this mysterious gathering in Limbo or Hades to enjoy life on earth, and we will be returned there when we die. Getting religious in your old age, Richard?! Why don’t you stick to your material atoms and not bother with religious talk? It doesn’t suit you, and you’re no good at it.

Walking Together Science goes hand in hand with empiricism and materialism. Ontological mathematics goes hand in hand with rationalism and idealism. Science goes hand in hand with atheism and a one-off life. Ontological mathematics goes hand in hand with spirituality and eternal life. Contingent Content (science) is temporal. Necessary Form (mathematics) is eternal.

The Formula Science doesn’t provide a formula that defines existence. Ontological mathematics does. The God equation furnishes the grand unified theory of everything: the single, eternal answer to life, the universe and everything.

Form Without Content? “Reduced to general theories, mathematics would be a beautiful form without content.” – Henri Lebesgue The whole point about ontological mathematics is that it’s accompanied by “Prime Content”. The rational side of mathematics is pure form without content, while the empirical side of mathematics is pure content without form. Each is the other side of a single coin. Mathematics is, ontologically, a dual-aspect system: rationalist and empiricist.

***** “Design is the method of putting form and content together.” – Paul Rand Mathematics is what puts form and content together, and that’s why we have both a designed universe and a universe that can be experienced with the senses and feelings.

The Ultimate Detectives Metaphysical mathematicians are the ultimate detectives, the ontological detectives. They are investigating the ultimate Whodunnit, or, rather, Whatdunnit. Ontological mathematicians are the true successors of Sherlock Holmes. They are the deductive geniuses. They don’t need Large Hadron Colliders. They just need a paper and pencil! They must deduce from a world of appearances the existence of no appearances at all, but of just pure noumenal math. They have to work out the rational from the empirical, the intelligible from the sensible, the necessary from the contingent, the unseen from the seen, the noumenal from the phenomenal, mathematics from science. Only the greatest humans are capable of being the ultimate detectives. No scientists need apply. They scorn deduction, rationalism, metaphysics, epistemology and ontology. All they care about is “seeing is believing”.

***** “Life should be a daring adventure or nothing.” – Thomas Paine What daring adventure have you undertaken? Or are you a nothing?

Conclusion It’s impossible to understand reality if you fail to comprehend form and content, and the distinction between them. Absolute form is wholly mathematical and described by the primary properties of an ontological sinusoidal wave – the frequency and amplitude. The frequency provides the defining characteristic of the wave while the amplitude provides the

strength of the wave. The frequency and amplitude determine the energy of the wave (we can think of the frequency as the core, inherent energy of the wave, and the amplitude as a scalar multiplier of this inherent energy). Energy is of course the basis of the “scientific world”, although science has never once defined what energy is ontologically. A world of objective energy is actually an invisible, noumenal world – a world of pure mathematics. It’s a cosmic “dark room”, and only reason can ponder its properties. In fact, energy, in its objective aspect, is reason. Frequency is the basis of the definition of number. Frequency is how a number exists ontologically. The mathematics establishment has committed the disastrous error of defining numbers with regard to sets (which are not inherently mathematical) instead of frequencies, which are inherently mathematical. Numbers are the foundation of mathematics and yet numbers are exactly what the mathematical establishment have failed to comprehend in terms of how they actually exist in the world. To reiterate, numbers exist as sinusoidal frequencies, and these are the basis of energy. In other words, numbers are energy, hence numbers are the basis of reason. They are emphatically not sets, which are based on the empiricist notion of counting objects. That is, set theory starts from the notion of an object, but an object could be anything from a can of beans to a collection of frogs to a fistful of dollars to sets themselves, or even empty sets. An object, as conceived by empiricists, is not a mathematical entity. It’s contingent and has no ontological necessity. Set theory applies the mathematical operation of counting to objects of any kind (mathematical or not), so this defines mathematics as “counting”, and what it counts are typically non-mathematical objects. This is the sort of childish, primitive notion of mathematics that the very first people to start using numbers would have had in mind. This approach is known to be Gödelian inconsistent and/or incomplete and that’s simply because this isn’t mathematics at all, but set theory, which is a humanly constructed, empiricist understanding of numbers and mathematics. True mathematics is Gödelian consistent and complete and is all about how numbers actually exist, which has nothing to do with sets and counting. True mathematics is rationalist, not empiricist; noumenal, not phenomenal; intelligible, not sensible. Numbers are ontological energies defined by the God Equation. It’s as simple as that. Numbers, in other words, are hard-wired into the universe, and furnish the perfect foundation

of the universe (hence can’t be inconsistent and/or incomplete). Numbers are not entities that allow the counting of objects in the universe. Rather, numbers are the objects in the universe! Numbers aren’t what you use to count non-mathematical things. Rather, numbers (energies) are what you use to make everything in the universe. This is totally different conception of what numbers are and what mathematics is. Mathematics is existence itself, not some counting technique. The people who came up with set theory as the basis of mathematics were empiricists and materialists, not rationalists and idealists. In other words, set theory reflects a philosophy and ideology, and has nothing to do with mathematics itself. In the same way, science is wholly driven by philosophy and ideology, yet thinks it isn’t. Ontology, the study of existence, is the basis of everything. You will never discover the answer to existence unless you can deduce what existence is made of. The application of the principle of sufficient reason leads inevitably to the conclusion that the only thing of which reality can be made is mathematics (= numbers = energy = reason). Only mathematics is perfect: perfectly coherent, perfectly consistent, perfectly complete, perfectly stable, furnishing a perfect plenum and continuum that is always set to the mandatory ground state of existence = zero. It is a fool’s exercise to define mathematics any other way than ontologically. Mathematics, as practised in universities, is a fallacious abstraction, riven by paradoxes flowing from Gödelian inconsistency and incompleteness. Mathematics has been driven into this position by science (especially physics). A false dichotomy has arisen whereby people believe that science (physics) tells us about reality, while mathematics is an abstract unreality, which, in some inexplicable way, feeds into physical reality. So, mathematics is simultaneously distinguished from physics and yet is required to underpin it, which means that mathematics is required to be both abstract and unreal, and yet also consistent with the empiricism and materialism of science, which places an impossible strain on it. We see this bizarre setup most especially in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The quantum wavefunction is deemed an unreal, deterministic mathematical abstraction that, miraculously and indeterministically “collapses” into reality when an observation or measurement takes place. Mathematics, in this view, is all about potentiality, and only becomes actual (physical) at the point of observation

or measurement, i.e. it’s the act of measuring mathematical entities that actualizes them, and, without measurement, they exist purely as potentialities, as possible measurements. This is a wholly empiricist understanding of mathematics. Mathematics is, of course, the quintessential rationalist subject, and objectively exists regardless of any empirical measurements performed on it. The revolutionary paradigm shift the intellectual world requires –the new Copernican Revolution – is to leave behind the notion of mathematics as an unreal, abstract world of potentiality while physics is the real, concrete world of actuality. The current paradigm says: mathematics unreal, physics real. The new paradigm says: mathematics real (noumenal, ontological), physics phenomenal, concerned with appearances, but not real in itself. Pythagoras was the first person to intuit the true ontological nature of mathematics, to realise that mathematics was the ground of existence, the arche from which all other things come. He famously said, “All things are numbers” and “Number rules all.” He could equally have said, “All things are energy”; “Energy rules all”, or “All things are Reason”; “Reason rules all.” Once you equate numbers, energy and reason, you grasp why reality is mathematical. As for physics, it’s all about the appearance of mathematics, the representation of noumenal, ontological mathematics, mathematics as phenomenon rather than noumenon. Physics has styled itself as the study of energy, but it is in fact mathematics that performs this role. Mathematics is energy. Physics only ever considers dimensional energy while mathematics can address both dimensional and dimensionless energy. Physics is fallacious because, being empiricist, it simply refuses to countenance unobservable, noumenal, dimensionless energy. It’s from this core denial that all of the false claims of physics flow, especially regarding quantum mechanics and relativity theory. Mathematics in itself is strictly noumenal. No one can observe the sinusoids that comprise ultimate reality, and no one can observe the autonomous monads that sinusoids are grouped into, forming complete and consistent sets of sinusoids with a net average energy of exactly zero. Mathematics in itself is wholly non-sensory. The “Big Bang” was an exclusively mathematical event without any sensory aspects whatsoever

(since there were no physical observers to experience any physical, sensory data). It was a “dark room” process, a “black box” event. It was a pure, silent, invisible, unfolding of mathematical functionality, rigidly reflecting the cause and effect determined by the God Equation. In order for noumenal mathematics based on sinusoidal frequencies to produce a phenomenal world, it’s essential for frequencies to be not just “primary” and objective, but also “secondary” and subjective (capable of being subjectively experienced). This world is the one available to the senses. In other words, perception is all about extracting, processing and experiencing the secondary qualities of energy (which are directly caused by, defined by, or directly associated with, the primary frequencies of energy). When you look at a tree, you don’t see the tree itself. The tree in itself is a noumenal mathematical object. To be sure, it has sensory qualities, but these are not what you “see”. The raw material of what you see is provided by the interaction of noumenal light with the noumenal tree. The function that results from the light interacting with the tree and being reflected from it is the mathematical entity that enters your eyes and strikes your retinas. It’s emphatically not the tree itself you are seeing but the representation of the tree caused by its interaction with light, and, specifically, the light that’s not absorbed by the tree (and is thus “reflected”). Moreover, your eyes, retinas, optic nerve and parts of the brain and mind for processing and interpreting visual data are themselves noumenal mathematical functions, and these mathematical functions all interact with the mathematical function reflected from the tree. It’s the net result of all of this mathematical interaction that you actually “see”, and it has precious little connection with the object you are supposedly seeing. You are seeing a construct, a phenomenon. You get no glimpse whatsoever of the noumenon. What you “see” is the net mathematical function arising from the objectin-itself, light-in-itself, your visual-organs-in-themselves your visual-brainin-itself, and, finally, your monadic soul in itself. What you “see” is a mathematical function, which, since it’s entirely made of sinusoids, is a wavefunction. What you “see” is the net sensory, secondary, subjective information associated with the wavefunction: the resultant of many atomic waves with their primary frequencies and associated amplitudes. You do not see the non-sensory, primary, objective information of the wavefunction. This is because there’s nothing to see. The primary properties are those

commonly associated with pure, rationalist mathematics. It’s the secondary properties that are the basis of phenomenalism and empiricism, of having an actual sensory or emotional experience of the mathematical information. The primary properties are wholly rationalist. Empiricists make the mistake of believing that secondary experiences are reality itself, when, in fact, they are necessarily linked to primary properties that we never experience because they are noumenal and intellectual. These can never be directly encountered via the senses. (However, given that what we sense is quantitatively determined by frequency and amplitude, we can measure sensory data, and thus get strong indications of the underlying noumenal mathematical data. Unfortunately, scientists regard empirical measurements as reality itself rather than quantitative pointers to true reality.) The primary properties are there but cannot be experienced, hence cannot form any part of the empiricist ideology. They define reality, but are unobservable, hence fundamentally contradict the entire scientific project based on the scientific method of observation of the “real” world, by which scientists actually mean the constructed, phenomenal world of appearances. These are the ultimate “hidden variables”, and they render reality 100% causal, deterministic and rationalist, in contradiction of the prevailing, dominant Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which fallaciously claims that reality is indeterministic and probabilistic. This preposterous, irrational conclusion is the one inevitably reached by those who deny the real existence of unobservables (noumena), or who, like Kant, accept noumena but deny that they are fundamentally mathematical. Life, as we encounter it, is the secondary, subjective, qualitative (rather than quantitative) experience of mathematics, which is why so many people believe that the world is not mathematical at all. What mathematics is, and how mathematics is experienced, are two radically different things. Mathematics, in its primary, objective, quantitative aspect, is purely rationalist and intelligible. Mathematics, in its secondary, subjective, qualitative aspect, is purely empiricist and sensible. Humanity’s intellectual tragedy is that is has seen rationalism and empiricism as two rival, contradictory schools when, in truth, they are complementary and completely compatible. They are two sides of one coin. One side of that coin is primary, objective and quantitative. The other is secondary, subjective and qualitative. We experience this latter aspect – the

sensible aspect – but we can understand existence only through the other side of the coin – the intelligible aspect. Only the latter reveals ultimate reality to us, so rationalism is more important than empiricism. Empiricism is about how we live in the world; rationalism tells us what the world actually is. Science has disastrously mixed the two aspects together, hence reached a host of fallacious conclusions. Science has a mathematical (rationalist) engine but swears by the empiricist scientific method. This is a fundamental contradiction. Science must, in future, swear by mathematics, and regard the scientific method as a means of giving us clues to mathematical reality, and verifying mathematical theories where verification is possible (much of mathematics is strictly noumenal and can never be empirically tested). Humanity’s ability to understand reality is conditional on understanding the arche, the fundamental “stuff” of existence. Ontological mathematics alone provides a definitive, infallible answer. Isn’t it time to be on the side of the Truth? Isn’t it time to hear the divine Music of the Spheres? Isn’t it time to gain admission to the Pleroma? Isn’t it time to see the mathematical Light? Isn’t it time to be illuminated?

Remember, There Is No Spoon!