The Mathmos (The God Series Book 15)

The universe is nothing like how it appears to us. So, what's it really like? What is it in itself? Neither our sen

1,618 232 4MB

English Pages 584 [534] Year 2014

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

The Mathmos (The God Series Book 15)

Table of contents :
The Mathmos
Quotations
Table of Contents
Drone Theory
The Principle of Sufficient Reason
The First Problem
The Difference Between Religion and Philosophy
Ancient Holography
The Prime Mover
Nous Versus Logos
The Intellectual Disaster
The Body Snatchers
The Heisenberg Mystery
Ontological Mathematics
The Two Worlds and the Truth
Taoism
Mathematics and Physics
The Pneumatics
Beelzebub
The World-Soul (Psyche)
The Strange Loop Universe
The Ontology of Strange Loops
The Living Force
Living Reason
The Angels
The Chamber of Dreams (Barbarella)
Epistemological Meaning
The Force (Star Wars)
The Three Greatest Fictional Villains
The Inflection Point
The Answer
Two Minds
The Four Types
The Eternal
The Ultimate Thinker
Soul Science
Speculators versus Skeptics
Truth and Falsehood
The Cosmic Egg
Successful Lying
The Scientific Sophists
The Selector Function

Citation preview

The Mathmos 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 “The traditional mathematician recognizes and appreciates mathematical elegance when he sees it. I propose to go one step further, and to consider elegance an essential ingredient of mathematics: if it is clumsy, it is not mathematics.” – Edsger Dijkstra “Mathematics is the most beautiful and most powerful creation of the human spirit.” – Stefan Banach “Mathematics is the music of reason.” – James Joseph Sylvester “We in science are spoiled by the success of mathematics. Mathematics is the study of problems so simple that they have good solutions.” – Whitfield Diffie “One would have to have completely forgotten the history of science so as to not remember that the desire to know nature has had the most constant and the happiest influence on the development of mathematics.” – Henri Poincaré “The essence of mathematics lies in its freedom.” – Georg Cantor “Thus, in a sense, mathematics has been most advanced by those who distinguished themselves by intuition rather than by rigorous proofs.” – Felix Klein “Mathematics is the result of mysterious powers which no one understands, and which the unconscious recognition of beauty must play an important part. Out of an infinity of designs a mathematician chooses one pattern for beauty’s sake and pulls it down to earth.” – Marston Morse “May not music be described as the mathematics of the sense, mathematics as music of the reason? The musician feels mathematics, the mathematician thinks music: music the dream, mathematics the working life.” – James Joseph Sylvester

Table of Contents The Mathmos

Quotations Table of Contents Drone Theory The Principle of Sufficient Reason The First Problem The Difference Between Religion and Philosophy Ancient Holography The Prime Mover Nous Versus Logos The Intellectual Disaster The Body Snatchers The Heisenberg Mystery Ontological Mathematics The Two Worlds and the Truth Taoism Mathematics and Physics The Pneumatics Beelzebub The World-Soul (Psyche) The Strange Loop Universe The Ontology of Strange Loops The Living Force

Living Reason The Angels The Chamber of Dreams (Barbarella) Epistemological Meaning The Force (Star Wars) The Three Greatest Fictional Villains The Inflection Point The Answer Two Minds The Four Types The Eternal The Ultimate Thinker Soul Science Speculators versus Skeptics Truth and Falsehood The Cosmic Egg Successful Lying The Scientific Sophists The Selector Function

The Origin of Causality The Mathmos is the mathematical cosmos. The Mathmos is the causal, noumenal reality that underpins the phenomenal world of the senses. The great philosopher Immanuel Kant believed the noumenal domain was

unknowable. He was wrong. The noumenal domain is the Platonic intelligible domain, and it’s entirely defined by mathematics. Mathematics is the true language of metaphysics, the subject that comes after physics and which explains physics. Physics is phenomenal mathematics; ontological mathematics is noumenal physics. Physics has suffered a catastrophic failure to produce a final scientific theory and the reason for this is straightforward: it’s now running up against how reality really is and its empiricist materialist ideology yields a wholly false ontology. You can’t have a final theory of everything unless you have a final ontology. The true ontology of the universe is twofold: dimensional (extended; material, based on spacetime) and dimensionless (unextended, mental, based on frequencies); phenomenal and noumenal. Science, by denying the autonomous domain of mind – which is the metaphysical domain of ontological mathematics – has made it impossible to reconcile general relativity and quantum physics. David Hume asked devastating questions about the nature of causality, and whether it even existed. This book provides the answer to what causality actually is, and where it is. If you don’t know these things, how can you claim to know anything at all? The origin of causality goes to the core of existence. Science has now abandoned causality and claims that things ultimately happen randomly, for no reason at all, with the “Big Bang” being the most egregious example of science’s repudiation of causality. According to science, the universe itself was born of an inexplicable random fluctuation in absolute nothingness! Scientists aren’t even embarrassed by this claim. So, do we live in a rational universe or a random universe? This is the choice between a mathematical universe and a scientific universe. The mathematical universe has a rational, ultimate answer, the scientific universe does not. The scientific universe is magicked out of non-existence, as if out of a magician’s top hat. Are you a member of the magicians’ Cult of Science? Nothing is more alchemical than modern science. You can allegedly generate a whole cosmos out of a random event in nothingness, which is a much greater trick than merely manufacturing gold from lead.

*****

The universe is nothing like how it appears to us (phenomenon). So, what’s it really like? What is it in itself (noumenon)? Neither our senses nor any experiments can reveal the ultimate truth of existence. Fortunately, one thing can: reason. We inhabit the Mathmos, the mathematical cosmos. This book reveals the compelling secrets of the hidden reality that we will never once “see”, but that we can surely know – thanks to ontological mathematics, the source of causality itself.

Drone Theory Human bodies are like predator drones that are remotely controlled by pilots located elsewhere, perhaps thousands of miles away. In the case of human bodies, the pilots are souls, and they literally exist in a different dimension. If a military drone is shot down, malfunctions, develops a fault, crashes, suffers a computer error, or whatever, then the link to the pilot is broken. It’s the drone that “dies”, not the pilot. So it is with the body and soul. Bodies always die in due course. Souls never do. Souls continuously connect and disconnect from bodies via the process of reincarnation. Once a soul has worked out how to link to one body, why wouldn’t it do the same again after the first body fails? Why wouldn’t it keep doing so? This is not some mystical, religious process. It’s a strict mathematical operation defined by Fourier mathematics. The phenomenon of consciousness makes the pilot (soul) believe it’s inside the drone (body) rather than remote from it. This makes the drone far more effective, of course, and ensures that the pilot take far greater care of it. He’s as motivated as possible not to allow the body to come to harm. He’s terrified of death, which should really be renamed as disconnection since the soul can never die, only the physical vessels it temporarily inhabits. The film Avatar provides an approximation to what takes place. In that movie, a disabled soldier is put in a psionic link unit, a machine that allows him to remotely control another body, which has full mobility. The soul is never disabled and doesn’t require any physical machine equipped with

psionics. It remotely controls the body via the “machinery” of well-known Fourier mathematics. Another way to think of reality is as a video game. The avatar that you control in the game of life is your own body. “You” are elsewhere. When your avatar “dies”, you don’t. In a video game, you “resurrect” your avatar, or choose a new one. In reality, you go and get a new body/avatar (via mathematical reincarnation) and start the game of life again. We inhabit a remote controlled world where minds (souls) located in a living, mental, immaterial, dimensionless, frequency Singularity outside space and time control the “dead”, material, dimensional world of space and time, and all of the bodies located within it. The remote control protocols are handled via Fourier mathematics: forward and inverse Fourier transforms. When a body dies, the soul does not leave it; rather, it is disconnected from it. The Fourier link goes down! Reincarnation occurs when the Fourier link is re-established, but with a new body (since the old body is gone forever, reduced to mere dust). Mental reality – Soul World – is all about a Singularity outside space and time, comprising living, mental mathematical units (monads), which are autonomous frequency domains. In religious terms, they are immortal, indestructible souls. Soul World is the Cartesian unextended domain of thinking, and the Fourier frequency domain. Material reality – Science World – is all about space and time, filled with lifeless, mindless, subatomic particles, atoms and molecules. Science World is the Cartesian extended domain of matter. It’s the Fourier spacetime domain. Thanks to Fourier mathematics – which allows mathematical functions to be represented in two different domains (the frequency and spacetime domains) – the two domains are fully interactive, thus resolving the notorious Cartesian mind-body problem. The spacetime domain of matter is the Kantian phenomenal world and the frequency domain of mind is the Kantian noumenal world. Scientists have absolutely refused to accept the existence of a mathematical, noumenal domain outside space and time and have, as a direct consequence, been forced to abandon causality and the principle of sufficient reason. They now make the lunatic claim that ultimate reality is grounded in randomness, in a dice-playing “God”, as Einstein so brilliantly summed it up.

“God” does not play dice. We live in 100% causal, mathematical universe and mathematics is none other than the principle of sufficient reason ontologically expressed. There’s an exact reason why everything is thus and not otherwise. Nothing at all happens randomly. You might as well believe in magic if you seriously imagine that things happen for no reason at all, as science now maintains. Modern science is a system of total irrationalism that seriously believes that cats in specially prepared closed boxes can be simultaneously dead and alive unless someone takes a look (!), in which case they will be either dead or alive. Science has become an insult to intelligence and reason. Above all, it’s an insult to ontological mathematics. Scientists vainly search for a grand unified of everything while being wholly unable to explain what mathematics is and what it’s doing at the heart of all scientific theories. Modern science is a salutary but depressing lesson in how not to think clearly and logically, in how to abandon reason in favour of a quasi religion of the senses (empiricism and materialism). The Church of Science makes almost as many absurd claims about ultimate reality as the Church of Abraham.

Seeing is Believing? The real world is nothing like its appearance, its persona, the sensory mask it wears. We see a representation of reality, not reality itself. We encounter phenomena – things which appear or are seen – not noumena, things as they are in themselves (beyond their appearance). A noumenon is an object of intellectual intuition or perception, as opposed to a phenomenon, which is an object of sensory perception. Noumena are perceived or apprehended by the mind, and phenomena by the sense organs. If we regard intuition as our sixth sense then our first five senses deal with phenomena and the sixth with noumena. In all cases, reason operates on the data gathered to try to make sense of it all. The trouble is that phenomena and noumena are wholly different and can’t be understood within the same paradigm. It’s a category error to treat them on a par. Physical objects perceived by the physical senses belong to the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm of science. Non-physical, immaterial, dimensionless, noumenal objects outside space and time – of which the soul

is the archetypal example – are dismissed by science. The existence of the noumenal domain is rejected wholesale by science. For science, appearance is reality. Anything that doesn’t appear, that doesn’t present itself to our senses, doesn’t exist. The mind itself is not accepted by science. Science regards mental phenomena as currently unexplained results of brain activity, i.e. as products of physical, molecular states and interactions within and between our brain cells that generate the “illusion” of mind. Take away the brain, scientists insist, and there’s no mind. (This is a wholly unprovable assumption of science. If the mind is not in the brain but merely connected to it to form a brain-mind complex then when the brain goes, the mind does not.) If there is in fact a noumenal domain underlying the phenomenal domain then the scientific paradigm and the scientific understanding of ultimate reality are 100% false. That’s a fact. Kant famously asserted that our minds construct reality, which is why, he argued, we are able to make sense of anything at all. When Einstein said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible,” he was ignoring Kant’s philosophy, which was predicated on the universe being comprehensible precisely because our own minds are responsible for how we perceive everything in the phenomenal world. It constructs all of the rules of perception. The phenomenal world conforms to the mind, not the mind to the phenomenal world. For Kant, things in themselves (noumena) are not in space and time and are not physical objects. They cannot be perceived by sense organs. He even went as far as to say that noumena could not be known at all. To this mysterious, unknown domain, he consigned the equally mysterious triad of God, the soul and human freedom. None of these could be explained in terms of phenomena since we can’t see any of them and they don’t make any sense in terms of purely physical or phenomenal causality. Kant shunted off the apparently inexplicable into the apparently unknown and unknowable. If mind unconsciously and automatically constructs the phenomenal world from noumenal things then the mind, when it becomes conscious (in the phenomenal world), never encounters true reality, only what it has constructed from it. Mind lives in what it has built rather than in what has built mind. It uses its “physical” senses to perceive its own constructs while being unable to know what it is itself (what it is constructed from), except through mysterious intuitions.

Eastern religion is all about intuiting a true domain concealed by Maya (illusion). This is essentially the same view as Kant’s. To grasp true reality, we have to transcend our own minds. We must leave behind our empirical self that experiences the phenomenal world and access our transcendental self that underpins our empirical self. Science has never once addressed the Kantian view of reality, or, for that matter, David Hume’s savage attack on causality, which prompted Kant’s mature philosophy in the first place. Scientists simply ignore such issues, claiming that they are not “science”. Yet they are profound intellectual positions and, if science can’t tackle such issues, it’s of limited intellectual use and value. In many ways, science is a fanatically anti-intellectual subject, choosing to operate within extremely narrow, self-defined limits. Compare the writings of an archetypal scientist such as Newton with those of an archetypal intellectual such as Leibniz, and it’s certainly not Leibniz that suffers in the comparison. Leibniz seems like a God in relation to Newton. It’s one of the greatest travesties of history that Newton is so wellknown and admired, and Leibniz so obscure. The truth has never prospered in this world of ours. In ontological mathematics, the Kantian noumenal domain is not unknown. It’s none other than the frequency domain of Fourier mathematics, defined by the generalised Euler Formula (the God Equation). It’s immaterial, dimensionless, and outside space and time. It comprises ontological mathematical units known as monads – which are none other than transcendental Kantian minds, or “souls” to use a religious designation. These are all mathematical singularities and belong to a Super Singularity of all singularities. This is the Big Bang Singularity and it gave rise to the spacetime domain of the material universe via an inverse Fourier transform on a cosmic scale. The whole Kantian project can be fully explained mathematically. The “unknowable” noumenal domain is abolished and replaced with a fully knowable world of mathematics. All of the Kantian mysteries are dispelled. Scientific materialism is the false doctrine that the phenomenal world is the only world, the real world. Scientific materialism denies the existence of any noumenal domain. In terms of Fourier mathematics, scientific materialism accepts the existence of a Fourier spacetime domain but not of a Fourier frequency domain outside space and time. This is mathematically

deranged and shows that science fundamentally repudiates mathematical rationalism. Science is an irrational system of quasi-religious faith in the nonexistence of a noumenal frequency domain. In Fourier mathematics, it’s impossible to have a spacetime domain without an interlinked frequency domain. Quantum mechanics is actually based on Fourier mathematics and yet it brazenly and dementedly denies the ontology of the frequency domain. This is one of the key reasons why the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is so bizarre. It rejects the existence of a frequency domain that must exist in order for spacetime to exist. Imagine trying to explain reality using only one domain of a mathematical system that requires two domains in order to work. Copenhagen quantum mechanics is automatically nonsense because of this catastrophic mathematical error. Reality is actually straightforward. It comprises two domains: a dimensionless frequency domain outside space and time and a dimensional, material domain inside space and time, the two being linked by Fourier mathematics. The frequency domain is the Kantian noumenal domain, and the spacetime domain is the Kantian phenomenal domain. Mathematical causality (not scientific randomness) is built into every part of the system. We don’t inhabit a physical cosmos but, rather, a mathematical cosmos – the Mathmos! It’s time for the final great paradigm shift. It’s time for the idea that we live in a material, scientific world to perish. We actually inhabit an immaterial frequency Singularity of pure mind – a noumenal, non-scientific world – which has the capability to generate the mental illusion of space, time and matter via Fourier mathematics. Ontological mathematics, not physics, is the explanation of everything. All of the science textbooks will have to be scrapped and rewritten as ontological mathematics textbooks. Far from being the founders of a glorious new scientific age, the leading thinkers of quantum mechanics were the last dying gasp of scientific materialism. They thought they were ushering in a revolution. Instead, they were counter-revolutionaries obstructing the replacement of science by ontological mathematics, the final explanation of everything, and the true grand unified theory of everything, including the soul!

Welcome Greeks Bearing Gifts The pre-Socratic philosophers of ancient Greece posed all of the fundamental questions of existence. Everything since then has been a set of footnotes and refinements to their work. Classical Greek philosophy – that of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle – systemised the thinking of the pre-Socratics and turned it into vast, monumental edifices. Then came lesser schools – often concerned with lifestyle rather than hard philosophy – such as the Sophists, the Cynics, the Skeptics, the Epicureans, and the Stoics. Then came Gnosticism, Mithraism and Hermeticism, culminating with Neoplatonism, the great attempt to perfect Platonism and reconcile it with Aristotle’s philosophy. The greatest disaster in human history occurred when the Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and paved the way for this bizarre Jewish heresy to become the world’s most successful religion. Rome, fatally infected by the Christian virus, quickly grew weak, enfeebled and dumbed down. It wasn’t too long before the western empire collapsed (in 476 CE). The Roman Emperor Julian the Philosopher (the “Apostate” or “Transgressor” to Christians) heroically tried to turn Rome to Neoplatonism but did not reign for long, being mortally wounded in battle against the Persians. Had Julian succeeded, Rome would never have fallen. Neoplatonism would have fully reinvigorated and reenergised the empire. Knowledge would have been prized over faith, the intelligent over the stupid, the strong over the weak, the go-getters over the slaves to “God” (Jehovah/Jesus). The West would have saved a thousand years and avoided the mass insanity of the Dark Ages and the medieval Christian period with its countless exterminations, persecutions, pogroms, crusades, inquisitions, witch burnings, self-flagellation cults, dancing cults, saint cults, trade in relics, superstition, fear of God, and so on. Had pagan philosophy triumphed over Abrahamic faith, we would now be living in terrestrial paradise. Moreover, Pythagorean sacred mathematics would have dictated the shape of science, not atheistic empiricism and materialism (the dialectical response to Abrahamism). Our world would now revolve around ontological mathematics and we would have a Star Trek society.

It’s time to get things back on track. It’s time for the rebirth of Greek paganism. It’s time for Pythagorean mathematics.

A Brief History of Mathematics Historically, mathematicians struggled with zero, infinity, negative numbers and imaginary numbers (thus complex numbers). Science reflected exactly this same struggle and is effectively the belief system that positive real numbers between zero and infinity have a connection with physical reality while no other numbers do (apart from negative numbers used for “charge”). Ontological mathematics is the rational assertion that no numbers can be privileged over any others, that they are all as real, as ontological, as each other. The fact that some numbers may be undetectable by the human senses is no rational objection to their existence, although scientific materialism teaches precisely this fallacy and asserts that all “real” things must in principle be perceivable by the human senses. Observation, in science, is deemed more important than reason. Science is a formally irrationalist belief system that refuses to confront the elephant in the room: the ontology of all mathematical numbers. Why should some numbers be “real” and all the rest fictitious? How can that make any sense at all? Either all of mathematics is real and valid, or none is. You can’t pick and choose in order to satisfy human sensory biases. Why should the unreliable, fallible, easily deceived, contingent, irrational human senses be the arbiters of what is real and what isn’t? That’s mad! Reason alone can decide what must exist necessarily, and mathematics is simply ontological reason, how reason actually exists in the world. It’s time for the mathematical revolution. It’s time for the Truth.

Leibniz versus Kant The great German thinker Leibniz suffered not only in comparison with Newton in science, but also in comparison with Kant in philosophy. Kant is commonly regarded as the greatest philosopher of all, while Leibniz is relegated to a mere footnote. This is extraordinary given that Leibniz was a far superior thinker. Kant’s philosophy is just a dumbed-down, inconsistent and illogical version of Leibniz’s philosophy.

Leibniz said, in essence, that all that truly existed were noumenal minds (monads), and, between them, they created the phenomenal world. He was attempting to present the notion of holography – the whole is in each part, with each part reflecting the whole from its unique perspective – but the Fourier mathematics that underlies holography was still a long way from being discovered, so Leibniz was forced to use a highly metaphysical, technical and daunting language to try to communicate his meaning. Most people simply didn’t “get it” (and still don’t). Kant succeeded in finding a way to present similar ideas but in a way that philosophers found far more comprehensible. As Nietzsche said, “Success has always been the greatest liar.” Kant said, in effect, that true reality consisted of noumenal point-atoms outside space and time, some of which were material and some mental. The material point-atoms linked together in various ways (presumably according to mathematical rules), and the mental point-atoms then projected a space and time framework over these to create the material phenomena we experience in the “normal world”. What Kant did was essentially to recreate Cartesian dualism but now outside space and time. He got rid of extended matter as a real thing and made matter unextended (like mind). Extension was generated when mind projected extension onto matter, not because matter actually possessed extension. It was all a phenomenal illusion (Maya, as Hindus would say). Yet Kant couldn’t explain why there were two types of point atoms – material and mental – and thus he was no further forward with explaining substance dualism and how different substances can interact. He had created noumenal matter to accompany noumenal mind, but couldn’t explain the difference between them, and the mechanism of their interaction. Arrogantly, he then dismissed the possibility that anyone could ever know what was really going on. He himself, he believed, had gone as far as anyone could. His successors found this preposterous, and promptly went further, Hegel in particular. In relation to ultimate reality, Illuminism entirely supports Leibniz. There are no noumenal material point-atoms. There are only point-minds (monads), just as Leibniz said, and they create conventional matter through Fourier mathematics. Inverse Fourier transforms add dimensionality (space and time) to dimensionless frequency functions (“thoughts”).

“Matter” is the collective thought of minds. It seems different from mind because it’s controlled by all minds, not by individual minds. When we contemplate “thinking”, we can’t help but relate it to our own private experience of thinking. In fact, minds can think privately (individually) and publicly (collectively). Individual thinking constitutes the mental world; collective thinking constitutes the material world. All subatomic particles and material atoms are just the basic components of thought when conducted by a vast collective of minds. All “thoughts”, whether individual or collective, are just mathematical functions. We combine basic thought units to produce our own complex thoughts. All complex (“molecular”) thoughts are built up from “atomic” thoughts, just as words are built up from letters. In the so-called material world, subatomic particles take the role of ontological letters, atoms take the role of ontological words, and molecules the role of ontological sentences. DNA – the molecule of life; the double helix – is the optimal molecular code, allowing individual minds to take control of collective mental entities (bodies). Mental mathematical functions are all there are. There’s no such thing as matter existing in its own right (separate from mind). Leibniz was right all along: “matter” is produced by mind. Matter is collective thinking, hence has a radically different quality and set of properties from individual thinking, yet is still fully mental. With individual thinking, we don’t encounter resistance to our own thoughts. With collective thinking, we experience nothing but resistance since we are opposed by every other mind in the universe. Matter seems solid, enduring and different from us simply because of this resistance. This is more or less what Leibniz argued, and he was right all along. Scientific materialism is 100% false – the precise inversion of reality – when it claims that matter creates mind. Mind is the source of everything, including matter – which is just an expression of the collective rather than individual mind.

***** Subatomic particles are, as we have said, ontological “letters”. They are the basis of the “material alphabet”. Groups of subatomic particles form ontological “words” = atoms. Atoms can be considered as words like “the”,

“a”, “and”, “or”, “with”, and simple nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. Molecules are ontological “sentences” made up of these words. The material world is just an interactive book written with ever-changing combinations of subatomic particles rather than humanly invented letters. When you become smart enough, you can literally read Nature like a book. “DNA” is a much more interesting chapter of the book than the chapters about rocks, dirt and sand. DNA is the chapter where the characters really come to life (!), when individuals minds start interacting with the lifeless products of the Collective Mind. It’s rather like when people, instead of passively watching TV, start interacting with the TV, as if they were participating in a collective video game. We all control an avatar in the game – our own body. When one body wears out, we get another via reincarnation. Just as the “world” of video games is a mathematical invention and doesn’t exist in its own right, so is the world we experience. If all the minds were taken away, there would be nothing left, no matter at all! What is DNA? It’s an ontological code that allows the collectively written book of the world (of Nature) to have individual authors inserted into it, who can then write the book of their own life (via their own actions and behaviour in the physical world). DNA is the mathematical-biophysical code linking the individual mind with the collective mind. Lifeless rock, lacking DNA, reflects only the collective mind, and not any individual minds. Our bodies, encoded with DNA, allow our individual minds to control an avatar (body) in the physical world (the creation of the collective mind). DNA is how individual minds connect to the output of the collective mind, how individual thoughts intersect with collective thoughts, influence them and are in turn influenced by them. There are thus four types of causality: 1) Individual mind acting on individual mind. 2) Individual mind acting on collective mind. 3) Collective mind acting on individual mind. 4) Collective mind acting on collective mind. In science, there’s only one type of causality: material things operating on material things. There is therefore no scope at all for freedom. In Illuminism, freedom exists because minds are not subject to inescapable

external causality. Exactly like human beings, minds are influenced by the environment in which they operate, but can generate their own behaviour. They are not marionettes being forced at all times to obey external causality, as science claims.

***** We are individual thinking units within a collective thinking unit, thoughts within thoughts, minds within a Mind, singularities within a Singularity. We are private thoughts within collective thought (the material world). There are only two things that happen in the world: individual thinking and collective thinking: individual thinking by individual monads, and collective thinking by the total collection of monads. The collective thinking of monads is what constitutes the material world. Collective thinking is completely machinelike and simply reflects the element that all monads have in common: objective ontological mathematics, defined by the God Equation (the generalised Euler Formula). All monads are objects with respect to each other. The Monadic Collective thinks like a mathematical machine, which is why so many scientists believe that the universe is a mindless, purposeless, dead mechanism. But, to itself, each monad is a subject, and this is the critical factor that scientists have never understood. Science does not cater for subjectivity at all, and refuses to accept that it exists. Subjectivity is the sphere of mind rather than matter: individual thinking rather than collective thinking. Individual thinking is subjective, not objective. It’s dialectical, not Aristotelian. It’s why free will is possible. Following the Big Bang, the universe unfolds according to pure objective mathematics. A machine is created: the material cosmos. At this stage, the machine exhibits zero subjectivity. All monads are behaving as objective mathematical computers, not as living subjective organisms. No individual monad is as yet powerful enough to make any difference whatsoever to the behaviour of the Monadic Collective. What must an individual monad do to accomplish any effect in the material world (against the irresistible force of all other monads)? It must acquire an individual body, through which it can operate independently, free of the Collective. So, how does an individual body come into existence? A mind somewhere – a staggeringly powerful mind – has to create the code that

allows subjective life to enter the objective world. How is the gap between objectivity and subjectivity bridged, between mind and matter, between the individual and the Collective? It’s done through a specific information code such as DNA. DNA allows matter to be organised in such a way that it can be host to an individual, controlling monad. It allows part of the objective world to be detached from the rest and brought under individual, subjective control rather than collective, objective control. The end-result doesn’t come about through any rational planning. Nor does it come about through complete randomness (as modern evolutionary theory claims). It actually comes about through dialectical trial and error. The strongest minds in the universe – those of the first generation of potential gods – continually try to grab and organise atoms and molecules into cells, and finally succeed in producing plants and animals. To the uninformed (evolutionary scientists!), random material events seem to underlie evolution. They acknowledge no trace of any unseen minds at work, trying to establish a link to the physical world (via the mechanism of Fourier mathematics). Individual minds keep performing mathematical experiments until something eventually works. Mental, unconscious, trial and error is the basis of evolution, not random movements and interactions of mindless, lifeless atoms, as science claims. It can take millions and even billions of years for the first minds to achieve “life”, i.e. subjective control of collections of “objective” atoms and molecules. Initially, every subjective mind operates unconsciously, in a vegetative way. Only when a highly complex body is built – that of humans or a comparable species – does it become possible for unconscious minds to become conscious. In Illuminism, the very first mind to attain consciousness is the most powerful mind in the universe and is called Abraxas. Abraxas is also the first mind to attain gnosis – God consciousness – and thus Abraxas is the First God. Abraxas then assists other elite, meritocratic minds to join him in a Community of Gods. Eventually, every mind in existence is promoted to divinity, and it’s then time for the Cyclical Age to end, and for a new Big Bang and a new universe.

The Letters of Life

Imagine subatomic particles as the letters of the alphabet brought into physical existence i.e. imagine quarks, leptons, gluons, photons, Higgs bosons and so on as the ontological equivalents of a’s, b’s, c’s, d’s and so on. Each letter is a specific mathematical function defined by the Monadic Collective. Atoms are built up from the basic letters, molecules from atoms and bodies from molecules. Nature is a book, and the letters, words, sentences and chapters are ontological mathematical functions. Imagine a universe of self-writing books, where the letters are forever arranging themselves into all compossible words, sentences and chapters. That’s what the “material world” is.

Dreamers We are all private dreamers in a collective dream. The material world is the collective dreamspace. Our own dreams take place in our private rather than public dreamspace. The dreamspace (the “public dreamspace”) of the collective dream is made out of things produced by the Monadic Collective, so these things have objective existence (acknowledged by all minds), hence obey rigid mathematical rules. In our own dreams, no such objective entities exist (everything is subjective), so we can change whatever we like in our dreams just by willing it. We encounter no fundamental resistance in our own dreams but we always do in the collective dream. That’s the difference between the two dreamspaces.

Holmes and Watson In the tales of the great detective Sherlock Holmes (by Arthur Conan Doyle), Holmes functions as pure intellect, pure reason, pure nous. He’s more akin to a computer than a person. He’s the one with the vast IQ, while his pedestrian partner, Dr Watson, is the one who supplies a high EQ (emotional intelligence). Watson functions as the proxy for the reader, with Holmes having to laboriously explain everything to him, and thus to the reader. In Star Trek, Spock takes the Sherlock Holmes role, and Dr McCoy the Watson role. Captain Kirk is the synthesis of Spock (thesis) and McCoy (antithesis). He’s not as logical as Spock, but nor is he as emotional and sentimental as McCoy, and he has the best judgment and decision-making talent of them all (which is why he’s the captain).

In Star Trek: The Next Generation, Commander Data actually plays Sherlock Holmes in the Holodeck. Commander Riker is the new, tougher version of Watson (with emotional duties also being distributed between Dr Crusher and Counsellor Troi). Captain Picard is a kind of Zen Kirk, much more spiritual. All interesting stories and casts of characters will typically reflect the components of the Platonic soul, or some such theory of the mind or soul. We will have a logical, rational character reflecting the Platonic Nous, a character of spirit and heart reflecting the Platonic Thymos, and a character (often the enemy) of pure appetite and desire, representing the Platonic lowest part of the soul. In Freudian terms, we will have a moralistic Superego character (Dr Jekyll), an immoral Id character (Mr Hyde) and a rationalist, pragmatic Ego character (the synthesis of Jekyll and Hyde). In Jungian storytelling, we will have a transcendent Self character, a luminous Anima/Animus figure, magical Mana characters, a sinister and deadly Shadow figure, a fake and phoney Persona figure, and a confused Everyman Ego “hero” seeking the truth of his existence. In stories based on David Riesman’s sociological types, we will have characters obsessed with their peer group (other-directed), those obsessed with their communities and upholding the way things have always been done (tradition-directed), those reflecting the values of their parents (innerdirected), and free-thinking radicals and outsiders (the autonomous). We all fit into some story role or other. We can understand the world by understanding the roles those around us are playing. If you’re highly logical, there’s no point in expecting to be surrounded by like-minded Mr Spocks. You will meet many McCoys and Kirks, and many people almost the complete opposite of you, who will oppose virtually everything you stand for. That’s life. It’s the Never-Ending Story.

The Scientific Method In the 19th century, science was 100% deterministic. In the 20th century, the advent of quantum mechanics (and the establishment’s specific interpretation of it), changed science to 100% indeterministic. Of what rational value is the much vaunted scientific method if it has a 100% range, i.e. if tomorrow it can declare that black is in fact white?

Ontological mathematics is 100% true, infallible and absolute forever. Why would any rational person prefer to seek truth via the scientific method rather than the mathematical method?

Physis and Arche “Physis is a Greek theological, philosophical, and scientific term usually translated into English as ‘nature’.” – Wikipedia “Arche is a Greek word with primary senses ‘beginning’, ‘origin’ or ‘first cause’. Later, ‘power’, ‘sovereignty’, ‘domination’ as extended meanings were accepted by some. This list is extended to ‘ultimate underlying substance’ and ‘ultimate undemonstrable principle’. In the language of the archaic period (8th-6th century BC) arche (or archai) designates the source, origin or root of things that exist. In ancient Greek Philosophy, Aristotle foregrounded the meaning of arche as the element or principle of a thing, which although undemonstrable and intangible in itself, provides the conditions of the possibility of that thing. If a thing is to be well established or founded, its arche or starting point must be secure. The most secure foundations are those provided by the gods – the indestructible, immutable and eternal ordering of things.” – Wikipedia The pre-Socratic philosophers spoke of physis in two ways: 1) the basic substance of existence, out of which everything else in the world is made (also known as the arche, the first principle), or, 2) a unifier, a pattern, an ordering system via which all things in the world are united. Heraclitus used the term “Logos” for the divine pattern that guides and unifies all of nature. Therefore, to understand the world we must understand Logos. Anaxagoras said that Nous (“mind”) is the rational force within nature, guiding and ordering the cosmos. Nous and Logos are similar concepts and can easily blend into each other. It’s only by understanding the Logos that we can make sense of our experiences and arrive at knowledge of the true nature of the world. In modern Illuminism, Logos is ontological mathematics, as indeed it was originally for Pythagoras. Aristotle called the pre-Socratic philosophers the phusikoi because they were so obsessed with identifying the physis. This is the origin of the

modern word “physicist”. Yet these original physicists were as much metaphysical as physical, hence radically different from today’s physicists. The search for the arche often reflected the doctrine of “Material Monism” – the concept that all objects in the world are variations on a single physical substance, that Nature has a single material building block. For Thales, the physis (arche) was water. For Anaximines, the physis was aer (air), a thick mist or breath. However, non-material conceptions were also possible. For Anaximander, the physis was apeiron (the infinite, the unbounded, the eternal and indefinite substance, without any properties of its own). For Pythagoras, the physis was numbers, and for Heraclitus it was fire (or mathematical energy, as we would now say). Parmenides generated a philosophical crisis when he argued that true reality bore no resemblance to our sensory experience. He insisted that reason revealed that everything that existed was one, continuous, eternal, unchanging, unmoving sphere with no qualities or characteristics. This was the “Parmenidean Real.” The Eleatics, including Zeno and Milessus, were the philosophers who endorsed this position. They were the first outright metaphysicians and rationalists, considering pure, abstract reason (as opposed to observation and experience) as the sole criterion of, and route to, truth. Their position 100% contradicted the empiricist view of reality. The pluralists believed that there were multiple true things in the world, rather than the “one” of Parmenides.

The Macrocosm/Microcosm Principle: As Above, So Below According to this principle, observations about human beings or human society can tell us about the whole universe. The workings of things on the small scale tell us about the workings of things on the large scale.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason The principle of sufficient reason: there is no effect without a cause, no change without a reason for the change. For every fact, there’s a reason why it is thus and not otherwise.

Although Leibniz was the first to name and precisely formulate this principle, Anaximander was the first to deploy it (to account for why the earth needs no material support in order to stay stationary in space, i.e. without falling). This principle is the most important of all. In fact, it defines existence. Mathematics alone is consistent with the principle of sufficient reason. Looking at it another way, mathematics is the principle of sufficient reason. Consider the two alternatives to a universal principle of sufficient reason: 1) A universal principle of unreason: everything happens for no reason at all. This is a universe of randomness and might as well be a universe of magic since anything can happen at any time for no reason. 2) A universal principle of some reason and some unreason. There could be no possible rational justification for such a universe, and nothing would make any sense in it. Nothing would be predictable. Therefore, you have a choice between a mathematical universe of sufficient reason, or a non-mathematical universe of no reason at all or partial reason and partial unreason. Which is it to be? If this is a rational universe – which it is – then the universe must be 100% mathematical. An irrational universe is inconceivable. It would destroy itself instantly since there would be no reason for any order, organisation and pattern in such a universe. Classical science was totally deterministic and 100% consistent with the principle of sufficient reason. The advent of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics turned this on its head. The three chief proponents of this view – Bohr, Heisenberg and Born – were all Nobel laureates, and yet they destroyed science as it had hitherto been known. They made science indeterministic. Science, thanks to them, became based on randomness, probability and statistics rather than on reason and determinism. Science is now absolutely irrational. Why did this happen? It was caused by science’s hatred of analytic, ontological mathematics and reason, and its preference for the scientific method and empiricism. The probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics is the greatest error in scientific history. There’s no valid reason for it at all. Why was Max Born awarded a Nobel Prize? It was for turning something real

(ontological) – the quantum mechanical wavefunction – into something unreal and probabilistic. Born should have his Nobel Prize retrospectively revoked, unless being 100% wrong is something that science values and promotes. The pure wavefunction involves imaginary numbers and these are unacceptable to empiricists. Rather than accept that imaginary numbers are ontological and that a principle of sufficient reason applies, Born chose to dismiss imaginary numbers and remove them by squaring the wavefunction (making it negative) and taking its absolute value (making it positive), thereby introducing the catastrophe and insanity of core randomness and probability into science (to the total disgust of physicists such as Einstein, Schrödinger, de Broglie and Bohm). Bohr, Heisenberg and Born all ignored “hidden variables” and replaced the principle of sufficient reason with the ridiculous principle of unreason. This has nothing to do with science and truth, but solely with philosophy – which is what modern science actually is: the philosophy of empiricism and materialism.

The First Problem The earliest Greek philosophers were all concerned with the physis, the arche, i.e. with what is the most basic substance of the world. What is it that underlies everything else? Thales and Anaximines gave answers of actual, observable substances. Thales said water was the arche, while Anaximenes said it was air. Anaximander was boldest by proposing a rational substance – the apeiron – that could not be observed at all, making him the first rationalist rather than empiricist. For the pre-Socratics, the physis was either some basic cosmic constituent or some basic cosmic lawlike pattern. In Illuminism, ontological mathematics is the physis, the arche, and all things are derived from ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics is the basic lawlike pattern and it’s encoded in, and expressed through, living, mental mathematical entities called monads, the basic units of existence. This is the definitive answer the pre-Socratics were searching for. In fact, Pythagoras and Heraclitus, two pre-Socratics and also two Grand Masters of the

Illuminati, had already arrived at it, and Anaximander had foreshadowed it with his apeiron, as had Anaxagoras with his Nous. Pythagoras said that all things are numbers, and that number rules all, and that’s exactly right. Heraclitus said that the arche, as a substance, was fire and, as a unifying set of laws, was “Logos” that controlled the entire natural world (and was expressed through the fire). Today we would simply identify the Logos with the laws of mathematics and fire with mathematical energy that conveys the laws.

***** Parmenides claimed that only one thing truly existed: a unified, unchanging, unmoving reality. In this view, everything else was pure illusion, but Parmenides made no attempt to explain how this dynamic, plural illusion could be caused by his unmoving, unchanging “One”.

The Plurality Problem How can one substance, a monism, give rise to the plurality of objects we observe in the world? There’s only one way – mathematically. Mathematics alone has the power to generate infinite diversity. It’s built into mathematics, and not into anything else. For Anaximander, the arche was the Unbounded (the apeiron), and it contained all opposites. This was a kind of Taoist yin and yang vision, or a scientific attraction and repulsion dichotomy, or love and strife (as Empedocles put it), or a dialectic of thesis and antithesis. Therefore, opposites contained within the arche created the required diversity. All such ideas are vague and mystical until framed mathematically, and especially in terms of the different but complementary properties of sine and cosine waves, above all in terms of their respective symmetry properties, sine waves being “odd” and antisymmetric while cosine waves are “even” and symmetric.

***** In Illuminism, existence can be considered as both a monism and plurality. There’s only a single universal law – the God Equation – but it’s expressed

through countless, individual, autonomous monads. The single law provides the monistic aspect of the system, and the monads the pluralistic aspect.

The Maintenance Problem How does the universe retain and maintain its order and organisation? There’s no mystery if the universe is eternally mathematical, given that order and organisation are built into mathematics. Mathematics alone can deliver natural equilibrium, lawfulness within nature, homeostasis, selfregulation, and yet all within an overarching dialectical progression. Without mathematics, everything would degenerate into chaos. Science absurdly claims that the answer to the maintenance problem is randomness (chaos), i.e. it says that order can emerge from underlying chaos and be maintained by underlying chaos, through the magic of “statistics”! For scientists, probability replaces cause.

Knowledge and Belief (Opinion) How can we have any knowledge of things we can’t see? Aren’t we just kidding ourselves, inventing beliefs, conjectures and opinions? In fact, when it comes to mathematics, we can’t see it, yet we can have absolute knowledge of it. Therefore, if existence is mathematical, we can know everything rationally. We don’t need to “see” things. Heraclitus said that trying to arrive at knowledge without understanding the Logos was like trying to decipher speech without understanding the language of the speaker. That’s exactly right. And the language of nature is mathematics. Mathematics is the Logos. Why is it so hard for people to accept mathematics as the arche? It’s because they can’t imagine mathematics in terms of empirical things. Mathematics is grounded in non-empirical, ontological entities called monads – living mathematical minds, encoded with all of the laws of mathematics (in fact, ultimately with just one law: the God Equation). They are unconscious but can evolve consciousness. These monads are none other than souls. Souls are the basis of ontological mathematics, hence the basis of existence. This is what Leibniz’s Monadology is all about.

*****

Parmenides was so hostile to empiricism – to the notion that all knowledge comes to us through our senses and experiences – that he said we should rely purely on reason to arrive at knowledge. We should simply ignore the sensible world and sensory experience. The intelligible world alone is what matters. This way of thinking powerfully influenced Plato. As for Heraclitus, he said that observation must be tempered by rational insight in order to reach authentic knowledge, in contrast with Parmenides who believed that any observations or experiences were bound to deceive us and lead us to untruths. Parmenides’ “true world”, based purely on the faculty of reason, was wholly non-observable, non-physical and exhibited no change. We might say that what he was really describing was a perfect mathematical Singularity. There was no physical movement and no physical change. All movement and change were in fact mental. So, already with the pre-Socratics, the great war between the empiricists and rationalists had begun, and final victory has still not been declared. There can, however, be no question that rationalism is correct – because the world is 100% mathematical and obeys the principle of sufficient reason.

The Sensible and Intelligible Worlds The sensible world comprises five individual sensory worlds: 1) The world of sight – detected by the eyes. 2) The world of sound – detected by the ears. 3) The world of smell – detected by the nose. 4) The world of taste – detected by the tongue. 5) The world of touch – detected by the hands and flesh. Are these five worlds the only worlds, as scientists and empiricists claim, or are there other worlds, for which we have no senses, hence no way of empirically detecting? Rationalists claim that there’s an intelligible world beyond, behind and underpinning the five worlds of the senses, and that it’s invisible to the senses but not to intellect, reason and intuition. Ultimately, it’s a mathematical world, and we can fully understand it mathematically even

though we can have no empirical encounter with mathematics itself, only with its sensory effects. The sensible world is “local”, i.e. you can’t use your senses to detect anything outside a small range of your current location. Our senses create the localist illusion, the notion that non-local knowledge is impossible. The intelligible world is strictly non-local and any part of it can be reached at any time, no matter your location, via your reason or intuition (or even Extra Sensory Perception!). The sensible world is physical and local and the intelligible world mental and non-local. The non-sensory world – the intelligible world – is detected by two intelligible faculties (and we might even call them “senses”, but mental rather than physical): 1) Intuition shows us portions of the intelligible world all at once, with no conscious thought required on our part. Intuition allows us to perceive directly, intellectually, without reasoning. This is our “sixth sense” and is very different from our five normal senses. The sixth sense has been described as a “supposed intuitive faculty giving awareness not explicable in terms of normal perception; a power of perception seemingly independent of the five senses.” It’s this sense that gives rise to ESP. All of the information of the local, sensible world is encoded mentally and holographically in the non-sensible world, and can be reached by intuition, bypassing the physical senses entirely. Intuition is our most powerful nonlocal faculty. In its truest sense of giving us access to information beyond our local sensory range, intuition is formally denied by scientific materialism. The Kantian noumenon is an “object of intellectual intuition” and is opposed to the Kantian phenomenon, which is an “object of the senses”. Noumena (from ancient Greek noos, “mind”) are those things which are apprehended or perceived by the mind, as opposed to phenomena (from ancient Greek phainomenon: “that which appears or is seen”), which are perceived by the senses. According to science, there’s no such thing as independent mind, hence nothing can be apprehended by the mind independently of matter and the physical senses. 2) Reason shows us, step by step, the intelligible world (of mathematics). If intuition is intellectually perceiving directly without reasoning, reason is intellectually perceiving directly with reasoning. Where intuition is

associated with the unconscious and the right hemisphere of the brain, reason is associated with consciousness and the left hemisphere of the brain. Reason is what allows us to become conscious of the rational, intelligible world. Reason, strictly speaking, is relevant only to mathematics. When we try to apply reason to non-mathematical arenas, such as Mythos, religion, politics, economics, speculative philosophy, experimental science, scientific materialism and empiricism, reason can easily lead us astray since it’s no longer being used for its true purpose and now becomes an instrument of interpretation, conjecture, opinion, belief and hypothesis. True reason addresses only the eternal truths of reason (the truths of mathematics). “False” reason addresses contingent, temporal “truths” of fact, “truths” of faith, “truths” of religious dogmatism and revelation, “truths” of opinion and interpretation, and so on. Reason is our “seventh sense”. Kant wrote his famous Critique of Pure Reason to expose where, in his opinion, reason went wrong. Ironically, his book is itself a classic example of reason being wrongly applied. Reason has only one true domain of validity: mathematics, incorporating the associated eternal truths of reason, and the principle of sufficient reason (of which mathematics is the ontological expression). Outside that domain, reason is corrupted by the senses, feelings, and desires, and is no longer strictly reasonable at all.

***** In fact, there’s also a third world, distinct from the sensible world (accessed by the five senses) and the intelligible world (accessed by the two intellectual “senses” of reason and intuition). This third world is the interior world of feelings, and is accessed by the eighth “sense” – our emotions. With our feelings, we process pleasure and pain, happiness and misery. We evaluate things according to whether they are increasing or decreasing our feeling of power. Pleasure and happiness tell us that our power is increasing. Pain and misery tell us that our power is decreasing. Human beings inhabit these three worlds, but we don’t inhabit them equally. Religious people mostly inhabit the world of feelings (faith is an expression of a longing for certainty and reassurance, and escape from the fear of death). Scientists mostly inhabit the world of the senses. Eastern religious types mostly inhabit the intuitive aspect of the intellectual world,

while ontological mathematicians, rationalists and idealist philosophers mostly inhabit the intellectual world of reason. Feelings and intuition belong to the non-local, right hemisphere of the brain while the senses and reason belong to the local, left hemisphere of the brain. Extraversion belongs to the local, left hemisphere of the brain and introversion to the non-local, right hemisphere. Extraverts look to their external, sensory environment, while introverts look to an inner world, a transcendent world, a world beyond that which is immediate, local and direct. Quite simply, we are not all equal. Our personality types and brain wiring determine how we apprehend reality. Those best configured for apprehending the Truth are introverted intuitive thinkers. Everyone else will have a serious struggle to overcome their various inbuilt biases that lead them away from the Truth. Faith and feelings have no connection at all with the Truth. The senses are true only to the extent that the phenomenal world is true, but we know that all phenomena are in fact underpinned by the noumenal reality of mathematics, based on the God Equation. Intuition and reason, and nothing else, allow us to explore the intelligible world of ontological mathematics.

The Difference Between Religion and Philosophy Religion attempts to explain the world via supremely powerful beings (as in pagan polytheistic gods), or one all-powerful being (as in Abrahamic monotheism), or an underlying deistic or pantheistic Divine Oneness (as in Eastern religion). Religion is the claim that the world is the result of the design of a conscious and intelligent being (or beings) that has existed forever, or a divine, living force of order that has existed forever. Religion is based on feelings rather than abstract thought. We are typically presented with a simple Mythos of a god or gods in whose image we are made and who control our destiny. (In Buddhism and Hinduism, karma, rather than “God”, takes the role of deciding our destiny.) Since people can emotionally relate to God, gods, or avatars of gods, we find many such people obsessively loving and worshipping their chosen deity. Even karma is worshipped, to the extent that those who believe in it are

constantly preoccupied with it and trying to optimise themselves karmically. Philosophy attempts to explain the world without recourse to conscious, intelligent beings or “moral” (religious) forces such as karma. Instead, an appeal is made to abstract, impersonal, amoral, universal forces such as nous, logos, reason, mathematics, or scientific law. A religion such as Buddhism is interesting because it’s as much a philosophy as a religion, and it’s for this reason that it has attracted many people who do not find conventional religion credible. Scientific materialism is an expression of philosophy, but tied to a specific method (the scientific method), which makes it impossible for it to consider anything that cannot be addressed by that method. The scientific method is science’s greatest strength and its greatest weakness. It furnishes us with useful, practical information about the sensory world, but it gives us zero information and knowledge of the allimportant, non-sensory, intelligible world, and it even goes as far as to assert that this immaterial world does not exist at all. This constitutes an intellectual catastrophe of unparalleled proportions. Scientific materialism has become a great, almost impenetrable barrier, to the Truth. Many people have simply stopped trying to think beyond it. Their horizons have shrunk only to what is observable. They can’t see beyond their own noses.

Rationalism Parmenides said that any cosmology must be rational. He had contempt for the senses and regarded them as showing us nothing but illusion. He was the first out-and-out metaphysician. Anaximander was metaphysical to a degree, but believed in a real world originating from the hidden metaphysical reality. Parmenides, on the other hand, didn’t accept the world we encounter as real at all. It was, for him, a complete fiction and fantasy that hid Truth from us. For Parmenides, metaphysical entities cannot be created, destroyed or undergo any change. This idea gripped Plato and was reflected in his domain of perfect, eternal, immutable Forms: an expression of pure Parmenideanism. Plato’s philosophy involves an intellectual world derived from Parmenides (nothing changes) and a sensible world derived from Heraclitus (everything changes).

In Illuminism, the laws of mathematics never change but the “things” of mathematics (the living monadic minds that encode the laws of mathematics) are always changing, always moving and can never stop. The other key influence on Plato was Pythagoras with his beautiful, awe-inspiring concept of a rational, mathematical universe. Where Plato was a rationalist, Aristotle, his star pupil, was an effective empiricist. Aristotle’s philosophy can be seen as a rejection of Parmenides and Pythagoras and a modification of the remainder of Plato’s philosophy by way of Anaxagoras and, especially, his concept of cosmic Nous, which Aristotle turned into his Prime Mover, his God of Reason. Aristotle certainly wasn’t an empiricist in modern scientific terms (since he was perfectly willing to appeal to metaphysics), but he was vastly more interested in the observable world than Plato. He regarded the sensible world as “real”, whereas Plato tended to regard it as illusory.

The Three Principles Anaxagoras recognised three key metaphysical principles: 1) No Becoming or Passing-Away. 2) No Smallest or Largest. 3) Everything is in Everything. We could say that the first is the principle of the Conservation of Energy. The second is about the mathematics of infinitesimals and infinity, of calculus. The third can be equated to the Holographic Principle. “No Becoming or Passing-Away” was also a principle vital to Parmenides who used it to argue that it ruled out change entirely. Creation is about “what-is” coming from “what-is-not” (i.e. getting something from nothing) while Destruction is about “what-is” giving rise to “what-is-not” (i.e. getting nothing from something). If, in fact, something cannot come into being from nothing then there can be no “becoming”. Equally, if something can’t vanish then there’s no “passing away”. Without becoming or passing away, where is there any mechanism for change? Hence, Parmenides concluded, change is an illusion. What Parmenides failed to consider was the concept of a continuously changing but eternal mathematical function with mathematical causality

permanently built into it. A dynamic mathematical function (most especially the cosmic wavefunction that describes everything) does nothing but change. It’s always transforming itself. It’s an eternal becoming and is never at any time a static “being”, yet the law that defines it (the God Equation) is immutable and immortal. Ontological mathematics reflects a principle of “Always Becoming”. “Something” is continuously passing away from its previous state and becoming a new state. “Something” is always arising from its prior causal state and preceding its next causal state. While Parmenides was the great adherent of no change, Heraclitus was the great champion of permanent change. Although Heraclitus seems to be the outright victor, reality actually accords victory to both. There are things that never change. They are the laws of mathematics (and finally just one law: the God Equation). The things (mathematical monads) ruled by those laws (or single law) are however permanently changing. The laws of ontological mathematics are inherently laws that mandate permanent motion, while they themselves are not in motion (they never change). Parmenides said that what-is “is without start or stop”. He took this to signify a permanent, unchanging state. In fact, it’s the opposite: a permanently changing state that never started and can never stop. Because humans are temporal beings, we are used to thinking of things starting in time. However, primary reality is outside space and time. Things are always moving but they are not starting and stopping in time. You have two choices. Either Parmenides is right and real change does not exist and is an inexplicable illusion, or Heraclitus is right and change is permanent, ruled by a fixed Logos (which we shall call the eternal laws of mathematics). As for Anaxagoras, he explained apparent generation and destruction through the mixture and separation of basic ingredients, i.e. we have eternal things that move around all the time, sometimes combining, sometimes breaking apart. The Atomists later expressed a similar view. Anaxagoras declared, “The Greeks do not think correctly about comingto-be and passing-away; for no thing comes to be or passes away, but is mixed together and dissociated from the things that are. And thus they would be correct to call coming-to-be being mixed together and passingaway being dissociated.” What appears, to perception, to be creation of the

new, or destruction of the old, is nothing of the kind, just the rearrangement of the existing. We are told that things are born, grow, and then die. In fact, nothing is born and nothing dies. There is simply transformation and metamorphosis. Everything that truly exists has always existed and always will exist. These existents become mixed in different ways (in mathematical terms, functions interact with other functions in different ways). The real existents are always present, but they are present in mixtures, environments, and contexts that are always changing. When a body dies, we assume that something has vanished. In fact, what has disappeared is a particular mixture of ingredients and how that mixture was expressed, but all of the ingredients are still present, ready to be expressed anew in different contexts. Critically, the monadic soul outside space and time is still present. The death of its associated physical body means that it has temporarily stopped mixing with the material world of space and time, but a new “mixture” (of body and soul) – a “rebirth” – will be brought about by reincarnation. For those who understand reincarnation, there’s simply no such phenomenon as death. Like a snake, the soul discards its skin (body) and then gets a new covering (a new body). So-called “death” marks the shedding of the current skin but not the shedding of life. Life is continuous and there’s no point at which life has in any way ceased. Bodies cease, not souls. Science, which believes only in bodies, assumes that bodily death means irrevocable death. That’s wholly false. Things in the physical world are forever coming together (mixing) and then separating. Because countless different mixtures and combinations are possible, a myriad of new perceptible things are always making their appearance in the phenomenal world. It’s vital to understand that they are new mixtures of old ingredients. They are not brand new things with no past history and no evolutionary trajectory. They are not unprecedented. Nothing comes from nothing. Mixtures may well have fascinating new properties, but such properties do not “emerge” from nothing and nowhere. They were always implicit in their ingredients. That’s why it’s deranged to say, as science does, that lifeless and mindless physical atoms can mix together to produce living bodies with mind and consciousness. If life and mind do not exist in the

ingredients, they cannot exist in the mixture of ingredients either. What could be more obvious? In Illuminism, the basic atoms (monads) are not physical but mental. Monads are living minds (souls) and “physical” things are their mental constructs, which have no conceivable existence independent of minds. So, with Illuminism, you have living, mental atoms as the primary ingredients of existence. Life and mind are therefore inherent in existence. The problem here is to explain non-life and non-mind. That’s accomplished mathematically. A thought isn’t alive: it’s a mathematical output of a living mind. Similarly, so-called physical objects are mathematical outputs of minds (of the Monadic Collective, in fact). The fact that sensory objects are constructed from mind is most self-evident in our dreams where we construct all manner of things with nothing but our minds, things that look exactly like the objects of the so-called material world. The material world is just the product of a collective rather than individual dream. With science, lifeless, mindless atoms are the basic, primary ingredients of our world (although since atoms have to be created by the Big Bang, they are self-evidently not primary at all!). The problem for science, then, is to explain mind and life, and it has failed to do so. It can’t explain mind, life, consciousness, dreams or free will. In other words, it can’t explain any of the big questions of our existence. It’s 100% useless when it comes to accounting for how existence is possible in the first place. It tells us about the “hows” of physical processes, but never tells us the “whys” of anything. It’s inherently devoid of purpose and meaning, hence is a form of nihilism. For Anaxagoras, the basic ingredients are more real than the objects they comprise. The ingredients are the “things-that-are” and from them come the “things-that-are-made”. Made things have less reality than their ingredients. They can perish while their ingredients can’t. They are temporal and ephemeral but their ingredients are eternal. Made things can be created and destroyed but not the unmade things from which they are constituted. Mathematically, made things have no autonomous metaphysical status. All made things are phenomenal and all unmade things are noumenal. All made things are sensible and all unmade things are intelligible. All made things are material and all unmade things are mental. The Big Bang was when the mental gave rise to the physical. Made things – material objects – are the products of all the minds in the universe. They can be called the collective thoughts of the Mind Collective. They

seem “solid” because no individual mind is powerful enough to change them. Only a God would be able to change them. Science has elevated the “made” (phenomena) above “what things are made from” (noumena). It has made contingent mixtures, rather than necessary ingredients, the primary reality. It absolutely refuses to justify its position intellectually and rationally, but simply invokes its “method”, as though it were some kind of infallible God.

Nous (Mind) “All things have existed from the beginning. But originally they existed in infinitesimally small fragments of themselves, endless in number and inextricably combined. All things existed in this mass, but in a confused and indistinguishable form. There were the seeds (spermata) or miniatures of wheat and flesh and gold in the primitive mixture; but these parts, of like nature with their wholes (the homoiomereiai of Aristotle), had to be eliminated from the complex mass before they could receive a definite name and character. “Mind arranged the segregation of like from unlike. This peculiar thing, called Mind (Nous), was no less illimitable than the chaotic mass, but, unlike the logos of Heraclitus, it stood pure and independent, a thing of finer texture, alike in all its manifestations and everywhere the same. This subtle agent, possessed of all knowledge and power, is especially seen ruling in all the forms of life. “Mind causes motion. It rotated the primitive mixture, starting in one corner or point, and gradually extended until it gave distinctness and reality to the aggregates of like parts, working something like a centrifuge, and eventually creating the known cosmos. But even after it had done its best, the original intermixture of things was not wholly overcome. No one thing in the world is ever abruptly separated, as by the blow of an axe, from the rest of things.” – Wikipedia

Everything in Everything “All things were together.” – Anaxagoras “In everything there is a share of everything.” – Anaxagoras

Anaxagoras claimed that “all things were together” in the original cosmic mixture, and indeed that everything is in everything at all times. Where all things were originally uniformly mixed, now some things are more concentrated in some places, and other things more concentrated in other places. However, no matter where you are, you will always be able to find every conceivable ingredient, although they may be in minute concentrations. This has critical consequences for whether or not Anaxagoras believed that the basic units were tiny particles. In fact, he didn’t have particles in mind at all. A particle (e.g. atom) would necessarily be the smallest amount of some type of ingredient, and it would necessarily occupy its own space, unmixed with anything else. Anaxagoras rules this out for two reasons: 1) the No Smallest or Largest principle prohibits anything from having a minimum size, and 2) the Everything-in-Everything principle means that nothing can be perfectly isolated. Anaxagoras, it seems, was deploying the idea of the infinitesimal. Every basic ingredient is arbitrarily small, without ever reaching zero size. This means that Anaxagoras’s basic ingredients formed a kind of universal mathematical fluid. No matter what portion of the fluid you looked at, and no matter how much you attempted to separate the ingredients, you would be sure to find infinitesimal traces of everything. No process could ever perfectly separate everything from everything else. (In a way, Anaxagoras was anticipating the modern quantum mechanical wavefunction which is everywhere, and from which everything comes.) This mathematical mixture, via the operations of the mind, can have extra concentrations of some ingredients in some places and therefore smaller concentrations of those ingredients elsewhere because the total amount of the ingredient is always conserved. Everything is in this mathematical mixture, including hot and cold, sweetness and bitterness, all the different colours, hardness and softness, and so on. Thanks to the rotational operations of Nous (Mind), a smooth and uniform mixture of ingredients is converted into an unsmooth and nonuniform mixture, with every different region containing everything, yet in different concentrations. Anaxagoras in effect took Anaximander’s apeiron (the infinite, the unbounded and indeterminate) and tried to make its properties a bit mathematically clearer.

The Atomists couldn’t make much sense of Anaxagoras’s unbounded conception of ingredients (these ingredients had no minimum size), so bound them by turning all basic ingredients into indivisible, contained particles (atoms) with a minimum size. Anaxagoras’s “atoms” are neither the dimensionless point-monads of Pythagoras (and Leibniz), nor the finite, dimensional monads of the Atomists. They are an intermediate species: undefined infinitesimals. As ever, the pre-Socratics thought of every possibility!

No Smallest or Largest Since there’s no lower limit on the density of any ingredient, no ingredient can be completely removed from any region of the cosmic mixture, despite the best efforts of Nous. Anaxagoras said, “Nor of the small is there a smallest, but always a smaller (for what-is cannot not be) – but also of the large there is always a larger. And [the large] is equal to the small in extent, but in relation to itself each thing is both large and small.” The “no smallest” principle goes hand in hand with the “Everything-inEverything” principle. If a smallest amount of any ingredient were possible, we could in principle, through separation, isolate that ingredient in one particular place, and nothing else would be present, and the “everything in everything” principle would thus be refuted. At that specific point, it would be impossible to explain how anything else could ever come to be. Only that particular thing could exist there and that would be true forever (“for whatis cannot not be”). In other words, we would slip into the static universe of Parmenides where nothing can ever change. Anaxagoras’ mathematical fluid was the answer to this problem. At any point, a trace of every ingredient was always present and each could have its concentration increased or decreased by the ordering actions of Nous. Movement, change and dynamism were thus all saved from the logical grip of Parmenides’ ingenious arguments. In the world of Anaxagoras, coming-to-be in terms of emergence from a prior state of all existents is possible, but not where all existents are not present. Anaxagoras denied that there’s any lower limit on smallness. He applied a notion of infinitely variable density, rather than some limit of density

based on well-defined particles. A particle can have low density in a particular area of a mixture in comparison with all the other ingredients present there. Equally, we can keep increasing its density (by withdrawing it from other places in order to be concentrated “here”), with no upper limit. We can in fact make its density as large we like. This is staggeringly similar to the claims of quantum mechanics. A modern “particle” (which is no longer a well-defined classical entity, with definite size, position and momentum) has a non-zero probability of being found anywhere (it has no absolutely zero “density” anywhere), yet, after wavefunction collapse, is located at a precise location. We could easily treat Anaxagoras’ system mathematically, and as a direct precursor of quantum mechanics.

Submergence and Emergence Anaxagoras produced a theory of “submergence and emergence”, but one that’s vastly superior to that of scientific materialism. At any location, all fundamental ingredients are present. If one ingredient massively preponderates, the others are “submerged” in relation to it. However, any of the submerged ingredients can have its concentration increased and thus “emerge” and become predominant. Here we have an emergence theory based on all potentially emergent things already being present, hence they are not emerging out of “nothing”. Scientific “emergence”, on the other hand, claims that unprecedented features such as life, mind, consciousness or free will can emerge by bringing together nothing but lifeless, mindless atoms with no free will or any possibility of consciousness. Anaxagoras’ emergence involves no magic; scientific emergence involves nothing but magic. In so many ways, scientific materialism is childishly simplistic in relation to pre-Socratic philosophy and represents an intellectual step backwards rather than forwards. “Magic” (i.e. things that are rationally impossible) is present throughout scientific materialism, especially with regard to emergence. The pre-Socratics would rightly have mocked the claims of science. They would have been staggered that people could believe such things. Despite its flaws, ancient Greek Atomism is rationally superior to modern Atomism. That’s a fact.

Every would-be scientist ought to be given a compulsory course on preSocratic philosophy before embarking on science. It would teach them how to think properly about what they are doing, and to see the endless rational errors present in the ideology and dogmatism of scientific materialism.

In the Beginning “All things were together, unlimited both in amount and in smallness, for the small, too, was unlimited. And because all things were together, nothing was evident on account of smallness; for air and aether covered all things, both being unlimited, for these are the greatest among all things both in amount and in largeness.” – Anaxagoras “But before these things separated off, when [or, since] all things were together, not even any colour was manifest, for the mixture of all things prevented it – the wet and the dry, the hot and the cold, the bright and the dark, there being also much earth in the mixture and seeds unlimited in amount, in no way like one another. For none of the other things are alike either, the one to the other. Since this is so, it is necessary to suppose that all things were in the whole.” – Anaxagoras “The things in the single cosmos are not separate from one another, nor are they split apart with an axe, either the hot from the cold or the cold from the hot.” – Anaxagoras In the beginning, for Anaxagoras, the cosmos was a static, undifferentiated and unlimited mixture of all the ingredients (apart from a preponderance of air and aether). It was effectively the apeiron of Anaximander. All is with all. Everything is in everything. Everything is eternally present (nothing comes into being and nothing passes away). We might call this the state prior to the Big Bang. The Big Bang happens when the cosmic mind (Nous) introduces motion and starts rotating the mathematical mixture of everything, thus changing the relative densities of everything. It operates like a cosmic centrifuge. Nous is the Prime Mover, the source of motion. Again, Anaxagoras’ system is much more logical than that of scientific materialism where the Big Bang involves something springing from absolute nothingness (non-existence) through some magical, and highly convenient, “random fluctuation” (of what and in what?). The Greeks

would have laughed at this every bit as much as at the Creation theory of Abrahamism (which it strongly resembles in the degree of magic and irrationality involved). The primordial mass includes everything that will appear in our world. All ingredients are present and correct. Nothing emerges from nowhere without any precedent (as science claims). All qualities and quantities are present. Hot and cold, smells, textures, tastes, colours, sounds ... all are present. Nothing can be added to or subtracted from this mixture. It’s eternally all that is or ever can be. It’s the ultimate storehouse of stuff. All we can do with it is continually rearrange and reorder it. Nous – the cosmic mind – is the eternal deviser of new patterns, of new ways of organising the basic ingredients. Air (dark, moist stuff) and aether (bright, fiery stuff) constitute the dominant ingredients of the mixture, meaning that the original mixture would have seemed like a dense bright cloud – much as scientists envisage the universe after the Big Bang, before matter has condensed out. We could call this cloud a fluid (a kind of water or gas), or use the resonant term Chaos. Nous – effectively God – is what brings order to the Chaos. The primordial mass forms a plenum. There are no gaps, no possibility of nothingness or non-existence. Aristotle referred to the basic ingredients of Anaxagoras’s system as homoeomeries (“with like parts”), implying that they were homogeneous all the way through, just as a bar of pure gold is. However, given Anaxagoras’ key principle of everything in everything, Aristotle may have muddied the waters by using this term. You can in fact never get a pure anything in Anaxagoras’ system since it will always contain every other ingredient too. Perhaps Aristotle meant that no matter which material you looked at (in Anaxagoras’s view), it would always contain exactly the same ingredients, albeit in different concentrations. So, a bar of pure gold would be no different from a grain of sand insofar as both would contain all of the same ingredients (they would have “like parts”). The respective materials would nevertheless be different because the same ingredients were present in significantly different proportions. A possible way to understand Anaxagoras’s position is to infer that he was saying that everything exists everywhere at all times as potentiality, but some things can be made actual at some places, but the other things are still there “virtually”. This is a mathematical rather than physical conception of

reality and is very much about potentialities and actualities – exactly as with the quantum mechanical wavefunction (potentiality) and wavefunction collapse (actuality). It’s staggering how far ahead of his time Anaxagoras was, and indeed all of the pre-Socratics. If you put together the respective systems of Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras and the Atomists, you have more or less got the answer to everything. Add in the systems of Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics and Neoplatonists and you are even closer. Leibniz, the last philosopher who truly understood and appreciated classical and medieval thinking, was the genius who really put it all together. Descartes, the first modern philosopher, was in a sense too modern. He got rid of too many of the insights of the past. Leibniz was determined to retain those ancient insights and his system is thus the culmination of what went before rather than a complete departure from it. Leibniz was the last of the ancients rather than the first of the moderns, a figure of continuity rather than revolution. Descartes unintentionally gave rise to the catastrophe of scientific materialism, a subject that despised philosophy, metaphysics and the wisdom of the ancients. Leibniz preserved all of that and knew that the glue that held it all together was mathematics, not science.

Mr Mind Anaxagoras was nicknamed “Mr. Mind” since he was the first to put the mind at the heart of the cosmos and reality, to make it the controlling element. Nous, for Anaxagoras, was the only thing separate from the primordial mass of basic elements, although it’s not clear how he could rationally justify this stance since he conceived of Nous as a material entity, hence it belonged to the same basic category as everything else. Had he made Nous immaterial, it would have belonged to a different and unique category (but he would then have confronted the problem that later faced Descartes of how interaction can occur in a dualistic system involving two distinct categories of existence). Socrates, Plato and Aristotle all admired Anaxagoras’ work, and were inspired by his concept of Nous, but they all believed he hadn’t done

enough with it. They helped to develop the concept of Nous and make it enormously more powerful. For Anaxagoras, the principle of Everything-in-Everything applied to everything other than Nous, but he provided no sufficient reason why Nous should be excluded. He said, “In everything there is a share of everything except nous, but there are some things in which nous, too, is present.” Obviously, those things in which nous is present are the living things. Nous is absent from the non-living. Nous is therefore associated with the principle of life, with the animating soul. In essence, Anaxagoras needed to appeal to something outside the primordial mass in order to control the mass, and thus he invoked nous. If it were just another ingredient like the rest, it could not rule over all the other ingredients. Yet Anaxagoras failed to explain how and why it was so different from everything else. He said, “The other things have a share of everything, but nous is unlimited and self-ruling and has been mixed with no thing, but is alone itself by itself. For if it were not by itself, but had been mixed with anything else, then it would partake of all things, if it had been mixed with anything (for there is a share of everything in everything just as I have said before); and the things mixed together with it would thwart it, so that it would control none of the things in the way that it in fact does, being alone by itself. For it is the finest of all things and the purest, and indeed it maintains all discernment about everything and has the greatest strength.” Nous, therefore, is the first cause and prime mover. It creates and preserves order in the cosmos. It is, in short, a non-conscious God, hence a wholly different type of God from that of religion. Anaxagoras was thus accused of atheism! His Nous is not teleological and is not committed to perfecting the universe. In this respect, Anaxagoras adopts a view rather like that of the scientific materialists. Things are the way they are purely because that’s the way things unfolded since Nous first set everything in motion (via a Big Bang rotational event), and as it continued to move them afterwards, with no final purpose in mind. Anaxagoras’s “God” does not create anything; it simply brings order to existing things. Just as we control our bodies with our thoughts, so the primordial mass is the body of Nous, and is controlled by the Nous’s thoughts.

Just as our mind is, in some sense, the god inside us, so the Nous is the mind, the God, of the whole cosmos. Our individual minds connect us to the cosmic mind. Anaxagoras said, “And nous discerned them all: the things that are being mixed together, the things that are being separated off, and the things that are being dissociated. And whatever sorts of things were going to be, and whatever sorts were and now are not, and as many as are now and whatever sorts will be, all these nous set in order.” Anaxagoras made an explicit link between mind and soul when he said, “Nous has control over all things that have soul, both the larger and the smaller.” Yet nous is not the same as soul (psyche). We see this distinction becoming very clear in Neoplatonism where there is a cosmic Nous as the first emanation of the “One”, and the cosmic Psyche (Soul) is the first emanation of Nous. For Anaxagoras, the cosmic mind controls the cosmic body, and individual minds (including souls) control individual bodies. As above, so below. Anaxagoras’s Nous is the purest and finest of all things, but not yet immaterial. It’s with Plato that immaterial existence is first explicitly invoked (although it was implicit in Pythagoreanism). Anaxagoras was certainly edging in that direction, but didn’t go all the way, even though it was where his logic was pointing. Only a non-corporeal entity can pervade and control a body (or the whole cosmos for that matter) without being materially part of it. All nous is alike, i.e. the cosmic Nous and the nous in us share the same nature – meaning that we are all connected to the Cosmic Mind. We all contain the divine spark. We are all linked to God. For Anaxagoras, no ingredient is ever fully separated from any other, except for Nous, which is not an ingredient but the controller of ingredients. Anaxagoras should therefore have assigned it to a different category of existence.

The Anaxagorean Cosmos “The earth [according to Anaxagoras] is flat in shape. It stays up because of its size, because there is no void, and because the air, which is very resistant, supports the earth, which rests on it. Now we turn to the liquids on

the earth: The sea existed all along, but the water in it became the way it is because it suffered evaporation, and it is also added to from the rivers which flow into it. Rivers originate from rains and also from subterranean water; for the earth is hollow and has water in its hollows. The Nile rises in the summer because water is carried down into it from the snow in the north. The sun, the moon, and all the heavenly bodies are red-hot stones which have been snatched up by the rotation of the aether. Below the heavenly bodies there exist certain bodies which revolve along with the sun and the moon and are invisible [MH: meteorites that fall to the Earth, frequently unseen]… The moon is below the sun, closer to us. The sun is larger than the Peloponnesus. The moon does not shine with its own light, but receives its light from the sun… Eclipses of the moon occur when the earth cuts off the light, and sometimes when the bodies below the moon cut off the light. Eclipses of the sun take place at new moon, when the moon cuts off the light… Anaxagoras was the first to describe the circumstances under which eclipses occur and the way light is reflected by the moon. He said that the moon is made of earth and has plains and gullies on it. The Milky Way is the light of those stars which are not lit up by the sun.” – Hippolytus Anaxagoras maintained that the Earth was flat and rested on air (air takes the place of “space” in this view). The Earth was stationary, he said, and didn’t spin. He believed in the existence of other worlds in other solar systems, also populated by humans: “Since these things are so, it is right to think that there are many different things present in everything that is being combined, and seeds of all things, having all sorts of forms, colours, and flavours, and that humans and also the other animals were compounded, as many as have soul. Also that there are cities that have been constructed by humans and works made, just as with us, and that there are a sun and a moon and other heavenly bodies for them, just as with us, and the earth grows many different things for them, the most valuable of which they gather together into their household and use. I have said this about the separation off, because there would be separation off not only for us but also elsewhere.” This aspect of Anaxagoras’ thinking was so shocking that no one else directly commented on it.

*****

For Anaxagoras, mind is everywhere, controlling everything. It enters fully into some things (the living) while not entering fully into the non-living, yet controlling them. With the living, the mind is “local” while with the nonliving it’s non-local (remote).

***** The name Anaxagoras means lord of the assembly.

Cosmogony Anaxagoras posits two eternal principles that give rise to the universe of our experience: 1) Nous (Mind). 2) The Primeval Mixture (Migma). Motion, originating with Nous, causes change in the otherwise static primeval mixture: mind acts on matter. Motion causes matter to separate.

The Primordial Mass According to Anaxagoras, there was originally one infinite, inert whole in which all things were so thoroughly blended that it constituted a formless, homogeneous mass. He wrote, “All things were together, infinite both in number and in smallness; for the small too was infinite. And, when all things were together, none of them could be distinguished for their smallness.” Anaxagoras was first to make the mind the motive force of the universe. Mind is what is active, while matter is passive, static and inert. When he said, “All things were together; then came Nous and set them in order”, he thereby placed mind above matter. He himself acquired the nickname Nous (“The Mind” or “Mr Mind”). Several things can be affirmed about Nous: 1) It is not part of the original mixture, unlike the seeds of all other things; it is only itself, containing nothing but itself.

2) It is infinite and self-ruled, meaning that it is self-caused, having a power of volition. 3) It is omniscient and has the greatest strength, having power over all things. 4) It began the revolution of the original mass. 5) It is the thinnest and the purest of all things. Because he conceives Nous in material terms, however, Anaxagoras falls short of positing mind as an incorporeal or spiritual arche.

***** In Illuminism, Nous is formally immaterial and dimensionless (it’s mental, not physical) and is split into myriad individual minds. Either there are infinite minds or there’s an ontological highest possible number, beyond which we simply return to the beginning and start again (i.e. numbers are circular, so to speak), and the total number of monads is this highest possible number (which is no doubt so large that we could loosely refer to it as “infinity” anyway). So, Anaxagoras’s Nous becomes Leibniz’s infinite monadic minds. Each mind is a unit of ontological mathematics: a living, unconscious mind that can evolve consciousness (self-reflectiveness, self-awareness, the capacity to ponder oneself and say, “I am this and I am that, and I am not this and not that”). A monad is a self-contained, uncaused, uncreated, independent, autonomous, immortal, indestructible system. It has no separable parts, but it does have contents. These are fully interlocked and indispensable to each other. The whole things fits together as an absolute, unbreakable unity. It’s a 100% mathematical entity and its contents are best described as dimensionless waves – which we label as “frequencies”. Each monad is a mathematical singularity and self-contained frequency domain. By virtue of Fourier mathematics, each frequency domain can create its own spacetime domain – and this is our private, subjective dreamworld that we can change with our own thoughts at our whim. However, it’s also possible for all of the singularity frequency domains to act collectively and create a public, objective, “real” world that we cannot change with our own thoughts since

we are resisted by the rest of the universe. This is the domain of spacetime, of the material world, that our monadic souls enter (at birth) and depart (at death) via physical bodies. Through reincarnation, we keep acquiring new bodies. Resurrection is impossible. Each monad, being a living, teleological mathematical entity has only one purpose – to solve itself, and this amounts to optimising itself. Life is all about the striving of every soul to become the best and most powerful it can be. This process takes place dialectically. The physical world is a mental mathematical illusion, entirely attributable to Fourier mathematics. There are no authentic physical objects: no autonomous particles, no “atoms”.

Homoeomereity Homoeomereity: “uniformity”, “like-partedness”, “with like parts”. “Originally, before nous moved the first particle of matter, there was a complete mixture which was composed of infinitely small components of things. Each of these was a homoeomery, the small parts being the same as the large whole. For example, a tooth is made of small teeth. This is the result of the thought that like must come from like. After the movement began, individual objects became separated from this mixture when like combined with like. When one substance finally predominated, the accumulation became a particular thing. This process is called ‘coming to be’ or ‘becoming.’” – Wikipedia “The problem to be faced by anyone who wishes to reconstruct the philosophy of Anaxagoras has been stated concisely by Cornford. Anaxagoras’ philosophy seems to rest on two contradictory principles, the principle of homoeomereity and the principle of everything in everything. “Burnet and Cornford attempted to solve the problem by arguing that all things in all meant that every seed contained a portion of every opposite. Vlastos argued that every seed has all the qualities, and that the ratio of the qualities in each seed accounts for the peculiar nature of the seed. Every entity contains all the seeds. The theory is attractive because it satisfactorily accounts for the homogeneity of an entity which can at the same time contain every other entity. More recently, Raven postulated an infinite

number of spermata or homoeomeries each containing a portion of everything. “There are several points, however, at which the interpretation of Anaxagoras’ philosophy stated by these scholars can be questioned. There is no evidence regarding the composition of the seed in the ancient sources, and the words ‘everything in everything’ seem to have meant that every entity was in every other entity. I believe that the phrase ‘everything in everything’ can be interpreted by Anaxagoras’ doctrine that there was not a smallest.” – Margaret E. Reesor “The theory of Anaxagoras that the principles are infinite in multitude was probably due to his acceptance of the common opinion of the [preSocratics] that nothing comes into being from not-being. For this is the reason why they use the phrase ‘all things were together’. ... The one, they reasoned, must have already existed in the other; for since everything that comes into being must arise either from what is or from what is not, and it is impossible for it to arise from what is not (on this point all the [preSocratics] agree), they thought that the truth of the alternative necessarily followed, namely that things come into being out of existent things, i.e. out of things already present, but imperceptible to our senses because of the smallness of their bulk. So they assert that everything has been mixed in everything, because they saw everything arising out of everything. But things, as they say, appear different from one another and receive different names according to the nature of the particles which are numerically predominant among the innumerable constituents of the mixture. For nothing, they say, is purely and entirely white or black or sweet, bone or flesh, but the nature of a thing is held to be that of which it contains the most.” – Aristotle “Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, son of Hegesiboulos, held that the first principles of things were the homoeomeries. For it seemed to him quite impossible that anything should come into being from the non-existent or be dissolved into it. Anyhow we take in nourishment which is simple and homogeneous, such as bread or water, and by this are nourished hair, veins, arteries, flesh, sinews, bones and all the other parts of the body. Which being so, we must agree that everything that exists is in the nourishment we take in, and that everything derives its growth from things that exist. There must be in that nourishment some parts that are productive of blood, some

of sinews, some of bones, and so on-parts which reason alone can apprehend. For there is no need to refer the fact that bread and water produce all these things to sense-perception; rather, there are in bread and water parts which only reason can apprehend.” – Aetius of Antioch The most difficult part of Anaxagoras’s system involves the concept of homoeomereity. It has been pointed out by several commentators that Anaxagoras’s theory of matter rests on a flat contradiction. The principle of homoeomereity seems to assert that a natural substance such as gold consists solely of gold parts which are like the gold whole and like one another: each one of them gold and nothing else. However, the principle of everything-in-everything states, “There is a portion of everything in everything.” This means that a piece of gold, instead of containing nothing but gold, actually contains portions of every other substance in the world. Moreover, the principle of “No Smallest or Largest” means that we can’t even define what a particle might be, and any hypothetical particle is inconsistent with everything being in everything. Is there a way in which Anaxagoras can, without contradiction, maintain that every part of a bar of gold is itself gold and, even so, every piece of gold contains portions of all the other stuffs, which are not gold? “Homoeomerous” was in fact a word that Aristotle used to describe Anaxagoras’s proposal, but it’s not known whether Anaxagoras himself used that term. It’s not obvious how Aristotle supports the concept of homoeomeries. If anything, his analysis seems to point to the opposite: heteroeomeries. Nothing is the same all the way through. Nothing has the same parts. As Anaxagoras himself said, “Everything is in everything”. A gold “particle” is a collection of all elements but with the gold element as the predominant element, which is what gives it its name. So, the functional units of existence are not in fact elemental particles but elemental mixtures where a particular element preponderates. Aristotle’s homoeomeries make sense if they refer to infinitely repeatable and consistent mixtures rather than infinitely repeatable and consistent particles (atoms). For Anaxagoras, matter was composed of “particles” that were irreducible in quality (i.e. they always retained their quintessence) but not indivisible in their local quantity (or size). Perhaps what Aristotle meant by homoeomeries is that all parts of the whole have the same essence and same relative quantities.

Homoeomeries seem to have much in common with the modern idea of the fractal. As Wikipedia says, “Fractals are typically self-similar patterns, where self-similar means they are ‘the same from near as from far’. Fractals may be exactly the same at every scale...” So, we have a distinction between “practical” gold – which is a mixture – and “theoretical gold”, which is a pure, infinitesimal entity. Practical gold is mostly composed of theoretical gold, but everything else is in there too. It’s easy to see how Aristotle might have become confused by these complicated arguments. It’s probably best to conclude that Anaxagoras had in mind an infinite number of infinitesimal elements. In any macroscopic sample, all elements would be present, but one or several would predominate, giving the sample its characteristic features. As for the doctrine of no smallest or largest, Anaxagoras was saying that you could never define or find a smallest particle of anything because an infinitesimal defies such a description. By the same token, any amount of infinitesimals can be put together, with no upper limit. Anaxagoras was effectively a mathematician rather than physicist, using mathematical concepts of infinitesimals and infinity. Aristotle was more of a physicist and hated the idea of infinitesimals and the infinite, hence he did not properly grasp Anaxagoras’s meaning. Anaxagoras was a kind of Leibniz of his day. He did not believe in atoms or particles, so he denied that if you chopped something up over and over again you would ever come to any elemental particle that could not be further divided. Leibniz thought exactly the same thing, but, unlike Anaxagoras, concluded that the only true existents were immaterial, dimensionless “atoms” called monads that could not be divided at all. Anaxagoras proposed infinite divisibility, without ever reaching the Leibnizian limit of indivisible zero. He said, “For of the small there is no smallest, but always a smaller.” This is his principle of Infinite Divisibility. There are no atoms. His system is therefore “bottomless” and cannot be precisely defined. Leibniz, by providing a bottom of zero, was able to ground reality in something. Anaxagoras did not. He could not escape his materialist prejudices even though he had more or less done all of the hard work necessary to reach the same conclusions as Leibniz. He even invoked Nous

– Mind – but did not, according to what is known, define it as immaterial and dimensionless. Since Anaxagoras’s own thoughts have only survived as cryptic, out-ofcontext fragments, it’s impossible to do proper justice to the ingenious scheme they hint at. He may in fact have taken the revolutionary step of saying that mind was dimensionless while all material things were dimensional but infinitesimal. In a way, Leibniz’s system is Anaxagoras’s philosophy taken to its logical conclusion, but with mind coming in infinite units (monads) rather than just one cosmic mind (Nous). Anaxagoras thus stands as one of the greatest geniuses of all time, right alongside Pythagoras. Where Atomists necessarily talk of discrete atoms, particles, or parts, Anaxagoras talks of mixed portions. Gold, for an Atomist, is made of gold atoms. Gold, for Anaxagoras, contains portions of everything, but with the gold element overwhelmingly predominating. Portions need not be discrete parts. No ultimate particles make up gold. For Anaxagoras, there are portions of silver, copper, tin, and everything else, metal or non-metal, in gold.

Ancient Holography With his principle of “everything in everything”, Anaxagoras came close to being the first holographer. The Holographic principle is: The whole is in every part. “Everything is in everything” could be interpreted in exactly the same way, although this wasn’t quite what Anaxagoras had in mind, though he was certainly on that trajectory. As it was, Leibniz was the first to recognise that the whole was in every part, and quantum mechanics, if truth be told, is all about the Holographic principle. Reality is grounded in a collective Singularity, composed of countless individual singularities, each of which contains countless dimensionless waves (“frequencies”). The inherent nature of Singularity mathematics is for the whole to be present in every part given that there are no dimensional things to bring about any separation of components. The Singularity is the base of the cosmic Hologram. The Singularity is a pure frequency domain, and, via the miracle of Fourier mathematics, it

generates the material world of spacetime, in which the Singularity is implicit everywhere.

Geniuses Anaximander and Anaxagoras were both far ahead of their time. The preSocratics in general raised all of the fundamental issues that humanity’s greatest thinkers have been addressing ever since. The only system of thought that has finally resolved their ingenious questions is Illuminism. What’s for sure is that scientific materialism comes nowhere near and represents a body of thought that has actually gone backwards. Few people alive today truly appreciate the scale of the pre-Socratics’ achievements and the extent of their genius. There’s not a single scientific materialist who compares with them or could match their subtlety of thought. Scientists are incapable of answering the pre-Socratics. Isn’t that astounding? 2,500 years later, the pre-Socratics are still right there in the top echelon of humanity’s all-time greatest thinkers. And none was greater than Pythagoras, whose genius was only eclipsed by that of Leibniz. In the modern era, only Gödel has come close to that level of genius.

Anaxagoras and the Quantum Mechanical Wavefunction Anaxagoras conceived of the original state of the universe as a continuum comprising everything. It did not consist of countable, discrete particles or atoms all jostling together but infinite infinitesimals of seed elements (called spermata) in a cosmic mixture. Anaxagoras was proposing something akin to quantum mechanical wavefunction, describing a collective cosmic seed full of potentiality waiting to be actualised. What “collapses the wavefunction”? – nous (mind) does. If any particular seed becomes dominant in a location it creates a thing there reflecting the properties of that seed (and not of the other seeds). The original mixture thus becomes differentiated. Diverse forms, the things of the world, appear. With Anaxagoras, the concept of potentiality versus actuality was implied. Aristotle took up this idea enthusiastically and placed it at the centre of his own philosophy.

The Cosmos The pre-Socratics were broadly panpsychics (believing that mind is everywhere) or hylozoists (believing that matter is alive). Anaxagoras was the first to give mind an unambiguously independent existence, separated from and unmixed with ordinary matter. Mind became the instrument for arranging and ordering otherwise chaotic or inert matter. It was the sole source of motion. Matter was not self-organising and self-ordering, and either contained no motion at all or useless, chaotic motion. Matter by itself could not create a cosmos. In many ways, the Nous of Anaxagoras performs the functions of the laws of scientific materialism. It’s the principle that matter must obey in order to display ordered behaviour. Yet scientific materialism does not associate its laws with mind or anything separate from matter. It fact, it doesn’t explain its scientific laws at all. It doesn’t say where they are, how they came to be, where they exist, or where they were before the Big Bang. The whole issue is avoided by scientists, an evasion that would have appalled the pre-Socratics. Scientists more or less claim that all scientific laws are built into all matter, but they do not explain how this is possible. How can a lump of matter contain intangible laws? Are laws material? If so, we should be able to observe them in their own right and perform experiments on them. If not, they must be immaterial, hence not part of materialism at all. In Illuminism, the only existents are mathematical monads, and each contains the full laws of ontological mathematics directly encoded into them. The monads simply are instances of the God Equation (the generalised Euler Formula). Where Plato and Aristotle separated “matter” and “Form”, in Illuminism “matter” (or, rather “energy”) is Form. They are one and the same thing. Energy-Form is pure mathematics. It’s all about mathematical waves (sines and cosines), and waves can be dimensionless (“frequencies”) or dimensional (“spacetime”), and they are interlinked by Fourier mathematics.

The Importance of Hands! “Anaxagoras indeed asserts that it his possession of hands that makes man the most intelligent of the animals. Surely the reasonable point of view is

that it is because he is the most intelligent that he has got hands. Hands are an instrument; and nature, like a sensible human being, always assigns an organ to the animal that can use it...” – Aristotle

Translation Nous is often translated as “mind”, but since nous is rarely associated with perceiving or feeling, and is often explicitly opposed to these, a better translation is “intelligence” or “reason”. In fact, Heraclitus’ word “Logos” is probably more suitable.

The Cosmic Vortex In Anaxagoras’s system, when Nous operated on the primordial material mass, it produced a cosmic vortex (like a vast whirlpool or tornado), forcing the cosmos (the organised material world) into the centre and leaving chaos everywhere else. “As these things rotated in this way they were separated out by the force and speed. ... After nous initiated motion, it became separated from all that was moved, and all that nous moved was divided. As what was in motion was divided, the rotation considerably increased the process of division.” – Anaxagoras

Non Use “All men have nous [intelligence]. Not all men use it.” – Anaxagoras

Aristotle’s God For Aristotle, God is a living creature and the pinnacle of goodness. Yet, being pure Form, he has no interest in the material world or in the affairs of men. He’s completely transcendent and abstract, and the only activity in which he engages is contemplation of himself – of the state of absolute reason and knowledge, which he himself constitutes. God is the ultimate cause of everything and yet remains completely detached from everything, making him a deist rather than theist God. Where Plato’s God (the Demiurge) directs and orders the processes of nature, Aristotle’s God remains aloof, and yet everything is informed by

him and is in a sense striving to get closer to him or even become him. Aristotle placed much more importance on form than on matter, saying, “It is not enough to state simply the substances out of which [things] are made, as ‘out of fire’ or ‘out of earth’. If we were describing a bed ... we should endeavour to describe the form of it rather than the matter ... because the formal nature is of more fundamental importance than the material nature.” In Illuminism, form and matter (energy) are combined in mathematical waves (sines and cosines). They are inextricably and permanently linked. You cannot have energy (matter) separate from form, or vice versa. This means that existence is a monism and not a dualism. Mind and energy (matter) are absolutely integrated mathematically, and, given that dimensionless existence logically precedes dimensional existence, mental energy must be given priority over its derivative (material energy). Energy is both dimensionless and dimensional. When it’s dimensionless, it’s mental, when dimensional material. Any system – such as scientific materialism – that privileges matter over mind is absurd. The form or essence of the object (its mathematical definition) is what constitutes knowledge. This is always generic (universal) rather than particular. The objective is the universal and the subjective is the particular, i.e. all absolute, objective knowledge concerns general mathematical laws and all subjective knowledge concerns the way mathematical information is subjectively and particularly interpreted by living mathematical entities (monadic souls).

The Right Testicle? “A couple of final speculations that are worth mentioning pertain to the science of biology. It has already been noted that Anaxagoras believes plants to have minds along with animals and humans. What places humans in a higher category of intelligence, however, is the fact that we were equipped with hands, for it is through these unique instruments that we are able to handle and manipulate objects. Finally, Anaxagoras proposed an hypothesis on how the sex of an infant is determined. If the sperm comes from the right testicle it will attach itself to the right side of the womb and the baby will be a male. If the sperm comes from the left testicle it will attach itself to the left side of the womb and the baby will be a female.” –

http://www.iep.utm.edu/anaxagor/

Impiety Famously, Socrates was put on trial by Athens for impiety and corrupting its youth. The charge against him was, “Socrates is an evil-doer and a curious person, searching into things under the earth and above the heaven; and making the worse appear the better cause, and teaching all this to others.” He was found guilty and sentenced to death, and he duly died by sipping hemlock. What is much less well known is that, earlier, in 430 BCE, Anaxagoras was also put on trial for impiety in Athens because his philosophy denied the divinity of the gods. The only divine element in his system was Nous (Mind), which was extremely abstract. He too was sentenced to death, but his sentence was commuted when he chose to go into permanent exile. So, although the Athenians liked culture and thinking, they didn’t like it that much. They didn’t like it when it became too deep and too challenging. Anaxagoras was the first philosopher to make his home in Athens, hence he was a key figure in making Athens the cultural capital it was to become. He was the teacher of the great Athenian leader Pericles. Anaxagoras was a materialist and notorious in his time for his claim that the sun was a ball of fire, stone and metal. He held a belief that while all humans had souls, not all of them had nous (reason, intellect).

In the Beginning Anaxagoras argued that the universe was originally an undifferentiated material mass, but with one material component separate from all the rest. This was Nous (Mind) and it was able to order and control the rest of matter. Anaxagoras was the first thinker in history to attach key importance to the concept of mind, locally and cosmically. (Pythagoreanism was about the soul, and expressed in numbers and geometry. The relationship between soul and mind throughout the history of thought has been a difficult one: sometimes a clear distinction is drawn and sometimes they are used synonymously.)

***** When Anaxagoras said, “There is a portion of everything in everything”, he indicated his belief that there are no pure, isolated substances in the universe. Rather, anything you encounter will have a portion of everything else in it. Nous can separate out substances from the primordial undifferentiated mass, but it cannot do so perfectly. What it achieves is higher concentrations of certain substances in certain circumstances, but does not accomplish absolute purity. So, gold, for example, will comprise mostly the gold element, but will also have everything else present in small concentrations.

The Prime Mover For Anaxagoras, the Nous is the Prime Mover, the source of movement. Matter is stationary. It’s caused to move by Mind. It’s interesting that modern science does not attempt to define what the source of movement is. The First Law of Motion simply says that bodies will move forever at a constant speed in a straight line unless acted upon by a force, which implies that this is true in relation to the past as much as the future, i.e. for anything to be moving at a constant speed in a straight line now, it must also have been doing so infinitely far in the past. This, of course, is wholly incompatible with the Big Bang where nothing was originally moving at all, thus refuting the First Law of Motion! Illuminism, on the other hand, accommodates the First Law effortlessly. Indeed, it’s one of the defining elements of Illuminism. In Illuminism, everything is constantly moving (and always has been), and indeed all things are moving at exactly the same speed: the cosmic speed limit (usually defined as the speed of light). In Illuminism, things can move dimensionlessly as well as dimensionally. Prior to the Big Bang, everything was obeying the equivalent of the First Law of Motion, but outside space and time. The Big Bang produced a material world of space and time. The original dimensionless motion of everything now broke into two dimensional components: a speed through space and a speed through time. By Pythagoras’ Theorem, the square of the speed through space plus the square

of the speed through time equals the square of the dimensionless speed (the hypotenuse). When Illuminism says that everything moves at the same speed, it’s referring to the net hypotenuse speed, not the separate speeds through space and time (which are the inversely coupled constituent speeds of the hypotenuse speed: as speed through space rises, speed through time falls, and vice versa).

Infinite Divisibility For Anaxagoras, his spiritual substance Nous (actually the finest, most rarefied and highest quality mode of matter) is the ordering principle of the world. Objects in the Anaxagorean world differ only in the preponderance of one type of seed element over another, with Nous being responsible for the different degrees of separation. Critically, Anaxagoras claimed that the material world forms a continuum that is infinitely divisible, although it can never reach the limit of zero (dimensionless existence). This poses a catastrophic problem for his understanding of Nous. If everything is infinitely divisible, then there is no material criterion with which Nous (conceived in material terms) can be differentiated from any other type of matter. Only by making mind formally immaterial could it be definitively separated from matter. The Atomists changed Anaxagoras’ scheme to one involving indivisible (rather than infinitely divisible) material atoms. In the Atomist world, “soul atoms” (which are round material atoms) provide mind and life. In materialist terms, Atomism was a more logical expression of Anaxagoras’ theory.

Double Infinity Anaxagoras believed in a double infinity: there are no upper or lower limits in his system. He posited an infinity of mutually irreducible substances.

Motion; Multiplicity Where Parmenides denied the reality of motion, Anaxagoras accepted that motion was genuine. Where Parmenides said that reality was a unity, Anaxagoras said it was an infinite multiplicity. Where Empedocles said there were four elements, Anaxagoras said there were infinite elements.

Where the Atomists said elements (atoms) were indivisible, Anaxagoras said they were infinitely divisible. There’s a separate element for gold, silver, bronze, bones, flesh, cartilage, hair, and so on. For Anaxagoras, everything that exists has always existed (there is no Creation), and can never be annihilated. Science, despite its First Law of Thermodynamics stating that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, has catastrophic problems with ontology. In science, ontology is not formally defined whereas, in Illuminism, ontology is defined with respect to eternal, indestructible monads. There’s nothing in science that’s eternally defined (not even its materialist laws, which could not have existed prior to the existence of any matter!). The material world is said by science to arise from absolute nothingness via some inexplicable Creation event (a “random fluctuation” of a wholly incomprehensible kind since how can randomness exist within total non-existence, within absolute nothingness?). Science is incoherent and irrational. If science can’t explain the Big Bang then it can’t in fact explain anything at all. What it does is present Mythos accounts of processes, but it can have no ultimate Logos value since it cannot account for itself, and it claims that something can come from absolute nothingness – a simple impossibility. In Illuminism, something and nothing are permanently linked mathematically, as we have explained throughout the God Series.

Nous Nous is an ancient Greek philosophical term for mind as intellect. Psyche is an ancient Greek philosophical term for mind as soul. Logos is an ancient Greek philosophical term for mind as reason. In some contexts, nous is regarded as the highest component of the psyche, the part that expresses reason (logos). Homer used nous to describe mental activity in general, but psyche gradually took over this function with nous being increasingly identified with reason and intellect as opposed to anything to do with sense perception. For Anaxagoras, nous was a kind of mechanical ordering force (something like the laws of science embodied in a substance), and it formed

the world out of original chaos. Nous thus acted rather like a God, not creating a universe out of nothing, but making order out of disorder. Nous initiated the development of the cosmos. For Plato, nous was the immortal, rational part of the soul. It was a divine spark, giving us the ability to think like the gods. For Aristotle, nous in each human being became identified with a seed of God himself. In other words, where Plato posited a nous that allowed us to think in a Godlike way, Aristotle said that the nous was actually the presence of God in each of us. Aristotle insisted that nous was the intellect and had nothing to do with sense perception. He additionally divided it into an active and passive component, with the former causing knowledge and the latter being affected by knowledge. The former was the divine element within us, the immortal first cause, responsible for all subsequent causes in the world. The active nous is the rational prime mover within us. Without it, we would be irrational animals. For Aristotle, the Cosmic Nous is God, the Prime Mover, whose only object of thought is itself. It is Nous that thinks itself and only itself. Nothing else is worthy of its thoughts. It’s reason reasoning itself. It’s mathematics solving and optimising itself. The soul (psyche) of a thing is what gives it life, but nous is what gives it reason. Nous is what distinguishes us from the animals: they do not possess it. All living things – plants, animals and humans – have souls, but only humans have nous. Nous is the highest power or faculty of the human soul and is our link to the gods. To the extent that we have nous, we are made in their image. Otherwise, we would simply be beasts. For Aristotle, psyche and nous (soul and intellect) are not the same, and nous can exist separately from the soul. The ordinary soul is perishable while nous (the higher soul) is immortal, meaning that reason is eternal and indestructible. Aristotle said that plants have ‘nutritive’, vegetative souls, but they do not possess will, animation or intellect, i.e. they do not have minds. Animals have the plant soul and then an animal soul that confers will and animation on them. They have a “lower” mind incapable of reason. Humans have a plant and animal soul and then an additional higher mind capable of reasoning. The less able you are to reason, the more animalistic you are. Stupid people are essentially animals and frequently behave like wild dogs.

Faith does not bring you close to God, reason does. Love and feelings are not godly, reason is. Reason alone is divine and defines the gods. For the Stoics, Nous and Logos were essentially the same. They constituted Cosmic Reason. Each of us had a spark or seed of this cosmic reason, linking us to the Cosmic Mind. For Plotinus and the Neoplatonists, Nous was the first emanation of the “One” (the Source of All), and the Psyche was the first emanation of Nous. Nous is closer to God than Soul. For Plotinus (as for Plato), nous is what injects form into shapeless, dead matter (a view that echoes Anaxagoras’ philosophy). Beauty is a function of form and the less nous present in an object, the uglier it is. Creative reason is absolute beauty. Human reason is the highest beauty. The human soul is less beautiful thanks to its connection with the material body. Objects without souls are ugly. For Plotinus, Intellect (Nous) is an independent existent – a substance in its own right – that requires nothing outside of itself for subsistence, although must be brought into existence in the first place as the first emanation of One. Here we see a concept very close to that of the Christian Trinity. In Christianity, God the Son is of the same substance as the Father and yet is begotten of the Father. In Neoplatonism, the Nous is the first emanation of the One (God). However, Christianity bafflingly made the Son of God equal to God the Father whereas Neoplatonism made the Nous subservient to the One. Christianity was forced into its absurd manoeuvre to maintain the charade that it was a monotheism rather than a triadic polytheism. In Neoplatonism, the World Soul (Psyche) is the first emanation of Nous. In Christianity, the Holy Spirit is generated by God the Father via God the Son. Again, Christianity enforces a nonsensical equality between God the Holy Spirit, God the Son and God the Father. Neoplatonism maintains a logical hierarchy. Christianity is effectively Neoplatonism for stupid people, desperate to be monotheistic while employing a non-monotheistic philosophy. In Neoplatonism, the One is ineffable. It does not have a mind itself, hence no possibility of consciousness. The One emanates a World Mind (Nous) which then does two things: 1) it intellectually contemplates the One, and 2) it emanates a World Soul (Psyche). Neither the One nor the Nous has a soul. The Soul is something separate, and it has two tasks: 1) it

contemplates the Nous, and 2) it emanates Nature (the material world of space and time). We cannot think of the One, the Nous and the Psyche as conscious beings, as personalities. The One doesn’t have a mind or soul. The Nous doesn’t have a soul and the Psyche doesn’t have a mind. All three components work in harmony to produce the world we experience. They are more like unconscious cosmic mental forces (or scientific or mathematical laws) than people. Christianity stole the Neoplatonic Trinity of One, Nous and Psyche and made them into conscious persons called God the Father (the One), God the Son (Nous or Logos) and God the Holy Spirit (Psyche). This was an utter perversion of the Neoplatonic system. You cannot personify One, Nous and Psyche. A person has a mind, a soul and a consciousness. Three persons would have three minds, three souls and three consciousnesses. Instead, the monotheistic Christian God, to be meaningful, can only have a single mind (Nous) and a single soul (Psyche), but this is incompatible with three persons in one God. We might refer to the Neoplatonic Trinity as a single entity with three modes. Christianity would make much more sense if it did the same, but instead it chose to talk of three independent yet united “persons”. Any logical understanding of the word “person” implies that each person has a separate, autonomous, soul, mind and will. If three persons share one mind, one soul and one will then they are not three persons. One thing can have three modes or aspects, i.e. the One, Nous and Psyche comprise a single system but are three different components of that system. They are three different modes, not three different persons. The whole of Christianity is predicated on a misunderstanding of the ancient Greek word hypostasis. As Wikipedia says, “In Christian theology, a hypostasis or person is one of the three elements of the Holy Trinity.” Imagine referring to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit as hypostases rather than persons. Automatically, Christianity would be totally different. You can have a relationship and empathy with a person. You can’t with an abstract hypostasis. A person can incarnate on Earth. A hypostasis (Nous or Logos) can’t. In Neoplatonism, it’s impossible for the Nous to directly enter and interact with the world of the Psyche as a thingin-itself (it must do so through the agency of the Psyche). Therefore, there’s no possibility of any incarnation.

Christianity is an intellectual fraud. It’s an irrational distortion of Neoplatonism, based on a misinterpretation of the word hypostasis. A hypostasis is not a person and never could be. What Christianity did was to steal the Trinity of Neoplatonism and then personalise and emotionalise it, while removing all reason and logic from it. Christianity describes the Trinity as a “mystery”. That’s the biggest understatement of all time. The Christian Trinity is incomprehensible. The point of Christianity is to turn a brilliant philosophical system (Neoplatonism), based on reason, introversion and intuition, into a cheap, vulgar, extraverted circus of sensation and emotionalism. Abstract hypostases are turned into “persons” capable of interacting with our world and incarnating on Earth. A system designed for thinking, intuitive introverts has been commandeered by feeling, sensing extraverts, and all the reason and intellectualism sucked from it. Christianity is a perversion and mockery of Neoplatonism. It’s a religion devoid of sense. It was much more popular than Neoplatonism because feeling, sensing extraverts are vastly more numerous than thinking, intuitive introverts. It’s as simple as that. Human society is a product of a numbers game of personality types. There would be no such thing as Christianity if thinking, intuitive introverts were in the overwhelming majority. No Christian has ever been able to defend the concept of the Trinity. Virtually all of the many heresies of early Christianity revolved around the question of the Trinity. We see no such heresies in relation to Islam and Judaism, which are proper monotheisms. The Christian Trinity is now defined by what it is not (all of the various heretical positions) but no one can explain what it actually is. That’s because it’s meaningless. It was stolen from another system that defines it in an entirely different (and rational!) way. Christians are thieves and plagiarists who don’t understand what they have stolen. They pressed the concept of the Trinity into service to support the preposterous notion that Jesus Christ was God (something that he himself never claimed). Once committed to this position, they had to burn and excommunicate every rational person who begged to differ. It wasn’t until the Enlightenment and the French Revolution that the rotten edifice of Christianity began to crumble. It’s now living on borrowed time and won’t

be around in the next century. Only dinosaurs and morons continue to believe in “Christ”.

The Cosmic Storehouse The Nous has been interpreted as the storehouse of all potential beings, i.e. each person is an eternal and unchangeable thought (Form) in the Divine Mind. It is this Form that is used to create the actual person in the physical world. The One might be referred to as the Hidden God and the Nous as the Revealed God. In Neoplatonism, it’s via Nous that we perceive truth, goodness, and divine things and can contemplate God and the secrets of the universe. The exercise of Nous is called noesis. This is sometimes interpreted as meaning that we have “vision”, “intuition”, the ability to see the truth directly, immediately, without any veils.

Nous Versus Logos Nous is sometimes clearly distinguished from Logos and sometimes the two blend into each other (just as mind and soul often do). Where noesis is direct apprehension of truth happening all at once, with tremendous immediacy and vividness, dianoesis (which can be regarded as the process of systematic reasoning) is discursive, proceeding step by step. (Discursive, from the Latin discursus – “a running about” – means proceeding to a conclusion through stepwise reason rather than intuition.) Dianoia concerns reasoning while nous is reason itself. Dianoia involves dianoesis while Nous involves noesis. Dianoesis leads us towards the truth but noeisis is how we actually perceive the truth of an argument or inference. Many people can think about a difficult question, but how many can actually find the answer? Only those with highly developed noesis will succeed. Noesis can be used as a synonym for intuition: the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning. (Intuition has nothing to do with “gut feelings”, which are the emotional counterparts of intuitions but which belong to the emotional rather than intellectual world. “Gut feeling” should never be used as a synonym for intuition.)

Anti-Nous If Apollo can be viewed as the God of Nous and Logos, Dionysus is the opposite: the God of unreason and intoxication. Dionysus can be seen as a monstrous Devil, ruled by Will rather than Reason, exactly like the Abrahamic God (but a lot more fun!).

***** The German word geist is translated into English as mind or spirit, showing that there’s an ambiguity in terms such as mind, soul and spirit. Are they all essentially the same thing, or are there clear differences? Here’s a way forward. Let “soul” (psyche) define the entire mental entity. Let “nous” (mind) reflect the rational, intellectual component of the soul, associated with the search for knowledge. Nous operates according to logos (reason). Nous is the higher soul, the divine part of the soul, so to speak. It’s Apollonian and is connected with introversion, intuition and thinking. Let spirit be the lower part of the soul, concerned with will, desire, feelings and appetite. It’s Dionysian and is connected with sensing, feeling and extraversion. It’s very close to the world of irrational beasts. Apollonian individuals have higher Logos souls while Dionysian individuals have lower Mythos souls. Apollonian individuals are Illuminists and Hyperboreans, devoted to reason. Dionysian individuals are Abrahamists who worship will and power. The Abrahamic God has no interest at all in Logos, which is why none of his unholy texts contain any mathematics, science or philosophy. Abrahamism is wholly dumbed down and is for people who can’t think. All they can grasp are simple stories of power, domination and control. Apollonians are much more highly evolved than Dionysians, to the extent that they have effectively become a different species. They have overcome their bestial ancestry whereas the Dionysians are more animal than human. The Apollonians are Dr Jekylls and the Dionysians are Mr Hydes. The Apollonian is sacred and the Dionysian profane. The Apollonian is good and the Dionysian evil. Rational people are good; stupid, irrational people are evil It’s not faith that determines the status of your soul but intelligence. Intelligent people subscribe to intelligent gods or

no gods and stupid people to stupid, evil gods (such as that of Abrahamism, which is a creature of pure will and no intellect). Eduard von Hartmann said that the unconscious comprises two warring components: Intellect and Will (or Nous and Spirit, as we might say). Intellect is the higher soul and Will the lower. The task of the higher soul is to overcome the lower soul, and it does so through becoming conscious. The purpose of evolution is to produce conscious Intellect and thus defeat our animal selves of pure will and instinct. Even today, most human beings are closer to the animal world than to any human world of reason. It’s reason that separates us from the animals, certainly not will or instinct (which they fully share). The more rational you are, the smarter you are and the more human you are. Stupid people are animals masquerading as humans. Abrahamists are animals that worship the Alpha Male of their wolf pack or their monkey troop.

Hypostasis Hypostasis – that which stands beneath; foundation; basis; underpinning. “The concept of hypostasis as the shared existence of spiritual or corporal entities has been used in a number of religious and intellectual settings. The word hypostasis means underlying state or underlying substance, and is the fundamental reality that supports all else. ... “Neoplatonists argue that behind the surface phenomena that present themselves to our senses are three higher spiritual principles or hypostases, each one more sublime than the preceding. For Plotinus, these are the soul (Psyche), being/intellect (Nous), and the One. ... “Plotinus taught that God existed in Three Hypostases, The One, The Divine Mind and The Word-Soul. “In Christian usage, the Greek word hypostasis means beneath-standing or underpinning and, by extension, the existence of something. It can also mean manifestation. ... “In Early Christian writings it is used to denote ‘being’ or ‘substantive reality’ and is not always distinguished in meaning from ousia ‘essence’ or ‘substance’; it was used in this way by Tatian and Origen, and also in the anathemas appended to the Nicene Creed of 325. ... “It was mainly under the influence of the Cappadocian Fathers that the terminology was clarified and standardized, so that the formula ‘Three

Hypostases in one Ousia’ came to be accepted as an epitome of the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity. This consensus, however, was not achieved without some confusion at first in the minds of ‘Western’ theologians, who had translated hypostasis as ‘substantia’ (substance) and understood the ‘Eastern’ Christians, when speaking of three ‘Hypostases’ in the Godhead, to mean three ‘Substances,’ i.e. they suspected them of Tritheism. From the middle of the fourth century onwards the word came to be contrasted with ousia and used to mean ‘individual reality,’ especially in the Trinitarian and Christological contexts. The Christian view of the Trinity is often described as a view of one God existing in three distinct hypostases/personae/persons. The Latin ‘persona’ is not the same as the English ‘person’ but is a broader term that includes the meaning of the English ‘persona.’” – Wikipedia In Neoplatonism, existence is underpinned by the World Soul (Psyche), the World Mind (Nous) and the World Source (One). These are the three ontological hypostases. They are three parts of one system, each accomplishing a different task. They are not three persons, but, in Christianity, that’s exactly what they were converted into. If we consider the psyche in Freudian psychology, we can gain a much better insight into what Christianity is seeking to accomplish. For Freud, the psyche comprises id, ego and superego. These are not three separate beings or persons but three aspects of the unitary psyche, whose interactions produce our observed behaviour. Christianity is making a much bolder claim. It’s saying that there’s one substance (one psyche, if you will) divided into three independent persons, carrying out different functions. So, “God” (the single God substance) comprises God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. But any sane definition of “person” requires each such person to have an independent nous, independent psyche, independent will, independent agency (i.e. ability to do things through its own initiative, without consultation with anyone else. None of this is true of the Christian Trinitarian conception of “person”. In fact, the true basis of the Christian Trinity is the Neoplatonic Trinity and in these terms God the Father is the Source of existence, God the Son is the Cosmic Mind, and the Holy Spirit is the Cosmic Soul. They are not separate “persons” capable of independent action but separate “hypostases” that work in tandem. But that means that none can be separated from the others (as happens in the Christian doctrine of the “incarnation” of Jesus Christ).

In essence, the whole of Christianity is founded on an inability of theologians to grasp the very real difference between person and hypostasis. Person was a Latin mistranslation of the Greek hypostasis, which was in turn wrongly used by Eastern Christian theologians. The word should not have been translated by Westerners at all, and Easterners should have stuck to a Neoplatonic definition. If all Christians referred to three hypostases within one substance of God, it would be theologically much more robust (Neoplatonic), but lose all its emotional power. People want to think of “Jesus” as a person like them, not as an abstract Nous that is nothing like them. To say that God the Son could incarnate as Jesus Christ is to say that the World Mind (Nous or Logos) that governs the cosmos could become a person on earth. If this were actually possible, the person in question would be the smartest individual in human history by a margin so large as to be effectively infinite. Plainly, Jesus Christ was no intellectual (he was probably as illiterate as Mohammed), no rationalist and certainly no incarnate Cosmic Mind. The Cosmic Mind cannot exist inside one person and nor can it perish (die on a Cross). Nor can it return to a dead body and reanimate it. If Jesus Christ is the Divine Mind and the Holy Spirit is the Divine Soul, this means that when God the Father ordered Abraham to kill Isaac, it was Jesus Christ who gave this order since Jesus Christ functions as the Mind of God. The decision was ratified by the Holy Spirit who functions as the conscience, moral compass and Soul of God. Every reference to Yahweh or Jehovah is in fact a reference to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit working in tandem. They all have joint accountability and responsibility. They can no more act separately than the Freudian id can act without any reference to, and inevitable reaction from, the ego and/or superego. By talking of three “persons”, Christianity made itself a functional tritheism. If it had talked only of hypostases (as in Neoplatonism), it could have presented itself as a genuine monotheism in which God has three modes: as the Source of existence, the Mind of existence and the Soul of existence. But it could then no longer tell silly stories about God the Father in heaven looking down on God the Son on Earth, with God the Holy Spirit hovering around. Yet silly stories (Mythos) is what Christianity is all about and it would perish if it started being rational. Any silly Christian can ask,

“What would Jesus do?” None of them can ask, “What would the Cosmic Reason (Logos) of the Universe do?” Any silly Christian can pray to Jesus. They can’t pray to Cosmic Reason. In the story of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, one substance (Dr Jekyll) is capable of existing in two persons (Dr Jekyll and his alter ego Mr Hyde). However, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde are two different persons who behave entirely distinctly. None of this is true of the three persons in the one God of Christianity. At all times, they must agree 100%. So, what’s the point of calling them “different persons”? Imagine that Mr Hyde had Dr Jekyll’s mind. In that case, Mr Hyde would behave no differently from the good Doctor, so it would be absurd to claim that Mr Hyde was a different person. By the same token, God the Son is the Mind of God. He is the Mind of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All of their thoughts and decisions are his thoughts and decisions. Similarly, the Holy Spirit is the Soul of God (of Father, Son and Holy Spirit). To talk of God the Son incarnating separately from the Father and Holy Spirit is preposterous. He’s their common Mind. If he has incarnated, so have they. Christianity is a religion that can be (and has been) formally refuted. This is a definitively false religion. Its philosophical claims are even more absurd than its scientific claims. Christianity is predicated on the Trinity being a meaningful concept. It’s not. The Neoplatonic Trinity makes rational sense but the Christian Trinity, with its three “persons” in one God, does not. Christianity is false and Jesus Christ is a proven false prophet. He was a liar, a lunatic and an evil and wicked deceiver. He was an archon of the Devil seeking to corrupt humanity, and he succeeded to a staggering degree. Billions of people in the world worship this Satanic Jewish “prophet”, and foul emissary of the Devil, and of unreason.

Hypostasis Versus Persona Greeks (Easterners) used the word hypostasis to describe the three elements of the one God while Latins (Westerners) used the word persona. Persona was originally the word for the mask worn by an actor. However, when it was first applied to individuals it was only to those of high rank. If persona was used to signify a mask, it meant that one God wore three masks, but this was the Sabellian heresy. If persona was supposed to signify

a being of the highest rank, it implied the heresy of tritheism (three distinct gods). As Thomas Aquinas said, “It behoves us, in what we say of the Trinity, to beware of two opposite errors, temperately proceeding between both; the error of Arius, who laid down, with the Trinity of Persons, a Trinity of Substances; and the error of Sabellius, who laid down, with the unity of Essence, a unity of person.” So, it was no good to say there was one God wearing three masks or that there were three separate Gods. Neither Aquinas nor anyone else was able to say what actually could be said (without straying into heresy). The Latins simply never found the right word. As for the Greek word hypostasis, it’s perfect for Neoplatonism, but doesn’t make any sense in relation to Christianity with its three named beings. Neither Greek nor Latin words can save Christianity. In Aristotelian thinking, God is pure Form, and wholly free of matter (and could never incarnate in a body!), so matter cannot be used to distinguish distinct internal relations of the single God. We could, however, conceive of three divine Forms within one Divinity. This is the position of Neoplatonism, with its trinity of the One, Nous and Psyche. However, here we have the Nous as God’s Mind and the Psyche as his Soul. They are not beings or personalities or individuals. They are relations or modes, just as id, ego and superego are mental aspects, components or relations within the Freudian psyche and are not separate beings that can separately incarnate. Christianity fails because it tries to personify and name as distinct beings things that are not beings at all. If God the Son was instead defined as God’s Mind and God the Holy Spirit as God’s Soul, how could it make any sense to say that God’s Mind incarnated in a human being following God’s Soul impregnating a Jewish virgin? People can go around saying things such as, “I love Jesus Christ”; “Jesus died for my sins”; “Jesus is my personal salvation”. If the term “God’s Mind” were substituted for “Jesus Christ”, we would arrive at the following absurd formulations: “I love God’s Mind”; “God’s Mind died for my sins”; “God’s Mind is my personal salvation”. The Christian Mythos works only by referring to three different Gods (tritheism), and brazenly pretending to be a monotheism. The Sabellian heresy, whereby a single God has three different modes with which he interacts with humanity, is much more logical than orthodox Christianity, but makes no sense scripturally since it would be as if God were a lunatic,

with internal modes talking to each other as though they were separate beings. There’s no formula that can make Christianity work, and you can be sure that every possible permutation has been tried. Christianity is the most thoroughly refuted religion of all time. Not a single Christianity heresy was ever rationally rebutted. They were stamped out by force, not by rational debate. Christianity is about feelings, not reason. The average Christian has zero understanding of the labyrinth of the Trinity and, functionally, believes in three separate Gods called Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If we say Dionysus is the Son of Zeus, we mean something simple: they are two distinct beings. When Christians talk of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, they mean, in practical terms, exactly the same thing as the ancient Greeks talking about Dionysus and Zeus. However, theologically, they attempt to claim that God the Father and God the Son are actually a single monotheistic God (equivalent to the Greeks claiming that Zeus and Dionysus were one and the same). They are fundamentally dishonest and deceitful. No Christian talks as if Jesus Christ were a hypostasis of God in the Neoplatonic sense, and it would be meaningless if they did. Christianity is the greatest religious fraud of all. It takes the original grand deception – Jewish monotheism – and then multiplies the fraud with the deranged concept of three persons in one God. Every Christian should be examined about their understanding of the concept of the Trinity. 100% of them, including the Pope, would easily be shown to be heretics who believed either in one God with three different modes (Sabellianism) or three separate Gods (Arianism).

Hypostatic Union “Hypostatic union (from the Greek: hypóstasis, sediment, foundation, substance, or subsistence) is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the union of Christ’s humanity and divinity in one hypostasis. “The First Council of Ephesus recognised this doctrine and affirmed its importance, stating that the humanity and divinity of Christ are made one according to nature and hypostasis in the Logos.

“Hypostasis had come into use as a technical term prior to the Christological debates of the late fourth and fifth centuries. Before there were Christians, the word was used in Greek philosophy, primarily in Stoicism. ... Although it can be rendered literally as ‘substance’ this has been a cause of some confusion so it is now often translated ‘subsistence’. It denotes an actual, concrete existence, in contrast with abstract categories such as Platonic ideals.” – Wikipedia

***** Rather comically, Christianity, when it considers the incarnation of God the Son in the person of Jesus Christ, plays the opposite game from the one it played with the Trinity. Whereas we previously had three persons in one God, we now don’t have two persons (God and man) in one Jesus Christ. No, now we have two “natures” (divine and human) in one person (one substance). If we were to say that the One God had three different natures (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) we would be accused of the Sabellian heresy. Christianity is incoherent and contradicts itself at any every turn. Of one thing you can be 100% certain: Jesus Christ is not God and the Christian religion is a disgraceful pack of lies. No Christian understands Christianity. That’s a fact. “Apollinaris of Laodicea was the first to use the term hypostasis in trying to understand the Incarnation. Apollinaris described the union of the divine and human in Christ as being of a single nature and having a single essence – a single hypostasis. “The Nestorian Theodore of Mopsuestia went in the other direction, arguing that in Christ there were two natures (dyophysite) (human and divine) and two hypostases (in the sense of ‘essence’ or ‘person’) that coexisted. However in Theodore’s time the word hypostasis could be used in a sense synonymous with ousia (which clearly means ‘essence’ rather than ‘person’) as it had been used by Origen and Tatian. “The Chalcedonian Definition agreed with Theodore that there were two natures in the Incarnation. However, the Council of Chalcedon also insisted that hypostasis be used as it was in the Trinitarian definition: to indicate the person and not the nature as with Apollinaris. “Thus, the Council declared that in Christ there are two natures; each retaining its own properties, and together united in one subsistence and in

one single person. “As the precise nature of this union is held to defy finite human comprehension, the hypostatic union is also referred to by the alternative term ‘mystical union.’ “The Oriental Orthodox Churches, having rejected the Chalcedonian Creed, were known as Monophysites because they would only accept a definition that characterized the incarnate Son as having one nature. The Chalcedonian ‘in two natures’ formula (based, at least partially, on Colossians 2:9) was seen as derived from and akin to a Nestorian Christology. Contrariwise, the Chalcedonians saw the Oriental Orthodox as tending towards Eutychian Monophysitism. However, the Oriental Orthodox have in modern ecumenical dialogue specified that they have never believed in the doctrines of Eutyches, that they have always affirmed that Christ’s humanity is consubstantial with our own, and they thus prefer the term Miaphysite to refer to themselves, a reference to Cyrillian Christology... The term miaphysis means one united nature as opposed to one singular nature (monophysis). Thus the Miaphysite position maintains that although the nature of Christ is from two, it may be referred to as one in its incarnate state because the natures always act in unity. “In recent times, leaders from the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches have signed joint statements in an attempt to work towards reunification. Likewise the leaders of the Assyrian Church of the East, which venerates Nestorius and Theodore, have in recent times signed a joint agreement with leaders of the Roman Catholic Church acknowledging that their historical differences were over terminology rather than the actual intended meaning.” – Wikipedia

***** According to Christianity, one person can have two natures (the one person of Jesus Christ had a human and a divine nature), and one being can comprise three persons (God comprises God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit). So, can one being have three natures, but not three persons? Just as Jesus Christ’s two natures can never be in conflict (meaning that he acts as a single being), so God’s three persons can never be in conflict, but in that case what’s the point of referring to three persons at all? What

practical experiment could ever be performed to reveal any difference between Father, Son and Holy Spirit? How can we talk of three persons if we can never distinguish between them?

The Nicene Creed Mainstream Christianity is defined by the Nicene Creed:

***** We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again

in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

***** So, Christianity is a monotheism (one God), but reflects three different persons: 1) “the Father, the Almighty, Maker of all that is, seen and unseen.” (So, God the Father is the Creator.) 2) “the Son, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.” (So, God the Son wasn’t created by God the Father but was “begotten” by him, and is of the same substance. No details are provided about the process of begetting and no mention is made of the fact that the Father must have preceded the Son in order to beget him, and that “eternity” makes no discernible difference to the absolute ordering sequence of events. We are also told that God the Father carried out Creation through the Son. No details are provided of this

process. Was it Father or the Son or both together who performed the Creation? Who knows?!) 3) “The Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.” (So, the Holy Spirit has a specific function of giving life. He creates souls. He “proceeds” from the Father and Son – a very mysterious process. He speaks through the Prophets. Wasn’t that the Angel Gabriel’s job? Did he also speak through Mohammed?) Of course, this is all a perversion of Neoplatonism. Neoplatonism would say: The One (the Source) emanates the Divine Mind (Nous), which is therefore automatically of the same substance (yet attenuated, being a step removed from the Source), but is secondary and derivative, not equal. The Divine Mind emanates the Divine Soul (Psyche), from which all living souls are derived, and each reflects a Platonic Form in the Divine Mind. The ineffable One plays no part in the world. The Nous is the world’s mind, and the Psyche is the world’s soul. The Divine Soul emanated Nature and furnished material bodies with living souls. It used as its design template the Forms in the Divine Mind. The One is at the top of the hierarchy, the Divine Mind next and the Divine Soul next again. They are not equal and they are not “persons”. The Neoplatonic position is rationally tenable. The Christian derivation of it is unsustainable and irrational. Neoplatonism is a long dead Logos religion that does not lend itself to Mythos. Christianity is a living Mythos religious which is all about stories, parables, emotions, beliefs and superstitions and has no rational basis whatsoever. It’s disgraceful that any thinking person in the modern world should respect Christianity. Neoplatonism would be a far superior religion for any rational person.

***** “For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven.” Eh? Where’s heaven? And why didn’t he simply “forgive” us? Isn’t that what gods do?

“By the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.” So, the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary and God the Son was the result? Trippy, man! How can that make any sense? Of course, since there’s only one God in Christianity, it doesn’t matter who impregnates her ... and all three persons must automatically be incarnate, not just God the Son. “For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate.” Our sake? Why, what had we done given that none of us were alive then? “He suffered death and was buried.” Eh? How can “God” suffer death? It’s impossible. In fact, no soul can suffer death since all souls are immortal. Only a body dies, and once it’s gone it’s gone. “On the third day he rose again.” Resurrection is impossible. “In accordance with the Scriptures.” The Scriptures have zero truth content. “He ascended into heaven.” Didn’t he have a physical body, having been resurrected and physically touched by Doubting Thomas? How can a physical body ascend into heaven and exist there? “And is seated at the right hand of the Father.” So, there are two physical beings? Haven’t we been told there’s only one God, hence there should only be one throne! “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.” Wasn’t once enough!? Sheeeez! What happened to “get it right first time every time”? “And his kingdom will have no end.” Oh God, the horror, the horror.

“We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.” All Protestants are going to hell! Thank God! “We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” Why can’t the God of forgiveness simply forgive? Who needs baptism? “We look for the resurrection of the dead.” No we don’t. Souls return to the world through reincarnation only. “And the life of the world to come. Amen.” We look forward to an Illuminated, non-Christian world. Amen.

The Like-Like Principle The ancient Greeks subscribed (correctly) to the concept that like generates like (the “like-like” principle): X comes from X, and X cannot possibly come from not-X. Science denies this principle and says that mind (X) can “emerge” from non-mind (not-X), and life (X) from non-life (not-X). Of course, it conspicuously fails to explain how emergence actually works. Neither life nor mind has ever been explained scientifically. In Illuminism, all of existence is mathematical, hence like always produces like. There’s nothing that’s non-mathematical. Life is mathematical. Mind is mathematical. Matter is mathematical. Illuminism is a mathematical monism (defined by the God Equation). Everything must be explained with reference to mathematics and nothing else since there is nothing else. Life and mind are inherently properties of the basic units of ontological mathematics – monads (souls).

Hyperstasis Hyperstasis: What stands above. The universe involves a process of the hypostasis (that which stands beneath) giving rise to the stasis (that which stands – the material world of spacetime), which then evolves towards its apex, the hyperstasis – the divine order that stands above all. The hypostasis and hyperstasis are both outside space and time. The stasis is inside space and time. It’s the sandwich!

The hypostasis is the Alpha Point and the Hyperstasis is the Omega Point. The cosmic journey is from Alpha to Omega, from below to above. Above and below are mathematical, metaphysical and intelligible. In between is scientific and sensible.

Zero The number zero is credited as an Indian invention. The world’s number system (the digits from 0 – 9) has been described as the greatest invention in history, and that’s certainly possible. Although it’s often called the Arabic numeral system, it is in fact the Indian number system, devised some 1,500 years ago, and which came to the attention of the Muslims when they conquered India. When South Asian thinkers designated zero as a number in its own right, they arguably took the greatest conceptual leap in the history of mathematics, and one that goes to the heart of religion. Nirvana is the Buddhist state of nothingness, but what nothingness means ontologically is the big question. In Illuminism, zero and infinity are at the heart of everything. Their ontological meaning is all-important. Exploring nirvana is actually nothing other than exploring the mathematical nature of the Singularity. The Indians called zero “void”. Giving “nothing” a symbol – thus making it something – was a step of unparalleled importance. It has always been believed that nothing and something are different, but the very process of labelling “nothing” shows that “nothing” can be something, but an exceptionally special type of something. In fact, it’s the origin of something, its root, its seed. The Big Bang allows an entire universe of “something” to come from a seed of “nothing”. Science still hasn’t grasped that nothing, zero, the singularity and dimensionless existence are all real, ontological things. According to physicists, the laws of physics fall apart at zero, at the Singularity. But they do no such thing! What happens is that at zero (the Singularity), an ontological phase change occurs. Zero is associated with mind, and all nonzero numbers are associated with non-mind (matter). Science is all about matter and is clueless about mind. It actually says that zero cannot exist, the worst conceptual statement ever made!

“Nothing” – the Singularity – equals everything. Everything comes from it.

***** If, as the Buddhists say, desire is suffering then the nullification of all desire must be the best possible state, associated with no suffering. It’s easy to see how a place of no suffering can come to be interpreted as “heaven”. However, Buddhism is actually associated with total nihilism since what it really says that in order to enter heaven you must annihilate yourself. You can get to heaven only by ceasing to exist as a unique individual, which is not exactly what most people have in mind when they contemplate the quest for heaven. The best way to understand Buddhism is by not studying Buddhism at all but instead immersing yourself in the philosophy of Schopenhauer. He saw the real truth of nirvana – that it’s the state associated not with nothing (which is something), but with non-existence (which is nothing at all). It’s critical to grasp that nothing is something, hence is ontological. Nothing is not non-existence. Non-existence is, by definition, nonontological and no symbol can be attached to it since it’s not a thing at all. One of the great intellectual disasters was to confuse nothing (which is a phase change of something) with non-existence (which isn’t anything; it has no reality at all). Science regards nothing as non-existence rather than as dimensionless existence that gives rise to dimensional existence. That’s its supreme tragedy. It will never recognise that nothing is the frequency, dimensionless domain of mind, and non-nothing is the spacetime, dimensional domain of matter. It’s that simple. The study of mathematics is the study of the path to the true Nirvana (not the Buddhist one) – the Singularity of mind, the Mind of God! And, by the holographic principle, we can all become God because the whole is in every part. In Western religion, “God” is associated with infinity (extraversion; sensing and feeling) and in Eastern religion, “God” is associated with zero/void (introversion; intuition and thinking). Given that nothing and infinity are the flip sides of each other, isn’t this remarkable? The West and East have come at religion from diametrically opposed directions, and yet

they have actually arrived at the same destination: the cosmic Singularity. This can only be understood mathematically. “Nothing” has been described as India’s greatest gift to the world. It is – and what a gift!

***** The Indians had a number of 10 to the power 17 that they described as “half way to heaven”.

Sunya “The central idea of Indian philosophy was that the infinite phenomenal world (apparently) emerges from emptiness. And when the appearance of the infinite phenomenal world – which is illusionary – is realized to be nothing but mere appearance, the individual consciousness is restored to its real state of attributeless and formless emptiness: Brahman (not to be confused with the caste Brahmin). By a perceptual illusion (maya) the apparently individual consciousness (atman) perceives the phenomenal world of names and forms – with the individual being the subject and the phenomenal world being the object of perception. Realization or enlightenment is the end of this illusion – with there being no differentiation between the subject and the object – and state where this obtains is that of emptiness (Brahman). “Different Indian schools of philosophy give different names to this ineffable and nameless emptiness. Some called it Sunya (Zero or emptiness) others called it Nirguna Brahman (attributeless truth) some others, Sunya Brahman. This idea forms the philosophical core of Buddhism and the many branches of Vedanta. Much has been written about whether the Buddhist Sunya and the Vedantic Nirguna Brahmana are metaphysically identical. But this is not the occasion to get into such logomachical and ultimately – I dare say – futile debates. Truth according to both Buddhism and Vedanta is ineffable, being beyond illusionary sensory perception, beyond thought, and eventually beyond language. Both assert that the truth or emptiness is neither equivalent to existence nor to non existence. And finally both assert that enlightenment is the restoration to that very truth; and the path to that involves thoughtlessness and surrender of the false sense of ego.

“In short, emptiness or zero was thought to be the truth of human existence and indeed the meaning of life. In Douglas Adams’ Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the supercomputer, Deep Thought, after seven and a half million years of computation, computes the meaning of life to be a meaningless number: 42. This may sound amusing in a humorous fictional work. But here was a philosophy that asserted seriously that the meaning of life was a number: and the number was Zero (Sunya). Sunya is one of the many words for Zero in Sanskrit. Another Sanskrit word for Zero was Poojyam. In Tamil, Zero is still referred to as Poojyam. Poojyam in Sanskrit also means the object of worship. The goal of human life was indeed worship (surrendering the illusionary sense of individual ego) for the realization of the ultimate emptiness (Sunya ). Thus in Zero was to be found the whole meaning and goal of existence. “When Indian Mathematicians introduced Zero, they made it clear that they were applying this very philosophical idea in the realm of mathematics. They asserted that Zero ( Sunya or Poojyam) was Nirguna Brahman (attributeless truth) and infinity (Poornam or ananta) was Saguna Brahman ( truth with attributes). Infinity was a manifestation of Zero. No doubt all this sounds too mystical and far removed from modern mathematics. Yet no less a genius than Srinivasa Ramanujam (20th Century) also held this view, and expressed it in precisely the same Vedantic terminology. After Ramanujam died, amongst his papers at Trinity College, Cambridge was found a note where Ramanujam equated Zero and Infinity with Saguna and Nirguna Brahman. That note provided the inspiration for Robert Kanigel to name his biography of Ramanujam as The Man Who Knew Infinity. But Ramanujam was just one in a line of Indian mathematicians who for over 1300 years understood Zero and infinity in this way. Brahmagupta (7th Century AD) who formalized most of the properties of Zero we visited earlier, understood these concepts in just this way. Bhaskara (12th Century AD) who improved upon Brahmagupta’s formalization by introducing the idea that any number divided by zero was infinity also relied on the same Vedantic equation.” – Shivprasad Swaminathan

*****

It’s fascinating and instructive that Indian mathematicians deliberately introduced the philosophical notion of zero into mathematics, thus implying that they saw mathematics as a way of expressing metaphysics (that which comes after physics). Illuminism absolutely shares this view. Mathematics is the language of fundamental, non-sensory ontology. Ultimate Truth can only be expressed mathematically.

Eastern Religion Eastern religion, with its tacit acknowledgement of the supreme ontological importance of zero and infinity, is enormously closer to the truth than Western Abrahamism with its embarrassing emphasis on stories of ancient desert tribes. Eastern religion approaches “God” highly abstractly (i.e. intuitively) and Western religion highly concretely (i.e. emotionally and sensorily). Eastern religion can be expressed mathematically, hence rationally and truthfully; Western religion cannot. It’s time for the Eastern world to abandon their gurus and ancient texts and embrace mathematics and Illuminism – the true ground of reality. There’s nothing in Illuminism that would shock an Eastern thinker, but everything about it is shocking to Abrahamists. The Western “esoteric” tradition is compatible with Eastern religion, and they should in fact unite – under the banner of ontological mathematics (Illuminism), revolving around zero and infinity. Western esotericism and Eastern religion are both drawn to zero and infinity. Scientific materialism absolutely rejects zero and infinity! It’s science that’s in the wrong.

The Intellectual Disaster Scientific materialists have committed the most serious intellectual error of all – to regard zero and infinity as fantastical and impossible in the “real” world. Zero and infinity are in fact the quintessence of ontology, the root of all things, the origin of all. The dimensional comes from the dimensionless. Matter comes from mind. That is the law of life. Eastern religion is much closer to the truth than scientific materialism. That’s a fact, and it ought to shame every scientist. All scientific materialists have failed to understand the ontology of mathematics, and

that’s an unpardonable sin. Scientists are shockingly inept at mathematics. They don’t understand what it is, and they are clueless about how to use it properly. Scientists are functionally retarded autistics, wholly lacking in imagination, intuition and rationalism. They are prisoners of their senses, victims of Maya.

The Myriad The word “myriad” comes from the ancient Greek myriad, meaning “ten thousand, countless, innumerable, infinite, boundless”. The Romans wrote the myriad as: MMMMMMMMMM (M = 1000 in the Roman numbering system). The myriad (ten thousand) often means “infinity” or “everything” in the ancient world. Taoism famously says: The Tao begot one. One begot two. Two begot three. And three begot the ten thousand (i.e. myriad) things. The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang. They achieve harmony by combining these forces. (Tao Te Ching – chapter 42: Lao Tzu) So, here we see the myriad meaning, in effect, “everything else”.

Thales Thales, the first philosopher, was regarded as one of the Seven Sages of ancient Greece. When people mocked him by saying, “If you’re so smart, why are you so poor?”, he used his astronomical knowledge to predict a bumper olive crop and, consequently, chose to buy up most of the olive presses in the surrounding area. When the exceptional crop duly arrived, everyone had to pay hefty prices to buy back the surplus presses they had previously sold to Thales for a pittance, and he thus amassed a fortune. He declared that the sole purpose of this exercise was to show that wise men could be rich if they wanted to be, but that money was not important to

them. They literally had better things to think about, hence were unconcerned about being poor. (You certainly wouldn’t find any of today’s greedy “elite” sharing that view.) None of the writings of Thales survive, but his central ideas are known from Aristotle’s commentary on them. He proclaimed that everything derives from water (a material monism philosophy), the world rests on water, water is “full of gods” and the soul (which is ultimately water) is the source of motion. Near-Eastern and Greek mythology said that the universe emerged from primeval waters (also known as the waters of Chaos), so Thales’s core idea would not have sounded bizarre to anyone at the time. Wikipedia says, “Later scholastic thinkers would maintain that in his choice of water Thales was influenced by Babylonian or Chaldean religion, that held that a god had begun creation by acting upon the pre-existing water. Historian Abraham Feldman holds this does not stand up under closer examination. In Babylonian religion the water is lifeless and sterile until a god acts upon it, but for Thales water itself was divine and creative. He maintained that ‘All things are full of gods’, and to understand the nature of things was to discover the secrets of the deities, and through this knowledge open the possibility that one could be greater than the grandest Olympian.” Water was a logical choice as the arche since, uniquely amongst the natural elements of ancient Greece, it comes in liquid, gaseous and solid forms, and is essential to life. Remove water from the living and they die. Seeds, as Thales regarded them, were always “moist”. If life springs from water in the biological sphere, why should that not also be true of the entire cosmos? As above, so below. Thales noted that, “As the water solidifies, things acquire firmness, as it melts their individual existence in threatened.” Here we see an early individuation principle. Solid things are individuated while liquid and gaseous things are not. Even the gods would have to become solid in order to exist as distinct individuals. So, for Thales, the gods did not control the waters. Rather, the gods were in the waters, and emerged from the waters. The water created them rather than the other way around. This turned the prevailing mythological, religious explanations of reality on their head. It made a primordial

substance, rather than primordial gods, the most important thing. Here we see the true birth of philosophy and science. Thales used the mythological water cosmogonies but in an entirely new and radical way, changing their emphasis and looking to the biology, chemistry and physics of water to justify his system rather than theological arguments based on stories and holy texts. Thales’s idea that the Earth floats on water was a commonly held mythological belief, and if you see the land everywhere surrounded by water, and boats floating on water, or ice sitting on liquid water, it’s a logical conclusion, especially in a system such as Thales’s where water underpins all things. Thales regarded water itself as the divine principle, the source of Creation, with everything being made from it. In other words, he saw water as a kind of intelligent, self-organising material: living or panpsychic matter. There’s nothing in his thinking like the modern scientific materialist notion of lifeless, mindless atoms being at the root of all matter. Thales’s view is in fact vastly superior to that of modern science, which disastrously rejects life and mind as fundamental to the operations of the cosmos. In Illuminism, all things are made of mathematics, and mathematics is “full of the gods” (i.e. imbued with self-solving, self-optimising minds). One simply needs to replace “water” with “mathematics” in Thales’s system and Illuminism is more or less the outcome. If water is divine, everything derived from it is divine, and divinity is present in all things. This does not imply that water is inherently conscious or has human-like feelings, perceptions, desires, needs and motivations. Rather, it means that water contains the factors that produce, order and sustain the living world. Divine water, unlike the divine gods, is not interested in human beings and their affairs, and has no desire to reward or punish them. It’s rational, not “moral” or emotional. For Thales, the soul is the source of motion, but it’s probably better to infer that Thales had in mind both active and passive souls. Only what we call living things can initiate their own motion (they have active souls), while everything else must be considered to have passive, motionless souls that require active souls to act on them in order to be set in motion. Everything has a share of divinity (mind), but some things – “living” things – have much more than others, and the gods have the most of all.

Thales was fascinated by magnets, which seemed to him to bridge the animate and inanimate domains. While being inanimate, they nevertheless had the power to move iron. (Magnets thus had active souls, so to speak.) So, if this motive power exists even in magnets, why not in everything else, to a greater or lesser degree? Thales’s statements that all things are full of gods and that the soul produces motion are surely logically connected. The universe is full of motion and full of souls, but some things are much more ensouled and causative of motion (more active) than other things. Thales wouldn’t have implied that magnets are ensouled unless he wanted to convey this general message. For Thales, soul motive power and divinity go together, and exactly the same is true in Illuminism. The universe is based on living mathematical souls (monads) that exhibit constant motion and can never be static, and all of which can dynamically evolve into Gods (divinities). It’s time that scientific materialists studied the pre-Socratics and learned a few lessons about the ultimate nature of existence. What’s for certain is that the universe does not come from non-existence, is not fundamentally devoid of mind, does not involve a probabilistic, unreal wavefunction, does not express a relativity principle (on the contrary, it’s absolute) and does not rely on lifeless, mindless atoms to generate living, thinking things such as human beings. Science has got every big issue wrong! The system of thought that so many in the present day revere and use to establish their personal philosophy is 100% false. Pre-Socratic philosophy, some 2,500 years old, is much closer to the truth.

Galvanism According to the theory of Galvanism, popular at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century, electricity was the spark of life. Since newly dead bodies seemed to retain an electric response, the notion arose that perhaps the dead could be brought back to life. With Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, we find a fully fledged exploration of a body put together from corpse parts being reanimated via electricity. Galvanism wasn’t far off the mark given that, in the present day, defibrillators are routinely used to deliver an electric shock directly to the heart to bring the “dead” back to life!

Moreover, James Clerk Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism is very close to being the true theory of everything. Electromagnetic theory, when properly understood and fully expanded, is actually just the theory of the generalised Euler Formula, viewed ontologically rather than abstractly. It’s all about sine and cosine waves, and complex numbers. From electromagnetic theory fully expressed, you can generate the whole of quantum physics via Fourier mathematics. Electromagnetic theory is about the frequency domain, and quantum mechanics is what you get when you add the spacetime domain to it. All electromagnetic waves are frequencies outside space at time and all travel at the same speed within the dimensionless domain. When you apply a spacetime filter to combinations of electromagnetic waves, you create two separate dimensional speeds, one through space and one through time, and this has the side effect of producing real mass and imaginary mass, i.e. mass is what you get when energy is viewed dimensionally from the space and time domain, and there’s no mass when energy is viewed dimensionlessly from the frequency domain. Everything without mass travels directly at the speed of light. Everything with mass travels at less than light speed through space because some of its speed is redirected through the other dimension, of time (imaginary space). However, the square of the speed through space plus the square of the speed through time equals the square of the speed through the dimensionless domain. The whole scheme is 100% mathematical. There’s no “physics”. According to the Standard Model of physics, the universe is pervaded by a Higgs field, associated with the Higgs boson (the so-called “God particle”) as its carrier particle (just as the photon is the carrier for the electromagnetic field). The Standard Model reconciles quantum mechanics and the special theory of relativity, but not the general theory of relativity, which deals with gravity. In other words, the Standard Model deals with electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces, but omits gravity. However, the failure of scientists to extend the Standard Model to incorporate gravity, despite decades of trying, unquestionably means that the Standard Model itself is false, and so is Einstein’s General theory of relativity. It doesn’t matter that the Standard Model produces very accurately results. So did Newtonian physics and that was wholly false too in terms of its claims

about reality. Experimental success is no indicator of the truth content of a theory. Quantum mechanics itself has never been unequivocally interpreted by scientists despite being a staggeringly successful theory. It is a theory that works, not a theory that’s understood. The principle of relativity is false, the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics is false and the notion that reality is based on real numbers rather than complex numbers is also false. These are the three catastrophes at the heart of science and are the reason why it’s formally impossible for the current scientific Meta Paradigm of materialism and empiricism to yield a final theory of everything. Higgs bosons are said to create a field (the Higgs field) with which other particles interact and thereby acquire a mass (but things such as photons do not interact with the field, hence do not acquire mass). The reason why particles such as photons do not interact with the Higgs field is that they are not in space and time at all, an idea wholly rejected by science even though it cannot explain why some particles interact with the Higgs field and some don’t, and why photons are immaterial, length-contracted to zero and don’t register the passing of time, yet can still be considered part of space and time (according to science). The Standard Model had to explain where mass came from and it did so via the Higgs field and associated Higgs boson. However, surely the Model should explain why particles such as photons have no mass and do not interact with the Higgs field at all? You are using circular logic if you say that “material” particles are those that interact with the Higgs field and thus acquire mass while “immaterial” particles are those that do not interact with the Higgs field and thus do not have mass. All you have done is conjure a “field” that achieves what you want – to give material particles mass, and leaves everything else alone. It does not explain what material particles are and what immaterial particles are. In fact, immaterial “particles” are frequencies outside space and time, and that’s why they don’t interact with the Higgs field (which is a spacetime field). Any particle in space and time must interact with the Higgs field since the whole of spacetime is pervaded by this field. The Higgs field is actually nothing other than the ontological basis of the spacetime Fourier domain that’s generated by the Fourier frequency domain, i.e. the Higgs field is the ontological carrier of Fourier spacetime, and should be renamed as the Fourier spacetime field, associated with the “Fourier boson”. Its

counterpart is the Fourier frequency field, associated with the following massless bosons: photons and gluons. As for “gravitons”, these are presumably strongly linked to the Higgs field. Material particles are fermions and interact with the Higgs field. Fermions belong to the Fourier spacetime domain. Immaterial particles (force carriers) are bosons and do not interact with the Higgs field. However, some bosons do have mass (such as the Higgs boson itself), hence do interact with the Higgs field. These bosons, which ought to be massless but aren’t, are the key to the symmetry breaking that allows a dimensionless universe to create a dimensional universe. Matter (dimensional energy) interacts with the Higgs field and acquires mass. Some particles interact weakly with the field and are light (they are quite like bosons) while others interact strongly with the field and are heavy (hence slow and unlike bosons). Energy (dimensionless energy) does not interact with the Higgs field and has no mass. In order for dimensionless energy (bosons) to produce matter (dimensional energy: fermions), it’s essential for a particle to exist that is a boson but nevertheless has mass, i.e. a particle that is intermediate between bosons and fermions. The Higgs boson has mass hence is not a true boson. The Higgs boson has mass, like a fermion, but is not a true fermion (since it’s a boson). Clearly, the Higgs boson is the particle that allows ontological Fourier mathematics to take place: it permits the Fourier frequency domain of pure dimensionless, immaterial energy (bosons) to be expressed via the Fourier spacetime domain of dimensional, material energy (fermions). It’s all in the math! The Big Bang is nothing but the creation of the cosmic Higgs field, allowing spacetime to form from a mental frequency domain. That’s the “Creation” event. It’s only the spacetime domain that is created. The frequency domain is eternal, uncreated, uncaused and indestructible. It’s the domain of mind, of the soul. The expansion of the spacetime domain leads to its death, i.e. at the end of a cyclical cosmic age, the Higgs field is eliminated, spacetime vanishes and everything returns to the frequency domain. And on and on forever. It’s all in the math!

The Body Snatchers “Body snatching is the secret disinterment of corpses from graveyards. A common purpose of body snatching, especially in the 19th century, was to sell the corpses for dissection or anatomy lectures in medical schools. Those who practised body snatching were often called ‘resurrectionists’ or ‘resurrection-men.’ A related act is grave robbery, uncovering a tomb or crypt to steal artefacts or personal effects rather than corpses. “Before the Anatomy Act of 1832, the only legal supply of corpses for anatomical purposes in the UK were those condemned to death and dissection by the courts. Those who were sentenced to dissection by the courts were often guilty of comparatively harsher crimes. Such sentences did not provide enough subjects for the medical schools and private anatomical schools (which did not require a licence before 1832). While during the 18th century hundreds had been executed for trivial crimes, by the 19th century only about 55 people were being sentenced to capital punishment each year. However, with the expansion of the medical schools, as many as 500 cadavers were needed. “Interfering with a grave was only a misdemeanour at common law, not a felony, and was therefore only punishable with fine and imprisonment, rather than transportation or execution. The trade was a sufficiently lucrative business to run the risk of detection, particularly as the authorities tended to ignore what they considered a necessary evil. “Body snatching became so prevalent that it was not unusual for relatives and friends of someone who had just died to watch over the body until burial, and then to keep watch over the grave after burial, to stop it being violated.” – Wikipedia Body snatching was a difficult crime to define since you couldn’t technically steal a body given that it didn’t belong to anyone. Theft is a crime against an owner, but no one owns a corpse, so no formal crime of theft is committed. Body snatchers were also known as Resurrectionists since they “raised the dead” from their graves, often when they were barely cold. Frankenstein is the tale of the resurrection of a monster created from many corpses.

***** Note that no one owns a corpse, and that includes the family. You can’t steal a body since it has no owner to steal it from. Given that this is the case, nor does the family own the former assets of the deceased. You can’t steal a corpse and nor can you steal from a corpse since a corpse has zero ownership rights. All people who believe in inheritance, ought to study the law relating to corpses. Corpses are not owned, and nor do they own anything. You can’t inherit a cent from a corpse that has no ownership rights. Death instantly cancels all property rights.

The Double Helix A human being’s genetic code is stored on strands of DNA, coiled around each other in the famous double helix. What is a double helix other than pure math? Everywhere you look in nature you will find math. You can never not find math.

Anaximander Anaximander was the first to deploy the principle of sufficient reason, which became central to Leibniz. He was also the first to propose a theory of evolution. For Anaximander, the arche, the fundamental substance, is the Unbounded (apeiron). It’s the source of everything, including the laws that unite and govern everything. When Thales proposed that the arche was water, he had severe difficulty in accounting for fire. Anaximander’s apeiron avoids any such problem. Moreover, by making his arche indefinite, he turned it into a system of potentiality, from which actual things can be generated, not unlike the modern quantum mechanical wavefunction. Mathematics itself is a kind of potentiality system which actualizes specific, stable, compossible mathematical things. Unlike Thales, Anaximander separated that which explains from that which has to be explained. For Thales, everything is water, but that means that everything is explained by that which is doing the explaining, and it begs the question of what explains water itself since it belongs to the

category of that which has to be explained, and it not inherently selfexplaining. In Illuminism, everything is explained by mathematics, but “noumenal” mathematics (mathematics in itself; the mathematics of the dimensionless frequency domain; Soul World) is qualitatively and quantitatively very different from “phenomenal” mathematics (the mathematics of the dimensional, spacetime domain, of the material world of appearances). Noumenal mathematics is rationally self-explaining as we have discussed throughout the God Series, so requires nothing else to explain it, and it explains all of phenomenal mathematics. For Anaximander, the apeiron is indefinite, inexhaustible, unbounded, limitless and infinite, both temporally and spatially. It possesses unlimited potentialities – just like a cosmic mathematical wavefunction, except such a wavefunction is not in space and time at all but in an unbounded mental singularity. Anaximander was clear that the Unbounded was divine, given that it was immortal and indestructible (as is the mathematical Singularity). The Unbounded, being the source of all motion, is the Prime Mover. This is also true of the mathematical Singularity. All motion originates from the Singularity. Like Thales, Anaximander identified life with motive force (that which can move itself), so the Unbounded was a living entity, though not a conscious being such as the Abrahamic God. It’s the attribution of consciousness (hence personality) to the divine entity that makes Abrahamism so ridiculous. It automatically invites Mythos rather than Logos. Any attempt to personify the arche is always absurd, and it’s always feeling types who carry out this ridiculous manoeuvre since they want to have an emotional relationship with their deity (they can’t “love” an abstraction and pray to it for comfort and aid: no one gets on their bellies to worship mathematics and beg it to admit them to paradise and save them from hell!). In Illuminism, mathematics, ontologically, is energy, energy is perpetual motion and all moving things are alive, hence all energy is alive. However, energy per se is not, and never can be, conscious. What can become conscious is a self-contained, autonomous, mathematically complete and consistent collection of energy, i.e. a monadic mind, a soul. A soul is a mathematical information system reflecting the full laws of mathematics,

which are directly encoded in it via its mathematical energy content (defined by the generalised Euler Formula: the God Equation). Individual “strands” of energy carry information and life, but they are incapable of reflecting on themselves. Only the enormous (potentially infinite) energy system contained within a monad can become aware of its own information content. A single strand of energy is far too simple informationally. Consciousness involves a vast and ultimately godlike information system, reflecting all possible objective knowledge. A soul is a hologram, with the whole in every part. It requires all of its individual information strands to make up the whole. For Anaximander, the Unbounded accommodates all the opposites, and these can dynamically generate the world (as in the yin and yang of Taoism). The binary pairs of hot and cold, dry and wet are the main drivers of this process, and these became highly influential in subsequent Greek philosophy, in combination with the four elements of earth, water, air and fire. The following diagram illustrates the general theory:

Fire is a combination of hot and dry. Air is a combination of hot and wet. Water is a combination of wet and cold. Earth is a combination of cold and dry. Hot and cold, dry and wet can be considered as natural forces of physical change that selectively operate on certain substances. So, the substance of fire is always found in relation to hot and dry, but not cold and wet. Fire and “hot and dry” are in sense a single system.

The natural forces are present throughout the universe, and are forever moving, causing constant change. Anaximander believed, just as the Taoists did and do, that the lawful state of the world is one of equilibrium or balance between opposites. Jung was an enthusiast for this view too. Such a system can be highly stable, self-regulating and self-correcting. In a dialectical system, especially that of Hegel, equilibrium is not maintained. Rather, the system converges, albeit very slowly, on a final point (Omega Point). Equilibrium systems preserve the status quo. Dialectical systems produce, final, absolute completion and perfection. Where Thales believed that water supported the world (and Anaximenes that the Earth floated on a cushion of air), Anaximander used an ingenious symmetry argument reflecting the principle of sufficient reason. He was the first to make the radical suggestion that the world didn’t need any support at all. He said that Earth was equidistant from everywhere else in the universe. Since there was no sufficient reason for it to be in a different position (where it would no longer be equidistant from all other points), it stayed where it was. The universe was symmetrical and Earth was right at the centre of it. An Earth and universe as spheres provided the best basis for this argument, and this type of thinking was highly influential with Aristotle’s cosmology. Unfortunately, Anaximander somewhat sabotaged his own argument by describing the Earth as a cylinder rather than a sphere. Nevertheless, it was truly ingenious for Anaximander to deploy a rational, not physical, argument for why the Earth, despite having no physical support, did not fall: there was simply no reason (or rational force) to cause it to move in any direction, including down. This was the first demonstration of the principle of sufficient reason which states that nothing happens unless there’s a reason for it to happen (i.e. nothing happens randomly, for no reason, for no cause). There can be no effect without a cause. If the Earth has no reason to move in any direction then it will stay exactly where it is. Modern science completely rejects the principle of sufficient reason and irrationally claims that things happen randomly, for no reason at all, without any cause. The bizarre Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics puts indeterminacy at the heart of reality. It’s thus a formally irrationalist account of reality, and is the complete opposite of the rational, deterministic

science that prevailed prior to the twentieth century. Science has gone mad since then, driven by empiricist fanaticism and dogmatism. You will often hear scientists and apologists for science openly mocking the philosophy of rationalism. Thus science is both irrational and anti-rational, just like mainstream religion. No thinking person could ever have any respect for such a subject. The only difference between science and Mythos religions is that it relies on the fallible human senses rather than the fallible human feelings. It does not rely on infallible mathematical reason.

***** For Anaximander, heavenly bodies are wheels of fire that surround the Earth. Thanks to the opacity of the air around our planet, we only catch glimpses of these fiery wheels (through small vents in the air: when one becomes clogged an eclipse occurs and we can no longer see the sun wheel).

Evolution Anaximander anticipated Darwin’s theory of evolution by almost two and half thousand years. To justify his evolutionary view, he used the fascinating argument that human beings are vulnerable for many years after being born, and heavily dependent on others. The first humans couldn’t possibly have survived like this since there was no one to look after them and protect them. They would have been destroyed by predators. Anaximander reached the conclusion that humans evolved from fishlike creatures, since these have no period of dependence. Had the world followed his view rather than the religious Creationist view of Abrahamism, we would long ago have escaped the religious nonsense that infects so much of the world. For Anaximander, the Earth is cylindrical in shape; curved and round like a drum, with its depth being exactly a third of its width. He said a sphere of flame grew round the air encircling the earth, as bark grows around a tree. Wheels of fire broke off from this flaming sphere and formed the sun, moon and stars.

*****

“Anaximander of Miletus, son of Praxiades, a fellow-citizen and associate of Thales, said that the material cause and first element of things was the Infinite, he being the first to introduce this name of the material cause. He says it is neither water nor any other of the so-called elements, but a substance different from them which is infinite, from which arise all the heavens and the worlds within them.” Theophrastus “He says that this [the apeiron] is ‘eternal and ageless,’ and that it ‘encompasses all the worlds’.” – Hippolytus “And into that from which things take their rise they pass away once more, ‘as is proper; for they make reparation and satisfaction to one another for their injustice according to the ordering of time,’ as he says in these somewhat poetical terms.” – Theophrastus “And besides this, there was an eternal motion, in which was brought about the origin of the worlds.” – Hippolytus “He did not ascribe the origin of things to any alteration in matter, but said that the oppositions in the substratum, which was a boundless body, were separated out.” – Simplicius “Further, there cannot be a single, simple body which is infinite, either, as some hold, one distinct from the elements, which they then derive from it, or without this qualification. For there are some who make this (i.e. a body distinct from the elements) the infinite, and not air or water, in order that the other things may not be destroyed by their infinity. They are in opposition one to another – air is cold, water moist, and fire hot – and therefore, if any one of them were infinite, the rest would have ceased to be by this time. Accordingly they say that what is infinite is something other than the elements, and from it the elements arise.” – Aristotle “And besides this, there was an eternal motion, in the course of which was brought about the origin of the worlds. The earth swings free, held in its place by nothing. It stays where it is because of its equal distance from everything. Its shape is convex and round, and like a stone pillar. We are on one of the surfaces, and the other is on the opposite side. The heavenly bodies are wheels of fire separated off from the fire which encircles the world, and enclosed in air. And they have breathing-holes, certain pipe-like passages at which the heavenly bodies are seen. For this reason, too, when

the breathing-holes are stopped, eclipses occur. And the moon appears now to wax and now to wane because of the stopping and opening of the passages. The circle of the sun is twenty-seven times the size of the Earth, while that of the moon is eighteen times as large. The sun is highest of all, and lowest are the wheels of the fixed stars. Living creatures arose from the moist element as it was evaporated by the sun. Man was like another animal, namely, a fish, in the beginning.” – Hippolytus “Rain was produced by the moisture drawn up from the Earth by the sun.” – Hippolytus “The sea is what is left of the original moisture. The fire has dried up most of it and turned the rest salt by scorching it.” – Aëtius “Anaximander said the stars were hoop-like compressions of air, full of fire, breathing out flames at a certain point from orifices. The sun was highest of all, after it came the moon, and below these the fixed stars and the planets.” – Aëtius “Anaximander said that the sun is a circle twenty-eight times the size of the Earth. It is like the wheel of a chariot with a hollow rim full of fire. At a certain point the fire shines out, through an opening like the nozzle of a pair of bellows.... An eclipse of the sun results from the closing of the opening through which the fire appears.... [T]he stars are compressions of air in the form of fire-filled wheels and they throw out flames through openings in a certain place.... The moon is a circle nineteen times as large as the earth: it is like a chariot-wheel, the rims of which is hollow and full of fire, like the circle of the sun, and it is placed obliquely, as that of the sun also is; it has one vent like the nozzle of a pair of bellows; its eclipses depend on the turning of the wheel.” – Aëtius “In the heavens there are wheels of fire, separated from the fire of the world and surrounded by air. In these wheels are breathing-holes: like the holes of a flute, through which the fire is visible [as the Sun, Moon and stars]. When the breathing-holes are stopped up, eclipses take place. And the moon seems to wax and wane as the passages open and close. The wheel of the Sun is 27 times the size of the Earth, while that of the moon is 18 times as large. The Sun’s wheel is the highest [farthest] while the lowest [closest] are the wheels of the stars.” – Theophrastus

The World Map of Anaximander:

(Courtesy of Wikipedia) Bye, bye, America!

Innumerable Worlds Anaximander, Anaximenes, Archelaos, Xenophanes, Diogenes of Oenoanda, Leukippos, Demokritos, and Epicurus are all said to have held the doctrine of “innumerable worlds”. There were those who said that Anaximander thought of the different worlds as gods, and thus he was saying that there were innumerable different gods and that they were born, lived and died, like everything else. The only difference was that this happened over eons (“long intervals”). The Milesian pre-Socratic philosophers were the only cosmologists who held that the basic stuff of existence was boundless, hence it was highly likely that they all believed in innumerable worlds since why should an infinite universe provide a single solitary world like Earth? Petron, an early Pythagorean, said that there were one hundred and eighty-three universes (kosmoi) arranged in a triangle, at the centre of which lived Truth. There were sixty universes along each side, with the remaining three standing at the corners. The inner area of the triangle – the common hearth of all – was called the Plain of Truth, and here the forms and patterns of all things resided. Good humans were allowed to see the truth of existence once every ten thousand years. In actual fact, Petron was probably misinterpreted, and he almost certainly had one hundred and eighty universes in mind, corresponding to the number of degrees in a triangle.

Xenophanes Xenophanes rejected the Olympian gods and posited a nonanthropomorphic god: all-seeing, all-hearing, and all thinking, but unmoving. He controlled the universe with his thoughts alone. Xenophanes said that the conventional gods were simply human projections and if horses could draw then they would draw gods that looked like horses. The ancient Greek philosophers weren’t atheists, but they weren’t theists either, wholly rejecting anthropomorphic gods that involve themselves with human affairs. To that extent, they were deists. Xenophanes’s God was like Heraclitus’s rational principle of Logos present throughout nature, or the Nous (Mind) advocated by Anaxagoras, or Aristotle’s rational, teleological principle. Xenophanes argued that empiricism did not yield true knowledge so much as “true” belief. This is very much the affliction of modern scientists. Theirs isn’t an intelligible system but a sensible system. Reason and intelligence are about true knowledge, while the irrational senses are about “true” delusion! Science is just a Mythos delusion that seems convincing because it links so well with sensory evidence. The problem is that sensory evidence is an exceptionally poor guide to ultimate reality. We cannot gather true knowledge about the intelligible world with our senses, only with our intelligence. As you would expect, sensory data tells us only about the sensory world. It’s silent about the underlying intelligible world that makes our reality comprehensible.

***** Xenophanes proposed that the universe was made from water and earth only. He thus advocated a dualist arche.

Non-Explanation The two greatest sources of non-explanation are Abrahamism and multiverse scientific materialism. Abrahamism gives “God” as the ultimate answer to everything but fails to explain what God is, why he’s necessary and how he came to exist in the first place. Hence “God” doesn’t in fact

explain anything since its attempted explanation of everything (i.e. God explains everything) is itself unexplained and inexplicable. Multiverse advocates say that everything that can happen will happen, that anything not forbidden is compulsory. So, the answer to everything now becomes, “Oh, it was possible; it wasn’t forbidden, so it was bound to happen.” By default, anything that happens can be “explained” by the multiverse proposal, but that means that this proposal doesn’t explain anything at all. It’s as meaningful as saying, “God ordained it”. How would a multiversist explain what was not possible or was forbidden? What criteria would they use, and how would they then justify the use of those criteria rather than alternative criteria? If you can’t in fact specify a single instance of anything that’s impossible (other than mathematical impossibilities such as square circles or 1 + 1 = 3), all you’ve done is ended up saying, “Everything that exists has the property of existence.” And that’s a wholly empty, self-evident statement. The proposed answer to everything is the answer to nothing unless it can explain itself, i.e. provide a sufficient reason for itself. Neither God nor the multiverse can do so. Mathematics can. The answer to everything must show how something can rationally come from nothing and also remain nothing at all times. The universe must always be in its ground state of zero net energy since there’s no sufficient reason why it would ever have any different, arbitrary, nonzero value. Mathematics itself constitutes perfect balance between something and nothing since all positives are matched by equal and opposite negatives. This is compulsory and necessary within ontological mathematics, but not within anything else. No one claims that the Abrahamic “God” is nothing, and no one claims that the Multiverse must provide an overall result of zero (and if they did they would be invoking mathematical arguments!).

Heraclitus According to Heraclitus, observation is useful in the search for knowledge, but reason goes beyond it and is more important. To put it another way, the intelligible world is more important and more fundamental (more real) than the sensible world.

People have senses and they have reason. Science claims that only our senses can be used in the search for true knowledge, and reason must then be deployed on what the senses bring back. In fact, the true world is that of reason, and therefore only our reason can engage with it. The senses provide us with clues about true reality but do not address it directly. On the contrary, they address the sensible, illusory world, our Kantian mental, phenomenal construct. Reason must be able to explain the sensory delusion, and the senses are of course helpful in that regard, but certainly not in explaining truth and reality. For Heraclitus, the world is ordered and directed by a divine, rational law (“logos”), which underlies and unifies all things. Each of our souls is a fragment of logos, hence we are hard-wired to the divine order. Our individual reason allows us to connect with cosmic reason, and thus understand how the universe works and functions. True knowledge is that of divine logos, not of our sensory, fallible impressions. Observations conducted outside the context of logos are useless (and modern science is useless when it comes to ultimate reality since it rejects mathematical rationalism – logos). Observations have real value and meaning only when they are used to verify and validate our understanding of the logos. In other words, we first define the intelligible world and then derive the sensible world from it. We don’t start with the sensible world and deny, as scientists do, that an intelligible world even exists. Scientists chose experiments over mathematics, empiricism over rationalism, the senses over reason. Science is fundamentally irrationalist. It denies that rational, unobservable entities can exist at all. Given that ultimate reality is grounded in the unobservable, science – because of its quasi religious faith in the observable – has made it impossible for itself to unlock the rational, unobservable secrets of existence. The logos is the centre of Heraclitus’s system. This is the rational structuring, ordering and controlling principle of the universe, without which there would be only chaos. It applies to everything and unifies everything, just like the laws of ontological mathematics. All things must be unified within it, so all apparent contradictions (theses and antitheses) must in fact be reconcilable within a higher synthesis of unity. This makes Heraclitus the first dialectical thinker and the father of dialectics.

The logos is the Mind of God, but a deist rather than theist god. It’s purely concerned with rationalism and has no feelings towards, or interest in, the lives of human beings. The logos is in no way anthropomorphic. Heraclitus would have been appalled by the notion of the logos incarnating as a man (Jesus Christ). It’s a wholly natural force and not in the least supernatural. Like the Nous of Anaxagoras, it’s treated as a physical entity (conveyed by fire) that pervades the universe, rather than as something immaterial and dimensionless. However, “fire” should be understood as something extremely fine and rarefied (like aether), hence invisible. The visible fire of the earth, like visible water and earth, is derived from this hidden fire. In modern terms, we would describe Heraclitus’s metaphysical fire as dimensionless sinusoidal mathematical waves in permanent motion: the law that governs the wave motion is static, but the waves controlled by that law are eternally moving. When Heraclitus famously said, “There is nothing permanent except change”, he should have added the qualifier, “except the logos law that controls permanent change.” Only by understanding the logos can we understand the world and our experiences within it. Although physical, the logos and its operations can’t be directly observed, only the effects they have on the other things of the world. The logos is thus the force of rational causality that has its effects everywhere. The effects can be seen, but not the causality itself, which must be inferred from the effects. This is not unlike the thinking of David Hume who also denied the observability of causality. In Hume’s case, that made him skeptical of causality whereas Heraclitus suffered from no such empiricist concerns. Heraclitus was firmly on the rationalist side. The logos is an independently existing intelligible truth available to everyone, much like the later Forms of Plato. The logos is present in each soul, so we have the ability to grasp the rational truth, but most of us fail dismally. Most people are hopeless at recognising the truth and are blinded by their emotions or senses, and relegate their divine spark – reason – to an incidental role. Those people who do not use their logos are like sleepers inhabiting a dream world. All of their ideas about reality are false; mere fantasy. They are treating their subjective beliefs, opinions and conjectures as objective facts and truths.

Reason is our sole connection to what is going on in the real world. It’s our only organ for truth. People who do not use their logos are like beasts and barbarians. Animals have no reason and barbarians were those who couldn’t speak Greek (hence were ignorant!). When a Greek philosopher spoke, a barbarian simply heard meaningless noise rather than pearls of wisdom. He grasped none of the order, meaning, precision, and rationalism. So it is with those who cannot understand the language of nature – logos. They see the world as a bizarre jumble and noise. In Illuminism, the logos is of course mathematics. Number rules all. All things are numbers. Numbers, by their nature, reflect logos. Observation, sundered from logos, is simply meaningless noise. You might as well be dreaming. It’s not enough to gather facts and evidence. These must be placed within a logos context and, if they’re not, they lead to fantastical Mythos conclusions, as we see all too often in science. All facts and evidence must be related to logos or they are not facts and evidence at all but mere opinions and interpretations. This is as true of modern science as of ancient Abrahamism. Heraclitus was a material monist (but with matter being living rather than dead as in scientific materialism) and his arche was fire – the original material out of which everything else derives. The logos is effectively the purest and finest fire, which orders and controls all the poorer grades of fire. In Illuminism, we would say that dimensionless mathematical minds are the purest fire (energy) and they order and control the low quality dimensional fire (matter). Heraclitus’s system is the precursor of that of Hegel: an evolving, rational, dialectical cosmic mind that can generate the illusion of matter, which provides a necessary step of alienation on the mind’s cosmic journey to rational perfection and the final unity of all things. For all things to be united through logos prepares the way for all things to be united through the culmination of the rational dialectic where all apparent contradictions are resolved. For Heraclitus, everything is in a state of constant flux, reflecting the ever-changing nature of fire, leading, as he said, to nothing being permanent except change. We must except the laws of logos from this. If they were also changing, there would be no enduring ordered world at all!

According to Anaximander, strife periodically erupted and then “justice” imposed by the Unbounded restored the world to equilibrium. For Heraclitus, strife wasn’t some aberration that was then corrected. It was inbuilt into nature and indeed its fundamental driver. Justice and equilibrium result from strife and are a response to strife. You wouldn’t have them without strife being there in the first place. Why would you need justice in a system without conflict? Why would you need equilibrium in a system where nothing was opposed? It’s because of strife that we have justice and equilibrium in the first place. Anaximander depicted strife as an anomaly outside the cosmic plan, and justice was then forced to step in to resolve it. Heraclitus saw strife as the plan itself. This is the dialectical view of reality. The world proceeds through ongoing conflict and the synthesis phases that arise to settle them, before new conflicts arise from the new equilibrium. Only at the end of the dialectical journey – at the Omega Point – is a final synthesis attained in which all contradictions are reconciled. In a non-dialectical worldview, strife is something that has to be explained. Abrahamism is non-dialectical and fails to give any rational explanation of why evil exists in a universe created by a perfect God who made everything and knows no evil. In the dialectical worldview, strife is the motor of the whole system. As soon as you have “good”, you automatically have “evil” (its opposite), so there’s no longer any mystery about the origin of evil. A dialectical universe is not a benevolent place of love and peace but a savage, bloody battleground where quarter is rarely offered. Look around you. Are we living in a world created by a perfect infallible God, or in a monstrous, brutal cosmic jungle, immersed in conflict? We are all warriors. The pacifists and “unconditional” lovers and “light workers” are living in a fantasy world where they refuse to accept the dialectical facts of human existence. Jung’s entire conception of the psyche revolves around trying to bring opposites into an effective, healthy and productive balance. People go insane when any of their psychic elements become extremely unbalanced (whether as a result of trauma, tragedy or crazy beliefs). Whether you like it or not, you are full of contradictions, inconsistencies and opposites. The more rational you are, the more you can reach a

consistent synthesis where you transcend good and evil through the exercise of your reason. Religious people have an exceptionally poor understanding of good and evil and that’s why it’s no surprise to find billions of Abrahamists worshipping Satan, calling him God and being incredibly evil, yet imagining themselves good.

***** Heraclitus was notoriously secretive, misanthropic and obscure. He loathed stupid people and the vulgar mob. Who can blame him? If you don’t despise humanity as it is, rather than how it could be, there’s something seriously wrong with you.

No Facts “There are no facts, only interpretations.” – Nietzsche There are no facts, only beliefs. There are no facts, only opinions. There are no facts, only conjectures. There are no facts, only hypotheses. There are no facts at all other than mathematical facts.

The Heisenberg Mystery The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle doesn’t apply to the past. How can the past be fundamentally certain and the present and future fundamentally uncertain? In fact, there’s no Heisenberg uncertainty. Every single thing that happens has a sufficient mathematical reason why it is thus and not otherwise. Every effect has a precise cause. The idea that things happen randomly, that effects take place without causes, that things happen for no specific reason but merely by chance, is absurd and wholly anti-scientific. Einstein was 100% right to say that God does not play dice.

When you view the Heisenberg “uncertainty” principle in terms of ontological complex numbers and the two ontological Fourier-connected domains of frequency and spacetime, all uncertainty vanishes. What’s for sure is that we can’t trace the trajectory of the world of our experience in terms of scientific observables and “real” numbers. We must invoke mathematical unobservables. When scientists refer to “uncertainty” what they should be talking about is “unobservability”, which is an entirely different concept. It should be the Heisenberg Unobservability Principle. Things can be certain but unobservable (hidden variables apply). Inherently uncertain things, on the other hand, cannot be precisely observed even in principle. The scientific Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism forces scientists (followers of the religious faith of scientism) to interpret unobservability as uncertainty. In a Meta Paradigm of rationalism and idealism, an entirely different interpretation is applied to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. It’s about time that science started revealing its hidden assumptions and beliefs, and referred to its controversial hypotheses as interpretations within a certain Meta Paradigm, and acknowledged that in alternative Meta Paradigms, very different, and much more rational, interpretations will apply. Science goes out of its way to deny being a “philosophy”. It believes that its experimental method differentiates it from philosophy, yet all of its interpretations of experimental data, hence all of its hypotheses, are based on a particular philosophical view of reality (that of empiricism and materialism), and they have no possible means of proving the correctness of this view. In fact, rationally, every claim of the scientific Meta Paradigm can be refuted, as we have been demonstrating throughout the God Series. It’s time for “science” to be called a philosophy, with an experimental method attached, the interpretation of which is itself philosophical and not in any way factual and indisputable. “There are no facts, only interpretations.” – Nietzsche

The Wrong Road Why did the entire profession of economics, bar a few maverick free thinkers, fail to predict the 2008 financial crisis? For exactly the same

reason that science can’t discover a final theory of science – it’s full of careerist groupthinkers who follow the herd and the prevailing, safe paradigm, never think for themselves and never dare to sand out from the crowd. It’s a sad fact that science has no interesting thinkers whatsoever. They are all brainwashed functionaries and drudges with no courage and no ability to break free from the groupthink, conformist straitjacket. Truth advances only thanks to courageous thinkers who are willing to think differently from everyone else and take a position against all the others, and to hell with the consequences. Philosophy has often generated such thinkers. Science and economics once did but, increasingly, no professional in these fields dares to be a maverick, an outsider, a rebel, a heretic, an apostate, an infidel. There’s always safety within the herd. You can’t lose your cosy salary, pension and position if you’re saying and thinking what everyone else is saying and thinking. “How much truth can you bear, how much truth can you dare?” – Nietzsche

Madness Anyone who thinks that they can take on mathematics and refute it is insane. Mathematics crushes all challengers, all pretenders and false claimants. Ontological mathematics is all-powerful, all-knowing and perfect.

The Dialectic Everything is about opposites. If someone says there’s a Creator, someone else says there isn’t. If someone says materialism is true, someone else says it’s false and that idealism is true. Rationalists are opposed by empiricists. If someone argues for free-market capitalism, someone else will demand communism. Anarchists will oppose those who support government. Fanatical libertarians will oppose anyone who argues for a sensible balance of freedom. Republicans will oppose monarchists. Pacifists will oppose war mongers. Rich and poor, tall and short, ugly and beautiful, elite and mediocre, light and dark, good and evil, “us” and the “other” ... opposites are everywhere.

If we say existence is 100% mathematical, someone will certainly say it has nothing to do with mathematics and is all about unconditional love, or perfect faith, or an eternal Creator, or a random fluctuation in a “vacuum”, or whatever. Even though there are countless opposites, there is only one final answer – and that’s objective, ontological mathematics. Of course, mathematics itself is dialectical: real numbers are opposed by imaginary numbers, zero by infinity, the dimensionless by the dimensional, large by small, symmetry by antisymmetry and asymmetry, frequency by spacetime, the whole by the parts, and, above all, by the quintessential dialectical stand-off: positive versus negative. It’s precisely because positive and negative exist – two opposite “things” – that “something” can equal “nothing”, which is the basis of reality itself. The positive thing and the negative thing are both equally valid (neither can be privileged over the other). They are the thesis and antithesis and their synthesis is “nothing”! Nothing is the supreme, absolute synthesis, the Omega Point, where positive and negative are perfectly balanced. All dialectical processes are about taking a thesis and antithesis and finding the synthesis point at which their optimal balance is achieved. That need not be 50/50 (although it always is in objective mathematics). When it comes to a dialectical opposition such as communitarianism versus individualism, the optimal balance may well be 80% in favour of the former and 20% in favour of the latter. Selfish people – such as psychopaths, libertarians, anarchists and Randroids – want 100% individualism, but the inevitable outcome of their beliefs is the jungle. In the present day, socialist countries are around 55/45 in favour of the community over the individual, and capitalist countries 80/20 in favour of the individual over the community. Positive liberty supports community and negative liberty the individual. Mathematics, in attempting to become conscious, reflects its own inherent dialectical tensions. All mathematical entities are involved in thesis and antithesis, yin and yang, and then with trying to find a higher synthesis phase where opposites can be reconciled. The perfect mind is not looking to exterminate positive or negative, but to find the point at which positive and negative are optimally balanced. Mathematics itself is the perfect balance. Only mathematics can accomplish perfect dialectical balance.

Something such as a perfect Creator God is inherently anti-dialectical, hence mathematically false and impossible. No Abrahamist has ever explained how evil can arise in a system where a perfect God was once on his own and then created a universe for which he was 100% responsible. Where did evil come from if not from him? No one else, and nothing else, was involved! The Neoplatonists said that eternal matter was the source of evil, but Abrahamists deny the existence of eternal matter (“God” created all matter), so even that get-out clause was closed to them. It’s rationally impossible for a perfect being who creates everything to produce a world containing evil. Abrahamism is ipso facto definitively disproved. (Anyone who says Abrahamism has not been disproved is a cretin. It has been 100% logically refuted.) In a dialectical universe, good and evil, and all binary oppositions, are inevitable. No one’s to blame.

The Hard Path Most people follow the path that everyone before them has trodden. That’s the quick way to avoid being a genius. The genius, and the fool and madman (!), always create brand new paths, upon which no other person has ever set foot. Nothing is more depressing than the “role model” if that means copying someone else. That’s how to kill off genius. The genius is he who has no precedent. He doesn’t copy anyone. He goes beyond everyone else to unknown and unexplored places. Science is full of people following the same road, the same way of thinking and doing things. Its full of conformism and consensus, of functionaries, bureaucrats and mediocrities. Religion is exactly the same. Religion wipes out apostates, infidels, heretics and rebels, and so does science. The tragedy of science is that it does not welcome free thinking, only groupthink. No one who opposed conventional scientific wisdom would ever be funded by science. Its horrific that science and religion are both all about following the wrong path, the false path, and no one anywhere ever has the guts,

knowledge or reason to say, “Hey, we have to get off this road. It’s the road to nowhere.” Religion and science have both led us to anti-truth. Religion is absurd and science is just the religion of empiricism and materialism. Mathematics alone is the truth of existence, and only the Illuminati are travelling the true path. Isn’t it time you joined us? We are always seeking geniuses. A critical mass of geniuses will change the world once and for all. “Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see.” – Schopenhauer (Science doesn’t even accept the existence of the “unseen”, hence is the enemy of true genius.)

Newton and Leibniz Newton, more than anyone else, brought mathematics to physics. Leibniz, more than anyone else, brought mathematics to metaphysics. Newton (an empiricist and materialist) demanded that mathematics should have observable effects. Leibniz (a rationalist and idealist) demanded that mathematics should have rational effects (it must at all times obey the principle of sufficient reason), but these effects are under no constraint to be observable (i.e. sensory). Newton was an advocate of a mathematical sensible world, and Leibniz an advocate of a mathematical intelligible world. The mathematics of Newton is that which is compatible with observability (so Newtonian mathematics can have no “hidden variables” or “rational unobservables”). The mathematics of Leibniz has no observability restrictions or constraints, hence can be consistent and complete (unlike Newtonian mathematics, which is compelled to reject all mathematical elements incompatible with empiricism, materialism and observability). So, there’s your clear choice. Which path will you follow? Will you accept complete mathematics or incomplete mathematics? If the former, you have rejected observability (empiricism) as the central criterion of truth. If the latter, you have rejected consistency and completeness (rationalism) as the basis of truth.

Your choice says everything about you, about your personality type and how your brain is wired. Is truth fundamentally observable or unobservable? That is the question. Is the truth empirical or rational? Is the truth sensible or intelligible? What is your answer? Will you only believe what you see? Or will you rationally accept the existence of things you can’t see (above all, the mathematical monadic soul)? Scientists cannot in any way disprove the existence of the unseen. However, all such things (“hidden variables”) are outside the empiricist and materialist Meta Paradigm of science, hence they are automatically dismissed. Not only are they ignored, they are rapidly concluded to be nonexistent and fantastical, conclusions that are in no way logical or rationally justified. They reflect pure bias and a quasi-religious faith in empiricism and materialism. Remember, science isn’t “science”. It’s a philosophy and it has many features of a religious faith. It rejects everything it can’t understand and which is incompatible with its dogma and ideology. Science is a Church (the Church of the Senses), not a rational enterprise.

***** Science is based on sensory evidence and mathematics on rational proof. What is more reliable and certain – the humans senses or mathematical reason? There will never be direct sensory evidence for the existence of the soul given that it’s immaterial and outside space and time, yet the monadic soul can be 100% rationally and mathematically proved. So, will you accept the soul or reject it? How you live your life and how you understand reality hinge on this single question. Will you act on evidence or proof? They are definitely not the same thing, and are in many ways as opposed as Abrahamic faith and evidence and Abrahamic faith and proof, or “Mythos” intuition and evidence and “Mythos” intuition and proof. (“Mythos” intuition is that attached to Eastern religion; “Logos intuition” is that attached to mathematical insight). You must choose whether truth is about faith, Mythos intuition, evidence or proof, knowing that all four are incompatible and irreconcilable. There’s

no escape route. You must select one way forward, and then there’s no going back. Abrahamism stakes everything on faith in divine revelation. Eastern religion stakes everything on Mythos intuition (the mysticism of gurus). Science stakes everything on sensory evidence, on “truths” of fact. Mathematics stakes everything on rational proof, on the eternal truths of reason. Those are your four choices. There are no others. So choose!

***** Agnostics are not those who don’t know. They are those who lack the conviction to choose. They are pathetic weaklings and cowards, more or less the worst human beings of them all.

Fourier Mathematics “The profound study of nature is the most fertile source of mathematical discoveries.” – Joseph Fourier “Mathematical Analysis is as extensive as nature herself.” – Joseph Fourier “Mathematics compares the most diverse phenomena and discovers the secret analogies that unite them.” – Joseph Fourier “The deep study of nature is the most fruitful source of mathematical discoveries. By offering to research a definite end, this study has the advantage of excluding vague questions and useless calculations; besides it is a sure means of forming analysis itself and of discovering the elements which it most concerns us to know, and which natural science ought always to conserve.” – Joseph Fourier “The differential equations of the propagation of heat express the most general conditions, and reduce the physical questions to problems of pure analysis, and this is the proper object of theory.” – Joseph Fourier “The integrals which we have obtained are not only general expressions which satisfy the differential equation, they represent in the most distinct manner the natural effect which is the object of the phenomenon... when this condition is fulfilled, the integral is, properly speaking, the equation of

the phenomenon; it expresses clearly the character and progress of it, in the same manner as the finite equation of a line or curved surface makes known all the properties of those forms.” – Joseph Fourier “Heat, like gravity, penetrates every substance of the universe, its rays occupy all parts of space. The object of our work is to set forth the mathematical laws which this element obeys. The theory of heat will hereafter form one of the most important branches of general physics.” – Joseph Fourier “Fourier’s breakthrough was to realise that fundamentally there was only one type of waveform [ the sinusoidal wave], so it was like an atomic theory of music.” – Musician Brian Eno “The great insight of Fourier was that every wave, however complex it was, could be expressed as the sum of lots of sine waves.” – Brian Eno “Fourier’s mathematical understanding of how heat varies has enabled us to understand anything which can be described as a wave: heat, sound and light can all be described as waves.” – Marcus du Sautoy “Fourier’s Theorem is not only one of the most beautiful results of modern analysis, but it is said to furnish an indispensable instrument in the treatment of nearly every recondite question in modern physics. ... [Fourier’s theory] is a great mathematical poem.” – Lord Kelvin “Fourier analysis ... one of the most potent ideas of all times ... the grammar of waveforms ...” – Marcus du Sautoy

Ontological Mathematics Ontological mathematics is Fourier mathematics applied to everything: to the whole cosmos and all of existence. Ontological mathematics asserts that reality is entirely derived from sine and cosine waves (analytic sinusoids). All of heat, light, sound, matter, energy, motion, time, space, mass, thought, mind, will, the unconscious, consciousness, mind-matter interactivity, feelings, desires, free will, causality, quantum mechanics, gravity and holography are wave phenomena, defined by Fourier mathematics.

But where do the sinusoids come from in the first place? Analytic sine and cosine waves of every possible type are generated by “Euler circles”, defined by the generalised Euler Formula (the God Equation). The basic Euler Formula is eix = cos x + i sin x. The eix term defines the Euler unit circle, and we can see that it generates a cosine wave and imaginary sine wave (across the full set of x’s that define the circle). Euler circles are “complex” circles (described in the complex plane and thus involving imaginary as well as real numbers). One complete set of God Equation Euler circles is known as a monad, a basic unit of ontological mathematics. A monad is a living mind and is the mathematical equivalent of the immortal, indestructible soul of religion. It’s fundamentally unconscious but can evolve consciousness through its dialectical, selfoptimisation procedures. A monad comprises all Euler circles ontologically possible, hence all frequencies and amplitudes of sinusoidal waves ontologically possible. An Euler circle generates analytic sinusoids very straightforwardly. All that happens is that the ultimate entity of existence – the so-called “flowing point” (the entity that actually conveys energy at a specific location, and which has a fixed, unimaginably small, but non-zero value) – traces out a circular trajectory in accordance with specific values of frequency and amplitude slotted into the God Equation. That is, by simply moving in a perfect circle, a flowing point mathematically generates a precise sine and matching cosine wave. As we have seen, the basic Euler circle is the “unit” circle where eix = cos x + i sin x. So, when a flowing point traces out the unit Euler circle (just imagine a tiny point moving uniformly around the circumference of this circle, forever), this is entirely equivalent to tracing out a perfect real cosine wave and perfect imaginary sine wave, each of which is eternal. These perfect waves, and all other perfect waves generated by all other Euler circles within a monad, provide a perfect set of basis ontological Fourier waves (“atomic” waves, so to speak). From this set of atomic, basis Fourier waves (outside space and time), we can generate any ontologically possible wave in spacetime. Draw a Cartesian grid and draw any ontologically possible curve, any function, on it. Ontological mathematics asserts that any such curve or function can be decomposed into atomic, basis Fourier waves resident within monads. Any mathematical functions that resist being reduced in this

way are “abstract”, i.e. non-ontological. Abstract mathematics is not synonymous with ontological mathematics. As explained elsewhere in the God Series, mathematical operations are possible abstractly that are impossible within ontological mathematics since the latter is subject to severe constraints that forbid all manner of arbitrary mathematical operations. For example, all flowing points in ontological mathematics travel at a single speed – that of the speed of light in a perfect vacuum. In abstract mathematics, any speed is allowed, so all manner of things will be possible with abstract mathematics and its variable speed that are not possible with ontological mathematics and its single speed. As for Euler circles themselves, they are a direct consequence of the principle of sufficient reason. Since there is no sufficient reason why any point should be privileged over any other, the only way to ensure that all points have exactly the same status is to place them all in a circle, exactly as in King Arthur’s famous Round Table. Since energy is only ever active at one location, namely where the flowing point is, this flowing point has no option but to trace out a perfect circle in order to ensure that, on average, no point on the circumference of the circle is privileged over any other. The flowing point must of course move uniformly at one speed to ensure that all points are treated in exactly the same way. This is true of every flowing point in existence. Every single one of them moves at the same speed. All Euler circles have another critical property: they all average to exactly zero. Every Euler circle is just an ingeniously organised “nothing”. A universe of Euler circles is a universe whose objective properties are all set to exactly zero, the necessary and compulsory ground state of energy of the universe (since there is no sufficient reason why any arbitrary value above zero should be preferred). Euler circles provide an adamantine conservation of energy at precisely zero. A universe of Euler circles is both a universe of something and a universe of nothing, thus answering Leibniz’s famous question of why there is something rather than nothing. In fact, there’s not something rather than nothing because, mathematically, something is nothing, as long as something is composed purely of Euler circles. So, Euler circles of every conceivable type are the basis of existence and encapsulate and reflect the principle of sufficient reason, the most important principle of all that defines everything. These Euler circles generate perfect

Fourier basis waves, and from these we can construct any possible ontological spacetime function. Spacetime functions are “bodies” and autonomous monadic frequencies domains are “minds”, and they interact via Fourier mathematics. That’s it. That’s the ground of existence. That’s the complete explanation of everything. The only task remaining is to map this basic mathematical ontology – this noumenal mathematical explanation of the intelligible domain – to the phenomenal, sensible domain of science. This is a precise, analytic solution to existence. Its scientific “rival” is non-analytic M-theory which claims that 1-D energy strings (science’s version of flowing points) vibrate in an 11-D spacetime comprising three “big” spatial dimensions, seven “rolled up” spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. M-theory respects neither the principle of sufficient reason nor basic causality. It’s a random, probabilistic theory, and it has nothing at all to say about mind, life, consciousness, free will and the soul. So, what will you choose – hyperrational ontological mathematics, or irrational, dice-based M-theory? Ontological mathematics guarantees you a soul and immortality. Mtheory guarantees that you live in a totally meaningless universe and will perish permanently when you die. Mathematics saves you. Science condemns you. Time to choose!

The Survivor If all possible systems of mathematics were subjected to Darwinian natural selection, the only one that would survive would be the most consistent, complete and stable. That is what ontological mathematics is. In fact, all other versions of mathematics, including abstract mathematics, are inconsistent, incomplete and unstable, hence self-destruct ontologically.

The Way “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” Bollocks!

Mathematics is the way, the truth and the life, and no one achieves enlightenment except through a rational or intuitive grasp of mathematics. Music – auditory mathematics – is the best way for non-mathematicians to explore mathematics intuitively and enjoyably (emotionally). Studying the patterns of nature is another way (for sensory types). Metaphysics is another path (for thinking types) . Or read books such as Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter. Best of all, read the God Series, and then study the generalised Euler Formula, sinusoidal waves, Fourier mathematics and holography. All the answers lie there.

False Consensus Religion, science and politics often give rise to a false consensus – general agreement on propositions that are absolutely false. The only subject which can never generate a false consensus is mathematics since propositions in mathematics are either true or false, and provably so.

Dissidents Religion, science and politics all despise dissidents. The subject that has been most favourable to dissidents is philosophy. In many ways, philosophy is the history of intellectual dissidence. Science, on the other hand, gets more and more conformist and careerist with every passing year. It’s now impossible for any professional scientist to be a dissident, i.e. to fundamentally disagree with any of the basic tenets of the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science. Einstein himself was more or less discarded by science for refusing to accept that quantum mechanics had reached its complete expression. (He believed there were hidden variables that would restore determinism to quantum mechanics.)

Opinion and Evidence Scientists always distinguish between “opinion” and “evidence”. The trouble is that scientific evidence is just an opinion too, albeit a more sophisticated and plausible one than those of religion and politics given that it is at least subject to some kind of objective, repeatable test. But consider the famous Higgs boson. We are told that “evidence” has been found for its existence. But the Higgs boson was something hypothesised as part of an

abstract theory of physics which had no logical necessity, and no rational, mathematical proof that it was true. The theory predicted a Higgs bosonic “signature” and the experiments at the Large Hadron Collider duly found “evidence” of that signature, and thus Peter Higgs was awarded a Nobel Prize for physics. But no one has actually proved that this is indeed the Higgs boson. It could be another particle predicted by an entirely different (and contradictory) theory that just happens to have a similar signature to that of the Higgs boson. How would any scientist know? Evidence is not proof. It can never be proof. Higgs bosons do not have little labels pinned on them saying, “Yup, I am a Higgs boson. Ya got me!” In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Newtonian physics was triumphantly vindicated by experiments. There was “evidence” galore. Today, no scientist would say that the universe is Newtonian. Who’s to say that the Higgs boson won’t suffer a similar fate: from hero to zero? Science, for all of its bluster, will never be anything other than an opinion and interpretation. If you want proof – eternal truth and certainty – you have nowhere to turn but ontological mathematics. That’s a fact. It’s not an opinion!

Strikes Right-wingers want to make it as difficult as possible for unions to take strike action. They are demanding that fifty percent of a union’s membership must vote for a strike before it’s considered legal. Fair enough! Now let’s extend exactly the same principle to democracy. No politician can be elected without the support of at least fifty percent of the total number of their constituents. No President, Prime Minister or Chancellor could be elected without at least fifty percent of the total number of eligible voters (not just those who actually vote). On this basis, not a single President, Prime Minister or Chancellor would be legal. All of them would have to step down. The vast majority of politicians would also have to resign. So, let’s go for it! Of course, politicians wouldn’t tolerate this for a single second, would they? Total hypocrites! And why not apply this enlightened principle to corporations too? How about no corporate policy is legal unless supported by at least fifty percent of the employees and fifty percent of the shareholders? The corporate

bosses wouldn’t tolerate this for a single second either, would they? Total hypocrites part II! If any principle is valid, it should be universally valid, and should apply to those proposing it as much as those upon whom they wish to impose it. Otherwise, we have a tyranny of masters over their slaves.

The Law of Diminishing Returns A beautiful woman’s beauty is never greater than the first time she appears to you naked. After that, the law of diminishing returns applies. On every subsequent occasion when she’s naked in front of you, you’re just that little bit more desensitised to her attractiveness. Eventually, the most beautiful woman in the world – a veritable Helen of Troy – is less attractive to you than some much more ordinary mortal, who has the key advantage of being new and different. And that’s why even goddesses get cheated on by their lovers.

Shark Sense Sharks have a sixth sense called electroreception. This is the ability to detect electrical currents. Wikipedia says, “Electroreception is the biological ability to perceive natural electrical stimuli. It has been observed almost exclusively in aquatic or amphibious animals, since water is a much better conductor than air, the currently known exceptions being echidnas, cockroaches and bees. Electroreception is used in electrolocation (detecting objects) and for electrocommunication. ... Electroreceptive animals use this sense to locate objects around them. This is important in ecological niches where the animal cannot depend on vision: for example in caves, in murky water and at night. Many fish use electric fields to detect buried prey. Some shark embryos and pups ‘freeze’ when they detect the characteristic electric signal of their predators. It has been proposed that sharks can use their acute electric sense to detect the earth’s magnetic field by detecting the weak electric currents induced by their swimming or by the flow of ocean currents. The walking behaviour of cockroaches can be affected by the presence of a static electric field: they like to avoid the electric field. ... Sharks and rays (members of the subclass Elasmobranchii), such as the lemon shark, rely heavily on electrolocation in the final stages of their

attacks, as can be demonstrated by the robust feeding response elicited by electric fields similar to those of their prey. Sharks are the most electrically sensitive animals known, responding to DC fields as low as 5 nV/cm. The electric field sensors of sharks are called the ampullae of Lorenzini. They consist of electroreceptor cells connected to the seawater by pores on their snouts and other zones of the head. A problem with the early submarine telegraph cables was the damage caused by sharks who sensed the electric fields produced by these cables. It is possible that sharks may use Earth’s magnetic field to navigate the oceans using this sense. ... Electrocommunication is the communication method used by weakly electric fishes. Weakly electric fishes are a group of animals that utilize a communicating channel that is ‘invisible’ to most other animals: electric signalling. Electric fishes communicate electrically by one fish generating an electric field and a second individual receiving that electric field with its electroreceptors. The receiving side will interpret the signal frequencies, waveforms, and delay, etc. ... Electric fish are capable of generating an external electric fields or receive electric fields (electroreception). ... It has been claimed that the electromagnetic fields generated by pylons and masts have adverse effects on wildlife ... Bees collect a positive static charge while flying through the air (see Atmospheric electricity). When a bee visits a flower, the charge deposited on the flower takes a while to leak away into the ground. Bees can detect both the presence and the pattern of electric fields on flowers, and use this information to know if a flower has been recently visited by another bee and is therefore likely to have a reduced concentration of pollen. The mechanism of electric field reception in animals living in the air like bees is based on mechano- reception, not electroreception. Bees receive the electric field changes via the Johnston’s organs in their antennae and possibly other mechano-receptors. They distinguish different temporal patterns and learn them. During the waggle dance, Honeybees appear to use the electric field emanating from the dancing bee for distance communication.” How would humans regard the world if they could likewise detect electrical and magnetic fields?

Bad Karma

For the theory of karma to be remotely plausible, there would have to be some being or force that defined, recorded and tracked what is karmically good, bad, or neutral, then cause the whole cosmos to arrange itself so as ensure that bad karma is punished and good karma rewarded, and neutral karma ignored. The whole theory of karma fails on a simple point: morality is nothing but opinion. There are silly New Age people who talk of karma being simple “cause and effect”, without explaining what this means and how it operates. They presumably have in mind something to do with your good deeds having good consequences for you and your bad deeds producing negative consequences, with this of course operating across lifetimes. Yet let’s consider the example of someone like Adolf Hitler. To Hitler himself, or a fanatical Nazi supporter, he was a great man and great German, and he should be copiously rewarded in a future life. To a Jew, or any of his other victims, he was a monster who ought to be horrifically punished in a future incarnation. Well, who or what is going to decide cause and effect? Where’s the formula for it? Every Karmist should be compelled to write down a causal formula for karma, and then all the rest of us can laugh at them and tear their silly ideas to shreds. 1 + 1 = 2 means that if 1 is added to 1, a result of 2 is caused. That’s uncontroversial. But what on earth does karmic causality mean? It’s not even possible to hazard any guess at what is being suggested, other than ludicrous moralising. Is your “karma” something you decide? If it is, your karma will no doubt be highly favourable to you. If you don’t decide your own karma then who, or what, decides it for you, and using what criteria? Would a single fan of karmic theory like to propose an objective scientific mechanism, please? Or is the whole thing total bullshit? Is it pure Mythos and wishful thinking from start to finish?

Swearing Would you let someone swear an oath on a book of fairytales? So, why is anyone allowed to swear an oath on Abrahamic “holy” texts, which are religious fairytales from beginning to end? Anyone who swears on such a text is ipso facto an unreliable witness. To go further, such a person is not only irrational but actually mad, and their testimony should be stricken

from the record. All judges and lawyers who subscribe to Abrahamism should be summarily dismissed. The new oath that everyone should take is: “I swear on my own life and that of everyone I love, and on my own honour and that of everyone I love, that I am telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” You should not swear to “God” (a fictional being) but to yourself and your loved ones (real beings). If you lie, you have shamed, dishonoured and disgraced yourself, and everyone close to you.

Inner or Outer Causality Endogenous: “proceeding from within”; having no external cause (from endo- “within; inside” + -genous “producing”). Exogenous: “proceeding from outside”; having an external cause (from exo“without; outside” + -genous “producing”). “Endogenous growth theory holds that economic growth is primarily the result of endogenous and not external forces. Endogenous growth theory holds that investment in human capital, innovation, and knowledge are significant contributors to economic growth. The theory also focuses on positive externalities and spillover effects of a knowledge-based economy which will lead to economic development. There are classical, neo-classical and Keynesian theories of growth. The endogenous growth theory primarily holds that the long run growth rate of an economy depends on policy measures. For example, subsidies for research and development or education increase the growth rate in some endogenous growth models by increasing the incentive for innovation.” – Wikipedia Scientific materialism rejects endogenous causality. It also rejects subjectivity. To the extent that it believes in causality at all (the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics invokes random acausality), science believes only in exogenous causality and “objectivity”. It’s only possible for free will to exist if endogenous causality (unaffected by exogenous causality) is true.

Anaximenes

For the pre-Socratic philosopher Anaximenes, the arche is aer (air) – a misty, breathy thing. For him, it was obvious that a creature is alive because it breathes. Therefore, the living cosmos must itself breathe. The thing that breathes, or is sustained by breathing, or is the deepest expression of breath, is the soul, and this holds a body together and directs it. Hence the cosmos must have a soul that holds the cosmos together. Anaximenes was deploying a classic microcosm/macrocosm argument: as above, so below. Moving aer can be rarefied (and thus become fire) or condensed (and become, successively, wind, water, clouds, earth, and finally stone). Condensation produces coldness, and rarefaction heat. When it comes to water and its different forms, ice is the coldest form, liquid water the warmest, with snow lying in-between. For Anaximenes, although all things are qualitatively different, they are ultimately all just different phases of the single substance of aer. The single substance of aer forms a continuum of phases, with each phase being perceived to be something different from the underlying unity (aer).

***** Aer is the source of motion and supports constant change. Like the water of Thales and the Unbounded of Anaximander, it’s imbued with mind and divinity. It’s the source of the gods themselves, who are thus perfect aer beings who inhabit the sky and the fiery heavens.

***** The Earth, Anaximenes said, rests on a cushion of aer.

Parmenides Parmenides was an extremist rationalist and metaphysician who insisted that ultimate reality has nothing at all to do with how we experience it, i.e. empiricism is useless as a source of real knowledge. Go tell that to the scientists! Parmenides dismissed the senses entirely and said that reason alone revealed the truth. To this extent, he was the total opposite of scientific materialists who are in thrall to sensory experiments and see these as the

only sure path to truth. Parmenides has been described as the purest and most counterintuitive philosopher of them all. Where Heraclitus was the supreme philosopher of becoming, Parmenides was the supreme philosopher of being. For Parmenides, true knowledge was all about being. Non-being was literally unspeakable, unthinkable and impossible. Since Parmenides viewed “becoming” in the sense of things that don’t yet exist (they don’t have being) coming into being, he did not see how this process was possible at all, given that he denied that any existent could ever come from non-existence. He used a key principle to guide his thinking: “what is” is and “what is not” is not, and thus you couldn’t get from one to the other via “becoming”. With the senses being wholly deceptive, reason was left as our sole means of getting at the truth. Given that you can’t start rational philosophy with things that don’t exist, you must address what does exist. Since this can never not have existed, it always existed, and, moreover, since becoming is impossible, it must have always stayed the same. Parmenides said, “That which is there to be thought or spoken of must be.” Thus, what is not there to be thought or spoken cannot exist at all. You cannot meaningfully and coherently refer to anything that is not there. If something does not exist, we cannot meaningfully think about it, cannot speak about it, cannot refer to it, cannot do anything with it at all. We cannot make any statements regarding non-being. Any rational inquiry cannot refer to non-existence and must always begin with: “it is”. So, for example, since there is no such thing as a unicorn, one cannot engage in any rational enquiry into a unicorn. To do so would be pure fantasy, illusion, opinion and belief. The logic of Parmenides inexorably leads to the stance that “what is” is uncreated, uncaused, unchanging, immortal, perfect, continuous and one – this is the Parmenidean Real. He depicts it as a sphere with nothing outside it. For Parmenides, there is truth (reason) and opinion (non-reason), or, as we might say now, “truths of reason” and “truths of fact”, although Parmenides would no doubt agree with Nietzsche that there are no facts, only interpretations. So, Parmenides was the first philosopher to state outright that there is a real world and a false world. Our senses reveal the false world to us and our

reason the real world. According to science, the intelligible world is false while the sensory world is real, and our reason makes sense of it. This is a fundamentally incoherent position. After all, why should reason be in any way dependent on the senses or in service of the senses? Why don’t they serve it?! Parmenides (born in the Greek colonial city of Elea in southern Italy), and his followers, constituted the school of Elea, its members being known as the Eleatics. They treated reason as the sole criterion of truth. They denied that anything was created or destroyed, that plurality could come from unity, that change was possible, and that it was possible to meaningfully speak or think of non-being. Zeno and Melissus were his most famous students. Parmenides was right to place rationalism above empiricism and to ridicule the senses as any route to truth. However, he was entirely wrong about existence revolving around being rather than becoming. We live in a mathematical universe of becoming. Illuminism is based on mathematical energy, conveyed by “flowing points”. A point in motion is the quintessence of mathematical energy. What directs the motion of the point? It’s the mathematical equation of motion that it follows – one that makes it travel at a uniform rate forever. All things are in fact determined by the God Equation and follow a circular trajectory, which is also associated with wave motion (i.e. with sines and cosines). A flowing point always exists but is never in a state of pure being since it is always becoming: always moving to the next phase mandated by its internal mathematical nature. A flowing point obeying the God Equation is the quintessence of ontology. It’s a system of pure mathematical becoming, obeying the principle of sufficient reason, with every mathematical effect having a necessary mathematical cause. It might be said that the God Equation is a static, immutable Platonic law, somehow separate from the flowing points it directs. In fact, it cannot exist on its own. The formula and the flowing point it directs are one and the same thing: the basic ontological unit of existence.

***** “Change alone is unchanging.” – Heraclitus

The Two Worlds and the Truth There are only two possible routes to truth: 1) Via the intelligible world, which is known through reason and has nothing to do with the senses. It’s a metaphysical world and the true language of metaphysics is mathematics. 2) Via the sensible world, which is known through the senses and uses reason only to interpret sensory data. This is a physical world and the language of this world is physics (science). 100% of people can agree on an intelligible truth of mathematics such as 1 + 1 = 2. A sensible “truth” such as the sky is blue is not at all obvious or even necessarily true. We can’t even know if we all have the same experience of blue. 1 + 1 can’t be anything other than 2 without generating a contradiction. This is a necessary, eternal, objective truth. As for any sensory “truth”, this is neither necessary nor eternal. The sky could be any colour other than blue without contradiction. Colour blind people wouldn’t even see its colour. All sensory data is subjective, not objective. It’s staggering that science regards illusory, contingent, sensory data as more real than objective, necessary, rational data. That’s empiricists for you. They’re not rational!

Peer Review Scientists often brag about the alleged benefits of “peer review”, by which each scientific paper is reviewed by a couple of other scientists and commented upon before it’s published. This is supposed to increase the “rigour” of such publications. Professor Brian Cox stated that books are statements of the opinions of their authors while peer-reviewed publications are, somehow, “more than mere opinion”. Of course, they are merely the opinion of three people rather than one, and that confers no special status on them whatsoever. If three Muslims agreed on Koranic nonsense before they published their paper all about it, or had it reviewed by two other Muslims just like them, they could claim the document was peer reviewed. That wouldn’t alter the fact that it was sheer nonsense. Science isn’t a democracy. Science proceeds by the brilliance of a few geniuses, not by the

mediocrities who engage in peer review. No one peer reviewed Pythagoras, Plato, Descartes, Leibniz or Nietzsche and these are much greater thinkers than all scientists put together. If three “Schoolmen” (medieval Catholic theologians) concurred on some theological opinion, it wouldn’t therefore be any truer or better. It would still be an opinion about Catholicism, a wholly false doctrine. Scientists are careerists, conformists, bureaucrats, functionaries and are committed to consensus. This means that they are subject to groupthink and observer bias. If you ask three groupthinkers rather than one to review something, what you get is something even more reflective of groupthink. You get thinking by committee rather than thinking by geniuses. And that’s science’s whole problem. It doesn’t generate heretics, rebels, infidels and apostates who could genuinely offer critical opinions. Peer review, as a prime consolidator of groupthink, is nothing like the treasure scientists believe it to be. It builds consensus at the expense of truth. “Wisdom is not additive; its maximum is that of the wisest man in a given group.” – Robert A. Heinlein Science believes that wisdom is additive and is achieved via peer review. That’s exactly why science has failed to achieve a final theory despite decades of effort. It refuses to listen to the smartest people and instead listens to the mediocre peer reviewers. Science is now the perfect subject for drudges. There are no brilliant scientists any more. It’s full of peer-reviewed functionaries with no insight.

Empedocles Parmenides rigorously and ingeniously argued that change and multiplicity were impossible, yet the world of our sense experiences is all about change and variety. You cannot have a world of change and multiplicity coming from stasis and unity. Parmenides simply got it wrong. The universe is made of countless mathematical minds (monads), hence multiplicity is the fundamental truth of existence. Insofar as all of these minds exist together as individual singularities within one collective Singularity, there is a certain kind of unity, but one grounded in multiplicity. The mathematical minds comprise mathematical energy, which is in eternal motion, hence generates continuous change. Change is the

fundamental reality, not stasis. The sensible world of change and multiplicity is a direct consequence of an intelligible world of change and multiplicity, as rationally must be the case. The only things that don’t change are the laws of ontological mathematics (the mathematics of energy) and yet these laws are all about change. In another sense, there are no laws of mathematics at all, merely energy that intrinsically behaves as if it were being controlled by a precise mathematical formula. Is a law that mandates permanent change itself a changing thing? We might say that the law follows from the trajectory of the particle it describes rather than determining the trajectory of the particle. In another sense, the law and the particle are one and the same thing. The particle is always changing but in a uniform way that can be described by an unchanging law which accommodates all of the change the particle is capable of undergoing. It’s the beauty of mathematics that it can combine change (the particles, or flowing points, being the things that undergo change) and changelessness (the eternal laws that describe the ever-changing particles). A law of motion is in one sense motionless (since it never changes), and yet what it refers to (particles; flowing points) are always in motion. A system based on mathematical laws is thus totally dynamic and totally predictable – exactly what’s required for an organised, ordered, lawful, dynamic, rational universe rather than an irrational one of chaos and randomness (which is essentially where scientific materialism logically leads, as we see with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics where effects no longer have causes but happen according to randomness and probability).

***** Empedocles, a Grand Master of the Illuminati, openly called himself an immortal god and wore purple robes and a gold diadem to reflect that he was as good as any king. In the struggle of democracy versus oligarchy, he supported the people and democracy, although meritocracy (aristocracy – rule by the best), was the system to which he truly aspired, with the meritocrats coming from any background. He was said to have learned the secrets of death and was able to keep alive for a month a woman who had stopped breathing and had no pulse. He

ended his life by leaping into the crater of Mount Etna, a suitably grand way for a god to depart this world. For Empedocles, the world had six basic entities: four substances and two motive forces that operated on them. The four substances were the four elements of earth, air, fire, and water, and the two forces were love and strife (attraction and repulsion). Love brings things together and strife pulls them apart. Empedocles thus has six unchanging ingredients that bring about a world of constant change. The elements and forces cannot be created or destroyed. They obey a strict conservation law. There’s always the same total amount. These, then, are Parmenidean “Reals”. However, through love and strife, things can be created from various mixtures of the elements and this is what gives rise to all of the unstable, changing diversity we encounter and observe in the world. The basic elements don’t change, but things derived from mixing them together do. Everything that’s created by mixing through love can be undone by separation through strife. Despite the apparent paradox, you can have change, generation, and destruction resulting from unchanging elements and forces. In modern Illuminism, the elements and forces are combined into mathematical energy monads as the fundamental reality. What Empedocles did to answer Parmenides was to posit static elements and dynamic forces. Parmenides recognised neither separate elements nor dynamic forces. Parmenides called all change illusory. For Empedocles, change was real, but less real than the unchanging things of his system. Change, he believed, takes places at the sensory level, not at the intelligible level. Plato endorsed this notion too. Illuminism subscribes to the Leibnizian view that motion is permanent, in both the intelligible and sensible domains. Empedocles described how different proportions of elements in a mixture gave rise to different grades of mixture. For example, different types of blood could be produced by changing the relative balance of the elements in the blood, by increasing or decreasing the amount of earth, for instance. More intelligent people had more fire in their blood, while stupid people had more earth. Thus, in this view, quantitative differences lead to qualitative differences. The forces of love and strife were themselves viewed as being physical in order to act upon the four physical elements. There are therefore four

static substances and two dynamic substances, with the two dynamic substances having opposite qualities. Since they reflect the emotions of love and hate, the dynamic forces are also in some sense mental and teleological. Love seeks to bring the elements harmoniously together, and strife to raise conflict and disharmoniously part them. Empedocles saw the world as proceeding by way of cosmic cycles. Sometimes the force of love was dominant and everything was harmonious. At other times, strife dominated and disharmony was everywhere. Love created unity and strife diversity.

***** Empedocles was a proto Darwinist. He argued that many species arose by sheer chance, thanks to the random mixing of elements through the force of love. However, many of these were ill-adapted to the world and failed to survive and propagate. For example, he envisaged heads without necks, arms without shoulders, eyes without faces, men with literally two faces (one on each side of the head), androgynous beings, human features mixed with animal features, and so on. Only the best-adapted species prospered and passed on their characteristics to later generations.

***** Parmenides laid down the challenge that if change cannot occur in the real, intelligible world then how does it occur in the sensible, observable world? The answer is that the real, intelligible world is in fact all about change – mathematical change. Reality is grounded in mathematical energy obeying the relentless causality of the God Equation. Pre-Socratics such as Anaxagoras, Empedocles and the Atomists all argued that there were unchanging entities that entered into changing relationships. In fact, all entities are changing all the time, but in the very precise way mandated by mathematical laws of change.

The Atomists The Atomists Leucippus and Democritus said that reality consisted of unchanging, indivisible atoms moving around continuously in an

unchanging, indivisible void. All atoms are made out of the same (unspecified) material. However, they have variable properties and differ in terms of shape, arrangement, position, size, and motion. Therefore, there’s infinite capacity for them to combine in new ways, thus accounting for the diversity of the world. This remains very close to how most people understand modern science. In actual fact, however, quantum mechanics gets rid of any enduring, definite particles and any void, yet scientists, bizarrely, still think in terms of ancient atomism rather than quantum mechanics. They still talk of atoms as if they had existed for billions of years when, in fact, all atoms are continuously mathematically calculated, just as any world depicted in a video game is continuously mathematically calculated. Leucippus, the founder of atomic theory, wrote two books called On Mind and The Great World System, but these have not survived, and, in any case, it was Democritus who did most to publicise Atomic theory, insisting that Atomism could explain everything, including art, ethics and politics. The most baffling aspect of Atomism is the void, which is identified as non-being. How can non-being (non-existence) exist? It’s a logical impossibility. Things either exist or they don’t. You can’t have a void of non-existence since there would be nothing there at all, nothing through which to move. The Eleatics rightly denied that a vacuum (empty space) was possible, and then went on to deny that motion was possible given that there was no space in which anything could move. They did not accept that objects can move through air and water simply by displacement. If there’s no free space, they argued, nothing can be displaced, and two things cannot occupy the same space at once. Leucippus couldn’t agree that motion was illusory, so he accepted that the void was real even though it was non-being. This does not make any sense, although scientists have often peddled the lie that there’s a true vacuum (non-being). Leucippus was unique in not seeing any difficulties in mixing being and non-being – a truly bizarre dualism.

*****

The Atomists were in a position to present a first theory of sensation. All sensations, they said, flowed from the size, shape, order, motion, speed, pressure, density and position of atoms. Democritus claimed that sensations of taste are a function of the size and shape of atoms in food, and their interaction with the atoms of our mouths and their “receptor sites, so to speak. Sour taste, for example, is the result of angular atoms, while rounded atoms cause a sweet taste.

***** Atoms move by a jostling, random motion that proceeds by collisions. There’s no “action at a distance”. Motion is transmitted by collision only. Atoms are considered to be in eternal motion and they involve no external forces such as love, strife, or mind. Instead, everything is supposed to happen through deterministic, physical “necessity”, as in the classical clockwork physics of the modern age. Every event has a prior cause. No outside force imposes anything on atoms. They order and organise themselves through their own behaviour. i.e. they are governed by the laws of nature. That said, the Atomists did not go into this in any great detail: they did not work out “natural law” in any sophisticated way; they did not specify any laws or equations of motion, so if an atom could obey several conflicting laws of motion at once, it would be impossible to say what would happen next. Aristotle felt that mind (the force that controls and organises matter) had been too comprehensively removed from the Atomistic view of reality and put it back in with his doctrines of Form and final cause (teleology).

Scientists “Eyes and ears are bad witnesses to people if they have barbarian souls.” – Heraclitus Observation of the sensible world is useless without the logos understanding of the intelligible world that underpins it. The only truly real things are uncreated, uncaused, indestructible and immortal. These are not unchanging as Parmenides believed. Rather, they are always changing – mathematically.

If, as the empiricists say, all knowledge comes through observation and experience then anything that cannot be observed or experienced cannot be known. Scientists have extended this position to assert that anything that cannot be observed or experienced cannot exist at all, hence why it cannot be known. If there are in fact hidden variables or rational unobservables that cannot be observed or experienced, scientific materialism is ipso facto false. Mathematics is full of such entities – zero, infinity, negative and imaginary numbers. If any of these things exist ontologically (which they all do), science is false. That’s a fact. Can scientists disprove the ontology of imaginary numbers? What possible experiment would they perform?

Being and Non-Being Being cannot inherently be privileged over non-being, or vice versa. There’s no sufficient reason for either position. In fact, both positions can be reconciled mathematically. The whole of mathematics can be considered as a system of being, except, due to positive balancing negative, the complete system has a net effect of zero, which is the only number that could realistically be assigned to non-being (“nothing”). Yet if being and non-being are locked in a yin-yang embrace, this generates a static, sterile system. Hegel understood that this system needs an engine to drive it forward. That engine is the dialectical synthesis: 1) Thesis = Being. 2) Antithesis = Non-Being. 3) Synthesis = Becoming. Mathematically: 1) Thesis = non-zero numbers. 2) Antithesis = zero. 3) Synthesis = the dynamic balancing of all non-zero numbers to zero. We live in a universe of perpetual becoming. Everything in the universe is moving. This movement is not any old movement, i.e. random or chaotic

movement. It’s precisely defined mathematical movement, all determined by the God Equation (the generalised Euler Formula). The dialectical universe is a self-solving, self-optimising mathematical system. Ontological mathematics is all about motion, becoming and dialectics. It’s not about being or non-being.

The Appeal Thomas Aquinas, an empiricist, made an appeal to both Reason and the Authority of the Senses. Scientific materialists make the same appeal. They are fundamentally wrong. You can appeal to Reason or the Senses, but not both. We either live in a rational, intelligible world, for which our reason is the only tool to explore this world, or in an irrational, sensible world where there are no non-sensory things whatsoever. We can’t inhabit both. Empiricists seek to use reason to elucidate the “truths” revealed by the senses, i.e. their emphasis is on the senses and the implication is that the senses reflect true reality rather than being just a mental construct that tells us very little about what’s really “out there”. Rationalists seek to use the senses to offer clues to the nature of the nonsensory, intelligible world. The sensible world is a product of the intelligible world, so a rational study of sensory things (what we might call “science”) can reveal many of the operations of the intelligible world. The central fallacy of science is that the sensible world (the world of matter, space and time) is true reality and there’s no non-sensory, intelligible world (i.e. an immaterial mental world of frequency, outside space and time). Science rejects reason and intelligence in favour of the senses. It’s therefore an inherently irrationalist undertaking, masquerading as something intelligent and rational. The fundamental claim of science is that the primary stuff of existence is matter and that we and our minds are made from it. This is refuted by science’s own Big Bang theory which states that the world came from nothing, which means that matter originates in the immaterial. It’s also refuted by quantum mechanics which declares that you can’t simultaneously state a particle’s position and momentum. Since materialism is based on exactly this requirement then there’s no matter! Scientific materialism has already disproved itself and yet, like Abrahamists clinging

to irrational faith, scientists still believe that we live in a material world. We don’t. This is actually a mental world of mathematics that generates a phenomenal illusion of materialism.

***** Aristotle is often seen as having corrected Plato. He did no such thing, just as scientists in no way correct mathematics. Kant was seen as correcting the views of the rationalists on the one hand and empiricists on the other. But rationalism needed no correction and empiricism is plain wrong. What Kant really needed to focus on was improving rationalism and refuting empiricism. This he dismally failed to do, and it was left to Hegel to move philosophy forward in idealist and rationalist terms, with the vital added ingredient of the dialectic. In essence, science is about the “sensible world” and mathematics the “intelligible world”. Science attempts to define a secondary, derived reality (that of the senses) as the only reality when, in fact, the intelligible world is the true world and can be worked out entirely mathematically (using pure analytic mathematics based on the God Equation, Fourier mathematics and holography) without any reference at all to experiments and the senses. Experiments are useful only in verifying the predictions of the mathematical theory of existence. The Big Bang Singularity is the crux of everything. This is a dimensionless, immaterial, mathematical object outside space and time. Only mathematics can be used to probe it. No experiments are possible. The sensible world is the product of this mental Singularity, a fact that scientific materialists have simply never grasped. They madly waffle on about irrational, random quantum “fluctuations” being the origin of the Big Bang rather than precise mathematics reflecting the principle of sufficient reason. Mathematics is all about this principle while science is all about chaotic randomness that somehow (miraculously) manages to create an ordered universe out of contingent probabilities rather than necessary certainties.

***** Chaos versus “ordered becoming”: why is the quantum mechanical wavefunction probabilistic? How can any outcomes be more probable than

others unless there’s some ordered (hence non-random) system driving them that way?

The Wonders “Bees ... by virtue of a certain geometrical forethought ... know that the hexagon is greater than the square and the triangle and will hold more honey for the same expenditure of material.” – Pappus of Alexandria “When I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies, I no longer touch the earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia, food of the gods.” – Ptolemy Scientific materialism is anti-mathematics. It’s the enemy of mathematics as much as Abrahamism is. No one who reveres mathematics should have anything but contempt for the butchery of mathematics that passes as scientific empiricism and materialism. Cosmologist Max Tegmark wrote a book about mathematical cosmology and promptly received several one star reviews by fanatical empiricists and experimentalist who reject any notion of a non-observable reality. In fact, Tegmark’s “sin” wasn’t that his book was too mathematical. Rather, it was that it wasn’t nearly mathematical enough. Tegmark would no doubt like to break free from the dogmatism of the scientific method based on experiments, but he can’t do so and remain a professional scientist, as his extremist critics are so quick to remind him.

Becoming “The Hegelian may say that an egg is really a hen, because it is a part of an endless process of Becoming.” – G K Chesterton By the same token, we are all Gods because that’s the Omega Point of our Becoming!

The Syllogism “This brings us to the other difficulty; that of logical method. I have never understood why there is supposed to be something crabbed or antique about a syllogism; still less can I understand what anybody

means by talking as if induction had somehow taken the place of deduction. The whole point of deduction is that true premises produce a true conclusion. What is called induction seems simply to mean collecting a larger number of true premises, or perhaps, in some physical matters, taking rather more trouble to see that they are true. It may be a fact that a modern man can get more out of a great many premises, concerning microbes or asteroids than a medieval man could get out of a very few premises about salamanders and unicorns. But the process of deduction from the data is the same for the modern mind as for the medieval mind; and what is pompously called induction is simply collecting more of the data. And Aristotle or Aquinas, or anybody in his five wits, would of course agree that the conclusion could only be true if the premises were true; and that the more true premises there were the better. It was the misfortune of medieval culture that there were not enough true premises, owing to the rather ruder conditions of travel or experiment. But however perfect were the conditions of travel or experiment, they could only produce premises; it would still be necessary to deduce conclusions. But many modern people talk as if what they call induction were some magic way of reaching a conclusion, without using any of those horrid old syllogisms. But induction does not lead us to a conclusion. Induction only leads us to a deduction. Unless the last three syllogistic steps are all right, the conclusion is all wrong. Thus, the great nineteenth century men of science, whom I was brought up to revere (‘accepting the conclusions of science’, it was always called), went out and closely inspected the air and the earth, the chemicals and the gases, doubtless more closely than Aristotle or Aquinas, and then came back and embodied their final conclusion in a syllogism. ‘All matter is made of microscopic little knobs which are indivisible. My body is made of matter. Therefore my body is made of microscopic little knobs which are indivisible.’ They were not wrong in the form of their reasoning; because it is the only way to reason. In this world there is nothing except a syllogism – and a fallacy. But of course these modern men knew, as the medieval men knew, that their conclusions would not be true unless their premises were true. And that is where the trouble began. For the men of science, or their sons and nephews, went out and took another look at the knobby nature of matter; and were surprised to find that it was not knobby at all. So they came back and completed the process with their syllogism; ‘All matter is made of whirling protons and electrons. My body is made of matter.

Therefore my body is made of whirling protons and electrons.’ And that again is a good syllogism; though they may have to look at matter once or twice more, before we know whether it is a true premise and a true conclusion. But in the final process of truth there is nothing else except a good syllogism. The only other thing is a bad syllogism; as in the familiar fashionable shape; ‘All matter is made of protons and electrons. I should very much like to think that mind is much the same as matter. So I will announce, through the microphone or the megaphone, that my mind is made of protons and electrons.’ But that is not induction; it is only a very bad blunder in deduction. That is not another or new way of thinking; it is only ceasing to think.” – G K Chesterton According to quantum mechanics, all matter is made of an unreal, unobservable wavefunction. My body is made of matter. Therefore my body is made of an unreal, unobservable wavefunction! All mind, science says, is made of matter and matter is an unreal, unobservable wavefunction. I have a mind. Therefore, my mind is made of an unreal, unobservable wavefunction! I am therefore nothing but an unreal, unobservable wavefunction. But that means that I am not part of the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm of science at all.

Mathematics What is energy? – Mathematics. What is motion? – Mathematics. What is information? – Mathematics. What is space? – Mathematics. What is time? – Mathematics. What is mass? – Mathematics. What is mind? – Mathematics. What is subjectivity? – Mathematics. What is objectivity? – Mathematics. There’s nothing else. Mathematics is everything.

Subjectivity is the internal experience of energy and information (and relates to the sensible and emotional worlds). Objectivity is the knowledge of energy and information as external entities (and relates to the intelligible world of reason). When we are being rational, we are being objective, not subjective. When we are being emotional, we are being subjective, not objective. When we are being sensory, we are having a subjective experience, but, since we can mostly agree on sensory experiences, these have an objective character absent from the domain of feelings, which are highly personal. Scientists have been deluded into believing that the sensory world is a rationally objective world when in fact it’s simply a world of subjective consensus, an entirely different concept. Subjective consensus resembles objectivity, but isn’t objectivity. Where it’s impossible for an objective truth such as 1 + 1 = 2 to be wrong, it’s easily possible for the whole of humanity to have a false sensory experience. There is no necessary truth content in any sensory experience. There is only one ontological mathematics, hence only one mathematical universe. Mathematics is a living, dynamic, causal system of sufficient reason. Every part of mathematics demands every other part, implies every other part, causes every other part and is the effect of every other part. The whole things stands together as a unity or does not stand at all. “St. Thomas Aquinas closely resembles the great Professor Huxley, the Agnostic who invented the word Agnosticism. He is like him in his way of starting the argument, and he is unlike everybody else, before and after, until the Huxleyan age. He adopts almost literally the Huxleyan definition of the Agnostic method; ‘To follow reason as far as it will go’; the only question is – where does it go? He lays down the almost startlingly modern or materialist statement; ‘Everything that is in the intellect has been in the senses’. This is where he began, as much as any modern man of science, nay, as much as any modern materialist who can now hardly be called a man of science; at the very opposite end of enquiry from that of the mere mystic. The Platonists, or at least the Neo-Platonists, all tended to the view that the mind was lit entirely from within; St. Thomas insisted that it was lit by five windows, that we call the windows of the senses. But he wanted the light from without to shine on what was within.” – G K Chesterton

The whole problem with empiricism is precisely that it doesn’t go as far as reason does – which is to rationalism and the intelligible world, not the world of the senses. “A cosmic comedy of a very curious sort occurred recently; involving the views of very brilliant men, such as Mr. Bernard Shaw and the Dean of St. Paul’s. Briefly, freethinkers of many sorts had often said they had no need of a Creation, because the cosmos had always existed and always would exist. Mr. Bernard Shaw said he had become an atheist because the universe had gone on making itself from the beginning or without a beginning; Dean Inge later displayed consternation at the very idea that the universe could have an end. Most modern Christians, living by tradition where medieval Christians could live by logic or reason, vaguely felt that it was a dreadful idea to deprive them of the Day of Judgment. Most modern agnostics (who are delighted to have their ideas called dreadful) cried out all the more, with one accord, that the self-producing, self-existent, truly scientific universe had never needed to have a beginning and could not come to an end. At this very instant, quite suddenly, like the look-out man on a ship who shouts a warning about a rock, the real man of science, the expert who was examining the facts, announced in a loud voice that the universe was coming to an end. He had not been listening, of course, to the talk of the amateurs; he had been actually examining the texture of matter; and he said it was disintegrating: the world was apparently blowing itself up by a gradual explosion called energy; the whole business would certainly have an end and had presumably had a beginning. This was very shocking indeed; not to the orthodox, but rather specially to the unorthodox; who are rather more easily shocked. Dean Inge, who had been lecturing the orthodox for years on their stern duty of accepting all scientific discoveries, positively wailed aloud over this truly tactless scientific discovery; and practically implored the scientific discoverers to go away and discover something different. It seems almost incredible; but it is a fact that he asked what God would have to amuse Him, if the universe ceased.” – G K Chesterton “Anyone who thinks deeply will see that motion has about it an essential incompleteness, which approximates to something more complete.” – G K Chesterton

The universe of becoming, of motion, reaches a perfect state (Omega Point), at which point it has to start again because a system of motion can never become a system of static being. The universe proceeds by way of cyclic Ages. People often ask what were things like “in the beginning”. Of course, the universe has no beginning. It’s eternal. No matter how far back you go, you will always find yourself in a phase of a cyclic Age. “...potentiality does not explain itself...” – G K Chesterton Potentiality does explain itself if it’s mathematical, inherently obeying the principle of sufficient reason. “...the world does not explain itself, and cannot do so merely by continuing to expand itself. But anyhow it is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.” – G K Chesterton Chesterton is good at mocking science. It’s certainly true that science is ridiculous for laughing at Abrahamism for claiming that God made everything out of nothing, and then, in the next breath, making its own even worse claim that everything came out of nothing randomly! Of course, Chesterton can never land any punches on mathematics. Mathematics has all the rational, non-random qualities of “God”, without suffering from any of his “personality” defects. Mathematically, “nothing” corresponds to dimensionless existence and “something” to dimensional existence. Nothing and something are just different aspects of mathematical dimensionality: dimensionless frequencies (mind) versus dimensional spacetime (matter). “Suppose two entirely new paths open before the progress of Creative Evolution. How is the evolutionist to know which Beyond is the better; unless he accepts from the past and present some standard of the best? By their superficial theory everything can change; everything can improve, even the nature of improvement.” – G K Chesterton By the same token, how does “God” know what is best? In fact, the evolving universe is a self-solving, self-optimising, dialectical, mathematical universe. It’s getting better because it’s getting

more and more consciously rational.

Universals and Particulars What are universals? – cosmic information patterns. What are particulars? – specific instances of the universal patterns. Universals are not mere names. They are actual existents. Humanity is a universal: there exists an information pattern for all humans. It’s human DNA. Anyone without human DNA is not human but something else. The human information pattern is part of the Collective Unconscious: the dimensionless, cosmic, collective mathematical mind.

***** The definition of an electron, or any other sub-atomic particle, is a universal. Each particular electron is an instance of the universal.

Fact and Faith “Of nearly all other philosophies it is strictly true that their followers work in spite of them, or do not work at all. No sceptics work sceptically; no fatalists work fatalistically; all without exception work on the principle that it is possible to assume what it is not possible to believe. No materialist who thinks his mind was made up for him, by mud and blood and heredity, has any hesitation in making up his mind. No sceptic who believes that truth is subjective has any hesitation about treating it as objective.” – G K Chesterton “[Aquinas’s philosophy] is not merely what is commonly called a faith about faith; it is a faith about fact.” – G K Chesterton Actually, if a “fact” pertains to knowledge, it has nothing to do with faith.

The Mystery What is mathematics? Is it something like the English language, something wholly contingent and mutable, constructed by the human mind, and which would vanish from existence if humanity died out? Or is it in fact the

language of nature in which we ourselves are written, which goes on regardless of the existence of any of us? If we didn’t construct mathematics (and how could we possibly have constructed something so staggeringly complex, which is still far beyond our comprehension?) then mathematics constructed us. It’s that simple. It must be one or the other. If everything is mathematical then mathematics is ipso facto innate in us. Therefore, we do not invent mathematics, we discover it. We discover it inside ourselves, and it’s present in everything we do. How, for example, do we catch a speeding ball if we are not performing an elaborate hidden mathematical calculation, predicting the ball’s trajectory? If the “constructionists” are correct (i.e. those who say that mathematics is just another socially constructed human language), how on earth do we catch a ball? If mathematics isn’t part of our being and innate within us, the process and act of catching a ball becomes almost impossible to understand. We would literally be guessing rather than calculating where the ball is going (because our constructed mathematics would have no connection with reality, just as the English language has no connection at all with nature and ontology, hence could never be used to define the laws of existence). We would hardly ever catch a fast-moving ball if we had no innate means of tracking it and predicting its path. What are eyes? They are mathematical tracking systems. What are ears? They are mathematical sound wave pressure detectors. All of our senses are mathematical processors. The idea that humans made up mathematics is laughable. Can you imagine the senses being made out of the English language, or any other human construct? How would that work?! When Kant argued that our minds provide the framework in which we understand reality, the only way this would make sense is if our minds are mathematical and necessarily provide a mathematical superstructure in which all of our experiences take place. That’s how causality exists. Without mathematics, Hume would be right and causality would be something inexplicable. In a perfect mathematical universe, causality is guaranteed. It’s impossible for contingent, temporal human beings to construct the eternal truths of reason that define mathematics. 1 + 1 = 2 was true before a single human existed and will be just as true long after the last human has gone. No human mind can construct something that necessarily existed

prior to it, and will survive after it. There are no statements of the English language that are eternally true. They are all contingent and perishable. No one can invent mathematics, not even God. If no one can invent it and yet it exists then there’s only one conclusion: it’s the arche, the fundamental stuff of existence that gives rise to everything else.

Determinism We live in a wholly determined universe. The naive may think this excludes the possibility of freedom, but it does no such thing. There are two types of determinism: 1) “determined-by-self” and “determined-by-others (nonself)”. According to scientific materialism, only the second type of determinism is possible, i.e. we are all part of objective, inexorable causal chains that determine everything, including our own thoughts. Therefore, we have no free will. All things are determined by things external to themselves and have no capacity to determine their own actions. Science does not accept the existence of subjectivity, of souls. Mathematically, the first type of determinism is possible and is the entire basis of free will. Free will does not mean doing things for no reason, randomly and indeterministically. It means that you initiate your own actions for your own reasons. These internal reasons are the determinants of your actions, not things external to you. The only way this is possible is if there are two orders of existence: dimensionless and dimensional. Clearly, dimensional things cannot physically interact with dimensionless things. This was the central problem of Cartesian philosophy. If there’s substance dualism (i.e., mind and matter), how can the two incompatible substances possibly interact? If the two different orders of existence can interact then we can have four types of interaction: 1) Dimensional-dimensional interactions (which science says is the only possible type of interaction). 2) Dimensional-dimensionless interactions (when physical events cause sensory awareness in our dimensionless minds; note that science denies that we have independent, autonomous minds, separate from dimensional matter).

3) Dimensionless-dimensional interactions (our dimensionless minds cause changes to happen in the dimensional world, e.g. we decide to raise our arms or move our legs, thus affecting the material world). 4) Dimensionless-dimensionless interactions (e.g. we talk to another person and mutually affect each other’s dimensionless mind through the exchange of ideas). With both dimensionless and dimensional orders of existence, we get exactly the mixture of freedom and constraint that we all experience every day. Many things are under our control. Many things are not. We determine as much of our lives as possible, but many things are determined for us by sources external to us. The only remaining question is how the dimensionless and the dimensional can interact and the answer is that they don’t do so physically but mathematically. They are in fact mathematical Fourier transforms of each other. The dimensionless domain (of mind) is the Fourier frequency domain. The dimensional domain (of matter) is the Fourier spacetime domain. These two domains interact via forward and inverse Fourier transforms. Physics – scientific materialism – does not come into at all. The mind-matter interaction is a wholly mathematical process and defines our mind-body existence. Science, with its dogmatic empiricism and materialism, with its irrational, anti-mathematical religious faith in the non-existence of the unobservable, has completely cut itself off from mathematical truth, which is grounded in the unobservable; in the dimensionless, mental existence of the frequency domain. Science utterly rejects this rational, deterministic mathematical domain and, in its place, invokes randomness and indeterminacy – an insane conclusion, every bit as deranged as Abrahamism. Mathematics is ontological, but how is that ontology actually conveyed? In what manner does mathematics exist? It exists as a myriad of monads, each defined by the God Equation. That’s what mathematics actually is. It’s a living system of unconscious minds ruled by a common mathematical equation – the most powerful in the whole of mathematics, from which the whole of ontological mathematics is derived.

Compatibilism

Free will in Illuminism reflects the doctrine of compatibilism: “Compatibilism (or soft determinism) is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent. ... compatibilists define free will as freedom to act according to one’s determined motives without arbitrary hindrance from other individuals or institutions. “Compatibilists (aka soft determinists) often define an instance of “free will” as one in which the agent had freedom to act according to their own motivation. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said, ‘Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.’ “In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. ... This view also makes free will close to autonomy, the ability to live according to one’s own rules, as opposed to being submitted to external domination. ... “Hume adds that the Compatibilist’s free will should not be understood as some kind of ability to have actually chosen differently in an identical situation. ... “The Compatibilist might argue that determinism is not just compatible with any good definition of free will, but actually necessary. If one’s actions are not determined by one’s beliefs, desires, and character, then how could one possibly be held morally responsible for those actions?” – Wikipedia The importance of Illuminism is in showing how monads are eternal, indestructible, uncaused causes, hence can determine their own actions without reference to anything else. That’s not to say that monads are not heavily influenced by other things (by other monads, in fact), but they are not constrained to obey external causality. They can freely choose their own actions, regardless of external factors. If monads were not subjects with their own inner causality then their causality would necessarily always come from outside them, hence they would never in any sense be “free”.

The Universe “What does it matter how many lovers you have if none of them gives you the universe?” – Jacques Lacan And did you get them the universe?

The Equation The Mathematical Equation of the Soul = The Mathematical Equation of the Universe. As above, so below. The Mathematical Equation of the Soul = The Mathematical Equation of the Mind. The Mathematical Equation of the Soul = The Mathematical Equation of Life. The Mathematical Equation of the Soul = The Mathematical Equation of God. It’s all in the math. Mathematics is the grand unified theory of everything. It’s the final theory, the final answer to existence. There’s nothing beyond ontological mathematics.

The Compass Medieval geometers called the compass the “Eye of God”. Starting from a single dimensionless point (the “seed”), the compass generated the allencompassing circle (the “universe”). The circle is the ideal object for describing a universe of perfect equality: every point on the circle’s circumference is an equal distance from the centre; no point is privileged over any other (apart from the origin, the “Creator” itself, yet this is actually zero – “nothing”; it’s there logically, but not ontologically). The circle must be at the root of all existence for exactly this reason. There’s no sufficient reason why any point should be privileged over any other, and the only way to deliver equality of points is via the circle (or sphere). However, the fundamental circle is not one based on real numbers, since this would ipso facto privilege real numbers over imaginary numbers, or positive numbers over negative numbers (exactly as we see in the false doctrine of scientific materialism, a system that formally rejects the principle of sufficient reason). The true fundamental circle is that which places imaginary numbers on an equal footing with real numbers and positive numbers on a par with negative numbers. Such circles are perfectly and uniquely generated by the generalised Euler Formula, which is exactly

why this is the God Equation that defines the whole of existence (and defines the entirety of ontological mathematics).

Singularity Incredible though it may seem, we all live inside a Singularity: a dimensionless point. The illusion of dimensional, material existence is generated via particular mathematical operations (belonging to Fourier mathematics). We are completely “enclosed” by a Singularity (meaning that any attempt to leave the “physical” universe leads us inexorably to the nonphysical universe, not to some other physical universe, or back in time, or whatever), and even scientific materialism is unable to escape this conclusion. What happens when stars collapse to produce black holes? – dimensional, material existence is reduced to dimensionless, immaterial existence; precisely that of the Singularity. What happens when a physical object is accelerated to light speed? – time stops (becomes infinitely dilated) and length becomes infinitely contracted, i.e. light belongs to a dimensionless Singularity, and so, therefore, does anything physical that ever hypothetically reached light speed. The Big Bang itself was a mathematical “eruption” from a Singularity. If there’s a “Big Crunch”, it will take us back to the original Singularity. In other words, in every direction, you will encounter the Singularity if you reach extreme enough conditions. There’s no way out, no way to prevent this outcome. The Singularity is a mental frequency domain, meaning that we literally exist within a Cosmic Mind. The material world is secondary to the mental world; it’s a mental creation, not the other way around (as science fallaciously claims). If all extreme processes in the physical, dimensional world lead to nonphysical, dimensionless existence then the physical world is defined by the non-physical world. If we lived in the type of physical universe in which scientists hold a quasi-religious faith then we would never encounter nonphysical singularities, but merely more and more extreme physicality: there would be no black hole singularities, just extremely concentrated mass. We would be able to reach any speed at all, up to infinity. The universe would

not have come from “nothing”, but from some definable, dimensional physical state. The fact that all extreme physical conditions lead to singularities proves that we live in a mental rather than physical world. What is the soul? It too is a singularity, which is exactly why we don’t detect it in the physical world. “Death” is physical dissolution, not mental dissolution. Our mind (our soul) can never perish. Only physical things can perish because only they have parts that have no necessary connection, hence can fall apart. The generalised Euler Formula defines a monad, and every part is required by every part. No part can ever be lost or can ever break apart. We can escape from spacetime and materialism via, for example, a black hole singularity. We cannot escape from the Singularity, which is exactly why it’s the eternal domain of the soul. This is the stark fact that scientific materialists have always refused to accept. They are forever trying to devise a theory that will somehow banish singularities, but of course they will never succeed because their entire empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm is false. The greatly-vaunted experimental method can do zero to illuminate the secrets of the Singularity. Only mathematics – the ultra-rationalist subject that requires no experiments at all – can define the Singularity.

***** One hundred years from now, scientific materialism will seem as quaint as ancient Greek Atomism, or the theory of phlogiston, or the Ptolemaic Universe. Intellectuals will snigger that their ancestors once held such silly, patently false ideas.

The Trap We are trapped inside an existential Singularity. One way to think of it is that we are in the centre of a black hole, and there’s no possible way out. Nothing can attain the “escape velocity” to leave, and there is in fact nothing outside the Singularity anyway. It’s everything. The material world, such as it is, is just an elaborate mathematical illusion generated mathematically (by Fourier mathematics). The material world is a projection, emanation or transform of the mental world.

The Key The key to understanding reality is that it presents itself to us in two radically different ways: intelligibly (via the intellect; reason) and sensibly (via the senses). We know the universe through our intellect, but we experience and perceive the universe through our senses. Our intellect reveals how the universe is in itself (the noumenal universe, which is mathematical). Our senses reveal how the universe appears to us (the phenomenal universe, which is a sensory interpretation of noumenal mathematics). Kant argued that the mind constructs phenomenal reality and cannot know the unconstructed (noumenal) reality. He warned of the danger of “pure reason”, which, in his opinion, is when reason tries to say things about the noumenal domain which it can never genuinely know. The truth is that noumenal minds construct phenomenal reality and then interpret this constructed reality in various ways. However, minds don’t construct this reality out of nothing. They construct it out of noumena (including themselves!) and out of the rules that govern these noumena. Kant was 100% wrong that the noumenal universe is unknowable and mysterious. It is in fact fully knowable and intelligible because it’s none other than ontological mathematics itself. Pure reason – that concerned with ontological mathematics – is always correct. Reason goes wrong whenever it strays away from mathematics and commits the category error of applying itself to the sensible rather than intelligible domain. Likewise, when you try to understand noumenal reality via the sensible domain, fallacies will abound (exactly as in scientific materialism). Reason errs when it engages with “truths of fact” (interpretations) rather than “truths of reason” (eternal truths of mathematical tautology). Humanity’s primary task is to use ontological mathematics and the principle of sufficient reason (which ontological mathematics enshrines) to work out exactly what the intelligible, noumenal, rational reality is and must be. The secondary task is then to map the intelligible reality to the sensible reality. This is obviously extremely difficult because it involves a phase change, or radical alteration in category of knowledge.

Historically, empiricism was the school of thought that believed that the sensible domain was the only real domain (and the fullest expression of empiricism is scientific materialism based on the experimental method, which rejects everything not susceptible to experimentation, i.e. the whole intelligible, noumenal world!). Empiricism suffers catastrophically from its inability to prove the logical necessity of experiential theories: it’s highly speculative and interpretive, and grounds itself in experiments and observations, not in rational necessity. It’s great rival was the school of rationalism (the fullest expression of which is ontological mathematics, which requires no experiments, no senses, no observations or physical experiences at all; it’s all in the mind!). Rationalism suffers from the opposite problem from empiricism. It cannot directly link its logical, rational certainty with the messy, phenomenal reality we perceive. Rationalism provides a definitive answer to existence while empiricism does not. But empiricism provides a map, image, or appearance of reality that is plausibly close to what we actually experience and perceive. We don’t perceive souls, for example. Their existence is proved through rational, ontological mathematics, not through sensory observations. Souls belong to the intelligible, not sensible world. Since science denies that there is any intelligible, noumenal reality, it ipso facto denies the existence of the soul. It has no rational grounds for doing so, but relies on the complete empirical absence of any “soul objects” in the sensible world of our experience. Science attempts to apply reason to the sensible world, which is not an arena of reason but of the senses, which is why it goes wrong. Ontological mathematics is the subject that describes the rational, intelligible, noumenal domain, but we do not encounter noumenal mathematical objects directly. They are always mediated through our senses, i.e. they are always interpreted. As soon as interpretation mixes with reason, error is inevitable. As soon as truths of fact and truths of reason are mixed up and jumbled together, confusion is unavoidable. We can know ultimate reality, but we cannot sensorily experience ultimate reality. The best we can do is map mathematical noumenal reality (described by rationalism and idealism) to scientific phenomenal reality (described by empiricism and materialism). It will never be a precise map because the noumenal and phenomenal belong to different categories of

existence. The noumenal is the “thing in itself”; the phenomenal is the mediated appearance and interpretation of the thing in itself. It’s the “thing NOT in itself”; it’s how the thing seems to be, which is an entirely different thing. We only encounter our mental construct of the thing in itself rather than as it is in its own right, unconstructed and unmediated. We encounter our subjective interpretation of objective mathematics rather than objective mathematics itself. Science commits the fallacy of taking the subjective interpretation of the thing in itself as the objective thing in itself. In particular, matter is an interpretation, not the thing in itself. We can construct contingent, pragmatic laws of phenomena rather than necessary, ideal laws of noumena, and this is what science does. Science is very successful up to a point, but it cannot bridge the gap to ultimate reality. It’s deluded when it believes it can, and becomes as pernicious as any irrational faith.

***** We can map Fourier mathematics to the Cartesian mind-body problem. We can mathematically know how the process works, but we can have no conscious experience of actually performing Fourier mathematics in our moment-by-moment lives. It happens unconsciously because it’s built into us; its innate. This is the whole problem. We are always trying to understand mathematical process of which we have no direct sensory or conscious experience. Experience can never help us. Only mathematical reason can lead us to the truth.

Causality David Hume radically called the existence of causality into question on the grounds that we can never know what we have not perceived and we do not perceive causation. We only infer it after the fact. All we ever actually perceive are events and then we hypothesise what causal forces shaped those events. The history of failed religious, philosophical and scientific theories shows how often humanity gets it wrong. In fact, it gets it right only when it turns to mathematics. Hume’s stance was that of classical empiricism. What Hume failed to understand was that reality is rational and founded on ontological

mathematics. Causality is built into mathematics. It’s never perceived by the senses, only by reason, but is always there. Kant invented a bogus category of judgments known as “synthetic a priori” to address Hume’s critique of causality. Such judgements are a priori rather than a posteriori because they are independent of experience, and synthetic rather than analytic because they contain non-tautological knowledge. In fact, when analysed correctly, all such judgments are really analytic a priori, not synthetic a priori. Causality is built into mathematical formulae. We know exactly what an entity will do if it’s obeying a formula. We don’t need to observe the formula or have any experience of it. If the formula is valid, it automatically tells us all we need to know. A mathematical formula is exactly that which defines cause and effect. Cause and effect are analytic tautologies since they are entirely defined by the formula, and can never deviate from it.

Taoism Tai Chi Tu – Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate

The Tai Chi or Yin-Yang symbol “Taijitu (Traditional Chinese, rough English translation: ‘diagram of supreme ultimate’) is a term which refers to a Chinese symbol for the concept of yin and yang (Taiji). It is the universal symbol of the religion known as Taoism and is also often used by non-Taoists to represent the concept of opposites existing in harmony. The taijitu consists of a rotated pattern inside a circle. One common pattern has an S-shaped line that divides the circle into two equal parts of different colours. The pattern may have one or more large dots. The classic Daoist taijitu, for example, is black and white with a black dot upon the white background, and a white dot upon the black background.” – Wikipedia

“Wuji (literally ‘without ridgepole’) originally meant ‘ultimateless; boundless; infinite’ ... but came to mean the ‘primordial universe’ prior to the Taiji.” – Wikipedia “Taiji or T’ai chi (literally ‘great pole’) is a Chinese cosmological term for the ‘Supreme Ultimate’ state of undifferentiated absolute and infinite potentiality, contrasted with the Wuji (‘Without Ultimate’). ... Taiji is understood to be the highest conceivable principle, that from which existence flows. ... The ‘supreme ultimate’ creates yang and yin: movement generates yang; when its activity reaches its limit, it becomes tranquil. Through tranquillity the supreme ultimate generates yin. When tranquillity has reached its limit, there is a return to movement. Movement and tranquillity, in alternation, become each the source of the other. The distinction between the yin and yang is determined and the two forms (that is, the yin and yang) stand revealed. By the transformations of the yang and the union of the yin, the 5 elements of water, fire, wood, metal and earth are produced [the five elements or five phases are aspects of Qi – see below]. These 5 Qi become diffused, which creates harmony. Once there is harmony the 4 seasons can occur. Yin and yang produced all things, and these in their turn produce and reproduce, this makes these processes never ending.” – Wikipedia “In traditional Chinese culture, qi (also chi or ch’i) is an active principle forming part of any living thing. Qi is frequently translated as ‘natural energy’, ‘life force’, or ‘energy flow’. Qi is the central underlying principle in traditional Chinese medicine and martial arts. The literal translation of ‘qi’ is ‘breath’, ‘air’, or ‘gas’. “Concepts similar to qi can be found in many cultures, for example, prana and cit in Hindu religion, mana in Hawaiian culture, lüng in Tibetan Buddhism, ruah in Hebrew culture, and Vital energy in Western philosophy. Some elements of qi can be understood in the term energy when used by writers and practitioners of various esoteric forms of spirituality and alternative medicine. Elements of the qi concept can also be found in Western popular culture, for example ‘The Force’ in Star Wars. Notions in the West of energeia, élan vital, or ‘vitalism’ are purported to be similar.” – Wikipedia Qi is energy in the very broadest sense. It’s universal. It embraces all manifestations of energy, material and mental, light, movement, heat,

thought and emotion. The Five Phases of Transformation (the “Five Elements”) pertain to the stages of material change or transformation that Qi goes through as it shifts between yin and yang (and the “health” or “harmony” of these material aspects is of course vital to mental health and harmony too since qi is both material and mental). In Taoism, energy is both mental and physical, masculine and feminine, and seeks balance and harmony. In Illuminism, energy is both dimensionless (frequency: mental) and dimensional (spacetime: material), and is dialectical (thesis, antithesis and synthesis), and seeks ultimate convergence on perfection (the “solution” to existence; the mathematically optimal state or Omega Point). Illuminism is quite similar to Taoism, but expressed mathematically rather than mystically, and with dialectical convergence on perfection rather than mystical harmony, balance and stasis as its goal.

***** Wu Chi – The Unmanifest – “Nothingness” = the Singularity, the immaterial, dimensionless frequency domain outside space and time, beyond the reach of any sensory scientific experiment or observation. From Wu Chi arise the two complementary forces of Yin and Yang. Yin is maternal and associated with Matter, Earth and Time. Yang is paternal and associated with Pattern (Form), Heaven and Space. Through Yin and Yang, the gap between the Unmanifest and Manifest is bridged. Yin and Yang together generate T’ai Chi – The Manifest – “Everything”. The following diagram illustrates the Taoist explanation of reality:

This is essentially a clever Mythos attempt to define existence. Mathematics is the only valid means to do so. The “Unmanifest” is the frequency, mental domain of Fourier mathematics and the “Manifest” is the spacetime, material domain of Fourier mathematics, and they are mathematically related by forward and inverse Fourier transforms. Everything can be precisely mathematically defined. Yin and Yang are the thesis and antithesis of the mathematical selfsolving dialectic, and they are joined by the vital synthesis phase, which allows a convergent solution to be arrived at rather than everything staying perpetually “balanced” between Yin and Yang (left to themselves, Yin and Yang create a universe of absolute stasis that never evolves or progresses, never gets better, never gets more actualised, never gets more optimal, never gets closer to its ultimate Omega Point). In Illuminism, we can generate the following “Fourier” Yin and Yang scheme: “Yin” = Matter, space and time, the terrestrial, the immanent, the local. “Yang” = Mind, frequency, the heavenly, the transcendent, the non-local. The Unmanifest domain of “nothingness” is actually the dimensionless domain of frequency outside space and time. The Manifest domain of “everything” is the spacetime domain created by the frequency domain, and which interacts with that domain via Fourier mathematics. Fourier mathematics has two directions: forward and inverse. You can always switch back and forth between the two Fourier domains.

The Expanded Taoist Cosmology In the previous diagram, we saw how Yin and Yang related to Wu Chi and T’ai Chi. Another diagram provides a view of what comes next: “This chart [see below] depicts, on top, the Absolute (wuji) as an empty circle. Below it is another circle that represents the Great Ultimate (taiji) as harbouring the Two, or Yin and Yang, shown as two semicircles that mirror one another. Each semicircle is made of black (Yin) and white (Yang) lines that enclose each other, to depict Yin containing Yang and Yang containing Yin. The empty circle within these lines corresponds to the empty circle on

top. This alludes to the principle that Yin and Yang are the ‘function’ or ‘operation’ (yong) of Emptiness, which in turn is their ‘substance’ or ‘core’ (ti). Following this are the five agents, that constitute a further stage in the progressive differentiation of Oneness into multiplicity. The lines that connect them to each other show the sequence in which they are generated, namely Wood, Fire, Soil, Metal, and Water. In this cosmological configuration, the Great Ultimate is represented by the central Soil (which is said to have a ‘male’ and a ‘female’ aspect), and reappears as the small empty circle below, which represents the conjunction of Water and Fire (‘great Yin’ and ‘great Yang’) and of Wood and Metal (‘minor Yang’ and ‘minor Yin’). The circle below the five agents stands for the joining of the active and passive principles, which respectively give birth to and support the existence of the ‘ten thousand things.’ These are represented, in turn, by the circle at the base of the chart.” – http://www.goldenelixir.com/taoism/yin_and_yang.html

The Fourier Interpretation of the T’ai Chi Symbol

The full circle represents the whole, bounded universe (everything). The dark and light zones represent two interlinked, complementary domains – frequency on one hand, spacetime on the other – connected by the forward

Fourier Transform and the inverse Fourier Transform. The white dot within the dark zone and the black dot within the light zone show that we can always get from one Fourier domain to the other. This diagram shows a thesis and antithesis relationship. To be complete, it also needs to depict a synthesis phase, converging on an Omega Point. It additionally needs a “Big Bang” point from which everything originates in the first place, and a “Big Crunch” point upon which everything converges (to which everything returns). Escher’s Whirlpool design, with its inbuilt spiralling effects, is a far better representation:

A “double spiral” Yin-Yang is superior to a “double fish” Yin-Yang (the traditional symbol) since it caters for the notion of a synthesis phase, an origin and convergence on an omega point.

***** Taoism says it’s not a dualistic system since Yin and Yang are both reconciled in an underlying unity: Tao. It’s Tao that generates these interdependent forces. They are described as contrary and yet complementary, forming a harmonious unity, reflecting Tao itself.

Tao Tao has two aspects: 1) Wu Chi (without limits; infinite; boundless), the unmanifest aspect of Tao, or Tao-in-stillness, represented by an empty circle. This is the state prior to the differentiation between Yin and Yang, the two components that drive the creation of the “ten-thousand-things”, i.e. all the phenomena of the manifest world. 2) T’ai Chi refers to Tao-in-motion, the spark of movement, from which Yin and Yang emerge as the drivers of the manifest. Where Wu Chi is infinite “nothing”, T’ai Chi is infinite “something”.

Tao, in its two aspects, is infinite potentiality, and it gives rise to infinite actuality, then back to infinite potentiality, and so on. In other words, we have the familiar cyclical system of Big Bang and Big Crunch.

The Development of the T’ai Chi Symbol Look at the incredible mathematical precision and simplicity of how the T’ai Chi symbol is built up:

Diagram courtesy of: http://www.penninetaichi.co.uk/index_files/Page1058.htm

Lai’s Yin-Yang

“The central circle represents Wu Chi (nothingness/void) from which Tai Chi emerges and then returns. This version of the diagram also emphasises the spiralling nature of energy.” – http://www.penninetaichi.co.uk/index_files/Page1058.htm

The Concentric Yin-Yang This is another excellent symbol to depict the mathematical processes of reality:

“Some versions also have the centre circle split between black and white, whilst other versions keep this blank and so representing the pure seed from which all of creation is born. Where five concentric circles surround the inner circle – this can be seen as the manifestation of the five elements (Earth, Metal, Water, Wood and Fire), each with their yin and yang aspects.” – http://www.penninetaichi.co.uk/index_files/Page1058.htm A final variation on the theme:

The Tao Cascade The Tao begot one. One begot two. Two begot three. And three begot the ten thousand things. The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang. They achieve harmony by combining these forces. (Tao Teh Ching 42)

*****

Tao (the Zero?) gives birth to the Universe (the One). The One gives rise to Yin and Yang (the Two). Their interaction gives rise to Energy/Chi (the third central factor of existence). This universal energy gives rise to everything else (the Ten Thousand Things; “infinity”).

Taoism Taoism is an imaginative, intuitive way of describing reality. When it says, “The Tao begot one. One begot two. Two begot three....”, it’s describing a simple mathematical progression, beginning with dimensionless existence and becoming increasingly dimensional. Tao isn’t anything mysterious ... it’s just mathematics! Taoism was an attempt to describe Fourier mathematics by people who had never heard of Fourier mathematics, but who intuited it. Taoism is infinitely superior to Abrahamism as a description of reality. Taoism is impersonal while Abrahamism is wholly personal. Taoism was devised by intuitives who wanted a coherent big picture of everything while Abrahamism was invented by feeling types who wanted to imagine a personal relationship with their God, but did not much care about whether or not it made any sense. Abrahamists automatically subscribe to a master-slave mentality: they are the slaves of the God who created them. Taoism avoids this repellent dichotomy. The master-slave doctrine is that which must be fully excised from the human condition. Every manifestation and trace of the masterslave paradigm has to be eradicated. This is an enormous task since masters and slaves are everywhere in our world.

The Truth People naively believe that everyone has equal access to the truth. That’s as absurd as saying that everyone has equal access to mathematics. This is particularly relevant, of course, since mathematics is truth. Some people are enormously better suited to mathematics than others. Our” brain-mind complex” defines how likely we are to “get” mathematics and thus get the truth. How able you are to perceive the truth depends on your personality type. If you have the wrong type, you will never know the truth in this lifetime. Soz! Here’s the ranking of minds best able to grasp the truth of existence:

1) Introverted thinking intuitives (INTJ and INTP). (Rationalist and idealist philosophers and metaphysicians, theoretical psychologists, theoreticians, theoretical mathematicians.) 2) Introverted feeling intuitives (INFJ and INFP). (Seers, visionaries, mystics, poets, prophets, exceptional artists and writers, theoretical eastern religious types.) 3) Introverted sensing thinkers (ISTJ and ISTP). (Applied mathematicians, theoretical scientists.) 4) Extraverted thinking intuitives (ENTJ and ENTP). (Empiricist and materialist philosophers, management consultants, lawyers, architects, economists.) 5) Extraverted sensing thinkers (ESTJ and ESTP). (Practical and applied scientists, experimental scientists, engineers, business people.) 6) Extraverted feeling intuitives (ENFJ and ENFP). (Actors, public relations people, advertisers, brand managers, celebrities, “personalities”, journalists, stockbrokers, speculators, ordinary artists, fashion designers, entrepreneurs.) 7) Introverted sensing feelers (ISFJ and ISFP). (Practical eastern religious types devoted to meditation and ritual, connoisseurs, artistic “impressionists”.) 8) Extraverted sensing feelers (ESFJ and ESFP). (Abrahamists, extreme sports people, thrill seekers, action people.) Abrahamists have no chance of coming into contact with the truth. They are wired for lies. They are programmed for listening to and being seduced by false prophets. Introverts are better adapted to the truth because they are naturally closer to the inner, noumenal, intelligible world. Extraverts look to the false, outer, phenomenal, sensible world. Thinkers are better adapted to the intelligible,

mathematical world than feelers. Intuitives are better suited to the unseen, non-local, noumenal world than sensing types.

The Big Bang The Big Bang was simply a silent, dark Fourier operation producing a Fourier spacetime material universe from a Fourier frequency mental domain (Singularity). There was no “bang”. There were no sensory organs present to see anything or hear anything, so there was simply no sensory information at all. It makes no sense to talk of lights or noises being present if there was nothing there to see, hear, register or “construct” them. Only non-sensory, intelligible mathematical processes were present. The sensible world did not exist at all since there were no sensory beings and no sense organs to interpret noumenal mathematics in phenomenal terms.

The Mathematical God It’s no wonder that mathematicians refer to the generalised Euler Formula with wonder and awe, and even religious reverence. It’s quite simply God. If we want to talk of a Creator then it’s surely the generalised Euler Formula. Yet, in fact, we are all God because we all have the generalised Euler Formula built into us. It’s what defines us, what defines our immortal soul, and it’s what allows us to solve ourselves and optimise ourselves, taking us all the way to divinity. What could be more appropriate than that an all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent, all-defining, immortal, immutable, indestructible equation is God? How could God be anything else? The generalised Euler Formula is all there is. It’s 100% of existence and it embodies all of the eternal truths of reason. It’s quite simply the answer to everything.

***** All that exists is the generalised Euler Formula, which gives rise to Fourier mathematics, the mathematics of our mind-matter reality. The generalised Euler Formula is ontologically expressed through countless dimensionless monads. From the holographic interaction of these monads via Fourier mathematics, we generate the illusion of spacetime (Maya). Spacetime – the material world – is just a mortal, destructible construct of immortal,

indestructible souls. In Hindu terms, we are all atman (soul) and we are all capable of becoming Brahman (God). We might say that Brahman is the omega point of existence, where all atmans (mathematical monads) have been optimised as gods. Mathematics defines religion. Mathematics is religion. Religion revolves around the two mysterious numbers zero and infinity. There is no need for Mythos, no need for faith, no need for superstition. Mathematics provides what everyone surely wants – a real religion, a Logos religion, a religion that tells you everything about reality itself. Mathematics is the most mysterious thing in the universe (although, when you grasp it, it’s not mysterious at all!). Given that the whole of mathematics can be derived from the generalised Euler Formula alone, it’s a staggeringly simple system, and yet it gives rise to things as complex as the human brain. A self-solving, self-optimising mathematical universe is a universe of pure meaning. Mathematics itself is meaning.

***** Who has contributed more to science – scientists or mathematicians? All of advanced science is now mathematical. The only purpose of experiments is to provide us with clues to mathematical reality. It’s not contingent experiments that define reality but necessary mathematics.

Mathematics and Physics What’s the difference between mathematics and physics? Physics is empiricist materialist mathematics. It relies on experiments and observations of the world. Mathematics is rationalist idealist physics. It relies on reason alone and requires no interaction with the material world. Mathematics is intelligible and physics sensible. Mathematics deals with the noumenal and physics with the phenomenal. Mathematics is necessary and physics is contingent. Mathematics is analytic and physics is synthetic. Mathematics is a priori and physics is a posteriori. Mathematics is deductive and physics is inductive. What transcends physics? – mathematics. Mathematics is what comes after physics, when you have delved deeper into reality. Mathematics is

metaphysics. As soon as you realise that mathematics, not philosophy, defines metaphysics, you grasp that mathematics is the unseen truth of the universe. Why has science been getting more and more mathematical? It’s because the more advanced it becomes, the more it goes beyond the physical to the metaphysical, where mathematics alone suffices to describe what’s happening. Physicists hate philosophy and therefore hate traditional metaphysics. However, once they understand that mathematics is true metaphysics then they no longer have anything to fear from going beyond the scientific method to the hyperrationalism of mathematics.

Illusion When we refer to the material world being an “illusion”, we do not of course mean that’s it’s a hallucination or fantasy. It’s a precise, real mathematical entity. What we mean by “illusion” is that it’s a product of the mind, and could not exist without mind. It’s an illusion to think of it as an independent thing in its own right. By the same token, science regards mind as an illusion since it claims that mind is a phenomenon or epiphenomenon of matter and could not exist without it.

What is Math? If you asked every professional mathematics what mathematics is, not a single one of them would say that reality is literally made of mathematics, of living, mental mathematical units called monads. That’s the saddest fact of all. Mathematicians use mathematics, but they don’t know what it is.

Pantheism Versus Panentheism Pantheism from pan-theos: “all is God”. Panentheism from pan-en-theos: “all-in-God”. Pantheism says that God (the divine) and Nature (the Cosmos) are one and the same thing. Panentheism says that the divine (whether a monotheistic God, polytheistic gods, or an eternal cosmic force that generates mind and life) not only fully interpenetrates Nature, but also contains it, indicating

that it’s something beyond mere Nature. In effect, pantheism says that the whole is the sum of its parts and equals God (or divinity) whereas panentheism is the gestalt view that the whole (God or divinity) is greater than the sum of its parts. Pantheism says God (divinity) equals Nature while panentheism says that God (divinity) contains all of Nature yet transcends it. Pantheism asserts that God and Nature are ontologically the same whereas panentheism says they are ontologically different insofar as God has something extra not present in Nature alone. In panentheism, God is an eternal animating force which is behind and beyond the universe. The universe is God’s body (hence fully part of God), but is not his mind, yet reflects his mind (just as our bodies do. The universe (God’s body) is God manifest while God’s mind is God hidden. We might conceive of pantheism as a type of materialist monism and panentheism as a type of mind-matter dualism. In pantheism, God and the universe are the same, and there is no other factor. In panentheism, the universe is God, and yet there is another part of God not directly expressed in the universe (just as our mind is not directly expressed in our body; if our body dies our mind goes on). Abrahamism is the view that God is completely separate from the universe, but created it (out of nothing) and permanently controls it. Therefore, the following scheme applies: 1) With pantheism, God and the universe are one: the universe is made out of God. 2) With Abrahamism, God and the universe are completely separate. The universe is conjured from nothing, not from God’s own being. 3) Panentheism can be regarded as a synthesis of these two opposed views: Thesis – Pantheism: God equals Universe (Universe made from God). Antithesis – Abrahamism: God separate from Universe (Universe made from “nothing”). Synthesis – Panentheism: Universe made from God and yet different from God. It’s useful to think of these ideas in terms of Schopenhauer’s philosophy. For Schopenhauer, there was a unitary, noumenal cosmic Will, outside

space and time, which gave rise to the phenomenal universe of individuated things inside space and time. Scientific materialism denies that there’s any hidden reality outside space and time. Everything is necessarily inside space and time (although science notoriously cannot account for the Big Bang since this did not occur in space and time; philosophically, this is fatal to any claim that science is a coherent system of thought since it’s forced to invoke an element external to, and contradictory of, its own core assumptions.) We arrive at the following scheme: 1) Scientific Materialism (strict materialism): the universe is dead, mindless and without purpose. There’s no such thing as “God” or any divine, animating, mental force. 2) Pantheism: effectively an expression of hylozoism (living matter); like scientific materialism but with the crucial difference that matter is not dead, mindless and purposeless but, on the contrary, alive, mental and teleological. Neither scientific materialism nor pantheism posits a world of separate mind. It’s all about matter. Matter is either dead and mindless, or alive and minded. Deism (the doctrine of a remote God of Laws uninterested in the lives of individuals) works well with pantheism: his rational laws are what govern Nature and the Universe and are in fact synonymous with Nature and the Universe. With theism (as in Abrahamism), Nature and the Universe obey God-created laws, but God exists outside these and can personally intervene in Nature and the Universe via “miracles” to bring about changes in people’s lives that would never happen in a deistic or pantheistic world. Panentheism reflects the Schopenhaueran view. True reality is noumenal, with Nature and the Universe as its phenomenal expression. With panentheism, you could destroy Nature and the Universe and still have something left (which would be impossible in pantheism, but not in Abrahamism). Eastern religion is best characterised in terms of panentheism, although it could also be depicted as a form of pantheism where the divine force is labouring under an illusion (Maya) about its true nature. When it overcomes its own ignorance of itself, it sees that Nature and it are one and the same.

With pantheism, God is the universe. With panentheism, God is greater than the universe. It’s not entirely clear in Eastern religion whether the aim is to abandon individual, painful existence and become one with the Universe (pantheism), or to escape from the Universe and unite with God in a state beyond the universe. Pantheism says the Universe is God and there’s nothing else. Panentheism says that God is more than the Universe and contains the Universe. Eastern religion tends to alternate between these views, with perhaps a slight preference for panentheism. A religion such as Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) subtly moves away from mainstream Abrahamism and towards panentheism. Abrahamism itself can be viewed as panentheism if God’s act of Creation from nothing is deemed to occur within him and to be fully contained within his Nature. In this view, it’s an aspect of him, not something totally separate in which he intervenes now and again. As in Kabbalah, he performs a withdrawal (or contraction) of himself from a certain zone, and this is where Creation occurs, and yet he fully penetrates, transcends and controls this zone. It’s a mysterious zone that is both God and not God. Neoplatonism is both polytheistic and panentheistic. An ineffable “God” (the One) stands at the centre of everything else, which emanates out from it. Everything is part of it yet gets progressively less like it with each level of emanation, i.e. the first emanation is most like God and the final nth emanation the least like God. The One emanates the Divine Mind (Nous), the Cosmic Soul (Psyche) and Nature. Or we can say that the One emanates Nous, Nous emanates Psyche and Psyche emanates Nature. Within these levels, the traditional gods of ancient Greece can be asserted. The One and all of its emanations constitutes the whole of reality, but the One transcends all of the rest, hence is greater than the sum of its parts and is thus panentheistic. Neoplatonism and similar systems (such as Kabbalah) depict grades of divinity. Everything is divine but not equally divine, and the purpose of existence is to ascend the divinity scale. The Pythagorean-Platonist view set out in Plato’s Timaeus is the prototype for this way of thinking. Heraclitus, with his notion of the divine, cosmic Logos (a kind of deistic God) pervading all things, presented a pantheistic view. All thoughts and all

things originate in the Logos. As Heraclitus said, “He who hears not me but the Logos will say: All is one.” The Stoics and Spinoza took a somewhat similar view. Spinoza explicitly said, “Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived”; “Individual things are nothing but modifications of the attributes of God, or modes by which the attributes of God are expressed in a fixed and definite manner.” Spinoza believed that the universe, as we experience it, reflects two divine attributes of Thought and Extension, but there are in fact infinite other attributes of God not present in the world we encounter. This is quite a Kabbalistic notion. Although Spinoza is strongly associated with pantheism, his philosophy is more like panentheism when reality is considered from the limited human perspective, i.e. what we take to be Nature definitely isn’t identical to God (hence is panentheistic), though if we could see Nature properly, in all of its different manifestations, then it would be one and the same as God (hence pantheistic). The same kind of arguments apply to Eastern religion. The concept of panentheism was introduced by German philosopher Karl Christian Friedrich Krause as his attempt to reconcile monotheism and pantheism. Panentheism requires creation to be part of God while theism requires creation to be separate from God. Hell is impossible in panentheism (because everything is part of God, thus so would hell be), but is possible with theism. Equally, Satan is impossible in panentheism. Since panentheism delivers all that is good about theism but avoids all the bad things (the Devil and hell especially), it’s remarkable that Abrahamism has survived for so long and not been replaced by panentheism. This must reflect a strong desire of Abrahamists to see others punished and excluded. If everything is part of God, nothing can be excluded, and any punishment would simply be self-punishment.

The Sum is Greater Than its Parts “By Me all this universe is pervaded through My unmanifested form. All beings abide in Me but I do not abide in them.” – Krishna, Bhagavad Gita. Panentheism has also been described as “monistic theism”, meaning that everything is made out of the theistic God.

Sikhism “God is not accessible through intellect, or through mere scholarship or cleverness at argument; God is met, when God pleases, through devotion.” – Guru Nanak Any religion which denies reason and intellect and says that ultimate reality can be approached only through “faith”, “grace” or “devotion” is false, evil and must be rejected. All irrational religion is junk for dummies who aren’t smart enough to grasp the eternal rational truths of reason.

Manichaeism “The True God has nothing to do with the material world or cosmos.” – Mani “It is the Prince of Darkness who spoke with Moses, the Jews and their priests. Thus the Christians, the Jews, and the Pagans are involved in the same error when they worship this God. For he leads them astray in the lusts he taught them.” – Mani Manichaeism and Gnosticism introduced a radical dualism by denying that the wicked material world could ever be part of the True God. To this extent, they could never be panentheistic unless the Demiurge and his world are regarded as Jungian Shadow aspects of God.

Buddhism Reverend Zen Master Soyen Shaku – The God Conception of Buddhism: At the outset, let me state that Buddhism is not atheistic as the term is ordinarily understood. It has certainly a God, the highest reality and truth, through which and in which this universe exists. However, the followers of Buddhism usually avoid the term God, for it savours so much of Christianity, whose spirit is not always exactly in accord with the Buddhist interpretation of religious experience. Again, Buddhism is not pantheistic in the sense that it identifies the universe with God. On the other hand, the Buddhist God is absolute and transcendent; this world, being merely its manifestation, is necessarily fragmental and imperfect. To define more exactly the Buddhist notion of the highest being, it may be convenient to

borrow the term very happily coined by a modern German scholar, “panentheism,” according to which God is all and one and more than the totality of existence.

Atheists and Adeists Atheist – person who is not a theist, who rejects theism. Adeist – person who is not a deist, who rejects deism. Deism: A Supreme Being created the universe but is no longer interfering or interacting with the universe or its laws. There are no miracles and no divine revelations. Prayer is useless. Worship is pointless. Theism: God is personally interested in the progress of the world. He watches and notes everything that happens and changes its natural development through miracles. He uses divine revelation to communicate with the world. He is present and active in the governance and organization of the universe and its laws. In Islam, Allah is continually willing what happens. Theism and deism both acknowledge a transcendent and supreme Being, but he is interventionist in theism and non-interventionist in deism. Deism is to be understood through reason and intellect; theism through faith, grace and revelation. Illuminism is neither theist nor deist. There’s no Supreme Being. There’s not a God, but a God Equation. The universe is a “God Factory”.

Monotheism and Polytheism Monotheism: the belief that only one deity exists. Polytheism: the belief that there is more than one deity. Hard polytheism regards the deities as separate individuals. Soft polytheism regards the many gods as masks or avatars of a single subsuming divinity. Henotheism: the view that there are many gods, all worthy of respect, but only one of them should be actively worshipped. Monolatrism: the view that there are many gods, but only one of them is worthy of respect, and only that god should be worshipped. The other gods

should be specifically rejected. The Hebrew Bible presents a monolatristic rather than monotheistic worldview. The existence of other gods is absolutely acknowledged, but only “Yahweh” is to be worshipped by the Jews, and all other gods are deemed his enemies. The whole “monotheistic” propaganda of Abrahamism stems from an inability of Abrahamists to grasp the difference between monolatrism and monotheism. Abrahamism would perish overnight if the Abrahamists learned the word “monolatrism” and reread their “sacred” texts from that perspective. Pantheism and panentheism: the physical universe is an expression of God; is joined to God; is of God’s substance; is created from God and not from nothing. Pantheism: the substance of God and the substance of the universe are one and the same. Panentheism: the universe is made of God’s substance but God is more than just the universe. God, or the gods, are greater than the material universe. Deism: One Creator made the world but has a plan for it which he never alters. He never intervenes in people’s lives. He has no personal relationship with anyone. He is a God of Law. There are no miracles, no supernatural events, no prophets, no holy books, no popes, no prophecies, no divine revelations, no messenger angels. Absolutely no message is communicated from God to humanity, and it’s impossible for humans to do anything to communicate with God. Deism is effectively a religious version of science, with the Big Bang, or the Creation Event, deemed to be a specific, designed, intended act rather than some random “quantum fluctuation”. Many people regarded as atheists in history were in fact deists and in many practical ways there’s not much difference between the two views. Deism assumes “intelligent design” at the level of Creation; science replaces this with randomness. Pandeism: the belief that God existed prior to the universe and created the universe, which then became one and the same as God: God and the universe have become equivalent, but a clear distinction once existed. Panendeism: the pandeistic version of panentheism. The universe is a part but not the whole of divinity. The panendeistic God remains distinct from his creation, although his creation is part of him.

Monodeism: there is only one deistic God. Polydeism: there are several deistic gods, but none of them intervene with the operations of the universe. Autotheism: if God is everywhere then God is inherently within oneself. We can all become God. Indeed we already are. It’s our sacred duty to express this inner divinity to the maximum. We must all perfect ourselves and become divine. We should never worship gods if we are ourselves gods. Our task is to fully actualise ourselves. All secret societies practise versions of autotheism. The objective is apotheosis; self-deification. The kingdom of God is inside us, not outside. We perfect the world by perfecting ourselves. Heaven is established when we have all become divine. Autotheism is about each person becoming God. There’s no Creator. “God” is an evolutionary concept. We are all becoming more and more perfect dialectically. Perfection takes place across many lifetimes, via reincarnation.

Panpsychism “The thinking faculty is common to all” – Heraclitus “There is nothing that does not possess a soul and that has no vital principle.” – Giordano Bruno “This world is indeed a living being endowed with a soul and intelligence ... a single visible living entity containing all other living entities, which by their nature are all related.” – Plato “Our only intelligible notion of an object in itself is that it should be an object for itself, and this lands us in panpsychism and a belief that our physical perceptions are effects on us of ‘psychical’ realities.” – William James “[Panpsychism is] the view that the basic physical constituents of the universe have mental properties.” – Thomas Nagel Panpsychism: mind is everywhere; mind is a universal feature; mind is the arche, the primordial substance from which all else is derived. We are all

minds in a universe of minds. Illuminism is the ultimate panpsychic philosophy since it asserts that the whole universe is made of mathematical minds (monads). There’s nothing other than mathematical minds and their relations. The material world is one of their relations, produced by Fourier mathematics. Thales, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Plato, Plotinus, Bishop Berkeley, Spinoza, Leibniz, Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer. Hartmann and William James can all be described as panpsychics. Many tendencies in Eastern thought are panpsychic. Panpsychism is closely related to idealism and generally opposed to materialism and especially scientific materialism. (Technically, all idealists are panpsychics by default since they reject the existence of anything other than mind). Panpsychism tends to be rationalist and anti-empiricist. Jung was a type of panpsychic. He said, “Psyche and matter are contained in one and the same world, and moreover are in continuous contact with one another”. This would make him a substance dualist. However, he then said, “Psyche and matter are two different aspects of one and the same thing.” So, he looked to a third thing (tertium quid), more fundamental than both mind and matter, and the root of both. In Illuminism, ontological mathematics takes this role. That said, Illuminism effectively defines ontological mathematics in terms of mind, with matter as one of its constructs. The material world reflects, so to speak, “collective thinking” (of all monads) rather than what we normally regard as thinking, that of individual minds done privately rather than publicly. “Panpsychism” means that life, soul, mind, spirit, “life-breath” are everywhere. They either penetrate everything (in which case panpsychism is strongly linked to hylozoism: living matter) or are everything, with the latter view being more consistent since it does not suffer from substance dualism: if there is anything other than mind, how does it interact with mind?

Stoicism Stoicism has at its heart the concept of pneuma (breath) – a divine, fiery, soul-like, extremely rarefied substance.

Non-Emergentism

“There are no truly emergent properties of complex systems. All properties of complex systems that are not relations between it and something else derive from the properties of its constituents and their effects on each other when so combined.” – Thomas Nagel It’s impossible for mind to emerge from matter. No amount of complexifying atomic arrangements can summon mind from matter that possesses no mind. You might as well believe in magic. Materialism is ontologically 100% false. Evolution creates complex systems out of pre-existing properties. It cannot create new properties that are entirely absent from the entities undergoing evolution. If it could, it would be magic. “… we cannot suppose that so enormous a jump from one creature to another should have occurred at any point in the process of evolution as the introduction of a fact [mental] entirely different and absolutely separate from the physical fact. It is impossible for anybody to point out the particular place in the line of descent where that event can be supposed to have taken place. The only thing that we can come to, if we accept the doctrine of evolution at all, is that even in the very lowest organism, even in the Amoeba which swims about in our own blood, there is something or other, inconceivably simple to us, which is of the same nature with our own consciousness …” – William Kingdon Clifford Mental properties cannot be reduced to physical properties. Why, within the scientific paradigm, are material properties treated “realistically” and yet mental properties (what we experience most directly) are not? This is simply bizarre. Materialism is the product of extreme devotion to sensory experience and rejection of the inner world of thought. “Thoughts” are deemed not to exist in their own right (i.e. to be “real”), but are somehow derived from matter and atoms, though no scientist has ever come anywhere near proposing any mechanism for how this is possible. “Emergentism” – whereby mind miraculously emerges from particular collections of atoms – is a non-explanation. It’s on a par with religious miracles. As Nagel said, “There are no truly emergent properties of complex systems.”

Physics and Emergentism

Science typically explains physical properties of new substances by inference from known physical properties of old substances, of the constituents of the new substance. When a property is found that has no precedent, it is then described as “emergent”. But doesn’t that mean the scientists are simply too ignorant of the system in question to be able to draw the correct inferences? In other words, scientists deploy the word “emergence” rather than admit their lack of knowledge and understanding of the underlying factors. The mind has never been explained by science and is labelled as something that emerges from matter. There’s no rational reason whatsoever to infer that mindless matter can create mind. Rather than admit that mind truly exists in its own right, scientists just brand it as an inexplicable emergent property of certain atoms when arranged in certain ways associated with DNA. It’s almost comical to resort to such a conclusion. You might as well say that matter is an emergent property of God, or even that matter is an emergent property of mind. How could scientists in any way refute this view, beyond their prejudice for materialism? If material properties follow from other material properties, shouldn’t mental properties follow from other mental properties? In the scientific view, mental properties derive from properties of matter not labelled as “physical properties”, hence point to additional and as yet unknown properties of matter (rather than of a separate mental mode of existence that cannot be approached via materialism).

***** A diagram comparing neutral monism and Cartesian dualism, physicalism and idealism, courtesy of Wikipedia.

Illuminism is technically closest to neutral monism insofar as it posits ontological mathematics as the foundation of both mind and matter. However, it’s not strictly “neutral” but has a definite bias towards mind. In fact, Illuminism is best described as an emanatory system, as in Neoplatonism. Mind is the first emanation of ontological mathematics while matter is the first emanation of mind (and second emanation of ontological mathematics). Individual living bodies (plants and animals) are the first emanation of the combination of mind and matter, and individual minds can then link directly to these and control them.

Phenomenon and Noumenon If this is a world of appearances (phenomena), then these appearances must be grounded in something more fundamental (of non-appearance). They can’t be mere appearance with no underlying reality, akin to the grin of the Cheshire Cat (which remains even after the cat has disappeared, prompting Alice to observe that she has often seen a cat without a grin but never a grin without a cat). Schopenhauer argued that although the world appears to us as representation, there’s “an object that grounds” representation: an inner essence or noumenon. A number of thinkers such as Galen Strawson, Roger Penrose, John Searle, Thomas Nagel and Noam Chomsky have all said that consciousness cannot be solved within the current scientific paradigm, and a revolutionary paradigm shift will be required to explain consciousness. Illuminism is of course what they’re looking for.

Arguments against Panpsychism Various thinkers have described panpsychism as “absurd” given that there appears to be no scope at all in atoms for any mental attributes. Of course, such people have committed the catastrophic fallacy of imagining mind to be something to do with the material world of spacetime. Mind is immaterial and outside space and time. You could never get any physical evidence for its existence. Mathematical minds – monads – are extremely structured. They are infinite Fourier frequency domains. You couldn’t get anything more structured.

It’s about time that materialists stopped looking for mind in matter. It’s not there! A mind is a singularity, an immensely complex dimensionless domain of frequencies defined by the God Equation.

Qualia How are qualia – our inner mental experiences – to be described? How does one quale differ from another? All qualia differ mathematically. Each is a different mathematical function. We experience every distinct mathematical function uniquely. Qualia are all about math.

Pneuma and Aer (Air) Pneuma: “air in motion, breath, wind”. “Just as our soul (psyche), being air (aer), holds us together, so do breath (pneuma) and air (aer) encompass the whole world.” – Anaximenes Psyche, aer (air) and pneuma are all effectively synonymous. In Stoic philosophy, pneuma is the “breath of life”: a mixture of the two lightest elements: air (in motion) and fire (heat; warmth). Pneuma – like the Logos of Heraclitus or Nous of Anaxagoras – is the active, creative, generative underlying unitary principle that organizes both the individual and the cosmos. Pneuma in its highest grade is the human soul (psyche), and is a fragment (or divine spark) of the soul of God (Zeus). Given that pneuma takes the role of scientific law that structures matter and directs its motion, it’s present even in inanimate objects. In the Bible, pneuma is translated as “spirit”, and psyche as “soul”.

The Pneumatics The Gnostics ordered humanity into three groups: the pneumatics, psychics and hylics. The pneumatics – the people of mind/spirit (nous; logos) – were the highest order. Next came the psychics, the people in whom the animal soul predominates. Last were the hylics, the bestial people of matter (the vast majority of humanity!).

In Freudian terms, the hylics are those ruled by their Id, and the pneumatics those by their Superego. In Jungian terms, hylics are ruled by their Shadow and pneumatics by their Higher Self. Gnostic Christians saw themselves as pneumatics and ordinary Christians as mere psychics.

***** Pneuma akatharton = “unclean spirit”. The Latin equivalent Latin phrase is spiritus immundus. This phrase was applied to those thought to be suffering from demonic possession and in need of exorcism.

***** Pneuma ponêron = “evil spirit”. Daimonion = “demon”. Greek pneuma and Latin spiritus had an original meaning of “breath, mobile air.” A spiritual entity was conceived as air in motion, “invisible yet active”. It wasn’t passive, stagnant, lifeless air. Rather, it was animated air, and usually considered infused with the highest element of fire. When Heraclitus said that all things were fire, he was thinking in terms of mental/spiritual fire, ruled by divine Logos.

***** Pseudoprophetai = “false prophets” – are those who purport to speak in the name of God but are in fact possessed by an unclean spirit. Mohammed claimed to speak for God, but how can any Muslim be sure he wasn’t possessed by Shaitan, with the Koran thus being the “Satanic Verses”?

The Desert The desert, in ancient thinking, was considered a liminal space where unclean spirits could freely roam. When people went into the desert or wilderness for forty days, it meant they were confronting their demons and striving to become spiritually pure. Restless spirits frequently seek out wildernesses.

Clean and Unclean Islam and Judaism are obsessed with purity laws and physical cleanliness, believing that this somehow reflects spiritual cleanliness. Islam is fixated with the “clean” and the “unclean”, with halal (permitted) and haram (forbidden), with the faithful and the infidels. The Jews are obsessed with the Chosen People and the goyim (the Gentiles). Protestants are obsessed with the Saved and Elect, and the reprobates and the damned. “Good and bad” and “good and evil” are often conceived in terms of “clean and unclean”, “faithful and unfaithful”. Reason never plays any part in these systems. Muslims and Jews can only eat “clean” animals, and must reject “unclean” animals. The idea is that to ingest unclean animals is to become unclean too. By the same token, to eat “God”, as in Catholicism, is to become more Godly.

Liminality and the Gothic The Gothic aesthetic is all about liminality – boundaries, edges, interzones, gateways, transitions. Typical liminal areas are deserts, mountains, cemeteries, tombs, mortuaries, graves, ruins, caves, dense forests, remote lakes, wide seas, far horizons. Demons and unclean spirits are thought to gain access to the world through these liminal portals.

Legion The most famous Biblical unclean spirit is “Legion”. “And he [Jesus] asked him [the Unclean Spirit], What is thy name? And he saith unto him, My name is Legion; for we are many.” – Mark 5:8-9 Legion was exorcised into a great herd of swine (unclean pigs) that promptly rushed down a steep bank and threw themselves into the sea, where they were drowned. (“It was certainly not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush down the hill to the sea.” – Bertrand Russell) “Legion” was of course, a thinly disguised reference to the Romans and their legions. Jesus was attempting to stir up rebellion against Rome.

Love Island Aphrodite, goddess of sexual love, was born in the waters surrounding the Greek island of Cythera. Love Island = Pleasure Island = Sex Island.

Transmigration of the Soul or Spirit The idea of the soul or spirit as indestructible fiery air in motion readily lends itself to the notion of such souls or spirits moving from one body to another. The idea of spirit possession makes perfect sense in these terms. When a demonic spirit is expelled from a person, it often flees to deserts, wildernesses, arid places, ruined places and liminal areas, which it haunts until it finds a new host.

Pythia The Christians regarded the Delphic Oracle as someone possessed by an evil spirit (pneuma poneron). “The Pythia is seated on Apollo’s tripod, her legs spread. An evil spirit rises from below, enters her vagina, and fills her with madness. Her hair is dishevelled, and foam flows from her mouth: she is like a bacchante. And it is in such a state that she speak.” – John Chrysostom Much the same could be said for Christians speaking in tongues and writhing around manically when they are possessed by the “Holy Spirit”. But that’s OK, of course (!). No hypocrites here. Nothing to see. Keep moving along. Churchmen regarded the open vagina as a portal to hell and a ready access route for demons and devils to enter our world! Women, going back to Eve, were considered to have a special relationship with the Devil. Apollo, God of Reason, was the greatest of the Greek oracular gods. Isn’t it fascinating that the Christians regarded the rational God as “evil”?

Mantic versus Prophetic Mantis = seer.

Prophetes: one who speaks the divine will. Although the mantic and prophetic are both forms of divination, Plato distinguished between them. The mantis became the mouthpiece of the god through direct possession, while the prophet was not possessed but had specialized knowledge of how to objectively and rationally read signs and omens. The prophet or priest was often required to interpret the divinely inspired speech of a mantis, as in the male priests at Delphi interpreting the ecstatic words of the female Oracle.

Necromancy A necromancer conjured up the dead in order to communicate with them. In a sense, the necromancer became possessed by the spirit of the dead, just as an Oracle was possessed by a god. A necromancer was a special form of mantis.

Souls Souls are singularities. The Big Bang was a Soul World that gave birth to the hylic (material) world. It wasn’t “God” who created the universe, but the Collective Soul. At the “Big Crunch”, the material universe will perish and return to Soul World.

Ventriloquists Are all Abrahamists ventriloquists’ dummies? They never think for themselves, but merely repeat the words of long-dead prophets. Have they got a vast hand up their collective ass, the hand of the ventriloquist-in-chief (“God”)?

Mantics Does the god himself enter the body of a mantic and use him or her as its mouthpiece? Was Mohammed a mantic? Moses? Jesus Christ?

Pythia’s Vagina

Did Apollo enter his young female Oracle through her receptive, eager vagina? Did she have an orgasm while she had “intercourse” with her God? Where did the Holy Spirit enter the “Virgin” Mary? Was it through her vagina?

Abrahamism Abrahamism is “the spirit of error”. All Abrahamists are deceived and seduced by Satanic forces.

Curiosities Porneia: sexual sins. Pneuma alalon: a speechless spirit who renders the possessed victim mute (“without speech”). Most demonic possession typically involves mouthy, taunting, mocking, slandering demons. “Moonstruck”; sunstruck; earthstruck. Unclean spirits – the rebel angels who fell from the heavens and now wander between the sky and earth. Spiritus pestilens: “pestilent spirit”. Corrumpens aura: “corrupting atmosphere”. Pneumatology: study of the Spirit.

Beelzebub Jewish leaders accused Jesus Christ of being demonically possessed. As Mark 3:22 says, “Beelzebub is living inside him [Jesus Christ]! He uses his power from the prince of demons to force demons out of people.” How can Christians know this is false? How can Muslims know Mohammed wasn’t a servant of Shaitan? What criteria do they use? Jesus confirmed that he was possessed – by the Holy Spirit! (Shall we regard the Holy Trinity as a triad of spirits mutually possessing each other?) Jesus then said that speaking out against the Holy Spirit was an unforgivable sin: “If you speak against the Son of Man, you can be

forgiven, but if you speak against the Holy Spirit, you cannot be forgiven.” (Luke 12:10) So, doesn’t that make Jesus Christ (“God”) less important than the Holy Spirit? And, come to think of it, didn’t the Holy Spirit possess the Virgin Mary too? Isn’t the Holy Spirit actually Jesus Christ’s dad?!

Nous In classical philosophy, nous is necessary for understanding what is true or real and is closely connected to intuition. If our sense organs tell us about our sensible environment, the nous tells us about the intelligible environment. It’s the mind’s equivalent of perception (“the mind’s eye”).

The Primum Mobile The outermost cosmic sphere – the Primum Mobile (“first moved”) – was the outermost moving sphere in the geocentric model of the universe, the sphere first move by God (the Prime Mover), and through which motion was communicated to the whole universe. The Primum Mobile had its own nous: a cosmic mind. The Primum Mobile could be equated with the Neoplatonic Nous, the first emanation of the One. For Aristotle, nous is the faculty of basic understanding or awareness, enabling human beings to think rationally. All animals lack nous. Nous is distinct from the processing of sensory perception, which animals can do. Nous is therefore what distinguishes humans from animals. Nous links us to the divine Nous, or Primum Mobile. The human nous is a fragment of the divine nous. Nous gives us access to genuine knowledge, to the truth, unlike mere sense perception, or emotions. Parmenides claimed that the “sensible world” – reality as the senses perceive it – is not a world of truth at all. Sense perception is wholly fallible and unreliable. The senses perceive what is uncertain, changeable and temporal. Nous perceives what is certain, immutable and eternal (the Platonic Forms). Nous perception is mental, not physical. It’s rational and intellectual. Ontological mathematics is based on nous and scientific materialism on the senses. Sense perception allows us to perceive material objects. Nous perception allows us to perceive objects of the mind rather than of matter. Nous brings us into contact with noumena and the senses with phenomena.

For Anaxagoras, Nous arranged everything in the cosmos in their proper order, and started them in a rotating motion, and continued to control them (thus it was none other than the Prime Mover itself). Nous is more or less synonymous with reason, logos or Form: with a cosmic ordering principle opposed to Chaos (disorder; formless matter). Nous is especially effective at ordering living things, and, in the case of humans, can even enter into our bodies. Nous – an ordering, animating principle – caused the rotation of the heavens (the crystal spheres) and caused life itself, controlled life itself, or was life itself. Life and mind are all about ordered flow. Chaos is all about disorder, about resistance to ordered flow. Mind, for the ancients, was about order and flow while matter was opposed to order and flow. For Plato, Form had to be stamped onto matter and otherwise matter would be permanently chaotic. In a sense, mind is love (bringing things together in harmony) while matter is hate (driving things apart, creating disharmony, breaking up order). Wikipedia says, “According to Anaxagoras the cosmos is made of infinitely divisible matter, every bit of which can inherently become anything, except Mind (nous), which is also matter, but which can only be found separated from this general mixture, or else mixed into living things, or in other words in the Greek terminology of the time, things with a soul (psuchē).” Here, mind is presented as a unique form of matter. So, the senses can detect ordinary matter, but not mind. Only mind can detect mind. Only nous is in contact with nous. This is one of the precursors of the Platonic division of reality into two: the intelligible world and the sensible world. You cannot make contact with nous via the senses, meaning that scientific materialism has zero chance of discovering the true nature of ultimate reality. “Nous is king of heaven and earth.” – Plato “Nous always rules the universe.” – Plato

*****

Athena – goddess of wisdom – from Atheonóa meaning “from god’s (theos) mind (nous)”. In ancient Greek myth, Athena sprang from the head of God. In Neoplatonic terms, this is equivalent to the Nous emanating from the One. Cosmic Nous: the cause of the order of things = “God”. Following Parmenides, Plato argued that sense perception can never lead to true knowledge, only opinion. He would therefore have ridiculed (rightly), scientific materialism: an irrationalist, senses-based system of thought, belief and opinion. For Plato, nous perceives truth directly, in the same way as gods and daimons perceive truth. The mind’s eye gazes straight at truth and knows it infallibly and absolutely. All truths of reason are eternal and immutable. Everything else is changing, confusing, inconsistent and unreliable. The nous “sees” the Forms directly (with the sensory veil of Maya removed). To empiricists, perception is the source of knowledge and understanding. To rationalists, only nous perception can achieve this. The nous sees by the light of reason. The senses are locked in the cave of ignorance and see false images of reality. The ultimate source of illumination – divine Illumination – is, for Plato, the Form of the Good. For Illuminists, the Form of the Good is ontological mathematics itself. Since all souls originally came from the Platonic domain of Forms, all souls are innately aware of the Form of the Good. When the soul is trapped in a human body, it becomes confused and forgets its divine origins. It can see the Forms only hazily. Philosophy and mathematics can allow restoration of clear sight of the Forms. To see the truth, one has to be able to transcend the human condition. The senses define the human condition and are the last thing you’d go to if you wanted to think beyond your human limitations. Only eternal things are beyond the human condition, and eternal things are the truths of reason. Reason alone delivers victory over the illusions built into humans. People imagine that eternal truths are outside us. They’re not. They’re part of our fabric. The eternal laws of ontological mathematics are built into all of us and constitute our basic definition.

*****

Plato had a political conception of the soul, with some parts rightly ruling over others if optimal outcomes were to be attained. If there were no rulers (soul anarchy!), or the wrong part of the soul was in charge (bestial desire rather than divine reason, for example), trouble was inevitable. Society itself should reflect the correct soul order. Everything must be in its proper place, performing its proper function. Some parts of the soul must rule and other parts must be ruled. This is the essence of Plato’s Republic. Nous is connected with the rational (logistikon) part of the individual human soul. For an optimal, just society, reason must rule the Republic. Not “markets”, not “greed”, not selfish elites, not privilege, not oligarchs, not hereditary kings. The nous is the only immortal part of the soul. In the Timaeus, the Demiurge uses its nous to bring rational order to our universe, causing it to reflect, as far as possible, the perfect, unchanging world of eternal Forms. In the Philebus, the Platonic argument is that the nous in individual humans must partake of a Cosmic Nous, just as human bodies consist of small parts of the elements found throughout the cosmos. In other words, just as we are made of material atoms that are found everywhere in the universe, so, concerning our soul, we must be made of “soul atoms” found everywhere in the universe. If all atoms of water comprise Cosmic Water, all atoms of nous comprise Cosmic Nous. The Cosmic Nous – the general case (universal) is the cause of all particular things as particular things. Particulars always reflect Universals. The idea that the nous part of the soul is eternal and truly belongs to a Cosmic Nous rather than to individuals was taken up by Aristotle. Aristotle believed that humans, including the vegetative and animal parts of their soul, perished, but their divine nous did not since it belonged to God, not humans. Both Plato and Aristotle regarded nous as analogous to sense perception, but in the realm of reason or form rather than the realm of matter. We see physical things with our eyes; we see mental things with our nous. The physical senses cannot perceive mental things, and nous cannot perceive physical things. The physical senses deal with truths of [sensory] fact and nous with truths of [intellectual] reason. The whole of scientific materialism is misconceived in these terms since it ignores the nous domain [intelligible world] and accepts only the sensory domain [sensible world].

Sense perception, for Aristotle, provides images to the nous, and nous then “sees” the concepts or forms they reflect. Animals have sense perception but no nous, hence can use what they perceive without being able to make any rational sense of it. Humans and animals both perceive the same things in the sensible world, but, humans, with their nous, can then start to perceive the intelligible world that permeates the sensible world (that imposes form on formless matter). Animals cannot make rational sense of what they perceive. They can’t form concepts. Humans can. And smart humans can do it much better than stupid humans (who, by virtue of their stupidity, are much closer to animals). In Plato’s system, Forms are transcendent and nous therefore sees a world separate from the sensible world. In Aristotle’s system, Forms are immanent in the sensible world and nous therefore perceives the Forms present throughout the sensible world. Either way, animals do not perceive any Forms. The scientific materialist view is closer to Aristotle’s than to Plato’s. Scientists dismiss the existence of any Platonic, transcendent, intelligible world. As for the sensible world, they don’t think, as Aristotle did, that Form and matter are two distinct things. Rather, they believe in inherently formed matter. Where Aristotle believed that pure matter was formless, scientists think that matter can never be formless. Like Plato, Aristotle associated nous with logos (reason) and saw it as uniquely human. However, he maintained a distinction between nous from logos. Nous was the faculty for setting definitions and establishing concepts, while logos was the faculty that then used these definitions and concepts in order to reason. Aristotle divided the soul (psyche) into a reasoning part and nonreasoning part. He then divided the reasoning soul into two parts: the lower reasoning (logistikos) part and the higher “knowing” (epistēmonikos) part. The latter – the nous – contemplates general principles (archai). It’s the source of definitions, concepts, axioms, principles and it gets better at this task as people gain more thinking experience (but doesn’t get better in stupid people). The lower part of the rational soul – the logos – uses the principles with which it has been supplied by nous to perform human reasoning. Logos is therefore only as good as nous allows it to be. In smart people, logos can be extremely effective. In stupid people, nous is deficient and this necessarily leads to logos being deficient too.

Irrational people simply can’t think straight. The best thinkers in the world tend to be INTJ and INTPs. We could draw up the following scheme: 1) Nous (higher rational soul) = intuition. 2) Logos (lower rational soul) = thinking. 3) Higher irrational soul = feelings (which provide an emotional rather than rational assessment and judgment of things). 4) Lower irrational soul = the senses (which merely perceive what seems to be there). Introverts are much closer to the interior, non-sensory world than extraverts. They look inwards to the true kernel of things rather than outwards to the world of appearances. Animals “think” on a sensory and feelings basis. Most humans think on this level too, which is why our world is so stupid and why so many absurd things are believed by the masses. Feeling types seek to find pleasure and avoid pain. They steer well clear of any type of thinking that makes them feel bad, hence they are not impartial thinkers. Their thinking is always extremely partisan, hence worthless (just talk to an Abrahamist!). These people are unable to engage in any self-critique. They refuse to doubt that which makes them feel good. This is the origin of fanatical religious belief that refuses to countenance doubts and the many criticisms offered by infidels. Similarly, all conspiracy theorists refuse to consider the position of those opposed to their pet theories. Absurdly, anyone who criticises any conspiracy theory is immediately deemed, by the conspiracy theorists, to be part of the conspiracy (just as believers regard anyone who disagrees with them as evil infidels). These people don’t believe in any way that there are two sides to every story. They are incapable of dispassionate, disinterested, objective, impartial thinking. Sensing types are obsessed with action, sensation, desire, living in the present moment, exactly like brutes and beasts. Sensing types are the humans closest to the animals and furthest from nous. Scientists are stupid too since they direct their reason only towards the things they perceive directly in the outer world while wholly lacking the imagination and intuition to grasp that true reality is non-sensory.

The human condition is dictated by the various personality types of human beings, which dictate how they think. Most humans are animal-like and have a limited ability to reason philosophically (the highest type of thinking, when allied with mathematics). Your personality type actually tells you highly evolved your soul is and how close you are to enlightenment (and thus becoming God). Aristotle said the logos soul had four capacities for revealing truth: 1) Technē: technical knowhow; knowledge of how things truly work (as opposed to “explanations” of how things work in terms of religious Mythos). 2) Epistēmē: logically deduced knowledge. 3) Phronēsis: practical wisdom (common sense, political skill, “office politics”, and so on). 4) Sophia: theoretical wisdom (the combination of nous and epistēmē, from which philosophy flows).

Causality Aristotle defined four aspects to causality: 1) The material cause: each thing has a particular material nature which causes it to be how it is. 2) The efficient cause: this is the specific trigger that initiates a process of change. (This is the basis of the scientific materialist understanding of causality, although, since the advent of quantum mechanical indeterminacy, it is in fact no longer possible to define causality coherently within science, which is no longer a deterministic subject.) 3) The formal cause: this concerns the natural form that the entity reflects and seeks to fully actualise. 4) The final cause: this is the natural end or aim for which things strive (the teleological cause). These last two causes – which are both mental in character – were completely dismissed by scientific materialism, thus doing away with “mind” as something independent from matter, and with the idea that mind

in any way controlled matter. The Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism automatically gets rid of such causes, just as that of rationalism and idealism automatically reinserts them and makes them the most important causes. One of the greatest errors in intellectual history was that of the banishing of teleology from science. If you regard reality as inherently mindless, meaningless, purposeless and dead – as science does – then there is of course nothing “out there” that could possibly pursue teleology (but this rather begs the question of why human beings themselves are so teleological, so obsessed with purposes, meanings, plans and aims). As soon as you accept that there is a separate mental domain (indeed one that actually gives rise to the material domain) then teleology becomes the centre of reality. Any “science” that does not reflect teleology is ipso facto false. The trouble for scientific materialism is that it has absolutely no means to accommodate teleology, just as it has no means to accommodate mind, life, free will and consciousness. Because it can’t accommodate them, it immediately concludes that they don’t genuinely exist, just as it concludes that anything that cannot in principle be perceived by the senses, anything that is dimensionless and beyond the reach of any experiment, cannot exist either. Of course, there is no rational basis for any such conclusions. You can’t argue that because something is outside the Meta Paradigm that you have established, it therefore can’t possibly exist. Monotheism is a claim that there is only one God, but there’s absolutely no way any monotheist can prove that there aren’t other gods. Every belief system, which includes science, dismisses everything outside its beliefs, but none of these belief systems ever has any evidence, facts or proof to justify its sweeping dismissals. Science has never once disproved the existence of mind. It has concluded that it’s not there simply because it has never found any material evidence for it. But how can you find material evidence for something immaterial? Science rejects the soul, but on what basis? Certainly not on rational grounds, only on empirical grounds. But the correctness of empiricism is an assumption, belief and dogma, not a fact. As the God Series has shown, any rational person can tear to shreds the entire Meta Paradigm of science and prove that it’s absurd, false and totally fallacious, being completely incompatible with the tenets of reason.

If we live in a rational world, we ipso facto live in a world based on mind and teleology. Only minds can be rational, not lumps of mindless, lifeless matter allegedly created out of nothing at all by “random fluctuations” in an undefined and indefinable state preceding the Big Bang, but not causing it (since modern science is acausal and indeterministic). The world posited by science is inherently irrational, acausal, indeterministic, statistical, probabilistic and purposeless. It all amounts to chaos. There is nothing at all within science to explain how and why we live in a rational, ordered, organised, patterned universe that appears staggeringly causal and deterministic, as science itself once wholeheartedly accepted before performing an irrational and mad 100% volte-face – the most staggering contradiction in intellectual history, comparable to the Catholic Church declaring itself atheist overnight and then continuing as though nothing had changed and as if it were still a totally credible and consistent organisation. Science rejected causality for one reason alone: it refused to accept rational “hidden variables”, beyond the reach of the experimental method. Rather than recognise the limits of experiments and the Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism, science preferred to abandon reason and causality. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics was the most notorious event in the history of thought – when the inevitable finally happened and empiricism parted company from any kind of co-existence with rationalism. Science became formally irrationalist, citing randomness rather than causality and the principle of sufficient reason as the true basis of existence. Modern science, it can never be emphasized enough, abandoned reason, hence is not a rational system of thought. Science is empiricist, not rationalist. Empiricism is the total opposite of rationalism and fundamentally rejects reason, teleology and mind. Reason, ontologically, can only exist in mind, not in matter. To reject mind is to reject reason. On a cosmic scale, to reject mind is to deny that there are any rational processes in the universe, and indeed science now literally claims that the basis of existence is pure randomness – things happening for no reason at all! The ancients were determined to explain how order could come from chaos, and found it impossible to do anything other than introduce reason in the form of gods, or Nous, or Logos, or Form, or the Intelligible. Science rejects all of this and posits chaos as the arche, the basis of existence, and also makes the deranged claim that chaos is the origin of order. Where the

ancients introduced a rational, mental element to master and order chaos, scientists now fundamentally claim that chaos (disorder) orders itself (!), which is a literal category error, the most egregious contradiction in terms! How can disorder (randomness) be the root of order (non-randomness)? That’s the sort of mad fallacy to which you are driven when you are an empiricist rather than rationalist. If disorder can order itself then it is not disorder, and it is not random! It has a hidden source of order, i.e. a mind, just as the ancients always said. Aristotle presented cosmic causality in terms of an eternal living organism with teleological aims; science in terms of a dead machine (bizarrely born of randomness out of nothing) with no aims at all. The Aristotelian “formal” and “final” causes reflect the ordering principles of nature itself: for Aristotle, they create a universe of perfect organisation, with everything in its appointed place, and no gaps. When conceived in Hegelian rather than Aristotelian terms, these two causes reflect a universe evolving towards perfection (its Omega Point; its Absolute State). For Aristotle, the Omega Point was reached an eternity ago, hence the Omega Point is now outside time. For Hegel, the universe is still striving to reach the Omega Point, hence the Omega Point is inside time. Given that we live in a clearly evolutionary rather than static, nonDarwinian world of frozen Form, Aristotle is clearly wrong and Hegel right. Aristotle thought the world could go on forever in its perfect, fixed state (as he saw it). In fact, as soon as the universe reaches perfection, it dies and starts again. The universe can never become fixed (pure being rather than pure becoming). Aristotle placed great emphasis of potentiality versus actuality. In fact, this dichotomy works far better with a great chain of becoming rather than a great chain of being. Everything starts out with zero actualisation and maximum potential. By the Omega Point, all potential has been actualised and everything has become fully optimised, hence divine. In Illuminism, everything is about possibilities, compossibilities and potentialities on the one hand, and the realisation, actualisation and completion of all of these via a relentless, mathematical, dialectical, cosmic process of optimisation. Everything is about entelechies – things that are inherently driven to reach their end (telos), i.e. their Omega Point, their Absolute State ... perfection itself. Or divinity, as we might say. Divinity is the ultimate telos of all entelechies.

For Aristotle, absolute perfection always existed (God). For Hegel, God himself is an entelechy, becoming more perfect every day as the dialectic unfolds. In Illuminism, objective mathematics is eternally perfect but living beings are subjective mathematical souls and they must dialectically evolve to make mathematics conscious. God consciousness – achieved at the point of gnosis – is the optimal degree of consciousness, when a mathematical soul perfectly and effortlessly understands everything about existence. The quintessential subject of nous is objective, ontological mathematics: completely separate from all sensory experience, totally rational, absolute, eternal, immutable, perfect, consistent, complete, the Pleroma, the Fullness – the complete opposite of scientific randomness. People of true nous know that reality must be understood mathematically. Those of false nous – the false prophets of Abrahamism, Karmism and science – look to their feelings and senses for truth, to everything other than mathematics itself. You have not become a potential God until you have understood that mathematics (hence reason) is the arche, the Source, the Singularity, the root of all. We live in an ordered, rational universe because it’s grounded in mathematics, not because, as science ludicrously claims, it’s grounded in randomness, acausality and indeterminism (i.e. the opposite of mathematics). We live in a universe dialectically becoming more and more real, more and more fully actualised and realised, more and more perfect, culminating with the “best of all possible worlds” – heaven itself. “God” does not deliver paradise – we do, through our own efforts. Aristotle posited an “active intellect” and “passive intellect”. He said, “...since in nature one thing is the material [hulē] for each kind [genos] (this is what is in potency all the particular things of that kind) but it is something else that is the causal and productive thing by which all of them are formed, as is the case with an art in relation to its material, it is necessary in the soul [psuchē] too that these distinct aspects be present; the one sort is intellect [nous] by becoming all things, the other sort by forming all things, in the way an active condition [hexis] like light too makes the colours that are in potency be at work as colours. “This sort of intellect [which is like light in the way it makes potential things work as what they are] is separate, as well as being without attributes and unmixed, since it is by its thinghood a being-at-work [energeia], for

what acts is always distinguished in stature above what is acted upon, as a governing source is above the material it works on. “Knowledge [epistēmē], in its being-at-work, is the same as the thing it knows, and while knowledge in potency comes first in time in any one knower, in the whole of things it does not take precedence even in time. “This does not mean that at one time it thinks but at another time it does not think, but when separated it is just exactly what it is, and this alone is deathless and everlasting (though we have no memory, because this sort of intellect is not acted upon, while the sort that is acted upon is destructible), and without this nothing thinks.” Passive intellect, therefore, serves as the “matter” for active intellect, which acts on it and actualises it. Sense perception provides the raw material which active intellect conceptualizes and understands. Scientists try to understand sense perceptions as reality itself (reflecting the philosophy of empiricism). What they should be doing is seeking to understand what lies beneath mere appearance – the noumenon, which is none other than mathematics. The passive intellect receives the intelligible forms of things, but cannot understand them. The active intellect discern the intelligible forms and transforms them from potential knowledge into actual knowledge, just as light makes potential colours into actual colours (there is no colour in the dark; light is what allows us to perceive colour). Aristotle was convinced he had explained how the human intellect passes from its original non-thinking state to its subsequent thinking state, and it was all part of the dichotomy between potentiality and actuality. The animal mind is still full of potential rather than actuality, so animals do not think. Equally, most humans (including scientists!) barely think. For Aristotle, the active intellect (nous) belongs not to humans but to God (or Cosmic Nous), i.e. it exists independently of humans. In Illuminism, we are all ontological mathematical monads and our nous becomes more actualised the more it understands our own fundamental mathematical nature. Aristotle said, “For the actuality of thought (nous) is life, and God is that actuality; and the essential actuality of God is life most good and eternal.” If “God” is replaced by “ontological mathematics”, Illuminism would completely agree with this.

Ontological mathematics is the “unmoved mover” of the universe; the Prime Mover, the uncaused cause, the first and final cause. The teleology of the universe results from ontological mathematics being a living entelechy: an inherently self-solving, self-actualising, living, rational organism. For Aristotle, the active intellect – nous – is God, and for Illuminism it’s ontological mathematics. Any intellect is teleological. It does things to achieve ends, and its ultimate end is to achieve its own perfection. The Aristotelian immortal nous does not include any memories, feelings, desires, sensations or tastes of an individual’s life, hence its survival is not connected with any sense of the survival of the person. Aristotle argued that while human parents physically supply most parts of the soul of a new human, the nous must come from outside the body since it’s non-physical (matterless form), hence it’s divine or godly in origin. It has nothing in common with matter and the body. The Epicureans considered that the bodily senses were never the cause of error. It was how sense data was interpreted that was susceptible to error. For the Epicureans, there are true sensory facts and potentially false interpretations of those true sensory facts. For Nietzsche, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” However, since we only encounter our interpretations of the external world, we can’t, therefore, have any true sensory knowledge of it. If it’s rational, we can work out its rational rules, but these will never be part of our sensory experience. In other words, empiricist philosophy can never deliver true knowledge. Only rationalism can. The Epicureans used the term prolepsis to describe the way in which the mind forms general concepts from sense perceptions. The Stoics said that Logos (rather than Nous) ruled the universe. Logos is cosmic reason and is connected to human reason (just as Aristotle said that human nous is connected to Cosmic Nous). The Stoics rejected reason as incorporeal. It acted through the finest physical substance (pneuma: breath). All causality was physical causality. Everything was about physical matter and physical forces, with reason itself being the ultimate physical force. Sensory data was acted up by reason (stamped or formed with ideas) to make it intelligible. This is an anticipation of Kant’s view that mind imposes reality on unknowable noumena, which are then converted into knowable phenomena. People subscribe to shared conceptions that help them to make sense of things and

reach common agreement (koine ennoia = common sense, common thinking). Nous for the Stoics was the ruling part of the individual soul and the part that understood the cosmic Logos. Clearly, the notions of nous and logos somewhat blend into each other.

***** Plutarch rejected the Stoic idea of nous being corporeal. The soul, he argued, is clearly more divine than the body. The nous (mind; higher soul) is clearly more divine than the lower soul (spirit, appetites, feelings, desires, sensations). Hence the nous must belong to a different category of existence: incorporeal rather than corporeal. Plutarch asserted that the mix of soul and body allowed pleasure and pain (feelings) to be experienced, while the interaction of soul and mind allowed reason to be experienced. (So, we have three layers: body, soul and mind, and two combinations: body and soul, and soul and mind. Animals and most humans operate at the level of body and soul, and a few higher humans and the gods operate at the level of soul and mind.) Albinus equated Aristotle’s Nous (the Prime Mover of the Universe) with Plato’s Form of the Good. Alexander of Aphrodisias argued that potential intellect was material while active intellect (nous) was immaterial. The “material intellect” (nous hulikos) is material like the body, and dies like the body. The active intellect (nous poietikos), that which makes the potential intellect in man actual, is immaterial and of divine origin. Some Muslim philosophers referred to the active intellect as the “acquired intellect” since it came from outside us. For Themistius, the passive or material intellect does “not employ a bodily organ for its activity, is wholly unmixed with the body, impassive, and separate [from matter]”. The human soul is rendered immortal “as soon as the active intellect intertwines with it at the outset of human thought”. In Neoplatonism, The Monad or “the One” (= the Platonic Form of “the Good”) is the dunamis or possibility of existence and emanates other levels of existence. In Illuminism, the One is the God Equation (which defines ontological mathematics). In science, the One is the unreal, unobservable, random and chaotic cosmic quantum mechanical wavefunction, which

defines all possibilities. Wavefunction “collapse” equates to possibility being actualised (being selected from randomness). In Neoplatonism, the Nous is an image of God (and often equated with Plato’s Demiurge). The Platonic Forms are its content, and it literally thinks its own contents. The Demiurge’s thinking is the highest and most perfect activity of life. Wikipedia says, “The actualization (energeia) of this thinking is the being of the forms. This Intellect is the first principle or foundation of existence. The One is prior to it, but not in the sense that a normal cause is prior to an effect, but instead Intellect is called an emanation of the One. The One is the possibility of this foundation of existence.” The first emanation of the Nous is the Psyche, which is also an energeia (actualisation). Where the Nous actualises its own thinking as the Platonic Forms, the Psyche actualizes its own thoughts as the material world, which is a living image of the perfect spiritual or noetic Cosmos of Mind (Nous). To this extent, the Psyche is a better approximation of the Platonic Demiurge than the Nous. When the Psyche (Soul) is in error, it mistakes the physical world – the simulacrum, the inferior copy – as true reality. It has to raise its sights and contemplate Nous before it can become enlightened. Science looks down instead of up and mistakes the physical world for reality rather than the mathematical world of Nous. For Plotinus, Psyche (Soul) is to Nous (Mind) as potential intellect is to active intellect in Aristotle’s system. “...into modern times some philosophers have continued to propose that the human mind has an in-born (‘a priori’) ability to know the truth conclusively, and these philosophers have needed to argue that the human mind has direct and intuitive ideas about nature, and this means it cannot be limited entirely to what can be known from sense perception. Amongst the early modern philosophers, some such as Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, and Kant, tend to be distinguished from the empiricists as rationalists, and to some extent at least some of them are called idealists, and their writings on the intellect or understanding present various doubts about empiricism, and in some cases they argued for positions which appear more similar to those of medieval and classical philosophers.” – Wikipedia Illuminism lines up behind Leibniz (its greatest genius), has the highest respect for Descartes, and acknowledges the significant insights of Spinoza

and Kant. Mind does indeed have direct, intuitive ideas about nature for the very simple reason that the mind is 100% mathematical and so is nature, so there is absolutely no mystery about the mind’s innate insights. It’s simply glimpsing itself! The thing that gets in the way of clear thinking is the body, with its senses, which leads to an entirely false, materialist and empiricist way of understanding reality, exactly as science has demonstrated. To be enlightened, we must trust in reason, and reject the blandishments of feelings (Abrahamic faith), the senses (scientific materialism) and mystical intuition (Eastern religion). These are all false prophets that must be overcome. These are the dragons that must be slain. They are as deadly as each other.

Order and Disorder The ancients posited two eternal elements: chaos (matter) and order (mind). Mind imposed order on chaos to create the cosmos. Modern science, fanatically driven by empiricism and materialism, has rejected the mental ordering force and is thus left with nothing but chaotic matter. It then has to explain order as originating in disorder (chaos and randomness), a formal impossibility, a category error. All “order” in science actually comes from mathematics, the quintessence of rationalism and idealism, rather than from empiricism and materialism! Science has no idea what mathematics is ontologically and yet it is totally dependent on it to draw order from chaos. How bizarre is that? How can science be a serious subject if it is predicated on empiricism and randomness, yet requires total rationalism (in the shape of mathematics) to bring order to empiricism and randomness? Scientists are so philosophically illiterate and irrational that they don’t see that their entire edifice is built on a fundamental contradiction, and it’s exactly for this reason that they have never been able to establish a final scientific “theory of everything”. How can you have a single coherent theory based on a 100% inconsistency at the heart of your discipline, one that you completely ignore because it’s a philosophical not a scientific issue, and you completely reject philosophy as unscientific and anti-scientific. You are hoist with your own petard. You must go outside your subject to understand your subject, but

you refuse to go outside your subject because of your fanatical, quasireligious belief that your subject explains everything. Therefore, you never understand your subject. That’s exactly where science now is, completely stuck in the mire of its own contradictions, prejudices and irrational beliefs. Illuminism rejects the chaos/order dichotomy of the ancients, and it rejects the “self-ordering disorder” absurdly posited by scientific materialism. Instead, Illuminism is grounded in a single, quintessentially ordered arche – ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics is never under any circumstances chaotic and random. However, it’s certainly unoptimised, and its fundamental drive is to optimize itself by bringing itself into greater and greater, more and more effective order. In other words, we don’t begin with chaos (disorder) in need of order but with suboptimal order in need of becoming far more effectively ordered. The laws of mathematics are eternal, hence can’t be changed or improved. In ontological mathematics, the entity that is in need of optimisation is not the objective aspect of mathematics (which is fixed forever), but the subjective aspect of mathematics, reflected in the living, mental units (monads) that are the actual conveyers of ontological mathematics. Souls are what need to be optimised! Souls are 100% teleological and completely consumed with perfection, which is what they pursue relentlessly via the dialectic. Many primitive people project their desire for perfection onto a supposedly perfect being called “God”. Advanced people realise that they themselves are the true gods. They become more and more godlike as they become more and more rational, more and more aware of the truth of existence: that it’s entirely mathematical! Will you go on being an irrational scientist, or will you come over to the light and join the ontological mathematicians, the truly enlightened ones: the Illuminati!

***** Philosophia Perennis – the Everlasting Philosophy – Illuminism.

The Neoplatonic One “The primeval Source of Being [in Neoplatonism] is the One and the Infinite, as opposed to the many and the finite. It is the source of all life,

and therefore absolute causality and the only real existence. However, the important feature of it is that it is beyond all Being, although the source of it.” – Wikipedia The Neoplatonic One equates to the Singularity of ontological mathematics. However, it is not in fact “one” but “many”: countless monads, each a unique source of life, mind and agency (causality). Each is its own “one”. Each is an eternal mathematical “becoming”, not a being. Each is noumenal, not phenomenal; intelligible not sensible. Monads are the carriers of ontological mathematics. They are how ontological mathematics exists in the universe. “Derived existence, however, is not like the original Source of Being itself, but is subject to a law of diminishing completeness. It is indeed an image and reflection of the first Source of Being; but the further the line of successive projections is prolonged the smaller is its share in the true existence. The totality of being may thus be conceived as a series of concentric circles, fading away towards the verge of non-existence, the force of the original Being in the outermost circle being a vanishing quantity. Each lower stage of being is united with the ‘One’ by all the higher stages, and receives its share of reality only by transmission through them. All derived existence, however, has a drift towards, a longing for, the higher, and bends towards it so far as its nature will permit.” – Wikipedia In the emanatory system of Neoplatonism, each generation of emanation loses force and reality. Outside the emanatory system entirely is pure matter: unreal, formless, mindless chaos. In Illuminism, the phenomenal world is an emanation of the noumenal world, an individual mind an emanation of a monad, matter an emanation of collective mind, the sensible world an emanation of the intelligible world. The material world is less real than the mental world. It is Maya – illusion – albeit a sophisticated mathematical illusion, generated by Fourier mathematics.

***** In Neoplatonism, Aristotle’s God (the “Separate Intelligence”) is equated with the Second Reality (Nous), not the First Reality (the One). The

Neoplatonic One is ineffable and transcends (and indeed emanates) Aristotle’s God. The One, for Plotinus, was pure potential, force or power, and it was actualised through its emanations.

Demiurge or Nous? “The original Being initially emanates, or throws out, the nous, which is a perfect image of the One and the archetype of all existing things. It is simultaneously both being and thought, idea and ideal world. As image, the nous corresponds perfectly to the One, but as derivative, it is entirely different. “What Plotinus understands by the nous is the highest sphere accessible to the human mind, while also being pure intellect itself. Nous is the most critical component of idealism, Neoplatonism being a pure form of idealism. The demiurge (the nous) is the energy, or ergon (‘does the work’), that manifests or organizes the material world into perceivability.” – Wikipedia In Neoplatonism, it’s not entirely clear whether the Nous or the Psyche takes the role of the Platonic Demiurge. The Psyche creates the material world, which seems to make the Psyche the Demiurge. However, the Nous emanates the Psyche and has access to all of the Platonic Forms that constitute the originals copied (imperfectly) by the material world. To this extent, the Nous is the Demiurge and creates the material world through the intermediate Psyche, its material soul, so to speak.

The World-Soul (Psyche) “The image and product of the motionless nous is the world-soul, which, according to Plotinus, is immaterial like the nous. Its relation to the nous is the same as that of the nous to the One. It stands between the nous and the phenomenal world, is permeated and illuminated by the former, but is also in contact with the latter. The nous/spirit is indivisible; the world-soul may preserve its unity and remain in the nous, but at the same time it has the power of uniting with the corporeal world and thus being disintegrated. It therefore occupies an intermediate position. As a single world-soul it

belongs in essence and destination to the intelligible world; but it also embraces innumerable individual souls; and these can either allow themselves to be informed by the nous, or turn aside from the nous and choose the phenomenal world and lose themselves in the realm of the senses and the finite.” – Wikipedia The bestial side of humans is drawn to the sensible realm, the rational side to the intelligible realm. For humanity to rise towards the gods, it must become more and more rational, and there’s nothing more rational than ontological mathematics. Faith – anti-reason – must be completely eradicated. The road to hell is paved with faith. Faith = delusion = ignorance = evil. New Age mysticism is no better than faith, and equally to be condemned. If it’s not math, it’s bullshit. That’s a fact.

The Phenomenal World “The soul, as a moving essence, generates the corporeal or phenomenal world. This world ought to be so pervaded by the soul that its various parts should remain in perfect harmony. Plotinus is no dualist in the same sense as sects like the Gnostics; in contrast he admires the beauty and splendour of the world. So long as idea governs matter, or the soul governs the body, the world is fair and good. It is an image – though a shadowy image – of the upper world, and the degrees of better and worse in it are essential to the harmony of the whole. But in the actual phenomenal world unity and harmony are replaced by strife or discord; the result is a conflict, a becoming and vanishing, an illusive existence. And the reason for this state of things is that bodies rest on a substratum of matter. Matter is the indeterminate: that with no qualities. If destitute of form and idea, it is evil; as capable of form it is neutral. Evil here is understood as a parasite, having no-existence of its own (parahypostasis), unavoidable outcome of the Universe, having an ‘other’ necessity, as a harmonizing factor.” – Wikipedia To say that matter is evil is to say that evil is a physical rather than mental property. It lacks agency and teleology. It’s accidental. The mere existence of matter is sufficient for evil to be present in the world. Matter produces evil in people through its negative effects on mind. It degrades mind and

Form. It causes degeneration in mind and Form. It clouds the mind, makes it irrational. It generates irrationality and ignorance. It draws the mind towards desire and the world of beasts. Matter is the agent of Maya: illusion.

Henosis Henosis is the Ancient Greek word for mystical “oneness,” “union,” or “unity”. The highest human attainment is to enter into union with the divine source: to become God. In the religion of Platonism and its successor Neoplatonism, the goal of henosis is union with the One, the Source, or Monad, the arche, the first principle, the ground of all, the fundamental basis of reality. We see a similar idea in Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism, but not in Abrahamism, where it’s heretical and blasphemous to say that union with God, or the Divine Oneness, is possible.

The Late Neoplatonic Celestial Hierarchy The One = the ineffable, transcendent Highest God, the Platonic Form of the Good. The Hypercosmic Gods = those that make life and the soul. The Demiurge = the Creator of the physical world. The Cosmic Gods = the gods of classical religion; the agents of the Demiurge who directly preside over the world, matter and nature.

***** The Neoplatonic One, like the wavefunction of Copenhagen quantum mechanics, is mere potentiality. It gives birth to something actual (through wavefunction “collapse”): the Hypercosmic Being = Nous, which gives birth to Life = the Soul (Psyche).

Privation Darkness is the absence of light. Evil is the absence of good.

The Neoplatonists did not believe in the existence of evil as a mental quality or living being (a Satanic being). They compared it to darkness, which does not exist in itself but only as the absence of light. So, too, evil is simply the absence of good. Things are good insofar as they exist; they are evil only insofar as they are imperfect, lacking some good that they should have. The flaw in this analogy is that without light there is necessarily darkness. Without goodness, however, you could have “badness” or “indifference” or “neutrality”, or some other state. There is no sufficient reason why the absence of good necessarily results in evil. Light and dark are necessarily inversely twinned: if you have one, you ipso facto don’t have the other. The same is not true of good and evil. Someone who isn’t “good” isn’t ipso facto evil. Most people in the world aren’t “good” but nor are they therefore evil. Most people are neither good nor evil. They’re mediocre and bland.

***** The Neoplatonists regarded matter as non-being. As the absence of being (which was “good”), matter was therefore “evil”. In effect, the Neoplatonists regarded the “One” as beyond light, the Nous and Psyche as light, matter as darkness (the absence of light) and Nature as where light was imposed on darkness to Form it into a copy of the light, but where darkness was always threatening to break through and drown the light, drown Form and Order. Matter, for the Neoplatonists, was non-being, darkness, formlessness and disorder (chaos). It was defined by what it wasn’t rather than what it was. As non-being, it wasn’t strictly anything. Rather, it was a kind of repository of everything not associated with being, an oppositional “force” that could subvert and corrupt being.

***** If the Nous is regarded as a cosmic consciousness or superconsciousness, it is the Neoplatonic destiny of everyone to return to this, and thence to the One itself, the Source of All. This implies that individual consciousness, in Neoplatonism, is ultimately wiped clean (as in Buddhism).

Higher and Lower The human soul consists of a lower irrational soul [feelings, spirit, sensations, appetites, desires] and a higher rational soul (nous, logos, mind, reason).

The Neoplatonic One The One – transcendent, without division, multiplicity or distinction; neither being nor non-being (hence, in Hegelian terms, pure Becoming); beyond human understanding. The One is not an “existing” thing but, rather, “is prior to all existents”, hence is like the Copenhagen version of the quantum mechanical wavefunction prior to wavefunction collapse.

Adversus Christianos (Against the Christians) “The gods have proclaimed Christ to have been most pious, but the Christians are a confused and vicious sect.” – Porphyry If Jesus Christ is so good, why are Christians so bad? Christians have had two thousand years to make this a decent world. Decent people automatically create a decent world. We don’t live in a decent world, ipso facto Christians can’t be decent people. The same is true of Muslims, Jews, and indeed all religions. They have all failed. That’s a fact. They all had the power and dominance to make this a good world. None of them succeeded. It’s insane to keep repeating the failures of the past and expect a different outcome. Christianity is much less powerful now than it was five hundred years ago. If it couldn’t make a good world when it had power, how can it possibly make a good world when it’s powerless? Christianity is now irrelevant. It has been tried and it has demonstrably failed (just like communism and free-market capitalism). Therefore, it’s time to move on. All Christians must accept that Christianity cannot be the real deal, and is simply a dying, fading, refuted belief system that no longer serves any function at all.

Theurgy

Theurgy from ancient Greek theós, “god” + ergon, “work” = “God work”; “divine-working”; magic.

Platonism The Platonic perfect domain = the One. The Demiurge = Nous = the Divine Mind. The World Soul is the Demiurge’s Psyche. Nature, the Cosmos, is the Demiurge’s body.

The Vital Force “The world soul (Latin: Anima mundi) is, according to several systems of thought, an intrinsic connection between all living things on the planet, which relates to our world in much the same way as the soul is connected to the human body. The idea originated with Plato and was an important component of most Neoplatonic systems.” – Wikipedia “Therefore, we may consequently state that: this world is indeed a living being endowed with a soul and intelligence ... a single visible living entity containing all other living entities, which by their nature are all related.” – Plato, Timaeus The Stoics posited the World Soul as the only vital force in the universe. It was the Prime Mover, the source of action, reason and law. Hinduism, with its formula of Atman (individual soul) = Brahman (“collective” soul; “God”), inhabits similar territory. Spinoza’s pantheist philosophy is also highly reminiscent of Stoicism. Leibniz’s Monadic Collective serves as an objective, mathematical World Soul of pure Logos. Hegel’s Geist (Mind/Spirit) is a dialectically evolving World Soul. The Cosmic Will of Schopenhauer, and even the Will to Power of Nietzsche, are World Souls. Hartmann’s Unconscious and Jung’s Collective Unconscious also perform the function of World Soul. The Omega Point of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is a World Soul (upon which the Noosphere – the Alienated Cosmic Soul, so to speak – is converging, in order to bring all souls together in God). All religions and idealist philosophies reflect some kind of World Soul. Scientific materialism wholly rejects any such notion. For science, the cosmos is a mindless, purposeless, lifeless machine of pure process (underpinned by randomness and indeterminacy).

James Lovelock’s Gaia theory is a modern version of World Soul theory, and Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of Morphic Resonance is just another variation on the theme. World Soul theory always points to ultimate unity, interconnectivity and a final state of peace and tranquillity where all ego and conflict have vanished. We see this especially with Eastern religions.

Cosmic Consciousness Richard M. Bucke’s “Cosmic Consciousness” is another version of World Soul. Bucke claimed that cosmic consciousness lies is a mystic state of consciousness above and beyond ordinary consciousness (selfconsciousness). Just as animal consciousness lies below normal consciousness, cosmic consciousness lies above it. When you attain cosmic consciousness, you have effectively entered into union with the World Soul. In Bucke’s scheme, the unconscious mind evolves into the simple consciousness of animals, then the self-consciousness of humans, and finally cosmic consciousness: the next stage of human evolution, which takes us onto a much higher spiritual plane.

Unus Mundus Unus mundus (from Latin unus, “one”, and mundus, “world”: One World.) Unus mundus is the ground of existence: an underlying unified reality, from which everything emerges and to which everything returns. In Illuminism, the mathematical Singularity of monads is the unus mundus. It’s at the root of everything and connects and unites all things.

Middle Class “You are middle class if your books take up more space than your TV.” – Anonymous You are working class if you have only a book or two, and underclass if you have no books. The intellectual class have books galore. Books are an external indicator of your IQ. You could measure a person’s IQ simply by counting their books! Those without books have an IQ of zero and are animals, not humans (since animals have no books either).

Discursive Neoplatonism highlights the difference between intuitive thinking and discursive thinking. Intuitive thinking is immediate, connected, divine thinking. Discursive thinking (from Latin discursus “a running about”) is non-immediate and proceeds to a conclusion through a long, difficult process of step-by-step reasoning rather than intuition. The Nous performs intuitive thinking and the Psyche discursive thinking.

The Neoplatonic Emanations Beyond Being The Good; The One. The One precedes being and is distinguished from being. It’s the source of all being without being “being” itself. And nor is it non-being. The One is not being but the Generator of being. The One seeks nothing, has nothing, and needs nothing. However, its superabundant nature causes it to overflow – to emanate – and thus generate things other than itself. Each emanation is lower than the last, more distant from the One, hence less like the One. Its unity becomes more and more imperfect, nonimmediate, and increasingly discursive rather than intuitive. Each emanation is a hypostasis (“that which stands under”). The One is not itself a hypostasis but generates all hypostases.

***** Saint Augustine argued that the One (God) is not beyond being, but, rather, is perfected Being. It’s the perfection of God’s being that distinguishes him from all other (imperfect) being. Of course, if God was the Creator of all being, how, as perfect being, was he capable of producing imperfect being? Being Being: what can be integrated with the One; what can emanate from the One and thus return to the One; of ultimately common essence with the One.

1) Nous (Mind). “Since it halts and turns towards the One that it may see, it [the overflow, the first emanation] becomes at once Nous and being. Resembling the One thus Nous produces in the same way, pouring forth a multiple power.” – Plotinus [Nous emanates Soul = Psyche.] 2) Psyche (Soul). “This activity springing from being is Soul, which comes into being while Nous abides unchanged: for as a necessary consequence of its own existence: and the whole order of things is eternal: the lower world of becoming was not created at a particular moment but it’s eternally being generated: it is always there as a whole, and particular things in it only perish so that others may come into being.” – Plotinus [Psyche emanates Nature.] 3) Nature = the material world, the cosmos. [Nature emanates bodies.] 4) Body = the lowest level of emanation. Cannot emanate anything below itself, although can emanate other bodies via sexual reproduction. Non-Being Non-Being: what cannot be integrated with the One; what does not emanate from the One, hence cannot return to the One and does not share the same ultimate essence as the One; indeterminate, chaotic, dark. Evil, Hyle, Matter: Hyle is not a hypostasis: it does not originate in the One. It is formless darkness on which form is superimposed. (It’s “chaos”). Since it’s without being and resists or negates the overflowing of the One into Being, it’s equated with evil, corruption, ignorance, error and delusion. The more that being is in contact with matter, the less pure and true it is. It’s contaminated by matter, so to speak. If the One is the Good then it cannot be the source of evil. Matter (chaos, the indeterminate, the formless) is ipso facto the source of evil.

The Choice

When it comes to the critical issue of order and disorder, there are five situations: 1) Abrahamism: God is total Order. God makes everything, including any Disorder. 2) Scientific Materialism: Nature is total randomness. Order is produced by Disorder (!). Science has never explained how this is possible. 3) The Eastern View: The universe is total Order that rearranges itself into different patterns, including any Disordered patterns. 4) The Ancient View: Disorder and Order are two eternal elements. Order imposes itself on Disorder. Disorder tries to undo Order. Disorder = Chaos = Darkness = Matter = Non-Being. Order = Mind = Form = Reason = Logos = Being. 5) Illuminism: There is no Disorder, only mathematical Order. Ontological mathematics has an inherent drive to increase its Order, and reach perfect Order.

Disorder? What does disorder mean in a completely mathematical system? In ontological mathematics, there are ultimately only two things: sine waves and cosine waves (generated by the generalised Euler Formula which does not exist in its own right as a “thing” but is expressed through the sines and cosines). These sines and cosines are inherently ordered. Therefore, there is never any “proper” disorder in such a system. In fact, the true distinction is between symmetry and symmetry breaking. Sines and cosines can work together to produce highly symmetric systems. It’s these systems that are capable of doing work. As their symmetry breaks down, they can do less and less work. Entropy isn’t about disorder increasing. It’s about symmetry decreasing. Imagine a tower-shaped sandcastle. It has a lot of symmetry. Now kick it over. So, what is it that has really changed? Has this system of sines and cosines lost any order at all? Each individual sine or cosine is as ordered as it has always been. It’s the collective property – group symmetry – that has become degraded. The ruined sandcastle has lost its collective symmetry.

What is “work”? It’s the ability of a symmetrical system to do something, and, in the process, it loses its symmetry: that’s the price that’s paid. A symmetrical system can become less symmetrical hence can do work; a less symmetrical system cannot spontaneously become more symmetrical, hence cannot do any work (except in the direction of becoming even less symmetrical). Entropy is a measure of the degrading of symmetry. “Increasing entropy” actually means “decreasing collective symmetry”. A set of cooperating sinusoidal waves (their cooperation exemplified by high symmetry), disintegrates into a jumble of individual waves, none of them cooperating, hence with no collective symmetry. There is no “heat death” of the universe. Rather, it’s a “symmetry death”, or the “death of the collective”. With entropy, all collective cooperation breaks down. Things become more and more anarchic and individualist. Everything does its own thing. And when everything reaches that state, it’s no longer possible for any “work” to be done. This in fact is a very powerful analogy for human society. A positive liberty State, with everyone working together for a great common vision, is enormously more powerful than a negative liberty jumble of people, all individually pursuing their own selfish ends. Libertarianism, anarchism, free-market capitalism and negative liberty produce a high entropy system, incapable of doing any collective work. Everything is atomised and fragmented. A positive liberty State, such as Plato’s Republic, is a low entropy system, which is highly ordered, organised and patterned, hence can do great work. A “team” is a low entropy entity. A bunch of people with nothing in common and no collective goal is a high entropy system. Just look around at any capitalist democracy. It’s an extremely high entropy system. There’s no social bond at all, just lots of people doing their own thing, regardless of others. The closest they get to others is via “social networking” where they don’t engage in any great projects but simply engage in silly gossip and inane banter. Consumerism is high entropy. Entertainment is high entropy. “Choice” is high entropy. “Liberty” is high entropy. Anarchists who want to remove rules and rulers are demanding a high entropy system. The elite’s mantra of “divide and rule” is designed to produce high entropy. All high entropy systems are incapable of doing any serious work. They can’t achieve anything of worth.

Look at history. All great accomplishments were performed by low entropy societies. Order and symmetry are a prerequisite for accomplishment. That’s a fact. When the low entropy Roman empire finally fell, its former provinces entered the high entropy Dark Ages. Anarchy and violence ruled. No wonders of the world were produced. Make no mistake, if humanity wants a divine future, it must become an exceptionally low entropy system, full of order, symmetry, commonality, community, altruism, people working together for a common good, people supporting each other and helping each other to maximise their potential. Free-market capitalism has destroyed the human capacity to do anything truly great. Putting on vulgar “spectacles” – for profit – is the only thing capitalism is good at. Things would be even worse if the libertarians or anarchists were ever to seize power. We would instantly enter a new Dark Age. That’s why these people must be defeated. With our capacity for reason, we are capable of producing incredible symmetry and order out of asymmetry and disorder. It’s our sacred duty to do so.

The Strange Loop Universe “Strange loops may involve self-reference and paradox. The concept of a strange loop was proposed and extensively discussed by Douglas Hofstadter in Gödel, Escher, Bach, and is further elaborated in Hofstadter’s book I Am a Strange Loop, published in 2007.” – Wikipedia If reality is grounded in Euler circles defined by the God Equation, it means that everything is ultimately cyclical. This means that all “linear” processes are in fact “pseudo-linear”. They might seem to be linear but they are in fact exhibiting an underlying cyclical nature. This is where “strange loops” come into the picture. A strange loop describes a phenomenon whereby any movement upwards or downwards through the levels of any hierarchical system (any system of different levels) results in the system unexpectedly arriving back exactly where it started, and it is thus trapped in a loop, and can never break free. In particular, there is no unbounded linear progression. Ontologically, there are simply no linear processes that go forever. Every pseudo-linear process is terminated when it is overtaken by strange loop behaviour. Your

next step doesn’t take you further away but instead right back to the beginning. If strange loops are a universal phenomenon, they actually play a vital role in defining reality. Consider numbers, and in particular infinity. Is it true that we can always add “1” to a number to create an even larger number? This is the basis of how many people think about infinity. But what if numbers belong to a strange loop? (Each number is part of a number hierarchy, hence the number “line” can legitimately be viewed in strange loop terms.) What if when we add “1” to a certain very large number, we don’t arrive at an even bigger number, but right back at zero?! This would revolutionize the mathematical treatment of numbers and banish the paradoxes associated with infinity. It’s implications are staggering. Just when you think you are getting further and further away from something, you are actually getting closer and closer to it. Take the concept of the “expanding universe”. Is this in fact a strange loop universe? If each level of expansion is regarded as part of a hierarchical system, we can imagine a scenario whereby the universe becomes as large as possible and then, with the very next step, collapses back to a Singularity. This is the “Big Crunch” (the universe becomes a Singularity) and it produces the starting condition for the next “Big Bang” (where the Singularity becomes a universe). Thus we have a perfectly cyclical cosmos. So, the expanding universe is, paradoxically, also a shrinking universe (getting closer to a Singularity). By the same token, a universe in which entropy is increasing (“disorder” is rising, symmetry is vanishing), is actually, from an alternative perspective, a universe in which order is rising, symmetry is growing and entropy is in fact decreasing. This is exactly how we end up going from a chaotic expanding universe to the most ordered and symmetrical entity in existence: a perfect monadic Singularity, of zero entropy. Of course, the slightest “breath”, the slightest touch, the slightest imbalance or disruption, can break this perfect symmetry, and instantly lead to a “Big Bang” (which is just the instant when antisymmetry disrupts the symmetry of the Singularity and leads to the cosmic inverse Fourier transform that creates the “physical” universe). Nothing is more unstable than perfect living symmetry since the slightest process of life can shatter the symmetry. Perfect ontological

symmetry is zero entropy, and zero entropy never survives. Nor does rising entropy go on forever (there is no “heat death” of the universe, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics absurdly claims, since it is conceived in linear rather than strange loop terms). Earlier in the God Series, we demonstrated that there is an “inner” and “outer” aspect to existence, a “within” and “without”, mental and material, subjective and objective. While the material, objective, external, expanding aspect is associated with increasing entropy, the mental, subjective, contracting aspect is associated with negentropy (the opposite of entropy). It is this counter force that causes the strange loop. Viewed from the outside, the universe might seem to be producing more and more entropy, hence is doomed to heat death. However, viewed from the inside, the exact opposite is true. As more and more rational conscious beings are produced, they produce a tremendous force of order and organisation through the power of reason. As rational beings become more and more expressive of reason, they finally attain gnosis (enlightenment) and become Gods. The negentropy of the community of Gods defeats the entropy of the material world and stops and reverses it, bringing everything back to the start (Singularity). The Gods – us (!) – are what cause the entropic strange loop. We are destined to become Gods because it’s part of the fundamental processes of nature itself. It’s unavoidable, inescapable, inevitable, dialectically certain. There are already Gods in the universe (those souls that have attained gnosis), and they are helping the most enlightened of us to join them. Together, we are the saviours of the universe and of all the unenlightened. It’s our rational and cosmic duty to defeat stupidity, ignorance, greed, selfish, anarchy, libertarianism, free-market capitalism, privilege, cronyism, inheritance, nepotism, and negative liberty: everything that encourages high entropy self-interested behaviour. Positive liberty – a low entropy force – is literally how we combat the heat death of the universe. It’s how we marshal humanity into an entity that can collectively attain divinity. We, the enlightened ones (the Illuminati!), are dialectically opposed by the forces of endarkenment – by the masses of stupid and selfish people. It’s our solemn duty – our sacred cause – to defeat them, and if they resist and obstruct rational progress and evolution then we have no option but to show them no mercy. They can and will be defeated. They will either see the light and join us, or we shall crush every last one of them. Such is the nature of

the dialectic, red in tooth and claw. They themselves have tried often enough to exterminate us. We are the agents of cosmic forces. The universe itself demands that the Coming Race destroys, one way or another, the old savage, primitive, bestial races. That’s evolution! Be on the side of the inevitable victors. Anyone who stands in the way of reason will in due course be destroyed by reason.

The Monadic Strange Loop Monads are strange loops. If you start from the zero-frequency origin of a monad and work your way outwards to higher and higher frequencies, you do not go on forever. There comes a time when you reach the largest possible ontological frequency, and your next step takes you right back to the beginning, thus establishing a strange loop. A monad is thus not an infinity, but a “pseudo-infinity”. When understood ontologically, “infinity” is possible only in an abstract, linear system. But there are no such systems. All ontological systems collapse back on themselves to create strange loops (cyclical systems), meaning that true infinity is impossible. Ontology involves mind-bogglingly large numbers, but they are nevertheless finite. There comes a time when the addition of “1” to a number does not lead to a still bigger number but back to the first number (0), i.e. N + 1 = M, provided N is less than X, the largest ontological number possible. If N = X then N + 1 = 0

***** A self, a soul, a monad, a subject, an “I”, is a strange loop system. It’s autonomous, self-contained, uncreated and uncaused. Nothing else can intervene in one monad’s strange loop. Every strange loop is unique and unbreachable. You can never subjectively experience another soul’s experiences because you are permanently confined within your own strange loop. The best you can do is simulate what another monad is experiencing through empathy and sympathy. This presupposes that your inner functioning (your character, nature, personality) is similar to theirs. If it’s not, they will be alien and unfathomable to you: they will be “other”.

The Ontology of Strange Loops Strange loops may seem quite bizarre, but in fact they’re perfectly logical. Using abstract mathematics, we can imagine inflating a bubble indefinitely (because we have imposed no ontological constraints, hence have established a linear, non-ontological process). In reality, any bubble you choose, no matter how perfectly formed it is, will eventually burst (which is equivalent to going back to the beginning and starting again). The reason why it bursts is not so difficult to grasp. Eventually, a circle or sphere becomes so large that its circumference starts to become more and more linear when any particular section of it is studied. Eventually, a circle is so close to a square, or a sphere to a cube, that the mathematics of the situation arrive at a critical point – a “catastrophe” – where, ontologically, something has to give since it’s no longer clear if the mathematics of the situation are curved or linear. This is where the system becomes radically unstable and collapses back to the beginning, thus creating the strange loop. Strange though it may seem, the physics and mathematics of bubbles are at the very heart of reality, and of zero and infinity. Abstractly, there is a clear distinction between a circle and square at all times (the distinction goes on infinitely). Ontologically, the actual forces in play become wholly unstable and undefined at a certain critical juncture, at which point the system returns to its stable origin, thus guaranteeing that no ontological system every strays off into indefinable infinity. Strange loops protect existence from infinity. In a universe of true infinity (and true infinitesimals), nothing would ultimately be definable. Everything would be both “topless” and “bottomless” (completely fuzzy, hazy, indeterminate and imprecise), and that’s no basis for a concrete reality.

Entropy Entropy is often described as “disorder”. But is it? If you smash an egg, have you increased disorder, or have you in fact increased stability? If you push over a sandcastle, have you increased disorder in the world, or produced a more stable configuration than you had before? Is saying that the entropy of the universe is increasing the same as saying that it’s becoming more disordered, or in fact more stable, hence less able to do any

work? Work can in fact only be done by less stable things, and the least stable thing of all – thus the thing capable of doing the most work – is the pristine Singularity itself, the cause of the Big Bang, which is the cosmic shattering of perfect symmetry! Once everything has done all possible work, what’s left? In fact, thanks to the strange loop, the last remaining thing is the return to the Singularity, the most symmetrical and ordered thing you can get, so symmetrical and ordered that the slightest alteration to it instantly produces total disorder (symmetry breaking), and thus the next Big Bang. It’s all in the math!

Thinking People can’t help the way they think. Sensing types can’t help but be locked into the sensible world. They have no intuition, so can’t get beyond their senses. They have no feelings so can’t imagine a personal relationship with a “God”. Intuitive types easily leap beyond the senses because their senses aren’t all that vivid and concrete to them. The world they reveal seems “fake” somehow. Feeling types can’t help anthropomorphising everything in order to have a personal, emotional relationship with it. Thinking types can’t help following their reason. They reject anything that doesn’t strike them as rational. We are all prisoners of our personality types. But we are not equal prisoners. Being a sensing or feeling type is much better for you if you want to succeed in this world. Intuition best prepares you for the next world. And being a thinking type is best if you want to work out exactly how reality operates, for the very simple reason that existence itself is rational. The best people of all for understanding reality are INTJs. They have introverted intuition (meaning that they see right to the hidden heart of things) and extraverted thinking, so that they can accurately link and map how the world appears (phenomenon) to how it actually is (noumenon). Next best are the INTPs. They have introverted thinking (meaning they can think deeply about the hidden heart of things) and extraverted intuition (meaning that they can intuit the world of phenomena with great success).

So, INTJs powerfully intuit noumena and think deeply about phenomena while INTPs deeply think about noumena and powerfully intuit phenomena. INTJs are better off because it’s best to bring intuition rather than thinking to bear on noumena since noumena are inherently so hard to get at. INTPs can apply their deep thinking only to the intuitions the INTJs have brought back with them. By the same token, it’s best to think about the world of phenomena since we have evidence with which to get to grips. Intuiting phenomena makes phenomena more mysterious than they need to be.

***** When atheist scientists scoff at “an invisible old man in the sky” (when they refer to the Abrahamic “God”), non-Abrahamists shouldn’t laugh along too loudly. After all, any intuitive person acknowledges that there are all manner of invisible things out there. They’re not in the sky (because that’s a physical place), but they are in a dimensionless, non-physical domain. The reference to “invisibility” is inevitable for a sensory type who can believe only in what he sees, and who automatically dismisses anything he can’t in principle see. Intuitives should refrain from giving the sad sensory types too much encouragement. To talk of “God” being a physical being (with some sort of cloak of invisibility) is already to engage in a fallacy. Souls, hence gods, are all immaterial singularities outside space and time. There’s nothing weird or crazy about them. They are pure math!

Rudeness How do children know that it’s “obscene” for adults to be naked and to have sex? In nature, all adults are naked and have sex all the time in front of anything watching. Why don’t children know that it’s obscene for adults to circumcise eight-day-old babies? That certainly never happens in nature. Why is humanity so anti-nature? So perverse. So obscene!

Logos Logos (Word; Reason) is the formative force, the force that conveys form and stamps form onto formless matter. Logos, when applied to the first emanation of the One, produces Nous (Mind). Logos, when applied to the

fist emanation of Nous, produces Psyche (Soul). Logos, when applied to the first emanation of Psyche, produces Nature, and Logos, when applied to the first emanation of Nature, produces bodies. Logos is the force that connects all of the different levels of emanation. With Aristotle, “God” is pure matterless form, hence pure Logos, while formless matter is the mode of existence from which Logos is entirely absent, until it’s stamped onto it. In Neoplatonism, Logos is the key to the unity and continuity of the various levels of Being that emanate from the One. Saint Augustine ludicrously made the Logos Jesus Christ, uniting all levels of existence, providing the bridge between God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. Through God the Son, God the Father creates the world, which is then permeated by the Holy Spirit (which we might equate to the World Soul). Logos, if it is not anthropomorphized, is somewhat like the laws of science. If it is anthropomorphized, it will be something like Jesus Christ or Krishna.

The One The One is not outside the universe. Rather, it’s at its very core – the Singularity at the centre of Being from which all Being comes. The One is not in each level of emanation. Instead, each emanation is within the One. The higher is never in the lower; the lower is always in the higher. In Illuminism, the whole of existence takes place within a Singularity – the collection of all monads. The material universe is a mathematical illusion within the Singularity, generated by Fourier mathematics. Like the Omega Point of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the One is not removed from us or beyond us. It’s always totally with us, sustaining our being and calling to us to return. We – the souls that make up the Noosphere – are converging on the Omega Point as we become more and more evolved. The Nous hypostasis is immaterial, without any physicality. It’s solely intellectual, with no extension or dimensionality, hence it’s a mental singularity. It’s infinite in its being exactly because it’s outside any spatial or temporal measurement or constraint. However, it’s less than the One since the One concerns pure infinity while the Nous comprise finite, determinate things (concepts) that interpret the perfect infinity of the One with a less perfect infinity. (Nous is infinite in its lack of spatial or temporal

limitation, but finite insofar as it creates concepts that define limits and bounds, while the One does no such thing). Nous performs perfect intuitive thinking, not the imperfect discursive thinking of the Psyche. With the Nous, there’s no division between knowing and what is known, between thinking and what is thought. It’s not like the domain of eternal, immutable Platonic forms that provide the Demiurge with the Forms and Ideas it needs to think. Rather, the Forms are relocated into the Demiurge’s mind and become its perfect Mind. Intelligence is united with the Forms. To think is to think the Forms, and thus to think perfectly. Plotinus wrote, “Everything is clear, altogether and to its inmost part, to everything, for light is transparent to light. Each, there, has everything in itself and sees all things in every other, for all are everywhere and each and every one is all, and the glory is unbounded... One particular kind of being stands out in each, but in each all are manifest.” It’s said that Nous possesses being all at once (i.e. it possesses the whole) whereas Psyche possesses being only one part at a time. Psyche must always move from one part to the next, as in discursive thinking. It can’t hold all concepts at once. It has to reason its way from one place to the next, rather than thinking them simultaneously. It’s precisely the fact that Psyche has to continually move from one thing to another that time comes into existence (the delay between one thing and the next). Time, says Plotinus, is “the life of the Psyche in movement” and is the cause of all physical movement in Nature (movement in physical space and time). Physical time derives from mental time, physical motion from mental motion. The idea of motion being present in all circumstances was critical in Leibniz’s thinking. We can see the same idea in Fourier mathematics. All mental movement takes place in the eternal, immutable, immaterial, dimensionless, frequency domain (Singularity) outside physical space and time, but this generates the motion in physical space and time that occurs thanks to the inverse Fourier transform. Internal (mental) time is very different from external (physical) time. For modern physics, the latter causes the former. For Neoplatonism it’s the complete inverse.

*****

The Hypostasis of Body is so far removed from the One, so degraded and weak, so full of error, corruption, ignorance and delusion that it does not have the capability to generate a lower hypostasis. Thus, the chain of being ends here. Souls attached to bodies are close to sinking into the chaos, formlessness and evil of matter, of becoming more and more bestial. They are infected by matter. If they want to escape, they must ascend back whence they came, they must become more spiritual, rational, intuitive and knowing. They must rediscover their true selves. They must turn inwards (introversion) not outwards (extraversion). Extraverts are much more mired in matter, corruption and degeneration than introverts. Never trust an extravert! They can’t even trust themselves. In Illuminism, there’s no such thing as chaotic, evil matter. There’s just mathematics taking place within the Singularity and obeying the universal mathematical law defined by the God Equation. Existence is simply the exploration of all compossible ramifications of the God Equation, which includes Fourier “material” existence. God is not a person. God is a flawless mathematical Formula. This Formula is both the Creator and Destroyer. It operates both objectively and subjectively. Objectively, it’s like a perfect mathematical machine or computer. Subjectively, it pursues the dialectic. Why does evil exist? Because the dialectic summons all opposites and make them fight it out, with the objective of producing an optimal synthesis (Omega Point) of all possible theses and antitheses. Major dialectical threads are: the master and slave, good and evil, the Many and the One, the General and the particular, love and hate, Family and Community, Faith and Knowledge, Religion and Atheism, the Intelligible and Sensible, the Id and Superego, the Ego and Self, Thinking and Feeling, Sensing and Intuition, Introversion and Extraversion. It’s extraordinary that Neoplatonism, going back to ancient times, is much closer to accurately depicting ultimate reality than modern scientific materialism. Science hasn’t got the first thing right. It puts matter before mind, a 100% inversion of the true order. Neoplatonism is absolutely right that ultimate reality is all about a Singularity outside space and time. However, there’s no mysterious Neoplatonic “One”. Rather, there’s a fully rational and knowable mathematical Singularity, wholly defined by the God Equation. The Nous is that which thinks the God Equation, and by doing so it understands

everything. Any mind that attains gnosis (God-consciousness) is effortlessly able to think in terms of the God Equation, and solve everything – since there is nothing other than the God Equation. The Psyche is that which thinks discursively, without using the God Equation. To think intuitively is to use the God Equation. All “paranormal” and “psychic” thinking involves the God Equation. Any other type of thinking is discursive, laborious and error-prone. There’s no such thing as matter existing independently from the Singularity. Matter is a purely mathematical construct and is possible only thanks the existence of the eternal frequency domain of the Singularity. Space, time and matter are holographic effects produced by an inverse Fourier transform. Given the mathematical knowledge of the ancient world, there’s no way Neoplatonism could ever have known this, and yet it still got much closer to the truth of reality than science. It got a few details wrong but the big picture is largely correct: a Singularity stands at the heart of everything and everything flows from it.

The Nose Has It A dog’s nose dominates its face and also its brain. Where humans primarily use vision to interpret the world, dogs use smell. Where we look out on a visual landscape, dogs detect a smellscape. Dogs gain information by smelling an object, plant or animal, not by looking at it. Their sight is generally quite poor. A dog’s brain is specialized for identifying scents. In comparison with a human, the percentage of a dog’s brain devoted to analyzing smells is some 40 times larger. It has been said that a dog is up to 10,000 times better at identifying smells than humans.

Dogs It’s said that dogs “know” when their owners are coming home. In fact, they’re absolutely clueless. Many dogs spend hours looking out of windows, hoping to see their owner returning. Clearly, they have no remarkable ability to track the movements of their owners. What they do have that is utterly remarkable is a sense of smell that’s ten thousand times more powerful than that of humans. When the owner gets within a certain

distance of the house, the dog literally smells him (or her), hence why it rushes to the door to be greet the owner. It’s not using any kind of intuition or sixth sense; it’s just using its nose. There’s nothing to see here. Just keep moving along!

***** If you spray the scent of the owner around the house when the owner is absent, the dog will assume and act as if the owner is there. So much for canine intuition! Another myth bites the dust.

The Gods The ancients believed that the stars and planets were living gods, and that their movements controlled human existence. Unlike today, when many religious types imagine that they will go to paradise in some other dimension beyond space and time, the ancients imagined that, after death, their light, fiery soul would go on an ascent through the physical cosmos. They imagined encountering the planetary gods and having to provide passwords to gain entry to each of the heavenly spheres. The ultimate aim was to reach the pure and eternal world of the stars where the soul would find its immortal home, achieving “astral immortality”. The celestial ascent of the soul was a voyage even more difficult than that of Odysseus to the Underworld. The star sailors knew that knowledge (especially of secret passwords and gateways) was critical. Faith didn’t matter in the slightest. It’s an extraordinary thing that, with the rise of Abrahamism, faith became so important when previously it had barely mattered at all. Faith goes hand in hand with stupidity and irrationalism, with an evasion of the need for knowledge. The ordinary, ill-educated masses were not great thinkers and could not understand complex philosophy and astronomy. “Faith” was the ultimate means to dumb down religion. All that people had to do was sign up to a simplistic story that they liked, and then believe in it wholeheartedly and fanatically, without enquiring into any of the details. Jews, Christians and Muslims have great faith but none of them could offer the slightest rational and technical explanation of what a soul is and how it gets to heaven, and where heaven is.

Believers have no interest at all in these matters, and never think about them. They would much rather kneel, pray and bow to their God. They rely on him to sort out everything. They themselves don’t feel any requirement to “know”. And that’s precisely why they can go on believing despite all rational evidence, facts, arguments and proof to the contrary.

Neuromyths? “There’s a lot of pseudo-science ... based on mythical ideas such as you are left brained or right brained. This makes no physiological sense. The two sides of the brain are in constant communication. At best, it’s just a metaphor for individual differences.” – Professor Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, professor of cognitive neuroscience at UCL. “The idea that the two hemispheres of the brain may learn differently has virtually no grounding in neuroscience research. The idea has arisen from the knowledge that some cognitive skills appear differentially localised to a specific hemisphere (e.g., language functions are typically supported by left hemisphere brain regions in healthy right handed people). However, massive amount of fibre connections link the two hemispheres of the brain in neurologically healthy individuals. Every cognitive skill that has been investigated using neuroimaging to date employs a network of brain regions spread across both cerebral hemispheres, including language and reading, and thus no evidence exists for any type of learning that is specific to one side of the brain.” – Wikipedia Neuroscientists are frequently those most heavily committed to the empiricist and materialist Meta Paradigm of science. They treat the brain purely in machine terms and have absolutely zero understanding of the human mind and Fourier mathematics. They are locked into seeing mental states as brain states. They have not, of course, been able to establish any link at all between our thoughts and our brain states (i.e. to read off our thoughts by seeing which parts of the brain are active at any instant), but nevertheless they have a quasi-religious faith that they will eventually be able to do so. They have no alternative paradigm for considering any other possibilities. They are like Catholics who believe that no interpretation of the world is possible other than that supplied by Catholic dogma. Rather

ironically, neuroscientists don’t think at all. They are supremely lacking in imagination and intuition. In the 1960s, Roger Sperry and his colleagues carried out “split brain” experiments on sufferers of epilepsy who’d had the corpus callosum (the tissue linking the two hemispheres of their brain) severed to reduce the severity of their attacks. Each hemisphere now operated in isolation, and was discovered to have markedly different properties from its erstwhile partner. Sperry was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine/Physiology in 1981 for this groundbreaking work. It therefore beggars belief that a neuroscientist could attempt to say that people are not right-brained or left-brained. Of course they are! Imagine a dominant husband and submissive wife in a house, and imagine that they communicate all the time. Are the decisions taken by the “household” likely to be those of the husband, wife, or both in exactly equal partnership? The fact that the two partners constantly communicate is wholly irrelevant to what decisions are made. Almost always, the preferences of the dominant partner will be manifested. It’s simply stupid – and unbelievable – for a professor to argue that the mere fact that hemispheres are linked somehow means that the hemispheres are equal partners. The professor says there’s no evidence for right or left hemispheric dominance. On the contrary, there’s vast evidence for this, and none at all that the hemispheres are equal partners with equal influence. If they’re equal, what’s the evolutionary point of even having two hemispheres in the first place? The very fact that two brain hemispheres exist at all is extremely indicative that they have radically different lateral specialisations. If we didn’t need two hemispheres, we’d simply have a single, undivided brain. Roger Sperry received his Nobel Prize precisely for his discoveries revealing the functional specialization of the cerebral hemispheres. The left hemisphere of the brain is associated with analytical and verbal tasks. The right hemisphere is skilled at spatial perception tasks and music. It has only rudimentary language abilities, but contributes emotional context and understanding to language, and allows us to visualise what the world represents.

“The great pleasure and feeling in my right brain is more than my left brain can find the words to tell you.” – Roger Sperry Why do neuroscientist insist on spreading these silly myths that there’s no hemispheric brain specialisation? It’s because they are fanatical materialists, terrified of linking the different hemispheres to radically different mental properties, which would throw the entire materialist paradigm into doubt.

***** The simple fact that most people are right handed rather than left handed or ambidextrous is blatant evidence that one hemisphere is superior to the other. If the hemispheres were equal partners, we should all be ambidextrous, or there should be as many left handers as right handers. All of Jungian personality typing is based on hemispheric imbalance, with thinking and sensing being left brain properties, and feelings and intuition belonging to the right brain. Extraversion is a left brain property and faces out to the world (spacetime, matter and dimensionality), while introversion is a right brain property and faces in towards the interior world (the dimensionless mental Singularity). Neuroscientists don’t have a clue about any of this. Like old-style behaviourists (whom they strongly resemble), they regard the mind as ultimately non-existent or wholly irrelevant, and that only physical processes happening in the brain have any meaning. All binary oppositions are reflected in hemispheric imbalances: Introversion versus extraversion. Active people versus passive people. Dominants versus submissives. Men versus women. Heterosexuals versus homosexuals. Intelligent versus stupid. Master versus slave. Selfish versus altruistic.

Individualist versus collectivist. Family-oriented versus community-oriented. Religious versus irreligious. Faith-oriented versus knowledge-oriented. Materialist versus idealist. Empiricist versus rationalist. Mathematical versus Scientific. Logos versus Mythos. Scientific versus Artistic. The brain is the perfect dialectical instrument. The left brain is the thesis, the right brain the antithesis, and their common operations (reflecting a united brain) the synthesis. We are nothing but creatures of hemispheric imbalance. Julian Jaynes’s brilliant theory of bicameralism is all about this imbalance. Jungian psychology is equally dominated by hemispheric imbalance. Neuroscience rejects all of this and blindly proceeds along the road to nowhere, to an “explanation” of mind based on mindless atoms! This, they claim, is rational.

***** “Variations on the basic concept of learning preferences and styles can include sorting pupils into other types of category. For example, some texts encourage teachers to determine whether a child is left or right brained. It is true that some tasks can be associated with extra activity that is predominantly in one hemisphere or the other. For example, language is considered to be left lateralised. However, no part of the brain is ever normally inactive in the sense that no blood flow is occurring. Furthermore, performance in most everyday tasks, including learning tasks, requires both hemispheres to work together in a sophisticated parallel fashion. The division of people into left-brained and right-brained takes the misunderstanding one stage further. There is no reliable evidence that such

categorisation is helpful for teaching and learning.” – Sarah-Jayne Blakemore No wonder there’s no evidence when people such as Blakemore are conducting the research. Her remarks demonstrate everything that’s wrong with science and its inherent prejudice against the mind. Blakemore, we can be 100% certain, is not devising any tests to test whether a child is left or right brained, since she has dismissed the whole concept right from the outset. We can be sure her equally blinkered, groupthink, careerist colleagues have exactly the same biases. You can’t get job in this field unless you agree with materialist dogma, just as you can’t get a job in the Catholic Church if you’re not a Catholic. No one ever suggested that hemispheric dominance results in “blood flow” ever being cut off to the other hemisphere. For optimal functioning, the other hemisphere has to know what its partner is up to! That doesn’t make it an equal partner with equal executive decision-making importance. The unconscious mind is always aware what the conscious mind is doing, and often signalling to the conscious mind to do x rather than y. All of this is dismissed as nonsense by neuroscience, a bizarre subject that studies the brain while ignoring the mind!

They’re At It Again “A rigid philosophical tradition claims that no choice is free unless it is uncaused; that is, unless the ‘will’ is exercised independently of all causal influences – in a causal vacuum. In some unexplained fashion, the will – a thing that allegedly stands aloof from brain-based causality – makes an unconstrained choice. The problem is that choices are made by brains, and brains operate causally; that is, they go from one state to the next as a function of antecedent conditions. Moreover, though brains make decisions, there is no discrete brain structure or neural network which qualifies as ‘the will’ let alone a neural structure operating in a causal vacuum. The unavoidable conclusion is that a philosophy dedicated to uncaused choice is as unrealistic as a philosophy dedicated to a flat Earth.” – Patricia Churchland Total drivel! No philosophy at all says that free will involves causeless, i.e. random behaviour (well, apart from the materialist atheist Epicurus who

believed in randomly swerving atoms as the basis of free will: even he saw the need to avoid total scientific causality!). Advocates of free will argue that the will is not subject to mechanical, materialist causality, hence can initiate its own causal chains for its own internal reasons (causes). In Kantian philosophy, free will belongs to the unknowable noumenal domain. Churchland says, “Brains operate causally”. That’s an assumption, an opinion, not a fact. Moreover, “causally” has not actually been defined. According to standard quantum mechanics, reality is grounded fundamentally in indeterminacy (randomness; acausality). How does Churchland – an out and out scientific materialist – explain how quantum randomness produces causality in brains? No scientist has ever rationally explained how microscopic indeterminism results in macroscopic determinism (its 100% opposite). It’s a category error, an absolute logical contradiction, to claim that determinism is born from its antithesis. Total determinism precludes indeterminacy, and vice versa. Hybrid systems of some determinism and some indeterminism are rationally ludicrous. It’s all or nothing. In Illuminism, everything happens according to the strict causality of the God Equation. There’s an exact reason for everything. Nothing at all happens randomly since that would contradict the God Equation. As for the will, it’s not in the brain at all, it’s in a dimensionless monad. Good luck to all neuroscientists trying to find it! Trying to explain mind as an emergent property of mindless matter is definitely a “flat Earth philosophy” ... or based on pure magic where things happen for no reason at all. In Illuminism, there are four types of causality: 1) Mind acting on matter. 2) Mind acting on mind. 3) Matter acting on mind. 4) Matter acting on matter. These four types of causality are all reflective of Fourier mathematics. Matter-matter causality is certainly involved (just as neuroscientists say), but so are three other types of causality, which are completely ignored and

denied by neuroscientists. Neuroscientists, sad to say, are as mathematically illiterate as they are philosophically illiterate. Perhaps Churchland would like to point to any philosopher at all who argued that human free will consisted of human beings operating causelessly, i.e. randomly. It’s self-evident that humans are purposeful creatures striving to achieve aims. Aristotle designated this type of causality as teleological. All teleology has, inevitably, been abolished by Materialist Fundamentalists. They attempt to ridicule philosophers while ignoring the entire basis on which philosophers argued, instead substituting their own absurd materialist ideology. Plainly, free will cannot be explained within the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm of science (which is an immense problem for science given that humans would never imagine themselves free if they weren’t: and how do mindless atoms come together to generate pointless mental delusions?!) These materialist fanatics are clueless. Human free will is indeed the best possible ground on which materialism and idealism should be judged. If we’re not free, we’re either robots or random behaviour generators. Does anyone really believe either option? As G K Chesterton said so sarcastically, “Of nearly all other philosophies it is strictly true that their followers work in spite of them, or do not work at all. No sceptics work sceptically; no fatalists work fatalistically; all without exception work on the principle that it is possible to assume what it is not possible to believe. No materialist who thinks his mind was made up for him, by mud and blood and heredity, has any hesitation in making up his mind.” Does any neuroscientist seriously believe that they are what they claim they are: unfree automata ... Cartesian machines? Any opinion expressed by any such person is not in fact their opinion: it’s the opinion of atoms and molecules being acted upon by inescapable materialist, mechanical forces and causes. And those of us who completely reject this view do so, it seems, because we are all also atoms and molecules being acted upon by inescapable materialist, mechanical forces and causes. So, what’s the point?! Why do human “machines” make so many mistakes? How are mistakes even possible in a system of absolute, mechanical, materialist causality? How can mechanical causes act in error? How can cause be error? If it were, the universe would collapse thanks to all of the accumulated errors.

The Living Force A living, mental force is what informs all matter. Mind and life are exactly the same things, meaning that panpsychism (mind is in everything) and hylozoism (living matter) cannot be truly distinguished. If matter is alive then it has mind. If mind is in matter then matter is alive. Hylozoism is closely related to hylopathism, of which Wikipedia says: “Hylopathism, in philosophy, is the belief that some or all matter is sentient or that properties of matter in general give rise to subjective experience. It is opposed to the assertion that consciousness results exclusively from properties of specific types of matter, e.g. brain tissue. ... Hylopathism is not necessarily a belief in the universality of sentience, but rather in the derivation of sentience from matter.” Marxist dialectical materialism attributes teleology to matter. Hylozoism, hylopathism and dialectical materialism are all opposed to scientific materialism, which characterises matter as dead, mindless, unsentient and purposeless. Scientific hylozoism is opposed to scientific materialism and depicts the material universe as a living organism rather than dead machine, as being about life rather than mechanism. One of the greatest mysteries of all is why some living people (scientific materialists) go to extreme lengths to deny that life and mind exist in their own right. These qualities therefore have to be magically created from lifeless, mindless atoms. With such people (scientists), we find life hating life, mind hating mind. We find total alienation from life and mind. And for what? Just so that such people can be atheists and deny God, the soul, inherent design in nature and any trace of purpose in existence. These people would much rather deal with randomness than causality, and machines rather than living things. They find machines far more comprehensible and reassuring. They themselves want to be purposeless machines with no free will. That is an ambition of autistics! Sentience: capable of feeling; feeling as distinguished from perception or thought; sense perception not involving intelligence or mental perception; consciousness. Everything about scientific materialism is opposed to life, mind, purpose, reason and causality. Science is now based on random acausality and the

total repudiation of any principle of sufficient reason operating in the universe. Science has waged Total War against any hint of teleology in the universe. “The choice seems simple: either show how a structured, regular world could arise out of undirected processes, or inject intelligence into the system.” – R. J. Hankinson, Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek Thought Scientific materialism has never explained how indeterminism gives rise to determinism, how undirected, random processes produce a world of order and organisation. Science is so dumb, it doesn’t even seem to be aware of the problem.

Avatars We’re all in a living video game. The material world and our bodies are mathematical constructs, recalculated instant by instant. Life is just like a shoot ‘em up virtual reality game. The material world is the virtual reality. The true reality is mental, immaterial, dimensionless and outside space and time. In a video game, we are not in the game, we are merely playing it. When it comes to reality, we are both in the game and playing it. We feel pleasure and pain concerning not what we are watching on a screen but what we are experiencing inside the game world. When you “die” in a video game, you can more or less re-enter where you left off. It’s very different in real life. You leave the game entirely and then re-enter it through reincarnation, at a totally different time and place, in a brand new body (avatar), starting as a baby! You have no memory of the game you were playing before your death. Yet the key point is that, as in video games, you never actually die. You can play as often as you like. And you can never leave!

Mithras and the Sun God In Mithraism, there are two sun deities: 1) the god Sol (Helios), the conventional solar deity in ancient Roman religion, and 2) Sol Invictus (“Unconquered Sun”), equated with Mithras himself. Why did Mithraists

appear to believe in the existence of two suns? And if one sun is in the sky, where is the other? Platonism also had two suns: the normal sun of astronomy, within the cosmos, and a “hypercosmic” sun, above, beyond and outside the cosmos, located beyond the sphere of the fixed stars. We might say that the hypercosmic sun was the perfect Platonic Form of the sun, while the cosmic sun was its inferior cosmic copy, its simulacrum. The hypercosmic sun is none other than the Form of the Good itself, the highest and most important Form in Platonism. If regarded as a living being, it’s God. Plato said that just as the sun illuminates that which is visible with light, so The Good illuminates that which is intelligible with truth. As the sun is the source of all physical illumination in the visible world (the horatos topos or “sensible world”), so The Good is the source of all mental illumination (understanding) in the world of the Forms (the noetos topos or “intelligible world”). Plato wrote, “Then the sun is not sight, but the author of sight who is recognised by sight. And this is he whom I call the child of the good, whom the good begat in his own likeness, to be in the visible world, in relation to sight and the things of sight, what the good is in the intellectual world in relation to mind and the things of mind.” The noetic sun (hypercosmic sun) conducts and controls the visible sun (cosmic sun). The mundane sun is the source of partial light (there is darkness in the world as well as light) while the supramundane sun is the source of “entire light” or “total light”. Light fills everything forever in the solar world beyond the physical cosmos. This is the sacred light of divine illumination, and is what intuitives glimpse from time to time. Plato said, “... our argument shows that the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being, and of the brightest and best of being, or in other words, of the good. ... when a person starts on the discovery of the absolute by the light of reason only, and without any assistance of sense, and perseveres until by pure intelligence he arrives at the perception of the absolute good, he at last finds himself at the end of the intellectual world, as in the case of sight at the end of the visible. ... this power of elevating the highest

principle in the soul to the contemplation of that which is best in existence, with which we may compare the raising of that faculty which is the very light of the body to the sight of that which is brightest in the material and visible world – this power is given, as I was saying, by all that study and pursuit of the arts which has been described. ... my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.” In Mithraism, we must all escape from the Cave of Ignorance and learn to see the Form of the Good, the source of absolute reason and truth. We must ascend from the cave to the hypercosmic world (heaven). The cave or cavern is the image and symbol of the physical world, so Mithraic ceremonies take place within this context, with the ultimate aim of allowing the initiates to leave the cave (the enclosing physical cosmos). To escape from the cavern is to leave physical existence and bathe in the light of true, divine existence. In Plato’s allegory of the cave, the visible sun is outside the cave. By extension, the noetic sun is outside the cosmic cave (the physical universe). Physical light is detectable by the eyes. Mental light is detectable only by reason. The visible sun is the sun in the visible world. The intelligible sun is the sun in the world beyond. Plotinus wrote, “...that sun in the divine realm is Intellect – let this serve as an example for our discourse – and next after it is soul, dependent upon it and abiding while Intellect abides. This soul gives the edge of itself which borders on this [visible] sun to this sun, and makes a connection of it to the divine realm through the medium of itself, and acts as an interpreter of what comes from this sun to the intelligible sun and from the intelligible sun to this sun...”

***** For the philosopher Philo, just as the sun lit the lower world, a “hypercosmic star” lit the upper world.

***** The hyperouranios topos (place beyond the heavens) = topos noetos (intelligible world).

***** Physics is the cave of ignorance, the world-cave. Mathematics is the light of rational illumination that lies beyond the cave. All physicists are watching the shadows on the walls of the cave and mistaking them for true reality. To reach absolute truth, all scientists must escape from their cave (the “sensible world”) and ascend to the sunlit realm outside (the intelligible world of mathematics). Physics is obsessed with the visible sun. The true sun is invisible. We perceive the physical sun with our senses. Only our nous (our intellect, our reason) perceives the hidden sun, full of hidden variables and rational unobservables. In Mithraic iconography, Mithras is shown emerging from a rock. This is sometimes known as the “rock-birth”. However, it should really be known as the “rock-escape”, or the separation from the rock (the prison of the material world), or the soul leaving its body, or Mithras mastering the material world. We might say that the rock stands for physics (the obsession with matter), and Mithras is he who can escape to the higher plane of mathematics (defining the immaterial world). The Mithraic temple represents the Mithraic Cave – the image of the physical cosmos – where Mithras slays the bull (representing the constellation of Taurus), and frees his followers from materialism. The Age of Taurus took place from 4700 BCE – 2500 BCE and gave way to the Age of Aries (2500 – 300 BCE), then the Age of Pisces 300 BCE – 1900 CE. Depending on who you ask, we are now in the Age of Aquarius, or just about to enter that New Age. Mithraism was first formulated in the zodiacal transition between Taurus and Aries, hence the importance of the overcoming of the bull. By the same token, a ram was often sacrificed instead of a bull because Aries (symbolised by a ram) had also been overcome to allow the transition to Pisces (represented by a fish, a symbol often associated with Christianity).

The cave (the hollow within the rock) symbolises the material universe seen from inside. When Mithras emerges from the rock, it symbolises that the physical universe is not the only reality, and reveals that the cosmos can be viewed from the outside, from a plane of existence that’s not material at all. The rock is the cosmos (physics) and the plane outside the rock, the hypercosmos (mathematics). Mithras (mathematics; illumination; reason) can transcend and control the cosmos from his hypercosmic home. Mithras is greater than the cosmos, its master, and he cannot be contained by the material world (the cosmic sphere). He bursts out of the physical rock, just as the prisoner in Plato’s allegory of the cave escapes and emerges into the light of the sun, and has true reality revealed to him for the first time. The “rock” of the universe is surrounded by an immaterial world, the realm of divinity and immortality.

***** Mithraism revolves around the slaying of a bull in a cave. The legend or myth of the Cretan Minotaur involves Theseus slaying a monstrous manbull in its labyrinth.

***** Noetos helios: “intelligible sun” – illumination located in the intelligible realm. Hyperouranios aster: “hypercosmic star”.

The Ascent In Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, the prisoner ascends to the sunlit world outside the cave. This represents the ascent of the soul to the “place beyond the heavens.” It’s about leaving behind the illusory physical cosmos and concerns the superiority of the intelligible reality over the sensory reality, of mathematics over physics. Any truly intelligent person must at last acknowledge that reason is more truthful than the senses, hence no longer revere the experimental method of science, and instead accept the eternal proofs of mathematics.

***** Hermeticism, Gnosticism, and Neoplatonism were all closely related. One of their central preoccupations was with defining the various cosmic spheres and levels, and identifying where the horos (the boundary) lay between the cosmic and the hypercosmic realms. The former is the material sensible world, and the latter the immaterial intelligible world or the Gnostic Pleroma (the “Fullness”), the domain of total, eternal light. The soul ascends a cosmic ladder of increasing material purity and fineness, finally leaving matter altogether and entering the immaterial domain (heaven). We discard the physical senses and enter the world of pure reason. In Aristotle’s conception of the Great Chain of Being, stretching all the way from formless matter to matterless form (pure reason), the soul’s task is to navigate away from matter, towards reason (away from physics towards mathematics). Although mathematics is the basis of physical things, it’s inherently non-physical and can be defined as the means by which true reason exists ontologically, i.e. mathematics = reason = the immaterial, intelligible domain.

***** According to the Chaldaean Oracles, Hecate embodies the boundary between the cosmic and hypercosmic, the mortal and immortal. Hecate was a goddess of the Moon, magic, witchcraft, necromancy, and sorcery. Since she stood between the living and the dead, she was a “liminal” deity, hence was associated with borders, doorways, crossroads, walls, rivers and, especially, with realms outside or beyond the world of the living. She was the goddess of the “between”, the Interzone. She stood between mortality and immortality, between the human and divine spheres, between the Titans and Olympians. Hecate was often depicted with keys. To pass from one existential level to another required her assistance, for her to unlock the relevant gates and doors. She was also shown with two torches, allowing anyone appearing at an access gate to be identified. Hecate went everywhere with watchdogs who could detect and drive away any intruders who approached doors forbidden to them. Dogs were often associated with boundaries, as guards. Most famously, the three-headed dog Cerberus protected the entrance to

Hades. He prevented the living from entering the Underworld, and the dead from leaving it.

Janus In some traditions, the solar god Sol (Helios) is identified with the doublefaced Roman god Janus, who looks backwards and forwards at the same time. We might consider Janus as the tertium quid (third thing) that generates the cosmos (matter) on the one hand and the hypercosmos (mind) on the other. Janus had a counterpart called Jana (the moon: Luna, Selene). Janus and Jana: the divine couple, the sun and moon, Apollo and Athena. Janus, the gateway God, was the first god to whom sacrifices were offered since he was the route to all the other gods. The month named after Janus was January, the first month. Without it, the rest of the year could not happen. To some, Janus was the Supreme God. Janus, like Hecate, presided over boundaries, doors, gateways, city gates, borders, bridges, keys and crossroads. He was another liminal deity.

Helios and Apollo In ancient Greece, Helios was the old god of the sun (Helios was a Titan). Apollo, an Olympian, was the new god of the sun, of light and reason. Sol was the Roman equivalent of Helios and we might infer that Sol Invictus was an epithet for Apollo. Sol Invictus was Helios Megistos (“Great Helios”).

Christianity = Counterfeit Mithraism? The Christian cult came to prominence in the same period as Mithraism. In many ways, Christianity is a counterfeit version of Mithraism, with Jewish Messianism bolted onto Mithraism by Saul of Tarsus (aka St. Paul), to produce the miscarriage of Christianity. Christianity proceeded to steal elements from Hermeticism, Gnosticism and Neoplatonism, thus neutralising all of its pagan rivals. If Jesus Christ is the cosmic Christ, Mithras is the Hypercosmic Christ, the True God.

Sunday was the special day of Mithraists. Christians soon adopted this (rather than the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday). Mithras was born on 25 December. The Christians soon imitated this. Mithras was the “truth and the light”. Christianity soon stole this. Mithraists had a baptismal ceremony: so did Christians. The Emperor Constantine, supposedly a Christian, embellished the Temple of the Sun in Rome. He was clearly a sun-worshipper, and considered Jesus Christ as the solar god incarnated on Earth. Constantine ushered in religious tolerance of Christianity, but he did not make Christianity the state religion of Rome. In effect, Mithraism was simply subsumed by Christianity, and things could just as easily have gone the other way with a Roman Emperor of a different stripe from Constantine (an Emperor of the calibre of Julian the Philosopher, for example). Mithras was said to have been born on December 25 to a virgin called “Mother of God”, some five hundred years before Jesus Christ, with the great event being witnessed by shepherds and gift-carrying Magi (!). The occasion was celebrated as “Dies Natalis Solis Invicti” (the Birthday of the Unconquered Sun). Mithras was known as “the Light of the World”, and stood for reason, truth, justice, and loyalty. In some views, he was a mediator between heaven and earth and member of a Holy Trinity. Mithraism was based on Brotherhood and was, in turn, said to have been heavily influenced by the Phrygian cult of Cybele, the Maga Mater. Mithras was said to have performed many miracles, cured the sick, and cast out devils. He had twelve disciples representing the twelve signs of the zodiac, with whom he celebrated a Last Supper before ascending to heaven at the time of the spring equinox (around March 21, which sits in the same period as the Christian Easter). Mithraists knelt when they worshipped, and they partook of a common meal – a “communion” – in which they drank wine and ate bread to symbolize the body and blood of their god, and to ingest his divine essence. In the ceremony preceding communion, Mithras was temporarily transformed into a Bull, which was then put to death, its blood being used to baptise new initiates. Mithras was thus sacrificed for the sake of his followers, then resurrected before ascending to heaven. Mithras died and then conquered death (was reborn).

By eating and drinking their God, the Mithraists partook of his divinity, washed away their sins and learned the divine secrets for ascending to heaven. Mithraism had seven sacraments – exactly the same as the Catholic Church. Mithraists believed that the righteous would be rewarded with paradise and the wicked punished in an infernal region. The worshippers of Mithras held strong beliefs in a celestial heaven and an infernal hell, and anticipated an Apocalyptic Day of Judgment. The aim of Mithraists was to learn how the soul could ascend from this world, pass through seven heavenly gates (corresponding to the seven grades of Mithraic initiation and the seven “planets”: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, the Moon, the Sun, and Saturn. A new initiate of Mithraism entered at the Corax (Raven) grade, which symbolized death – the death of the initiate’s previous life of ignorance, delusion and false beliefs. Here ended the initiate’s life of error and allegiance to false creeds and false prophets and he was “born again” into the truth. The Corax grade reflected the Zoroastrian custom of exposing the dead on funeral towers where their corpses would be devoured by carrion birds. Mithraists were branded with the mark of the cross, the symbol of the sun. “The Mysteries of Mithra, which came to flower in the near east during the Hellenistic age as a kind of Zoroastrian heresy, and in the Roman period, was the most formidable rival of Christianity... Celebrants wore masks representing animals of the Zodiac: for astronomy was undergoing a new development in this period through an application of Greek thought to the data of the centuries of Sumero-Chaldean observation. In all religions of the age, the Zodiac had come to represent the bounding, ever revolving sphere of time – space – causality, within which the unbounded Spirit operates unmoved yet moving in all.” – Joseph Campbell

Living Reason The ancient Greeks typically believed in some living, cosmic, rational force called Nous or Logos that brought order and organisation to what would

otherwise be Chaos. This force was either naturalist or rendered anthropomorphic (in which case it was “God” of some kind). But what, really, is nous or logos? It’s just ontological mathematics. This is the source of all order, organisation, pattern, logic and reason in the universe. We inhabit the Mathmos – the mathematical cosmos. Nothing could be more certain. Without mathematics, there couldn’t be a cosmos at all.

The Book of Revelation: the Inversion of Truth Revelation 13:4 So they WORSHIPPED the dragon (Satan) who gave authority to the beast, and they WORSHIPPED the beast... In fact, Christianity itself is the dragon (Satan), and the religion of the Beast. Revelation 13:8 And All who dwell on the earth will WORSHIP him, whose names are not written in the Book of Life... No names of Christians are written in the Book of Life, only in the Book of Death. Revelation 13:12 He causes the earth and those who dwell in it to WORSHIP the first beast. . . Jehovah was the first Beast. Revelation 13:15 As many as would not WORSHIP the image of the beast should be killed. . . The Christians have frequently slaughtered those who refused to worship the Beast. Revelation 14:7 WORSHIP Him who made heaven and earth. . . Mathematics made the universe. Revelation 14:9 If anyone WORSHIPS the beast and his image. . .he shall drink of the wrath of God. . All Abrahamists will never be admitted to paradise. They are the Beasts. They are the Damned.

Agent Intellect “The reason of the Islamic and Jewish Aristotelians for positing a single external Agent Intellect is that all (rational) human beings are considered by Aristotelians to possess or have access to a fixed and stable set of concepts, a unified correct knowledge of the universe. The only way that all human minds could possess the same correct knowledge is if they all had access to some central knowledge store, as terminals might have access to a mainframe computer. This mainframe is the Agent Intellect, the ‘mind’ of the universe, which makes all other cognition possible. ... “The active intellect, in the sense described, is more properly called the Agent Intellect, as it is the force triggering intellection in the human mind and causing thoughts to pass from the potential to the actual.” – Wikipedia There is in fact only one subject that allows all humans to “possess or have access to a fixed and stable set of concepts, a unified correct knowledge of the universe.” That subject is mathematics. All other subjects have unstable sets of concepts that are not universally agreed. Muslims might think the Koran is the Word of God. All nonMuslims disagree. Catholicism once believed that it had unambiguously defined Christianity. Today, there are countless Protestant sects that beg to disagree, and most Catholics do not subscribe to many of the central dogmas of Catholicism, especially concerning birth control, sex before marriage and abortion. Scientific materialism contains endless inconsistencies and contradictions, all of which are glossed over by the scientific community. You will have seen countless documentaries trumpeting the success of science. How many documentaries have you seen highlighting science’s immense failures, and discussing the abundance of absurd claims made by science?

Dianoia “Dianoia is a term used by Plato for a type of thinking, specifically about mathematical and technical subjects. It is the capacity for, process of, or result of discursive thinking, in contrast with the immediate apprehension that is characteristic of noesis. In Aristotle, knowledge is further divided

into the theoretical (episteme), and the practical, which includes techne and phronesis.” – Wikipedia

Numenius Numenius of Apamea was a Greek philosopher of the second century CE. He was a Neopythagorean, the school that gave rise to Neoplatonism (just as Pythagoreanism gave rise to Platonism). According to Numenius, the Nous was a trinity of “Father”, “Maker” (Creator) and “that which is made” (Creation: the world). The Father, the supreme deity, was pure intelligence (theoretical), the second was intelligence in action (applied) and the third was the product of the Creator’s work. Neoplatonism converted the “Father” into the ineffable “One”, the Creator into the Nous (the Divine Mind), and the Creation into the Psyche (Creator), which then created the material world. In other words, Neoplatonism moved back a level in comparison with Neopythagoreanism.

Mind and Matter In religious systems that assumed that matter always existed (hence that God didn’t create it out of “nothing”), matter was something separate and distinct from God, so could act as the source of evil. In Platonism, a benevolent God (Demiurge) did his best to organise matter into something that imitated the divine order. In Gnosticism, the True God took nothing to do with matter since it was inherently non-divine and resistant to divinity. A malevolent God (also called “Demiurge”) fashioned matter into an evil world, a mockery of the divine order and a prison and madhouse for any souls stupid enough to be lured into hell by lust, greed or pure curiosity.

Forever If you accept that energy has always existed (in monadic form, for example) then you cannot accept the existence of a Creator God. All Creationists should be forced to explain how God creates anything at all from nothing at all. What is the mechanism (other than magic)? Similarly, all scientific materialists must be forced to explain how random “fluctuations” can take place in non-existence in order to produce existence. Such a view is ridiculous and an insult to reason. Whatever science is, it certainly isn’t a

rational account of existence, hence it’s baffling that it’s so widely believed by the intelligentsia.

The Evolution of Nous Homer: nous is mental activity in general, including sensory perception. Pre-Socratics: nous becomes identified with reason, knowledge and understanding, and distinct from sense perception. Anaxagoras: nous is mechanical force that orders and organises otherwise chaotic matter. It’s the source of the cosmos (ordered existence). Nous, in this view, was not a spiritual force; it wasn’t God; it wasn’t a pantheistic World Soul. Nous was, however, Reason as the engine and organiser of the cosmos. By using a term associated with the workings of the human mind, Anaxagoras (whether he intended it or not) created the notion of a humanlike Cosmic Mind, one which others were quick to anthropomorphize as “God” with its own personality and will (i.e. not as an abstract force or law). Plato: nous is the immortal, rational part of the soul. It can understand the Platonic Forms directly (through divine intuition). It arrives at correct conclusions immediately and automatically, without having to work through any intermediate steps. This is godlike thinking. Aristotle: nous is intellect and absolutely different from sense perception. The nous has two parts: active and passive. The active part is a first cause, a prime mover (linked to God). The Prime Mover is the nous that thinks itself, and only itself. Stoics: nous is logos (cosmic reason). Individual human reason is connected to this divine, cosmic reason. Plotinus: nous is the Divine Mind and first emanation of the One.

***** Nous is Apollonian and distinguished from the earthy, irrational god Dionysus (the sensual, sensory and feelings god). Apollo is the spiritual god and Dionysus the carnal god. The vast majority of humans worship

Dionysus and reject Apollo. The greatest humans revere Apollo but give Dionysus his due.

Potentiality and Actuality Aristotle considered that things have various potentialities and possibilities. When conditions are conducive and no obstacles are present then these potentialities and possibilities should naturally be actualised (converted from possibility into reality). Actuality is the fulfilment of possibility. “Potentiality” and “potency” are translations of the Ancient Greek word dunamis. Other translations, depending on context, are “capacity”, “ability”, “power”, “capability”, “strength”, “possibility”, “force”. The English words “dynamic”, “dynamite”, and “dynamo” all derive from this root. In Aristotelian philosophy, there are weak and strong versions of dunamis. The weak version means the mere possibility of doing something while the strong version means doing it as well as it can be done. Everyone has the ability to make a speech (the weak sense) and everyone also has the possibility to make a great speech (the strong sense). The best outcomes are those associated with the strong sense. In terms of Aristotelian causality, the material cause of something originates in the things that can come to be from that material: the potential of that material, what it’s capable of. Clearly, you cannot get more from something than it potentially contains (despite what advocates of emergentism say). For Aristotle, potentiality is always contrasted with actuality. The ancient Greek words energeia (“energy”) and entelecheia (“entelechy”) are often translated as “actuality” (which comes from the Latin actualitas: “anything which is currently happening”). Energeia and entelecheia are more or less interchangeable and refer to the full (rather than partial) realisation of a thing’s potential – when it is fully real (and not some sort of uncollapsed quantum mechanical superposition of potential states, which could never reflect true energy or entelechy). Energeia is derived from ergon, meaning “work”. Where potential doesn’t do work (it doesn’t express itself), energeia does do work, converting potential into a real action in the real world. Potential is expressed through energeia, and otherwise is not expressed.

Entelechy or Entelechia Entelechy comes from entelés (“complete, finished, perfect” from télos: “end, fruition, accomplishment”) and ékhō (“to have”). Entelecheia is a continuous energeia: something doing its complete “work”; fully expressing itself. All natural things, unless they are deprived of resources, or hindered by something else, will become fully actualised. Human beings often fail to fully express their potential. They can be lazy, apathetic, mistaken, irrational, overly emotional, uncommitted, and so on. They can make bad choices. The concepts of energeia and entelecheia converge, making them effectively synonymous. Energeia makes a thing what it is, while entelecheia is the end or perfection which something has in it and this can only be expressed in, through, and during activity (energeia).

Potency and Action Potentiality and actuality are relevant to quantum mechanics. The quantum mechanical wavefunction, as conventionally interpreted in science, is not real, but pure potential, which is then in need of actualisation (wavefunction collapse). This raises a serious ontological issue. In this view, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, yet its potential does exist, and if its potential is expressed then it does come into existence. How can a thing’s potential exist separately from the thing itself? Yet that’s what Copenhagen quantum mechanics claims. An Aristotelian wavefunction would not collapse in any old random way (as it does in science), but in the way that most fully expressed its potential (the best of all possible worlds rather than any random world), and an Aristotelian wavefunction would always be a real thing (not an unreal and unobservable mathematical abstraction). Science rejects Aristotelian entelechies just as surely as it does Aristotelian teleology (and indeed entelechy and teleology are extremely closely related: the teleology of all entelechies is to maximise their potential, not to merely randomly express some of it, as in science). Things are intended by Nature to achieve their proper end (telos), not to actualise randomly and purposelessly.

Entelecheia involves the proper end of a thing; science involves any old end, plucked at random from a whole array of possibilities. In Aristotelian causality, the formal cause of something is its energeia or entelecheia, and its final cause is its telos. Formal and final cause (entelecheia and telos) should result in the complete and full expression of a thing’s initial natural potential. All ultimate things have aims, purposes, and goals for which they strive. Modern science rejects this view and deems that everything is fundamentally without purpose or ends. Copenhagen quantum mechanics is all about things happening randomly and acausally at the quantum level. Such a view would have been unthinkable to Aristotle (and to Leibniz with his principle of sufficient reason). Aristotle applies a very strong fourfold causality to things (i.e. material cause, efficient cause, formal cause and final cause), while modern science is fundamentally acausal: it rejects causality completely in the ground of things. For Aristotle, nothing happens by accident. For modern science, everything is accidental! Aristotle said that for any possibility (dunamis) to become actual, a reason was required (i.e. he too had a basic principle of sufficient reason). Actuality is linked to formal cause, and potentiality (or potency) to material cause. Aristotle said, “Matter exists potentially, because it may attain to the form; but when it exists actually, it is then in the form.” For Aristotle, the Copenhagen quantum wavefunction would be akin to chaotic matter (formless matter), desperately seeking form. In Illuminism, “matter” (a product of energy) is never found without form. All energy is mathematically given its form by the God Equation. Illuminism gets rid of the material, formal and efficient causes, or rather, combines these into a single “mathematical cause” (the God Equation drives all causality). However, Illuminism retains the final cause (teleology). The purpose of all mathematical entities is to “solve” themselves – to find their answer – and that answer is found at the point of self-optimisation (the Omega Point). In Neoplatonism, the One – the Source of All – is pure dunamis (pure potential, pure possibility). It’s actualised in its first emanation: the Divine Intellect (Nous) which gives rise to Form (these being the core definitions, concepts and archetypes of things).

The first emanation of Nous is Psyche (Soul), which is less actualised and less real than Nous. The Psyche emanates Nature, which is even less actualised and real (hence more illusory). Each emanation is an increasingly inferior copy of the original, a simulacrum progressively degrading in quality. For some, the Nous is the Platonic Demiurge. For others, the Nous is more like the domain of perfect Forms, and the Psyche is in fact the Demiurge, which uses the Forms of the Nous to create the physical copy of the Nous (i.e. the material world). Scientific materialists could easily embrace the One and characterise is as the unreal, unobservable, abstract mathematical wavefunction that defines all possibilities. They could define the Nous as the mathematical laws that define the system and the Psyche as the mechanism that, using probability, collapses the One into real states, thus creating the material world of our experience.

***** “In Eastern Orthodox Christianity, St Gregory Palamas wrote about the ‘energies’ (actualities; singular energeia in Greek, or actus in Latin) of God in contrast to God’s ‘essence’ (ousia). These are two distinct types of existence, with God’s energy being the type of existence which people can perceive, while the essence of God is outside of normal existence or nonexistence or human understanding, in that it is not caused or created by anything else.” – Wikipedia Here we have a notion hinting that only certain of God’s potentialities are realised in relation to us. These are God’s energies. We can know nothing, it is alleged, of God’s essence. However, for others, this would be a heretical idea. God’s potential should be fully actualised. He should be 100% actualisation. His essence should be fully expressed in his energies. Nothing should be latent or unexpressed. In this vein, Thomas Aquinas defined God as actus purus (pure act): full actualisation unmixed with any potentiality. The idea of a distinct essence of God which exists (or doesn’t exist!) as potential but not actualisation is totally rejected by the Catholic Church. Kabbalah, like St Gregory Palamas, depicts a hidden, unexpressed God who emanates different spheres of existence, each of which is increasingly

concrete in relation to us. Even if we know “God” fully in terms of his energies presented to us in the lowest sphere of existence (the material world we inhabit), this tells us nothing about God’s true essence. Leibniz conceived of God as an entity with only positive attributes, all fully expressed. It would have been unthinkable to him for God to be holding anything back, so to speak. God’s glory must be maximal. Thomas Hobbes equated the Aristotelian term “potentia et actus” to “cause and effect”. He was thinking of potentia as power and actus as the action or concrete event that resulted from the exercise of the power. In physics, we have the concepts of “potential energy” and “kinetic energy”. Potential energy is yet to be expressed and kinetic energy is when it’s actually being expressed (it’s in motion). In ontological mathematics, everything is in permanent motion (expressing kinetic energy). Anything not expressing its kinetic energy through space (i.e. it’s stationary in space) will be expressing it through time. A stationary boulder at the top of a hill has all of its energy being expressed in the time domain. However, if it is pushed down the slope, some of its energy will then be redirected to motion through space. The difference between a stationary boulder at the top of a hill and a stationary boulder at the bottom is that the former has the potential to redirect some of its motion through time to motion through space, and the latter has no such potential unless work is done on it (to push it up the hill for example, thus giving it potential spatial energy which it can subsequently expend). “...the entelechy of Aristotle, which has made so much noise, is nothing else but force or activity ; that is, a state from which action naturally flows if nothing hinders it. But matter, primary and pure, taken without the souls or lives which are united to it, is purely passive; properly speaking also it is not a substance, but something incomplete.” – Leibniz “Leibniz’s study of the ‘entelechy’ now known as energy was a part of what he called his new science of ‘dynamics’, based on the Greek word dunamis and his understanding that he was making a modern version of Aristotle’s old dichotomy. He also referred to it as the ‘new science of power and action’. And it is from him that the modern distinction between statics and dynamics in physics stems. ... “For Leibniz, like Aristotle, this law of nature concerning entelechies was also understood as a metaphysical law, important not only for physics,

but also for understanding life and the soul. A soul, or spirit, according to Leibniz, can be understood as a type of entelechy (or living monad) which has distinct perceptions and memory. ... the concept had occupied a central position in the metaphysics of Leibniz, and is closely related to his monad in the sense that each sentient entity contains its own entire universe within it. But Leibniz’ use of this concept influenced more than just the development of the vocabulary of modern physics. Leibniz was also one of the main inspirations for the important movement in philosophy known as German Idealism, and within this movement and schools influenced by it entelechy may denote a force propelling one to self-fulfilment. “In the biological vitalism of Hans Driesch, living things develop by entelechy, a common purposive and organising field. Leading vitalists like Driesch argued that many of the basic problems of biology cannot be solved by a philosophy in which the organism is simply considered a machine.” – Wikipedia

Hylomorphism “Hylomorphism is a philosophical theory developed by Aristotle, which conceives being (ousia) as a compound of matter and form. The word ‘hylomorphism’ is a 19th-century term formed from the Greek words hyle, ‘wood, matter’ and morphē, ‘form.’” – Wikipedia In Illuminism, there’s no such thing, strictly speaking, as “matter”. Rather, there’s just energy, and energy is nothing but mathematical form. Energy is the actualisation of a mathematical formula (the God Equation) and is expressed through perfect, analytic mathematical motion, and this mathematical motion defines cause and effect.

Syncretism Syncretism: a combination of different beliefs; a combination of different systems of philosophical or religious belief or practice. The Romans were highly syncretic, being happy to incorporate the religions and philosophies of the nations they conquered. What a contrast to the fanatical, extremist Abrahamists who couldn’t wait to exterminate all “infidels”. Syncretics are always religiously tolerant; religious “purists” (such as Muslims) never are.

Sol Invictus In 274 CE, the Roman emperor Aurelian made the cult of Sol Invictus (the “Unconquered Sun”) an official cult to stand alongside the traditional Roman cults and indeed to become more or less the state religion of Rome until the rise, a few decades later, of Christianity under Constantine. This “public” Sol Invictus was not identical to the “private” Sol Invictus of Mithraism, which was a mystery cult practised in secret via a secret society of initiates. Mithraism had its roots in the cult of the Persian god Mithra (adapted into Greek as Mithras). Mithraism was a syncretic religion, a kind of Greek Platonism mixed with Persian Zoroastrianism (the religion of the mysterious Magi, the masters of “magic”). It had heavy astronomical and indeed astrological leanings. Mithraism was hugely popular, especially in the Roman army, but its secret nature counted against it and it was defeated by the somewhat similar religion of Christianity, which was much more public in its outlook. The texts of Christianity are there for everyone to see. The texts of Mithraism do not exist in the public sphere at all, and never did. Outside ancient secret societies, the precise nature of Mithraism has to be guessed at by modern scholars. Despite its popularity and influence, Mithraism never became an official Roman state cult.

Pluralism, Monism and Atomism The earliest Greek philosophers were monists: they posited a single fundamental substance (arche) underlying all things. Thus, they were the earliest exponents of grand unified theories of everything, such as modern science seeks. Later Greek philosophers were often pluralists, i.e. they asserted the existence of multiple basic substances that were not reducible to one another. Empedocles posited four elements (earth, water, air and fire), set in motion by the two forces of love and strife (attraction and repulsion; good and evil, in a sense).

In the philosophy of Anaxagoras, there were countless elements, set in motion by Mind (Nous), the finest and most rarefied element of all. We might view the “Force” of Star Wars as the Cosmic Mind posited by Anaxagoras, but operating according to the two forces of Empedocles (love and strife), equating, respectively, to the light and dark sides of the Force. Atomism relied on ontological pluralism, invoking a cosmology based on just two ingredients: the void and atoms. Atoms moved through the void, and collided and interacted with each other to produce material bodies. Plato and Aristotle were both pluralists, invoking two fundamental ingredients: 1) chaotic, formless matter, and 2) Form to be imposed on the Chaos to bring order and organisation to it. For Plato, Form was transcendent and for Aristotle it was immanent. Illuminism is a monism. All that exists is mathematical energy defined by the God Equation, and it comes in specific, autonomous, self-contained packets called monads. There’s nothing else: just mathematical monadic energy expressing itself.

Sophistry “Sophistry arose from the juxtaposition of physis (nature) and nomos (law). John Burnet posits its origin in the scientific progress of the previous centuries which suggested that Being was radically different from what was experienced by the senses and, if comprehensible at all, was not comprehensible in terms of order; the world in which men lived, on the other hand, was one of law and order, albeit of humankind’s own making. At the same time, nature was constant, while what was by law differed from one place to another and could be changed. “The first man to call himself a sophist, according to Plato, was Protagoras, whom he presents as teaching that all virtue is conventional. It was Protagoras who claimed that ‘man is the measure of all things, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not,’ which Plato interprets as a radical perspectivism, where some things seem to be one way for one person (and so actually are that way) and another way for another person (and so actually are that way as well); the conclusion being that one cannot look to nature for guidance regarding how to live one’s life.

“Protagoras and subsequent sophists tended to teach rhetoric as their primary vocation. Prodicus, Gorgias, Hippias, and Thrasymachus appear in various Dialogues, sometimes explicitly teaching that while nature provides no ethical guidance, the guidance that the laws provide is worthless, or that nature favours those who act against the laws.” – Wikipedia Nietzsche, a fervent opponent of Socrates and Plato, could certainly be viewed as operating within the Sophist tradition. Like the Sophists, Nietzsche was a perspectivist and regarded men (or rather Supermen) as the measure of all things. He did not look to any divine order from where eternal, absolute, immutable, perfect standards flowed and anchored our world. The Sophists and Nietzsche both asked: what do you do in the absence of any absolutes, whether absolute morality, absolute knowledge, absolute truth or God? Absurdists, existentialists, postmodernists and deconstructionists have all joined this tradition.

Plato’s Allegories and Metaphors 1) Atlantis – Lost Civilisation. 2) Ring of Gyges – Invisibility. 3) The Cave – Ignorance, Delusion, False Belief. 4) The Divided Line – the Sensible Versus Intelligible World. 5) The Sun – the light of Illumination, the light of The Good. 6) Ship of State – Valid Government. 7) Myth of Er – the Fate of the Soul in the Afterlife. 8) The Chariot – the Nature of the Soul.

The Organon Organon: meaning instrument, tool, or organ. The Organon refers to the collection of Aristotle’s six works on logic.

Active Intellect

Active intellect = agent intellect = active intelligence = active reason = productive intellect. The active intellect is the formal (rather than material) aspect of the intellect (nous). In the theory of hylomorphism, hyle (matter) is acted upon by form (morphe) at every level: mind acts upon matter, so to speak.

The Critical Moment Modern science reached a defining fork in the road when it became apparent that the results of quantum mechanics could be consistent with determinism only if “hidden variables” could be added to the formalism of the theory. This, of course, would bring the scientific method to an end as the defining element of science (since no experiment would ever be able to reveal intrinsically “hidden variables”). Science would have to become mathematical at its core (since mathematics is the source of all rational hidden variables). Had science made this choice, it would have become Leibnizian rather than Newtonian. However, the Copenhagen school (Bohr, Heisenberg and Born) drove the establishment’s interpretation of quantum mechanics, and they completely rejected hidden variables, and went to the exact opposite extreme and said that only observed things were real (and anything unobserved was therefore unreal). The moon was real only while it was being observed, and otherwise it was unreal (!). Rather than dethroning the experimental method, the Copenhagen enshrined it as the defining element of reality, i.e. things were real only during experimental observations. To be was to be perceived, which is actually the guiding principle of the extremist idealist philosopher Bishop Berkeley, who wholly rejected the existence of matter. So, scientific materialists have adopted a principle previously used to reject the existence of matter! If hidden variables are indeed true and real (ontological) then it means that a) science, if it accepts them, can return to being deterministic, causal and consistent with the principle of sufficient reason, and b) “Copenhagen science”, by rejecting unobservable realities, will never provide an account of ultimate reality. It will never reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics, and it will never accomplish a final theory of everything. The stakes regarding “hidden variable” simply could not be any higher.

Illuminism is a hidden variables theory and asserts that ontological mathematics, based on complex numbers rather than real numbers, is the true ground of reality. Ontological mathematics can never be directly observed. It’s intelligible, not sensible; rational, not probabilistic; causal, not random. We perceive the phenomenal effects of noumenal ontological mathematics. We never perceive the noumena themselves. Causality is noumenal and can never be perceived. All phenomena are effects. Causes are never phenomena. Causality itself is the ultimate “hidden variable”. Causality can never be perceived, and yet no sane person would deny that causes exist. Well, er, apart from scientists who, having once been fanatical determinists are now fanatical indeterminists, who claim that reality is grounded in acausality, in randomness (“fluctuations” that happen for no reason at all). When you reject hidden variables, you are forced to reject causality, determinism, and the principle of sufficient reason. Things now happen “magically” (for no reason). This is the path science has chosen. Illuminism chooses the absolute opposite path, that of hidden variables (noumenal, ontological mathematics), hence chooses causality, determinism, and the principle of sufficient reason. Science is formally irrational and Illuminism hyperrational. So, what will you choose?

***** An accidental by-product of Illuminism (ontological mathematics) is that it restores the religious soul to the heart of reality. It turns out that the fundamental unit of ontological mathematics (the Pythagorean-Leibnizian monad) has all the properties associated with the religious soul: an immortal, indestructible, autonomous thinking entity. Moreover, these mathematical souls are uncreated (they require no “God” to create them) and uncaused (they are therefore “prime movers”, sources of causal agency; they can initiate causal chains rather than always being acted upon by external causal forces). These mathematical souls are teleological. They are driven to “solve” themselves, which means mathematically optimising themselves, which is equivalent to becoming God.

So, will you be an irrational scientific materialism who denies mind, denies causality and denies purpose, or a rational ontological mathematician (Illuminist) who accepts mind, causality and purpose? Your choice. Only one answer is right!

The Collective Mind “The medieval Islamic philosopher Ibn Rushd, or Averroes, attempted to both explain and expand on the Aristotelian concept of the intellect as it is developed in Aristotle’s De Anima. His theory of the intellects builds upon the work of earlier commentators who were fascinated by Aristotle’s discussion of the Active Intellect, which was variously held to be something like the Holy Spirit or even something like a shared mind for all humanity. Averroes’ theory of the intellects addresses the problems he sees with these earlier theories, but runs into some problems itself. In Averroes; understanding, the material intellect is an eternal substance, shared by all humans, which receives intelligible objects, while the Active Intellect is a similarly eternal substance which acts to make potentially intelligible objects actually intelligible. The conjunction of these two intellects gives rise to the theoretical intellect, which is unique to each human, and thus temporal. He sees the relationship between the Active Intellect and the Material Intellect as like the relationship of light to a transparent medium; the one illuminates and the other receives the illumination.” – Jonathan Baarda “The active intellect is universal, immaterial and eternal. It exists independently from and outside the body of the human being. Thoughts are themselves immaterial and eternal, but thoughts need a material intellect that thinks them. The material intellect is a human intellect. It constantly thinks and for that it cannot be the intellect of one single individual. Individual people don’t think continuously. Therefore the material intellect is to be equated with the whole of humankind. The speculative or passive intellect is a personal intellect, Averroes equalizes this with imagination.” – Michiel Leezenberg “When it comes in to contact with the active intellect, the speculative [passive] intellect will produce the material intellect. This material intellect has the capacity to receive intelligibilities from the active intellect. We may

not perceive this as an independent entity, but more as an instance from the active intellect. It’s like an aspect from the active intellect that is present in individual human beings. The speculative intellect is as it were the cause of the connection between the active and the material intellect that is achieved. This connection ensures that we are able to think in more abstract ways. Through the conjunction between the active intellect and the material intellect, the material intellect equates itself up to a certain height with that what it thinks. It begins to look more on the active intellect and reaches up to a form of perfection. This passive or receptive intellect that incorporates itself with the active intellect ensures that we become immortal. Not as an individual, but as humanity. For Averroes the human thinking activity is that what makes all human beings one.” – Oliver Leaman “Knowledge is essentially a knowledge of Being at its various levels – as studied by natural science, natural philosophy, metaphysics – which is concerned with being as such, and culminating in a mystical knowledge of ultimate reality. Averroes distinguishes between the universal active intellect and a corporeal passive intellect or understanding. This is, however, distinct from the soul and is a capacity to receive forms. He utilizes this distinction in his account of how knowledge is gained. When ‘illuminated’ by the active intellect the passive intellect becomes the noncorporeal material intellect and a property of the active intellect itself – the two together constituting the ‘acquired’ intellect and initiating the thinking and knowing process which involves the ‘abstracting’ of the intelligible forms from material things. The individual soul as such is not a so-called ‘possible’ soul but ‘sensitive’, the form of the body (corporeal form), and perishes with it. The acquired intellect, however, is separable from matter. Survival after death is therefore possible. But this is not a personal immortality, as the separated forms or substances do not exist as individuals but rather subsist as aspects in the common active human intellect of the human species within the universal hierarchy of being. He thus espoused the doctrine of monopsychism.” – Anthony Harrison-Barbet

The Mind of God in Humans? “The active intellect is called a being coming from without, not a part of force of our own soul, but something in us which originates externally.” – Alexander of Aphrodisias

According to the Muslim philosopher Averroes, the active intellect in us is actually the Intelligence of the lowest cosmic sphere (that of the Moon). We are all, so to speak, Lunatics! Averroes considered both the active and “material” intellects to be one and the same in every individual human being, i.e. we have one rational mind for the whole of humanity, which is why all reason, when done without error, leads to exactly the same conclusions. The cosmic Nous is like a single light shining on all the reflecting bodies of the world. It seems to be broken up into countless pieces, but is finally, when traced back, just one light source. We each seem to have separate reason, but, when traced back, each divine spark belongs to a single light of reason, a single Higher Mind. Remove all of the bodies illuminated by the light and the light alone remains. In Illuminism, it’s mathematics that remains when all bodies are removed. Mathematics is literally the one, true light. There is only one possible ontological understanding of reality, that of ontological mathematics, and all rational people eventually arrive at exactly the same conclusions. It’s rationally inevitable that this proves so. We do not think divinely because of the other parts of our soul (our senses, feelings, appetites and desires), which make us irrational and confused. Thomas Aquinas characterised what Averroes had in mind as a “racesoul” (human race), or species soul (human species). Of course, if we all share one Soul, no one is individually accountable, and the whole of Christian theology disintegrates. Therefore, Aquinas went to great pains to refute Averroes and emphasise that we all have a fully individual soul, independent in every way of all other souls, and a person can therefore be individually held accountable for his actions! In Neoplatonism, the Higher Psyche exists outside space and time, while the fragmentary Lower Psyche is individuated in space and time. The Higher Psyche is the immortal part of the soul and the Lower Psyche the mortal part, i.e. only our reason, which can contemplate the Nous, is immortal. Jung’s Collective Unconscious constitutes a kind of cosmic Nous, albeit with the emphasis on the unconscious. (“The collective unconscious is not individual, but universal, is self-identical in all men and thus constitutes a psychic foundation, superpersonal in its nature, that is present in every one of us.” – Jung).

Schopenhauer’s Will and Hartmann’s Unconscious perform a similar role. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s Noosphere is an evolving collective consciousness, so to speak, that eventually enters into union with “God” (the Omega Point).

The One and the Many The Neoplatonic Soul reflects the conundrum of the One and the Many. The Higher Psyche is a unitary singularity outside space and time: a “One”, a Unity. The Lower Psyche splits into countless souls within space and time, each of which can occupy a separate body. Here we have a definite Plurality: a “Many”. Schopenhauer’s philosophy, partly derived from Buddhism, reflects a similar notion. The Cosmic Will of Schopenhauer’s philosophy is a noumenal “One” outside space and time. When processed though the phenomenal prism of space and tome, it fragments into individual souls in individual bodies. However, this is all a grand illusion. The “Many” is illusory. For Schopenhauer and the Buddhists, we are all ultimately One. Buddhism is all about the extinction of the self in order to allow absorption into the cosmic Oneness, which, it says, underlies all things. In Illuminism, the “One”, not the Many, is an illusion. The Monadic Singularity comprises countless monads, each an individual singularity. These are all autonomous units outside space and time. They are not a single entity outside space and time but, rather, many entities. Is it the One alone, or the One and the Many, or the One or the Many, or the Many alone? Is it the One against the Many or the Many against the One? In Illuminism, it’s initially the Many alone, all in dialectical competition with each other to optimize themselves. Ultimately, the Many all converge on the One Truth – that of ontological mathematics and the God Equation.

The Self The Empirical Self = the one we experience in our day-to-day lives, inside space and time, inside a body. The Lower Self. The Mortal Self. The Transcendental Self = the one we don’t experience directly because it’s outside space and time, outside matter. This is our Higher Self, the

Immortal Self.

All for One The doctrine of Averroes: one “active intellect” for all of humanity. We are all linked to God, so to speak. The doctrine of Aquinas: one “active intellect” for each individual human. None of us is linked to God in this way. Buddhism reflects the approach of Averroes rather than that of Aquinas. Hinduism is somewhat closer to Aquinas.

The Angels It has been said that angels have intelligence (nous) directly linked to God’s (hence are incapable of sin, error or free will). This reflects Averroes’ thinking about a single active intellect. Angels are immortal. Humans have reason (both logos and dianoia), nous and sensory perception. Humans are mortal.

The Empiricists versus Leibniz The guiding principle of the Empiricists: nihil in intellectu nisi prius fuerit in sensu. (“Nothing in the intellect without first being in the senses.”) The guiding principle of Leibniz: nihil in intellectu nisi prius fuerit in sensu, nisi intellectus ipsi. (“Nothing in the intellect without first being in the senses, except the intellect itself.”) The monad is the intellect itself (an autonomous Fourier frequency domain; a singularity). It cannot be perceived by the senses in any way. It transcends the senses. As a matter of simple logic, you cannot use the senses to detect the non-sensory.

The Matter Abstraction When Descartes said, “I think therefore I am”, he logically demonstrated that the mental world – the world of thought – is the only reality of which

we can be certain. We can doubt the existence of our bodies and of matter in general, but we can’t doubt the existence of our own thinking. Bishop Berkeley insisted that individuals can know only sensations and ideas of objects. “Matter” is a total abstraction (just another idea). We can have no direct knowledge of it in its own right, and we can’t even know if it exists at all in its own right. Since ideas and mental perceptions depend on perceiving minds for their very existence, we can, however, be certain of the existence of a mental world. The supposed material world is always a matter of conjecture since we can experience only our ideas and mental perceptions of it, and never matter itself. Berkeley quickly concluded that it was redundant and didn’t exist at all. We live purely in a world of minds and their ideas and perceptions. The “material world” and all the objects in it are just ideas too. We can “think” ideas and we can “perceive” ideas. We might say that there are ideas we generate internally (which constitutes thinking), and there are ideas we perceive, implying that they are external to us. For Berkeley, God created the external mental reality that we perceive as “material” reality. All materialists have to ask themselves how they could ever distinguish between a material world created by God or Nature, and the idea of a material world created by God or Nature. “God” doesn’t need to make things, he just needs to create the ideas of things. “Creation” can be performed 100% mentally. No genuine material component is required at all. (Similarly, ontological mathematics does not need to create matter, but only the mathematical phenomena that we perceive as matter.) Berkeley summed up his position with the dictum, esse est percipi (“to be is to be perceived”). External things exist for us only while we are perceiving them, and when we are not perceiving them, they do not exist, i.e. they have no objective existence independently of minds. There is in fact an objective reality that stays the same even when we are not perceiving it only because God exists, is all-powerful, never goes to sleep and perceives all things at all times. Hence, God does not need to manufacture the material world, he just needs to think it, and keep thinking it (which includes perceiving it), and it will then have as much reality as any proposed material world. We are minds that perceive the idea of the material world that exists in the Mind of God.

In Illuminism, the world consists of nothing but mathematical minds (monads). It’s not “God” but the Monadic Collective that creates the idea of the objective material world, which all monadic minds then perceive. This creation takes place purely thanks to mathematics and in particular to a cosmic inverse Fourier transform performed in unison by all monads. Science is absurd because it claims that what most truly exists is matter rather than mind and that mind is a construct of matter. Yet all we can ever “know” about matter comes via the mind. So, the mental reality – the only one we actually encounter – is deemed by science subordinate to the material “reality” that we never encounter. How utterly bizarre and irrational. You might as well believe in the unknowable Kantian noumenal domain. We can only know matter as phenomenon (appearance), never as noumenon (thing-in-itself), so why believe in any material noumenon at all? Why not a mathematical, mental noumenon? Does a material noumenal world give rise to a material phenomenal world, or does a mental noumenal world give rise to a mental phenomenal world? It’s one or the other. In Illuminism, a mathematical noumenal world of dimensionless monads (mental things) gives rise to a mathematical phenomenal world of dimensional things (perceived as material things). The noumenal (intelligible) frequency domain generates the phenomenal (sensible) spacetime domain via Fourier mathematics. There’s no mystery at all! Even modern science has more or less abandoned materialism, though scientists are too philosophically illiterate to grasp this. Einstein complained that according to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the moon doesn’t exist when no one is observing it. Niels Bohr responded by asking how we could ever “know” it existed when no one’s observing it. This was exactly the point made by Bishop Berkeley, but Berkeley was an idealist who denied the existence of any objective material world! The Copenhagen version of quantum mechanics is predicated on observation. Observation is said to “collapse the wavefunction”. We inhabit an observer-created reality. But what are “observers”? They are conscious minds! (Or they are devices produced by people with conscious minds to allow measurements to be made.) If no observations or experiments ever took place (e.g. no one ever opened the box in the famous Schrödinger’s cat experiment), then, according to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum

mechanics, the wavefunction would never collapse and would remain in a superposition of potential states and never become “real”. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with philosophy recognises that this is much closer to an idealist rather than materialist stance. The whole point of materialism was to assert the existence of an objective world that was there regardless of minds, consciousness, observers, observations or experiments. Now we find that modern science wholly rejects this and claims that things are “real” only at the point of conscious observation or measurement. What will science say tomorrow? Who knows? It keeps changing its mind because it’s not grounded in anything rational, necessary and a priori. From the nineteenth to the twentieth century, science went from being 100% deterministic to 100% indeterministic, and from 100% independent of observers and observations to 100% dependent on observers and observations. So, science has a 100% range, and yet we are supposed to believe that this is the best route to “truth” that humanity has ever discovered, or ever could discover. Dream on! Science is an instrumental tool that is all about successful modelling of reality. Models can be highly productive without having any bearing on true reality, as we see with Newtonian physics, where the entire ontology assumed by Newton (such as absolute space and absolute time) is known to be false, and yet the model of reality he produced is still fantastically useful, and sufficient to land men on the moon. Scientific success has no fundamental connection with truth. What a scientist tells you is 100% true today, he might tell you is 100% false tomorrow. That’s exactly what the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics achieved. Einstein could not accept this and was then totally ridiculed as a feeble old man who couldn’t change his dinosaur mindset! In fact, Einstein was simply stating what all scientists had once accepted without question: “God does not play dice”. We do indeed live in a deterministic, rational, causal reality, not an indeterministic, irrational, probabilistic reality. Science relentlessly ignores all of these philosophical issues, paradoxes and contradictions and continues to promote the myth that science leads us to the “truth”. Countless science books and documentaries assert as “truth” positions that are more or less insane, directly contradicting rationalism, causality and objective reality.

Science refuses to engage with philosophy, and many leading scientists openly scoff at philosophy. These people are fools and charlatans, peddling a Mythos every bit as fallacious and insidious as that of Abrahamism. Just as Abrahamic lies must be exposed, so must the lies of the scientific establishment, one of the greatest enemies of truth that there has ever been.

The Box In the tale of Schrödinger’s unfortunate cat, trapped in a closed box, with a 50/50 chance of a falling victim to deadly poison being released inside the box, it’s never suggested that the box itself, or the equipment inside the box, or the cat itself, can “collapse the wavefunction”. No, only a conscious person who opens the box can bring about the collapse. It’s simply astounding that science is now predicated on the importance of consciousness – especially given that science doesn’t know what consciousness is, can’t define it, and fanatically denies that mind exists separately from matter. Why should the lifeless, mindless matter of human brains be able to collapse wavefunctions, while the lifeless, mindless matter of boxes, equipment or cats cannot? As ever, science refuses to engage with the philosophical implications of its own theories. It talks about the Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment as if it revealed some great objective truth about reality, when, in fact, the standard interpretation is a ludicrous, embarrassing and irrational conjecture with no valid basis whatsoever. It literally doesn’t make any sense at all. Nothing in this thought experiment is properly defined, including what is meant by “living” or “dead” cat. How can “life” coexist with “death” in a superposition of states given that one automatically excludes the other? They are mutually exclusive states that can never be logically mixed. A living cat is linked to a monadic singularity outside space and time (a soul). A dead cat is not. Where in the Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment is any such definition provided? Standard quantum mechanics does not accept the existence of any frequency, monadic domain outside space and time. How anyone interprets the Schrödinger’s cat paradox is entirely based on their philosophy, not on any “science”.

The Secret of Platonism and Neoplatonism Platonism and Neoplatonism are all about the soul’s return to the Source. They’re all about finding the way home. There’s no place like home!

Neoplatonism Versus Abrahamism Neoplatonism = theistic monism. Abrahamism = monotheism. Abrahamism is highly anthropomorphic. Neoplatonism is much more abstract and metaphysical.

Mithraism, Judaism and Christianity Mithraism = Zoroastrian Platonism. Judaism was highly influenced by Zoroastrianism when Cyrus the Great of Zoroastrian Persia freed the Jews from their bondage in Babylon. That’s why, in the New Testament, Zoroastrian Magi are mentioned favourably as seekers of the True God (Jesus Christ, allegedly). Saul of Tarsus blended Jewish Messianism with Mithraism (Zoroastrian Platonism) to create Judaic Messianic Zoroastrian Platonism = Roman Catholicism. Christianity (Protestantism) = Judaism with Jesus Christ as the Jewish Messiah. Platonism is completely rejected as non Scriptural; some Zoroastrian elements are retained, just as they were by the Jews. Mithraism could easily have become the world’s greatest religion rather than Christianity. Had Constantine become a Mithraist rather than Christian, we would now live in a Mithraist world where “Jesus Christ” was a tiny footnote, known only to scholars of obscure ancient texts.

The Takeover Q. “What will happen if the elite cannot achieve their one world order?” A. They have already achieved it. It’s called free-market capitalism, aka global capitalism. Most of the people who oppose the “New World Order” are fully behind the global rich, and aspire to join the global rich themselves

i.e. to be part of the elite’s one world economic (capitalist) order. Talk about hypocrisy!

Metaphysics and Epistemology “... the metaphor of the sun exemplifies a traditional interrelation between metaphysics and epistemology: interpretations of fundamental existence create – and are created by – ways of knowing. It also neatly sums up two views for which Plato is recognized: his rationalism and his realism (about universals).” – Wikipedia In Illuminism, mathematics is the true language of metaphysics, Mathematics is also ontology and epistemology. All three disciplines are unified by mathematics. We know things (epistemology) because ultimate things are mathematical (ontology). Mathematics is intelligible, not sensible (we can’t perceive mathematics directly with our senses, only perceive it when it’s converted into sensory data). Mathematics per se can be approached only through reason and intellect. Hence mathematics belongs to metaphysics (that which comes after physics) Physics studies the sensible domain and mathematics the nonsensible (sensorily invisible), intelligible domain. The sensible is always underpinned by the intelligible. Materialistic, empiricist physics is always underpinned by idealistic, rationalist mathematics.

Time for a Change Strong governments can bring about change. Weak governments cannot. All democratic governments are weak and have ceded power to free-market capitalism. Unelected markets, not elected governments, take all of the important decisions that shape our world. The world is ruled by the rich, the controllers of free-market capitalism, those with all the capital – not by the people. If you sign up to free-market capitalism, you have betrayed the people and declared the people unfit to be in charge.

The Pleasure Seekers “Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it.” – Soren Kierkegaard

In a world obsessed with pleasure, why are people so poor at finding it?

***** “The best people renounce all for one goal, the eternal fame of mortals; but most people stuff themselves like cattle.” – Heraclitus

Barbarella “Barbarella is a 1968 French-Italian science fiction film based on JeanClaude Forest’s French Barbarella comics. The film stars Jane Fonda in the title role and was directed by Roger Vadim, who was Fonda’s husband at the time.” – Wikipedia

Mathmos In the 1968 film Barbarella, “mathmos” signified a seething lake of living lava or evil slime – a liquid essence of evil – beneath Sogo, the City of Night, city of the Great Tyrant (the antagonist of the movie). Mathmos powers the city, and also imbues it with evil. At the end of the film, the Mathmos is released, which destroys the city, but Barbarella is protected by her innate goodness, which the evil Mathmos cannot penetrate.

Lava Lamps Today, Mathmos is the name of a company that designs and manufactures lava lamps, which resemble the Mathmos of Barbarella.

Chamber of Ultimate Solution (Barbarella) The Chamber of Ultimate Solution is where you go to die. The Chamber: “Ye who have chosen to die, be welcome! To terminate the bitterness of life, you are entitled to select from three exciting and surprising forms of death, one of which awaits beyond each of the doors you see before you. Should you fail to choose, you will be given to the Mathmos. There is no appeal.”

The Chamber of Dreams (Barbarella) The Chamber of Dreams is where the most delicious dreams are found and enjoyed. The Chamber is reserved for the elite (natch!). The society of privilege, inheritance and nepotism is a chamber of dreams for all those concerned ... and of nightmares for everyone else.

Durand Durand = Free-market capitalist (!) Durand Durand is the weapons inventor Barbarella was sent to find. Durand Durand: I find horrible the idea that one could do to me, that which I do to others. (He sounds just like Ayn Rand and her supporters!) Durand-Durand: I’ll do things to you that are beyond all known philosophies! Durand Durand: I speak of the dignity… the nobility of pure evil! (Ayn Rand again.) Durand Durand: All persons and objects in its path [the “positronic ray”] are de-minimalized to the fourth level. ... Replaced in the fourth dimension, irretrievably.

The Exsexive (Excessive) Machine The Exsexive machine is a deadly musical orgasm machine (like a great organ (!)). “Barbarella is captured by the Concierge and she is placed inside the Excessive Machine. As the Concierge begins to play, Barbarella experiences increasing pleasure, and her clothing is expelled from the machine. The Concierge tells her when they reach the crescendo, she will die of pleasure. He then begins to play faster and more furiously, while Barbarella writhes in ecstasy inside the machine. Eventually, the machine overloads and burns out, unable to keep up with her. Barbarella then discovers the Concierge is none other than Durand Durand, aged thirty years due to the Mathmos.” – Wikipedia Barbarella causes the machine to overload and destroy itself.

Durand Durand: I don’t believe it! Wretched, wretched girl! What have you done to my Exsexive Machine?! You’ve undone it! You’ve undone me! Look! The energy cables are shrinking! You’ve turned them into faggots! You’ve ... you’ve burned out the Exsexive Machine! You’ve blown all its fuses! Barbarella: [sighing] My goodness!

Barbarella Cult Quotes Barbarella: De-crucify the angel! Dildano: A life without cause is a life without effect. According to scientific materialism, there’s no causality at the root of things, only randomness, probability and statistics. Science is about meaningless, purposeless effects with no causes. The Great Tyrant (to Barbarella): The Mathmos has created this bubble to protect itself from your innocence. You are so good you made the Mathmos vomit! Illuminism is the bubble of goodness that has appeared within the evil ocean of Abrahamism, Karmism and scientific materialism. Pygar (the Angel): An angel doesn’t make love. An angel is love. Pygar: An angel has no memory.

***** Barbarella = an astronavigatrix.

Mithra Mithra = a Zoroastrian angelic divinity, responsible for contracts, covenants, promises, oaths and justice; the all-seeing protector of Truth; god of the morning sun. Mithra is thought to be modelled on the IndoIranian (Indo-Aryan) god Mitra. Mithras is the Greek form of Mithra. Mithras was a sun god and wore a Phrygian cap (Phrygia was part of the Persian empire).

Mitra, Mithra and Mithras all have the same root, but each version of the god developed in its own unique way. Roman writers identified the Mithraic Mysteries as Zoroastrian (Persian) in origin, although many Greek elements were then added. The iconic Mithraic ceremony of the sun god killing a bull has been linked to the Age of Taurus coming to an end, showing the god’s mastery of the cosmos. “The term ‘Mithraism’ is of course a modern coinage. In antiquity the cult was known as ‘the mysteries of Mithras’; alternatively, as ‘the mysteries of the Persians.’ ... The Mithraists, who were manifestly not Persians in any ethnic sense, thought of themselves as cultic ‘Persians.’ …the ancient Roman Mithraists themselves were convinced that their cult was founded by none other than Zoroaster, who ‘dedicated to Mithras, the creator and father of all, a cave in the mountains bordering Persia,’ an idyllic setting ‘abounding in flowers and springs of water’ (Porphyry, On the Cave of the Nymphs).” – Encyclopaedia Iranica

The Age of Aquarius “The Age of Aquarius is an astrological term denoting either the current or upcoming astrological age, depending on the method of calculation. Astrologers maintain that an astrological age is a product of the earth’s slow precessional rotation and lasts for 2,150 years, on average. In popular culture in the United States, the Age of Aquarius refers to the advent of the New Age movement in the 1960s and 1970s. ... The approximate 2,150 years for each age corresponds to the average time it takes for the vernal equinox to move from one constellation of the zodiac into the next.” – Wikipedia

The Magi Magi (Latin, plural of magus; ancient Greek: magos; Old Persian: maguš; English singular magian, mage, magus, magusian): term used to denote followers of Zoroaster (especially the Zurvanism version of Zoroastrianism). Old Persian texts refer to a Magus as a Zurvanic Zoroastrian priest (as opposed to the alternative Mazdaean Zoroastrian priests).

The Greeks used “magi” for those learned in astronomy, astrology, cosmology and reading the future since they believed that Zoroaster particularly promoted knowledge of these things. From this root, we get the concept of magic: using arcane knowledge to alter destiny. Magus, Magos, Magian and Magician were all interchangeable names and came to refer to any practitioner of astrology, divination, soothsaying, alchemy, theurgy or esoteric knowledge in general.

Magus Magus: pronounced like Vegas (in “Las Vegas”). Magus: member of the ancient Persian learned and priestly caste; a Zoroastrian priest; practitioner of Zoroaster’s religion; practitioner of Zoroaster’s craft; skilled magician; astrologer; sorcerer; trickster; conjurer; charlatan. Mage: “magician”. The Greeks and Romans regarded Zoroaster as the inventor of astrology and magic, hence his priests (magi) were deemed magicians.

Respect “Some people have so much respect for their superiors they have none left for themselves.” – Peter McArthur. Some people have so much respect for “God” that they make themselves his slave.

Abdullah Abdullah, the name of the Prophet Mohammed’s father, literally means: “Slave of Allah”. “The word Allah certainly predates Islam.... mainstream Islamic thought holds that worship of Allah was passed down through Abraham and other prophets, but that it became corrupted by pagan traditions in pre-Islamic Arabia. Before Muhammad, Allah was not considered the sole divinity by Meccans; however, Allah was considered the creator of the world and the

giver of rain. The notion of the term may have been vague in the Meccan religion. Allah was associated with companions, whom pre-Islamic Arabs considered as subordinate deities. Meccans held that a kind of kinship existed between Allah and the jinn. Allah was thought to have had sons and that the local deities of Al-ʿUzzāt, Al-Menāt and Al-Lāt were His daughters. The Meccans possibly associated angels with Allah. Allah was invoked in times of distress. Muhammad’s father’s name was ʿAbd-Allāh meaning ‘the slave of Allāh’.” – Wikipedia

Zoroastrianism Zoroastrianism is the ancient, pre-Islamic religion of Iran (Persia). It was founded by the Persian prophet and reformer Zoroaster in the 6th century BCE, and contains both monotheistic and dualistic features. It was a powerful influence over the development of Abrahamism. Imagine if Iran had not succumbed to Islam and was today the land of the learned and cultured Magi rather than mad Ayatollahs! The main branch of Zoroastrianism was Mazdaism. According to this doctrine, Ahura Mazda (Wise Lord) presided over two opposite forces (good and evil), personified as Spenta Mainyu (the holy spirit) and Angra Mainyu (the destructive spirit). Ahura Mazda created a good universe, but it was poisoned by Angra Mainyu (more or less the Abrahamic Satan), who was destined to be destroyed in a final Apocalypse in historical time, paving the way for an idyllic eternity without him. However, Ahura Mazda and Spenta Mainyu gradually merged into one, turning Zoroastrianism from a trinity with a Supreme God ruling over the other two (which would be a monotheism if Spenta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu were regarded, as indeed they often were, as two opposite aspects or emanations of Ahura Mazda) into a dualism. Ahura Mazda came to be known as Ohrmazd and Angra Mainyu as Ahriman, and they were equally matched. In some tellings, the Wise Lord, the Supreme God, Ahura Mazdā, created the Holy Spirit (Spenta Mainyu), to oppose the Destructive Spirit, (Angra Mainyu, who was therefore some kind of independent being). Spenta Mainyu was in fact an aspect of the Wise Lord himself (just as, in Christianity, the Holy Spirit is part of the Godhead). It was through the Holy Spirit that Ahura Mazdā created life and goodness.

Zurvanism Zurvanism was a Zoroastrian heresy that sought to restore Zoroastrianism’s monotheistic tendency since its doctrines had become increasingly dualistic. Zurvanism asserted that Time – eternal, limitless, and uncreated – is the primordial source of all things. Zurvan, the god of time and fate, has two aspects: Eternity (the world to come) and Long Dominion (the existing world). Zurvan’s worship was highly astronomical and astrological, very much bound up with the motions of the stars and planets. Zurvan came to be seen as the father of both Ohrmazd (Ahura Mazdā) and Ahriman (Angra Mainyu), to the horror of orthodox Zoroastrians. Zurvan was therefore regarded as a neutral god, beyond good and evil. Where Mazdaeans considered Ahura Mazda the transcendental Creator, with Zurvanism he simply became the twin brother of Angra Mainyu (who became the “fallen one”). It was in its Zurvanite form that Zoroastrianism influenced Mithraism (in which Zurvan was an important deity). Zurvan was in fact the chief Persian deity before the advent of Zoroastrianism, and made a comeback in the unorthodox version of Zoroastrianism.

Perception No one can perceive causality. It’s precisely for this reason that people have to construct theories of what’s causing what. And it’s precisely because people can’t agree on what causes what that there are so many different religions and philosophies. Each of these is a distinct theory of ultimate causality. Science has abandoned strict causality and decided to ground reality in randomness and indeterminacy. Yet no physicist anywhere at any time has ever perceived a random quantum event. No Darwinist has ever perceived a random genetic mutation. No cosmologist has ever perceived a random fluctuation giving rise to a Big Bang. These are all suppositions, conjectures, opinions, beliefs, hypotheses, and interpretations. None of them is proven. Moreover, since science is based on empiricism rather than rationalism, it doesn’t make any sense at all, within science’s Meta

Paradigm of empiricism and materialism, to refer to non-empirical, immaterial, unobservable, hypothesised random events. Science is an intellectual mess, a cerebral joke. It has no internal coherence whatsoever and blatantly contradicts itself. It’s astounding that this dog’s dinner of a philosophy now dominates the intellectual world. It’s only because most “intellectuals” understand next to nothing of science’s hidden philosophy that they are suckered into believing that it’s a credible subject.

Measurement Science is a philosophy based on measurement. Science “believes” in anything that can have a measurement attached to it, and does not believe in anything that cannot – apart from non-measurable, non-perceivable random events that, miraculously, are said to underpin measurable, perceivable things.

The Platonic Analogy of the Divided Line Plato’s Analogy of the Divided Line uses a line marked into four sections (AB, BC, CD and DE) to represent four separate but logically connected models of the world. The first pair of line sections (AB and BC) corresponds to the visible world, and the second pair (CD and DE) to the intelligible world. The lines from left to right depict increasing levels of reality and knowledge. The first line section (AB) is common illusion, followed by common belief (BC), then reasoning (CD), and finally philosophical understanding (DE). Just as physical things are inferior copies of immaterial Forms (Ideas), so the appearance of physical things is different from the physical things themselves (physical things as they are in themselves). Line AB represents shadows, reflections, illusions and appearances of physical things, while BC represents the physical things themselves (about which we can form beliefs, hypotheses, opinions and interpretations). AB corresponds to what we perceive and BC corresponds to modern scientific materialism and our “understanding” of what we perceive. These correspond to two kinds of

knowledge: 1) illusion (eikasia) of ordinary experience, and 2) belief (pistis) concerning the actual physical objects that create the illusions and shadows. Ordinary people operate at the level of Mythos, opinion and simple belief. More sophisticated members of the ordinary masses (the “scientists”) subscribe to more rational opinions and beliefs, with a degree of Logos. Regarding the intelligible world, Plato said that line CD is mathematical reasoning (dianoia). True mathematical objects – such as geometric shapes – are outside the physical world (and we can only ever produce inferior copies of them in our world). Line DE corresponds to philosophical metaphysics and intuition (noesis). Where dianoia engages only with mathematical Forms, nous engages entirely with the Forms themselves and, especially, the Form of the Good. So, the first two lines (of the visible world) engage with inferior copies of Forms, and copies of copies. The second two lines engage with Mathematical Forms, and then all Forms. In Illuminism, Plato’s final line is deemed wholly invalid. The only true Forms are those of mathematics (dianoia). “Philosophical” Forms such as those of Justice, Beauty, Morality, and so on, do not exist and everything any human says about such things belongs to belief, opinion, hypothesis, Mythos, convention, populism, conjecture and interpretation. Mathematics alone is eternal, immutable and perfect. Mathematics gives rise to everything else. In Illuminism, Plato’s line is also divided into four sections: 1) Feelings Mythos (an emotional, faith-based, narrative understanding of reality, heavily Abrahamic in its outlook, 2) Intuitive Mythos (an intuitive, faithbased, narrative understanding of reality, heavily “Eastern religious” in its outlook, 3) Sensible Logos (a sensory-based, empiricist, materialist understanding of reality, heavily “scientific” and skeptical in its outlook), and 4) Intelligible Logos (an intuitive, rationalist, idealist understanding of reality, heavily metaphysical and mathematical in its outlook). In Illuminism, all Mythos is ultimately nonsense, with the Abrahamic Mythos being especially devoid of value. “Sensible” Logos (physics) is useful for allowing us to superficially understand and control the sensible world, but it completely fails to address all of the big questions of existence,

which have no connection with the sensory domain. Ultimate Truth is the province of Intelligible Logos (metaphysics = mathematics). Metaphysics is that which comes after physics, that which is beyond physics, that which transcends the sensory domain. Metaphysics is none other than ontological mathematics.

***** For Plato, the following divided line scheme applies: Section AB (the lowest understanding of reality): the understanding of the common man, based on opinions and illusions, on shadows, reflections and the appearances of physical objects. Eikasia = the level of Illusion. Section BC: “educated” opinions and beliefs about physical things, including empirical science. Pistis = the level of Belief. Section CD: mathematical reasoning, including theoretical science and involving abstract mathematical objects, such as points, numbers, lines and geometrical shapes and objects. Dianoia = the level of mathematical reasoning. Section DE (the Platonic highest understanding of reality): Philosophical understanding of Ideas (Forms), especially the Idea (Form) of the Good. Noesis = the level of philosophical understanding. The lowest section of the Divided Line represents, as Plato says, “the world of becoming and passing away” and reflects the Heraclitean philosophy of constant flux (“There is nothing permanent except change.” – Heraclitus) and the Protagorean (Sophist) philosophy of appearance and opinion. (“Man is the measure of all things.” – Protagoras.) The second level, a static world of fixed physical objects, is essentially Aristotle’s empiricist, “scientific” metaphysics. The upper two sections represent the immutable, eternal world of being. The first of these sections is the level of Pythagorean mathematics (“All things are numbers; number rules all.” – Pythagoras.) The final section represents Plato’s ideal Parmenidean reality, the world of perfect Ideas, understood through effortless, intuitive philosophy. Plato, no doubt, thought he had corrected all of his predecessors and anticipated his successors. In fact, Pythagoras was right all along.

Epistemological Meaning “Plato holds a very strict notion of knowledge. For example, he does not accept expertise about a subject, nor direct perception (the Theaetetus), nor true belief about the physical world (the Meno) as knowledge. For knowledge, he also requires philosophical understanding of the relevant Ideas (Forms), as a basis for proper justification at all other levels of the Divided Line. For this reason, in most of the ‘earlier Socratic’ dialogues, Socrates denies knowledge both to himself and others. “For the first level [of perceived reality], ‘the world of becoming and passing away,’ Plato expressly denies the possibility of knowledge. Constant change never stays the same, therefore, properties of objects must refer to different Ideas at different times. Note that for knowledge to be possible, which Plato believed, the other three levels must be unchanging. The third and fourth level, mathematics and Ideas, are already eternal and unchanging. However, to ensure that the second level objective, physical world is also unchanging, Plato, in the Republic, Book 4, introduces empirically derived axiomatic restrictions that prohibit both motion and shifting perspectives. ... Plato’s Principle of Non-Contradiction (Republic, 4.436b) for the objective, physical world is presented with three axiomatic restrictions: The same thing ... cannot act or be acted upon ... in contrary ways ... (1) in the same part, (2) in relation to the same thing, (3) at the same time.” – Wikipedia In Illuminism, epistemology – the study of true knowledge – is exclusively mathematical (ontologically mathematical to be precise, rather than abstract mathematical). Epistemology = Ontology = the Forms of Ontological Mathematics. Metaphysics = ontological mathematics.

The Apologists Apologists for free-market capitalism, always refer to “liberal democracy”, never to “capitalist democracy”. Why? Can you work it out? It’s because the word “liberal” does not automatically imply a contradiction with democracy. Capitalism, on the other hand, is all about the grotesquely unequal division of capital (with the vast majority of it in very few hands),

and that’s contrary to any notion of the people being in charge. It’s those with the most capital (the super rich elite) who run things. “Liberal” has two meanings when used to qualify democracy. It refers in one sense to socially liberal attitudes, i.e. everyone should live and let live, and the State should intervene in people’s lives as little as possible (the doctrine of negative liberty). It refers in the other sense to liberal economics (i.e. free-market capitalism) where government intervenes and interferes as little as possible in the capitalist economy (minimum regulation, supervision and law-making). So, “liberal democracy” is a subtle coded phrase for free-market capitalist control of democracy, for the “small State”, limited government and for the negative libertarian State that keeps out of the way (i.e. does not interfere with the wealthy). If “democracy” were such a wonderful idea, it would of course be reflected in every capitalist company and corporation on Earth. Well, guess how many capitalist enterprises operate as democracies? Zero! How can anyone make sense of the concept of “capitalist democracy” when capitalism opposes and contradicts everything that democracy stands for? Capitalists despise democracy, which is why they ban it from their own companies and corporations. The rich elite are always in charge of companies and corporations, and the workers never have any say at all. They do what they’re told, or are fired. The world is incredibly simple. The rich or the people can be in charge, not both. If the rich are in charge, the people are not, and vice versa. The ancient Athenians introduced democracy precisely to wrest control away from rich oligarchs. What passes as democracy today has nothing to do with Athenian democracy. It’s rich man’s democracy, which is not democracy at all, but rather plutocracy and oligarchy. Capitalist democracy is one of the most spectacular cons of all time. It’s how the rich elite seized control of the world while pretending that the people were in charge. “Democracy” is now synonymous with elections every four years. These elections change nothing. All politicians are more are less identical and equally powerless. All power resides in the banks, the corporations, the markets and global capitalism, and none of these are ever up for election, and none is accountable to the people in any way. Democracy? What a joke! End the farce. Make a choice. Allow the rich to rule unfettered and without any hypocrisy (as in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged) or get rid of the

rich elite and free-market capitalism once and for all and bring everything – especially the banks, corporations and economy – under the direct control of the people, or their electable and accountable representatives. Remember, the choice could not be starker: the rich or the people can be in charge. What’s it to be?

Companies and Corporations What is a company? It’s any entity that engages in business. It can be a proprietorship, partnership or corporation. The simplest companies are one-man bands: sole proprietorships. A sole proprietorship is a business comprised of one individual. It isn’t considered a formal organization. Legally, this type of company does not exist separately from its owner. The sole proprietor pays taxes for his company under his own name, is solely responsible for the financial operations and debts of the company, and is legally liable for any potential wrongdoing performed by the company. If the company is prosecuted or sued, the owner’s personal liberty or assets will be at risk. General partnerships have a similar structure to a sole proprietorship except that this structure necessarily involves two or more people. Each partner pays their taxes separately, using their own tax ID number. Once again, the company does not exist as a separate entity. Therefore, the business partners’ personal resources are at risk in the event of a lawsuit. A corporation involves a vital category change. This a business entity that, in legal terms, exists separately from its owner or owners. Corporations are owned by shareholders and their degree of ownership of the business is represented by the amount of stocks or shares they hold and control. Shareholders typically choose a board of directors to manage the operations of the business operations. Alternatively, when there are only a few shareholders, they can create a shareholders’ agreement allowing them to manage the business directly. Corporations are significantly more complex than unincorporated businesses. They are separate legal entities. The owners (shareholders) need to file the taxes for the corporation separately from their personal taxes. All employees have to pay their taxes personally. The corporation – as a separate legal entity – is responsible for its debts, and not its owners or employees. If the corporation becomes bankrupt, its owners or employees

are not pursued to pay the corporate debts. Corporations are therefore far more protected than unincorporated businesses in relation to the personal assets of their owners. This makes them highly susceptible to “moral hazard” whereby owners can carry out extremely risky undertakings – potentially massively enriching themselves – while being fully protected from the consequences (debts) if anything should go wrong. This became all too apparent during the financial crisis of 2008. Irresponsible, reckless owners and directors, paying themselves a fortune, drove their corporations into the ground and then suffered no personal consequences, walking off with their personal fortunes fully intact, and suffering no legal ramifications, and doing no jail time. In social capitalism, as opposed to free-market capitalism, moral hazard must be eliminated entirely. Corporations will therefore cease to exist. Partnerships will be the de facto standard, and all owners will be fully accountable for their debts in all circumstances. This will eliminate capitalism conducted by psychopaths (who are absolutely content to take massive risks with the money and jobs of others, while knowing that they themselves will never suffer any detriment). Risk-taking must fully come back to bite the person who took the risk if it fails. Otherwise, people are incentivised to take potentially profitable risks and protected if the risk goes wrong and generates losses. In other words, the upside is personalised and the downside is not: profits are “capitalised” and losses are “socialised”. We saw exactly this in the 2008 financial disaster. When banks and corporations failed, the taxpayers were forced to bail them out (without any consultation), while all those responsible for the losses suffered no personal losses and retained their vast wealth. No sane, rational person could ever tolerate such a system, a system clearly devised for and by risk-taking, immoral psychopaths. A limited liability company is neither a partnership nor a corporation, but reflects characteristics of both. The owners can directly participate in business decisions, as in a partnership, but can gain a degree of protection for their individual assets. A limited partnership comprises two or more persons, including at least one general partner and one limited partner. To limit the liability of the general partner, a limited liability partnership can be set up. In social capitalism, everyone must be a sole proprietor of a business, or a partner in a business. Every business will be unincorporated (i.e.

corporations will be abolished). There will be no possibility of moral hazard. Limited liability will not be offered, only full liability. Everyone will be absolutely accountable and responsible for their businesses. Business debts are their debts. All shareholding owners will become liable to the extent of their individual shareholdings. Through these mechanisms, the excessive risk-taking (leading to boom and bust) of free-market capitalism will be eliminated. This will automatically lead to excessive profits and salaries being eliminated since no one will take irresponsible risks if they are personally liable if anything goes wrong. Risky business behaviour will no longer be incentivised. Everything will be conducted rationally and sanely. In social capitalism, there will be no employers or employees. The traditional master-slave structure of employer and employee will be eradicated. Everyone will be a sole owner, a partner owner or a shareholding owner. Many people will be “contractors”, contracting their services to others, and receiving the revenues into their own personal companies. Free-market capitalism was designed by psychopaths to allow them to take maximum risks with minimum consequences. The whole of freemarket capitalism is predicated on moral hazard. Advocates of this ideology will argue that true capitalism is indeed all about risk-taking and that capitalism will perish if the law eliminates risk-taking. On the contrary, capitalism will become far more successful and productive when all of its psychopathic elements are abolished. Rapacious capitalism, predatory capitalism, casino banking, moral hazard, limited liability, global capitalism, rigged markets, cartels, private banking, international finance ... these will all be eliminated, leaving nothing but productive capitalism for the personal, social and national good. All aspects of the infrastructure of social capitalism will be under the direct control of the people or their representatives. All people in power will be fully accountable to the people. There will be no entities or individuals external to the political process and yet controlling it. There will be no lobbying by rich elites. The private rule of the world through global capitalism will be replaced by public rule. The people will be in charge at long last. 100% inheritance tax will apply, so that the dead cannot control the living. Every single means by which rich dynastic families rule our world will be eradicated.

There will be no hiding places for the super rich. They will no longer run the world from behind the scenes. With these measures in place, it should be easy to go to a flat tax system reflecting the 80/20 rule. Everyone is taxed at a single rate of 20% of annual revenue. People keep 80% of their earnings for themselves, and 20% is their social contribution to the Commonwealth. A 20% consumption tax will also be applied: 80% of the purchase price goes to the producer/seller, and 20% to the Commonwealth. Since the tax code will consist of more or less just these two rules, the tax system will be exceptionally easy to apply and enforce. Tax evasion and avoidance will be impossible. There will be no need for expensive lawyers and accountants, and no chance of anyone exploiting tax loopholes in enormously complex tax systems. It will be strictly illegal to transfer any wealth to offshore tax havens. General taxation has four main priorities: 1) to pay for a military service to defend the nation from aggressors, 2) to fund the highest quality free education system possible and thus produce the most highly educated and expert societies in history. 3) to fund a high quality free national health service for all for a wide range of common health problems. (Uncommon and expensive health conditions will be outside the free health service and have to be funded by an insurance system, into which everyone must contribute from their own money, for their own sake), and 4) Constructing new cities compatible with the new paradigm. A completely “free” health service (paid out of general taxation) would be ruinously expensive. Again, an 80/20 rule should apply. The national health service will cater for 80% of medical needs, and the remaining 20% will be catered for by via private insurance rather than general taxation. The running of the State will be as simple and rational as possible, with as few rules and laws as possible. Leibniz wrote, “In whatever manner God created the world, it would always have been regular and in a certain general order. God, however, has chosen the most perfect, that is to say, the one which is at the same time the simplest in hypothesis and the richest in phenomena.” We need a Meritocratic Republic that is simplest in rational, just laws and the richest in the high quality behaviour and conduct that will flow from such a system.

In a justly run, meritocratic system where everyone has received the best education for their needs and nature, it should be more or less possible to eliminate crime completely. There will be little need for a police force, and in fact it will be largely replaced by an Intelligence Service of expert psychologists who will use software solutions and geographical and psychological profiling to identify unreconstructed criminals, catch them and get them off the streets. In a system of a few fair laws, taxes and a low crime rate, most of the legal system can be dismantled. People’s tribunals (juries) can handle many cases on their own, without the need for expensive judges or lawyers. Only the most serious cases should require an expensive legal framework. There’s no need for the world to be as it is. Every problem can be rectified by smart people, by rationalist meritocrats. If you put your destiny in irrational markets or super rich dynastic elites, don’t complain about the bad outcomes. They’re inevitable. The advent of meritocratic social capitalism will bring an end to the capitalist dialectic. Crony capitalism, predatory capitalism and free-market capitalism (which are all effectively the same thing) will never trouble the world again. The power of the super rich will be broken forever.

Nova Cities The design of cities reflects the ruling paradigm. In Islamic countries, mosques are everywhere. Manhattan is full of skyscrapers, both because space is limited and to reflect the enormous phallic egos of the rich elites. All cities in the world are based on the doctrine of “negative liberty”, of the State keeping out of design (no “social engineering), of “private” living based on individuals and families. At all times, the needs of free-market capitalism are served. In the Meritocratic Republic, all of this will change. Meritocracy is a positive liberty doctrine. It’s based on the public rather than private good, the General Will rather than particular wills. It serves society and the community rather than the family and individuals. It’s collectivist rather than individualist. It serves social capitalism rather than predatory, freemarket capitalism. It does not kow tow to rich elites and allow them to build anti-social gated fortresses.

The New Cities that reflect meritocracy must be based on the phalanstery model of community living. They must be eco-friendly and rationally designed. A huge amount of psychological expertise will be invoked to produce the best-possible communities living friction-free, fulfilling lives, where they are completely supported by friends, family and community. Cities will be “organisms for living”, designed to generate optimal societies. Just as the ancient Greek city-states reflected the ethos of the people, so must the nova cities do the same. Cities will no longer be places where the masses go to live chaotically, more or less ignored by the State. Now the nova cities will enshrine the core values of the State. Muslims seek a world that reflects Allah, Mohammed and the Koran, and implements “holy” Islamic law (i.e. Sharia Law). Their logic is that if Islam is right then everything must reflect Islam. Well, if meritocracy is right, everything must reflect meritocratic values and guarantee equal opportunities. The family itself is the main opponent of meritocracy and the driving force of hereditary rule, inheritance, privilege, nepotism, cronyism, cartels, the “old school tie” and the rule of dynastic families. Community is the antidote to the “game theory” family that does everything in its power to serve its own interests and to hell with everyone else. The current world revolves around the family and individual, and look where that has got us. The future world must revolve around community and rational laws that are fair and just to all.

Reflection in the Political Mirror Society in all of its aspects must reflect its core principles. Anyone who thinks democracy is the way to go should ipso facto wish to see it applied everywhere, including within corporations. Anyone who calls himself a democrat but does not want democracy applied to corporations plainly isn’t a true democrat and has profound reservations about democracy. If democracy isn’t good enough for the workplace then it certainly isn’t good enough for the political arena and complex societies. A meritocrat wants to see meritocracy applied everywhere, in the workplace, in politics and in society in general. A meritocracy is predicated on a platform of equal opportunities (the same starting line) for everyone.

Only then can the most meritorious in their fields be identified. Merit can never be revealed in any system of nepotism, cronyism, privilege, inheritance and rule by dynastic families. Meritocracy automatically abolishes all monarchies, all rich, dynastic ruling elites, all private (privileged) education, all nepotism, all cartels and all networks of cronies. Ayn Rand longed for America to be run by a rich elite via unrestrained free-market capitalism. Rand was largely consistent in her views: she wanted the free-market capitalist ethos applied virtually everywhere. No one who supports Rand can be a democrat. Rand saw no need at all for democratic elections and governments. The market should decide all ... a position eagerly embraced by Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and all of their right wing successors. Margaret Thatcher should never have been an elected “democrat” at all since she had no respect for democracy and the people and wanted all power switched away from the State to markets (which are inherently unelected by the people and unaccountable to the people, and yet which completely control the people). Free-market capitalists are total liars and hypocrites when they lay any claim to the democratic tradition of ancient Athens. They are in fact on the opposite side: that of the rich oligarchs (the ownership class). Plato argued that Society must reflect the composition and proper functioning of the soul. That’s completely correct. The problem with our world is that it functions according to the heart (emotions) and the gut (desires, instincts and appetites). It needs to be ruled by the head (reason). This is the single biggest factor ruining our world. The smart people have never been in charge. The world has hitherto been ruled by psychopaths, obsessed with their own desires and feelings.

What’s the Difference between Shares and Stocks? “In today’s financial markets, the distinction between stocks and shares has been somewhat blurred. Generally, these words are used interchangeably to refer to the pieces of paper that denote ownership in a particular company, called stock certificates. However, the difference between the two words comes from the context in which they are used.

“For example, ‘stock’ is a general term used to describe the ownership certificates of any company, in general, and ‘shares’ refers to a the ownership certificates of a particular company. So, if investors say they own stocks, they are generally referring to their overall ownership in one or more companies. Technically, if someone says that they own shares – the question then becomes – shares in what company? “Bottom line, stocks and shares are the same thing. The minor distinction between stocks and shares is usually overlooked, and it has more to do with syntax than financial or legal accuracy.” – http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/140.asp

Doubt versus Skepticism A doubter generally believes in a project, but entertains reservations and anxieties. He tries to find reasons and arguments in order to counter his doubts. A skeptic fundamentally doubts the whole project and seeks reasons and arguments to reject it. A believer can legitimately be someone with doubts. If he then tips over into skepticism, he will inevitably abandon his beliefs.

The Ruling Pigs “A nation of sheep, ruled by wolves, owned by Pigs.” – Graffiti Ain’t that the truth!

Dante and Saint Thomas Aquinas “Not only has the Summa Theologica [Aquinas’s monumental philosophical work] been one of the main intellectual inspirations for Thomistic philosophy, but it also had such a great influence on Dante Alighieri’s Divine Comedy that Dante’s epic poem has been called ‘the Summa in verse’.” – Wikipedia

Two Routes to Knowledge

In medieval thinking, a human could gain knowledge via two routes: direct intuition (intellectus) and discursive reasoning (ratio), stemming, respectively, from Nous (intellect) and Psyche (discursive reason). With the latter, reasoning is a step-by-step process proceeding by logical inference. With the former, it happens all at once: a flash of inspiration. Angels think purely through intuition, and humans primarily through discursive reasoning.

The Truth “For truth, as Aristotle says, agrees with itself and bears witness to itself in every way.” –Averroes. This is true of ontological mathematics.

Wrong Reasons “Many are destined to reason wrongly; others, not to reason at all; and others, to persecute those who do reason.” –Voltaire. So it has always been.

Sensoriums and Phantasms The External Sensorium = the five external senses together with the common sense faculty (sensus communis). The Internal Sensorium = Imagination, memory and the cogitative (thinking) faculty. Averroes defined “phantasms” as the particular cognitive items generated by the internal sensorium and, in particular the cogitative faculty. The External Sensorium does not involve any phantasms. The five senses don’t think. They simply collect data. Averroes said that the passive intellect is simply the power of the imagination and is nothing but a disposition of the body to be affected by the active intellect. It resides in the body and perishes with the individual. However, when the active intellect is applied to this disposition, the passive intellect is converted into the “material intellect” where the power of imagination now becomes a potentiality of conceptual thought. So, the

passive intellect is distinguished from the material intellect in this scheme (but for Aristotle, they’re the same). The material intellect is essentially a new entity that sits between the passive and active intellects. Since it can’t be part immaterial and part material, it must either align with the passive intellect or the active (immaterial) intellect, and Averroes goes with the latter. The material intellect is thus as immortal as the active intellect. In the philosophy of Averroes, intellect is immaterial and universal, hence the same for all of humanity. This is true for both the active and material intellects. For Averroes, the differences between individual minds are rooted in their phantasms as the product of the differences in the history of their sense perceptions. For Averroes, knowledge is particularized through phantasms which interface with the imagination, which, according to Averroes, is the same thing as Aristotle’s passive intellect. An implication of Averroes’ philosophy is that any true mind must be immaterial and outside space and time. Therefore, it cannot be part of the physical body. For Averroes, there could only be one mind outside space and time (as in Buddhism and Schopenhauer’s philosophy. Aquinas argued against Averroes and insisted that everyone had their own unique intellect and didn’t all share one intellect. This committed Aquinas to a position similar to the one Leibniz later adopted: there are many minds outside space and time, not just one. Buddhists do not believe in the individual self and nor did followers of Averroes. Aquinas and Leibniz do. We see this issue of the Collective Soul versus the individual soul arising over and over again in different disguises in religion and philosophy.

Revelation? Averroes, a Muslim philosopher, insisted that truth is found through reason. He dismissed “faith” as that which irrational people rely on. Allah provided the Koran for the masses because they were incapable of understanding reality intellectually, so had to do so emotionally, and with simple stories and rules. Averroes wrote, “All Muslims accept the principle of allegorical interpretation; they only disagree about the extent of its application. ... The double meaning has been given to suit people’s diverse intelligence. The apparent contradictions are meant to stimulate the learned to deeper study.”

Wikipedia says, “Averroes tried to reconcile Aristotle’s system of thought with Islam. According to him, there is no conflict between religion and philosophy, rather that they are different ways of reaching the same truth. He believed in the eternity of the universe. He also held that the soul is divided into two parts, one individual and one divine; while the individual soul is not eternal, all humans at the basic level share one and the same divine soul. Averroes has two kinds of Knowledge of Truth. The first being his knowledge of truth of religion being based in faith and thus could not be tested, nor did it require training to understand. The second knowledge of truth is philosophy, which was reserved for an elite few who had the intellectual capacity to undertake its study.” For Averroes, revelation must never contradict philosophy. This was anathema to Islam, and his books were burned. To this day, Islam despises philosophy. Islam agrees with Luther that reason is the Devil’s whore. Christianity was as opposed to Averroes as Islam. Wikipedia says, “Averroes at the time of Dante Alighieri was probably the most widely condemned thinker in the medieval Christian world... Averroism became virtually synonymous with atheism in the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance.” Western thinkers such as Aquinas thought that reason should not contradict revelation, and if it did it must be in error. Reason was always to be guided by revelation, not the other way around. Averroes sided with reason and had contempt for faith. Aquinas loved reason too but sided with faith. He said, “Faith builds on reason, and grace builds on nature.” Aquinas accepted Aristotle’s philosophy to the extent that it was consistent with Catholic dogma, and rejected or amended it where it was not. Aquinas particularly disagreed with Aristotle over the immortality of the soul. Aristotle thought that only the intellect (nous) was immortal, and belonged to God rather than men (i.e. there was really just one Cosmic Intellect). Men’s souls were strictly mortal. Aquinas asserted, “It is absolutely impossible for one intellect to belong to all men.”

*****

Just as Islam rejected the philosophers (particularly Averroes) and based everything on scriptural literalism, so Protestantism rejected all Catholic philosophy and regarded the Bible as the sole source of truth. Muslims and Protestants are extremely similar. They despise reason and philosophy, are fanatical scriptural literalists, and reject the intelligentsia wholesale. Muslims, like Protestants believe that if they read their holy text, they become as much of an expert on it as anyone else who has ever read it. Muslims, like Protestants, have no clerical hierarchy, no pope and cardinals. All they have are a few imams (like Protestant preachers). Any religion that despises reason is ipso facto false and doomed.

The Force (Star Wars) In Star Wars, the “Force” is a kind of living, aetherial energy that stands behind all things. It’s a metaphysical, ubiquitous energy: a type of aether or pneuma, chi or prana. In the first Star Wars movie, Obi-Wan Kenobi said, “The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It’s an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.” Those known as Force-sensitives can harness the Force and perform various supernatural or paranormal feats such as telekinesis, telepathy, levitation, deep hypnosis, enhanced empathy, precognition, clairvoyance, and mind control. They can also vastly enhance their physical speed and reflexes. The Force may also be used to heal, or drain the life force of others, and even warp space. Although the Force can be used for good, it also has a balancing dark side that imbues those who turn to it with hatred, aggression, malevolence and a lust for power and destruction. As the Force is a living entity, it suffers a “wound” whenever there’s any sudden loss of life on a mass scale. When a planet was destroyed by the Death Star, it was said that the wound would never heal, and the Force would always hunger for life to fill the hole that was made. Such wounds were extremely dangerous parts of the cosmos, and often associated with the dark side since it invariably caused them in the first place. These wounds could corrupt and devour life even while they longed for it. Some sensitives in the vicinity of Force wounds said they felt utterly

empty, as if they were staring into the death of the Force, and the end of all life. The Force is “disturbed” whenever it moves radically out of balance. Given that the Force is “an energy field created by all living things”, any wound in the Force is associated with a profound disturbance. The presence of a powerful Jedi or Sith also routinely disturbs the Force. Of the dark side of the Force, Yoda said, “Anger, fear, aggression! The dark side of The Force are they. ... A Jedi uses The Force for knowledge and defence. Never for attack.” The Jedi Order follow the light side of the Force, while the “Sith” use the dark side. “Dark” Jedi also follow the dark side. Dark Side users are Hawks while Light Side users are Retaliators. Doves do not interact with the Force. The Jedi’s use of the light side of the Force is about compassion and selflessness, i.e. the light side of the Force is associated with left wing politics. The Jedi use the Force for the service of others. The Sith’s use of the dark side of the Force is about ruthlessness and selfishness, i.e. the dark side of the Force is associated with right wing politics. The Sith use the Force for the service of themselves. “It has been said that anyone who knows the ways of the Force can set her or himself up as a King on any world where only she or he knows the ways of the Force. Any Jedi could do this. But the Jedi, fools that they are, adhere to a religion in which the Force is used only in the service of others. How short-sighted of them. Is that not why they lost the galaxy to the dark side?” – Emperor Palpatine The Sith see service to others as an unforgivable weakness. Ayn Rand espoused exactly the same stance and proclaimed the “virtue of selfishness”. She said that morality and altruism were wholly bogus and everyone should be devoted to their own self-interest. In her view, the proper “moral purpose” of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness, and it’s immoral to be concerned with the happiness of others (!). An individual’s primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well-being, his own self-interest. Rand’s “philosophy” is called Objectivism. Wikipedia summarises it as follows: “Objectivism’s central tenets are that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through

sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness (rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans’ metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form – a work of art – that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally. Academia generally ignored or rejected her philosophy, but it has been a significant influence among libertarians and American conservatives.” There’s nothing in Rand’s philosophy to which the Sith or Emperor Palpatine would object! All right wingers, all free-market capitalists and libertarians, are followers of the Dark Side. They are the Sith of the world, and it’s the duty of the Jedi of our world to take them down.

***** Rand was an out and out empiricist and materialist. These are always the bedrock for right wing views of the world. Science is a right wing activity, closely tied to the establishment, to free-market capitalism, the militaryindustrial complex and social Darwinism.

***** “The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that carries any reward.” – John Maynard Keynes

The Dark Side “The dark side was known to manifest itself in many different ways, even in the absence of life, which was the supposed source of the Force. Locations where the dark side ran strong were sometimes called dark side nexuses, and could be the result of many different occurrences. These locations were so potent that they could imbue nearby objects with a dark side aura.” – http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Dark_side_of_the_Force

The Dark Side is rather like the sinister force that operates on Oscar Wilde’s picture of Dorian Gray: it makes a specific location horrific and evil.

Force Lightning Force Lightning is a massively focused use of the Force, deployed by the Sith, that resembles a sustained, localised lightning strike against a person. Force Lightning is also known as a “Force Storm”. Force storms can also refer to Force-created weather patterns. A Force storm might also be a Force-created hyperspace wormhole. “With this knowledge, I can unleash the dark side energies that swirl invisibly around us, even to shatter the fabric of space itself. In this way, I have created storms.” – Palpatine

***** A “Force Drain” was a procedure to drain the Force from a specific location.

The Valley of the Dark Lords The “Valley of the Dark Lords” on the planet Korriban (home planet of the Sith), where the tombs of the Sith Dark Lords are located, is a cosmic locus of the power of the dark side. The spirits of the Dark Lords linger here, and the tombs within the Valley are saturated with dark side energy. The relics within the tombs have a permanent aura of the dark side. The dark side energy of this place could even form into visible pools. Anyone who bathed in these pools would be pulled irretrievably closer to the dark side. The Valley of the Dark Lords is a cosmic Wall Street, Washington D.C. and Jerusalem all rolled into one. “The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be … unnatural.” – Palpatine, to Anakin Skywalker

The Balance

Anakin Skywalker was supposed to be the Chosen One who would “balance” the force. Instead, as Darth Vader, he joined the Dark side and massively unbalanced it. Christ became the Antichrist! Doesn’t he always?

The Monistic Force According to the theory of the “Unifying Force”, there’s no dark side of the Force, nor is there a light side. The Force is a single monistic entity (rather than dualistic).

Star Forge The Star Forge was a massive space station and factory that was fuelled by the power of the dark side and produced fleets of destructive warships and war droids.

The Taoism Force The Force ideology with its living energy, dark and light sides and need for “balance”, is highly reminiscent of Taoism with its chi energy, its yin and yang and need for balance.

The Dark Lord of the Sith The leader of the Sith cult, the Dark Lord himself, was considered the embodiment of the dark side. All of its power was said to be at his disposal and to flow through him. The Dark Lord is the equivalent of Satan.

***** The Sith practise Sith alchemy and Sith magic, equivalent to black alchemy and black magic. The Force = Money (Capitalism). Predatory (free-market) capitalism = the Dark Side of the Capitalist Force. Productive (social) capitalism = the Light Side of the Capitalist Force.

The Dark Side Capitalists

Are those who hate government and State interested in helping others or in helping themselves? Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that selfishness is virtuous and that greed is good. They hate paying a cent in tax and don’t want any public health system or welfare for the poor. Ask yourself a very simple question – are these people more like the Sith or the Jedi? Anarcho-capitalist libertarians are the Sith of our world. The super rich global capitalists are the Dark Lords of the Sith, the creators of the Globalist Empire. Ayn Rand, chief philosopher of the Sith, wanted tax dollars to be spent only on the police and the army. The sole function of the government and the State, in her opinion, was to provide the means to protect the rich and their assets. All psychopaths follow the dark side of the force. Economically, psychopathy is expressed through free-market capitalism, global capitalism, crony capitalism, anarcho-capitalism, and predatory capitalism. This is how the dark side of the force rules our world. Abrahamism and Karmism are the other means by which the dark side of the Force is imposed on our world.

The Beautiful Girl A beautiful girl with low self-esteem sees herself as plain and undesirable. A plain girl with high self-esteem sees herself as beautiful and desirable. Which girl would you rather be? The privileged elite have very high self-esteem and the working masses very low self-esteem. That’s why our world is as it is. Self-esteem – selfconfidence – is the key to everything in our world.

Holocron Holocron: abbreviation for “holographic chronicle” – an organic crystallattice device capable of storing enormous quantities of data.

The Rule of Two According to the “Rule of Two”, there are only two Sith in existence at one time: a Master and an Apprentice (who is expected to kill the Master in due

course and then take on an Apprentice himself, who will in turn assassinate him – there’s no retirement in the Dark Lord business!).

Midi-Chlorians Midi-chlorians are the living mediators of the Force. “Without the midi-chlorians, life could not exist, and we would have no knowledge of the Force. They continually speak to us, telling us the will of the Force. When you learn to quiet your mind, you’ll hear them speaking to you.” – Qui-Gon Jinn, to Anakin Skywalker In Star Wars “science”, midi-chlorians are intelligent, microscopic lifeforms that exist symbiotically within the cells of all living things. When they are present in high concentration, they allow their host to detect the pervasive cosmic energy field known as the Force. The highest registered midi-chlorian count belonged to Anakin Skywalker, who was even said to have been conceived by the midichlorians. Midi-chlorians could be influenced by the Force to create new life, a technique developed by a Dark Lord of the Sith. They could even induce conception in a human, with no need of a biological father (was this how the Virgin Mary was impregnated?!). “They live inside me?” – Anakin Skywalker A blood test could measure midi-chlorian counts, and such a test was used by the Jedi to identify Force-sensitive children. Midi-chlorians give rise to a collective consciousness among themselves, thus being conscious life within conscious life. In a way, the midi-chlorians constitute a “Daimon”, such as Socrates claimed to have. Midi-chlorians were essential for life to exist, and they connected the living Force to dead matter. The midi-chlorians could “speak” to their host and communicate the will of the Force to them. Most humans had midichlorian counts too low to provide Force sensitivity. While medical theory proposed that the midi-chlorians created the decisive connection between macroscopic organisms and the Force, some Jedi believed that the Force itself created the midi-chlorians to allow life to appear in the material world.

Some midi-chlorians are much more powerful than others and are known as maxi-chlorians. The “Force detector” was a tool developed to measure midi-chlorian counts. The DRK-1 Dark Eye probe droid, invented by the Sith, could scan life forms for the presence of midi-chlorians. “It is said that certain creatures are born with a higher awareness of the Force than humans. Their brains are different; they have more midichlorians in their cells.” – George Lucas Are the midi-chlorians indicators of the presence of the Force, or are they mediators of the Force? Are they created by the Force or independent of the Force? Are they actually the Force themselves? George Lucas, inventor of Star Wars, is said to consider the midi-chlorians as the practical, biological, material manifestation of the Force, and distinct from the spiritual, immaterial and metaphysical side of the Force. Midi-chlorians might be likened to angels, mediating between God and humanity.

Darth “Darth” was a title given to prominent Sith Lords, preceding their chosen Sith name. It was taken to signify giving up one’s old life (as in Anakin Skywalker becoming Darth Vader). The word is synonymous with the dark side of the Force. “The Darth title was more than just a symbol of power; it was a claim of supremacy. It was used by those Dark Lords who have sought to enforce their will on the other Masters. It was a challenge – a warning to bow down or be destroyed.” – Sith Blademaster, Kas’im

The Brotherhood of Darkness The Sith Order was a sect of Force-sensitives dedicated to the use of the dark side, hence it was the mirror image of the Jedi Order, a monastic group devoted to spreading peace through the use of the light side of the Force. The “Dark” Jedi were former members of the Jedi Order who refused to rely exclusively on the light side.

“If you seek to aid everyone that suffers in the galaxy, you will only weaken yourself … and weaken them. It is the internal struggles, when fought and won on their own, that yield the strongest rewards… If you care for others, then dispense with pity and sacrifice and recognize the value in letting them fight their own battles.” – Darth Traya The Dark Lords of the Sith were the greatest and most powerful of the Sith Lords. “The Sith are people who are very self-cantered and selfish. There used to be many Sith, but because they hunger for power, they killed each other off, so now there are only two – a master and an apprentice. Sith rely on their passion to get things done. They use their raw emotion, their hatred, their anger, their bitterness – which is the dark side of the Force. The Force is what binds the galaxy together, and it has a good side and a bad side. The Sith learned how to manipulate both sides of the Force, and then they fell into the trap of being corrupted by the dark side. The Jedi Knights are like marshals in the Wild West. It’s their job to make sure everyone is protected, to bring peace. They are the enemy of the Sith, because the Sith want to dominate the galaxy, to control everything, and for a thousand years they have had a plot against the Jedi. So, in this movie, it is time for them to seek revenge against the Jedi for perceived injustices and to carry out that plot.” – George Lucas on the Sith The Sith = predatory capitalists, Randroids, free-market capitalists, Christian Fundamentalists, members of the Tea Party and Republican Party!

The Thought Bomb The Thought Bomb was an ancient and immensely powerful Sith weapon that brought about a massive focus and concentration of Dark Side energy. It was a true weapon of mass destruction.

Scottish Sith Sith (Irish form: sidhe): in Scottish Gaelic mythology are a supernatural race of semi-deities and fairies that are concealed from human eyes. They are the equivalent of the jinn of Islam or the invisible, shape-shifting, pandimensional “Illuminati” of “prophet” David Icke.

Force Sensitive A Force-sensitive is also known as a Forceful. Such a being is highly attuned to the flow of the Force and can sense and manipulate the Force. In Illuminism, force-sensitives are those with incredible ontological mathematical intuition.

The Dark Side of the Force The dark side of the Force was called Bogan or Boga by Force-sensitives in ancient times. Those who used the dark side were known either as Darksiders or Dark Jedi, providing they were unaffiliated with the Sith. Darksiders drew power from raw emotions such as anger, rage, hatred, fear, aggression, envy, lust, greed, selfishness, violence and passion. The dark side of the Force was linked with selfishness and evil, the light side with altruism and good. The dark side was highly addictive and almost impossible to renounce. It fed the lust for personal power. Like crack cocaine, its corrupting influence could seize hold in seconds, and never let go. The dark side was not without its consequences. While the mind grew more potent, the body degenerated and became more and more repulsive (like the picture of Dorian Gray). The Light and Dark sides of the force were often treated as separate, semi-sentient entities with clear, distinct purposes.

Mimetics Humans are mimetics. They copy others. There’s safety in copying (following the herd), and danger in standing out from the crowd. This means that, in a world of stupid, low quality people, copying results in yet more stupidity and low quality. It’s the supreme vicious circle. Just look at what free-market capitalism does to the world. It produces endless, dumbed-down people obsessed with instant-gratification, self-indulgence and junk. People are addicted to trash. If the world had a large number of smart, high quality people, the mimetics would start copying good examples rather than bad, and the quality of humanity would rapidly rise.

Most parents are bad examples, and their children simply copy all of their flaws and faults. If humanity wants to be reborn, it has to accept the stark truth that parents are often the greatest enemy. Few parents are good for their children, and those that are should be the template for all others parents. The meritocratic State should go to great lengths to identify the best and worst parents, and empower the former and disempower the latter.

Universal Life Energy Universal Life Energy is the life force or living energy that sustains the life of organs, cells, tissue, blood and bodies. It’s a spiritual, mental energy and is either immaterial or the finest possible manifestation of material. The Chinese (Taoists) refer to the life force as chi or qi, Hindus call it prana, the ancient Greeks pneuma, the Japanese ki, the ancient Egyptians “ka”. For Native Americans, it’s the “Great Spirit”, for Christians, the “Holy Spirit”, and it’s “mana” in Hawaii. In Star Wars, the “Force” serves the same function. In Illuminism, it’s monads.

What Causes Life? What causes a body to exhibit life? – a controlling monad to which it is bound. There can be no life without a monad. A machine can never be alive.

Vitalism Vitalism: the doctrine that the phenomenon of life cannot be fully explained in material terms; that an immaterial principle is present in living, material organisms and is what distinguishes them from non-living, material objects. This principle can survive the death of a body. An immortal soul is the classic, life-giving, immaterial entity. Materialists claim that the activities that characterise all living things can be explained in terms of physico-chemical processes obeying materialist laws. Biologist-philosopher Hans Driesch proposed that such processes were in fact determined by entelechies: autonomous, immaterial, nonspatial, mindlike, teleological entities. Of course, the perfect entelechies are monads!

Evolution Materialists say that evolution proceeds by way of (unobserved and unobservable) random mutations, which are then operated upon by natural selection. Henri Bergson made the alternative claim that the creative urge associated with the vitalist principle of élan vital (which he contrasted with inert matter) was the factor that drove evolution. In Illuminism, it’s the teleological force of mathematical self-optimisation that dialectically drives evolution.

The Meeting Pythagoras travelled to Persia where he met the Magus Zaratas (Zoroaster). Pythagoras developed the Orphic religion with its mixed Apollonian and Dionysian rites, and placed them in the context of mathematics. His aim was to produce “enthusiasm” (from entheos, “divinely inspired; possessed by a god; to have god inside oneself; to become God”, from en “in” + theos “god”).

***** Sophos: a Wise Man. Philosophia: love of wisdom, a word first used by Pythagoras.

The First Theory of Forms Pythagoras created the first version of the Theory of Forms, which Plato later made so famous. For Pythagoras, “Being” signified the being of mathematical entities. Numbers and geometric figures were immaterial, immutable and eternal. They were the ultimate essence of things. Everything in the world of change (becoming) comprised entities that were mutable copies or imitations of mathematical forms. In Plato’s Theory of Forms, mathematical Forms are relegated to a second rank beneath philosophical Forms. In fact, this was a bogus innovation; Pythagoras was right all along. Mathematics, not philosophy, is the bottom line. Mathematical Forms reflect truths of eternal reason, while philosophical Forms are based on opinion, belief and interpretation.

Modern Illuminism depicts the immaterial, dimensionless frequency domain as the ancient, Parmenidean domain of eternal being, and the dimensional spacetime domain as the mutable, Heraclitean domain of becoming.

***** Pythagoras compared the universe with a lyre, an instrument reflecting mathematical “notes” and mathematical harmony (stable laws). This was the prototype of modern cosmological “string theory”.

***** The unit of geometry: a dimensionless point (without magnitude). The unit of arithmetic: a dimensional line (with magnitude of one). The Pythagoreans characterised the universe as an infinite female space (void; womb; matrix), “impregnated” by the male principle of “limits”, which placed definite things in space. Thus the Unlimited was seeded with the Limited to create the visible world. The void functioned as that which separated definite things, allowing them to be individuated. If there were no space, everything would be one cosmic “clump” (the position that Parmenides adopted). The Monad (One) was the principle of life since it “grew” (like all living things) and grew, specifically, into larger numbers (multiples of itself, like replicating cells in living bodies). We might liken one becoming two to a process of cell division (with the first cell splitting asunder to yield the second cell). The void is what keeps the cells (the numbers) apart and differentiated. Aristotle was one of the most influential commentators on the doctrines of Pythagoras, but it’s clear that he only had a vague understanding of Pythagorean mathematics and badly misrepresented it.

***** “In other words, with Thales, mathematics became deductive and therefore abstract. The Pythagoreans extended this process of abstraction and in turn infused all of nature with mathematical concepts. It seems that they were

the first to stress the idea of number and geometry underlying diverse natural phenomena. The result, adapted and enshrined in Plato’s later philosophy along with an ethical, transcendental corollary, was the important recognition that numbers are abstractions, mental concepts, suggested by material things but independent of them. For the early Pythagoreans, however, the physical world was actually constructed from numbers.” – Anthony Alioto, A History of Western Philosophy

String Theory String theory says that vibrating strings are the fundamental particles of the universe. Illuminism says that vibrating monads are the fundamental particles of the universe. Strings are dimensional and belong to the material world of spacetime (so where were they before space and time appeared at the Big Bang?). Monads are dimensionless and belong to the immaterial, eternal world of frequency. They populated the Big Bang Singularity from which the material world sprang.

The Three Greatest Fictional Villains 1) Cartman from South Park. 2) Stewie Griffin from Family Guy. 3) The “God” from the Abrahamic “holy” texts.

Whence Knowledge? Does our knowledge come through our sensory experiences (empiricism) or through our intellect (rationalism)? If the former, we live in a physical world and physics is the subject we should use to study it. If the latter, we live in a mental universe and we should use our intellect (reason) to study it. Ontological mathematics is the subject that encapsulates the principle of sufficient reason which underlies all valid reason. Sensory thinking types will be empiricists and will trumpet physics. Intuitive thinking types will be rationalists and will endorse mathematics.

Modern science is an extremist expression of empiricism and materialism. It has reached countless wrong conclusions because it’s fundamentally opposed to rationalism and the mind. Scientists can’t help themselves. Their brains are wired wrongly, just as those of Abrahamists and Karmists are wired wrongly.

The Abrahamic Force Imagine if Abrahamism were conceived as a Manichaean battle between the light and dark sides of the Force (in Star Wars). What side would Jehovah, Allah and Christ be on given that they all deemed it fully acceptable to order a father to murder his innocent son to prove his faith, loyalty and devotion to his God? Let there be no mistake: Abrahamism is the Dark Side of the Force. Jehovah, Christ and Allah are Dark Lords – Sith Lords. All of the followers of Abrahamism are opposed to good, to light. No one is guaranteed paradise. The dark can beat the light, and the light can beat the dark. The Illuminati Order, like the Jedi Order, serves the light against all the forces of darkness (Abrahamism, Karmism and scientific materialism).

The True Force The true Force is mathematics. In its subjective aspect, mathematics is dialectical rather than Aristotelian, meaning that it relies on opposites (theses and antitheses) in order to progress (via a third synthesis phase). The dialectic automatically summons a light side and opposing dark side. However, the dialectic is not about balance (as in Taoism). Rather, it concerns progress and involves convergence on an Absolute, perfect state (the Omega Point). The dialectic achieves this by including the synthesis phase, whereby the thesis and antithesis are provisionally reconciled, and this compromise then acts as a new thesis, which provokes a new antithesis, a new synthesis, and so on until the iterative process can go no further. In dialectical mathematics, the dark side is not eliminated. Rather, its positive aspects (such as high energy, ambition, perseverance, and audacity) are fully harnessed, after being separated from all of the many negative aspects of the dark side (such as cruelty, selfishness, evil, intolerance, greed, psychopathy, narcissism, and so on).

***** Thesis = Light Side. Antithesis = Dark Side. Synthesis = Beyond Light and Dark = Objective Reason. The aim of the dialectic is not to keep the Force in balance (to maintain the status quo of the Force) but to optimise the Force so that everyone is a master of the Force, and thus a god. The Force begins in a mathematically sub-optimal state and must be fully actualised (all of its potential must be completely realised) to become optimal. It must reach its omega point, its absolute condition, its perfection, its entelechy. It’s not a question of yin beating yang (or vice versa), or the light defeating the dark, or good defeating evil. It’s about getting the optimal mixture of all theses and antitheses to establish the Grand Cosmic Synthesis, the Ultimate Omega Point.

The Forces of Darkness “Evil began in a time before recorded history, when magicians made themselves into kings … and gods … using the powers of the dark side of the Force. The weak-minded have ever been ready to obey one who wields great power. Those who learned the powers of the dark side were quick to exploit this weakness – to make war. Again and again the dark side has surged forth, like a storm … devouring whole worlds and entire star systems. Those who mastered dark power became dark power. They unleashed destruction, for no other reason than for selfish gain. They despoiled nations … destroyed whole civilizations. Some of them, I am ashamed to say, were Jedi.” – Ood Bnar Is he talking about free-market capitalism? “Evil is a word used by the ignorant and the weak. The dark side is about survival. It’s about unleashing your inner power. It glorifies the strength of the individual.” – Darth Zannah

Is he talking about anarcho-capitalist libertarians, Randroids, Survivalists and all forces arrayed against the Collective and Community? “We take what we desire because we can. “We can because we have power. “We have power because we are Sith.” (Sith proverb) The mantra of the Old World Order, of the dynastic family elites.

***** The Sith regarded passion (feelings) as the only real way to fully understand the Force. The Jedi regarded reason (thinking) as the proper way to understand the Force. Passion, the Jedi said, invariably led to the Dark Side of the Force. The Sith always tried to provoke strong feelings when they sought to corrupt or defeat a Jedi. Faith and feelings have indeed been at the root of almost all evil in the world. “Love” is so generative of evil that it’s almost synonymous with evil. Every intolerant person, everyone supportive of cronyism, nepotism, privilege and inheritance, every nationalist, every patriot, everyone who thinks in terms of “them and us”, everyone who thinks in terms of “I’ll do anything for those I love, and damn everyone else”, is evil. All right wingers are evil. They are wholly preoccupied with themselves, with their families and friends, and have absolute contempt for community, society and the State.

***** Apollo (Reason) = the light side of the Force. Dionysus (Passion) = the dark side of the Force.

Hyperspace Space = dimensional. Time = Imaginary space = dimensional.

Hyperspace (more accurately hyperspacetime) = dimensionless. Space and time provide the framework for the material world. Hyperspace = Singularity = frequency domain = the framework for the mental world.

Success and Lies “Success has always been the greatest liar.” – Nietzsche “Everyone loves a success.” – truism Therefore everyone loves a great liar. Hasn’t history shown that conclusively?

To Be Or Not To Be The question of why there is existence rather than non-existence is often expressed as why is there something rather than nothing. However, the two questions are not equivalent. Mathematically, “nothing” (which is equal to zero), is generated by something, e.g. 2 – 1 – 1 = 0. The expression on the left is “something” (it’s three things that cancel (balance) each other overall) and that on the right “nothing”. So, “nothing” and “something” are not mutually exclusive states. Rather, “nothing” is a particular expression of something. It’s the point at which something is perfectly balanced, at which perfect symmetry reigns, where everything is interconnected and “unified”. Unlike “something” and “nothing”, “existence and “non-existence” do seem to be two mutually exclusive states. Either must be eternal. If existence is true, non-existence must, it seems, be a permanently forbidden state, and vice versa. For argument’s sake, imagine a hypothetical state “prior to eternity” at which existence and non-existence are in direct competition, and there can be only one winner. What could possibly allow one to prevail over the other? Non-existence requires nothing, hence there’s nothing to forbid it, i.e. to make it impossible. However, thanks to the mathematical equivalence of something and nothing, we can have existence (something) that also requires nothing (since it balances to nothing), hence there’s equally nothing to forbid it or make it impossible. So, since neither existence nor non-existence is forbidden or impossible, there’s no sufficient reason to prevent either. Therefore, both states are

actualised: both are true. However, non-existence has absolutely no effects, hence it’s pointless to refer to it. It’s a state without consequences, hence can be dismissed. That leaves us with existence alone as the only meaningful state, and it’s a state that must balance to zero in order to be valid (not forbidden). Mathematics alone offers eternal symmetry and the perfect balance of something and nothing. Mathematics is existence. Mathematics is the “science of nothing”, the study of nothing and all of its ramifications. Mathematics is ultimately one vast tautology. It comprises infinite ways of writing 0 = 0. What is “4”? It’s 1 + 1 + 1 + 1. So, 4 – 2 = (1 + 1 + 1 + 1) – (1 + 1) = (1 + 1) = 2. If 4 – 2 = 2 then we can simply remove 2 from each side and get 4 – 2 – 2 = 2 – 2 = 0. All we have elaborately done is write 0 = 0 with symbols (numbers) other than zero. Mathematics – the cosmic tautology of 0 = 0 brought about by eternal, perfect symmetry of positive and negative – is identical to the principle of sufficient reason. Why? Because all eternally valid reason necessarily involves symbols whose overall effect balances to zero. All of the objective properties of the universe must be conserved at zero. All processes of objective reasoning must obey this. Why does scientific materialism fail? Because it has no requirement for all roads to lead to zero (dimensionless existence). Science rejects the whole concept of dimensionless existence because it opens the dreaded door to mind and the soul. If these exist then materialism is ipso facto false and refuted. Mass, energy, space and time must all objectively reduce to zero in a true, rational universe. This can happen only within mathematics.

Imaginary Numbers All positive numbers are perfectly balanced by negative numbers. But a universe of positive real and negative real numbers is not enough. The reason is that when such a universe is “squared”, all negative numbers are lost (since negative numbers become positive through the squaring operation). That’s why imaginary numbers are essential too. When imaginary numbers are squared, they become negative. Imaginary numbers

are orthogonal to real numbers. Orthogonality is at the heart of reality and of symmetry. Scientific materialism, with its hatred of mathematical completeness and consistency, is based on countless misconceptions and fallacies.

Abrahamism The only way for the Abrahamic “God” to make the world out of nothing would be mathematically. Of course, he himself would be incompatible with mathematics, hence forbidden (impossible). Mathematics is an eternal, autonomous, living system. There can be nothing outside it and nothing can create it. Mathematics is the arche, the ur substance, the first principle, that the ancient Greek philosophers sought. If you want to understand the world, just study ancient Greek philosophy, while understanding it all from a mathematical perspective.

The Great Refusal Everyone in the world should refuse to vote for any political parties operating within capitalist democracy. What will “democratic” politicians do without any votes? With the cloak of democracy removed, we will see exactly who rules the world!

Existence is not a Predicate Kant said that existence adds nothing to a concept. All it does is instantiate the concept in the objective world. There’s no difference between the concept of a unicorn that exists and one that doesn’t. Existence, therefore, is not a predicate (a property of a concept; something that can necessarily be asserted of the concept). Kant refuted the medieval ontological argument for the existence of God on the basis that existence is not a predicate. If this condition is removed then the ontological argument succeeds: if God is possible, God exists! If God is not forbidden, God exists. If there can be a God, there will be a God. Multiverse theory claims that existence is a predicate. Anything that can happen will happen. Anything that can exist will exist. Anything that is not forbidden is compulsory. Therefore, Multiverse theory accepts the medieval ontological argument for the existence of God! If science cannot show how

“God” cannot happen then he will happen; if he’s not forbidden then he’s compulsory.

Ontological Mathematics True mathematics must obey the principle of sufficient reason. For every mathematical fact there must be an exact reason why it is thus and not otherwise. There can be no ambiguity, no inconsistencies, no contradictions, no incompleteness. Abstract mathematics, unlike ontological mathematics, does not obey the principle of sufficient reason, hence contains serious anomalies, inconsistencies, contradictions, ambiguities and is incomplete.

The Parting of the Ways Descartes, the first modern philosopher, presented a system that combined philosophy, science, mathematics and religion. After that, these four subjects went their separate ways. Philosophy became rationalist, idealist and metaphysical. Science became empiricist, materialist and physical. Mathematics became increasingly abstract and divorced from physics, with very little obvious relevance to the physical world. Religion wholly detached itself from reason, philosophy, science and mathematics and ended up being nothing but faith, irrationalism, Mythos, ritual and fanaticism ... where it remains stuck today. Mainstream religion is for really stupid people. Just look at Islam. With Illuminism, philosophy, science, mathematics and religion are all brought back together again. Physics and metaphysics are reconciled in ontological mathematics.

Dialectical Mathematics Thesis: Abstract mathematics; unreal mathematics. Antithesis: “Concrete” mathematics (physics); phenomenal mathematics. Synthesis: Ontological mathematics (metaphysics); noumenal mathematics; real mathematics.

Sinkhole

A sinkhole or swallow hole results from a localised collapse of the surface layer of the earth, dragging down with it anything that was on the surface layer, such as a house, car or even a person. Stupidity is a global sinkhole. It swallows the reason of human beings and buries it deep underground, never to see the light again.

Putting the Cart Before the Horse Scientists like to say, “If your equations don’t match reality, you change your equations and not reality.” Sounds plausible enough until you ask what is reality? Who decides? If reality is just one equation – the God Equation – then a) it can’t be changed, and b) anything that is not consistent with it is an illusion, and the illusion must change! What scientists mean by “reality” is that it must conform with experiments, but Newtonian physics conforms with most experiments yet is not real. The issue of what is “reality” simply begs the question. How are we are to go about this task? Are we to use our feelings and faith, our senses, our mystical intuitions, or our reason? If we choose reason, anything not consistent with reason is ipso facto a false reality – an illusion. Most of modern science is incompatible with rationalism, hence is Mythos and illusion.

The Mathematical Multiverse Cosmologist Max Tegmark posits infinite universes, expressing every conceivable mathematical “structure”. He thereby suggests that there are infinite different versions of mathematics rather than just one. This is wholly false. In accordance with Occam’s Razor, there is only one ontological version of mathematics and this applies to absolutely everything that exists. Nothing can exist outside ontological mathematics. Tegmark, in his scheme, is unable to explain why there should be countless different versions of mathematics, and why do they not all come together to form a single mathematics. How can different mathematical universes be kept separate ontologically? This implies that different versions of mathematics are incompatible and immiscible, which calls into question the whole logic, integrity, consistency and completeness of mathematics. Mathematics, it must be stressed, is nothing like physics.

Given that nothing about physics is analytic, eternal, immutable, a priori, deductive or necessary, endless versions of physics can be envisaged. This is entirely untrue of mathematics. Ontological mathematics is absolutely complete and consistent, and is a system of total analytic tautology. Nothing can exist outside of that system of tautology. Every tautology relies on every other tautology, so there cannot be multiple versions of mathematics (obeying different systems of contradictory tautologies). Tegmark’s approach to mathematics is shaped by his understanding of physics, not by his understanding of the core principles of mathematics. Tegmark cannot say what version of mathematics exists in our universe (we just live in a random mathematical universe with, presumably, a random mathematical set of principles). Tegmark has no means to establish which mathematical “structures” are productive and which are not. His mathematical multiverse does not advance the cause of mathematics at all and is just an attempt to underpin physics with something less provisional, contingent and arbitrary. Yet all he succeeds in doing is making mathematics provisional, contingent and arbitrary too, with countless different versions. He has violated Occam’s Razor to the maximum extent. This is a completely anti-mathematical stance, the direct opposite of his intention.

Escapism A huge amount of life is about escapism. The whole entertainment industry is devoted to escapism. Romances are about escapism. “Love” is about escapism (escaping from oneself). Affairs are about escapism. It’s all about escape. Music, shows, TV, video games, movies, drugs, sports, lovers, and so on, all allow you to escape. But what are you running from? Why don’t you stand and fight?

***** Americans love open roads and cars. It’s all about escape. American “libertarianism” is all about escape: escape from law, government, taxations, escape from others.

Rock Rock music was once a symbol of American virility. Then American music became impotent. All sorts of bland, banal, cheesy, unthreatening, uncontroversial nonsense replaced rock. America lost its musical erection. It suffered musical erectile dysfunction. It couldn’t get it up any more. American music became muzak.

Self and Others If there’s an underlying “Oneness” (a single Cosmic Soul), as in Buddhism or Schopenhauer’s philosophy, then both the “Self” and “the Other” are illusions. In Illuminism, there is no single Cosmic Soul. Instead, there are countless individual monadic souls existing within a single Cosmic Singularity. So, there are Selves and there are Others. They are no illusion.

Zombie Accounts Zombie accounts are bank accounts with lifeless returns that are shut to new customers (hence have no future, no life). From the perspective of the elite, the ordinary people are zombie accounts: lifeless drones and drudges with poor returns and shut to any development and progress.

All the World is a Stage Fans of the BBC TV series Sherlock Holmes, or the Sherlock Holmes movies starring Robert Downey Jr, can go on a walking tour of London and visit locations featured in the series or films. People can also go on walking tours of the London streets where Jack the Ripper carried out his grisly murders. So, some people want to be where Jack the Ripper once stood, while others (or perhaps the same people) want to be where actors playing a famous fictional detective once stood. Some people want to get closer to real murderers and real murders and others want to get closer to unreal detectives and the fakes (actors) portraying them.

Real murders; fake murders. Real detectives; fake detectives. Real crime scenes; fake crime scenes designed for fictional shows. Real people; fake people (actors). Does anyone care anymore? Have reality and the simulacrum of reality provided by fiction and fantasy merged into one thing – Baudrillard’s hyperreality, the more real than real? When people no longer care what’s real and what’s fiction, anything is possible. And isn’t that how religion got started? People didn’t care whether God was real or unreal. They were going to visit the “sets” (described in his “holy” texts) anyway, and worship whether he was real or an “actor” faking it. The truth is the last objection people have, not the first.

Behind the Curtain If a Nazi orders a Jew called Abraham to kill his own son, Abraham is appalled. If the Nazi hides behind a curtain, puts on a deep voice and calls himself “Jehovah”, Abraham agrees instantly, gets on his knees and worships him! Weird!

The “Falsification Principle”? No one can experimentally falsify mathematics.

The “Verification Principle”? No one can experimentally verify mathematics.

***** Mathematics is the truth itself. It therefore cannot be falsified, and it’s in no need of verification.

The Inflection Point “In differential calculus, an inflection point, point of inflection, flex, or inflection (inflexion) is a point on a curve at which the curvature or concavity changes sign from plus to minus or from minus to plus. The

curve changes from being concave upwards (positive curvature) to concave downwards (negative curvature), or vice versa.” – Wikipedia “[An inflection point is an] event that results in a significant change in the progress of a company, industry, sector, economy or geopolitical situation. An inflection point can be considered a turning point after which a dramatic change, with either positive or negative results, is expected to result. Companies, industries, sectors and economies are dynamic and constantly evolving. Inflection points are more significant than the small day-to-day progress that is made and the effects of the change are often well-known and widespread.” – http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/inflectionpoint.asp “Andy Grove, Intel’s co-founder, described a strategic inflection point as ‘an event that changes the way we think and act.’ Inflection points can be a result of action taken by a company, or through actions taken by another entity, that has a direct impact on the company. Regulatory changes, for instance, could lead to an inflection point for a corporation that was previously held back by regulatory compliance issues. Inflection points in technology include the advent of the Internet and smart phones. Politically, an inflection point can be illustrated by the fall of the Berlin Wall or the fall of Communism in Poland and other Eastern Bloc countries.” – http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/inflectionpoint.asp The Tipping Point is an Inflection Point.

Twins Identical twins have identical genes. Non-identical twins share half of their DNA, just like ordinary siblings. Scientists can probe the differences that result from genetics from those that come from the environment by comparing and contrasting identical and non-identical twins. However, some scientists now believe that such twin studies are almost useless. Although identical twins share the same DNA, they can often be very different in many ways. One twin might be larger than the other from birth as a result of an asymmetric environment in the womb. Acquired health conditions can be passed on to one but not the other. For example, an alcoholic mother gave birth to identical twins, one of whom had foetal-

alcohol syndrome while the other did not. Some identical twins are enantiomorphic, i.e. “mirror-images”. Their hair might part on the opposite side, or one is left handed and one right, or they suck different thumbs when babies, for example. Epigenetic factors are even more important. Such factors control the way genes are expressed and even though the DNA sequences are the same, the way the genes are expressed and thus work can be very different. All in all, identical twins are often very far from being identical, hence the basic assumption of twin studies is radically called into question. Robert Plomin, professor of behavioural genetics at King’s College, said, “Genes don’t determine your behaviour. They set up propensities that lead you in one direction or another.”

Emergentism Emergentism is the belief in emergence. Emergence concerns the way that complex systems and patterns arise from simple constituents and interactions.

Science Teaching When science is taught at school, college and university, it’s from the supposed standpoint of objectivity, facts, evidence and proof. What is never revealed is that science is actually just a philosophy, one based on empiricism and materialism, and that it would look entirely differently if it were based on a different philosophy, such as that of rationalism and idealism. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics more or less abandons materialism and becomes a fanatical expression of empiricism alone. All of quantum “weirdness” flows from this empiricism, not from quantum mechanics itself. Quantum mechanics isn’t weird at all if it’s viewed from the perspective of rationalism, idealism and “hidden variables” (ontological mathematics). Science continuously lies about its own philosophical roots (it pretends it doesn’t have any). It lies about the fundamental assumptions it makes, which constitute the prism through which the whole subject is viewed. It refuses to call into question the experimental method, and to contrast this with the ontological mathematical method, based on hidden variables. It

refuses to compare and contrast the two pillars of science: experiments and mathematics. Given that mathematics has nothing to do with experiments, why is experimental science so heavily dependent on mathematics? Science simply does not engage with any such questions. It ignores them, while trumpeting its wholly biased views. In this respect, it’s no different from Abrahamism, which also singularly fails to challenge itself and call into question its own assumptions and methods. Despite all of its anti-religious bluster, science is itself a quasi-religion, behaving in almost exactly the same way as a fanatical, dogmatic Church that will never listen to infidels, apostates and heretics, no matter how sound their arguments are. Science ought to be ashamed of itself. It’s almost the exact opposite of what it purports to be. Just as Abrahamism claims to be all about truth while doing nothing but lying, to be all about love while spreading nothing but hate, to be all about peace while engaging in nothing but war, so science claims to be objective when, in fact, it’s highly subjective. It’s all about opinions, beliefs, conjectures, hypotheses and interpretations. When did any scientist last admit that?

The Higgs Boson How can science say it has discovered the Higgs boson? Do the particles that have been discovered bear little, neat name badges conveniently saying, “I am a Higgs boson”? It’s an opinion, an interpretation, that a Higgs boson has been found. An alternative theory might predict the existence of a totally different particle in exactly the same energy range. Have the experimenters ruled out all other theoretical possibilities? Plainly they haven’t. That’s why today’s experimental vindication of a theory is tomorrow’s fallacy. The graveyard of science is full of the bones of theories that were once trumpeted as “fact”. Will the Higgs boson endure the same fate? Who knows? All scientific “discoveries” are strictly provisional. Tomorrow may bring a whole new theory to the table, and the Higgs boson may have to be discarded or completely revamped. So, how can anyone say with a straight face that the existence of this hypothetical, contingent, logically unnecessary particle has been “proved”?

Free Will

“We have a subjective experience of free will but it can’t be mapped onto physical reality.” – Sam Harris How is a subjective experience possible at all in “objective”, physical reality? What need is there for it? Why don’t we exist in a world of human robots or zombies? Why is conscious subjectivity required if it has absolutely no effects and can never affect anything? Harris and his materialist ilk should start studying Illuminism and Fourier mathematics. They should start understanding that there’s a Fourier frequency domain outside space and time that’s informed by but not causally determined by anything happening in space and time. The idea that we do not have free will – that we do not have agency, the ability to take our own decisions, and are at all times dictated to by causal chains in the material spacetime world – is the most absurd of all “scientific” conclusions, but is exactly where the empiricist and materialist Meta Paradigm of science logically and inevitably leads. That’s exactly why that Meta Paradigm is false. Deep down, all scientists want to be machines and indeed actually see themselves as machines. They are sensory autistics, wholly lacking imagination and intuition, locked into a machine paradigm. They are the enemies of freedom, consciousness, subjectivity, mind and soul. They reject teleology and see the universe as a purposeless process that exists for no reason at all and has no aims at all. For them, we are literally just a cosmic accident, a random blip. We are creatures, or rather machines, born of randomness and ultimately ruled by randomness (if you accept quantum indeterminacy, many worlds, or the Multiverse). “There are very good reasons to believe that mind is at bottom physical.” – Sam Harris There are no good reasons at all for such a belief. Even scientific determinism isn’t deterministic any more. Science now subscribes to quantum indeterminacy at the fundamental level and then claims that this turns into something resembling cause and effect via “probability”, although no explanation is offered as to why anything in an indeterministic system should be more probable than anything else. Probability thinking already invokes the notion of there being better reasons for some things rather than others, which automatically refutes the whole indeterministic paradigm since there are now hidden, deterministic

reasons why some outcomes are more likely to be observed than others. Scientists are always caught in hopeless logical traps, which they wholly ignore and go on loudly spouting their illogical nonsense. Think of rolling two dice. Any combination is as likely as any other. However, certain numbers are more likely than others, e.g. the number seven is more probable than the number two since there are several dice combinations that produce seven and only one that produces two. Probability based on underlying randomness is easy to understand in these terms (if we grant that rolling dice is random, which of course it’s not – if we knew the precise forces at work, we would always know what way the dice would fall!), but what about in terms of quantum mechanics? Quantum particles aren’t dice. Einstein posed the key question: Does God play dice? Well, does he? “Even if we have souls, even if the human mind were made of soul stuff that we don’t understand, nothing about my argument [against free will] would change. The unconscious operations of a soul grant you no more freedom than the unconscious neurophysiology of your brain does. If you don’t know what your soul is going to do next, you are not in control of your soul.” – Sam Harris How can you control your soul? You are your soul. As Schopenhauer said, “Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.” What Harris is proposing is that in order to be free, we should have a second soul that somehow chooses between options offered to us by a first soul. Yet, if we have two souls, which one is us? This is an incoherent idea. At the bottom of things, your soul acts according to its nature, its character, its tastes, its “personality”. These are what it is. These do not have to be mediated in any way. They don’t need a critic or second opinion. To say that we don’t know what our soul is going to do next is to propose that we are fundamentally different from our soul, but no advocate of the soul ever makes such a claim (in fact, it’s irrational to do so since it would make our soul an alien being rather than our fundamental self), so Harris is attacking a straw man (which is the activity that he and his ilk most seem to practise). Harris, as a scientific materialist atheist has absolutely no conception of the soul and how it functions. A soul is a vast mathematical information system thinking all manner of things at once, but a selection has to be performed from all of these thoughts since we can only actually do one

thing at a time (actualise one of the many potential things we might do). It’s this selection process that constitutes what and who we are. All the things we are thinking belong to our unconscious mind. Our choice is that which enters our consciousness. Our consciousness is the register of what we have chosen, but is not the chooser itself. The chooser is our own fundamental nature that scans all of the possibilities open to us and selects the one most consistent with our aims and purposes (teleology).

***** Sam Harris says that religion is failed science. We say that science is failed ontological mathematics.

The War “It is time we admitted that we are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam.” – Sam Harris Well, Harris is certainly right about that. It’s disgraceful that anyone pretends otherwise. Islam is an inherently violent religion, with a violent prophet who preached violence against all non-Muslims, and the ultimate vision of all Muslims is to have an exclusively Islamic world obeying Sharia Law. Islam actively incentivizes Muslim extremists to perpetrate mass slaughter and be martyred in the process (and thus be rewarded with the highest positions in Islamic paradise). When a religion promotes the extermination of non-Muslims and promises the highest rewards to those who carry out the extermination, any sane society will stamp out this beast in its midst. If a society is too decadent, degenerate and politically correct to take any action then it will in due course be exterminated by those it has appeased but who had no reciprocal appeasement policy, just as Hitler didn’t towards those who were appeasing him.

The Origin A mathematical Singularity exists at the precise centre of the Universe. This is the World Soul, composed of all the monads in existence. It’s dimensionless and mental. The dimensional, material Universe it controls

sits over it within a six-dimensional Cartesian coordinate framework, comprising three orthogonal two-dimensional complex planes. The Singularity, the Mind of the Universe, is a Fourier frequency domain. The six-dimensional coordinate grid that frames the physical universe is the Fourier spacetime domain. The Singularity is the Cosmic Mind, and the six-dimensional universe is the Cosmic Body. The cosmos, exactly like us, has a mind and a body. As above, so below.

Eve Versus the Virgin Mary Eve had sex and disobeyed God. The Virgin Mary (according to Catholicism) never had sex and never disobeyed God. The moral of the story? Have lots of sex and disobey. Sex is the route to protesting against and overthrowing “God”, the cosmic tyrant.

Faith People of different faiths can never prove the validity of their beliefs. How would an evangelical Christian go about proving that his faith is right and a Muslim jihadist’s faith is false, or vice versa? They can’t resort to science, mathematics or philosophy, since they equally reject these subjects (and don’t know anything about them). They can’t resort to reason because this is the “Devil’s whore” (according to both of them). So, all they can actually do is scream at each other, “What I believe is right and what you believe is wrong. How do I know? Because I believe!” It’s an entirely circular argument. You can’t use belief to prove what you believe. There is no means at all by which Christians, Jews and Muslims can decide which of them follows the monotheistic God truly (and nonheretically). They all have their infallible, God-chosen prophets and infallible, God-inspired or God-written holy texts. Systems of belief do not accept anything to justify them other than the irrational beliefs themselves. You can accept a belief system only if you believe it, and if you don’t believe you can’t accept it. Ironically, all believers are total disbelievers with regard to any belief system other than their own. You would think that this skepticism towards beliefs in general, but not their beliefs in particular, would set an alarm bell ringing for these people. Nope, it doesn’t. They don’t see any contradiction in being 100%

believers in one system while ipso facto being 100% disbelievers in all other systems.

Does Hell Exist? Sure it does! There’s no actual place called hell, of course, but hell, true hell, is a) what people carry in their own minds (their own demons and selftorturers), and b) what other people all too often do to them for personal pleasure, self-interest or on behalf of some absurd belief system such as Islam or Christianity.

Illuminism Illuminism isn’t a belief system. It’s a knowledge system. Things are true only to the extent that they can be rationally proved to be true, and only one subject deals with eternal truths of reason: ontological mathematics. All systems other than ontological mathematics are false because none of them can be rationally proved. Science believes it’s based on “proof”. It’s not. It’s based on “evidence” and interpretation. Interpreted evidence is not reliable evidence. Scientists interpret the world in empiricist and materialist terms. But the world is rationalist and idealist. Scientists use their senses to “understand” the universe. But the universe is only intelligible if it’s rational (hence fundamentally intellectual, not sensory). If the universe is unintelligible, you might as well believe whatever you like about it, whatever makes you happy. If the universe is intelligible then it has only one answer – the eternal, intelligible truths of reason, and those are what constitute ontological mathematics. Mathematics is the only truth. Everything else if false: rationally, provably false. That’s a fact. The God Series shows exactly how everything other than ontological mathematics is false. Only the biggest fools in the universe would take a stance against ontological mathematics. Imagine how idiotic physicists would have to be to doubt mathematics given that their whole subject would be total garbage – mere soothsaying, astrology and alchemy – without mathematics. Contrary to what 100% of scientists believe, experiments don’t make science what it is, mathematics does. Nietzsche said that there are no facts, only interpretations. All those who routinely say, “Well, that’s just your opinion” in response to some argument

they don’t like are effectively agreeing with Nietzsche. But there are facts, and there are truths. Infallible, absolute, immutable knowledge is possible, but only in one very precise context: ontological mathematics. Everything else is belief, conjecture, hypothesis, opinion and interpretation.

The Wise and the Fools Those who wish to appear wise among fools, among the wise seem foolish” – Marcus Fabius Quintilianus But who are the wise? To the wisest of all – the geniuses frequently rejected by the world – the “wise” (the establishment) are fools.

Electric Sheep Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is a science fiction novel by Philip K. Dick, famously made into the film Blade Runner. What function do dreams serve in the materialist conception of reality? Some materialists have suggested that dreams are like mental screensavers. In that case, why aren’t dreams just random nonsense? In fact, dreams are highly meaningful and emotional, and feature people we know, often in obvious wish-fulfilment scenarios. Moreover, how are we able to construct elaborate dreamworlds, just like real worlds? If we can make up material worlds in our dreams, how can a materialist know we haven’t done it in our waking state too?

Who’s Running the World? The 85 richest people on the planet have accumulated as much wealth between them as half of the world’s population, i.e. 85 people have the same wealth as 3.5 billion people. The 3.5 billion could destroy the 85 at any time. What stops them? That’s the essence of the human condition, its fundamental mystery. Why do vast numbers of people let themselves be the slaves of a handful of masters? Why don’t they fight back? According to Oxfam, 1 per cent of the world’s population owns $110 trillion, almost half the world’s wealth. So, 70 million people own around 50% of the world’s wealth while almost seven billion people own the other

half. For every super-rich person, there are 99 poor people. Why do the 99 put up with it? What’s wrong with them? The gap between the rich and poor has massively widened in the last 30 years. Things are getting worse and worse. More and more wealth is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. “This massive concentration of economic resources in the hands of fewer people presents a significant threat to inclusive political and economic systems. People are increasingly separated by economic and political power, inevitably heightening social tensions and increasing the risk of societal breakdown. ... We cannot hope to win the fight against poverty without tackling inequality. Widening inequality is creating a vicious circle where wealth and power are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, leaving the rest of us to fight over crumbs from the top table.” – Oxfam There is no question at all that a revolutionary situation is developing. If the super rich did not control the media, and, instead, revolutionaries were producing the news, the rich would be lynched in hours. Henry Ford said, “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” If the people understood free-market capitalism, and indeed Fordism, the result would be exactly the same. Oxfam estimates that $18.5 trillion is the amount of wealth the richest individuals and companies have hidden away in tax havens around the world. Why do tax havens exist at all? They’re certainly not there for the benefit of the people. Who is it that allows tax havens to exist? Well, the rich, of course. Every tax haven should be shut down by international law. Any tax haven that refuses to shut up shop should be subject to economic sanctions that put it out of business forever. It’s easy to change the world ... if those in charge want to change it! Things that don’t change are self-evidently important to the wealth and power of the elite. “Disgruntlement can lead to the dissolution of the fabric of society, especially if young people feel they don’t have a future. This is something that affects everybody.” – Jennifer Blanke, Chief Economist, Senior Director, World Economic Forum

There’s no shortage of money and resources in the world. The problem is that hardly anyone has any access to it. It’s all reserved for the rich so that they can live as kings and gods, and rule over us as dynastic masters. Well, you might be slaves, but we’re not. The dialectic guarantees that these greedy monsters and psychopaths are going down. In nature, the 3.5 billion would eat the 85 alive. It’s about time humans realigned themselves with nature. The obscene wealth of this 85 is an insult to humanity, to nature and to evolution.

The Power Grab The increasing disparity in relative wealth, and its concentration in fewer and fewer hands is of course no accident. It’s the precise purpose of the ruling elite. It’s a land grab, a money grab, a power grab, to make them as dominant as possible and everyone else as powerless as possible. This is exactly what capitalist “democracy” has delivered, and was always intended to deliver. Wake up, clowns. You can have democracy or free-market capitalism, but you can’t have both. The wealthy elites have simply co-opted the political process (bought it with their vast resources and influence) and rigged the rules of the economic system in their absolute favour, and to the extreme detriment of everyone else. “In developed and developing countries alike we are increasingly living in a world where the lowest tax rates, the best health and education and the opportunity to influence are being given not just to the rich but also to their children. “Without a concerted effort to tackle inequality, the cascade of privilege and of disadvantage will continue down the generations. We will soon live in a world where equality of opportunity is just a dream. In too many countries economic growth already amounts to little more than a ‘winner takes all’ windfall for the richest.” – Winnie Byanyima, Oxfam executive director Asking the rich to stop enriching themselves is like asking cats to stop toying with mice. You have to set the dogs on them!

So, seventy million people in this world are the masters, and all the rest are their slaves. Well, what are the rest going to do about it? “Democratic” elections change absolutely nothing. In a capitalist democracy, all the power belongs to the capitalists, not to the democrats. Who elects the capitalists? To whom are they accountable? Can the people get rid of them? Can the people vote them out? Can the people have any control or say over them whatsoever? You must be joking. Democratic politicians are ventriloquists’ dummies. If you vote one out of office, the ventriloquist just gets another, and there’s always a plentiful supply of new dummies from all the political parties. Anyone who participates in “democratic” elections is an enemy of the people and an ally of predatory capitalists. You have a duty not to perpetuate a political system that is run by puppetmasters who have ensured that they are outside the political system and immune from the opinions, feelings, desires, wishes, aims and objectives of the people. It couldn’t be simpler. Either the people are in charge or the rich are. Capitalist democracy is a cynical ploy to pretend that the people are in charge while guaranteeing that the rich capitalist elite are running the show. Capitalism is the direct and fundamental enemy of democracy. For democracy to have any meaning, the people must control their own economic destiny and have full say over every part of it. In capitalist democracy, the economy is completely detached from the political system and handed over to unelected and unaccountable corporations, banks and markets over which the ordinary people have zero influence. Which is exactly how the rich always intended things to be, and why it’s irrelevant to them what political party is in charge since it never affects free-market predatory capitalism.

***** The seventy million are laughing all the way to the bank. They’re laughing at the whole world. They’re laughing at you. And you deserve to be laughed at, because you’re doing nothing to stop them. 100% inheritance tax wipes out these people. It’s the tax that will save the world. Tax these monsters out of existence.

Rowing for a Different Team

RR: “But banning marriage and eugenics is another type of enslavement by my book, with all due respect.” And building a society based on marriage and non-eugenics is another type of enslavement. The Spartans thought nothing of infanticide. The whole of Darwinian natural selection is eugenics. That’s the whole point of it: the strong survive and the weak die out. Nietzsche asked what would happen in systems such as Christianity, democracy and communism where it would be other way around, i.e. the strong would perish and the weak reproduce at a fantastic rate. Such a system is inherently degenerate and doomed. Survival isn’t compulsory. The human race could easily make itself extinct by taking poor, sentimental, degenerate and decadent choices. All great civilisations have collapsed for precisely those reasons. The strong always died out or were ignored, allowing the weak to rule, and always with disastrous consequences. We have no room for sentimentalists, traditionalists and conservatives. If you want marriage to be the bedrock of society, go and join the right wing. They’re the people who love marriage and “family values”. We are all about dismantling the family as the basic unit of society and replacing it with rational, healthy communities. It always astounds us that we attract people whose core views are so clearly opposed to our agenda. Are these people incredibly stupid? Can’t they read? Abraham Lincoln said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new – North as well as South.” Lincoln was exactly right. It’s one or the other. You had better know what side you’re on. We’re radicals. As soon as you start spouting liberal, sentimental, politically correct, conservative drivel, you ought to realise you’re on the wrong team. Go and join those who agree with you. We don’t.

How can people who share exactly the same views as the rich defeat the rich? They have absorbed the false consciousness generated for them by the elite. They are no use to man or beast. Marriage is an absurd institution in the 21st century. Most marriages end in divorce or secret affairs and lies. Marriage is the basis of the nuclear family, privilege, inheritance, nepotism and cronyism. You cannot be a meritocrat if you want the selfish family rather than community to be the key unit of society. The death of marriage is one of the things that must happen in order for there to be a New World Order. We are all for loving relationships, of course, but we see no need for them to be legalised by a marriage certificate. People can enter into whatever personal arrangements they like, but the State should never ratify them.

***** We frequently note that people who call themselves “Illuminists” are Facebook “friends” with people we regard as the scum of the earth, as mad fantasists, anarchists, libertarians and people who oppose our New World Order in every conceivable way. Most people, sad to say, are irrational and have no idea what they believe. They become “friends” with some nutcase just because that person posted some anti-Government or anti-State bullshit. The problem, as we’ve said so many times before, is not with government and the State, but with bad governments and bad States – usually those negative libertarian capitalist “democracies” that fully support the agenda of the super rich and of private interests over public interests. We despise anarchists, libertarians, free-market capitalists, New Age hippies and all the rest of the irrational crackpots with which Facebook is littered. These people will never achieve anything. They’re living in a fantasy world. If you’re not rational, fuck off! If you make friends with Facebook pages that are totally opposed to our agenda, fuck off. A movement can succeed only if its members know what they stand for, and to what they are opposed. You’re no friend of ours if you’re a friend of our enemies. Why don’t you take the hint and go and join them? You’re wanted by them, not by us.

Get serious about life. Get rational. Only the strong and clever will change this world, not the daydreamers and bullshitters.

Creativity “Any activity becomes creative when the doer cares about doing it right, or better.” – John Updike If you’re doing a job you don’t care about, the problem is you. Why are you doing it? How can you possibly justify it to yourself? Why haven’t you moved on?

The Answer Ontological mathematics is the answer to life, the universe and everything. It’s strictly noumenal. You can’t detect it with your senses. It’s not empirical. You can’t perceive it directly, only the effects it causes in the sensory world. You can understand ontological mathematics only through reason, intellect and intuition. You can’t see, hear, smell, touch or taste it. You can can’t feel it. You can’t have “faith” in it since it’s the absolute opposite of faith, being infallible, unarguable rationalism. It’s precisely because ontological mathematics is non-sensory and nonemotional that so many people, including all scientists, believe that it’s some sort of weird abstraction. When physicists think of atoms and molecules, they imagine objects that exist in the sensible world that we can detect in various sensory ways. However, atoms and molecules are, in truth, ontological mathematical functions, defined in terms of combinations of sine and cosine waves. We can detect the effect of these functions in various sensory ways, but the functions in themselves are non-sensory. They are noumena, not phenomena. Ontological mathematics is a noumenal system of unobservable causality. Empiricist philosopher David Hume rightly observed that causality cannot be perceived; it’s non-empirical. Ontological mathematics has two types of effects: 1) unobservable noumenal effects, and 2) observable phenomenal effects. The phenomenal world is a world of effects only. It cannot be stressed enough how important this fact is. We only ever perceive outcomes,

observables, events, i.e. effects. When we try to work out what’s causing these effects, we have to invent hypotheses and interpretations, framed within religions, philosophies, and the sciences. But these can never be anything other than interpretive precisely because causality is never perceived. We never “see” what’s going on behind the scenes of what we’re witnessing. We try to rationalise events after the fact (a posteriori). When two snooker balls come together, we see the collision and the subsequent effects; we do not see the causal mathematics that precisely defined the collision and determined exactly what would happen to the respective balls. Muslims might say that the “Will of Allah” moved the balls. Animists might say that spirits inhabit the balls and dictate their movements. Scientists might say that Newtonian laws of motion decide what happens, but, oops, Newton’s laws of motion were found wanting and replaced by Einsteinian laws of motion, but, oops again, Einstein’s theories are incompatible with quantum physics (the most successful theory in history), so they will have to be replaced in due course too. The critical point is that effects are observed, but not causes. Causes must always be inferred, and that’s where everything goes wrong because we then move into the domain of opinions, beliefs, conjectures, hypotheses and interpretations, and none of these can ever be proved in any way. Few people argue about effects. After all, most of us perceive things in much the same way. What people argue about fanatically is what’s causing the effects. We might be together in our perception of effects, but we are very much apart in our causal explanations of them. Some people will say “God” is behind all effects, or laws, or randomness, or nature, or spirits, or Will, or whatever. People are even willing to kill each other over their rival explanations of the causes of effects. Nothing has caused more trouble on earth than the human race’s interpretation of invisible causality. It might even be said to be the root of all evil. We don’t have any choice over how we perceive things, but we certainly have a choice over how we explain what we perceive. These explanations we give ourselves can motivate us to cheat, lie, steal, dominate, persecute and even kill others. Where does the concept of “God” come from? Fundamentally, it’s simply an expression of the human lust to have a simple, all-consuming explanation for all effects. If “Creation” is the supreme effect, what was its cause? Abrahamists say “God”, scientists say a “random fluctuation”, and

Illuminists say an eternal Singularity of ontological mathematics (a monadic Fourier frequency domain). No one argues about the existence of the world (the effect). It’s purely the cause that people argue about. Causality is non-empirical, non-sensory, non-noumenal. Causality is strictly noumenal and strictly intelligible. Humanity’s problem is that people vary widely in intelligence, and that means they vary widely in how they interpret causality. Most people invent ludicrous explanations of causality, usually involving simple narratives (Mythos), hence the popularity of “divine revelations”, stories of prophets and gurus, “holy” texts about wandering tribes being assisted by an invisible causal being (“God”). What is “faith”? It’s belief in an extremely far-fetched account of causality, with no evidence, arguments or proof to substantiate it. Scientists accumulate experimental evidence, but evidence isn’t proof, which is why scientific theories are intrinsically unstable and keep changing. Science, by its nature, can never deliver certainty. The reason for that is extremely simple: causality, as we have said, is not perceivable and does not belong to the sensible world. Why have so few people realised that causality is noumenal, not phenomenal? Nietzsche said that humans lack an “organ for truth”. In fact, what they really lack is a sensory organ that perceives causality. Because they lack such an organ, humans must invent explanations for why things do what they do, behave as they do, move as they do, act as they do. The sole “organ” we have for getting at the true nature of causality is our reason. There’s nothing else. Sadly, our reason is frequently led astray, by our senses, feelings and wants. True reason only has one authentic domain of applicability: the eternal truths of reason. All causality is inextricably bound up with these. Causality itself is eternal and indestructible. Causality causes effects but is itself uncaused (since only effects are caused). In Illuminism, uncaused, eternal causality is defined by the God Equation and this exists ontologically in the form of countless mathematical monads. Each is immortal, indestructible, autonomous and defined by the God Equation. Each is a living, mental agent, a source of causality: a soul. Existence revolves around souls: the agents of causality that can never be destroyed. Leibniz’s Monadology is the greatest expression of this thesis.

Mathematical monads do nothing but cause mathematical effects. The material world is one of their effects, as are consciousness and free will. What you are thinking right now is being caused by unperceived mathematics. You are a mathematical causal agent and your own thoughts are a reflection of this mathematical causality. Your causal agency is not undirected. You have aims, purposes, targets. You are teleological. You want to cause things to happen that advance your inbuilt agenda to optimise yourself. All monads are in exactly the same game – trying to be the best they can be. No monad anywhere ever wants to make itself the worst it can be, the least optimal. If any monad did have such an attitude, it would constitute a death wish and it would achieve absolutely nothing in this extremely competitive dialectical world of ours. The Kantian discussion of noumena and phenomena should really be redesignated as being about causes (noumena) and effects (phenomena). When Kant claimed that noumena are unknowable, he was effectively saying that true causes can never be known. But this is completely false. We ourselves are sources of causality. We ourselves are noumena. We can use ourselves to work out how reality must be. Through rational introspection, imagination and intuition, we can work out what nature a causal agent necessarily has. Above all, a causal agent must be eternal and indestructible. Only a singularity with a net value of zero can be eternal and indestructible. (You can’t destroy “nothing”!). Causes are therefore singularities. But singularities of what? A cause is something ordered and rational, not disordered and irrational. Random events are not causes. Randomness is the opposite of causality. Randomness is not grounded in anything eternal and indestructible, does not reflect eternal truths of reason, and is entirely contingent. Randomness itself requires a cause since it’s not a necessary feature of existence (as eternal truths of reason are). Randomness is actually an effect. When scientists invoke a random fluctuation to explain the Big Bang, they are actually making the absurd claim that an effect, not a cause, “caused” the Big Bang. This is a category error. Effects are not causes. It’s a contradiction in terms, a total fallacy. Such is the flawed basis of science. Science is a non-explanation. It can’t even work out what a cause is, which is why it’s now mired in randomness, indeterminacy, probability, statistics, many worlds and multiverses.

There can in fact only be one cause: the God Equation that controls all causality. But there does not have to be only one carrier of the God Equation. It can be conveyed by potentially infinite entities, each defined by the God Equation. These countless entities are simply the monads. What the God Equation means for each of them in practical terms is that they are Fourier frequency domains (immaterial, dimensionless singularities outside space and time). They are Fourier holograms: enormous wave interference patterns. When all of these individual expressions of the God Equation interact, they produce a collective expression of the God Equation: the material world! A collective hologram. Individual monads can insert themselves into the collective monadic expression (the physical universe) as minds linked to bodies. The mind can then act through the body and be a causal agent, pursuing its teleological ends. The mind-body interaction is enacted through Fourier mathematics. This is the only way mind and body can relate to each other. There is no other conceivable explanation. The road to knowledge ends here. The generalised Euler Formula (God Equation) underpins Fourier mathematics, and Fourier mathematics underpins both quantum mechanics and holography. To have a final scientific theory of everything, all that’s required is to produce a Fourier theory of mass and gravity. This will be a holographic theory. It will be a grand unified theory of everything because it will all be based on Fourier mathematics and all traced back to a single equation, the God Equation, the ultimate definition of eternal, indestructible causality. The answer to existence is none other than the answer to what the Prime Mover, the First Cause, the Uncaused Cause is. This is not “God” but the mathematical “God Equation”. This does not reside in one ontological entity, but countless such entities: autonomous monads. The phenomenal material universe is the collective effect they generate. The God Equation is not a consciousness, but each monad defined by it is capable of evolving consciousness, and ultimately God consciousness. “God” does not make the universe. Rather, the God Equation, conveyed by countless monads, creates the universe, and these monads then dialectically interact with the universe until they themselves are Gods. The God Equation is not “God”, but it’s the cause of Gods, the maker of Gods. It’s the level above the Gods. It’s the Neoplatonic “One”, the Source of All.

***** What is Abrahamism? It’s ultimately a belief that “God” is causality, the First Cause of all things, the source of all causal chains. Many other religions and philosophies have offered different solutions. Science has produced an even more ludicrous “answer”. It has actually denied fundamental causality and claimed that everything is grounded in quantum indeterminacy and randomness. This, of course, is nothing but a hypothesis, opinion, conjecture, belief and interpretation. Randomness and indeterminacy cannot be perceived, and cannot be proved under any circumstances. Despite now being the basis of empirical science, they are wholly unempirical! They reflect a mindset, a philosophy, a Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism. No scientific Theory of Everything will ever be valid because it will always operate at the level of observable effects and unobservable, unprovable causes that are always inferred according to the belief system of science. Science cannot escape its own quasi-religious and philosophical faith in empiricism and materialism. No scientific laws have ever been perceived. They are never anything other than contentious, unprovable inferences. As the experimental method demonstrates, experimental data never proves any theory, only lends it contingent, provisional acceptance. This is exactly why scientific theories – experimentally “verified” (!) – keep failing and keep being replaced by new theories. There can never be any end to this process because when you deal with a system (science) that looks only at effects (via experiments) and then works its way back to hypothesise what the causes might be, it can never prove that it’s definitely and absolutely correct. Science rests on two pillars: the experimental method on one hand, and the non-experimental mathematical method on the other hand. The fact that non-experimental mathematics is at the heart of experimental science ought to have demonstrated to all scientists how dubious science fundamentally is. Scientific theories are couched in more and more mathematical terms. In effect, science uses mathematics to describe causality while using the experimental method to verify the effects. Scientific laws do not belong to the sensible world of materialism and empiricism at all. No scientific law is made of matter, no scientific law is directly observable as an existent sensible object. Scientific laws

themselves are the refutation of the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm of science since they exist outside the terms of that Meta Paradigm, being neither empirical nor material. Science must invoke a magic ingredient to which it’s completely unentitled given its own modus operandi and philosophy. The truth is stark. We live in a world of phenomenal effects but we cannot perceive the causes that produce the effects, hence must adopt some stance on these for which we can never have any sensory proof. We can conceive of a perfect mathematical universe of perfect mathematical cause and perfect mathematical effect, but this – a noumenal world – is not the one we encounter. We experience a world where the effects are phenomenal (observable, perceivable) but the causes are noumenal (unobservable, unperceivable). If causes were perceivable, we would observe all of the machinery of existence. Everything would be transparent. We would know all things. No one would ever be able to lie. We would never fail to catch a ball (or we would know when not to bother to try to catch it). We would be perfect at everything because we would understand everything. It would be a machine world. But that’s not the world we inhabit. Cause and effect belong to separate domains. We can perceive effects but not causes, so we then have to invent some idea to link causes and effects, noumena and phenomena. Science has used the stratagem of matching hypotheses (which are causality inferences and interpretations) to experimental data (phenomenal effects). This has worked spectacularly well up to a point, but can shed no light on ultimate reality because what’s really going on is not part of the sensible world. It’s intelligible and noumenal, not sensible and phenomenal. Eastern religion has used mystical intuition to bridge the gap between noumena (Brahman) and phenomena (Maya), and Abrahamism has used “divine revelation” communicated by “prophets” and “holy texts”. Religion sits on the noumenal side of the fence, and science on the phenomenal side, so science has been far more effective at relating to the world we actually encounter every day, but is useless when it comes to the Big Questions. Science can’t explain mind, life, free will, consciousness or what happens to us after death (phenomenal death!). Science, with its hatred of religion, faith, philosophy and metaphysics, and its belief that mathematics is some sort of inexplicable abstraction, has

rejected wholesale any notion of a noumenal domain. With quantum indeterminacy, it has finally done away with causality and just become mad … which is why it posits absurd Multiverses where absolutely everything that can happen does happen (meaning that there’s no causality whatsoever since causality is that which makes x happen rather than y: if x and y both automatically happen, albeit in different universes, causality is no longer relevant). Science was once 100% deterministic. It once accepted cause and effect. Now it’s 100% indeterministic and has repudiated cause and effect. This was logically inevitable since science cannot countenance anything noumenal (i.e. unobservable). However, even as it repudiates the noumenal, it can’t help reaching noumenal conclusions. The Multiverse is absolutely metaphysical: no one can observe other universes. One-dimensional “strings” are metaphysical: no experiment will ever reveal their existence. The quantum mechanical wavefunction is “unreal” and unobservable, hence metaphysical. Randomness and indeterminacy themselves are unobservable, hence metaphysical. Science is an absolute joke now in terms of its core logic. It’s a quasireligious faith that believes in an observable, material “God” (with no mind and no purpose). No intellectual could ever stomach the mad drivel of modern science with its preference for dice and randomness over causality and the principle of sufficient reason. The simple fact is that empiricism must fail as a philosophy and science precisely because causality is intelligible and not sensible. We can work it out, but we cannot perceive it. We can experience the effects of causes, but we can never experience the causes themselves. To escape from this hard truth, science has tried to ditch causality itself by appealing to randomness, but even randomness requires a cause! Otherwise we are operating in a system of magic where things appear out of non-existence for no reason. Science, tragically, has become an irrational magic trick, a grotesque parody of what it once was. Monadic souls are unconscious mathematical calculators that can become conscious mathematical calculators. They are unconscious mathematical experiencers that can become conscious mathematical experiencers. Mathematical calculation belongs to noumenology (causes) and mathematical experience to phenomenology (effects). Therein lies the problem. Everything would be easy if we could perceive causality, but it

would then be a machine universe rather than a living universe. Life implies error, fallibility, illusion, striving and the dialectic. The dialectic is all about trying to work back from effects to their true causes. We make all sorts of absurd guesses – such as mainstream religion – but slowly we get closer (via science and philosophy) and eventually we arrive at the truth (ontological mathematics). When Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, only interpretations”, he was describing a world with effects only and no knowable causes: a phenomenology. He also said, “What, ultimately, are man’s truths? Merely his irrefutable errors.” He would be absolutely right if there were no noumenal world of causality. Of course, Nietzsche rejected any “two worlds” solutions to existence (noumenal and phenomenal), hence his stance was inevitable given his denial of a noumenal reality beyond this one. Without such a reality, we can never know what the causes of things are. With such a reality, we can, but we must use our reason, not our senses (which are useless in this context: senses detect only phenomenal effects and never noumenal causes).

***** Nietzsche has been described as a relativist given that he subscribed to a view called perspectivism, whereby everyone has their own perspective of reality, and there are no absolute standards, such as those that would be associated with “God” or Plato’s domain of perfect Forms. When Nietzsche said, “God is dead”, one of his meanings was that there was no anchor for the world, no absolute standards to which an appeal could be made. This was highly influential in relation to existentialism. When Kierkegaard (often described as the Father of existentialism) spoke of making a great “leap of faith”, he was signifying that, in his opinion, we could simply never know the Truth but would have to commit ourselves to one position or another anyway, and place our total faith in it. (The alternative was to be an agnostic, skeptic, cynic or nihilist, which all involve a commitment to no cause other than that of oneself, and sneering at all other causes. Such people are barely tolerable in any community or society; they don’t have any positive values, only negative, carping values.) Neither Kierkegaard nor Nietzsche was a relativist. For Kierkegaard, your leap of faith decisively separated you from anyone who hadn’t taken

the same leap, and you absolutely believed that your position was true and that of different believers or non-believers false. Nietzsche had a different way of avoiding relativism. For him, all beliefs were invested with a “Will to Power”, and so, while all belief systems might, ultimately (in his opinion) be equally false, they certainly weren’t equal in their Will to Power. Nietzsche switched the emphasis away from the beliefs themselves to the power with which they were associated, which was never relative: it was a real force in the real, observable world. For David Hume, knowledge could only ever be fragmentary and incomplete. When we “connected” knowledge into grand systems, we were doing so, he believed, through ignorance, illusion, laziness and habit. Hume’s starting point assumed the validity of empiricism. He said that the mind consists of “impressions” and “ideas”. Impressions are our direct perceptions of the physical world while ideas are secondary impressions, i.e. images of impressions formed in thinking and reasoning, but which can deviate very far from the raw material of impressions. So, Hume argued, we cannot validly think about anything if we have not first received an impression (perception) of it. We can have as many invalid ideas as we like (ideas that are not supported by objective impressions but which subjectively give rise to themselves), but these have no bearing on objective reality. We can have no valid idea of anything of which we have not received an impression (we would simply be speculating). Crucially, therefore, we can have no valid idea of causality since it cannot be perceived (we can receive no impressions of it). Accordingly, causality has no validity within the empiricist paradigm. Science has never once addressed Hume’s arguments (dismissing them as mere “philosophy”) but we should not be at all surprised that modern science, given that it’s grounded in empiricism, has finally taken the stance that causality doesn’t exist at all, and the world is actually driven by probability deriving from randomness. That, logically, was always where Hume’s philosophy was heading. Of course, scientists can’t help using the language of causality, of cause and effect, and yet they don’t accept causality at all. Things are never “caused”: they become more or less likely due to random events, motions and actions. We live in a probabilistic world, not a causal world. In a causal world, everything has a sufficient reason why it is thus and not otherwise. In the scientific world of probability, this is no longer true. Everything is

fundamentally random, with some random outcomes being more probable than others, just as when you roll two dice, a result of seven is more probable than a result of two since there’s only one way the two dice can fall to give two, but many ways they can fall to produce seven. Science is simply not rational. That’s a fact. It rejects causality and reasons. It believes in a cosmos that only plays dice. (That said, it’s unable to explain how the dice came to exist in the first place and why the universe should operate in this manner rather than causally.) Kant felt impelled to answer Hume’s profound challenge to the acquisition of true knowledge and wrote, “I freely admit that it was the remembrance of David Hume which, many years ago, first interrupted my dogmatic slumber and gave my investigations in the field of speculative philosophy a completely different direction.” To respond to Hume, he invoked four types of argument known as a priori, a posteriori, analytic and synthetic. A priori is Latin for “from the previous”. An a priori argument concerns “that which came before” (i.e. the cause). It argues from cause to effect. It deploys deductive reasoning and general rational principles and axioms, and works towards a necessary conclusion based on these. A priori arguments are rationalist. They concern “truths of reason”. A posteriori is Latin for “from the later”. An a posteriori argument argues from the secondary thing (the effect, the subsequent, the “later thing”) to the primary thing (the cause), the exact opposite of an a priori argument. Such an argument is assembled from known or observed facts, and proceeds from these to generalised conclusions. This is an inductive argument. A posteriori arguments are empiricist. They concern “truths of fact”. So, a priori arguments proceed from causes to effects and use deduction from general principles to particular facts. A posteriori arguments proceed from effects to causes and use induction from particular facts to general principles. They are the precise inverse of each other. A posteriori arguments are susceptible to revision since they are based on contingent facts rather than necessary truths. Science is quintessentially a posteriori (driven by the experimental method) and mathematics is quintessentially a priori (it requires no experiments at all). A posteriori and a priori arguments work in the opposite directions: from effect to cause in the first instance and from cause to effect in the

second. A posteriori arguments have a tendency to focus so extremely on effects that they eventually call into question causes themselves, and this is what has happened with modern science which has finally dispensed with causality and turned to probability. A priori arguments have the opposite tendency. They focus on causes and have much less to say about effects – just look at pure mathematics. A priori arguments are claimed to be true on the basis of accepted principles and axioms not proved by experience, observations, experiments or analysis of the sensible world. A posteriori arguments are claimed to be true on the basis of experience, observations, experiments and analysis of the sensible world. A priori knowledge is that which is said to exist independently of experience. A posteriori knowledge is, on the contrary, entirely based on experience. A priori knowledge is noumenal and a posteriori knowledge is phenomenal. A priori arguments are about causes and a posteriori arguments about effects. There are two enormous problems: 1) you cannot infallibly work back from effects to causes (phenomena to noumena), and 2) you cannot infallibly work forward from causes to effects (noumena to phenomena). You are confronted by a phase change (cause/effect; noumenon/phenomenon; intelligible/sensible). How do you work out what effect on the senses a non-sensory cause will have? How do you work out what non-sensory cause produced a particular sensory effect? You’re confronted by a category mismatch. Noumenal causes and phenomenal effects belong to different categories, and that makes it inherently problematic to move seamlessly between them. 100% knowledge of causes will not allow you to predict what effects they will produce. What cause could possibly explain a priori the sensation of seeing red? Red is caused, but you could never know beforehand what the cause is because redness belongs to the world of effects and not causes. By the same token, you could never see red and know exactly what must be causing it. Sensory qualia are like the flip sides of causes. All qualia are caused but you can never know beforehand what those qualia are going to be like. No one could ever explain the sensation of seeing the colour red to a blind person. The blind person could know down to the finest detail what was causing the colour red, and yet still have absolutely no idea what “red” actually was.

If cause and effect are two sides of a coin, you can see either side, but never both at once. If you can see the tail, how do you know what the head looks like, and vice versa? Human beings perceive only the sensory side of the coin, but the cause is unseen on the other side. The human dilemma is to reliably know both sides of the coin at once. In Illuminism, the causal side of the coin is entirely defined by ontological mathematics. In science, randomness and probability are put in place of causality. In religion, “God” is the causal side of the coin (and also unseen human free will). No matter what anyone says, there’s no easy way to get from one side of the coin to the other. We cannot easily convert pure ontological mathematics into sensory experiences since ontological mathematics in itself is totally non-sensory. Sensory effects are subjective while noumenal causes are objective. We can never know a priori what the subjective, sensory experience of an objective cause will be. We can only know a posteriori. This is the entire problem. Causes are a priori and objective; effects are a posteriori and subjective. We can’t automatically know what an objective cause is from its subjective effect, and we can’t automatically know what subjective effect an objective cause will produce. There will never be any way out of this conundrum. It’s a primary reason why machines will never be like humans. How can you program the subjective experience of the colour red into an android?

***** “I agree that logic, if well taught and practically applied, is not to be scorned at all. Indeed, nothing more useful could befall mortals than a logic more perfect than the one we possess. In Locke’s book there are some particular points which are not badly expounded, but in general he has strayed far from the straight and narrow and has not understood the nature of the mind and of truth. If he had adequately considered the difference between necessary truths, i.e. those perceived by demonstration, and those which are known to us only through induction, he would have noticed that necessary truths can only be proved from principles intrinsic to the mind, because the senses certainly teach us what happens but not what happens necessarily. Likewise, he has not adequately observed that the ideas of being, of one and the same substance, of truth, of good, and many other

things are innate in our mind because it is innate to itself, and that it discovers all these things in itself. For indeed, there is nothing in the intellect which was not in the senses, except the intellect itself. Many other critical observations could be made on Locke, since he even silently undermines the natural immateriality of the soul. He inclines towards the Socinians (as even his friend Mr Le Clerc says), whose philosophy concerning God and the mind has always been rather poor.” – Leibniz Leibniz is absolutely right that the senses teach us what happens but not what happens necessarily. Necessity belongs to a priori causality, and the senses to a posteriori contingent effects. Empiricists say, as Locke did, “There is nothing in the intellect which was not in the senses.” Rationalists say, as Leibniz did, “There is nothing in the intellect which was not in the senses, except the intellect itself.” The senses belong to the sensible realm and the intellect to the intelligible realm. The sensible realm is that of effects, the intelligible realm that of causes. The intellect is what links us to causality. Animals have little intellect, hence almost no notion of causality. They inhabit a world of perception of effects.

***** The other two types of proposition Kant utilized were “analytic” and “synthetic”. Analytic propositions are tautological definitions such as “All bachelors are unmarried.” Synthetic statements go beyond this. They might say, “All bachelors are unmarried and looking for a partner.” The second part of this statement does not necessarily follow from the first, though it may be true in many and even most cases. All synthetic statements involve an extra layer of belief, opinion, conjecture, hypothesis or interpretation. Analytic definitions can never be false because they are definitions and tautologies. Their denial would involve a self-contradiction. Every synthetic statement is potentially false precisely because what it asserts about the world goes beyond tautology and definition, and its denial does not involve self-contradiction. Technically, an analytic statement is one whose predicate is contained in its subject, and a synthetic statement is one whose predicate is not contained in its subject.

Kant was striving to reconcile empiricism and rationalism even though they seemed diametrically opposed. Empiricism asserts that a) all knowledge comes from experience, b) there are no innate ideas, c) knowledge is concerned with synthetic a posteriori propositions. Rationalism asserts that a) all knowledge comes from logical, rational deduction from general principles and axioms, b) innate ideas exist and provide the only secure basis for knowledge, c) knowledge is concerned with analytic a priori propositions. There seems to be an unbridgeable gap, but Kant believed he had found the means to cross it. He thought he could combine empiricism and rationalism, whereas Hume, a strict empiricist, considered this impossible. Two bridging mechanisms are hypothetically possible: 1) Analytic a posteriori statements. 2) Synthetic a priori statements. Category 1) definitely doesn’t work. An analytic statement is always a priori and can never be anything else. So, what about category 2)? This is where Kant believed he had made a decisive breakthrough. He thought synthetic a priori statements were indeed possible. He claimed you could have non-tautological, causal knowledge that did not rely on experience. In fact, he believed it was only thanks to this that we could think at all. This was the precondition for thinking and without it everything would be a hopeless jumble. Kant claimed that morality, mathematics and science were all synthetic a priori. In fact, mathematics is a system of pure analytic tautology: everything in mathematics flows from everything else, and all of it ultimately amounts to expressing 0 = 0 in countless different ways. Science, on the other hand, is pure contingency and has no a priori qualities at all. So, mathematics is never anything other than analytic a priori (deductive and noumenal) and science is never anything other than synthetic a posteriori (inductive and phenomenal). As for morality, Nietzsche was right that there are no moral facts whatsoever, only moral interpretations of phenomena. Kant was wrong, ingeniously so, but wrong all the same. The gap between rationalism and empiricism cannot be bridged. One is the path to truth and the other is not. One reveals the secrets of the noumenal domain,

and the other is stuck forever in the phenomenal domain of mere appearance. Rationalism, not empiricism, unlocks the Truth. Rationalism is all about causes and empiricism all about effects. Rationalism is all about noumena and empiricism all about phenomena. Science has disastrously taken the appearance of reality (Maya) to be reality itself, and thus is incapable of providing the answers to any of the great questions of existence, all of which pertain to the non-empirical, noumenal, causal domain. Causality itself is completely noumenal (rationalist). It cannot and never can be perceived. It does not belong to the sensible world, only the intelligible world. Noumenal causes result in noumenal effects, but these effects are, additionally, part of the phenomenal world and are frequently perceived. It’s essential to grasp that the phenomenal world consists entirely of the sensory experience of effects. At no stage do we ever have a sensory experience of causes. Causes are always inferred. Causes are always interpreted from the effects they produce, the trouble being that any number of interpretations are possible, whether religious, philosophical or scientific. How do we know which of all the competing interpretations is correct? If we could perceive the causes, all would be well. We would know the true cause right away. But this is forever shielded from us. It literally belongs to a different domain from that of our experience. We inhabit the sensible, phenomenal domain, but causality belongs to the intelligible, noumenal domain. Although causality is intelligible, that does not of course mean that the average human being engages with it. The vast majority of human beings absurdly believe in causality rooted in religion. Abrahamists believe that “God” is behind all causality and can change causality whenever he likes (via “miracles). Hindus and Buddhists believe in karma as the central driving force of causality. Taoists believe in the interaction of yin and yang (and the need for them to be in balance) as the driver of causality. As for scientific materialists, they have abandoned causality and posited randomness and probability as the driver of events and effects. Randomness, according to scientists, underlies all of quantum physics, and is even cited as the basis of Darwinian evolution. The “Multiverse” is a concept born purely from understanding reality in terms of random possibilities, with no possibilities being privileged over others. If all

random possibilities are actualisable then you need infinite universes in which to ensure they are all actualised. This way of thinking despises causality and the notion that causality ensures that some possibilities happen but not others (hence there would only be one universe). When Leibniz spoke of the “best of all possible worlds”, he was assuming that any number of worlds were possible (as in Multiverse thinking), but, crucially, only one of these possible worlds would actually transpire, and it would be the “best” – meaning that it had been specifically chosen by “God” (precisely because it was rationally the best), or by causality itself, i.e. causality ensures that only rational outcomes are ever selected, and all random, irrational, acausal, crazy possibilities are eliminated, unlike in scientific thinking where any bizarre, random outcome is accepted as fully real and indeed inevitable. Why is science so successful given that it’s so irrational and based on so many fallacies? The answer lies in science’s verification and falsification principles. Science’s interpretations of “causality” (or, rather, randomness and probability!) are subjected to two checks. Any scientific interpretation (hypothesis) must be verified by experimental data. This is an immediate “sanity” check that automatically rules out all hypotheses inconsistent with objective, repeatable experimental results. Science’s verification principle is closely related to its falsification principle. It stands to reason that any hypothesis that can be verified by experiment is ipso facto susceptible to being falsified by experiment if it fails to reflect the experimental results. Why is religion so different from science? It’s because religion rejects the verification and falsification principles. Religions make plenty of testable claims but as soon as any claim is shown to be false, the goalposts are immediately moved and it’s then deemed to be “metaphorical” rather than literal. Some believers – such as Creationists – simply deny that their beliefs have been refuted and continue to accept formally disproven claims, and spout elaborate and silly counter-hypotheses to defend their beliefs. How can you persuade someone who enters a state of denial and “magic thinking” rather than accept the objective outcome of an experiment? The Earth is evidently not between six and seven thousand years old, humans evidently did not co-exist with dinosaurs, humans are clearly evolutionary creatures and not created by “God”, the Earth clearly isn’t flat, the Earth clearly revolves around the Sun rather than the other way around, there was

clearly no Flood that covered the whole Earth, Earth was clearly produced by cosmic processes over billions of years and not by “God” in six days. You cannot rationally disprove belief systems since beliefs do not exist in the rational domain at all. As Luther said, “Reason is the Devil’s whore.” “Belief” is exactly that which acknowledges no verification or falsification principle. A person of strong enough faith can go on believing no matter how much his beliefs are falsified or unverified. No believer has ever stated in what circumstances he would consider his beliefs to have been refuted. No believer ever even contemplates such a notion. After all, to seriously imagine the possibility of your beliefs being false is not to be a believer at all. All Jews, Christians and Muslims will go on believing no matter what. That’s why it’s 100% pointless to debate with these people. They can’t specify anything at all that would falsify their beliefs (even though they all believe completely different things about the monotheistic God they all allegedly have in common), and nor can they specify any tests that could conceivably verify their beliefs. How could any Christian verify what Christians say about Christ and the Bible, or any Muslim what Islam says about Mohammed and the Koran, or any Jew what Judaism says about Moses and the Torah? All three Abrahamic religions claim to believe in the same Abrahamic God and yet they all radically disagree who his prophets were, what his holy books were, what his divine revelation was, whether or not he became incarnate on Earth, what his rules and commandments are, and so on. How could they ever settle who’s right and who’s wrong given that they reject any falsification or verification principles applied to their beliefs? So, science is superior to religion because it performs sanity checks, and matches hypotheses to objective experimental data. Religion fails to do so. People go on believing even though their beliefs have been consistently refuted (falsified) and have never been objectively verified. Did Moses really go up the summit of Mount Sinai and speak to God and receive the Ten Commandments? There wasn’t a single witness. Did Mohammed really encounter the Angel Gabriel in a cave and receive the Koran? There wasn’t a single witness. Did Jesus Christ really rise from the dead? There wasn’t a single witness to the event itself, and those who allegedly saw Jesus Christ after his “resurrection” were his most fanatical followers. Not a single nonbeliever saw Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ made no attempt at all to show

himself to non-believers (such as the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate or Caiaphas, the Jewish High Priest). Why does the Abrahamic God never have credible witnesses or indeed any witnesses at all? Why would God operate in such a bizarre, sneaky, creepy, cowardly, dishonest, untransparent way? What’s he got to hide?!!! (Apart from his non-existence, or the fact that’s he’s actually the Devil!) Absolutely nothing can falsify a person’s religious beliefs because they are indistinguishable from madness. Lunatics can never be persuaded that their lunatic delusions are false. They too will accept no verification or falsification principle. However, there is one other subject that obeys no verification or falsification principle and yet is the most rational and unarguable discipline of them all: mathematics. Mathematics is entirely unfalsifiable. It’s pure tautological truth, hence can contain no falsehoods. Since it’s analytic – true by definition – it has no need at all of verification. No experimental test in the phenomenal, sensible world can verify the truths of mathematics. Mathematics is noumenal, not phenomenal. Its effects generate the phenomenal, sensible world, the world of interpretation of mathematics (phenomenon) rather than of mathematics as thing in itself (noumenon). Mathematics is a priori (prior to experience), tautological, analytic, eternal, immutable, Platonic, complete, consistent and perfect. Anything that is proved mathematically is proved forever (and is not subject to any revision, as we invariably see in science). You can take mathematical proof to the bank, but not scientific evidence. You can rationally stake your life on mathematical proof, but not on scientific evidence or religious belief. Mathematics belongs to a different category from everything else. It’s pure, eternal truth, and nothing else is. Everything else is about interpretation. Even scientific “evidence” is highly interpretive and not objectively factual. Just look at quantum mechanics. What does any of the evidence for it mean given that no scientist claims to know what quantum mechanics actually is in the most fundamental sense? There are many rival interpretations of quantum mechanics, each implying radically different things about reality. How you view the evidence is based on how you interpret the meaning of quantum mechanics. The evidence isn’t objective, neutral or factual. Given that the conventional understanding of quantum mechanics is based on an unreal, unobservable wavefunction, on the

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, on Bell’s non-local inequality theorem, on randomness and probability and the absence of any definite, materialistic particles with precise positions and momenta, and on an observer-created reality, then what on earth is a “fact” supposed to be? No one has any idea what things are, where they are, how they got there, where they originated, how they originated (out of “nothing”?). How can anyone refer to “facts” about hydrogen atoms when the whole concept of an “atom” is incredibly hard, if not impossible, to coherently define. Science is full of operational, pragmatic, instrumental definitions, not ontological and epistemological definitions. It’s a category error to refer to authentic “facts” in relation to scientific interpretations, conjectures, opinions, beliefs and hypotheses. Science is just an elaborate Mythos where ghostly, ill-defined concepts such as “atom” are regarded as concrete, factual things. Frankly, atoms don’t exist at all. What actually exist ontologically are mathematical functions based on combinations of sine and cosine waves. These cannot be perceived as things in themselves (noumena) by the senses. “Atom” is a concept invented to allow various phenomena to be understood in a sensory, materialistic way. However, as quantum mechanics shows, when you drill down into the notion of “atom”, it simply dissolves. According to some scientists, atoms are actually built up from onedimensional strings vibrating in an eleven-dimensional space comprising three “large” spatial dimensions, seven “rolled-up” dimensions and one time dimension. Well, that being the case, no one on earth could meaningfully refer to physical atoms in 4D spacetime as “facts”. Science is a set of working, pragmatic, successful myths, nothing more. It tells you nothing at all about Truth. Only mathematics can do that. People are hopelessly muddled when it comes to belief, evidence and proof. Scientists believe that evidence is proof. When a scientist challenges someone to “prove it”, what he’s actually asking for is repeatable, objective experimental evidence, yet that is never proof. If it were then how come all scientific theories, no matter how well supported experimentally, have in due course been refuted and replaced by new theories? How come relativity theory and quantum mechanics – both massively supported by experiments – are utterly incompatible? Experiments manifestly don’t prove anything. Relativity theory, quantum mechanics, or indeed both, must be false, and yet they are “true”

according to the current level of experimental data and interpretation of that data. Scientists have a naive belief that experimental data is genuinely objective and factual rather than highly interpretive. As Nietzsche said, entirely validly when it comes to experiments, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” “Facts” are not proof. They’re not even genuine evidence. They’re always interpretations and they always reflect observer bias. Scientists are too dumb to be able to understand these philosophical subtleties and nuances. They’re childlike in their thinking. Believers think that their holy texts and the words of their prophets and gurus constitute evidence, and even proof, of their beliefs. Christians quote the Christian Bible to “prove” their assertions, but any such “proof” is absurd to anyone who does not believe in Christianity, its God or its Bible. Many religious believers thinks that Mythos – parables, fables, stories – are comparable to Logos (scientific evidence and mathematical proof). They’re clueless! They use their feelings to “think”, not reason. Equally, scientists use their senses to “think”, not their reason. Given that senses are more reliable than feelings, science is superior to religion, but it certainly isn’t any kind of rational Truth. Abrahamists regard the existence of their “God” as factual rather than pure conjecture and belief. They believe that their holy texts and words of their prophets reflect facts, proofs and truth rather than nothing but Mythos beliefs, speculations and, frequently, outright lies and lunatic assertions. People are often amazed by the way the world is, but there are no surprises. Our world simply reflects the way people think or, rather, don’t think. People don’t think with their reason but with their senses, feelings, intuitions and desires. They overwhelmingly act out of blatant self-interest. They are preoccupied with finding pleasure and avoiding pain. They are short-termist and lured by instant gratification. They’re self-indulgent and lazy. Most are submissive and cowardly while others are psychopaths who view others as means to an end rather than ends in themselves. Nearly everyone regards their beliefs, conjectures, hypotheses, and opinions as objective facts, proofs and truths rather than pure subjective interpretation. Put all that together and you get our mad, irrational, bizarre world.

Noumena

Kant believed in unknowable noumena that underpinned observable phenomena. Our minds, he imagined, translated each noumenon into a phenomenon, but never allowed us to know what the noumenon was in itself. Noumena, for Kant, were therefore objects outside space and time that mind converted into objects in space and time with various sensory properties. Nothing can be said about Kantian noumena other than that they cause Kantian phenomena. They cannot be known in themselves. However, if we think more deeply about this situation, it eventually becomes obvious that noumena are causes, i.e. they are ontological causal agents outside space and time. The only things that qualify are Pythagorean-Leibnizian monads. Each monad is an autonomous mathematical system, a self-contained Fourier frequency domain, a singularity defined by the God Equation. Each monad is an exact mathematical causal system, and what it causes to come into being is Fourier spacetime, phenomenal representations of frequency, noumenal functions. Frequency functions are the noumenal causes and spacetime functions are their phenomenal representations. That’s how the world works. It’s all about Fourier mathematics. It’s precisely the ontology of Fourier mathematics that causes the whole distinction between noumenon and phenomenon to exist in the first place, i.e. “noumenon” and “phenomenon” are actually labels for Fourier frequency functions and Fourier spacetime functions, respectively. Without Fourier mathematics, we would inhabit a world of noumena alone, of noumenal causes and noumenal effects, with no possibility of any sensory experiences (which are entirely based on spacetime Fourier functions). Sensory experiences are simply Fourier spacetime translations of Fourier frequency functions outside space and time. There could be no sensory, material world if Fourier mathematics were impossible. Our bodies inhabit the Fourier spacetime world while our minds inhabit the Fourier frequency domain outside space and time, and it’s this dual mode of existence that causes all of the human mind’s difficulties. Scientists take the spacetime Fourier representation to be real when in fact true reality is exclusively the unrepresented Fourier frequency domain of monads. Matter is a mental construct, achieved via Fourier mathematics. Our senses are locked into the Fourier representations (phenomena), but these are derived from non-sensory Fourier frequency functions, which we

never encounter directly (i.e. they are noumena). All Fourier frequency functions are causes, and all Fourier spacetime functions are their effects. If our brains are located in the Fourier spacetime world (as they are) then we only perceive effects, and never causes (which are inherently outside space and time). It’s precisely because people can’t perceive causes that they end up inventing all sorts of absurd ideas for what’s causing the effects they perceive. Only when humanity arrives at Fourier mathematics is it finally in the position to understand the link between noumenal causes (Fourier frequency functions) and phenomenal effects (Fourier spacetime functions). Of course, most humans know nothing about Fourier mathematics and 99.9% of those that do know about it have no idea what its ontological significance is. Such is the human tragedy. No one ever pointed out that even if you give humanity every answer to everything, it will simply ignore them and go on believing in nonsense. Being presented with the truth isn’t the problem, it’s accepting and understanding the truth when it’s presented to you that’s the problem. Because Fourier mathematics has two domains (spacetime and frequency), so the world we encounter has two domains: sensible and intelligible, material and mental, local and non-local, phenomenal and noumenal, empirical and rational. All the great philosophical debates, in the end, reduce to how the Fourier universe has been interpreted by people ignorant of Fourier mathematics. We now know exactly what empiricism, materialism, the local, the phenomenal, and scientific materialism all relate to: the attempt to understand reality purely from Fourier spacetime functions, and excluding Fourier frequency functions. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, with all of its weirdness and its focus on the observer, flows entirely from the refusal of the Copenhagen school to accept the existence of an unobservable, causal frequency domain outside space and time. It’s that simple. The unobservable frequency domain is inherently metaphysical because no physical experiment, no Large Hadron Collider, can ever detect it under any circumstances since it’s not in space and time and it isn’t material. If you stake everything on the experimental method – as science has – you have ipso facto permanently cut yourself off from ultimate truth. Science is the attempt to interpret Fourier mathematics from the perspective of spacetime being “real” and frequencies “unreal”. Science, in

short, reflects nothing but staggering mathematical illiteracy. Science was faced with a simple choice: accept the ontology of a frequency domain beyond the reach of spacetime experiments or make spacetime experiments their “God” and reject anything inaccessible to experiment. Science chose the latter option. It preferred the experimental method over ontological mathematics. Illuminism did the opposite: it preferred ontological mathematics over the experimental method. Why has science failed to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics? Because both theories reject the noumenal frequency domain and interpret the spacetime domain radically differently. Both theories are fundamentally false. Only when both theories are recast solely in terms of Fourier mathematics and accept the real existence of the frequency domain upon which Fourier mathematics is ontologically predicated can science arrive at a final theory of everything. It will be a Fourier theory of everything, and it will be one where the much-vaunted experimental method of science will no longer be “God” but a mere “angel” that helps to verify predictions of the theory in the spacetime domain. In other words, experimentation will be knocked off its pedestal and replaced with ontological, non-experimental mathematics. All the famous disputes of the past can all be answered within the framework of Fourier mathematics. In particular, rationalism and idealism are shown to be correct and empiricism and materialism false. Humanity can finally escape the cave of ignorance, the sensory “hell”, the madhouse of the material world. Out true selves are immaterial and outside space and time. We are causal agents, frequency singularities – monadic souls. In our deepest selves, we are pure noumena. We are causes themselves! To have free will means to be a causal agent that can initiate causal sequences through its own actions, without reference to, or input from, anything else. Our own freedom is the rational proof that we are autonomous mental agents, and not material objects caught in an inescapable web of external physical causality. The material, sensory, phenomenal world is an illusion that flows from Fourier mathematics, which allows frequency functions outside space and time to be represented in terms of spacetime functions. The frequency domain is Brahman and the spacetime domain Maya. The Gnostic “True God” is a Fourier frequency God. The False God (the Demiurge) is a Fourier spacetime God (Lord of Matter). The Fourier

frequency domain is the Taoist Unmanifest and the Fourier spacetime domain the Manifest. The Fourier frequency domain is the Kantian noumenal domain and the Fourier spacetime domain the Kantian phenomenal domain. The Fourier frequency domain is the unextended Cartesian thinking domain, and the Fourier spacetime domain is the extended Cartesian material domain. Fourier mathematics, not to put too fine a point on it, clarifies and explains everything. It shows which philosophies, religions and theories are grounded in truth and which are irrational nonsense. Abrahamism, above all, is false because it has no Fourier components whatsoever unless we call “God” the frequency Singularity and his “Creation” the spacetime world, but no Abrahamist wants to worship an impersonal God of Fourier Mathematics. They want to worship a personal God, not the impersonal God Equation that underpins Fourier mathematics. Kant said, “Leibniz intellectualized appearances, just as Locke ... sensualised the concept of the understanding.” This is a correct observation, but it implies that Leibniz made a mistake. In fact, Leibniz’s approach was 100% right. All appearances are exactly that. Their true basis lies in an intelligible world beyond the senses. Kant went disastrously wrong precisely because he didn’t understand that. Noumena = causes; phenomena = effects (appearances). Phenomena are the perceived effects of unperceived causes (that belong to the world of Fourier ontological mathematics). You cannot make sense of reality through any theory – such as scientific materialism – based only on phenomena. Any grand unified theory of everything must be intelligible (noumenal; rational) rather than sensible (phenomenal; observational, experimental). The task is to show how the sensible comes from the intelligible, and this is accomplished by Fourier mathematics. You cannot show the reverse proposition (how the intelligible comes from the sensible: this is exactly where empiricism and materialism fall apart). You cannot explain mind through a theory of matter. You can explain matter through a theory of mind. Fourier mathematics does exactly this. Get real. Get right. Get with the programme. Become a Fourier mathematician who knows the God Equation inside out. This is the answer to everything. There’s no question about it. This is the 100% rational, infallible, unarguable truth.

Unseen Causality Humanity’s problems with understanding reality all have a single source: we do not perceive causality, but infer (interpret) it. It’s this process of mistaken attribution of causality that underlies all of the false religions, philosophies and scientific theories. The fundamental problem is that we are presented with phenomena (appearances) but not with their causes. We never get to see the mechanics of Fourier frequency functions being translated into Fourier spacetime functions. It’s as if an English speaker is given a translation of a Chinese book without ever seeing the original Chinese book or the translator. He knows that the Chinese language and the translator exist. He just doesn’t encounter them. By the same token, we should know that a separate language (ontological frequency mathematics) exists, and all we’re seeing is a spacetime translation of it. Tragically, scientific materialism refuses to draw such a conclusion since it wants to be able to “see” and experiment on ontological frequency mathematics in order to accept its existence, but this is impossible since it’s immaterial and outside space and time. There’s a simple reason why we can’t see the mathematical translator that converts Fourier frequency functions into Fourier spacetime functions. It’s because the translator is us. It’s our own brain that does it, and we never see the inner mechanics of our own brain, only the sensory output, the “construct”, the “matrix”. Why do we have brains with two hemispheres? It’s precisely because of Fourier mathematics. The left hemisphere is immersed in local, Fourier spacetime functions, and the right hemisphere in non-local frequency functions. Fourier mathematics literally results in our having two minds: one conscious and one unconscious. The conscious (mortal) mind is the one that sits in the left hemisphere of the brain, and the unconscious (immortal) mind sits in the right hemisphere. In Aristotelian terms, we might see the conscious mind as the passive (material) intellect that dies with us and the unconscious mind as the active (immaterial) intellect that is immortal and potentially divine. Intuition is a key operation of the unconscious mind, and can effortlessly yield real, certain knowledge to the conscious mind. The two minds, conscious and unconscious, belong to single soul but are forced to bifurcate thanks to the needs of evolution, which demands a mind

in the spacetime domain and a mind in the frequency domain for maximum efficiency (each is the master of its own domain). Humanity’s defining issues are: a) we have two minds, not one (we have one conscious mind and one unconscious mind, one local in spacetime, and one non-local in the frequency domain, one noumenal and one phenomenal, one empirical and one transcendent), b) we don’t perceive the noumenal domain of causes, only the phenomenal domain of effects, and c) we never encounter the interface, the interzone, the translation between cause and effect. We have one mind (unconscious, non-local) that deals with Fourier frequency functions and one mind (conscious, local) that deals with Fourier spacetime functions. So, one mind is attuned to the core frequency language of ontological mathematics defined by the God Equation and one mind is attuned to the spacetime Fourier functions derived from the Fourier frequency functions. With our bifurcated mind, we get the original language and we get its translation. What we don’t get is any encounter with the translator and the translation process. The translation is presented to us automatically, with no indication of how it got there. We therefore have to work out how the translation occurred. We can do this thanks to reason and, especially, mathematics. However, those who can’t work it out will invariably turn to other explanations, which will always be absurd since there can only be one truth and everything else is fantasy and lunacy. Scientific materialism (thanks to mathematics) is sane up to a point and then rapidly degenerates into gibberish when it gets rids of causality in favour of randomness, when it gets rid of the principle of sufficient reason in favour of the Multiverse, when it gets rid of ontological mathematics in favour of incomplete and inconsistent mathematics, when it invokes a dice-playing “God” with no intelligence and no aims. Despite the epistemological problems it generates, it’s just as well we can’t see the machinery of Fourier translation, even though that would make clear to everyone exactly what was going on. Imagine your were continually aware of enormous and staggeringly complicated mathematical Fourier calculations taking place all the time, even in your sleep! It would not result in an efficient organism ready to cope with the world. In the film The Matrix, the resistance fighters look at screens displaying the machine code of the Matrix and are able to “see” what the code

represents (e.g. “sexy woman in red dress”) rather than the code itself. Eventually, this would become second nature and they would stop seeing the original machine code entirely. This is exactly what has happened with the human mind. We have evolved to see the original code in its representational form. We see the translation and never what was translated. We simply never register the original code. If we did, it would be disturbing, baffling, inefficient and catch us in two minds, hence make us easy prey for more efficient, “single-minded” predators. Evolution, which is interested in survival and reproduction, not truth and knowledge, has got rid of everything it doesn’t need and it didn’t need us to see the original frequency code of existence. All we get is the sensory spacetime representation. Evolution stopped us from encountering the translation of Fourier frequency functions into Fourier spacetime functions, hence stopped us from seeing the cause of each effect, leaving us prone to inventing silly interpretations (especially religious ones) of what’s going on behind the scenes. Mainstream religion is never anything other than a stupid person’s attempt to understand causality, always in an extremely simplistic, emotional way. What could be simpler than saying that an all-powerful being is the origin of all things, of all causality? If a caveman had drawn the God Equation on a cave rather than an image of a god it would have been the most astounding thing ever. It’s much easier to imagine a Creator being than a Creator equation. And you can have a relationship with a being, but not with an equation. Pythagoras was responsible for the single greatest insight of all time when he said, “All things are numbers; number rules all.” For the first time, a human mind had peered behind the curtain and glimpsed the true nature of reality. Pythagoras was promptly forgotten while idiotic religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Karmism gripped humanity’s imagination. So it goes. Once you finally understand what’s going on, you grasp why the world has evolved as it has. Humans follow the path of least resistance, and stupid ideas are much easier to grasp than clever ideas. Anyone who can present a dumb idea in a lovely emotional narrative (Mythos) has got it made, hence the success of the Abrahamic religions. The Truth is far too difficult for most people, just as mathematics is far too difficult for them (in fact the Truth and ontological mathematics are one and the same thing!).

Humanity suffers from the disease of stupidity. If humanity wants to evolve further, the smartest amongst us might devise a Final Solution for human stupidity. We have no choice. Either the smart will exterminate the stupid, or the stupid will exterminate the smart. Much of world history has been about the genocide of the intelligent at the hands of the stupid, all described in the language of religious and political extremism. If there’s to be paradise on Earth, and a community of Gods, it will be brought about only by the intelligent. They are sure to be violently resisted by the stupid, and by the Abrahamists in particular. Humanity cannot evolve further until the problem of the Abrahamists is resolved once and for all.

***** All “paranormal” and “psychic” experiences, Jungian synchronicity and all “extra-sensory-perception” events belong to the non-local Fourier frequency domain, and are intermittently and unreliably translated into spacetime experiences. Because these events are outside standard sensory perception, they are typically regarded as “anti-scientific”, hence absurd or mad. The frequency mind, being non-local (i.e. outside space and time) is connected to all of the information in the world, but almost all of it is filtered out by the reducing valve of consciousness. All “weird” experiences are those that occur when the mind is in an unusual state (because of trauma, tragedy, stress, hallucinogenic drugs, etc.), causing normal filtering to be disrupted and allowing through a few scientifically inexplicable experiences. These experiences are not false and crazy just because they don’t make sense to scientific materialists! And many of the things believed by scientists – such as cats that are simultaneously alive and dead – are the most deranged ideas of all.

A Feelings Type AW: “To the degree that a person has more wisdom than compassion, is the degree of which their wisdom is corrupted.” Er, how about, “To the degree that a person has more compassion than wisdom, is the degree to which their wisdom is corrupted”?

Self-evidently, wisdom can’t be corrupted by wisdom, but it can certainly be corrupted by an irrational feeling that has nothing to do with wisdom. Why can’t people like AW think straight? Sentimental fools, mired in a morass of emotionalism. The “love and light” brigade have always been a disaster for the world.

The Toff Mafia The political manifesto for the UK Conservative Party for the general election of 2015 will be drawn up by six people: five of whom were educated at Eton College, the world’s most elite private school, and one at St. Paul’s School, another of the world’s most exclusive private schools. It’s good to see the voice of the people being fully represented! And you really think that “democratic” politics is about the people? What planet are you living on? Democratic politics is by the toffs and for the toffs. The people can never be free while there are any toffs to lord it over them. Toffs must be abolished. 100% inheritance tax cures all toff problems.

The Only Substitute The only stand-in for God is the God Equation. It restores all of the absolute, eternal, immutable truths, standards and knowledge that were lost when God died. What could be better than to replace God with the God Equation? At a stroke, certainty is restored to existence. Modern science, with its dice-playing “God” (i.e. no God at all) says in essence that the “force” underlying existence is not reason (ontological mathematics), but magic – things happen randomly for no reason at all! A whole universe has been magicked into existence from nothingness and randomness. That’s science’s “explanation” for why we are here!

Criticism The God Series of books will of course be relentlessly criticised by materialists, empiricists, scientists, Abrahamists, Karmists, skeptics, cynics, nihilists, postmodernists, analytic philosophers, New Age thinkers, “abstract” and “purist” mathematicians, and so on. Criticism can be

“sophisticated”, by which we mean meretricious and resulting from sophistry. This does not make it justified, valid and true. We invariably find that critics of our work haven’t understood it and certainly haven’t even read all of it. Valid criticism of an absolute theory must, like the theory itself, reflect absolute standards, or it’s nothing more than opinion, belief and interpretation. You haven’t understood a word we have been saying if you haven’t grasped that our system is based on eternal truths of reason. These cannot be challenged under any circumstances since they are true by definition, and to deny them is to deal in inherent contradiction. While truths of fact are all interpretive, truths of reason are not. Illuminism is all about showing that truths of reason are the basis of existence. Illuminism is therefore the opposite of Wittgenstein’s influential philosophy. Wittgenstein’s position essentially boils down to rejecting truths of reason as empty tautologies that say nothing about the real world, hence truths of fact are all that remain. Wittgenstein’s philosophy is really just a sophisticated expansion of Nietzsche’s observation, “There are no facts, only interpretations”, and he’s concerned with how we generate the best interpretations. In effect, he comes down on the side of science. Illuminism rejects this interpretative, contingent, arbitrary, ad hoc approach that has no rational necessity. Illuminism asserts that truths of reason are the real “facts” of existence, and ontological mathematics enshrines them. Reality is therefore grounded in ontological mathematics, not in science. Science deals with empirical “facts”, and ontological mathematics with intelligible truths. If you choose to side with empirical contingency rather than rational necessity, that’s your problem. There’s nothing we can do for the irrational, for those who don’t want an answer to existence. Existence can have an absolute, infallible answer only if that answer is analytic, necessary and rational. Anything else is just opinion, belief and guesswork. If existence does not reflect the principle of sufficient reason (enshrined in ontological mathematics) then existence is not rational and you can believe anything you like about it, since any answer is every bit as valid as any other. Illuminism reflects the Pythagorean-Platonic concept of existence being inherently intelligible. If the sensible world is not grounded in the ontological principle of sufficient reason then the sensible world is

grounded in randomness and acausality, just as scientists say. That means things ultimately happen for no reason at all, and if you seriously believe that then you might as well believe in magic.

Whence Causality? What, ontologically, is a cause? Where are causes? Where do causes come from? When did causes begin? How do causes produce effects? Where are the effects in relation to causes? Causality is at the core of existence and is probably the least understood entity of all. The first person to ask serious, deep questions about the nature causality was the brilliant Scottish philosopher David Hume, who awoke Kant from his “dogmatic slumber”. Hume’s crucial intervention was to identify that causality is not perceived and is therefore outside empiricist philosophy. Hume, as an extreme empiricist, thereby radically called into question the whole existence of causality. Modern extremist empiricist science has formally abolished causality and replaced it with indeterminacy, randomness, probability and statistics. The question of the ontology of causality is in fact exactly the same as that of the ontology of the principle sufficient reason, of the ontology of intelligibility (giving rise an intelligible universe) and of the ontology of mathematics. In Illuminism, causality exists in the world via ontological causal agents, which are none other than mathematical monads (souls). These are eternal mathematical systems. They are immaterial, outside space and time, and all of their mathematical “parts” balance to exactly zero. They are Fourier frequency singularities defined by one eternal law alone – the God Equation. These are analytic, necessary, rational systems. It’s precisely thanks to these that we live in a rational, intelligible, comprehensible, ordered, organised cosmos, full of mathematical patterns. If these didn’t exist, we wouldn’t live at all because there would either be nothing at all, or nothing but irrational, disordered, disorganised chaos and mayhem. If scientists were rational, they would understand that to ground existence in anything other than absolute order is to render the existence of order inexplicable. They are effectively arguing that reason, order, organisation, mathematics and causality are all “emergent” properties of randomness and disorder, a position as insane as claiming that existence can

spring from non-existence, which is in fact yet another deranged position to which science eagerly subscribes! Reality is grounded in ordered minds – mathematical monads. That’s a fact. These are the eternal sources of causality, but are themselves uncaused (because they are “nothing”). They are the prime movers. The whole of the universe comes from these and these alone, and it all happens via the “miracle” of Fourier mathematics which allows frequency functions outside space and time to be represented as spacetime functions. You will never understand reality if you don’t grasp this. No observation or experiment will help you. You will never get any sensory evidence for this. As Hume so rightly said, causality (hence reason and mathematics) are not perceivable. You therefore either reject their existence or you reject empiricism and embrace not just rationalism but hyperrationalism – ontological mathematics. Your choice. We can’t choose for you. We can’t think for you. We can’t do your understanding for you. It’s all up to you. You have sole responsibility. We have shown you the path. Whether you follow it is up to you. Don’t come to us begging for “help”. We don’t help those that can’t help themselves. You can’t help yourself because you’re irrational, and if you’re irrational, you can’t understand Illuminism. That’s a fact.

Causal Fiction When scientists see the cue ball in a pool game striking another ball, which then moves away, they think they are seeing causality in action. But they’re seeing no such thing. They’re actually seeing a succession of events, which they then interpret in terms of causality. If, tomorrow, exactly the same pool shot resulted in the cue ball recoiling from the other ball, which remained perfectly stationary, it would be plain that “causality” was a fiction. As David Hume pointed out, no empiricist can ever know what it is going to happen when one ball strikes another. Through laziness and habit, empiricists assume that tomorrow will resemble today, but there’s no necessity why it should. The average empiricist can’t help but invoke a causal mechanism which is never actually perceived, but only inferred, via various hypotheses. An ancient animist would explain the movement of the pool balls entirely differently from a scientist (and attribute it to their inner

“spirits”). The scientist has to devise unseen laws (hidden variables, so to speak), which is formally illegitimate within the empiricist paradigm which claims that only the observed is “real”.

The Cosmic Casino There is not one shred of evidence or proof that we live in a cosmic casino. No one has ever perceived any randomness in the universe. If you choose to believe in scientific indeterminacy, it’s because you have been persuaded by the arguments of advocates of randomness, not because you have been presented with any facts, evidence or proof, and not because you have ever perceived randomness. To claim that the universe is random, indeterministic and acausal is to claim that reality is fundamentally irrational. No one makes you accept such a belief. You choose to do so. As the God Series demonstrates, you could reach the 100% opposite conclusion: that existence is completely rational, deterministic, causal and mathematical. The real question you have to ask yourself is this: what kind of person wants to convince himself that the universe is random, irrational and purposeless. Are you such a person? All scientific materialist atheists are such people. These people are not smart. They are outright enemies of reason and want to remove reason from the foundations of existence. That makes them exceptionally peculiar and irrational people. They might as well join Luther and declare, “Reason is the Devil’s whore.” All rational people must oppose the ideology of science with all their might.

Intellect If, as the empiricists say, nothing is in the intellect without first being in the senses, how did the intellect come into being in the first place? If the senses didn’t give rise to the intellect, what did? If the senses did give rise to the intellect then how did they do so, and why isn’t the intellect a sense too, and why can’t we perceive causality? Why, as Nietzsche asked, do we not have an “organ for truth”? How can the senses produce a different category of existence (non-sensory intellect)? What’s intellectual about the senses?

Death

In Illuminism, death occurs when the link between the monadic soul and the physical body is broken due to the degradation of the body. In scientific materialism, death occurs when an arrangement of lifeless atoms that were (miraculously!) associated with “life”, rearrange themselves into a configuration associated with “death”. In science, there’s no vital element, no animating principle, no soul to provide lifeless atoms with life. In science, life comes from non-life (which is a logically absurd contention and formally impossible). In Illuminism, life is eternal and comes in the form of immortal, indestructible units of unconscious life – monads. In science, the fundamental problem is to explain how mind and life can come from particular arrangements of non-mental, non-living atoms. Science has never even begun to answer this. In Illuminism, the problem is the opposite: it’s to explain how mind and life seemingly give rise to non-mind and non-life. Matter, it turns out, is simply the collective thinking of minds. Matter relies entirely on mind and life for its existence (if you could annihilate all monads you would thereby eliminate all “matter”), hence is simply a secondary expression of mind and life, associated with the mental, living Collective rather than individual living minds. Dreamworlds are the creations of individual living minds. Dreamworlds are thoughts, not material things, and couldn’t exist without a mind to dream them. In exactly the same way, the waking world is the creation of all living minds (the Collective living mind). “Material atoms” reflect collective thinking; they’re collective thoughts, not independent material things. They couldn’t exist without minds to think them. Think of how weird quantum mechanics is. Doesn’t that weirdness seem inherently mental rather than physical? How can real, solid things not have a precise position and momentum? How can they be in many places at once? How can they follow all paths between two different points? How come they need a wavefunction to “collapse” before being actualised? You would need to be soft in the head to imagine that quantum mechanics is anything other than a product of the collective mind of the universe. You would need to be a scientific materialist!

*****

What causes the Fourier link between body and soul to break? The soul is an individual entity, a unity, while all matter (from which the body is derived) is a collective entity, a plurality, generated by all monads. Bodies are designed to perish. Matter itself ultimately perishes. Bodies age. Bodies mutate. Bodies degrade, deteriorate and decompose. Bodies are beset by carcinogenic forces (especially via chemicals), by drug and alcohol abuse, by overeating or undereating, by natural disasters, by accidents, by pollution, by lack of exercise, by laziness, by infection and disease, by famine, by drought, by pestilence, by physical violence from others, by genetic mutation, by genetic disorders, and so on. All manner of external factors chip away at the body-soul link and eventually sever it. At death, the soul does not “leave” the body since it was never in the body in the first place: it was in the dimensionless Singularity. Death is not a separation of body and soul (given that they were always separate). It’s a disconnection, a breaking of the mathematical link between the two entities (body and soul) that span the dimensional and dimensionless domains. The moment the Fourier soul can no longer control the Fourier body, it’s game over. A near-death experience occurs when the link temporarily breaks but is then quickly restored thanks to a life-saving medical intervention.

***** Evolution is all about Fourier mathematics. Individual monads (Fourier frequency domains) interact with Fourier spacetime bodies made of atoms generated by the Monadic Collective. In other words, the mind-body interaction is all about individuals minds taking control of the output (matter) produced by all minds. The mind-body interaction concerns individual frequency domains linking to collective spacetime functions. It’s all in the math!

Tautology Tautology, from Greek tautologia: “representation of the same thing in other words”; “repeating what has been said”, from tauto, “the same” + logos, “saying”.

All ontological mathematical formulae are tautological. If you know the state of anything controlled by the formula at one instant then you know where it will be at the next instant and where it was at the prior instant. All instants imply all other instants, so to specify one is to specify them all, hence they are tautologous (i.e. you are simply saying the same things in different words or terms). Ontological mathematics is simply one enormous system of eternal, ontological tautology, defined by the God Equation.

***** Belief, evidence and proof are all radically different. Only proof relates to truth. “Belief” is about emotional interpretation, and “evidence” is about sensory interpretation. Proof alone delivers rational, eternal, unarguable truth. Proof relates solely to ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics alone is provable and true, precisely because it’s a perfect system of analytic tautology. All attempts to define ontological mathematics in relation to non-mathematical concepts are doomed. So, ontological mathematics cannot be defined in terms of sets, logic, arbitrary axioms or anything else, as Gödel proved with his Incompleteness theorems. Ontological mathematics itself is necessarily full, consistent and complete. After all, it’s nothing but analytic tautology, with every step leading inexorably to the next. Wittgenstein was right to reject Gödel’s work in relation to mathematics. Gödel proved that certain non-mathematical approaches to defining mathematics, based on philosophy rather than mathematics, are doomed to be either inconsistent or incomplete. His work had no bearing on mathematics itself, on the ontology of mathematics. Wittgenstein was right that mathematics is pure tautology, hence must be consistent and complete, but wrong that this meant it was empty of content and just a set of abstract definitions. Mathematics defines eternal existence, hence is the fullest content you can possibly get. Wittgenstein, sadly, fell under the spell of scientific materialism and empiricism and could not grasp noumenal, metaphysical, mathematical, transcendent reality. As for Gödel himself, he considered his work to be evidence of an eternal, objective domain of truth, independent of human thought, feelings

and senses. The human mind can only dimly and imperfectly apprehend this transcendent reality. Gödel, despite his brilliance, was ultimately wrong because human reason can perfectly grasp cosmological reason (ontological mathematics). The truth is innate in the human mind because the human mind is made of ontological mathematics. We are not separate from the cosmic truth: we are the cosmic truth. As above, so below. Gödel’s error was to imagine that the sorts of strategies attempted by logicians and mathematicians to understand and define mathematics were the best the human mind could do. In fact, the human mind can do much better. It can define mathematics in an entirely different way, according to a single cosmic mathematical formula: the God Equation! The whole of ontological mathematics flows tautologically from this single law of existence. Leibniz, Gödel’s hero, was right when he said, “Nothing in the intellect without first being in the senses, except the intellect itself.” The intellect itself is pure ontological mathematics: complete and consistent. We all have access to ontological mathematics because we are literally made from it, and we think thanks to it. The intellect is noumenal, the senses are phenomenal. The intellect is rationalist, the senses are empiricist. The intellect is causal, and the senses record the effects. The intellect is mathematical, the senses are scientific. (The feelings, and non-mathematical intuition, are religious). These distinctions define the human problem of understanding reality. That’s why it’s so difficult for people to grasp the truth. We are the victims of the way we are made and how we have dialectically evolved. Our body inhabits the phenomenal, sensible world of effects while our intellect inhabits the noumenal, intelligible domain of causes. The problem is that our conscious intellects have evolved primarily to make sense of phenomenal reality rather than noumenal reality. We direct our reason at things that do not belong to reason, hence we make errors and we slip into interpretation, belief, opinion, conjecture and hypothesis. We reject Logos in favour of Mythos. We become religious or scientific. We regard mathematics as a weird abstraction rather than the thing of which we are actually made. Life, insofar as the smartest amongst us can work it out without too much difficulty, is not rationally mysterious. It is, however, experientially

mysterious and this obstructs our ability to think rationally about the world. Our senses, feelings and intuitions frequently overwhelm our reason because they are so much more immediate and powerful. We are all trapped in the web of Maya and it takes a real intellectual effort, beyond the capability of most people, to see past phenomenal reality to noumenal reality. Even great thinkers such as Nietzsche dismissed the whole idea of noumenal reality as absurd. Nietzsche associated thinking with the body, and had a very body-centric notion of human existence. He hated the idea of the Platonic, disembodied soul or mind. What an error!

Intuition Eastern religion goes wrong because it seeks to treat mystical intuitions in philosophical and Mythos terms rather than in mathematical, Logos terms.

Knowing Knowing the truth is very different from experiencing the truth, the latter being literally much more visceral, and the former cold, cerebral and abstract. Feelings, desires and the senses are much more immediate and gripping than reason. Reason is disastrously confused when it tries to work out noumenal causes from phenomenal effects. It’s working backwards from something that’s one step removed from the noumenal world, and of a wholly different character. Moreover, it’s additionally confused by truths of fact (sensory “truths”), truths of faith (feelings “truths”), truths of mysticism (intuitive “truths”) and truths of Mythos (narrative “truths”). Reason splinters and attacks itself. True reason has only one valid province: dealing with truths of reason. Truths of reason are simply eternal mathematical tautologies. Yet reason has one last and highly significant problem: it has to distinguish between ontological mathematics (the true mathematics of existence) and abstract mathematics. Ontological mathematics is Gödelian consistent and complete; abstract mathematics is not. Many operations are possible in abstract mathematics that are impossible ontologically. The whole of ontological mathematics is derived from the God Equation alone. It’s precisely because it’s defined by one controlling formula that it’s full,

consistent and complete. With abstract mathematics, on the other hand, elements can be added that have no ontological necessity but which seem to be logical inferences and extrapolations from various aspects of ontological mathematics (and it’s these invalid inferences and extrapolations that lead to inconsistencies and incompleteness). Ontological mathematics is constrained and dynamic whereas abstract mathematics is unconstrained and static. The best way to understand ontological mathematics is as standing between physics and abstract mathematics. People have to forget about mathematics being conducted on paper and understand that it’s conducted on reality itself.

Epistemology Epistemology must be based on absolute, immutable, infallible, perfect, Platonic standards. If it’s not then it’s forever reduced to mere opinion and belief. Either we have perfect knowledge, or no knowledge at all worthy of the name. As Nietzsche said, it’s all just interpretation. If there’s no mathematical, rational, noumenal domain outside space and time then Nietzsche is right. If we define “God” as the absolute standard of knowledge then, if there is no God (if God is dead or was never there in the first place), we are condemned to relativism of knowledge. No one’s opinion is better than anyone else’s since there’s no absolute standard against which anything can be compared. It’s like a world of people performing measurements with their own individual rulers and own individual units of measurement. No one could agree on any measurements because there would no absolute standard to which all rulers and units of measurement could be referred.

Science Science replaces a world of cause and effect with a world of effect only. Scientific effects are based on mere possibility and the probability of these mere possibilities. Effects happen randomly (without causation; randomness replaces causation) and then these effects make other effects more or less probable. At all times, possibility and probability dictate reality. There’s never any causality, never any sufficient reason for anything. Self-evidently, a universe of effects can have no purposes, no teleology. It’s always

mindless. A universe with purpose, on the other hand, must have the causal ability to formulate and execute plans. Have you ever read any of these considerations in a science book? If you studied science at university, were you ever taught such ideas? You must be joking. Science, like religion, refuses to be self-critical and to expose the absurd fallacies, lazy thinking, unjustified assumptions and shoddy philosophy at its core. Ludicrous speculations, especially in cosmology, quantum mechanics and relativity theory, are routinely presented as credible and tenable facts. They’re not. They’re beliefs, opinions, conjectures and interpretations. Science has never once said anything unarguably true. It has never said anything to compare with 1 + 1 = 2 (or, rather, 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 ... pure tautology!).

Sam Harris To “disprove” the reality of free will and free choice, Sam Harris asked an American audience to think of the name of a city. He then smugly said that none of them was thinking of Cairo. He argued that a result was simply presented to them, and they had not chosen it, hence they had no free choice. This observation simply begs the question, and does not in any way show what Harris thinks it shows. If Harris had gone on to ask his audience to write down the names of a hundred cities, Cairo may well have featured on every list. So, it wasn’t a case of each mind not thinking of Cairo when Harris asked his question. Rather, only the name of one city was required so only one name was presented to consciousness. Harris’s lame point was that his audience did not exercise any conscious choice when they thought of a city. Therefore, according to his “logic”, human beings do not exercise free will or free choice at all. Yet the very fact that everyone would mention Cairo if asked to produce a list of cities precisely proves the opposite of what Harris intended to demonstrate. If Cairo was in each mind but some other city was mentioned in response to Harris’s question then it means that this other city was chosen for specific reasons. No one ever argues that free will and free choice involve random selections. The doctrine of free will and free choice is that we freely choose one thing over another thing because we have specific reasons for doing so, not because we have no reasons (hence would be choosing randomly).

If Harris’s thesis were right that we cannot freely choose then we would either be generating random responses to his question, or the concept of “city” would automatically trigger only one deterministic, hard-wired response in us. Both of these options are manifestly false. What Harris, a fanatical, quasi-religious scientific materialist, has failed to grasp is that the “mind” that chooses the name of the city is not in space and time at all. It makes its choice outside space and time for its own reasons and then presents the choice to consciousness. In these circumstances, consciousness is not the chooser. Consciousness is what registers this choice in space and time. But it is not what made the choice.

Göring Hermann Göring: “One German, a fine man. Two Germans, a party. Three Germans, a war. One Englishman, an idiot. Two Englishmen, a club. Three Englishmen, an Empire.” – from the film Nuremberg

Global Shapers “The Global Shapers Community is a network of hubs developed and led by young people who are exceptional in their potential, their achievements and their drive to make a contribution to their communities.” – An Initiative of the World Economic Forum WTF! Run for the hills! The first item on any global shaping agenda should be to get rid of the World Economic Forum! And all of the super rich people and interests that it represents. The theme of the 2014 World Economic Forum at the luxury Swiss ski resort of Davos was “Reshaping the World”. Who elected the rich plutocrats of the World Economic Forum and those who go to Davos? In what way are they accountable to the people? Who gave them any mandate to “reshape” the world? Whose agenda are they serving? Theirs or the people’s? The answer is self-evident given that the people aren’t at Davos. Is this what we call “democracy”? Davos shows exactly where the true power lies, and it’s certainly not with the people. The Davos plutocrats don’t even bother to hide their plans to reshape the world in their own image. Actually, not much reshaping is required since the world is already

as favourable to the super rich as it could possibly be. They have total control.

***** Bill Gates described capitalism as “flawed” because it directs more resources to curing baldness (a cosmetic problem) than to addressing the deadly diseases that afflict the Third World. Funnily enough, Gates didn’t describe capitalism as flawed for making him the richest man in the world and one of the 85 individuals who believe they should have as much wealth as 3.5 billion human beings. Why do we have to listen to the hypocrisy and arrogance of these plutocrats? What is Gates doing to destroy free-market capitalism? Well, er, zilch.

The Magic Pictures Imagine a caveman encountering a flat screen TV built into a wall so that it wasn’t apparent that it had any internal workings. How would the caveman explain what he was seeing and hearing given that he couldn’t perceive any causal forces at work? He would certainly conclude that the “gods” or “spirits” were responsible. As the years went by, many cavemen would devise religious, philosophical and, finally, scientific hypotheses to “explain” what was going on. But even if they discovered the internal workings of the TV, they would be totally clueless about electronics, hence would be no further forward with their hypotheses. Their speculations would change, but would they be any more accurate? Well, the phenomenal world we experience with our senses is, by analogy, exactly the same as that mysterious TV. Most people don’t have the vaguest idea how they come to perceive the world as they do. The inner workings of the brain and mind are utterly mysterious, and, as with the cavemen, people invent all sorts of notions to explain what’s going on. How can anyone expect to find the real answer to this problem without referring to something necessary rather than contingent, something eternal rather than temporal, something analytic rather than synthetic, something a priori rather than a posteriori, something deductive rather than inductive, something rational rather than irrational, something causal rather than

acausal (random), something immutable rather than mutable, something definite and infallible rather than vague and fallible? There must be a definitive answer to the phenomenal world and it cannot lie in the phenomenal world itself, full, as it is, of contingency and interpretation. At the root of everything is that which is eternal, and the only eternal thing is ontological mathematics.

Two Minds We have two minds: the conscious mind and the unconscious mind. This has been clearly demonstrated in split-brain experiments. The unconscious mind thinks lightning fast since its outside space and time. What is the purpose of consciousness? It’s to slow down thinking to allow choices to be pondered, to allow spatiotemporal free will and free choice. Sam Harris says there are no such things as free will and free choice. In that case, how and why do we imagine that we possess them? What function does this pointless illusion serve? Why has Nature generated a wholly redundant phenomenon? How was such a phenomenon Darwinistically naturally selected given that it’s impossible for it to serve any adaptive function? Why do we think so slowly and “hum and haw” if in fact we have absolutely no choice over anything? Why don’t we react completely instinctively and instantly, like animals? You don’t see any animals reflecting philosophically. Why should humans? If there’s no free will and no free choice, all decisions should be immediate since there’s no reason why a machine-like mind should take any time to arrive at its programmed response.

The Brain If you physically examined the brain of Einstein and the brain of the world’s biggest moron, you would see more or less no difference. “Genius” certainly isn’t located in the folds of the physical brain. All the complexity is noumenal, not phenomenal.

Music

What is music? It’s the mathematics of emotion. Music copies the mathematical notes that correspond to our different emotional states. What would music be like of it had to communicate the value of the number pi?

The New Science What must the “new” science (the one that will replace prevailing scientific materialism) do? It must acknowledge that there are two domains, one noumenal (outside space and time) and one phenomenal (in space and time). This would constitute a revolutionary paradigm shift. Science must then acknowledge that the experimental method is relevant only to phenomena and never to noumena. When it comes to noumena, mathematics is the relevant tool, not experimentation. The theory of ultimate reality will be a noumenal theory, not phenomenal. In fact, the answer to ultimate reality already exists: it’s just ontological mathematics. The “final theory” that has to be worked out by scientists is not the one that provides the foundational answer to everything, because this already exists in the shape of ontological mathematics. What scientists are required to do is to map noumenal ontological mathematics to the phenomenal world of science. In particular, they must show how quantum gravity is rooted in the generalised Euler Formula and Fourier mathematics.

Evidence and Proof Science is successful because it has a method for matching its hypotheses to the “real” world (the world of our experience). Religion is unsuccessful because it has no method for matching its “revelations”, “beliefs” and “intuitions” to the “real” world. Of course, religion’s main focus is not this world at all, hence it’s not overly concerned about its inability to describe this world with any accuracy. Idealist philosophy was as preoccupied with ultimate (noumenal) reality as religion, and was equally incapable of matching its ideas to the “real” world. For example, no matter how brilliant Schopenhauer’s concept of the Will outside space and time was, how could it ever be tested or proved? Scientific materialism blew idealism out of the water because it could reflect the world of our experience in a highly useful way, and idealism

couldn’t, so idealism gradually faded into obscurity and irrelevance. In fact, philosophy surrendered to science and abandoned the stage. Yet religion and idealism both had a way to be saved, by invoking the true language of metaphysics and noumena: mathematics. Unlike religious or philosophical speculation, mathematics is a subject of absolute proof and infallibility. Moreover, science itself is entirely dependent on mathematics for its power. Mathematics is the bridge between science, philosophy and religion, and explains all three of them. Mathematics is noumenal, but all phenomena are generated by it. Mathematics is the principle of sufficient reason itself. It’s causality itself. It’s the hidden machinery behind everything. Scientific laws are not materialist. They don’t exist in the physical, phenomenal world. They are eternal and immutable. The reason why scientific laws are framed mathematically is that mathematics is the language of the noumenal domain. Mathematics, the queen of science, dictates science and yet mathematics is neither empiricist nor materialist, even though these are the entire basis of science and its method. No scientist has ever explained what mathematics is and why it’s at the core of science and why it defines the laws of science. The status of mathematics in science is in fact the most pressing issue facing science, infinitely more important than the elusive theory of quantum gravity. Of what use is science if it can’t explain mathematics? Scientists aren’t even remotely interested in this question and show zero interest in it. Scientists aren’t intellectuals. They have remarkably little curiosity and thoroughness. While they study some trivial detail, they ignore the elephant in the room – the presence of mathematics in science. The reality is that mathematics explains science, not the other way around. Science is simply phenomenal mathematics. Mathematics describes the noumenal domain and science is its phenomenal application. Scientists prattle on about Multiverses, wormholes, strings, rolled-up dimensions, Supersymmetry, theories of everything, and yet not one of them can explain what mathematics is. Not a single scientist is able to ontologically define time, space, mass or energy. i.e. everything with which science concerns itself! Science is just a set of labels, of models, of circular instrumental definitions. Science, at bottom, is simply an ingenious Mythos. It does not explain reality in any way at all. It can’t explain its own laws. It can’t say where these laws came from. It can’t explain why it relies on

mathematics, or say what mathematics is. These are staggeringly serious problems that reveal the sheer deficiency of scientific thinking. Science’s one triumphant aspect is that it matches its Mythos, its narrative, to the “real” world (or, rather, how we sensorily perceive and experience the real world) via scientific experiments, and so this Mythos, uniquely, can allow a considerable degree of control to be exerted over the phenomenal world, i.e. this Mythos has real, measurable effects. The religious Mythos, on the other hand, is wholly disconnected from the real world and can’t change a single thing. The scientific Mythos, used by a small number of intelligent people, can land men on the moon. The religious Mythos, causing billions of believers to bow, kneel and pray, can’t achieve anything at all in our world. If as much effort and devotion went into science and technology as went into the futile, pointless, and useless exercise of reading “holy” texts and praying, we would now be living in paradise. The philosophy Mythos has also found itself disconnected from the real world. Although it’s incredibly clever, philosophy can’t effect real change in our world. The scientific Mythos alone has proved successful in giving us control of our world. However, it’s a phenomenal Mythos where it needs to be a noumenal Logos. Ontological mathematics is the answer to everything. Unlike noumenal philosophy, it gives us the means to escape mere speculation and to precisely define the metaphysical, noumenal domain within an objective, complete, consistent and provable ontological mathematical framework. Philosophy was unable to link itself to science because it used a metaphysics based on manmade language (with some logic thrown in), but did not refer to either experiments or mathematics, which are the two pillars on which science is founded. Ontological mathematics immediately solves a central part of this problem since it speaks the same mathematical language as science. The difference between ontological mathematics and science is that the latter is purely phenomenal (scientific experiments can never apply to the noumenal domain, hence can yield no information about it whatsoever), while the former is inherently noumenal, and yet, through science, can explain the phenomenal domain of experiments too. Ontological mathematics provides the true grand unified theory of everything: connecting the physical and metaphysical domains, the phenomenal and noumenal domains, the domains of cause and effect.

***** Science has never faced up to the logical catastrophe at its core. Namely, it’s a subject that worships the experimental method and has made this its “God”, yet all of its laws are framed mathematically and mathematics has zero connection with the experimental method. Mathematicians don’t need to perform any experiments at all. They don’t require any experimental data or evidence to establish their eternal proofs and truths. If science made any real sense within its own terms, no part of it would exist outside the experimental method, no one would be allowed to propose a single hypothesis not compatible with experimentation, and there certainly wouldn’t be a non-experimental subject such as mathematics at its core, as its engine and driver. Why are scientists able to make countless non-experimental speculations? It’s thanks to mathematics. The “Multiverse” is a theory generated from philosophical and mathematical considerations, and has absolutely nothing to do with the experimental method. M-theory is almost wholly beyond the reach of any conceivable experiment and is a ferociously mathematical hypothesis involving the most complex mathematics ever devised. Why don’t scientists wake up and smell the coffee? Science cannot define itself with regard to experiments on the phenomenal world. It must define itself with regard to ontological mathematics, which caters for both the noumenal (metaphysical) and phenomenal domains. The new science must have two branches: noumenal and phenomenal. Noumenal mathematics, based on mathematical proof alone, should define the noumenal side. Phenomenal mathematics (what was previously known as science) should use the traditional experimental method to provide evidence for its hypotheses. So, we have two interlinked mathematical systems: one based on mathematical proofs, but no experimental evidence, and one based on experimental evidence but no mathematical proofs. This is the best humanity, or indeed any species, can do. There will always be a phenomenological gap between noumenal proof and truth and phenomenal evidence. Noumenal mathematics will be 100% certain and provable (mathematically) but unverifiable by any experiments. This is

Platonic mathematics, which provides the absolute truth of existence, the absolute standard of epistemology. As soon as we apply ontological, noumenal mathematics to the phenomenal world, we lose its certainty since we are now in a different category of existence where sensory evidence is what counts. We are trying to match the intelligible to the sensible; the rational and logical to the sensory. We are trying to reconcile necessary truths of reason with contingent truths of fact. We are trying to reconcile objectivity with subjectivity. This can never be a perfect process since we are trying to marry different categories of existence. Aristotelian logic applies to the noumenal domain, and dialectical logic to the phenomenal domain. These are radically different types of logic. The former is absolute, and the latter living and messy. We can never combine the two. The new science will necessarily involve defining noumenal mathematics perfectly as the starting point and then trying to apply this perfect system to the imperfect, messy phenomenal world of evidence rather than proof. The Grand Unified Theory of Everything will be a noumenal theory with phenomenal applications, not a phenomenal theory with no noumenal aspect (as science currently hopes to accomplish). All of this is in fact nothing new. This debate goes right back to the arch enemies Leibniz and Newton, the two men who independently discovered calculus. Newton was the man who largely set in train the prevailing scientific method of matching mathematical hypotheses to experimental evidence (a “phenomenal” way of working). Leibniz argued that all physical principles must be underpinned by metaphysical principles and traced everything back to unobservable monads (dimensionless mathematical minds), a noumenal way of working. Newton’s approach was highly successful but has now hit the buffers. It’s time to go beyond Newton to Leibniz and this can be done not via any dubious philosophical speculation but through mathematics alone, the mathematics of existence: ontological mathematics. Which scientists will dare to trash mathematics? Any scientist who does so would be demolishing one of science’s two central pillars, hence destroying the credibility of his own subject. The subject that comes after physics is metaphysics, the domain of idealism and religion. Science completely rejects metaphysics. However, if

metaphysics is understood to be nothing other than ontological mathematics then there’s no longer any need for science to be hostile to metaphysics since mathematics is already at the core of science. Ontological mathematics is the means to bridge the gap between physics and metaphysics, phenomena and noumena. Ontological mathematics is the language common to both. Ontological mathematics is the answer to existence. This is how humanity will gain the knowledge of the gods. The gods themselves cannot better Illuminism, the Ontological Mathematical Theory of Total Enlightenment. We dare any scientist, indeed the whole scientific community, to prove us wrong, to address the multitude of rational criticisms of science that we have presented throughout the God Series. Only when scientists seriously start thinking about what science really is and what mathematics really is will they realise how spectacularly defective scientific materialism is. The road to paradise is paved with ontological mathematics alone. Ontological mathematics is the answer to everything. That’s a fact. Whether you’re smart enough to realise it is an entirely different issue. Truth isn’t a democracy. It’s not for everyone.

Wittgenstein: The Man Who Got It Wrong “Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of Mathematics is undoubtedly the most unknown and under-appreciated part of his philosophical opus. Indeed, more than half of Wittgenstein’s writings from 1929 through 1944 are devoted to mathematics, a fact that Wittgenstein himself emphasized in 1944 by writing that his ‘chief contribution has been in the philosophy of mathematics’ (Monk 1990, 466). “The core of Wittgenstein’s conception of mathematics is very much set by the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1922; hereafter Tractatus), where his main aim is to work out the language-reality connection by determining what is required for language, or language usage, to be about the world. Wittgenstein answers this question, in part, by asserting that the only genuine propositions that we can use to make assertions about reality are contingent (‘empirical’) propositions, which are true if they agree with reality and false otherwise (4.022, 4.25, 4.062, 2.222). From this it follows that all other apparent propositions are pseudo-propositions of various types

and that all other uses of ‘true’ and ‘truth’ deviate markedly from the truthby-correspondence (or agreement) that contingent propositions have in relation to reality. Thus, from the Tractatus to at least 1944, Wittgenstein maintains that ‘mathematical propositions’ are not real propositions and that ‘mathematical truth’ is essentially non-referential and purely syntactical in nature. On Wittgenstein’s view, we invent mathematical calculi and we expand mathematics by calculation and proof, and though we learn from a proof that a theorem can be derived from axioms by means of certain rules in a particular way, it is not the case that this proof-path pre-exists our construction of it. “As we shall see, Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of Mathematics begins in a rudimentary way in the Tractatus, develops into a finitistic constructivism in the middle period (Philosophical Remarks (1929–30) and Philosophical Grammar (1931–33), respectively; hereafter PR and PG, respectively), and is further developed in new and old directions in the MSS used for Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics (1937–44; hereafter RFM). As Wittgenstein’s substantive views on mathematics evolve from 1918 through 1944, his writing and philosophical styles evolve from the assertoric, aphoristic style of the Tractatus to a clearer, argumentative style in the middle period, to a dialectical, interlocutory style in RFM and the Philosophical Investigations (hereafter PI). ... “Wittgenstein’s non-referential, formalist conception of mathematical propositions and terms begins in the Tractatus. Indeed, insofar as he sketches a rudimentary Philosophy of Mathematics in the Tractatus, he does so by contrasting mathematics and mathematical equations with genuine (contingent) propositions, sense, thought, propositional signs and their constituent names, and truth-by-correspondence. “In the Tractatus, Wittgenstein claims that a genuine proposition, which rests upon conventions, is used by us to assert that a state of affairs (i.e., an elementary or atomic fact; ‘Sachverhalt’) or fact (i.e., multiple states of affairs; ‘Tatsache’) obtain(s) in the one and only real world. An elementary proposition is isomorphic to the possible state of affairs it is used to represent: it must contain as many names as there are objects in the possible state of affairs. An elementary proposition is true if its possible state of affairs (i.e., its ‘sense’; ‘Sinn’) obtains. Wittgenstein clearly states this Correspondence Theory of Truth at (4.25): ‘If an elementary proposition is true, the state of affairs exists; if an elementary proposition is false, the state

of affairs does not exist.’ But propositions and their linguistic components are, in and of themselves, dead – a proposition only has sense because we human beings have endowed it with a conventional sense (5.473). Moreover, propositional signs may be used to do any number of things (e.g., insult, catch someone’s attention); in order to assert that a state of affairs obtains, a person must ‘project’ the proposition’s sense – it’s possible state of affairs – by ‘thinking’ of (e.g., picturing) its sense as one speaks, writes or thinks the proposition (3.11). Wittgenstein connects use, sense, correspondence, and truth by saying that ‘a proposition is true if we use it to say that things stand in a certain way, and they do’ (4.062; italics added). “The Tractarian conceptions of genuine (contingent) propositions and the (original and) core concept of truth are used to construct theories of logical and mathematical ‘propositions’ by contrast. Stated boldly and bluntly, tautologies, contradictions and mathematical propositions (i.e., mathematical equations) are neither true nor false – we say that they are true or false, but in doing so we use the words ‘true’ and ‘false’ in very different senses from the sense in which a contingent proposition is true or false. Unlike genuine propositions, tautologies and contradictions ‘have no “subject-matter”‘ (6.124), ‘lack sense,’ and ‘say nothing’ about the world (4.461), and, analogously, mathematical equations are ‘pseudo-propositions’ (6.2) which, when ‘true’ (‘correct’; ‘richtig’ (6.2321)), ‘merely mark[…]… [the] equivalence of meaning [of ‘two expressions’]’ (6.2323). Given that ‘[t]autology and contradiction are the limiting cases – indeed the disintegration – of the combination of signs’ (4.466; italics added), where ‘the conditions of agreement with the world – the representational relations – cancel one another, so that [they] do[] not stand in any representational relation to reality,’ tautologies and contradictions do not picture reality or possible states of affairs and possible facts (4.462). Stated differently, tautologies and contradictions do not have sense, which means we cannot use them to make assertions, which means, in turn, that they cannot be either true or false. Analogously, mathematical pseudo-propositions are equations, which indicate or show that two expressions are equivalent in meaning and therefore are intersubstitutable. Indeed, we arrive at mathematical equations by ‘the method of substitution’: ‘starting from a number of equations, we advance to new equations by substituting different expressions in accordance with the equations’ (6.24). We prove mathematical ‘propositions’ ‘true’ (‘correct’)

by ‘seeing’ that two expressions have the same meaning, which ‘must be manifest in the two expressions themselves’ (6.23), and by substituting one expression for another with the same meaning. Just as ‘one can recognize that [‘logical propositions’] are true from the symbol alone’ (6.113), ‘the possibility of proving’ mathematical propositions means that we can perceive their correctness without having to compare ‘what they express’ with facts (6.2321; cf. (RFM App. III, §4)).” – http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-mathematics/ This type of sophisticated drivel dominates scientific, mathematical and philosophical thinking to this day. It’s nonsense from beginning to end. The whole system is based on truths of fact being “real” and truths of reason “unreal”. Wittgenstein is an and out and out empiricist and materialist who rejects the rationalist, idealist worldview. He rejects the Platonic view that there’s an intelligible world lying behind the sensible world. He rejects the Kantian noumenal world lying behind the phenomenal world. He denies mathematics any ontology, but can offer no explanation why this unreal abstraction and manmade construction (in his view) should be at the centre of science, which he regards as factual and real. Wittgenstein and Gödel more or less despised each other. There’s no question that Gödel was the vastly superior thinker and indeed his Incompleteness Theorems are really just a critique (a totally devastating one) of Wittgenstein, Russell and Hilbert’s approach to understanding and defining mathematics. He destroyed their views, and yet they remain fashionable to this day despite having been definitively refuted (hence are just like religion). Wittgenstein rightly described mathematics as tautology, but he wrongly believed it was therefore based on axioms and syntax rather than ontology. Mathematics is ontological tautology independent of human beings. It’s not manmade tautology based on axioms and syntax, which is exactly the position Gödel refuted. Gödel did not refute the tautology of ontological mathematics. What he did was disprove the approach of Wittgenstein and his fellow travellers to mathematics. Gödel’s theorems did not disprove anything at all about mathematics itself (as ontology). Gödel’s only error was to believe that we

could not rationally work out all of ontological mathematics but only intuitively and mystically catch glimpses of its transcendent Platonic truths.

Formalism “In foundations of mathematics, philosophy of mathematics, and philosophy of logic, formalism is a theory that holds that statements of mathematics and logic can be thought of as statements about the consequences of certain string manipulation rules. “For example, Euclidean geometry can be seen as a game whose play consists in moving around certain strings of symbols called axioms according to a set of rules called ‘rules of inference’ to generate new strings. In playing this game one can ‘prove’ that the Pythagorean theorem is valid because the string representing the Pythagorean theorem can be constructed using only the stated rules. “According to formalism, the truths expressed in logic and mathematics are not about numbers, sets, or triangles or any other contensive subject matter – in fact, they aren’t ‘about’ anything at all. They are syntactic forms whose shapes and locations have no meaning unless they are given an interpretation (or semantics). “Formalism is associated with rigorous method. In common use, a formalism means the out-turn of the effort towards formalisation of a given limited area. In other words, matters can be formally discussed once captured in a formal system, or commonly enough within something formalisable with claims to be one. Complete formalisation is in the domain of computer science. “Formalism stresses axiomatic proofs using theorems, specifically associated with David Hilbert. A formalist is a person who belongs to the school of formalism, which is a certain mathematical-philosophical doctrine descending from Hilbert. “Formalists are relatively tolerant and inviting to new approaches to logic, non-standard number systems, new set theories, etc. The more games we study, the better. However, in all three of these examples, motivation is drawn from existing mathematical or philosophical concerns. The ‘games’ are usually not arbitrary. “Recently, some formalist mathematicians have proposed that all of our formal mathematical knowledge should be systematically encoded in

computer-readable formats, so as to facilitate automated proof checking of mathematical proofs and the use of interactive theorem proving in the development of mathematical theories and computer software. Because of their close connection with computer science, this idea is also advocated by mathematical intuitionists and constructivists in the ‘computability’ tradition (see below). ... “Gödel indicated one of the weak points of formalism by addressing the question of consistency in axiomatic systems. More recent criticisms lie in the assertion of formalists that it is possible to computerize all of mathematics. These criticisms bring up the philosophical question of whether or not computers are able to think. Turing tests, named after Alan Turing, who created the test, are an attempt to provide criteria for judging when a computer is capable of thought. The existence of a computer which in principle could pass a Turing test would prove to formalists that computers will be able to do all of mathematics. However, there are opponents of this claim, such as John Searle, who came up with the ‘Chinese room’ thought experiment. He presented the argument that while a computer may be able to manipulate the symbols that we give it, the machine could attach no meaning to these symbols. Since computers will not be able to deal with semantic content in mathematics (Penrose, 1989), they could not be said to ‘think.’ “Further, humans can create several ways to prove the same result, even if they might find it challenging to articulate such methods. Since creativity requires thought having a semantic foundation, a computer would not be able to create different methods of solving the same problem. Indeed, a formalist would not be able to say that these other ways of solving problems exist simply because they have not been formalized (Goodman, 1979). “Another critique of formalism is that the actual mathematical ideas that occupy mathematicians are far removed from the string manipulation games mentioned above. Formalism is thus silent to the question of which axiom systems ought to be studied, as none is more meaningful than another from a formalistic point of view.” – Wikipedia

The Science Delusion Science rejects noumenology, phenomenology and the intelligible. It believes the world is material, empirical and sensible and that there’s only

one world, not two. Science is incoherent and full of contradictions but this is the worldview its main logical tendencies, and its most fervent advocates, espouse. How best to understand our world comes down in the end to a great conflict between two psychological types: the sensory types and the intuitives. The former outnumber the latter three to one, which is exactly why the world is the way it is. Sensory types are typically extraverts, much engaged with the world. Sensory scientists have no ability whatsoever to imagine or intuit a world in principle beyond their sensory awareness, which is why they are fanatical materialists and empiricists. Had it not been for the fact that intuitives are visionaries who see through to the world beyond this one, to the afterlife, they would long ago have been exterminated by the sensory types, or been Darwinistically deselected from the population. Intuitives have always been the carriers of the “religious gene”. Religion has proved immensely powerful because even the sensing types don’t want to ponder death and their total annihilation and inevitable non-existence, which is exactly where their own theories lead. Only the theories advanced by intuitives give people any hope of continued existence following physical death. Scientific materialism, the most extreme and fanatical expression of the sensory worldview, denies any chance at all of an afterlife. Anyone who truly accepts this view is ipso facto an atheist. Even many scientific materialists themselves are reluctant to accept the logic of their own system and cling to religious beliefs that are unthinkable within the prevailing scientific paradigm. The world has had enough both of scientific materialism and of religious beliefs comforting to sensing types. Abrahamism, with its doctrine of bodily “resurrection”, is what sensing religious types dream of. They want to come back in their existing body and sense all over again, forever. Abrahamism is spectacularly dumb and ridiculous. If people weren’t sensing types, they would reject it instantly. Eastern religion, constructed by intuitive mystics, is firmly based on existence independent of the physical world, and emphasizes that we do not come back to the world via our old body (through resurrection) but in brand new bodies (through reincarnation). It’s time for scientific materialism and Abrahamism to be ditched once and for all. Both are Creationist (the scientific understanding of the Big

Bang can only be characterised as a Creation event “out of nothing”), and both are obsessed with the material body and the senses. We need a New World Order in which intuitives take over. Intuitives place mind over matter, the noumenal over the phenomenal, the unobservable over the observable, the intelligible over the sensible, the rational over the empirical, the eternal over the temporal, the necessary over the contingent, the analytic over the synthetic, the a priori over the a posteriori, the deductive over the inductive, the metaphysical over the physical, the mathematical over the scientific. Intuitives are a Higher Species, more highly evolved. Intuitives are the true Master race, those closest to the Divine Order. It doesn’t matter what race, nationality, sex, or sexuality to which you belong, or whether or not you are physically disabled, if you are intuitive, you are one of the Blessed. You are much closer to paradise than the bestial sensing types. The world has been bullied by stupid sensing types for too long. It’s time for the Revolution. It’s time for the “revaluation of all values” for which Nietzsche called. It’s time for the values of intuitives to replace those of the benighted sensing types. Then we will at last have a rational, peaceful, fair and just world of merit and equal opportunities. We will have a terrestrial paradise, and one that serves as a launchpad to human divinity. Only intuitives – especially intuitive thinkers (INTJ and INTP) – can lead humanity to the true Promised Land. This is the Gospel of Enlightenment. This is the Gospel of the Illuminati.

The Plain Facts All human religions, philosophies, sciences and mythologies are attempts to explain causality, the unperceived “force” that lies behind all perceived effects. How human beings approach the issue of causality is entirely dependent on whether they are sensing, feeling, intuitive or thinking types, and whether they are extraverted or introverted, i.e. how you contemplate causality is a function of your Myers-Briggs personality type. Atheists have abandoned causality and replaced it with randomness, the furthest possible stance from “intelligent design” and teleology. Abrahamists believe the universe was intelligently designed by a conscious being: “God”. Eastern religionists believe that the universe was intelligently designed by an effectively unconscious “God” (not an anthropomorphic

being such as the Abrahamic God). Illuminists know that the universe is intelligently designed because it’s literally made from ontological mathematics, the quintessence of intrinsic intelligent design. Agnostics are those who “don’t know”, and, like the despicable cowards they are, refuse to commit themselves to any position. All humans will never agree on the truth of causality, but that does not mean that there’s no true answer. One group is right and all the others are wrong. The Illuminati, the mathematikoi, are right. That’s a fact. We live in not only a rational, but a hyperrational, universe, 100% defined by ontological mathematics, the subject that enshrines all eternal truths of reason, and the principle of sufficient reason itself. If you are rational, you must become an Illuminist. We do not expect to be joined by irrational scientists who will never leave their Church of Randomness.

Facebook We notice that on Facebook pages broadly sympathetic to Illuminism, critics often show up and leave their toxic, half-baked ramblings on the pages. Not only are these comments not removed (as they should be since there are innumerable pages in the world opposed to the Illuminist position and those are the right places for anyone who wants to rant against Illuminism), but they often go completely unchallenged. What does this tell us? Well, the people who administer these pages and who visit these pages are apathetic and not up for any kind of fight. If anti-Illuminists aggressively leave their droppings on Illuminist pages and get away with it uncontested then it shows that they have dominated the Illuminists and outthought them. It’s clear who the winners are. Why do people sign up to Facebook pages if they’re not willing to fight for the causes they claim to espouse? We completely repudiate all such people. They’re pathetic weaklings and cowards and they can’t even string two eloquent sentences together to take down some arrogant, psychopathic asshole who is more than happy to shit over anything that displeases him. You cannot be an Illuminist if you are not radical. If you allow jerks to dominate you, you are certainly not radical. You are a liberal, complacent coward, like all the rest of the non-entities who do nothing in this world to change anything.

The psychopathic hawks are trampling all over the doves, and the retaliators are doing nothing to fight back. That’s why the world is as it is. If you let people shit all over your doorstep, you’re the one who looks like shit, not them. Go and shit on their doorstep. Or are you too liberal, prissy and up yourself for that? It’s unbelievable to us how little righteous anger there is on supposedly pro-Illuminist sites. We are definitely attracting the wrong kind of people, and that’s truly horrific. There’s nothing worse than dilettantes, posers and Ignavi. If you’ve got no fire in your belly, fuck off! Go and let someone shit on you. We’re not interested in coprophiliacs.

Jesus Question: Is Jesus Christ the “Son of God”, “God the Son” or “God”? Christians use these terms interchangeably, yet how can Jesus be all of these? Doesn’t the term “Son of God” immediately demonstrate that Jesus is different from “God the Father” and that there are in fact multiple Gods, especially when we add “God the Holy Spirit”? Isn’t Christianity supposed to be a monotheism? Either it is or it isn’t. If it is a monotheism, and Jesus Christ is that monotheistic God then how can Jesus be someone’s “son”? It doesn’t make any sense. The Christian concept of three persons in One God (the “Trinity”) is the most absurd of all religious ideas. No Christian could possibly rationally defend it. Christians are functional tritheists. They believe in three Gods, not one, and then, whenever it suits their rhetoric, they irrationally and disingenuously refer to all three as just one God. When a Christian says, “God expects this of us”, does he mean God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit? Does he mean the God of the Old Testament (the “Father”) or God of the New Testament (the “Son”) or the God of the Third Age to Come (the “Holy Spirit”)? All Christian rhetoric is bizarre, irrational and absurd and keeps switching between tritheism (polytheism, paganism) and monotheism. Christians are profoundly silly and confused people, and their stupidity is all too often extremely dangerous to others, as history has demonstrated so frequently.

*****

It’s supremely irritating that the Abrahamists claim to worship the same God. Christians believe in a Trinitarian “God”, while the Jews and Muslims don’t. Christians regard Jesus Christ as God, or, alternatively, as one of the three persons that comprise God. (Take your pick.) The Jews and Muslims both utterly deny that Jesus Christ is God. Jews regard him as a heretical, blasphemous rabbi, and the Muslims as a prophet subservient to Mohammed. To Christians, this is monstrous, so Jews and Muslims are infidels. To the Muslims and Jews, the Christians are infidels. The Jews believe that they are the Chosen People, but the Christians and Muslims do not consider them so (in fact, both of these religions more or less claim that they have replaced the Jews as the Chosen People). The Jews believe that God sent prophets only to the Jews, hence they regard Mohammed, a non-Jew, as a False Prophet, and Muslims as infidel goyim. The Muslims regard Mohammed as the Seal of Prophets and the Koran as the final revelation of God, something wholly rejected by the Jews and Christians. We could go on and on highlighting the unbridgeable differences. It’s simply mad to claim that they all have the same God. They have three different Gods and they are all deadly enemies who regard each other as evil infidels. That’s a fact. And it’s what history has demonstrated.

The Mystery There are far more poor people than rich people. Every country has a right wing party for the rich and a left wing party for the poor. Amazingly, right wing parties, representing the interests of the rich, are at least as likely to be elected as left wing parties, and moreover the left wing parties often serve the same agenda as the rich parties (as in capitalist “democracies”). Logically, the party of the rich should never be elected. The reason they are is that the rich have furnished the poor with a false consciousness. Perversely, many poor people respect and admire the rich, believe they are harder working, smarter and morally superior, believe they are stronger and more capable and that everything would fall apart without them. Moreover, many poor people ludicrously believe that they themselves are destined to be rich (as in the “American Dream”) and seek to model themselves on the rich. For all of these reasons, a tiny number of people can rule the vast majority, and gain the support of a huge proportion of those that they oppress and exploit. There’s a sucker born every second.

Lying Statistics “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” – Mark Twain Lies: mainstream religion. Damned lies: Abrahamism. Statistics: Modern science.

Reincarnation There’s nothing non-scientific about reincarnation. As soon as you accept the noumenal domain of frequency souls (singularities) outside space and time, reincarnation necessarily follows, i.e. if a mind can link to one physical body, it can ipso facto link to a new physical body each time an old physical body dies. Resurrection is, however, completely non-scientific. How could a soul reattach itself to a physical body that has disintegrated into dust and been dispersed to the four winds?

The Leibnizian Multiverse Leibniz anticipated Multiverse theory. He imagined God considering every conceivable universe (i.e. constructing a Multiverse of all possible universes) and then selecting the “best” of these, because God, being perfect goodness, would never choose any but the best possible world. It would be perverse and evil for him to choose anything other than the best. Leibniz makes the assumption that one world must be the best, even if the difference between it and the next best is marginal. He certainly does not assume that all universes are as good as each other, or that any two can be of identical quality. Both subjectively and objectively, these assumptions are correct. There will never be an ontological Multiverse. There is always a Leibnizian sufficient reason why one universe is ontological and all other potential universes are not. Now imagine that there’s no “God” and so all of the universes don’t exist in his mind for him to rationally consider and choose between. Rather, they exist in a hypothetical liminal state, a Limbo space of all possibilities, in a cosmic wavefunction of maximum potentiality and minimum actuality.

Now imagine all of these different, rival universes fighting it out to be actualised. According to Multiverse thinking, all of these universes will be actualised. According to the Leibnizian test, only one universe can be actualised, and all others will perish. The cosmic wavefunction can collapse in only one way (to form a single universe), not in every way (to form a Multiverse). Illuminism asserts that only one universe is mathematically consistent and complete (that of ontological mathematics), and that all alternative universes are either mathematically inconsistent, incomplete, or both, hence fatally flawed and impossible to actualise. Illuminism asserts that only one version of mathematics – ontological mathematics – is stable under all operations and transformations performed on it. All alternative versions are unstable and instantly self-destruct as a direct consequence. Multiverse theorists never consider mathematical consistency, completeness and stability. They claim that universes will come into existence just because they are “possible”. However, they make no attempt to define what “possible” means, i.e. what defines whether something is ontologically possible or not? In Illuminism, “possible” means mathematically consistent, complete and stable under all operations and transformations. The universe of ontological mathematics is the only possible universe because it’s the only one that satisfies all of the specified conditions. It’s the “best” because it’s the only one that can be actualised. It’s an inevitable universe. To use another Leibnizian concept, it’s the “best” because it maximises “compossibility”, i.e. it has the maximum number of components consistent with all the other components. Only this universe can be actualised. All other possible universes have flaws that make them less compossible, and these flaws are automatically fatal. The universe, in order to be actualised, cannot contain a single flaw. It must be perfect, the “best”. We challenge any and all Multiverse theorists to explain on what basis completely bizarre universes full of incompleteness, inconsistency and instability can be considered possible at all. How can they possibly come into actual existence? Why wouldn’t their own flaws cause them to implode instantly?

Multiverse theorists ignore all such problems. They have created a ridiculous fantasy where existence is a predicate and anything they think of, no matter how inconsistent, incomplete or unstable will nevertheless be actualised. This is lunacy and sheer irrationalism, and it breaches Occam’s razor to the maximum possible degree. Cosmologist Max Tegmark, with his four levels of Multiverse, is the worst possible offender.

The Four Types 1) Abrahamists = sensing feeling types. (Mythos) 2) Eastern Religion = intuitive feeling types. (Mythos/Logos) 3) Empiricists = sensing thinking types. (Logos/Mythos) 4) Rationalists = intuitive thinking types. (Logos)

The Historical Problem Historically, mathematicians struggled with zero, infinity, negative and imaginary numbers. Scientists then struggled with exactly the same numbers and arbitrarily banned them from existence, leaving just positive real numbers (and a few negative numbers to signify the charge of, for example, the electron). Mathematically, the world of phenomena (of empiricism and materialism) might be said to be defined by all real numbers greater than zero and less than infinity (with a few negative numbers thrown in to accommodate a balanced system of positive and negative charges). Since this phenomenal universe has discarded so many numbers, it’s mathematically inconsistent, incomplete and unstable. In short, it’s a mathematical joke and farce. The noumenal universe is the one that does not privilege any numbers over any others and embraces all numbers: zero, infinity, all real numbers (positive and negative) and all imaginary numbers (positive and negative). One of the biggest changes that could be made to science is for it to accept imaginary numbers as having as much existence as “real” numbers, thus allowing science to be redefined in terms of complex numbers rather than real numbers. In Illuminism, as described throughout the God Series,

imaginary numbers define “time” (which is actually just imaginary space), while real numbers define “space”, so spacetime necessarily involves complex numbers. Science has no mathematical reason to reject complex numbers in favour of real numbers. It does so because of philosophical prejudice (it fanatically endorses materialism and empiricism). All the questions of existence finally boil down to just one – what is mathematics? In the God Series, every scientific, religious and philosophical question is shown to reduce simply to how to best interpret ontological mathematics. The classical problem of empiricism was to prove that its experiential and experimental laws had any logical necessity and weren’t wholly arbitrary and interpretive. The classical problem of rationalism was to link its logical certainty with observable reality. How can empiricism and rationalism be reconciled, as they must be if we are to have a full account of reality that explains both the noumenal and phenomenal domains? Kant heroically tried with his fallacious category of “synthetic a priori”. But the true answer lies in finding the common language of physics and metaphysics, of the phenomenal and noumenal, the sensible and intelligible. That common language is ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics precisely describes the noumenal, immaterial, dimensionless domain of frequency singularities (monads), outside space and time. It also precisely describes the phenomenal, material, dimensional domain of particles in space and time. However, it does so in terms of the noumenal basis frequencies (via Fourier mathematics). That is, it describes the sensible world in terms of functions ultimately composed of sine and cosine waves. The problem with this is that we don’t perceive the world in terms of sine and cosine waves. Rather, we perceive the world in terms of the elements that make up the Periodic Table of chemistry, and their many combinations. So, we have to invent a conversion tool that translates different sine and cosine functions into the familiar elements. That’s no easy task. In fact, it’s never been done. Quantum mechanics and its wavefunction are as close as we currently get. Quantum mechanics is certainly on the right track but needs a lot of remedial work to get rid of the many materialist and empiricist fallacies on which it currently rests. A new version of quantum

mechanics is required that fully acknowledges the ontology of the monadic domain based on complete mathematics, involving all numbers, and defined solely by the God Equation. It’s the process of converting functions based on analytic sine and cosine waves into the sensory objects of our experience that represents the greatest challenge. As soon as we move away from noumenal analytic functions to phenomenal objects then non-analytic approximations, prone to error and false assumptions, are sure to follow. For example, there’s no such thing in reality as a hydrogen atom, or indeed any type of atom. If you could see a hydrogen atom as a thing-in-itself (noumenon), it would be a mathematical function of sine and cosine waves. “Hydrogen atom” is the phenomenal label we attach to this formally unobservable noumenal function. To be more precise, it’s the label we apply to the observed effects produced by this unseen mathematical function. We will always have this problem of trying to map unseen mathematical functions (the noumenal “causes”) to their observed phenomenal effects (what we perceive with our senses). The senses are mathematical interpreters. They convert unseen mental mathematical functions into sensory impressions that represent the mathematical to world us. We are trapped in this world of representation and can never actually perceive what’s being represented (what the representation is of). We have to work it out rationally (mathematically). The true world is intelligible but we are confronted by a sensible world. The intelligible world is represented by our senses. Our only route to the intelligible world itself is our reason, yet our reason gets confused because it’s trying to make sense of its phenomenal representations, its feelings, desires and intuitions. All of these lead it away from its proper domain: the eternal truths of reason (mathematics). So, there’s the dilemma. How do you understand what you perceive in terms of what you don’t perceive (i.e. that which lies beneath your perceptions)? How do you distinguish what something is in itself (noumenon) from how it’s represented (phenomenon)? The situation is similar to trying to understand a private person (in himself) from his public representation (persona). How do you grasp what’s beneath the mask? Kant’s philosophy was all about the appearance of things (how they are constructed by the mind) versus how those things really are (i.e.

unconstructed; noumenal). He believed that the noumenal domain was unknowable. Illuminism asserts that’s it’s fully knowable – mathematically. Leibniz was right when he said, “Nothing in the intellect without first being in the senses, except the intellect itself.” This crystallizes the dilemma. We could translate this as: “Nothing in the intellect without first being represented, except the intellect itself, which is unrepresented, and actually performs the process of representing.” The intellect is unrepresented (it can’t be perceived by the senses), and then has to understand what is represented to it (but, in fact, it created these representations itself, via Fourier mathematics). It can’t represent itself, so can’t treat itself on a par with everything else. The intellect is trying to grasp two different orders or categories of existence, and it finds this staggeringly difficult. It becomes schizophrenic about the whole thing and invents all sorts of nonsense (Mythos, religion, philosophy, science) to explain things away.

***** The best philosophy for addressing the noumenal versus phenomenal dichotomy is not in fact Kant’s but that of his successor, Schopenhauer. Philosopher R. J. Hollingdale provided an excellent summary of Schopenhauer’s philosophy: “Schopenhauer thought that he alone had understood Kant correctly, and he dismissed Kant’s other successors, especially Hegel, as charlatans. His first act is to interpret Kant in a Berkeleyan sense: he equates Kant’s phenomena with Berkeley’s ideas in the mind and says with Berkeley that the world as it is perceived is a creation of the intellect which perceives it. This he takes to have been proved by Kant, but in any case self-evidently obvious; so that he is able to open the book in which he expounds his philosophy, The World as Will and Idea, with the flat assertion ‘The world is my idea’. This takes care of ‘idea’: but what about ‘my’? What of the ‘I’ which has the idea? Schopenhauer thinks the existence of this ‘I’ an absolute necessity, in the same way as the existence of an ‘apparent’ world makes necessary the existence of a ‘real’ world: and in fact this ‘I’ is the real world, the substratum of the world of phenomena. Now it will be clear that if we have knowledge of ourselves, of this ‘I’, it will be a different kind of knowledge from that which we have of anything else. All other kinds of knowledge

amount to establishing relations between ideas, but knowledge of oneself would be knowledge of immediate reality. And this is what Schopenhauer maintains knowledge of oneself actually is. We know ourselves objectively, in the same way as we know all other phenomena, as an object extended in space and time: we know ourselves as body. But we also know ourselves subjectively, we have an inner consciousness of our own existence, and we possess feelings and desires. This inner world Schopenhauer calls ‘will’: we know ourselves as will. And thus there follows the ‘single thought’ which, properly understood, Schopenhauer says constitutes the whole of his philosophy: ‘My body and my will are one.’ My body is the phenomenal form of my will, my will is the noumenal form of my body: my body is ‘appearance’, my will ‘thing in itself’.” Scientific materialism is absolutely clueless about “I”, about subjectivity, about free will, about the interior world. All scientists would be well advised to study Schopenhauer.

***** Interestingly, in both Kant and Schopenhauer’s philosophies, conventional, “scientific” causation belongs to the phenomenal world but not to the noumenal world. In fact, this was how they accounted for the existence of free will given that the causality of the scientific world seemed to make free will impossible. That is, the noumenal domain, outside space and time, offered a way to escape from the causal necessity of spacetime. In Illuminism, there are two types of causality, which we label “objective” and “subjective”. Objective causality exists in the relations between monads. If monads were objects only then there would only be objective causality, and we would live in a machine universe. However, each monad, with respect to itself, is a subject, and can obey its own subjective causality, i.e. it does things for its own reasons and causes. These belong to it and are not forced onto it by anything else. It’s therefore free of external constraint. It can freely choose between different courses of action open to it, and it will do so according to rational considerations. It will choose the option which seems best able to maximise its Will to Power. All of its behaviours and actions are caused, i.e. they are not random. Monads are free in the sense that they have causal agency that does not result from any external, inexorable and inescapable constraint or force. In

scientific materialism, there are no minds independent of matter, there is no noumenal domain outside space and time, and there is no such quality as subjectivity, hence free will is formally impossible. This alone proves that scientific materialism is rationally false. Our ability to make free choices according to our own unconstrained will (and not the will or causal force of anything else) is the definitive disproof of science!

The Solution Before Illuminism, there was no way of linking the noumenal and phenomenal, intelligible and sensible, rational and empirical, the necessary and contingent the a priori and the a posteriori, the deductive and inductive, the analytic and synthetic, the eternal and temporal, the scientific (physics) and the religious and philosophical (metaphysics). Now Illuminism’s ontological mathematics accomplishes all of that.

Difficulty “Being a woman is a terribly difficult task since it consists principally in dealing with men.” – Joseph Conrad “Being clever is a terribly difficult task since it consists principally in dealing with the stupid .” – Illuminism “Being intuitive is a terribly difficult task since it consists principally in dealing with sensing types.” – Illuminism

Degradation Science asserts that all that exists is matter, which degrades over time. However, this is manifestly false. For one thing, objective matter is incompatible with any interpretation of quantum mechanics. More importantly, the laws of science are immaterial, have no location in space and time and never degrade. Hence the laws of science themselves belong to an entirely different order or category of existence than the things controlled by those laws. Science has never explained this. Mathematics provides the definitive answers. Mathematics, critically, can exist dimensionlessly as well as dimensionally. Science denies the possibility of dimensionless existence, hence denies itself any rational way

out of its inherent contradiction. The laws of mathematics exist dimensionlessly and they control the things of mathematics that appear dimensionally. There’s absolutely no contradiction or mystery. Where are the laws of matter? What are they? They can’t themselves be material, hence can’t belong to the materialist paradigm they are intended to explain, and in fact instantly contradict that paradigm and prove that it’s false. Mathematics suffers from no such problem. The laws of mathematics are contained in a dimensionless, immaterial frequency Singularity outside space and time. They are the eternal, necessary, analytic laws of existence itself. Causality cannot be perceived in science. This is no problem in mathematics. Causality belongs to the unobservable Singularity outside space and time. Even the causality that seems to take place in space and time (but is not observed) is, at a deeper level, always traceable back to the Singularity, and to eternal, dimensionless, immaterial mathematical frequencies defined by the God Equation. Science had such a severe problem with unperceived causality that it finally abandoned it and replaced it with randomness and probability (unfortunately, these are also unperceived!). Science is now formally irrational and opposed to the principle of sufficient reason (which dictates causality). Science cannot explain the Big Bang. It cannot explain how matter comes from non-matter, how space and time come from non-space and nontime, how dimensionality comes from a dimensionless point (the Singularity). It magics existence out of a top hat. It claims that a random fluctuation (in what and by what?!) gave rise to the universe. Science is an intellectual joke, a Mythos. Science is not a reflection of reality but a representation, a model, a simulacrum, of reality. Like many models, it’s very successful within certain narrow limits, but outside those limits it falls apart and is utterly useless. The scientific model has zero ability to explain a) itself, b) mind, c) life, d) consciousness, e) free will. In all of these cases, it has zero predictive ability, and yet the whole point of scientific models is to be predictive. The model works only where it is forced to work by virtue of being matched to experiments. Where experiments are impossible, the model has literally zero validity and applicability. It’s 100% useless. Scientists have fooled themselves into believing that because their model is highly successful in a

limited arena (that of materialism), it must be true in general and apply to everything. Yet even the much vaunted standard model of physics now only applies to a mere 5% of the stuff of the universe and everything else (“dark” energy and “dark” matter) is a mystery, unable to be modelled within the standard model. Why haven’t scientists realised that they are modellers of reality and not reflectors of reality? They represent reality, they interpret reality, the describe reality, what they don’t do is define reality and explain reality. The Newtonian model of the universe was once deemed unbeatable. Then it was beaten ... by the Einsteinian model. However, now this model must be doubted in its turn because it’s incompatible with the most successful scientific model thus far, that of quantum mechanics. Yet no scientist understands quantum mechanics and what it says about reality. It’s a total mystery to scientists. Quantum scientists like to say, “Shut up and calculate!” This means that you must not bother attempting to understand the validity or meaning of the quantum mechanical model. You are simply to act like a computer and use it to calculate various useful things. It’s all about pragmatic use, not about meaning and understanding. Ontological mathematics fully explains the Big Bang Singularity. It’s a mathematical Singularity composed of countless monadic singularities, which are self-contained, autonomous frequency domains. These are immortal minds = souls! The Big Bang was a Fourier mathematical event (an inverse Fourier transform on a cosmic scale) that generated a collective spacetime function from countless individual frequency functions. There’s no mystery at all! Ontological mathematics explains the Big Bang, science doesn’t. Ontological mathematics explains causality, science doesn’t. Ontological mathematics explains itself, science doesn’t. Ontological mathematics reflects the principle of sufficient reason, science doesn’t. Ontological mathematics is eternal and necessary, science isn’t. Only a fool would go on believing in science in preference to ontological mathematics. Scientific materialism is now a quasi-religious faith: a Church with its dogmas, its popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, deacons, nuns, monks and gurus. It even has an Inquisition (funding committees) which ruthlessly stamp out all heresy (by denying funding to anyone who dares to challenge the Church of Science).

Science is staggeringly resistant to any new thinking that challenges its entrenched dogmas. It’s especially resistant to mathematics even though it’s based on mathematics. The reason for its hostility to mathematics is simple: mathematics has nothing to do with experiments, and scientists believe that reality is finally a question of sensory observation and perception rather than one of reason and intellect. It can’t be stressed enough that theories based on the senses are incompatible with those based on the intellect. You are either an intellectual or a sensualist. You can’t be both. The intellect necessarily transcends the senses and indeed is responsible for the capacity to have sensory experience in the first place.

The Greatest Triumph The greatest triumph of Illuminism was to realise that the noumenal, metaphysical domain was not some mystical, speculative arena of faith and intuition but could be fully defined and explained mathematically, hence became a domain of pure, eternal, Platonic reason, free of all mumbo jumbo and hocus pocus. Faith has zero place in relation to what lies beyond this world. It’s purely and exclusively a mathematical issue. We can know the noumenal domain with absolute certainty, unlike the deceptive realm of phenomena (the realm of Maya: illusion). Hitherto, mathematics has only been associated with the phenomenal world of spacetime, the world of physics. Physicists openly say that the mathematical laws of physics “fall apart” at singularities, i.e. where space, time and matter are impossible. Certainly, the laws of physics fail, but not those of mathematics. Singularities are ontological mathematical frequency domains, and are completely definable and understandable, but only via mathematical reason and definitely not via experiments.

Scientists Scientists are simpletons. Most of them, especially the ones more interested in experiments and practicality than theory, subscribe to naive “common sense” (of the type Einstein railed at, dismissing it as just prejudices acquired before the age of 18). For simple scientists, seeing is believing;

what you see is what you get; if you can’t perceive it, it’s because it doesn’t exist. It’s time for these simple Simons to be replaced.

The Eternal Science is a materialist ideology. Matter degrades. It’s not eternal. Ontological mathematics is idealist. It does not degrade. It’s eternal. Do we inhabit an eternal universe of pure existence, or does the universe erupt out of non-existence, and later return to non-existence? The idea that existence can ever come from non-existence is a category error and utterly insane, yet it’s to this madness that science subscribes, rather than to a rational, eternal universe of mathematics.

Confirmation Bias Many people are motivated to criticize our ideas. All committed Abrahamists will certainly reject everything we say, and will quote their “holy” texts to proclaim that we are going to hell. Karmists will reject everything we say given that we regard karma as one of the most absurd ideas ever devised. Scientists will bang on about “evidence” and completely ignore everything we have said about the difference between evidence and proof. If Wittgenstein were alive today, he would certainly disagree with our entire position. Wittgenstein equally had no time for Gödel’s ideas, and plainly didn’t understand them. So, take two geniuses such as Wittgenstein and Gödel and let them argue it out. Do you seriously imagine they will ever agree? They are coming from two wholly different perspectives. If one is right, the other is ipso facto wrong. That’s a fact. Intellectuals, with well-developed theories and entrenched stances are not known for abruptly abandoning their ideas and embracing the position of their bitterest enemies. In fact, such a thing has never happened. Don’t delude yourself that intellectuals can agree. They can’t. Throughout the God Series, we have emphasized that what you think about the world is determined by your psychological type. If you are a feelings

type you will be drawn toward Mythos explanation, couched in a compelling, emotive narrative, as in Abrahamism. If you are an intuitive, you will be drawn towards mysticism, as in Eastern religion. If you are a sensing type, scientific materialism will be the ideology that confirms your inherent biases. If you are a rationalist, you will be inexorably drawn to the likes of Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz and Gödel. People can’t help themselves in how they comprehend reality. Their inner biases are almost impossible to overcome. We have always asserted that Illuminism is essentially for INTJ and INTPs, with a few enlightened people from other types such as INFJ, INFP, ISTJ and ISTP able to join in. We have never endorsed relativism. Frankly, we’re right and everyone who opposes us is wrong. There’s a simple reason for that. Illuminism is predicated on eternal truths of reason, and no other system is. Our truths are beyond challenge. All other “truths” are just opinions, beliefs, guesses and interpretations. If existence has an answer then that answer must be ontological mathematics. If it doesn’t have an answer, you might as well believe anything you like, whatever makes you feel good. The only critique of Illuminism to which we would ever listen is that coming from someone who a) has read all of the God Series, b) understands it inside out, and c) can rationally defeat our arguments using nothing but ontological mathematics. The odds against that are simply astronomical. We would no more listen to someone such as Wittgenstein than he would listen to us. We regard his philosophy as 100% false, and he would think the same of Illuminism. The fact is, you have to choose sides, What side you choose will be determined by your psychological type, not by your grasp of “truth”. We have presented our system in great detail. If you haven’t “got it”, you never will. It’s beyond you. Too bad.

***** All critics of Illuminism have their own axes to grind and their own pet theories to support. Whenever you read any critiques of our position, always make sure that you understand the schemas from which these attacks are being launched. Then ask yourself if we have not already trashed all of these alternative schemas throughout the God Series. We have never

once encountered a good, knowledgeable critique of Illuminism, but we have certainly seen plenty of sophistry.

Representation Scientists have never grasped the concept of representation. They have a naive belief that when they look at the external world they are seeing objective reality rather than a representation that masks what’s actually there. Humans see the representation, not the thing in itself. Scientists think that humans do see the thing in itself. They imagine that the eyes are like cameras that objectively record what’s in front of them. However, it has been proved that, in the rare cases when blind people are cured of their blindness, they have no idea what they are looking at, and are often driven mad and depressed by the visual confusion that confronts them. These people are probably seeing reality in a way that’s much closer to how it is in itself. They have not learned to filter and manipulate it, to process and interpret it, to rationalise the jumble of signals into something manageable and useful. Once you accept the truth that our senses represent reality rather than reflect it then you realise that there is ipso facto a world of nonrepresentation that underlies the world of representation. We can never get at this world experimentally or observationally, as all scientists erroneously believe. Only reason and intellect can reach it. Science’s obsession with experiments and senses over reason is an obsession with avoiding the existential problem of representation. How can you know what is true and real when you can only ever see the mask and never what’s beneath the mask? Experiments and the senses operate at the level of representation, not at the level of things in themselves. Quantum mechanics has proved so problematic because it’s operating at such a fundamental level that it’s going beyond the mask to what’s underneath, but all scientific theories are based on representation (the mask level), hence cannot accommodate the unmasked world of non-representation (the noumenal domain). Noumena are “hidden variables”, and these have been resoundingly rejected by science, which is now all about reality being based on observation (empiricism).

Fourier Representation Fourier mathematics allows noumenal frequency functions to be represented in spacetime, material terms. It’s with our senses that we encounter these Fourier representations. We don’t encounter them in their analytic, noumenal mathematical terms but as sensory data: sights, sounds, tastes, smells and touches. Accordingly, most people have no idea at all that they’re inhabiting a mathematical world. Fourier spacetime (material) functions are representations of Fourier frequency (mental) functions, and the Fourier representations are themselves then represented in sensory terms. We are thus at two levels removed from the noumenal things in themselves. We are perceiving a sensory representation of a phenomenal mathematical representation of noumenal mathematics. That’s exactly why the world is mysterious and not self-evident. Only intellect allows us to penetrate the two levels of representation and get to the noumenal truth. Science partially penetrates the sensory level of representation to reach, in an ad hoc and inaccurate way, the underlying phenomenal mathematical representation. The laws of science are science’s best attempt at describing noumenal reality, which is the immaterial, dimensionless Fourier frequency Singularity outside space and time. Scientists, befuddled and beguiled by their senses, and wholly lacking in imagination, intuition and reason, simply cannot conceive that anything stands outside and beyond their perceptions. They will never “get it”. They are dinosaurs, quasi religious believers, just one step up from the bestial, moronic Abrahamists. Indeed, large numbers of scientists are Abrahamists! Which rather tells its own tale about the intellects of these sad, failed people, wholly estranged from the truth of existence. If you are not intuitive, you don’t have a prayer of grasping true reality. It’s intuition that allows us to “see”, with our mind’s eye, that there’s something beyond representation.

***** Science, religion and philosophy are all stuck at the level of representation of reality rather than of reality itself. Representation is Maya – illusion. Eastern religion seeks to transcend Maya through mystical intuition and the

writings and sayings of gurus such as Buddha. Abrahamism seeks to transcend representation through faith, inspired by “divine revelation” and the words, sayings and holy texts of “prophets”. Science has failed to understand that there’s anything at all beyond representation and believes that representation is reality, that their senses factually and accurately reflect what’s there, and that anything that’s not reflected by the senses can’t be there at all. They say, “Nothing in the intellect without first being in the senses.” They therefore wholly reject all noumena, hidden variables, rational unobservables and everything that cannot be detected by the senses. Illuminism transcends representation not through faith or mysticism but through ontological mathematics alone, the quintessential subject of reason. Illuminism is pure rationalism. It rejects all faith, all mysticism, all mumbo jumbo, all hocus pocus, all worship of the senses. It’s about reason alone, and reason, ontologically, is simply ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics alone is truth. That’s a fact. Ontological mathematics explains everything and is everything.

***** Reason can be accessed discursively and intuitively. The most powerful minds are intuitive thinking minds.

Music and the Will Schopenhauer believed that the incredible power of music resulted from the fact that it was a direct phenomenal copy, or manifestation in space and time, of the noumenal Will outside space and time. A phenomenal body or object was also a direct phenomenal copy, but this meant that a painting or sculpture was a phenomenal copy of a phenomenal copy, hence was less immediate and powerful than music. A reproduction of a painting would lose even more power since it would now be a third-generation copy of the original. In Illuminism, noumenal mathematics is all about the God Equation and the Fourier frequency domain that it defines. Music is a phenomenal representation of mathematics designed for the ears and to produce emotional effects. Music is therefore auditory mathematics or “the mathematics of feeling”.

Only the Smartest Illuminism is solely for the smartest and/or most intuitive people on Earth. Those who can grasp Illuminism belong to a Higher Humanity ... HyperHumanity, those closest to achieving enlightenment and becoming gods. If you don’t “get” Illuminism then it’s because you’re not intelligent enough. Soz! The Truth isn’t for everyone.

Hologram The interference pattern recorded on a hologram is, loosely speaking, the thing in itself (in fact, it’s actually a 2D phenomenal copy of a noumenal frequency pattern). The 3D image that appears when the hologram is suitably illuminated is a higher dimensional phenomenal representation of the interference pattern. The universe is a mathematical hologram. All of the information it projects can ultimately be traced back to a zero-dimensional frequency Singularity.

How Thinking Is Shaped A person who subscribes, as the Copenhagen School of quantum physicists did, to the principle that all of “real” existence must be observable is ipso facto forced down certain paths, and excluded from other, mutually exclusive paths. A person who does not accept that all of real existence must be observable has much greater scope. Here’s a simple question. What sufficient reason do empiricists have for asserting that existence must be observable, i.e. detectable in principle by the human senses. Well, none. Their position is a quasi-religious faith in observation. Had the Copenhagen quantum physicists not subscribed to this faith, they would have sought deeper explanations for quantum mechanics and ultimately arrived at a hidden variables mathematical theory ... ontological mathematics (Illuminism!). All roads lead to Illuminism in the end. Illuminism is the absolute Platonic Truth, the Form of the Good ... God! God is an equation, the equation of existence, the God Equation.

A Simple Question Does the mind perceive external reality directly, or does it represent or construct external reality, as Kant argued? Why do scientists refuse to engage with such questions? What are they afraid of? Are they too stupid? Is “science” the Emperor with his new clothes? The Emperor is stark naked but the people are too scared to laugh. Do material atoms construct sensory organs, brains and thence minds? Or do minds construct atoms and thus the whole material world and the bodies and objects it contains? Is the intellect in bodies and the sense organs, or are bodies and the sense organs in the intellect? Is matter a mental representation, or minds a material representation? Science can’t even begin to answer these questions. It’s effectively a religion that starts from the dogmatic position that matter is real and objective, and everything is made from it. Can any scientist give any sufficient reason why matter should be primary and mind secondary, especially given that matter allegedly sprang from nothing at all?! Scientists are so stupid that they can’t grasp how stupid they are. Their position is full of absurd prejudices and biases, ludicrous and untenable assumptions, stances that long ago logically unravelled. What’s left really comes down to this: Shut up and calculate! That is, forget trying to assign any meaning to science. Do not feign any hypotheses, as Newton crazily said (since everything he claimed about physics was part of his hypothesis about the nature of reality, a hypothesis now 100% refuted ontologically, exactly as Leibniz said it would be). Science is purely instrumental and computational. It’s all about modelling. You stick numbers into scientific formulae and get numbers out, and you can do things in the real world with these results, but you mustn’t think about what they actually mean. You will never find any meaning in science, which is exactly why you have to “shut up” – just like religion, which tells all apostates, heretics and infidels to shut up. Science has absolute contempt for truth, reason, and the ultimate answers to existence. Many scientists openly say that they love the “mystery” of the universe and want great theories to fail so that new theories will have to be found. Why are they so scared of finding the answers? What perverse people they are, an insult to the true intelligentsia. Any genuine intellectual has only one aim: to discover the absolute,

definitive, infallible answer to everything. That answer is ontological mathematics. That’s a fact.

Evolution The mind evolved under the brutal, dialectical pressure of life, survival and reproduction, not intellectual pressure. We are wired to survive, not to be geniuses who can grasp the truth. Survival comes before reason. People believe things that aid their immediate survival, not things that are true. As Nietzsche said, humans have no “organ for truth”. The truth is a luxury. It arrives only once evolution is very advanced. The human ability to reason philosophically, scientifically and, ultimately, in terms of ontological mathematics, belongs only to a tiny proportion of humanity, no more than ten percent. Imagine if that number were 100%. We would be gods! Earth would be paradise. It’s the evolutionary duty of the smartest to bring about the elevation of humanity to divinity, and that means taking appropriate measures against the masses, especially Abrahamists and Karmists, who are obstructing evolution with their insane, childish, bestial beliefs, wholly estranged from reason.

***** “We simply lack any organ for knowledge, for ‘truth’: We ‘know’ (or believe or imagine) just as much as may be useful in the interests of the human herd, the species.” – Nietzsche Nietzsche is right about the herdlings. They “know” no more than the herd allows or expects them to know. Herdlings never want to be outliers, which would place them outside the herd.

The Correspondence Theory of Truth The correspondence theory of truth is the view that truth is correspondence to “facts”. This is how science operates, and what it fundamentally assumes. However, if “facts” are actually representations rather than things in themselves then they are interpretations of truthful facts, not truthful facts

themselves. In fact, they could be utterly false interpretations, hence have no correspondence to truth whatsoever. An organ for truth is one that would “know” what truth is directly. If we have no such organ (and we definitely don’t!) then we cannot know truth directly and have to work at it, to use our reason to arrive at eternal truths that cannot possibly be false. Any authentic truth, as opposed to any interpretation of truth, must be 100% true. Only the analytic definitions of tautological, ontological mathematics qualify. All other claims to truth, including the correspondence theory, are mere interpretations, beliefs, conjectures and opinions.

***** How do you distinguish between a “fact” and a representation of a fact, or an interpretation of a fact? The only true facts have eternal veracity, and the only such facts are those of ontological mathematics. Everything else, as Nietzsche said, is mere interpretation.

Predators? Enemies of free-market capitalism talk of predatory capitalism (free-market capitalism) versus productive capitalism (social capitalism). Obviously, the free-market capitalists see a need to fight back. So, what have they come up with? Well, they now refer to “predatory taxation” (high taxation for the rich) and “productive taxation” (little or no taxation for the rich). You have to laugh!

***** Anarchists used to say, “All property is theft.” Now we find them saying, “All taxation is theft” – which is the 100% opposite position. Ah well, that’s anarchy for you ... ultra right wing, libertarian garbage that supports Ayn Rand’s deranged vision of unregulated, uncontrolled free-market capitalism. Anarchists have now joined the super rich as the evil enemy that must be defeated.

Financial Darwinism

Speaking Darwinistically, if 85 people have as much wealth as 3.5 billion people, the 3.5 billion should kill the 85, eat them and take everything they own. If they don’t, they have proved that they are unfit to survive and they ought to kill themselves and give everything they own to the 85. Isn’t it time the world got real?

Etymology “The word mathematics comes from the Greek máthēma, which, in the ancient Greek language, means ‘that which is learnt’, ‘what one gets to know’, hence also ‘study’ and ‘science’... “In Latin, and in English until around 1700, the term mathematics more commonly meant ‘astrology’ (or sometimes ‘astronomy’) rather than ‘mathematics’; the meaning gradually changed to its present one from about 1500 to 1800. This has resulted in several mistranslations: a particularly notorious one is Saint Augustine’s warning that Christians should beware of mathematici meaning astrologers, which is sometimes mistranslated as a condemnation of mathematicians.” – Wikipedia Mathematicians are the “learners”, the “students” driven by the quest for knowledge. They despise faith, which is the total rejection of knowledge and reason in favour of fairy stories about ancient tribes wandering in deserts.

The Intellect The intellect generates the senses. They do not generate it. Empiricism is inherently false. As Leibniz said, the intellect is not in the senses. But they are certainly in it.

Scientific Creation From “Nothing” The scientific notion of creation from nothing (from non-existence, from absolute nothingness) is incoherent and absurd. According to science, nonexistence is capable of generating random events, but in that case something exists: the capacity for random generation and the mathematical framework in which this is possible. This is wholly logically inexplicable. The ancient Greeks would have found it comical, crazy and totally irrational. Science

simply uses magic to create the universe. It can provide no sufficient reason for the universe’s existence.

No Reformation If Islam kills all apostates, heretics, infidels and freethinkers, who’s left to reform it? Christianity was forced to change because the Enlightenment brought intelligent deists and atheists to the fore. Islam would kill all such people, hence Islam can never become enlightened. Islam is a religion of pure violence. What is the rest of the world to do about this mad, violent beast in its midst?

False Claimants There are many claimants to the truth, but only one truth. So, at best, all but one claimant is false. That’s a fact. Illuminism asserts that only reason is true. Anything not based on reason is false. Only ontological mathematics encapsulates the principle of sufficient reason. Anything that does not have this principle built into it is false. We can’t make you rational. You either are or you aren’t. We can’t make you acknowledge the principle of sufficient reason. You either accept it or you don’t. But what does it say about you if you don’t? It says that you are an irrationalist. Is that what you are? At least 90% of humans are irrationalists. That’s why humanity is so fucked.

Funny Money “It must be the biggest confidence trick of all time. It is a cheat, a scam, a fiddle, a bankers’ ramp, a revenge of big money against an ungrateful world. It is called quantitative easing, and nobody has a clue what it means. According to the Bank of England, the past four years have seen £325bn pumped into the British economy to kick-start growth, with another £50bn now on the way. This enormous sum does not exist and never has. It is not ‘printed’ money or funny money. It is no money. The one silver bullet on which the coalition relies to pull Britain out of recession is a fiction.” – Simon Jenkins, The Guardian

The Money Changers “The narrative of the ‘Cleansing of the Temple’ tells of Jesus and the money changers, and occurs in all four canonical gospels of the New Testament. “In this Gospel episode Jesus and his disciples travel to Jerusalem for Passover, where he expels the money changers from the Temple, accusing them of turning the Temple into a den of thieves through their commercial activities.” – Wikipedia It’s one thing for Jesus Christ to regard the Temple as a place where no commercial transactions (capitalism!) should take place. However, he goes much further than that. When he overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those “who sold pigeons” (!), and accused them of making the Temple into a “den of thieves”, he was declaring commercialism (free-market capitalism) itself to be a system of thievery, which automatically turns any place in which it is practised, including holy places, into sources of criminality. So why isn’t capitalism banned by Christians? Isn’t there a Divine Commandment ordering no one to steal? Jesus Christ himself linked money changing and selling things at more than cost to theft. He despised the profit principle and was a communist long before communism existed. How can any Christian capitalist contemplate what Jesus Christ did in the Temple and remain a capitalist? Talk about irrationalism!

Off Her Trolley JA: “China and Russia is at War with the Rothschild. The smog in China is manufactured, through weather control. Ukraine protest is manufactured for oil and pipe lines control by the IMF’s wankers. When will the people realise that the psychopaths world government are actually dogs eating dogs business and they do not care by sacrificing their people’s life? ... the sooner all government falls, the sooner the chaos is over, everyone has to do their part Apocalypse 1,2,3 & 4 together! Stop feeding the Machine and the Beast. ... The final stage is the EMP! that is directly coming from the Sun!” [Sic]

This is what an irrational anarchist conspiracy theorist believes is going on in the world. Nutcase!

Incentivising War Islam says that you go straight to heaven if you are killed (martyred) in battle on behalf of Islam. In the Middle Ages, Catholicism said you would receive a plenary indulgence (full remission of all sins) if you went on a Crusade against infidels or heretics, and be forgiven any sins you committed during the Crusade (which usually translated into being free to rape, pillage and murder). All Jews were told they were doing God’s work when they committed genocide against the Canaanites. Religion is inherently violent. It goes out of its way to encourage murder of apostates, infidels and heretics. Tony Blair stated that religious extremism has become the biggest source of conflict around the world, replacing extreme political ideology. He said, “There is one thing self-evidently in common: the acts of terrorism are perpetrated by people motivated by an abuse of religion. It is a perversion of faith.” This is absurd. Jihad, holy war, crusades, inquisitions, pogroms, persecutions, witch-burnings, martyrdom for dying in battle, plenary indulgences for slaughter, and so on, are, and always have been, the quintessence of faith. Religious faith itself is the source of conflict, evil, and violence and must be eradicated.

Liberty Fascism and communism were both “positive liberty” political systems. Capitalist democracy is a “negative liberty” political system. When politics exits the positive liberty stage, religion enters (where it has always been waiting in the wings). All religions are “positive liberty” systems. The simple fact is that positive liberty is essential to people’s collective identity (group bonding). If they don’t get it politically, they will get it through some other means, especially religiously. It’s not surprising that most American capitalists are also Fundamentalist Christians. Christianity provides their positive liberty hit. In Europe, Christianity is much more popular with right wing capitalists than with any other group.

The 21st century has seen the rise of total hatred of government and the State. This is precisely because government and the State no longer stand for anything. They have no values and no vision. They have ceded economic control to capitalist markets and the super rich. So, there’s nothing to admire about politicians, hence all of their many faults are highlighted, and they are rightly held in contempt. There’s simply no point in being a politician in a negative liberty State because you have no power to change anything. You are expected to stay out of people’s lives as much as possible, so what need is there for you at all? Why not cede all control to capitalism, as Ayn Rand advocated? The 9/11 “Truth” Movement is a positive liberty system, uniting conspiracy theorists in their hatred of government and the State, and calling for their abolition. Anarchist arguments are gaining ground everywhere. Religious extremism and anarchy are exactly what are to be expected when government has created a positive liberty vacuum. People must have a positive liberty collective identity in order to form coherent groups with a common purpose. They must have a “sacred cause” greater than themselves. Modern politics has refused to have any positive liberty vision, hence religious fundamentalism is on the rise again. In Egypt in the 1950s and 60s, when Nasser was president, there was no widespread Islamic religious extremism. When Atatürk was in charge of Turkey, there was no religious extremism. When secular leaders provide a positive liberty vision, religion declines. When they don’t, religion, cults, sects, anarchy and conspiracy theories all flourish. The government and State must provide a positive liberty vision, or they might as well not exist at all.

***** All modern politicians are negative libertarians. They have no grand ideas or visions. They are merely managers of the system imposed on them by capitalist free markets, banks and corporations over which they have absolutely no control. They are merely people who impose taxes and then spend those taxes. Right wing parties want to tax a little less, and left wing parties to tax a little more, and that’s the sole difference between them. All political rhetoric usually comes down to right wing parties supporting a five

percent tax cut, with concomitant less public spending, and left wing parties supporting a five percent tax hike, with more public spending. Of course, in the bigger scheme of things, none of this matters a jot. It’s completely irrelevant to the lives of 99.9% of the people. Politics, like art and philosophy, has died and become a sad joke. Art was replaced by postmodern conceptualism. Philosophy was replaced by science. Politics has been replaced by economics. That’s the way the world turns.

Positive Liberty The whole world revolves around 1) “positive liberty” = the “sacred cause” = the identity and cause greater than oneself, and 2) “negative liberty” = the “profane cause” = the cause of oneself, or of one’s family and friends. All people who are negative libertarian when it comes to government and the State are usually positive libertarian in some other context, especially that of religion. It’s more or less impossible to exist in a pure negative liberty state. Psychopaths are the category of people who can ignore positive liberty in all contexts and simply engage in blatant self-interest 100% of the time. Well, what’s it to be? What flavour of positive liberty do you want? – political or religious? With religious positive liberty, you will be ruled by a dogmatic theocracy, such as that in many Muslim nations, who will wish to impose tyrannical religious law (such as Sharia Law) on you. If you endorse negative political liberty then you will get free-market capitalism shoved down your throat, and 85 people having as much wealth as 3.5 billion people. Is that what you want? Political negative liberty often goes hand in hand with religious positive liberty. If you want to bring religious and economic tyranny to an end, you must support political positive liberty. National Socialism and communism both stood up to religion and predatory capitalism. Both systems obviously had severe flaws, but these flaws can be rectified – via a Meritocratic Republic based on social capitalism, involving “small capitalism” within a publicly owned and controlled economic infrastructure. The world has fled from political positive liberty because of the horrors associated with the French Revolution, Nazism and the Soviet Union, yet

free-market capitalism, Abrahamism and Karmism certainly haven’t provided an earthly paradise, and never will. Political positive liberty is the only way forward. Religious positive liberty drags us back to the past, and economic positive liberty (which is always associated with political negative liberty) gives us the world we have today, with a tiny number of rich capitalists controlling the whole world, while being unelected by the people and unaccountable to the people. It’s time people stopped living in La La land. Only a fair, just political system of equal opportunities (created via 100% inheritance tax), and rewarding the highest talent and intelligence, can lead the world forward to heaven on earth. Mainstream religious must perish and so must free-market capitalism.

***** Economic “positive liberty” means rule by private banks, by private companies and corporations, by the private super rich, by private, dynastically wealthy families. Their “positive liberty” agenda has its goal not the general (public) good, but the individual (private) good. Yet they also argue that this private good operates via an “invisible hand” in such a way as to elevate everyone (“a rising tide lifts all boats”) and deliver the best public outcomes, even though that’s never a stated objective. This is the world we have today, the world of gross privilege and grotesque financial inequality, of unequal opportunities, inheritance, cronyism, nepotism, rigged markets, ruthless cartels and psychopaths. Well, are you buying it? Is your boat rising? If not, what are you doing about it?

***** The main drivers of predatory capitalism, international finance and globalism (economic positive liberty) were the Stateless Jews, who were frequently persecuted by positive liberty political systems. The Jews saw economic success as the path to power, influence and freedom, and have been proved absolutely right. Under a positive liberty meritocracy, 100% inheritance tax would ensure that they lost all of their power, wealth and influence, and had to once again compete equally with everyone else.

Negative Liberty versus Positive Liberty Negative liberty means being free from something (rulers, rules, laws, commandments, governments, dogma, doctrines, interference, force, morality, religion, politics, economics, surveillance, and so on). Anarchy is the supreme negative liberty ideology. The jungle is the clearest expression of negative liberty: all animals are free from any constraints other than the “law of the jungle”. Positive liberty means being free for something. It usually entails a grand vision that a person, group, community, society or State work towards. Plato’s Republic is perhaps the greatest ever positive liberty vision: a totally designed State intended to produce the best possible outcomes for all of its citizens. While negative liberty is typically contrasted with positive liberty, we can also define “anti-liberty” as the direct opposite of both, hence meaning “not free for something” in relation to positive liberty and “not free from something” in relation to negative liberty. Positive, negative and anti liberty are in constant conflict in the four great arenas: politics, economic, religion and science. The Western World began with ancient Greece, which was full of positive liberty city-states, with every citizen expected to be fully engaged with the state and to reflect its values and ethos. Alexander the Great unified the Greeks and Macedonia and then created a Greek-Macedonian empire, spreading Greek culture round much of the known world. This empire then gave way to the Roman Republic and subsequently the Roman Empire, a great positive liberty project to make the whole civilised world Roman (and Greek too since Greek culture had massively influenced Rome). The Roman Empire then gave way to the Roman Catholic Church (the “Universal” Church), which had a great positive liberty ambition to make the whole world Catholic. The Holy Roman Empire then joined the Catholic Church, providing (up to a point) its political, military and economic wing. The Protestant Reformation attacked the positive liberty Catholic Church and Holy Roman Empire. It had the effect of introducing negative libertarian ideas since many Protestant sects arose and all of them wanted freedom from State persecution or interference. John Calvin established a fanatical positive liberty Protestant city-state in Geneva but many negative libertarian Protestants moved to America to set up

operations in a nation free from the Catholic Church and from persecutory governments, monarchs and emperors. America eagerly embraced economic positive liberty and political negative liberty in the shape of freemarket capitalism. The rational Enlightenment further eroded the positive liberty vision of Catholicism and introduced “free thinking”, which was usually associated with negative liberty since freethinkers railed against established dogma. The decline of unitary Catholicism went hand in hand with the rise of fragmentary nationalism and the nation state. Nation states often had a positive liberty outlook in terms of building great empires for themselves (such as the British and French empires). These competing positive liberty visions invariably clashed, leading to great wars. WWI was a vast positive liberty war, with all parties pursuing their own naked imperial ambitions. After WWI and the collapse of the great empires, positive liberty was expressed through fascism in several countries (such as Italy, Germany and Spain), and communism in the Soviet Union. As for Japan, it developed a positive liberty imperial ambition, and an outlook compatible with fascism (with which it was allied). Imperialism largely died with WWI, fascism with WWII and communism with the end of the Cold War. What was left standing? Capitalist democracy, championed by America. Capitalist democracy is negative libertarian politically. Governments and States are supposed to interfere as little as possible with their citizens and their economic system. America has never had any political “vision” at all other than allowing great apparent freedom to its citizens (but really just the freedom to consume and to rant), and not pursuing any positive liberty political vision such as that of fascism or communism. It has openly warred with fascist and communist States alike, with totalitarianism and dictators. However, while America has not pursued political positive liberty, it has pursued with the utmost aggression economic positive liberty, i.e. freemarket capitalism. Free-market capitalism goes hand in hand with political negative liberty (i.e. politics free from any political vision). Capitalism is left alone to pursue its own vision, and that vision is to transfer as much wealth as possible from the people to the rich elite, which is exactly why 85 super rich capitalists have the same wealth as 3.5 billion slaves of capitalism.

The Americans have no grand vision of a Star Trek future or of producing Supermen, or Master Races, or Communities of Gods, or paradise on earth, or universal equal opportunities, or anything like that. No, their “vision” is restricted purely to creating global free-market capitalism where everything, including people, is to be bought and sold, where everyone is both a consumer and an object. Capitalism objectifies everyone and everything. It abides purely by the profit principle. Everything is justified as long as it makes money. Religion is always positive libertarian insofar as it always applies a vision to its followers of what they should be like, how they should behave, what values they should espouse, what rules and commandments they must obey, what rituals they must perform, what they must wear and eat, and so on. Protestantism is negative libertarian insofar as it historically wanted to be left alone by positive libertarian Catholicism, but when Protestants were in charge they too were positive libertarian. Today, Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestants are forever trying to interfere with American politics. Islam is ultra positive libertarian. It wants to impose Islam on the whole world and make everyone obey Sharia Law. It wants to make economics and science completely subservient to Islam. It wants every aspect of life to be Islamic. Science has never been positive libertarian. Scientific leaders, unlike religious leaders, have never attempted to impose scientific values on the world and make everyone dance to science’s tune. Scientists have always chosen to work for others (especially the rich) rather than work for a scientific vision and agenda. Most scientists are cowardly, weak, pathetic functionaries, bureaucrats and submissives who have never attempted to seize power, even though their mastery of more and more powerful weapons would easily allow them to take control of the world. They lack moral backbone and vision. Interestingly, Star Trek depicts a meritocracy led by a scientific technocracy (and definitely not an economic plutocracy), but there’s absolutely no indication in today’s world that scientists would have the guts and nous to bring about such a New World Order. Scientists have chosen the quiet life, and opted out of trying to change society, which means they have no right to bleat about anything. If you don’t walk the walk, you have

no rights. Scientific power is the greatest power on Earth, much more powerful than economic power, and yet scientists have never exercised it and have never once challenged the hegemony of the rich. It’s useful to compare and contrast various opposing positive and negative liberty systems. America is politically negative libertarian (the State has a minimal footprint in comparison with every other advanced nation). America is religiously negative libertarian (Church and State are separate; the State interferes as little as possible with anyone’s religious beliefs). America is scientifically negative libertarian (the State does not interfere with science to any significant degree, and scientists do not pursue any great vision; most scientists are loyal servants of the capitalist agenda). America is economically positive libertarian (it pursues a vision of global capitalism, of which it thinks it’s the natural and permanent leader, hence that global capitalism is to its maximum advantage). America is militarily positive libertarian. It’s happy to use military force at the slightest pretext to impose its will on the world, exactly as a fascist dictatorship would. America fought an illegal war of aggression in Vietnam to prevent the Vietnamese determining their own fate. It fought an illegal war of aggression in Iraq over fictitious weapons of mass destruction. It fought a pointless war in Afghanistan that achieved nothing. It has a military budget almost as large as the rest of the world combined. This is plainly not a defensive military force since America’s geographical location makes it almost invulnerable to attack. Therefore, it’s an army of aggression, intended to intimidate and bully the world, and to make it dance to America’s tune. There’s no conceivable alternative explanation for the size of the American military. The American military is hardwired to American capitalism as one half of the infamous “military-industrial” complex. American capitalists make a fortune out of military contracts. Commercial, capitalist decisions are behind many American wars. America does not fight to advance the interests of Americans, but, rather, to advance the interests of the American capitalist elite, who are overwhelmingly Jews and WASP Freemasons. One of America’s primary foreign policy objectives is to defend the foreign State of Israel. The sole reason for this is the influence of rich Zionist Americans over the American government.

Many American conspiracy theorists are obsessed with what they call the “New World Order”, by which they mean a global positive liberty political initiative. Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to political positive liberty. The reason for this is simple: they have been totally brainwashed by the Zionist and Masonic capitalist elite, who want no political interference at all in their business. No nation on Earth has a greater degree of false consciousness than America. The Americans have been conned to the maximum degree by their capitalist elite, and have swallowed every lie hook, line and sinker. When Americans look for people to blame, they always pick on the impotent, ineffectual, irrelevant puppets of Washington D.C. and never the true culprits: the Zionists and Masons of Wall Street. Americans never condemn the true source of all their ills and woes: predatory capitalism, international finance and global capitalism. Many Americans despise the European Union. Why? Because it’s a political positive liberty initiative to create a United States of Europe that would be at least twice as large and powerful as the United States of America. The United Kingdom, America’s poodle, is semi-detached from Europe. It hates positive liberty as much as American does and wants no part of a United Europe. America and the UK – the “Anglo-Saxon” economic alliance – are the primary proponents of predatory global capitalism. Wikipedia says, “The Anglo-Saxon model or Anglo-Saxon capitalism (so called because it is practised in English-speaking countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Ireland) is a capitalist model that emerged in the 1970s, based on the Chicago school of economics. However, its origins date to the 18th century in the United Kingdom under the ideas of the classical economist Adam Smith. Characteristics of this model include levels of regulation and taxes being low, and the public sector provides fewer services. It can also mean strong property rights, contract enforcement, and overall ease of doing business as well as low barriers to free trade.” In National Socialist Germany, the word “socialist” was primarily intended to signify the Nazis’ opposition to predatory, “Jewish” capitalism. Nazi Germany followed a political positive liberty agenda and a military positive liberty agenda. Science and economics were entirely in the service

of the State, hence had no freedom of action of their own. Religion was barely tolerated in Nazi Germany. When a strong political positive liberty agenda is being pursued, mainstream religion can only be an opponent, and will eventually be eliminated. The political vision becomes the new religion. The American Founding Fathers disliked mainstream religion and Christianity in particular, the French Revolutionaries hated mainstream religion and wanted to get rid of the Catholic Church, the Nazis hated mainstream religion, and so did the communists. Religions typically hate the powerful State. Look at Islam, It wants politics to be totally subservient to it. It wants to totally control the law, science, economics, the military and politics. Islam is intended to be an allconsuming, all-encompassing way of life that occupies all Muslims every second of every day. Communism is a political positive liberty system that takes complete control of the economy, science and the military. As an atheist system, it marginalises religion to the point of extinction.

***** Democracy in ancient Athens was a positive liberty political system. The citizens were active and fully engaged with running the city-state, and suppressing the rich oligarchs. Wikipedia says, “It remains a unique and intriguing experiment in direct democracy, a political system in which the people do not elect representatives to vote on their behalf but vote on legislation and executive bills in their own right. ... The central events of the Athenian democracy were the meetings of the assembly (ekklêsia). Unlike a parliament, the assembly’s members were not elected, but attended by right when they chose. Greek democracy created at Athens was direct, rather than representative: any adult male citizen could take part, and it was a duty to do so. The officials of the democracy were in part elected by the Assembly and in large part chosen by lottery. ... The assembly was responsible for declaring war, military strategy and electing the strategoi and other officials.” Athenians would find modern “democracy” unrecognisable, almost the inversion of their democracy. Modern citizens are inactive, apathetic, pathetic and passive. Every four years around fifty percent go to the polls to

vote for people they didn’t choose to be on the ballot paper, and this is what passes these days as “people power”. The people have no power at all, and can’t change anything. Banks, corporations, stock markets, rich families and oligarchs run everything. Exactly the people that Athenian democracy was designed to prevent from ruling over the people are ruling over the people in capitalist democracy. What a farce. The rich have taken over people power. Capitalist democracy is “government of the people by the rich for the rich”. The people are so spectacularly stupid that they haven’t even realised that democracy isn’t democracy at all, and that the people have zero real power, exactly as intended by the rich.

***** Everything comes down to positive liberty and where it should apply. Should we have political, economic, religious or scientific positive liberty? Illuminism endorses meritocratic political positive liberty, in conjunction with scientific and mathematical positive liberty. This spells the end for mainstream religion and for free-market capitalism and the financial rule of the rich. What’s for sure is that negative liberty political systems cannot change anything ever. They have no power at all. They have ceded it to other forces. If you want political change you must support a movement that’s committed to positive liberty, which means taking on and crushing all the rival power centres. Everyone subscribes to one positive liberty vision or another, and that makes them enemies of most alternative positive liberty systems. Very few positive liberty systems are compatible.

Modern Politicians Modern politicians have no ideas, no vision and no power. They argue over trivia. They are mere managers, not leaders. The true leaders of capitalist democracy (the puppetmasters) are not elected by the people and are not accountable to the people, which renders the notion that democracy is “people power” absurd. The people have no power in capitalist democracies. The rich capitalists have all the power, and they couldn’t care less about the people.

Justice? “There is no such thing as justice in the abstract; it is merely a compact between men.” – Epicurus “Inheritance” is a compact between people. It’s a compact that can and must be changed.

Men and Women “Men get to be a mixture of the charming mannerisms of the women they have known.” – F Scott Fitzgerald So make sure you mix with the right women!

Vanity The elites of the world are mired in egotism and narcissism. They are pathologically vain. Their self-love knows no limits. They believe they are entitled to everything and deserve everything. They think they “earned” everything they have, rather than legally appropriated it because they were in a position of power to do so. You can do whatever you like if you’re powerful enough. Who’s going to stop you? That’s why the strongest of governments and the strongest of laws are required.

The Wealth Transfer: The “Looting” Between 1947 and 1979, American productivity rose by 119%. Average wages rose by an impressive 100%. The top 1% got 9% of the national income. Between 1979 and 2009, the era of unrestrained Free Market Economics, American productivity rose by just 80%. Average wages rose by a very more modest 8%. The top 1%, however, took a whopping 23% of the national income. This is now the future pattern ... unless Free Market Economics is destroyed. Today, 1% of Americans own 30% of the country’s personal wealth. The wealthiest three people in America could pay off the total American annual budget deficit. The four hundred richest Americans control the same wealth

as the poorest 150 million Americans. Each of the 400 has, on average, the same wealth as 400,000 of their fellow citizens. It won’t be too long before it’s a million to one. The degree of psychological control that the American rich exert over the American poor is simply staggering, almost beyond belief. In any sane system, in any natural system, in any Darwinian system, in any rational system, the people would destroy the rich and share out all of their assets for the common good. Yet that will never happen in America, so brainwashed are the American people against their own interests, in favour of the interests of the ruling rich elite.

“Selfish Capitalism” Predatory Capitalism = Free-market Capitalism = Greedy Capitalism = Selfish Capitalism. This type of capitalism is driven solely by the Profit Principle. Productive Capitalism = Social Capitalism = Noble Capitalism = Altruistic Capitalism. This type of capitalism is driven solely by the Quality Principle. There’s no reason why capitalism has to be the way it currently is, just as there’s no reason why science has to be the way it currently is, or religion. Revalue all values!

Do Not! Do not subscribe to Illuminism if you are not smart, talented and radical. For Illuminism to stand any chance of success it must repel the dead weights, dead beats and dead heads. If you feel that we are hostile to you, you’re probably right. So, fuck off! It’s essential for Illuminism to attract only the strong and audacious. If that’s not you, what are you doing here? Illuminism is about changing the world. That cannot be done except through the efforts of Higher Humanity. There’s no room for the snivelling weak.

History What is history if not the attempt by various historians to establish the causes of the world’s greatest events? Yet all they ever do is interpret “facts”. There are no provable historical causal truths at all. Not one.

“The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.” – Edward Grey on the eve of WWI

The Ultimate Thinker The ultimate philosopher would be a combination of Leibniz (ultimate rationalist), Hegel (ultimate idealist), Hume (ultimate skeptic), Nietzsche (ultimate freethinker) and Gödel (ultimate logician). The ultimate mathematician would be a combination of Pythagoras, Euclid, Archimedes, Descartes, Leibniz, Euler, Gauss, Fourier, Riemann, Cantor, and Gödel.

The Measurement Problem Why did science defeat philosophy? It was thanks to measurement. Science is all about measurements. Philosophy doesn’t measure anything. So, science was deemed objective (measurements could be made and repeated) and philosophy subjective (because no measurements could be made at all). Science is based on dimensional mathematics, and the essence of dimensional mathematics is the measurement of space and/or time. Physics = the phenomenal universe = dimensional mathematics = measurement. What philosophy and science both failed to consider was the existence of dimensionless mathematics, and the following scheme: Metaphysics = what comes after physics, or lies beyond physics = the noumenal universe = dimensionless mathematics = mathematical analysis (rather than measurement). Physics aligned itself with dimensional mathematics and became all conquering. Metaphysics failed to align itself with dimensionless mathematics and was regarded as nothing but clever speculation. When Descartes defined mind as unextended and matter as extended, he gave rise to the greatest misunderstanding in history, which has defined humanity’s intellectual journey ever since. Scientific materialism regarded the unextended domain of mind as unobservable, unmeasurable, indefinable, unusable and hence wholly redundant and actually non-existent. What science had done, without realising it, was to define mathematics as necessarily extended, dimensional

and phenomenal, and this was exactly how the influential philosopher Kant viewed it too. However, this view is false. Mathematics can equally be unextended, dimensionless and noumenal. No mathematician and no scientist ever conceived of such a thing, and nor did it enter Kant’s mind when he was faced with assessing whether we could know anything about the noumenal domain. He concluded, 100% wrongly, that the noumenal domain was unknowable and completely mysterious. He rejected the Platonic notion of the noumenal domain being intelligible rather than sensible. We can’t measure it, but we can certainly understand it and know it via our reason. The sensible, phenomenal domain is all about measurement, by the senses and sensible instruments. The intelligible, noumenal domain has nothing to do with measurement. It can’t be measured at all. It belongs to a dimensionless, immaterial Singularity. But our inability to measure it, observe it or perform any experiments on it does not in any way mean that it cannot be known, or is non-existent. The person who provided the great key to unlock its mysteries was Joseph Fourier. Brilliant though he was, he himself failed to understand the ontological, epistemological and metaphysical significance of his own work. Fourier mathematics posits two domains: a “frequency” (mental) domain, unextended, dimensionless, outside space and time (a Singularity!), and a spacetime (material) domain, extended, dimensional, inside space and time. Fourier showed how frequencies could be added together to build spacetime functions (inverse Fourier transforms), and how spacetime functions could be decomposed into basis frequencies (“forward” Fourier transforms). He had demonstrated, although he didn’t grasp this, that the extended is grounded in the unextended, the dimensional in the dimensionless, the material in the mental, space, time and matter in frequencies, spacetime in a Singularity (hence the Big Bang!). Through Fourier mathematics, measurement can be applied to the dimensionless domain. All dimensional measurements are grounded in frequency measurements. If we were smart enough, we could automatically convert all dimensional measurements into measurable mental frequencies! We live in a mental, not physical world, but since we can measure and sense the physical world so directly, we are lured into believing that this is

the true reality. It’s not. Everything comes from the mental, unextended, dimensionless, noumenal frequency Singularity, the prerequisite for the material world. If we could directly rather than indirectly measure and analyse noumenal frequencies – the frequencies of mind – everyone would finally grasp the truth that materialism and empiricism (hence physics) are false, and idealism and rationalism (hence metaphysics) true. Dimensional mathematics is all about measurement; dimensionless mathematics is all about rational analysis. Measurement is straightforward, and can be directly tied to our senses, thus forming a nice, sensible, “common sense” package. Analysis is extremely difficult and challenging, is all about intellect, reason, and mathematical aptitude, and has no link at all with the sensible world. So, not surprisingly, people – who invariably follow the path of least resistance – have been deluded into buying into materialism rather than mentalism (idealism). The domain of mind is for smart people (intuitive thinkers), and the domain of matter for stupid people (sensing thinkers, sensing and feeling types). That’s a fact. The unseen domain is for patrician thinkers, and the seen domain for plebeian thinkers lacking imagination and intuition. To become enlightened, people have to overcome their own sensory biases, their own “common sense”, their own ignorance, their own irrationalism, their own stupidity ... and the human race has never proved good at any of that!

***** Mind = Frequency Domain = Singularity = Unobservable = Intelligible = Noumenal = not directly measurable. Matter = Spacetime Domain = Extended Universe = Observable = Sensible = Phenomenal = directly measurable. If Kant had known of Fourier mathematics, he would certainly have grasped how the noumenal domain could be fully known (via the dimensionless mathematics of analytic frequencies defined by the God Equation), and he would have radically altered his philosophy. The system he would eventually have arrived at would have been none other than Illuminism (ontological mathematics).

All philosophers should revisit Kant’s work and reinterpret it in relation to Fourier mathematics. They will then find that Kant’s philosophy reduces to Leibniz’s philosophy, i.e. the basis of Illuminism!

***** The measurement problem is arguably the biggest issue confronting physics. Physicists believe only in things they can directly observe and measure. Such is their simplicity and lack of sophistication that it has never occurred to them that there could be things that can’t be directly observed and measured but can be indirectly observed and measured. We can never directly observe or measure the frequency Singularity, but we can know it rationally and analytically, and, moreover, if we were good enough at performing Fourier transforms, we would be able to measure at second hand the underlying basic frequencies from which spacetime and matter are constructed in the first place.

The Old Mathematics The old mathematics has dealt with science, dimensionality, the sensible world, the phenomenal world, matter, measurement.

The New Mathematics The new mathematics will deal with the dimensionless, unextended, intelligible, noumenal, frequency domain – the Singularity, the Source of Everything. This is the mathematics of the Mind. The greatest mathematicians of all time will be those who crack the Mathematics of the Mind in every particular. It’s from the platform they will build that humanity will be launched to divinity. They are the mathonauts.

Science The biggest handicap scientists have is a profound lack of both imagination and reason. They always associated “something” with extension and dimensionality, and believed it could be described scientifically and mathematically. It never once occurred to them that “nothing” wasn’t nothing at all but rather something existing in a special, balanced way (of

positive and negative, real and imaginary) and that this could be precisely described mathematically, via the God Equation, Fourier mathematics and immaterial, dimensionless frequencies. Once you have grasped that the whole Cartesian universe of unextended mind and extended matter can be described mathematically, via Fourier analysis (frequency functions for mind and spacetime functions for matter), you will never again doubt the existence of eternal minds (souls). The whole Meta Paradigm of science fails and falls as soon as an autonomous mathematical domain of mind (the Singularity) is rationally acknowledged as real, and indeed as the source of the material world. We live in a mental reality, not a material one. Matter is a mental construct, a mathematical illusion. That’s a fact.

Mathematics Cantor said, “The essence of mathematics lies in its freedom.” The precise opposite is true. The essence of mathematics lies in its constraint. In fact, mathematics is simply a giant constrained tautology. Dijkstra considered elegance an essential ingredient of mathematics. We might go further and say that elegance is an essential ingredient of truth. Science is horribly clumsy and inelegant, hence cannot be true. Diffie said mathematics is the study of problems so simple that they have good solutions. In fact, mathematics is the study of reality itself, and reality itself must have perfect solutions. If reality had imperfect solutions, its accumulated errors, approximations and inconsistencies would destroy it. Any theory of existence must be grounded in necessarily perfect analytic equations and solutions. This is the primary requirement of any proposed theory of everything. When Poincaré said that the desire to know nature had had the most constant and happiest influence on the development of mathematics, he was neglecting to observe the much profounder truth: mathematics is nature! Felix Klein said that mathematics has been most advanced by those who distinguished themselves by intuition rather than by rigorous proofs. This is right. All great mathematical breakthroughs begin intuitively thanks to INTJs, the masters of intellectual vision, and are then proved later by the foot soldiers: the INTPs, the masters of detail. The INTJ and INTPs are an essential team. Mathematics needs the intuitives and the provers.

Marston Morse said that mathematics is the result of mysterious powers that no one understands. Sorry, Marston, these powers are fully understood by Illuminism. He said that the unconscious recognition of beauty must play an important part. Actually, it’s both the unconscious and conscious recognition of beauty. Science is plainly false because it’s so ugly and clunky. Beauty and truth are more or less the same thing in terms of mathematics. The more beautiful, elegant and simple a mathematical formula is, the truer it is. Illuminism is based on the single, simplest, most beautiful, elegant, most economic formula of all – the God Equation. Morse said that out of an infinity of designs, a mathematician chose one pattern for beauty’s sake and pulled it down to Earth. A true mathematical pattern is the best of all possible patterns, and the ultimate pattern is that generated by the God Equation, the perfect pattern of existence itself. Stefan Banach said that mathematics is the most beautiful and most powerful creation of the human spirit. Er, actually, the human spirit is one of the most beautiful and most powerful creations of mathematics. James Joseph Sylvester said that mathematics is the music of reason. Actually, mathematics is reason. Reason, ontologically, exists as mathematics. The principle of sufficient reason is just another name for the God Equation. It gives a precise explanation of why every fact is thus and not otherwise. James Joseph Sylvester said, “May not music be described as the mathematics of the sense, mathematics as music of the reason?” In fact, hearing is the mathematics of the ears, of which music is a specific application, designed for the emotions. Seeing is the mathematics of the eyes, smelling the mathematics of the nose, tasting the mathematics of the tongue and touching the mathematics of the flesh and especially fingers. Reason is the mathematics of the intellect, which is best conveyed via mathematics itself. The senses experience mathematics; the intellect thinks mathematics. The senses interpret and mediate mathematics (they deal with mathematics as phenomenon) whereas the intellect can deal with mathematics in itself (as noumenon). All roads lead back to mathematics. Mathematics is the All, the One, the Good, the Source. Mathematics is God itself. God is not a perfect person. God is a perfect equation: the God Equation.

The reason why the universe shows order, organisation and pattern absolutely everywhere is that a perfect mathematical formula underpins the universe. “Intelligent Design” is reflected everywhere, not because of “God” but because of the God Equation. The God Equation is the arche, the first principle, the Prime Mover, the uncaused cause. It satisfies all of Plato and Aristotle’s requirements of “God”. The God Equation is perfect, immutable, eternal, immaterial, dimensionless, transcendent and immanent. The God Equation is pure thought itself. It’s pure reason, the principle of sufficient reason itself. It generates the best of all possible worlds. It’s simplest in hypothesis and richest in phenomena. It reflects Occam’s Razor. It’s the Form of Life, and countless living monads (souls) partake of this Form. Each of these individually reflects the God Equation. The whole Monadic Collective reflects the God Equation, as does each individual monad: As above, so below. One perfect, eternal ontological formula is the necessary basis of existence and the universe, and that formula is the God Equation.

***** The God Equation is not in any way theistic. It couldn’t care less about anyone or their personal plight. It never performs “miracles” to help anyone (miracles are absolutely impossible). It’s not in any way moral. There’s zero point in praying to it or worshipping it. It has no prophets, no “holy” texts, no gurus, no priests, no popes, no imams, no rabbis, no churches, synagogues, mosques or temples. It doesn’t provide any “divine revelations”. It doesn’t preside over heaven and hell. It doesn’t reward the “good” and punish the “evil”. It doesn’t value “faith” in any way. It’s not “karmic”. It has no connection with Mythos, with stories about ancient tribes and prophets wandering in the desert. What it does reward is knowledge of itself. Knowledge is power and those who know the God Equation intimately and fully are the most powerful beings in the universe. They are the “gods”! The God Equation is deistic and pantheistic/pandeistic. Any atheist (non-theist) could embrace it instantly. It’s not concerned with good or evil, or morality. It’s concerned with optimisation, with perfection. It’s perfect in itself but it also has to make all the life defined by it perfect too, and fully

aware of it. It achieves this via the Hegelian dialectic, which is an utterly brutal, pitiless method based on existential war, frequently to the death, between opposites. It therefore strongly resembles Darwinian evolution by natural selection, and reflects nature “red in tooth and claw”. There’s no explanation for why evil exists in a universe allegedly personally created by a morally perfect Creator, but in a dialectical system, no mystery exists at all. All opposites are inevitable. All must fight it out and either eliminate, or be eliminated, by their opposite, or enter into a symmetric, or (more usually) asymmetric synthesis with their opposite, thus acting as a new thesis against which a new antithesis will be generated. When you understand reality, it’s not mysterious at all. It is, however, very depressing, especially when you grasp how easy it would be to create paradise if everyone were rational and knowledgeable enough. But most people will in fact be the appalling dialectical enemy that you must defeat, and it may come about that you may have to show them no mercy when you know they will show you no mercy (as history has shown so horrifically in relation to the mountains of corpses of heretics, infidels, apostates, freethinkers, and rationalists). Morality is a luxury. Those who want a perfect future may have no choice but to be monstrous towards those who stand in the way of dialectical progress. There may come a time when the smartest people will have to devise weapons that selectively exterminate the stupid people. In fact, this is probably inevitable since there’s no indication that the stupid will ever change their ways, will ever learn. Just look at Islam. How much longer must the world endure this cancer, this Total Lie? Stupid people cannot abandon their stupidity. It’s their identity, and they would literally die rather than abandon it. Just look at the Jews. The smartest people must, as Nietzsche said, have an audacious morality and be prepared to be destroyers and breakers of values. Nietzsche called himself the “most terrible human being there has ever been”, the “first immoralist” and the “destroyer par excellence”. Famously, he declared, “I am not a man, I am dynamite.” If you want to know what a Nietzschean Superman is, read Nietzsche’s last testament before he went insane: Ecce Homo. The Illuminati seek everyone who loves that book. With such people, everything is possible. HyperHumanity can be born.

True Darwinism?

“I suppose that you do not doubt that the intellectual powers are as important for the welfare of each being, as corporeal structure: if so, I can see no difficulty in the most intellectual individuals of a species being continually selected; & the intellect of the new species thus improved, aided probably by effects of inherited mental exercise. I look at this process as now going on with the races of man; the less intellectual races being exterminated.” – Charles Darwin “It is very true what you say about the higher races of men, when high enough, replacing & clearing off the lower races. In 500 years how the Anglo-Saxon race will have spread & exterminated whole nations; & in consequence how much the Human race, viewed as a unit, will have risen in rank.” – Charles Darwin Talking about “lower races” is absurd. It is however true that there are higher and lower humans. For the good of human progress and evolution, the smarter people (from all races!) must unite and take the firmest action against the stupid people (of all races) who block progress and persecute the smart.

Havelock Ellis “The place where optimism most flourishes is the lunatic asylum.” – Havelock Ellis “It is only the great men who are truly obscene. If they had not dared to be obscene, they could never have dared to be great.” – Havelock Ellis “The sun, the moon and the stars would have disappeared long ago... had they happened to be within the reach of predatory human hands.” – Havelock Ellis “Thinking in its lower grades, is comparable to paper money, and in its higher forms it is a kind of poetry.” – Havelock Ellis “It is on our failures that we base a new and different and better success.” – Havelock Ellis “However well organized the foundations of life may be, life must always be full of risks.” – Havelock Ellis

“The Promised Land always lies on the other side of a Wilderness.” – Havelock Ellis “What we call ‘morals’ is simply blind obedience to words of command.” – Havelock Ellis “All civilization has from time to time become a thin crust over a volcano of revolution.” – Havelock Ellis “Still, whether we like it or not, the task of speeding up the decrease of the human population becomes increasingly urgent.” – Havelock Ellis “The mathematician has reached the highest rung on the ladder of human thought.” – Havelock Ellis “Education, whatever else it should or should not be, must be an inoculation against the poisons of life and an adequate equipment in knowledge and skill for meeting the chances of life.” – Havelock Ellis “Every man of genius sees the world at a different angle from his fellows, and there is his tragedy.” – Havelock Ellis “To be a leader of men one must turn one’s back on men.” – Havelock Ellis “Eventually, it seems evident, a general system, whether private or public, whereby all personal facts, biological and mental, normal and morbid, are duly and systematically registered, must become inevitable if we are to have a real guide as to those persons who are most fit, or most unfit to carry on the race.” – Havelock Ellis “‘Charm’ – which means the power to effect work without employing brute force – is indispensable to women. Charm is a woman’s strength just as strength is a man’s charm.” – Havelock Ellis “Men who know themselves are no longer fools. They stand on the threshold of the door of Wisdom.” – Havelock Ellis “All the art of living lies in a fine mingling of letting go and holding on.” – Havelock Ellis “It’s an act of charity to give some money to a beggar on the street, but it’s an even greater act of charity to prevent him being born in the first place.” – Havelock Ellis

The Evolution of Cancer When a cell mutates and becomes cancerous, the mutation does not end there. While many cancer cells may reflect the original mutation, later generations of cancer cells may themselves mutate. So, a cancerous lump may contain many different types of cancerous mutation. A medicine that targets the original mutation may therefore be useless against subsequent mutations. Cancers can behave like bacteria and viruses and develop immunity to medicines designed to eliminate them. Protestantism can be viewed as a cancer of Catholicism. Martin Luther provided the first mutation (the first Protestant sect), but the mutation kept mutating until there are now some 40,000 distinct Protestant sects. Catholicism, the host of the cancer, is now in a terminal condition, but when it perishes as a result of the Protestant cancer, all of the Protestants sects will perish with it. The idea of Protestant cults existing without Catholicism (against which they are the protest) is laughable. The fate of Protestantism is entirely tied to that of its host (Catholicism).

Politics Politics is all about extraverts. There are staggeringly few introverts in the political arena because everything about it is geared up for extraverts. Politics is total discrimination against introverts. That’s one of the reasons why meritocracy will get rid of political parties and traditional extravert campaign methods. One of the central purposes of meritocracy is to switch the world away from the shallow, ephemeral values of extraverts to the deep, lasting values of introverts. The New World Order will be one devised by introverted intuitive thinkers, and it will be humanity’s greatest accomplishment.

Predatory Capitalism It’s hardly surprising that successful predatory capitalists should aggressively proselytize on behalf of free-market capitalism. What is astounding is that the victims of predatory capitalism should believe and support them.

The Fantasy Most people in today’s world are unlikely to commit any serious acts of violence. However, nearly everyone has fantasised about killing people they don’t like. Given the chance, the excuse, we are all killers. Don’t kid yourselves.

***** “[The objective of war economics]: maximum slaughter at minimum expense. ... [The ultimate objective of wartime activity is the slaughter of the enemy.]” – Bertrand Russell

The Choice Free within a community. Or Free from a community? When you sign up to a social contract, you thereby agree to taxation and a neutral set of laws fair to all, but which constrain people’s “right” to do whatever they like, especially in the public, shared space. Libertarians and anarchists (and the two words are increasingly synonymous) are those who reject the social contract, reject laws, reject taxation, reject not just government and the State, but community and society as well. They are antisocial misfits, egoists and narcissists, and many are outright psychopaths who never want to have their behaviour constrained by anyone under any circumstances. Rational people see the absolute need for a social contract in the interests of all. Psychopaths despise anything that binds them to others and reject all social contracts. That’s why it’s essential that everyone should have to explicitly sign a social contract to be part of society, and any anarchist or libertarian who refuses to sign is ipso facto excluded from society and cannot form any part of it. That’s the only way to deal with these selfish narcissists. They can fend for themselves in their own anarchic, “free” jungle with no laws, no taxes, no government and no social contracts.

These people have no positive liberty vision of the world. A Star Trek future will never come from people who despise society. Unregulated, unrestrained free-market capitalism is the system of choice of these egoistic monsters, as detailed in Ayn Rand’s vile Bible of selfishness, Atlas Shrugged. Crucially, free-market capitalism does not exist at all in Star Trek. There’s no rich elite whatsoever. There are no followers of Ayn Rand. Her entire ideology is refuted by Star Trek. All fair people want a fair world. They don’t want to inherit, they don’t want a leg up, they don’t want to rely on nepotism or cronyism. They want to achieve things by their own merits, and for society to give them the fairest chance to maximise their talents. People who despise community and society – all free-market capitalists – have no interest in fairness. Freemarket capitalism is itself one of the unfairest systems ever devised, and its supporters revel in that unfairness. They are anti-social and contemptuous of others, which is exactly why free-market capitalism has the character and effects it does.

The Truth Anyone who is an enemy of mathematics is an enemy of the truth.

The Antichrist “Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.” – First Epistle of St. John 2:18 Er, didn’t the Antichrist appear in the shape of Moses and all of his followers, of Yehoshua ben Yosef and all of his followers, of Mohammed and all of his followers? Abrahamism is the Antichrist’s religion of lies to deceive the human race. Abrahamism doesn’t contain a single mathematical equation, which tells you all you need to know about it!

***** Er, if the antichrists had appeared in great numbers in St John’s day, what happened to the last hour? It never came. Therefore, St. John has been refuted. That’s a fact.

Takers versus Makers The rich elite call themselves “makers”. Given that 85 people have as much wealth as 3.5 billion people, aren’t they in fact “takers”? They take everything they can lay their hands on. How many of these 85 are geniuses who will still be remembered hundreds and thousands of years later, as all great geniuses and artist are? Not one of these “makers” will be remembered. Most of them are barely known even today. Geniuses are the true makers – the makers of new theories that set the intellectual agenda and alter humanity’s perception of reality – and none of these geniuses is ever a greedy capitalist. No great human being has ever been obscenely rich, and none ever will be.

Jesus Heist “Jesus died for somebody’s sins, but not mine.” – Patti Smith Jesus didn’t die for anyone’s sins, except his own. You can’t die on behalf of others, only yourself.

The Enemies of Meaning A purposeless universe is a meaningless universe. A random, probabilistic universe is purposeless, hence meaningless. Scientists are the great enemies of meaning. It’s a profound question why scientists hate meaning and purpose so much. Are they mentally ill? Are they machinelike human beings, glorified autistics? Is scientific materialism as much of a mental illness as Abrahamism and Karmism?

***** Scientists believe they live in a cosmic machine that created itself out of nothing. Clearly, a machine universe is devoid of purpose. It can’t think and it can’t have babies. Human beings can think and female human beings can have babies, none of which makes the slightest bit of sense if we live in a cosmic machine. We don’t. The universe, like each of us, is a living

organism. Like each of us, it has a mind (the cosmic Singularity) and a body (the cosmos itself). As above, so below. Just as we “die” (i.e. lose our body, and then have to get a new one via reincarnation and be reborn), so the cosmos dies (in a Big Crunch event) and then is reincarnated and reborn (the next Big Bang). Just as we can exist as a pure monadic mind (singularity) when our body dies, so the universe can exist as a pure Monadic Collective (Singularity) when its material body dies. As above, so below. In Illuminism, everything that is true of us is true of the universe, and vice versa. The macrocosm is just the microcosm writ large. Each of us is a microcosm (monad) and the macrocosm is the Monadic Collective. In science, human beings bear no resemblance whatsoever to the machine cosmos and belong to a completely different and inexplicable category of existence. No scientist has ever made sense of this paradox. Science makes the extraordinary claim that randomness ultimately gives rise to life, mind and consciousness. These somehow “emerge” from indeterminacy. This is a laughable, ludicrous, and impossible assertion. Science, in this context, has zero explanatory capability.

Tax and Spend Left wingers support tax and spend, community and society. Right wingers want no taxation and no spending and despise community and society.

Monkey Knows How can you tell who is dominant and who is submissive? Human beings use all sorts of signs and symbols to communicate their status, their position in the pecking order. They might wear the most expensive designer clothes, or have the most expensive Rolex watch, or the most expensive shoes, or heaps of cocaine, or bottles of champagne, or the finest cut glass accents derived from elite private education. But introduce these people to a chimpanzee or monkey and everything changes. The chimp or monkey doesn’t know a single thing about human customs, rituals and status symbols. It judges humans purely according to their raw animal power, their animal body language. All the high status wannabes are revealed as submissive, pathetic, weak jerks when stripped of their “status armour”.

Soul Science The science of matter = the science of the sensible world, of things that can be seen and measured, the science of the dimensional. The science of mind = the science of the intelligible world, of things that cannot be seen and measured, the science of the dimensionless. So lacking in imagination are scientists, so anti-mathematical, that they simply refuse to consider that mind is real in its own right; indeed, that mind is the true origin of matter. The science of the mind = the science of the soul = the science of the dimensionless and unextended = the science of the frequency domain = the science of the Singularity. Cosmologist Max Tegmark says that physics falls apart at singularities. Well, physics might, but ontological mathematics doesn’t. What Tegmark ought to say is that materialism is refuted at singularities. Singularities – unextended entities –are none other than the unextended minds defined by Descartes. They are Fourier frequency domains. They are souls. To truly understand Leibniz’s Monadology, you have to think of each monad as an unextended, dimensionless, frequency singularity. These monads are the only things that genuinely exist. They wholly define what Kant called the noumenal domain. All phenomena derive from these, via Fourier mathematics. Noumena are not unknowable. They are minds = souls. Physics stops at singularities, but ontological mathematics doesn’t. Physics covers only dimensional, extended existence while ontological mathematics covers dimensional, extended existence and dimensionless, unextended existence, thus covering all of existence – complete and full existence – rather than the incomplete, missing, partial world described by physics. Reality must form a perfect plenum (“fullness”), covering the unextended and extended, the dimensionless and dimensional. It can’t be lacking anything. It can’t have any gaps. It can’t omit anything. It can’t fail to address a critical element. Scientific materialism rejects unextended, dimensionless, frequency existence, hence is not a plenum and cannot explain reality. It’s that simple. Studying the soul is not some impossible task. It can be worked out in every detail mathematically. All that’s required is for every monad in

Leibniz’s Monadology to be defined by the God Equation, and then for the dimensional (scientific) operations of the Monadic Collective to be calculated using Fourier mathematics.

***** A more intriguing question than how the mental world creates the physical world is how all monads interact purely in the mental domain, with no reference to physicality. There are six distinct monadic situations in total: 1) The Monadic Collective gives rise to the physical universe (the Big Bang). 2) The private world of the individual monad, without reference to any other monads (the “dream” state). 3) The world of the individual monad, with reference to another monad, some or all other monads (direct monad-to-monad interaction or one-monad-to-many-monads interaction). 4) The world of the individual monad with regard to the physical world created by the Monadic Collective (the “waking state”). 5) The interaction of individual monads via the physical world (the social world of our everyday experience). 6) The physical universe collapses down to the Singularity (the Monadic Collective) via the Big Crunch. It’s time for humanity to leave the Dark Age of scientific materialism. It’s time for the Enlightenment of ontological mathematics that at last treats mind and matter in a single, comprehensive mathematical framework. Just as Judaeo-Christianity, Islam and Karmism have massively obstructed human progress, so the main blockage to rationalism and enlightenment is now scientific materialism. It has corrupted the intelligentsia and rendered many of them downright stupid. Listening to professors of physics, biology and neuroscience is frequently either comical or depressing. It’s amazing that educated people can be so idiotic, so blind, so dogmatic, so quasi-religious, so subject to groupthink and careerism.

The academic world is full of functionaries, bureaucrats, careerists, drudges, groupthinkers, slaves of dubious Meta Paradigms, and people wholly lacking in imagination and intuition, with no ability to be impartial, and barely capable of exhibiting the most basic reasoning skills. So many academics are “specialists” now that they have no general knowledge, and no ability to place anything in a general context. They lack all knowledge of the history of thought. One of the primary tasks of the God Series is to contextualise the whole history of religion, mythology, philosophy, science, mathematics and psychology, and show how they are all interlinked and how the “machine” philosophy of science is a grotesque aberration driven by a kind of sensory autism that afflicts the vast majority of scientists. Many scientists struggle with basic empathy, and, even more seriously, with basic intuition. They are locked into the sensory domain and cannot conceive of anything beyond matter, beyond observation, beyond their empiricist belief system. They are an insult to the history of thought. Until the rise of science, almost every intellectual regarded the universe as a living, teleological organism with mind and meaning. Now, most intellectuals regard the universe as a purposeless, pointless, meaningless machine process, and mind as the direct, emergent product of lifeless, mindless, purposeless matter. The intelligentsia have been taken over by autistics – machinelike human beings who feel more at home with machines and computers than with human beings, and who seriously lack imagination, intuition and feelings. They see the universe as machinelike because they themselves are machinelike and algorithmic. Machinelike people are automatically ruled by their senses and by the notion of matter as basic reality. After all, all machines have parts that belong to sensory reality. No machine can be built with immaterial, dimensionless, unobservable parts! As soon as you are imprisoned by your senses, it becomes almost impossible to conceive of extra-sensory reality. Sensory types scoff at everything outside the sensory paradigm. They will never accept under any circumstances any paranormal or extra-sensory phenomena. This is the case despite the fact that non-localism is at the heart of quantum mechanics, and paranormal phenomena are entirely compatible with Fourier mathematics. There’s no rational objection to the paranormal, only an irrational sensory,

localist bias – exactly the autistic condition from which science institutionally suffers. It’s time for the sensory autistics to be replaced by imaginative intuitives. That’s the New World Order. That’s what will deliver Enlightenment to humanity. The Revolution is coming. Ontological mathematics is liberation for the human race, and liberation from the meaningless scientific paradigm.

The Most Dangerous Book Muslim terrorists often say, “It says in the Koran...” to justify some atrocity they have committed. They thereby believe that they are absolving themselves of any sin because “God” has mandated their actions. This is a way for people to abdicate responsibility for their own deeds. It’s total faith. If we positively quote Nietzsche, it means that we agree with his opinion and endorse his position. However, we wouldn’t carry out any actions in Nietzsche’s name. We wouldn’t hide behind him. If we do something, it’s because we want to do it and we take full responsibility for it. It’s disgraceful and vile when people do things because they believe it’s what “God” wants them do. This makes them slavelike puppets rather than moral agents. “Holy” texts are the most evil texts in the world – and should all be burned and removed forever – because they allow people to claim that someone else is responsible for their actions: the “only obeying orders” syndrome.

Acceptance You either accept the eternal truths of reason as the ground of reality, or you don’t. If you don’t, you can’t expect any rationalist to debate with you, or to take any interest in your opinions and beliefs since you have formally placed yourself outside reason, and that means you are talking literal irrational nonsense. All statements that are not about eternal truths of reason, or cannot be directly inferred from these, have zero formal truth content. All of Mythos is meaningless. Ontologically, all of science is also meaningless. Science is the Mythos that representation is reality. Analytic philosophy is also meaningless. It’s the Mythos that human languages can

reflect ontological reality, rather than just our fallible representations and interpretations of reality.

Ontological Zero “Ontological zero” is the key to the “mystery” of existence. It both exists and does not exist. It exists in the form of monads, the fundamental building blocks of the universe, the arche. Yet the zero that defines each monad is in fact a resultant number, a net number, deriving from its constituent negative and positive numbers, real and imaginary. These are all in perfect symmetrical balance, and all cancel to zero. Zero is a secondary number that results from the sum of all other numbers, or a symmetrical subset of all other numbers. It’s not a number like the other numbers; not a number in its own right. This also means that “infinity”, the flip side of zero, is not a number in its own right, but is another secondary, resultant number. “Ontological” zero and ontological infinity have a different ontology from all other numbers because all those other numbers exist in their own right whereas zero and infinity result from them. In fact, they have more of a logical rather than real existence. It’s critical to understand that when we say that positive and negative numbers “cancel” each other, we do not mean that they “annihilate” each other, i.e. remove each other from existence. Ultimate reality – monads – can be neither created nor destroyed. No monadic contents can be removed from existence, so when positive and negative are together, they have a net effect of zero (“nothing”), but that is not to be understood as absolute nothingness or non-existence. Rather, we might say that, in these circumstances, they have been removed from actual existence to potential existence as far as dimensionality goes. They have been removed from dimensional existence and no longer have any dimensional actuality, but now sit in a dimensionless state with the potential to re-enter dimensionality. We might therefore say that mental existence is potential material existence, and vice versa. We might say that the mental, dimensionless domain is where perfect symmetry occurs at a single point and this is a state of absolute potentiality since it can give rise to any number of symmetry breakings: asymmetries and antisymmetries, which are none other than dimensional states.

Dimensionless existence is perfectly symmetrical existence. Dimensional existence is where symmetry has been broken and antisymmetry and asymmetry manifest themselves. Everything, in the end, is a question of symmetry. To this extent, Illuminism and ontological mathematics are examples of a theory of Supersymmetry. The Big Bang is an antisymmetry and asymmetry event, i.e. full symmetry breaks down to create these. The Big Crunch is the opposite: antisymmetry and asymmetry collapse back to a state of perfect symmetry. The famous Higgs boson – the “God particle” – is identified with a symmetry breaking operation, and it’s from the Higgs field that we get matter, i.e. dimensionality. Dimensionality (the material world) is that which arises from symmetry breaking in the dimensionless (mental) world, and could not exist without this original mental symmetry. Scientists are therefore 100% wrong that matter is fundamental and precedes mind. The precise inverse is the case. Mind exhibits perfect symmetry. It’s “bosonic”. Matter exhibits antisymmetry. It’s “fermionic”. Antisymmetry also allows asymmetry to occur. It’s all in the symmetry, or breaking thereof. It’s absurd to claim, as scientists do, that matter (antisymmetry and asymmetry) precede mind (symmetry). They are spectacularly mathematically ignorant. Symmetry is the primordial state. The dimensionless Singularity is the state of perfect symmetry. The Big Bang is where the symmetry breaks. Why do scientists, who accept Big Bang theory, refuse to accept that the cause of the Big Bang is not “randomness” (a random fluctuation in nonexistence (!)), but a precise mathematical – mental – antisymmetry operation, producing fermions from bosons. Scientists are so horrifically prejudiced against mind that they would prefer to invoke randomness as the root of everything rather than mind and symmetry. What bizarre and stupid people they are, unable to think with mathematical precision, consistency and completeness. As ever, everything comes down to Fourier mathematics. The Singularity is a Fourier frequency domain. It’s immaterial, dimensionless, outside space and time, and purely mental. When it performs a cosmic inverse Fourier transform, it produces antisymmetry, the basis of matter and dimensionality (space and time).

The Higgs boson is the key particle in this process. It’s not really a boson at all but, rather, the interface between bosons and fermions, a hybrid boson-fermion that creates the essential bridge between the two categories. It has symmetry anomalies that mean it cannot be defined as a pure boson. It is precisely here where the perfect bosonic symmetry breaks, allowing fermions to come into existence. The Higgs boson should actually be called the “Fourier particle” because it’s entirely defined by Fourier mathematics and it’s what allows Fourier frequency functions to be expressed, via the inverse Fourier transform, as Fourier spacetime functions. It allows the God Equation to be expressed via antisymmetry and asymmetry rather than pure symmetry. Is any intelligent person really going to reject this and place their trust in randomness as the irrational, acausal, non-mental alternative? Yet, that’s what the scientific community has done wholesale. What a bunch of dunces and mathematical ignoramuses, barbarians and Philistines! The hatred of science towards mind and purpose is pathological and psychotic. There are no possible rational grounds for their hostility. They are driven by pure sensory fanaticism, which, ironically, has made them deaf and blind to the truth. They might as well be religious believers!

***** Quantum mechanics is ultimately based on Fourier mathematics, yet it’s not properly derived from Fourier mathematics. It needs to begin at the beginning ... with a Singularity comprising monadic frequency domains, and derive the material, dimensional world of spacetime from it. Quantum mechanics can be reduced to six-dimensional dynamic Fourier mathematics arising from (and ultimately returning to), enclosed by, and interacting with, an immaterial, dimensionless, frequency Singularity of monadic minds. There is nothing at all random and “probabilistic” about quantum mechanics in the way envisaged by Nobel Prize winner Max Born and the whole scientific community. This fallacious interpretation flows directly from a denial of the frequency Singularity and from a wholesale misunderstanding of the nature of mathematics (which requires imaginary numbers to be treated on a par with real numbers, and negative numbers on a par with positive numbers in order for mathematics to be consistent, complete and ontological).

Einstein’s theory of gravity should be wholly replaced by a Fourier theory of gravity, in which case it becomes simple to reconcile quantum theory with gravitational theory to produce a quantum theory of gravity, and thus a final scientific “theory of everything”. Gravity is all about frequency singularities. The material universe came from a Singularity and will return to a Singularity. Black holes are of course singularities and are dotted throughout the universe. Supermassive black hole singularities stand at the heart of every galaxy and define the galaxy. What is matter? It’s a deformation of frequency waves when they are subject to the filter of space and time. Singularities are where these deformations are smoothed out and matter returns to being pure, dimensionless, immaterial frequency waves. The whole process has to be understood in terms of Fourier mathematics. A new Leibniz, Euler, Gauss, Riemann or Fourier himself would be able quite straightforwardly to produce a final scientific theory of everything. No physicist is up to the task. Scientists don’t have enough vision, intuition and imagination, and are locked into empiricism, materialism and, worst of all, careerism and groupthink. So, who will the mathematical genius be who delivers the Fourier theory of everything? Will it be you?! Somewhere out there this person exists. They don’t know it yet, but they are going to change the world forever. Such is the destiny of genius.

The Cosmic Hologram Fourier mathematics is the basis of holography, which has itself been proposed as a theory of everything: “Holographic cosmology sits in a small corner of the universe with the other theories that aren’t part of mainstream physics or science. Nevertheless, it deals with fundamental anomalies that most scientists in mainstream science have chosen to ignore or have dismissed as unimportant. Most of the insightful work done in relating cosmology to holograms has been done by David Bohm, a University of London physicist, a protégé of Einstein and a widely respected quantum physicist. The other scientist is Karl Pribram, a neurophysiologist at Stanford University and author of many books on the physiology of the brain. The ideas and theories developed by these two individuals form the essential

ingredients of holographic theory and how it relates to the universe and our mind. “The word laser or L.A.S.E.R. is really an acronym for light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. Inside a laser is some form of crystal, gas or other suitable substance, in which atoms, when stimulated by focused light waves, amplify and concentrate these waves and then emit them in a narrow, very intense beam of one colour or frequency. “But before we delve into those ideas, it would be good to provide you with a little background on exactly what a hologram is. In 1947, Dennis Gabor formulated the mathematical theories out of which would come the development of the hologram. At the time, he was working on improving the electron microscope. The mathematical equations that he was using were based on a type of calculus invented by an eighteenth-century Frenchman by the name of Jean Fourier. The equations he had developed were called Fourier transforms. “By experimenting with different kinds of film, Gabor used these equations to help him convert a picture of an object into a blurry set of interference patterns (remember those from Young’s double slit experiment?) on film, and then converted those interference patterns back into an image of the original object. Of course, today the mathematics are taken out of the process, because now the whole thing is done with lasers. But his original insight into how images and waves can be converted into each other and vice versa made the development of holograms possible. “Laser beams are used to create holograms because the light emitted from a laser is a very pure form of coherent light. It’s especially good at creating interference patterns. Without the invention of the laser, the holographic images we see around us today would not have been possible. To create a hologram, the single beam of light that’s emitted is split into two separate beams. The first beam is bounced off the object to be photographed, while the second beam is allowed to collide with the reflected light of the first. The interference pattern that’s created by the intersection of these two beams is then recorded on a piece of film. When you look at the image on the film, it doesn’t look at all like the object that was photographed. It simply looks like a group of concentric rings, similar to the surface of a pond after you throw a rock in. However, when you shine another laser beam or even just a strong source of light through the film, a three-dimensional image of the object appears. ...

“A Fourier transform is a mathematical way of converting or transforming any simple or complex pattern into a language of simple waves. To get an idea of how this works, let’s take the example of a television set and the camera in the studio. The television camera in the studio takes an image and converts it into electromagnetic frequencies. Those frequencies are then broadcast or sent via cable to your television set at home. There your TV converts those frequencies back into the images you see on your screen. And the Fourier transforms do the same thing. His equations convert images into waveforms and back again into patterns or images.” – The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Theories of the Universe by Gary F. Moring In Illuminism, every monad is a source of pure, analytic sine and cosine waves and the waves generated by all of the monads produce a vast, cosmic interference pattern out of which the “material world” is holographically generated. Therefore, Illuminism is a Fourier Holography cosmological theory, which fully incorporates, and indeed is based on and originates, in the mind (in the Monadic Collective that comprises the Singularity, the Origin of All). The universe is a self-generating, self-optimising, dialectically evolving, teleological, living, mental, mathematical holographic organism. The spacetime material world is the hologram generated by the Singularity (the source of the cosmic interference pattern). Our senses (mathematical interpreters) are what allow us to decipher this interference pattern into the images, sounds, tastes, smells and touches that we experience as physical reality. It really is as simple as that. It’s all in the math! Souls (monads) are the source of the physical world and constitute the true reality. We live in Soul World. It’s not souls that are bizarre, it’s the material world. Our senses delude us into getting reality the wrong way around. They make us think that matter is the basic reality when in fact it’s mind. Scientists are wholly locked into the sensory paradigm and are too mathematically ignorant to get out. What’s all the more galling is that Leibniz showed that the world was a hologram (based on holographic principles) some 300 years ago, in his breathtaking, groundbreaking Monadology. The world still hasn’t caught up with this greatest of all geniuses.

Causality The best and simplest way to think about cause and effect is that cause is noumenal and belongs to the mental domain and effect is phenomenal and belongs to the material domain. Cause can never be perceived because it is not phenomenal. Cause is immaterial, dimensionless, indestructible and eternal. The laws of science are actually the laws of ontological mathematics and have existed forever. The Big Bang was no random event in absolute nothingness (non-existence). It was a causal event in an immortal mathematical Singularity. All souls (monads) are uncaused causes that reflect the eternal laws of mathematics, In fact, there’s only one true law – that of the God Equation. Souls are self-contained, autonomous agents and expressions of the God Equation, hence eternal, uncaused causes that give rise to everything else.

***** Scientific Big Bang theory of creation out of nothing is a stealth form of Creationism. It’s disguised Abrahamism. Mathematical Big Bang theory involves no Creation event but an eternal universe cyclically oscillating between Big Bang and Big Crunch events. The Big Bang is the start of a cosmic wave cycle, and the Big Crunch is the end of that wave cycle. The universe has a period, amplitude and frequency. It obeys the Pythagorean Music of the heavens.

Speculators versus Skeptics Speculators, good or bad, generate ideas. Skeptics then tear these ideas to shreds. Skeptics never generate their own ideas. They are nihilists and most of them suffer from clinical depression. Speculation is a creative exercise, and skepticism destructive. Science has far too many skeptics and far too few speculators, which makes it extremely conservative and causes it to suffer from extreme groupthink. All people who slavishly adhere to any dubious thought system, whether it be scientific or religious dogma, are negative and obstructive. Muslims are extremely credulous when it comes to the Koran, but they are 100%

skeptical regarding anything that challenges Koranic orthodoxy, hence Islam is incapable of evolving and reforming. Speculators are put to death as heretics, apostates and infidels. In science, anyone who does not toe the party line of empiricism and materialism is starved of funding in the hope of marginalising them and eradicating their ideas.

***** “Artists who seek perfection in everything are those who cannot attain it in anything.” – Eugene Delacroix Never be afraid to make mistakes, and always be prepared to learn from them. Skeptics are too afraid to make mistakes, and speculators are usually never prepared to learn from their mistakes.

Monads Monads are autonomous, self-contained, eternal, indestructible, uncaused, uncreated mathematical units that require nothing. They are perpetual motion machines, or, rather, organisms. They have both infinite energy and no energy (because their positive and negative, real and imaginary energy are all in perfect balance and cancel to zero), and have no net energy expenditure, hence never run down. Monads are frequency singularities. They are souls.

Egoism Versus Egotism An egoist is someone who is naturally self-centred and selfish. He never thinks about the needs of others. It simply never occurs to him. In many ways, he’s indifferent to others, as a severe autistic might be. In more philosophical versions of egoism, the egoist believes that looking after his own self-interest should be a general principle, and that a better world would result. This is the central doctrine of free-market capitalism, and is the basis of Ayn Rand’s ideology. An egoist could theoretically be highly introspective and modest, with a marked tendency towards solipsism, skepticism and even nihilism. Many “loners” are egoists. An egotist, on the other hand, is acutely aware of others and their needs but is so arrogant and conceited that he believes that he himself is entitled

to everything good and wonderful. He’s boastful, manipulative and never modest. All other people are means to his ends, not ends in themselves. Egotists are self-centred and self-important. They’re usually psychopaths. They are the sort of people at the top of free-market capitalism. They are libertarians and Randroids. They are narcissists consumed with themselves and always talking about themselves, and expecting to be the centre of attention at all times. The so-called Wolf of Wall Street was a classic example. The Narcissist, Psychopath or Predator of Wall Street would have been a more fitting title.

Christian Sorcery Caiaphas, the Jewish High Priest, openly regarded Jesus Christ as a sorcerer, which makes it somewhat amusing that Christians today denounce “Harry Potter” as a magician and sorcerer. This is exactly how many people viewed their own “God”. Jesus Christ raised the dead, making him guilty of necromancy. He performed “miracles” (magic; black magic?), he spoke to unseen spirits, he blasphemed against God and his laws (from the orthodox Jewish point of view), he cast out spirits (hence could also insert spirits), he was associated with a “Holy Ghost”, he regarded himself as the “Son” of God. How does he differ from Voldemort? Is he not a witch? Does he not practise witchcraft and black magic? Is he not a dangerous sorcerer? If you don’t believe in Jesus Christ then he simply looks like a lunatic, a charlatan, or a black magician and necromancer. If children are warned about witchcraft and magic, shouldn’t they be warned about Jesus Christ?

Privilege Rich parents buy their children a competitive educational advantage. In the UK, an average of £6000 per annum is spent on each pupil in the state education system. The equivalent figure in the private education system is £15000. So, each state pupil receives only 40% of the resources lavished on his private counterpart. In the UK, seven percent of the population attend private school and these are the same people who have a stranglehold over the best jobs in the country. They operate a private cartel and completely dominate the nation. Money literally buys power, influence ... and more money. The masses, it seems, don’t have a chance. They can’t compete. Yet

this is total nonsense. The 93% could crush the 7% at any time they liked. The 93%, through sheer force of numbers, are the ones with the overwhelming competitive advantage. The real issue is why don’t they use it. Are they cowards, submissives, weaklings, slaves? What’s wrong with them? Of course, to make use of their decisive advantage, the 93% have to stand united. They must have a common purpose and vision. And it’s exactly here that the rich elite have launched their attack on the soft underbelly of the masses. The elite know that they must pursue a policy of divide and rule. They must do everything to prevent the 93% coming together (as happened in the French and Russian Revolutions, resulting in the massacre of the rich). Different religions, different political parties, different cultures (multiculturalism), different regional policies (setting parts of the country directly against each other), different football teams, different musical tribes (mods, rockers, punks, new romantics, disco, pop, rave, Goths, emo, hip hoppers, rockers, R&B, blues, soul, jazz, etc.), and so on – all of these create division and disunity amongst the people. Capitalist consumerism drives people into different buying groups. The capitalist entertainment industry provides hundreds of different TV and radio channels, different newspapers and magazines, to keep people divided, all tuned into different worlds and oblivious to each other. The multitude of different groups on Facebook also serves to divide people. Twitter and celebrity gossip, and fiddling with iPhones, iPods and iPads, all help to keep the people constantly occupied and distracted. The class system is another primary means of setting the people against each other, and the crowning glory of the whole system is of course the selfish nuclear family, ruthlessly operating in its own self-interest at all times and engaging in “game theory” (meaning that all such families see themselves in direct competition and conflict with each other, rather in direct competition and conflict with the rich families only). The elite have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. While they themselves provide a highly united front and total unanimity of vision (to keep themselves at the top and everyone else out!), the 93% can’t agree on anything at all and it’s inconceivable that they could ever come together in unity. They are victims of the false consciousness that the rich elite have instilled in them to neutralise them. They are too stupid to realise what has

been done to them. When the moronic masses talk about “alien abduction” and being “anally probed”, what they are doing is acknowledging, at a disturbing subconscious level, that the rich (the “aliens”) have stolen their minds and fucked them up the ass like bitches! It won’t be the masses that overthrow the elite. It will be a new elite – the intellectual, meritocratic elite. If all the rational people in the world all got together – around ten percent of humanity – they would easily be strong enough to depose the rich elite, and to launch humanity on a Star Trek, and ultimately divine, future. It’s the duty of the intelligent to destroy the rich elite. No one else can do it. The rich are the enormous dialectical obstruction that must be cleared if humanity is to progress. The selfish, greedy elite that rules the world in its own interests must be cast down. The Final War is between the Rich and the Smart, between the Sophists and the Philosophers, between the manipulative exploiters and the wise, between the negative libertarians and the positive libertarians. Humanity has no future if it allows the rich to go on ruling. The rich must perish. There can be no place for a two-tier world of the rich privileged elite and everyone else. There can be no valid world in which 93% of the people are second-class citizens with second-class opportunities and second-class lives.

Pester Power Children who have their hearts set on something relentlessly pester their parents until their parents give in (in exchange for a quiet life!). In the adult world, the rich have all the pester power and they relentlessly pester (and bribe) governments until they get what they want. Pester power is no use if you don’t know what you want (hence can’t set your heart on it). When it comes to politics, this is true of the adult masses. They can’t collectively agree on anything, hence can’t act in concert to get what they want. The rich elite always act in concert because they have a clear, common cause – staying rich and ruling over everyone else – while the 93% do nothing but bicker amongst themselves. “Free speech” and Protestantism have given every scumbag the belief that they have something important to say, that they “must be heard”. Look at Facebook. All attempts by clever people to communicate clever messages

on that platform are shot down by Protestant trolls in the name of “free speech”. The staggering arrogance of the Protestant individual (“justified” by faith or Scripture) is one of the best allies of the rich elite. The rich elite are themselves mostly WASPs, and the right wing political parties that support them are overwhelmingly Protestant. Protestantism goes hand in hand with capitalism and elitism based solely on wealth. Selfish Protestant families – promoting the libertarian and anarchist cult of the family and individual – are the Fifth Column that prevents the people from coming together. If the people were “Catholic”, they could easily unite behind one leader (their “pope”) and sweep away the rich elite. Protestantism is the great enemy of collective action by the people. It gives everyone the “right” to sow dissension in the ranks and to believe that they know better than everyone else. When you have too many chefs in the kitchen, no cooking gets done. As Isaac Asimov said, “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” The Protestants are the worst for thinking they know everything. The first Protestant, Martin Luther, proclaimed, “Reason is the Devil’s whore.” So, whatever it is that Protestants believe they know, it certainly isn’t rational, hence it’s worthless.

***** “Truth is belligerent. Truth is, by its very nature, ‘at war’ with the forces of falsehood and deceit.” – Bertolt Brecht Truth isn’t nice and peaceful. It’s radical, revolutionary and right. Those on the side of the truth are the righteous. Those on the side of falsehood and deceit are the sinners, the evil and the damned. Ontological mathematics, and ontological mathematics alone, is about absolute, eternal, immutable, infallible, Platonic truth. Everything else is on the side of falsehood and deceit, and opposing the dialectical march to the Truth.

The Four Fs

In evolutionary biology, the four Fs are: fighting, fleeing, feeding and fucking (aka fight or flight, sustenance and reproduction). These are the four basic drives that have been at the root of evolutionary adaptation. The vast majority of human beings are firmly locked into the animal world of the four Fs. The hypothalamus in the brain regulates the four fs hormonally. It’s reason, art, culture, science, philosophy and mathematics that elevate humans above the four Fs and provide our launchpad to divinity. Capitalism operates almost exclusively at the level of the four Fs and is an economic system for animals. Abrahamism largely revolves around fight or flight (and condemns fucking for pleasure, except in the context of marriage, and even dictates what people can eat and drink). If you want to be rich and successful, make sure you target the four Fs. That’s the secret of capitalism, of journalism, of the media, of Hollywood, of religion. It’s why science, philosophy and mathematics are totally marginalised in mainstream society.

Xenia “Xenia (Greek: ‘guest-friendship’) is the ancient Greek concept of hospitality, the generosity and courtesy shown to those who are far from home and/or associates of the person bestowing guest-friendship. The rituals of hospitality created and expressed a reciprocal relationship between guest and host expressed in both material benefits (such as the giving of gifts to each party) as well as non-material ones (such as protection, shelter, favours, or certain normative rights). “The Greek god Zeus is sometimes called Zeus Xenios in his role as a protector of travellers. He thus embodied the religious obligation to be hospitable to travellers. Theoxeny or theoxenia is a theme in Greek mythology in which humans demonstrate their virtue or piety by extending hospitality to a humble stranger (xenos), who turns out to be a disguised deity (theos) with the capacity to bestow rewards. These stories caution mortals that any guest should be treated as if potentially a disguised divinity and help establish the idea of xenia as a fundamental Greek custom. Equally theoxenia covered entertaining among the gods themselves, a popular subject in classical art, which was revived at the Renaissance in works depicting a Feast of the Gods. ...

“Xenos (Greek; plural xenoi) is a word used in the Greek language from Homer onwards. The most standard definition is ‘stranger.’ However, the word, itself, can be interpreted to mean different things based upon context, author, and period of writing/speaking, signifying such divergent concepts as ‘enemy’, ‘foreigner’ or ‘stranger,’ a particular hostile interpretation, all the way to ‘guest friend,’ one of the most hallowed concepts in the cultural rules of Greek hospitality. “Xenos can be translated both to foreigner (in the sense of a person from another Greek state) and to a foreigner or traveller brought into a relationship of long distance friendship. Xenos can also be used simply to assert that someone is not a member of your community, that is simply foreigner and with no implication of reciprocity or relationship. Xenos generally refers to the variety of what a particular individual can be, specifically guest, host, stranger, friend, and, as previously mentioned, foreigner. “The ambiguity of the meaning of xenos is not a modern misunderstanding, but was in fact present in ancient Greece. Sophocles uses the vagueness of the word xenos in his tragedy Philoctetes, with Neoptolemus using the word exclusively for Philoctetes to indicate the uncertain relationship between the two characters. Xenos can be used to refer to guest-friends whose relationship is constructed under the ritual of xenia (‘guest-friendship’). In this usage it is commonly translated as ‘guestfriend’ to distinguish it from the Greek word philos, which was used to refer to local friends and to relatives not strictly bound by xenia. The Greeks used this ambiguity because they thought strangers could be gods or goddesses in disguise, so they were always kind and respectful to strangers, because if it was a god, they could be blessed by that god or goddess.” – Wikipedia

***** Xenophilia = love of the stranger. Xenophobia = fear and hatred of the stranger. Most nations and societies are xenophobic. They are terrified of the stranger, the foreigner, the outsider, the “other”, the barbarian, the goy, the

different, the heretic, the apostate, the infidel. It’s all about “them and us”, “U and non-U”, “self and other”.

Interpretation and Reinterpretation The whole of science is an interpretation of experimental data, and a collection of theoretical inferences with regard to science’s empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm. Yet all interpretations of experimental data and all theoretical inferences can be wholly reinterpreted within a different Meta Paradigm, that of rationalism and idealism. So, everything comes down to which Meta Paradigm is correct – and that’s not a scientific question but one of philosophy.

Authority Protestants accused Catholicism of operating via “authority” (that of the pope), while Protestantism, they claimed, encouraged questions. Yet, in truth, Protestantism simply replaced the pope as the inflexible source of authority with “Holy Scripture” – the Bible. A Protestant cites as his “infallible” authority some passage from the Bible. To Protestants, that’s much better than citing the authority of the pope. To a non-Christian, either approach is equally offensive and deluded. Tragically, science too operates from the stance of authority, this time that of the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm of science. No practising scientist is ever allowed to challenge this “authority”. Anyone who does so is automatically an apostate, infidel or heretic and driven out of the Church of Science (by the simple expedient of denying them any funding, and generally ridiculing their ideas as “crackpot”). This is exactly why it’s so hard to bring about any rapid change in Christianity and science alike. They both move at a snail’s pace in terms of questioning their own core assumptions.

Life Do you like your life? You ought to – you chose it!

The Automobile

A person’s car is an extension of his home. It’s as if he has detached part of his home, made it mobile, and taken it out into the public sphere, where it acts as an anti-social little bubble. If we were to apply libertarian and anarchist beliefs to such a car, there would be no speed limit, no rules of the road, no traffic laws. It would just be one gigantic free-for-all, such as is often seen in many countries in Southeast Asia. Well, that works well, doesn’t it?! If libertarianism and anarchism were ever applied to a society as a whole, civilisation would collapse, and chaos and extreme violence would reign. Yet still we have to listen to the hysterical, anti-government, antiState, anti-Society rhetoric of these libertarian and anarchist morons. They are enemies of the people and would drag humanity back to the jungle and caves. If you want a Star Trek future, you have only one choice: get the smartest meritocrats in charge of the world.

Laughter Humans laugh thirty times more in company than on their own, hence laughter is clearly a social phenomenon. Humans laugh much more with their peers than with their “superiors”. You might laugh hysterically at a peer’s joke, and just smile politely if a superior tells the same joke (even if he tells it better). With your peer, you are laughing as part of bonding behaviour. With your superior, you do not have an equal bond, but, rather, a hierarchical relation in which you are the subordinate. If you laugh too loudly, you are concerned you will be judged negatively, and both parties are aware you would be treating the superior as a peer, which he will not accept. Accordingly, superiors do not expect their jokes to be met by their subordinates with anything other than restrained smiles. So, even our laughter is subject to status considerations and is a key part of the status game. One retired chief executive observed that he used to get a few laughs when he told certain jokes to his employees. Now, when he tells the same jokes to new audiences, no one laughs. He has no power anymore. No one is obliged to laugh at his rotten jokes.

*****

It’s said that the ancient world’s version of Monty Python’s “dead parrot” sketch involved a dead slave! Er, not quite so politically correct.

Applied Kinesiology “David Hawkins has recently written a book called Truth versus Falsehood: How to tell the difference. He ‘calibrates’ the truth or falsehood of everything from movies to political parties with muscle testing or kinesiology. Muscle testing has been around for many years, probably centuries. Often it is used in chiropractic offices etc. to test for organ health etc. Yet it can be used to ‘test’ just about anything.” – http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=591276 “[Applied kinesiology] is a claimed diagnostic technique also known simply as AK. It consists of having the subject stand with a test substance in one hand, while the other arm is stretched straight out from the side of the body. The operator places his palm upon the outstretched arm and presses down with a certain force, attempting to depress the arm and judging the degree of the force required to accomplish this effect. He then compares it with the amount of force needed to depress the arm when the test substance is not being held by the subject in the other hand, or when a ‘bad’ substance is held. “It is claimed that when a harmful substance is being held, the arm depresses easily; when a beneficial or harmless substance is present, the force needed is much greater, since the body is now not weakened by the vibrations of the negative substance. “The effect observed is entirely due to the expectations of the operator, and this can clearly be shown by appropriate ‘blind’ testing procedures, in which the operator is kept ignorant of the expected result. As evidence that the AK idea is pure sympathetic magic, it is enough to know that promoters claim that while refined sugar can be clearly shown in a very dramatic manner to be a ‘bad’ substance by this method when actual sugar is placed in the hand, the same strength of effect is also brought about by simply having the subject hold a scrap of paper with the word ‘sugar’ or the chemical formula C12H22O11 (sucrose) written on it in place of the actual substance. Believers in AK have no problem rationalizing the absurdity of such a claim.

“In the United States, in response to our increasing demand for nonsense, expensive courses are now being offered to doctors and dentists in which AK is taught to them as a diagnostic tool, and many otherwise sensible medical professionals have taken these courses and have accepted the effect as genuine. “AK has been tested thoroughly, and has always been found useless.” – James Randi, An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural

***** An Amazon reviewer of a David Icke book used this procedure to declare David Icke one of the greatest prophets of all time, and practically a God. Er, you haven’t been reviewing your books, have you, David?! Long live the Lizards on Moon Base!!!

Truth and Falsehood In fact, it’s easy to distinguish truth from falsehood. The only absolute, eternal, immutable, infallible truths are the truths of reason of ontological mathematics. The further anything strays from those, the falser it becomes. Mythos, which has zero mathematical content, ipso facto has zero truth content and is pure belief. Everything between Mythos (zero truth content) and Logos (the eternal Platonic truths of reason enshrined in ontological mathematics) exists on a spectrum of varying degrees of opinion, conjecture, hypothesis and interpretation. Science is an anti-intellectual opinion about the world, based on the alleged superiority of the senses over reason. Science claims that the eternal intelligible world of reason does not exist and all that actually exists is a sensible domain that literally randomly appears out of absolute nothingness. Even magic is more rational than that!

Wealth Creators The 85 super predatory capitalists who have as much money as 3.5 billion people are laughably described as “wealth creators”. Well, they’ve certainly created vast personal wealth. In relation to everyone else, they are wealth destroyers!

The wealth of the nation, indeed the world, has been transferred from the many to the few, from the people to the rich elite. It’s about time it was transferred back.

Madness “In light of Natural Law, Man’s Law is irrelevant and unnecessary [Completely Redundant].” – An anarchist So, er, who exactly defines “Natural Law” if not men? We’re not back to prophets, and “holy texts” and angels and divine revelation and gurus, are we? God save us from these anarchist lunatics. When it comes to “Natural Law”, man is the measure of all things, as Protagoras said. Smart people – meritocrats – can understand the laws of existence better than anyone else, hence what smart people say Natural Law is should be what it is defined as. Otherwise, we would be allowing clowns, idiots, charlatans and anarchists to define Natural Law. “Government is nothing but men acting in concert. The Morality and value of Government, like any other association of men, will be no greater and no less than the Morality and the value of men comprising it. Since government is nothing but men, its inherent ‘authority’ to act is in no way greater or different than the ‘authority’ to act of individuals in isolation. Government has no ‘magic powers’ or ‘authority’ not possessed by private individuals. Let he who asserts that Government may do that which the individual may not assume the onus of proof and demonstrate his contention.” – Chris Lyspooner Er, by exactly the same logic, no private individual has any greater power or authority to act than the government, so what’s your point, caller? Let he who asserts that individuals may do that which the Government may not assume the onus of proof and demonstrate his contention. An association of men obeying the General Will has far more legitimacy in anyone’s book than an individual obeying his own particular will in defiance of the General Will, and such an individual has in fact declared war on the association, and can expect war to be fully visited on him. No individual anywhere has any right to act against the interests of everyone else to advance his own interests. He has no authority whatsoever.

The Problem We frequently find people self-describing themselves as “Illuminists” when, as far as we are concerned, their views reveal them as anarchists, libertarians, anti-meritocrats, communists, fantasists, relativists, people who think that all opinions are equal, and so on. You should put a real effort into defining what is most important to you, and don’t pretend you’re something you’re not. We don’t support any governments or States that currently exist in this world, but we are extremely pro-Government and pro-State if they reflect Plato’s Republic, Leibnizian rationalism, Rousseau’s General Will and Hegel’s dialectic. If you hate government and State in principle, you are no friend of ours.

***** “The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.” – Hubert Humphrey

The Truth Science isn’t interested in ultimate truth. It’s interested in what seems to be true right now. All scientific theories in the graveyard of science once seemed true. Newtonian physics is still taught today even though its ontologically wholly false. Science is reminiscent of free-market capitalism. It’s self-indulgent, contemptuous of the truth, addicted to instant-gratification and in thrall to apparent success. (“Success has always been the greatest liar.” – Nietzsche)

Intellect “Nothing in the intellect without first being in the senses, except the intellect itself.” – Leibniz Empiricists say, “Nothing in the intellect without first being in the senses.” Yet they do not explain what the intellect is, and this is the whole problem. How can you explain a rational intellect via senses that have nothing to do with reason? It’s like trying to explain the art of photography via a camera lens. Any fool can take a picture. Only an artist can take a genuinely good

one. The quality of the camera or lens doesn’t matter a jot if the person behind the camera has no “eye” for a picture. Sensory information is useless without an intellect behind it to interpret it. Therefore, the intellect is what is crucial, not the senses. How to explain the intellect is the most important thing of all, not explaining the senses and what data they collect. Empiricists put the emphasis on the senses; rationalists on the intellect. As Leibniz so acutely indicated, the intellect is not in the senses, cannot be perceived by the senses, and cannot be explained by the senses. In fact, it implies an extra-sensory (i.e. mental) reality, and it also implies that the senses are secondary and a product of the intellect, not the other way around (as scientists claim).

Holocaust Remembrance The Jewish God wiped out the whole of humanity bar Noah and his family. The Jewish God exterminated all of the Egyptian firstborn. The Jewish God murdered the family of Job, his most faithful servant. The Jewish God ordered Abraham, the first Jew, to murder his own son to prove his loyalty, obedience and faith. The Jewish God committed genocide against the Canaanites and stole their land from them since he had promised it to the Jews, his “Chosen People”. The Jewish God sentenced the whole of humanity to hell (the ultimate cosmic holocaust) because Adam and Eve committed the “Original Sin” of disobeying God, by eating an apple from a tree that he had placed right in front of them, without so much as a fence around it. Only a madman would worship this “God”, this greatest enemy the human race has ever faced. Indeed, the Devil himself. When the Jews ask you to remember the Holocaust, always ask, “Which one? – the one perpetrated by the Nazis or by you and your God?”

Noah’s Ark A 4000-year-old Mesopotamian clay tablet tells the original story of Noah’s ark. The sixty-line cuneiform passage on the tablet describes a coracle

(ancient circular vessel), not the rectangular vessel of popular mythology. The tablet records a god’s instructions for building a giant ship – two-thirds the size of a football field – made of plaited reed rope, reinforced with wooden ribs and coated in waterproof bitumen. Crucially, it also describes how the animals must enter “two by two”! The ark wasn’t intended to go anywhere, just to bob around safely on the surface of the water, as coracles do. They don’t sink. “Wall, wall! Reed wall, reed wall! Atram-Hasis, pay heed to my advice, that you may live forever! Destroy your house, build a boat; despise possessions and save life! Draw out the boat that you will build with a circular design. Let its length and breadth be the same.” – the Mesopotamian tablet The Jews simply stole this ancient tale and used it for their own ends. Fascinatingly, the Mesopotamian god was going to kill humanity because the people were too noisy and were disturbing the peace of the gods. The Jews turned this into “too sinful”.

Secrets If the Illuminati were running the world, we would not be a secret society. We are a secret society because those who are running the world have always oppressed us and sought to stamp out truth and enlightenment, and to promote false prophets, false doctrines, false beliefs and false dogma. The Illuminati don’t get help from anyone. We help ourselves.

How Nationalism Destroys Nations Wales has some of the worst schools in the world. The schools are particularly bad at mathematics and science. One of the central problems is that Welsh schools seek to recruit teachers who can speak Welsh, an obscure minority language. The Welsh language has nothing to do with mathematics and science and yet it’s managing to sabotage them through the imposition of an irrelevant language requirement. All of these nations with a mania for speaking irrelevant, minority languages in order to preserve some fake national identity are cutting their own throats. National languages are in general a disaster. According to the Bible, God imposed them on the world to create confusion and prevent men from building the Tower of Babel. Well, languages are indeed a primary source of confusion

and lack of communication. If we lived in a sensible world, everyone on Earth would speak the same language and we would be able to communicate with one and all. All those who oppose a mono-lingual humanity are dinosaurs and petty nationalists who never want humanity to come together and build a tower that reaches the heavens.

Syria The civil war in Syria ostensibly began as a political conflict but soon degenerated into what it really was: a religious conflict. Religion always underlies politics.

The Dialectic “Assuredly we bring not innocence into the world, we bring impurity much rather: that which purifies us is trial, and trial is by what is contrary.” – John Milton, Areopagitica

Alone Cosmologist Max Tegmark claims that we are alone in the universe. This is somewhat amusing given that he believes in four levels of Multiverse (infinite universes)! Moreover, he even believes in countless clones of ourselves inhabiting countless parallel universes. Why is other life less probable than this outlandish claim?

The Ancient Greeks The Greeks possessed no concept of an individual separate from the citystate in which he lived. All individuals were citizens who owed absolute loyalty to the State. The ancient Greeks would have found modern libertarian, anarchist, free-market capitalist Americans who despise their own State and government, incomprehensible and evil, and would certainly have put all such people to death as grotesque enemies of the State, and outright traitors. All ancient States were “positive liberty” States in which people took their identity from the State. Modern “negative liberty” States, where people hate the State and government, and want to be left alone in their insular family units, would have been unthinkable and perverse to the

ancients. Why, now, do people feel so isolated, alone and alienated, unable to rely on their neighbours and fellow-citizens? Because that’s exactly the logic of negative liberty. Negative liberty invariably leads to the atomisation and fragmentation of society, the breakdown of community, the loss of all bonds between people. In the modern day, religion replaces the State as the source of common identity. So, for example, all Jews are extremely tightly bonded, as are Muslims, and fundamentalist Christians. For those that have no common political or religious identity, their identity becomes reduced to that constructed within tiny, atomistic groups such as the family, friends, or social “tribes” (such as goths, rockers, hip-hoppers, or whatever). People yearn for a common identity that reduces their loneliness and isolation, and often find it in celebrity culture (large numbers of people worship individual celebrities), Facebook groups, subcultures, and so on. The last positive liberty State that truly electrified its citizens was none other than Nazi Germany. The German people loved Hitler because he gave them a glorious positive liberty identity that made them feel like gods (just as the prophets of the Jews made them feel like gods when they called them the “Chosen People”). Modern American politicians seek to foster a positive liberty vision by appealing to American “exceptionalism” and “manifest destiny.” Yet the American people are so contemptuous of the political class that many of them genuinely believe that the American government murderously launched an attack on its own citizens on 9/11, and that it is even now building FEMA death camps for the American people. That’s what happens when the negative liberty mindset has fully taken hold.

The Natural Order “It is in the natural order of things ... that the weaker reason should serve the stronger.” – St. Augustine It’s time for the smartest people on Earth to topple the super rich and take over the running of the world, and to rule with the express aim of building paradise on Earth – a fully optimised human race, omitting no one. In the beginning, the “natural order” was that of the strong ruling the weak: the rule of brute force alone. Then the focus switched to psychological power as well as brute force. Anointed Kings, High Priests

and Prophets came to power using the psychological power of religion to consolidate and increase their power. Then, when religion waned, money became the new symbol of power and the new God. Today, the “natural order” involves the rich, not the physically strong, ruling over the poor (the financially weak). Yet this is not humanity’s destiny. This is not the true natural order. The true natural order is for the smartest to rule. The smartest must use their superior intelligence to cast down the false gods – the rich. The smart rule through the quality of their ideas, not through the size of their bank balance. No smart person, no intellectual, has ever dreamt of having vast wealth. This is one of the primary definitions of an intellectual.

The Mystery of Mathematics in Science “The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious.” – Eugene Wigner “I know of no other compelling explanation for this trend [the ability of maths to explain the physical world] than that the world really is completely mathematical.” – Max Tegmark Indeed!

Cosmic Meaning “Our Universe does not give life meaning but life gives our Universe meaning.” – Max Tegmark Well, actually, Max, the universe is made of living mathematical monads, so the universe is meaning and nothing but meaning. The idea that we live in a meaningless, purposeless, lifeless, mindless machine is absurd. Our own existence refutes it. We all reflect the basic features of existence. We are not a miraculous contradiction of its basic features, produced by an inexplicable random accident, as scientists like Tegmark believe.

Tabula Rasa “Tabula rasa, meaning ‘blank slate’ in Latin, is the epistemological theory that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception. Generally, proponents of

the tabula rasa thesis favour the ‘nurture’ side of the nature versus nurture debate, when it comes to aspects of one’s personality, social and emotional behaviour, and intelligence. The term in Latin equates to the English ‘blank slate’ (or more literally, ‘scraped tablet’, which refers to writing on a slate sheet in chalk) but comes from the Roman tabula or wax tablet, used for notes, which was blanked by heating the wax and then smoothing it to give a tabula rasa.” – Wikipedia “There is nothing in the intellect that was not previously in the senses.” – Empiricist Axiom Empiricists saw the intellect as a blank slate that became populated with sensory ideas, upon which intellectual reflection then took place. Kant took the view that the intellect was something very complex and actually created the circumstances in which we could experience reality at all. The intellect provided the precondition for having sensory experiences. So, what is the intellect? Where is it? How is it constructed? Can we perceive it? Can we alter it? Can we perform experiments on it? In Illuminism, the intellect is the monadic mind outside space and time.

Materialism Materialism is not a “fact”. It’s an interpretation. Experiments neither prove nor provide evidence for materialism. Every experiment can just as easily be reinterpreted from the idealist perspective. Materialists have never addressed the idealism of the likes of Leibniz, Berkeley, Kant, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Hartmann and Jung. They have simply ignored it or dismissed it as “mere philosophy”. Illuminism is very concerned with refuting scientific materialism. Scientific materialism is so arrogant, deluded, ignorant and dumb that it does not believe it has to bother addressing counter explanations. And that’s exactly why science has arrived at a number of spectacularly idiotic and even insane positions. Science is so philosophically illiterate that it does not know how to challenge its own assumptions, and it then treats these as quasi-religious articles of faith and becomes as obnoxious, fanatical and closed minded as Abrahamism.

Incompleteness

Following Gödel’s work on incompleteness, mathematics has often been accused of being inconsistent, incomplete or both. In fact, it’s science that is both inconsistent and incomplete. It’s incomplete insofar as it has no ontological necessity, it can’t explain how the universe originated, it can’t explain life, mind, consciousness and free will, it can’t explain itself, it can’t explain its own laws, it can’t accommodate zero and infinity. It’s selfevidently incomplete because it can’t explain singularities even though black holes have singularities, the Big Bang was a singularity, and all photons are singularities since they are immaterial and have been lengthcontracted to zero. (Therefore, to say that we are bathed in light is to say we are bathed in singularities!) Science is self-evidently incomplete because its two most successful and experimentally well-established theories – relativity and quantum mechanics – are incomplete, incompatible and irreconcilable. Science has not and never will achieve a grand unified theory of everything because of its fundamental incompleteness and inconsistency. Ontological mathematics is neither inconsistent nor incomplete. In fact, it’s fundamental to the definition of ontological mathematics that it should be neither inconsistent or incomplete. Any approach to mathematics that falls foul of Gödelian incompleteness is ipso facto a false account of mathematics. Ontological mathematics can never be inconsistent or incomplete because it derives from just a single formula – the God Equation, the universal law of existence. Nothing in a single formula can be inconsistent. A formula cannot be inconsistent with itself. It is complete insofar as it caters for all possibilities (whether or not the formula is bounded or unbounded). The ground of existence must be absolutely consistent and complete to the most perfect, flawless degree. If this were not the case, its own inconsistencies would destroy it. Its lack of completeness would destroy it (any incompleteness is a lack and any lack is an instability and any existential instability is fatal). The ground of existence must be 100% stable under all operations and transformations and must be 100% error-free, guaranteed. Only the God Equation meets all of these criteria.

Patterns of Excellence

Since human beings are mimics (they mimic the behaviour of their parents, siblings, friends, peers, and “role models”), it’s essential to ensure that they are mimicking patterns of excellence and not patterns of failure, error, stupidity, ignorance, selfishness, greed, and violence. The problem with the human race is that all too many children are raised in environments where all the examples they are mimicking are catastrophically bad rather than wondrously good. It’s the duty of the State to intervene and make sure that everyone gets patterns of excellence to imitate. This is the basis of “positive liberty”. All of the negative libertarians rail against the government and the State and want zero interference. This results in exactly the horrific world of today where at least 90% of the human race are mired in copying bad examples and patterns of failure and even bestiality. Crime could easily be eliminated by any State that chose to intervene decisively in people’s lives from the earliest ages. States that do not intervene at all let everything fester and turn cancerous, and can never eliminate it. Crime is a cancer that needs to be cut out of humanity, but it never will be when the “surgeons” of the State refuse to operate because they’re too busy gratifying themselves.

***** Nil satis nisi optimum: “Nothing but the best is good enough.” Most of the world operates according to the principle of the worst always being good enough.

The Cosmic Egg The ancients had an idea of the cosmos (the place of order) being an egg, or a crystal, rocky or metal sphere located in the midst of infinite disorder (the waters of chaos). The egg or sphere did not fall because it was surrounded and supported on all sides by the force of chaos battering against it. The ancients imagined light as a seed of order in the darkness (disorder). They imagined the dark chaos as a womb into which a fertilised egg appeared, allowing life to grow and develop.

Shades

In many ancient traditions, the dead did not simply vanish from the world. Rather, they became shades or ghosts and ended up under the ground – in the Underworld. Deprived of life-giving blood, they steadily lost their memories, personalities and purposes (but could recover them again if they were given blood). However, their general fate was to grow more and more spiritually distant from the living beings they once were. They were destined to become ever more attenuated, fading echoes of their former selves. The longer they went without blood, the more they lost touch with their old memories and personalities. Eventually, they were little more than energy. This energy didn’t die but nor did it have any purpose or identity. It was to address this horrific journey into oblivion that the religious concepts of resurrection and reincarnation were devised. The former allowed you to recover your memories, personality, purposes and identity by giving you back your former living body with all of its life-giving blood. Of course, no one ever suggested any scientific mechanism for how this could happen. It was a religious miracle, and remains so today in the Abrahamic religions of the Resurrectionists. According to reincarnation, you did not come back in your former body but in a brand new body and brand new life, with new memories, personality, purposes and identity. You deliberately wiped your memories clean prior to reincarnation by drinking from the waters of Lethe (the river of forgetfulness). However, more sophisticated theories said that you retained all of your memories of all of your past lives, but in a Higher Self, of which your lower self in each new life is a temporary aspect. The Higher Self is that which you attain when you achieve gnosis (enlightenment) and break out of the cycle of reincarnation. Your Higher Self is your God Self. Mathematically, reincarnation takes place via a Fourier mathematics “docking” operation between soul and body. It’s impossible for Fourier mathematics to have any connection with the impossible doctrine of resurrection. No one can ever get their old body back, and it’s not clear what a “body” is anyway since it’s perpetually changing. Every time you eat, drink and breathe in, every time you urinate, defecate, breathe out and shed skin, your body is changing. Ageing changes the body. Genetic mutation changes the body. Disease, physical ravages and accidents change the body, so what particular body is going to be retrieved by resurrection? What age will it be?

“Democracy” Ancient Athenian Democracy: the citizens are in charge and are running the city-state; the rich are marginalised. Modern Capitalist Democracy: private banks, private corporations, private funds and private markets (over which people have no say or influence at all) are in charge and running the world; the people are marginalised, and offered an absurd sop of meaningless elections to dupe them into thinking they have any say over anything. In capitalist democracies, the people live in bad faith and are victims of a false consciousness brainwashed into them by the rich elite, to further the self-serving agenda of the rich. The world cannot move forward until it’s permanently decided who runs the world: the people or the rich. This is the oldest political question of them all. Dynastic private wealth, privilege, inheritance, nepotism and cronyism must be 100% eradicated. The rich are the enemies of the people. They must be defeated once and for all. That’s what the ancient Athenian democrats fought for and it must be for what all modern democrats and meritocrats fight.

***** It’s a simple fact that the brains of the rich and their supporters are wired differently from those of the people. The “right wing brain” (the brain of the rich) is high on the scales for narcissism, selfishness, greed, risk-taking, amorality and immorality, irrationalism and psychopathy. Left wingers are known to be more intelligent and altruistic than right wingers. This war of the different brains must be permanently resolved. The right wing psychopathic brain must be defeated in totality. Only then will the world be freed from the grip of the “masters”, the “hawks”.

The Fear Campaign Russell Brand has seriously frightened the puppetmasters of capitalist democracy with his sensible call for people not to vote in elections. The UK’s Independent newspaper raged, “How easy it is for Mr Brand to rail against ‘the lies, treachery, deceit of the political class, that has been

going on for generations now’. What fun to condemn voting as ‘tacit complicity with that system’.” Eh? What’s easy about it and what’s fun about it? It’s a serious, valid political analysis of a political system that has totally failed. The Independent then engages in a cheap ad hominem attack: “Mr Brand’s credibility has been undermined by the sheer incoherence of his programme, as well as by the inauthenticity of a rich and successful 38year-old comedian posing as the voice of dispossessed, alienated youth.” There’s nothing incoherent about Brand’s position, and plenty of incoherence about supporting capitalist democracy, which is all about the domination of democracy by the capitalist elite, hence is not democracy at all. Of course, the Independent, as an organ of the capitalist media propaganda machine, is never going to bite the hand that feeds. It’s about as impartial as the Pope commenting on Catholicism. As for Brand’s age, wealth and profession, what’s that got to do with the validity of his opinion? Absolutely nothing. What a cheap, pathetic attack. It’s so typical of capitalists to attack the man rather than the argument. Here’s the simple point. Is it or is not true that power in this world is wielded by undemocratic and anti-democratic private banks, private corporations, private funds and private markets? When has any democratic election ever affected any of these real sources of power one jot? The leaders of capitalism are never up for election and never accountable to the voters, so what’s the point of voting? For appearance’s sake? No one ever died fighting for democracy in the hope that the world would be run by unelected and unaccountable super rich capitalists. They would be spinning in their graves if they could see how badly democracy had been betrayed, and they would want to fight again – against the advocates of capitalist democracy. The Independent rants, “Not voting isn’t clever or brave. It is, in effect, saying to everyone else ‘you decide’.” Not voting is not only clever and brave, it’s the only rational way forward. You are thereby deciding the way forward. If there is a total boycott of the democratic front office of capitalism, it will remove the political legitimacy of the banking corporatocracy that rules over us. Democratic politicians are the plastic smile of the unacceptable face of capitalism. They are enemies of the people. Who in their right mind would vote for their enemies?

A boycott is defined as a “withdrawal from commercial or social relations with (a country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest.” A boycott is not an act of cowardice or apathy. It’s a deliberate, direct action to end an injustice. Anyone who does not boycott the fraudulent and pointless elections of capitalist democracy is a fool and a traitor to the people. It never matters for whom anyone votes. The result is always the same in a capitalist democracy: you will always be ruled by the banking corporatocracy, the bankster Mafia that will always make you an offer you can’t refuse.

***** The only way for you to decide your future is to get rid of capitalist democracy, and its disguised rule by the super rich. Boycott “democracy”. Don’t allow the rich to rule in your name, with a mandate provided by you and your peers. Capitalist democracy is serving the interests of only one class: the ownership class, the capitalist class, the super rich class. It was precisely to end the rule of this class that the Athenians invented democracy (“people power”) in the first place. The rich have carried off one of the greatest deceptions in history. They have taken control of democracy and now rule in its name while serving zero of its principles. Only now are a few people such as Russell Brand beginning to wake up to the true nature of the capitalist Trojan Horse in our midst. We must destroy the super rich if we are to be free. There’s no other way.

***** When the bailouts of numerous banks, corporations and institutions took place following the financial meltdown of 2008, were the people consulted? Was there a democratic vote? Were the interests, opinions and wishes of the people represented? You must be joking! How many democratically elected politicians sat down round the luxury tables in luxury boardrooms to decide the scope and details of the bailouts?

How many taxpayers were there? Er, none, or next to none! Yet it was the taxpayers’ money, the voters’ money that was being spent. Why weren’t all the bailed out, bankrupted banks, corporations and institutions brought under socialised control, with future profits going to the people? Who decided that the private sector should remain in charge, receiving bonuses as large and obscene as ever? Who decided all of that? – the people? What planet are you living on? The people have no say in anything. Votes change nothing. Elections have zero effect. All real decisions are taken by unelected, unaccountable puppetmasters. Haven’t you worked that out yet? Never forget the mantra of capitalism: privatise profits, socialise losses; privatise success, socialise failure; privatise real political power, socialise (democratise) the illusion of political power.

The Rise of Meritocracy We keep coming across people who say, “ I love meritocracy but I am totally against 100% inheritance tax.” Let’s be crystal clear. Anyone who opposes 100% inheritance tax is 100% anti-meritocratic. Anyone who can’t make his own way in life but has to inherit someone else’s money is a spineless, pathetic weakling, a coward, a parasite and supporter of “family welfare”. Such a person doesn’t have a meritocratic bone in his body and is an active supporter of privilege, inheritance, nepotism, cronyism and dynastic rule by super rich families – exactly as we see in the world today. Libertarians, anarchists and free-market capitalists disgust us. They are enemies of the people and support perpetual rule by the rich. The only way to take down the rich tyrants is to take away all of their excessive wealth when they die, and reinvest it in the people. If you disagree with this, you are an active supporter of the rich elite. The level of intelligence of most people when it comes to debating meritocracy is so low as to be embarrassing. Most people – for or against meritocracy – are hopeless at understanding what meritocracy actually is. You cannot have a world of equal opportunities where 85 people have the same wealth as 3.5 billion. If you haven’t worked that out yet, you really are spectacularly dumb. As we keep saying, eventually the smartest people in the world will get together and decide the future of humanity amongst themselves. We cannot

go on letting the rich and the stupid hold back the advent of HyperHumanity.

***** It’s bizarre that many people think it would be easy to circumvent the 100% inheritance tax. Absolutely any attempt to avoid it would be met with the full force of the law, the Meritocratic Law! Savage jail sentences would be imposed on all those who attempted to defy this law. None of the vehicles for tax avoidance and tax evasion that exist in today’s world would exist in the Meritocratic State. Absolutely every means that any rich person sought to use to bypass the law would be shut down and criminalised. You really are stupid if you think that Meritocrats wouldn’t be able to stop any attempts by the rich to subvert the new system of equal opportunities.

Critics We rarely listen to critics. Every critic has an agenda and they invariably criticize Illuminism through the prism of their own much-cherished schema, be it scientific materialism, analytic philosophy, Abrahamism or Karmism. Since we have already studied all of these systems and found that they’re all based on enormous fallacies, it would be crazy for us to allow ourselves to be influenced by their ideas. That’s not to say that they are incapable of producing sophisticated, meretricious, specious arguments that are seductive to the ill-educated and those with only a very tenuous grasp of Illuminism. Never forget that Illuminism is about nothing less than absolute truth, and absolute truth must be eternal, necessary and free of contradiction. Only the statements of ontological mathematics qualify. Everything else is not about absolute truth, hence cannot say anything meaningful about the fundamental ground of existence.

Modelling Many financial and economic models were successful prior to the financial meltdown of 2008. Yet not one of them predicted the disaster. Many weather models are successful until it comes to unprecedented events where they fail totally.

Climate Change (Global Warming) models have a patchy success record and it’s clear that the extent of the manmade contribution to climate change remains debatable. The world has undergone much more ferocious climate change throughout history, when humans were making almost zero contribution. Until all of that is fully understood, no great confidence can be placed in the current human grasp of climate change. What is science? It’s a model of matter, and it collapses at singularities (which are mental entities).

Predictions Peter Higgs predicted the existence of the Higgs Boson, and “evidence” for it was duly found fifty years later. Newtonian physics made many successful predictions and has now been superseded as a valid theory of existence. When does science ever add the caveat, “The standard model of particle physics will be subject to revision, and may be completely superseded, taking the Higgs boson with it into oblivion”? Scientists are thoroughly dishonest people who regard evidence as proof even though countless evidentially successful scientific theories have fallen by the wayside, hence were not true, hence were not proved. Proof can only ever apply to ontological mathematics, which is Gödelian consistent and complete.

Power Right-wing anarchists (anarcho-capitalist libertarians) despise government and the State and want to replace them with “free” markets, i.e. with private banks, private corporations, private funds, and private institutions. Left-wing anarchists despise government and the State and want to replace them with “self-organising” partnerships and communities. Capitalist democracy pretends that the government and State have power while in fact ensuring that all true power resides with the “free markets”, i.e. the right-wing anarchist dream has already been implemented in all but name. Meritocracy is about true government and the true State, which means destroying the power and influence of dynastic family wealth, nepotism, cronyism, privilege and inheritance. Meritocracy is about transferring power from private interests to public interests, from particular wills to the

General Will. Meritocracy is about getting the smartest public servants into power, and ruling in the name of the people. They will be kicked out and replaced by the people if they are not serving the people. What could be more rational than that?

Anti-Meritocracy Many anarchists, libertarians and free-market capitalists imagine themselves meritocratic. They blame the government and the State for obstructing progress. Every single one of these people rails against 100% inheritance, claiming that it’s “theft” by the government (although, of course, you can’t steal from the dead, and the dead have no rights, particularly no ownership rights). For clarity, meritocracy is about giving everyone an equal opportunity to succeed, with some seizing that chance and going to the top, and others faring less well, hence not rising as high in society. For everyone to have an equal opportunity, there must be no nepotism, no cronyism, no privilege and no elite private education available only to the children of the rich. All anarchists, libertarians and free-market capitalists absolutely object to any positive-liberty State policies to ensure equal opportunities. What this means is that they are supporters of nepotism, cronyism, privilege and elite private education. These people are out and out anti-meritocrats. Why are they so afraid of a fair competition? Why do they refuse to start from the same line as everyone else and want a rigged race where they start much further up the track? Nothing rigs the race of life more than inheritance. Therefore, if you want a fair, meritocratic world, you must oppose inheritance. If you don’t, you’re ipso facto anti-meritocratic. You want the race rigged in your favour and that means you are terrified of proper competition, something that would never frighten any genuine meritocratic, who is always totally confident of his ability to succeed if there are no hidden obstacles (i.e. all of the rigged games of privilege) standing in his path.

Government In today’s world, there’s an astonishing degree of hatred towards government and the State. Not just in terms of the clowns currently in charge, but in terms of the whole principle of government and the State.

Who’s behind this hatred? Who’s financing it? Who’s campaigning for it? Who gains the most from weak or no government or State? Cui bono? Well, the rich of course. All those who hate government and the State are supporters of rich oligarchs and want them to rule the world without any accountability to the people. The fellow travellers of the rich should meet the same fate as the rich since they have chosen to throw their lot in with them and made themselves enemies of the people.

Successful Lying “Success has always been the greatest liar.” – Nietzsche “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” – Vladimir Lenin The lies of the rich have been told so often that many gullible, brainwashed sheeple (right wingers) now regard them as the absolute truth. If you seriously imagine that any super rich person deserves their obscene wealth, and that their efforts have merited such returns, there really is something wrong with you. In a healthy country, the richest person should probably be earning no more than twenty times the average person. That’s a vast difference, but nothing like the hundreds and even thousands of multiples that we get in free-market capitalism. We certainly aren’t communists (equal pay for everyone), but nor do we accept any need for rewards out of all proportion to the work put in. It’s free-market capitalism that adds this excessive premium, in order to allow the rich to rule over us, in order to allow 85 people to have the same wealth as 3.5 billion! Meritocracy is the dialectical synthesis of the opposites of communism and free-market capitalism. It gets rid of the absurd desire of communism for equal outcomes and the equally absurd desire of free-market capitalism to optimise inequality. Both of these systems are deranged. Meritocracy, which operates via the economic system of “social capitalism” (productive capitalism for the public good) is the only sane, sensible, rational way forward. Meritocracy can be understood as “small-scale” capitalism taking place within the framework of State ownership of the economic infrastructure.

There are no private banks and no vast corporations that have more power than governments. Social capitalism is constrained capitalism, reined-in capitalism. Any capitalist who wants to be rich will be able to do so, but within reason. No ludicrous rewards will be on offer.

***** The super rich’s conspiracy to subvert democracy and mount a coup that replaces government and the State with rule by the super rich and “markets” is fully set out in Ayn Rand’s Bible of the Rich, Atlas Shrugged. As soon as someone admits that they love this book, you know that their agenda is hostile to the interests of the people. In America, Rand’s “paradise” has more or less happened. All of the power in that nation lies with the ownership class. They are never affected by elections, and are never accountable to the people. All laws have been instituted by them.

The Meritocracy War KB: “I love to read all the comments about people trying to say this won’t work, this that and the other will happen. Oh really, have you seen the future? Do you think we haven’t thought up solutions that will destroy these ‘loopholes’ people try to rationalize will happen. You create an excuse to not change because you don’t want to. Instead of crying, get out of the way for real movers and shakers to change the world and stop ya bitching. If you disagree with this, then this applies to you.” Absolutely right! KB: “What exactly do you propose to replace the role money has in our society? If you can’t put up, shut up. Because it’s not money that corrupts but selfish people that corrupt power. Never has Plato’s Republic been implemented on a large scale. A no solution isn’t a solution. No money will not solve the problem. Sorry, we are realists, not fantasists.” Absolutely right again. The idea that money is about to vanish anytime soon is pure fantasy. And money, in itself, is no problem at all. It’s how money is used and abused by the rich elites that’s the problem. Get rid of the rich elites, and money

becomes non-problematic. It’s not money that’s the root of all evil, it’s greedy, selfish, narcissistic psychopaths and sadists who use money as a weapon to control, intimidate and destroy others. KB: “How can you get rich, when the rich have 99% of the money you are trying to ‘earn’. Asshole. Fact.” Yup! DG: “Instead of trying to get someone else’s wealth by having the government take it and redistribute it, go find a way to get rich on your own. Assholes.” DG guy despises his own government and places no trust in it whatsoever. Guess who he works for? Yup, Uncle Sam - the United States Air Force. How fucked up is that? Go and get a proper job, asshole, and stop scrounging off taxpayers’ money. Can’t you make money without government assistance? Scrounger, parasite, hypocrite, libertarian jerk. CG: “If all assets are seized and sold, people who are taught by their parents how to manage and work assets, particularly farmers, will be the ones to suffer. It is nearly impossible to accumulate sufficient land to develop a sustainable income for an individual, let alone a family. I understand the purpose of this law [100% inheritance tax], however it has been proven that larger farms always operate more effectively and are capable of producing a greater quantity of higher level agricultural product. Thus I inquire as to how you intend to feed a world off thousands of >500 acre farms.” For some strange reason, people from farming backgrounds always engage in special pleading. Why should rich, privileged families dictate the world’s agricultural policies? Farming, like everything else in a Meritocracy, will be conducted by farming experts. We envisage that most farms will be vast and will be run by farmer partnerships, not by farmer families. There will also be small farms for specialist crops, or for people who want to live off the land and grow their own food. TN: “No word goes the morons that believe in this. I worked for my money and I can do what I want with it. And I choose not to let the lazy 99% even look at it.” [Sic]

Er, moron, you can’t even write a coherent sentence. Who said you ‘worked’ for your money? Who decided what your work was worth? Plenty of people work incredibly hard for very little money. Why is your ‘work’ harder and better than theirs? KB: “The rich elite love this sentimentality. It serves them well, and it’s precisely this type of thinking that got them where they are today. They love it because they will never let you have any of their pie. Keep dreaming that you are living in paradise when in fact it’s hell for 99.99% of the population.” Correct. The elite have produced a false consciousness in the masses and made them complicit in their own oppression. While countless people such as TN exist, the rich elites have nothing to fear. TN is their biggest fan and advocate. That makes him a moron. Like KB, don’t take any shit from these people. Ask them directly if they are unable to make their own way in life and have to rely on their parents to give them an advantage over everyone else. Aren’t they therefore scroungers and parasites, seeking a welfare hand-out from their parents? In a Meritocratic State, any person of honour wouldn’t accept a cent in inheritance. Of course, prior to the establishment of such a State, you should in no way feel inhibited about accepting a healthy inheritance. We know that you, unlike so many others, will put it to good meritocratic use. LW: “I know that people love and want Meritocracy and the Robin Hood Tax. It’s my duty, as a social person, to spread the message to the people out there. I’m sure that you know it’s not easy.” It’s definitely not easy, but if we have far more “social” people like LW rather than anti-social people (like the rich elite and their supporters), we are sure to win in the end.

The Meritocracy Myth (Extract) by Stephen J. McNamee and Robert K. Miller, Jr. University of North Carolina at Wilmington

According to the ideology of the American Dream, America is the land of limitless opportunity in which individuals can go as far as their own merit takes them. According to this ideology, you get out of the system what you put into it. Getting ahead is ostensibly based on individual merit, which is generally viewed as a combination of factors including innate abilities, working hard, having the right attitude, and having high moral character and integrity. Americans not only tend to think that is how the system should work, but most Americans also think that is how the system does work (Huber and Form 1973, Kluegel and Smith 1986, Ladd 1994). In our book The Meritocracy Myth (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004), we challenge the validity of these commonly held assertions, by arguing that there is a gap between how people think the system works and how the system actually does work. We refer to this gap as “the meritocracy myth,” or the myth that the system distributes resources – especially wealth and income – according to the merit of individuals. We challenge this assertion in two ways. First, we suggest that while merit does indeed affect who ends up with what, the impact of merit on economic outcomes is vastly overestimated by the ideology of the American Dream. Second, we identify a variety of nonmerit factors that suppress, neutralize, or even negate the effects of merit and create barriers to individual mobility. ...

Nonmerit Barriers to Mobility There are a variety of social forces that tend to suppress, neutralize, or even negate the effects of merit in the race to get ahead. We might collectively refer to these forces as “social gravity.” These forces tend to keep people in the places they already occupy, regardless of the extent of their individual merit. First and foremost among these nonmerit factors is the effect of inheritance, broadly defined as the effects of initial class placement at birth on future life chances. Inheritance is not just bulk estates that are transferred upon the death of parents. Inheritance refers more broadly to unequal starting points in the race to get ahead. The race to get ahead is like a relay race in which we inherit an initial starting point from parents. For a while, we run alongside our parents as the baton is passed, and then we take off on our own. In this relay race, those born into great wealth start far ahead of those born to poor parents, who have a huge deficit to overcome if they are

to catch up. Indeed, of all the factors that we might consider, where we start out in life has the greatest effect on where we end up. In the race to get ahead, the effects of inheritance come first and merit second, not the other way around. Inheritance provides numerous cumulative nonmerit advantages that are available in varying degrees to all those born into at least some relative advantage, excluding only those at the very bottom of the system. Included among these nonmerit advantages are high standards of living from birth, inter vivos gifts (gifts between the living) such as infusions of cash and property bestowed by parents on their children at critical junctures in the life course (going to college, getting married, buying a home, having children, starting a business, etc.), insulation from downward mobility (family safety nets which prevent children from skidding in times of personal crises, setbacks, or as the result of personal failures), access to educational opportunities as well as other opportunities to acquire personal merit or to have merit identified and cultivated, better health care and consequently longer and healthier lives (which increases earning power and the ability to accumulate assets during the life course). Another advantage of inheritance is access to high-powered forms of social and cultural capital. Social capital is one’s “social resources” and refers to essentially to the value of whom you know. Cultural capital is one’s cultural resources and refers essentially to the social value of what you know. Everyone has friends, but those born into privilege have friends in high places with resources and power. Everyone possesses culture – bodies of knowledge and information needed to navigate through social space. Full acceptance into the highest social circles, however, requires knowledge of the ways of life of a particular group a kind of “savoir faire” that includes expected demeanour, manners, and comportment associated with the upper class. Those born into these high powered circles are trained from an early age in the cultural ways of the group, which allows them to travel comfortably in these circles and to “fit in.” Outsiders who aspire to become part of these high-powered circles must learn these cultural ways of life from the outside in a more difficult and daunting task that continually carries the risk of being exposed as an imposter or pretender. – http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm

We advise all meritocrats to read McNamee and Miller’s insightful book. The point we want to highlight above all others is that the rich man’s definition of meritocracy is totally different from (and indeed the direct opposite of) Plato’s definition. Rich “meritocrats” are the absolute enemy of the people’s meritocrats. We do not call them meritocrats at all, but scions of privilege, and ferocious anti-meritocrats who will go to any lengths to prevent a level playing field, where all of their privileged advantages will be signally absent.

***** Most people are clueless about how much the game of life is rigged against them, most especially at the moment of their birth. They live in a fantasy world thanks to the false consciousness created for them by the religious and financial elites. They suck in every lie they are sold and believe in it with religious zeal. America will now certainly fail as a great nation because it’s effectively politically gridlocked and ungovernable. No elected politician can ever change anything. It would require a dictator, and a probable bloodbath, to bring about real change.

The Meritmos The Meritmos is the meritocratic cosmos. It should, as far as realistically possible, reflect the absolute, immutable standards of the Mathmos itself. In particular, it should be devoted to establishing a permanent society of equal opportunities (thus rule by dynastic families is forever forbidden), but without artificially equal outcomes (as in communism).

The Delusion The American Dream is an ideal that grips a very particular type of person – a right winger, especially a libertarian. All libertarians are convinced they are destined to be rich, and they have concluded that the only thing stopping them is the government and the State. Remove these, and the milk and honey will flow. This is the central theme of their Bible, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Most people who read that book feel physically sick or bored out of their skulls. In right wingers, however, it produces an orgasmic feeling and an all-enveloping vision, just like the Torah for Jews, the Bible for

Protestants and the Koran for Muslims. It makes sense of their lives and clearly identifies the enemy: the government and the State. Rand was an atheist but, in reality, she was as much of a quasi-religious figure as Adolf Hitler.

***** TN: “This isn’t moving ahead at all this is taking 20 steps Backwards [sic]. Think back to the reason we lost 100,000 men in Vietnam, Because of communism. No why would America renig [sic] on itself and move on to a more communist type government. The point of a communist government it’s [sic] to ensure that no one is more wealthy than any other citizen. By distributing a billionaires wealth through the government ensuring no one can reap the benefits of hard work is essentially spitting in the faces of the veterans of Vietnam. [sic]” Moron! TN is an American soldier, one of the oppressors and bully boys of the rich elite. A dead person can’t reap any reward of anything. What this cretin is arguing for is a society of total privilege, nepotism and inheritance – exactly the world we have today. America launched an illegal war of aggression in Vietnam, and its leaders should have been tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. America killed up to 4,000,000 innocent Vietnamese! The US Marines have spat in the face of the whole world in the last five decades. They should be disbanded. TN is exactly the kind of person who would fight to the death on behalf of the super rich. He’s an enemy of the people, an enemy of democracy and an enemy of meritocracy. He is of course far too stupid to know how stupid he is.

***** “Estimates of the number of casualties [in the Vietnam War] vary, with some suggesting as many as 3.8 million violent war deaths.” – Wikipedia “United States armed forces: Casualties in Vietnam War: 58,286 KIA or non-combat deaths (including the missing & deaths in captivity).” – Wikipedia

One of the great ironies of the psychopathic American military personnel is that although they regard themselves as “patriots”, most of them despise the government they work for and whose orders they obey. The average American military serviceman is an out and out right wing psychopath. Well, you wouldn’t join the army if you didn’t want to be a professional killer, would you?

***** KB: “Why do you keep saying communism? Meritocracy despises communism. Before you spew nonsense, maybe learn something about it before you even try to judge, otherwise you just make an ass out of yourself to all the people that know what they are talking about. If Capitalism is so great, why did it need a socialist mechanism to save its ass in 2008? The Wall street bankers should have been hanged on the spot for treason against the American people. Vietnam was a massacre of millions of innocent people in a foreign state, and you have the gall to say communism caused it? No, greed from your masters caused it: psychopaths that don’t give two shits about you, me, or the ‘collateral damage’ sustained in wars. You are a class traitor, willing to do the dirty work of the elites and get nothing in return. The brainwashing techniques used on the American people is very effective, it has them honoring heroic murders of innocent people that did nothing against the American people. That isn’t heroism, that’s Terrorism.” Truth!

***** “It is a fact that any rich man, unless he is a Jew, has less to fear from Fascism than from either Communism or democratic Socialism.” – George Orwell Jews have nothing to fear from economic fascism, of which they themselves are the fascists dictators. “Since about 1930 everyone describable as an ‘intellectual’ has lived in a state of chronic discontent with the existing order.” – George Orwell

Communism

Communism was a disaster. It was totalitarian and it imposed ideological, artificial equality on people (apart from the Communist elite themselves who lived very comfortable lives, thank you very much). It disincentivised hard work, good ideas and creativity and became horrifically bureaucratic, inefficient and ineffective. You could not expect to get on unless you joined the Communist Party. State monopolies were catastrophically bad, complacent and full of non-jobs. In a Meritocratic Republic, there won’t be any political parties at all. Parliament, the Assembly or Congress will comprise independent meritocrats who have won elections in their particular spheres of expertise, and who can be removed by their electorate at any time. People will be well rewarded for their hard work, good ideas and creativity and enjoy all of their wealth until the day they die (when they longer have any need for it!). At that point, any of their remaining assets will be subject to 100% inheritance tax, and reinvested in the people. The communist principle of rejecting any rich ruling class is of course the one aspect of communism that’s fully embraced by meritocracy. There can be no permanent elite of any kind, whether religious, economic or political. Everyone must be given an equal opportunity to flourish, excel, and get the glory for their competitively achieved glories (that were won in a fair race, not one rigged by the privileged elite).

Trolls Trolls, libertarians, free-market capitalists, sadists, psychopaths, narcissists, and religious fundamentalists are all basically the same type of person: right wingers who despise government, the State, community and Society. These peoples are the obstacles to all human progress and enlightenment.

Truth Who watches soap operas? Overwhelmingly, it’s feeling types, and women in particular. Why do they watch? Because of the emotional “truth” of soap operas. Although soap operas are pure fiction, they depict scenarios that people encounter in real life, and thus evoke empathy and sympathy. The Jewish Bible is essentially a soap opera. It has zero rational truth content but plenty of emotional truth content. Christianity is pure emotion – about a “God” who sacrifices himself to save everyone else as the supreme act of

“love”. The Koran is pure emotion. It promises believers paradise and nonbelievers hellfire. All systems that operate at the level of emotional manipulation should be regarded as pure fiction, and that includes all mainstream religions, especially Abrahamism.

The Court Every religious belief should be held up to the Court of Reason (not the Court of Faith) for judgment, and every irrational belief held by a person should be formally defined as a symptom of mental illness. When people have passed a certain limit of irrational beliefs, they should be committed to asylums. If we don’t lock up the lunatics, they will run the madhouse – exactly as human history has demonstrated.

The Ownership Class The ownership class, the landlord class, can keep buying property for cash, thus massively inflating the property market, causing their own investments to soar in value, and pricing ordinary people out of the market. They can then manipulate rents as much as they want, and make their tenants effective slaves. The landlord class of the UK comprises 2% of the people. Why should these people be allowed to dictate to everyone else? Along with foreign investors, they shape the British housing market. Why is that deemed acceptable? It’s not a “free” market but a rigged market where only the richest people in the country can participate. Where do the landlord class get their spare money from, their investment capital? Well, they didn’t work for it, of course, they parasitically inherited it. If you can inherit a fortune then you have no worries, no matter how inept and talentless you are. No skill is involved in becoming a landlord. Your own only requirement is to have lots of money. You can even get a property management service to handle everything for you, and all you have to do is pick up the money. Anyone on Earth could be rich in these circumstances. If you don’t see that inheritance isn’t sane, you yourself are insane (and probably hoping for a large inheritance so that you can join the landlord class).

America America is a fascist state. It does not practise political fascism but rather economic fascism, and its fascist plan is to conquer the whole world with the American form of free-market capitalism, which, so the American fascist leadership imagine, will make America the most powerful nation in the world in perpetuity. America economic fascism is backed up by the costliest war machine in human history, supported by the notorious economic “military-industrial” complex. The American war machine cannot in any way be understood as defensive. For simple geographical reasons, it’s almost impossible to invade America. All America needs to defend itself is an excellent airforce, excellent submarines and a few aircraft carriers. These would halt all serious threats to America. It barely needs soldiers at all. So why does America have a vast army? For aggressively intervening in the affairs of other countries – such as Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, and many others. Who drives these wars? America’s fascist capitalist elite, the owners of the military-industrial complex. America has the largest and most expensive Intelligence Service in the world and has the potential to spy on anyone, including leaders of foreign allies of America. America is a fascist dictatorship where the fascist dictators never themselves appear in public. They let their puppets take part in “politics” (a misnomer, since no elected politician has any power in an economic fascist dictatorship), and wave to the credulous crowds at ludicrous rallies and conventions. America has perfected the ideology of fascism and worked out exactly how to be fascist while not appearing to be. There’s no Hitler, Mussolini or Franco in American fascism, no blackshirts, no brownshirts, no torchlit rallies, no Fascist Party flags draped over every building, no Gestapo, no concentration camps, no attacks on religion. People will splutter and say, “How can America be fascist? Everyone has free speech!” Of course, free speech is a central plank of economic fascism. The moronic masses haven’t realised it, but free speech is an extremely lucrative capitalist commodity. Think of all the commercial TV, internet and radio shows that are all about “free speech”. Consider Facebook and Twitter. These are simple platforms that have made a fortune

for their founders and investors, yet the founders and investors raised barely a finger in terms of hard work. It took Zuckerberg a few weeks to launch Facebook in his spare time at Harvard (the most elite and privileged university on Earth) – scarcely a heroic example of the outsider working his socks off and then getting the rightful rewards his talent and efforts deserve. It wasn’t Zuckerberg that made Facebook into a commercial goldmine. It was all of his “slaves” – the whole Facebook user base – who spent, and spend, many hours every day working without pay for Zuckerberg, putting the content on his platform. It’s this content and the users it attracts that’s so valuable, and the content is all created for free and in the name of “free speech.” Free speech is one of the best capitalist tricks for producing a false consciousness in people. Not only can free speech be lucratively monetised for the benefit of the rich elite, it can also be used to disguise the fundamental fascist nature of America. Free speech is of value only if it has any hope of changing things. In America, no matter what people say, and no matter for whom they vote, nothing ever changes. The fascist leadership – the economic puppetmasters – always remain in charge, no matter what. Ask yourself a very simple question about the nature of fascism. Isn’t one of its defining features that you can’t get rid of the fascist dictatorship? There’s no way to vote it out. Normally, this is achieved by the simple expedient of outlawing all other political parties. In America, the more sophisticated form of fascism allows political parties and elections to flourish – because they don’t matter in the slightest; they don’t affect the fascist dictatorship at all. The fascist leaders are never up for election, are completely unaccountable to the people while totally controlling the fate of the people, and cannot under any circumstances be removed by the people. So, the self-serving rhetoric says that America is a great democracy full of free speech, while the truth is that America is a fascist dictatorship where your free speech changes nothing (apart from being monetised and making the fascists even richer), and the people have no power at all. How do you get rid of the super rich, of the vast private banks, of the vast multi-national corporations, of the “free market”. Well, you can’t. Who controls America? Is it the people, or is it the banks, corporations and markets? Is it Main Street or Wall Street? Wake up!

America is a Zionist-WASP Masonic fascist dictatorship of the most insidious kind the world has ever seen. Having learned all of the lessons of failed fascism, it has gone to extreme lengths to disguise its true nature, and its plan has worked perfectly. The American sheeple are so stupid that they blame their impotent government for everything and never once look beyond the puppets to the fascist puppetmasters – the economic fascist dictators – standing behind them. Ayn Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged fictionally describes the fascist coup that has already taken place in America. Outside America, this book is regarded as ludicrous and infantile. In America, it has legions of maniacal followers (the economic equivalent of the black shirts and brown shirts). Fascism was victorious in WWII. Not European political fascism, but American economic fascism. American fascism has ruled the world ever since, and only the most almighty Revolution by the people – and the immediate adoption of 100% inheritance tax – can get rid of the fascists. In the 1960s, fascist America launched an illegal war of aggression against the communist Vietnamese. The “Cold War” wasn’t a war between the “free” West and the totalitarian East, but a war between fascism and communism, between capitalist economic fascism and the communist resistance to this ideology. The fascists won. America is, when properly analyzed, the most right wing, fascist nation on earth. Look at the mad rantings of free-market capitalists, anarchocapitalist libertarians, Survivalists, Shock Jocks, Fox News, Randroids, the Tea Party, Christian Fundamentalists, the American military (the servants of the fascist military-industrial complex), the Republican Party, the former Confederate States of America (that are still racist to the core and still haven’t accepted that slavery was evil), and so on. All you get is a vast crescendo of hate and poison, of total contempt for community and society. Remember, there’s a simple test for whether you are living in a fascist or totalitarian State – you can never get rid of the people who have all the power. Americans have to seriously ask themselves whether they can ever remove from power the unelected America elite (the economic fascist dictatorship) that actually rules America. If the answer is no, you must revolt or acknowledge that you are a willing slave of your fascist masters.

*****

If 85 people having the same wealth as 3.5 billion people isn’t a self-evident symptom of extreme economic fascism, what is? How much worse could it be? How about one person – an economic Caesar, Napoleon or Hitler – having as much wealth as everyone else on Earth, all seven billion of us? Horrifically, this is by no means impossible in an economic fascist dictatorship. Even more horrifically, countless rabid right wing Americans would worship this person and proclaim him “John Galt”! Wake up. Overthrow the fascists. The people must be in power, not the super rich.

***** Everyone who opposes 100% inheritance tax is a fascist. They support the economic fascist dictatorship of the world. That’s a fact.

“Pure” Mathematicians A “pure” mathematician read a review of one of our books (actually bothering to read the book itself was apparently too much of an effort for the poor man), and observed, “Of course as a mathematician I could point out that not just ‘any’ function can be approximated by Fourier trigonometric series, but rather only ‘nice’ functions that are ‘piecewise continuous.’” If he had taken the trouble to read the God Series, he would of course discovered that we draw a sharp distinction between ontological mathematics and “abstract” mathematics. All ontological functions are indeed produced by Fourier mathematics. There are abstract functions that cannot be handled in this way, and such functions can never be ontologically realised. They belong to abstract mathematics. Ontological mathematics lies between mathematical physics and abstract mathematics, and has radically different rules and constraints from both. In essence, ontological mathematics says that mathematical physics is overly constrained, and abstract mathematics underly constrained. Ontological mathematics can only be criticized in its own terms, not those of an alien system that has different rules and constraints, or no constraints at all. Mathematical physics and abstract mathematics are both inconsistent and/or incomplete. There are no necessary truths in mathematical physics, and no one has ever been able to explain what abstract mathematics actually

is and how it relates to the world. Ontological mathematics, based on a single, all-powerful formula, is absolutely consistent and complete. It reflects eternal, necessary truths, and it brings to fruition Leibniz’s demand that the world should be “the one which is at the same time the simplest in hypothesis and the richest in phenomena.” It’s always a good idea to actually read something before shouting your mouth off about it. “Pure” mathematicians, sad to say, mostly live in a fantasy world where they don’t want mathematics to have any relevance to reality and long for it to be some sort of aetherial art and poetry that’s not “dirtied” by getting involved with reality. G.H. Hardy, the worst offender of the species, opined: 1) “I am interested in mathematics only as a creative art.” 2) “A mathematician, like a painter or a poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.” 3) “No discovery of mine has made, or is likely to make, directly or indirectly, for good or ill, the least difference to the amenity of the world.” Tragically, the people most opposed to ontological mathematics aren’t physicists, Abrahamists and Karmists but pure (abstract) mathematicians. What a world! If they understood anything of the history of mathematics, they would know that the very first true mathematician – Pythagoras – was an ontological mathematician. It’s “abstract” mathematics that’s the aberration, not ontological mathematics. Only Leibniz, Fourier and Gödel brought mathematics back to its ontological roots.

***** Isn’t it bizarre that “pure” mathematicians revere mathematics and yet have no idea what it is, where it is, how it came to be, and how it relates to epistemology, ontology, phenomenology and noumenology? “Pure” mathematicians are just clueless shufflers of symbols, weaving patterns that they find aesthetically appealing. The last person to understand the real significance of Euler’s Formula was of course Euler himself! It’s time pure

mathematicians woke up and started trying to understand what the tool they use every day actually is. Sad to say, we broadly have complete contempt for pure mathematicians. Most of them are autistic pedants, tedious human computers, with no imagination, no intuition and no general knowledge. Illuminism is all about bringing mathematics back to its ontological roots. It’s time to free mathematics from “professional” mathematicians.

The Fight For Truth “One’s belief in truth begins with doubt of all truths one has believed hitherto.” – Nietzsche People have opined that they won’t take Illuminism seriously because it hasn’t been “peer reviewed”. Since when did peer review become the criterion of truth? People with such beliefs are submissive functionaries. They wait to be told what is true by the “authorities”, with peer review being the central authority of the belief system of scientific materialists. The value of peer review is itself a belief and it certainly hasn’t helped science to accomplish a final theory of everything or to prevent countless scientific theories being buried in the graveyard of such theories. Muslims won’t believe anything that contradicts the Koran. That’s their authority. Likewise with the Jews and the Torah and the Protestants and the Bible (the Catholics have an additional layer of authority: the Pope and the Church hierarchy). Karmists won’t accept any idea that shows how ludicrous the notion of karma is. They say things such as, “Karma simply means ‘action’ and is about cause and effect: every action you perform has effects.” Yet this can’t be what karma is at all because the psychological theory of Behaviourism, which doesn’t even acknowledge the formal existence of mind, makes an effectively identical assertion: behaviours cause other behaviours; everything you do has effects. Either all Karmists are Behaviourists, or “karma” invokes something far beyond behavioural cause and effect. Despite the extraordinary denials of so many Karmists, everyone knows exactly what that extra dimension is: it’s morality, and the concept of punishment for “bad” actions and rewards for “good” actions. In behaviourism, behaviours can be rewarded or punished, but there’s absolutely no moral component involved. Behaviours that would be morally

condemned can have fantastic rewards, and behaviours that would be morally approved can lead to disaster. Karma expressly rejects any such “unjust” notions. That immediately means that it’s compelled to explain how the karmic cosmos judges good and evil. Who or what is the judge? Where is his moral code? Who says he’s right? How are rewards or punishments from one life carried into the next and how do they scientifically cause the next life to exhibit the characteristics required by karmic morality? Not a single Karmist has ever explained any of this. A typical dictionary definition of karma will say something like, “The principle of retributive justice determining a person’s state of life and the state of his reincarnations as the effect of his past deeds; destiny or fate.” This is exactly what karma is, and yet Karmists, especially from the West, keep trying to say it has nothing to do with morality and is all about quasiscientific cause and effect, although not one of them has ever provided a scientific karmic theory that can be falsified or verified. Believers don’t think about their beliefs. They don’t question them. That goes for scientific materialists as much as for Abrahamists and Karmists. They believe things on the basis of convention, conditioning, “authority”, popularity, and so on. They certainly don’t believe things because they are actually true. Truth is at the back of the line when it comes to what people believe. More or less 100% of beliefs of ordinary humans are false. Only a small number of open-minded, questing, questioning people are receptive to new ideas. Everyone else has an entrenched position and their kneejerk response is to attack any new thinking. Scientific materialism is one of the worst subjects in this regard. Science is staggeringly dogmatic and dismisses everything that does not accord with its belief system based on empiricism and materialism. Science refuses to reflect on what it actually is and how it operates, rejecting any such considerations as “mere philosophy”. Science still hasn’t offered any formal response to Thomas Kuhn’s critique of science as a succession of self-interested paradigms, i.e. science is all about the current paradigm and certainly not about truth. The supporters of the present paradigm will refuse to accept any new paradigm, and will have to die out before a new paradigm is accepted, and so on. Science can’t reply to any such attacks because it’s not an intellectual discipline with philosophically literate advocates. Rather, it’s a method pursued by people who are mostly on the autistic spectrum. No one can

speak on behalf of science. It doesn’t have a “pope”, or any central authority (although the leading scientists are often treated as popes and gurus). In science, everything reduces to experimental success or failure. But it’s a philosophical issue whether such a method is valid, and of course science never engages with philosophy, hence it never challenges its own most fundamental assumptions. Truth advances simply because a small number of radicals have the guts to see what’s wrong with the existing paradigms and to dialectically devise new ones. They are then ferociously opposed by those who subscribe to the existing paradigms, and only a vast mental and often physical conflict across decades and even centuries leads to the new paradigms succeeding. Whatever else can be said about the readers of the God Series, one thing’s for certain: they are open-minded. That, by itself, qualifies them as a Higher Humanity. They are on the side of the truth because they are open to the truth and haven’t closed their minds to all but their own pet beliefs. Scientific materialists, sadly, do not have open minds. Incredibly, nor do most mathematicians, and that’s the biggest scandal of all. Many mathematicians are taught that “real” mathematics by “real” mathematicians is useless and ought to be useless. This, once again, is a philosophy, but mathematicians aren’t philosophers so they are simply following an unjustified assumption and prejudice. According to the philosophy of ontological mathematics, “real” mathematics must be about reality itself – about ontology; what truly exists – and all “real” mathematicians are engaged in only one exercise: to show how reality is 100% mathematical. So, even with mathematics, there’s an almighty struggle for the “soul” of the subject and for its real truth content.

***** “The man with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds.” – Mark Twain The truth is always resisted ... until it succeeds. It succeeds only because of the open-minded and is always opposed by the closed-minded. “The man who doesn’t read good books has no advantage over the man who can’t read them.” – Mark Twain

Since most people don’t read good books, most people should be regarded as functionally illiterate and retarded.

Forward or Back? If you had a choice of time travelling back to some point in the past or forward to some point in the future, which would you choose? We can imagine that all Christians would want to go back to the time of Christ, all Jews to the time of Moses, all Muslims to the time of Mohammed, all Buddhists to the time of Buddha, all Hindus to the time when they believed the avatars of the gods roamed the earth, all Sikhs to the time of the ten Gurus who founded Sikhism. Many scientists would want to go back and meet Newton. Many philosophers would want to go back to Plato and Aristotle. Many historians would want to see Alexander the Great in action. Economists would want to meet Adam Smith, and so on. Yet all intuitives – all future-oriented people – would never dream of going back to the past. They would all leap ahead into the far future to see how things turned out. Intuitives are not sentimental and nostalgic. They don’t want to go back to the old and familiar but forward to the new and strange. They aren’t scared of change. They can easily break free from the traditions, rituals, customs, routines, laws, ideas, religions, philosophies and beliefs of the past. And that’s exactly why the world should be ruled by intuitives. The Illuminati are the standard bearers of the intuitives. The intuitives are Higher Humanity.

***** “The only way out is forward. A forward escape.” – Terence McKenna Intuitives and thinkers are the “forwards”. Sensing and feeling types are the “backwards.” The human race is a battleground between the few going forward and the many longing for the past and going backwards. All those who believe in ancient belief systems that have no ability to dialectically keep up with the times are permanently stuck in the past. A Final Solution must be found for these people, or humanity will never progress into the future. The people holding us back must be overcome. People who say that the absolute Truth lies in an ancient book from thousands of years ago, devoid of mathematics, science and philosophy,

have no place in the modern world. They have chosen to be dinosaurs, and they ought to meet the same fate – extinction. The smart must offer the stupid a stark choice: evolve or perish. And the smart will have to be the instruments of extinction for those who cannot escape from the past. The time for sentimentality and nostalgia is over. Humanity must ruthlessly stride forward. The smart can no longer accept being held back by the stupid. Progress demands that the smart seize control of the world and destroy all those who resist the dawn of HyperHumanity, of the Coming Race of Gods. The Abrahamic God, worshipped by billions, felt no compunction about exterminating the whole of humanity bar Noah and his family. The Abrahamists see nothing wrong with that. So, why should the smart hold back? We should do to the stupid and faithful exactly what they have always advocated being done to the smart, the rational, the infidels, the apostates, the heretics, and the freethinkers. If we don’t, they will do it us. Just look at the rise of Fundamentalist Islam – the gospel of mass human retardation and extreme violence towards all those who reject the Koran. Should we wait to be wiped out, or should we act? It’s a no-brainer.

What is Illuminism? Illuminism is the Church of Reason. Reason is its God. Reason = Abraxas. Reason = Apollo. The irrational is evil. The stupid are the damned.

Fourier Quantum Mechanics “It seems impossible, however, to develop quantum concepts extensively without Fourier analysis.” – David Bohm “Perhaps the best-known French analytic work of midcentury was that of Sturm Liouville, dealing with the theory of second-order differential equations with boundary conditions. ... The problem at issue was that of the expansibility into characteristic functions (eigenfunctions) of the expression at hand. It can be regarded as a generalization of the theory of Fourier series.” – Carl B. Boyer, Uta C. Merzbach, A History of Mathematics “The solution to Schrödinger’s equation was a wave that described in some magical way the quantum aspects of the system. The physical interpretation of this wave was to become one of the great philosophical problems of

quantum mechanics. ...[ Schrödinger] had taken de Broglie’s idea of the wave description of matter very seriously indeed. ... [Fourier] developed a method of solving equations by expressing any [periodic] mathematical function as the sum of an infinite series of other periodic functions. ... When [ Schrödinger] was considering his wave equation, Fourier’s well-known technique was called the method of eigenvalues (eigen is German for ‘certain’). The trick is to find the correct functions and the amplitudes of each that added together by superposition, would reproduce the desired solution. ... Thus, the solution of Schrödinger’s equation – the wave function for the system – was replaced by an infinite series – the wave functions of the individual states – which are natural harmonics of each other. That is to say, their frequencies are related in the ratio of whole numbers, or integers. ... Schrödinger’s remarkable discovery was that the replacement waves described the individual states of the quantum system and their amplitudes gave the relative importance of that particular state to the whole system. In other words, contained within the well-established and well-understood mathematics of Eigen value functions was the underlying quantization of atomic systems. ... Schrödinger’s equation has been universally recognized as one of the greatest achievements of 20th century thought, containing much of physics and, in principle, all of chemistry. It was immediately accepted as a mathematical tool of unprecedented power for dealing with problems of the atomic structure of matter. ... Not surprisingly, the work became known as wave mechanics. ... What Schrödinger did was reduce the problem of the energy states in an atom to a problem of finding the natural overtones of its vibrating system using Fourier analysis.” – J.P. McEvoy and Oscar Zarate, Introducing Quantum Theory If Quantum Theory were properly understood, it would be reduced purely to Quantum Fourier Mathematics. The reason it’s not is that scientists look at reality through a filter of empiricism and materialism, but Quantum Fourier Mathematics requires a rationalist and idealist approach. Quantum Fourier Mathematics furnishes a precise, analytic solution to existence. Quantum mechanics does not. Einstein said, “Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the ‘old one’. I, at any rate, am convinced that He is not playing at dice.”

There’s no dice-playing in Quantum Fourier Mathematics.

***** “Physicist: Almost every imaginable signal can be broken down into a combination of simple waves. This fact is the central philosophy behind Fourier transforms... Fourier transforms (FT) take a signal and express it in terms of the frequencies of the waves that make up that signal. Sound is probably the easiest thing to think about when talking about Fourier transforms. If you could see sound, it would look like air molecules bouncing back and forth very quickly. But oddly enough, when you hear sound you’re not perceiving the air moving back and forth, instead you experience sound in terms of its frequencies. For example, when somebody plays middle C on a piano, you don’t feel your ear being buffeted 261 times a second (the frequency of middle C), you just hear a single tone. The buffeting movement of the air is the signal, and the tone is the Fourier transform of that signal. “The Fourier transform of a sound wave is such a natural way to think about it, that it’s kinda difficult to think about it in any other way. When you imagine a sound or play an instrument it’s much easier to consider the tone of the sound than the actual movement of the air. “In fact, when sound is recorded digitally the strength of the sound wave itself can be recorded (this is what a “.wav” file is), but more often these days the Fourier transform is recorded instead. At every moment a list of the strengths of the various frequencies is “written down”. This is more or less what an mp3 is (with lots of other tricks). It’s not until a speaker has to physically play the sound that the FT is turned back into a regular sound signal. “Physicists jump between talking about functions and their Fourier transforms so often that they barely see the difference. For example, for notterribly-obvious reasons, in quantum mechanics the Fourier transform of the position a particle (or anything really) is the momentum of that particle. Literally, when something has a lot of momentum and energy its wave has a high frequency, and waves back and forth a lot. Applying Fourier stuff to quantum mechanics is one of the most direct ways to derive the infamous Heisenberg Uncertainty principle!” –

http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/09/q-what-is-a-fourier-transformwhat-is-it-used-for/ Wave-particle duality is at the core of quantum mechanics, but what does this bizarre concept actually mean? It certainly doesn’t mean that things are, somehow, simultaneously physical waves and physical particles, as legions of Nobel Prize winners and, indeed, the whole scientific community, absurdly claim. Richard Feynman notoriously said, “I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. ... Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, ‘But how can it possibly be like that?’ because you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.” Well, Richard, there’s a real simple way out of the drain: “waves” refer to the entities of the dimensionless, noumenal Fourier frequency domain, and “particles” to their dimensional Fourier spacetime phenomenal manifestations. Tragically, people like Feynman can’t accept this rational way out of the trap since they are Materialist and Empiricist Fundamentalists who will never change their beliefs, no matter what. They have given themselves no noumenal escape route – no domain of “hidden variables” – and so they have to put waves and particles in the same domain rather than in different domains. They simply ignore the fact that the definition of particle precludes that of particles, and vice versa. The whole thing is simply left as a “mystery”. That’s science for you ... how to crack on while ignoring the elephant in the room. Science has never once answered any ontologically fundamental question. Energy is the essence of physics and yet science nowhere defines what energy actually is. The world’s most famous equation (E = mc2) does not tell you what energy is, what mass is, and what connection these have with the speed of light, and why the speed of light is fixed. It’s a circular, instrumental definition, not an ontological definition. Moreover, Thomas Kuhn pointed out that the Newtonian concept of mass is entirely different from the Einsteinian concept of mass and yet exactly the same symbol for mass is used, as if nothing has changed. How can that make any sense? In Illuminism, energy, ontologically, comes in two intimately related types: sine waves and cosine waves. You can’t get any more fundamental than that. All other aspects and manifestations of energy must be reducible to sines and cosines.

Sines and cosines don’t exist in a big jumble. Rather they come in autonomous, self-contained, consistent and complete collections that comprise the basic units of ontological mathematics: monads. The whole of reality is defined by what happens to sines and cosines within monads and between monads. Every process in the universe is defined in this way. There is nothing outside this system.

***** To all those foolish enough to scoff at the concept that analytic sines and cosines are the basic manifestation of energy, put up or shut up. Either prove that this is false (which you definitely can’t), or define what energy is ontologically. If you can’t, then you clearly do not know what energy is, so you’re in no position at all to tell others that they have got it wrong. Anyone with any nous can see, as Einstein did, that quantum mechanics is fundamentally false. To be more accurate, the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is wholly wrong, while the existing equations of quantum mechanics provide a reasonable approximation to the equivalent equations of Quantum Fourier Mathematics, which is why they have proved successful. The world is full of armchair snipers who think they’re smart and accurate. They’re not. They spew out drivel, always cloaked in specious arguments that can fool the unwary, uninformed and gullible.

***** For existence to have an answer, it must be based on analytic fundamental entities. If it’s not, it’s automatically infected by provisional, contingent, ad hoc, arbitrary bodges and fudge factors. The whole of science can be viewed as a continuous process of fudging the issue in more and more obscurantist terms, culminating with the laughable assertions of probabilistic quantum mechanics.

The Smart The smart constitute only about 10% of the population. What will the 10% do about the remaining 90%? That is the question. Will the smart go on allowing themselves to be ruled by the stupid?

The Problem with Science “I am a Quantum Engineer, but on Sundays I have Principles.” – John Stewart Bell “If the price of avoiding non-locality is to make an intuitive explanation impossible, one has to ask whether the cost is too great.” – David Bohm “...the ‘paradox’ is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality ‘ought to be’.” – Richard Feynman “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” – Richard Feynman “We have always had a great deal of difficulty understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. At least I do, because I’m an old enough man that I haven’t got to the point that this stuff is obvious to me. Okay, I still get nervous with it.... You know how it always is, every new idea, it takes a generation or two until it becomes obvious that there’s no real problem. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there’s no real problem, but I’m not sure there’s no real problem.” – Richard Feynman That’s science for you. It waits until the new generation of scientists has been so brainwashed that it no longer questions the junk it’s just been taught. In this regard, it’s exactly like Islam! “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.” – Richard Feynman “It is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. In fact, some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it is that it is unquestionably correct.” – Michio Kaku In your dreams, Michio! Quantum mechanics will be correct only when it is fully ontologically Fourierized, and then it will provide a true basis for a grand unified theory of everything, including the mathematical soul.

Science = Guessing “In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be

implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.” – Richard Feynman This is an excellent description of the scientific “method”. There’s no real method at all, not in any analytic sense. Science is about making ad hoc guesses, and then testing them experimentally. There’s nothing systematic, methodical, logical or rational about how science proceeds. Consider how scientists are approaching the problem of producing a quantum theory of gravity. They don’t have any grand, analytic plan. They don’t apply any sure, necessary principles. All they do is make guesses and then explore the ramifications of their guesses. That’s what passes as “science”. It’s a joke. It’s impossible for this approach to succeed in producing a final theory of everything. That’s a fact. “The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you accept Nature as She is: absurd.” – Richard Feynman “The more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work. So theoretical physics has given up on that.” – Richard Feynman “The reason universities have students is so they can teach the professors, and Feynman was one of the best. He had what so many people with a purely mathematical background lack: he had a feel for the physical world.” – John Wheeler “What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don’t understand it. You see my physics students don’t understand it. ... That is because I don’t understand it. Nobody does.” – Richard Feynman

***** “The solution to this equation [the Schrödinger equation] is a wave that describes the quantum aspects of a system. However, physically interpreting the wave is one of the main philosophical problems of quantum mechanics. “The solution to the equation is based on the method of Eigen Values devised by Fourier. This is where any mathematical function is expressed as the sum of an infinite series of other periodic functions. The trick is to find the correct functions that have the right amplitudes so that when added together by superposition they give the desired solution. “So, the solution to Schrödinger’s equation, the wave function for the system, was replaced by the wave functions of the individual series, natural harmonics of each other, an infinite series. Schrödinger has discovered that the replacement waves described the individual states of the quantum system and their amplitudes gave the relative importance of that state to the whole system. “Schrödinger’s equation shows all of the wave like properties of matter and was one of greatest achievements of 20th century science. “It is used in physics and most of chemistry to deal with problems about the atomic structure of matter. It is an extremely powerful mathematical tool and the whole basis of wave mechanics.” – http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae329.cfm “The Schrödinger equation is a wave equation that describes material processes as wave processes. Wave phenomena like sound waves or light waves had been known for a long time. What was surprising was that even matter itself would allow itself to be described as such a wave phenomenon, that states of matter could overlap each other like vibrational states, and that there could be something like diffraction, interference or standing waves in matter as well, in short, that matter behaves like light in many respects.” – Jürgen Renn The key to understanding what “matter” is that it’s “real” light “corrupted” by (or mixed with) “imaginary” light. Real light corresponds to space, and imaginary light to imaginary space, aka time. Matter is a “flowing point” defined through the filter of space and time, which turns it from a Fourier frequency flowing point into a Fourier spacetime flowing point.

Mathematics as the True Basis of Physics “In mathematics, an eigenfunction of a linear operator, A, defined on some function space, is any non-zero function f in that space that returns from the operator exactly as is, except for a multiplicative scaling factor. More precisely, one has Af = λf for some scalar, λ, the corresponding eigenvalue. The solution of the differential eigenvalue problem also depends on any boundary conditions required of f. In each case there are only certain eigenvalues λ = λn (n = 1,2,3,...) that admit a corresponding solution for f = fn (with each fn belonging to the eigenvalue λn) when combined with the boundary conditions. Eigenfunctions are used to analyze A.” – Wikipedia “Eigenfunctions play an important role in many branches of physics. An important example is quantum mechanics, where the Schrödinger equation is: Hψ = Eψ ...Due to the nature of Hermitian Operators such as the Hamiltonian operator H, its eigenfunctions are orthogonal functions.” – Wikipedia “In quantum mechanics, the Hamiltonian is the operator corresponding to the total energy of the system. It is usually denoted by H, also Ȟ or Ĥ. Its spectrum is the set of possible outcomes when one measures the total energy of a system. Because of its close relation to the time-evolution of a system, it is of fundamental importance in most formulations of quantum theory. ... The Hamiltonian is the sum of the kinetic energies of all the particles, plus the potential energy of the particles associated with the system. For different situations or number of particles, the Hamiltonian is different since it includes the sum of kinetic energies of the particles, and the potential energy function corresponding to the situation.” – Wikipedia So, if Af = λf (general mathematics) and Hψ = Eψ (quantum mechanics), is not quantum mechanics, the supreme triumph of science, actually an outand-out mathematical theory? What is physics if not mathematics with “physicalised” interpretations and labels attached to abstract mathematical entities in key mathematical equations? The question is then immediately begged ... what need is there for contingent, ad hoc, provisional, arbitrary alien elements within the mathematical formalism? Why can’t we replace these “physical” entities with ontological mathematical entities? That’s exactly what Illuminism

accomplishes. It grounds everything in sine and cosine waves and these are the true nature of “energy”. Energy is not physical: it’s analytic, immutable, Platonic and mathematical. There’s no need for physics at all. We can convert all of it into underlying mathematical waveforms, and we would then possess a proper mathematical system without having alien, non-mathematical elements shoehorned into it. As soon as it’s realised that the fundamental constants of science are actually the fundamental constants of ontological mathematics, that energy = sine and cosine waves, that real numbers = space, and imaginary numbers = imaginary space = time, that mass (matter) comprises sines and cosines operating within (or represented within) a dimensional spacetime environment rather than a dimensionless frequency environment, physics simply dissolves. Physics, it will be understood in retrospect, was created by Isaac Newton when he matched mathematical formulae to empirical observations. Such a system was automatically inconsistent with reality at the deepest level if reality had “hidden variables” or metaphysical elements, as Leibniz insisted. Newton, in effect, made observation part of mathematics. Mathematical physics is simply “observational mathematics”. But, of course, observation has nothing to do with true mathematics, which is an entirely rationalist subject. No observations are required at all. Leibniz was the champion of ontological mathematics, expressed via mathematical monads, but these were inherently dimensionless and unobservable. Replacing observational mathematics (physics) with ontological mathematics (metaphysics) is the same as pushing Newton off the pedestal of intellectual superstars and replacing him with the vastly superior Leibniz. People have a completely false idea of what mathematics and physics are. Mathematics is not an abstraction and physics is not a description of reality. Rather, physics is a version of mathematics dealing with physical observables, and abstract mathematics is a version of mathematics with its ontological constraints stripped out. True mathematics is ontological mathematics and it sits between physics and abstract mathematics, and includes metaphysics along with physics, as Leibniz had always intended. It’s time for the world to get with the program. We assert that anyone who does not know the difference between mathematical physics, abstract mathematics and ontological mathematics

hasn’t a clue what they’re talking about. All scientists have bought into a philosophy – that of empiricism and materialism – without being conscious of it, without questioning it, and without contemplating for a single second what its ontological implications are. No one has any right to claim to have explained reality unless they have first explained what mathematics is. Scientists attempt to explain the origins of the cosmos whilst being unable to explain the origins of mathematics, the central tool used by science. Frankly, that makes science an embarrassing joke. Even worse, there are perhaps only two physicist on Earth (Max Tegmark and Roger Penrose) who have become even dimly aware of this existential problem at the heart of science. Here’s the dope: ontological mathematics can give rise to both mathematical physics (by adding mathematical hidden variables) and abstract mathematics (by adding ontological constraints). Mathematical physics cannot produce either ontological mathematics or abstract mathematics, and abstract mathematics cannot produce either mathematical physics or ontological mathematics. The most important ontological issue of all is to grasp the profound difference between mathematical physics, abstract mathematics and ontological mathematics. The “intellectual” community chose the simplest path, the most obvious path, the path of least resistance: Newtonian observational mathematics (physics). What quantum mechanics proved was that hidden variables were necessary to keep science as a deterministic discipline. The scientific elite chose to disregard this necessity and preferred to make science indeterministic, random and statistical. It’s precisely because this approach is irrational and absurd that science now finds itself unable to explain what quantum physics says about true reality, and cannot create a final theory of science. Such a theory will be produced only when observational mathematics is replaced with ontological mathematics, which involves both observational and hidden elements. Science, as it stands, has no tools for finding errors in its own formalism. Such a task requires philosophy, and science dismisses philosophy as nonscientific! Science is hoist with its own petard and has made itself a closed belief system like Abrahamism.

The Time Mystery

Science has a real problem with time. It can’t define it. It can’t say what it is. Is it an energy, a substance, a material thing? How does it interact with space, matter, energy? All of this is glossed over by science. Einstein went as far as to describe time as an illusion, and many physicists believe that time does not exist at all. Yet that doesn’t prevent them from using “time” all of the time (!) in their equations. How does that make any sense? Time is not observable. You can’t perform any experiments on it. All you can do is measure its passage with a clock, yet if it’s an illusion or doesn’t exist, what do your measurements actually mean? Science can’t say. Science is based on all manner of concepts that are inconsistent with its Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism (for example, the quantum mechanical wavefunction is deemed unobservable and unreal), yet it simply ignores these problems. Science is not a subject that can be taken seriously intellectually. It doesn’t even attempt to explain itself. Nor does it see any reason why it should. It continually hides behind its “method” and dismisses everything else as mere “philosophy”. Yet science is a philosophy, whether it likes it or not, and a very poor one at that. It’s about time that everyone started asking serious questions of this incoherent subject and began to puncture its vast ego and arrogance.

***** Whether anyone likes it or not, every system of belief or thought is a philosophy. Therefore, it must be defended philosophically. Abrahamists and Karmists opt out of philosophy by claiming that their divine revelations and faith transcend reason. Science opts out by claiming that its method transcends philosophical reason. But pretending that philosophy doesn’t exist doesn’t make it go away. If you don’t have a rational philosophy, you are ipso facto an irrationalist. It’s a scandal that scientists are so philosophically ignorant given that they are engaged in nothing but the philosophical interpretation of experimental data and the construction of hypotheses according to specific philosophical biases. There’s no escape from philosophy, and the only analytically acceptable philosophy is that of rationalism.

Saving Face

Many people are obsessed with saving face. This is the supreme enemy of truth. If you are shown to have believed nonsense all your life, you look foolish (you lose “face”), hence people simply refuse to accept that their beliefs are wrong, which is exactly why Abrahamism, Karmism and scientific materialism have survived for so long. If you’re not receptive to the truth then it will, in due course, cause you to lose face by definitively refuting you.

Analysis and Synthesis Fourier Analysis: Take a “molecular” wave and break it into its individual “atomic” basis waves. Fourier Synthesis: Add individual “atomic” basis waves to construct a “molecular” wave.

Fourier “Fourier’s book was of paramount importance in the history of mathematics and pure analysis perhaps owed it even more than applied mathematics” – Henri Poincaré “Fourier’s theorem is not only one of the most beautiful results of modern analysis, but it may be said to furnish an indispensable instrument in the treatment of nearly every recondite question in modern physics.” – Lord Kelvin Illuminism asserts that Fourier mathematics can be used to solve every problem of physics! In fact, there’s no such subject as physics, just ontological mathematics, grounded entirely in Fourier mathematics, which, in turn, is ontologically dependent on the generalised Euler Formula. That is the ground of all existence. It defines the monads of which reality is ultimately composed. These are “somethings” that exist as “nothings” because they are perfectly symmetric between positive and negative, real and imaginary.

Functions

“What will the poor student think? He will think that mathematical science is just an arbitrary heap of useless subtleties; either he will turn from it in aversion, or he will treat it like an amusing game.” – Henri Poincaré “We have seen a rabble of functions arise whose only job, it seems, is to look as little as possible like decent and useful functions. No more continuity, or perhaps continuity but no derivatives. … Yesterday, if a new function was invented it was to serve some practical end; today they are specially invented only to show up the arguments of our fathers, and they will never have any other use.” – Henri Poincaré In Illuminism, any ontological function must be reducible to sines and cosines. Any function that cannot be so reduced is merely abstract, with no ontological significance. It’s almost wholly pointless to study such functions, except as an abstract intellectual exercise.

The God Series The God Series is fully intended to be the most comprehensive explanation of reality ever written. Anyone who thinks they can understand it just by reading one book in the series is deluding himself. Throughout the series, we have anticipated any valid criticisms that might be levelled against ontological mathematics and addressed them in detail. What we will not do is bother about invalid criticisms from people who haven’t read our books or have read only one. People who chance upon one title in the God Series have absolutely no conception of how ambitious and comprehensive it is. People with a strong stake in their current worldview will automatically oppose our paradigm shift and immediately look to criticise and debunk it. That’s only to be expected. Progress is built on coffins. As Max Planck said, “Science advances one funeral at a time.” That’s true of everything. The dinosaurs can’t keep up, but nor do they go quietly into their inevitable extinction. Just look at Abrahamism!

Energy There is no definition in science of what energy is ontologically. In ontological mathematics, “energy” comprises analytic sine and cosines waves, generated by the generalised Euler Formula.

A pure mathematician sneered at the idea that sines and cosines are the “be-all and end-all of existence”. He wouldn’t sneer at “energy” being the be-all and end-all of existence. Well, we have defined exactly what energy is ontologically: sines and cosines. It’s pathetic that pure mathematicians can’t conceive of mathematical entities as anything other than abstractions. They lack the imagination and intuition to link mathematical entities to the core things of the world, namely energy, mind and life itself. Life and mind are all about the uniform flow of structured mathematical information, continuously recycled within eternal monads (the perfect perpetual motion organisms). Nothing can deliver this flow other than perfect sines and cosines. We’ll say it again that you have little hope of understanding Illuminism unless you are an INTJ or INTP. These are the two psychological types best designed for getting to the rational core of things. A few other intuitive types, and maybe a few introverted sensing thinkers, might have sufficient capability, but they will be overwhelmingly outnumbered by INTJ and INTPs. You have to be able to get beyond representation (phenomenon) to the thing-in-itself (noumenon). This is staggeringly difficult – an insurmountable obstacle – for most people, especially extraverted sensing types. It’s the worst possible error to imagine that truth is presented to us unmediated. Our own brains and minds are the mediators, and they have evolved under survival pressures, not those of Truth. If you want the answer to everything, you have to be able to take the rational leap from phenomenon to noumenon, and only ontological mathematics will suffice for bridging that gap. Kant believed the noumenon was unknowable. He was wrong, but only thanks to ontological mathematics.

***** The answer to everything must be eternal, necessary and analytic. Otherwise, there is no answer. A universe without a rational answer is a magical universe where anything can happen, and plainly we do not inhabit such a universe. The world reveals staggering mathematical order, both

phenomenally and noumenally. Your senses can’t help you with noumenal (monadic) mathematics, only your reason can.

The Delusion Equation Success = Truth Success = Godliness Success = Moral Superiority Success = Merit In world history, every successful system, including scientific materialism, has been utterly fallacious. Nothing lies like success.

Ontology So, can you define what energy is ontologically? Can you define mass ontologically, or space, or time, or causality, or reason, or logic, or gravity, or quantum mechanics, or randomness, or mathematics? The average person doesn’t have the vaguest idea what any of these things actually is. The average person wouldn’t even know where to begin. Science doesn’t help. All it does is provide circular definitions such as E = mc2. This describes a relation between energy, mass and the speed of light, but sheds zero light on what any of these things is ontologically. That’s why only ontological mathematics can explain reality. It provides analytic definitions of everything.

The Other Side Human consciousness (our Lower Self) resides in the left hemisphere of the brain and is attuned to the local Fourier spacetime domain. This consciousness necessarily dies with the body. This is why so many people are afraid that atheism may be true. What they forget is that we have a Higher Self that’s linked to the right hemisphere of the brain and is attuned to the non-local Fourier frequency domain. This does not die when the body dies, and is able to reconnect to a new body in due course via reincarnation. A new, mortal Lower Self (a new spacetime consciousness) will then be created in the left hemisphere of the new brain. So it goes.

What scientists always fail to understand is that we have feet in two different domains, one inside space and time and one outside space and time. Since the one inside space and time is by far the most vivid to us, and is the one with which our consciousness itself is connected, it’s easy for some psychological types (especially sensing types) to imagine this as the sole reality. Intuitives, on the other hand, are highly sensitive to their Higher Self in the right hemisphere of the brain and have little difficulty grasping that there’s another side to reality, outside space and time and based on frequency (dimensionless energy) rather than on matter (dimensional energy). Most human beings are disconnected and alienated from their Higher Selves. Intuitives, especially introverted intuitives, are the most highly evolved human beings, in much closer contact with their Higher Self, their immortal, transcendent Self, than anyone else. Scientific materialists are obsessed with their local, empirical, mundane selves and Illuminists with their non-local, rationalist, transcendent selves. As ever, everything comes down to the battle between empiricism and rationalism. For a Logos person, how you understand reality is entirely determined by whether you find yourself convinced by empiricism (science) or rationalism (ontological mathematics). Science has produced a successful model of matter, but no model at all of mind (the autonomous existence of which it completely denies). Science has literally nothing to say about the mind, which is an immaterial singularity, a noumenon outside space and time. Science, exactly as you would expect, collapses at singularities, because these are exactly where matter no longer has any meaning or definition. Scientific materialism is, ultimately, simply the denial that Fourier frequency domains (singularities) exist. This is the biggest error of all time and humanity cannot progress until it overcomes this scientific fallacy in favour of ontological mathematical truth.

Music, Math and Emotion “Music is what feelings sound like.” – Georgia Cates Music is mathematics. Therefore feelings sound like mathematics. The truth is that feelings are mathematical “notes” (functions). That’s how they’re

constructed – as functions comprising sine and cosine waves. Music is how we express internal mathematical emotional “notes” out loud, which is exactly why music has such an emotional effect on us. Everything, including feelings, has its own, unique mathematical signature. The universe is 100% mathematical. Even feelings are pure math, pure sine and cosine waves, all derived from the God Equation.

Getting it Wrong First Time Every Time “He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.” – 1 John 3:8 Er, that went well, didn’t it?! Christianity, Islam and Judaism are the three most Satanic forces on Earth, the greatest barrier to rational, dialectical progress, the biggest possible obstacle facing the birth of the Enlightened World and paradise on Earth.

Causal Agents What’s the difference between material atoms and immaterial atoms (monads)? A material atom is not a subject. It has no interior, no “withinness”. Therefore, it cannot initiate causal chains. It can only be acted upon. Material atoms can only ever be part of causal chains without ever initiating causal chains. Therefore, they cannot be associated with free will. Free will is the essence of existence. According to extremist materialists such as Sam Harris, free will is impossible. This is indeed the inevitable conclusion if the only atoms that are possible are material atoms. In the end, everything comes down to the “first cause”. According to Aristotle, “God” is the first cause. In Illuminism, first causes are monads. According to scientific materialism, randomness, not first causes (causal agents), is what gets things going. Randomness (indeterminacy) is at the root of the conventional understanding of quantum mechanics. Modern science is not a causal system, but a probabilistic system. This has radical implications for what scientific “law” means. There are in fact no scientific laws as precise descriptors of reality. Rather, “laws” are probabilistic averages.

***** If you think it’s self-evident that you have free will, you must reject scientific materialism. If you believe that your free will is a total illusion and you are in fact a machine then you should accept scientific materialism (but, of course, you wouldn’t have any choice in this since you’ve admitted you’re an unfree machine!). Your choice says everything about you. For free will to be true, monads – outside physical spacetime – must exist. Monads are causal agents and free will is their ability to generate causal chains for their own reasons, and not for any reasons imposed on them by external forces.

The Scientific Sophists The ancient Greek Sophists said that man was the measure of all things. They did not believe in any absolute standards. The philosophers, on the other hand, did believe in absolute standards, in a transcendent world of perfection. What are absolute standards? They are eternally true and immutable. 1 + 1 = 2, the Euler Formula, the area of a circle, and the circumference of the circle are all examples of absolute, unchanging standards. Either existence is grounded in absolute standards, or it’s not. If it’s not then we live in a world of nothing but relativism and interpretation. If it is, we live in a world of ontological mathematics. Absolute standards necessarily inhabit an immaterial domain outside space and time – a singularity. The whole of Illuminism is predicated on all absolute standards of truth and knowledge residing in a Singularity. The Singularity is the Prime Mover, the Unmoved Mover, the First Cause. Each monadic singularity is itself a prime mover, unmoved mover, and uncreated, uncaused first cause. The Singularity of singularities is the source of all motion in the world, and the source of space, time and matter. The Singularity is pure mathematical energy, pure dimensionless energy, pure mind. Materialist Fundamentalists, such as Sam Harris, reject the existence of an eternal mathematical Singularity. They claim that the universe sprang from an inexplicable random fluctuation with no cause. They consider this

“rational”, although it is of course the opposite of rationalism and denies the existence of a principle of sufficient reason. Materialism is a staggeringly bizarre idea. There’s literally no evidence for it whatsoever. Human beings, and indeed any living beings, experience the world exclusively mentally. “Matter” is an idea in the mind, not a selfstanding “thing”. No one has ever encountered matter, only the idea of matter.

***** We don’t accept any arguments not based on absolute standards of knowledge and truth. Anything that does not reflect absolute standards is mere interpretation, opinion, belief, conjecture and hypothesis. Ontological mathematics is the sole truth, the sole repository of absolute standards.

***** Things are either eternally true, or they’re not true at all. At best, they contain partial truth insofar as they reflect some element of an eternal truth. All Abrahamic texts are pure Mythos and contain no truth at all. Science contains no fundamental truths, except where its mathematical laws approximate to ontological mathematics laws.

A Challenge Here’s a simple challenge to you to test whether you have any real understanding of Illuminism. What role does the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle play in Illuminism? Bear in mind that everything in Illuminism obeys the principle of sufficient reason, is fully causal and fully ontological, i.e. there is no possibility whatsoever of a probabilistic understanding of quantum mechanics, as promoted by the Copenhagen School. A clue: focus on the ontology of the monad and the ontology of Fourier mathematics. Remember, science explicitly forbids dimensionless frequency singularities (monads), while ontological mathematics is all about such singularities being the ultimate ontological reality.

The Empiricist Axiom

“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” – Wittgenstein Wittgenstein, an empiricist through and through, thought you could speak only of empirical facts, and must be silent about noumenal facts. He totally rejected mathematics as ontological.

The Science Mythos It’s extraordinary that people take science so seriously. It’s a subject that refuses to engage in self-criticism. It ignores devastating attacks on it by the likes of Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The average scientist is philosophically illiterate and wholly ignorant of the history of thought. Scientific materialism is just one aspect of that history, and has no claims at all to being about truth and knowledge. It is in fact about the construction of models. Newton produced a successful model, yet everything about this model is ontologically false. Most people simply haven’t grasped that false models can produce successful results. They believe that successful results ipso facto show that the model must be closely related to reality. Yet Newton claimed that absolute space and absolute time exist, while Einstein denied this when he advanced his theory of relativistic spacetime. The falsehood of Newton’s ontology was no obstacle to the success of his equations of motion. People who have got it badly wrong can often seem right. That’s true throughout the human condition, not just science. Ontology is what actually counts, not successful but false models. Why have scientists found it impossible to construct a final scientific theory of everything, reconciling quantum mechanics and general relativity? It’s because the final theory must reflect ontology, and science has nothing to do with ontology. Illuminism is all about ontology. Until science accepts that the fundamental ontology is that of a monadic frequency Singularity, it has zero chance of constructing a final theory.

***** “Much learning does not teach understanding.” – Heraclitus Much learning is involved in science, but precious little understanding!

Memory Where are memories? How are they stored in “matter”? In Illuminism, memories are frequency functions stored within a monad, outside space and time.

Free Will “A belief in free will touches nearly everything that human beings value. It is difficult to think about law, politics, religion, public policy, intimate relationships, morality – as well as feelings of remorse or personal achievement – without first imagining that every person is the true source of his or her thoughts and actions. And yet the facts tell us that free will is an illusion. “In this enlightening book [Free Will], Sam Harris argues that this truth about the human mind does not undermine morality or diminish the importance of social and political freedom, but it can and should change the way we think about some of the most important questions in life.” – The Free Press “In this elegant and provocative book, Sam Harris demonstrates – with great intellectual ferocity and panache – that free will is an inherently flawed and incoherent concept, even in subjective terms. If he is right, the book will radically change the way we view ourselves as human beings.” – V.S. Ramachandran “Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it. In Free Will, Sam Harris combines neuroscience and psychology to lay this illusion to rest at last. Like all of Harris’s books, this one will not only unsettle you but make you think deeply. Read it: you have no choice.” – Jerry A. Coyne “Many say that believing that there is no free will is impossible – or, if possible, will cause nihilism and despair. In this feisty and personal essay, Harris offers himself as an example of a heart made less self-absorbed, and more morally sensitive and creative, because this particular wicked witch is dead.” – Owen Flanagan

“If you believe in free will, or know someone who does, here is the perfect antidote. In this smart, engaging, and extremely readable little book, Sam Harris argues that free will doesn’t exist, that we’re better off knowing that it doesn’t exist, and that – once we think about it in the right way – we can appreciate from our own experience that it doesn’t exist. This is a delightful discussion by one of the sharpest scholars around.” – Paul Bloom If Sam Harris doesn’t have free will then he didn’t write his book! Rather, the atomic and molecular forces of which he is comprised did. Harris had no say in it. Equally, the people who reviewed Harris’s book had no choice but to write what they did. In fact, they didn’t actually write the reviews. Once again, atomic and molecular forces did. Which is quite some achievement! Materialist Fundamentalists always end up denying the existence of free will. After all, if all you have is a system of atoms and molecules, and the forces acting between them, where is there any scope for free will? What would exhibit the free will? An atom or molecule? In Illuminism, it’s immaterial monads outside space and time that exhibit free will.

Einstein’s Brain According to the views of people like Sam Harris, Einstein was a machine without free will. His theories were inevitable, and the result of nothing but material interactions. Einstein had no say over anything he did. Einstein spent years devising his complex theories. Despite marriages, children, a career, constant distractions, and so on, he was able to return to his theories day after day and keep developing them. How do mindless atoms and molecules “think”? How do they theorise? How do they go back and ponder the same theory over and over again? That’s some trick. Would any materialist like to explain how atoms and molecules came up with Einstein’s theories?

Void and Singularity How does the void, if there is such a thing, exist ontologically? Does it exist as a dimensionless point or as a great space extending in all directions? Well, the latter presupposes something that the former does not –

dimensionality. This immediately begs the question – what is the origin of dimensionality? So, there’s a sufficient reason (and it’s in accord with Occam’s Razor) to accept a dimensionless void over a dimensional void. A true void cannot be extended because it ipso facto has an extraneous property (extension). There is in fact no such thing as void conceived as non-existence or total emptiness. “Void” is invariably full to the brim, and this is possible thanks to the mathematical property of positive cancelling negative, allowing any amount of “something” to be present. You can have something without limit provided it mathematically balances to nothing. The generalised Euler Formula yields exactly this. It turns out that “void as singularity” is at the heart of every major system of thought. Take Abrahamism, for example. The Abrahamic God is a Singularity (an infinite, immaterial point, outside space and time). He then creates a space and time container out of nothing and fills it with the world, which remains permanently separate from him. He transcends it, yet is linked to every part of it. The Abrahamic God could act as the God Equation and produce spacetime via Fourier mathematics. However, there are three insurmountable problems with Abrahamism. Firstly, there is no sufficient reason for only one such entity (if one is possible, any number of such Gods are possible). Secondly, the Abrahamic God is conceived as a conscious “person” with emotions, desires, a will, who cares about his “creations” and may intervene (miraculously, i.e. against the laws of nature) in their lives. Thirdly, it’s impossible for God to “create” souls. Souls are inherently eternal and uncaused. Only sad, emotional, Mythos types are drawn to the idiotic Abrahamic religions with their obsession with ancient tribes, silly scriptures, bearded prophets, and endless commandments, customs, rituals and prohibitions. In Taoism, Wu Chi signifies the unmanifest aspect of Tao, or Tao-instillness. It’s the “undifferentiated timelessness”, a state of non-distinction prior to the differentiation into Yin and Yang, and is symbolised by an empty circle. It’s void, nothing, infinite potential (from which all the things of the world will come and be manifest). It’s a Singularity. While Wu Chi refers to Tao-in-stillness, T’ai Chi refers to Tao-inmotion. T’ai Chi is the spark of movement which allows “something” to be born of the infinite “nothing” of Wu Chi, for the Unmanifest to become

Manifest. In Illuminism, the Monadic Collective is Unmanifest but becomes Manifest through an inverse Fourier Transform. Taoist cosmology is all about cycling between Tao-in-stillness and Taoin-movement. Taoists should easily be able to see that Illuminism presents a similar worldview, but expressed in terms of analytic mathematics, and with a dialectical progression rather than yin and yang balance. (Yin and yang is intrinsically wrong since it’s logically associated with a permanently balanced universe rather than a universe that oscillates between a Big Bang and Big Crunch.) In Buddhist philosophy, sunyata is the voidness that constitutes ultimate reality. It’s what exists absolutely, without predicates. Like Wu Chi (“No Limits”), sunyata is seen not as non-existence but as undifferentiation (potential) out of which all things will be become manifest (actualised). Sunyata is the absolute reality underpinning all things and beings. It’s all things unmanifested. Of course, this is just a non-mathematician’s way of trying to describe Fourier mathematics, where the frequency domain is the “unmanifest” and the spacetime domain “manifest”. Many Buddhists subscribe to the mystical and vague doctrine that All Is Void. In Illuminism the doctrine is infinitely more precise: everything is the generalised Euler Formula. In Hinduism, Brahman performs the same role as sunyata. In Kabbalah, Ain (or Ayin) means “nothing”, and Ain Sof means “Limitless Nothing, the Infinite”. (And Ain Soph Aur = Limitless Light.) From Ain Sof come the ten Sephirot (emanations) through which Ain Sof reveals (manifests) itself. Ain Sof is God prior to His manifestation. In Neoplatonism, the Trinity of the One, the Nous and the Higher Psyche constitutes a Singularity outside space and time from which all things come. For modern science, some random fluctuation in an unspecified void erupts into a full-blown material universe using the energy of the void itself (but isn’t the void supposed to be empty; if it’s not, it isn’t a void!). In other words, every major system of thought revolves around void, nothing, emptiness, the unmanifest, the Singularity and how it gives rise to “something”. Only one system makes rational sense of this scenario and gives it precise mathematical form: Illuminism.

It’s time for everyone to become illuminated. Illuminism is the answer everyone has been looking for. Unfortunately, you have to be hyperintelligent to understand it. Fortunately, if you are that intelligent you are well on your way to becoming God!

Classical Science In the scientific worldview of Descartes and Newton, God created the world and continuously intervened in it to keep it stable. Newton more or less claimed that “space” was God’s mind, and that’s why gravity could work instantaneously across vast distances and be perfect mathematically. When Pierre-Simon Laplace seemed to prove the stability of the solar system, he was able to say, “I had no need of that hypothesis” when Napoleon asked him why his book contained no mention of God. Wikipedia says, “Sir Isaac Newton had published his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687 in which he gave a derivation of Kepler’s laws, which describe the motion of the planets, from his laws of motion and his law of universal gravitation. However, though Newton had privately developed the methods of calculus, all his published work used cumbersome geometric reasoning, unsuitable to account for the more subtle higher-order effects of interactions between the planets. Newton himself had doubted the possibility of a mathematical solution to the whole, even concluding that periodic divine intervention was necessary to guarantee the stability of the solar system. Dispensing with the hypothesis of divine intervention would be a major activity of Laplace’s scientific life. It is now generally regarded that Laplace’s methods on their own, though vital to the development of the theory, are not sufficiently precise to demonstrate the stability of the Solar System, and indeed, the Solar System is understood to be chaotic, although it happens to be fairly stable.”

Determinism Laplace is credited with making the first articulation of causal or scientific determinism: “We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which

nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.” Given that science is now 100% indeterministic, you have to ask whether it has the vaguest idea what it’s talking about. Why are scientists so unashamed of believing in a system that yesterday said everything was deterministic and today says everything is indeterministic – the absolute opposite? Science has already undergone the most extreme of paradigm shifts, so why shouldn’t it accept another – ontological mathematics?

***** “Nature is wont to hide herself.” – Heraclitus

The Search for Certainty Only one subject is inherently consistent, complete and certain – ontological mathematics. “Abstract” mathematics is not consistent, complete and certain because it does not obey the ontological constraints that apply to ontological mathematics. True mathematics is all about constraint. Abstract mathematics is not.

Dialectic Thinking What’s the simplest way to generate rudimentary thinking? It’s to use the dialectic. Generate any thought at all and call this the thesis. Then simply think of its opposite: the antithesis. (Mathematically, you generate the mirror image.) Then see if there’s any reason to reject one or the other, or try to combine both in a synthesis. This way, over eons, unconscious minds can become smarter and smarter, more and more powerful. They can actively influence evolution and eventually achieve consciousness.

The Selector Function

Nowhere will you find an ontological definition of what “thinking” is. No one ever says what the process of thinking is grounded in. What is the arche of thinking? In Illuminism, everything is 100% mathematical, hence thinking too is 100% mathematical. Thinking is the uniform flow of structured information, of analytic mathematical sinusoidal waves. This is the same definition as energy, and indeed the two are exactly the same: energy = thought. Moreover, the same definition is also true of life, so energy = thought = life. In other words, we inhabit, a living, thinking organism of pure energy: an ontological, living, mathematical hologram. This thinking is not of course conscious. By default, it’s totally unconscious, and the mathematical cosmic organism operates somewhat like a mathematical machine. Creating consciousness can take billions of years of hard, tough, brutal evolution. The engine of thinking is Fourier mathematics. Basis sine and cosine waves are “atomic” thoughts, the most simple thoughts possible. They are like pure musical tones, or notes on a piano. Thinking becomes interesting only when atomic thoughts are combined into “molecular” thoughts. Initially, molecular thinking is like a simple tune, a few piano notes playing at once. The tune may be poor and discordant, but it can get better and better until eventually the most wondrous, harmonious symphonies can be composed, reflecting the thinking of the highest geniuses. When Fourier mathematics takes place strictly within an individual monad, you get “dimensionless” Fourier mathematics. When it takes place across the whole Monadic Collective, you get “dimensional” Fourier mathematics, which has a radically different character from dimensionless Fourier mathematics since it’s exactly what gives rise to the material world in space and time. To be precise, the collective thinking of monads manifests itself as matter, and the individual thinking of monads manifests itself as mind. A physical body is a collective monadic thought, and the soul that links to it and controls it is an individual monad. In other words, existence revolves around individual monads and their interaction with all other monads (the Monadic Collective). There’s nothing else going on. Everything is monadic thought, everything is monadic energy, everything is monadic life, everything is monadic mathematics. “Sensing” is the local (left-brained) process by which a monad gains information from the Monadic Collective (material world). “Intuition” is

the non-local (right brained) process by which a monad gains information from the Monadic Collective. Thinking and feeling are two contrasting ways of judging the information provided by sensing and intuition. Thinking is about rationally trying to understand the data, while feelings are about whether the data make you feel good or bad. Thinkers don’t bring their feelings to the process of rational understanding, and feelers aren’t interested in rational understanding, only in feeling good rather than bad. The Abrahamic religions involve no rational understanding of reality, but are all about feeling good about the prospect of obeying “God” and going to heaven, and feeling bad about disobeying him and going to hell. Abrahamism is simply a desire for ultimate pleasure (heaven) and terror of ultimate pain (hell). It’s pure emotion and doesn’t intersect with thinking, reason and understanding at all. Since a monad is nothing but thought, an unimaginably vast amount of thinking is taking place at all times, most of it extremely rudimentary, but with occasional flashes of brilliance. In order to make progress, a monadic mind has to assess and evaluate all of this thinking taking place within it. So, gradually, a entity that we have labelled the Selector Function evolves. It builds up a system of rules to create a filter for all monadic thoughts, to sift them for the gold amongst the useless dirt. Initially, the filter is based on pure feelings of pleasure and pain. Any thought that is experienced as pleasurable is disinhibited and any thought that is experienced as painful is inhibited. The filter is continuously improved by adding thinking components (reason). The Selector Function is an unconscious element. However, what it selects at any instant then takes on a different character. This item becomes the focus of the mind’s attention. To be paying attention to a particular thought is to be practising awareness, and from here it’s then possible to evolve self-awareness = consciousness. This is when you are aware that you are aware of something, and this presupposes the existence of an “I”. Animals have awareness, but no little or no self-awareness. They have not evolved an “I”. To evolve an “I”, you need language, which can then support a continuous self-narrative in that language. To evolve a language, you need a social group, i.e. consciousness can evolve only in a group context.

The Abrahamic God is conceived as eternally conscious (probably speaking the Hebrew language (!)). This is of course impossible. No individual being can ever attain consciousness. It’s strictly a group phenomenon.

***** Think of the monadic mind as something like an iPod, with every tune in the music library playing at once. Each tune can be regarded as a thought. However, attention can be directed at only one tune at a time, and all the other tunes are screened out (but are still playing). In other words, the Selector Function acts as a reducing valve. It squeezes out everything bar the one tune or thought to which active attention will be paid. All monadic thinking, effectively infinite in scope, is reduced to one active thought. We might think of all other thoughts as potential thoughts, and the active one as an actual thought, the specific thought the monad is actually thinking. This is the thought that drives the agenda, that pushes the monad forward. It’s active thought as opposed to passive thought. The Selector Function will, in due course, develop or generate an effective personality. (Choices = Personality.) The Selector Function will decide whether it prefers sensory information, intuitive information, thinking information or feeling information. The Selector Function’s “tastes” for evaluating the thoughts passing through its filter will in due course give rise to the Myers-Briggs personality types of human beings. Each personality type carries out a different way of evaluating information and thoughts. Another feature of the Selector Function is that it’s heavily shaped by survival pressures, so, if there’s any perceived danger, it’s designed to override any currently active thought with a new active thought relating to the threat. For example, everyone will have had the experience of sitting reading something in a public place or on public transport and suddenly getting the strong intuition that someone is staring at them. Sure enough, when they look up, someone is indeed gazing at them. The content of their book should have been in the person’s active mind, but the Selector Function pushed it out of the way to allow the strong intuition to become active.

Jungian synchronicities, loud noises, strange noises, sexy people, disgusting people, dangerous people, and so on, can all cause the Selector Function to interrupt the active mind and draw attention to the new thought. If you contemplate how you think, you will notice that by and large you concentrate on a few themes, and the smarter you are the more you concentrate on something extremely specific (such as trying to grasp the ontology of Fourier mathematics). However, most people’s thoughts can easily be disrupted and are constantly flitting from one thought to another – just like people channel surfing, or buzzing around from link to link on the internet, and not settling on any particular thing. Most people are engaged in a “stream of consciousness” that’s poorly directed towards specific goals. People suffering from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) have a malfunctioning Selector Function and keep switching from one thing to the next and can never settle on any one theme of thought.

***** “A man’s character is his guardian divinity.” – Heraclitus

Conclusion The Mathmos is the best thing you could ever wish for, the best of all possible worlds. Not only does it provide a definitive, absolute, infallible explanation of everything, it also guarantees that you will evolve into God!

Eternal Reason = Eternal Truth