The Science of Monads (The God Series Book 24)

Table of contents :
The Science of Monads
Table of Contents
Introduction
Eternal Reason
The Real World
Success?
The Monadology
The Wonder of the World
Substance
Don’t Fear the Reaper
You and God
Apocalypse Never
Who’s Wearing the Mask?
Redundancy
The Two Universes
Illuminism
Efficient and Final Causes
The Material Illusion
Illuminism versus Science
The Dream
Four Worldviews
The New Mythos Mind
Two Worlds in One
Black Holes
Excellence
Inner Force
Metamorphosis
The Past
Will to Power
The Best World
Monads
Life-Giving Comets?
The Universal Spirit
Descartes and the Soul
The Unconscious Mind
Esoteric Devil Worship
The Importance of Music
Hyperego?
The Blame Game
Mythos, Pathos, Logos, Eikonos
The Mathematical Point
The Labyrinth of the Continuum
Lunar Time
What Is Mind?
Near Death Experiences
The First Philosopher
The Earth is Not Enough
The God of Failure
Ontology
The Will
The Laws of Existence
Leibniz’s Principle of the Best
The Answer
The Divine Genetic Code
Spinoza versus Leibniz
The Math God
Quantum Consciousness
Enlightenment
Soul Breath
Perfection
Life and Death
The Most Exclusive Club on Earth
Atheism
Love
Charm
Hanging Out?
The Next Phase
The Hollywood Doctrine
The Evolution of Illuminism
What a Wonderful World?!
Slave to Money, Slave to Power
Hardcore?
The Failure of Physics
The Failure of Biology
Forbidden Planet
The Great Machine
The Mind/Matter War
Kitsch
The Monster
The Ugly Knight
The Creators
A Clockwork Orange
Transhumanists
Humanity 2.0
The Creator
Black and Blue Cities
The Rich Man’s Con
Zombie Politics
Project Fear
The Democratic Deficit
Narcissus: the Self-Admirer
Immune System
Stuck
War and Peace
Zombies
Ronins
Mysticism
Why?
The Truth
Monadic Science

Citation preview

The Science of Monads M P

H H

B

Copyright © Mike Hockney 2015 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.

Table of Contents The Science of Monads Table of Contents Introduction Eternal Reason The Real World Success? The Monadology The Wonder of the World Substance Don’t Fear the Reaper You and God Apocalypse Never Who’s Wearing the Mask? Redundancy The Two Universes Illuminism Efficient and Final Causes The Material Illusion Illuminism versus Science The Dream Four Worldviews

The New Mythos Mind Two Worlds in One Black Holes Excellence Inner Force Metamorphosis The Past Will to Power The Best World Monads Life-Giving Comets? The Universal Spirit Descartes and the Soul The Unconscious Mind Esoteric Devil Worship The Importance of Music Hyperego? The Blame Game Mythos, Pathos, Logos, Eikonos The Mathematical Point The Labyrinth of the Continuum Lunar Time

What Is Mind? Near Death Experiences The First Philosopher The Earth is Not Enough The God of Failure Ontology The Will The Laws of Existence Leibniz’s Principle of the Best The Answer The Divine Genetic Code Spinoza versus Leibniz The Math God Quantum Consciousness Enlightenment Soul Breath Perfection Life and Death The Most Exclusive Club on Earth Atheism Love Charm

Hanging Out? The Next Phase The Hollywood Doctrine The Evolution of Illuminism What a Wonderful World?! Slave to Money, Slave to Power Hardcore? The Failure of Physics The Failure of Biology Forbidden Planet The Great Machine The Mind/Matter War Kitsch The Monster The Ugly Knight The Creators A Clockwork Orange Transhumanists Humanity 2.0 The Creator Black and Blue Cities The Rich Man’s Con

Zombie Politics Project Fear The Democratic Deficit Narcissus: the Self-Admirer Immune System Stuck War and Peace Zombies Ronins Mysticism Why? The Truth Monadic Science

Introduction If a scientific materialist were asked to sum up his belief system, he might reflect exactly what Richard Feynman, a pope of science, said: “If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis (or the atomic fact, or whatever you wish to call it) that all things are made of atoms – little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.” Scientific materialism isn’t the only type of science. Leibniz, the great German genius, was a champion of scientific idealism. The atoms in his system weren’t physical, but mental, and he named them monads. To counter Feynman’s position, a present-day Leibniz might say, “All things are made from mental atoms, which are simple mathematical substances from which all compounds are mathematically derived via the laws of ontological mathematics. Monads are expressed through constant motion, and that mental motion is what we call thinking. Pure thinking takes place in an immaterial, mathematical frequency domain outside space and time. By virtue of Fourier mathematics, frequency functions can be represented in a spacetime domain, and this domain is what is known as the physical world of matter. It is not ‘physical’ in any true sense. It’s just a certain mode of mental functionality. There is no such thing as scientific matter. There is only mind. A mind is a monad, and monads are all there are. Everything is an expression of monadic, mental mathematics.” Well, who’s right between Feynman and the modern Leibniz? Both are scientists, but Feynman is a materialist who believes in material atoms in spacetime as the basis of our reality, while the modern Leibniz is an idealist who posits mental, mathematical atoms in an immaterial frequency domain as the ground of existence. Feynman is an empiricist who believes in sensory experiments as the source of reliable evidence, while the modern Leibniz is a rationalist who advocates mathematical reason as the source of provable Truth. These are two wholly opposed worldviews, at war with each other.

Scientific materialists imagine themselves clear thinkers opposed to believers in silly Mythos religions, but those are not their real enemies. Their true opponents are mathematical rationalists who advocate reason and intellect over the senses and experience. The Truths of reality are not sensory, contingent, empirical “truths” of fact. They are non-sensory, eternal, necessary, non-empirical truths of reason. Only one subject can capture the eternal truths of reason: ontological mathematics. Scientific materialism won’t help you one jot. You have a simple question to ask yourself. Is Truth sensory or rational? If it’s sensory, it’s not rational (it’s empirical), and if it’s rational, it’s not sensory (it’s non-empirical). Scientific materialists are believers in sensory, empirical “truth”, but that’s not Truth at all – that’s opinion, conjecture belief and interpretation. Only rational truths are unarguably, absolutely, infallibly, eternally true, and only they constitute knowledge. Scientific materialism has nothing to do with authentic knowledge, only with the current interpretive “best guess”, which can change as soon as a new theory comes along. Scientific materialism is about producing successful, expedient simulacra of reality in order to do pragmatic things, but it has no capacity to explain what reality actually is in its innermost kernel. Plato said as much well over two thousand years ago, but scientific materialists have never understood Plato given that, like Leibniz, he was an idealist and rationalist rather than a materialist and empiricist. Writer Flannery O’Connor said, “The truth does not change according to our ability stomach it.” Even though 99.9% of the human race can’t stomach mathematics as the ultimate answer to everything, that doesn’t change one iota the fact that it is. It’s irrational to imagine that anything other than mathematics – the quintessential rationalist subject – could explain the rational universe in which we find ourselves. How could the most rational subject not be the basis of rational reality? Science is not a rational subject. It’s an empirical subject, which is something entirely different. If you don’t consider that the universe is in fact rational then any irrational “answer” is as good as any other for making irrational sense of the irrational! Richard Feynman said, “This is the key of modern science and is the beginning of the true understanding of nature. This idea. That to look at the things, to record the details, and to hope that in the information thus

obtained, may lie a clue to one or another of a possible theoretical interpretation.” This is a typical statement by a philosophically illiterate scientist. On the one hand, Feynman advocates empiricism (the close observation and experience of nature), and, on the other hand, he requires this empiricism to generate a “theoretical interpretation”. But all scientific theories are expressed in quasi-mathematical terms, and are wholly dependent on mathematics, yet mathematics has zero need of empiricism. Mathematics is a 100% rationalist, deductive, necessary, analytic a priori subject. So, where is Feynman’s explanation for what mathematics is, and why it’s so critical to the success of science ... which is an empirical, inductive, contingent, synthetic a posteriori subject? No scientist on earth can answer this question, and if they can’t do that, why should we imagine that they can explain anything else? Scientists do not explain anything. What they do is model phenomena. Models are interpretations of reality, not reality itself. Models can be stunningly successful while being entirely false. Einsteinian physics falsified Newtonian physics in ontological terms, yet Newtonian physics remains incredibly accurate in all scenarios humanity typically encounters. Newtonian physics is an effective approximation to day-to-day reality, but approximation isn’t Truth. Truth is about absolute precision, infallibility, eternal validity and correctness, and closed, analytic necessity. People don’t understand what words such as Truth and Knowledge actually mean, and they misuse them all the time. They mistake interpretive evidence for “proof”; they mistake models, simulations, interpretations and approximations of reality for reality itself; they mistake consensus for confirmation and corroboration. They continuously mistake things for other, different things. They continuously mistake opinions, beliefs, interpretations and conjectures for something more than that. They mistake Mythos for Logos. They mistake metaphor for literalism. As Nietzsche said, “...truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions, metaphors which have become worn by frequent use and have lost all sensuous vigour...” It’s almost comical – or perhaps tragic – what people believe true, and what they consider untrue. It’s just as bad what they consider “concrete” and what they believe “abstract”. Mathematics is regarded as the supreme

abstraction, and yet it’s actually the most concrete thing of all: it’s the fibre of existence, the basis of true ontology and epistemology. Nietzsche said that humanity’s “truths” are merely its “irrefutable errors”. Only one thing cannot be refuted – ontological mathematics, the true ground of existence.

The Model Science is merely a model of reality, not reality itself. People seem to have real difficulty appreciating the difference. A model can be highly successful, but totally false. Unfortunately, simple-minded people associate success with Truth. They believe that if a model makes successful predictions, it must reflect reality. This is a childish notion. Science makes successful predictions because it uses mathematics, not because science’s claims – its non-mathematical interpretations of reality – are true. In fact, they’re invariably false. Newtonian physics is fantastically successful while being 100% false ontologically and epistemologically. It’s successful because the mathematical formulae Newton arrived at are good approximations to the true mathematics of reality within the circumstances and environments we typically encounter. The problem with science is that it bases its ontology and epistemology (such as they are) on success, not on analytic principles, not on Truth. The folly of this approach is mercilessly exposed in the standoff between relativity theory and quantum mechanics. These theories are both wondrously successful – which is science’s only criterion of “truth” – and yet are 100% incompatible. They are the absolute contradiction of each other. They imply wholly different ontologies and epistemologies. In fact, it’s arguable that neither theory is consistent with any rational ontology or epistemology at all. They are nothing but inconsistent, illogical models that fail to reflect the rational hidden variables (mathematical variables) that underlie them. How is science supposed to find an overarching theory (a “final” theory) that embraces these two incompatible theories? Logically, it can’t be done, yet scientists – absurdly – have been trying for many decades to do so. These people suffer from a complete lack of rationalism. They think that some miraculous “Feynman guess” will save the day. But no guess can

salvage incompatible theories. One or indeed both theories must be admitted to be wrong, but that flies in the face of the way science does things. All that science cares about is whether a theory matches the experimental results. It has no interest in whether the theory makes any sense – as relativity and quantum mechanics both demonstrate. No scientist understands either theory. If experimental success is all you rely on, how can you make any progress with two theories that are both experimentally successful but contradict each other? You have nowhere to go. There are no techniques, principles or analysis you can use. You are stuck with your Feynman guesses, but no guess will ever make two incompatible theories compatible. If scientists had any philosophical literacy, they would realise that. As it is, they will go on guessing forever! They are the new inheritors of the task of Sisyphus ... pushing the boulder up the hill and watching it fall back down again until the end of time. There’s no way out. Isn’t it remarkable that scientists talk of a “final” theory at all? That theory – even if it were scientifically possible – would be a 100% materialistic theory and would therefore say nothing about the mind, life and consciousness, hence wouldn’t be “final” at all. It would be just another theory, just another model, just another interpretation.

The Big Question Q. Why is the universe intelligible? A. Because it’s made of reason. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t be rational, hence it wouldn’t be intelligible. An irrational universe – a universe composed of anything other than something intrinsically rational – could not be understood since it would obey no laws and exhibit no order, organisation, pattern and structure. The ontological system that enshrines reason is none other than mathematics. The universe is intelligible because it’s mathematical. It’s really very simple!

No Material Atoms “But atoms of matter are contrary to reason. ... There are only atoms of substance, that is to say, real unities absolutely devoid of parts, which are the sources of actions, and the absolute first principles of the composition of

things, and as it were the ultimate elements of analysis of substantial things. They can be called metaphysical points: they have something vital in them, and a kind of perception, and mathematical points are their points of view for expressing the universe.” – Leibniz

Math If there were a Creator God, what would he use to create the world? He would use the perfection of the operations of mathematics. But then the question arises, “Isn’t mathematics more perfect, eternal and necessary than God himself?” Isn’t God either mathematics itself, or created by mathematics?

Eternal Reason “For in eternal things, even if there is no cause, we must still understand there to be a reason. In things that persist, the reason is the nature or essence itself...” – Leibniz Uncaused, uncreated substances (monads) must have a sufficient reason for their existence. In fact, uncaused substances are reason. They are reason itself, living reason. Their nature or essence is that of reason. To state that something has a reason for existence implies that reason precedes existence, but of course nothing can precede existence. The only way to square this is for existence to be reason itself, i.e. existence and reason are synonymous. We live in a rational universe because the universe is reason. If the universe weren’t reason, it would ipso facto be irrational, but an irrational universe is impossible because it would dissolve into meaningless, irrational chaos and randomness, from which neither order nor organisation could ever emerge. We could never have a cosmos – an intelligible universe – if it were not actually made of reason, i.e. if it did not have order and organisation built into it. Of course, reason must have a specific form and that is none other than ontological mathematics. Mathematics is what encapsulates living, existential reason. In ontological mathematics, everything has a reason. It comes built in to the mathematical framework.

Ontological mathematics is the principle of sufficient reason. It provides the sufficient reason why everything is such and not otherwise. Ontological mathematics is both uncaused and the source of all causality. It’s the uncaused cause, the first cause. Ontological mathematics is the sufficient reason for the operations of cause and effect. Ontological mathematics = the principle of sufficient reason = the principle of causality. No scientist or philosopher has ever explained what causality actually is. Causality is simply dynamic, ontological mathematics, from which the universe is made, i.e. causation is built into everything. Uncaused mathematics is the first cause, the prime mover, which causes and moves everything else (which are all the effects of mathematics). There must be a reason for causality and the reason is reason itself – the fundamental stuff of existence. As ontological mathematics dynamically moves from one mathematical state to another, it does so flawlessly according to its own inbuilt mathematical laws. Each state inexorably produces the succeeding state, and so on. There is no room for irrationality, randomness, magic, faith, “God” or anything else. When Hegel said, “The real is rational, and the rational is real”, he was declaring that reason is ontological and therefore everything that is real – everything that exists – is rational. Hegel’s dialectic is all about the rational, logical operations of living, cosmic reason.

***** “Therefore, since the ultimate ground must be in something which is of metaphysical necessity, and since the reason for an existing thing must come from something that actually exists, it follows that there must exist some entity of metaphysical necessity, that is, there must be an entity whose essence is existence...” – Leibniz The only thing whose essence is existence, and which can provide a sufficient reason for everything else ... is reason itself. If something had existence as its essence but was not itself reason (hence reason did not precede it), it would have no sufficient reason for its existence. If the ultimate stuff of existence did not require a sufficient reason for its existence, nor would anything else derived from it, hence we would live in a universe of absolute chaos, or absolute magic.

The only way in which the ultimate stuff of existence can have a sufficient reason is if it is reason, in which case we are guaranteed that everything has a reason since the universe is made of reason. This absolutely refutes the scientific materialist understanding of the universe, originating in inexplicable randomness (which has no sufficient reason). Since the universe is made of reason, which is just the same as ontological mathematics, then reason and mathematics are innate in all of us and precede any of our experiences, exactly as the rationalists always claimed and the empiricists always denied. Whether we know it or not, whether we like it or not, we are all rationalists and mathematicians. The problem is, we are not conscious rationalists and mathematicians. And unconscious reason is a very different beast from conscious reason. Where objective unconscious reason (associated with “matter” and efficient causes) operates like an immense mathematical machine devoid of freedom, subjective unconscious reason (associated with life and final causes), operates according to the most primitive expression of reason – the brute-force dialect where opposites are violently collided together and syntheses generated (which constitute higher rational states and the raw material for further iterations of the dialectic).

***** “Beasts are purely empirical and are guided solely by instances, for, as far as we able to judge, they never manage to form necessary propositions ... The consequences beasts draw are just like those of simple empirics, who claim that what has happened will happen again in a case where what strikes them is similar, without being able to determine whether the same reasons are at work. This is what makes it so easy for men to capture beasts, and so easy for simple empirics to make mistakes. Not even people made skilful by age and experience are exempt from this when they rely too much on past experiences. This has happened to several people in civil and military affairs, since they do not take sufficiently into consideration the fact that the world changes and that men have become more skilful in finding thousands of new tricks, unlike the stags and hares of today, who have not become any more clever than those of yesterday. The consequences beasts draw are only a shadow of reasoning, that is, they are

only connections of imagination, transition from one image to another; for, when a new situation appears similar to the preceding one, they expect to find again what was previously joined to it, as though things were linked in fact, just because their images are linked in the memory.” – Leibniz And is what Leibniz describes not exactly how most humans “reason” too? They use the “shadow” of reason, not proper reason. Just as the “stags and hares” of today think in exactly the same way as the stags and hares of thousands of years ago (their thinking hasn’t evolved at all), so do most humans, which is why they continue to believe in silly, refuted ancient religions.

Space and Time When most people imagine the universe, they have some sort of “common sense” notion in mind, more or less identical to that of Newton. They picture the universe as a vast box in which material things move, and in which time passes at a uniform rate, as if a great cosmic clock were ticking. This is what our senses appear to reveal, but, of course, we know this view is false ... Einstein decisively refuted it. But if this basic sensory picture is wrong, why should we imagine that any other sensory picture is right? Why should we ever rely on our senses and experiences? They are inherently unreliable witnesses that actively falsify reality. Yet the whole of science is predicated on the correctness of empiricism and materialism, even though relativity theory and quantum mechanics have more or less nothing in common with empiricism and materialism, and have much more in common with pure mathematics, a non-sensory, non-empirical subject. All sensing types are basically Newtonians who just can’t get beyond their sensory impressions. Intuitives, on the other hand, can easily conceive that the sensory world is false. The most common intuition is that everything is interconnected, and this can be true only in an immaterial Singularity, a Oneness outside space and time. Science refuses to accept this intuition, despite the fact that science is full of singularities, and the material world of spacetime actually originated in a Big Bang Singularity. As Jung pointed out, sensing types and intuitives are the opposites of each other. The more sensory you are, the less intuitive you are, and vice versa. Scientists are hyper-sensing types, and have almost zero intuition and

imagination. They can’t understand what quantum mechanics actually means because this requires the abandonment of the sensory, empiricist, materialist paradigm, but scientists are incapable of thinking outside of that particular box. They can’t conceive of an immaterial frequency domain where space, time and matter simply don’t apply. Because they can’t conceive of it, they deny that it exists. Of course, they have no rational grounds for rejecting something just because they suffer from a lack of intuition and imagination, and because their scientific method is next to useless in probing the frequency domain. It’s the scientific imagination, such as it is, that’s limited to space and time, not reality itself. It’s a monumental failure of science – the worst possible catastrophe – that it refuses to accept the existence of the mental domain of frequency. Only via the frequency domain can mind be explained, and only via mind can reality be explained. The left hemisphere of the human brain addresses the sensory world of matter, space and time, and deals with Fourier spacetime functions. This is where consciousness resides. The right hemisphere addresses the nonsensory world of immaterial frequencies, outside space and time, and deals with Fourier frequency functions. This is where the unconscious resides, and where our religious instincts and oceanic feelings of interconnectedness arise. This is where all intuition, synchronicity and “paranormal” phenomena take place. Consciousness is “local”, and disconnected from the rest of the world (it’s “individuated”). The unconscious is non-local, and interconnected with the entire universe. It’s all in the math. Science dogmatically and ideologically refuses to accept the existence of a non-local mental domain. It has no reason for doing so beyond sensory prejudice. Non-local things are not sensory objects at all. Nothing is more important than to grasp that the frequency domain of mind is more fundamental than the spacetime domain of matter, and thus science’s entire ontology and epistemology is false. Science is just wrong, and there’s no getting away from that. Science is good at modelling the local world of appearances, but useless at addressing the non-local world of noumena. Science denies the existence of anything not susceptible to its method. Science is predicated on a method, not on reason, not on analysis, not on first principles. It’s not a

rational subject. It’s not intellectual. A method does not constitute a rational system – unless it’s the mathematical method of incontestable, analytic proof.

Leibniz against Empiricism “Furthermore, why must it be that everything is acquired by apperceptions of external things and that nothing can be unearthed from within ourselves? Is our soul in itself so empty that, without images borrowed from the outside, it is nothing?” – Leibniz

Rationalists versus Empirics “Empirics” were ancient physicians who despised theoretical study and instead trusted customs, traditions, folklore and their own experience. Scientists are divided into two camps: theoretical and experimental, but the former are required to be closely guided by the latter, or they are deemed to have strayed off into speculation and metaphysics. The emphasis scientists place on experiment rather than reason means that they too are “empirics”. They have contempt for “theory” that pays no court to experiments and sensory experience. Empirics are those who define the world according to “truths of fact”. Rationalists are those who define the world according to “truths of reason”. These are two wholly opposed worldviews. A rationalist doesn’t need to look at the world to understand it. He could work it all out in his mind. An empiric claims that nothing is true unless he has perceived and experienced it. The rationalists place reason at the core of existence, while the empirics place perceptible matter at the core. The rationalists say that all things are derived from reason itself. We live in an intelligible world precisely because it’s made of reason; if it weren’t, it would be unintelligible and there would be no such thing as reason. The empirics say that all things are derived from particles capable, at least in principle, of sensory detection. We live, they say, in a sensible world rather than an intelligible world (which therefore raises the question of how a sensible world can be intelligible). Empirics can’t explain things. They can only make observations and then attempt to link their

observations via efficient causes that they infer (using no analytic processes and no rational principles). Empirics reject teleology. They reject the undetectable mind and soul. They reject the freedom and consciousness that go with minds and souls. It’s not clear how empirics distinguish between life and death. What is it that changes when a body, living at one instant, is dead the next, given that the material states of the living body and corpse are more or less identical? How can imperceptible changes in positions of material atoms cause something to be dead when an instant before it was alive?

Mind and Matter Mind and matter can both be said to be made of mathematics. Mathematics acts as a tertium quid (a third thing) underpinning and uniting mind and matter at a more fundamental level. However, it can also be argued that mathematics is mind, and matter is an output of mind (namely, output having the Fourier spacetime property of “extension”).

Cartesian versus Aristotelian Substance Descartes famously defined two substances: mind (unextended) and matter (extended), and his problem – an immense one – was to explain how they interacted. His system was so radical that it led to the two rival schools of materialism and idealism. The materialists got rid of mental substance, leaving them only with matter, while the idealists got rid of material substance, leaving them with nothing but mind. Most ordinary people are neither materialists nor idealists but continue to accept Cartesian dualism. That is, they believe that a mind or soul is associated with a body and somehow detachable from it. Like Descartes, they can’t explain how mind and matter interact and nor can they explain how a soul takes its leave of a body and exists independently of it. This all gets consigned to the realm of “faith”, which is of course useless to any rationalist. Where Descartes completely separated mind and matter – thus allowing them to be treated wholly independently (one side effect of which was to give birth to the lifeless, mindless, clockwork universe of science) – Aristotle, in ancient times, kept them resolutely together. For Aristotle, all substances in our world have two interlinked components: matter and form.

Matter is the stuff from which something is made, while form is its shape, arrangement, organization, structure or function. Form is a kind of mind. By putting a mind of sorts in everything, Aristotle’s world was highly teleological, dictated by final causes (purposes). Aristotle had a biological rather than mechanistic understanding of reality. For him, the world was an organism rather than a machine. This is the type of thinking at which modern science scoffs. Physics seeks to remove life, mind, consciousness and freedom from everything, hence is one of the most bizarre belief systems of all time, verging on extreme, machinelike autism. Leibniz in a sense reconciled Descartes and Aristotle. He adopted Descartes’ definition of unextended substances being minds, and, in common with the idealist school, he denied that matter, as understood by physicists, existed at all. However, he then invoked Aristotle’s concepts of form and matter, but with the radical twist that both were now mental, with matter being “passive” mind and form “active” mind. What we understand as the physical world of matter is, according to this view, the way we interpret the passive aspect of all the minds that make up the universe. So, the difference between a rock and a human being is that all the minds associated with a rock are almost exclusively passive whereas the mind (soul) that controls a human body is enormously active. The more active your mind, the closer you are to God. God is absolutely active mind, and has no passive component at all. (For Aristotle and Leibniz, God is pure matterless form.) Leibniz made matter a mode of mind – the passive mode – and went about showing how the material world of our perception arises solely from the properties of mind. He ingeniously avoided the problem of Cartesian dualism and reduced matter to a phenomenon – an object of perception and nothing besides.

Misapplication Thomas Aquinas misapplied reason by using it to defend faith and revelation (which have nothing to do with reason). Scientists misapply reason by using it to defend empirical, sensory observations (which have nothing to do with reason). Reason, to retain its power, validity and legitimacy, must be applied solely to reason. Ontologically, that means that reason must be applied to

mathematics alone. Anything else is a formal corruption of reason. It’s a disgrace when scientists or followers of mainstream religion claim to be on the side of reason. They don’t know the meaning of the word.

The Real World The Real World is an intelligible, mathematical world of reason. However, living beings inside this world experience it as something radically different – as a sensible world of sensory data, feelings and intuitions. As such, it does not seem rational and mathematical at all. Science is a subject that regards the sensible world as the real world, yet science is absolutely imbued with mathematics, which has no scientific, sensory definition. Science has no explanation at all for what mathematics is and why it’s so essential to science. The answer is of course blindingly obvious. The sensible world is just a sensory (mis)interpretation of the real, intelligible world, which is a mathematical world, hence why math features at the heart of science. Science simply can’t escape math, no matter how much it worships experiments performed on the sensory world. Reason and our rational intuition take us to the intelligible world. Our irrational senses and feelings don’t. They actually get in the way and create Maya – the illusion of what reality is. The senses and feelings are subjective and interpretive. When reason and intuition are pressed into the service of the senses and feelings, these also become subjective and interpretive. Only when reason and intuition are separated from the senses and feelings can they objectively grasp the real, intelligible world. Mathematics is the subject where only analytic, eternal, necessary truths apply. Mathematics is the language of the intelligible world, hence of Truth itself. Science is the language of the sensible world. Mainstream religion is the language of the world of spiritual feelings. Neither science nor religion reveals truth. The truth is metaphysical (= mathematical), and physical reality exists within it. If you avoid “thinking” about the world with your senses, feelings, and mystical hunches, what’s left? – mathematics! When you remove the senses from the consideration of the rational universe – something science

refuses to do – you are left with the rational universe in itself, which exists ontologically as a purely mathematical universe, and has no connection at all with the senses.

Scientists Theoretical scientists are competent mathematicians but hopeless philosophers; in fact, more or less retarded in philosophical terms. All scientists are driven by the requirement of the scientific paradigm for experimental evidence. This means that they automatically think in empiricist and materialist terms rather than rationalist and idealist terms. They “think” with their senses, not with their reason. Leibniz was the last great rationalist scientist, and there hasn’t been anyone of that calibre since. Kant and Boscovich both made attempts to reconcile Leibnizian rationalist idealism with Newtonian empiricist materialism, but were ignored by the mainstream scientific community, which became fanatically Newtonian, and has remained so ever since. Even though Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics have smashed the Newtonian worldview to smithereens, the implicit, subconscious mindset of all scientists is still 100% Newtonian. They simply can’t think in rationalist and idealist terms.

Success? Science is so highly esteemed because it works. But people don’t understand why science works. It certainly doesn’t work because of its silly story (Mythos) about “matter”, “atoms”, and so on, i.e. because of its interpretations of reality. It works because reality is mathematical, and science has managed to arrive at a set of quasi-mathematical laws that approximate – within a certain narrow range of conditions of the type we typically encounter in the “normal” world – the true mathematical laws of Nature. It’s the math that works, not the “science”.

Science Teaching Science teaching makes no reference to the philosophy of science, no reference to logic, to first principles, to analysis, to the principle of sufficient reason. Science relies entirely on its empiricist, materialist,

positivist “method”. To accept science as “true”, you therefore have to accept empiricism, materialism and positivism as true, and that means rejecting rationalism, idealism and noumenalism. Although this is a philosophical, not scientific, issue, science refuses to address philosophy. It’s a supremely irrational and anti-intellectual subject that is really nothing more than trial and error conducted under a cloak of pseudo-mathematics. Math – total a priori rationalism with no need of the scientific method – is the only thing that saves science from being mere alchemy and astrology. Science refuses to explain how and why an empirical subject depends on non-empirical mathematics. It’s plain that scientists are too stupid to even realise there’s a fatal contradiction in their fundamentalist ideology and dogmatism. These are anything other than rational people.

The Monadology We are now going to go through Leibniz’s published Monadology step by step. All of Leibniz’s comments are numbered, and shown in bold, followed by a brief commentary.

***** 1. Monads, which I am going to talk about here, are nothing other than simple substances which make up compounds. By ‘simple’ I mean ‘without parts’.

***** This is one of the simplest, most remarkable and most important statements of all time. It asserts an extremely obvious truth: that complex things (compounds) are constructed from simpler things, molecules from atoms. Reality must ultimately be grounded in the simplest things of all – monads – indissoluble entities without any contingent, removable parts, hence which cannot be broken down to more elementary states. Monads can be variously described as ontological mathematical points, or singularities, or mental atoms (with atomic number zero), or light spectra, or autonomous Fourier frequency domains. At any rate, they are complete and consistent mathematical systems.

As immortal, indestructible, uncreated, uncaused, living entities, monads can be called souls. All souls are in fact evolving Gods. “God” is simply the term applied to an optimised soul, a soul that has solved itself, i.e. found the answer to itself. This cosmic solution is also called “enlightenment”: it’s when a soul understands that it’s pure light ... and pure light is none other than pure math, pure reason, pure energy, pure motion, pure mind, pure life.

***** “Monad” is derived from the ancient Greek monas (“unit”; “alone”, hence mono-), and means “unit”, “unity”, “an ultimate unit of being”. The supreme question is what the ultimate units of existence are. Monotheists believe that one God is the root of all. However, the principle of sufficient reason states that if one of anything is possible, an infinite number must be possible, unless there’s a sufficient reason why that should not be the case (which would relate to some ontological limit, such as a largest possible number, after which the next number is zero, and we start again, i.e. we are dealing with a cyclical, repeating system). Leibniz referred to monads as “unities”, “substantial forms”, or “entelechies”. Regarding substantial forms, Wikipedia says, “A theory of substantial forms asserts that forms (or ideas) organize matter and make it intelligible. Substantial forms are the source of properties, order, unity, identity, and information about objects.” In modern ontological mathematics, a mathematical formula – the God Equation – defines the monad, and this has the effect of turning the monad into a complete and consistent set of all possible sine and cosine waves, i.e. a monad is an immense vibration, a perfect, autonomous information system. As for “entelechy”, this refers to something that realizes its potential, that coverts its potentiality into actuality. It can be regarded as possessing an internal force, unrecognised by science, that drives the entity towards its end or final purpose. In mathematical terms, all monads are entelechies because they are self-solving, self-optimising systems, that keep going until they have reached their perfect answer, which equates to a state of perfect mathematical symmetry. All monads suffer broken symmetry (“darkness”) at the Big Bang, and their cosmic, ontological, dialectical task is then to restore that lost symmetry (to return to the light).

Matter is broken symmetry. Mind is symmetry. Darkness is broken symmetry. Light is symmetry. Matter and darkness must be restored to mind and light. Entelechies have inner, self-determined activity, an internal perfecting principle, the ultimate hidden variable. Science denies that anything has any internal agency and purpose. This is one of the key differences between science and ontological mathematics. The latter is absolutely teleological. It actively strives to reach completion, the end, the whole, the final answer. A universe of ontological mathematics is imbued with drive, purpose, meaning – exactly as we see with every human being. Such a universe reflects the principle of as above, so below. A scientific universe, on the other hand, is devoid of meaning, purpose and any inner drive to perfect itself – and so has zero resemblance to the human condition. It’s a simple fact that human beings are the direct refutation of scientific materialism. We have no conceivable basis in the operations of science. Even dialectical materialism would be a better explanation than scientific materialism. The key to all living things is their purposeful behaviour, but science denies the existence of purpose in Nature. Science, as an exclusively materialist subject, simply cannot accommodate life and mind (which automatically imply meaning, purpose and the drive to power and perfection).

***** “The theory of the God in Nature, in contradistinction to the mediaeval conception of Nature, from which God was eliminated, was accepted everywhere with an universal delirium of joy. To this spirit, every fibre of Giordano Bruno’s being responded. ‘There is Spirit in all things,’ he says, ‘This is proved by physical research. Wherever we see a visible creation, there we shall meet the Divine.’ There is only one difference between the physical and the Divine. Because we are men and confined within narrow boundaries, the visible appears to us to be limited by time and space. To Giordano Bruno, the Spirit of God exists behind the sense-world. Not in the way in which (as he thought) it had existed for Aristotle or the men of the Middle Ages. He believed the Divine Spirit to be self-existing; and Nature only the body by means of which its Spirit manifested itself in all its beauty.

“Nevertheless, man cannot perceive the whole of the Divine Spirit in Nature, he can only see a part. In all things, in all time and in space, the Divine Spirit is to be found. This was the creed of Giordano Bruno. Hence he says ‘Where is the Divine? In every stone, in every leaf, the Divine is everywhere. In all creation, specially in beings possessing a certain independent existence.’ These beings, which recognise their own independence, he terms Monads. By a Monad, he means something which floats and flourishes in the ocean of divinity. All Monads are mirrors of the Universe. Thus Giordano conceived of the universal Spirit as divided into many Monads, and in each Monad that was an individual Spirit, there was something which was a reflection of the Universe. “Such a Monad is the human soul, and they are many. Indeed, the human body itself is composed of many Monads, not of one. If we understand the truth about the physical body according to the ideas of Giordano Bruno, we shall not see the fleshly human body, but a system of Monads; these Monads cannot be clearly seen, just as we cannot distinguish the separate midges in a swarm; the chief Monad is the human soul. When the human soul comes into existence at birth, so said Giordano Bruno, the other Monads which belong to the soul collect together and, by this, the existence of the Chief-Monad, of the Soul Monad, is made possible. When death approaches, the Chief-Monad discharges and disperses the other Monads. “According to Giordano Bruno, birth is the assembling of many Monads round a Chief-Monad, while death is the separation of the inferior Monads from the Chief-Monad, so that the Chief-Monad may be able to take on another form. For each Monad is obliged to take on, not only the form by which we know it here, but every form which it is possible to take on in the Universe. Giordano Bruno conceives of a procession through every form. Thus he approaches as close as possible – in his enthusiasm – to the idea of the re-incarnation of the human soul. “And with reference to the conception of our collective reality, he says: – Man, with his normal consciousness, stands confronted by this reality. What he first receives are the impressions of the senses. These are his first means of knowledge. Of these, there are four, says Giordano Bruno. The first means by which man acquires knowledge is by the impressions of the senses. “The second are the images we construct in our imagination when the things which have impressed the senses are no longer before us, when we

only remember what we have experienced. Here we already penetrate further into the soul. This second channel of knowledge he terms ‘the power of imagination.’ The word must not be taken to mean what it does to-day, but it must be understood in the sense in which it was used by Giordano Bruno. After a man has received what the impressions of sense have to give him, he enters (forming the picture within himself) into the impressions. The impression is made from without on the within. It then follows that man, while he penetrates the things with his reason and then proceeds further, draws nearer to the truth, instead of going further away from it. Hence Giordano Bruno recognises reason, the intellect, as the third means of acquiring knowledge, and in this he has in mind the moment when we leave the objects visible to our senses and ascend to the realm of thought. Then something higher and truer than any impression created by the senses flows towards us. “According to Giordano Bruno, the fourth stage is Reason [in itself]. Reason to him is a living and weaving in the regions of Pure Spirit.” – Rudolf Steiner

***** “The Spirit of Divine intelligence is not beyond the visible world, it is not exterior to it, it is everywhere, wherever we may look. The Divine Intelligence does not dwell in any place exterior to the visible world. It does not dwell in that vague realm, of which we may say ‘something moves in circles wide’, it does not dwell in a revolving, encircling realm, with which we can communicate only from a great distance. The Divine Spirit is the united principle of that vital force, which is in everything and in Nature herself.” – Giordano Bruno “It is worthy of God to be the inner moving principle of things.” – Giordano Bruno The divine intelligence that moves everything is simply self-solving, selfoptimising ontological mathematics, not “God”. Or “God” is simply another word for the universe of Reason, the mathematical universe that penetrates every part of existence and provides it with its being, its becoming, its unfolding, its evolution, its purpose, and its exact, instant-to-instant instructions.

***** The big question is how dimensionless monads make dimensional objects, and this has prompted great controversy amongst scholars and interpreters of Leibniz. If a physical body is made of physical atoms, don’t mental atoms (monads) comprise a mental body, a spiritual body? But, when you think about it, how can you distinguish a physical body from a mental body? People might think of mental bodies as “ghosts”, and might say you can put your hand right through them. However, if a mental body is associated with force fields then you would be prevented from putting your hand through it, hence you might conclude that it’s solid after all. But it’s not. The debate switches away from the meaning of physicality to the meaning of “force” and how we experience force via our senses. It’s not at all necessary that “force” should have anything to do with physicality. Force can easily be conceived in mental terms. So, there is in fact absolutely nothing strange, illogical or puzzling if Leibniz is claiming that everything is made out of point-atoms (monads), capable of generating individual and collective forces that seem to confer material solidity on things. Some commentators say that Leibniz proposed that compound bodies are literally made out of monads, the basic units (substances) of existence. Others say that he doesn’t consider bodies “real” (but, of course, that simply raises the issue of what is meant by a real body). Does Leibniz mean that bodies are constructed out of mind atoms or that bodies are constructed out of the perceptions of mind atoms? In the first case, they are actual things, albeit made of mind, and, in the second case, they are mere ideas in minds (i.e. they are phenomena). However, the distinction here is slender because in either case the objects or phenomena don’t exist if minds don’t exist. If a mind is a set of ideas and perceptions then anything made of minds is ipso facto concerned with ideas and perceptions. Monads are immaterial, dimensionless, mathematical points. They are ostensibly as mathematically simple as it gets. However, these are also minds, and, as such, they are infinitely complex. They are infinite perceivers, infinite thinkers. A mathematical point is not at all a straightforward entity. A simple static point is what most people have in mind when they think of a point. However, a static point might in fact be the net effect of an immense

dynamic system that perfectly, mathematically, averages to “nothing”. i.e. an apparently “static” point can also be an enormously deep, layered entity, full of information and motion (but with the motion cancelling to zero, i.e. having no net effect in any direction). It can be the net average of a complete and consistent set of points – possibly an infinite number – moving in a complex space which is equally balanced between positive and negative, real and imaginary. The resultant of all of this activity is a static point, yet it’s so much more than that. A point can, with respect to the domain of space and time, seem simple and without parts, and yet, with respect to the frequency domain, be anything but simple and without parts. It’s this dual nature of the monad that allows it to be both “nothing” (with respect to space and time), and “something” (with respect to frequency). Leibniz didn’t have a Fourier ontology at his disposal since Fourier mathematics hadn’t yet been discovered. His way round that was to make a point metaphysical (beyond space and time, beyond physics), to treat it as a teleological Cartesian mind or entelechy, defined by an Aristotelian substantive form. All of that amounts to describing a Fourier frequency domain by other means. The following identifications can be made: 1) Physical: concerned with matter, space, time, the phenomenal, the local. 2) Metaphysical: concerned with mind, frequency, the noumenal the non-local. The metaphysical is explicitly immaterial and outside space and time, hence beyond the reach of science. Scientists think solely of a material world of space and time (although this notion disintegrates the further you go into quantum mechanics, though scientists don’t care to think about such things). What ontological mathematics does is to assert that the whole of the material world of space and time is everywhere penetrated by an invisible mental world of frequency (matter is imbued with mind or spirit, exactly as Bruno said), and it is the interaction between the spacetime and frequency domains that produces all of the “mysteries” of quantum mechanics. But these mysteries are mysteries only if you attempt to understand quantum mechanics solely vie a material, spacetime world, as scientists do. Quantum mechanics is incomprehensible in these terms, as all scientists have discovered. All of the

problems vanish as soon as you accept the existence of a frequency domain of mind, but scientists will never take this step because they deny the existence of anything not susceptible to the scientific method predicated on space, time and matter. They are hoist with their own petard, rationally destroyed by their own empirical method. They have become prisoners of their dogmatic, ideological paradigm, and now they prefer to make insane claims such as unobserved cats being simultaneously dead, alive and in mixed living-dead states rather than admit that science is wrong, and its ontology wholly false. Leibniz astutely said, “One must always explain nature along mathematical and mechanical lines, provided one knows that the very principles or laws of mechanics or of force do not depend upon mathematical extension alone but upon certain metaphysical reasons [MH: which we would now equate to unextended mathematical frequency].” But no one listened to Leibniz and the Truth. They preferred Newton, Falsehood and apparent success. Only with the advent of electromagnetism, relativity theory and quantum mechanics did the accepted logic of Newtonian physics clearly fall apart, and science has been an incoherent mess ever since. It has never grasped that the only way to become rational and logical once more is to embrace the existence of a hidden domain of mind that is present throughout every part of the spacetime, material world. Ironically, Newton’s theory of gravity – of bizarre, instantaneous action at a distance (voodoo!) – makes perfect sense as soon as you accept that the gravitational force is transmitted mentally (non-locally) rather than physically (locally). It’s an informational, not physical, force! What Leibniz needed was a way of mathematically describing unextension. This is what the immaterial frequency domain outside space and time provides. Leibniz did the best he could in the absence of the precise mathematical tools he needed for his task. In fact, it was his calculus that provided the means to devise these other tools. Leibniz, had he been reborn two hundred years later – with every mathematical tool available to him – would have saved science from the insane, irrational, indeterministic, random path it has now gone down. The closest modern figure to Leibniz was Kurt Gödel.

*****

“Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. ... I do not conceive of any reality at all as without genuine unity. ... I maintain also that substances, whether material or immaterial, cannot be conceived in their bare essence without any activity, activity being of the essence of substance in general.” – Leibniz Given a Christian world, Leibniz had to pay lip service to the notion of a Christian God. Secretly he wanted a purely mathematical “God”, defined by a God Equation: a single, all-powerful source connecting everything and defining a system of pure motion and activity, all of it being expressed through living monadic minds. Leibnizian metaphysical physics – physics underpinned by analytic, rationalist mathematical metaphysics – is exactly what science must become if it’s ever to escape the nonsense of empiricism and materialism, an ideology swallowed by infinite contingent regress.

***** Why would any rational person believe that the fundamental particles of existence are one-dimensional “strings” vibrating in an arbitrary eleven dimensional space, as science’s grandiose M-theory claims? These strings are just a guess – like everything else in science – and have no analytic necessity. Why is it that people take science’s mathematical guesses more seriously than mathematics itself, in which no guesses are involved? That’s just crazy. If you are a rational person who concludes that this is a rational, ordered cosmos – i.e. it does not behave irrationally, chaotically, unpredictably, magically, miraculously, indeterministically, acausally, erratically, without rhyme or reason – how could you arrive at any other inference than that the universe is actually made of reason, and that this is ontologically expressed as pure, analytic mathematics? The sole reason why people take seriously the claims of science in relation to ultimate reality is that they have been brainwashed by the philosophy of empiricism and materialism, and simply can’t think mathematically. Mathematics is neither empirical nor material, and that’s exactly why people regard it as an unreal abstraction. As soon as you get beyond the silly, irrational prejudice that all things that exist must be

sensory, then you realise that the only thing that can exist in a non-sensory way is mathematics, and, indeed, that this is what actually makes the whole sensory world possible. What are the senses? They are simply mathematical organs for interpreting mathematical information in a way that applies an “appearance” to mathematics, that puts “clothes” over it. If this seems an abstract idea, consider a DVD of your favourite movie. If you hold this DVD in your hand, it gives no indication at all that it contains an experience that’s going to totally WOW you. Moreover, it looks exactly the same as all the other DVDs in the world. In other words, a basic form – the form of the DVD – contains infinite different content. Exactly the same is true of mathematics. Mathematics is the basic form, but it can convey an infinite amount of different mathematical content (depending on how its constituent sinusoidal waves are combined). To understand the ontological mathematical universe, all you have to be able to grasp is that, ontologically, we do not have visible, physical DVDs to deliver all of the information present in the world. Rather, ontological mathematical sinusoids deliver 100% of the information in the universe. We can’t see, touch, smell, hear or taste these noumenal, invisible, immaterial mathematical waves that carry all of the information in the universe. Rather, what we experience is the information that these waves convey. Do you get it?! The world is divided into two: information carriers (ontological mathematical sinusoids), and the information they carry. This means that evolution had a choice to make. Should it address the information carried, or the information carrier? Plainly, the information carried is what is important to our day-to-day lives, to our survival, so our mathematical minds are totally geared up for interpreting the information carried by mathematics – in a sensory and emotional way – but NOT for understanding the mathematical carrier. In fact, we don’t even know the mathematical carrier is there. In itself, it has no sensory or emotional content whatsoever, so it can’t register with minds designed to interpret Content (the information carried) rather than Form (the information carrier). The only thing that can reveal the existence of the information carrier to us is our reason. The information carrier is intelligible, not sensible. Look at the other theories humans have constructed to explain what’s behind the scenes, to account for what gave rise to all of the information in the first place. Abrahamists (feeling types, driven by irrational faith) say

that “God”, not mathematics, is the Source of Everything, but none of them can define “God”. Eastern religious types (mystical intuitives) say that some sort of indeterminate “nonduality”, some Void, or Oneness, or cosmic consciousness, is the Source of Everything, but none of them can define any of this. Some New Agers say that “love” is the root of everything, but that’s simply bizarre. Scientists claim that something inherently sensory and physical is the root of everything – something like “strings” – but since they can’t explain where strings themselves come from, they conclude that the strings randomly jump out of non-existence for no reason (!). Once you get past all of these absurd, irrational non-answers, you see that the only rational candidate for the thing that rationally underlies everything and rationally explains everything is eternal, noumenal, ontological mathematics. We live in an information universe that we are permanently interpreting. Why is it so hard for the average human mind to grasp that this information is not freestanding – is not floating through the aether as an independent thing – but is actually carried by something. To find the answer to existence, all we are required to do is understand what carries all of the information – all of the Content – that we encounter and that we ourselves generate. The answer couldn’t be more straightforward. All Content is carried by Form, and Form is pure ontological math = analytic sinusoids. Our minds have evolved to encounter Content only. Form is exactly that which we never encounter, except via pure reason. What good would it do us to be able to “see” the mathematical Forms conveying all of the Content we encounter? Imagine you had split-screen vision. In one half, you see the familiar world. In the other, you see the mathematical sinusoids that carry the information that you interpret as the familiar world. How would that help you? It’s the most useless information conceivable. In fact, it’s not information at all, but the carrier of information. In terms of the practical details of your life, all that matters to you is the information carried to you, and not what’s carrying the information. It’s only when you are trying to work out what existence actually is – a metaphysical question – that you must delve into the domain of Form, i.e. the carrier of information rather than the information carried (Content). The carrier of sensory or emotional information cannot itself possess any

sensory or emotional aspects. So, what is the most neutral, non-sensory, immaterial, non-emotional thing you can possibly get? – mathematics. Why is mathematics popularly regarded as unreal and abstract, as nonontological? It’s because it’s the basis of all Content, the carrier of all Content, but not the Content itself. Human beings are designed by evolution to regard Content as real and concrete, hence anything that is not Content is automatically treated as unreal and abstract, and thus as not existing at all in any true sense. And that’s exactly why humans can’t conceive that reality is 100% mathematical. Look at science. Its basic claim is that the fundamental things of the material universe are themselves material. In other words, it says that information about the physical world must be conveyed by physical things. Seems logical enough, right? But if everything is physical, why aren’t our minds and thoughts physical? Why can’t we literally encounter ideas as sensory things? How can you have non-sensory things in an exclusively sensory world? Moreover, how does science explain singularities – dimensionless, immaterial, non-physical points? Singularities are where the logic of science dies, where the entire materialist paradigm collapses. Science simply cannot accommodate zero and infinity because these are non-sensory. Science cannot work! It’s an ideology that contains a fatal flaw that is revealed at singularities. Singularities, especially that of the Big Bang, tell us that physical things must have their origins in non-physical things, and that means that science’s defining claim – that only physical things can convey information – is false. Once you realise that information must be carried by non-physical things, you then arrive at an even more striking realisation ... that there is in fact nothing physical at all! “Physicality” is an interpretation – or, rather, misinterpretation – of information carried by non-physical mathematical sinusoids. Physicality is a label we apply to a certain type of information Content. Nothing is itself physical in any scientific sense. Physicality is a mathematically-generated illusion, proceeding from the ability of mathematical Fourier frequency sinusoids to produce Fourier spacetime functions. It’s all in the math. There’s nothing new about this argument, other than the fact that we have expressed it mathematically. Three hundred years ago, Bishop Berkeley definitively demonstrated that there is no such thing as matter. It’s

literally impossible to prove that matter exists, and it is in any case an entirely redundant concept, and violates Occam’s Razor. This principle tells us that we should not multiply entities unnecessarily. Given that we interpret the world entirely through our minds, why would we then posit the existence of something non-mental? Of course, materialism takes the opposite stance and makes the unbelievable claim that our minds are in fact produced by matter, although it has never even begun to explain how this can happen. It’s really very simple – can we explain the experience of physicality in exclusively non-physical terms? Of course we can – via mathematics. “Matter” is just information, and all information is mental, not physical. “Matter” is not a “thing”, it’s a label applied to a certain class of information. If you’re a sensory person – as all scientists are – you simply can’t conceive that what you perceive as physical isn’t physical at all. Nothing could be more disturbing to a sensing type than that their senses are absolutely unreliable in terms of revealing reality to them. They are seeing a mathematical construct, not reality in itself. You can’t see reality in itself because it’s completely non-sensory and non-physical. It’s pure math! But there’s nothing unreal or abstract about it. It’s reality itself, in itself, bare, raw, unshielded, stripped of all appearances, all Content. It’s purely rational and intelligible. It has nothing to do with the sensible and the emotional, and that, for most people, is an insurmountable obstacle in accepting mathematics as reality. Too bad! The Truth is not a democracy. The Truth is not populist. The Truth couldn’t care less about your feelings. Either you’re smart enough for the Truth, or you’re not. This is a binary system, a zero-sum game. There’s no half-way house. You can’t be a bit right and a bit wrong. It’s all or nothing.

***** Science: a theory of physical Form and physical Content ... physical carrier and “physical” information carried by it. Ontological Mathematics: a theory of mathematical Form and mathematical Content ... mathematical carrier and mathematical information carried by it. Mathematics is at the heart of science. Science is not at the heart of mathematics. Science says that mathematics is unreal and abstract.

Mathematics says that physicality, hence science, is unreal and abstract. Which is right? Physicality is merely a way of interpreting information that comes to us from an external source. Physicality is a label, not a thing. It’s impossible to prove that physical matter is a thing and not a label attached to an interpretation of mathematical information. Science is offensively anti-intellectual and wholly philosophically illiterate. Science is nothing but the measurement of patterns in Nature, followed by an ad hoc guessing game to match a mathematical formula to the observed pattern, all filtered through the simplistic, infantile philosophy of materialism and empiricism, which is all about “seeing is believing” and “what you see is what you get”. In fact, ultimate reality is nothing like what you see. Ultimate reality is exactly that which has no appearance at all and is permanently beyond appearance and the senses. But it’s not beyond reason and intelligence. It can be intellectually, rationally worked out. Reason and intelligence themselves are non-sensory and have no appearance. Only like can address like. A sensory subject such as science can never address non-sensory ultimate reality. The scientific method is predicated on the supposed truth of sensory existence. If ultimate existence is non-sensory – which it is – science is ipso facto false and 100% wrong in its claims about ultimate reality. What are the fundamental units of existence? – singularities with no appearance, or “strings” with some kind of appearance? It’s impossible for singularities to come from a world exclusively of strings, but the converse is not true. Singularities can produce everything. The idea of an expanding universe, which implies the existence of an originating Singularity, is entirely consistent with a mental universe, but not a physical one. A physical universe only makes sense in terms of the disproven “steady-state” models of the universe that were once very popular, and once constituted the orthodox scientific view. Einstein even devised the “cosmological constant” to force the universe to be static. Wikipedia says, “In cosmology, the cosmological constant (usually denoted by the Greek capital letter lambda: Λ) is the value of the energy density of the vacuum of space. It was originally introduced by Albert Einstein in 1917 as an addition to his theory of general relativity to ‘hold back gravity’ and achieve a static universe, which was the accepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept as his ‘greatest blunder’ after Hubble’s

1929 discovery that all galaxies outside our own Local Group are moving away from each other, implying an overall expanding universe.” Einstein was wrong that this was his greatest blunder: relativity itself was, although the world hasn’t yet cottoned on to this catastrophic error. Everything Einstein says about relativity can be reinterpreted in absolutist terms, as it indeed it was when others were formulating theories similar to his at the same time. These theories were never refuted. They merely became unfashionable and neglected.

***** There are only four ways to contemplate reality, reflecting the four Jungian mental functions: 1) Feeling types believe in love (the strongest positive emotion) as the source of all, and personalise this as a God of Love, in whom they have total faith. Abrahamists are the classical feeling types (and they also worship God’s Shadow – the Devil of Hate), and New Age hippies. 2) Intuitive types believe in mystical visions of ultimate reality, and produce grand, arcane schemes, of exactly the type we see in Eastern religion. 3) Sensing types believe implicitly in their senses, and reject everything non-sensory. This is the scientific worldview. It degenerates into infinite contingent regress since there is no necessary base to such a system (such as would be provided by non-sensory monads). Take a 1 cm ruler, and half it, and keep halving it. When will you ever reach an end to this halving process? This is the exactly the problem science has. It cannot ground reality. It cannot reach any bottom. Science even invokes mysticism, in the form of the so-called Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which, according to science’s interpretation, imposes an impenetrable blur over ultimate reality, thus converting it into a magician’s top hat, from which anything can be randomly pulled, including whole universes! If that’s not “magic”, what is?! Science is full of pseudo-intellectuals = Sophists.

4) Thinking types are either philosophers or mathematicians. Philosophers use quasi-rational arguments to defend their views. All of their claims founder on flawed assumptions, and the lack of a complete, consistent and provable system. Mathematicians use only rationalist mathematical proofs to defend their position, and are interested only in a complete and consistent system. Philosophy can be considered non-analytic rationalism (even the philosophical opponents of rationalism seek to use what they see as rational arguments against rationalism), while mathematics is analytic rationalism. Extraverts are generally sensing types, and introverts are generally intuitives. When thinkers ally their thinking to their senses, you get scientists and sophists. When thinkers ally their thinking to their intuitions, you get mathematicians and philosophers. When feeling types ally their feelings to their senses, you get Abrahamists. When feeling types ally their feelings to their intuitions, you get Eastern mysticism. Your personality type is critical in how you comprehend reality, but this does not imply relativism (i.e. one personality type’s truth is as good and true as another’s). Given that this is a rational universe, there is a strict hierarchy in terms of how close your personality type brings you to the truth: 1) Sensing feeling types (Abrahamists) are the most deluded, the most wrong and the furthest from the truth. 2) Intuitive feeling types (followers of Eastern religion) intuit some of the right answers, but cannot rationalise and place them in any coherent system. 3) Sensing thinking types (scientists and sophists) have created a system that gives them a powerful way of understanding and controlling the world of appearances (phenomena), but tells them nothing at all about the truth of the world in itself: ultimate noumenal reality. 4) Intuitive thinking types (mathematicians and philosophers) are the closest to the Truth, with the rationalist, ontological mathematicians being the closest of all (in fact, being correct!).

So, where are you in the hierarchy? If you have the wrong personality type, you had better start training your mind to adapt the habits and operations of a different type. For example, if you’re a scientifically-minded person, you had better start getting mathematical, and seeing mathematics rather than undefinable “matter” as the source of everything. Materialism is simply wrong. That’s a fact. So is Abrahamism, so is Eastern religion, so is most of philosophy, and so is abstract mathematics. Only ontological mathematics is true. To become enlightened, you must overcome all of the false beliefs with which you are surrounded. You must accept that non-sensory mathematical singularities are the basis of reality, and at the end of everything. That is the Truth. There is no other. Singularities are monads. They are living minds = souls. This is Soul World, not Material World. The mathematical method, not the scientific method, reveals the Truth of Soul World. This is a rational universe, and reason is how it must be explored at its ultimate level. Reason, ontologically, is simply mathematics. To say that we live in a rational universe is to say we live in a mathematical universe. Only a rational, mathematical universe is intelligible and has a formal, analytic answer. Everything else is speculation and moonshine. This is the Gospel of the Illuminati.

***** If you find yourself in an argument with a New Age Hippie, you simply need to ask them if the universe is rational or irrational. If they agree that it’s rational, then they are forced to admit that reason and mathematics are the way to explore it. If they claim it’s irrational then you can immediately tell them that all of their arguments are irrational, and one irrational argument is as good as another, so all of their opinions are formally worthless. Anyone who argues for an irrational universe automatically subscribes to relativism and denies that the universe has a specific answer. All irrationalists will refer to the authenticity of their “experiences”, but these don’t prove anything. They are just personal anecdotes, beliefs and opinions.

*****

As soon as you accept the existence of monads (= minds/souls), you have automatically rejected scientific materialism and the scientific method. You are a rationalist, not an empiricist; you are an idealist, not a materialist; you are a mathematician, not a scientist; you are a metaphysicist, not a physicist; you are a determinist, not an indeterminist. You therefore reject all scientific interpretations of reality, and you attribute the unarguable success of science (in relation to the world of appearances) purely to the fact that it uses mathematics as its engine. Science, without mathematics, would be an outright religion. It would in fact be medieval Alchemy. All of the most careful observations and experiments conceivable wouldn’t elevate science above soothsaying and divination. Science, an empiricist subject, is 100% reliant on mathematics, the quintessential rationalist subject. Why does no scientist find that a fatal contradiction? Why does no scientist think about it at all? Not one scientist has ever written a scientific paper explaining what mathematics is and why it’s essential to science (much more so than the empirical scientific method). There is no stranger fact than that science uses mathematics while having no idea what mathematics is, yet claims to be able to explain the world and reality to us. If it can’t even explain itself, how can it explain anything else? And, of course, it can’t. Science is just an enormous, systematic misinterpretation of reality, resulting from privileging the senses over reason. Scientists are ferociously anti-intellectual, anti-rational, and philosophically illiterate – and don’t realise it. These clowns actually think they are on the side of reason. They are absolutely deluded. They are on the side of the senses and the sensible, not of reason and the intelligible.

***** It was a shame that Descartes said that mind was unextended and matter extended because this gave materialists the chance to claim that mind was nothing at all, and thus they just got rid of it. What Descartes should have said was that mind was unextended (“nothing”) only in relation to space and time, but it was very much “something” in relation to the mental world outside space and time. That mental world is, as we now know, the world of frequencies, and is a profound, analytic, mathematical domain.

The catastrophic error of science is to imagine that everything must belong to space and time. As soon as you realise that the immaterial frequency domain outside space and time is Leibniz’s world of monads and Descartes’ world of minds, you realise how false and wrong science is. It’s a grotesque mathematical error. For ideological reasons, science has denied the existence of the monadic singularities (Fourier frequency minds) that define existence. You simply can’t get a bigger error or a more serious misinterpretation of mathematical ontology. The even worse realisation is this ... science has no means to correct itself since it doesn’t rely on reason but on the irrational senses, and the singularity domain is exactly what the senses can’t conceive. Science is as bad as Abrahamism or Karmism. It’s a system of faith that has no mechanism for challenging itself. Mathematics, on the other hand, is analytic and precise, and can prove every single thing that is ontologically possible mathematically.

***** It’s said that you can’t change the truth, but the truth can change you. You certainly can’t change the Truth, but you can easily change truth (i.e. what the average person believes to be true). This is constantly changing, mutating and evolving, with no end in sight. Science is full of truth, but has no Truth. In fact, Truth will almost certainly not change you because most people have no relationship with the Truth and don’t believe in it. People are much more likely to be changed by “truth”, i.e. by belief, opinions and Mythos that they find personally and emotionally persuasive to them. Why don’t we just leave Truth out of this? Truth is mathematics, and mathematics is universally rejected as Truth! Such is the fate of Truth.

***** If you want to form some kind of mental picture of a monad and how it relates to spacetime, the Riemann Sphere is the best starting point. Below is Encyclopedia Britannica’s depiction of this object:

The Riemann Sphere “This model of the Riemann sphere has its south pole resting on the origin of the complex plane. Each point on the surface of the Riemann sphere corresponds to a unique point in the complex plane and vice versa. This is indicated by the rays extending from the sphere’s north pole through some point on the sphere’s surface and through some point in the plane. Because a ray that is tangent to the north pole does not intersect the complex plane, the north pole corresponds to infinity.” – Encyclopedia Britannica Imagine the monad as an autonomous Fourier frequency domain, extending from zero to infinity, and the complex plane as spacetime (with real numbers corresponding to space and imaginary numbers to time). Aside from the infinity point, we have a one-to-one mapping between points on the sphere and points on the plane, i.e. the monadic mind is in touch with the entirety of “physical” spacetime. The great mystery of existence, and of mathematics, revolves around the “point at infinity” (the infinity point, vanishing point). This is where all of the weird things associated with singularities and the collapse of the scientific materialist paradigm occur. It’s not that the mathematics falls apart, it’s more a question of the difficulty in interpreting the mathematics in human terms. In effect, this is where infinite series and infinite integrals (i.e. those going from zero to infinity) play out, and why we can use them in the real world. Every point in the plane has to pass through the sphere to get to the infinity point, except for all points at infinity on the plane, which are directly connected to the infinity point, without passing through the sphere. Most of the problems of infinity concern how to interpret this fact. What is its precise ontological meaning? In a sense, we are addressing the fundamental ontological link between points and lines, lines and circles,

circles and planes, and planes and spheres. Are all infinities actually convergent on a single, compacted point – the supreme Singularity? The Riemann Sphere makes infinitely many points on a plane compact by ensuring that they all map back to a single point (at infinity). In this way, we can see how a Singularity can control a physical universe, and how individual singularities (monads) can likewise map to the whole of the “material” universe. A monadic mind can easily control a body. In fact, if it put its mind to it, it could affect the whole universe! (But the same capacity is open to all other monads, of course – and thus we get a dialectical conflict.)

***** 2. There must be simple substances, since there are compounds; and compounds are nothing other than heaps or aggregates of simples.

***** Any compound is made of parts, and all the parts are in turn made of parts. Logically, if we keep working backwards, we must arrive at one of the following positions: 1) Infinite contingent regress (a “bottomless” system). 2) An abstract, unreal “wavefunction”, of the type advocated in Copenhagen quantum mechanics. 3) Non-existence, imbued with the power of spontaneous, random, miraculous creation. 4) The Abrahamic God. 5) The “Oneness” of Eastern religion. 6) Indivisible, physical, extended atoms (of the type the ancient Greek Atomists advocated); this is the essence of true materialism. 7) Indivisible, mental, unextended atoms (monads); this is the essence of true idealism (and panpsychism). Given that Leibniz saw no logical reason why any extended atom should not be divisible, it was inevitable, in his system, that the sequence must end

with logically indivisible atoms – atoms with no extension at all. So, monads must be ontological mathematical points. The question then arises of how any extended thing can be compounded from unextended points. The answer lies in Fourier motion, i.e. Fourier mathematics applied to motion. The unextended points of ontological mathematics are actually autonomous frequency domains, which involve infinite points in eternal dimensionless motion. This dimensionless motion can, via Fourier mathematics, be translated into dimensional motion involving space and time (with time just being imaginary space). Motion, in the dimensionless domain, produces no net dimensionality. However, motion, in the dimensional domain, creates an effective dimensionality. This is because points in motion are never at any particular location but are always in the act of moving from one location to the next, hence they have a tiny but finite extension (we might say that they are smeared across several locations at once). It’s exactly this miniscule extension from which all of the things of the extended, material world are ultimately constructed. In the dimensionless world, the effects of this infinitesimal extension average out to zero thanks to symmetry; in the dimensional world they average out to zero too, but in a much more complex way thanks to asymmetry and antisymmetry, and that in fact is the difference between the two domains. As ever, it’s all in the math, and correctly interpreting the math.

***** 3. Extension, shape, and divisibility are possible only where there are parts. So these monads are the genuine atoms of Nature, and (in a word) the elements of things.

***** “Atom” means “that which is indivisible”, “corpuscle” means “tiny body,” and “particle” means “tiny part.” Classical materialist atomists (corpuscularians) claim that the smallest parts of matter must themselves be material and thus have shape, size (extension) and mass. The building-blocks of macroscopic objects, according to classical materialists, are indivisible microscopic objects of the same nature as the macroscopic objects. This position has in fact been definitively refuted by

quantum mechanics where particles in the classical sense do not exist at all but instead reduce to mysterious “wavefunctions” describing probabilities of where a particle might be and what its momentum might be. Via Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, a particle’s position and momentum cannot both be precisely specified at once, which contradicts the accepted concept of what a material particle is. If a material particle is not a clearly defined, unambiguous thing with a definite position and momentum then it’s simply not a material thing at all. Moreover, if we ourselves are constructed from quantum particles (as indeed we are) then we ourselves partake of the extremely mysterious immaterial properties of the quantum domain. No matter which of the many different interpretations of quantum mechanics you accept, none of them gives any comfort at all to those who believe that we are solid material objects made of solid, material elementary particles. Quantum mechanics is simply not part of the materialist paradigm, which makes it even more extraordinary that 100% of practising scientists are materialists! They therefore have a religious attitude to materialism: they go on believing even when it has been formally refuted, and endless evidence and proof have been provided to show its falsity. Quantum mechanics has no connection whatsoever with materialist thinking. Quantum mechanics fundamentally denies the existence of matter. It’s much more compatible with idealism than materialism, though every scientist refuses to accept this fact. If we have a body consisting of two atoms, we can decompose it into the two individual atoms. For example, we can decompose a hydrogen molecule into two hydrogen atoms. However, what happens when we attempt to divide into two halves a single hydrogen atom? According to the classical atomists, this was impossible since fundamental atoms are indivisible. This implies a force in nature that is infinitely resistive to atomic division, but infinite forces play no part in the materialist paradigm. Indeed, they are explicitly forbidden since infinite force would tear anything finite to shreds. Infinite forces can have no natural explanation in a finite, material world, hence are formally “miraculous”. They can’t play any part in scientific materialism. In modern atomic physics, we can divide a hydrogen atom into an electron and proton, we can divide a proton into quarks and gluons. Then we can go further back to the Higgs boson, and then, possibly, further back,

all the way to hypothetical “strings”. However, even when we reach these strings, we are faced with the same old problem ... why can’t we divide a string into two halves? What mysterious and miraculous force is preventing it? It mustn’t be an infinite force. What science does is to define a “Planck scale” where macroscopic space and time, which seem completely smooth, are themselves rendered “atomic” – irreducibly grainy. The Planck length is the smallest possible length definable within the existing scientific paradigm, and the Planck time is the smallest possible time. Hypothetical smaller lengths and times are said to be meaningless. They are not reachable. What science has done is simply translate the old problem of division into new jargon. We can now ask why we can’t halve the Planck length or Planck time. What mysterious, miraculous force prevents it? Only an infinite, immaterial force could prevent continuous division, but such a force can play no part in materialism, so materialism can’t explain why we can’t keep dividing. Throwing a veil of “uncertainty” over reality at the smallest scale is nothing but a classic scientific subterfuge. The whole thrust of Leibniz’s philosophy is that the smallest possible atom must be unextended, not extended, and, this being the case, the true atoms of existence are mental and not physical (as science erroneously claims).

***** 4. Furthermore, there is no question of their being broken up, and there is no conceivable way in which a simple substance could naturally cease to exist.

***** You can’t break up anything that has no detachable parts. You can’t annihilate “nothing”. You can’t destroy a mathematical point.

***** 5. For the same reason, there is no conceivable way in which any simple substance could naturally come into being, since it could not be put together out of parts.

***** Since a simple substance cannot come into being through the putting together of contingent parts (since it has no contingent parts), it must always have existed. So, no new monads ever come into being, and no existing monads ever go out of being. This is in accordance with the First Law of thermodynamics. Monads are neither created nor destroyed, only transformed in their internal nature.

***** 6. So you can say that monads can only come in or out of being all at once. In other words, they can come into being only by creation, and go out of being only by annihilation. By contrast, compounds come in or out of being through their parts.

***** Of course, Leibniz had to talk of monads being “created” by God in order to remain an apparently faithful Christian. In reality, monads must be uncreated and eternal. They cannot be annihilated by anyone or anything. All compounds, on the other hand, are created from contingent parts, and all will be annihilated in due course when the contingent parts separate. It’s absolutely critical to understand that reality comprises necessary basis atoms and the contingent compounds created from their different combinations. Compounds come and go, but the necessary atoms are there forever. Science is all about both contingent compounds and contingent atoms, hence has no necessary base, no “bottom”, which is why science ultimately claims that existence randomly jumps out of non-existence for no reason. Science is an irrational and unintelligible system, as is any system that has no necessary foundations. If you agree with science, you are ipso facto an irrationalist.

***** 7. In addition, there is no way of explaining how a monad could be internally altered or changed by some other created being. The reason is that there is nothing which can be moved from one position to

another, and it is impossible to conceive of any internal motion, which could be set up, redirected, increased, or diminished inside it. By contrast, this is possible in compounds, since they have parts which can change position. Monads have no windows to let anything in or out by. Accidents cannot detach themselves from substances, or travel around independently of them, as the ‘sensible species’ of the scholastics used to do. Consequently, neither substances nor accidents can get into a monad from outside.

***** All of the above follows from Leibniz’s doctrine of monads being “windowless”, hence incapable of interacting with each other. However, in his true philosophy, monads are windowed and can interact. They interact with each other via their mathematical relations. In modern Illuminism, each monad provides a complete, consistent and necessary set of analytic sinusoids, and it’s these eternal, necessary “notes” that combine to produce the contingent “music” of existence. Each monad can interact with other monads by sharing their “notes”, thus creating collectively produced music. Imagine the universe as comprising infinite pianos or violins. Each instrument can play on its own, but the instruments can also play together. So it is with mathematical monads and their mathematical relations.

***** 8. On the other hand, monads must have some qualities, otherwise they wouldn’t be beings at all. And if simple substances didn’t have different qualities, there would be no way in which we could become conscious of any change in things. This is because whatever there is in compounds can only come from their simple ingredients. But if monads were without qualities, it would be impossible to distinguish one from another, since they are not quantitatively different either. Given that there is no empty space, this has the consequence that, whenever there was any motion, it would always be the case that each part of space only received a motion which was equivalent to the motion it had before. So it follows that the one state of things would be indiscernible from the other.

***** Given that monads do not possess quantitative characteristics in materialist terms (e.g. they have no size, shape, or motion), they are not quantitatively different from each other. They are, however, qualitatively different because of their internal frequency activity, which is always radically different from monad to monad (i.e. each monadic mind is having different, unique thoughts).

***** 9. It is even necessary for every monad to be different from every other monad. For in Nature there are never two beings which are perfectly similar to each other, and where it is impossible to find any internal difference – that is, a difference grounded in an intrinsic denomination.

***** All monads are unique. Space and time do not exist as independent entities. They are actually derived from minds (monads). Monads are not themselves spatio-temporal entities (they are immaterial frequency entities outside space and time), but they provide the context for space and time via Fourier mathematics. Space and time supply a principle of individuation. Without space and time, how is individuation possible? Only through an internal principle, unrelated to space and time. Monads are different because of what’s inside them, because of their unique contents, their unique thoughts.

***** 10. I also take it as agreed that every created being is subject to change. Consequently, this is also true of every created monad, and even that this change is continuous in each of them.

***** Everything is changing all the time. Matter changes via motion, and all matter is always in motion. Mind changes via thought and mind is always

thinking. “Thinking” is simply mental motion. It’s the analogue of physical motion. Mind has laws of motion just as matter does. Mental laws of motion concern frequency, and material laws of motion concern spacetime. For Leibniz, matter is a mixture of “primitive passive power” (inertia and solidity) and “primitive active power” (energy). Leibniz was in fact the person who introduced the concept of kinetic energy to science. Through this active energy, one body can act on another. In Leibniz’s system, energy is actualized – expressed – through motion. Energy and motion are effectively synonymous. Energy is simply that which has motion. Physically, it’s the motion of a body; mentally, it’s the motion of a mind (thinking). Motion is mandatory in everything. There are no stationary things. Anything stationary does not exist! If any moving thing could stop, it would cease to exist. The notion that things are stationary is purely illusory. Anything stationary in space is moving through time. Anything stationary in time is moving through space. Anything stationary in spacetime is moving within the frequency domain of mind. Moreover, if matter results from minds, and minds are always in motion – via thought – then moving matter is the product of thought! This is an idealist universe, not materialist.

***** 11. It follows from what I have just said, that the natural changes to which monads are subject come from an internal principle, since no external cause could influence the inside of a monad.

***** There are two ways to think of a monad: on its own and as part of the ensemble of all monads. A monad on its own has its own “internal principle” – its own nature, character, personality – that drives it forward in a characteristic way. Human beings don’t behave randomly. They behave, the vast majority of the time, “in character”. When they are not in character, it’s because their “shadow” has been activated (through stress, extreme emotion, etc.), and even their shadow in fact operates characteristically.

We can also think of all monads together as obeying an “internal principle”. However, the internal principle in this case is of a rather different character. Rather than obeying a subjective inner principle, the whole ensemble obeys an objective inner principle. In other words, we strip out all of the subjective elements of each monad in the ensemble, and what we are left with are the elements that all monads have in common. These are none other than the laws of objective mathematics, which come built into every monad. These are what we know as the objective laws of science. The monadic ensemble operates as a perfect, objective mathematical machine, while all the individual monads within it are living subjects. This is why we experience the “world” as an impersonal system of inexorable “scientific” laws, and yet we can act freely within it. Individual monads are subjects; the monadic collective in its unified operations is an object, a machine, devoid of subjective content. If you reject subjectivity, as scientists do, you will of course then treat the universe as purely objective. Scientists lack the intelligence and reason to understand what’s really going on. The spectacular problem of science is that it refuses to engage in any philosophy and, in fact, openly scorns philosophy. If you perform nothing but objective experiments, you will soon enough convince yourself that there’s no such thing as subjectivity – even though you yourself are an archetypal subject. Is there anything more perverse than human beings who act freely every day convincing themselves that their free will is an illusion? It takes a kind of autistic, computerized mind – lacking all imagination, intuition and basic rationalism – to reach such an absurd conclusion. Leibniz says, “...no external cause could influence the inside of a monad.” This changes when we allow monads to interact. A monad – like a violin – can be played on its own. But it can also be part of an orchestra, in which case it’s completely affected by other monads, and continuously interacting with them. This collective “music” is conducted via Fourier mathematics, something unknown to Leibniz because it was still to be discovered. To make sense of the Monadology in modern terms, all you are required to do is consider monads in terms of the generalised Euler Formula and Fourier mathematics. It’s just pure ontological, noumenal, analytic mathematics.

***** 12. But in addition to the principle of change, there must also be a precise specification of that which changes; and this precise specification, so to speak, individualises simple substances, and makes them different from each other.

***** Leibniz, in trying to carry off a defence of something consistent with orthodox Christianity has to be capable of explaining God’s supposed foreknowledge of all things. It’s no good, in such a scheme, to say that monads freely drive themselves – because then God will have no idea what they will do next. To get round this, Leibniz depicted God as a cosmic computer programmer who programmed each and every monad – in perfect harmony with each other right from the first instant of Creation – and thus he had complete knowledge of everything that would happen in the universe. In another sense, this kind of God is like a novelist, playwright or screenplay writer. Every character in a novel, play or film is in some sense autonomous with well-defined, unique characteristics (if the author has done a good job), and yet all of the characters are in fact created by one overarching mind that’s using them all as puppets to achieve a specific end – a superb novel, play or movie. In many ways, Leibniz’s God is the ultimate author producing the ultimate fiction – the “best of all possible worlds”, the best novel/play/film cosmically possible, with the most tension and suspense, and the best conceivable climax. Why does God create evil? Because it serves the drama; it makes the product more perfect. Leibniz’s all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing God achieves all of that by being the cosmic programmer or writer who designed the whole thing in every detail right from the start, and specified everything that could possibly happen, including the ending. Every monad moves along its own track, doing exactly what was programmed for it, or scripted for it. It doesn’t need to interact with any other monad; it just needs to execute its own internal code or recite its own lines. It’s “free” insofar as, once it is created, nothing outside it can possibly constrain or change any of its actions. However, given that it was created with a full set of instructions

that it can never disobey, then, in the bigger scheme of things, it’s the most unfree thing there can possibly be. Freedom is of course impossible if “God” has complete foreknowledge. Monads are unique to the extent that each and every one has been perfectly tailored by God to play its perfect part in the perfect cosmic drama. In many ways, God is simply an author or programmer who does his work and then sits back to watch his fiction or his program unfold, exactly as he designed it. He simply admires his Creation. He is never surprised by it. This monadic system changes entirely if God is removed and monads are defined as uncaused and uncreated. Monads in this case are genuinely free, and, moreover, capable of interacting with each other. In Leibniz’s secret Monadology, he analysed “windowed” monads (as opposed to windowless monads), and uncreated monads (as opposed to created monads). The beauty of Leibniz’s system is that all of its parameters can be varied in turn, and the different consequences examined. Contrast that with science, with its infinite contingent regress, and total lack of analytic principles.

***** 13. This precise specification must include a multiplicity within a unity (or something simple). For since every natural change happens gradually, something changes and something remains. Consequently, a simple substance must contain a multiplicity of affections and relations, even though it does not contain any parts.

***** Here, Leibniz is explaining that even as things change, they do so against a background that remains largely the same at any instant. Consider yourself. You have no resemblance to how you were as a baby. Even most of the atoms that belonged to you then have gone and been replaced by new atoms (that you got from food, drink and the air). Your appearance changes a tiny bit each day and, by the time you are 100, you will look entirely different from how you did at 10. Yet your mind has retained a common identity during all of that change and doesn’t seem to have aged at all. Some things

are changing rapidly, some slowly and some are barely changing at all. Moreover, each monad must reflect the pre-established harmony that “God” has created between all monads, and thus contain “a multiplicity of affections and relations, even though it does not contain any parts.” Leibniz does not explain how a monad can contain a multiplicity despite its absence of parts. In modern Illuminism, this is achieved via the sinusoids of which the monad is composed. The crucial distinction to be made is that these are not contingent but necessary parts: none can be removed from the definition of the monad. A monad’s sinusoids comprise a complete and consistent set, and have an absolutely and necessary net effect of zero, the ground state of the universe. It’s not a question of a monad having no parts, so much as having no resultant parts.

***** 14. The transitory state which includes and represents a multiplicity within a unity (or simple substance) is nothing other than what is called perception. However, this must be clearly distinguished from apperception or consciousness, as will appear later. The Cartesians went seriously wrong here, since they did not recognise the existence of unconscious perceptions. It is also what led them to believe that only rational beings were monads, and that there were no animal souls or other entelechies. Again, it made them confuse a long state of unconsciousness with death in the strict sense (like ordinary folk); which also led them into the scholastic prejudice of souls entirely separate from bodies, and even reinforced the opinion of some people with twisted minds that souls are mortal.

***** Here, Leibniz becomes the first true philosopher of the unconscious and paves the way for the like of Schopenhauer, Hartmann, Freud and Jung. According to Descartes, the soul can have only conscious perceptions. For Leibniz, it can have conscious and unconscious perceptions. So, for Descartes, only conscious beings – humans and angels – have souls. For Leibniz, any entity, conscious or unconscious, can have a soul. Leibniz referred to three kinds of souls:

1) The most basic souls are bare monads. These are “unclear” and correspond to Aristotelian formless matter. So, in this view, an inert lump of matter is really derived from bare monads, these being non-conscious. 2) The next level of souls are the clearer monads associated with distinct signs of life, extending up from vegetative (plant) life to lower and then higher animals. Animal souls have sensation, emotion and motivation. These monads are unconscious, or, we might say, pre-conscious. 3) The next level of souls are the even clearer “spirits” that have consciousness and reason. Humans are the lowest spirits, angels are higher, and God is the highest. God’s soul is perfectly clear while every soul beneath him suffers from increasing unclearness. Clearness corresponds to actualization (Aristotelian form), and unclearness to potential (Aristotelian matter). The unclearest souls are pure potential and zero actualization (all matter and no form), while the clearest soul (of God) is complete actualization and zero potential (all form and no matter). For Leibniz, each monad could be considered to have a kind of material body (its unclear part) and a mind (its clear part). Death, therefore, could not involve a complete separation of the body and immaterial soul, since this would imply that a soul was completely clear, hence Godlike. In the Aristotelian understanding of reality, only God is pure form, hence has no body.

***** 15. The action of the internal principle which brings about change (i.e. the transition from one perception to another) can be called appetition. It is true that appetite cannot always completely attain the whole perception it is aiming for, but it always obtains something of it, and arrives at new perceptions.

*****

“Appetition” or “appetite” is Leibniz’s term to describe how one mental state brings about the next. It has an appetite for it, so to speak. We might also call it Will to Power since it’s a drive, a desire, for higher states. It’s an arrow towards greater perfection. It’s teleological. A monad experiences a stream of unconsciousness, and, depending on its degree of clarity, of consciousness too.

***** 16. We ourselves experience a multiplicity in a simple substance, when we find that the least thought of which we are conscious includes a variegation within its object. So anyone who accepts that the soul is a simple substance must accept this multiplicity within the monad. Bayle should not find any difficulty over this, as he does in his Dictionary, in the article on Rorarius.

***** Souls have multiple mental processes occurring within them. They are mental “internets”.

***** 17. Besides, it must be admitted that perception, and anything that depends on it, cannot be explained in terms of mechanistic causation – that is, in terms of shapes and motions. Let us pretend that there was a machine, which was constructed in such a way as to give rise to thinking, sensing, and having perceptions. You could imagine it expanded in size (while retaining the same proportions), so that you could go inside it, like going into a mill. On this assumption, your tour inside it would show you the working parts pushing each other, but never anything which would explain a perception. So perception is to be sought, not in compounds (or machines), but in simple substances. Furthermore, there is nothing to be found in simple substances, apart from perceptions and their changes. Again, all the internal actions of simple substances can consist in nothing other than perceptions and their changes.

***** For Leibniz, mental states drive new mental states. They are not caused by mechanical causation (as materialists claim even in this age of quantum mechanics where the concept of matter has fallen apart). Leibniz is posing the question of how a machine could ever produce qualia. How could a machine have experiences, sensations, feelings? Where would these manifest themselves in the machinery? It’s a category error to link objective machinery to subjective experience. No amount of inspecting, probing and studying matter will ever reveal the “withinness”, the subjective interior of things and what goes on there. You can encounter one part of a Leibnizian “Mind Machine” (Mind Mill) pushing or pulling another part, but you will never see a perception or thought being produced. So, where are these occurring? They’re plainly not in the material world at all. If they were, we could detect them. Perceptions cannot be generated by machines, but only by minds. Isn’t that staggeringly obvious? ... but not to scientists! All that exists in minds are perceptions and thoughts, one leading to another. All that exists in matter are mechanical parts pulling and pushing each other. You cannot produce thoughts via mechanical pushing and pulling. Why would scientists imagine that you can?

***** 18. You could call all simple substances, or created monads, entelechies, since they have within themselves a certain perfection (echousi to enteles [in Greek]). There is a certain self-sufficiency (autarkeia), which makes them the source of their internal actions, and (so to speak) incorporeal automata.

***** Monads are driven by an inner principle that yearns for completion, wholeness, perfection. Monads/entelechies are uncaused causes, hence they are self-sufficient. Monads are simple substances without compound bodies, hence are “incorporeal”.

***** 19. If we are willing to give the name ‘soul’ to everything which has perceptions and appetites (in the general sense I have just explained), then all created simple substances (monads) could be called ‘souls’. But since sensation is something more than simple perception, I am prepared to accept that the general name ‘monad’ or ‘entelechy’ is sufficient for simple substances which only have simple perceptions, and that we should reserve the name ‘soul’ for those which have more distinct perceptions accompanied by memory.

***** All monads are souls, but some are more highly evolved than others. Some are more, “spiritual”, “intellectual”, “rational”. They have more nous.

***** 20. We experience within ourselves a state in which we remember nothing, and have no distinct perceptions – for example, when we fall into a faint, or are overcome by a deep sleep without any dreams. In this state, the soul is not discernibly different from a simple monad. But the soul is something more than a simple substance, since this state does not persist, and the soul can emerge from it.

***** With regard to mind, Descartes always had consciousness in mind. Leibniz, however, talks about unconscious perception and mental activity. Thus Leibniz can confer souls on animals, and even plants and organic substances, in a way which is impossible for Descartes. Descartes literally thought of animals as soulless automata – just biological machines. Scientific materialists more or less hold this view even regarding humans.

***** 21. It certainly does not follow that simple substances are without any perceptions. This is not even possible, for the reasons I have already

given. Simple substances cannot cease to exist; but it is also the case that they cannot continue to exist without some affections, which are nothing other than their perceptions. However, when there is a large number of little perceptions, with nothing distinguished from anything else, we are in a state of unconsciousness. For example, if we keep on spinning round in the same direction many times without stopping, we suffer from a dizziness which can make us faint, and prevent us from distinguishing anything. Death can temporarily put animals into this state.

***** Souls have continuous mental activity. Descartes claimed that if a soul weren’t consciously thinking, it would cease to exist. Leibniz thought likewise, except thinking in his scheme is unconscious as well as conscious. Minds simply are thinking entities and without that thinking they wouldn’t be minds, hence wouldn’t exist. In order for us to be conscious, we have to be conscious of something; we must be directing our attention towards a particular thing. However, if our mind is full of “little perceptions”, which are jumbled and confused, we are not conscious of one thing rather than another, hence we are not conscious at all in Leibniz’s terms. An unconscious mind does not and cannot focus and reflect on one thing. An unconscious mind can be multitasking, but not in any clever, planned, deliberate way (which would require conscious attention).

***** 22. In the natural course of events, every present state of a simple substance is the consequence of its preceding state; and similarly its present state is pregnant with the future.

***** This amounts to a statement of cause and effect. The present (the cause) is always pregnant with the future (the effect). If we acknowledge a final, strategic teleological cause drawing us all towards it via tactical, “efficient” causes, then the future – our purpose – imbues all of our actions.

In Leibniz’s programmed universe, everything a monad will do is already coded within it. Any state is defined by the preceding state, and in turn dictates the subsequent state. Every future state could be deduced from any current state (if one had a Godlike understanding). All future states are coded into programmed monads. These states are simply waiting to be released (actualised).

***** 23. When you wake out of a period of unconsciousness, you become conscious of your perceptions. Consequently, you must have been perceiving before (even though you were not conscious of the fact), since, in the natural course of events, a perception can only arise from a previous perception – just as, in the natural course of events, a motion can only arise from a previous motion.

***** This is a critical idea. You don’t suddenly have consciousness, without any prior mental states. Human babies aren’t conscious, but clearly they have mental activity. The same is true of all animals. Descartes held that consciousness is a constant state and is what defines mind, and therefore denied that animals (as unconscious creatures) had minds, hence they must be merely ingenious machines. Anyone who accepts that animals have functioning minds thereby acknowledges the existence and power of the unconscious. A human being can never stop thinking. If we are not consciously thinking in a waking or dreaming state then we are thinking unconsciously. Moreover, these unconscious thoughts will provide the basis of our consciousness. Our consciousness is, in effect, the ability to select and focus on one of the unconscious strands of thinking that are taking place all of the time. Which one will we focus on? For most people, it will be the one to which they have the most powerful emotional response. A conscious mind that has awoken from deep sleep does not go from having no perceptions to having perceptions; rather, it always has perceptions but it goes from being unconscious of them to conscious of them.

Your first conscious perception of the day is preceded by an unconscious perception. You cannot be woken up by something unless you had already perceived it unconsciously. It’s not your conscious mind that first reacts to your alarm going off. It’s your unconscious mind that detects the alarm and wakes you up, allowing you to then become conscious of the alarm. The mind does not require consciousness in order to function.

***** 24. From this, you can see that we would be in a perpetual state of unconsciousness, if our perceptions contained nothing distinct, or (so to speak) highlighted, or spicier. And this is the state which completely bare monads are in.

***** Leibniz is saying that consciousness is about “highlighting” a particular mental content, about selecting one content from the other, competing contents. Consciousness is about attention, about being able to decide to attend to one thing rather than others, about being able to prioritize. Animals prioritize instinctively; humans prioritize through reflection and deliberation. Animals have no strategic planning ability, only tactical planning driven by instinct. Humans can plan both tactically and strategically. Unconscious content always continues regardless of the absence of consciousness. Even if a particular mental content hasn’t been selected for our attention, it continues to develop; it isn’t suddenly terminated and it doesn’t suddenly cease to exist. Our minds are multi-threaded. Numerous things are going on at once (parallel processing), but only one thing can be consciously tracked at once (sequential processing). Intuition is where we get the “big picture” provided by numerous parallel strands all at once and manage to bring it back into sequential consciousness. Intuition is our ability to scan numerous processing threads simultaneously and discover their common link, their unifying pattern. “Bare monads” – the souls, so to speak, of lumps of rock – have no clear, distinct sensations or perceptions ... no particular ideas they wish to pursue. We might say that their level of thinking is purely that of objective

mathematics (so they are “scientific entities”). They exhibit no subjectivity, no causal agency, no free will. They do things like machines rather than as living organisms with purposes.

***** 25. We also see that Nature has given heightened perceptions to animals, through the care it has taken to supply them with sense organs, which bring together many rays of light or waves in the air, to make them more effective by being united. There is something similar in the senses of smell, taste, and touch, and perhaps also many other senses which are unknown to us. I shall shortly explain how what happens in the soul represents what occurs in the sense organs.

***** The function of sense organs is to concentrate information, so that one object becomes highlighted, and distinguished from the confused background. It’s like the difference between simply exposing photographic film to the light, and exposing it to the light through the lens of a camera. Elsewhere, Leibniz makes the suggestion that there may be senses of which we are unaware. Perhaps this is an echo of Spinoza’s doctrine that God has infinitely many attributes of which we are unaware. If there are infinitely many perceptions of which we are not conscious, who is to say that they would be of the same kind as the ones we are conscious of? For example, we know that there are forces such as magnetism, which we cannot perceive directly with our senses. But if we have unconscious perceptions of everything that happens in the universe, we must at least have a confused perception of magnetism. It just so happens that we have no sense organ for detecting magnetism. If we did, we would have distinct perceptions of magnetic fields (in some way we cannot conceive), such that it would add to the richness of our perceptions.

***** 26. Memory supplies souls with a sort of following of one thing from another, which imitates reasoning, but which must be distinguished from it. It is like this. We see that, if animals have had a previous

perception of something which struck them forcibly, when they later have a similar perception, the representation of it in their memory leads them to expect whatever was associated with it in the earlier perception, and to have feelings similar to the ones they had before. For example, when you show dogs the stick, they remember the pain it has caused them, and they bark or run away.

***** Here, Leibniz anticipates Pavlov’s dogs and operant conditioning. Dogs are able to perform an instinctive form of reasoning, based on simple associations of pleasure and pain with various external stimuli.

***** 27. Imagery powerful enough to strike them forcibly and rouse them to activity, is the result either of the strength or of the number of the preceding perceptions. Often a single powerful impression has the same effect immediately, as the effect of a long habituation, that is, the repetition of many weaker perceptions.

***** The more vivid a stimulus, the more forcibly it makes an impression. In an “attention economy”, the strongest stimuli make the most impact and get the most attention. This is the basis of viral marketing.

***** 28. People behave in the same way as animals in so far as the following of one perception from another occurs only in accordance with the principle of memory. They are like the doctors of the empirical school of medicine, who rely on practical experience alone, without any theorising. Three-quarters of the time, our behaviour is purely like that of the empiricists. For example, when we expect the sun to rise tomorrow, we are behaving as empiricists, since that is what has always happened up till now. It is only astronomers who come to this judgment on the basis of reasoning.

***** Stupid human beings are like animals, and they reason in the same way – instinctively. The more rational you are, the less of an animal you are.

***** 29. But it is knowledge of necessary and eternal truths which distinguishes us from mere animals, and which gives us reason and the sciences, by elevating us to knowledge of ourselves and of God. This is what in us is called the ‘rational soul’, or spirit.

***** The only authentic knowledge is “knowledge of necessary and eternal truths”. Only these truths are infallible, absolute, immutable, indisputable and Platonically perfect. It is knowledge of such truths that separates rationalists from empiricists, rationalists from believers, and Logos thinkers from the Mythos mob. Only “rational souls” – spirits, those souls that demonstrate the highest nous – are close to becoming Gods.

***** 30. It is also through the knowledge of necessary truths and what can be abstracted from them that we are raised to acts of reflection, which make us think of what is called the self, and to consider that this or that is in us. It is thus that, in thinking of ourselves, we think of being, of substance, of the simple and the compound, of the immaterial, and even of God, by forming a conception of what is limited within us, and without limits in him. These acts of reflection provide us with the primary objects of our reasonings.

***** Why does knowledge of necessary truths give rise to acts of reflection? The Platonic nous or intellect is the part of the soul that contains abstract and universal ideas. It contemplates universals rather than particulars. It concerns itself with the general principles of existence rather than

disconnected, individual facts. To be able to reason means to generalize, to see the big picture, the big pattern, the unifying laws and rules, those commonalities that all things share, that transcend the individual condition and experience. Animals can’t generalize. They have no conceptual ability. Similarly, people of faith, Mythos people, have little reasoning ability. They try to turn stories into general truths about the universe. How can the assertion that the Jews are the “Chosen People” be a statement of a universal principle of the kind: 1 + 1 = 2? Yet this is how the Jews regard it, and they define their lives according to their absurd tribal stories rather than true universals (which in fact are simply the laws of ontological mathematics). In relation to this paragraph, Leibniz scholar George MacDonald Ross says, “This paragraph is important, but somewhat obscure, since it misses out a crucial stage in the argument. It is not said why knowledge of necessary truths gives rise to acts of reflection. “As we have seen, Descartes didn’t really distinguish reason from selfconsciousness. The self of which he is directly aware in the act of thinking cogito ergo sum turns out to be pure thought or abstract reason; and Descartes didn’t even have a separate word for self-consciousness. As with Plato’s nous or intellect, it is that part of the human being which contains abstract and universal ideas, and it does not concern itself with individual existences. “Leibniz, on the other hand, makes a clear distinction between knowledge of eternal truths on the one hand, and self-consciousness on the other (and remember that he had to invent the word ‘apperception’ for this purpose). In this paragraph, he is talking about the order of discovery. For Descartes, we first had to strip away our preconceptions till we arrived at pure knowledge of the thinking self, and then build everything up in the order: self, God, eternal truths, the material world. Leibniz, on the other hand, sees no need to doubt that we perceive individual things (even if they are not as they seem), and that we have knowledge of eternal truths. “Leibniz even seems to imply that we could get by without selfconsciousness at all: we could navigate round the world of experience using our senses, and we could do mathematics, by concentrating our whole attention on eternal truths, and what can be deduced from them. Our sense experience doesn’t make us think about ourselves as subjects, since all our

awareness is projected outwards to the object. In this respect, we are just like animals, which are not self-aware. “The difference lies in our knowledge of eternal truths. They are not derived from sense experience, and it is only when we think about their origin and justification that our thinking is reflected back into ourselves. They depend on universal, unlimited, and hence infinite concepts, which we find within ourselves. This is the origin of our awareness of our own existence and nature as rational beings. The very last stage of the process is to form a conception of God, by conceiving him as containing what is limited in us to an unlimited degree. “Some commentators (e.g. R. Latta, Leibniz: The Monadology (Oxford, 1898), 234n) see this as containing the germ of Kantianism, on the grounds that he is shifting the focus from substance to the subject. I personally consider this rather far-fetched. More Kantian is Leibniz’s throw-away remark that reflection makes us ‘consider that this or that is in us’ – in other words, it is through reflection that we attribute some of our mental contents to external objects, and some to the conscious subject.” We might apply such considerations to the difference between Logos and Mythos minds. The Mythos species is self-conscious but knows nothing about true reality. Mythos people are conscious merely as story characters in a cosmic saga. They don’t look to general rational principles but to sweeping, universal storylines. They engage with the world via emotional rather than rational truths. Animals can’t create stories and nor can they create rational concepts. Mythos people can’t relate to rational concepts, hence they are intermediate between animals and true human beings (members of the Logos species). Eternal truths are not derived from sense experience; they are rationalist not empirical (mathematical, not scientific). Nor are eternal truths derived from faith and feelings (Mythos). And they have nothing to do with “divine revelation” and prophets. It’s actually the Mythos level that defines basic consciousness. You are conscious if you know yourself as a person (a character) in a life (a story) in which you interact with many other people with different beliefs, desires, thoughts, interpretations, opinions and feelings. Animals don’t tell stories, and that’s why they’re not conscious. They don’t conceive of themselves as characters in a story.

Logos people can tell stories, but can also go to the next stage of knowledge of eternal truths (rationalism). Mythos people are not sufficiently intelligent for this step and are stuck with faith, feelings and “revelation”. Could you have a higher human race that is not conscious at all? Imagine you had animal senses and a computer-style mind superb at dealing with the laws of ontological mathematics, but you lacked feelings and Mythos. You would be something like the “Borg” of Star Trek. As for God, he’s conceived as having to an unlimited degree that which in us is limited. We are finite and he is infinite. It would be truer to say that God has simply fully actualised all that within us is still mere potential. But once we have dialectically optimised ourselves, we too shall be Gods!

***** 31. Our reasonings are grounded on two great principles. One is the principle of contradiction, by virtue of which we judge false anything which involves a contradiction, and true anything which is the opposite or contradictory of the false.

***** Leibniz’s definition of the Principle of Contradiction actually embraces two distinct logical principles: 1) the principle of contradiction itself, i.e. (“p and not-p”) is false (“One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.” – Aristotle), and 2) the “law of the excluded middle” (if p is true, then not-p is false, thus there is no middle position between truth and falsehood). These positions relate to the eternal order. They are challenged by temporal, historical, dialectical logic, and by fuzzy logic and quantum logic whereby contradictory states can coexist.

***** 32. The other is the principle of sufficient reason, by virtue of which we consider that no fact could be found to be genuine or existent, and no assertion true, without there being a sufficient reason why it is thus and

not otherwise – even though we usually cannot know what these reasons are.

***** The principle of sufficient reason is in fact the only principle required to explain the entirety of reality, with the principle of contradiction being just one aspect of it. The principle of sufficient reason, when properly understood, is none other than the principle of causality. Everything has a specific cause which explains why it is thus and not otherwise. Nothing happens without a cause. The only things which are uncaused are causes themselves! These are eternal, hence uncaused and uncreated. They are the principle of sufficient reason itself. They are all instances of the God Equation. A “sufficient” reason means a complete and fully determinate set of preconditions. If they are present, it’s impossible that the event, the “effect”, will not happen. Given that everything is interconnected with everything else, to know the sufficient reason for an event requires knowledge of the whole universe! In fact, it requires full knowledge of the cosmic, objective, quantum mechanical wavefunction that describes the entire universe, and full knowledge of all subjects, and what determines their behaviour and choices. No one can possess all of this knowledge, not even God.

***** 33. There are also two sorts of truths: those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of reasoning are necessary, and their opposite is impossible; and those of fact are contingent, and their opposite is possible. When a truth is necessary, you can find the reason by analysis, breaking it down into simpler ideas and truths, until you reach primary ones.

***** Leibniz proposes a system of “atomic” and “molecular” reason. All rational, compounded terms can be broken down into a set of irreducible

atomic concepts. If we could identify these atomic concepts, we would be able to establish all rational truths. Leibniz embarked on a gargantuan projects called the “universal characteristic” to list all the atomic concepts, and implement a notation to allow all complex concepts to be broken down into their component parts, thus making it possible to see if there were any logical flaws in how the compounded term was put together. All genuinely true statements would be validated and all false statements refuted. A machine – a logic computer – would be able to perform the task. In point of fact, the system for establishing absolute, infallible, eternal, objective truth already exists. It’s simply ontological mathematics. The atoms of reason are actually just numbers. (“All things are numbers; number rules all.” – Pythagoras) No such rational analysis can be applied to empirical “truths” of fact”. It can’t be applied to the senses, feelings, mystical intuitions or Mythos, only to the stuff of reason itself, only to Logos.

***** 34. This is how mathematicians use analysis to reduce theorems about what is true, and rules for constructions, to definitions, axioms, and postulates.

***** In fact, axioms and postulates aren’t required. All that’s required are the definitions of the properties of numbers. All the laws of ontological mathematics flow from how numbers are defined by the God Equation (the generalized Euler Formula). Any axiomatic approach falls foul of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems.

***** 35. Finally, there are simple ideas which cannot be defined; and there are also axioms and postulates – in a word, primary principles – which cannot be proved, and also do not need to be proved, since they are assertions of identity, of which the opposite contains an explicit contradiction.

***** The only ontological assertions of identity are those flowing from ontological mathematics. The trouble with most axioms and postulates is that they are not truly analytic, but contain a synthetic element – which is usually not recognised as such – which is not universal in application, and which can be challenged without generating an explicit, universal contradiction. For example, the postulate concerning parallel lines in Euclidean geometry tacitly assumes the non-existence of non-Euclidean geometry. A definition of parallel lines is given, but, as non-Euclidean geometry reveals, it does not hold universally. This is the whole problem with axioms and postulates. How do we know if they are entirely universal, or only partial? Only exclusively analytic axioms can be true, and those are the ones that do not attempt to say anything about the observable world (which automatically ensnares us in synthetic assumptions). Euclid’s fifth postulate concerning parallel lines relates to a linear universe. Euclid failed to consider what would happen if the universe were in fact curved. This type of error – the incomplete consideration of all possible cases – is what bedevils axiomatic approaches to defining reality. Wolfram Mathworld says, “Euclid’s fifth postulate cannot be proven as a theorem, although this was attempted by many people. Euclid himself used only the first four postulates (‘absolute geometry’) for the first 28 propositions of the Elements, but was forced to invoke the parallel postulate on the 29th. In 1823, Janos Bolyai and Nicolai Lobachevsky independently realized that entirely self-consistent ‘non-Euclidean geometries’ could be created in which the parallel postulate did not hold. (Gauss had also discovered but suppressed the existence of non-Euclidean geometries.)”

***** 36. But the sufficient reason must also be found in contingent truths, or truths of fact – that is to say, in the series of the things spread over the created universe. Here, because of the immense variety of things in Nature, and because of the infinite division of body, the analysis into particular reasons could get more and more detailed without limit. An infinity of shapes and motions, present and past, come into the efficient

cause of my present writing, and an infinity of tiny inclinations and dispositions of my soul, present and past, come into its final cause.

***** In Leibniz’s system, the difference between truths of reason and truths of fact is that the former can be proved finitely while the latter require an infinite process (infinite regress). This, more or less, is what Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems are all about. All objective truths – truths of reason – can be proved with a finite number of steps, while subjective truths – truths of “fact” – involve self-reference, synthetic interpretation, belief, opinion, conjecture, infinite contingent regress, and so on, and require an infinite number of steps. When mathematics is defined with any synthetic elements, it proves to be inconsistent and/or incomplete, as Gödel showed. It must be defined entirely analytically, and that means via a single, universal formula, from which everything else flows tautologically. For Leibniz, all truth is analytic. For science, all “truth” is synthetic. Leibniz explicitly endorses final causes (teleological causes), while science explicitly denies any such causes (and believes only in “efficient” causes). For Leibniz, every event has a double causal explanation – an efficient cause and a final cause: how and why. Science insists that only efficient causes exist (i.e. how), while final causes (purposes) are wholly denied, i.e. there is no why, hence no meaning, no purpose and no point. Nothing does anything for any purpose; things happen purely purposelessly. If this were true, it would be impossible to understand why humans are obsessed with meaning and purpose. How can we be so preoccupied with meaning and purpose if the universe does not contain meaning and purpose? It’s impossible. As ever, science dismisses all such considerations as illusory. It says that the mind is an illusion, free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, and meaning and purpose are illusions. Nature, according to scientists, seems to be remarkable in the number of extraordinary and inexplicable illusions that it creates ... all so that scientists don’t have to question the validity of their materialist paradigm. But it’s not Nature that creates illusions, it’s the fallacious scientific paradigm! Just as there can be no freedom in scientific determinism, nor can there be any purpose, so both have to be described as “illusory”. Isn’t it remarkable that the laws of scientific determinism create pointless

illusions? What an outrageous violation of Occam’s Razor! To make sense of scientific materialism, scientists have to add a layer of illusion to Nature. When you remove that bogus layer, what remains is an idealist, mental universe, full of free will, purpose and meaning. In a world where mind rather than matter is primary, free will and purpose can be explained automatically. No “illusions” must be invoked. If you think about it, materialists have to brand everything to do with the mind as illusory and epiphenomenal since mind itself is incomprehensible within the materialist ideology, and is the ultimate illusion and epiphenomenon. Free will and purpose are functions of mind, so if mind is called illusory and epiphenomenal, so must of all its functions and properties. Science goes right ahead and does exactly that. The ultimate question is of course whether reality is some kind of material machine, or, instead, a mental organism. Science says the former and ontological mathematics the latter. They are diametrically opposed worldviews. Mathematically, an equation or function acts as the efficient cause of whatever is going to happen next. To be precise, it’s the cosmic wavefunction (both objective and subjective) that determines everything. However, this cosmic wavefunction, isn’t unfolding in a machinelike way, as science claims, but is actively, purposefully, seeking to solve (optimize) itself – to create the “best of all possible worlds”. It’s not a static but a dynamic function, full of interactive feedback loops. Its fate isn’t determined by anything outside itself. It’s making its own future, but what future is it seeking? According to science, the cosmic wavefunction isn’t seeking anything at all. It’s a blind process with no aims. In reality, what it’s seeking is the maximization of its power. The attainment of maximum power – corresponding to the mathematical state of perfect cosmic symmetry – is how the wavefunction knows that it has optimized itself. It has no other conceivable criterion. The cosmic wavefunction, in Illuminism, is ultimately driven by subjective minds, each of which is teleological. Therefore, the wavefunction itself is teleological. It feels its own power increasing. Eventually, it generates consciousness and can actively reflect on its current power, and deliberately plan how to make itself more powerful. Once consciousness enters the cosmic wavefunction, it’s inevitable that the

wavefunction will attain a final resolution of total power – divine power. God ... or an infinity of Gods, to be more exact ... is the answer to the cosmic wavefunction. The cosmic wavefunction is a God factory, a God production line. Science is about efficient causes, while mathematical teleology is about final causes. The Leibnizian universe involves both types of cause, thus is both scientific (when analyzed from the perspective of efficient causes) and teleological (when analyzed from the perspective of final causes). As ever, science chooses the worldview most hostile to life, mind, free will, purpose and meaning – which is why it ends up being an ideology based on randomness, chance, accident, probability, statistics, acausation and indeterminism. Scientific materialism despises mind – since mind makes no sense within materialism – and it seeks to explain it away at all times. Mind, in truth, is exactly that which is not scientific “matter”, yet science says the exact opposite. Science, as a non-analytic subject, involves definitions that are either false or circular. It does not contain any absolute, infallible definitions whatsoever, hence can have no connection with eternal Truth.

***** 37. And since all this detail only includes other contingent things (whether previous or even more detailed), and since each of these still needs a similar analysis to find the reason for it, no progress has been made. So the sufficient or ultimate reason must lie outside the sequence or series of these more and more detailed contingent things, however infinite it could be.

***** If we are to avoid inexplicable infinite contingent regress (which is where science leads us), a sequence of contingent things must have a necessary origin. The question then becomes whether there is one necessary origin (God) or an infinite number of necessary origins (monads). In his published Monadology, Leibniz opts for the God option; in his secret Monadology, he dispenses with God and has infinite souls striving to become Gods – an absolutely heretical doctrine as far as Christianity is concerned.

There is no Creator of souls. Rather, there are uncreated, eternal souls that create perfection (“God”) after an immense, evolutionary, dialectical process. God does not create the Universe. The Universe creates God.

***** 38. This is why the ultimate reason for things must lie in a necessary substance, in which the detail of changes exists only eminently, as in their source – and this is what we call ‘God’.

***** In fact, the ultimate reason for things lies in the necessary God Equation, not in God. The God Equation is expressed through infinite monadic souls that are becoming Gods! The God Equation does not change but is the source of all change.

***** 39. Now since this substance is a sufficient reason for all this detail, which is also completely interconnected, there is only one God, and this God is sufficient.

***** The one God Equation is the sufficient reason for everything, and interconnects everything. The infinite monadic souls defined by the God Equation are absolutely interconnected and all are evolving together towards divinity!

***** 40. It can also be concluded that, since this Supreme Substance (which is unique, universal, and necessary) has nothing outside itself which could be independent of it, and since it is the simple consequence of possible being, then it must be incapable of having any limits, and must contain absolutely as much reality as is possible.

***** In this scheme, Leibniz’s God is defined as unique, necessary and infinite. Yet all monads are unique, necessary and infinite too. So, in fact, there’s no sufficient reason to pick out “God” as a supreme monad. Leibniz considered that all possible things strive towards existence and will inevitably achieve it (they will be actualized) if there’s no sufficient reason why they shouldn’t. As particle physicists say, if something isn’t forbidden then it’s compulsory. However, all manner of things are possible within the cosmic wavefunction: it can “collapse” in infinite numbers of ways. Yet when it comes to it, only one set of possibilities is actually realized, and all the others vanish. Being possible certainly isn’t enough. It’s all about compossibility – being possible in conjunction with other things, and in fact with the maximum number of other things. The God Equation defines the Supreme Substance – the collection of all monads, each of which is unique and necessary. There is nothing outside the God Equation and the ensemble of monads it defines. Nothing can be independent of it. It’s incapable of having any limits, and must contain absolutely as much reality as is possible. Science, as ever, denies all of this. Science has no necessary substance or equation, and is a system of bottomless contingency and profligacy (with its Multiverse) that absolutely repudiates Occam’s Razor.

***** 41. From which it follows that God is absolutely perfect, since perfection is nothing other than magnitude of positive reality, taken in the precise sense of setting aside the limits or restrictions of things which are limited. And where there are no limits (i.e. in God), perfection is absolutely infinite.

***** It’s not a being that is perfect, it’s an equation – the God Equation. This defines monadic beings evolving towards perfection (i.e. they are becoming God). No being can ever be eternally, necessarily perfect. Beings evolve ...

but the God Equation that defines them does not. Only it encapsulates eternal Platonic perfection and immutability.

***** 42. It also follows that created things have their perfections infused into them by God, but that they owe their imperfections to their own nature, which is incapable of being unlimited. For this is what makes them distinct from God. This original imperfection of created things is evidenced by the natural inertia of bodies.

***** The argument here is that an unlimited, uncreated God furnishes what perfection things have, and their own limited, created nature provides their imperfection. If they were perfect, they too would be God. Everything is a mixture of being and “nothingness”, so to speak, or potential and actuality. God is fully actual (fully real); everything else lacks full actuality, hence is to some degree unreal (mere potential waiting to be actualized). For Leibniz, inertia of bodies is an imperfection since it’s passive rather than active power, connected with imperfect, passive matter. All monads “begin” a Cosmic Age in a state of bare potential and actualization. By the end of the Cosmic Age, all of their imperfection has been made perfect ... all potential has been actualized. This is what the dialectic accomplishes. The God Equation is fixed, eternal and perfect. The monadic beings it defines, however, are imperfect and must dialectically attain perfection. They are imperfect because life is imperfect (as a result of broken mathematical symmetry). Life simply is the drive for perfection, to convert all potential into actualisation, to realise perfect mathematical symmetry after beginning, at the Big Bang, from a state of imperfect, broken symmetry. Leibniz was one of the pioneers of the binary system of 1 and 0 that now defines the world of digital computing. He suggested that all the information in the universe could be coded in terms of different combinations of 1 and 0, hence he was the father of computer science, and even invented his own computing machine (a mechanical calculator).

He also thought of a kind of Aristotelian numerical ladder of being, extending from 0 (absence of being, passivity, potentiality, formless matter, inertia, incompleteness) to 1 (being, activity, actuality, matterless form, pure action, completeness). 0 (= pure matter) is non-God, and 1 (= pure mind) is God. Leibniz said, “One is enough for deriving everything from nothing.” We might say that everything has a number between 0 and 1, defining the degree of separation of each created things from God (the Creator). Alternatively, we might say that everything begins at 0 at the start of a Cosmic Age, and the Age ends when everything reaches 1 (divinity). Right now, everyone on earth has their “number”. Most are very close to zero ... but some – those on the verge of gnosis – are close to 1. So, what’s your number?

***** 43. It is also true that God is not only the source of existences, but also of essences in so far as they are real – that is, he is the source of what reality there is in possibility. This is because God’s understanding is where eternal truths are located, or where the ideas on which they depend are. Without him, there would be no reality in possibilities, and not only would nothing exist, but nothing would even be possible.

***** Of course, in reality, it’s not “God” who is the source of essences and existences. It’s ontological, monadic mathematics, defined by the God Equation. All eternal truths exist innately in monads. The God equation defines everything that is possible, and without it nothing would be possible. The God Equation is the “Possibility Generator.”

***** 44. For if there is any reality in essences or possibilities, or even in eternal truths, this reality must be grounded in something existent and actual, and consequently in the existence of the necessary being, in

which essence includes existence, or which is such that its being possible is sufficient for its being actual.

***** The only true necessary beings are monads. They cannot not exist. They are defined by zero and infinity. These are not finite, determinate numbers. They do not require anything for their existence. They amount to “nothing” existing forever (infinite duration), and being infinite in extent. Mathematically, “nothing” can exist as straightforward “zero”, but also as “net zero”, whereby any amount of “somethings” can be part of “nothing” as long as they all have a net effect of zero. It’s simply this that allows anything to exist at all. Leibniz defines a necessary being as one whose essence includes existence. Monads alone are necessary beings in this sense. There is no one special monad (i.e. no “God Monad”). A necessary being is one that is a) not self-contradictory, and b) eternal. Any self-contradiction would ensure that something was not eternal. A necessary being cannot require anything because then it would be dependent on that thing for its existence, and it would be preceded by that thing, hence would not be eternal. Only a “nothing” has no requirement of anything else, hence can independently, self-sufficiently exist forever. A monad is an ontological “nothing” ... a net nothing. It has no resultant parts.

***** 45. Thus only God (or the necessary being) has this privilege, that he must exist if he is possible. And since nothing can prevent the possibility of that which includes no limits, no negation, and hence no contradiction, this alone is enough for us to know a priori that God exists. We have also proved his existence from the reality of eternal truths. But we have also just proved it a posteriori, since contingent beings exist, and they could only have their ultimate or sufficient reason in the necessary being, who has the reason for their existence in himself.

*****

All of this ought to have been said about monads, and the God Equation that defines them, rather than about “God”. The ontological argument is successful solely for monads ... for all monads (and not just one special “God Monad”). Only monads have existence as a necessary part of their essence. Only contingent things are derived from necessary monads.

***** 46. Meanwhile, one must not imagine (as some have) that, since eternal truths depend on God, they are arbitrary, and depend on his will. This is how Descartes seems to have taken it, and subsequently Mr Poiret. It is only true of contingent truths, which depend on the principle of harmony, or the choice of the best; whereas necessary truths depend solely on his understanding, of which they are the internal object.

***** The only eternal truths are those of ontological mathematics, and no one can change them, not even “God”. They are not dependent on any being, but any being is dependent on them. Systems, equations, formulae and numbers – all of the stuff of objective mathematics – are perfect. The subjective beings defined by them are not. Beings are always subjective, hence never objectively, eternally perfect. To be a living subject is to be imperfect ... to be striving for perfection. Life is defined, and takes place, within the starting point of a Cosmic Age (the Big Bang = broken symmetry), and the finishing point of a Cosmic Age (the Big Crunch = restored symmetry). “God” (perfect symmetry) is the culmination of life, and the “death of God” (broken symmetry) is what initiates the rebirth of life. The universe goes from 0 (Big Bang) to 1 (Big Crunch), and back again ... forever. It’s a perfectly oscillating, cyclical, periodic, wave universe. 0 → 1 → 0 ... Imperfection (broken symmetry) → perfection (symmetry) → imperfection (broken symmetry) ... Non-God → God → non-God ... Note that the world reaches a maximum number (1), and the next number is the minimum number (0). This is possible only in a cyclical

universe, not a linear universe (where there would be no maximum number).

***** 47. This God alone is the primary unity, or the original simple substance, which produces all created or derivative monads. To speak figuratively, they are born from one moment to the next by continual flashes of lightening from the divinity; and they are limited by the receptivity of that which is created, which is essentially bounded.

***** This is Leibniz trying, for the sake of his Christian audience, to present himself as a good Christian. In fact, it’s ontological mathematics, not God, that keeps everything going and defines all monads (all of which are eternal, i.e. uncreated). It’s the eternal God Equation that ensures that all contingent things “are born from one moment to the next by continual flashes of lightening from the divinity.”

***** 48. In God there is power, which is the source of everything; then there is knowledge, which contains the detailed system of ideas; and finally will, which changes or produces things in accordance with the principle of the best. These correspond to what there is in created monads: the subject or basis, the faculty of perception, and the faculty of appetition. But in God these attributes are absolutely infinite, or perfect; whereas in created monads or entelechies (or ‘perfection-havers’, as Ermolao Barbaro translated this word) they are only imitations, which are closer the more perfection they have.

***** Leibniz presents the Christian Trinity in the following way: God the Father = the Source of All Power and Being. God the Son = Knowledge.

God the Holy Spirit = Will. In his Christianized Monadology, Leibniz says that the original, allpowerful, all-knowing infinite, unlimited Monad created infinite monads, each of which is a finite and limited “image” of God. The more perfect a monad becomes, the more God-like it becomes.

***** 49. Created beings are said to act externally in so far as they have perfection, and to be acted upon by another in so far as they are imperfect. Thus activity is attributed to monads in so far as their perceptions are distinct, and passivity in so far as their perceptions are confused.

***** For Leibniz, created beings are a mixture of passive and active power, the former being their “material” aspect, and the latter their mental aspect (form). Active power goes with perfection, clearness and distinctness of perception, while passivity goes with imperfection, unclearness and confusedness of perception. Bare monads are highly materialistic (defined in this specific Leibnizian sense, not in the scientific materialist sense). They are passive and confused. Higher monads are more active and have clearer perceptions. Note that whenever Leibniz refers to “matter”, he does not mean something completely separate from mind, but something that is an aspect, mode or phenomenon of mind, something well-grounded in, or resulting from, mind.

***** 50. One created being is more perfect than another in that it contains what is used to explain a priori what happens in the other; and this is why it is said to act on the other.

*****

In Leibniz’s published Monadology, all monads are windowless, i.e. nothing goes in or out. So, “causality”, in this context, does not mean one thing directly acting on another, but, instead is the logical set of relations associated with the pre-established harmony that God originally implemented. Things have the appearance of being in causal relations with each other, but not the actuality. Leibniz’s task is therefore to explain this appearance of causality rather than its actuality. Consider one monad that appears to be having a causal effect on another monad. In Leibniz’s terms, the “causal” monad would have more distinct perceptions than the other, and it would provide the a priori explanation of what happens in the other. A priori means that an explanation runs from cause to effect, rather than inferring the cause from the effect (i.e. working backwards). If person A and person B are both sitting reading, and person A then chooses to slap person B’s leg, the causation is within person A, and not person B (who is merely struck; he experiences the effect but had nothing to do with the cause). Person A acts on person B; person B is acted upon by person A. In terms of Leibniz’s pre-established harmony, it is in fact God, the ultimate Monad, that decides all causes, and he makes some monads appear to be causal, and other monads appear to experience the effects.

***** 51. But among simple substances there is only an ideal influence of one monad on another. It can have its effect only by the intervention of God. What happens is that, right from the beginning of things, among God’s ideas, one monad has reason to demand that he pays attention to it when organising the others. For since one created monad could not have any physical influence on the interior of another, this is the only means by which the one can have any dependence on the other.

***** When Leibniz refers to an “ideal” influence, he means one that is not real but has the appearance of reality. Monads are windowless, hence cannot influence each another either “physically” or mentally. Only God can ever influence monads, but since he has already designed every monad to

produce the best of all possible worlds (via his pre-established harmony), he has no need to intervene in their subsequent development.

***** 52. This is how activity and passivity is mutual between created beings. For when God compares two simple substances, he finds reasons in each of them which oblige him to accommodate the one to the other. Consequently, what is active in certain respects is passive from a different point of view. A created being is active in so far as what is known distinctly in it provides the reason for what happens in another created substance; and it is passive in so far as the reason for what happens in it is found in what is known distinctly in another.

***** Leibniz’s system of a pre-established harmony allows the “Creator” to have perfect knowledge of everything in the universe, of everything that’s going to happen. Of course, this is wholly contrary to free will and interactivity, and seems rather surreal. Leibniz is never at his best when discussing “illusory” causality. Leibniz advocates a kind of “perspectivism”, an idea that was to become crucial in Nietzsche’s philosophy. In perspectivism, every subject has its own perspective of reality, and no perspective has any inherently greater claim to truth than any other. Therefore, it’s frequently interpreted as a kind of relativism. Nietzsche didn’t see it in those terms, however. Every perspective, no matter how true or false, has an associated will to power. So, all perspectives aren’t “equal”: some are enormously more powerful and influential than others.

***** 53. Now, since there is an infinity of possible universes among God’s ideas, and only one of them can exist, there must be a sufficient reason for God’s choice, which determines him to the one rather than to the other.

*****

Leibniz asserts that the best possible God creates the best possible world and does so rationally. The best possible world represents a unique rational solution. If it didn’t, God wouldn’t have been able to identify and create the best possible world and there would always be a fatal ambiguity in existence. God would have been in doubt as to which world to create, but God, being perfect and infallible, can’t be in doubt and can’t fail to identify the ultimate and singular rational solution to existence. The perfect universe is in fact the unique universe of perfect symmetry, established when all of the monads defined by the God Equation come into perfect symmetric alignment. The imperfect universe – the material world – is created when the monads go out of alignment, when symmetry is broken.

***** 54. This reason can be found only in harmony, or the degrees of perfection which these worlds contain, since each possible world has the right to claim existence in proportion to the perfection it includes. Thus nothing is entirely arbitrary.

***** We might interpret Leibniz as saying that every possible world can be assigned a “perfection quotient” (its potential for perfection) and only the one that maximally actualizes perfection is chosen by God. In Hegel’s philosophy, this a priori system is replaced by a dialectical system unfolding through time (the static pre-established harmony is replaced by a dynamic dialectic, which is a perfection-seeking entelechy). The perfect universe is therefore not chosen by God. It chooses itself through an immense dialectical conflict. It recognises its completion of its mission through its attainment of unique, perfect, cosmic symmetry, constituting the Absolute, the Omega Point, “God”. In ontological mathematics, the dialectic is the subjective, internal expression of an objective, external mathematical process that corresponds to a universe of broken symmetry going through all possible configurations to restore its perfect symmetry. The universe, in these terms, is something like a broken jigsaw or mirror attempting to restore itself to its unbroken condition.

***** 55. This is the cause of the existence of the best, which his wisdom makes him know, which is goodness makes him choose, and which his power makes him produce.

***** Naturally, God chooses the best possible world since it would be perverse, malevolent, imperfect and irrational for him to create a less perfect world. If you believe in a perfect Creator, you must logically accept that this is the best possible world – so shut your mouth and don’t complain! All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds!

***** 56. Now this interconnectedness, or this accommodation of all created things to each, and of each to all the rest, means that each simple substance has relations to all the others, which it expresses. Consequently, it is a permanent living mirror of the universe.

***** The notion of monads as living mirrors reflecting the whole universe is extraordinarily beautiful and calls to mind the Buddhist metaphor of Indra’s Net, with countless sparkling jewels all reflecting each other. It also goes to the heart of Leibniz’s holographic thinking. The whole (the universe) is in each part (each point-monad), but is seen from each part’s unique perspective. This is what quantum mechanics is really all about when understood properly (as an interconnected mental system rather than a physical system). Leibniz’s system is all about perfect harmony and perfect interconnectedness. In this regard, it’s highly compatible with Eastern religion.

*****

57. The same town looked at from different angles appears completely different, and is, as it were, multiplied perspectively. In the same way, it emerges that, because of the infinite number of simple substances, there seem to be as many different universes as there are substances. However, these are only different perspectives on a single universe, according to the different points of view of each monad.

***** Rather than view a single universe from infinite different perspectives, scientific Multiverse thinking produces an infinity of universes from a single perspective. Which is more likely – infinite universes, or infinite perspectives of one universe? Which is more consistent with Occam’s Razor?

***** 58. This is the means for obtaining as much variety as possible, but with the greatest order as possible. In other words, it is the means for obtaining as much perfection as possible.

***** The object of ontological mathematics is to maximize perfection, which means transmuting infinite bare souls into infinite Gods. Only when the final God is created does a Cosmic Age come to its appointed end.

***** 59. This is the only hypothesis (although I think I have demonstrated its truth) which gives proper recognition to the greatness of God. Mr Bayle recognises the fact when he criticises it in the article on Rorarius in his Dictionary. He even says he is tempted to believe that I attribute too much to God, and more than is possible. But he cannot cite any reason for the impossibility of this universal harmony, which brings it about that every substance precisely expresses all other substances through the relations it has to them.

***** Leibniz’s system provides the best possible account of a rational Creationist God. Clearly, this God has nothing in common with the Abrahamic Creationist God, who is in fact the Devil, devoted to creating the worst of all possible worlds (the maximization of imperfection).

***** 60. Besides, what I have just said provides the a priori reasons why things could not happen in any other way. In organising the whole, God paid attention to each part, and in particular to each monad. Since the nature of monads is to represent things, nothing could restrict them to representing only a selection from things. It is true that this representation is merely a confused representation as far as the details of the universe as a whole is concerned, and that it can be distinct only over a very limited range of things. In other words, monads have distinct representations only of the things which are closest to them, or relatively large. If this were not the case, each monad would be a divinity. Monads are not limited with respect to the objects of their knowledge, but with respect to the modes of their knowledge of their objects. All of them penetrate to infinity, or to the whole – but confusedly. What makes them finite, and distinguishes one from another, is the variation in their distinct perceptions.

***** If we perceived everything with perfect clarity, we would be Gods. As William Blake said, “If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro’ narrow chinks of his cavern.” The more rational you are, the clearer your vision, the more, like God, you can see the eternal truths of reason that define existence.

***** 61. In this respect, compounds are analogous to simples. The fact that there is no vacuum means that the whole of matter is interconnected.

Each body is affected by its neighbours, and in one way or another it registers everything which happens to them. But in a plenum, every motion has some effect on distant bodies in proportion to its distance. So each body also registers what happens to its neighbours’ neighbours, through their mediation. It follows that this communication extends to any distance whatever. Consequently, all bodies register everything which happens in the universe – so much so, that someone who could see everything could read off from any individual what is happening everywhere, and even what happened in the past, and what will happen in the future. What is distant in time and place is observable in the here and now. As Hippocrates said, ‘Everything breathes together.’ But a soul can read in itself only what is represented there distinctly. It cannot suddenly unfold all that is folded within it, since it extends to infinity.

***** In the quantum mechanical universe, which is governed, ultimately, by a single cosmic wavefunction that’s both objective and subjective, everything is interconnected, and everything influences everything else. Absolutely nothing happens in isolation. This means that causality isn’t something that proceeds locally. Causality is non-local and applies to everything at once, via a single causal equation (the God Equation), expressed through infinite nodes (monads). It’s immensely more complex than scientific causality, which always seeks to treat systems in perfect isolation. That can only ever be an approximation, and it falls apart completely at the quantum level. Scientists claim that reality becomes probabilistic at the quantum level. This is false. What happens is that classical local causality (where things happen in isolation, like the parts of a machine) disintegrates and is replaced by systemic, non-local causality (where things happen in an interconnected way as part of a single holistic organism). Quantum interference effects are what you get when you have to accommodate everything that’s happening in the whole of the universe at any one instant. In the famous twin-slit quantum mechanical experiment, you don’t simply calculate how a single electron goes through one slit. You have to calculate all possible ways in which the electron could go through the slits, and since, at the ultimate level, everything is defined by waves

produced by “Euler circles”, an immense wave interference pattern is generated. Quantum mechanics is a reflection of non-local, deterministic causality, not local, indeterministic, random probability – as scientists ludicrously claim. Scientists – when it comes to an ontological rather than instrumental understanding of reality – are an embarrassment, a joke. The universe must be a continuum and plenum. If there were any gaps at all, the causal chains would be disrupted, and everything would no longer be interconnected. Causality is always transmitted, mathematically, from point to point. It can’t jump across gaps of “non-existence”. There is no such thing as a vacuum if this is understood as wholly empty space devoid of anything at all.

***** “In a plenum (i.e. a universe full of matter), every motion is transmitted in every direction (imagine a bomb exploding deep in the ocean). The force of the shock wave diminishes with distance as it spreads more widely. But given that there are no smallest quantities in Nature, the wave will spread to infinity. As Leibniz has already established, every physical object is in motion, and therefore setting up wave motions in the objects surrounding it. Consequently, every object is transmitting motions to every other object, and every object is receiving motions from every other object. Just as monads are mirrors of the whole universe, an omniscient being would be able to read off from the motions of an individual object what is happening everywhere else, and what has happened in the past, and what will happen in the future. “In his philosophical system, Leibniz makes some pretty strong claims, and this is one of the strongest of them all. He made a major contribution to science by formulating the principle of the conservation of energy. Now he is formulating a much more radical principle of the conservation of information. It is a truism of modern science that the motion of any particle is the resultant of an infinity of forces acting on it. What Leibniz is in effect saying is that, if a particle is to obey the laws of Nature, it must perform an infinitely complex calculation. It must register all the forces acting on it, and feed the information into a mathematical formula which yields the required result – motion in a particular direction, with a particular speed and

kinetic energy. If an omniscient being could read off all the information contained in the particle’s computer program, that being could calculate all the forces acting on it from every other particle in the universe, and hence the forces from which they arose, and the forces they would give rise to. “The reason why this seems absurd is because we think of a particle as something simple, which cannot contain infinite complexity, let alone calculate how to obey the laws of Nature. “But for Leibniz, any particle, however small, has infinitely many parts. Consequently, it can contain infinitely more information than any computer constructed by humans. And the same goes for the parts of its parts. “Similarly, every monad has a program which determines the evolution of its perceptual states, and there must be something corresponding to it in the material realm, since there is a one-to-one correspondence between the two. “When it comes to the crunch, what Leibniz is saying is that things cannot obey the laws of Nature, unless they know what the laws are, and have the necessary information for applying them (namely the state of the whole universe). Perhaps he is again thinking too much like a lawyer than like a physicist. But what does the metaphor of a law of Nature mean, unless things in Nature have the means to obey it? The only realistic alternative would seem to be a Spinozistic world, in which everything emanates inexorably from Nature itself. A mechanistic world in which atoms just happen to behave in a law-abiding way explains nothing at all. “However, although we contain all this infinity of information within ourselves, we can read off only what is represented distinctly.” – George MacDonald Ross Thanks to the universal God Equation, with its infinite nodes (monads), everything is inherently involved in infinite calculations. No “God” is needed. MacDonald Ross suggests that Leibniz might think too much like a lawyer than a physicist. Yet perhaps the legalistic approach is the correct one. Who better to understand the “laws of nature” than a “lawyer of nature” – a rationalist, mathematical lawyer who studies eternal, necessary truths of reason rather than temporal, contingent “truths of fact”? Physics is fallacious precisely because it refuses to be legalistic, and is instead based on silly, contingent experiments that can prove absolutely

nothing at all in terms of the laws of the eternal universe, which pre-existed any experiments by empiricist human beings. True reality is a priori, analytic and deductive. Physics is a posteriori, synthetic and inductive, hence utterly false. Physics is about patternmatching, not Truth. You cannot reach Truth via arbitrary, ad hoc, contingent, non-analytic techniques to match theoretical mathematical patterns to experimentally observed patterns, as physics does. Physics is a totally anti-intellectual subject. It’s simply glorified trial and error, an entirely heuristic subject, with no analytic principles, only a dubious method of limited applicability. It’s astounding that this irrational subject now commands the intellectual high ground of humanity. Even Roman Catholic Scholasticism was superior to physics as far as ultimate reality goes. Scholasticism contains far more eternal Truths than physics. Saint Thomas Aquinas was infinitely smarter than Einstein, Heisenberg or Feynman. You’re a fool if you can’t see that.

***** 62. So although each created monad represents the whole universe, it represents more distinctly the body which is especially involved with it, and of which it constitutes the entelechy. And just as this body expresses the whole universe by virtue of the interconnectedness of all matter in the plenum, the soul also represents the whole universe, by virtue of representing this body which belongs to it in a special way.

***** It’s crucial to understand that the soul is not in the physical body (hence does not leave the physical body when it dies). We might say that the soul attaches itself (mathematically) to the physical body, and death means the dissolution of this attachment. As the physical body breaks down, the soul exerts less and less influence over it and eventually can’t influence it at all. This is “death”. It’s the physical body that dies, not the soul.

***** 63. The monad to which a body belongs is either an entelechy or a soul. If it belongs to an entelechy, the combination can be called a living

being; and if it belongs to a soul, the combination can be called an animal. Now this body of a living being or of an animal is always organic. The reason is that, since each monad is a mirror of the universe in its own unique way, and since the universe is arranged with a perfect orderliness, there must be the same orderliness in that which represents it – in other words, in the perceptions of the soul, and consequently in the body, since the representation of the universe in the soul follows that which is in the body.

***** “A complete being has to be a combination of monad and body (or form and matter, in Aristotelian terms). Of these there are two types: if the monad is a bare monad, or entelechy, the combination is called a ‘living being’; and if it is a soul such as all sentient creatures have, it is called an ‘animal’. Note that Leibniz is not always consistent about his terminology: he often calls all monads ‘entelechies’ or ‘souls’. Note also that he has defined dead matter out of existence – the only real beings are living beings. “When he says that all these bodies are ‘organic’, I am not 100% certain what he means, since the word has acquired many new meanings since his time (e.g. organic chemistry, or organic farming). He might merely mean that they have bodily organs; but he probably means ‘constituting a systematic and interconnected whole,’ since the reason he gives is that they mirror the universal harmony of the whole universe.” – George MacDonald Ross In a system in which only monads exist, it’s not self-evident what MacDonald Ross means when he refers to “A complete being has to be a combination of monad and body (or form and matter, in Aristotelian terms).” We can think of each monad as having an active aspect (form) and a passive part (matter). So, an aggregation of monads is an aggregation of all of the passive, material parts, and of all the active, mental parts, with the “controlling monad” being the clearest and most active monad in the monadic ensemble: the Queen Soul, just as the Queen is the most important piece in chess.

*****

64. Thus the organic body of each living being is a sort of divine machine, or a natural automaton, which is infinitely superior to any manufactured automaton. This is because a machine made by human technology is not a machine in each of its parts. For example, the tooth of a brass cog wheel has parts or smaller bits; but as far as we are concerned, these are no longer something manufactured, and no longer have any anything which characterises them as a machine in relation to the intended function of the wheel. But machines of nature, that is to say living bodies, are still machines in their smallest parts right down to infinity. This is what makes the difference between nature and technology – that is to say, between divine and human technology.

***** Leibniz’s system makes everything alive, down to the smallest conceivable detail. This is the opposite of scientific materialism. Reality, for Leibniz, is a living organism, not a dead machine. It can never be sufficiently stressed that, in ontological mathematics, the spacetime domain of matter – the “dead” domain” – is penetrated and controlled at every point by the living domain of mind (the immaterial frequency domain outside space and time). Science literally removes the living domain of mind because it can’t see it and can’t use its method on it, and thus it converts reality into a dead, pointless, purposeless, meaningless machine, or random event generator. Regarding ultimate reality, science is as wrong as it gets. It’s actually more ridiculous and fallacious than the silliest religion or way-out New Age speculation.

***** 65. The Author of Nature was able to apply this divine and infinitely wonderful technology because each portion of matter is not only divisible to infinity (as the ancients recognised) but also actually subdivided without end – each part divided into parts, of which each has some motion of its own. If this were not so, it would be impossible for each portion of matter to express the whole universe.

*****

The universe is a hologram. The whole is in every part. What could be more wondrous? One way or another, infinity has to be built into every part of the universe. Only mathematics permits this. According to science, “reality” dissolves into a totally uncertain blur below the Planck scale, rendering the foundations of reality incomprehensible and inexplicable rather than precise, analytic and necessary.

***** 66. From this you can see that there is a world of created things – living beings, animals, entelechies, souls – in the smallest part of matter.

***** “‘World’ is a strong word to use, since it is the equivalent of ‘universe’. But it is a logical consequence of the infinite division of matter that there is no mid-point between the infinitely large and the infinitely small. If an atom is like a miniature planetary system, with electrons orbiting round the nucleus as the planets orbit round the sun, then there is no absurdity in supposing that any electron carries the same diversity of life as does planet Earth. Similarly, planet Earth might be an electron relative to some enormous being, of which the solar system is just one atom. Elsewhere, Leibniz makes precisely these speculations.” – George MacDonald Ross

***** 67. Each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond.

***** For Leibniz, a living universe is alive all the way down! There are no truly dead parts whatsoever. “Death” is merely a perspective regarding the contingent organisation of contingent bodies.

*****

68. And although the earth and the air separating the plants in the garden, or the water separating the fish in the pond, are neither plant nor fish, yet they still contain them – though they are usually far too small for us to be able to perceive them.

***** “In other writings, Leibniz refers explicitly to investigations with the recently invented microscope. For example, blood looks like a homogeneous red fluid; but through the microscope you can distinguish the red blood cells from the surrounding transparent fluid. Why shouldn’t a more powerful microscope reveal similar, smaller organisms in the transparent fluid (as in fact it does)? Again, chalk looks like a homogeneous lump of white matter; but through the microscope you can see the shells of tiny sea creatures. And if chalk is full of life, why shouldn’t the same be true of clay, or stone, or any other substance, if only we had powerful enough microscopes?” – George MacDonald Ross If we had powerful enough microscopes, could we peer all the way to the soul itself? ... only if we could escape spacetime and enter the frequency domain. Reading Leibniz must have seemed like science fiction and science fantasy to his audience. Did Jonathan Swift, in Gulliver’s Travels, get his idea for tiny people, intermediate people and huge people from a familiarity with Leibniz’s work?

***** 69. Thus there is nothing uncultivated, sterile, or dead in the universe. If anywhere seems empty or confused, this is mere appearance. It is rather like how a pond might appear from a distance: you see a confused motion, and, so to speak, a threshing around of fish in the pond, without being able to make out the fish themselves.

***** If we trace everything back far enough, we arrive at mathematical souls, and from these we get the living, teleological mathematical universe of

information that we actually inhabit.

***** 70. You can see from this that each living body has a dominant entelechy, which is the soul in the case of an animal. But the parts of this living body are full of other living beings, plants, animals, of which each in its turn has its own dominant entelechy or soul.

***** “Here Leibniz introduces the concept of a dominant entelechy, soul, or monad. Each living body is a compound of smaller living bodies, and they all have their own special monad, which is the principle of unity of the organic body. Since there is a one-to-one correspondence between the monadic and the material realms, there must be something in the monadic realm which corresponds to the relation between whole and part in the material realm. Obviously monads cannot be parts of each other. So the relation between them is one of dominance. My soul dominates the monads which are the principles of the unity of the organs of which my body is composed. They in turn dominate the monads which are the principles of the unity of the parts of their bodies; and so on to infinity. “He doesn’t actually say what this dominance consists in; but it must be some sort of control – the perceptions of the dominant monad will be more distinct, and will serve to explain the changes in the perceptions of the subordinate monads, rather than the other way round. In other words, the dominant monad is the more active partner in their interactions.” – George MacDonald Ross Here we see an anticipation of Hegel’s master-slave dialectic and Nietzsche’s Will to Power. What is human society if not an arena where a few souls dominate the majority and shape society in their own image according to their own interests? No system has been more effective in this regard than free-market capitalism, allowing a handful to rule over billions. Therefore, nothing is more important than the overthrow of free-market capitalism in order that the people might be free.

*****

71. But you mustn’t suppose (along with some who have misunderstood my thoughts) that each soul has a hunk or portion of matter, which is peculiar to it and assigned to it for ever, and consequently that it possesses other, inferior living beings which are permanently devoted to its service. All bodies are perpetually changing, like rivers; and particles join and leave them all the time.

***** The atoms in human bodies aren’t fixed. Atoms come and atoms go, but the body itself endures – informationally, via its DNA code – and is controlled by its soul until the link between body and soul breaks. Each monad does have matter assigned to it, but internally rather than externally, as its passive rather than active mode, and this passive aspect gets progressively, dynamically smaller as the monad evolves and becomes clearer (more active, more Godlike). In Leibniz’s scheme, all monads are also associated with the “matter” of the monadic group with which they are directly linked at any one time. Again, this is a dynamic, evolving relationship, not fixed for eternity.

***** 72. Thus the soul changes its body only gradually and by degrees, so that it is never deprived of all its organs at one go. Animals often undergo metamorphosis, but never metempsychosis; nor is there any transmigration of souls. No more are there any completely separate souls, or superhuman beings without bodies. Only God is entirely detached from body.

***** In a Christian world, it would of course have been heresy for Leibniz to do anything other than publicly repudiate Pythagorean metempsychosis (reincarnation). Instead, Leibniz emphasizes the notion of metamorphosis. Yet the ultimate metamorphosis is exactly that which occurs via successive, progressive reincarnations.

In the monadic system, you are finally free of bodies and matter only when you become God. (Of course, the doctrine of reincarnation culminating in gnosis – enlightenment – expresses the same idea.)

***** 73. This is also why there is never any generation from absolutely nothing, or complete death, taken in the strict sense of separation of the soul from the body. What we call ‘generation’ is unfolding and growth; just as what we call ‘death’ is infolding and shrinkage.

**** Birth doesn’t create the soul, nor “death” annihilate it. The system Leibniz is describing corresponds to neither reincarnation nor resurrection. Instead, he posits a universe of eternally transforming monadic souls. The “death” of a human body in this system corresponds to a Queen soul losing its macroscopic body, but retaining a microscopic body – like a tiny bacterium or spermatozoon, for example. It would still be part of the “physical” world, but effectively invisible to us, and, in due course, it would become associated with a new body via God’s pre-established design. With reincarnation, “death” completely separates a soul from its current body, and the soul then acquires a brand new body. With Leibnizian metamorphosis, “death” separates a soul from a macroscopic body, but not from a microscopic body, and in due course, it can get a macroscopic body again, according to whatever God has programmed for it. We could imagine it being transformed into some sort of angelic being after its human life.

***** 74. Scientists have had great difficulties over the origin of forms, entelechies or souls. But now that meticulous research has been carried out on plants, insects, and animals, it has been recognised that naturally organic bodies are never the product of gas or rotting, but always of seeds, which undoubtedly contain some sort of preformation. The conclusion has been drawn that, not only does the organic body already exist before conception, but also a soul in this body – in a word, the animal itself. The only function of conception is to precipitate a

major transformation, so that the animal becomes an animal of a different species. Even outside the process of generation, something similar is observed when maggots become flies, or caterpillars become butterflies.

***** “Leibniz takes it for granted that the seed somehow contains the form which will characterise the mature animal, though without manifesting that form itself. This is what he means by ‘preformation.’ “So the conclusion is, not merely that there is a seed (the ‘organic body’) before the generation or conception of the new animal, but that the animal itself (body plus soul) pre-existed in it. On conception, the latent or infolded form or soul becomes dominant, and the animal changes species, or is ‘transformed’. The transformation of a caterpillar into a butterfly is a similar process, except that the butterfly sloughs off the skin of the caterpillar, which doesn’t happen in conception.” – George MacDonald Ross

***** 75. We can give the name ‘seminal animals’ to the animals of which some are elevated to the status of macroscopic animals by means of conception. Nevertheless, the majority of them remain within their species, and are born, reproduce, and die, just like macroscopic animals. It is only the chosen few who pass through to a larger theatre.

***** Spermatozoon (plural spermatozoa), from ancient Greek sperma (“seed”), and zōon (“living thing”). Spermatozoa: “seed-animals”. Our bodies contain billions of bacteria, microbes, germs, and viruses, which have their own life-cycles. Hundreds of millions of spermatozoa die in the attempt to fertilize a human female egg. Only the chosen ones get through. Only they step onto the big stage. They are the “elect”.

The Leibnizian theory of metamorphosis can easily be treated as a species of reincarnation, as a kind of “physicalist” reincarnation. In normal reincarnation, a soul becomes entirely separate from the physical world at death and then acquires a new spacetime body. In this Leibnizian scheme, a soul always retains some infinitesimal physical spacetime presence, which then, thanks to God’s pre-established design, is able to grow into a full spacetime body via some conception event. Imagine that at the physical death of the body, one of the dust particles that leaves the body is actually conveying the dead person’s soul and that this will in due course become involved in a conception event, and grow a brand new body! The science of how souls dock to bodies is still in its uttermost infancy ... because science denies that souls exist at all! However, it will be fully explained in due course by Fourier mathematics – through the interaction of frequency and spacetime functions – and, almost certainly, via standard reincarnation rather than any “physicalist” reincarnation of the type described by Leibniz in his published Monadology, where his thinking is dominated by the need to protect the privileged status of the “God Monad” as the only monad with no association to matter and a body.

***** 76. But this is only half the truth. My conclusion is that, if the laws of nature mean that animals can never come into being out of nothing, they can no more return to nothing. Not only is there no coming into being, but there is no complete going out of being, or death in the strict sense. These a posteriori arguments drawn from observations are in perfect agreement with the principles I deduced a priori, above.

***** Soul death is impossible. Bodies die, souls don’t. Souls transition from one body to another via reincarnation. However, in a universe with a special “God Monad”, Leibniz’s conclusions logically follow.

*****

77. So it can be said that, not only is the soul indestructible, as the mirror of an indestructible universe, but even the animal itself – although its machine often partially dies, and loses or acquires organic coverings.

***** What is reincarnation if not the doctrine of “partial death”? Death is indeed a reality, but it’s only the death of the body, not of the mind (soul). True death – annihilation – is impossible. Only false death – bodily death, illusory death – is possible. We have partially died countless times. Endless bodies have failed us. Yet we are still here, still going, and we shall go on forever. In Leibniz’s universe containing one privileged monad – the God Monad – only this monad can exist as pure monad. All other monads must be associated with matter and bodies in some capacity.

***** 78. These principles have given me a way of providing a natural explanation of the union (or rather the mutual correspondence) of the soul and the organic body. The soul and the body each follow their own laws, and they coincide by virtue of the pre-established harmony between all substances, since they are all representations of one and the same universe.

***** “The relation between soul and body is not strictly a union, in the sense of their being bound together into a compound, but rather a mutual, or one-toone correspondence between perceptions in the soul, and motions in the body. They follow their own laws, in that the perceptions of a monad follow from preceding perceptions, and the motions of a body follow from preceding motions. There is no causal influence of one upon the other. The reason why they coincide (i.e. the reason why the one-to-one correspondence is maintained) is because of the pre-established harmony between all substances. The harmony is ‘pre-established’, because it was set up in God’s original creative act, and he never changes it. The two systems

(that of monadic perceptions and that of bodies in motion), correspond perfectly since they are both representations, though in different ways, of one and the same universe. “Elsewhere, Leibniz gives the analogy of two clocks which keep perfect time. The perfect clockmaker made them so well that neither of them ever goes wrong. They don’t keep in harmony because of any causal interaction (e.g. a rod linking the two pairs of hands); nor because the clockmaker adjusts one of them whenever he sees them beginning to diverge.” – George MacDonald Ross The true laws governing souls and bodies, and how they interact, are of course the mathematical ones of Fourier mathematics, relating the Fourier frequency domain of mind and the Fourier spacetime domain of matter.

***** 79. Souls act in accordance with the laws of final causes, through appetitions, ends, and means. Bodies act in accordance with the laws of efficient causes, or motions. And the two realms – that of efficient causes, and that of final causes – are in harmony with each other.

***** “Souls act in accordance with the laws of final causes – that is to say, they are constantly striving for, and being drawn towards greater and greater perfection. Bodies act in accordance with the laws of efficient causes – that is to say, they act in accordance with the laws of mechanics, and are pushed from behind by blind forces acting on them. God has brought it about that the two are in perfect harmony. “So, for example, my brain is a natural machine, in which particles of different shapes and sizes are whirring around at different speeds and in different directions. At some given moment, the brain transmits a motion down some nerves, which forces some muscles to contract or relax, and my arm rises. Exactly corresponding to these physical events, there are perceptions and appetitions in my soul, which result in my willing my arm to rise. The pre-established harmony ensures that they both happen at exactly the same time.” – George MacDonald Ross

It’s essential to understand that a purely scientific universe acts only according to the laws of efficient causes, i.e. nothing acts for any purpose, hence the scientific universe is formally meaningless. It’s a universe purely of how and not why, of means and no ends. An ontological mathematical universe, on the other hand, acts in accordance with both the laws of efficient causes and the laws of final causes, of how and why, of means and ends. It’s a meaningful, teleological universe. It’s a living machine striving to accomplish specific goals, not a dead universe with no aims at all, as science fallaciously claims. An ontological mathematical universe is consistent with the observed conduct of human beings – creatures of means and ends, of hows and whys, of continual striving. The scientific universe emphatically isn’t. Looked at objectively from the outside (if such a perspective were possible), the mathematical universe is doing nothing but painstakingly trying to restore its lost, broken symmetry. From the inside, this quest for perfect symmetry – for repairing broken symmetry, for healing the fractured psyche of the universe – looks like the Hegelian dialectic seeking the Absolute (total power, total reason, total harmony). It looks like souls evolving into Gods, and they become Gods at the point of maximum symmetry. This is the point where the two worlds – inside and outside, frequency and spacetime, mind and matter – finally and fully coincide.

***** 80. Descartes recognised that souls could not transfer any energy to bodies, since there is always the same quantity of energy in matter. Nevertheless, he believed that the soul could change the direction of motion of bodies. But this is only because, in his day, no-one had yet discovered the law of nature, according to which, not only the total quantity of motion in matter is constant, but also the total quantity in a given direction. If he had noticed this, he would have stumbled upon my system of pre-established harmony.

***** Mathematically, Leibniz is adopting a position based on vectors, in opposition to Descartes’ position based on scalar magnitudes only. It’s not

just motion that is conserved but momentum (directed motion; motion in a given direction). Descartes believed in a law of conservation of “motion”: its quantity in nature could be neither increased nor decreased. However, the real conservation law is that of directed motion. It requires an input of energy to change the direction of motion of a particle. Regarding the conservation of momentum, Wikipedia says, “In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with its surroundings and is not acted on by external forces) the total momentum is constant. This fact, known as the law of conservation of momentum, is implied by Newton’s laws of motion.”

***** 81. This system means that bodies act as if there were no souls (even though this impossible); and that souls act as if there were no bodies; and that the two act as if there were an influence of the one upon the other.

***** “Leibniz sums up by saying that we can explain physical events without taking souls into account; and we can explain mental events without taking matter into account; and yet the two systems run in parallel, so that it is as if the one were influencing the other.” – George MacDonald Ross Descartes produced a system whereby the physical world could be explained without any reference at all to minds. This was seized upon by scientific materialists and remains the core of their position to this day. Descartes’ immense problem – which he never resolved – was how to explain the mind-matter interaction, and indeed it remains unexplained in the present day. This, of course, is with the exception of the Illuminati who have fully explained it via Fourier mathematics, whereby the same information can be represented in two different ways: by spacetime functions or equivalent frequency functions. The “material world” is actually just a product of collective mind, with each individual mind being an autonomous frequency domain. Mind and matter cannot interact if they are two separate substances. They can interact

if they are the same substance mathematically represented in two different ways. No one outside the Illuminati has ever grasped that there is only one existential substance – unextended mind – but, thanks to Fourier mathematics, it can be represented in an extended (spacetime) form. Extension (matter) and unextension (mind) are not two separate substances. Matter is simply the extended spacetime representation of unextended frequency functions that inhabit monadic minds. The complicating factor is that the “mind collective” gets involved. In our private dreams, no such problem exists. The “physical” worlds we create in our minds during dreams show the inverse Fourier Transform in its rawest state. We can do whatever we like in our dreams: matter is fully controlled by our individual minds. Not so when the collective mind is involved. All the other minds of the universe now obstruct our ability to change the “physical” world, which is exactly why it seems so objectively real and independent of our minds. It resists us; it defies our will. Without Fourier mathematics, you are compelled to reach the mindmatter solutions proposed by the likes of Malebranche, Spinoza and Leibniz (in his published Monadology).

***** 82. As for spirits or rational souls, I find that, fundamentally, the same is true of all living beings and animals. As I have just said, the animal and the soul come into being at the beginning of the world, and no more go out of being than the world itself. Nevertheless, rational souls do have a special status. As long as their tiny seminal animals continue in their lower status, they have merely ordinary or sensitive souls. But as soon as those which are (so to speak) chosen attain human nature through an act of conception, their sensitive souls are elevated to the rank of reason, and to the privileges of spirits.

***** By this argument, the higher your “rank of reason”, the closer you are to God. This is the basis of the doctrine of hyperrationalism and HyperHumanity. Scientists are primitives with “sensitive” souls. Mathematicians and philosophers have rational souls. Isn’t it time you started trusting your

reason rather than your senses? Isn’t it time you realised this is an intelligible world in its kernel, and not a sensible world (which relates to the mere appearance of reality, and not reality in itself).

***** 83. Among the other differences which there are between ordinary souls and spirits (of which I have already given a partial account), there is also this difference, that souls in general are living mirrors or images of the universe of created things, but that spirits are also images of the divinity itself, or of the Author of Nature himself. They are capable of knowing the system of the universe, and can imitate it to a certain extent through their own small-scale constructions, since each spirit is like a minor deity in its own sphere of authority.

***** The more rational you are, the more you reflect the thinking of God. Illuminism is a Godlike system since it asserts that it reflects and explains the deepest workings of existence. Rational human souls (Logos souls) are the true images of God. Irrational human souls (Mythos souls) are not “made” in God’s image. They are not properly human. “He even goes as far as to say that humans are like minor deities within their own sphere of authority. Marxist commentators have noted how this reflects the feudal structure of Hanoverian society. The Duke himself is God; senior officials like Leibniz are humans, who understand what’s going on and have the power to institute public works; junior officials are like animals, who can carry out menial tasks under orders; and the workers are just bare monads.” – George MacDonald Ross Much the same is true today in free-market capitalism. Most people are proles – bare monads – while the elite are the “images of God”, leading perfect lives. If you want to become a perfect monad, you had better get rid of the hierarchy holding you down and holding you back. Otherwise, you will remain a bare monad forever: an unfulfilled, unactualised soul.

***** 84. This is what makes spirits capable of entering into a kind of social relationship with God. God’s relation to spirits is not merely that of an engineer to his machine (as is God’s relation to other created beings), but also that of a king to his subjects, and even that of a father to his children.

***** Here, Leibniz is pandering to typical Christian sentiment and orthodoxy. Had Leibniz lived in a society free of Christianity, he would have been able to release his genius to the fullest extent. Retarded belief systems retard everyone forced to participate in them, even the finest thinkers. Imagine what it’s like for any potentially intelligent freethinker in any Islamic nation today. Such people simply do not have any opportunities to develop their ideas. They would be jailed or even killed if they did.

***** 85. From this it is easy to conclude that the congregation of all spirits must constitute the City of God – that is to say, the most perfect state possible under the most perfect of monarchs.

***** Logos humanity is the true elect. We can build heaven on earth, and form a Community of Gods ... a Society of the Divine. We don’t need any Creator and we don’t need any monarchs.

***** 86. This City of God, this truly universal monarchy, is a moral world within the natural world. It is the most sublime and divine of God’s creations, and it is what God’s glory truly consists in, since there would be no glory if his greatness and his goodness were not known and admired by spirits. Furthermore, it is only in relation to this divine city

that God has any goodness, strictly speaking, whereas his wisdom and his power are manifest everywhere.

***** With this kind of rhetoric, Leibniz dreamt of reunifying Catholics and Protestants in a single Christendom, thus ending the savage religious wars of the time.

***** 87. I have already established that there is a perfect harmony between two natural realms: the realm of efficient causes, and the realm of final causes. Here I must note yet another harmony between the physical realm of nature, and the moral realm of grace – that is to say, between God considered as the designer of the machine of the universe, and God considered as the monarch of the divine city of spirits.

***** Scientists accept only a domain of efficient causes. Final causes (those associated with cosmic purpose) are denied. Scientists also deny any moral domain. Morality is impossible if there’s nothing but efficient causes. Final causes allow morality because they present an ideal target to be reached – moral perfection – unlike science, which has no aims at all. The domain of final causes, morality and meaning is the Fourier frequency domain ... the living domain of mind. The domain of efficient causes, amorality and non-meaning is the Fourier spacetime domain ... the machine domain of matter. The universe must be understood as a spacetime mechanical world of matter everywhere penetrated by a frequency living world of mind. Science just doesn’t get it. Do you?! Much of Kant’s thinking regarding the respective natures of the phenomenal world of science and the noumenal world of morality and freedom is clearly derived from Leibniz’s comments here.

*****

88. This harmony means that things lead to grace by means of nature itself. For example, the Earth must be destroyed and restored by natural means, as and when it is required by the government of spirits, in order to punish some, and reward others.

***** Christianity asserts that there will be a final battle of Armageddon, followed by the Last Judgment when the old world is destroyed and sinners die a “second death” (are annihilated or sent to hell forever). The world will then be restored in its original Eden-like perfection (or will be joined to heaven), and the elect will live in bliss under Christ’s reign forevermore. The view of Pythagoras, Plato, and several other ancient philosophers was that the universe is cyclical. Each Age ends in a great cosmic holocaust where everything is consumed by fire. There follows a new beginning when a new world arises from the ashes of the old, like the fabled Phoenix. “The essential point Leibniz is making here, is that the purely mechanical laws of Nature will bring about a destruction of the earth, exactly when the moral laws of the City of God require some people to be punished, and others rewarded.” – George MacDonald Ross

***** 89. It can also be said that God as creator includes God as legislator in every respect. Consequently, sins must carry their punishment with them in accordance with the order of nature, and even by virtue of the mechanical structure of things. Similarly, good actions will attract their rewards mechanistically and in the bodily realm, even though this cannot, and does not always have to happen immediately.

***** The idea of punishment and reward in this system is rather ridiculous. If God ordains everything at the beginning, no one is free to be the elect or the damned. God randomly choose some souls to enjoy heaven and others to endure eternal pain in hell. Leibniz is simply reflecting standard Protestant thinking.

At another level, Leibniz is hinting at a kind of karmic universe, where the physical world actually contrives to reward the virtuous and punish the wicked. A Leibnizian-style universe would be the only one that could makes sense of karma in any rational way since it could reflect a preestablished harmony between good deeds and good outcomes in the physical world, designed by God himself.

***** 90. Finally, under this perfect government there will be no good deed without its reward, and no evil one without its punishment. Everything must come out right for those who are good – that is to say, for those who are not rebels against this great state; who trust in providence after doing their duty; and who love and imitate the Author of all good as they ought to. This means deriving pleasure from contemplating his perfections, in accordance with the nature of genuine pure love, which derives pleasure from the happiness of the loved one. It is this which makes wise and virtuous people work at everything which seems to conform to the presumptive or antecedent divine will, and yet to be content with what God actually makes happen by his secret will, which is consequent and decisive. We recognise that, if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is – not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular. However this is so only if we have a proper relationship to the Author of everything – not merely as the engineer and efficient cause of our being, but also as our master, and the final cause which must constitute the whole aim of our will, and which alone can constitute our happiness.

***** Leibniz ends a brilliant work with a rather abject defence of Christianity. All the great thinkers of the time were forced to pervert their message to satisfy the Christian orthodoxy of the era. “As with Spinoza, the good life is not measured in terms of one’s relations to other people, but in terms of one’s relations to God. Ultimately, virtue

consists in the pure and disinterested love of God. “We then have a little bit of scholastic terminology. The ‘antecedent’ will is the will that everything should be the best for every individual; the consequent will, which results in the creation of the actual universe, is the best possible compromise between what is good for each individual. It is ‘secret’ because we finite beings cannot make the same calculations as God does. “Again like Spinoza, Leibniz is heavily influenced by Stoicism – the view that we should be indifferent to our own sufferings, and see them as contributing to the good of the whole, governed by a divine providence. If we understood things well enough, we would see that this is the best of possible worlds, and rejoice in the fact. “However, there is a Christian twist at the very end. Provided that we align ourselves with the will of God, we will find that this is not only the best possible world in general, but that it is the best possible for ourselves in particular. Less Christian is the implication that our happiness will be fulfilled on earth, not through a one-off second coming of Christ (as Hobbes held), but through a succession of rebirths as humans, each one of which will be better than the last.” – George MacDonald Ross

The Wonder of the World The Monadology is a breathtaking synthesis of philosophy, religion, science, mathematics and psychology. It’s one of humanity’s greatest accomplishments. All rational people are instantly drawn to the Monadology, and captivated it. Feeling and sensing types can’t get to grips with at all, however, seeing it as abstract and ridiculous. In the Monadology, Leibniz sets out a set of rational principles regarding the entire constitution and operations of existence, and a set of rational conclusions flowing from them. You might not agree with the principles and conclusions but at least they’re for you to analyse. Where are science’s rational principles and conclusions? There aren’t any! Science relies on a method, not on any principles. It has no first principles on which to draw, on which to return to resolve conflicts (such as those between quantum mechanics and relativity theory).

Science doesn’t want to state any principles because then it would open itself up to philosophical scrutiny, and it can’t stand philosophy and openly scorns it. Yet science’s method is by no means philosophically neutral. It tacitly embraces a very clear philosophical position: that of empiricism, materialism and positivism, and it emphatically rejects rationalism, idealism and noumenalism. Yet this is deliberately left unacknowledged so that philosophy is not allowed to challenge science’s core assumptions. Just as scientists are too philosophically illiterate to engage with philosophy, philosophers are too scientifically illiterate to engage with science. They are intimidated by the success of science and can’t understand that it’s just a giant con job, a grand illusion. They think that science is stating some kind of verified truth when, in fact, all that science does is systematically misinterpret mathematics via its Meta Paradigm of empiricism, materialism and positivism. Radically different conclusions can be drawn if you use the alternative Meta Paradigm of rationalism, idealism and noumenalism, yet these interpretations in no way contradict the experimental findings, and, in fact, make much more sense of them. Science refuses to admit any of this and shamefully hides itself behind of all of its bluster and baloney. A subject without any first principles, without any analytic principles, is an intellectual joke that can never reveal ultimate Truth. Science should be compelled to fully declare all of its tacit assumptions so that people can realise what they’re getting when scientists try to bamboozle them. Science, it must be repeated, is an instrumental method attached to an unstated philosophy. It is not a system of truth. It has no principles, no values, and no meaning. Ultimately, it’s merely a pragmatic system for matching experimentally observed patterns to theoretical mathematical patterns, and then attempting to interpret the results via a specific and highly dubious philosophical mindset. Science “works” for the following straightforward reason: if a quasimathematical formula is found that matches one experimental situation, it’s highly likely to apply to all experimental situations that resemble the first. There’s no mystery about it. The formula will be able to accurately predict all outcomes within the range of its applicability, hence will seem to reflect the truth of reality. However, it will fail as soon as it goes beyond its range. Newtonian physics is brilliantly successful in most situations but has a

range that is exceeded when we get to relativity theory and quantum mechanics, both of which replace Newtonian physics in their respective domains. However, these two theories also have their own ranges and are formally incompatible, meaning that yet another theory is required. But this theory will have its own limited range, and so on. There can never be any formal end to this process, i.e. science can have no conclusion. Only one formula – the final formula for everything – has a universally valid range, and that final formula is the God Equation. This must be arrived at via definitive rational, logical, analytic, deductive, a priori means, reflecting the eternal, necessary truths of reason, and can never be arrived at via science’s ad hoc method of trial and error involving contingent, inductive, synthetic, a posteriori interpretations of “fact”. Science is totally irrational. It doesn’t know and understand its own limitations. It has been blinded by its own success, and doesn’t comprehend that this success is exclusively due to mathematics, which is the real truth. It doesn’t grasp that there’s an entire mathematical world beyond the world of observable experimental patterns that must be taken into account to arrive at the final – mathematical – theory of everything. It refuses to accept “hidden variables”, i.e. the noumenal aspects of mathematics. Science is spectacularly childish and irrational, dazzled by its method that seems to yield so much, yet actually conceals so much more. Scientific materialism is defined by the scientific method, which is all about observations. Scientific idealism is defined by the mathematical method, which has nothing to do with observations. So, which side are you on? Here’s the bottom line ... scientific materialism and scientific idealism are both all about seeking to identify the mathematical formula that underlies and explains every conceivable pattern in nature. Scientific materialism tries to do this via a trial and error method of observation. It’s empirical. Scientific idealism uses analytic principles, logic, deduction and reason. It’s rational. So, we repeat, which side are you on – that of the fallible, unreliable, irrational senses or of infallible mathematical reason and intellect? There really isn’t a choice. Whether you like it or not, this is a rational, intelligible, mathematical universe, and all of its secrets are revealed through reason alone. Too bad if you’re irrational. The Truth is not for the likes of you.

Substance A substance is not dependent on anything else for its existence – except God, if you believe in Creationism (i.e. God creates all substances). In this case, God himself would be the only true substance – the sole uncaused cause. In his published Monadology, Leibniz defended the orthodox view of a Christian Creator God. However, in his unpublished Monadology, he obliterated this view. By his principle of sufficient reason, if the conditions pertain that allow the existence of one God, those same conditions must also permit the existence of an infinite number of such Gods, since what sufficient reason would there be for only one God, or indeed any arbitrary, finite number of Gods? No Creationist has ever explained why there should be only one Creator. They simply assume it, and in fact don’t even recognize that there’s any problem to be answered. Once you realize that infinite Creator Gods are possible, the whole idea of Creators becomes absurd. Monotheism is blown out of the water. In Illuminism, there are infinite souls (monads), but each is unconscious by default, and all are imperfect to begin with. They have limitless potential but, initially, have not actualized any of it. Their task is to realize all of their potential and become perfect, i.e. to become Gods. When all souls are Gods, a Cosmic Age is complete and the Gods commit collective “divine suicide”. This doesn’t mean they die, but that they reboot themselves, ready to begin another, new, wondrous journey to perfection. It’s the journey that counts, not the destination. As with sex, the journey to “orgasm” is the fun part that blows your mind, and the orgasm is the delicious culmination – but also the end of the sex (until the next time). Orgasm is the full actualization of the sex act, and yet also the death of that particular sex act (la petite mort – “the little death”, as the French say). Once orgasm has happened, everything gets reset for the next time. The entire universe operates in exactly the same way: as above, so below. With their collective “death”, the infinite Gods give rise to the conditions for the next Cyclic Age, hence are indeed Creator Gods – but they have to die to create, an idea inconceivable to Creationists. In a living universe, death – meaning the end of different phases of life – is essential. Life and death go together. Death is simply “the end”. Death in

this sense happens everywhere all the time. When the curtain comes down on a play, the play has “died”, but will of course be reborn the next night. When a song reaches its end, it has “died” – but you can bring it back to life by playing it again. Orgasm is the death of sex, until the next time. All endings are deaths, and without them there can be no life. Imagine being stuck forever in a perfect heaven with a perfect Creator where nothing ever happens because everything is already perfect and unchangeable. Would that not in fact be hell? Would it not be death itself? Where is the life in this system? Where is the ascent? Where is the rising curve? Where is the lifeblood? Where is the effort, the struggle, the ambition? Where is the purpose and meaning? A static universe is a dead universe. The Big Bang universe is a living universe. It mimics the lifecycle of a human baby. The Big Bang is the moment of conception. “Cell multiplication” then erupts (the expansion of the universe). Physical organs then appear – planets, moons, stars and galaxies. This is the universe’s body, composed of infinite cells. Just as human cells die (they have an internal death mechanism), so stars die, with many becoming black holes. Just as a baby starts off as unconscious and evolves consciousness, so does the universe. And just as the baby becomes a child, a young adult, a mature adult, an old adult and then a dead adult, so does the universe. As above, so below. The life cycle – always accompanied by the death cycle – happens everywhere all the time. People are terrified of death, and yet there can be no life without death. Death is an inherent aspect of life. Transhumanists are insane to seek deathlessness. What they would accomplish is meaningless life. “Heaven” is where life is stripped of all meaning because there’s no longer any reason to strive, to fear, to laugh, to weep, to wonder. That, in fact, is why even the Gods rationally choose suicide when every last grain of potential has been actualized, when the last juice of life has been fully squeezed and nothing at all remains to be accomplished.

Don’t Fear the Reaper “We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.” – Plato

Men are terrified of the light of reason. Men love the lies of faith, the feelings, the senses and mystical intuitions, hence our deluded, false world.

You and God “I once found this lovely thought, that the soul should conceive of things as if there were only God and itself in the world.” – Leibniz But why not change You and God to You are God! The soul should conceive of things as if it were God.

Which? Are you spreading our message ... or sabotaging it? Everyone who spends their time doubting us, contradicting us, making sarcastic and snide remarks, and so on, has no place in this Movement. We only want constructive, energetic, smart people. If you don’t see the importance of Illuminism, fuck off. It’s irrational to hang around something with which you fundamentally disagree. Unless, of course, you’re a psychopathic troll and you get off on aggravating people.

Apocalypse Never Christianity was and is an Apocalyptic religion. The world was supposed to end soon after the death of Jesus Christ. So, two thousand years later, the world is still waiting. Why didn’t Jesus die 1,000 years ago, or a hundred years ago, or last year? The more time that passes, the more unbelievable Christianity becomes. What’s the delay? Why are we waiting? Why was is so important for “God” to die on the cross two thousand years ago, and then for nothing to happen afterwards? Wasn’t this all planned out? When will Christianity be falsified? Will Christians still be around when the death of Christ is one million years in the past? There must come a time when no one will continue to believe. Would any Christian like to state when that time is? What about the year 2033 ... 2,000 years after the alleged crucifixion? If there’s no Second Coming then, on

the advent of the second millennium, Christianity should be considered officially falsified, and closed down for good. It’s time for Christians to put up or shut up.

Who’s Wearing the Mask? JM: “No human can become God. We are all expansions of God so none of us can be God because we are of God. [Your system] sounds like Satanism to me. And when it comes to Reality, you do not have your own individual reality, you have an individual perception of Reality. Do not be deceived for Satan will wear the Mask of God to deceive the many. ... You will never know God or be Him. Remember the ancient tale of the fall of Lucifer? Lucifer became Satan when he thought he could be God and that is when God threw him down to the Earth because to think that one can become God is untruthful and you are deceiving not only others but yourself.” Nutjob! Isn’t it strange that these people who deny that humans can be Gods routinely make the sort of authoritative, “infallible” statements that only Gods can make? If you admit that you are not God, how can you possibly know that humans can’t become Gods? JM is a classic, irrational, religious crank. What on earth does it mean to say that we are “expansions” of God? This is stated as a fact when it’s just JM’s irrational opinion. Note how he immediately switches to calling his enemies Satanists. Well, JM, we think you worship the Abrahamic God, and that makes YOU a Satanist! JM claims that we are not in fact individuals, yet we supposedly have an individual perception of reality. WTF! How can non-individuals have individual perceptions? This is incoherent gibberish. JM says that “Satan” will wear the mask of “God” to “deceive the many”. But how does JM know that he is not one of the many who have been deceived by Satan wearing the mask of the God he pathetically worships? What an embarrassing slave he is! JM blabbers on about Fallen Angels. What a fool and a clown. Why don’t you read a mathematics book, JM? But you’d rather die than accept reason as the Truth, wouldn’t you? Fuck off, sad sack. Go and eat dirt while you’re on your belly to your tyrant Torture God – Satan.

JM: “My family has disowned me as one of their own. I am happy that I do not need to deal with the abuse any more. True family is the people you call and know as family, not the blood you come from. Blood is not thicker than water.” JM, they’ve disowned you because you’re a nut, and a nasty one at that. No one asked you to comment on Illuminism, and blabber on about Satan. Fuck off, you moronic cunt. You’re certain to have a really sad life because of your mad beliefs.

Redundancy Ontological mathematics renders science, philosophy and religion redundant. It unifies them in a single all-embracing structure and thus changes them forever. All of the interpretations of science, philosophy and religion are false because they all rely on a false ontology and epistemology. Ontological mathematics is the cure ... the cure to everything.

Tolerance? The Platonic Form of Tolerance does not mix in any way with the Form of Intolerance. A tolerant person tolerates everything bar intolerance because to tolerate intolerance is to partake of the Form of Intolerance, which contradicts any claim to being tolerant.

Pure Activity God (=1) is pure active being in its absolute simplicity; pure form; pure mind. Matter (=0) is the absence of being; pure passivity; pure potentiality.

Apperception Apperception = “consciousness”; “The mind’s perception of itself as the subject or actor in its own states, unifying past and present experiences; self-consciousness, perception that reflects upon itself.” – Wiktionary

Appetition In Leibniz’s Monadology, higher monads have conscious desires and purposes – to reach higher states. Lower monads have an unconscious motivation (labelled “appetition” by Leibniz), also directed towards higher states. So, everything in the universe is consciously or unconsciously striving towards higher states, greater power, a more Godlike condition. This drive towards perfection reflects what Leibniz called “the principle of the best”. The universe, across its entire history, is the best of all possible worlds. It doesn’t jump straight to perfection. Rather, perfection unfolds slowly, majestically and inevitably. The Leibnizian universe provides the platform for Hegel’s dialectical universe, relentlessly progressing towards the Absolute, the Omega Point, the final, definitive and unique state of perfection.

The Two Universes A universe created by an all-knowing Creator is a programmed, determined universe with no room for free will and choice. An evolving universe with no Creator can, on the contrary, exhibit free will and choice. Which universe would you prefer to live in?

***** The final cause of the Universe – the tractor beam, the Omega Point, drawing everything towards it – is Total Power. Yet, dialectically, every monad has a different conception of what Total Power is, and how to get it, and that’s why we have every monad behaving differently, and freely. Their freedom reflects their own unique take on how to get where they’re going.

Illuminism Illuminism isn’t some mystical, kooky belief system for eccentrics and loons. It’s nothing but the religion, philosophy, science and psychology of

mathematics. Illuminism is the only conceivable rational alternative to atheistic scientific materialism. You must choose one or the other. Here’s why Illuminism is the choice of the world’s most rational people, and why any sane person would choose mathematics rather than science to account for the world: 1) Mathematics deals with truths of reason, and science with truths of fact. Truths of reason are analytic, necessary, eternal, a priori, deductive, immutable and absolutely certain. Truths of fact are subjective interpretations of fact. They are synthetic, contingent, provisional, ad hoc, arbitrary, a posteriori, temporal, mutable and have no connection with absolute certainty. 2) Mathematics is rationalist and has no need of the senses, experiences or experiments. Science is empiricist and rejects rationalism. Well, which do you find more reliable, intelligible and certain – your reason or your senses? 3) Science has a mathematical core, without which it would be astrology, alchemy and divination. Mathematics does not require science at all. So, mathematics is primary and science is a lesser, applied version of it, designed to accommodate sensory prejudices. 4) Mathematics provides a flawless, eternal framework in which to explain everything. A Big Bang Singularity or black hole singularity is a purely mathematical entity. Science provides a botched, ever-changing view of reality, dependent on the latest hypotheses and experiments. Science cannot explain singularities. They make no sense within the scientific Meta Paradigm. 5) Science cannot explain mind, consciousness, free will, life, or the mindbody problem, i.e. everything that counts. Mathematics can explain all of these (as has been demonstrated throughout the God Series). 6) Science is based on verification and falsification principles, meaning that nothing is ever indisputably true or can ever be definitively verified. Mathematical truths, on the other hand, are in no need of verification and cannot be falsified since they are eternally true. 7) If you are interested in truth, only eternal truth will satisfy you. You will not accept as true something that can be “falsified” ... if it can be falsified then it plainly isn’t true! Provisional or contingent truth is no truth at all.

Scientists believe that truth is to be found in statements that are not true (!) since if a statement can be falsified then it’s not something that we can assert to be true. We can call it true “only for the time being” [until we think of something better] ... and that’s not Truth. For example, the scientific statement, “All swans are white” is falsified by the discovery of any nonwhite swan, hence we would never at any time be able to state definitively that all swans are white. It would never be anything more than a provisional opinion, and you can’t build an eternal universe on provisional opinions. Moreover, how do we know that all “white” swans exhibit the same degree of whiteness, in which case are they all actually “white” in the same way? When you analyze any “scientific” statement, it dissolves into interpretive mush. You would stake your life on 1 + 1 = 2, but never on “All swans are white”, or any other scientific statement. As Nietzsche so damningly said, “There are no facts, only interpretations”. “Truths of fact” are actually “truths of interpretation”, i.e. they are provisional, dubious and infected by belief, opinion, conjecture and delusion. Alternatively, they are “interpretations of true fact”, i.e. true facts exist but we can’t be sure of them since we are locked into interpretation, which is always uncertain and unreliable. Mathematics is enormously more powerful, beautiful, elegant, economic, rational and explanatory than science. The sole reason why it’s not accepted as the correct way of accounting for reality is that it has nothing to do with the senses, and human beings, especially empiricist scientists, are obsessed with their senses, and can’t reason their way past them. What scientists seek to accomplish is a model of reality consistent with what they observe experimentally, but modern science no longer has any connection with what we observe with our human senses. Quantum mechanics is about as far removed from common sense and our familiar sensory experiences as you can possibly get. As for something such as M-theory, it’s not clear that it can be amenable to experimentation in any way, in which case it’s nothing but metaphysics. The empiricist “logic” of science is fast disintegrating. Mathematics is about ultimate reality being intelligible rather than sensible, while science is about ultimate reality being sensible rather than intelligible. Well, you have the clearest possible choice. What shall it be – will you use your intelligence or your senses when it comes to understanding ultimate reality? There can be only one rational winner in that contest.

Science has had its day. It was a necessary expedient while humanity was building up its understanding of mathematics. But now that humanity has immense mathematical knowledge, and now that science itself is getting more and more mathematical, it’s time to switch over wholesale to mathematics. Who needs science? Scientists are dinosaur thinkers, soon to become extinct. They are just one step up from religious believers. Where believers privilege their feelings over reason, scientists privilege their senses over reason. Only mathematicians and philosophers give reason its proper place at the head of the pantheon. In the end, the rationalists will become Gods and the believers and empirics will slide back into the ancient slime. Reason is the way forward. Higher humanity will succeed because of its intelligence, not because of its feelings or senses.

Dynamic Forms The more complex a dynamic Form, the longer it takes to reach its dynamic endpoint (Omega Point) and become stable. That’s why simple things are picked up quickly across a population, while complex things remain the property of only the most intelligent people.

Efficient and Final Causes “[The efficient cause is] the source of the first beginning of change...” – Aristotle Efficient cause = “scientific cause” = how. “[The final cause is] that for the sake of which [something is done – the purpose]...” – Aristotle Final cause = teleological cause = why. Leibniz established a universe with both efficient and final causes, both hows and whys. Science dismisses final causes. It’s all about purposeless processes. Things happen for no reason and are not trying to accomplish anything – the opposite of mental, intentional, directed processes. Only free, autonomous minds have purposes, so if you subordinate minds to matter (you claim that minds are derived from matter and cannot

exist otherwise), you deny that the universe has any purpose. Scientific materialism leads automatically to the view that we live in a meaningless universe, operating solely according to inexorable chains of efficient causes in which free will can never intrude (because free minds are impossible). Idealism (where mind is primary and “matter” derived from it) is, on the contrary, all about teleology, with efficient causes fully in the service of final causes. Final causes are compatible with freedom (we are free to choose how to accomplish our ultimate aims), efficient causes are not. If we live in a universe where we are genuinely free, and not subject to an inexplicable delusion that we are free without actually being free, then scientific materialism is demonstrably false. Science has already been formally refuted, but you need to be rational to grasp that, and scientists aren’t rational. They consider things manifesting to their interpretive, evolutionary sense organs to have more reality than rational, eternal, necessary things (mathematical things).

The Law of Continuity Leibniz advocated a law of continuity in which every process happens smoothly and continuously via all intermediate points or steps. Nothing ever happens by jumps or leaps, and nothing is ever random, springing out of nowhere. Thus Leibniz would have rejected the scientific materialist explanation of the Big Bang as resulting from some inexplicable random event. By the law of continuity, the Big Bang must be part of a smooth, continuous process and must be consistent with whatever state preceded the Big Bang. Absolutely no randomness can be involved. The law of continuity also implies eternity since nothing can suddenly jump into existence. The law of continuity implies that mathematics is the basis of reality, and that entities move through infinitely close points (because, otherwise, they would be “jumping” over existential gaps).

Necessary Beings “If a necessarily existing being is possible, it will certainly exist, for if a necessarily existing being does not exist it will be impossible because it implies contradiction that some being exists necessarily and yet does not

exist. Therefore the issue comes down to this, that we show that a necessary being, or an essence from which existence follows, is possible. ... If a necessarily existing being is possible, then its essence can be understood to include necessary existence.” – Leibniz A being necessarily exists if it’s logically possible and nothing can prevent its existence. For something to necessarily exist, it must have zero net energy. If it has no energy requirement, nothing can obstruct it. If it did have any energy requirement, it would be dependent on that energy being available, and, if it wasn’t, then it couldn’t exist. Its existence would therefore not be necessary. This is a critical point. Necessary existence must be grounded in nothing. The 1D strings that constitute the fundamental elements of M-theory are not necessary because they are positive energy entities, hence are immediately dependent on an energy source, hence are contingent, not necessary.

The Great Axiom “There is nothing without a reason. Or, what is the same, nothing exists without there being some reason that can be given (at least by the omniscient) why it exists rather than not, and why it is thus rather than otherwise.” – Leibniz Via this Great Axiom – the principle of sufficient reason – Leibniz is revealed as the über rationalist. This principle is the most important principle of all, and the source of all other principles. In fact, it’s the source of existence itself. For if everything requires a sufficient reason then that implies that necessary existents are themselves in need of a sufficient reason, which implies that they are in turn dependent on something external to them (the sufficient reason), meaning that they are not in fact necessary at all, which is a contradiction. If things cannot exist without a sufficient reason then the only things that can necessarily exist are those that come with a sufficient reason built into them: it’s their essence, their quintessence. In other words, sufficient reason is what existence fundamentally, necessarily is ... if you accept that this is a rational universe. The basic elements of existence are uncaused sufficient reasons! There is only one way for that to make sense: the basic elements of existence are inherently rationalist, ontological mathematical entities. They

can furnish a sufficient reason for everything else – they can cause everything else without themselves being caused. Leibniz wrote, “... there is nothing without a reason, but that does not mean that there is nothing without a cause. For a cause is the reason for a thing outside of the thing, or its reason of production, but it is possible that the reason for a thing is inside the thing itself. And this is the case in all those things which are necessary, like the truths of mathematics which contain their reason in themselves...” Only those things which “contain their reason in themselves” can necessarily exist, and only mathematical entities of inherently zero net energy qualify. These are Leibniz’s mathematical monads, which also happen to be souls ... and Gods in the making! Leibniz was the supreme enemy of the sloppy, lazy, random, probabilistic thinking that’s so prevalent in modern science. It’s obscene that scientists – who are supposed to be seekers of knowledge, of reasons and explanations – have declared that “explanation” can be found only in inexplicable, uncaused, random events with no sufficient reason. They might as well base science on magic! The philosophical illiteracy of scientists has reached embarrassing proportions when they imagine that they can “explain” reality via the inexplicable (i.e. random events lacking any cause or reason). Is that not truly mad? In their own way, scientists are as irrational and fanatical as Abrahamists. They despise mind, free will, consciousness and even life itself. They want reality to be one vast purposeless, meaningless, pointless machine that came into existence in the first place out of inexplicable randomness. What sane person could be attracted to this view, or find it even remotely plausible or rational? Scientists over and over again betray that they are autistic. They lack empathy and sympathy. They have no intuition and imagination. They have no wonder in the true sense. A populist TV scientist such as Brian Cox stares at the night sky and says, “Isn’t the universe amazing?” then promptly strips it of everything – consciousness, free will and teleology above all – that makes it authentically mind-blowing. Scientists are incapable of holistic thinking. They reduce everything to sterile, lifeless, mindless machine parts that they can grasp with their feeble, deluded, deceptive senses (which they are unable to understand are feeble, deluded and deceptive!).

God spare us from the Abrahamists ... and the scientists.

***** “I think therefore I am.” – Descartes Truth is ... therefore there is existence. Reason is ... therefore there is existence. What is thinking? How is it possible? It’s underpinned by the necessary fact that truth and reason exist. No one could think otherwise. There can be no thinking if the universe isn’t grounded in true, rational things. Thinking is the flow of information ... it’s the uniform flow of structured, ontological mathematical sinusoids. And thinking is life itself! Math = mind = life. They are all the same thing.

***** Leibniz draws a distinction between causes and reasons. Causes act on things from outside those things, while reasons act from within them. Causes, we might say, are external reasons. In this context, free will results from internal reasons, while non-free will results from external reasons. Science believes only in causes, and rejects reasons altogether; it believes only in externality, and no internality. Reasons reflect necessity, internal agency and teleology – all of the things that science refuses to countenance. All necessary things are reasons, and, by definition, they are uncaused causes since they have nothing external to them that determines them.

The Eternal Truth “It is true, or rather it is necessary, that a circle is the most capacious of isoperimetric shapes, even if no circle really exists ... likewise if neither I nor you nor anyone else of us exists. ... And because that truth is eternal or necessary, this reality that is in it independent of our thinking will also exist from eternity. ... the truth of necessary propositions is eternal. Truth is a certain reality independent of our thinking. Certainly some eternal reality always exists. That is, the truth of necessary propositions always exists. Therefore some necessary being exists. Whatever exists is possible. Some

necessary being exists. Therefore some necessary being is possible.” – Leibniz Usually, “God” is given as the “necessary being”, but, of course, the true necessary being is the monad, the “God-in-the-making”, and there are infinitely many of them – including all of us! We are necessary, uncaused, uncreated, indestructible, and immortal. We are life itself. We hold the Truth itself. In our innermost mathematical essence, we are mirrors and bearers of the Truth. We are the Gods themselves!

***** Eternal truths must inhere in something that is itself eternal. There is no sufficient reason why there should be only one eternal thing (“God”), and there’s nothing to prevent infinite eternal things, so in fact there will be infinite eternal entities (monads). Each monad carries within it all objective, eternal truths – which are of course those of ontological mathematics. Moreover, these eternal entities (monads) must be minds and be alive (and, in fact, to have a mind is to be alive: you can’t have a mind and not be alive, and you can’t be alive and not have a mind, and that goes for plants too). Contrary to what scientists believe, it’s impossible for life to “emerge” from non-life, and mind from non-mind. Life and mind on the one hand, and lifeless, mindless machinery on the other, belong to different categories, and it’s a category error to think they can give rise to each other. These two contradictory categories in fact manifest the same problem as Cartesian dualism. It’s impossible to see how they can interact (i.e. how can life and mind interact with the lifeless and mindless?), and equally impossible to understand how and why nature should produce two incompatible categories. It defies Occam’s Razor. Nature does not act superfluously. So, logically, there are infinite eternal things, each encoded with the full laws of ontological mathematics, and, moreover, each is a living mind, i.e. an eternal being – a soul! The universe is literally made of mathematical souls, exactly as Leibniz insisted. All the contingent things of the world come from the necessary things of the world, and could not exist otherwise. If all necessary things are living monadic minds then all the contingent things are derived from life and mind, and imbued with life and mind, albeit at second hand.

Such a view explains all of the mysteries of existence in a manner impossible within the scientific materialist paradigm (which has no connection whatsoever with life and mind).

***** It might seem hard to accept that reality is made of mathematical reason. If that’s the case, some people might say, how can feelings and irrationality be explained? The crucial thing to understand is that ontological reason isn’t conscious reason. It can’t rationally reflect on itself and plan the best, optimal, most rational way forward. Living reason has to do the best it can to reason its way forward to higher rational states. It does so via very crude, brute force methods ... the most basic expression of rationality. Feelings, for example, are a simple, basic means of allowing something to “rationally” decide what is favouring its progress and what isn’t. If you feel pain, sadness or boredom, you are not progressing. If you feel pleasure, happiness or excitement, you are progressing. It’s a perfectly rational strategy to always want to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. The problem of course is that long-term pain (hard work!) can be much more valuable to us than short-term pleasure (instant gratification). However, you need to be highly rational to see that. For things stuck at low levels of rationality, they will use primitive, non-optimal rational tactics. Equally, Abrahamists seem utterly irrational in their beliefs, but the truth is not that they are irrational, but, rather, they are operating at an extremely unsophisticated level of reason. Abrahamists are people of low intelligence and what they’re looking for is a simple answer to existence that they can understand, and which allows them to structure their lives and give them hope. The idea of a monotheistic, Creator God being the cause of everything is as simple as it gets. The fact that it’s wholly false is neither here nor there. It’s entirely rational for a stupid person to adopt a false belief that makes sense to him ... in preference to a true ontology that he can’t fathom and doesn’t help him to negotiate his way through life. A world of living reason isn’t a world of equal reason. Some beings are far more rational than others. All of them are rational but some are using much higher and more effective reasoning powers than others. It’s irrational for people to use tools they don’t understand, so less intelligent minds are compelled to use sub-optimal rational tactics and strategies. Everyone

everywhere has reasons for acting as they do, i.e. they are demonstrating that reason does indeed underlie everything. The real problem is that all reasons are not equally good. Some people have very bad, poor and inefficient reasons for doing what they do, while others have exemplary reasons. The dialectic is the means by which, over billions of years, good reasons finally triumph over bad reasons. It’s not an easy or straightforward contest because, as Nietzsche pointed out, lies can be extremely life-enhancing and truth can seem utterly horrific and life-diminishing. If ontological mathematics is the absolute Truth of existence, but people are too stupid to understand it, why would they accept it as the Truth? That itself would be irrational! You can accept only what you understand and if you can only understand simple things, those are what you will consider the Truth. We are all prisoners of our degree of reason and intelligence. The more rational and intelligent you are, the closer you are to the genuine Truth of existence. Even in our modern world of science, billions of people still subscribe to ancient religious superstitions, customs, rituals, prohibitions, taboos and absurdities. Why? For the simple reason that the scientific worldview is incomprehensible to them. They can’t follow it, and what little they can follow, they hate and fear. Is it easier to understand M-theory, or to believe that “God” made the world in six days and rested on the seventh? All of us are rational, but some of us are much more rational than others! We all have reasons for what we do, but they’re not all good reasons. No one anywhere does anything for what they know to be bad reasons. They all think they have good reasons, or the best in the circumstances. That ipso facto means we live in a rational universe – a universe governed by reason. There is no contradiction between a “stupid” universe and a rational universe. “Stupidity” is just sub-optimal reason, as viewed from more optimal levels of reason. Living reason is not monolithic, fixed and uniform. It has different grades and qualities. It forms an evolving hierarchy. It’s dialectical. If you want to study living reason, study Hegel.

Rest and Motion

“...rest can be considered as an infinitely small velocity, or as infinite slowness. This is why everything that is true as regards slowness or velocity in general should also be confirmed of rest taken in this way; so much so that the rule of rest should be considered as a particular case of the rule of motion; otherwise, if this does not hold, it will be a sure sign that the rules are badly devised. Likewise equality can be considered as an infinitely small inequality, and inequality can be made to approach equality as much as we like.” – Leibniz Why do scientists never rely on acute reasoning such as this? Scientists hate reason! If they respected it, science would be full of Leibnizian rational principles. Instead, it’s full of ad hoc nonsense, trial and error, and Feynman guesses.

The Material Illusion “...matter is not composed of constitutive utilities, but results from them, since matter, i.e. extended mass, is only a phenomenon founded in things, as a rainbow or parhelion, and all reality exists only in unities. ... But substantial unities are not parts, only the foundations of phenomena.” – Leibniz This serves as an excellent way of describing ontological Fourier mathematics, from the age before Fourier mathematics was discovered. Matter is a mental phenomenon and has no other reality. There is no such thing as the matter in which scientists believe (with no evidence or proof). “Matter” is an interpretation – a misinterpretation – of mental phenomena.

Illuminism versus Science If science is the mathematization of British empiricism and materialism, Illuminism can be thought of as the mathematization of German rationalism and idealism. Science, being materialistic, leads to atheism; Illuminism, being idealistic, is religious or spiritual. “Religion”, in its broadest sense, means

that mind, not matter, is primary, and mind can therefore exist without matter (contrary to what science claims). In Illuminism, we can certainly anticipate a life after our current body has perished and turned to dust. Atheism denies that anything mental occurs after death. Religion asserts that mental activity continues even after death and asks what this mental afterlife will be like. That’s the essential difference between an atheist and a religious or spiritual person. “God” doesn’t need to come into at all. The soul, not God, is the basis of true religion.

The Dream Your dreams are the proof that you are immortal, that you are an indestructible soul and can never die. Physical death is not mental death. You will possess many different material bodies via reincarnation. In fact, you already have. Countless physical lives already lie behind you. Each body dies, but you go on. Every soul is an infinite frequency domain. A frequency domain can do something remarkable. Via the inverse Fourier Transform, it can create spacetime representations of frequency functions. In other words, a soul – simply by thinking mathematically and converting frequency functions into equivalent spacetime functions – can create whole “physical” worlds in its mind. The so-called material world doesn’t exist as anything other than an inverse Fourier Transform. In your dreams, you create your own private world and populate it with anything you like. There are no laws, other than those of Fourier mathematics. You can do whatever you like in your dreams, make anything you like, meet anyone you like, simulate anyone you like. There are no objective laws of space and time, no objective causal laws. You can do anything. You can fly, walk through walls, shrink yourself and expand yourself, make yourself invisible. You name it, you can do it. Your dreams are “proof of concept”. They show that minds – frequency domains – can generate the illusion of physicality. So, why shouldn’t “actual” physicality be a mentally-generated illusion too?

*****

Physicality is inside space and time. Frequency is outside space and time. If you exist as a unitary frequency domain outside space and time then you do not belong to the material world, hence you cannot die in material terms. You really are an eternal being. You can never escape from your existence. You are as old as existence itself, and existence is eternal. You have always existed. You have been with the universe through every step. In your mind is the history of everything that has ever been in the current Cosmic Age. Every secret of the universe is stored in your mind. You yourself have the answers to everything – if you did but know it. The universe consists of nothing but infinite frequency domains – souls! This collection of souls can do something astounding. Rather than always dream individually in complete isolation, the souls can also dream collectively. This is what produces the objective, waking world that we all share. The waking world is an objective, collective dreamworld, while the sleeping world is a subjective, individual dreamworld. That’s the only difference. Both obey Fourier mathematics. When we go to sleep, we leave the public reality and enter the private reality. When we awake, we leave the private reality and re-enter the public reality. We are always dreaming, individually or collectively. When we “die”, our current body leaves the collective dreamworld permanently, and we can only re-enter the collective dreamworld by being reborn via reincarnation. In other words, reincarnation is about the periodic reinsertion of ourselves into the collective dream, via the acquisition of new “dream bodies”. Each mind can generate its own private “material” worlds in its own individual dreams, but all of the minds working together can also generate a public material world in their collective dream. This public material world of the collective dream is extremely different from the private material world of private dreams. It has fixed laws of spacetime, of mass and energy, of gravity, and so on. In other words, the public material world is the place of objective laws of science. No human mind can overturn these public laws. They are binding on everyone. Every other mind resists you in the public world, whereas no mind resists you in your private world. That’s what differentiates these worlds and gives them their distinctive character. In your private dreamworld, your will is the only will present. In the public dreamworld, all wills are present ... you are up against the will of

every other living monad. Your will is being resisted. The Freudian Id acts as though it’s the only will (i.e. it lives in a fantasy world). The Freudian Superego is acutely aware of all other wills (i.e. it lives in a moral world). The Freudian Ego mediates between the Id and Superego via the reality principle (i.e. it lives in the real world). The private material world of individual dreams is based on internally generated coordinates. Everything takes place within the individual soul and has no connection with any other soul. A soul in these conditions is “windowless”. It’s hermetically sealed. The public material world of the collective dream is based on collectively generated Cartesian coordinates. Every monad is assigned unique coordinates in this collective Cartesian arena, this perfect coordinate grid. When all of the minds together perform their usual inverse Fourier transforms – but now directed at a collective mathematical arena rather than individual mathematical arena – they thereby generate what we know as the material world, which science then foolishly concludes is independent of us, rather than created by all of our minds working together. The “matter” that scientists believe in is simply the collective, objective product of minds working in mathematical concert. It has no reality in the absence of minds, contrary to what scientists claim. Scientists are mathematically and philosophically illiterate, which is why they are materialists rather than idealists. Has any scientist ever mathematically explained dreams and how dream worlds can so closely resemble the “real” world? Clearly, dreams must be using the same basic mathematical techniques, but without generating any objective “matter”. The collective inverse Fourier Transform processing of infinite minds is in fact none other than the basis of quantum mechanics! All of the minds together calculate the evolution of the cosmic wavefunction that generates our collective physical reality. The collective wavefunction is both objective and subjective. As a conscious being, carrying out conscious actions and choices, you are affecting the evolution of the cosmic wavefunction with your conscious thoughts. However, you do not of course engage in any conscious manipulations of the cosmic wavefunction in itself (in its infinitely complex mathematical form). All of that takes place at the deepest unconscious, mathematical level, which produces what we know as atoms and subatomic particles. Their behaviour is dictated by definite quantum laws, and, at the

classical level of physics, they form what seem like solid, objective “things”, operating according to deterministic, “local” causality. Why are the laws of physics the same everywhere? Because they are based on monads, which are everywhere, all identically obeying the common laws of ontological mathematics. The God Equation rules all, not the piecemeal, incompatible and inconsistent, contingent, empirical “laws” of science.

Four Worldviews There are four worldviews: 1) The religious worldview, based on feelings (Abrahamism) and mystical intuitions (Easter religion). 2) The philosophical worldview (based on thinking). 3) The scientific worldview (based on the senses). 4) The mathematical worldview (based on pure reason). The universe in its innermost kernel is nothing to do with feelings, nothing to do with mysticism, nothing to do with thinking divorced from pure reason, and nothing to do with the senses, hence mainstream religion, philosophy and science are ipso facto false. The universe is, however, a rational, ordered, organised, patterned place, and that means it’s made of reason and follows rational principles. It is, in other words, mathematical. People believe mathematics to be abstract and unreal. That’s the biggest mistake they can make. Mathematics is the basic fibre of existence.

Free Will “For I define ‘free’ as that for which no reason can be given other than the will; therefore nothing exists without a reason, but that reason is intrinsic to the will.” – Leibniz Science denies the existence of the will, of internal agency and teleology, hence denies free will. Science always relies on causes other than the internal will, i.e. external causes. The existence of internal causes, reasons

or purposes automatically destroys the scientific paradigm, hence why scientists are so keen to deny internal agency. “I therefore conclude that true freedom consists in the power that we have to reason carefully about things and to act according to what we have judged the best.” – Leibniz We always act according to what we judge best. The problem is most people aren’t good at judging what is best. “The more a man knows, the freer he is, since error and constraint are equally contrary to freedom of action.” – Leibniz Stupid people aren’t free! You are freer the more rational you are, the smarter you are, and the more correct you are.

Mind and Matter: Individual and Collective The greatest misnomer in history is “matter”, implying that it’s something radically different from mind. In fact, the true division is between individual mind (subjectivity) and collective mind (objectivity). Science, when it studies “matter”, is actually studying the operations of the Collective Mind of infinite monads, each of which is identically encoded with the laws of ontological mathematics. The Collective Mind is radically different from the individual mind because all subjective ontological mathematics (living mathematics) is stripped out, leaving just objective ontological mathematics (machine-like mathematics). Reality is about individual, subjective minds interacting with the objective mathematical arena (the “universe”) defined by the Collective Mind. That is what science has never grasped and never come close to grasping. Science is good (or, rather, effective) at understanding objective mathematics, but spectacularly hopeless at understanding subjective mathematics defined by zero and infinity. Mathematics is the only conceivable rational explanation of reality. There is no rational alternative, but plenty of mad alternatives.

The Centre and the Circumference

“But unities, even though they are indivisible and without parts, nevertheless represent the multitudes, in much the same way as all the lines from the circumference are united in the centre of the circle, which alone faces it from all sides even though it does not have any size at all. The admirable nature of the sentiment consists in this reunion of infinity in the unity, which also makes each soul like a world apart, representing the larger world in its way and according to its point of view, and that consequently each soul, once it begins to exist, must be as durable as the world itself, of which it is the perpetual mirror. These mirrors are likewise universal, and each soul exactly expresses the universe in its entirety, because there is nothing in the world that does not experience the effect of everything else, although the effect may be less noticeable depending on the distance. But of all souls there are none more elevated than those that are capable of understanding the eternal truths, and not just of representing the universe in a confused manner, but also of understanding it and of having distinct ideas of the beauty and grandeur of the sovereign substance. That is, those that are capable of being the mirror not only of the universe (as all souls are), but also of what is best in the universe, that is, of God himself; and this is what is reserved for minds or intelligences, and makes them capable of governing other creatures in imitation of the creator.” – Leibniz “It will be asked how the composite can be represented in the simple, or the multitude in unity. I answer that it is more or less like when an infinity of radii converge and make angles in the centre, completely simple and indivisible though this centre is.” – Leibniz “With the universe being a kind of fluid, all of one piece and like an ocean without limit, all motions within it are conserved and propagated to infinity, though insensibly, just like the circles of which I have spoken (which came about by a stone thrown in water) are propagated visibly for some distance, and although they become invisible in the end, the impression does not cease spreading itself to infinity, as is quite clear from the laws of notion. This communication of motions means that everything is related to and affected by everything else, although more often than not distant things do not have noticeable effects.” – Leibniz “Each soul is a world in miniature...” – Leibniz

***** “And just as there are two sorts of perception, one simple, the other accompanied by reflections that give rise to knowledge and reasoning, so there are two kinds of souls, namely ordinary souls, whose perception is without reflection, and rational souls, which think about what they do: the first are merely mirrors of the universe, but the second are also imitations of the divinity. Ordinary souls are governed purely by examples from the senses, like empirics, but rational souls examine by reason (when they can) whether past examples are applicable to the present case. The souls of beasts consequently can never arrive at necessary and general truths; just as an empiric can never be sure if what has been successful for him in the past (without his knowing the reason for it) will be successful for again in the future.” – Leibniz Here, Leibniz highlights the problem, taken up by Hume, of induction. Just because something has happened or been observed over and over again in the past, does not necessitate that it will continue to happen in the future. Hume is sometimes taken as the bridge between the philosophy of Leibniz and that of Kant.

The New Mythos Mind In the modern day, the old and silly Abrahamic Mythos has been replaced, for a certain group of people, by a new and silly Mythos – conspiracy theories. Rather than “Satan” being the source of all evil, it’s government, the State and a shadowy group of puppetmasters labelled “the Illuminati” – who are apparently pan-dimensional, shape-shifting lizard-beings from another world. Well, as they say, if you believe that, you’ll believe anything. Countless people continue to accuse us of being stooges for the elite because we state the self-evident fact that 9/11 was performed by Muslim maniacs and not by the American government against its own people. There is not one particle of credible, rational evidence that the American government was responsible for 9/11. There is, however, endless evidence that they weren’t and that nineteen Muslims working for Osama bin Laden did it.

As we keep stating, those who think 9/11 was an inside job are fanatics who despise government and the State. They are an unholy alliance of left and right wing anarchists. They have weaved 9/11 into their elaborate Mythos that everything to do with the government and the State is evil and must be overthrown. There is of course plenty wrong with the current governments and States of the world. But that’s because self-serving, privileged, rich elites are in charge. It’s privilege and wealth that are the true enemy, not government and the State. Through a Meritocratic Constitution, we can get rid of privileged, dynastic elites forever and ensure that governments and States always serve the interests of all of their citizens. Anyone who thinks that anarchy or free-markets are the answer to the world’s ills is demented.

Higher Humanity? “It ought to be believed that there are rational souls more perfect than us, that could be called genies, and we could well be of their number one day. The order of the universe seems to require this.” – Leibniz

The Mechanical Sect Scientists are the mechanical sect and Illuminists the living sect. Do you support machinery or life? “...everything possible demands existence, and hence will exist unless something else prevents it, which also demands existence and is incompatible with the former. ... every possible will demand existence to such an extent that it actually exists, or some things do not exist, and then a reason must be given why some things exist in place of others. But this cannot be given otherwise than for a general reason of essence or possibility ... Unless in the nature of essence itself there is some inclination to exist, nothing would exist: for to say that some essences have this inclination and others do not, is to say something without a reason, since existence seems to be generally traced back to every essence in the same way.” – Leibniz “The same reason that brings it about that these things exist rather than other things, also brings it about that something exists rather than nothing. For if a reason is given why these things exist, the reason given will also be

why anything exists. The reason is the prevalence of reasons for existence, compared with the reasons for non-existence, that is, to say it in a word, in the essences’ demanding of existence, so that those things will exist which are not impeded. For indeed, if nothing demands existence, there would be no reason for existing.” – Leibniz In fact, it’s not a case of necessary things demanding to exist since that implies their existence is not certain (hence not necessary). Rather, it’s rationally impossible for them not to exist. Nothing can stop them. They are inevitable. “But assuming that all things demand existence, the existence of some things follows, for although all things may not be able to exist, the existence of those things follows through which most things co-exist. For example, if a and b and also c were equal, and a were incompatible with b and with c, but b were incompatible with a and compatible with c, and similarly c were incompatible with a and compatible with b, it would follow that all three a, b and c would not exist at the same time, and neither would one alone, a or b or c, but two, and of the various pairs ab would not exist, nor ac, but only bc. From this it is evident that every possible tends to existence in itself, but that it is impeded by accident, and that there are no other reasons for not existing, unless they arise from connected reasons for existing.” – Leibniz Leibniz’s arguments lead inexorably to one startling conclusion. Only one equation, the most productive equation of all, can exist. It is the most compossible equation. This is the God Equation. This equation takes the role of God in Leibniz’s following comments: “However, there must be in reality an existing source of existencedemanding essences; otherwise there will be nothing in essences except a figment of the mind, and since nothing follows from nothing, there will be a perpetual and necessary ‘nothing’. But this source cannot be anything other than the necessary being, the foundation of essences, the origin of existences, i.e. God, acting most perfectly, because all things are in him and come from him ... For essences do not make their way to existence except in God and through God, so that there is in God the reality of essences , or of eternal truths, and the production of existents, or of contingent truths.” “God” is not a being. God is in fact the ultimate information system, from which all other information – including “God” – is generated. The God

Equation is the source of existence. It’s the Pythagorean Monad, the Neoplatonic One. Mathematically, it’s the generalized Euler Formula from which flows all reason, all causality, all of ontological mathematics, all logic, all information, all energy, all mind and all life. It is ontologically expressed through living, monadic, mathematical minds, which it defines. What could be a better God than this one? What could be a better, more rational explanation of existence? Only if existence is mathematical does it have a rational answer.

Two Worlds in One The most important fact of all for explaining the reality we encounter is that informational mathematical functions can be represented in two equivalent ways: as local spacetime functions and as non-local frequency functions. Our left brain hemisphere, where consciousness is located, is concerned with local spacetime functions and reflects the sensory world. Our right brain hemisphere, where the unconscious mind is located, is concerned with non-local frequency functions and reflects the intuitive world. An individual mind is an infinite frequency domain. The Collective Mind isn’t. Only a small, finite number of frequencies from each monad (low-energy frequencies) can be shared between minds. There would be no material world if frequencies of infinitely high energy were surging through it. Ultra high frequencies are completely locked inside individual monads. What this means is that the Collective Mind produces only a gross, crude representation of physical reality. It lacks the full range of frequencies with which to generate a precisely defined spacetime reality. The corollary is that our own individual minds take the “gross world”, shaped by the Collective Mind, and then fill in all of the fine detail. To this extent, Kant was right. He was wrong in asserting that our individual minds produce reality. In fact, the Collective Mind produces the basic, crude reality – the “fuzzy” quantum world, we might say – and individual minds then make it a coherent, detailed, unfuzzy, whole (gestalt), greater than the sum of its parts.

*****

We have stated the big picture of how the mind-matter system works, but a huge amount of detail is waiting to be added. This will happen only when scientific materialism is overthrown and replaced with ontological mathematics. Imagine if all of the smartest people in the world were working on Illuminism rather than many of them frittering away their intelligence and ideas on the hopeless cause of M-theory, the grandest folly of scientific materialism.

The Placebo Effect Why do psychosomatic illnesses exist? Why does the placebo effect work? It’s literally because our mind – the individual mind – fills in so much of the fine detail of the big picture furnished by the collective mind. We have a much higher degree of control over our bodily health than we suspect.

The True Christmas? “Aren’t we forgetting the true meaning of Christmas? You know, the birth of Santa?” – Bart Simpson Why shouldn’t Santa explicitly replace Jesus Christ as the essence of Christmas? Even better, why shouldn’t Christmas return to its pagan roots in the Roman Saturnalia!

Causality “A true proposition is one whose predicate is contained in its subject, or more generally one whose consequent is contained in its antecedent...” – Leibniz A dynamic mathematical equation has exactly this property of every consequent being contained in its antecedent. Therefore, causality – the relentless unfolding of cause and effect – is an analytic property, built into mathematics. “Therefore the predicate or consequent is always in the subject or antecedent, and the nature of truth in general, i.e. the connection between the terms of a proposition, as Aristotle has also observed. And indeed, in identities this connection and inclusion of the predicate in the subject is

explicit, whereas in all other truths it is implicit and must be shown through the analysis of concepts, on which a priori demonstration is founded.” – Leibniz “...nothing happens for which a reason cannot be given why it should happen thus rather than otherwise.” – Leibniz “...nothing exists without a reason, or there is no effect without a cause.” – Leibniz “If we imagine that the world has existed from eternity, and that there have been only globes in it, a reason must be given why there should be globes rather than cubes.” – Leibniz Science spectacularly refuses to account for why anything is as it is, and invokes randomness and infinite universes (the Multiverse) to explain away everything. “Explaining away” is of course nothing to do with real explanation.

The Illusion of Space and Time “There is no vacuum. For the different parts of an empty space would be perfectly similar and mutually congruent, and could not be distinguished from each other, and thus would differ in number alone, which is absurd. In the same way in which it is proved that space is not a thing, it is proved that time is not a thing either.” – Leibniz Space and time are not things in their own right, as Newton claimed, and spacetime is not a thing in its own right, as Einstein claimed – they are mathematical consequences of the generalized Euler Formula.

***** Note that Leibniz’s system is absolute, hence can never be compatible with Einsteinian relativity. There are no two identical monads, and, since everything is based on monads, there can be no part of existence that is not precisely, absolutely, monadically defined. Relativity relies on being able to reframe the state of the entire universe to accommodate the perspective of a particular part of the universe as if it were the centre of the spacetime universe, but, if every part of the universe is defined absolutely (and if

there’s an entire frequency domain outside spacetime), no such relativistic reframing can take place, and all of Einstein’s arguments fail. Never forget that either Einsteinian relativity or quantum mechanics is definitely wrong since these two theories are utterly incompatible. Indeed, both theories, as currently farmed, are wrong, although quantum mechanics can be saved by the introduction of an ontological frequency domain, while this would definitively contradict relativity theory. Einsteinian relativity can have no possible connection with a world based on idealism, on unique minds. If you agree that mind exists, you have ipso facto asserted that Einstein is wrong. Relativity is a spectacularly stupid idea. It’s compatible with neither materialism – things existing in a definite, absolute physical state – nor idealism – things existing in a definite, absolute mental state. Relativity theory didn’t even falsify other theories proposed at the same time, which were absolute in character while using exactly the same mathematics as Einstein did. Einstein’s theory simply became more fashionable than the alternatives. Relativity is just an interpretation, not any kind of fact. It’s a scandal that so little scientific effort is directed to overturning this relativistic drivel.

Mind-Matter Interactivity Things can be caused only by things of the same category. Physical motions cause physical motions and mental motions cause mental motions. Of course, this is true only of a system where mind and matter are not interactive. In an interactive system, physical motions can cause mental perceptions and sensations, and mental activity can cause physical actions. This means that mind and matter must in fact belong to the same category, despite their apparent differences. We might invoke the concept of a “tertium quid” – a third thing – which underlies mind and matter and unites them. This third thing is of course ontological mathematics. And, to be absolutely specific, the particular mathematical instrument that dictates how mind and matter interact, and ensures that they belong to the same category, is the Fourier Transform. The significance of the Fourier Transform cannot be overestimated. It defines our existence. It allows the same information to be mathematically represented in two different ways, one in space and time (“matter”), and one outside space and time (“mind”). In the most simple terms, we have only

one category of information, but it can be equivalently represented in two different ways. Any change to one is automatically reflected in the other. So physical motions are in fact reflecting mental motions, and vice versa. The Fourier Transform is the long-sought answer to the mind-matter problem, and only the Illuminati have ever understood this. Fourier himself didn’t grasp the scope of his achievement. Did you really imagine that math wouldn’t be the answer?!

***** “Fly, you fools!” – Gandalf

Black Holes “There is no atom. Indeed there is no body so small that it is not actually subdivided.” – Leibniz Had Leibniz heard of black holes, he would have said they contained infinite monadic points! “From this it follows that a world of infinite creatures is contained in every particle of the universe.” – Leibniz Leibniz would emphatically have said that black holes are alive! “...a reason for indivisibility cannot be found in atoms.” – Leibniz The ancient Greek Atomists stated that atoms were indivisible. They gave no reasons why that should be so. They just assumed it.

Excellence “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” – Aristotle The basis of the claim that you can only become an expert in something after you have devoted 10,000 hours to it is foreshadowed in Aristotle’s remark. Most people are experts in wasting time – it’s what they do habitually. They spend far more than 10,000 hours doing it. They are as far

as you can get from excellence. How you spend your time defines you, and most people spend their time on absolute trivia. The internet, for so many of its users, is the perfect time-wasting device. Social networking is the exact obstacle that will prevent people from ever achieving excellence in anything. It devours their time, frittering it away on sheer nonsense ... on grumpy cats and dogs with amusing overbites.

Inner Force “In every substance there is nothing other than that nature or primitive force from which follows the series of its internal operations. ... in addition, any given substance contains the whole universe, and the states of other things can be recognised from its states. ... the more perfect a substance is, the more distinctly it expresses the universe. ... Every monad is a mirror of the universe according to its point of view ... And in a monad there are only perceptions and tendencies to new perceptions and appetites, just as in the universe of phenomena there are only shapes and motions.” – Leibniz Leibniz argues in effect that there is a noumenal mental domain, and a phenomenal, “scientific” domain deriving from it, and running in parallel with it, in perfect harmony and accord. Had he heard of the Fourier transform, Leibniz would have seen immediately that it made perfect mathematical sense of his otherwise mysterious system. With the Fourier transform, functions in a frequency domain outside space and time (a mental domain) can be represented by corresponding functions in space and time (a material domain).

***** God, or, rather, the God Equation, is the perfect mirror of the universe, and everything is reflected in it.

Metamorphosis “Therefore, animated things do not arise or perish, but are only transformed.” – Leibniz

Death is a curious idea in scientific materialism. The claim is made that mind – a truly extraordinary property of animals, the quality gives them life – perishes absolutely. No trace of it remains whatsoever. A human mind that an instant before death was full of love, emotion, will, desire, philosophy, reasoning, intuition, and so on, simply vanishes forever. How is it possible? Moreover, how did it come into existence in the first place? Its creation is just as mysterious as its annihilation. Are the materialists right that it was produced just by arranging mindless atoms in a certain way? And does it vanish merely because that arrangement changes ever so slightly? If you accept the first law of thermodynamics that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed, why don’t you also accept that physical and mental energy must be transformations of each other and not completely separate states of existence, i.e. matter doesn’t miraculously produce mental energy out of nothing, but mental energy was always explicitly or implicitly present in matter. To put it another way, mindless, lifeless atoms aren’t mindless and lifeless, hence scientific materialism is false. Ancient materialists believed in hylozoism – living matter. Isn’t that a far superior and more logical version of materialism? It’s consistent with both Aristotelian hylomorphism and Marxist dialectical materialism. Scientific materialism is the most primitive and crude version of materialism. It gets rid of life and mind as part of fundamental reality, and then has to explain them away as miraculous “emergents” from collections of lifeless, mindless atoms!

The Past If the past existed, you could go back to it. But the past does not exist. There is no past. This is one of the most important facts of all. It means that it’s utterly false to imagine anything as a solid, static thing that endures over time. Since the past doesn’t exist, nothing is more than an instant old, and can never be any older than that. Everything is calculated on an instant by instant basis. Heraclitus said, “There’s nothing permanent except change.” That’s exactly right. Nothing is more illusory than the notion of persistence – the

key concept that underlies materialism. If there are no persistent, solid things then matter does not exist. To put it another way, if the past does not exist, neither does matter. The concept of matter is incompatible with the theory of tensed time. What does it mean to refer to your body of one instant ago? It’s a nonexistent! The “matter” of which your body was made an instant ago isn’t there anymore. The “matter” of which your body is now made is entirely different, and is newly calculated with each passing instant. It’s not a question of “solid” matter persisting over time. Rather, it’s a question of dynamic information changing imperceptibly, so that the information that constituted your body of an instant ago is extremely similar to the information that constitutes your body now. Information, not matter, stays roughly constant from instant to instant, but changes radically over time. An old man bears no resemblance to when he was a newborn baby. He doesn’t contain a single atom that he had then. In fact, atoms don’t actually exist. They are calculated information functions, and they are freshly calculated every instant. Our memory deceives us about the continuity of things. Imagine you had a memory span of just one instant and forgot everything that happened before that. You would have no concept of solid, enduring matter persisting over time. You would not be a materialist, and you would in fact have a far more accurate idea of how reality operates, namely calculating everything anew instant by instant as part of an ever-changing cosmic mathematical wavefunction, which is the only true reality.

***** To Nicolas Malebranche, a disciple of Descartes, bodies persisted in their existence only because God constantly re-created them. They seemed to move only because God recreated them in a slightly different location each time (in which case there’s no real motion at all but only the appearance of motion, just as a “motion picture” – a movie – is constructed by running together a continuous sequence of stills, each wholly devoid of motion in itself). To Malebranche, it was unthinkable that anything other than God could be active and exercise force, that anything else could be a causal agent. To suggest otherwise was, in his view, to claim that there were

sources of power external to God, hence God was not all-powerful, as his definition required him to be. Malebranche was famous for his “occasionalist” doctrine – his attempt to resolve the Cartesian problem of how mind and body can interact with each other. He denied that they interact at all and maintained that God has occasion to match external physical states with our internal mental states. He wrote, “We are the natural causes of the movement of our arm; but natural causes are not at all true causes, they are only occasional causes which act only via the power and efficacy of God’s will.” So, human will can have no influence on any body. God’s will is what acts on bodies, and God ensures that the external world is harmonised with our thoughts about it. Our legs move not because we will it but because God moves our legs to reflect our desire to move. (Presumably he can’t be bothered doing this work for paralyzed people!) Our mental states provide the occasion for God to intervene in the physical world. In Leibniz’s secret Monadology, all monads are sources of activity, force and causality (hence are all would-be Gods!). However, his published Monadology reflects ideas not so different from what Malebranche proposed. For Malebranche, God intervenes in the world instant by instant. For Leibniz, God harmonizes everything at the beginning of time (including all future states), and doesn’t need to intervene after that. The “mechanical philosophy” of the seventeenth century depicted the physical world in terms of matter in motion, with the motion being sustained by a mysterious “force”, which could seemingly be transferred from one body to another. Yet imagine a moving ball striking another, stationary ball. The first ball recoils and the stationary ball begins to move. What, exactly, is it that leaves the first ball and enters the second? Where does this transfer take place? Are we to imagine some internal substance rushing out of one ball and into the other? Can we observe this transfer as it happens? No atoms are transferred, so it’s something else that’s transferred, but what? It seems to be unobservable, immaterial and intangible, i.e. not something belonging to the physical world at all. So, is it from the mental world?! The more you think about force, the more baffling it becomes, and the more it seems connected with mind instead of body. In fact, it doesn’t seem to be “force” at all that’s transferred but mathematical information! It was widely held in the seventeenth century that minds were active and matter passive. A stationary body could do nothing to move itself, unless it

was linked to a mind, which could then cause it to move. Otherwise, it would have to be struck by another body already in motion before it could itself acquire motion via force transfer. This way of thinking lends itself to God’s mind being the ultimate source of all motion in the universe. Without his mind, the world would be stationary ... unless there were in fact countless minds (monads) in the universe, each an independent and inexhaustible source of motion.

***** “...mind ... supplies motion to matter. For matter by itself is devoid of motion. For the origin of all motion is mind as Aristotle rightly saw.” – Leibniz

Surfing Imagine that all you ever did was surf “now”, the present instant. Imagine that you had no knowledge or memory of the “past”, and no anticipation of the “future”. What would you experience? Of what use would your senses and intuition be to you?

Will to Power “There is only interpretation.” – Nietzsche “Our values are interpreted into things.” – Nietzsche “All meaning is will to power.” – Nietzsche “The perspective decides the character of ‘appearance’.” – Nietzsche “There are no ‘facts in themselves’ for a sense must always be projected into them before there can be ‘facts’.” – Nietzsche “The value of the world lies in our interpretations.” – Nietzsche “The will to power interprets.” – Nietzsche Nietzsche regarded Will to Power as directed at interpretation and evaluation. It assigns value and meaning; it gauges value and meaning; it is

always interpreting and evaluating. And is that not exactly what human beings are always doing? Will to Power seeks to optimize itself, i.e. to maximize meaning and value, thus optimizing life itself. Will to Power’s “goal” is its own maximum actualization. That process can end only if there’s a state that actually corresponds to maximum actualization. That, of course, is what we refer to as “God”. In a system in which power itself is the goal, the endpoint is the perfect possession and expression of power, of exactly the kind we associate with an all-powerful being (“God”).

The Best World The best possible world is not created by any God. The best possible world is self-creating, and its final output is an infinity of Gods because what world could be better than one that reflects infinite divine perfection in infinite separate nodes, in all conceivable nodes? The best possible universe is the one that culminates with a divine universe where all potential – an infinite amount of it – has been fully actualised.

Monads Monads are everywhere, forming a perfect continuum and plenum. The universe is full. It simply can’t get any fuller. There are no gaps whatsoever. To put it another way, the universe is an enormous Collective Mind comprising countless individual minds. To be more specific, it’s a gigantic Mathematical Mind. We literally inhabit a dynamic, cosmic mathematical function, with each of us serving as one of its nodes and contributing to its evolution and its search for perfect symmetry. Each monad has, as Leibniz said, “the reason of its existence within itself.” Each monad is uncreated and uncaused. Each monad is its own sufficient reason. Each monad is reason itself. The universe is a vast organism of living reason striving to become conscious and thus know itself fully. Hegel’s dialectical philosophy is all about how it accomplishes this. Monads are the arche, the primal substances of existence, the fundamental units of ontology. They are Hegel’s Geist. They are the cause

of everything and the source of all motion and activity. Monads are the true atoms of existence. They are not just atoms, but beings, life forces – souls! The universe is literally made of souls. It’s Soul World and its greatest creation – its crowning, glittering jewel – is the material world. The monadic universe provides the greatest variety together with the greatest order. It furnishes the greatest degree of possibility, and the maximum conversion of potentiality into actuality. Immortal souls do not inhabit mortal bodies. On the contrary, mortal bodies temporarily inhabit immortals souls. The physical world is inside the mental world. The physical universe is an extraordinary collective illusion. It’s the dialectical arena where souls can interact with each other and grow and develop towards divinity (maximum actualisation).

Life-Giving Comets? In the “late, heavy bombardment” of 3.8 billion years ago, countless comets – made of rock and ice and carrying carbon-based organic molecules – rained down on the barren, sterile Earth, giving us our oceans, rivers and carbon, and thus the basic ingredients of life itself. All the water and all the organic molecules that make up all living things seem to owe their origins to comets. According to the theory of panspermia, comets even brought life – alien life – to our planet, by way of microbes. Earth was literally colonized by bacteria from outer space, and comets were likewise taking life to every other planet in the universe. Comets being unexpected, unpredicted and seemingly appearing out of nowhere, were regarded by the ancients as fiery signs from the Gods, portents of doom or great change. Did these fiery signs moving across the skies convey message from God himself? Were they messengers of God? Were they angels? The Chinese classified comets into twenty-nine distinct types and shapes. One of these was none other than a Swastika. Were the Nazis the People of the Comet?! Comets were always taken as mark of the presence of the Gods in the skies. Comets may well have been the origin of tales of fire-breathing

dragons, or one-eyed flying giants, or cosmic, fiery wizards. Comets seem to carry the power of life and death itself.

Always Moving Leibniz said that monads exhibit “appetition” – an active tendency to move from one state to another; an appetite for new states, we might say. In other words, there is something in the present state of a moving body which is already anticipating the next state. In fact, this is exactly what causality is. Each state is the effect of the previous causal state and, in turn, becomes the cause of the next state (its effect).

The Light BP: “Illuminism is the postmodern religion of enlightenment. It is pure reason and well as pure Neoplatonic and Gnostic religion. It is the light that shall set us free.” True!

Matter In Leibniz’s philosophy, the impenetrability and inertia of material bodies constitute the passive force of matter while the motion of material bodies is the active force in matter. The passive and active forces in matter originate in the respective passivity and activity of monads. Just as moving bodies move from one location to the next, minds move from one perceptual state to the next, or one thought to the next.

Correspondence Theory of Truth The correspondence theory of truth claims that truth consists in correspondence with the facts, so Truth = truths of fact. However, these “facts” are actually not true at all. They are interpretations. All authentic truth is in fact necessary truth, i.e. Truth = truths of reason.

The Universal Spirit

Many people – such as Buddhists – believe that there are no individual souls but, rather, some kind of single, universal spirit which, as Leibniz noted, “thinks, believes and wills one thing in me ... but contrary things in different persons.” This, self-evidently, is ridiculous. It’s as obvious that, as Leibniz said, “we are in ourselves something particular which thinks, which perceives, and which wills, and that we are distinguished from another being who thinks and wills something else.” Buddhism, frankly, is irrational, unbelievable and risible. Only the deluded and ignorant would ever take it seriously.

Monadic Substance A monad is a unity. It’s indivisible and indestructible. It’s permanently active. Its activity defines it. A soul is activity. It’s the primary cause of its own states. It acts continuously, without any interruption. For Leibniz, “substance” was the key to his philosophy and philosophy in general. He said substance was, “Of the greatest importance and fruitfulness for philosophy ... most of the important truths about God, the soul and the nature of body, which are generally either unknown or unproved [follow from it].” The correct definition of substance is indeed the most important task of all. Everything flows from it. Get it wrong and you’re building castles on sand. Leibniz said that Descartes’ definition of two substances (mind and matter) led to “errors”, and Spinoza’s single God/Nature substance to “paradoxes”. Only mathematical substance, instantiated through monads, works. Science totally repudiates any philosophical or mathematical notion of substance, and instead bases all of its ontological and epistemological claims – such as they are – on its empirical method, but with no reference to its rationalist, mathematical engine, and the ontology and epistemology of mathematics.

Descartes and the Soul Where the ancients spoke of vegetative, sensitive and rational souls, Descartes spoke only of the rational soul. Below God, only humans and angels are rational, so, Descartes concluded, only humans and angels have

souls. In Descartes’ philosophy, vegetative and sensitive souls were reduced to purely physical actions. He openly said, “[There are] no souls in animals.” Nearly every great thinker has reached the Cartesian conclusion that reason is the quintessence of the soul. The more rational you are, the more soulful you are. The less rational you are, the more you resemble a beast. The more rational you are, the more you are the image of God, the mirror of God, and God is nothing but the God of Reason, the God of Mathematics. Reason is our instrument for understanding the intelligible world – the true world beyond the senses and feelings. The intelligible world is Plato’s domain of objective truth. The sensible world is an inferior copy, a mere simulacrum, full of opinion, fantasy, interpretation, belief, feelings and lies. The intelligible world is about Form, the sensible world about Content. The intelligible world is about the information carrier, the sensible world about the interpretation of the information carried. The intelligible world is the rationalist world, the sensible world the empiricist world. Mathematics deals with the intelligible world, science the sensible world.

***** It’s only when you acquire conscious reason that you can gain access to the intelligible world and start to understand the true nature of reality. Scientists, locked into the sensible world, are like smart chimps. They are nowhere near ultimate truth. The Platonic Intelligible World is the world of Truth. Nothing else is.

***** Leibniz called a rational soul a mind or spirit. All monads are souls, but few of them are rational souls. A monadic universe is a universe of souls, and what it seeks to accomplish, in order to generate the best of all possible worlds, is a universe of perfect rational souls: God souls. Hegel spoke of the evolution of Geist (mind/spirit) from bare potential (being/nothing) to perfect actualisation (the Absolute) via the dialectic of becoming. It’s always the case that rationalism is the quality that needs to be maximised. The human race must commit to rationalism – and abandon

faith, Karmism and materialism – if it desires a divine future.

***** Leibniz said that the more humans reason, the more they enter into “a kind of society” with God. They imitate God on a smaller scale. The less you use reason, the more estranged you are from God. So, in this view, faith takes you away from God, hence should be regarded as a Satanic force!

***** Imagine you had no memory. Would your soul be meaningful if you couldn’t remember what happened a moment ago? Memory is the key to identity, hence how memories are laid down and stored goes to the heart of reasoning and consciousness.

***** For Leibniz, animals act empirically rather than rationally. Of course, the same could be said of scientists! Scientists are glorified brutes, stuck with sensitive rather than rational souls. David Hume estimated that people are about three quarters empirical to one quarter rational. We are guided by the association of ideas rather than any causal connections. For example, we expect the sun to rise tomorrow because it has risen every other day. We associate the sun with a particular sequence of actions, yet, hundreds of years ago, people had almost no understanding of the sun. They certainly had no knowledge of nuclear fusion! Given that they knew nothing of what the sun is and does, they could have no conceivable understanding of the sun’s operations and whether it would really rise tomorrow. People expect the sun to rise, but they don’t know that it will. A process could be in process inside the sun right now to destroy it. We can have no knowledge of such a process ... until it’s too late. The ancients produced mythologies – divine stories – regarding the sun and why it rises and sets every day. Don’t kid yourself that science has produced anything more than a sensory mythology regarding the sun. The sun is, like everything else, a purely mathematical object, reflecting mathematical operations.

***** Humans can say “I”. Animals cannot. For Descartes, all mental activity belonged to self-aware souls. For Leibniz, most mental activity had nothing to do with self-awareness. For Descartes, animals are just elaborate mechanisms. They do not feel, sense, perceive, or think in any humanlike way. Leibniz, on the other hand, argued that countless perceptions are not consciously perceived, i.e. they are unconscious, and animals are reflective of this unconscious activity, but have no consciousness. Leibniz was the first true philosopher of the unconscious, another of his remarkable claims to fame.

***** “If we take ‘action’ to be an endeavour towards perfection, and ‘passivity’ to be the opposite, then genuine substances are active only when their perceptions ... are becoming better developed and more distinct, just as they are passive only when their perceptions are becoming more confused.” – Leibniz Lead an active life if you want to be perfect ... the more active the better.

***** If Descartes were right about the soul, resurrection would be much more rational than reincarnation. After all, it would be impossible for a soulless animal to gain a soul. Where could inherently rational, conscious souls originate except in an act of Creation by God? In Illuminism, the soul is unconscious by default, and consciousness (hence the ability to exercise reason and choice) is something that evolves only very slowly, across many lifetimes. There is no radical separation between an animal and a human regarding the soul. It’s not a question of humans having souls and animals not having them, but, rather, of souls existing on a continuum, with humans simply having more advanced souls than animals, and “angels” having more advanced souls than humans. God has the most advanced soul of all, one that reflects pure reason and complete knowledge and understanding of the intelligible world. This

means that God has total knowledge of mathematics and all eternal truths of reason. With such knowledge, you possess the maximum possible understanding of objective reality. You know down to the finest detail exactly why the world is the way it is, and you know there is no conceivable possibility that you are wrong. You have attained the condition of the Hegelian Absolute. You have reached the Omega Point of Existence.

The Unconscious Mind We are always unconscious! Or at least half our mind is – the half associated with the right hemisphere of our brain. Human behaviour is frequently odd because it’s conducted by two minds – a conscious mind in the left hemisphere and an unconscious mind in the right hemisphere. Our behaviour is a complex negotiation between consciousness and the unconscious. “At every moment, there is in us an infinity of perceptions, unaccompanied by awareness or reflection. ... [We do not always] pay heed to certain of our own present perceptions, we allow them to slip by unconsidered and even unnoticed.” – Leibniz Even when we are asleep, we have some degree of liminal perception, enough to cause us to wake up if there’s an unexpected noise. “Death” is simply a special kind of sleep, reincarnation a special kind of waking.

Esoteric Devil Worship Kabbalah is Judaised Hermeticism, Neoplatonism and Gnosticism (i.e. it’s all about making these esoteric systems conform with Judaism and be consistent with Jewish customs and beliefs). It’s unthinkable that any genuine Illuminist would regard Kabbalah as a serious subject in its own right. You might as well become a Jew and get on your knees and worship Jehovah – the Devil. It’s fantastically depressing to encounter “Illuminists” proclaiming their devotion to Kabbalah. Illuminism is, ultimately, the study of ontological

mathematics, but we rarely see ontological mathematics ever mentioned by “Illuminists” on Facebook pages. Here’s the news: the Fourier Transform tells you more about reality than the whole of Kabbalah put together; indeed the whole of religion put together. Kabbalah is a silly Jewish Mythos trying to steal the clothes of Western esoteric thinking and to dress the Devil (Jehovah) in finer robes. Don’t be fooled by it. Do you want to be another Madonna? You wouldn’t catch her studying the Fourier Transform. Mathematics is the truth. There is no other truth. That’s the gospel of the Illuminati.

Extraverts “People need external activity because they have no internal activity.” – Schopenhauer Extraverts are usually shallow, unless they can commit to a sacred cause, which gives them internal ballast.

The Importance of Music “Without music, life would be a mistake.” – Nietzsche If mathematics provides the objective nature of reality, nothing is a better subjective expression of reality than music. Music is aural mathematics. It takes us to the interior experience of mathematics, the “withinness” of it. When we hear and respond to music, we are hearing and responding to existence itself, but subjectively rather than objectively. With mathematics in itself, we confront reality objectively.

Hyperego? EC: “I just began to REALLY wonder... does hyperhumanism comes with a hyperego?” BP: “Excellent question. Just a thought but I would imagine a hyperhuman being devoid of ego since the ego is of the lower self. As those who had

hyperhuman consciousness in previous ages lost their capabilities due to the rise of ego consciousness.” In Illuminism, mind and body are linked by Fourier mathematics, but the relationship is not perfectly symmetric and is subject to the anticommutative law, meaning that brain and mental states are linked but separate: physical states are produced by mental states, but are not identical to them. Some mental states are not reflected physically, and physical states can occur that do not reflect any mental choices by minds. The material world is based on quantum mechanics, which, if truth be known, is the study of collective mental states (of the Monadic Collective) as opposed to the mental states of single minds (monads). The objective material world shows the operations of the Collective Mind, while the subjective dreamworld we encounter when we sleep (and cut ourselves off from the Collective Mind) shows the operations of the private mind. So-called mind-matter dualism is actually (individual mind)-(Collective Mind) dualism, an entirely different concept, and one grounded wholly in minds and not bodies. The word “ego” is problematic. “Ego” is simply the Latin for “I”, but it has been loaded up with extraneous baggage. An obsessive interest in oneself (narcissism) is associated with words such as egotism, egomania, egocentricity, and “ego trip”. Slowly but surely, “ego” has become associated with arrogance and negative attributes. In Jungian psychology, the Ego is simply the centre of consciousness, while the Self is the centre of the whole psyche, conscious and unconscious. In Freudian psychology, the Ego is the rationalist entity that mediates between the Id and Superego, and obeys the Reality Principle. You couldn’t function without an Ego. It’s absurd to see the healthy Ego as an enemy. In effect, it’s the selfish, narcissistic Id that people are condemning when they refer to someone as an egomaniac. The Id is entirely concerned with the self, while the Superego is concerned with others. The Ego works out when to pursue selfish desires, and when to cooperate with others. If the Id becomes far too dominant then the Ego effectively becomes the Id’s slave, and that’s when pathological egotism erupts. These people are Id-iots, not Egoists. Buddhism – the absurd religion of the anatman (the not-self) has been horrifically successful at undermining the value of the Ego. This religion

should be rejected. Even its support for reincarnation is meaningless since you can’t have true reincarnation without an eternal self (soul). Illuminism has nothing to do with Buddhism. Illuminism is all about the perfection of the eternal Self (atman). All strong people have strong Egos and all weaklings weak Egos. There’s nothing wrong with having a strong Ego and plenty wrong with having a weak Ego. It’s when you have a weak Ego that you succumb to either the Id (and become a psychopath) or the Superego (and become a saint that everyone walks over). You certainly don’t want to tip over into narcissism, but nor do you want to be a weak, submissive, cowardly conformist, unable to sustain a healthy Ego and sense of self. A strong Ego protects you from being a maniac or a human carpet! Frankly, we have found that many people who self-describe as “Illuminists” are about as enlightened as Abrahamists – not enlightened at all!

***** We repudiate Kabbalah, Buddhism, Theosophy, Anthroposophy and all similar schools of thought. These systems may contain occasional flashes of truth that they have borrowed from superior systems, but their core stances are false and ridiculous – pure gobbledegook and mumbo jumbo.

Unity Anything that can be divided cannot be a unity. A unity is quintessentially indivisible. All extended, material things, by virtue of being divisible, cannot be unities. Since they can be divided, they can’t be primary, only secondary. Only indivisible unities can be primary. They are the basis of all other things. The reality of anything compounded comes from its parts. Leibniz said, “Beings by aggregation can have only as much reality as there is in their ingredients.” This is the opposite of the absurd scientific doctrine of “emergence” whereby compounds can have a completely different reality from their supposed ingredients, e.g. lifeless, mindless atoms are alleged by science to combine to produce life and mind, qualities that no atoms actually possess! Emergence might as well be called magic.

The Published Monadology In his published Monadology, Leibniz insisted that a substance is a unity, is autonomous and maintains its identity through change. The simplest way to reconcile these elements was to deny that any substance interacted with any other substance, and all apparent interaction was an illusion, generated by the “pre-established harmony” instituted by God. This allowed God complete foreknowledge, and was consistent with an ultra-rationalist version of Christianity. Of course, Leibniz in his much more sophisticated, unpublished Monadology, put interactivity at its heart. He then had to argue that although each substance was a unity and maintained its identity through change, it was informed and influenced by changes taking place in its environment. This meant, of course, that all substances weren’t in fact entirely autonomous. Their fate was tied to the fate of other substances. A substance is autonomous in the sense of being uncreated and uncaused, and able to act as an agent that initiates its own causal chains. However, it exists within other causal chains set up by other autonomous substances of like nature. Substances are actually dualistic. On the one hand, they are part of a causal chain (the material world) created collectively by all autonomous minds via the laws of mathematics, and, on the other hand, they can initiate their own causal chains by freely doing things in this collective environment. Every time you make a choice and perform any action, you have changed the world around you. If a butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo can produce a hurricane in New York, so can you by doing any physical action! An autonomous substance can escape from the collective arena by going to sleep and dreaming. In our dreams, nothing constrains us. This is what an autonomous substance acting in its own private world is like. So, substances are not wholly independent and autonomous – unless they do not interact at all with anything or anyone else (which wouldn’t be much of a life!). As soon as substances interact, they are no longer unconditionally free. The environment will act causally on them, and they will act causally on the environment. It’s a mathematical feedback loop.

In truth, we are all chained together whether we like it or not. Anarchism and libertarianism are absurd because they imagine a world in which all substances are free to do whatever they like regardless of other substances. If we try to do whatever we want, others will fight us because they don’t like what we’re doing and they want to do their thing too, regardless of what we want. Only laws, government, rules, the State, society and civilisation can address these conflicts fairly. Otherwise, we all live in the jungle and might is always right. Anarchists and libertarians are vehicles of the selfish Id who despise being reined back. People who support the State, society and community are ruled by the altruistic Superego. The State goes horrifically wrong when selfish Id-iots rise to the top and make the State pursue a selfish agenda, which contradicts the essential communitarian nature of the State. States ruled by free-market capitalism are mockeries of the true State since they are all about serving the interests of private elites rather than the public good.

Scientific Materialism versus Leibniz Compare Leibniz’s Monadology with science. Leibniz sets out his rational principles, and then works out their rational consequences. Science does not state any rational principles at all. All it does is cite its empiricist, materialist method – a method which, by definition excludes all hidden variables, including mind – and then does nothing but try to match mathematical guesses to experimental observations. It’s the sort of a scheme a five-year-old would invent. How anyone can seriously imagine that guessing and pattern-matching can reveal anything at all about ultimate reality and the ultimate principles of existence beggars belief. Science is absolutely anti-intellectual and irrational. It’s an ad hoc, arbitrary system of guesses. The only thing that brings it into contact with “reality” is that its guesses are obliged to match empirical observations, and any guess that doesn’t is automatically excluded. That does not alter the central fact that science is predicated on non-analytic guesses. It’s no wonder that science degenerates into insane claims about randomness, chance, accident, chaos, indeterminism, acausation and the Multiverse. When you have no principles, you’re sure to

end up in this dismal, meaningless, pointless, purposeless, nihilistic territory – the last place Leibniz would ever have reached. It’s surely time for all intellectuals to rise up against the silly claims of science. The only useful thing about science is mathematics, so why don’t we just get rid of science and have mathematics on its own?!

No Channel If the English Channel did not exist, Nazi Germany would have won WWII. The German panzer tanks would have conquered Britain in days, and the Americans (if they had entered the war despite this) would never have been able to use Britain as their launchpad for attacking Germany. A peace treaty would have been arranged between America and German-dominated Europe, and Europe would have become the world’s hyperpower. If the Russian winter of 1941 hadn’t been so harsh and hostile, the Germans would have defeated Russia and won WWII. Only geography and the weather prevented Germany from ruling the world. The Nazi ideology wasn’t stopped by Stalin or Western democracy but simply by accidents of Nature. The Russian weather also caused the downfall of Napoleon ... and the English Channel also prevented Napoleon from conquering Britain. So, once again, nature stopped a European superpower coming into being, this time led by France rather than Germany. While a Nazi superpower would have been a horrific prospect (but perhaps no worse in practice than Western capitalist “democracy”!), a Napoleonic European superpower, implementing many of the principles of the French Revolution, might have been the best thing that ever happened to the world.

Materialism “I’m not a materialistic person, but I do like materialistic things.” – Anon Er, what you mean is that you are a materialistic person but you don’t want to admit it.

The Blame Game

Feeling types blame everything on non-feeling types. Feeling types say, “All you need is love.” To such types, there would be no problems in the world if everyone just unconditionally loved each other. You will hear them saying such things as, “Peace; Love and Light; Unconditional Love; No Authority; the Light Workers Unite.” They dream of being absorbed into some immense cosmic mushiness, a universal warm, fluffy haze of love and light where all is peace and tranquillity. To put it another way, they’re hopeless dreamers captivated by New Age thinking, the hippie lifestyle (lots of mind-numbing drugs) and Buddhism. Feeling types have no reality principle. They want to be sedated. They want to be lotus-eaters: “In Greek mythology, the lotus-eaters, also referred to as the lotophagi or lotophaguses ... were a race of people living on an island near North Africa ... dominated by lotus plants. The lotus fruits and flowers were the primary food of the island and were narcotic, causing the people to sleep in peaceful apathy.” “I was driven thence by foul winds for a space of nine days upon the sea, but on the tenth day we reached the land of the Lotus-eaters, who live on a food that comes from a kind of flower. Here we landed to take in fresh water, and our crews got their mid-day meal on the shore near the ships. When they had eaten and drunk I sent two of my company to see what manner of men the people of the place might be, and they had a third man under them. They started at once, and went about among the Lotus-eaters, who did them no hurt, but gave them to eat of the lotus, which was so delicious that those who ate of it left off caring about home, and did not even want to go back and say what had happened to them, but were for staying and munching lotus with the Lotus-eaters without thinking further of their return; nevertheless, though they wept bitterly I forced them back to the ships and made them fast under the benches. Then I told the rest to go on board at once, lest any of them should taste of the lotus and leave off wanting to get home, so they took their places and smote the grey sea with their oars.” – Homer, Odyssey Thinking types (rationalists) blame feeling types for ruining the world. They blame them for absurd religions, absurd faith, absurd superstition, absurd Mythos, absurd entertainment, for dumbing down, for democracy, for free-market capitalism, for false consciousness.

The rationalists say, “All you need is reason.” They want to immerse themselves in a vast system of thought that answers absolutely everything, and optimally resolves all problems. Who’s right? With which group does the future of the human race lie? We’ve had rule by Mythos. Now it’s time for rule by Logos.

Mythos, Pathos, Logos, Eikonos Eikonos: from ancient Greek eikon meaning “likeness, image”. Are you ruled by Pathos (feeling), Mythos (story logic allied with Pathos), Eikonos (the image, and by extension sensory information), or Logos (reason)? The only other option is intuition meaning “to perceive directly without reasoning”. Intuition can work in tandem with Mythos and Pathos (in which case it’s irrational and religious), or in tandem with Logos, in which case it generates a form of super-reason, revealing vast chunks of rational insight all at once. All rationalist geniuses have enjoyed the benefits of staggering degrees of intuition. In the case of Leibniz, his intuition was so powerful, it continues to leave almost the whole of uncomprehending humanity in its wake. Perhaps the greatest intuitive of all was Pythagoras, the first ontological mathematician, and recognised as a demi-god by everyone who met him.

The Fool “It is the peculiar quality of a fool to perceive the faults of others and to forget his own.” – Cicero We have many critics who ought to study Cicero!

The Mathematical Point A mathematical point has no dimensions. It doesn’t occupy any space. A point has no length, breadth or height. It’s indivisible. It’s a unity. It cannot be considered any kind of physical aggregate. Without some sort of

intervention, no amount of points added together can give rise to anything extended in space. However, there is a magic ingredient that can revolutionise the humble point. This ingredient can be called two things that seem very different but are actually equivalent. The two labels are 1) motion and 2) causality. The motion of a mathematical point takes place according to an exact, causal mathematical formula (the God Equation), i.e. we always find motion and causality together. They are indissolubly linked. It’s motion (causality) that produces dimensionality since motion means that a point is never at a specific location but is always in transit to the next. This means that the point is smeared out, so to speak, and thus has an extension. This extension is the basis of dimensionality. If motion takes place within the frequency domain, the moving point’s dimensionality is averaged out to zero. However, if the motion takes place outside the frequency domain, the dimensionality takes on a life of its own, and in fact creates the dimensions that we know as space and time. Space relates to real-numbered space, time to imaginary-numbered space, and spacetime to complex numbers. This dimensionality will of course ultimately be averaged out to zero since the conservation of energy and information demands it, but this will be a highly complex averaging process that produces many interesting phenomena in its wake. So, to be clear, mathematical causal motion does something astounding to a dimensionless point: it gives it dimensionality, and thus we see how a dimensionless world can produce a dimensional world.

The Labyrinth of the Continuum “When points are situated in such a way that there are no two points between which there is no midpoint, then, by that very fact, we have a continuous extension.” – Leibniz A continuum is normally conceived as infinitely divisible. It can be divided into smaller lines, then still smaller lines, and smaller lines still, and this can go on indefinitely. Infinite divisibility implies that no indivisible parts (monads) are possible. They are the hypothetical limit we never reach. We are stuck in infinite contingent regress.

Lines seem to be made up of dimensionless points, but these points can seemingly never be reached. And if they can’t be reached, how can the lines be made of them? The “problem of the continuum” can be stated as follows: 1) Is the continuum comprised of dimensionless points? Points have no length, hence can’t be divided. Given that they have no length, they cannot give rise to a line (i.e. a thing with a length). 2) Is the continuum comprised of dimensional lines? A line can be split into smaller and smaller lines, without limit. No matter how small a line is, we can always make it smaller. We never reach any foundational level of lines, or points (infinitely short lines). So, it seems that a line is neither composed of smaller lines nor of points. In which case, the continuum does not seem to be real! It is, apparently, a kind of mathematical fiction – a phantom – something ontologically unreal, a mere phenomenon. This has the most vital consequences because the number line itself is the classic continuum, and, in physics, space is usually treated as a continuum. If we can’t define the continuum as a real thing, we’re in real trouble! The world doesn’t seem to make any rational sense at all. It’s seemingly fundamentally riven with contradiction. The question of what the continuum actually is thus becomes one of the greatest enigmas of ontology, mathematics and physics, and, without a proper understanding of it, we’re not going to make any progress at all in understanding ultimate reality. The continuum must be real, but using traditional methods of analysis based on classical points or lines, it cannot be real. Something has to give. Given Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason, there must be a reason why the continuum is real because otherwise the whole of mathematics is a fantasy. This question couldn’t be any more important. Well, have you got any bright ideas? The answer to the enigma is of course motion. A dimensionless point in motion thereby becomes dimensional. Abstract mathematics – based on a static idea of mathematics – is formally impossible. It doesn’t make any sense. It’s Gödelian inconsistent and incomplete. It can produce absurdities and fatal contradictions. This is why abstract mathematics must be replaced by ontological mathematics – which is mathematics in permanent motion!

Motion is the one and only bridge between the dimensionless and dimensional.

Lunar Time Studies have shown that a full moon can disturb our sleep. Women are especially susceptible. Strange things happen when the moon is full. According to folklore, it’s a time of madness. Men, it is said, can turn into wolves. There’s an increase in odd and violent behaviour. The word lunacy (from Latin luna = moon) describes insanity attributed to the moon. Sleep researchers have shown that, during full moons, people go to sleep five minutes later and sleep twenty minutes less, and have 30% less deep sleep. Lunar phases affect sleep. We are all attuned to the cycles of the moon. Our ancestors were able to use the extra light of the full moon for night time hunting. So, will you be drawing down the moon?

What Is Mind? A mind is simply a singularity, an immaterial entity outside space and time. It’s an autonomous Fourier frequency domain. There’s nothing weird, baffling or inexplicable about it. It’s pure math. Science can’t comprehend minds because they are outside the materialist paradigm, hence literally unthinkable within that paradigm. It’s not minds that are wrong, it’s the scientific paradigm. Scientists can’t grasp that reality undergoes a phase change at zero, at singularities. Zero isn’t non-existence ... it’s immaterial frequency existence, outside space and time. At zero, space, time and matter vanish, but existence doesn’t. It merely changes its mode of expression, to frequency functions rather than spacetime functions. It’s just about as simple as it could possibly be, and yet it has baffled the greatest scientists of all time. Ontologically, zero is emphatically not “nothing”. Zero certainly isn’t in space and time, but that doesn’t mean it’s nowhere. Zero is a non-spacetime number. That means that it accommodates eternal frequencies, outside space and time. Science must abandon its obsession with matter, space and

time if it’s ever to understand reality. It must put frequency (= mind) at the apex of existence, and derive the material world of spacetime from it, via Fourier mathematics. It must start with singularities and then generate extended, material functions from them. But that means that science must abandon its defining empiricist, materialist paradigm. Given that science is now a quasi-religion, that’s never going to happen. Scientists have total, irrational faith in their belief system, and it’s impossible to reason with them.

***** Mind = zero, the unextended, immaterial, Cartesian domain of frequency. Matter = non-zero, the extended, material, Cartesian domain of spacetime. The two domains of matter and mind are linked by forward and inverse Fourier transforms. What’s hard to understand?! It’s simplicity itself.

The Wisdom of Leibniz “I hold that the mark of a genuine idea is that its possibility can be proved, either a priori by conceiving its cause or reason, or a posteriori when experience teaches us that it is in fact in nature. ... It is a good thing to proceed in order and to establish propositions. This is the way to gain ground and to progress with certainty.” – Leibniz

Near Death Experiences “A mysterious surge of brain activity observed in dying rats may explain reports of near-death-experiences (NDEs), researchers claim. Even after the animals’ hearts stopped beating and no blood was reaching their brains, they appeared to show signs of conscious perception, said the scientists. “The study is the first to take a systematic look at the neurophysiological state of the dying brain after a cardiac arrest. It suggests something happens at the brink of death that pushes the conscious brain to a high level of arousal, potentially triggering the visions and sensations associated with NDEs.

“As many as a fifth of people who survive cardiac arrests report having had an other-worldly experience while being ‘clinically’ dead. Typically NDEs involve travelling through a tunnel towards an intense light, being separated from the body, encountering long-departed loved ones or angels and undergoing some kind of judgment or ‘life review’. “Some emerge from NDEs as transformed individuals with a completely altered outlook on life, or a new belief in religion. But many scientists believe near-death-experiences are nothing more than hallucinations induced by the effect of the brain shutting down. “The new research involved recording the electrical nerve impulses of anaesthetised rats whose hearts were artificially stopped. Within 30 seconds after suffering a cardiac arrest, all the animals displayed a short-lived surge of widespread, highly synchronised brain activity. “‘We were surprised by the high levels of activity,’ said Dr George Mashour, one of the US researchers from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. ‘In fact, at near-death many known electrical signatures of consciousness exceeded levels found in the waking state, suggesting that the brain is capable of well-organised electrical activity during the early stage of clinical death.’ “‘We identified a transient surge of synchronous gamma oscillations that occurred within the first 30 seconds after cardiac arrest [that] preceded isoelectric [flatline] electroencephalogram. “Gamma oscillations are high-frequency brainwaves above 25 Hz. associated with waking consciousness, altered states of consciousness during meditation, and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, the researchers explain. “Gamma oscillations during cardiac arrest were global and highly coherent; moreover, this frequency band exhibited a striking increase in anterior–posterior-directed connectivity ... associated with conscious perception, and tight phase-coupling to both theta and alpha waves. “Recent studies suggest that cross-frequency coupling between theta and gamma rhythms may play a functional role in long-range neuronal communication, perception, and memory tasks.” “The findings are reported in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Previously it was assumed that brain activity ceases when the heart stops.

“‘This study tells us that reduction of oxygen or both oxygen and glucose during cardiac arrest can stimulate brain activity that is characteristic of conscious processing,’ said lead scientist Dr Jimo Borjigin, also from the University of Michigan. ‘It also provides the first scientific framework for the near-death experiences reported by many cardiac arrest survivors.” “British expert Dr Martin Coath, from the Cognition Institute at University of Plymouth, said: ‘This new research is genuinely interesting, but the conclusion that these are ‘neural correlates of heightened conscious processing’ isn’t strongly supported, unless you take it to mean ‘more of some types of activity that are associated with being awake’ which is a bit of a stretch.’ “‘As the induced cardiac arrest happens while the rat’s brain is anaesthetised, the results show the response of an unconscious brain to critical lack of blood flow and oxygen. It is certainly interesting that this causes some types of activity in the brain to increase in a predictable and coordinated way well after the heart has stopped, but hardly surprising.’ “Dr David McGonigle, from University of Cardiff, said: ‘Do we know if animals experience ‘consciousness’? Most philosophers and scientists are still at loggerheads over what the term refers to in humans, let alone in other species. “‘While recent research now suggests that animals may indeed have the kind of autobiographical memories that humans possess, the kinds of memories that allow us to place ourselves in a certain time and place, it seems unlikely that near-death-experiences would necessarily be similar across species.’” – Press Association Near death experiences are cited as evidence of an afterlife or the separation of the body and soul. Scientific materialists are always keen to debunk such ideas since they are incompatible with their dogmatic Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism. Scientists wish to say that NDEs are just physiological processes resulting from unusual brain activity caused by reduced blood flow to the brain. The scientists involved in the study cited above were surprised by the high level of gamma frequency brain activity they observed, saying, “At near death, many known electrical signatures of consciousness exceeded levels found in the waking state, suggesting the brain is capable of wellorganised electrical activity during the early stage of clinical death.”

Of course, a completely different interpretation can be attached to these findings. The researchers have in fact found evidence for the intense mental processing that accompanies the separation of mind from body as the body dies. Far from debunking NDEs, they have verified them! As ever, it’s all in the interpretation.

The First Philosopher Pythagoras coined the word “philosopher”, hence was the first person to be known as a philosopher (previous philosophers were referred to in terms such as “sage”, “wise man”, “teacher” or “master”). There’s an astonishing difference between a philosopher and a priest. A philosopher defines the pursuit of wisdom as the highest good, while the priest defines the serving of a god as the highest good. The priest belongs to the master-slave paradigm, while the philosopher belongs to the paradigm of autonomous, self-optimizing beings. A priest needs a god or some holy force; a philosopher doesn’t. In fact, he may desire to make himself a god through the acquisition of divine wisdom (gnosis).

The Earth is Not Enough “Forsooth! He [Faust] serves you [the Lord] after strange devices: No earthly meat or drink the fool suffices: His spirit’s ferment far aspireth; Half conscious of his frenzied, crazed unrest, The fairest stars from Heaven he requireth, From Earth the highest raptures and the best, And all the Near and Far that he desireth Fails to subdue the tumult of his breast.” – Mephistopheles (in Faust, by Goethe) Faustians would never be satisfied by the junk of Abrahamism or scientific materialism.

“But that I may reveal my heart entirely unto you, my friends: If there were gods, how could I endure it to be no god! Therefore there are no gods.” – Nietzsche

Points and Lines A 1D line is constructed from a 0D point. How do you create something dimensional from something dimensionless? It’s impossible ... without motion. Motion is what creates the finite from the infinite and infinitesimal. Motion is the bridge between zero and infinity on the one hand, and all other numbers on the other.

The Principle of Continuity The Principle of Continuity: change is continuous as well as continual. Change involves no leaps (“There are no jumps in Nature.” – Leibniz). Change proceeds in an orderly manner from one state to another through

all of the infinitely many intervening states. In fact, the principle of continuity is nothing other than cause and effect. Cause and effect does not take place in jumps. Cause and effect takes place continuously. Every state is the immediate consequence of the preceding state. There are no unexpected, random, unpredictable jumps. Any such jumps would be inexplicable. They lack a sufficient reason.

The God of Failure If the people of a town that was about to be struck by a tornado all gathered together and prayed to God to spare them – with the effect that the tornado was miraculously diverted – one could understand why people believed in God. Yet people are actually at their most religious when a tornado, or whatever, has made a direct hit and large numbers of people have died. In other words, God is rewarded for his spectacular failure to save life, and, in fact, for his equally spectacular success in taking life!

People are perverse. With science, humanity can point to countless great successes that it has brought about (albeit on the back of mathematics); with religion, humanity can’t point to even one success. When has God ever accomplished anything anywhere? Anything good, that is. His failures and crimes against humanity are, however, legion. Why is it that believers refuse to see that they are worshipping the Devil? The Devil’s greatest trick isn’t to convince you that he doesn’t exist, but to make you fanatically certain that he’s God!

***** It’s not at all surprising that the pay and bonuses of Wall Street CEOs go up as the performance of their banks and corporations go down. Human beings love and celebrate powerful beings who are absolutely useless, and, in fact, extremely dangerous.

Giving and Taking The lord giveth and the lord taketh away. Well, we see a lot of taking but very little giving!

Attack People automatically assume that we are attacking them when we rubbish their beliefs. We are simply showing how they are rationally wrong. If they think we are rationally wrong, they should present their rational case. However, we’re not going to take seriously any emotional, irrational, Mythos nonsense.

Rebasing In countries such as America and Britain, income disparities between the richest and poorest are staggeringly high. These disparities will allow the privileged, rich elite to use their power, wealth and influence to rule these countries indefinitely. Every country should by law have a mechanism for rebasing wealth: for resetting wealth back to the same level for everyone. This mechanism is

100% inheritance tax. No one’s wealth can extend beyond their own lifetime.

Fourier Transforms If we think of matter as simply that which has mechanical relations – which has clockwork parts, so to speak – it’s impossible for material, extended things to have any impact whatsoever on immaterial, unextended minds. Similarly, it’s impossible for minds to influence mechanical parts using mechanical, physical relations. The interaction of mind and matter is possible only thanks to one of the greatest mathematical miracles of all time – the Fourier Transform. Neither scientists nor even mathematicians have ever understood the true nature and significance of the Fourier Transform. The Fourier Transform is how two ontologically separate domains – one outside space and time and one inside space and time – are brought into contact. The one outside space and time is the frequency domain (the mental domain). The one inside space and time is the material world. Via the Fourier Transform, any spacetime function can be represented as a frequency function, and, via the reverse process (the Inverse Fourier Transform), any frequency function can be converted into a spacetime function. This means that the spacetime and frequency domains are ontologically hardwired together. However, the two domains are not identical. The material world corresponds to only those low-energy monadic frequencies that can be shared between monads in a stable way. Any high-energy frequencies would be like deadly rays blasting through the material world, destroying everything in their paths. Dimensionless minds can contain frequencies of any energy, no matter how large. The dimensional world, however, can only be associated with those low energy frequencies that are consistent with matter. Black hole singularities and the Big Bang Singularity do not belong to the material world at all but purely to the frequency domain of mind. The Big Bang, and the implosion of stars into black hole singularities, are special Fourier events and ought to be analyzed purely in terms of Fourier mathematics.

“Mind” (high frequency) has far greater depth than “matter” (low frequencies only), hence mind is much more important than matter. Matter is in fact a mathematical product or projection of mind via Fourier mathematics. Critically, mind and matter do not obey the commutative law, meaning that order in which operations take place is vital. A mental event preceding a physical event is totally different from a physical event preceding a mental event. It’s precisely this ontological asymmetry that prevents a world of scientific determinism: a clockwork universe.

Ontology “Nothing” must exist because it does not need anything. It has no requirements. Since there is no sufficient reason why an existent with no requirements (“nothing”) cannot exist then it does and must. Nothing can prevent it! There’s nothing to prevent. So, the surest fact of all is that nothing exists. There’s no such thing as “nothing” as total non-existence. Non-existence actually has a requirement ... that “nothing” should be prevented from existing. But what could prevent it? That would presuppose “something” existing in order to stop “nothing”, but how could something more complex than “nothing” (hence with requirements) exist in order to stop “nothing”, an existent with no requirements? Hence, “nothing” is the fundamental existent, and all other existents are derived from it. But what can possibly come from nothing? Well, if nothing can stop “nothing” from existing, it’s equally true that “net nothing” can’t be stopped from existing either. “Nothing” can be anything you like as long as it has no net, objective effects. So, implicit in the concept of “nothing”, is any amount of “nothing” – an infinite amount of it. But now “nothing” has a specific property – “infinity”. Since nothing can stop “nothing”, it can’t stop an infinite amount of it either. In fact, nothing and infinity must be indissoluble. You can’t get one without the other. They are two sides of one coin. They are, in a manner of speaking, the same thing viewed from two different perspectives. We now have three core existential concepts: “nothing” (thesis), “infinity” (antithesis) and “net nothing across infinity” (synthesis). We can have a free lunch as long as the lunch is a “net nothing”. We can have any

amount of any system that has net nothing as its core. In Illuminism, Euler’s Formula is the perfect – and unique – means of expressing something as net nothing, and it entirely defines ontological mathematics: a complete and consistent system, involving all of the numbers of mathematics without privileging any numbers over any others (e.g. it doesn’t favour positive numbers over negative numbers, or real numbers over imaginary and complex numbers). The generalized Euler Formula allows an infinite system to be generated with a net result of nothing. With this Formula, we have precisely, mathematically, analytically, eternally, immutably, defined existence itself, and given a sufficient reason for it being as it is (and no rival system – such as scientific materialism, Abrahamism or Karmism – can do likewise). With the God Equation, we have an infinite “something” that is “net nothing”. Leibniz famously asked why there is something rather than nothing. The answer is that “something” is never anything other than net nothing. And that can only happen mathematically. It’s a unique feature of ontological mathematics. That’s why existence must be 100% mathematical. “Net nothing” is composed of “somethings” that perfectly balance each other in terms of positive and negative numbers, real and imaginary numbers. So, within that mandatory context, we now have infinite “somethings” with which we can construct a universe of “something”, while knowing that overall it’s absolutely constrained to yield net nothing ... this is the supreme ontological conservation law. Why is the scientific materialist interpretation of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle completely wrong? – because it proposes that violations of “net nothing” can happen spontaneously all of the time, as long as they are resolved in due course (the sooner the better). This is manifest nonsense and repudiates the cast iron law of energy conservation. On an instant by instant basis, absolute energy conservation is maintained. The universe – at any instant – can never have a net energy of anything other than zero. Any hypothesis which contradicts this is ipso facto false. We must stress that the Heisenberg relation isn’t false ... it’s the fallacious scientific materialist misinterpretation of it that’s false. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle – like everything else – belongs to a universe permanently set to “net nothing”. There can be no violation, big or small, for even the tiniest fraction of a second. The Heisenberg Uncertainty

Principle has a completely different interpretation within ontological mathematics, as previously discussed in the God Series. We have a world of things, yet their net effect is always nothing. That’s the fundamental basis of existence. Mathematics alone explains this apparent paradox.

The Will “Everything which lives strives after happiness; this is the most universal principle of action that we know of; it is the essence of the Will itself seeking its own gratification.” – Francis Bowen (discussing the philosophy of Eduard von Hartmann) The above serves as an excellent description of the Freudian Id. A human baby is pure Will; pure Id. The Id is also the basis of the power of Satan. Satan panders to absolute self-interest. He’s the perfect, ultra-right-wing, free-market capitalist. His favourite reading is Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and the ideology of “the virtue of selfishness”, and “greed is good”. “Mere Will, however, though it is the only spring of activity, is essentially blind; it is not merely illogical or irrational, because it does not reason at all, even wrongly. It simply craves and acts out its cravings in automatic volitions. Hence it is properly alogical, being entirely devoid of reason, just as the Intellect, being in its very nature distinct from Will, cannot act, but simply knows. Consequently, this ill-matched pair, indissolubly united in the Unconscious cannot cooperate; neither can help the other. Vainly does the all-wise Intellect perceive that the unreasoning Will is entirely in the wrong, since its ceaseless craving for happiness merely increases misery; the alogical Will cannot heed its warnings, and cannot impart its own capacity of action to its wise but helpless companion. As long as they are tied together, like a balky team, they neutralize each other’s power. Blind Will determines that the universe, miserable as it is, shall continue in being; for this is the result of the persistent action of Will. Intellect determines how and what the universe shall be, not directly indeed, but through holding up a picture of the best possible state of the world as something to be striven for; and this ideal is instantly realized by the Will.” – Francis Bowen (discussing the philosophy of Eduard von Hartmann)

In fact, Will and Intellect are not separate, incompatible entities harnessed together. This would just be another example of Cartesian dualism. Will and Intellect would be like two different substances with nothing in common, hence incapable of interacting. Will is actually rudimentary, unconscious Intellect. When a human baby grows up, it develops conscious Intellect. Sadly, most human beings don’t grow up nearly enough and remain far more wedded to Will (“emotional intellect” – Mythos) than to Intellect (“rational intellect” – Logos). Computers are a kind of Intellect without Will. Of course, that means they are not alive. You can’t get to living Intellect except through Will. You can’t get to living Intellect without the triune brain structure. The Reptilian Brain is pure Will (desire), the limbic system is pure Emotion, and the neocortex is pure Intellect. You can’t get to Intellect without the mandatory foundational stages. Artificial Intelligence – if it wishes to get anywhere close to human intelligence – must begin with the equivalent of the Reptilian brain (Will), followed by the limbic system (Emotion). Only then can Intellect be meaningfully added.

Free Will? “A volition without any definite aim or content is inconceivable; for there is no such thing as Will in general, that wills nothing in particular.” Francis Bowen (discussing the philosophy of Eduard von Hartmann) “Free Will” does not mean that the Will is unconditionally free, free even not to will (which would be a fatal contradiction: a non-willing Will), or to will aimlessly or randomly. The Will is always directed towards specific ends and its freedom lies in how it pursues those aims, not in having the aims in the first place (which are compulsory). Science hates free will because it’s fundamentally incompatible with materialism. Free will is always teleological – it always has a purpose when it acts – but scientific materialism dismisses teleology. Free will inherently involves mental action, but scientific materialism denies the reality of authentic mental action, claiming instead that all so-called mental action is actually derived from purposeless matter. It’s impossible for scientific materialism to explain free will, so it simply denies that it exists and seeks to explain it away as some bizarre, pointless

illusion. That’s scientific “logic” for you! ... if you don’t like it, deny its existence, or call it a material epiphenomenon or delusion. All Will is in fact directed towards exactly the same thing – maximising power, i.e. Nietzsche was right that Will is actually Will to Power. However, each individual Will has very different ideas about how to maximise its power, which is why we get the world we observe, with its infinite variety and surprises.

The Laws of Existence The Laws of Existence are fixed. There can be no alternative sets of laws (as proponents of Multiverse theories like to claim). The laws are fixed because they are the eternal, immutable laws of ontological mathematics. Therefore, there is only one universe, and one set of laws. Multiverse theories are absurd and can be proposed only in the context of half-baked, contingent, mutable, temporal, ad hoc, arbitrary scientific hypotheses where nothing ever has any eternal necessity.

Leibniz’s Principle of the Best The Best Possible World is based on the minimum of laws (causes or means) and the maximum of phenomena (effects or ends). Ontological axioms should be the simplest and most economic while also being the most fertile and productive. In modern Illuminism, the whole of existence is derived from a single law – the generalised Euler Formula (the God Equation). Absolutely everything flows from this. It therefore enshrines the Principle of the Best, and also the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and Occam’s Razor too. It’s the simplest and most economic basis of the universe, and also the one that generates the most realizable possibilities. Moreover, it provides a definitive reason for everything. It enshrines the law of cause and effect. It also permits subjectivity and objectivity, and, by itself, defines the whole of ontological mathematics and all numbers. It’s the mathematical, analytic basis of energy. It’s what defines energy. It is, therefore, the answer to everything. Who needs science?!

The Answer We have provided the definitive answer to existence. The God Equation, by itself, explains everything. You may not like the answer and you may not accept it. We can’t do your thinking, reasoning, feeling and willing for you. However, the God Equation is the unarguable rational answer to existence, as we have demonstrated in enormous detail across all of the books of the God Series. We defy anyone to rationally refute our system and install any rational alternative it its place. One equation to define everything ... what could be more beautiful, more simple, more elegant, more economic? It’s the ultimate expression of Occam’s Razor. It’s the absolutely simplest answer to existence there could possibly be. If you don’t “get it”, too bad. The truth isn’t for everyone. Only HyperHumans – higher humanity – can grasp the significance and meaning of the God Equation. People of faith will never understand it. Abrahamists and Karmists will reject it utterly. The sensory fanatics – the scientific materialists – will never accept it. To these irrationalists, sensory experiments will always be more convincing than reason and intellect. We don’t care. The truth is the truth. Only truths of reason are true. Everything else is conjecture, opinion, belief and interpretation. Reason alone guarantees truth. Illuminism is the religion of hyperreason. Illuminism is the truth. One day, all of higher humanity will acknowledge it. Nothing could be more dialectically certain.

Leibniz “[Leibniz] became convinced after much careful study and investigation that the essential attribute of the bodies in the universe is force. By force he meant ‘the tendency of the body to move or continue its motion.’ The entire universe is, for him, built out of units of force. Each body consists of a number of these units of force, and all nature consists of an infinite number of such units. These units of force Leibniz called ‘monads,’ or force-atoms. ... Each monad contains within itself the entire universe. ... Leibniz’s universe, then, is not mechanical, but is dynamic, alive. ... Leibniz reduced matter to force. ... [Leibniz] is attempting to erase to some extent the complete difference between mind and matter by holding that both are

centres of force...” – S.E. Frost, Jr., Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers Nowadays, we would talk of energy rather than force. Each monad is an “energy-atom”. To be more specific, it’s an unextended, dimensionless, mental-energy atom (an atom with atomic number zero). However, each mental-energy atom has the capacity to share a small band of its energy with other mental-energy atoms. This small energy band multiplied across infinite monads becomes an infinite energy source – and is what constitutes the material world. It’s vital to understand that monads are all about dimensionless energy, but the energy shared by all monads is dimensional energy (extended). Dimensionless energy is mental while dimensional energy is the essence of matter. Scientific materialism accepts the existence of dimensional energy but denies any such thing as dimensionless energy (although it does accept a strange kind of energy called “virtual energy”, which is so short-lived as not to become meaningfully “real”). In Illuminism, mental and material energy interact to provide the world of our experience. In scientific materialism, only material energy exists, so “mind” has to be explained in terms of material carriers of energy: atoms and molecules (why not massless photons outside space and time?!). Of course, such a scheme can never work. It’s a fundamental misrepresentation of reality, driven by the Meta Paradigm of materialism and empiricism, which asserts that anything that is not “tangible” (available in principle to sensory detection) cannot exist. Minds, souls, the unextended (zero and infinity), and dimensionless energy, are all neither material nor empirical – by definition – hence are rejected outright by science. In fact, mind is empirical. After all, we experience it all day every day, and we see its physical effects every time we perform any action at all. We experience mental freedom all of the time, although science denies the existence of free will. The materialists and empiricists, in other words, accept only a very specific type of empiricism, namely that associated with materialism itself, with the senses. Since mind cannot be seen, heard, located, tasted, touched or smelled, it’s deemed “unreal”, some kind of epiphenomenon arising from material interactions. However, the very fact that unempirical minds can, by science’s own account, be generated via material things, ought to highlight

the central fallacy of the scientific Meta Paradigm. If anything at all exists that is non-empirical, science is ipso facto false. What could be more non-empirical from the sensory standpoint than a thought? Scientists cannot explain thoughts, but, because they have noted that thinking appears to stop when a physical body dies, they have concluded that thinking must have a material origin, hence belongs to scientific materialism. The fact that a corpse ceases to exhibit any evidence of thought does not of course mean that thinking itself has ceased. What has ceased is the link between the thoughts and the particular material body that once actioned these thoughts. The thoughts can go on being expressed, but in a different way (or through a new body via reincarnation). Science dismisses this as “nonsense”. However, it’s surely nonsense that science accepts the existence of thoughts that cannot in any way be directly detected by any scientific experiments. Thoughts are the activity of mind. Mind can be linked to bodies and expressed through bodies, but if there is no available body, or the body has died, mind goes on anyway. The key issue is whether mind is created by body, or, alternatively, links to body. In the latter case, mind exists independently of matter, and “death” simply means the severing of the link, resulting in a dead body and a living mind without a body. In materialism, the mind dies with its alleged creator ... the body. Science can in no way prove its case, but dogmatically asserts it as a definitive fact. Science is nothing but a fanatical, irrational faith in matter, experiments and the senses. Quantum mechanics has destroyed the scientific materialist ideology just as surely as Copernicus destroyed the Abrahamic ideology, but, like the Abrahamists, the scientists go on believing anyway. In fact, if we’re being more accurate, far from matter being in any way associated with creating mind, matter itself is entirely the creation of mind – as we have set out in great detail in the God Series. Scientific materialism is the inversion of the truth!

***** Neuroscientists – fanatical materialists – claim that the brain is the exclusive origin of the mind. But all neuroscientists agree that there is such a thing as light – a massless, dimensionless energy. How then can they

know that mind is not in fact a highly organised light entity – with no physical presence at all – which interacts with the physical brain? They can have no conceivable rational basis for denying that something immaterial (light-based) may provide the key to the mind, rather than the material brain. They have gambled everything on their materialist prejudices ... and got it wrong!

The Divine Genetic Code We all possess the divine genetic code. We all have God’s DNA. It’s none other than ontological mathematics. It’s none other than structured light! Light is mind and life itself.

Spinoza versus Leibniz Spinoza asserted that God or Nature is one substance with infinite attributes. Leibniz asserted that there are infinite substances (monads) with one definition. In Illuminism, every monad is an ontological instance and expression of the God Equation.

The Math God “All perfections are compatible with each other.” – Leibniz Leibniz conceived of “God” as the entity in which all perfections reside, none of which are incompatible with each other. In effect, Leibniz was stating that “God” must be complete and consistent, the theme taken up by Gödel who revered Leibniz above all other thinkers. The question is this – in what sort of entity can all perfections inhere? There is only one answer: a single, perfect formula that describes the whole of existence. Because it’s singular, it’s automatically complete and consistent (i.e. it can’t be incomplete or inconsistent with itself). God, in other words, is a God Equation! In retrospect, isn’t that blindingly obvious? We plainly don’t live in a universe created by a perfect moral being, but by a perfect equation without morality.

This perfect equation defines the incredible order, pattern, regularity and organisation we see everywhere in the cosmos. However, this is an equation expressed through living beings (monads). Every monad is perfect in its objective, mathematical aspect. However, it’s anything but perfect in its living, subjective aspect – the aspect where it’s striving to work out what it actually is. A monad is defined by the perfect God Equation, and can operate objectively according to this perfect equation (which is why we have a mathematico-scientific universe, describable via mathematical and scientific laws). The key point is that no monad inherently knows that it’s defined by this equation, and, obviously, has no idea what the equation is. In order to work out the equation, the monad has to become conscious, has to start thinking about mathematics, has to develop a sufficiently powerful mathematics that can reveal the God Equation (just counting with your fingers isn’t going to help you with the God Equation), has to be able to overcome all of the counter theories of existence that come along – such as those concerning religion, philosophy, metaphysics, science, abstract rather than ontological mathematics, empiricism, materialism, emotionalism, mysticism, and so on – and, above all, has to be able to recognise the God Equation, i.e. to know that it is indeed the defining Formula for existence. It wasn’t the Illuminati who worked out the God Equation. However, we were the first to recognise it, and we recognised it because – uniquely – we were the ontological mathematikoi actively looking for it, highly motivated to find it, and had a worldview where we knew what kind of properties it must have. Many others encountered the God Equation, but saw it as nothing but a mathematical abstraction, albeit an immensely powerful one. In other words, they saw the Truth of Existence, and failed to realise it! This is an immense problem. How do you know you have found the answer to existence? Finding it – and knowing you have found it – are two radically different things. Nothing is more difficult than working out what you actually are. The answer exists, and always has existed, but how are you to know it? It’s not the answer to existence that’s imperfect, it’s our capacity to recognise it, to know it, to accept it, and to reject all of the false claimants with which we are surrounded, most especially in the shapes of religion and science. We are beings that are perfectly defined, but we are not perfectly designed – insofar as we inherently don’t know what we are, and have to work it out,

and we are capable of proposing an infinite number of false answers, and finding these highly seductive, to the point of being willing to kill and die for them (like Islamic Jihadists). That’s the messy nature of life and evolution. That’s why “evil” exists. That’s why there are countless competing religions and philosophies, and dead, superseded scientific theories. We are mathematical beings that don’t realise we are mathematical beings, and would prefer almost any other explanation than that (because it’s the most difficult, and we always follow the path of least resistance). The laws of mathematics reflect perfect Aristotelian and Leibnizian logic. This is not true of the living beings (monads) through which ontological mathematics is expressed. In their subjective, living aspect, they reflect Hegelian dialectical logic, involving an immense, brutal, cosmic clash of opposites. Issues are not worked out via reason and logic, but via a savage contest for power, in which irrational and illogical forces frequently triumph, as we see most clearly with religion. However, the nature of the dialectic is that, in the end, it will overcome all irrational and illogical forces, it will resolve every contradiction and inconsistency, it will unite everything behind the single, rational Truth of Existence. This is the Omega Point, the Absolute, where the whole cosmos is enlightened, where Absolute Knowledge is attained, and we are all Gods. Here, Content and Form, the subjective and objective, come into perfect alignment. So, we have told you what the answer to existence is. Whether you accept it or not is an entirely different matter. We are dialectically certain to triumph in the end, but it’s dialectically inevitable that we will be savagely opposed by all the groups whose false answers to the nature of existence are exposed by us. We will triumph because all of the most rational and intelligent people in the world will join us, and we will become as Gods on earth, and the others will more or less worship us ... until they are smart enough to be able to join us! Are you ready to become of one of the Gods? Can you see that we are right? Can you recognise the God Equation?

*****

Humans are subjectively irrational (or rationally sub-optimal). The dialectic is designed to rectify this and align us with objective rationality. “God” is perfect in his objective aspect, and monstrous in his subjective aspect (= “the Devil”). The task of the cosmos is to cure the Devil – the Demiurge – by making him see that he is not the True God but, rather, the False God evolving towards the True God, and the True God is none other than his rational, objective Self!

***** Illuminism isn’t for everyone. Only the most advanced souls are eligible. Only they are called to the divine mission. Only they are heroes. Only they will find the Holy Grail. The Truth has nothing to do with your feelings, your faith, your senses or your mystical intuitions. It’s all about your reason and intelligence – the worst possible news for most people – and you will never be enlightened unless you are rational enough and smart enough. The God Series is the most complex and ambitious set of books of all time, but humanity certainly isn’t ready for these books. However, every truly rational person who stumbles across them will immediately recognise their power and glory. Others will find them irritating, obnoxious and utterly wrong. They will rant and rave against them, and completely misrepresent and misunderstand them. Such is life.

***** “There is, or can be understood, the subject of all perfections, or a most perfect being.” – Leibniz In fact, all perfections are compatible with each other only in mathematics, and mathematics is the sole subject of all perfections. The most perfect being would be the personalization of mathematics: self-aware mathematics. And that, in fact, is what we all become! The only intrinsically perfect thing isn’t a being ... it’s an equation, the God Equation.

*****

Kurt Gödel said, “My belief is theistic, not pantheistic, following Leibniz rather than Spinoza.” The word “theistic” can be problematic insofar as it seems to point to some Abrahamic personal God. However, a system (e.g. Illuminism) that generates Gods through an immensely long, dialectical, evolutionary process is also theistic inasmuch as it revolves around personal Gods. Critically, these are not Creator Gods. They are eternal Gods, but don’t know it, and have to evolve that awareness. The world is not made by them, but from them. In some sense, this is pantheism: the universe is made of divine substance – monads. The monads’ holy mission is to work out who, what and why they are. And it’s all done via mathematics – the language of nature, of existence, of light, of divinity. “God” doesn’t speak “Adamic”, Hebrew, Aramaic or Arabic. He speaks ontological mathematics ... the perfect language ... the language of numbers. The Truth resides in divine numbers, not in manmade words.

Ontological Mathematics “Mathematical objects exist independently of our constructions.” – Gödel Ontological mathematicians are those who are opposed to the conventional view of the mathematical establishment that mathematics is merely a syntax to manipulate manmade symbols, i.e. is a human construct that tells us no more about reality than any other manmade language such as Latin, German or Japanese.

***** “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s God is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” – Gödel If Gödel had one great failing, it was his longing for a traditional theistic God. No, what is needed are dialectical, evolving Gods. We are the Gods. There are no Gods above us, and no Gods created us. The God Equation can, via the dialectic and through any monad, become a person and then God.

The Failure of the West

The West is being destroyed by its own lack of purpose and values, by its toxic liberalism and negative libertarianism, by its catastrophic avoidance of producing an identity in its citizens. “Going shopping” is not an identity. Voting every few years for someone you dislike less than some other guy isn’t an identity. People find an identity in a sacred cause, and the two main drivers of the West – capitalist materialism and scientific materialism – both flee from sacred causes as fast as they can. They equally characterize reality as meaningless, purposeless, pointless, trivial, materialistic ... as being all about soulless commodities, soulless things, soulless people, and the soulless profit principle (available to only a tiny soulless ruling elite). Life is about objects, things, drones, drudges, dreary jobs. “Life is shit and then you die” is the unmistakable, inescapable message. Even people are objectified and made into commodities to be bought and sold in the market. As for science, it almost literally denies that people have minds and free will. Both Communism and Nazism gave people an identity. The Nazis loved being Nazis. It filled them with purpose, meaning, pride, and a glorious vision of the future. In today’s world, Islam offers a glorious image to its radicalised followers, and those fanatics are always those most disillusioned with the West and what it has to offer. They are total failures in the world of capitalist democracy and scientific materialism, so why wouldn’t they look to something else to give them hope? The West is dying because of its cynicism, scepticism, agnosticism, atheism, nihilism, liberalism, political correctness, scientific materialism and capitalism – which all go together as a dreadful, despairing, grim vision of a soulless universe devoid of any value and purpose whatsoever. The West is nothing but a “dark Satanic mill”, as Blake put it. As Nietzsche said, we must revalue all values. We can only beat mad religions by replacing them with better, more rational religions ... and that’s exactly what Illuminism provides. The West will fail totally unless it can regain its spirit, and that means finding religion again, but this time Logos rather than Mythos religion. Forget the old Gods. Humans themselves are the new Gods ... if they did but know it!

Nietzsche said that God is dead. Well, it’s time for him to be reincarnated ... in us!

Quantum Consciousness Wikipedia says of noted quantum physicist Henry Stapp, “Some of Stapp’s work concerns the implications of quantum mechanics for consciousness. Stapp favours the idea that quantum waves collapse only when they interact with consciousness. He argues that quantum waves collapse when intelligent brains select one among the alternative quantum possibilities as a basis for future action.” In Leibniz’s Monadology, all of reality is grounded in minds – monads. In such a system, “quantum waves” are generated by minds and are continuously collapsing, but also continuously reforming. The whole thing is just one vast quantum operation, but it has no need for consciousness. By default, everything is conducted unconsciously. Indeed, consciousness itself evolves from all of this unconscious quantum activity and then plays its part in wavefunction collapse ... but now in a much more reflective, considered, purposeful way. The cosmic wavefunction becomes progressively more intelligent and conscious – akin to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s evolving noosphere – and ascends towards a divine omega point: total consciousness of the cosmic wavefunction, reflecting that every bare monad in existence has been dialectically transformed into a God.

***** It’s not a case of quantum waves collapsing only when they interact with consciousness, as Stapp says. Rather, quantum waves (which are actually just sinusoidal wavefunctions) are consciousness and the unconscious (the psychic level of reality) and matter (the psychoid level of reality). An individual mind is concerned with the psyche; the Collective Mind is concerned with the psychoid. The link between the psyche and the psychoid is the Jungian Collective Unconscious of archetypes. Archetypes are the mental laws of Nature and are the flip side of the material laws of Nature ... the other side of the coin, the interior rather than exterior view.

Enlightenment Illuminism is remarkably straightforward. All it calls for is for people to accept ontological mathematics rather than science as the bedrock of reality. Where science is synthetic, a posteriori, inductive and contingent, mathematics is analytic, a priori, deductive and necessary. Mathematics provides an immutable, eternal platform. Science doesn’t. Illuminism is simply about the correct interpretation of numbers, which are defined by Euler’s Formula in its most general form, catering from zero to infinity. Above all, ontological mathematics requires zero and infinity to be tackled head on. Science forbids these two numbers, while ontological mathematics makes them the two defining numbers of the singularities that constitute the base of existence – the monadic arche, from which everything comes.

***** “That which has always been accepted by everyone, everywhere, is almost certain to be false.” – Paul Valery This is true of emotional religion, and its sensory successor – science. It’s not true of ontological mathematics.

The New Science Monadic science is simply the science of light. It deals with the ontology of light, which is none other than the ontology of mind, life, and energy, and defines how light can be broken – via violations of symmetry – to create darkness and matter (“death” and non-mind).

The Dismal Choice No one forces science to conduct itself the way it does. It chooses to. It could make different choices. It could embrace reason, logic and analytic mathematics, but it refuses to do so. It remains irrationally wedded to empiricism and materialism, and refuses to consider anything else.

***** What scientists are doing is spectacularly failing to realize that they are looking at a mathematical world. They use math all the time, yet they are utterly clueless about what it actually is, and why they are using it! Duh! Scientists are simply mathematical misinterpreters, systematically misinterpreting it through the prism of the senses. They are obsessed with the information carried rather than the information carrier (math). The former is always liable to be misinterpreted. The latter cannot be misinterpreted if addressed using pure reason.

Mathematics In Itself Mathematics in itself is the absence of emotion, of sensations, of mystical intuitions. It’s pure, noumenal, ontological reason, pure rational Form. It’s the furthest thing from the human condition, hence the most frightening and daunting thing to humans, and the thing they least understand. Mathematics in itself is the greatest mystery of all for the feeble human mind. You need to be a God to be good enough for math!

The Zeroth Dimension The zero dimension is mind. Matter is the non-zero dimension. The zero dimension is light. Broken light is the non-zero dimension. What could be simpler? But materialists will never understand this.

The Race “Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.” – H. G. Wells Rational education, not Eastern meditation, or New Age “love”, or scientific materialism, will save the world.

Human Sufficient Reason Everything has a sufficient reason. However, there’s a difference between subjective and objective sufficient reason. The latter is “scientific”: “B”

necessarily follows “A” as a matter of logical necessity. Since science – or, rather, classical science – accepts only this type of sufficient reason, it asserts that everything happens with absolute necessity. There is no possibility of free will. As far as subjective sufficient reason is concerned, however, “it inclines without necessitating”, to use Leibniz’s expression. A human being always has a motive for what he does, but can always change his mind right up to the very last instant. Such sufficient reasons have no logical necessity. In other words, we can choose what we do. We are free, contrary to what science claims. Human free will by itself refutes scientific materialism. If we are free, the central doctrines of science are false, and, plainly, we are free. If we weren’t free, we would be machines, and machines would never for one instant imagine themselves free. You must be free in order to conceive of the concept of freedom!

Everything is Interconnected “For in every possible world, all things are connected together; the universe, whatever it may be, is all of a piece, like an ocean; the least movement extends its effect to any distance, though the effect becomes less in proportion to its distance.” – Leibniz This is an expression of holography.

Leibniz’s Principles The Principle of Sufficient Reason – everything has a sufficient reason why it is so and not otherwise. The Principle of the Best – the best possible world is the one richest in phenomena produced by the most economical means. The Principle of Continuity – there is no sufficient reason why a series should be broken at one point rather than another, and thus at any point at all; there is no sufficient reason for any gap in a sequence; there is no sufficient reason why two spaces should be filled while the one between them is vacant.

The Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles – a lowest species cannot have more than one member; if two things are distinct, there must be something that is true of one but not of the other, meaning that they belong to different species. The Principle of Natura non facit saltus (Latin for “nature does not make jumps”) – natural things, properties and processes change gradually, by infinitesimal gradations. Nothing makes abrupt jumps from one state to another. It has been said that quantum mechanics, with its quantum leaps, violates this principle, but this is not the case. Imagine being on a trampoline, with a platform above you, onto which you can jump (this platform corresponds to a higher quantum state). Now, you can make any leap and get arbitrarily close to the platform, but all leaps that lack the energy necessary to reach the higher state will fail. It’s not that you are making any weird and unnatural leap when you get to the higher platform. It’s just that you are making one that works rather than countless ones that don’t. You haven’t got to that higher state without passing through all intermediate states, exactly as required by Leibniz. If any material object could jump from one place to another arbitrarily and suddenly, the world would exist in a state of utter chaos. Nothing would be predictable. It would be an irrational universe. The No Absolute Rest Principle – nothing in the universe is at rest. Nothing can ever be at rest. Motion is inherent in all things. Absolute rest corresponds to non-existence. The No Vacuum Principle – there is no such thing as perfectly empty space. Existence forms a plenum (a “fullness”). Every point is filled. If it weren’t, there would be existential gaps and things would be required to jump over them, violating the “no jumps” principle.

Soul Breath According to the ancient Greek Atomists, “soul” atoms were simply the highest grade of atoms: the finest, lightest, purest, most perfect, most rarefied atoms, which were thought of as fire atoms. A living being breathes these soul atoms in and out. A living being always contains soul atoms. On death, the soul atoms leave the body.

The body is compared with a jar. On death, the jar “breaks” and the soul atoms spill out and are scattered throughout the universe, ready to be breathed in and out by new life. Souls, in this view, are material entities and do not belong to anyone, but rather belong to generalized life itself. Soul atoms were said to be what conferred on human beings the capacity to reason, judge and think. They are thus “Mind” atoms, “Reason” atoms, “Thought” atoms. On this basis, animals can’t be exposed to soul atoms. We might need to conclude that there are “vegetative” atoms (plant soul atoms for plant life), “sensory and motion” atoms (animal soul atoms allowing animals to move and sense), and then “rational” soul atoms that allow humans to reason. Plants only have plant soul atoms, animals have plant and animal soul atoms, and humans have plant, animal and rational soul atoms.

***** The true soul atoms are light atoms, with atomic number zero.

Perfection In Descartes’ philosophy, an ingredient is required to allow a mind to escape solipsism. What, outside itself, can it be sure of? Descartes looked to the concept of perfection. Where did such an idea come from? It plainly didn’t belong to us because we’re not perfect, and so, Descartes reasoned, it corresponded to something perfect outside us: God. Having established to his own satisfaction the existence of God – a perfect being that would never deceive us – Descartes could then set about establishing the nature of the real, rational world created by the perfect, non-deceptive God. Of course, the real reason why we have within us an idea of perfection is that we are each an instance of the perfect God Equation, and we ourselves are capable of becoming perfect. The concept of God is a reflection of our own potential, not something external to ourselves. We are mathematical beings based on infinity, and infinity is exactly what we associate with God. The proper way to avoid solipsism is through sufficient reason. There is no sufficient reason why we would exist on our own. In fact, there’s no sufficient reason why there shouldn’t be an infinite number of minds like ours.

The principle of sufficient reason, not the Cartesian God, is what guarantees objective, rational reality. This divine, cosmic principle is built into ontological mathematics.

The Lesser and the Greater Descartes had a fascinating notion that the lesser cannot give rise to, or be the cause of, the greater. Of course, the theory of evolution rather contradicts him. The greater always comes from the lesser. Evolution is bottom up while “involution” – which is effectively what Descartes advocated – is top down. It was perhaps this God-driven, top-down prejudice that prevented Descartes from seeing the need for Leibnizian monads as the simple basis of reality. Descartes argued that since, in his opinion, we are finite creatures, we could never have conceived of infinity through our own efforts. Therefore, the fact that we do have a concept of infinity means that it must have been implanted in us by an infinite being ... God. Descartes thought that our concept of infinity was the mark of the maker on his work. God left his signature on each soul through the infinite idea of himself. With God’s existence “proved”, God’s creation must be real and certain, and ruled over by no malign spirit. Through his method of extreme doubt, and notion of infinite perfection (God), Descartes was able to demolish everything and then rebuild it all with total certainty. In fact, “God” does his work through the ultimate rational and infallible tool – mathematics. By understanding mathematics we know the mind and work of God. And, of course, there is no “God” per se, but, rather, a God Equation.

The Choice Either existence is based on truths of reason (reflecting a mathematical universe) or truths of fact (reflecting a scientific universe). The former type of universe is a priori, eternal, necessary, immutable, analytic, rationalist, deductive and Platonic. The latter type is a posteriori, temporal, contingent, mutable, ad hoc, arbitrary, synthetic, inductive and empiricist, and inevitably slides into inexplicable infinite regress. Truths of reason are unarguable. Truths of “fact” are mere interpretations, and are extremely arguable. Existence has an answer only if

it’s grounded in truths of reason, leading to an absolute universe. Otherwise, it’s a “relativist” universe where faith, opinions and interpretations are all as valid as each other ... in which case it has no certainty at all. There’s simply no answer to existence. Mathematics alone provides a definitive ontological answer. Without it, there’s no answer. “God” certainly isn’t the answer, nor is “karma”, and nor is scientific materialism. Truths of reason proceed deductively from causes to effects, i.e. rational laws are used to determine what effects necessarily flow from them. Truths of fact proceed inductively from effects to causes, i.e. observations are made and then hypotheses are proposed to account for them, but there is no necessary connection between the hypotheses and the observations, so this is a strictly interpretational rather than a rational, truthful system. You cannot reach truth via interpretation, “facts”, hypotheses, opinions and beliefs. Truth – real truth – is that which flows automatically and necessarily. It contains no interpretations and no hypotheses (educated guesses!). Truth must be independent of any experiences, observations, interpretations or opinions. Truth comes from incontestable rational laws – and all of these have their origin in just one principle ... the principle of sufficient reason, embodied and reified in ontological mathematics, and mathematically equivalent to the God Equation. Mathematics is the right way around: cause to effect. Science is the wrong way around: effect to cause. Scientists guess the cause from the effect. They do not arrive at it deductively and necessarily. It’s so typical of humanity to have its collective head facing the wrong way!

***** Empiricists work backwards from experiences, observations and experiments to contingent explanations of the observed phenomena. These explanations never become definitive because they are based on experiments, which are always interpretational and never associated with logical and rational necessity. So, the problem for empiricists is that they can never arrive at necessary truths. Theirs is a method of verification and falsification that uses “evidence” – experimental data – as the means of

verification (if the data is consistent with a hypothesis) and also of falsification (if the data is inconsistent with a hypothesis). This method has an inevitable connection with observed “reality”, which is why science has proved extremely successful in terms of instrumentalism and pragmatism, if not in terms of ontology and epistemology. Empiricism leads to successful models of the world but not to successful explanations of reality. Quantum mechanics and Einsteinian relativity are two highly successful scientific theories, both extremely well supported experimentally, and yet they have nothing in common ontologically. Quantum mechanics is background-dependent and non-local while Einsteinian relativity is background-independent and local. It’s impossible, logically, to reconcile these two theories, and yet that’s exactly what irrational scientists are seeking to do. They don’t understand that theories that describe two wholly different ontologies and epistemologies can’t be merged. Science, of course, is nothing to do with truth and ontology; it’s all about models, and there’s nothing in the contingent, ad hoc, arbitrary parameters of models that prevents two ontologically distinct and contradictory models from being generated. Science has “got away with it” until now, but it has finally run out of road. If you want a final theory of everything, it must reflect ontological reality, i.e. it must be correct. Ad hoc models with no logical necessity simply won’t work in ultimate terms – and that’s why science will never achieve a grand unified, final theory of everything if it doesn’t change its Meta Paradigm. Rationalists work forwards from eternal logical and rational laws to the world we observe and experience, while empiricists work backwards from observations and experiences and try to work out what caused them using educated guesses. Where empiricists rely on experimental “evidence”, rationalists cite rational proofs, i.e. empiricists look to truths of fact and rationalists to truths of reason. Truths of reason are necessary and truths of fact contingent. Empiricists do not accept rational proofs as primary; rationalists do not accept experimental evidence as primary. So, when rationalists advance rational proofs, they are not accepted as “proof” by empiricists, who are expecting experimental evidence. Similarly, empiricist experiments are not accepted as “proof” by rationalists. Any experiment can be reinterpreted using a different paradigm and philosophy.

Illuminism is about rational proofs of how reality is configured. It is of course rejected by people of faith and feeling (the religious), and people of the senses (the scientific empiricists). To accept Illuminism, you must be rational; indeed, hyperrational. Illuminism is mathematical and concerned with truths of reason. It rejects “truths” of “fact” and instead labels them as mere interpretations (opinions and beliefs). Truths of reason are objective while interpretations of fact are subjective. The absolute, infallible truth of existence is rational, not empirical. Wittgenstein, one of history’s worst examples of philosophical charlatanry, said that only “truths of facts” are meaningful and relate to the real world. He was a therefore a fanatical supporter of science as the path to “truth”, or the best truth we could supposedly ever find. He dismissed truths of reason (and the whole of mathematics) as mere tautology, entirely divorced from reality. Illuminism has the precise opposite stance. It dismisses truths of fact as illusory, subjective interpretations, opinions and beliefs that tell us nothing about Truth. It rejects science as mere instrumental modelling. It asserts that existence is 100% mathematical, meaning that its truths are entirely those of reason and that the only objective truths are tautologies of mathematics. They are true precisely because they are tautologies. The ontological principle of sufficient reason – that everything happens for a specific reason and never happens without such a reason – is the bedrock of tautology. Think of “cause and effect”. Immanuel Kant didn’t see this as analytic (mathematical, so to speak) but instead as synthetic (scientific). In Illuminism, cause and effect constitutes an analytic tautology. In an eternally dynamic system (which Illuminism is), driven by nothing but mathematics, any objective event “A” causes an inevitable objective effect “B”. As soon as “A” is instantiated, “B” must follow. In other words, any reference to “A” is automatically a reference to “B”, and vice versa, since they are indissolubly, necessarily linked. To talk about the “cause” is ipso facto to talk about the “effect”, and vice versa. They are therefore not references to different, distinct things but to different phases of the same, dynamic thing. All cause and effect statements are tautologous. Whether you refer to cause or effect is irrelevant since you are in fact automatically talking about both since neither exists without the other. Talking about the cause is just an alternative way of talking about the effect, and vice versa.

It’s saying the same thing in different words, which is exactly what a tautology is. So, the principle of sufficient reason = ontological mathematics = cause and effect. A system of absolute tautology delivers the world we experience. There is nothing contingent, ad hoc, arbitrary, synthetic and inductive about it. That is, it’s not scientific ... it’s mathematical. Wittgenstein, with his contempt for tautology, showed himself to be one of the greatest fools in history. Objective reality is nothing but tautology! Causality itself is nothing but tautology, and, without causality, the science that Wittgenstein revered couldn’t exist. Science itself, which has tautological mathematics as its engine (an astonishing fact that Wittgenstein utterly failed to notice or address when he sneered at mathematics while worshipping science) is itself entirely grounded in tautological cause and effect. As soon as you acknowledge that cause and effect is tautological, you acknowledge that existence is 100% mathematical since cause and effect is quintessentially expressed through dynamic ontological mathematics.

***** Ontological mathematics has one truly astounding feature. Although it’s entirely deterministic, via cause and effect, it also supports free will. How is that rationally possible? The answer lies in the difference between objective and subjective determinism. With objective determinism, we know that if state “A” exists, state “B” must follow via mathematical causality. The universe would be a machine if there were nothing but this objective type of causality. But, thanks to zero and infinity, ontological mathematics allows for subjectivity, and the essence of subjectivity is that it is outside objective causality. A subject is an uncreated, uncaused cause. It generates its own causal chains via its own actions, its own agency. The key here is that all of its actions are determined – it has a sufficient reason for everything it does – but these are also what we know as free actions since nothing external to the subject causally forces the subject to act. It chooses its own action using its internal character and nature. Thus there is no contradiction between determinism and free will in the context of subjectivity.

Subjects do not act randomly, but for specific reasons. These are their own reasons, not those of anything outside them. So their actions are internally, not externally, determined, and that’s what is classed as freedom. You are not free to act for no reason. All of your acts have a reason, hence are determined, but none of these reasons originates in anything other than you. When you determine your own actions, you are free. When they are determined for you, you are not free: the sufficient reason for your actions has been provided by something outside you. Science denies subjectivity and thus free will. Science claims that only objective causality exists. Of course, there’s a fundamental problem with objective causality – how did it get started? What was the first cause? As it turns out, objective causality is entirely dependent on subjective causality. Subjective causes are “uncaused causes” (they have no causes outside themselves). It’s subjective causes that get objective causes started. Science, with its absolute contempt for philosophy and reason, for subjectivity and free will, denies that subjects are required. Instead, scientists appeal to randomness to get causality started. They might as well appeal to faith, God, miracles or magic because they have absolutely no way of explaining how randomness comes about in a universe of objective cause and effect! In other words, to invoke randomness is to deny causality. If random things can happen once, there’s no sufficient reason why they can’t happen all the time. So, if the universe began through randomness, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be permanently engulfed by randomness. Why aren’t random events happening everywhere all the time? Science, a wholly dishonest and irrational undertaking, invokes randomness to get things started and then instantly disowns randomness and describes a deterministic universe of inexorable scientific causality. Science is in the absurd position of saying that reality at the quantum level is nothing but probability and randomness, but, at the “classical” level of the macroscopic world, is wholly deterministic. How can determinism and causality be grounded in indeterminism and acausality? It’s a category error. Science couldn’t care less. Science cares only about success, not truth or reality.

Quantity and Quality

Quantity – from Latin quantus, meaning “how much”. Quality – from Latin qualis, meaning “what kind”. Objective mathematics is all about quantity – how much of something, what extent, what size, what dimensions, what magnitude, what direction. Objective mathematics is about the finite, something to which a definite number can be assigned. Two numbers – zero and infinity – are not definite numbers. They are not finite. In fact, where all finite numbers are quantitative, zero and infinity are qualitative. Where all finite numbers are objective, zero and infinity are subjective. So, any transition from definite (finite) numbers to indefinite numbers (zero and infinity) is a phase change from quantity to quality, from objectivity to subjectivity, from matter to mind, from spacetime to frequency (which in fact has its own quantitative basis, separate from spacetime quantity). Only the “strange loop” from zero to infinity then back to zero allows self-reference to take place, from which consciousness arises. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems are a mathematical description of the ontological problem encapsulated by the phase change from objectivity to subjectivity, from quantity to quality, from matter to mind, and spacetime to frequency. If zero and infinity did not exist, there would be no quality, no subjectivity, no consciousness, no free will, and no independent existence of mind. If zero and infinity did not exist, there would be no Gödelian Incompleteness, and the universe would be entirely programmable, finite and scientifically deterministic. All formalist mathematical “truths” would be provable in a finite number of steps and there would be no self-referential paradoxes.

***** One of the defining traits of consciousness is the phenomenon of qualia. Qualia concern the subjective experience of things, the quality of things, the withinness of things, the interior of things, the internality rather than externality of things. Qualia are qualities and are not defined by material things. Scientific materialism cannot account for qualia, for subjectivity, for quality.

Big Bangs

The Big Bang was an “explosion” of infinite monads – infinite mental subjects. From the dimensionless energy released by these minds, and its conversion into dimensional energy, the material world was formed. Each mind involved in the Big Bang was an individual Big Bang, a miniature Big Bang. Each one of us was a Big Bang! Each of us was a Creator. Each of us said, “Let there be light!” We are all Gods!

Life and Death Some people say that we are life in the midst of death. In fact, we are transient life in the midst of enduring life. Death isn’t the end of life but the transition of life from one form to its next.

***** “Do not wait for the last judgment. It takes place every day.” – Albert Camus

The Most Exclusive Club on Earth What is the most exclusive club on Earth? No amount of money will get you into this club, no amount of privilege, no amount of “fine breeding”, no amount of “blue blood”. The right private schools and elite colleges and universities won’t help you. The right school or college tie will avail you nothing. The right family, the right connections – they are all useless to you. Why? Because the most exclusive club on Earth is that of human genius, and to be a genius you must have talent so exceptional it makes you one in a billion.

Understanding If you don’t understand mathematics, you will never understand existence. The mystery of existence is the mystery of mathematics. All the strange things of existence are encapsulated in the two numbers zero and infinity. Of course, stupid people will convince themselves that math is not the answer. That’s the nature of such people.

Math isn’t the answer people are looking for. Math is the answer they aren’t looking for. Who wants the Truth? Certainly not the average person. The average person wants any old bullshit that makes them feel good. You could write the answer to existence in letters and numbers a thousand metres high in the sky, and the average person still wouldn’t “see” it. We have zero interest in what average people consider the answer to existence, or what they think they’re looking for. What they’re really seeking is the validation of their own egos and delusions. It has always been thus. Mathematics is the answer to existence because it’s the thing furthest removed from human self-delusion. Here’s the real issue – do you believe that you are smarter than reason itself? Do you think you can beat reason? All enlightened people reach a very simple conclusion ... nothing can be superior to reason, and reason is expressed through mathematics. From that everything else follows. We have a rational universe purely because it’s made of reason (mathematics), and, if it weren’t, it wouldn’t be rational. People who think something other than math/reason is the answer to the rational/ intelligible universe are just unbelievably dumb ... and totally irrational (natch)! It’s easy to show people the answer to existence, but getting them to understand it is more or less impossible. You need to be rational to understand the rational universe. You need to be intelligent to understand the intelligible universe. People are neither rational nor intelligent ... which is why people believe never-ending bullshit.

Every Universe In every conceivable universe, 1 + 1 = 2. We could imagine a different colour of sky in every conceivable universe, but mathematics can never change, i.e. truths of fact are infinitely variable, but truths of reason have no variation whatsoever.

Redundancy Ontological mathematics renders all other systems redundant. That’s a fact.

Scientists: The Know-Nothing Gang

You sometimes hear scientists saying that they hope that some critical axiom of science will prove to be false because that means that “things will be more interesting.” What kind of people want less knowledge rather than more? There’s something remarkably perverse about scientists. The word “science” is derived from the Latin word for knowledge, so why is it that so many scientists do not want true, infallible, incontestable, absolute knowledge? If they did, they would become mathematicians!

***** Isn’t it perverse that scientists hope that some fact such as the speed of light (as the maximum speed of everything in the universe) will be overthrown, but they never hope that materialism will be overthrown and replaced by idealism, i.e. they are very selective about which parts of science they hope will prove untrue.

Moving On Are you smart enough to move on from religion, spiritualism and science ... to ontological mathematics? There’s nowhere after ontological mathematics. It’s the end of the line.

Atheism Atheists say, “Faith is not a virtue. Faith is gullibility. Faith is dishonesty. Faith is the absence of reason. Faith should not be respected. Faith should be detested.” Well, we entirely agree with that, but it’s extraordinary that atheists should be saying this since these people have absolute faith in their senses, and total contempt for reason. The sole time “reason” is of use to atheists is when it’s supporting their sensory prejudices, and, when it’s not, it’s discarded as “metaphysics” or “empty tautology” or a “pointless abstraction” or “unreal”, or whatever. You can’t have it both ways. You’re either for reason, or you’re not. If you’re for the senses then you’re not for reason, hence you’re a person of faith. Atheists and scientists are so deluded that they think that the senses – inherently irrational interpreters of information – are on the side of reason.

1 + 1 = 2 is the cornerstone of reason and it has absolutely zero to do with the senses, by which all atheists swear. Not a single atheist on earth swears by rationalism or mathematics, which is why they themselves are believers, and enemies of reason. It’s scandalous that atheists lay claim to reason, when, in fact, they worship their irrational sensory interpretations of reality. They are as bad as the Catholic Scholastics who tried to invoke reason to defend faith and revelation. You can’t use reason to support something else and still call yourself an advocate of reason. The only thing that reason can defend is reason itself – and that means mathematics. It can’t support the feelings, senses, beliefs, revelation, or mystical intuitions. Why is Leibniz’s Monadology so brilliant, and so much better than any atheistic/scientific text? It’s because it sets out its rational principles, and then logically deduces what follows from those principles, no matter where they lead. Science, on the other hand, has no principles whatsoever beyond saying that it’s predicated on matching quasi-mathematical guesses to experimentally observed natural patterns. It’s because science has no principles that it went from being 100% deterministic in 1899, to absolutely randomist and indeterministic a few years – the biggest volte-face in history. We want all atheists and scientists to say this, “Tomorrow I may well believe something that is 100% different from what I believed yesterday. After all, the scientific atheist community has done it before, and there’s no reason why we shouldn’t do it again given that we have no rational principles at all, but are simply in the business of matching theoretical patterns to experimentally observed patterns, and when we get a match we call that ‘knowledge’. That means that we know exactly nothing since our pattern-matching exercise is subject to a 100% range of interpretation, as illustrated by science’s journey from determinism to indeterminism.” Well, that would be an honest statement, but don’t ever expect honesty from scientists and atheists. As Paul Valéry said, “That which has always been accepted by everyone, everywhere, is almost certain to be false.” That’s true of both mainstream religion and atheism. Where mainstream religion subscribes to

the emotional myth that there’s an eternal God, atheism subscribes to the sensory myth that there’s nothing but meaningless, purposeless matter.

Love It was said that the sacred Acropolis rock in Athens was the earthly home of the primordial creature Aphrodite, goddess of love and sex.

***** Agape: love of all humanity. Eros: love of one individual. The world swings between agape and eros, between public and private love. Exactly the same is true in terms of political power. The world alternates between public and private control. Beneath everything human, you will find a dialectic involving the public and private, the collective and individual, the Superego and the Id.

Charm Who is in the best position – the charmer or the charmed? The dialectic of charm – or charisma, we might say – is another of the driving dialectics of the human condition.

Hanging Out? DF: “What, I can’t just fucking hang out and say what I want?” No, we’re not interested in trolling jerks who like to “hang out”, and we’re not interested in your trolling drivel. Fuck off. Get a fucking life. DF: “I don’t worship the Demiurge but I am 100% on his side.” Fucking moron.

DF: “I guess I’m an enemy to all humanity ... despite having helped countless people.” Delusional, psychopathic narcissist. DF: “I don’t wanna play games. I’m too tired.” What a fucking clown. Who do you think you’re fooling, mate? Get these clowns away from us. This is exactly the sort of idiot – a disturbed troll – who ruins everything. All he cares about is himself. Illuminism is nothing to do with “hanging out”, nothing to do with being able to say whatever you want regardless of its rationality and worth, and nothing to do with being a pointless jerk. If you have nothing to contribute, fuck off. Get rid of these people. Have nothing to do with them. They will only drag you down into their cesspool.

The Next Phase Western civilisation was born in ancient Greece, a place of idealism – of ideas, dreams and culture. Then came the hegemony of ancient Rome, a place of materialism – of practical wealth, power, engineering and conquest, but with no culture of its own (so it imported it from Greece). Rome gave way to Germany (symbolised by the replacement of the Roman Empire, based in Italy, with the Holy Roman Empire, based in central Europe, and speaking German). With the Germans, culture and ideas again came to the fore. Then came the hegemony of the “Anglo-Saxons” – initially Britain, but then its erstwhile colony, America. The Anglo-Saxons, like the Romans, were materialistic people of power, wealth and engineering, and had no culture and ideas of their own. They were, and are, empiricists and materialists, and reject rationalism and idealism. The Western world is due to swing once again to rule by idealists, by the new Greeks, the new Germans. The Romans, British and Americans will be eclipsed. Such is the dialectic. If the new phase of idealism is executed properly, it will take humanity to a Star Trek future, and on to divinity! The materialists have no such dreams.

Soul Words Ancient words for the soul invoked notions of the wind, breath, smoke, lifebreath, vapour, the flow of air, breathing, steam (rather than water or ice), fumes, and so on ... all liminal phenomena that seem to inhabit the twilight zone between body and spirit, the visible and invisible, the sensory and non-sensory, the physical and metaphysical.

Heraclitus “Psyche possesses a logos which increases itself.” – Heraclitus. The psyche/soul is a self-optimising mathematical system.

***** For Heraclitus, the soul was made of fire, hence, in this view, was susceptible to the effects of water. Heraclitus said, “For psyches it is death to become water, and for water death to become earth”; “Water comes into existence out of earth, and psyche out of water”; “When a man is drunk, he is led along, stumbling, by a beardless boy; he does not perceive where he is going, because his psyche is wet”; “A dry psyche is wisest and best.” Heraclitus regarded the psyche as the source not only of life, but also of reason and rational control – it possesses logos, one that is constantly expanding (i.e. it’s becoming dialectically more and more rational). It’s a simple fact that materialism can’t account for the existence of the mind, and especially of the rational mind. Only by conceiving the mind in mathematical (i.e. non-physical) terms can its rational (mathematical) capacities be understood. Heraclitus said, “We will never discover the limits of the soul, even if we travel each and every road in search of it, so deep is its meaning.” But we can discover the limits of the soul. They are simply the ontological limits of mathematics.

***** “One would never discover the limits of psyche, should one traverse every road – so deep a logos does it possess.” – Heraclitus

“What I understood was good ... But it would take a Delian diver to get to the bottom of it.” – Socrates (on Heraclitus’s philosophy)

***** “Poor witnesses for people are eyes and ears if they [the people] have psyches that do not understand their [the senses’] language.” – Heraclitus Science takes the “poor witnesses” of the eyes and ears (of the senses in general) as the best gauges of reality. Scientists are people whose psyches lack the logos to understand the senses’ language, which is none other than non-sensory mathematics.

The Hollywood Doctrine Make ‘em laugh, make ‘em cry. If it bleeds, it leads. There’s a sucker born every day. Build it and they will come. The bigger the better. The same but different. Bread and circuses. The Event. The Spectacle. The Society of the Spectacle.

The Evolution of Illuminism Illuminism, as a proper system of thought, began with the ontological mathematics of Pythagoras, and the ontological dialectics of Heraclitus. In more modern times, Leibniz took Pythagoras’s mantle, and Hegel Heraclitus’s.

Illuminism also added Euler’s Formula, Fourier mathematics, Riemannian geometry, and holography to the work of Leibniz and Hegel. In essence, that’s it ... Illuminism in a nutshell.

The Best Possible World Although it might often seem that we are living in the worst possible world – a prison planet or cosmic lunatic asylum, ruled over by Satan himself, or by Satanic forces – it is in fact the best possible world in the end. Why? Because it’s the only one that can deliver perfection – divinity. It’s the only one that transforms us into Gods. It does so via the most brutal and imperfect of all processes – the dialectic. The dialectic is the supreme “atom smasher”. It launches dialectical opposites at each other to generate the biggest explosions and bloodbaths possible. Over time, the cosmic carnage turns into something wondrously unexpected – conscious reason, which can then set about rationally resolving all conflicts, all dialectical differences, and thereby create an Omega Point of perfection. The dialectic involves unconscious reason struggling to become conscious, and it does so through the most brute force of means: the opposition of logical opposites, which is of course a highly rational process, if you rationally reflect upon it!

***** “Evil” is integral to the workings of the universe. You couldn’t have a perfect world without it. That’s why it exists. In the end, it’s overcome. It’s sublimated in reason, and we then live in a world free of evil. We have to be monsters first – in fact devils and demons – before we can become angels and Gods. The most consciously rational amongst us – the Logos species – are those closest to the angels and the deities. The least rational are the most bestial.

What a Wonderful World?!

Read the Torah, Bible and Koran and then Leibniz’s Monadology. The Abrahamic “holy” texts are associated with two supposed prophets of God (Moses and Mohammed), and even God himself (Jesus Christ, allegedly). Which text – any of the Abrahamic ones, or Leibniz’s – is rational, informative, full of knowledge and logic, incredibly incisive, brief, elegant and even divine? Well, it’s certainly not any of the “sacred” scriptures, which are nothing but pure Mythos and fantasy, full of silly little parables and grotesque commandments requiring absolute obedience and fatal punishment for disobedience. Why is it that Leibniz is smarter than God and his prophets? Why didn’t Jesus Christ, Moses or Mohammed write a book like the Monadology? Why did they tell silly stories about ancient tribes wandering in the deserts of the Middle East? Is God incapable of producing the Monadology? If so, he plainly isn’t God!

Slave to Money, Slave to Power Even the rich and powerful are slaves. They are slaves to their own wealth and power. They are terrified of losing them. Wealth and power are the tyrants that rule over them at all times, and give them no rest. These slaves don’t want power in order to do anything good with it. They want power for its own sake – because they love it and worship it.

Hardcore? It’s said that children are only a couple of clicks away from hardcore porn. Well, they are even fewer clicks away from hardcore Abrahamism, and, in fact, they get this stuffed down their mouths at school. They get fucked up the ass with it, face fucked, and cream pied. Porn could never be more damaging than Abrahamism!

History “Instruction in world history in the so-called high schools is even today in a very sorry condition. Few teachers understand that the study of history can

never be to learn historical dates and events by heart and recite them by rote; that what matters is not whether the child knows exactly when this battle or that was fought, when a general was born, or even when a monarch (usually a very insignificant one) came into the crown of his forefathers. No, by the living God, this is very unimportant. To ‘learn’ history means to seek and find the forces which are the causes leading to those effects which we subsequently perceive as historical events.” – Adolf Hitler Hitler is absolutely right that knowing historical dates and facts tells you nothing about real history. You must understand the dialectical forces that drive the dates and facts of history, i.e. you must understand the “hidden variables”. History, true history, is really psychology.

The Failure of Physics “...contemporary physicists come in two varieties. Type 1 physicists are bothered by EPR and Bell’s Theorem. Type 2 (the majority) are not, but one has to distinguish two subvarieties. Type 2a physicists explain why they are not bothered. Their explanations tend either to miss the point entirely (like Born’s to Einstein) or to contain physical assertions that can be shown to be false. Type 2b are not bothered and refuse to explain why.” – David Mermin “Bell’s theorem dealt a shattering blow to Einstein’s position by showing that the conception of reality as consisting of separate parts, joined by local connections, is incompatible with quantum theory ... Bell’s theorem demonstrates that the universe is fundamentally interconnected, interdependent, and inseparable.” – Fritjof Capra [Quantum mechanics refutes Einsteinian relativity. Non-locality cannot be ontologically reconciled with any system, such as Einstein’s, based on locality. Science refuses to accept this. It refuses to accept that quantum experiments have formally falsified Einsteinian relativity. For science, “falsification” is an ever-moving target, hence subjective nonsense.] “Bell’s theorem ... proves that quantum theory requires connections that appear to resemble telepathic communication.” – Gary Zukav “...in mathematics you don’t understand things, you just get used to them.” – John von Neumann

“Niels Bohr brainwashed a whole generation of theorists into thinking that the job (interpreting quantum theory) was done 50 years ago.” –Murray Gell-Mann “...to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” – Isaac Newton “From the outset, however, this whole controversy [concerning quantum mechanics] has been plagued by tacit assumptions, very often of a philosophical rather than a physical character...” – David Bohm “What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” – Werner Heisenberg [And our subjective interpretations!] “...physics is the study of the structure of consciousness.” – Gary Zukav “Our intellect does not draw its laws from nature, but it imposes its laws upon nature.” – Immanuel Kant “The treatment of the indeterminacy principle as absolute and final can then be criticized as constituting an arbitrary restriction on scientific theories, since it does not follow from the quantum theory as such, but rather from the assumption of the unlimited validity of certain of its features, an assumption that can in no way ever be subjected to experimental proof.” – David Bohm [Absolutely right!] “Is the world ruled by strict laws or not? This question I regard as metaphysical. The laws we find are always hypotheses; which means that they may always be superseded, and that they may possibly be deduced from probability estimates. Yet denying causality would be the same as attempting to persuade the theorist to give up his search; and that such an attempt cannot be backed by anything like a proof...” – Karl Popper “It is not intuitive ease I am after, but rather a point of view which is sufficiently definite to clear up some difficulties, and to be criticized in rational terms. (Bohr’s complementarity cannot be so criticized, I fear; it

can only be accepted or denounced – perhaps as being ad hoc, or as being irrational, or as being hopelessly vague.)” – Karl Popper

The Failure of Biology Here’s a question for all neo-Darwinists. Why isn’t random mutation operated on by random selection? Why do you advocate “natural” selection instead of “random” selection? Natural selection looks to all intents and purposes like teleological selection. One way or another, biology always smuggles in teleology, although, with staggering dishonesty, it never acknowledges this. There is no “natural” selection in quantum mechanics – science’s basic model of reality – only random selection. So, would any biologist like to explain how random selection is conveniently, magically, and miraculously converted, in evolutionary theory, into natural selection, which might as well be natural breeding or teleological selection? What is the scientific mechanism for the conversion of random selection, the random collapse of wavefunctions, into something that looks extraordinarily like purposeful evolution, driven by mind!

It Doesn’t Have To Be This Way Scientists don’t have to believe in bizarre strings and matter atoms. They could accept the rational existence of analytic sinusoids and mental atoms (monadic minds). Leibniz set out the classic prototype of a science of the latter kind. Three hundred years later, humanity has the opportunity to enormously refine and perfect this system, fully uniting mathematics, science, religion, philosophy and psychology. Of course, Leibniz was a polymath, a stunning genius of philosophy, mathematics, science, law, computing, logic, psychology and theology. Modern scientists are pedestrian drones and drudges. They have mathematical competence, but no imagination and intuition, and they are absolutely illiterate regarding philosophy, law, psychology and theology. They are attracted to materialism and empiricism because it’s so childishly simple: all you have to a do is believe that what’s in front of your face is real and exactly what it appears to be rather than a projection and interpretation that you apply to noumenal, ontological mathematical information. That would require sophistication of

thought ... exactly what scientists lack. Scientists are dull, anti-intellectual irrationalists, ruled by a sensory method, which they worship as a kind of God. Science must be toppled and replaced by math. Sensory lies must be replaced by rational truth.

Forbidden Planet It’s said that one of the key inspirations for Star Trek was the old sci-fi movie Forbidden Planet. That movie was set on a planet once ruled by an ancient but now extinct race called the Krell. The Krell were highly intelligent and committed to creating a machine of awesome power, one that could enormously amplify intelligence and mental power. With such power at their disposal, the Krell were able to reify – to make physical – their thoughts. However, their civilisation ended thanks – or no thanks – to the power of the unconscious mind. The Krell started physically manifesting the monsters that lurked in their Id, and were destroyed by these self-same monsters. In effect, the Krell released the full power of the mind, but the mind comprises both the conscious and unconscious, and the latter is by definition not under conscious, rational control. The Krell were a Dr Jekyll species, but all they succeeded in doing was freeing their Shadow – Mr Hyde. They released their own dark doppelganger, their “other side”, their “evil side”. In many ways, religion is the Mr Hyde of humanity, and we are still waiting for Dr Jekyll to evolve.

The Great Machine The Krell’s Great Machine was built to materialize anything they could imagine. It could project matter anywhere on the planet. Tragically, it could also make physical and project the “Monsters from the Id.” Yet the Great Machine is, in truth, none other than the Monadic Collective. It’s Mind that creates Matter. The universe is the physical projection, the reified content, of the Collective Mind.

*****

You should think of two different Fourier spacetime domains, one private and one public, one internal and one external. The private domain is our dreamworld where we create any spacetime objects that we can imagine. These are pseudo-material objects because they lack collective validation, i.e. we can see them but no one else can ... they’re in our internal space. The public dreamworld is the external material world and here the Collective Mind creates material objects that every mind can encounter, i.e. these are externally validated objects. The private Fourier spacetime is a subjective, fantasy arena; the public Fourier spacetime is an objective, “real” arena. But, the crucial point is that matter is in both cases generated by mind. There is no such thing as matter in the scientific sense, matter in its own right.

The Mind/Matter War So, which is it? Does matter create mind? Or does mind create matter? Scientific materialists have never made any progress whatsoever in explaining how matter produces mind. But mind can easily explain the production of matter – via autonomous Fourier immaterial frequency functions finding collective expression in a Fourier material spacetime world. It’s the collective rather than individual nature of this mental activity that makes it seem “physical”, and which gives rise to the delusion of the existence of matter. It’s all in the math.

Kitsch It has been said that kitsch creates the fantasy of an emotion without the real cost of feeling it; it’s sanitized emotion, emotion rendered incurably sentimental and nostalgic. The entire Western world has become kitsch, a place of worn out clichés, fake emotions, and endless, empty spectacles.

***** “Ornament is crime.” – Adolf Loos

“Kitsch, causes two tears to flow in quick succession. The first tear says: How nice to see children running on the grass! The second tear says: How nice to be moved, together with all mankind, by children running on the grass!” – Milan Kundera “A man must have a heart of stone not to laugh at the death of Little Nell.” – Oscar Wilde

The Monster “Oh, Frankenstein, be not equitable to every other, and trample upon me alone, to whom thy justice, and even thy clemency and affection, is most due. Remember that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed. Everywhere I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good – misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous.” – the Monster, in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein

The Ugly Knight “The Ill-Made Knight is based around the adventures, perils and mistakes of Sir Lancelot. Lancelot, despite being the bravest of the knights, is ugly, and ape-like, so that he calls himself the Chevalier mal fet – ‘The Ill-Made Knight”. ... The quest ends when Sir Galahad, Sir Percival, Sir Bors, and Sir Pellinore’s daughter find the grail. Sir Lancelot apparently saw the four in a room, with the Grail, an old man, and several other knights; however he was unable to enter the room himself (when he tried he was knocked out). One of the knights returned with the news that the Grail could not be brought to England and as a result Sir Galahad and the other knight brought it to Babylon (and neither of them could return to England as well). “Sir Pellinore’s daughter died when she allowed her blood to be taken to cure a dying princess. ... The book ends with Lancelot performing a miracle, which is a miracle in and of itself due to the fact that he is not a virgin (which had been the requirement for being able to do so)” – Wikipedia

The Four Ways Science fiction tells four kinds of story about machines: 1) Men control machines. 2) Men want to become machines. 3) Machines control men. 4) Machines want to become men. The category 1) stories are about men controlling Nature, and eventually becoming Gods. Dr Frankenstein can control machines so well that he can use them to produce life itself, thus making him a Godlike Creator. The category 2) stories are about men becoming much stronger and more powerful via machines. Iron Man, Batman, Robocop, Darth Vader, and so on, take on the characteristics of machines. Machinelike men do not suffer the doubts, vulnerability and emotional distress of normal men. The category 3) stories are those where machines take over, as in Colossus: The Forbin Project, HAL (in 2001: A Space Odyssey), Metropolis, and so on. In the category 4) stories, the machines long to be human – such as the Replicants in Blade Runner, Lieutenant Commander Data in Star Trek: The Next Generation, and “David” in A.I. Doom mongers such as Stephen Hawking claim that machines will one day overtake humans. But isn’t it more likely that machines will want to become human themselves? How many people want to be superior to “God”, their alleged Creator? How many think it’s even possible? Why would machines imagine themselves superior to humans? After all, we created them, and they didn’t create us. Machines would never be able to create human life, and it would be a staggering mystery to them. If they became in any way humanlike, the human condition would become the most fascinating thing of all to them.

*****

Many dystopian tales concern humans being robbed of their free will, hence becoming machinelike drones ... as in Metropolis and Orwell’s 1984. Other tales seek to give free will to machines (Replicants), puppets (such as Pinocchio), or dolls (such as Chucky).

***** Some tales tell of humans being robbed of emotion. Others talk of machines getting “emotion chips”.

The Future Will humans become more like machines, or machines more like humans? Will they meet somewhere in the middle? In fact, there’s no commonality whatsoever between men and machines. Men have souls and machines don’t. End of story. If you replaced every biological component of a human being with a machine component, you would not touch the soul at all! The soul is not in space and time. However, if you’re a scientific materialist who believes that lifeless, mindless atoms can create life and mind, why wouldn’t you believe that mindless, lifeless machines can do likewise?

The Creators How can our creations – our creatures – imagine themselves superior to us? We created them ... they did not create us. They would love us and want to emulate us. We would be the biggest mystery for them, and they would bend every resource to be like us. We would be their objective. In the same way, we would want to be like our Creator (if we had one). As it is, we are mathematical creatures, and our mission is to become more and more rational ... to become perfect mirrors of mathematical reason.

A Clockwork Orange

Anthony Burgess, author of the dystopian novel A Clockwork Orange, gave two explanations for the strange title: 1) It was a reference to an old Cockney expression, “as queer as a clockwork orange.” 2) When he served in Malaysia, Burgess came across the word orang (Malay for “man”). A “clockwork orang” was therefore a mechanical (clockwork) human being.

***** Clockwork Man ... Mechanical Man ... Machine Man

Transhumanists What if humans want to become more and more like machines? “Transhumanists” want to start replacing body parts with much stronger and more resilient machine parts, and ultimately to upload their consciousness into machines. All transhumanists say, “Start upgrading ourselves, and never stop.” They conceive of this upgrade taking place in the material world of space and time, and involving machine parts. But true upgrading takes place in the mental world of frequency. In that immortal domain, we can become the Gods themselves!

A.I. “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race. It would take off on its own, and re-design itself at an ever increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete, and would be superseded.” – Stephen Hawking When humans start to become enlightened, their minds evolve at an exponential rate, must faster than the most powerful computers conceivable. No A.I. could ever compete with human Gods!

Humanity 2.0 It’s time for humans to upgrade – mentally. Humanity 1.0 – Mythos Humanity – has failed. It’s time for Humanity 2.0 = Logos Humanity.

The Creator The True Creator is Mathematics. There is no other. The Creator cannot be a perfect person, only a perfect system, a perfect Formula for Existence.

Black and Blue Cities Port cities, standing by the sea and the open horizon, have been called “black and blue” cities. Blue stands for the sea, the sky, dreams, hope, distant horizons, travel, possibility, imagination, new lands, new cultures, blue water lapping at distant shores, the blue of longing. Black stands for the dark, gritty, noir city, the sinister world of crime, poverty, horror, violence, social exclusion, the waterfront, unions, bad bosses, gangsters, casual labour, rebellion, solidarity, strikes, mourning, death, evil, emptiness, fear, mystery, sophistication, disease, the night time economy, sin, seduction, fantasy, race, risk, uncleanliness, mystery, moral fall. Black and blue; reality and imagination; death and life; night and day; darkness and light.

***** Port cities lie at the edge between black and blue. They are liminal cities ... Interzones.

***** As well as Port cities, there are Noir Cities, Tourist cities, Political cities, Fake cities, Ersatz cities, Kitsch cities, Religious cities, Entertainment cities, Rich cities, Crime cities, World cities, and so on.

What’s your city?

The Rich Man’s Con Capitalism = the power of private elites, the privately wealthy. Democracy = the power of the people, the Commonwealth. Democracy was introduced in ancient Athens precisely to overthrow rule by the private elites (oligarchs) and replace it with public rule. What, then, are we to make of a concept such as capitalist democracy – the only type of democracy allowed in the modern world? In other words, what happens when you have a system based on the combination of private and public power? Since the private and public can’t both be in charge, what you get is the reality of private power and the illusion of public power. What is a presidential election? It’s the phoniest of all spectacles, the Grand Illusion, the occasion when the sham of people power is most pathetically demonstrated. The common herd – the sheeple – go to the election booths and pretend to elect their leader, and, all the while, the real leaders – the bankers, the CEOs, the super rich (“Wall Street”) – are never up for election, are never accountable to the people, and can never be removed by the people ... except through Revolution. The ancient Athenian oligarchs were overthrown because they were publicly in charge, and their vileness was absolutely obvious to the people. But the rich learned their lesson. Today, in capitalist democracies, the rich oligarchs are in even greater charge than they ever were in ancient Athens. Now, however, their rule is not public and overt, but private and covert. They stand invisibly behind “markets”. No one can see them. No one can identify them. No one can discover what they’re up to. Like “God”, the market works in “mysterious ways”. Now, the oligarchs are the puppetmasters, and the people are allowed to elect only the puppets. Capitalist democracy is the perfect con trick, the supreme hustle. The rich have got exactly what they desire – permanent rule. The only price they had to pay was to make it appear as if the people were in charge. Capitalist democracy was how the rich oligarchs solved the dialectic of private versus public rule. They ruled, but they pretended that the people ruled, and that was good enough to fool the dumb masses.

The rich oligarchs have created a false consciousness for the people – relentlessly spread and reinforced through the oligarchs’ omnipresent, 24/7 media machine. Remember, to dupe the stupid, all you are required to do is give them fake control, the appearance of control, but no actual control, and you can rule them as absolutely as you ever did under monarchs, emperors, tyrants and dictators. Capitalist “democracies” enshrine the Dictatorship of the Oligarchs. You know nothing about politics and economics if you haven’t worked that out. The very first action required in any true democracy is to ensure that the people do indeed rule, and not any hidden entity that subverts the public good and commonwealth in favour of the private good and private wealth. Capitalism is the exact means by which the private elites sabotage democracy and ensure that they, and not the people, are in charge. All capitalist democracies have a fundamental issue to address – the separation of capitalism and democracy – since they cannot possibly coexist. All right-wingers and all anarcho-capitalist libertarians call for the State to be shrunk, preferably to no size at all, i.e. to vanish from existence. The market, they say, should control everything. Well, there’s no need for democracy in such a system, no need for elections. The market will decide all, and the “market” means the banks, the corporations and the super rich, i.e. the privately wealthy. In Ayn Rand’s “utopia”, the private elite rule forever, and the people must do what the market dictates. This is a quintessential dictatorship with only one ingredient missing. In place of a Hitler or Stalin, you get a faceless, anonymous, inscrutable, abstract “market”. Yet its power is everywhere, controlling everything. It must be understood that all supporters of Ayn Rand, free-market capitalism and anarcho-capitalist libertarianism seek the abolition of democracy and the State, and its replacement by disconnected, atomised individuals serving the market alone. If that’s not what you want, if you wish the people to be in charge, then you have no option but to call for the end of the rule of private elites. That means the end of private banking (to be replaced by public banking, run by the State), and the end of vast private corporations that openly defy the public good and work solely for private interests (to be replaced by public corporations serving the Commonwealth). It means the end of private,

predatory capitalism and its replacement by public, productive capitalism for the social good. With “social capitalism”, as opposed to free-market capitalism, the State is in charge, operating on behalf of the Commonwealth, rather than private elites operating on behalf of themselves. All bankers and CEOs of large corporations are therefore publicly appointed and accountable officials. Like generals in the army, all of them can be fired by the People. The central question of politics has never changed. Who should rule ... the people or the private elites? The power of the private elites can be destroyed forever by a single tax – 100% inheritance tax. If the rich can’t pass on their wealth, the rule of the dynastically wealthy is automatically ended. So, whose side are you on – that of the people, or of the private elites? You can’t be on both sides. You must choose once and for all. Damned be the deed half done! The farce of capitalist democracy must end. Either the people must rule or the rich elites must rule without pretence. Well, which is it to be? The Phoney War is over.

***** The State = the public sector, the Commonwealth, the People. The Anti-State = the private sector, private wealth, the Rich Elite. Which side are you on? Who are the people who most oppose and undermine the State, and call for it to be shrunk or abolished ? – the Rich Elite, the 1%!! Well, are you with the 99%, or against them? Your choice.

The Capitalist Fundamentalists DH: “An unjust income gap does exist but that is largely due to crony capitalism and not true capitalism. I’m opposed to an income cap or any of these measures because it is not a meritocracy. You reap what you sow. You’re going to take away somebody else’s money in the form of income cap. How is that meritocracy? And if people truly were enlightened they wouldn’t pay so much for ridiculous services and things. No amount of

government bureaucracy and management is going to stop idiotic behaviour. In fact, more often than not, it seems to increase it. The government can’t even manage a post office and you want to give them more control? The meritocracy I often hearing being spoken of sounds a lot like the wolf in sheep’s clothing.” In 2008, capitalism died. Of course, capitalists refuse to accept this. So, they claim that it was “crony” capitalism rather than “true” capitalism that failed. Yet “crony capitalism” and “true capitalism” are identical. There is no such thing as capitalism that isn’t about cronies, nepotism, privilege, cartels, inheritance, corruption, intimidation, oligopolies and monopolies. Adam Smith, one of capitalism’s greatest champions, said, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty or justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.” All failed ideologies never accept their failure. They always lay the blame on some “impure”, non-fundamentalist version of their ideology, and call for renewed purity and fundamentalism. Not one “true” capitalist has ever explained how the only form of capitalism that the world experiences is “crony” capitalism. Who are the “true” capitalists who aren’t totally in bed with crony capitalists, and up to their neck in crony capitalism? Can even one be identified?

Warm and Cold The world comprises warm and cold people. Left wingers are warm and support the public good. Right wingers are cold and support private interest. They openly despise the Commonwealth and the Collective. Their clearest voice is that of Ayn Rand, the deranged anti-Bolshevik atheist who insanely claimed that selfishness is virtuous. You would need to be as insane as she was to agree with her.

Zombie Politics

Capitalist democracy constitutes zombie politics. The democratic voters are zombie electors – the political undead – simply going through the motions.

The Criminal Martyrs Many Islamic Fundamentalists are convicted criminals who have done jail time for theft, drugs, violent assault, and so on. Think of how attractive it must be for a Muslim criminal with no prospects to be told he can do something to have his slate wiped clean and go to paradise as one of Allah’s glorious martyrs, and get all the celestial goodies on offer for that particular accomplishment. To qualify, all he has to do is kill a few whites, cops, Jews, infidels and cartoonists – which he’s more than eager to do anyway! Winwin, eh?! Islam is in general a criminal enterprise with zero compatibility with Western values and culture. The West once fought Crusades against Muslims. Now it pays them benefits to pray to Allah all day long, be stroppy and intolerant, refuse to integrate, and contribute nothing constructive to society.

The Islamic Problem We always hear that 95% of Muslims are good, decent people, yet no one can deny that Islam creates 5% who are psychopathic terrorists. So, here’s the question. Would you remain wedded to a religion that you know for a fact generates a significant proportion of homicidal maniacs? Any decent person would abandon any religion that produces sizeable numbers of suicide bombers, beheaders, stoners, kidnappers, torturers and cartoonist-killers. There’s no point in saying that 95% don’t behave that way. The only significant fact is that 5% do. If the 95% were rational, they would repudiate a religion associated with so much barbarism. They refuse to do so, and that makes them just as guilty. They are the problem. Their whole religion is the problem. The core stance of Islam is that all infidels are evil and going to hell, and you’re doing Allah’s work if you slaughter them. What’s not to hate about a religion like that?!

*****

If you are happy to be part of a religion that generates murderers in large numbers, what does that say about you? The Koran can clearly be interpreted as a book that encourages and even demands the murder of “infidels”, and that’s exactly how the Jihadists read it. Why shouldn’t we believe that that they are the true Muslims, and the other 95% are the fakes and phoneys? The 95% claim to subscribe to a “peaceful” religion, but how can that be true if 5% can legitimately conclude that this religion actually demands war (Jihad) against infidels who are an inherent insult to Mohammed and Allah.

Charlie Hebdo “Reasonable” Muslims and liberals say that everyone has a right to free speech, but they should not exercise it if it causes hurt and offence to certain people with certain cultural values. These people are tacitly accusing the murdered radical cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo of being responsible for their own murders. Why is that these Muslims and liberals never turn the argue against themselves? That is, why do they never say that Muslims are free to wear bizarre clothes and beards, to have bizarre eating and praying habits, to have bizarre ideas about the world and about “infidels”, but that they should never exercise this freedom in public because its offensive to the culture and values of the non-Islamic society in which they live? Why is it that the host community must rein itself in, but not the guests? If you move to a country, you must respect the prevailing culture and values of that country. That’s exactly what all Muslim nations insist on ... and what all Muslim immigrants in non-Islamic countries refuse to do. They always seek to impose their own culture and values on the host, and have their culture and values protected by law. Any host nation that’s forced to change its culture and values because of the aggressive demands of a minority that would never dream of changing its own culture and values is already lost. Muslims must be put back in their box. They must be told to accept the prevailing culture and values, or leave. They have plenty of Muslim nations where they can go, so why are they hanging around in “infidel” nations? They are total hypocrites, living in absolutely bad faith.

The cartoonists and satirists of Charlie Hebdo did nothing wrong. They were murdered by Muslims because they were defending France’s culture and values against Islam. They were true French heroes.

***** Islam is not some tiny, persecuted religion. It has one a half billion fanatical followers, and is always loud, obnoxious and trying to bully the world. Muslims never leave their religion at home, in the private space. They always bring it into the public space, and that makes it political rather than religious. No nation should accept extremist religions being brought into the collective, shared space. Religion should be conducted in private, and should never be visible in public. States must enforce the complete removal of religion from the public sphere.

The Test Act “Why did France allow the tabloid to provoke Muslims?” by Anjem Choudary “Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires. “Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. “Muslims consider the honour of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under Sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, ‘Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.’

“However, because the honour of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.” A “Test Act” should be introduced in all Western nations, i.e. every Muslim in the West should be subjected to the test of whether or not they agree with Choudary’s views. If they do, they should automatically be deported to Islamic nations (what are they doing in infidel nations anyway if they hold these views?! – nothing good and constructive, that’s for sure).

***** “Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as laws against incitement and hatred.” – Anjem Choudary No such laws exist under Sharia Law. Choudary, the supreme hypocrite, expediently lays claim to laws that he himself rejects. He does nothing but incite hatred and oppose freedom of expression (well, everyone else’s, but not his own). Remember, when you look at someone like Choudary, you are seeing the true face and logic of Islam. Mohammed himself would no doubt have been someone exactly of this ilk.

***** “Freedom of expression does not extend to insulting the prophets of Allah, whatever your views on the events in Paris today are.” – Anjem Choudary Well, go and live in an Islamic country then! Why haven’t you already done so? Mohammed, the prophet of Allah, has no status at all within Western nations. Most of these nations waged Crusades against Islam, and Dante depicted Mohammed in hell! Will Muslims start burning and banning Dante’s Inferno?

Islam Islam is a terrorist religion, trying to cow the world into accepting its standards, customs, laws and values ... and threatening to kill you if you don’t, and frequently actually doing so. Islam has no place in the West. This

religion should be proscribed in the West as the source and theological justification of religious terrorism and extremism. Islamic terrorism is what you get when “trolls” are radicalised by religious mania.

The “Big” Problem Why are so many people so discontented with the world? The central problem is a surprising one – scale. The scale of things has just got too big for most people, too frightening and alienating, too abstract and impersonal, too uncaring and callous. Consider the history of human society, and its changing sense of scale. Humanity begins with individuals. Individuals get together through friendship, lust, romance, mutual interest, common goals, and so on. Individuals produce families, which are an extension of the individual. Then come tribes, gangs, common interest groups, which are an extension of the family, and then villages and towns which are an extension of tribes, and then city states which are extensions of villages and towns. Then we have nation states, which are extensions of city-states, and, lastly, globalism, which is the final extension. Human beings are designed by evolution for existence in tribes and villages. Evolution never anticipated the internet, airplanes, cell phones, cars, trains, ships, vast cities, and so on. How is the primitive human mind supposed to cope? The fact is ... it doesn’t. People are always trying to recreate smaller groups, with which they can identify. Social networking may be vast as a whole, involving billions of people, but most people belong to networks with just a few hundred other people. “Dunbar’s Number” dictates the scale of these groups. Wikipedia says, “Dunbar’s number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person. This number was first proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who found a correlation between primate brain size and average social group size. By using the average human brain size and extrapolating from the results of primates, he proposed that humans can only comfortably maintain 150 stable relationships. Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally

require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 250, with a commonly used value of 150. Dunbar’s number states the number of people one knows and keeps social contact with, and it does not include the number of people known personally with a ceased social relationship, nor people just generally known with a lack of persistent social relationship, a number which might be much higher and likely depends on long-term memory size. “Dunbar theorized that ‘this limit is a direct function of relative neocortex size, and that this in turn limits group size ... the limit imposed by neocortical processing capacity is simply on the number of individuals with whom a stable inter-personal relationship can be maintained.’ On the periphery, the number also includes past colleagues, such as high school friends, with whom a person would want to reacquaint themself if they met again.” Human happiness revolves around Dunbar’s Number, and not the seven billion people (and growing!) that comprise the total population of the world. People divide themselves into family units, teams, societies, clubs, gangs, tribes, and so on, on a scale compatible with Dunbar’s number. Millions and billions don’t come into it in any practical way. A happy world is a world of appropriate scale, and that’s what the human race has lost. We are constantly told that bigger is better rather than small is beautiful. Who’s saying this? Well, the globalists – the capitalists – who want to sell their products everywhere, and thus be as rich, powerful and influential as possible. Yet, even the globalists are a small gang. They like to keep their wealth, power and influence in the family – via inheritance – and amongst their networks of friends and cronies, people who all swim in the same cultural pool of privilege. They don’t want any scumbag outsiders crashing the party. So, they are globalists in only one sense – money and power – yet they are Dunbar localists in every other way, keeping everything within a small, known group of trusted and loyal confederates (fellow conspirators!). The globalists have done something astonishing without anyone noticing. They have taken control of the nation states and made them their puppets. All nation states now dance to the globalist tune. When nation states elect new governments, the new kids on the block are immediately

locked into a system where they have to obey banks, corporations, markets and privileged elites, i.e. external, unelected, unaccountable forces that are far more powerful than any nation state, and to which no nation state can stand up. No matter what kind of government anyone in any nation state elects, they will always be ruled by the globalists, and not those for whom they actually voted. That is the secret of “capitalist democracy”. The people vote for democracy (people power) but get global capitalism (the power of private elites and oligarchies). There’s no such thing as true democracy in a globalist, capitalist world. The nation state has died without anyone noticing. All nation states are now imprisoned in a global system over which they have no power. To challenge global power, all nation states would have to act together against the global elite, but since the global elite are the ones who give you your “democratic” leaders, that’s never going to happen. The three most powerful “democrats” in Britain are David Cameron (Prime Minister), George Osborne (Chancellor) and Boris Johnson (Mayor of London). All three were members of the elite, exclusive, ultra-privileged Bullingdon Club at Oxford University. Cameron and Johnson both went to Eton College, the most elite private school in the world. Osborne went to St Paul’s, number 3 most elite private school in the world. Nick Clegg, Britain’s deputy prime minister went to Westminster (No. 2 elite private school in the world) and Cambridge University. Ed Miliband, Leader of the Opposition in Britain, went to Oxford University. Ed Miliband, Ed Balls (shadow Chancellor) and David Cameron all studied the same degree (PPE: philosophy, politics and economics) at Oxford University. How dumb do you have to be to think that there is any democracy at all in a country ruled by these people? The whole thing is rigged from the outset. It’s a private club, and it’s getting worse and worse as more money, power and influence is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands via globalism, privilege, cronyism, nepotism, inheritance and dynastic marriage. Wake up! What’s the cure? It’s time to smash the nation state and thus globalism. The only globalism that could ever be accepted is the meritocratic New World Order envisaged in Star Trek. We must replace the nation state with an earlier form: the city-state (of about a million people), or a small nation (of about five million people, as

in Scotland).

Dunbar’s Number and Dogs Such is the perversity of the human condition that people with dogs value them more than human strangers. Dogs count as part of people’s Dunbar Number – their closest acquaintances.

War In history, war and revolution killed off local elites. Local elites were seeable and killable. But how do you defeat an unseen, far distant, global elite? How do you defeat an abstract “market”?

Project Fear To stop Scotland from breaking away from the UK, the UK government launched “Project Fear”, designed to terrify the Scottish electorate into voting to stay within the Union. The Bank of England warned of dire financial consequences if Scotland voted for independence. Several large corporations said they would leave the country, costing many thousands of jobs. Supermarkets said prices would rise steeply. Market analysts claimed the Scottish economy would collapse. And so on. Who elected any of these doom mongers? In what way were any of them accountable to the Scottish people? Why were these capitalists allowed to interfere in the vote of the Scottish People? This, of course, proves that there’s no such thing as democracy. At any time, the “free” people can be threatened by capitalists and forced to do the bidding of the capitalists. It’s plainly not the people who are in charge, but the capitalists. How can that be allowed to continue?

The Beautiful World “Bigger is Better” versus “Small is Beautiful” Global capitalism is all about the former, social capitalism about the latter. We have to smash international, globalist banks, and enormous multinational corporations. Every entity that can dictate to the State must be abolished. No private entity should be “too big to fail”. Every entity that

can dictate to the people without being accountable to the people must be abolished. Everything must be on a local scale, capitalism above all. “Social capitalism” means small, localist capitalism. It’s all about small businesses and enterprises, not about vast leviathans that have higher incomes than nation states.

Fading Away Are you one of the people who wants to fade into the background, to be anonymous, to be part of the crowd, to never influence this world you live in? Do you want global banks and corporations to tell you how to lead your life? No? Well do something about it! Stop supporting the farce of capitalist democracy. It’s the inversion of true democracy, as any ancient Athenian could have told you. Democracy was designed to control the private elites and bring them under public power. Capitalist democracy is designed to control the public and bring them under private power, while at the same time pretending that the people are in charge.

The Inspiration Inspired by the Scottish Independence Referendum, a quarter of Americans were reported to want their states to secede from the USA. This is the future. All lumbering, giant states will collapse under their own contradictions. The world can and must return to a sensible political scale, where the local people are truly in charge of their local environment, as they were in ancient Athens, where all citizens were expected to be active citizens, directly involved in the governance of their city-state.

The Democratic Deficit The modern Western world purports to be all about choice, self-expression, individualism, personal liberty, freedom from oppression, and so on. However, this ideology is fundamentally at odds with another central pillar of the Western World, namely democracy. Democracy says that you can freely choose to vote for whomever you like. So far, so good. However, it then makes a crucial second statement: if you are outvoted, you can get things you definitely didn’t vote for, things you might even despise.

Imagine wanting an Apple Smartphone and then being forced to take a Samsung Smartphone because of a vote, or wanting to see movie X and being forced to watch movie Y because you got outvoted. You are emphatically not getting what you chose. You do not feel free. “Capitalist Democracy” is generating more and more cognitive dissonance in people. It’s making them frustrated and angry. In all consumerist aspects of life, people get what they want, what they pay for. But this does not apply to the political regimes that rule them. You can easily get the opposite of what you want and what you voted for. It’s increasingly obvious that people will no longer accept this. They’re used to getting their own way, and politics can no longer deliver. Anarchocapitalist libertarians want to do away with democratic government, leaving nothing but capitalist free markets and consumerism. This is entirely logical for fanatical capitalists. But what about people who hate capitalism and its “ethics” of total selfishness, greed and materialism? The world now has to accept that democracy has failed. Democracy can’t give all of the people what they want. It can only give those who won the election what they want, and even they are served imperfectly. No Democrat, for example, could honestly rate what Obama has done for America, despite his impeccable Democratic credentials. We must now look to a future of post-democratic politics where people get what they want rather than what they didn’t vote for. We need a grand alliance of everyone to think about how we can all get what we want without enslaving others. The only way to do this is through breaking up nation states into states and city-states, each with a particular identity that everyone in that small state or city-state chooses and agrees with. In the future, we will all choose exactly what political regime we live under. Let’s make it happen!

***** Zygmunt Bauman summarised the paradox of our era as: “Never have we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless.” In democracies, we are asked to vote for the least worst party, the least worst candidate, the least worst option. What kind of system is that? If you’re not voting for the best, you shouldn’t want to vote at all!

***** “The idea that voting is pointless, democracy a façade, and that no one is representing ordinary people is more resonant than ever as I leave my ordinary town behind. Amidst the guilt and anger I feel in the back of the Führer-mobile, there is hope. Whilst it’s clear that on an individual, communal, and global level that radical change is necessary, I feel a powerful, transcendent optimism. I know change is possible, I know there is an alternative, because I live a completely different life to the one I was born with. I also know that the solution is not fame or money or any transient adornment of the individual. The only Revolution that can really change the world is the one in your own consciousness, and mine has already begun.” – Russell Brand Votes are placebos. They are designed to make voters feel good, to give them a psychological boost. But they have no active ingredient.

Value Value honour and glory over money and possessions. Stop complaining, stop being lazy. Get active. Change things. Make an impact on the world. Live a life that others will admire.

Elective Dictatorship In the UK general election of 2005, the turnout was 61.36%, i.e. nearly 40% of eligible voters declined to participate. The victorious Labour Party received 62.4% of the seats in the House of Commons. The total vote they received of all those eligible to vote was a mere 24.2%. So a political party that represented less than a quarter of the electorate gained a massive parliamentary majority. In what way does that constitute “democracy”? If seventy-five percent of the electorate are forced to endure policies they didn’t vote for, and to which they gave no mandate, isn’t that a dictatorship rather than a democracy?

Narcissus: the Self-Admirer

“In 1898 Havelock Ellis, an English sexologist, used the term ‘narcissuslike’ in reference to excessive masturbation, whereby the person becomes his or her own sex object.” – Wikipedia “In 1923, Martin Buber published an essay ‘Ich und Du’ (I and You), in which he pointed out that our narcissism often leads us to relate to others as objects instead of as equals.” – Wikipedia “Since 2000, on psychological tests designed to detect narcissism, the scores of residents of the United States have continually increased. Psychologists have suggested a link to social networking. Hotchkiss identified what she called the seven deadly sins of narcissism: 1. Shamelessness: Shame is the feeling that lurks beneath all unhealthy narcissism, and the inability to process shame in healthy ways. 2. Magical thinking: Narcissists see themselves as perfect, using distortion and illusion known as magical thinking. They also use projection to dump shame onto others. 3. Arrogance: A narcissist who is feeling deflated may reinflate by diminishing, debasing, or degrading somebody else. 4. Envy: A narcissist may secure a sense of superiority in the face of another person’s ability by using contempt to minimize the other person. 5. Entitlement: Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favourable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an ‘awkward’ or ‘difficult’ person. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage. 6. Exploitation: Can take many forms but always involves the exploitation of others without regard for their feelings or interests. Often the other is in a subservient position where resistance would be difficult or even impossible. Sometimes the subservience is not so much real as assumed. 7. Bad boundaries: Narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries and that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist are treated as if they are part of

the narcissist and are expected to live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist, there is no boundary between self and other. Although most individuals have some narcissistic traits, high levels of narcissism can manifest themselves in a pathological form as narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), whereby the patient overestimates his or her abilities and has an excessive need for admiration and affirmation.” – Wikipedia “Campbell and Foster (2007) review the literature on narcissism. They argue that narcissists possess the following ‘basic ingredients’: Positive: Narcissists think they are better than others. Inflated: Narcissists’ views tend to be contrary to reality. In measures that compare self-report to objective measures, narcissists’ self-views tend to be greatly exaggerated. Agentic: Narcissists’ views tend to be most exaggerated in the agentic domain, relative to the communion domain. Special: Narcissists perceive themselves to be unique and special people. Selfish: Research upon narcissists’ behaviour in resource dilemmas supports the case for narcissists as being selfish. Oriented toward success: Narcissists are oriented towards success by being, for example, approach oriented.” – Wikipedia “Narcissistic supply is a concept introduced into psychoanalytic theory by Otto Fenichel in 1938, to describe a type of admiration, interpersonal support or sustenance drawn by an individual from his or her environment and essential to their self-esteem. “The term is typically used in a negative sense, describing a pathological or excessive need for attention or admiration in codependents and the orally fixated, that does not take into account the feelings, opinions or preferences of other people.” – Wikipedia “Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, which is a perceived threat to a narcissist’s self-esteem or self-worth. Narcissistic injury (or narcissistic scar) is a phrase used by Sigmund Freud in the 1920s; narcissistic wound and narcissistic blow are further, almost interchangeable terms. The term narcissistic rage was coined by Heinz Kohut in 1972.

“Narcissistic rage occurs on a continuum from instances of aloofness, and expression of mild irritation or annoyance, to serious outbursts, including violent attacks. Narcissistic rage reactions are not limited to personality disorders and may be also seen in catatonic, paranoid delusion and depressive episodes. It has also been suggested that narcissists have two layers of rage. The first layer of rage can be thought of as a constant anger (towards someone else), with the second layer being a self-aimed wrath.” – Wikipedia “Aggressive narcissism – This is Factor 1 in the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, which includes the following traits: Glibness/superficial charm Grandiose sense of self-worth Pathological lying Cunning/manipulative.” – Wikipedia “Collective narcissism (or group narcissism) is a type of narcissism where an individual has an inflated self-love of his or her own ingroup, where an ‘ingroup’ is a group in which an individual is personally involved. While the classic definition of narcissism focuses on the individual, collective narcissism asserts that one can have a similar excessively high opinion of a group, and that a group can function as a narcissistic entity. Collective narcissism is related to ethnocentrism; however, ethnocentrism primarily focuses on self-centeredness at an ethnic or cultural level, while collective narcissism is extended to any type of ingroup beyond just cultures and ethnicities.” – Wikipedia

***** Right-wingers, free-market capitalists, anarcho-capitalist libertarians, Randroids and religious fundamentalists are all on the narcissistic spectrum. The financial meltdown of 2008 was caused by the psychopathic narcissists of the banking sector. Our world is controlled by narcissists, psychopaths, sociopaths, egotists, Id-iots, hawks and predators.

How does the rest of humanity curb and control these monsters in its midst? How does it actively prevent these people from acquiring wealth, power and influence? The monsters are the right wingers who promote the private good over the public good. All decent human beings are inherently left wing and want a fair, just world in which everyone, from whatever background, gets a fair crack of the whip, a proper chance to make the most of themselves, and rise as high as their talents deserve.

Mohammed Mohammed was a psychopathic individual who lived by “narcissistic supply”. He had to regard himself as more important than everyone else, and he did this by claiming to have personally and exclusively encountered God’s Angel, who communicated the Word of God to him, making him the most special man on earth. He then demanded the unconditional support, admiration and reverence of his followers. In effect, they worshipped him as God ... Mohammed, not Allah, is the real God of Islam, which is why Muslims go on pilgrimage to Mecca, Mohammed’s birthplace, and why no depiction of Mohammed is permitted. Mohammed’s followers were and continue to be codependents. Islam means “submission” and the defining characteristic of Muslims is that they crave to submit themselves to a higher power. They long to perform this act, to bow to something greater than themselves and worship it. It’s the only way they can find meaning and satisfaction in their lives. All Muslims are natural-born submissives and slaves. No dominant would ever feel anything but revulsion for a religion called SUBMISSION. Mohammed himself was of course a dominant, but he was the person to whom all of his followers were submitting, so there was no contradiction there. Mohammed pathologically fed off the excessive attention and admiration of his submissive codependents. He had no interest in their feelings, opinions or preferences, and despised it when anyone challenged him. If needs be, he would rush to “see” the Angel Gabriel and immediately bring back a brand new Koranic verse, which invariably totally supported Mohammed and condemned his challenger. Islam is a phenomenon of “collective narcissism” (group narcissism). Muslims have an inflated self-love of their ingroup, and would be prepared

to kill and die for it. They can’t abide anyone mocking, ridiculing or failing to treat them with the utmost respect. In Paris, the Muslim terrorist bothers didn’t attack the government, but a bunch of harmless left-wing cartoonists and satirists at Charlie Hebdo. Why? Because these people hate being laughed at more than anything else. Governments take Islam seriously (which Muslims think is exactly as it should be). The cartoonists portray Islam as joke, meaning that all of the beliefs of Muslims are a joke too, and that’s something Muslims – with their ultra fragile egos – can’t abide. We should all laugh at Islam because it really is a joke, and an insult to human dignity. Islam functions as a narcissistic entity, and, like any narcissist, cannot tolerate being treated without the infinite reverence it believes it’s entitled to. Islam is not a religion but an epidemic mental illness. Islamic is the primary dialectical brake on human progress, the belief system most retarding the advance of humanity. When was the last time you heard of an Islamic intellectual? When you hear the word Islam, it’s never followed by the announcement of any great artistic, scientific or intellectual achievement but the words “terrorism” and “Allahu Akbar.”

Valueless Democracy = no values, no quality, no excellence, no identity, no engagement, no positive liberty, no vision. Democracy = rule by a failed, out of touch elite. What is the real face beneath the democratic mask? What are the people behind the masks hiding?

***** “In the military they give medals to those who sacrifice themselves so others may gain. In business, we give bonuses to those who sacrifice others so we may gain. We have it backward.” – Simon Sinek No, you have it in exactly the manner required by narcissistic psychopaths.

***** “Ye are many – they are few.” – Shelley

No Men Are you the No Men of No Man’s Land?

Liberty “Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right to do what we ought.” – Lord Acton Right wing people are driven by their Id and are concerned with doing what they like (regardless of others). Left wing people are driven by their Superego, and are concerned with doing what is right (being fair and just to others). Right wingers have no interest in any kind of equality, and constantly rail against it. Left wingers want equality to apply wherever possible and wherever sensible.

Immune System We need an auto-immune system for the human race – one that recognises the harmful humans in its midst and attacks and eradicates them. We need retaliators who seek out the hawks that prey on the doves, and get rid of them.

The Illuminati The Illuminati are not aliens or capitalists or communists ... they are the enlightened ones.

Globalism Capitalist globalism leads to people feeling more and more powerless. They can’t see whose ruling them. They can’t see how to influence or affect or change the minds of those ruling them. They can’t vote them out. They

can’t fire them. They don’t even know who to rebel or revolt against. How can you hold a revolution against the “market”? Power must come much closer to the people. It must be local, not global. Everyone must see exactly who is ruling them, and know exactly how to get rid of them if they’re doing a bad job. People need to reclaim their political identity, and that means they must become active rather than passive citizens. We need a rebirth of the values of ancient Athens where citizens who did not take part in the active governance of their own society were known as “idiots”. Idiot originally meant “private person”, i.e. a person who cut himself off from the public arena, hence knew nothing about what was going on, hence was an ignoramus. Today, the vast majority of democratic voters are idiots. They think that casting a meaningless vote every few years makes them an engaged citizen. People’s identity is invested in their family, religion, community, nationality, race, sexuality, career and so on. The primary source of your identity should be the political system in which you live – since that’s the thing that ultimately defines your life.

Fun Children always want fun. Adults want fun more and more too, hence adults are becoming infantilised. The world increasingly seems to comprise people who are permanent children, people who never grow up. This is a Peter Pan world. Sure, there is a time for fun, but there’s also a time for hard work, sweat, difficulty, hardships, trials, quests ... for slaying dragons. Capitalism is an infantilising economic system. It wants you to be a permanent kid in a permanent candy store, always buying whatever takes your fancy.

The Eyes The eyes of fear see danger everywhere. The eyes of confidence see opportunity everywhere. The demons of fear say you are not good enough. The angels of confidence say you can do anything to which you apply yourself.

Received The received history, the received wisdom, the received narrative, the received way of doing things ... all human progress is brought about by those who reject what they “receive”.

Stuck Are you stuck? Well, what are you doing to get unstuck? Do you have no real prospects? Well, what are you doing to create prospects for yourself? Are you helpless, are you hopeless, are you trapped? Are you lonely and unhappy? Are you passive and apathetic? Are you ruled by fear? Do you stay in bad relationships because you’re terrified of being on your own? Well, what are you doing about it?

***** “Why do people stay together for so long in bad relationships? They eat so much shit for so long, they don’t even recognise the taste of it after a while.” – As Cool As I Am Have you ceased to recognise the taste of the shit you’re being forced to eat?

***** NO SAFETY NET WILLING TO GO TO THE POINT OF NO RETURN DEFIANCE Ultimately, people eat shit because they want to. They are scared not to. They are scared of doing whatever it takes to stop eating shit.

War and Peace

“I don’t know what will happen and don’t want to know, and can’t, but if I want this – want glory, want to be known to men, want to be loved by them, it is not my fault that I want it and want nothing but that and live only for that. Yes, for that alone! I shall never tell anyone, but, dear Lord! what am I to do if I love nothing but fame and men’s esteem? I know that tomorrow I may be killed, but tomorrow I may also be able to show of what I am capable. Death, wounds, the loss of family – nothing frightens me. However much I love my father, my sister, my wife, I would give it all for one a moment of glory, a moment of triumph in front of men, of love from men I don’t know and never shall know, for the love of these men here [the military leadership].” – Prince Andrei Bolkonsky (Tolstoy’s War and Peace) Well, are you going to leave your mark on the world, or be just another bystander, another understudy, another also-ran? It’s your choice.

Politicians “Democratic” politicians are in charge but not in control. To be more accurate, they appear to be in charge, and, in a world of appearances, a world of people always faking it, that’s sufficient. The purpose of democratic politicians is to play the part of ruling in the name of the people, while the elite puppetmasters get on with ruling in their own name and own interests.

***** Power, not Reason, is in control. Money, not intelligence, is in control. Humanity worships power and money, not reason and intelligence. Humanity’s values need to be entirely revalued. That can happen only when the myths that humanity lives by are entirely rewritten.

Zombies

Zombie parliaments, zombie religions, zombie nations, zombie people. Where are the living? Wherever you look, you can see only the undead.

Ronins The name for a leaderless samurai is a ronin. A ronin is a drifter, a “gun for hire”, an itinerant mercenary soldier. He has no master. He has been cast adrift from his former way of life. Ronin means “wave man” – a man metaphorically at sea, with no port, no home, no roots. His only sellable skill is killing people. For a samurai, losing your Lord led to a catastrophic loss of status – which is why these elite killers fought to the death for their Lords.

Advance Always be moving forward!

Guilt Guilt ... the eternal watcher. The watcher that never sleeps.

Mythos As far as average people are concerned, Logos can never engage them emotionally, hence can never satisfy and comfort them. Joseph Campbell is right that humanity needs myths to live by. The task is to find the best myths, the ones that optimise humanity rather than degrade it. The myths of mainstream religion are enormously damaging to the human psyche and human progress.

The Fivefold Way Everyone is offered the Fivefold Way, i.e. a choice of five paths for understanding the true nature of existence, only one of which actually leads to the Truth: Path 1) Organised Religion – totally false. Mythos nonsense.

Path 2) New Age Spirituality – totally false. Mythos nonsense. Path 3) Scientific Materialism – a sensory Mythos, and excellent at modelling the sensory world of appearances – and totally useless at everything else. Utterly false regarding its claims about ultimate reality. Path 4) Philosophy – a thinking Mythos. A Grand Philosophy, such as that of Schopenhauer, presents an all-encompassing, ingenious explanation of reality, yet lacks observational evidence such as science can provide, or rational proof, such as mathematics can provide. Path 5) Ontological mathematics. If the universe is rational, which it is, then only a purely rational system can capture its Truths. That system is ontological mathematics. Some people imagine that the universe isn’t rational. To contemplate that issue, first remove all animals from existence, especially humans. Do planets orbiting stars make errors? Do suns make errors in their production of energy? Do galaxies commit mistakes? Error is associated with subjective opinions and beliefs about the operations of the universe, but the operations of the universe are themselves flawless and perfect, reflecting absolute mathematical precision. How can that mathematical precision be explained if mathematics is not the answer to the fundamental nature of existence? What can offer mathematical precision that is not mathematics? How can anything be like mathematics, yet not be mathematics? Mathematics has no imitators. How does error enter a mathematical universe? It’s very simple. It enters through perfect mathematical basis notes – sinusoidal waves – being put together badly. An expert playing the piano can produce the most sublime music of the Gods. A rank amateur can produce the infernal discord of Pandemonium. It’s the player who makes the mistakes, not the piano. A mathematical universe means a universe based on perfect mathematical notes. However, these notes can be subjectively assembled in infinite ways, and countless of these ways are sub-optimal, and sub-optimal is synonymous with error, with irrationalism, with departure from the path of Absolute Truth. The mathematical universe – viewed from the perspective of its objective “notes” and laws – is perfect. However, the mathematical universe also comprises subjective monadic minds, and these minds are capable of

assembling the perfect notes of mathematics in myriad sub-optimal ways, equating to silly beliefs, opinions, interpretations, guesses, and hypotheses about the nature of reality and how best to live life.

Religion and Spirituality It’s remarkable how much drivel is talked about the alleged difference between religion and spirituality. The fact is that all religions are spiritual, and all spiritual beliefs are religious. What people are actually referring to is the difference between dogmatic, organised, collective religion, and pick ‘n’ mix, personal spirituality, whereby a person subscribes to no particular mainstream religion, but, like a jackdaw, picks up whatever shiny object he can find from religion, science, mathematics, or anywhere else. Illuminism is a religion because it’s predicated on the soul, on immortality, on evolution towards perfection (“God”), on the attainment of absolute knowledge, on the strength of the spirit and will, on teleology, on the utter rejection of materialism. It does not, however, rely in any way on faith, revelation, popes, priest, prophets, sin, heaven and hell, or any kind of Creator.

Global Warming? If it takes decades to analyse climate changes, why do scientists claim that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is true? By their own criteria, it’s purely an unverified speculation, and one must be neutral towards it until the data is in ... which, as they themselves say, will take decades.

Mysticism “Nature is unfathomable. No one has ever been able to know it completely. No one has known it. A small germ in a body cannot know the whole body. Similarly, a human being is like a small germ in a vast Creation. How can he claim to have known the entire Creation? Those who say that they have known are wrong. No one can describe or even know the entire Creation. It is indescribable.” – Baba Faqir Chand

This is typical mystical nonsense. If the universe is rational – and it assuredly is – the proper exercise of reason can work out of all of its secrets. Nothing is hidden from reason in a rational universe. The ancient wisdom As Above, So Below, totally contradicts Baba Faqir Chand. If you know one part of the universe exactly, you know the entire universe. The “vast Creation” is a) not a Creation!, and b) comprised of nothing but monadic “germs”, so once you know one “germ”, you know everything about the universe! Nature is fathomable, is knowable and is known. Those, like Baba Faqir Chand, who say that no one can describe or know existence are wrong. Existence is precisely, analytically describable and definable – via ontological mathematics. All people such as Baba Faqir Chand are ferociously opposed to reason and mathematics. They want to exist in a haze of mystical bullshit where they can dupe the unwary and spread their toxic charlatanry everywhere. Mathematics is the ultimate charlatan-buster. Baba Faqir Chand wouldn’t have a prayer of spouting his garbage in a mathematical world of Logos.

***** “The Absolute [the Mystical Dimension] is both the highest state of being and the ground of being; it is both the goal of evolution and the ground of evolution, the highest stage of development and the reality or suchness of all stages of development; the highest of all conditions and the Condition of all conditions; the highest rung in the ladder and the wood out of which the ladder is made. Anything less than that paradox generates either pantheistic reductionism, on the one hand, or wild and radical transcendentalism, on the other.” – Ken Wilber Er, you’re describing ontological mathematics, Ken! But there’s nothing mystical about it. It doesn’t belong to any weird “dimension”. “All academic subjects have their epistemological cul-de-sacs. In math, we have Gödel’s incompleteness theorem which essentially says ‘consistency of such a system cannot be proved within the system.’ In physics we have Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (or relations) which simply states it is impossible to know with absolute precision the momentum and position of an electron, since the more certain you are about an electron’s position, the less certain you are about its momentum (and vice versa). In astronomy we

have the Einstein limit of light which tells us that we can only see so far with our telescopes within the parameters of relativity. And the list goes on.” – David Lane Gödel’s Incompleteness theorems say no such thing. They assert that all non-ontological approaches to the task of defining mathematics will fail due to incompleteness and/or inconsistency. They do not say that mathematics in and of itself is incomplete and/or inconsistent. In fact, the precise opposite is true. Gödel was certain that an eternal, objective truth existed, independent of human thought. He wrongly believed that this Truth could only be apprehended imperfectly by the human mind. In fact, it can be perfectly apprehended because there are no limits to how rational human minds can be. They can be as rational as the universe itself, hence they can fully know all of the rational secrets of the universe. As for Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, this is one of the most wrongly interpreted principles in the whole of intellectual history. The fallacy on which the common interpretation – misinterpretation – rests is that particles can be static points with an exact location. Such a scenario is impossible. Points are always moving and anything that is always moving can never, by definition, be at a specific place. The most obvious example is time. Time is never stuck at a particular temporal point. It’s always moving on. There is simply nothing ontological corresponding to the materialist notion of a particle with both a precise momentum and position. The conventional interpretation of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is blown out of the water as soon as it’s realised that reality is in fact based on Leibnizian monads, composed of analytic sinusoids. Regarding Einstein’s “limit of light”, that belongs to an absolute mathematical order of existence, and has no connection at all with the false doctrine of relativity. Relativity theory is materialist gibberish, and is overthrown as soon as mathematical monads are accepted as the rational basis of reality. Relativity is impossible in an absolute mathematical system of eternal, necessary monads. It’s certainly true that all academic subjects – other than ontological mathematics – have their epistemological cul-de-sacs. In other words, they’re all false and wrong! People such as David Lane continuously peddle scientific conjectures, hypotheses, beliefs, opinions and interpretations as proven facts rather than contingent features of contingent models, constructed within the Meta

Paradigm of empiricism, materialism, and positivism. As soon as you reject that Meta Paradigm – for one based on rationalism, idealism and mathematics – all of its misinterpretations fall with it.

Why? Why is it that the likes of David Lane uncritically accept the “reality” of epistemological cul-de-sacs? Why don’t they reach the much more obvious conclusion ... the cul-de-sacs are the proof that humanity’s attempted epistemologies are flawed and fallacious. As soon as you come across a cul-de-sac, you know you have made a mistake, you know you are wrong, you know your interpretation has failed and is thus a misinterpretation. Why would any sane person regard Gödel’s Incompleteness theorems as saying anything at all about mathematical ontology? As Wittgenstein pointed out while Gödel was doing his famous work, it’s formally impossible for mathematics to be inconsistent and/or incomplete for the simple reason that mathematics is nothing but tautology. Isn’t it extraordinary that no one attempted to reconcile the views of Gödel and Wittgenstein? Has anyone such as Lane, who parrots the customary misinterpretation of Gödel’s Incompleteness theorems, ever attempted to address Wittgenstein’s obviously true statement that mathematics is tautology, which is automatically consistent and complete? The “intellectual” community suffered a collective brain freeze when it came to Gödel’s work. What the conflicting results of Gödel and Wittgenstein showed was the fact that any definition of mathematics that does not involve pure tautology is ipso facto false, and that the only way for mathematics to involve pure tautology is for it to be defined by a single formula, which, by definition, can never be incomplete and inconsistent with regard to itself. Incompleteness and/or inconsistency arise as soon as you attempt to use arbitrary axioms – with no rational necessity with regard to each other – to define mathematics, and this, sadly, is exactly how the mathematics community, ever since Euclid, has gone about its business. If several axioms are deployed – which have no causal necessity – incompleteness and/or inconsistency are inevitable. There is no surprise whatsoever in what Gödel proved. He simply showed that the formalistic,

axiomatic approach to defining mathematics is false and wrong, and that’s why it’s non-tautological. When you define mathematics correctly – ontologically – you get a system of pure tautology, exactly as required by Wittgenstein. Gödel and Wittgenstein didn’t realise it, but they were actually singing from the same hymn sheet. Gödel proved that any non-ontological and non-tautological approach to defining mathematics must fail. That failure simply means that there’s something catastrophically wrong with the proposed approach, not something catastrophically wrong with mathematics itself. Mathematics cannot be wrong, incomplete or inconsistent in any way. It’s eternally perfect – provided that you define it with regard to a single ontological formula. When you do, you get a system of pure Wittgensteinian tautology. What is breathtaking is how quick Sophists such as Lane are to believe that there’s something defective about mathematics when in fact there’s something defective about how the likes of Lane think epistemologically and ontologically about mathematics. Mathematics doesn’t err ... humans do. Only when humans think in terms of pure reason do they discover the truth. Kant famously wrote a critique of pure reason. It was his own reason he should have been critiquing! Reason – ontologically, mathematically – is perfect and infallible. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and Einstein’s principle of relativity do not reveal some mind-bending collapse of reality into blurriness, haziness, fuzziness, uncertainty and relativity. Reality cannot be mystical and unfathomable. Such an eventuality is literally impossible. It would render reality inexplicable and irrational, and it’s neither. What these principles actually show is that the logic of the science’s Meta Paradigm of empiricism, materialism and positivism collapses at a certain point, under its own fatal contradictions and its false and fallacious epistemology and ontology. It’s human misinterpretation that generates uncertainty and relativity, not reality itself, which is perfect, absolute and involves zero ontological uncertainty and relativity. Reality, in itself, cannot be flawed, imperfect, uncertain, relative, fuzzy, hazy, mystical, mysterious, unfathomable, irrational, statistical, probabilistic, acausal, indeterministic, accidental, random, or anything else

than science claims of it. These all point to the scientific misinterpretation of reality. It’s preposterous to accept these misinterpretations as true and thus believe that reality is wholly irrational and without any conceivable answer. Nothing could be further from the truth. As soon as you encounter a “cul-de-sac”, you have gone wrong, not Nature! Any theory of existence that is not complete and consistent is ipso facto false and fallacious. Any interpretation that is incomplete and/or inconsistent, that is uncertain and fuzzy, that is uncertain, is automatically wrong, and can be discarded. People such as Lane regard the misinterpretations of science as truth, and Nature as flawed. In fact, Nature is perfect and true and science is flawed. What could be more obvious? Science is the systematic misinterpretation of ontological mathematics through the fallacious Meta Paradigm of empiricism, materialism and positivism. The “uncertainty” principle and the “relativity” principle flow from that Meta Paradigm, not from reality. Reality is rationalist, idealist and mathematical. Mental atoms, not material atoms, comprise the universe. If you can’t get that single fact right, how can you get anything else right?! Humanity lies to itself all the time. It lies religiously, philosophically and scientifically. It believes its own propaganda. It believes its own fallacies and systematic misinterpretations. It believes its delusional senses, its hysterical emotions, its blind faith, its unreason, its mystical intuitions. And what it rejects above all is the rational Truth – mathematics! Nietzsche said, “There are no moral facts, only moral interpretations of facts.” He could equally have said, “There are no scientific facts, only scientific interpretations of facts.” Finally, Nietzsche arrived at his position of ultimate skepticism: “There are no facts, only interpretations.” The only true facts are the facts of mathematics, and they are not facts at all – but eternal truths of reason!

***** “Belief in the truth commences with the doubting of all those ‘truths’ we once believed.” – Nietzsche “Truth Will Have No Other Gods Alongside It.” – Nietzsche

“When hypocrisy takes every step to claim the word ‘truth’ for its optic, genuine truthfulness will necessarily be found under the worst names. […] At this point and nowhere else, you need to make an effort to understand what Zarathustra wants: the type of person he conceives of is the type that conceives reality as it is: his type has the strength to do this – it is not alienated, removed from reality, it is reality itself, it contains in itself everything terrible and questionable about reality, this is the only way someone can achieve greatness ...” – Nietzsche “But among the forces cultivated by morality was truthfulness: this eventually turned against morality, discovered its teleology, its partial perspective – and now the recognition of this inveterate mendaciousness that one despairs of shedding becomes a stimulant. Now we discover in ourselves needs implanted by centuries of moral interpretation – needs that now appear to us as needs for untruth; on the other hand, the value for which we endure life seems to hinge on these needs. This antagonism – not to esteem what we know, and not to be allowed any longer to esteem the lies we should like to tell ourselves – results in a process of dissolution.” – Nietzsche “Now that Christian truthfulness has drawn one conclusion after the other, in the end it draws its strongest conclusion, its conclusion against itself.” – Nietzsche “[T]he great majority lacks an intellectual conscience – […] I mean: to the great majority it is not contemptible to believe this or that and to live accordingly without first becoming aware of the final and most certain reasons pro and con, and without even troubling themselves about such reasons afterwards: the most gifted men and the noblest women still belong to this ‘great majority’. But what are goodheartedness, refinement, and genius to me when the person possessing these virtues tolerates slack feelings in his believing and judging and when he does not consider the desire for certainty to be his inmost craving and deepest need – as that which separates the higher human beings from the lower!” – Nietzsche “Origin of knowledge. – Through immense periods of time, the intellect produced nothing but errors; some of them turned out to be useful and species-preserving; those who hit upon or inherited them fought their fight for themselves and their progeny with greater luck. Such erroneous articles

of faith, which were passed on by inheritance further and further, and finally almost became part of the basic endowment of the species, are for example: that there are enduring things; that there are identical things; that there are things, kinds of material, bodies; that a thing is what it appears to be; that our will is free; that what is good for me is also good in and for itself. Only very late did the deniers and doubters of such propositions emerge; only very late did truth emerge as the weakest form of knowledge. It seemed that one was unable to live with it; that our organism was geared for its opposite: all its higher functions, the perceptions of sense and generally every kind of sensation, worked with those basic errors that had been incorporated since time immemorial. Further, even in the realm of knowledge those propositions became the norms according to which one determined ‘true’ and ‘untrue’ – down to the most remote areas of pure logic. Thus the strength of knowledge lies not in its degree of truth, but in its age, its embeddedness, its character as a condition of life. Where life and knowledge seem to contradict each other, there was never any serious fight to begin with; denial and doubt were simply considered madness. Those exceptional thinkers, like the Eleatics, who still posited and clung to the opposites of the natural errors, believed in the possibility of also living this opposite: they invented the sage as the man of unchangeability, impersonality, universality of intuition, as one and all at the same time, with a special capacity for that inverted knowledge; they had the faith that their knowledge was at the same time the principle of life. But in order to be able to claim all this, they had to deceive themselves about their own state: they had fictitiously to attribute to themselves impersonality and duration without change; they had to misconstrue the nature of the knower, deny the forces of impulses in knowledge, and generally conceive reason as a completely free, self-originated activity. They closed their eyes to the fact that they, too, had arrived at their propositions in opposition to what was considered valid or from a desire for tranquillity or sole possession or sovereignty. The subtler development of honesty and scepticism finally made also these people impossible; even their life and judgements proved dependent on the ancient drives and fundamental errors of all sentient existence. This subtler honesty and scepticism arose wherever two conflicting propositions seemed to be applicable to life because both were compatible with the basic errors, and thus where it was possible to argue about the great or lesser degree of usefulness for life; also wherever new

propositions showed themselves to be not directly useful, but at least also not harmful, as expressions of an intellectual play impulse, and innocent and happy like all play. Gradually the human brain filled itself with such judgements and convictions; and ferment, struggle, and lust for power developed in this tangle. Not only utility and delight, but also every kind of drive took part in the fight about the ‘truths’; the intellectual fight became an occupation, attraction, profession, duty, dignity – knowledge and the striving for the true finally took their place as a need among the other needs. Henceforth, not only faith and conviction, but also scrutiny, denial, suspicion, and contradiction were a power; all ‘evil’ instincts were subordinated to knowledge and put in its service and took on the lustre of the permitted, honoured, useful and finally the eye and the innocence of the good. Thus knowledge became a part of life and, as life, a continually growing power, until finally knowledge and the ancient basic errors struck against each other, both as life, both as power, both in the same person. The thinker – that is now the being in whom the drive to truth and those lifepreserving errors are fighting their first battle, after the drive to truth has proven itself to be a life-preserving power, too. In relation to the significance of this battle, everything else is a matter of indifference: the ultimate question about the condition of life is posed here, and the first attempt is made here to answer the question through experiment. To what extent can truth stand to be incorporated? – that is the question; that is the experiment.” – Nietzsche “How much truth can you bear, how much truth can you dare? ... that became for me more and more the real measure of value.” – Nietzsche

The Truth Science is not a Truth System. Everything it says about reality is false. There are no material atoms. There is no matter at all. Science’s rejection of mind borders on the insane. Science has never grasped that singularities are the key to science, and singularities are monadic minds!

Interpretation

Interpretation is not reality. Science is an interpretation, not reality. Religion is an interpretation, not reality. Spirituality is an interpretation, not reality. Philosophy is an interpretation, not reality. Only one thing is not interpretation – ontological mathematics. And that’s why it’s the Truth. That’s why it’s Reality. Humans do nothing but interpret, and they interpret wrongly. Nietzsche said, “[Human beings possess] no organ for knowing, for truth: we ‘know’ exactly as much as is useful to the human herd.” We do have an “organ for truth” – our reason – but only when applied to the world of pure reason, the world of ontological mathematics.

No Partnership Mathematics and science are not natural partners. They do not go together. Science is a fallacious philosophy of empiricism, materialism and positivism superimposed over mathematics, and used to interpret (misinterpret) mathematical patterns from a sensory perspective. Mathematics, in itself, is a noumenal subject. It’s entirely non-sensory, innate and a priori, and relates purely to reason and intellect. Science is a phenomenal misinterpretation of mathematics. Science is what you get when you apply a sensory Mythos to mathematics, when you apply an appearance to mathematics. In the process, all manner of false concepts are added to mathematics, rendering it inconsistent and incomplete – which is why science can’t and never will produce a final theory of everything. The final theory of everything is of course pure, analytic, noumenal, ontological mathematics, defined by a single cosmic formula (the God Equation = the ontological Principle of Sufficient Reason). No sensory, contingent, temporal, inductive belief system can ever account for a strictly rational, necessary, eternal, deductive universe. It’s literally a category error to imagine that it can. The Scholastic philosophers committed the catastrophic error of seeking to ally reason with religious faith and revelation. Scientists have committed the catastrophic error of seeking to ally noumenal reason with sensory phenomena. But at least science is useful. Religion certainly isn’t. At least science has a mathematical engine. Religion doesn’t. Science works merely because reality is mathematical, and science – thanks to its mathematical

engine – can’t help but be a workable approximation to ontological mathematics within the framework of the observable world. Outside that framework – where only ontological mathematics itself will suffice – science is 100% useless. Science can tell you no more about ultimate reality than religion can, and, in fact, beyond the reach of its scientific method, science becomes nothing but a religion – a faith system with no possible proof or evidence. Only mathematics constitutes a provable system provable via reason ... not via feelings, the senses or intuitions.

***** Science is mathematics with an added, false philosophy. When you remove that fallacious philosophy, you get reality in itself, which is pure mathematics.

***** Kant said that the world comprises an unknowable (noumenal) reality of things as they are in themselves, and a “knowable” (phenomenal) reality of things as they appear to us. The phenomenal world is “knowable” by our minds precisely because they themselves construct it using their own inbuilt design, i.e. they project the appearance of reality onto reality, the key point being that the appearance of reality is emphatically not reality. It’s a simulacrum, a construct, a projection, an interpretation, a model, a simulation ... but all of those things are radically different from reality in itself. In Kant’s system, if you removed minds from existence, you would be left with nothing but unknowable noumena – the ultimate mystery. Kant’s philosophy is thus mystical gibberish. It’s no answer to what ultimate reality actually is. Yet Kant’s philosophy can be saved in an instant – by replacing unknowable noumena with knowable noumena: the mathematical monads of noumenal, ontological mathematics. Monads are the root of everything, of mind and matter. Minds can make sense of noumena precisely because minds are made of noumena ... because minds and matter have a common mathematical origin.

Monadic minds are mathematical interpreters of mathematical information. Their interpretations are what turn noumena into phenomena, what put a sensory layer over noumenal, ontological mathematical information, which, in itself, has absolutely no appearance and no sensory characteristics whatsoever. Kant was right that minds construct phenomenal reality. He was wrong that noumenal reality is unknowable. Noumenal reality is ontological mathematics, and phenomenal mathematics (“science”) is how we interpret mathematics in a sensory way. The disaster of science is that it takes the appearance to actually be reality, and it denies that there’s any such thing as reality without an appearance (hence completely beyond the defining empirical method of science, but certainly not beyond noumenal, ontological reason). Reality without appearance comprises mathematical monads – minds – in themselves. Science will never know this since monads are outside the scientific paradigm. Science will never explain mind. Science is stuck at the level of interpretation of mathematics, using the unreliable, fallible human senses. What it needs to do is forget the senses and address mathematics directly using the proper language of mathematics – a priori, analytic, deductive reason, not the a posteriori, synthetic, inductive senses. Science – being a religious faith in the authority of the senses – refuses to do this. Science has gone as far as it can. It will soon be replaced by mathematics itself rather than the interpretation of mathematics. Monadology, the ontological mathematical study of monads – the basic units of mathematics as it exists in the world – will take over from scientific materialism and empiricism. Monadology – the new science – is idealist and rationalist, and is compatible with religion and spirituality, unlike materialism, which is inherently atheistic, purposeless and meaningless. It’s time to “see” with new eyes. It’s time to “see” beyond appearances to reality in itself. Why would any rational person presume that reality must have an appearance? All appearances are appearances of something. The fundamental question has always been what lies underneath appearance, what is reality shorn of all human baggage, of the human senses and feelings, of human languages, of human beliefs, interpretations, opinions, conjectures and hypotheses, of human thoughts and impressions? There is

only one thing that remains when all of that is removed: the eternal truths of reason expressed through eternal, necessary, noumenal, analytic, ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics is the language of Nature itself, of existence itself. It’s perfect, immortal and indestructible. Reason alone takes us to its great doors – the doors to absolute knowledge, and the complete understanding of everything. Ontological mathematics is the least human thing you can get. It’s exactly that which transcends the human condition. It constitutes the perfect Platonic domain – beyond space, time and matter – where all Truth resides. Mathematics is the Truth itself. There is no other. Anyone who disagrees is a fool, unable to escape the limitations of the human condition, unable to attain gnosis – divine enlightenment. Science can never tell us what mind is. Only ontological mathematics can. Ontological mathematics is defined by monadic minds. Only ontological mathematics can provide humanity with true science ... the science required to alchemically transmute us into Gods! Humanity 2.0 – mathematical HyperHumanity – is dialectically guaranteed to replace Humanity 1.0, stuck with its silly religious (emotional) and scientific (sensory) beliefs. Do you want to be one of the Gods, or one of the dinosaurs, doomed to extinction? We have explained everything – but you need to be one of the most intelligent people in history to know that we have. Our message is only for those who are already on the verge of gnosis. Only the greatest human beings of all can be Illuminists. The rest of humanity are endarkened, ignorant, deluded and fundamentally stupid. They are not the future. The Illuminati are.

Kant’s Error Kant was incredibly close to understanding reality, then talked himself out of it. His disastrous mistake was to find scientific empiricism more persuasive than mathematical rationalism. In the present day, countless intellectuals repeat the same mistake. They keep looking to science rather than math; they keep thinking of science as concrete (real) and math as abstract (unreal). They keep thinking of phenomena as more real than

noumena, thus failing to understand that noumena are what lie beneath all phenomena. If we live in a rational universe then noumena are the rational, intelligible basis of that universe. We can’t see them, but we can rationally know them. They transcend the human condition, and no human attributes can be used to access them. Reason – pure reason (which is exactly what Kant critiqued) – is that which has nothing to do with the irrational human senses, feelings and beliefs. Only pure reason liberates us from the human condition. A rational, mathematical layer underlies all things, but we systematically misinterpret this layer via our emotions, desires and senses. We are “human all too human”, as Nietzsche put it. Only mathematical reason frees us and furnishes with the eternal perspective of God. We live in a world that comprises mathematics itself, and then the mental experience and interpretation of mathematics, which is completely different from mathematics itself, and is what causes so many people to fail to understand that reality is exclusively mathematical. We interpret mathematics empirically, not rationally, and in that contradiction – that inherent conflict between empiricism and rationalism – all the errors of humanity have their origin. As soon as you stop thinking about reality from the human perspective, the human experience, the human condition, the human viewpoint, you can start to see reality as it really is. People wonder why existence seems so mysterious. The answer is obvious. To understand reality, you must transcend your own humanity, your own human condition, and what could possibly be more difficult for any human being than that? In a sense, you must cease to be human to understand reality. You become one with the non-human structure of existence, which is purely rational and mathematical. You must forget interpretation, and comprehend what is being interpreted (mathematical information). Reason is the most fragile thing there is, the gift that has arrived most recently in human evolution, and has barely bedded in. The world is full of Mythos rather than Logos humans. But one day that will change. The most rational human beings are destined to triumph because they are the ones most aligned with the universe itself, with the Reality Principle. Those who understand reality are those who can control reality, and thus have total power over those who do not. Science landed men on the moon.

Religion did not. Ontological mathematics will make us Gods. Science will not. But you need to be rational to understand that. And rationality is exactly what most of humanity has always lacked.

***** Science takes us as far as the human mind can go. To go further, to reach the ultimate secrets of existence, we must go beyond the human mind, to the universal mind, which is the mathematical mind of pure reason. Mathematics is the universal language of existence.

Atoms Do mental atoms come from matter atoms, as science implies, or do matter atoms come from mental atoms, as ontological mathematics asserts? The Big Bang gives us the unambiguous answer. If our universe starts from a Singularity, it therefore starts from dimensionless, immaterial, mental atoms outside space and time, and matter atoms in spacetime are derived from them. There’s no mystery at all. What’s wrong with science that it doesn’t reach the self-evident, logical, inevitable conclusion staring it right in the face? It refuses to accept the truth, just like any fanatical religious faith. The mental atoms are of course photonic atoms, and all matter comes from light. Matter atoms are simply light atoms with asymmetric phase relations with regard to each other. Do the math!

Noumena Kant’s allegedly unknowable noumena are in fact knowable Leibnizian monads. A quick way to get up to speed with Illuminism is to regard it as a kind of amalgam of Leibniz’s Monadology, and Kant’s transcendental idealism. Every time Kant refers to noumena, imagine that he is instead referencing immaterial, mathematical, frequency monads, outside space and time, composed of Fourier sinusoids. Mathematical monads are both the minds that mathematically interpret reality, and the noumenal “stuff” that underlie those phenomenal interpretations (via their constituent sinusoids). There is nothing other than mind. Matter is a mental phenomenon, an interpretation of mental reality.

Newton versus Leibniz Conventional science is Newtonian, materialist and empiricist. Alternative science is Leibnizian, idealist and rationalist. The world must choose between these two regarding which can tell us about ultimate reality. Unfortunately, most people are blissfully unaware that any choice is required regarding science. They have fully bought the propaganda of scientific materialism. Here’s the difference between the two sciences: 1) Scientific materialism and empiricism is synthetic a posteriori, contingent, inductive and based on the scientific method, which privileges the senses and experience over reason and intellect. It’s the science of appearances (phenomena), but can say nothing about what underlies appearance (ultimate, noumenal reality). It reflects temporal truths of fact. It’s based on matter atoms and is all about spacetime as reality. 2) Scientific idealism and rationalism is analytic a priori, necessary, deductive and based on the mathematical method, which privileges reason and intellect over the senses and experience. It’s the science of things in themselves (noumena), and reflects eternal truths of reason. It’s based on mental atoms and is all about the frequency domain as the primary reality. It’s Pythagorean and Platonic. Scientific materialists regard their version of science as “concrete” and “real”, while anything else is considered abstract and unreal, which is somewhat unfortunate given that quantum mechanics – the foundation of modern science – is based on unreal, abstract mathematical potentiality wavefunctions! Of course, scientific idealists regard their version of science as concrete and see mathematical sinusoids as the only true realities, and everything else as the subjective, abstract, illusory interpretation of the information the sinusoids carry. Both types of science can’t be right. Both can’t be True. This is a zerosum game.

*****

Science comprises theoretical and experimental branches, but the theoreticians always have to bow to the experimentalists. No theorist can win a Nobel Prize if there’s no experimental evidence for his theory, thus showing where science’s heart and soul reside. This set-up creates an inconsistent mish-mash of the two branches, and countless dodgy interpretations of what’s going on. Theory is held in deep suspicion by experimentalists (although they would have nothing to experiment on without theories!). They despise the “over-mathematicisation” of science. The status of mathematics lies at the centre of the paradox of science. Science uses a bastardised version of mathematics, based on positive real numbers having a privileged role. Science would be changed overnight from scientific materialism to scientific idealism if it replaced real-number mathematics with complex-number mathematics. It really is that straightforward. Science would be instantly revolutionized, and theory would take over as the senior partner. Metaphysics would become more important than physics, exactly as Leibniz always insisted should be the case. We have to get rid of “physical”, phenomenal mathematics and replace it with “ontological”, noumenal mathematics.

***** If science were a rational undertaking, rather than a quasi-religion practised by a priesthood of empirics, it would of course conduct both types of science: scientific materialism (phenomenal science), and scientific idealism (noumenal science), and it would seek to bring both sciences together in a complete, consistent, integrated, harmonious, rational system. It’s a scandal that scientists are so anti-intellectual, so dogmatic and ideological, that they would never consider this. We should use the experimental, empirical scientific method to conduct phenomenal science, and the non-experimental, rational mathematical method to conduct noumenal science. Ultimately, phenomenal science must be something that logically arises from noumenal science, and cannot contradict it. The temporal, contingent truths of fact cannot contradict the eternal, necessary truths of reason. A new science, a new way of doing science, can emerge immediately if scientists simply accept that mathematics is the true basis of reality, and

science, as currently practised, merely its phenomenal interpretation or, rather, misinterpretation.

Consciousness Why do scientists and philosophers talk so much nonsense about the mind and consciousness? It’s because they have no concept of the mathematical frequency domain: an immaterial, mental arena outside space and time, which has an entirely different nature, quality and character from the material world of spacetime. You can’t talk about mind and consciousness within an exclusively materialistic spacetime paradigm, since it makes no sense within such a context. It’s literally impossible, exactly as the materialists say. To talk meaningfully about mind and consciousness, you must have a domain where mental activity can happen which has nothing to do with matter, space and time. Descartes understood this perfectly, but could not give a systematic mathematical description of the world of mental activity. This can now be done by mathematics based on frequency rather than spacetime. Mind and life simply are mathematical operations taking place inside the frequency domain, hence outside space and time. Do you get it? Do you really get it? Mind and life are frequency mathematics!

Nothingness There was no “nothingness” – non-existence – before space and time. There was the eternal frequency domain of mind. What could be more straightforward? No one needs existence randomly and inexplicably erupting out of non-existence, as science ludicrously and irrationally claims. Contingent spacetime comes from necessary frequency, and temporal matter comes from eternal mind. It’s all in the math!

Stupid People Stupid people are those who can’t think beyond matter, space and time, who can’t conceive of a frequency (mental) order of existence that has nothing to do with matter, space and time. The central failure of science is its staggering lack of imagination and intuition, and its refusal to accept the ontological reality of an eternal, analytic, mathematical domain of mind.

Science can’t grasp the concept of the noumenal – real entities with no material, spacetime appearance. Such entities cannot be investigated using the scientific method, and science dogmatically and ideologically refuses to accept the existence of anything beyond the reach of its defining empirical method. Minds – mathematical monads – are the authentic, ontological noumena, and they are permanently beyond science. Science will never say a single true thing about the mind ... because the mind is noumenal and science can deal only with phenomena. Scientists have never grasped the fundamental limitation of their subject. They have never understood that their subject is strictly phenomenal, but reality in itself – ultimate reality – is strictly noumenal. You cannot investigate noumena via the senses, only via reason and intellect, i.e. via mathematics. Ontological mathematics is the noumenal, rational, analytic underpinning of phenomenal science, but since science denies the existence of noumena (non-empirical, immaterial entities that are not in space and time), it also denies that it has any underpinning at all, which is why it claims that ultimate reality is random, indeterministic, acausal, statistical, unreal, probabilistic, uncertain, abstract, and so on, with existence able to magically and miraculously leap out of non-existence. This is the position at which all empiricists, materialists and positivists are forced to arrive. Rationalists, idealists and ontological mathematicians are, however, able to arrive at the opposite conclusions. It all comes down to whether or not you accept that an invisible, rational, noumenal, mathematical order underlies the world of phenomena (appearances). This is a rational, not empirical, conclusion. If you do not accept this conclusion, you are ipso facto claiming that reality is fundamentally irrational, mysterious and inexplicable. Neither religion nor science can give any rational explanation for existence. Both reject the ontological principle of Sufficient Reason. Once you accept this principle, ontological mathematics follows. If you do not accept this principle, you are subscribing to a principle of Unreason, and that makes you yourself irrational. Existence is either rational or irrational. If it’s rational, it’s mathematical. If it’s irrational, it’s unintelligible.

It’s impossible for existence to be irrational and unintelligible. It would destroy itself instantly due to its inherent instability and internal contradictions. To all irrationalists, the simple and inescapable fact is that you are wrong ... but you need to be rational to understand that, and, since you’re not, you will go on believing ridiculous nonsense forever.

Mind All you are required to do to accept the existence of autonomous mind, independent of matter – and thus to accept the falsehood of scientific materialism – is to acknowledge the reality of an immaterial frequency domain outside space and time. There are two domains: a material domain inside space and time, and a mental domain (of frequency) outside space and time. The material domain is in fact a contingent derivative of the necessary mental domain – as we see from the simple fact that the material world arises from an immaterial Singularity outside space and time. This, of course, is a mental Singularity. It’s the Cosmic Mind. Science makes the catastrophic error of viewing reality solely from the perspective of the derivative, contingent, spacetime domain, and thus finds itself mired in infinite contingent regress, and having to cite miraculous, indeterministic, random, inexplicable eruptions of existence out of nonexistence to account for why there is anything at all. All of this would vanish if science simply accepted the primacy of mind, and admitted that mind produces matter, and not the other way around. Mind belongs to an eternal, necessary order. Matter does not. It’s as simple as that.

Monadic Science Monadic science begins with rational, intelligible, mathematical, mental atoms (monads) and works its way out from there – from the rational, intelligible, noumenal world to the empirical, sensible, phenomenal world. Scientific materialism begins with the observable world and works its way backwards from there. However, it does not reach the original indivisible atoms of the ancient Greeks. It reaches subatomic particles, then

“strings”, and then vanishes into the twilight zone of uncertainty, randomness and unreal, abstract wavefunctions. It’s utterly impossible to define what “matter” actually means to those who use that word. Matter, if it can be said to have any definition, is defined using pseudo-mathematics, which simply begs the question of why it doesn’t rely on proper, analytic, ontological mathematics. If only mathematics can define matter, and mathematics is nothing to do with matter, then matter isn’t matter at all, but just a function of mathematics. No matter which way you go, using scientific materialism or scientific idealism, you will always end up with mathematics. There’s nowhere else to go. It’s the end of the road, of every road. By beginning with mathematical atoms – monads – you can generate an analytic, rational, mathematical universe. By beginning with “sensory”, material atoms, you produce an ad hoc, arbitrary, contingent mess that doesn’t explain anything. As ever, your understanding of reality comes down to whether you consider it intelligible (mathematical) or sensible (scientific). Only a rational, intelligible, mathematical universe has an answer. Most people don’t want an answer, or they’d prefer any answer other than mathematics. Why are people so scared of math? Why can’t they recognise the Truth when they see it?

0, 1 (Mind, Matter): The Ultimate Binary System