Check out my review of Ken Wilber's latest book Finding Radical Wholeness

Integral World: Exploring Theories of Everything
An independent forum for a critical discussion of the integral philosophy of Ken Wilber

Final Response
to Smith

Anonymous 2

While I am in some sense flattered to have been mistaken with the author of the Illuminati books, that is something I cannot claim. Doing so would mean taking credit for the millions of lines I did not write. I am however familiar with a wide range of philosophers, many of which are mentioned in the AC website. I took it upon myself to write a response addressing your concerns in regards to Illuminati ideas and philosophy. While, in doing so, there is of course potential for misinterpretation, that is, my views not matching, or even contradicting in some cases those of the authentic Illuminati, in this endeavor, it is something that I must assume. Iluminism is first and foremost an continually evolving  philosophy and set of principles, not a dogma. The difference from the later being that one can freely use the concepts, without fear of going into heresy. That being said, in this reply, I've tried to provide references/extracts wherever possible:

Qualia are the subjective experience by a monad of an objective mathematical function. A monad is a self-referential, infinite information system, whilst in the physical word, every experience is in a sense quantized/finite. So, not all the functions 'inside a monad' can be sent outside a monad and experienced by other monads, even though matter/sense-impressions can (some functions are infinite or inherently self-referential, ergo, non-sharable).In a sense, a monad can not experience anything else other than its qualia. Some functions will be experienced as 'bad/sub-optimal' by the monad, some as 'good'. It will seek to optimize itself, to evolve to increase its 'good' experience/its power, whilst decreasing the bad. As long as this behavior is simple enough, it can be mapped to an algorithm, leading, trough hasty generalization of experiments made on animals, that they run merely on simple internal algorithms. "An animal is like a black box, certain inputs correspond to certain outputs. What's inside the box is nothing more than a machine, or in any case, functionally identical to it. The same goes for a human.".

-The monads are the source of teleological behavior.#[1].

It is true that much of our life is spent following algorithms. And that is a good thing. We don't have to reinvent the wheel every time we apply a behavior. But what differentiates us from algorithms is our creative ability. We follow algorithms, but by choice, not by necessity.We can invent and try new things, new algorithms, increase complexity and meaning. It is exactly that which an algorithm cannot do. #[2] It cannot go beyond its initial, finite program. (a formal term for this is Komolocov complexity
With consciousness, the rate of emergence of novelty increased exponentially, even more so since the appearance of the internet.
That is not to say novelty did not exist prior to consciousness, it was indeed a necessary precursor for it. Consciousness itself was a novelty in the history of the universe. Monads seek self-optimization and power even when they are unconscious #[3].

"But one does not awaken by becoming more rational".

This would require a discussion on what 'rational' is.Aristotle defined humans as the 'rational animal'. Psychology tells us that a more adequate definition would be the rationalizing animal. One can study a great deal, learn a lot of 'complex procedures', arguments and philosophy, whilst still only using them to support their own inbuilt biases. A great deal of christian apologists, for example Peter Kreeft, fall into this category. Another problem is cognitive dissonance, when you have a certain mindset and principles when working in a biology research lab, and an entirely different one when you get off work and go to church (ex. you accept the doctrine of miraculous conception).It's surprisingly common that people 'divide their mind' like that. You can memorize a lot of facts and algorithms, that does not, in itself, make you more rational. To become more rational, in the true sense, requires that we become more aware of our biases, that compel us to rationalize a situation and not to reason it. Factual knowledge is fine, as long as we use it as a stepping-stone to unlock innate knowledge (including mathematical knowledge), and not take the 'image of reality' it offers to be reality itself. As Nietzsche said, 'there are no facts, only interpretations'..

"Parchment-is that the sacred fount
From which you drink to still your thirst forever?
If your refreshment does not mount.
From your own soul, you gain it never."
-Goethe's Faust.

Again, the dichotomy between external/factual/gained knowledge and internal/innate knowledge is important.
Regardless of what definition of rationality we use, and whether we agree, on the basis of that definition, that "one does not awaken by becoming more rational", we can both agree on the converse: one becomes more rational by becoming more awake..

"A player, for example, would never intentionally make a move that allowed the other player to checkmate him, if any alternative move were possible. Why not? Because one of the rules players follow is, always maximize your chances of winning.".

I would not define that as a rule, it's more like a goal. It does not tell the player, in a concrete way, what to do (or what not to do) in any particular situation X.
Contrast this to Newton's First Law :
"An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."
Or unitarity : "a restriction on the allowed evolution of quantum systems that ensures the sum of probabilities of all possible outcomes of any event is always 1.".

A rule places a very real constraint on what can happen next based on what happened before. A goal does not. For example, we can distinguish a player following the rule "never move pawns two squares at a time", from an Ai. making only random moves, given enough games. However, we cannot distinguish a random Ai (with no goal in mind), from an extremely stupid player having the goal of winning the chess game. He wants to win the chess game (or at least is trying to make moves that bring him pleasure (win) and avoid pain (loss)), he's just extremely inept at it. A difference will arise only in time , only if the player changes in time (as opposed to remaining fixed, like the AI), becoming better at the game..

Of course, in playing the game, many players develop systems of rules to increase their chances of winning. They are, of course, not bound to follow them always. If there was an 'optimal strategy' to winning the game, and we would be 'forced' to know it instantly without the arduous trials of playing the game, then, indeed, rules and goals would coincide. Sadly, or happily, depending on your philosophical bent, this is not the case.

"The Godhead is effective in the living and not in the dead, in the becoming and the changing, not in the become and the set-fast; and therefore, similarly, the reason is concerned only to strive towards the divine through the becoming and the living, and the understanding only to make use of the become and the set-fast" -Goethe.

"As I pointed out in an article posted here previously, Consciousness: So Simple, So Complex, cellular automata show how very simple rules can result in quite complex patterns that are very difficult if not impossible for us to predict.".

In the case of cellular automata, a computer, or a sufficiently developed mind would be able to predict, from the observable initial conditions and the rules of the game, exactly what comes next. 'Emergence' and randomness, or better said, the illusion of emergence and randomness would disappear. A limitation in our perspective does not impose a limitation on the world. Emergence and randomness are not explanations of things in themselves, at most they are explanations for our lack of ability to discover the true explanations..

In the case of the actual world, things don't work that way: a computer would not be able to predict, from the observable initial conditions and the rules of the game, exactly what comes next (the emergence of biology from physics, or the emergence of sentient life from biology, for example)..

While it is false that from all 'observable' initial conditions we can predict everything, we could certainly predict everything if we knew all the initial conditions (including the unobservable ones/hidden variables). However, such knowledge is logically impossible. It would require an objective perspective from 'outside' the Universe, and since the Universe is all encompassing, such a perspective cannot exist. Which brings us to the next point:.

"What he doesn't seem to understand is that the entire notion of free will is incoherent. Think of something you do, some act you perform. There is either a reason for doing it, or there is no reason, right? If there is a reason, then that reason is a cause, or more likely, the summation of several or more causes. If there is no reason, then that act is random or spontaneous, but it's still not free. ".

Free will does not mean something is undetermined. It means something can be self-determined, as opposed to being determined by factors external to it. #[4] In the following quote we can substitute dimensionless with unobservable/mental, and dimensional with observable/material: #[5]
A standard argument demonstrating the illusory nature of free will (in a Newtonian/clockwork universe, and not in a quantum-mechanical one) is that you can measure all the particles comprising a body, and then using an advanced computer, predict exactly their future configuration in any situation. Therefore, the body has no free will. It is not self-determined, or it is just as much determined by its external simulation on the computer as it is by itself. However ,we do not live in a Newtonian/clockwork universe. We must modify at least one of our premises:.

Scientific materialism, with its insistence that all causes must be observable, negates the premise that an effect must have a cause: you can't predict the next observable configuration from the previous one, therefore  the next one happens for not reason/randomly. Free will is meaningless. Either you did something for no reason/randomly, or you did it under the influence of external/observable/ predictable forces, or a combination thereof. Either way, you have no free will.

Rationalism, by contrast, insists that every effect have a cause, but not that all causes be observable. You are an unobservable causal agent that 'fills in the gap' left open by randomness with his own reasons.#[6]. By unobservable it is meant that the internal configuration is not 'observable' in the public domain. You can certainly observe your own thoughts (at least your conscious ones), even if nobody else can.

When your 'internal/unobservable' causes determine something external, it can be said that you are active with respect to the determined thing (for example when you are sculpting a statue). Conversely, when causes external to you determine your 'internal configuration', it can be said that you are passive with respect to them (when something causes you pain, for example)  #[7]. However, your entire self will never be FULLY determined by external causes. Your current internal state always plays a role in determining your next internal state. This is the nature of free will..

A final piece in explaining the compatibility of free will (self-determination) with the principle of sufficient reason is this: from the perspective of the observable, there is no way to distinguish the unobservable from the undetermined. Consider Schrφdinger's cat. Did opening the box just observe the cat to be dead or alive, or did it play a role in actually deciding/determining whether the cat is dead or alive? If the cat did not have any self-determination, that would be a valid question. The point I'm trying to get at, is this: did my decision to write these words occur just now, or was it programmed in me, that, from the beginning of the universe, in reaction to the events that happened to me, I would arrive to write exactly these words? No experiment within the universe is can differentiate between the two situations. Our experience points to spontaneous self-determination (the first option), while the principle of sufficient reason says that spontaneity is apparent, the second option is what would be seen by an observer from outside the universe (eternal self-determination). At the same time, such an observer cannot exist, even if it could, it would have no way to interact/share knowledge with the inside of the universe. Albeit the view is subtle, there is no contradiction.

Imagine I, by observing you, predict that you will wear a red shirt tomorrow. Now, imagine I share the information with you. Then, the whole game changes. You're more likely not to wear the shirt just to spite my prediction. If I give you a program that describes exactly how you would behave in every situation, you're going to break the program.Ergo, the program is false. Imagine I go 'outside' the Universe, to observe all causes, transparently (even the ones that are unobservable 'inside'). Then I return back into the Universe. Thanks to my trip, I know have perfect foreknowledge of the future. But since the future hasn't happened yet, I, now as a causal agent, can change it, even in ways that contradict my foreknowledge, thus creating a paradox.

Free will, unobservable/mental causes, and self-reference are tightly linked and support one-another.#[8].

"Science can simply say that qualia in some form were present from the beginning of material existence, as a property of all matter"

We can use the principle of sufficient reason in the negative sense: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
If mind was simply a property of matter, then it would be either a single mind, or diffused throughout matter, or a one-to-one correspondence between mental atoms/monads and some form of material atoms. Experience shows we have mental atoms/unities/monads, not 'diffuse mind' or a single mind, but these mental atoms are not in any way indestructibly connected to material atoms: we replace the atoms in our bodies all the time. If you were to swap a set of atoms in our bodies with another set in exactly the same configuration, we could not tell the difference.
physics itself is based on the postulate that particles are indistinguishable. Like two spheres with no 'innate' identity. You can swap them and nothing happens. They have no intrinsic identity, apart from being completely interchangeable extensions of the sphere-substance. One is reminded of the paradox of the ship of Theseus.
In light of these considerations, if we want to insist on some form of materialism, then we must accept that mind is not a property of matter itself, but a property of that arises from various forms/configurations imposed on matter. However, this too is problematic. For one thing, it still does not explain how 'mental unity/persistence' arises. What determines a piece of the information of the material universe to consider (and experience itself) as a unity, separate from its environment. The other problem is that of finitude/self-reference. As said earlier, when you understand an algorithm predictive of your actions, you are by definition more complex that the algorithm, and have capacity to act for or against it, not being bound by it. If we are to grant to the mind the capacity to understand all algorithms, then mind is must be something surpassing all algorithms, therefore non-finite/non-algorithmic (non-reducible to a configuration of matter).An algorithm, in attempting to be self-referential, would remain stuck into an infinite loop. Mind is intrinsically self-referential, and only mind can be self-referential in a meaningful sense..

We need no advances in empirical science in order to attempt to explain qualia.It is not within the method of science to advance any explanation on the subject. Simply consider what kinds of explanations are possible, and eliminate those that are not-self consistent or contradict mental experience. One should not expect an impossible answer..

Where is this collective dreamscape, given that everything occurs in zero dimensions? How can monads release energy into anything, if space-time is an illusion? How can a term like "release" even make sense in zero dimensions? Release from where to where?

All there references to 0-dimentions indicate the fact the universe is mental, and in fact contained within a mental singularity, composed of the totality of monadic minds. #[9] It's like asking how all those little people can fit in a tv., or how can a dreamworld fit in your head. It's the wrong question. As Descartes demonstrated, from a skeptical stand-point, you can't be certain that all the empirical world actually exists. All of it could have just as well been produced by a supercomputer linked to your brain in a vat (and possibly to other brains). Well, this example is not dimensionless, but it'd certainly occupy a lot less space than you'd expect by experiencing the whole thing 'from the inside'.Here's the point: monads don't have to create extension, of move anywhere (they occupy fixed, immobile coordinates). They just have to think in a particular way about moving or creating extension, and it happens, for them, mentally. Speaking of dreams and mystical experiences, they constitute in themselves an argument against materialism. Not that they are true or false in content, just that they are simply superfluous in the materialistic framework.

"Leibniz if you wish, almost certainly spent most of his thinking not on philosophical ideas, but junk, thoughts that had nothing to do with his work and which he for the most part was not even aware of."

'All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy'. Yes, there are a lot of thoughts that we consider unimportant. But that does not mean that the thoughts we are not aware of are necessarily unimportant. Many geniuses struggle to find a solution consciously, and then have it pop in their heads when the conscious mind is preoccupied with something completely unrelated. Archimedes, or Feynman are examples. A god has no unconscious. It has managed  to illuminate the entirety of its mind, and expand its consciousness. But this in general, and the search for any solution in particular, is not a journey the conscious mind undertakes alone. It's always accompanied by the unconscious (or, not-yet-conscious) parts of the mind. After periods of intense effort, when we consciously relax, the unconscious can find solutions to our problems. Understanding and being open to its suggestions are the key. The unconscious can step in and help long after the conscious mind has stopped seeing the forest by its extreme focus on the trees, so to speak.

On the limits of reason: if reason does have limits (for example, in proving the existence of unobservable variables), then those limits are to be proven to exist by reason itself. We should not assume without reason, that reason is, from the start, limited. It  is this assumption itself that can end up creating a wall between ourselves and truth. This is the case in the science, for example, with the principle of falsifiability : if any theory is to have scientific value, then it must be falsifiable. This seems all good until we realize that falsifiability is not, in practice applied to the principle of  falsifiability itself, and to the mathematical foundations of science. The principle itself prevents science from having an adequate foundation. The main idea is that someone who is skeptical of the possibility of knowledge should also be reflexive, that is, skeptical of his own skepticism. The rationalist approach, is, surprisingly, more lenient: we should not, from the beginning, worry ourselves if a theory is falsifiable or not. It is not in our a priory capacity to have knowledge (or to unlock it) without some form of experience (whether it be just thinking/mental , or empirical). Of all the theories, those which are falsifiable will, eventually be falsified,  those that are illogical will be disproven, those which are absurd will be abandoned, and mistakes will be learned from, dialectically. This is explained in much more detail in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit #[10]

Materialism/empiricism can be said to contain the seed of idealism/rationalism, but in a distorted form. That is, many materialistic and idealistic statements are mirrors of one-another. While materialism would say that minds are an epiphenomenon of matter, and that our 'internal world' is a consequence of  external forces, idealism would affirm that matter is an epiphenomenon of minds, and that the external world is ultimately a consequence of our 'internal forces'. While materialism would say that minds are temporary constructs generated by algorithms, idealism affirms that algorithms are temporary constructs generated by minds.

If truth were beyond our reach, the only criterion left for the validity of a perspective is the power it gives us, in the Nietzschean sense of 'will to power'.And whatever else can be said about it, this  hylozoic, rationalistic, idealistic conception of the world, built around the Monadology, integrating science with a metaphysics of the soul/monad, offers more power, or potential for more power that the corresponding mechanistic, empiricist, materialistic conception it aims to replace..

"Science could easily return to the path mapped out by Pythagoras, Plato, Descartes and, above all, Leibniz. It could unite once again with metaphysics and religion. It could answer not only HOW but also WHY. Empiricism is incapable of addressing why. Rationalism, on the other hand, is all about why. Isn't it time for science to be rational rather than empirical? Sure, empirical science can continue to exist, but now as a subset of RATIONAL SCIENCE.".

Mike Hokey, The Last Man Who Knew Everything


^"15. The action of the internal principle which brings about the change or the passing from one perception to another may be called appetition. It is true that the desire (l'appetit) is not always able to attain to the whole of the perception which it strives for, but it always attains a portion of it and reaches new perceptions."

-Leibniz, Monadology

 ^ "We can regard mathematical subjects as passive or active. When mathematical subjects are passive, they simply follow default mathematical behavior (that we might call "inertial"). They behave like mechanisms, exactly as required by scientific materialism. When they are active, which can only happen on a meaningful basis when mathematical subjects are conscious, they can be agents of non-default behavior. They can be creative and introduce startling new things into the world. They can be Gods. Yet the reality is that even amongst conscious subjects, most behavior is highly predictable. In human populations, the normal distribution curve applies to more or less everything. Most people are clustered around the middle, and there are outliers at the far ends of the distribution. Even if quantum particles were behaving in a "minded" way, it would be impossible to detect since it would simply seem like "statistical" behavior, according to the well-known mathematical laws of statistics. That's why it's so easy to see the universe as a mechanism rather than as an organism."

-Mike Hokey, The God Game

^ In the universe as a whole, subjective experience usually happens completely unconsciously (consciousness is an extremely rare phenomenon).
Although unconscious qualia might seem rather pointless, they are no more pointless than unconscious thinking – which forms a huge part of our own mental activity , even though we consider ourselves conscious. Unconscious thinking and qualia provide the core base for teleological development in the cosmos. A mathematical function that is subjectively experienced as non-optimal will seek to evolve, to merge with other functions, in order to generate a more optimal experience. In other words, what we are talking about is the existential origin of pleasure and pain: "good" experience and "bad".

-Mike Hokey, Hyperreality

"Consciousness is about the ability to experience "I". A few animals – those that can recognise themselves in a mirror (the "mirror test") – have a glimmer of "I", but humans are the archetypal I's. An "I" is that which is able to say, "This is happening to me. I am having this experience." Without that capacity, you are just an organic machine. A dog can feel pain but, odd though it may seem, no dog ever thinks, "This pain is happening to me." It is unconscious (and irrational), so cannot formulate such a concept. There is an enormous difference between the subjective experience of pain and the subjective conscious experience of pain. Sleeping humans frequently change their sleeping position during the night because a certain position has become uncomfortable (is causing pain) and the body has to find a more comfortable position. Yet we are blissfully unaware of this pain in any conscious sense. Sometimes we will wake up with a tingling arm because we have been lying on it for too long, and this is usually all we know about it. It might have been generating pain for hours, but not enough to trigger an unconscious signal to consciousness to "wake up" and do something about it. So, we can be experiencing pain without actually consciously feeling pain. A dog's experience of pain is something similar. It cannot in any way be equated with a human's conscious experience of pain."

-Mike Hokey, The Last Man Who Knew Everything

^Determinism: We live in a wholly determined universe. The naive may think this excludes the possibility of freedom, but it does no such thing. There are two types of determinism: 1) "determined-by-self" and "determined-by-others (non-self)". According to scientific materialism, only the second type of determinism is possible , i.e. we are all part of objective, inexorable causal chains that determine everything , including our own thoughts. Therefore, we have no free will. All things are determined by things external to themselves and have no capacity to determine their own actions. Science does not accept the existence of subjectivity, of souls. Mathematically, the first type of determinism is possible and is the entire basis of free will. Free will does not mean doing things for no reason, randomly and indeterministically. It means that you initiate your own actions for your own reasons. These internal reasons are the determinants of your actions, not things external to you. 

Mike Hokey, Hyperreality

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

1) Dimensional-dimensional interactions (which science says is the only possible type of interaction).

2) Dimensional-dimensionless interactions (when physical events cause sensory awareness in our dimensionless minds; note that science denies that we have independent, autonomous minds, separate from dimensional matter).

3) Dimensionless-dimensional interactions (our dimensionless minds cause changes to happen in the dimensional world, e.g. we decide to raise our arms or move our legs, thus affecting the material world).

4) Dimensionless-dimensionless interactions (e.g. we talk to another person and mutually affect each other's dimensionless mind through the exchange of ideas).

With both dimensionless and dimensional orders of existence, we get exactly the mixture of freedom and constraint that we all experience every day. Many things are under our control. Many things are not. We determine as much of our lives as possible, but many things are determined for us by sources external to us. The only remaining question is how the dimensionless and the dimensional can interact and the answer is that they don't do so physically but mathematically. They are in fact mathematical Fourier transforms of each other. The dimensionless domain (of mind) is the Fourier frequency domain. The dimensional domain (of matter) is the Fourier spacetime domain. These two domains interact via forward and inverse Fourier transforms. Physics – scientific materialism – does not come into at all. The mind-matter interaction is a wholly mathematical process and defines our mind-body existence.

Mike Hockey, The Mathmos

 ^What are we all familiar with that is highly probabilistic? – our own behaviour! We don't make robotic, programmed choices, or those relentlessly dictated by external cause and effect. We choose from amongst a range of options that we have internally generated according to our own mental capacity, experience, nature and taste, and some choices are more probable than others. As soon as probability rather than determinism enters the equation, it implies mind. Why would matter, left to its own devices, behave probabilistically ? Would a programmed robot behave probabilistically, so why would a particle programmed by the laws of physics? "Probabilistic behaviour" is just another way of talking about mental behaviour. Probabilistic quantum mechanics is all about mind!

Mike Hokey, Hyperreality

^It is thus that among created things action and passivity are reciprocal. For God, in comparing two simple substances, finds in each one reasons obliging him to adapt the other to it; and consequently what is active in certain respects is passive from another point of view, active in so far as what we distinctly know in it serves to give a reason for what occurs in another, and passive in so far as the reason for what occurs in it is found in what is distinctly known in another.

-Leibniz, Monadology

^ "The importance of Illuminist is in showing how monads are eternal, indestructible, uncaused causes, hence can determine their own actions without reference to anything else. That's not to say that monads are not heavily influenced by other things (by other monads, in fact), but they are not constrained to obey external causality. They can freely choose their own actions, regardless of external factors. If monads were not subjects with their own inner causality then their causality would necessarily always come from outside them, hence they would never in any sense be "free"..

Mike Hockney,  The Mathmos
^Illuminism is reducible to an incredibly small set of ten rational assertions, namely:

 1) As Pythagoras said, "All things are numbers." ALL numbers are included in this statement. None are excluded. All numbers have ontological reality. An ontological number is an energy wave; the number being the frequency of the wave. (The precise nature of the "zero wave" is one we will defer for now.)

2) The universe of numbers provides a self-solving, self-optimizing equation, proceeding by way of the dialectic outlined by Heraclitus and Hegel.

3)The universe, objectively, is based on mathematical Logos (reason).

4) The universe , subjectively, is based on will, feelings and desire : these are the inner , living experience of mathematical functions.

5) The arche , the fundamental substance of existence, is ontological zero, the monad, as described by Leibniz. There are infinite monads. Each monad contains infinite numbers (energy) that sum to zero. A monad is an unconscious mind capable of becoming a conscious soul and finally of becoming God.

6) All objective properties of the universe sum to zero and the universe is subject to absolute symmetry to ensure that all properties sum to zero.

7)The "material" universe is produced by the interaction of the energy of monads; the monads themselves provide a perfect Cartesian grid – an absolute reference frame – against which all events are measured and registered.

8) The material universe is contained within a mental Singularity – the Genesis Singularity. There is in fact no such thing as the material universe. It is actually a universe of objective mental mathematical relations. It is its objectivity – the fact that it exists independently of our wishes, thoughts and feelings – that makes people think it is a physical "thing" that endures whether we are present or not. What scientists call materialism is actually mathematical objectivity, which has exactly the same features as materialism, with the exception that it's ultimately all contained in the mind of the universe. The whole of existence fits into ONE DIMENSIONLESS POINT – THE GENESIS SINGULARITY. That's all there is: one point comprising infinite souls/ minds/ monads/ potential Gods. To achieve a full mental understanding of the Singularity is to become God. All you have to know is the mathematics of infinite monads of infinite energy, all located in a single existential point constituting a perfect existential plenum.

9) The universe is seeking to become perfect, to reach its omega point where it becomes Absolute.

10) Every monad starts as blank potential , as the simplest possible set of functions and with the barest information. When it reaches its omega point, each monad becomes completely actualised. It has been transformed from the simplest to the most complex set of functions, corresponding to optimal information. It has become God. When the universe has become fully divine, it has reached the end of a Cosmic Age, and must start again. This is the moment of Divine Suicide, which, by the symmetry of life, is also the moment of Divine Rebirth. To accept these rational assertions is what it means to be an Illuminist. All Illuminists are working on the alchemical project to transmute themselves from base metal into gold – God – through the acquisition of ultimate knowledge. The Mind of God is the one that understands that matter is a manifestation of mind, hence can be mentally controlled..

 Mike Hockney, The Last Man Who Knew Everything

^ 74.Meanwhile, if the anxiety about falling into error sets up a mistrust of science, which itself is untroubled by those scruples and simply sets itself to its work and actually gets down to cognizing, then it is difficult to see why there should not be instead a mistrust of this mistrust, that is, why there should not be an anxiety over whether the fear of error is not already the error itself. In fact, this fear presupposes that there is something (or, to be precise, a great deal) which is the truth, and it supports its scruples and its deductions on some other basis which is itself in need of examination as to whether it is the truth. It presupposes, that is, representations of cognition as an instrument and as a medium, and it also presupposes a distinction between ourselves and this cognition. However, it above all presupposes that the absolute stands on one side of a divide and cognition on the other, and that cognition exists on its own, that it is separated from the absolute but is still something real. That is, it presupposes that since such a cognition is external to the absolute, it is also indeed external to the truth, but that it is nonetheless itself truthful. The presupposition which calls itself the fear of error thus reveals itself to be more likely the fear of the truth.

Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit

Comment Form is loading comments...