|
TRANSLATE THIS ARTICLE
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
References/extracts:
^"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
|
