Anonymous Gnostic Illuminati
The Glass Bead Game (Das Glasperlenspiel) by Hermann Hesse
“At various times the Game was taken up and imitated by nearly all the scientific and scholarly disciplines, that is, adapted to the special fields. There is documented evidence for its application to the fields of classical philology and logic. The analytical study of musical values had led to the reduction of musical events to physical and mathematical formulas. Soon afterward philology borrowed this method and began to measure linguistic configurations as physics measures processes in nature. The visual arts soon followed suit, architecture having already led the way in establishing the links between visual art and mathematics. Thereafter more and more new relations, analogies, and correspondences were discovered among the abstract formulas obtained in this way. Each discipline which seized upon the Game created its own language of formulas, abbreviations, and possible combinations. Everywhere, the elite intellectual youth developed a passion for these Games, with their dialogues and progressions of formulas. The Game was not mere practice and mere recreation; it became a form of concentrated self-awareness for intellectuals. Mathematicians in particular played it with a virtuosity and formal strictness at once athletic and ascetic. It afforded them a pleasure which somewhat compensated for their renunciation of worldly pleasures and ambitions. For by then such renunciation had already become a regular thing for intellectuals. The Glass Bead Game contributed largely to the complete default of feuilletonism and to that newly awakened delight in strict mental exercises to which we owe the origin of a new, monastically austere intellectual discipline.”
“The life of the mind in the Age of the Feuilleton might be compared to a degenerate plant which was squandering its strength in excessive vegetative growth, and the subsequent corrections to pruning the plant back to the roots.”
“The young people who now proposed to devote themselves to intellectual studies no longer took the term to mean attending a university and taking a nibble of this or that from the dainties offered by celebrated and loquacious professors who without authority offered them the crumbs of what had once been higher education. Now they had to study just as stringently and methodically as the engineers and technicians of the past if not more so. They had a steep path to climb, had to purify and strengthen their minds by dint of mathematics and scholastic exercises in Aristotelian philosophy. Moreover, they had to learn to renounce all those benefits which previous generations of scholars had considered worth striving for: rapid and easy money-making, celebrity and public honors, the homage of the newspapers, marriages with daughters of bankers and industrialists, a pampered and luxurious style of life. The writers with heavy sales, Nobel Prizes, and lovely country houses, the celebrated physicians with decorations and liveried servants, the professors with wealthy and brilliant salons, the chemists with posts on boards of directors, the philosophers with feuilleton factories who delivered charming lectures in overcrowded halls, for which they were rewarded with thunderous applause and floral tributes—all such public figures disappeared and have not come back to this day. Even so, no doubt, there were still plenty of talented young people for whom such personages were envied models. But the paths to honors, riches, fame, and luxury now no longer led through lecture halls, academies, and doctoral theses. The deeply debased intellectual professions were bankrupt in the world’s eyes. But in compensation they had regained a fanatical and penitential devotion to art and thought.”
“To return now to the Glass Bead Game: what it lacked in those days was the capacity for universality, for rising above all the disciplines. The astronomers, the classicists, the scholastics, the music students all played their Games according to their ingenious rules, but the Game had a special language and set of rules for every discipline and subdiscipline. It required half a century before the first step was taken toward spanning these gulfs. The reason for this slowness was undoubtedly more moral than formal and technical. The means for building the spans could even then have been found, but along with the newly regenerated intellectual life went a puritanical shrinking from “foolish digressions,” from intermingling of disciplines and categories. There was also a profound and justified fear of relapse into the sin of superficiality and feuilletonism.”
“There was a passionate craving among all the intellectuals … for a means to express their new concepts. They longed for philosophy, for synthesis. The erstwhile happiness of pure withdrawal each into his own discipline was now felt to be inadequate. Here and there a scholar broke through the barriers of his specialty and tried to advance into the terrain of universality. Some dreamed of a new alphabet, a new language of symbols through which they could formulate and exchange their new intellectual experiences.
“He invented for the Glass Bead Game the principles of a new language, a language of symbols and formulas, in which mathematics and music played an equal part, so that it became possible to combine astronomical and musical formulas, to reduce mathematics and music to a common denominator, as it were.”
“The Glass Bead Game, formerly the specialized entertainment of mathematicians in one era, philologists or musicians in another era, now more and more cast its spell upon all true intellectuals. … After Joculator Basiliensis’ grand accomplishment, the Game rapidly evolved into what it is today: the quintessence of intellectuality and art, the sublime cult, the unio mystica of all separate members of the Universitas Litterarum. In our lives it has partially taken over the role of art, partially that of speculative philosophy.”
“The Game was closely allied with music, and usually proceeded according to musical or mathematical rules. One theme, two themes, or three themes were stated, elaborated, varied, and underwent a development quite similar to that of the theme in a Bach fugue or a concerto movement. A Game, for example, might start from a given astronomical configuration, or from the actual theme of a Bach fugue, or from a sentence out of Leibniz or the Upanishads, and from this theme, depending on the intentions and talents of the player, it could either further explore and elaborate the initial motif or else enrich its expressiveness by allusions to kindred concepts. Beginners learned how to establish parallels, by means of the Game’s symbols, between a piece of classical music and the formula for some law of nature.”
“For a long time one school of players favored the technique of stating side by side, developing in counterpoint, and finally harmoniously combining two hostile themes or ideas, such as law and freedom, individual and community. In such a Game the goal was to develop both themes or theses with complete equality and impartiality, to evolve out of thesis and antithesis the purest possible synthesis.”
“Games with discordant, negative, or skeptical conclusions were unpopular and at times actually forbidden. This followed directly from the meaning the Game had acquired at its height for the players. It represented an elite, symbolic form of seeking for perfection, a sublime alchemy, an approach to that Mind which beyond all images and multiplicities is one within itself—in other words, to God. Pious thinkers of earlier times had represented the life of creatures, say, as a mode of motion toward God, and had considered that the variety of the phenomenal world reached perfection and ultimate cognition only in the divine Unity. Similarly, the symbols and formulas of the Glass Bead Game combined structurally, musically, and philosophically within the framework of a universal language, were nourished by all the sciences and arts, and strove in play to achieve perfection, pure being, the fullness of reality. Thus, “realizing” was a favorite expression among the players. They considered their Games a path from Becoming to Being, from potentiality to reality.”
“As Magister Ludi he became the leader and prototype of all those who strive toward and cultivate the things of the mind. He administered and increased the cultural heritage that had been handed down to him, for he was high priest of a temple that is sacred to each and every one of us. But he did more than attain the realm of a Master, did more than fill the office at the very summit of our hierarchy. He moved on beyond it; he grew out of it into a dimension whose nature we can only reverently guess at. And for that very reason it seems to us perfectly appropriate, and in keeping with his life, that his biography should also have surpassed the usual dimensions and at the end passed on into legend.”
Only the very highest are invited to play the Glass Bead Game. Only those transitioning into gods are capable of understanding the game. The Glass Bead Game is the game of ontological mathematics, of existence itself.
Are you one of the few who can leave the game and enter the game code? Can you bend the game itself to your will? In the game world, you are under the power of the code. Everything you do is constrained by the game. If you leave the game through the God Portal and reach the coding level, you become one of the gods, the game controllers. You can enter and leave the game as you desire. You are like the Olympian divinities walking amongst the peasants.
Few are called. Fewer are chosen. It’s time to understand the code, the code of life. Life is not what you think it is. Life is identical to LIGHT. That explains why the ancients worshiped the sun … the source of light and life. You cannot have life without light. A “soul” – a massless, unextended, dimensionless, immaterial entity outside space and time – is a light being … a being made of photons. But the great secret of light is that it is the most rational thing you can get. Light, when properly understood, is nothing other than ontological mathematics, i.e. mathematics exists in the universe as light, and everything comes from light. Light is the fiber and fabric of existence, which is to say that mathematics is what existence is. Mathematics is light itself, life itself, mind itself, and thought itself. And matter is simply “broken” light. There is nothing other than light = mathematics.
If you could stand outside the universe, you would see nothing but a single point of light, a single point of life, a single Cosmic Mind, and in this ineffable point is contained the vast world of matter. Ontological mathematics can play the ultimate trick on you. Just as you can create vast worlds in your head while you are dreaming – worlds that are far bigger than your head – so the Cosmic Mind can build a physical universe inside a single point. What you think of as a material world is none other than a light hologram that you mistake for something physical. It has no more substance than a dream. We are all dreamers, and the physical world is our collective dream, the dream we all share and in which we all participate. Through this dream, we all come to know each other. But this dream is 100% mathematical. You will never understand existence unless you understand how all things come from mathematics, how mathematics reveals everything about life, mind, and matter.
Mathematics: The Cosmic Mystery
Most people are baffled or incredulous when they first come across the concept of ontological mathematics. So, before we even give a description of what ontological mathematics is, we shall address why people are likely to be initially nonplussed or even resistant and hostile to ontological mathematics.
What type of person are you? It’s a fact that your personality type determines your thinking and what you will accept as the answer to existence. You will not be responsive to any answer incompatible with your personality type and the way you relate to the world. As Jung identified, the four basic types are: 1) sensing types, 2) intuitives, 3) feeling types, and 4) thinking types. Sensing and intuition are perceiving functions, while feeling and thinking are judging functions. Intuition is the opposite of sensing, and thinking is the opposite of feeling.
Sensing types are those attracted to answers based on sensory stuff (“matter”). They scoff at any reference to non-sensory stuff. They simply cannot relate to that concept. It automatically seems unreal to them, hence impossible.
Intuitives are the opposite of sensing types, so they typically regard the physical world as some kind of illusion, and are attracted to the concept of an unseen mental whole, which they often refer to as the One, or Cosmic Consciousness, or Universal Mind. Their aim is to be fully absorbed by this blissful unitary mind where all of their problems will vanish.
Feeling types are those attracted to answers that satisfy them emotionally. You cannot have a satisfying emotional relationship with matter, so science is no good to these people. Equally, cosmic consciousness is far too abstract for them. They seek the ultimate satisfying relationship, so they believe in a God of Love, unconditional love, universal love, with whom they can have the supreme loving, personal relationship.
Thinking types do not engage with any of that. They want a rational, logical explanation. They find “matter” intellectually unsatisfying (matter is more or less miraculous since scientists claim that it jumps out of non-existence, for no reason, via no mechanism, as some bizarre product of inexplicable randomness and uncertainty), cosmic consciousness unsatisfying, and an emotional God of love but no rational explanations unsatisfying.
What is the ultimate rational and logical subject? It’s mathematics. For thinking types, then, but for no other types, mathematics is what they look to for answers. Others find mathematics ridiculous. Scientists, who use mathematics all the time, have the most bizarre attitude towards it, regarding it as abstract and “unreal”. Scientists are sensing types and what is real for them is “matter”, and experiments designed to observe matter. They dismiss everything else, including mathematics.
Mystical intuitives can’t stand mathematics. They want to wallow in intuitive visions, meditative and shamanistic experiences. When did the Buddha mention mathematics? When do meditators read mathematics books? Never going to happen.
Since feeling is the opposite of thinking, feeling types especially loathe mathematics and mock any notion that mathematics is the basis of reality.
But here’s the fatal question for the sensing types, the intuitives, and the feeling types: “What is IT made of?” For sensing types, what is matter made of? Is it made of atoms, or electrons, protons and neutrons? What about quarks? What about leptons? What about super symmetric particles? What about probability wavefunctions? How about quantum loops? How about branes? How about strings? How about quantum foam, or “Planck spheres”? How many dimensions are associated with matter? Three, four, ten, eleven, twenty-six, infinite? As soon as you actually try to define matter, the concept disintegrates into gibberish, leaving nothing but extremely complex mathematics such as M-theory, so why not ditch “matter” and turn to analytic mathematics instead, with clear-cut, simple answers? Scientists are empiricists, not rationalists.
What is “cosmic consciousness” made of? What is the Tao made of? What is nirvana made of? What is the One made of? We get a resounding silence from the intuitives. They don’t care. They are not bothered about understanding the ontology and epistemology of cosmic consciousness. They just want to be one with it, to be absorbed by it. Like scientists, they are empiricists, not rationalists.
What about God? As soon as you say that God is made of something then God is rendered subject to the laws of that thing, which therefore becomes more important than God. God cannot defy the laws of whatever he is made of. God cannot perform a “miracle” if it contradicts the laws of whatever God is made of. Quite literally, as soon as you agree that God is made of something, his power vanishes because now it is the thing of which he is made that has all the power. After all, it has the power to make God!
The idea that God is not made of anything is ludicrous. In that case, he couldn’t exist! Yet whenever religious believers refer to God, they NEVER refer to what he is made of, and they would never dream of asking this question because it would destroy their faith. They are compelled to claim that God makes everything, but nothing makes God. Yet the idea that God has no substance – he is made of nothing – makes him non-existent. It’s funny when religious believers claim that God made the world out of nothing since God himself, if he is not made of something, must be made of nothing! Did God summon himself into existence from non-existence? That is the logic of the Bible. Science says the same thing with its claim that the Big Bang erupts out of nothing rather than out of an eternal mathematical Singularity.
These feelings types are, like scientists and mystics, empiricists, not rationalists.
The ultimate ontological question is what could serve as the ontological basis for God, cosmic consciousness and matter alike. What could realistically be proposed as the only thing from which everything could be rationally made? There is only one rational answer – the most rational thing of all, namely mathematics.
Ontological mathematics is, to put it simply, the study of mathematics taken as the basis of existence, i.e. as a real, concrete entity, present everywhere in the universe … as light, or “broken” light. Mathematics is not unreal, it is not abstract, and it is not manmade. It is none other than the eternal language of existence, of Nature, of reality. The sole reason why we live in a rational cosmos is that the cosmos is made not of “stuff”, but of a rational, intelligible language, which exists as light. If reality were not made of language, it could not be intelligible. Only languages are intelligible, and the one and only rationally intelligible language is mathematics.
The universe, despite appearances, is 100% mathematical. The easiest way to approach this idea is to treat mathematics as a two-sided coin. One side concerns mathematical rationalism, i.e. mathematical form, mathematical syntax … mathematics as map, mathematics as unseen noumenon. The other side is mathematical empiricism, i.e. mathematical content, matter, semantics … mathematics as territory, as seen phenomenon.
Rationalist mathematics is the unseen INFORMATION CARRIER. Empirical mathematics is the observed INFORMATION CARRIED. We never experience the carrier under any circumstances. We only experience the information carried.
Think of electricity. All off your gadgets are powered by it, but you never see it and you never interact with it. You interact with the information that the electrically powered gadgets deliver to you. These are impossible without electricity, but absolutely no one thinks of the operations of electricity while they are watching a YouTube video on their smartphone about cats with hats on surfboards.
Ontologically, we replace electricity with mathematics. What is powering everything, including electricity, is mathematics, but we never see it and we never interact with it as it is in itself (as noumenon). We only ever encounter it as phenomenon, as appearance, and its appearance doesn’t seem mathematical in the slightest.
When you watch a YouTube video you are in a sense watching electricity, but you have no idea that this is what you are watching. You engage with electricity as phenomenon – as sensory output – not electricity as noumenon – as the unseen entity powering all of your gadgets.
People are transfixed by appearances because that’s the level at which they actually live. That’s what their experiences are all about. They are not interested in what’s under the hood, all the unseen stuff that holds everything together. Only reason and logic – the opposite of human experiences (which concern sensory perceptions, feelings and mystical intuitions) – take us to the world of non-appearance.
People regard the world of non-appearance as unreal, hence why they regard mathematics as unreal. Here’s the cosmic joke. Whatever you imagine to be the most unreal thing of all, the least likely candidate for what existence is made of, is CERTAIN to be exactly what existence is made of. The cosmic “electricity” is inevitably the opposite of what empiricism would suggest it might be (whether God, matter, randomness, chaos, or cosmic consciousness).
The opposite of empiricism is rationalism, and the subject that defines rationalism is mathematics. Thinking people are people who think mathematically, which is to say rationally. They are right and everyone else is wrong. The other three types are empirical types, ruled by their immediate experiences, whether their sensory perceptions, emotions, or mystical intuitions. These are always taken to be real because they are presented to us without any work on our part. You simply open your eyes and the world pours in. You can’t switch off your feelings. You can’t deny the power of a mystical vision. But you have to work hard to use your reason and logic. That work creates an effect of non-immediacy, which is interpreted as non-reality.
Imagine how differently you would regard mathematics if instead of having to work out answers, you saw answers being presented to you in your mind’s eye, without any effort on your part. There are autistics who can literally see the numbers of pi in their field of vision, and just read off what they see, to thousands of decimal places. If we all had that capacity – if we interacted with mathematics immediately and effortlessly – no one would doubt the ontology of mathematics. We would all take it for granted that we lived in a mathematical universe. But evolution, faced with the choice between quality and quantity, semantics and syntax, has made us empiricists rather than rationalists, which is why the simple-minded reject mathematics as ontological. Imagine playing a video game equipped with a split screen. In one screen, you see the game. In the other screen, you see the code that is being executed each time you do anything in the game. Evolution, via natural selection, decided that a split screen reality was useless to us. What good does it do you in your day-to-day life to see the code that underlies everything? It only matters when you are interested in Absolute Truth. Evolution, certainly in its early stages, has nothing to do with Truth. It’s about survival and reproduction. Only the most highly evolved minds can start to contemplate Absolute Truth. Look around you. How many people have highly evolved minds? Most are closer to apes than gods.
Science helps evolution because it starts to deal with reality quantitatively rather than qualitatively. However, it remains stuck with empiricism rather than rationalism, which is why it will in due course be replaced by ontological mathematics, which reveals the code of existence, the “game code” that we all use.
Here’s the bottom line. We inhabit the world empirically, i.e. we experience it. But the world in itself is rational, and we don’t experience that at all. Rationalism is the opposite of empiricism.
Science, religion, philosophy and spirituality all deal with empirical “reality”. Science is the most successful of these because – drum roll – it’s the only one that uses MATHEMATICS. But science is itself mired in anti-mathematical ideology because it is an empiricist subject rather than a rationalist subject.
Ontological mathematics is what you get when you strip out all empiricist considerations from science, leaving pure mathematical rationalism.
When purely rational and logical considerations are applied to mathematics, i.e. when we deploy the Principle of Sufficient Reason and Occam’s razor to mathematics, we arrive at the “God Equation”, namely Euler’s Formula: the Mind Equation, the Soul Equation, the Life Equation, the God Equation.
The whole of reality is built on complex numbers (rather than real numbers), and revolves around sine waves and cosine waves. These are the ontological electricity – the information carriers that convey every single empirical experience, no matter what, that you encounter every moment of your life.
Mathematics is BOTH a syntactic (rational) and semantic (empirical) subject. We experience mathematics semantically, but the math we are taught at school is strictly syntactic and extremely hard. Human beings are hard-wired to find semantics real and syntax unreal, to find semantics immediate and concrete, and syntax remote and abstract. That’s exactly why most people cannot conceive that mathematics is the true basis of existence. It goes against everything their experience tells them. It is utterly counterintuitive.
Sad to say, you need to be rational and logical to “get it”. But the vast majority of people are neither rational nor logical, and actively hate these subjects. The most feared and loathed subjects on earth are philosophy, science, and mathematics, i.e. the hardest subjects. The degree to which they are hated rises as their mathematical content, hence perceived abstraction and unreality, rises. How many people say, “What does mathematics have to do with my life?” The blunt answer is that mathematics IS your life!!!
The answer to existence is none other than the very thing that humans least desire as the answer to existence, and are least capable of understanding.
You have to laugh. The cosmos has the ultimate sense of humor. Where would you hide the answer to existence to make it almost impossible for humanity to access it? You would of course choose mathematics, the No. 1 most unpopular subject on earth that ordinary people would never go anywhere near. Science is bad enough for most people, but at least it gives you pretty pictures of galaxies. Pure mathematics doesn’t even give you that. It deals with invisible singularities.
Ontological Mathematics is for the most intelligent people on earth. They are the only ones who can understand it. You have no chance of connecting with Ontological Mathematics if you are not a rational and logical person with a craving for absolute Truth.
If you’re not rational and logical, stick to God, cosmic consciousness, matter, or accident and randomness. Stick to prayer (to God), meditation (to get in touch with cosmic consciousness), or sensory experiments (to probe matter). Reason and logic will not serve you. You are not interested in them, and you do not accept their power.
To a rationalist, 1 + 1 = 2 is truer than every statement of religion, philosophy, spirituality and science put together. 1 + 1 = 2 is eternally and necessarily true. Every statement of religion, philosophy, spirituality and science is temporal and contingent. They are mired in belief, opinion and interpretation.
People believe what they want to believe, what their personality type allows them to believe. Mathematics is a system of knowledge, not of belief, and that’s why humanity does not believe in a mathematical universe. Humanity believes in the false “truth”, and refuses to know the actual Truth.
The most mysterious thing in the universe is mathematics, yet it is also the most knowable thing. It is mysterious only because we are empirical beings rather than rational beings. That’s the human tragedy right there.
People are lazy and stupid. That’s why they reject hard, non-immediate answers to existence, and accept simplistic solutions based on immediate feelings, perceptions and intuitions. What are you going to do – pray, meditate, observe … or learn Fourier mathematics? Always follow the path of least resistance. Never put yourself to any trouble. Worship appearances, and never try to get beyond the surface of things. Do you seriously imagine that the answer to existence will present itself to you on a plate? Do you seriously imagine that prayer will reveal it to you, or meditation, or observation? Wake up! Stop being so fucking dumb.
Here’s the news. The universe is either rational or it’s irrational. If it’s rational, mathematics, the quintessence of rationalism, is its answer. If the universe is not rational, any irrational answer is as good as any other irrational answer, so believe whatever you like, which is what you already do … because you’re empirical, i.e. irrational. The very things in which you most trust – your personal experiences – are the very things that stop you from accessing the Truth. It’s the cosmic Catch-22. The Truth lies in reason and logic, BEYOND your experiences, yet all you do is worship your experiences. They are YOUR TRUTH (i.e. your self-delusions).
“Castalia, in Greek mythology, was a nymph whom Apollo transformed into a fountain at Delphi, at the base of Mount Parnassos, or at Mount Helicon. Castalia could inspire the genius of poetry to those who drank her waters or listened to their quiet sound; the sacred water was also used to clean the Delphian temples. Apollo consecrated Castalia to the Muses.” – Wikipedia
Castalia was the source of inspiration for Apollo and the Muses. The Muses were sometimes called Castalides. The Castalian spring was the sacred source of Delphi, and its water was essential to the operations of the temple and oracle. Pythia (the Oracle), the priests and the temple staff washed there, and this was the exclusive water used to clean the temple. The theopropoi – those seeking to consult the Oracle – were obliged to wash in the sacred water to purify themselves.
Castalia is the name of the futuristic utopia described in The Glass Bead Game. Castalia is run by an austere order of intellectuals who provide elite education, and who nurture and play, at the highest level, the Glass Bead Game. Castalia is a place where the things of the mind are honored, protected, and relentlessly advanced.
“In the novel The Glass Bead Game (1943), by Nobel Prize-winning novelist Hermann Hesse, the current era is characterised and described as ‘The Age of the Feuilleton’. In Hesse’s novel, this so-called age of the feuilleton, viewed retrospectively from a future scholarly society called Castalia, is generally but not simply portrayed as having an overweening, trivializing or obfuscating character such as is associated with the arbitrary and primitive nature of social production prior to the historical denouement that resulted in the creation of Castalia.” – Wikipedia
The Castalians (the philosophers) are opposed by the Feuilletons (the sophists). The Feuilletons are pseudo intellectuals who use their skills not in the search for truth, but to pander to the masses, to produce prolefeed for the entertainment-hungry mob, to support cheap, populist, political ideologies, full of soundbites and simplistic nostrums. The Feuilletons always compromise their ideals in favor of short-term gain, popularity, success, and status. They are not committed to the sacred quest for beauty, knowledge and Truth. They are self-serving, and use their intelligence purely to satisfy their own selfish desires and lust for power over the masses. They happily engage with the trivial and disreputable, and barefaced lies and distortions, if it will help them gain an advantage.Against the Feuilletonistic World
Quality and excellence are being killed off. Who will resist the Feuilletons?
The Endarkenment is all around us. The Sophists rule, and the Philosophers are held in contempt, and have no role or power in this dark, ignorant world. It’s time to change the picture. It’s time for Logopolis, the City of Reason.
The Barbarians The barbarians are at the gates. Only the Castalians are left to defend the highest values of humanity. We alone are the Grail Knights, protecting the most precious thing of all, the Truth.
The Cave People You are a prisoner of your own personality type, your own nature, your own character. The person who most deceives you is yourself. How will you overcome yourself? How will you overcome the flawed way in which you think? You must think rationally, but you insist on thinking empirically, i.e. wrongly.
Prayer will NEVER help you. There is no one there to listen.
Meditation will NEVER help you. It tells you nothing. It provides no knowledge. If it did, the most intelligent people in the world would be the best meditators. No meditators feature amongst the ranks of the hyper intelligent. If meditation is so good, where are its achievements to rival those of science and mathematics? There aren’t any. Humanity has profited not one jot from the billions of hours that weak-minded humans have wasted on meditation. If the same time and effort went into philosophy, science and mathematics as has gone into prayer and meditation, we would be living in paradise by now. Prayer and meditation are worthless and pointless. They have been refuted by the incontestable fact that they have failed to change the human condition despite a simply mind-boggling amount of human time lavished on them. They exist in order to deflect humanity from the path of Truth, which is exclusively the path of Reason. The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) = the Truth. Prayer is not about the PSR, and neither is meditation. They are the outright ENEMIES of reason. Will observation help you to solve the mysteries of the unobservable world, of the immaterial, unobservable state outside space and time that preceded the creation of the observable world? That’s a category error. You cannot address the unobservable via the strictly and exclusively observable, as science insanely attempts to do. Its mad formula for “success” is simply to deny the existence of anything unobservable, including the cause of the Big Bang! It denies the Truth in order to promote its own dogmatic lies.
Only reason will help you, but reason is exactly what humanity rejects. It is the “Devil’s whore”. It is “unreal” and “abstract”. It is non-empirical. It is “irrelevant” to your experiences. This is what all those who sit imprisoned in Plato’s Cave say over and over again. And thus they will never leave the cave and never see the sun of Enlightenment. You are stuck in the Cave, and there are no exits for the likes of you. You ARE the Cave. You are the locked doors, and the blocked exits. It’s not that the answer to existence isn’t available to you. It’s right in front of you, but you don’t want to look. You’re not interested. The only “truth” you are interested in is your own truth, the truth that serves your agenda, your nature, your desires. But that’s not truth at all. That’s the self-serving lie. People are trapped by their own lies, by what they want to be true rather than what actually is true, which by definition preceded the human condition and any human experiences whatsoever (so how can human experience reveal the Truth to you? … it’s 100% irrelevant to what existed before humans did).
The Truth is unpalatable to humanity. Humanity is a lying species. It’s mendacious to the core. All of its mainstream religious beliefs are false, most of its philosophy is false, and its science is right only to the extent that it uses mathematics, the actual and only answer to existence.
Who will measure the Truth? ….. “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin” … the Writing on the Wall.
Numbered, Numbered, Weighed, Divided. (Aramaic)
The Writing on the Wall is all about mathematics!
Measuring the Truth: His Dark Materials (Philip Pullman)
The Game Players “The Glass Bead Game is a game of ambiguous form that combines all the knowledge of the ages – music, mathematics, logic, literature, and much more – into aesthetic compositions that are then meditated upon by the audience. As Theodore Ziolkowski remarks in his introduction, however, it is clear that Hesse meant the game as a symbol for the human imagination, not, as some readers would have it, “a patentable ‘Monopoly’ of the mind”.
“The nature of the artist and scholar’s commitment to society is a major theme in The Glass Bead Game, and is most clearly articulated in Knecht’s circular letter to the Masters of the order, a letter of warning which directly precedes his resignation. Knecht asserts that he does not believe, like Plato, that it is the duty of the scholar and sage to rule, but rather to preserve the purity “of all sources of knowledge”: In former ages, during the wars and upheavals of so-called periods of “grandeur,” intellectuals were sometimes urged to throw themselves into politics. This was particularly the case during the late Feuilletonistic Age. That age went even further in its demands, for it insisted that Mind itself must serve politics or the military. . . . He would be a coward who withdrew from the challenges, sacrifices, and dangers his people had to endure. But he would be no less a coward and traitor who betrayed the principles of the life of the mind to material interests-who, for example, left the decision on the product of two times two to the rulers. “For Knecht, as also for Hesse, the function of the artist/intellectual is to defend “the things of the spirit in an age which otherwise might succumb wholly to material things”. As Hesse’s work on the novel progressed, he came to realize that Castalia could not be the true intellectual-aesthetic utopia he had envisioned if it entirely cut itself off from the life of the larger world and the fate of the people in it. Knecht fears that the wars of the Age of the Feuilleton will return, destroying Castalia and endangering the preservation of the knowledge and culture that are the doorway to humankind’s better nature. As Hesse published The Glass Bead Game in the midst of the chaos of World War II, he must have feared the same.
“Although Castalia is not a religious order, the biographer repeatedly remarks that the Game is not a religion, but is approached with a religious attitude (Father Jacobus is quoted as saying, “I grant that you try to exalt this pretty game into something akin to a sacrament, or at least to a device for edification”). This, when combined with the fact that all three protagonists in Knecht’s Lives are involved in some way with religious practice (Knecht the Rainmaker is a shaman; Joseph is a Christian hermit; Dasa seeks to train with an Indian yogi), suggests that though the novel’s focus is more spiritual than religious, it would not be a terrible misreading to view it through a religious lens. Similarly, when we consider Knecht’s spiritual journey as following Gadamer’s fusion of horizons model, we see more clearly that the ultimate result of such a hermeneutical quest for understanding is insight into the nature of sacred Being. It is perhaps obvious on first reading that The Glass Bead Game is the story of a man’s journey toward spirit, a spirit that reveals itself most clearly in the elegance of the Game, but is also to be found throughout creation.” – christine hoff kraemer http://www.christinehoffkraemer.com/hesse.html
Steppenwolf by Hermann Hesse
“The book is presented as a manuscript written by its protagonist, a middle-aged man named Harry Haller, who leaves it to a chance acquaintance, the nephew of his landlady. The acquaintance adds a short preface of his own and then has the manuscript published. The title of this “real” book-in-the-book is Harry Haller’s Records (For Madmen Only). “As the story begins, the hero is beset by reflections on his being ill-suited for the world of everyday, regular people, specifically for frivolous bourgeois society. In his aimless wanderings about the city he encounters a person carrying an advertisement for a magic theatre who gives him a small book, Treatise on the Steppenwolf. This treatise, cited in full in the novel’s text as Harry reads it, addresses Harry by name and strikes him as describing himself uncannily. It is a discourse on a man who believes himself to be of two natures: one high, the spiritual nature of man; the other is low and animalistic, a “wolf of the steppes”. This man is entangled in an irresolvable struggle, never content with either nature because he cannot see beyond this self-made concept. The pamphlet gives an explanation of the multifaceted and indefinable nature of every man’s soul, but Harry is either unable or unwilling to recognize this. It also discusses his suicidal intentions, describing him as one of the “suicides”: people who, deep down, knew they would take their own life one day. But to counter that, it hails his potential to be great, to be one of the “Immortals”.
“By chance, Harry encounters the man who gave him the book, just as the man has attended a funeral. He inquires about the magic theater, to which the man replies, “Not for everybody.” When Harry presses further for information, the man recommends him to a local dance hall, much to Harry’s disappointment. “When returning from the funeral, Harry meets a former academic friend with whom he had often discussed Oriental mythology, and who invites Harry to his home. While there, Harry is disgusted by the nationalistic mentality of his friend, who inadvertently criticizes a column Harry wrote. In turn, Harry offends the man and his wife by criticizing the wife’s bust of Goethe, which Harry feels is too thickly sentimental and insulting to Goethe’s true brilliance. This episode confirms to Harry that he is, and will always be, a stranger to his society.
“Trying to postpone returning home, where he fears all that awaits him is his own suicide, Harry walks aimlessly around the town for most of the night, finally stopping to rest at the dance hall where the man had sent him earlier. He happens on a young woman, Hermine, who quickly recognizes his desperation. They talk at length; Hermine alternately mocks Harry’s self-pity and indulges him in his explanations regarding his view of life, to his astonished relief. Hermine promises a second meeting, and provides Harry with a reason to live (or at least a substantial excuse to continue living) that he eagerly embraces. “During the next few weeks, Hermine introduces Harry to the indulgences of what he calls the “bourgeois”. She teaches Harry to dance, introduces him to casual drug use, finds him a lover (Maria), and, more importantly, forces him to accept these as legitimate and worthy aspects of a full life.
“Hermine also introduces Harry to a mysterious saxophonist named Pablo, who appears to be the very opposite of what Harry considers a serious, thoughtful man. After attending a lavish masquerade ball, Pablo brings Harry to his metaphorical “magic theatre,” where the concerns and notions that plagued his soul disintegrate as he interacts with the ethereal and phantasmal. The Magic Theatre is a place where he experiences the fantasies that exist in his mind. The Theater is described as a long horseshoe-shaped corridor with a mirror on one side and a great many doors on the other. Harry enters five of these labeled doors, each of which symbolizes a fraction of his life.” – Wikipedia
***** “In the preface to the novel’s 1960 edition, Hesse wrote that Steppenwolf was “more often and more violently misunderstood” than any of his other books. Hesse felt that his readers focused only on the suffering and despair that are depicted in Harry Haller’s life, thereby missing the possibility of transcendence and healing.
“In the moment of climax, it is unclear whether Haller actually kills Hermine or whether the “murder” is just another hallucination in the Magic Theater. It is argued that Hesse does not define reality based on what occurs in physical time and space; rather, reality is merely a function of metaphysical cause and effect. What matters is not whether the murder actually occurred, but rather that at that moment it was Haller’s intention to kill Hermine. In that sense, Haller’s various states of mind are more significant than his actions.
“It is also notable that the very existence of Hermine in the novel is never confirmed; the manuscript left in Harry Haller’s room reflects a story that completely revolves around his personal experiences. In fact when Harry asks Hermine what her name is, she turns the question around. When he is challenged to guess her name, he tells her that she reminds him of a childhood friend named Hermann, and therefore he concludes, her name must be Hermine. Metaphorically, Harry creates Hermine as if a fragment of his own soul has broken off to form a female counterpart.” – Wikipedia
WHO ARE THE MURDERERS OF THE SPIRIT? WHO ARE THE MURDERERS OF REASON? WHY ARE WE IN THE THEATER OF MADNESS? IT’S BECAUSE HUMANITY IS OPPOSED TO RATIONALISM, AND SANCTIFIES EMPIRICISM AND FAITH, THE TWO PATHS TO INSANITY.The Magic Theater: Not For Everybody “Magic Theatre – For Madmen Only – Price of Admission – Your Mind”.
Mathematics is the true and only magic. Ontological mathematicians are the true magicians, and they aspire to achieve the power of Simon Magus, the greatest intuitive ontological mathematician, the greatest Glass Bead Game player. Ontological mathematics doesn’t make you mad. It makes you sane. It doesn’t blind you. It opens your eyes.
Magister Ludi: Master of the Game
Ontological mathematicians vie to be the Magister Ludi. The Grand Masters are the Gods themselves … the Game Coders, the Game Hackers, the Game Controllers.
The Solution to Cartesian Dualism
It’s impossible to provide a solution to Cartesian dualism using materialist arguments, and equally impossible using idealist arguments. Only mathematics can explain what is going on. Ontological Fourier Mathematics allows us to define two separate but connected domains… an unextended, immaterial frequency domain of mind, and an extended, spacetime domain of matter (bodies). The two domains communicate via forward and inverse Fourier transforms. Your mind – your soul – is an autonomous, immaterial, Fourier frequency domain outside space and time. It’s an eternal, uncreated, uncaused SINGULARITY. It is impossible for it to perish. Your body can die. Your soul cannot. Only mathematics can explain what the soul is. Only mathematics can explain existence. Stop resisting the rational truth. You are only hurting yourself.
To the Critics of Ontological Mathematics
Here’s the thing. We have written millions of words and scores of books on Ontological Mathematics, none of which you have ever read, and about which you know nothing. In those books, we have anticipated and refuted every single conceivable objection you could have to Ontological Mathematics. We have even refuted a myriad of points that you have never even thought of, but which much smarter people than you would come up with.
You will dismiss Ontological Mathematics based on your subjective, personal misconceptions about Ontological Mathematics which we have already refuted in our books and which you would discover if you read these books. But we all know that you are never going to read these books. You are not interested. You are not motivated. What you ARE interested in, and motivated to do, is to dismiss Ontological Mathematics as rapidly as possible so that you can convince yourself that you don’t need to worry about it, so that you can go on believing the irrational garbage that currently shapes your worldview.
You will persuade yourself – as is your wont – that you have come up with a killer argument that falsifies Ontological Mathematics. But the truth is that we have already falsified whatever argument you have thought of … or could ever think of. Don’t forget, we have written millions of words on this subject, of which you know nothing. We have seen all of your facile counter arguments and objections, and we have dealt with all of them, i.e. we are dealing with your arguments from a position of knowledge, while you are attacking Ontological Mathematics from a position of 100% ignorance. You really have no idea of what we are saying, yet human nature is such that you will believe you have successfully refuted something you haven’t studied. It’s equivalent to claiming that science is false without knowing anything at all about what science is and what it asserts.
We attack science as much as we do religion, but since many of us are leading scientists, we know exactly what we are attacking, and where all of the bodies are buried. You, however, know nothing about Ontological Mathematics, but will attack it anyway. That’s the kind of person you are … an outright irrationalist. Only an irrational person would seek to refute something based on a few minutes contact with it, and having no conception at all of what it is actually saying (contrary to your delusional self-propaganda about what it is saying).
You are retarded if you think you will come up with rational arguments that will defeat the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the base principle of Ontological Mathematics. The idea that reason can be used to defeat reason is comically dumb. Only someone as dumb as you would believe that it’s possible. Ontological Mathematics is the quintessence of reason. Explain how you are rationally going to defeat reason using reason to justify that something other than reason – other than Ontological Mathematics – is the explanation of everything? Dumb, dumb, dumb. You’re so dumb, you have no clue how dumb you are. You are a stark example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
You literally have no idea what is asserted by Ontological Mathematics, but you are going to rubbish it anyway. Why? Because that’s the way you roll. You are the worst combination of all – arrogant and ignorant, and wholly incapable of committing yourself to studying something first before commenting on it.
The idea that a person like you will read millions of words on Ontological Mathematics before making an educated assessment is the purest fantasy. A person such as you will look at a video discussing Ontological Mathematics in some necessarily simplistic way due to time constraints and then you will generate a knee-jerk reaction based on something in the video that you completely misunderstood. You will post a scathing, dismissive comment on social media – maybe even make a rebuttal video as if you have some clue what you are talking about – and then you will pat yourself on the back and walk away with a smug smile … a fool to the bitter end. That’s the kind of person you are. Don’t pretend to be a methodical, intelligent, rational person who researches and studies a subject in detail before reaching an opinion on it. You are a cowboy who instantly shoots down anything you don’t like. You don’t study anything, you have no knowledge of what you are attacking, and you don’t realize that every point you can think of has already been thought of and comprehensively refuted across millions of words presenting a radically different view of reality, one based on pure reason, the very thing from which you are entirely alienated (yet you kid yourself that your arguments are devastatingly rational).
Here’s the deal… if you hate the very idea of Ontological Mathematics, it’s because you’re a person of faith and feelings, or mysticism, or you’re an empiricist who worships your delusional limited human senses and experiences. We are rationalists. We are guided by reason, and nothing else. Anyone who attacks us is confessing to the world that they are an enemy of reason. They are admitting that they don’t rate reason, and believe that things other than reason are much more important than reason. The biggest joke of all is that these people will be attempting to justify their position using arguments which they believe are based on reason and with which they are trying to attack reason. Dear oh dear! Put on your dunce’s cap, sit in the corner, and don’t say another word.
Ontological Mathematics is for the most intelligent people in the world, not for the dumbest. No intelligent person would attack a vast subject without studying it first. Someone like you could never read our books and understand them. They are way beyond your intellectual pay grade. You don’t have a prayer of understanding Ontological Mathematics. And we don’t care. Soz! We only care about attracting the world’s smartest people – those who study and then attack as opposed to those who attack and never bother studying (i.e. people like you).
Schopenhauer said, “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” You can be sure that you are one of the Stage One critics, and you may end up as a Stage Two killer when your beliefs start to crumble and you seek to defend them to the death. Eventually, the Truth will conquer you, and then you will shrug your shoulders and say it was obvious all along, and no big deal. Such is the human condition, and especially the condition of people exactly like you – the ignorant Dunning-Krugers who believe they are smart and that smart people are dumb, yet who do not bother to ever study what they are attacking. Religious people dismiss science without studying science, scientists dismiss philosophy without studying philosophy, and everyone dismisses Ontological Mathematics without studying Ontological Mathematics. We, however, have gone to immense lengths to study religion, science and philosophy. So, who is best equipped to provide informed arguments based on actual knowledge of the position of their opponents?
Ontological Mathematics ushers in the ultimate intellectual paradigm shift. It switches science away from empiricism to rationalism, from materialism (matter) to idealism (mind), and makes reason rather than sensory experiments the determinant of reality. It shows how to unify physics and metaphysics, in pure reason and logic.
Go on, troll us. That’s all that people like you are capable of. It’s not as if you’re capable of reasoned, intelligent argument, is it?
Step one of reasoned, intelligent arguments – understand what your opponent is saying before attacking your opponent, i.e. put in a LOT of time and effort studying their position before opening your mouth. Not going to happen, is it? You are a busy person – busy with being perpetually ignorant, and indulging in the absolute trivia that keeps your tiny mind engaged – so you have no time to devote to discovering the ultimate secrets of existence, which can ONLY be revealed by Ontological Mathematics. Too bad. That’s humanity for you.
To all those who dare to comment on Ontological Mathematics without having studied the God Series and the Truth Series, we repeat what Pythagoras famously said, “Be silent or say something better than silence.” If you have no informed, educated opinion to express regarding Ontological Mathematics, keep your mouth shut. As we all know, empty vessels make the most noise. In order to have an informed, educated opinion about Ontological Mathematics, you must read the entirety of the God Series and Truth Series, the most revolutionary books ever written.
The most annoying thing about humanity is not that most humans are so idiotic, but that they idiotically believe themselves non-idiotic. How can you be anything other than idiotic if you attack a vast subject – a replacement for science and philosophy – which you have never studied, and which we have already told you has anticipated every single critical thought you could have about it and refuted it?
People like you study social media. You don’t study books. Stop pretending you do. You get all of your information from five-minute videos and simplistic soundbites and memes, yet you believe this is sufficient for you to understand reality. Dream on, retard. There’s no point in arguing with stupid! Stupid is as stupid does, and stupid comments on things he has never researched.
There’s nothing worse than people who reject the great inscription at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi – Know Thyself. You do not know yourself, and you do not understand ontology and epistemology, which is why you attack things you do not understand and have never studied.
Here’s a radical, rational suggestion for you. Why don’t you change the habits of a lifetime, and study the whole of the God Series (32 books, listed on this site) and Truth Series (six books so far) and either admit that we are right and have discovered the incontestable answer to existence, or write your criticism of our position, and we shall then study what you have said and use our infallible mathematical system to show exactly where your reasoning has failed you. Your reasoning is definitely screwed if you believe that reason can lead you anywhere other than ontological mathematics as the RATIONAL explanation of existence. How can reason be used to produce answers contrary to reason as the answer to existence? Is “God” a rational explanation? Is “cosmic consciousness” a rational explanation? Is universal love a rational explanation? Is “illusion” a rational explanation? Is “matter” a rational explanation? Is “randomness” a rational explanation? Is “uncertainty” a rational explanation? Is indeterminism a rational explanation? These all have nothing to do with reason, so it is impossible for any rational process to arrive at any such “answer” to existence. All rational processes, all reasoned arguments, terminate with eternal, necessary Ontological Mathematics, defined by the eternal, necessary Principle of Sufficient Reason. Reason cannot terminate in unreason. You cannot use empirical arguments against reason. That is a category error. You cannot use emotional arguments against reason. That is a category error. You cannot use mystical arguments against reason. That is a category error. Every argument that seeks to undermine Ontological Mathematics involves a category error, and is invariably asserted on the basis of a provable fallacy.
The internet accelerates everything. And what it is most accelerating is human stupidity. It is destroying attention spans. It is making it impossible for people to study and think. It is reducing everything to simplistic videos, memes and soundbites. It promotes trolling on a global scale. It spreads the Dunning-Kruger effect everywhere, and it makes people believe that their crazy, ignorant, half-baked opinions – based on total prejudice and refusal to think about a new subject for anything more than a second – should be broadcast across the globe.
The internet is intensifying and magnifying mediocrity and hatred of everything that is difficult and excellent.
All smart people must come together to resist the relentless dumbification of the human race. We must ensure that the universal idiocracy does not triumph. What do idiots hate most? – Ontological Mathematics!
Stop pretending you’re in the intellectual game. Unless you have studied something long and hard, how can you have any valid, informed, knowledgeable opinion to offer? Isn’t it staggering that people who have never studied M-theory don’t dare to comment on it, yet they can’t hold themselves back from commenting on Ontological Mathematics despite knowing nothing about it bar a few soundbites from a YouTube video. It’s the mark of an idiot that he comments on stuff he has never studied, and trolls it without having spent more than five seconds thinking about it. These are System 1 thinkers, i.e. those who use a fast, reflexive, automatic, intuitive, gut-feeling approach, i.e. first impression people. Ontological Mathematics is strictly for System 2 thinkers – those who take their time, thoroughly analyze a thing, and use reason and logic. The curse of the world is that Dunning-Kruger System 1 speculators believe they can meaningfully comment on subjects that require considered System 2 thinking. The internet has turned this mental disease into a global epidemic.
It’s a category error to apply System 1 thinking to System 2 subjects, and proves that you are dumb and have no clue what you are talking about – regarding any subject at all.
The ultimate System 1 thinker is the US President, Donald Trump. Author Michael Lewis wrote, “Trump is walking gut instinct, untethered to data, hostile to science and evidence. And how he feels about things is susceptible to biases: stereotypes, or the views of the last person he talked to. His willingness to behave as if he’s totally certain about things that are impossible to be certain about is a balm to people who want that feeling. Trump is a confidence man.”
If you oppose Ontological Mathematics, you are a Trumpanzee, an ignoramus, a Dunning-Kruger, incapable of rational System 2 thinking. Ontological Mathematics is the supreme expression of System 2 thinking.
The internet is wiping out System 2 thinking, and creating a world of hyper-emotional hysterics shooting off their mouth without engaging reason and logic at any point, and in fact holding reason and logic in contempt. They argue emotionally (feeling types), or mystically (intuitive types), or empirically (sensing types). They never argue rationally. They never understand that they are irrational, and always imagine that their “reasoning” is impeccable.
What is Step One in identifying a bullshitter? – does the person have an informed opinion and authentic knowledge of what they are talking about, or are they projecting their own ignorance onto the subject? Only a moron comments on something they have never studied.
Why do people choose to comment on subjects they know nothing about, do not understand, and have never studied? It’s because they’re deeply fearful conservatives, terrified of anything new, anything that might shake them out of their cozy complacency. They are never radicals. They are never freethinkers. They are profoundly sad people attempting to stop the advance of progress by shouting it down like a baying mob of trolls.
Non-rationalists use prayer, or meditation, or experiments. Rationalists use reason and logic. What do you use?
Faith is not an argument. It’s merely an unsupported claim, advanced to support emotional needs.
Quoting from a “sacred text” is not an argument. You have not proved that the sacred text has any truth content. You simply hope it does. Hope is not the basis for any rational stance.
A mystical vision is not an argument. It’s just an unsupported claim, advanced to support intuitive needs.
Your subjective experiences are not an argument. They are simply your experiences. What is your objective point?
Your perceptions are not an argument. Your perceptions are an interpretation, advanced to support sensory needs. What are they interpreting? Science has invented a magic substance called “matter”, but no one knows, or can ever know, what “matter” is in itself, unperceived by minds, hence it has no explanatory value whatsoever. It’s merely a heuristic device on which to hang abstract mathematical propositions, which would be far more logically treated in terms of analytic mathematics, thus dispensing with “matter” entirely. The bizarre interpretations of quantum mechanics proposed by the scientific community all flow from the fallacy of imposing the manmade philosophy of materialism and empiricism onto rationalist, ontological mathematics.
No intellectual would ever attack a subject without studying it in great detail, exactly as we have done in terms of scientism, and all major religions and spiritual systems. The only people who attack us are irrationalists, hysterics, anti-intellectuals, empiricists and believers, i.e. all the trolls who despise reason and logic.
And the worst thing of all is that although these people reject reason and logic, they try to use reason and logic to say why we are wrong to use reason and logic to explain reality. You have no right to use reason and logic unless you are a rationalist. Anyone who does not endorse rationalism should use anything other than reason and logic to advance their irrational, illogical case. They should pray, or meditate, or observe. It is literally a sign of madness to try to use reason to show why reason is allegedly wrong. By definition, no rational argument can be used against rationalism, so if you reject rationalism you ipso facto show that you are irrational, hence are incapable of using a rational argument.
Faith-based arguments are not rational. Story-based arguments are not rational. Empiricist arguments are not rational. Stop deluding yourselves that you are rational. 1 + 1 = 2.
Science is rational only to the extent that it uses mathematics. Everything else about it is opposed to rationalism and is pro-empiricism.
If you fancy yourself an intellectual, prove it. Read the God Series and the Truth Series all the way through, and then, and only then, comment on Ontological Mathematics. Unless you have read and digested all of this source material, you cannot possibly know what Ontological Mathematics is about – the ultimate rational revolution in thought – and you are just a dunce and a troll if you nevertheless comment on Ontological Mathematics.
We defy anyone on earth to find a single flaw in our system. We, however, have refuted all other systems, via reason and logic, as you will discover if you study our books on Ontological Mathematics.
All intellectuals must come to our banner and defend the values of the highest intellectual excellence.
Any intellectual who reads our work will have their worldview transformed forever. That’s guaranteed. Any non-intellectual will despise and fear our work, and start trolling it. It is all of their worst fears realized.
Here is a serious question for you. Are you seriously dumb and have no fucking clue what you are talking about? This is not a trivial question. On what basis do you claim to have any idea what you are talking about? We refer all of our answers to the Principle of Sufficient Reason. What about you? If you do not support the Principle of Sufficient Reason then, clearly, you support the Principle of No Sufficient Reason, i.e. you literally have no reason for what you are saying, so you are talking irrational nonsense. Well, which is it? If you do not support mathematics – the quintessential subject of rationalism – then any opinion or belief you hold is ipso facto irrational. Why do you try to argue with us given that we have incontestably proved that you are irrational? That’s irrational! The problem, of course, is that you have no conception of how irrational you are. You have no idea of what constitutes a rational argument. Quoting a belief, an emotion, an opinion, an experience, a perception, a “holy text”, a parable, a sermon, a storybook, a mystical intuition, is not rational. State something rational – a definable mathematical statement – or shut up and stop pretending you know anything at all. If you cannot define what you are saying, you are saying nothing. Only one subject offers precise definitions – mathematics.
You cannot resist the power of mathematics. Resistance is futile. Mathematics assimilates and integrates everything.
A very simple equation applies. If you are opposed to Ontological Mathematics, it’s because you are irrational, and all of your arguments are contrary to reason. Reason has only destination: Ontological Mathematics. Reason can never arrive at an answer not grounded in reason, or contrary to reason. Any answer that is different from Ontological Mathematics is incompatible with reason, and no rational process, and no rational person, can arrive at it.
When we talk about mathematics, we are certainly not talking about school mathematics. Do you understand the difference between mathematical semantics and mathematical syntax? Unless you actually read our books, you will never grasp what the ontology of mathematics means, and you will remain an ignoramus forever. But, hey, you love being dumb, don’t you? That’s why you refuse to study and be smart. Too much hard work, right?!
“Sanity is a madness put to good use.” – George Santayana
***** System 1 Non-Thinkers – Rush to judgment … no consideration … dominate social media with their ignorant, hysterical comments and knee-jerk reactions. Belong to Donald Trump’s school of moronic psychopaths who have to instantly shout down anything they don’t like (which invariably means they are terrified of all new ideas). Absolutely closed-minded, narrow-minded, small-minded and conservative. Right wing behavior. Hawks. Sociopathic trolls, unable to restrain themselves. Unenlightened.
System 2 Thinkers – Consider before judging. Reserved and thoughtful … the opposite of Donald Trump. Give all new ideas a fair hearing, and are always looking for revolutionary new ideas that will radically change the world for the better. Totally open-minded. Left wing behavior. Doves and Retaliators. Enlightened and virtuous.
“Classic” versus “Romantic”
Extract From “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” by Robert M. Pirsig A classical understanding sees the world primarily as underlying form itself. A romantic understanding sees it primarily in terms of immediate appearance. If you were to show an engine or a mechanical drawing or electronic schematic to a romantic it is unlikely he would see much of interest in it. It has no appeal because the reality he sees is its surface. Dull, complex lists of names, lines and numbers. Nothing interesting. But if you were to show the same blueprint of schematic or give the same description to a classical person he might look at it and then become fascinated by it because he sees that within the lines and shapes and symbols is a tremendous richness of underlying form.
The romantic mode is primarily inspirational, imaginative, creative, intuitive. Feelings rather than facts predominate. “Art” when it is opposed to “Science” is often romantic. It does not proceed by reason or by laws. It proceeds by feeling, intuition and aesthetic conscience. […] The classic mode, by contrast, proceeds by reason and by laws – which are themselves underlying forms of thought and behavior. […]
Although surface ugliness is often found in the classic mode of understanding it is not inherent in it. There is a classic aesthetic which romantics often miss because of its subtlety. The classic style is straightforward, unadorned, unemotional, economical and carefully proportioned. Its purpose is not to inspire emotionally, but to bring order out of chaos and make the unknown known. It is not an aesthetically free and natural style. It is aesthetically restrained. Everything is under control. Its value is measured in terms of the skill with which this control is maintained. To a romantic this classic mode often appears dull, awkward and ugly, like mechanical maintenance itself. Everything is in terms of pieces and parts and components and relationships. Nothing is figured out until it’s run through the computer a dozen times. Everything’s got to be measured and proved. Oppressive. Heavy. Endlessly grey. The death force.
Within the classic mode, however, the romantic has some appearances of his own. Frivolous, irrational, erratic, untrustworthy, interested primarily in pleasure seeking. Shallow. Of no substance. Often a parasite who cannot or will not carry his own weight. A real drag on society. By now these battle lines should sound a little familiar. This is the source of the trouble. Persons tend to think and feel exclusively in one mode or the other and in doing so tend to misunderstand and underestimate what the other mode is all about. But no one is willing to give up the truth as he sees it, and as far as I know, no one now living has any real reconciliation of these truths or modes. There is no point at which these visions of reality are unified.
And so in recent times we have seen a huge split develop between a classic culture and a romantic counterculture – two worlds growing alienated and hateful toward each other with everyone wondering if it will always be this way, a house divided against itself. No one wants it really – despite what his antagonists in the other dimension might think.
In ontological mathematics, “classic” thinkers are System 2 thinkers, concerned with syntax, form, reason, logic, signifier, map, substance, depth, noumenon. “Romantics” are System 1 non-thinkers, concerned with semantics, content, matter, perception, feelings, faith, territory, signified, appearance, superficiality, phenomenon.
These two tribes have nothing in common. They are at war. The war is between Reason (Thinking) and Non-Reason (Sensory Perception, Emotion, Faith, and Mystical Intuition). People lacking in reason pray, meditate, observe and experience. People of reason USE reason.
Scientists do NOT belong to the camp of reason. They are sensory empiricists who come into contact with reason purely via rationalist mathematics, which they deem “unreal” (because non-sensory)! All of the absurd claims made by scientists concerning cosmology, quantum mechanics, and so on, result from applying empiricist “logic” to rationalist mathematics, a category error. Mathematics is the sole truth in science. Remove mathematics from science and nothing of value remains. They never teach you that in science class, do they? Something “unreal” is what gives science all of its power! To end this lunacy, the reality of mathematics MUST be acknowledged.
Abrahamists absurdly claim that mathematics is created by God. Nothing non-mathematical can create mathematics. That’s a category error. Mathematics is eternal and necessary. It is uncreated and uncaused. In fact, mathematics has all the properties that foolish, irrational, emotional people attribute to “God”, an #ff0000 entity, hence a ludicrous entity, devoid of reality (except in the fantasies of his believers). “God” is an example of “picture-thinking”. Hegel realized that stupid people cannot grasp difficult concepts, so reduce them to childish pictures and stories that they CAN grasp. “God” is simply ontological mathematics subjected to picture thinking, to personalization, to Mythos, and to anthropomorphism. “God” is how stupid people emotionally relate to the analytic perfection of mathematics. They turn the system of mathematics into a person to whom they can pray! We who understand the real nature of God do not pray to God. Instead, we do mathematics, and that’s how we shall release humanity’s latent divinity.
The People’s Bank … Banking for the people, not for the private elites. End predatory capitalism and replace it with social capitalism. The profits of capitalism must go to the people, not to private elites. End private power and replace it with the power of the People.
“The public will believe anything, so long as it is not founded on truth.” – Edith Sitwell
JOIN THE REVOLUTION. JOIN THE NEW MODEL ARMY. JOIN THE ARMY OF REASON. JOIN THE ILLUMINISTS. JOIN THE HYPERIANS. JOIN THE ENLIGHTENED ONES. THE FUTURE BELONGS TO US. THE FORCES OF THE PAST WILL NEVER STOP US.