How to Define Merit in Ontological Mathematics

The Ontology

Despite the millions of words written about Meritocracy, Ontological Mathematics, and Illuminism, the objective definition of Merit has never been explicitly stated.  So I’ll do that here. It is important because of the central problem which prevents a Meritocracy from ever forming on this planet – that humans can not recognize merit, that they simply can’t tell what is a good idea vs. what is a bad idea, and nowadays with liberals, that they refuse the concept of value altogether. How can you form a Meritocracy when people a) can’t recognize what has merit, and b) refuse the concept of judging for merit? Answer: You can’t.

In Ontological Mathematics, what is the point of existence?  Existence is based on souls, created out of souls, and souls have a purpose or teleology to which they strive.  That teleology is called “Becoming”, which is the actualization of potential.  This is also called gaining “power”, or becoming more powerful.  Therefore, an objective definition of merit must have something to do with promoting Becoming, and with gaining power.

Further, what is a soul in Ontological Mathematics?

Hockney writes that a soul is an instance of the electromagnetic spectrum.  OK, that’s good, and we agree with that given the rest of the philosophy getting to that point.  But what kind of an instance of the electromagnetic spectrum are we talking about?  Is it an instance of an EM spectrum with a uniform distribution of power over all frequency components?  That is not how instances of the EM spectrum can actually form though, due to quantum mechanics and properties of the ontological Fourier Transform.

Perfect instances of the EM spectrum actually form distributions of power vs. frequency known as the Planck Blackbody curve.  However, the particular shape of any instance of this curve has a dependency on the object’s temperature.  Cool objects have much less total energy, much less total power, and their EM energy is composed mostly of low frequency energy.  Warm objects have more total energy, i.e. more total power, and their EM energy is composed of higher frequency energy.

Basically, the Planck Curve is the Fourier Transform of temperature.  Temperature is a singular scalar physical value, but within that temperature is a vast array of a multitude of energy frequencies.  The Fourier Transform of higher temperature shows that it is composed of higher frequency energy and more energy in total, and the Fourier Transform of lower temperature shows that it is composed of lower frequency energy and less energy in total.  This is simply the basic method of operation of the Soul Camera, and with the Soul Camera your soul’s temperature can be measured (although it also shows pollutants in the spectrum as “absorption lines”, i.e. where your soul’s light is still turned back in on itself non-orthogonally and out of phase and thus manifesting as matter).  If your soul is too cold and/or if it has certain pollutant lines in it which indicate certain negative attributes, you will not be able to see the Grail.

solar and terrestrial
The intensity of the solar flux here is scaled by the distance of the Earth from the Sun, and the terrestrial flux is the local Earth intensity, and this is why the terrestrial flux exceeds the solar flux value where the terrestrial flux is active.  In actuality, a higher temperature Planck curve has greater intensity over all wavelengths as compared to a cooler curve.

The Physics

So this means that there are cold souls and hot souls, and all temperature of souls in between.  The instances of EM spectra from different souls depend on the soul’s temperature.  In order to Become, souls thus desire to raise their temperature, and raising their temperature corresponds with them gaining more, and higher, energy frequency components to their own spectrum.  Quite literally, this corresponds to an increase of their power.

In physics the units we use to describe the EM energy emitted by a Blackbody are Joules per second per square meter, or Watts (J/s) per square meter.  Abbreviating, we then have W/m2.  The Watts part is what we call “power” in physics, and the dependency on the area (the per square meter term) gives the density of this power.

So, a soul is an instance of the EM spectrum, and an EM spectrum has units of power per square meter.  When the source of the EM spectrum raises in temperature, then the power of the EM spectrum increases, and the density of power increases as well.  The EM spectrum also shifts to higher frequency.  Given a fixed area, or given a fixed object such as a monad, then if you increase the temperature of the monad you increase the power it contains, and this necessarily increases the density of the power at the same time.  A higher density of power requires higher frequency energy components in order to fit that additional energy into the same space.

So now we have determined the objective, singular, mathematical, physical, and scientific, definition of merit, in the context of defining merit as that which promotes Becoming, which means increasing power.

I’ll simplify this definition in a moment, but I would very much like to point out that the only group which has independently objectively defined merit, arriving at this definition discussed here, is Lyndon LaRouche and his “LaRouchePAC” political action committee.  If you are an Illuminist or if you wish to support meritocratic and developmental principles, then you can contribute financially to them.  Look people…if you can’t contribute by writing, or by getting out there yourself, or by doing something active yourself, then there is nothing wrong with giving what money you may have to people who are writing things, who are getting out there, and who can make a difference.  Donations are a great way for the average person who understands and values meritocracy, but doesn’t know what exactly to do about it themselves, to support others who are and can do something about it.  If you can neither produce anything, do anything, change anything yourself, and you can’t contribute money either, then that is unfortunate.  Good intentions are not enough to make change.

The power of an EM spectrum, of J/s/m2 (Joules per second per square meter or Watts per square meter), also goes by another name: energy flux density.  This is the amount of energy moving in a given time (flux) over a given area (density).

The Merit

Thus, the objective definition of Merit is that which increases energy flux density.  It is that which increases the power of man, which on an individual level is that which increases the power of a person or soul over its surroundings, i.e. it is that which increases its ability to live.

Merit is ideas, thoughts, inventions, technology, science, politics and political systems, social norms and structures, etc, which increase the energy flux density, or temperature, at which man produces and utilizes energy.  This is a measure of the potential population density (or total population) of man at which man would be able to support himself.  For example, the development of the philosophy of Ontological Mathematics is a form of merit which results, or will eventually result, in more powerful and liberating thoughts that a person can have about them-self, in more efficient and powerful and personally empowering political systems, in more powerful and life-fulfilling social norms and standards, and in more powerful and creative Star Wars and Star Trek-like technological inventions.

The Earth is currently not actually able to support the population of man that exists on this planet.  Most people do not understand what that means, and they think that it means that we must kill ourselves off by some number in order to get us back under that number.  This is wrong.  It is wrong, because they’re retreating into their emotions and into their fear, rather than thinking rationally about the statement:

If the lithosphere and the biosphere of the Earth by itself can not support the population of humans that currently exists…then how has it come to be that this population of man exists?  If the Earth can’t support it, it should have been impossible.  Full stop.

The reason it has been and is possible is because man supports man’s existence on this planet.

In man, particularly in man’s mind, we have the development of a new sphere of monadic energetic activity operating at a higher order of energy density than the Earth’s lithosphere and biosphere: in man we have the operation of the noosphere.  The intentional action of conscious willful mind, the noosphere, is able to get lithospheric and biospheric processes to operate and produce action at a much higher level of activity and energy production and utilization than the lithosphere and biosphere can unconsciously do on their own.

Man engineers his own existence and survival, and man has not been living beyond the “support capacity” of the unconscious Earth just for the last generation, or the last hundred years…but in fact for thousands of years.  For thousands of years already has man been living beyond the supposed “support capacity” of the planet Earth.  Man started living beyond the capacity of the lithosphere and biosphere when he first intentionally planted the first agricultural food crop, and intentionally domesticated the first food animal.  From that point on, so many thousands of years ago far beyond the historical record, did man begin living beyond the support capacity of the unconscious lithosphere and biosphere with its sparse, scattered, wild vegetation and its skittish, wary, wildlife.

So don’t think that this is anything new, or untested, or uncertain, or is speculative.  If you truly wish to “live within the support capacity of the planet”, rather than live within the support capacity of man’s mind, then you need to take off your clothes, go find a sharp rock, and start hunting and gathering.

Think of the difference here:  the support capacity of the planet, or, the support capacity of man’s mind.

One of those is inherently fixed and limited, and one of those is potentially unlimited.  Your choice says everything about the direction you’re headed.

All forms of green energy and “sustainable” energy are anti-meritocratic.  Fully and perfectly anti-meritocratic because they operate at a much lower energy flux density source of power and EM energy than man already uses, and, they immediately reduce man’s control and power over the environment and they increase his dependency on the support capacity of the unconscious lithosphere.  They are developmentally regressive thoughts, ideas, and forms of technology.  This is the fundamental purpose of the intended mass-adoption by the population of climate alarmist propaganda, and it will lead and is intended to lead to the mass death of humans.  It is mathematically certain that adoption of the climate alarmist agenda and its movement to lower utilization of power and of power of lower energy flux density will cause the death of a large fraction of the human population.  If you’re not capable of rationally understanding this, even if you write for the God Series or what have you, then you are not on the Becoming side of humanity…or you’re just not as smart as you should be.

The Interaction

Robert A. Heinlein said:

“Wisdom is not additive; its maximum is that of the wisest man in a given group.”

Information is energy and energy is frequencies.  Wisdom is the ability to hold and recount knowledge of information in a holistic, integrated fashion across a wide range of activity.  Thus, wisdom within a soul is its ability to hold a wider and wider range of frequencies.  If we look at the energy spectrum of two souls of similar temperature, then we get the following curves:

two planck curves

These frequencies of energy that the Planck blockbody curves contain are information.  The warmer curve holds more energy, i.e. more information, than the cooler curve.  Not only does the warmer curve hold more power at all information frequencies than the cooler curve does, it also contains information frequencies that the cooler curve doesn’t have at all.  These are the higher-frequency components on the left side of the curve.  This means that the warmer soul understands things that the cooler soul has never experienced and has never gained an understanding of at all.  The warmer soul can do more with more information than the cooler soul can.  From the perspective of the cooler soul, this appears as “wisdom” that the warmer soul has, and effectively as more power.

The area with the box marked “Q” between the curves is the difference in power, or knowledge, that the warmer soul has relative to the cooler soul.  The warmer soul can transfer knowledge and information to the cooler soul, but the cooler soul has nothing to add on top of what the warmer soul already knows.  This is to the chagrin of all trolls and narcissists and those who suffer from the Duning-Kruger Effect.

Thus, Heinlein’s statement has a mathematical physical basis: wisdom (i.e. information energy frequencies) is not additive; its maximum is that of the warmest soul.

If a movement were to form to promote meritocracy, then it is first of all going to have to define merit and that definition will be what has been written about here. Anyone within that movement or trying to get into that movement who tries to make it about climate alarm and sustainability and green energy, etc. etc., is an enemy of meritocracy.

Mental Boundary Conditions

In The Thermodynamic Mind post I made the statement:

“In the God Series we learn that Ontological Mathematics, Mind, Light, and Energy are all synonymous terms…they all refer to the same thing, and they all partake of the form of the God Equation. Since thermodynamics is simply all about the behavior of energy, and this is where the Fourier Transform originated, might we find evidence of mind in the study of heat flow?”

I also remarked on the Photonic Mental Agency post:

“If thermodynamics is where the mathematical solution of mind-matter dualism was first discovered, even if this was not the intention behind the discovery, then perhaps thermodynamics is where evidence of fundamental mental agency may be found?”

From the very beginning of my interest in the climate alarm debate, when I first realized that there was a fundamental foundational problem with its premise of a radiative greenhouse effect, I had always used the idea of “boundary conditions” to try to get across the idea of which Mike Hockney more recently stated much more eloquently:

“Once you have assumed the wrong ontology and epistemology, everything you subsequently say is automatically in error.”

Hockney, Mike (2015-06-02). The War of the Ghosts and Machines (The God Series Book 28) (Kindle Locations 655-656). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.

This is what I used to call “mental boundary conditions”, the idea being of course that if your axioms or initial premises are wrong, then everything you say afterwards will be wrong too.  For example, treating the Earth as flat and with uniform average sunshine is a wrong conception of the planet, and so anything you infer and extrapolate from that starting point simply has to be wrong.

I used the term “boundary conditions” due to my experience with partial differential equations and their solutions – if you get the boundary conditions for the equation wrong, even if you subsequently compute and solve the equation correctly, the equation will not behave the way it is supposed to and it will not correspond with the reality you’re trying to model.  Likewise, the ontology and epistemology with which you bound your thoughts dictate the limits of what the mind will be able comprehend, deduce, and extrapolate within those bounds.  As there is a certain mathematical phase space “topology” which becomes bounded by the boundary conditions used, likewise there is a mental “landscape” which become circumscribed depending upon the underlying ontology and epistemology of the thought in question.

It turns out, after all these years, that there really is something interesting to look at in the actual mathematical boundary conditions in the numerical Fourier Transform solution of the de Saussure device discussed in my recent paper.

I won’t describe what to do with the model in order to see it, because I want the details to appear in a future paper, but there seems to be something happening in the Fourier Transform boundary conditions of a de Saussure device which directly indicates mental agency governing the behaviour of this device.  Something changes in the boundary conditions of this device which changes the mathematics being used; the equation of the boundary conditions changes under certain conditions, and in a significant enough of way that it is difficult to just explain away mechanically.  The equation governing the device seems to actually spontaneously change its terms – in the math of the boundary conditions that is, at the interfaces where light interacts with matter within the device.

In the two previous posts mentioned above we discussed how mental agency basically actually needs to be behind everything at all times, because there’s some paradox in assuming that matter should follow mental mathematical principles if matter is supposed to have nothing to do with mind and can have no interface with mental principles.  If matter is a different substance than mind then matter should never follow or empirically demonstrate mental principles.  Of course, existence is a dual-aspect monism with mental/mathematical substance being the basis of existence, and matter being an epiphenomenon of the mental/mathematical substance, and so finding that matter follows mental principles presents no paradox.  Everything is truly being governed by mind at all times.

However in this case, if what I think I’m finding is correct, instead of being fixed and governing fixed mechanics and therefore appearing totally mechanical and unminded, we can actually see mental agency make an active choice about the way it wants to behave, and thus change the equation in the Fourier Transform maths it uses to govern the phenomena via the boundary conditions.

It’s really quite mental.

The philosophers and “scientists” of old almost universally felt that they found the expression of the mind of God when observing the intricacies of the laws of nature.  However, as these laws never express change within themselves, and with the onset of the paradigm and religion of scientific materialism and atheism, that viewpoint has turned into a belief that matter simply behaves mechanically and where the laws of physics are stored, why they exist, and how they effect themselves are no longer deemed important questions.  With my education in Ontological Mathematics, and my research into the radiative greenhouse effect and the question of “how photons can know” where they should and shouldn’t carry heat energy, I’ve confidently rediscovered that old knowledge that mind must be behind the governance of everything in nature.  It is all mental.  And of course, it is that mind which the old philosophers used to call “God”.  In Ontological Mathematical terms, it would be called the mind of the Monadic Collective.

But what I discussed above might be a place where we can actually see that mind actively making a choice, making a change in itself which has an effect on the way the material world subsequently plays out.

It would be beautiful to find that in the very place where the solution to mind-matter dualism was solved, and even in the context of that solution’s mathematics given that it was all about noumenal energy wave mechanics.

I need to do more work on it, but, stay tuned.  It might be nothing.

Petition for the God Series to Continue

The Effect is not Equal to the Cause

What cause has happened here on the Day of the Dead article, that someone was going to have some conference and even if they were making money off of it, does not to me seem equal to the effect of the cancellation of the God Series and other written work that these writers were doing and planning.

All they would have needed to do is to rubbish what was happening in their books and on the AC page, and that would have been that.  The logos people would have went one way and the other people would have remained where they are.  In fact it has always been this way anyway.  They can still keep going.

If anyone is listening out there…the foundation of the New Pythagoraean Library must be completed!  We can not, we do not abide what is apparently intended.

The history of humanity is largely a travesty, but there are a few good things about it, and a few really great golden things.

Please, allow us to suffer not another travesty.

There are no more words I can think of.


If anyone knows who to properly petition, then please, petition them.


A Resolution To Defend Billions of Lives: WE SAY NO TO PARIS COP21 | LaRouchePAC

Source: A Resolution To Defend Billions of Lives: WE SAY NO TO PARIS COP21 | LaRouchePAC

The conditions of life for billions of people depend upon rejecting the agenda being presented at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held in Paris this December. The COP21 Paris initiative to adopt a legally binding agreement to reduce CO2 emissions must be rejected on two grounds: the scientific reality that mankind’s activity is not going to cause catastrophic climate change, and the very real, lethal consequences of the CO2 reduction programs being demanded.

There is no legitimate basis for having the COP21 conference. Put an end to this now!

Despite the climate-change narrative being presented by an extremely well-funded, top-down propaganda campaign, there is an immense amount of solid scientific evidence which clearly contradicts and/or refutes the claims of coming catastrophic climate change caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. For example, satellite measurements have shown that there has been no average rise in global temperatures for over 18 years, despite the fact that human greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing at an accelerating rate. This underscores the reality that the climate simply does not respond to CO2 levels in the way claimed by climate alarmists; said otherwise, the Earth’s climate system is not highly sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Because many climate models are using these false assumptions of high climate sensitivity to CO2, the predictions of these climate models have been consistently wrong, and with each year they are diverging further from reality. The gradual changes in the climate that have occurred over the recent decades, and the gradual changes which will continue to occur in the future, are not and will not be a cause for alarm. Most of these changes are natural, and any impact mankind may have would be relatively minor. A healthy and growing world economy will be able to adapt to these changes.

We must also recognize that CO2 is not a pollutant—it is an essential part of the biosphere. Because the present atmospheric CO2 levels are well below the optimum for plant growth, human-caused increases in CO2 concentrations are already contributing to increases in agricultural productivity and natural plant growth—creating a measurably greener planet.

But the Paris 2015 summit is not only about nations potentially wasting time and resources on a phantom problem existing only inside computer models—the ugly reality is that the CO2 reduction programs being proposed would increase poverty, lower living conditions, and accelerate death rates around the world. The world simply cannot support a growing population with improving conditions of life using only solar, wind, and other forms of so-called “green” energy.

More to the point, this scheme is being intensely promoted by modern followers of the population reduction ideology popularized by Thomas Malthus. Organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund/World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) have repeatedly declared that current human population is billions of individuals beyond the Earth’s ”carrying capacity,” and must therefore be reduced by some billions of people. The present push for a CO2 reduction program is deeply rooted in this Malthusian ideological motivation. But Malthus was wrong in the Eighteenth Century, and his followers are wrong today.

Energy-intensive scientific, technological, and economic growth is essential to human existence. This can be measured by transitions to higher levels of energy flux-density, per capita and per area. Such progress, growth, and development is a universal right, and CO2 emissions are presently a vital part of that process for the overwhelming majority of the world’s population. The adoption of a legally binding CO2 reduction scheme at the COP21 conference in Paris will condemn billions of people to a lower quality of life, with higher death rates, greater poverty, and no ability to exercise their inherent human right to participate in the creation of a better future for society as a whole.

This is deeply immoral.

For these reasons the CO2 reduction scheme of the COP21 conference in Paris must be rejected.

Simulacrum of Merit

Well did I call it or what?  Climate alarm is the new religion which directly adopts the archetypal psychological patterns of Abrahamism.  That’s why Abrahamism is pushing it:

Global bishops call for ‘complete decarbonisation’

Pope rallies bishops to press climate call

Not only is Abrahamism pushing it to their own flock, they are also finding their greatest support from new-agers, atheists, agnostics, and scientific materialists, as I already indicated in the preamble here.  See this video for example:

(Oh nos!  Just watch the autistic liberal narcissists lose-their-shit when they see the source of that video…lol!)

So there you have it; people who don’t at all believe in the Pope or Abrahamism are flocking to his call to believe in climate alarm.

And now the real meat of this issue:

John Kerry: Bar Global Warming Skeptics From Elected Office


QC calls for ruling to outlaw climate change ‘denial’

This is all about creating a simulacrum of merit in a technological scientific world in which people will still adopt basically Abrahamist psychological patterns in order that humanity as a whole is blocked from both technological and spiritual development.  See my previous articles on this:

Meritocracy: Its Weaknesses and How to Improve It, a Lesson from Climate Alarm

Meritocracy’s Existential Threat: The SIMULATION of Expertise

In a possible New World Order where your intellectual merit and your ability to produce good work for the good of society, rather than religious affiliation, or familial affiliation, or old money, etc., determines where you end up in life and what opportunities are open to you, then the Old World Order can simulate merit in order to keep control of the system which they have created.  They can simulate merit because of the simple fact that the vast majority of humans can not recognize merit, because they can’t distinguish between what is true and what is false.  (As it turns out, conservatives are the best able to distinguish right from wrong, while liberals, atheists, new-agers etc. are almost 100% wrong about everything.  Is it any wonder that the greatest ally of Islam in the West are the West’s liberals! lol!)  That’s why the Old World Order exists in the first place, and they’ve been at this game for a very, very long time.  They know us better than we know ourselves.  It always seemed to me that any sort of public political movement for meritocracy would be a sort of red-herring, a wild goose chase, not intended to actually succeed because it is so incredibly obvious that it would not be able to succeed.

If there’s one thing which the great masses of liberals despise, it is statements of value, but identification of value, and value judgments, are precisely what meritocracy is supposed to be based upon.  Liberals can not suffer judgments of value, i.e., differentials in value.  That’s why they came up with the random universe model!  Meritocracy will only come in by a group of people doing it by force, by infiltrating and then controlling the various existing mass-institutions of government which operate mainly away from the public’s notice – think the Pentagon, the banking system, etc…do not think anyone elected to public office.

Now let’s get to the real danger here – this idea being put out that only climate alarmists should hold public office and that climate rationalists should be put in jail.  Well firstly, obviously there’s the whole echo of the dark-ages thing which is so immediately apparent in these schemes that it doesn’t require further comment.  They’re trying to bring in a New Old World Order of the Dark Ages.  Austerity is of course what that is all about: the climate alarmist preachers get to fly around and visit places in the world in private jets and opulent luxuries, while the masses should feel guilty about turning on the AC, taking a hot shower, cooking their food, having good personal hygiene, etc.  It’s all anti-human, self-loathing, anti-progress, original sin, all over again.

Secondly, once it becomes illegal to be rational about climate change, the stage is perfectly set and the precedence is set to make it illegal to criticize anything in scientific materialism!  This is, obviously, precisely the dark ages all over again, with the new religious dogma of scientific materialism being the social law of the land and heretics being silenced and and even hated enough by the masses of liberals that their very lives are anathema and forfeit to society.  Any sort of a concept of a spiritual world, a world separate from matter which we can visit and to which we go after death, would be eradicated for a very long time by this religion of scientific materialism.  Forget criticizing the random universe model!  The funny thing is that the people wouldn’t even, and don’t, recognize scientific materialism as a religion, and, they wouldn’t even recognize scientific materialism as a “thing” at all!  It would be a hopeless, hopeless loss, and a massive reduction in consciousness.  At least, it would be a much greater challenge for the rescuers to solve.  At least with Abrahamism we still have a concept of a spiritual world and free will; with scientific materialism souls will be trapped in matter forever.

Climate alarm is a troll, a troll on science, a troll on the liberals, and a troll on humanity. One question is: who’s doing it?  Who initiated the troll?  According to my writing here it would seem that it is the Old World Order trolling the attempt at a meritocratic New World Order.

By the way, if you do wish to support meritocracy and a visible public group which is pushing meritocratic and developmental values, then following and contributing to LaRouchePAC is the best thing you could possibly do.  We already have a meritocratic apparatus up and running and it is that group!  Contribute to them whenever and however you can…the future needs it.

Leibniz & the Human Mind

An excellent webcast from the LaRouche group posted last week.  An absolute must-see!

They comment on Gödel and Hilbert and make some excellent points regarding the logical positivist approach.  Still though, they were wrong to conclude that Gödel’s work meant that “there will always be new things to discover”.

Thus, I have sent them the link to Gödel vs. Wittgenstein, which, I think, is one of if not the most intelligent and brilliant of Hockney’s books, and have implored them to do a review of it in a future webcast discussion.

In regards to their discussion on Kepler, and how Kepler used the epicyclic model itself to demonstrate that it simply did not represent reality and that perfect circles and circles upon circles simply was not how reality was constructed, I used the same technique in my last paper to demonstrate that the climate alarmist model betrays itself in its very own predictions about the way reality should behave.

The climate alarmist postulate of a “radiative greenhouse effect” is false and the mechanism simply does not exist.  Just like how epicycles and perfect circular movement does not exist, and that there is something fundamentally different which governs the movement of the planets, likewise, heating from backradiation does not exist and reality behaves in a fundamentally different way than that postulate assumes.

The difference today, as compared to Kepler’s time, is that we already knew that backradiation doesn’t function as is claimed, and so discovering this is not a new discovery (except if you’re a climate alarmist, but they will never acknowledge this either as a discovery or as knowledge which existed already anyway), while the real discovery here is the totally nefarious and villainous treachery which can so easily be used against science and the world’s population to co-opt control over world politics and world behaviour for unknown ends.  Do we merely sit back and assume the ends are just?

Does the fault lie with humanity in these various occasions of intrigue, or with those who perform the action itself?  If humanity was more aware and if the scientific establishment actually behaved the way it pretended to, then these schemes wouldn’t succeed.  However, if these groups wouldn’t perform these schemes, then humanity would never be harmed by them.  However, if these scheme’s weren’t attempted, then humanity’s weaknesses would never be exposed and humanity would never have the opportunity to comprehend them and overcome them and become better than them and thus protected from them.  However, if humanity never discovers them and understands them and overcomes them, then humanity is simply destroyed.

The Hegelian Dialectic takes no prisoners, and evolution has eradicated the vast majority of species that have ever existed.  Under this paradigm, extended material existence is a constant war for survival and you either survive or you don’t.  The soul and the spiritual domain are immortal, indeed, but in the game of extended material existence a species is either fit for continued soul occupation and development (Becoming), or it isn’t…or, it’s only fit for lesser souls, further down on the energy spectrum.

If the wish isn’t actually to destroy humanity but to develop it, then the lessons are in fact not lethal to the species; these crazy events and developments are just light classroom lessons to which we’ll eventually be given or discover the answers.  If the wish isn’t to destroy humanity but you are accidentally destroying humanity, then perhaps it would be best to just leave it all alone.  If the wish is to destroy humanity, then you will undoubtedly be successful.

If thermodynamics, i.e. the behavior of heat and energy, in the material domain below corresponds to that which is above in the unextended domain, then throwing “shit” (i.e. low frequency events and ideas) at humanity isn’t going to help humanity…or anyone else.  In fact, this would make humanity the higher frequency species.  The only way to raise the frequency spectrum is in fact to provide higher frequency energy.  It is a teleological dialectic, a dialectic with draw to the higher frequency future, or to God; it is not an oppositional dialectic, i.e., it is not a dialectic with uncreative de-developmental options for opposition.  At least it’s not supposed to be.  Perhaps there are two directions for the dialectic: one, where the best of the thesis and antithesis are adopted, and a second where the worst of the thesis and antithesis are adopted.

With climate alarm, and what it has done to both the liberals and the conservatives, it seems that the second, negative direction of the dialectic is at work: the liberals have become much more stupid, and the conservatives have become much more uncooperative.  (But at least the conservatives have become much smarter.  The liberals are simply the  psychopathically lost.)

“Pythagoras was at it Already”

Anon: “From your latest”:

“Do you want to take down scientific materialism, the scientific anti-philosophical paradigm?  Do you want philosophy to use mathematics and physics better than science can, and to make philosophy once more reign supreme in intellectualism and to assert its supremacy over science?  Perhaps something more current, more part of the social zeitgeist, will help.  Unless you have an event more interesting.”

Anon:  “So I came across this reference to Pythagoras:”

pyth quote
From: “The Secret Code”;

Anon: “There is an inherent short circuit in that kind of reasoning though.

Unless there is an observation there is no point to have a formula about it, as there is nothing to formulate, right?

So, empiricism is the first step, correct interpretation of the observation the second and most crucial step and only then can maths come into the equation.

Also consider this quote from Galileo:”

gal quote
From: “The Secret Code”;

Anon:  “Sure, it can be written in mathematics by humans, but the observation still comes first and the correct interpretation second!

Always remember Phlogiston: observation + incorrect interpretation = a mess. No amount of maths could make phlogiston a real substance.”


“Yes what you are getting at is a well-historied story of the idealists vs. the empiricists.  Your remarks have been made by the greatest philosophers who have ever lived and your concerns are discussed at various places in Hockney’s God Series books.

The empiricists say: Nothing in the mind that wasn’t first in the senses.

The idealists say: Nothing in the mind that wasn’t first in the senses, except the intellect itself.

The reason the idealists say that is because the senses cannot be detected without a mind to detect them in the first place.  The empiricist says that nothing can be in the mind without first being put there by the senses; the idealist says that that statement therefore admits that mind has come first, because you first need a mind to put senses into.

We must be careful for these two positions not to talk past each other.  The concern of the idealist is the fundamental nature of reality itself, to understand and justify the very substance, the very most fundamental essence or starting point of existence, that which existence itself is made of.  That is their concern.  And they are right, that mind must come first before the senses, since the senses need a mind to detect them.  And so, it is correct: mind is the fundamental essence of existence.  Existence itself is made of mind.  The Pythaogreans further concluded that mind must be structured by numbers, by mathematics, since only mathematics and numbers implicitly have structure; mind would be insane, and could do nothing, detect nothing, make sense of nothing, if mind was made of 2 + 2 = 5, 2*2 = 7, 1 – 1 = anything.  Mind has to be structured, and 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 which we then denote as 2 is fundamentally structured, and, we see, empirically, reality being described by number everywhere.  So, empiricism here supports idealism in confirming that reality is structured by numbers, by mathematics.  If it wasn’t, it would just be insane noise.  The trick, which humanity has not pursued since Pythagoras, although it was the next obvious step in the evolution of Pythagorean thought, is to determine the fundamental singular structure of mathematics itself which reality corresponds to.  That is, is there a form of mathematics which is identical to nature?  Is there special field of mathematics that all of reality reduces to?

So, the idealists are concerned with establishing the fundamental basis of reality.  The basis of reality is not the senses, not empiricism, because empiricism requires mind to detect things.  The empiricists are concerned with something slightly different, and that is simply, how does one sensorily experience reality?  That is, how do we know what is all out there?  How do we know how mind/mathematics will manifest itself to the senses?  You see, that is a different concern, and so the two positions talk past each other much of the time because they don’t appreciate either positions concern.

The idealists are right: mind comes first, and as the Pythaogreans said, this means that math comes first since mind has to be structured by numbers.  In theory, it would be possible to work out the set of mathematics which create reality just by thinking about this, just by thinking about what particular math reality needs to be based on.  That is the entire project of Hockney’s books, and, he succeeds.

But he succeeds now with the knowledge of empiricist science and the type of mathematics that it has developed.  That is, if you’re not smart enough to work out all of the universal maths on your own, then let nature be your guide as Galileo said.  In theory it could be done, but in practice it probably isn’t done all that often.  A species who did do it would be a very special species indeed.

The problem now arises in that science rejects the idea of a fundamental rational order underlying existence, and so empiricism has completely rejected the otherwise totally valid and correct conclusions of the idealists.  Empiricism thinks that it can exist on its own without the guidance of idealism.  This is wrong, and it has gotten empiricist materialist science into all manner of irrationalities, climate change being one of them, and Einstein’s relativity and Copenhagen quantum mechanics being others.  None of these things are logically compatible with each other.  Even Darwinian Evolution falls into fatal paradox in relation to these other fields of science.

The solution is for empiricism to be at the service of idealism, because only idealism can save pure-empiricism from the paradoxes it runs itself into.

You are right: interpretation is crucial!  There is nothing more important, in fact, than interpretation.  Empiricism thinks that it can get by without performing the appropriate philosophical interpretation, and this is why it creates so many internal inconsistencies and contradictions within its own various fields of pursuit.  Empiricism must turn to idealism in order for its sensory findings to be correctly logically fitted in to the rest of known physics.  Phlogiston was an empiricist supposition, created by the uber-empiricist practice of alchemy.  Any idealist philosopher at the time would have ridiculed the idea that fire is created by a substance which has a virtue of being on fire.  It is like saying that opium creates sleepiness because of its dormitive virtue.  These seem to be explanations, but only to an empiricist because the explanations are in fact completely empty of deeper meaning or truth.

You could say that mind and observations are also implicitly connected in any case.  Mind implicitly, immediately, recognizes its own existence through the observation of its own existence. Hence Descartes: “I think, therefore I am.”  Mind, which IS thought, is its own observation of its own existence.  It then creates a universe to figure out why it exists, and what its optimal expression is, which it then seeks to express.  And the ultimate, optimal expression of mind is God.

Hence we, and every other point of existence itself, as individual nodes of mind, are all becoming God.