1) The Abrahamic Religions.
Starting premise: one thing has always existed, and will always exist - God. God is the most complex entity conceivable. God is all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful. God knows past, present and future. God is perfect. God is incapable of evil. God is incapable of committing an error. God preceded all things and created all things. God is the underlying answer to everything.
Consequences of this starting premise: God does not need the cosmos. God can (and did) exist without the cosmos. God "magics" the cosmos into existence because he is infinitely powerful and can do anything he likes. He simply needs to think it and it is accomplished. He doesn't need to spend eons designing anything or working out a grand, calculated plan. He is not constrained by any systems.
So, this approach is contemptuous of science, mathematics and logic. It is based on the "will of God" - an entirely unscientific principle that cannot be discussed or framed scientifically. Therefore the Abrahamic mindset is fundamentally anti-scientific (as has been amply demonstrated down the ages). Some Abrahamists have attempted to reconcile their beliefs with science, though this has never proved remotely convincing, hence why to this day there are so many Abrahamists who literally believe that the world was created in six days and that God rested on the seventh. It is not explained by the Abrahamists why God didn't simply take one instant to create everything instead of six days. (What was he doing at ten past two on the first Tuesday in history?) And what does "rest" mean to God? It's not as though he gets tired or needs to "chillax". (Did he stop each day for "elevenses", for a cup of tea and a biscuit?)
In Abrahamic thinking, if something is stated as a "fact" in a "holy" text by a "holy" prophet then it is a "truth" revealed by God hence is not susceptible to any debate since it must be right by definition since God would never make a mistake and would never lie. It says in the Bible that God made the world in six days. End of story. No further debate required.
Once God is defined in a certain way and combined with a revealed religion (i.e. a religion that supposedly reveals the infallible Word of God straight from the source) then an infinite amount of absurdities may flow, as indeed they have.
No Abrahamist has ever come anywhere near explaining why evil exists in a world that was created by a perfect God incapable of any act of evil. Nor could they, for the simple reason that it is impossible given the starting premise. Abrahamists, in their attempts to make sense of the senseless, to explain away that which cannot be explained, have invented bizarre systems of logic. Evil is attributed to Satan (even though he too was a creation of God), to "free-will" (even though that was also a creation of God), or is defined as an "absence of good" (even though God would of course be responsible for any such absence).
Consider the following points:
1) The "logic" of the Christian religion is that humanity "fell" when Adam and Eve directly disobeyed God. This was the Original Sin, by which humanity is permanently stained i.e. the humans alive today are supposedly guilty because of something someone else did long, long ago. The sins of the first humans are literally transmitted to all future generations unto the end of time, like a really bad version of karma ("species karma" we might call it). At least with karma, you are being held responsible for something you did in a past life. With Original Sin, you are being penalized for what others did that had absolutely nothing to do with you. So much for divine justice and fairness. Because of the "crime" of Adam and Eve (eating an apple - an infinitely diabolical act, apparently), humanity is condemned to hell. Only the sacrifice of God himself could atone for humanity's cosmic sin. Hence Jesus Christ, the Son of God and one third of the Holy Trinity, had to suffer crucifixion and death. But if you are a Christian who rejects the Biblical tale of Creation and Adam and Eve and instead accepts Darwin's theory of evolution then you are suddenly presented with an insurmountable difficulty. Who was it that committed the "original sin". If it wasn't Adam and Eve then was it some grunting half-ape ancestor (?), and what was the sin in question (rubbing two sticks together to produce fire?). No "evolutionary" Christian has ever answered this question. But without original sin the whole logical edifice of Christianity collapses because if there is no specific sin for which to atone then there is no need for Christ. He instantly becomes superfluous, hence so does Christianity.
2) If the Jews were God's Chosen People, but they rejected Jesus Christ (his Son), doesn't that constitute an exceptionally poor choice on God's part? In fact, didn't he make a mistake? But God, by logical definition, cannot commit a mistake. So how did it all go so badly wrong with the Jews?
3) Similarly, if Mohammed and the Koran are the culmination of the Abrahamic religions, as Muslims claim, then how come God got it wrong the first time round with the Jews and then the second time round with the Christians? Why did he have to take three attempts to get his message across? And why did God suddenly start speaking Arabic rather than Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin or Greek?
4) If God already knows what we are going to do because he knows everything, how can it be said that we have free will? We can only do what God knows we are going to do, hence we are mere automatons. So, what's the point of our lives? We're just actors in a badly scripted play with a shit ending.
5) If some of us are predestined for hell and some for heaven, again, what's the point?
6) If God the Creator is perfect, why is his creation so evidently imperfect?
7) Why does God never intervene in the face of great evil? It is said that all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. Yet God himself doesn't do anything, so why should anyone else? If he refuses to set an example, why does he expect it of others? Talk about hypocrisy.
8) Why are the Abrahamic religions so violent and intolerant? If God is appalled by what is done in his name, why doesn't he do something about it? He didn't hesitate to drown the whole world in the time of Noah (with the Great Flood that created the Grand Canyon, supposedly!). So why does he hesitate now? Has he changed his tactics? Changed his mind? Is he a bit whimsical and inconsistent? He'll exterminate humanity one day, shrug his shoulders and wash his hands of them the next. Some God!
9) Muslim killers invariably scream, "God is Great" in Arabic just before they slaughter innocent men, women and children. How come Abrahamists believe that mass murder glorifies God? Hasn't God somehow "misspoke himself" if that's what his followers do in his name?
10) And so on…endlessly.
When it all becomes too hard to think about, the Abrahamists will trot out the following statements (in no particular order): 1) God works in mysterious ways, 2) our finite minds cannot comprehend the infinite Divine Mind, 3) it's a matter of faith, 4) if you keep asking awkward questions we'll kill you, Satanist!
In Abrahamic thinking, concepts such as souls, the afterlife, heaven and hell, God himself, are all non-scientific, hence cannot be approached scientifically and logically. "Science and religion operate in different domains," they say. Really? This is equivalent to saying that particle physics is removed from ultimate reality by pure magic (or the will of God to put it another way). In fact, science and religion are approaching the same questions from complementary positions; there should be absolutely NO contradictions between them. There is only one reality, not two. There is not one domain for science and an entirely separate one for religion. The whole point of the cosmic equation r >= 0 is that science and religion interpenetrate each other, and exist on a single continuum, flowing forever into each other. One cannot be understood without the other.
Abrahamic "reason" is a contradiction in terms. It is the mad exploration of mad starting premises, and it has produced utterly mad logic, the logic of the insane asylum. It's staggering that half the world's population subscribe to this brain-dead, ludicrous garbage.
The Abrahamic religions have survived and prospered for a number of reasons: 1) they appeal to emotion rather than rationality; 2) they avoid complex thought that requires high intelligence in favour of simple faith that requires nothing but self-serving delusion; 3) they deploy the ultimate carrot (the infinite pleasure of heaven) and the ultimate stick (the infinite pain of hell) in the manner of classic operant conditioning (Pavlovian brainwashing); 4) they have relentlessly mind controlled children from birth, and each new generation is expected to brainwash the next (and invariably does). At the instigation of their parents, Muslim and Jewish baby boys are genitally mutilated without their consent in the Satanic practice of enforced circumcision. In addition, many Muslim girls are genitally mutilated. This is tantamount to branding human beings against their will. Abrahamists are forced to follow "divinely mandated" dietary restrictions, appearance restrictions and petty behaviour restrictions. Much of the course of their daily life is governed by dogmatic religious rules; 5) Personal and community identity is constructed around religion, so to abandon your religion is to lose your identity, or be forced to construct a new one; 6) Abrahamism is ingrained in the institutions of Abrahamic societies; 7) It is regarded as "normal", "healthy", "moral"; 8) It is supported by those in power, and is one of their main instruments of control over the people.
All of these considerations make it astoundingly difficult to overthrow the Abrahamic religions even though they are absurd beyond belief, and logically incoherent. Logic is simply not used as a criterion in assessing these religions. The vast majority of Abrahamists are poorly educated and have a low IQ. The more stupid people are, the more likely they are to be devout believers in the Abrahamic faiths. Abrahamism is for the "intellectually challenged."
It cannot be expected for stupid religions to have any serious contact with logic.
2) Eastern Religions
Starting premise: There is an underlying Oneness with which we can enter into union. The holistic truth is hidden behind the veil of Maya (illusion) and ignorance. Through many reincarnations in a cycle of birth, death and rebirth (samsara), where we prosper or suffer according to our previous conduct (karma), we can attain enlightenment (moksha, nirvana) where we at last escape samsara, karma, Maya and ignorance, finally perceive the great truth of things, and become one with the transcendent reality.
Consequences of this premise: The Eastern religions come close to being forms of pantheism (God is in everything; God is everywhere) and nature worship rather than religions of personal salvation. The personal nature of God is non-existent in Buddhism and turned into an enormous pantheon of polytheistic gods in Hinduism. God himself in Hinduism is ineffable. These religions tend towards a stance that "individuation" is illusory and the mistake is only rectified when we enter into union with the underlying Oneness. They offer no coherent account of how the cosmos came to operate in this "illusory" manner. Who or what is responsible? What would be the sufficient reason for this cosmic illusion? What's the motive for it? What function does it serve?
Eastern religions exhibit a certain indifference to the suffering of others (since all suffering is karmically "merited"). Hinduism promotes acceptance of inequality, of hierarchies (the abominable caste system). Buddhism is associated with an absence of passion, a suppression of desire, a withdrawal from the world, a lack of engagement. It's a ghostly religion of people sitting under trees with their eyes closed.
In Hinduism and Buddhism, much of what goes wrong in our lives is blamed on previous lives. These religions are associated with an excess of passivity. They promote the notion that we are partaking of a kind of simulation or illusion that we must spiritually overcome. Our task, in a sense, is to dissolve our sense of ourselves as individuals because this is at the core of the cosmic illusion.
Eastern religions emphasize the "whole", but this leads to numerous problems. Imagine trying to understand a car holistically. Wouldn't it be much easier to think of the car being assembled from parts on a production line? If something goes wrong with a car, do you replace the whole car, or do you isolate whatever component has failed and replace it? In other words, reductionist, mechanistic approaches (such as those championed by the Western scientific mindset) can often be enormously more successful.
All problems should be viewed holistically where appropriate, and mechanistically if that is more relevant, or by a combination of both approaches if that offers the best way forward. No one should dogmatically rule out one approach or another.
The aim of Eastern religions is, through contemplation, prayer, meditation and relatively simplistic philosophy (but not through science and mathematics) to see beyond illusion and climb above ignorance to the hidden unity of all things. What has been the consequence of this view? The East has traditionally lagged significantly behind the West in science in the last few centuries. Only when Easterners have adopted Western thinking have they prospered scientifically.
Hinduism and Buddhism assert that apparent separation is illusion. Therefore reductionism is illusion. Mechanism is illusion. Parts are an illusion. This logic steers them away from analysis towards synthesis, but the best approach involves both analysis and synthesis.
The moral logic of Hinduism and Buddhism is based on the strange doctrine of karma. On a simplistic basis, it seems reasonable that in a system of reincarnation, you should be held accountable over a number of lifetimes for your good deeds and bad. But who is the Accountant of Sin? Who decides what is good and bad? If it is not a person, how does karma "know"? How does it judge? How does it keep track of trillions of living creatures? What is the mechanism for karma's interaction with a specific person? How does it impart a karmic judgment on someone? How does it transmit a "bad" life to someone who was immoral in a previous life? How does it interact with someone's DNA or their environment?
Karma, regardless of what its advocates and apologists claim, makes no scientific or philosophical sense. Here's the central problem with karmic thinking. If a close friend of yours announced that she had cancer, would you immediately conclude that she was being karmically "repaid" for some sin that she had committed in a previous life? If you said that to her, do you think you would remain friends? Similarly, if she won the lottery, would this be karmic good fortune? If you decided that karma wasn't involved in these cases then how would you distinguish when karma is involved from when it isn't? If you conclude that karma is always present then you would need some explanation for how this weird force called karma implants cancer cells in some people and rigs the lottery for others. What is the scientific mechanism? And how does karma decide what punishment or reward is appropriate? Are extremely rich, successful, selfish narcissists being karmically rewarded or karmically punished? Is an extremely happy person who is poor, mocked and reviled by everyone experiencing good karma or bad karma? If someone is staring out of the window, is karma involved? If not then why not? How does karma decide when to intervene and when not to? How does karma monitor the actions of nearly seven billion human beings and countless birds, insects, mammals, reptiles, fish?
A famous actor or a greedy billionaire banker living a life of complete self-indulgence might conclude that he has been doing all of the right things karmically to be so richly rewarded. Another person might conclude that these selfish, unenlightened people were being punished because no life would leave you further from the truth than one of unrelenting, superficial pleasure.
Karmic thinking allows the Elite to think that they were "good" in their previous lives, and that ordinary people deserve to be treated badly because they were obviously "bad" in a previous existence. The Hindu caste system is exactly what you would expect from a karmic ideology.
Strictly speaking, enlightenment religions have nothing to do with morality. They are concerned with true understanding not with true goodness. Being good is a side effect of enlightenment, not its essence. Knowledge is its essence. But the person of knowledge sees how all things are one at the ultimate level and therefore that to hurt others is to hurt oneself.
Easterners have avoided the absurd Abrahamic God, but they have never been able to build their religion on a mathematical and scientific platform. Their concept of karma is bizarre. Their idea that the cosmos operates at a profound level of illusion is equally bizarre. Why would it? Why would God/Nature seek to actively prevent people from "seeing" the truth? And why would God/Nature introduce samsara and karma as the mechanism to overcome the illusory nature of existence for which it was responsible in the first place?
The premises of the Eastern religions are as flawed as those of the Abrahamic religions, just in a different way.
3) Western Science
Starting premise: There is no God, no Creator, no Designer. The cosmos is inherently materialistic and statistical. Mind is a product of matter. Life emerges from lifelessness. The cosmos obeys the laws of physics. These laws are best studied though an analytical, reductionist, mechanistic approach. In terms of classical physics, the world can be viewed as a giant clockwork mechanism. In terms of quantum mechanics, it is a much more mysterious phenomenon and controversy rages over how to interpret the equations of quantum mechanics. In terms of living systems, these evolve according to a principle of natural selection. Life has no purpose, meaning or aims. The cosmos is not trying to achieve anything. It just is.
Consequences of this premise: Science is incapable of explaining how life originates since there is no obvious link between matter (inanimate, dead, inert "stuff") and the quality of life. It is incapable of accounting for mind and consciousness since there is no obvious link between unthinking, inert, non-conscious matter and the quality of mindfulness and consciousness. If we decomposed a dead human being into all of the different atoms of which his body was composed, we would see little piles of "stuff", and it would be incomprehensible how the animated combination of these piles once thought, love, laughed and philosophised.
Every human being is composed of three things: food, drink and a code (DNA) for organizing the food and drink into something alive and conscious. Your mother ate and drank and, after she was impregnated by your father, some of this food and drink grew in her womb in an organized way according to a pattern specified by DNA and emerged as YOU. How did DNA - molecular strands - accomplish this? Where in DNA is the code that eventually translates into appreciating a good joke?
Every day, you eat and drink to replenish yourself. If you didn't, you would die. You are nothing but a particular organization of food and drink. When your ability to keep organizing the food and drink that you continually consume breaks down then you die. In this view, human beings are simply special collections of food and drink that, miraculously, can talk and tell gags! Next time you sink your teeth into a hot dog, just think that some of those atoms may soon afterwards be contributing - somehow - to your ability to fall in love. WTF!
A human being:
Input = food and drink.
Organizing principle = DNA.
Output = living, talking consciousness.
Form (DNA) imposed on matter (digested food and drink) = human life.
Form applied to potential equals actualization.
(A human being: a biological appliance for converting food and drink into love, philosophy and laughter.)
Science avoids anything that implies teleology or explicit design. It denies non-material existence. It denies dimensionless existence (the domain of zero). It denies that a "local" infinity can exist in the physical world since this would represent some sort of ripping apart of physical reality at that point.
Science cannot say where the laws of physics come from or why they exist at all. Science cannot say why anything should exist in the first place. It asserts that something came from nothing, but cannot explain how and why. Science cannot explain why the cosmos seems to be so firmly rooted in mathematics.
To avoid any implication that the cosmos is designed (implying a designer), science suggests the following: 1) the laws of physics just ARE; 2) there are infinite parallel universes and every conceivable set of physical laws is exhibited; we live in a universe associated with laws of physics that give rise to conscious life, but there are infinite other universe where the alternative laws of physics produce no life; 3) the laws of physics evolved by natural selection, just as living organisms did, and the laws of physics that are naturally selected are those associated with conscious life (the implication being that consciousness eventually leads to the conscious creation of additional conscious universes, while non-conscious universes die out).
Science is a set of dogmas. Ideas that seem to contradict the scientific paradigm are instantly dismissed. The hurdle to overcome to get a new idea accepted in science is simply enormous. Anything unorthodox, unconventional, radically different, that supports any notion of a cosmic designer, is rejected. No one outside the scientific "priesthood" would ever be taken seriously.
Science has become as fierce an orthodoxy as the Catholic Church once was when it condemned Galileo for heresy. Science is a stifling, conservative establishment that ridicules radical thinking and makes it impossible for professionals in the field to experiment with weird and wonderful new ideas. You would lose your scientific credibility (and your job and career) if you were seen to be supportive of any non-mainstream idea, hence no one dares to challenge the orthodoxy.
Unintentionally, science has become a bureaucratic, insular establishment of apparatchiks that suppresses new thinking. It only welcomes that which builds upon accepted scientific wisdom. It is a narrative that permits no new stories.
Science is no longer capable of escaping from its rigid orthodoxy. Its modus operandi stamps out all maverick thinking. It has become a huge sausage machine squeezing out conventional thinkers, and it is incapable of seriously examining the highly dubious validity of the assumptions upon which it is constructed.
4) Western Philosophy
Starting premise: a bewilderingly large number of competing premises. Philosophy has thrown up idealism, subjective idealism, objective idealism, transcendental idealism, absolute idealism, materialism, dialectical materialism, realism, nominalism, universalism, solipsism, naturalism, empiricism, absurdism, existentialism, dualism, dialectical monism, panpsychism, vitalism, animism, phenomenology, will to existence, will to power, the unconscious, scholasticism, utilitarianism, positivism, statism, libertarianism, atomism, holism, pragmatism, mysticism, relativism, anarchism, hedonism, ascetism, stoicism, evolution, determinism, skepticism, free will, the general will, scientism, theism, atheism, agnosticism, pantheism, polytheism, monotheism, the ego, the transcendent ego, the non-ego, modernism, postmodernism, structuralism, hyperreality, deconstructionism.
Consequences of starting point: an enormous number of competing theories. No clarity. No clear direction. Western philosophy is a towering edifice of human thought with endlessly interesting ideas, but trapped in confusion and contradiction. No consensus has ever emerged and philosophy increasingly sees itself as performing a high-level critique of social, political, psychological, religious and scientific thinking. It seeks to clarify thinking in all of these areas; it challenges the premises and the logic, but it has itself abandoned any attempt to construct a grand master system that defines Truth with a capital "T". Its horizons and ambitions have shrunk. With postmodernism, it has started to cannibalise itself, mock itself, and it has grown close to literary criticism: mere subjective opinion dressed in scholarly language. It has become a kind of cultural commentary. Philosophy's grand ambitions have collapsed. It is viewed as increasingly irrelevant by the vast majority of people. It has done itself no favours by retreating from the battlefield.
One purpose of the Illuminati is to put philosophy back on a pedestal, to show that it was on the right track all along, but got distracted along the way. It failed to ask the right questions, to frame the problems properly, but its direction was the right one, as was its aspiration to explain everything in a single grand construction of the human mind. It got caught up in squabbling and feuding. Nevertheless, philosophy alone has the tools for clarifying the human condition through the exercise of reason. Get the premises right, and philosophy delivers the right answers. Wrong premises, wrong answers. ("Gigo," as computer techies say - garbage in, garbage out.)
The Illuminati, from the very beginning under Pythagoras, saw that The Theory of Everything that would guide the human race forever had to be a unity of philosophy, religion, science, and, above all, mathematics as the instrument of precision. These were all aspects of one overarching structure, not competing elements.
Mathematics provided the accurate, solid and reliable foundations on which everything else could be built. ONLY mathematics could accomplish this. Every approach that had any different starting point was doomed from the outset.
Number is at the heart of mathematics and so Pythagoras revered Number above all things. The cosmos is based on mathematics so to understand the cosmos it is imperative to define exactly what cosmic mathematics consists of. To understand the mathematical thinking of the "Designer" is to understand the design. If you don't understand the Designer's mathematical thinking, you will never get the "big picture". The Abrahamic religions ignored mathematics and science - hence were certain to be in error. Ditto the Eastern religions. Western science sought to work back from the experimental data to the grand design, rather than the other way around. To go from data to design is impossibly difficult, particularly when much of the data is hidden. Until the twentieth century, no one had any inkling of the mysteries of the quantum world. Before the data become available, science was never in any position before then to attempt to explain everything. But isn't it possible that an enormous amount of data is still missing? Which human would ever have thought about invisible waves such as radio waves, microwaves and infrared waves until the theory of electromagnetism pointed to their existence? This is a classic case of theory, not data, driving our understanding. The data was found where the theory said it would be. The data did not dictate to the theory. Thus it is with a true grand unified theory - it doesn't wait for data; it is the source and explanation of the data. Science works back to front.
Western philosophy also largely ignored mathematics, hence had no precise framework in which to work.
*****
In his book Parallel Worlds, physicist Michio Kaku says: "…the visible matter we see around us (including the mountains, planets, stars and galaxies) makes up a paltry 4 percent of the total matter and energy content of the universe. (Of that 4 percent, most of it is in the form of hydrogen and helium, and probably only 0.03 percent takes the form of the heavy elements). Most of the universe is actually made of mysterious, invisible material of totally unknown origin. The familiar elements that make up our world constitute only 0.03 percent of the universe. In some sense, science is being thrown back centuries into the past, before the rise of the atomic hypothesis, as physicists grapple with the fact that the universe is dominated by new, unknown forms of matter and energy…23 percent of the universe is made of a strange, undetermined substance called dark matter, which has weight, surrounds the galaxies in a gigantic halo, but is totally invisible…. it bends starlight, just like glass, and hence can be located by the amount of optical distortion it creates.
"…Princeton astronomer John Bahcall said, 'We live in an implausible, crazy universe, but one whose defining characteristics we now know.'
"But perhaps the greatest surprise…that sent the scientific community reeling, was that 73 percent of the universe, by far the largest amount, is made of a totally unknown form of energy called dark energy, or the invisible energy hidden in the vacuum of space…
"No one at the present time has any understanding of where this 'energy of nothing' comes from. 'Frankly, we just don't understand it. We know what its effects are [but] we're completely clueless…everybody's clueless about it,' admits Craig Hogan, an astronomer at the University of Washington at Seattle.
"If we take the latest theory of subatomic particles and try to compute the value of this dark energy, we find a number that is off by 10120 (that's the number 1 followed by 120 zeros). This discrepancy between theory and experiment is far and away the largest gap ever found in the history of science. It is one of our greatest embarrassments - our best theory cannot calculate the value of the largest source of energy in the entire universe. Surely, there is a shelf full of Nobel Prizes for the enterprising individuals who can unravel the mystery of dark matter and dark energy."
There you have it, direct from the mouth of a leading physicist: science is completely baffled by the composition of 96 percent of the universe! What we "know" has shrunk to a miserable 4 percent. Not so long ago, scientists thought that the so-called "standard model" of particle physics was in the process of explaining all of the contents of the cosmos. Now it explains close to nothing. If you got 4 percent in a physics exam, that would be deemed a hopeless failure, showing that you knew next to nothing about the subject. Yet we still hear the old drumbeat that physicists are on the verge of producing a Grand Unified Theory of Everything. Dream on! Scientists haven't even completed task one yet - defining the appropriate framework for the problem. They don't even know that this is what they should be focusing on to the exclusion of all else.
So, do you want to win a Nobel Prize without knowing too much about science? How would YOU design the universe, starting from first principles? Can you channel the Mind of God? As above, so below. What are the divine design principles?
You might decide upon such notions as stability, beauty, elegance, simplicity, diversity, symmetry. Why would the Grand Design be something staggeringly complex, clunky, inelegant, ugly, and incomprehensible except to high priests of abstruse scientific theories involving 11 dimensions?
We will now reveal in general terms how Pythagoras and his successors in the Illuminati approached the problem.
Step One: define the arche - the basic substance of existence. What are the questions to consider? First of all, is it even valid to say there's only one fundamental substance? Perhaps there are two, perhaps more. But why would there be? If it's difficult enough to explain one, the difficulties are multiplied when more are added. If they are different, how do they interact? If they interact with ease then aren't they really the same? But if there is only one then everything we see around us, and we ourselves, must come from that single substance. How do we get so much diversity from one substance? How much of it is there? There's no sufficient reason for there to be an arbitrary amount: why would existence be based on some random amount plucked out of thin air? If one of something can exist, what would stop an infinite number of that same thing from existing? Only running out of the raw material. But what if the raw material is inexhaustible because it is the essence of existence? So, there must be an infinite amount of the arche. Does it have a shape? If so, what gives it that shape? What organizes it? Where is it located? Does it have "mind"? Is it alive? Is it made of "solid" matter? Does it have a purpose? Does it obey a basic principle of action i.e. is movement and change inherent in it rather than eternal, frozen stasis?
Step Two: Either the arche has a built-in form, or it is formless and form is imposed on it by something else. Either way, we now have to define form. What is it that creates organization, shape, symmetry, pattern, order, regularity, predictability, stability? For believers in a Creator God, it is God who gives form to everything, but that is a "magic" answer. It doesn't explain form except in terms of something even more mysterious - "God", an already perfect form. Where did he get his form from?
Pythagoras had no hesitation in declaring mathematics to be the essence of form. Mathematics in itself is ordered, regular, full of pattern and shape, symmetry and predictability. What better entity to act as a cosmic form to stamp on cosmic formlessness? In fact, is it even possible for there to be any other candidate? Only two things can give form: a mind (a creator, designer, sculptor), but then where does "mind" get its ideas of form from? Or non-mind whose intrinsic nature reflects order and organization. Mathematics is the ONLY essential source of order and organization and in fact it is from mathematics that mind derives its own order and organization i.e. mind is itself mathematical.
Pythagoras taught that numbers were in fact the arche, the fundamental substance of the cosmos. At first, this strikes many people as an extremely odd idea, but it's something that gets more and more plausible as the mysteries of mathematics are probed. However, at this stage it is simpler to say that the core position of the Illuminati is as follows:
Using neutral scientific terminology, the arche is "energy" - an intrinsically formless substance. Using philosophical language, it is "will" i.e. we want to indicate that energy has qualities of mind (but not consciousness) and purpose (the will to survive, the will to power, the will to evolve). Combining both ideas, the arche becomes "minded energy" or "wilful energy". The word Hegel used was geist, meaning mind/spirit. The ideal word would be something that communicated mind/ spirit/ will/ energy in one concept. No term has ever quite sufficed. Can you find the perfect word?
The key point to grasp is that, from the very beginning, the basic substance of the cosmos was alive and in possession of mind, albeit at an extremely abstract level. Life and mind are intrinsic to the cosmos, which is why life and mind manifest themselves in the cosmos. They have not emerged from non-life and non-mind as materialistic atheists suggest. And indeed how could they? There is no possible mechanism to extract life from the dead, or mind from the mindless.
"Dead" things are simply those things in which life takes place at a different level from that which we understand. "Mindless" things are simply those things in which we can't perceive any mind at work, but nevertheless mind is there. This is the doctrine of panpsychism; mind is everywhere, in everything. (And we will prove it shortly using mathematics.) As for consciousness, this is mind that has evolved to the stage where it can reflect upon itself: it is high-functioning mind rather than low-functioning unconscious mind.
To begin with, the scientific "energy" aspect of the arche predominates. As the arche evolves, the mind/spirit/will comes increasingly to the fore, and finally consciousness evolves.
Consciousness taken to its limit - its Omega Point - is none other than God.
God is the supreme actualization of all the potential inherent in the arche. He is the God of Evolution, not of Creation. He expresses that which was always there, but which can now fully manifest itself. When we were children, we had all sorts of talents as yet unexpressed. Now that we are adults, we should be expressing those talents for all to see. Thus it is with the cosmos. It started as a helpless baby; it ends as God. As above, so below. Once God exists then he has complete mastery over the arche. It reflects his will. It is his will. God and the arche are then one and the same.
So, to put it another way, the arche begins as God hidden, God as potential, God as possibility. Then evolution transforms the arche into God revealed, God as actualization, God as every possibility realized. Although this appears to be a pantheistic position i.e. God is everywhere and in everything, it is actually defined as panentheism: God is the Whole and the Whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
The hidden purpose of the arche was to evolve into this Whole, God, the summit of cosmic possibility. It drove the universe forwards until the goal was accomplished. God is the meaning of existence, the telos, the end, towards which the cosmos was always striving. And we are part of this process. We are the children of the divine purpose. And it is our glorious destiny to enter into union with God and reflect the Divine Will.
To achieve all of this, the formless arche had to be given form, and it was mathematics that accomplished this. It imposed form, shape, organization, order and pattern on the formless arche and thus created the platform for the arche to evolve methodically towards ultimate divinity.
The principle that systematically drives the process forward, reflecting the inner will of the arche, its teleological striving, its seeking of a desired end, is the dialectic, the evolutionary principle.
Arche (formlessness) + mathematics (form) + dialectic (teleology) => God.
This is the divine equation. All of the mysteries of life are contained here. This is the equation of the evolution of the cosmos from maximum potential to maximum actualization. God is the cosmic Omega Point, the apex of Evolution. Anything not forbidden is compulsory. The ability of Evolution to generate a point of maximum actualization is not forbidden, hence is compulsory.
The apparently dead, mindless piece of rock known as Earth gave rise, through evolution, to life, mind and human consciousness.
Digested food and drink (formlessness) + DNA (form) + dialectic (teleology) => Humanity.
As above, so below.
Humanity may or may not prove the apex of terrestrial evolution, but if Earth, a lump of rock with a molten metal core, succeeded in giving birth from a primordial chemical soup to beings that could laugh, cry, love, philosophise, do art, music, mathematics, science, and contemplate infinity, what can the infinite cosmos accomplish if not an infinitely grander version of the same thing?
God is not the Creator; the arche is. God did not create the universe, the universe created God. And yet God was always implicit in the universe, so, in another sense, God was self-creating. Evolution transforms God from potential into actuality. The "Word" of God is a tale of evolution, of teleology, of continual dialectical improvement. The Abrahamic conception of God standing outside the universe and made of a different substance from the arche is truly absurd. It bears no relationship whatsoever to any mathematical, scientific, or philosophical principles. In Abrahamism, God - the most complex entity conceivable - has always existed. No explanation can be offered as to God's origins, how he came to be, what he is made of, where he is, why he needs either Creation or us, why he was always infinitely intelligent and powerful. This is a magician's belief system. Everything just magically IS, without any further need of explanation. The riddle of the universe is answered with an infinitely greater riddle - God. How could any thinking person accept such a ludicrous answer? You might as well say, "In the Beginning was Magic, and Magic magically created everything, and all things were done by magical processes. Magic is not subject to any rules. Magic can do anything it likes whenever it likes. Therefore, there is no point in asking any questions because the same answer will always be given: it happened by magic."
If you accept the existence of God, you have two choices: 1) God - all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful and morally perfect - is outside the universe and created the universe (this God is therefore an infinite mystery that humanity can never comprehend). In no conceivable way are we created in this God's image. He was not created; we were - so how can there be any genuine likeness? Or 2) God is inside the universe and is created by the universe. God is made of the same arche as the universe - indeed he is the arche, but initially at the level of potential rather than actuality. Just as humanity evolved on a terrestrial scale, so did God on a cosmic scale. As above, so below. Humanity, like God, is made of the arche. Everything that applies to God, applies to humanity. We are on the same trajectory. We are indeed truly made in God's image.
So, is God outside the universe, or inside? Does he make the universe or does it make him? Is he made of a fundamentally different substance from the universe, or exactly the same substance? Are we nothing like God, or extremely like him, but at an earlier stage of development?
Do you accept As above, so below or Above and Below have nothing in common? Those are the two choices. We are nothing compared with God, or we ourselves are Gods in the making.
The Abrahamic approach to religion places God outside science. The alternative approach makes him fully subject to and explicable by science. In the Abrahamic approach, God is unknowable and always separate from humanity; in the alternative, God is knowable and humanity can enter into union with God.
We asserted long ago that any atheist would rightly reject Abrahamism out of hand as utterly ridiculous and intellectually laughable. We also asserted that any atheist could subscribe to Illumination, the religion of the Illuminati, because Illumination fully acknowledges science and evolution. Even those atheists who do not have any sympathy with any concept of a deity could nevertheless find endless food for thought in Illumination, and none in Abrahamism. Our religion allows every atheist to buy into spirituality at some level. The whole world can unite behind Illumination. Eastern religions already have many of the same ingredients, albeit expressed differently. Hindus, Buddhists and Taoists would all recognise the truths of Illumination.
There is only one stumbling block to a united humanity, a New World Order - the catastrophe of Abrahamism, the darkest shadow that has ever fallen upon humanity, an eternal blight and curse. Abrahamism is the "dark side", its true author the Prince of Darkness. It is the religion of ignorance, spiritual blindness and stupidity. Christians, Muslims and Jews are appalling fanatics who are holding back humanity. They are the Devil-worshipping forces of darkness, steeped in primitive violence and ignorance. They have the impudence to call themselves civilised, to say that they are disciples of peace, love, compassion, forgiveness and mercy - these followers of religions that have given us thousands of years of the opposite, of hatred, violence, cruelty, torture, intolerance, war, slaughter, condemnation, oppression, mercilessness. If Yahweh sanctioned the genocide of the Canaanites so that his Chosen People could steal their land then Yahweh is Satan. If Jesus Christ is the Son of Yahweh then he is the Son of Satan. If Allah sanctioned 9/11 then Allah is Satan. If he didn't, then why did 19 homicidal maniacs cry, "Allah Akbar!" as they committed mass murder?
We cannot progress until the happy day when these three monstrous religions perish. They are all guilty of crimes against humanity and they should all stand trial to account for their litany of atrocities. It is surely time to expose the Greatest Lie.
When humanity finally bathes in the light of Illumination it can at last set its gaze towards the celestial plains.
*****
In a previous article, we asked how many dimensions the cosmos has; how many it needs to be complete. No scientist has ever asked this basic question. For centuries, they all simply assumed that there were three of space and one of time, and that these were absolute i.e. had independent existence even if there were no objects in the universe. This is the entire basis of the enormously successful Newtonian physics that dominated Western scientific thinking until the advent of electromagnetism, relativity and quantum mechanics. The only person who dared to challenge the Newtonian orthodoxy was the brilliant Illuminatus Leibniz, who described space and time in relational terms. Without any objects in the universe, Leibniz argued, space and time would not exist i.e. they are not mysterious substances but simply ways of describing relations between objects. If someone says that he is sitting in the same seat that he was occupying ten minutes ago he is describing his current space and time coordinates in relation to his previous space and time coordinates. No one ever provides absolute space and time coordinates. How would you even begin? Does the universe have a perfect cosmic clock that has been ticking since the beginning of time that someone can consult? Is there a perfect cosmic map with a dead centre that someone can use to identify their absolute spatial location?
With Einstein came the realisation that space and time were fused together in 4-dimensional spacetime. Even now, virtually no one comprehends the sheer scale of the revolution ushered in by Einstein. Some scientists still assert that Einsteinian physics is merely a development of Newtonian physics. Only people with no grasp of philosophy could make such a stupid statement. Einstein's theories represent an irrevocable break with the conceptual underpinning of Newtonian physics. As Einstein himself recognized, his ideas fall firmly into the relational Leibnizian camp.
Yet still we talk of 4 dimensions. Why 4? Why not any other number? Why not the 11 of M-theory? What is the theoretical basis of any calculation of the number of dimensions the universe must have? No scientist has ever had a clue.
So, we received from some brave souls the following answers to our question: 0, 1, 5, 8, 10 and infinity.
We will return to the choice of eight later in the article since this deserves special attention. As for the other choices, zero and infinity were logical "guesses" given that we had been discussing the importance of these two numbers. Five was chosen by a few people for various reasons. For one thing, it fits in well with the idea of the Quintessence, the Fifth Element and the symbol of the pentagram (of great symbolic importance to the Illuminati), hence is suitably mystical and esoteric. Pho's choice was ten - the number of the Pythagorean tetraktys - and he illustrated it with the following diagram that he discovered:
Now, this would indeed be the ideal number from the Illuminati's point of view. At every sunset in the time of Pythagoras, the members of the Illuminati made the declaration: "I swear by him who has revealed to our soul the divine tetraktys." But unfortunately, ten is not the right answer.
However, Pho' and the rest are in the best of company with their choices. They were seeking a number that was "right" in terms of some principle of beauty, elegance, mystical suitability, or some inherent quality of the number itself that raised it above other numbers. This would be termed a numerological approach to the problem.
Pythagoras himself started off using exactly this type of thinking. Consider the following remarks by mathematician Marcus du Sautoy in his book The Music of the Primes:
"The origins of mathematicians' interest in this infinite sum came from music and went back to a discovery made by the Greeks. Pythagoras was the first to discover the fundamental connection between mathematics and music. He filled an urn with water and banged it with a hammer to produce a note. If he removed half the water and banged the urn again, the note had gone up an octave. Each time he removed more water to leave the urn one-third full, then one-quarter full, the notes produced would sound to his ear in harmony with the first note he'd played. Any other notes which were created by removing some other amount of water sounded in dissonance with that original note. There was some audible beauty associated with these fractions. The harmony that Pythagoras had discovered in the numbers 1, ½, 1/3, ¼…made him believe that the whole universe was controlled by music, which is why he coined the expression 'the music of the spheres.'
"…Ever since Pythagoras' discovery of an arithmetic connection between mathematics and music, people have compared both the aesthetic and the physical traits shared by the two disciplines…As Pythagoras discovered, it is not just in the aesthetic realm that mathematics and music overlap. The very physics of music has at its root the basis of mathematics. If you blow across the top of a bottle you hear a note. By blowing a little harder, and with a little skill, you can start to hear higher notes - the extra harmonics, the overtones. When a musician plays a note on an instrument they are producing an infinity of additional harmonics, just as you do when you blow across the top of the bottle. These additional harmonics help to give each instrument its own distinctive sound. The physical characteristics of each instrument mean that we hear different combinations of harmonics. In addition to the fundamental note, the clarinet plays only those harmonies produced by odd fractions: 1/3, 1/5, 1/7,…The string of a violin, on the other hand, vibrates to create all the harmonics that Pythagoras produced with his urn - those corresponding to the fractions ½, 1/3, ¼,…
"Since the sound of a vibrating violin string is the infinite sum of the fundamental note and all the possible harmonics, mathematicians became intrigued by the mathematical analogue. The infinite sum 1 + ½ + 1/3 + ¼… became known as the harmonic series."
As Du Sautoy indicates, Pythagoras was in thrall to the relationship between music and mathematics. It made perfect aesthetic sense to Pythagoras, a proud and skilled devotee of the lyre, that the universe should be of the nature of some majestic symphony by the Supreme Composer. How elegant, how beautiful, how right. Indeed how could it possibly be otherwise? Music represented order and harmony, the organisation of chaos into something glorious and inspiring, something inherently beautiful that could fill humanity's souls with the most divine of feelings, that could raise their gaze to higher things.
"Mathematics and music are God's languages. When you speak them...you're speaking directly to God."
Rebecca Goldstein
So, the Illuminati became the first true students of music, and they sought to understand the Divine Mind as that of a cosmic musician who composed the finest melodies and harmonies, who provided perfect songs for soloists, choirs, orchestras, and the Dionysian Chorus that gave musical form to the great tales of Greek tragedy. The Illuminati have never abandoned their appreciation of music, which is why we use so much of it on this site. Music, proper music, should be everywhere. Instead, we get shopping mall muzak.
And now it's time for a musical interlude from a band we have previously showcased. Take it away, Igneous Grimm...
Pennies in a Well by Igneous Grimm
http://www.myspace.com/igneousgrimm
Pythagoras taught that the cosmos obeyed a mathematical law called Harmony, which ensured right relations between everything. The essence of harmony is that harmonious numbers can be written as ratios: 1/2, 3/2, 4/3 etc. Such numbers are literally rational. What could be more natural than that the cosmos was rational and harmonious, full of right proportion?
And then Pythagoras made a shattering discovery. Using his own famous theorem that in a right-angled triangle the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides, he calculated what the hypotenuse would be for a right-angled triangle with sides one unit long and got the answer √2. No matter how hard he tried, he could not express the hypotenuse in this case as being in harmonious ratio with its sides. In a "3,4,5" triangle, the ratio of the respective sides to the hypotenuse could be written as 3/5 and 4/5. But what about 1/√2? Ugly, unacceptable! √2 wasn't any kind of harmonious number. Instantly, the whole edifice of Harmony collapsed. There were patterns in the world that weren't rational i.e. capable of being expressed in terms of ratios. They were irrational.
It was to resolve this crisis that Pythagoras devised one of the most profound and powerful ideas of all time: the Completeness Theorem.
This said that Harmony was but a subset of Completeness, hence not the full truth of the cosmos. Only mathematical completeness could reflect the essence of the cosmos. After all, how could incompleteness ever suffice? By definition, it would always be incomplete. The cosmos must be complete in a mathematical sense. If it were not then there would be bizarre holes and gaps everywhere, reflecting the incompleteness. The cosmos would be like a partially constructed building: no one could safely live in it. The foundations might collapse at any time. If it were incomplete, the cosmos would be unstable. Inexplicable oddities, arising from the incompleteness, would abound. It would be impossible to analyze these. The cosmos would be a bizarre mixture of things that made complete sense and other things that were completely baffling. Nothing would be predictable because incompleteness might rear its end at any instant.
Pythagoras's Completeness Theorem was dialectically refined over the years. It is now expressed in the following terms:
1) The cosmos prefers no number over another. It does not exclude any number or discriminate against any number. To say that any number is "forbidden" by nature is absurd. Any theory based on anything less than the full set of numbers is by definition incomplete. Any such theory cannot properly describe the cosmos. Science, because it excludes zero and infinity, is formally incomplete and can only be complete once it embraces these two numbers.
2) All numbers are in fact infinite. The number 1 may seem to be finite, but it can be written as 1.0 followed by an infinite numbers of zeroes. All irrational numbers are infinite and all rational numbers can be written in infinite form (just as we illustrated with 1). Therefore the entire cosmos can be mapped with infinite exactitude. There are no gaps anywhere in the cosmos described by the full set of numbers, and every number is infinitely precise. Nothing can exist outside the full set of numbers. There is no room for anything else. Only the full set of numbers allows a full description of existence. Imagine if there were a full set of numbers between 1.0 and 1.4 and between 1.5 and 2.0. What about the gap between 1.4 and 1.5? Imagine there were no numbers there - just an empty space. This would mean that anything that was smoothly flowing between 1.0 to 1.4 would come to a complete stop at 1.4. How would it bridge the mysterious gap to 1.5? In this little gap, the rules of the cosmos would be completely different. Physics would operate differently. Nature would operate differently. Calculus, the most important technique in physics and mathematics, would fail. Calculus is based on reducing the distance between two points to zero, and this is only possible because there's an infinitely small gap between any two adjacent points designated by infinitely precise numbers. If there were gaps between any numbers or they weren't all infinitely precise, calculus wouldn't work. Mathematical functions would break down. It wouldn't be valid to draw a line between two points if there was a mathematical lacuna between them. The cosmos would be unstable and would unravel.
3) The cosmos must be stable, hence numbers must provide a rock-solid platform. This means that no matter what mathematical operation is performed on them, they must resist instability. The full set of numbers must be stable under any global mathematical operation performed upon them, whether it be rotation, inversion, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, raising them to a power, taking the mirror image etc. If any mathematical operation performed on an apparently full set of numbers resulted in something catastrophic then it would be proof that the proposed full set of numbers was in fact incomplete.
4) Nothing can exist outside "complete" mathematics. All possibilities are accommodated. There is nothing else. Complete mathematics specifies everything. Any theory that does not use complete mathematics is incomplete and cannot offer a full description of everything. Only complete mathematics provides the framework for a Grand Unified Theory of Everything. Once completeness has been established, nothing can exist outside it. Everything that is knowable is contained within the system. Everything that exists is contained within the system.
5) To establish a Grand Unified Theory of Everything, the first task that must be accomplished is to describe the complete mathematics upon which it will be based. This is a task for mathematical logic, not for scientific experiments. No physicist, or indeed modern mathematician, has ever addressed the issue of complete mathematics.
6) The single most important aspect of complete mathematics is the question of dimensionality. How many dimensions are required to accommodate all conceivable numbers, to a depth of infinity, so that not a single point anywhere cannot be mapped to a unique number of infinite precision? Only once the issue of dimensionality has been definitively resolved can any Grand Unified Theory of Everything be constructed. M-theory, science's latest attempt at a Grand Unified Theory is based on 11 dimensions, but there is absolutely no theoretical basis for this number, hence M-theory, which remains a "work in progress" is certain to collapse in due course.
Humanity has always wanted to know everything, to peer into every dark corner of the cosmos, to resolve every riddle, paradox and mystery. Pythagoras's Completeness Theorem, based on defining mathematical completeness, is the foundation of Absolute Knowledge. The Completeness Theorem asserts that it is impossible for anything to exist outwith the framework of complete mathematics. Everything that can happen will happen in terms of complete mathematics, and nothing else. Anything that is not forbidden by complete mathematics is compulsory. There are no mysterious forces outside complete mathematics. Nothing can exist outwith complete mathematics. God himself can't escape complete mathematics, despite what the Abrahamists say. When Pythagoras declared, "All is number", this was his reference to his Completeness Theorem.
Mathematics specifies all that can exist, every form that the arche can take. There is quite simply nothing else. And, because human beings understand numbers, they can therefore understand the cosmos. As above, so below. Every corner of the cosmos obeys exactly the same mathematical laws. Any mind that grasps complete mathematics grasps everything. At that point, when you truly understand complete mathematics and all of its implications, you are capable of achieving gnosis and entering into union with the Divine Mind. But gnosis isn't just the "scientific" grasp of complete mathematics, it's also to feel it, to BE IT. Imagine providing a perfect mathematical description of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata in terms of a combination of basic sine waves. You have accomplished the scientific task. You have broken down all of the apparent complexity into something simple. You have understood how these sounds are assembled. You have measured their shape, frequency, wavelength, amplitude, pattern. You have understood so much. Yet at no point have you felt it. It is when you have tears in your eyes as you listen to the music that you have achieved gnosis regarding that piece of music. You are no longer looking at the music from outside. You are inside it. You are it. It reflects your will. It is your soul singing. Gnosis is about knowing the cosmos from inside and outside.
We can give you the "outside" perspective. But you must provide the inside perspective for yourself. Only you can. No one can do it on your behalf. You must internalise it. You must feel it. You must become one with the cosmos, feeling every part of it, sensing every part of it, comprehending every part. And then you are Abraxas. You have become God. Literally.
Plato asserted that what appears as "learning" is in fact "remembering". The soul, before it became incarnate in the body, existed in the realm of Ideas where it was surrounded by the perfect "Forms" i.e. by the contents of Absolute Knowledge in Plato's view. In this domain, the soul perceived everything as it truly is rather than as the pale copy or shadow of truth that we encounter in the mortal world of imperfection. The right questions can draw out this latent, forgotten knowledge of Absolute Truth. We are already imbued with everything we need to know but our mortality has obscured it, has transformed the perfect originals into inaccurate copies and simulacra that present only a distorted version of reality.
Imagine photocopying an old picture on an old photocopier and then photocopying the copy. Then keep doing this a thousand times, forever photocopying the copy of a copy of a copy etc. In the end, the "copy" you are holding in your hand may look nothing like the original thanks to all the blurring, errors, smudges and imperfections inherent in the copying process.
You need to see past the simulated truth of the inaccurate copies to the real truth of the original. Only then can you attain true wisdom.
Human beings are already the embodiment of complete mathematics. We are written in mathematics. We don't need to be expert mathematicians in any conscious sense in order to have an intuitive grasp of mathematics. For most of us, our consciousness gets in the way of our grasp of mathematics. Like Plato's souls, we become confused in the world of space and time. Yet every time we catch a ball, we are carrying out an extremely complex mathematical operation that most of us wouldn't have the vaguest idea how to describe in mathematical equations. We just "do it" - we don't think about it. It is internalised, intuitive, and we have a supreme grasp of it. Autistic savants can perform mathematical wonders faster than computers without having the vaguest idea of what they are doing. The answer just leaps out at them. How? From where? They are like Platonic souls hardwired into the perfect Mathematical Forms. They "see" mathematics without understanding it consciously. They don't need to.
Most people love music and it is when they are listening to their favourite songs that they come closest to appreciating mathematics. Music is audible mathematics. Schopenhauer described music as a copy of the cosmic will. It moves us so much because it is actually tuning us into the pulse of the dialectic itself, of the teleological desire to grow, to strive, to develop, to go forward, to revel in the life force. (Schopenhauer is absolutely right: music is mathematical, just as the cosmic will is.)
So, don't imagine that you have to be a mathematical genius to "get it". Everyone gets it one way or another. It's built in. We can access it intuitively. We are all autistic savants in this regard, if we did but know it. We just need to dig deeper to reveal that side of our inner selves.
Listen to music. Relax. Have some wine (or another drug of your choice). Think of numbers, shapes, patterns, geometrical figures. Imagine yourself walking through a Platonic domain of perfect squares, triangles, circles, hyperbolas, parabolas, cubes, spheres, cylinders, enormous numbers, some clear as glass, some in the colours of the rainbow, some glowing, some translucent, some flashing. Imagine yourself in a rowing boat on a fast-flowing river of numbers. In a strong wind of numbers. Standing atop a mountain of numbers.
You are immersed in an ocean of numbers. Numbers are imprinted on everything. Existence as we know it consists of formlessness and form fused together. Minded energy provides the formless part, and mathematics the form. The interaction between the arche and mathematics is so close, so intimate, that it becomes impossible to say where one ends and the other begins. So, mathematics can be validly identified with the arche, in accordance with Pythagoras's inspired insight. The arche might be called mathematical energy, the mathematical part taking the role of elementary mind, from which human minds, with human consciousness, ultimately emerged.
The universe is made of formless energy sculpted into form by mathematics. Mathematics is Pygmalion sculpting his perfect woman - Galatea - and then bringing her to life by imbuing her with mind and consciousness. Life, mind and consciousness are mathematical in origin. Eternal life is made possible by mathematics. Souls are mathematical entities. God is the apex of mathematical possibility. God is the Monad, the Whole, the One: the cosmos alive, conscious, and free to do absolutely anything it wishes.
Mathematics at some level is alive, and it is trying to solve its own cosmic equation. The force that keeps it going is the dialectic. Mathematics is like an enormous computer that will never stop calculating until it has provided the answer to "life, the universe, and everything." The amusing answer, provided by Douglas Adams in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, is "42". The real answer is Abraxas. God is the final mathematical solution of the cosmos.
Adams made the fascinating suggestion that the ultimate question of life was being constructed via a planetary computer/mind: Earth. In fact, both the question and the answer are provided not by a planet but by the cosmos itself. The ultimate question is: "What is the maximum potential of existence?" The answer is God. The cosmos evolves from maximum potential to maximum expression of that potential. Every human being grows from a fertilized egg to a baby to a youth to an adult - from potential to actualization. The supreme human lives are those in which the adults squeeze out every last drop of their potential in concrete and glorious achievements that dazzle the world. Are you making the most of your potential? Are you turning it from lead into gold? Are you an alchemist, or one of the unenlightened on your knees to a fake God? Abrahamism destroys potential; Illuminism and meritocracy are all about transforming all human potential into golden achievements. Earth will become a 24-carat golden nugget, the supreme treasure of the universe.
"There is naught in heaven or upon earth that is not in man. And God who dwelleth in Heaven, He also is in Man."
Paracelsus
The Illuminati want to release human divinity. That is the Great Work - the magnum opus - of which the alchemists spoke.
*****
"Everything of any importance is founded on mathematics."
Robert Heinlein
The following diagram is one of the most important you will ever see:
It contains seven of the nine most significant numbers. 1, -1, i, -i, and 0 are plainly visible. The circle contains the number pi and the circle is a symbol of the number infinity. The absent numbers are e (the base of natural logarithms and from which the exponential function is obtained) and the golden ratio (phi).
(Many mathematicians consider Euler's formula as the most beautiful in mathematics eiπ + 1 = 0 because it expresses a relationship between five of the most crucial numbers in a supremely elegant and compact manner.)
Consider how the diagram is constructed:
1) It begins with zero, the origin, a dimensionless point. Extend that dimensionless point to the east to make a one-dimensional line of positive numbers. Extend it to the west to cater for negative numbers. The positive and negative numbers make up the so-called "real" number line. Why aren't the real numbers complete? Because if we perform the mathematical operation of squaring the real numbers, half of the universe vanishes since all of the negatives become positive. There is a catastrophic flaw in the real numbers. How is this remedied?
2) We extend zero to the north to make a one-dimensional line of positive imaginary numbers, and we extend it to the south to make a one-dimensional line of negative imaginary numbers. We have gone from a one-dimensional line of real numbers to a two-dimensional plane of complex numbers (complex numbers comprise a real part and an imaginary part). Now what happens when we square this universe? The negative real numbers disappear as before, but now they are replaced by the squared imaginary numbers since the square of an imaginary number is negative. But if the imaginary numbers have become real negative numbers, what takes the place of the imaginary numbers? Haven't they now disappeared en masse too? No, because they have square roots too (of complex numbers), indicated by the blue dots in the above diagram.
So, in terms of the complex plane, we now have completeness. But if we describe the complex plane as an x-axis and a perpendicular x(imaginary)-axis (xi), what about the y and z equivalents (yi and zi)?
3) So, we do exactly the same thing for the y and z axes. Thus we get a six dimensional space x, xi, y, yi, z, zi that we can designate as 6D(3r3i) where r stands for real numbers and i for imaginary numbers. This is our complete mathematical space, stable under any mathematical operation. Our previous mathematical designation of 4Di was wrong for the simple reason that we had included only one imaginary axis rather than matching up one to each of the x, y and z-axes. 4Di was short of two imaginary dimensions, hence incomplete in the two directions where they were absent. 4Di had the right shape because in the context of calculating the distance between any two points, it allowed three zones to be generated: real distances, imaginary distances and null distances. These three zones constitute the essence of Einstein's special theory of relativity. But they are so much more than that. They are the basis of God, the mind, the soul, the afterlife. The "null zone" - outside space and time - is the province of religion. The "imaginary zone" - inside space and time - is the province of conventional science. The "real zone" - where the speed of light is always exceeded - can be considered a kind of mirror image of the imaginary zone.
Consider the following properties of entities moving at subluminal speeds (below light speed) and those at superluminal speeds (above light speed):
Subluminal
a) Can never be accelerated to lightspeed.
b) Would need infinite energy to attain light speed (and would gain infinite mass).
c) Travel forward through time.
d) Time runs more slowly as lightspeed is approached. Distances shrink.
e) Time runs forward faster and faster as zero speed is approached.
f) Cannot escape a black hole.
g) As they lose energy, they approach zero speed.
h) Go slower and slower until they lose all kinetic energy.
i) As they lose energy, they travel slower through space and faster (forwards) through time.
j) As they gain energy, they travel faster through space and slower (forwards) through time.
k) In their own frame of reference, they have real mass, experience real distances and real time. (In contrast, photons that exist in the null zone have zero mass and experience zero distances and zero time.)
Superluminal
a) Can never be slowed down to lightspeed.
b) Would need infinite energy to attain light speed (and would gain infinite mass).
c) Travel backward through time.
d) Time runs more slowly backwards as lightspeed is approached. Distances shrink.
e) Time runs backward faster and faster as infinite speed is approached.
f) Can escape a black hole.
g) As they lose energy, they approach infinite speed.
h) Go faster and faster until they lose all kinetic energy.
i) As they lose energy, they travel faster through space and faster (backwards) through time.
j) As they gain energy, they travel slower through space and slower (backwards) through time.
k) In their own frame of reference, they have imaginary mass, experience imaginary distances and imaginary time. (In contrast, photons that exist in the null zone have zero mass, and experience zero distances and zero time.)
Neither subluminal nor superluminal particles can cross the light speed barrier i.e. a superluminal particle can never slow down to light speed, and can never cross into the subluminal speed zone. By the same token, a subluminal particle can never speed up to light speed and can never cross into the superluminal speed zone.
Thus we can imagine the speed of light to be equivalent to the surface of a mirror, and the superluminal zone to be the reflection of the subliminal zone, where everything is back to front - particles lose energy as they speed up rather than gaining energy and time goes backwards rather than forwards.
It is impossible for anything to pass through the mirror to the reflection. And is a reflection real in any case? Or is the superluminal zone simply describing what we would get if we ran the movie of life backwards, erasing everything that ever took place?
*****
So, 6 is the "magic" number that describes the minimum number of dimensions required to provide the framework for complete mathematics.
Six is one of the most special of numbers. It is the first "perfect" number (its three divisors 1, 2 and 3 add up to 6). Also, 1x2x3 = 6. Also, 6 is the number of the first three levels of the tetraktys, and the fourth level may be considered the cosmos that is constructed from those fundamental upper levels.
In an Order 6 magic square, each column, row, and major diagonal adds up to 111. All six columns added together equal a certain esoteric number of immense power, as do all six of the rows added together, as do all the numbers between 1 and 36.
The number in question is none other than 666.
Order 6 Magic Square
6 32 3 34 35 1
7 11 27 28 8 30
24 14 16 15 23 19
13 20 22 21 17 18
25 29 10 9 26 12
36 5 33 4 2 31
Apart from being one of the numbers associated with Abraxas, 666 is the number of light, of the sun, and of Lucifer. Now you know why Christians call it the Number of the Beast. Something of an irony given that they are the ones who choose to worship the Devil - Yahweh/Satan.
One of the earliest and most potent symbols of the Illuminati was the one imprinted on the gold signet ring of Solomon, his great ring of power, said to be imbued with the highest magic. This symbol is the so-called "Seal of Solomon", based on the hexagram, the six-pointed star. Note that the Seal features a circle around the hexagram, the circle being the symbol of both "nothing" and its twin, infinity. The Seal also contains a central hexagon (another symbol of 6) and six satellite equilateral triangles (symbols of 3). And it contains 6 individual monads. Above all, it contains two large, interpenetrating equilateral triangles that comprise the hexagram. The triangle pointing upwards is the "masculine" one, while the one pointing downwards is the matching feminine one. Male and female coming together creates the cosmos.
This
is exactly like the 3D domain of real numbers coming together with the
3D domain of imaginary numbers to form the 6D cosmos. The Seal of
Solomon is the perfect symbol of the 6D universe, with the real and
imaginary numbers fully interpenetrating each other.
The six lines of the hexagram, the six apexes of the hexagram and the six dots (monads) make up 666.
It was the Seal of Solomon that the Christians found so abominable. It
was identified with Simon Magus, the true Christ whom the Christians
regarded as the Antichrist/Beast, and whom they believed would return to
the world prior to the "true" Second Coming. In those early Christian
times, members of the Illuminati often marked their right hand with the
sign of the Seal.
The Book of Revelation: 13:16-18:
16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor,
free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their
foreheads,
17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate
the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number
is 666.
