QR Code Business Card

Join Us on FACEBOOKVă invit să vă alăturaţi grupului Facebook Mişcarea DACIA, ce-şi propune un alt fel de a face politică!

Citiţi partea introductivă şi proiectul de Program, iar dacă vă place, veniţi cu noi !
O puteţi face clicând alături imaginea, sau acest link

Abstract Zero vs Ontological Zero (∅ vs 0)

Novembre 19th, 2019 No Comments   Posted in Dacia Iluministă

Abstract Zero vs Ontological Zero (∅ vs 0)

by Thomas Foster – hyperian

Division by Zero
(N<x> indicates N subscript x)
Empiricist scientists and abstract mathematicians deny that division by zero is possible, but that is a faith-based position and contrary to reason. Division by zero is in fact ontologically valid, and represents the interface between matter and mind.

What is zero divided by zero? Undefinable? Indeterminate? Surely we can do better than that!

Two conflicting arguments are typically advanced for 0 / 0:
[Case 1] 0 / X = 0, therefore when X = 0, 0 / 0 = 0
[Case 2] N / N = 1, therefore when N = 0, 0 / 0 = 1
This kind of arguing comes from failing to understand what zero actually is. There is in fact no discrepancy:
Case (1) is correct for abstract zero: ∅ / X does indeed give ∅ / ∅ = ∅ if X = ∅.
Case (2) is correct for ontological zero: 0<1> / N is a mathematical impossibility due to monads’ indivisibility – if N is finite but NOT if N is monadic (dimensionless).
i.e. N = 0 = 0<1>

When x = 0 is substituted into x(∞<α>) = x/0 [equation E from my previous post “Counting Infinities”] we obtain:
x(∞<α>) = x/0
0(∞<α>) = 0/0
Since 0(∞<α>) = 1,
1 = 0/0
Therefore 0 / 0 = 1.
Ontologically, this makes perfect sense:
0 / 0 = 0<1> / 0<1>
i.e. 1 monad divided by 1 monad equals 1, just as 1 / 1 = 1.
One monad ‘goes into’ one monad exactly one time.

Now, there is a caveat here – we are assuming 0 / 0 means ” 0<1> / 0<1> “.
In certain cases, in calculus for example, 0 / 0 actually represents an unknown number of monads divided by another unknown number of monads. Therefore 0 / 0 would be the equivalent of saying x / y = z; or 0<x> / 0<y> = z (x divided by y could equal anything since we don’t know what the numbers are, and therefore the result could be any number).
Otherwise, when the number of monads is known, division involving quantities of zeroes acts exactly the same as finite division (involving different quantities/multiples of 1).
Example: 0<10> / 0<5> = 2. In this case 0 (the base unit of mind) acts just the same as operations involving 1 (the base unit of matter).
What happens if you split 10 monads into 2 groups i.e. 0<10> / 2 = ?
You get 5 monads. 0<10> / 2 = 0<5>.

From Wikipedia:
“With the following assumptions:”
0 * 1 = 0
0 * 2 = 0
“The following must be true:”
0 * 1 = 0 * 2 therefore 0/0 * 1 = 0/0 * 2
“Simplified, this yields:”
1 = 2
Needless to say, the initial assumptions are incorrect:
0 * 1 = 0<1> (one monad)
0 * 2 = 0<2> (two monads)
Therefore 0<1> ≠ 0<2> (One monad does not equal two monads, just as 1 does not equal 2!)

From mathforum.org:
“Division by zero is an operation for which you cannot find an answer, so it is disallowed. You can understand why if you think about how division and multiplication are related.”
12/6 = 2 because 6*2 = 12
12 / 0 = X would mean that 0 * X = 12
“But no value would work for X because 0 * X = 0. So X / 0 doesn’t work.”
For abstract zero, it is true that ∅ * X = ∅. (“Non-existence” is not affected by multiplication).
However 0 * X ≠ 0 (ontological zero can be multiplied, monads are COUNTABLE).
12 / 0 = 12(∞<α>) i.e. finite matter to dimensionless mind.
0 * 12(∞<α>) = 12 i.e. infinite monads ‘making up’ matter.

„Dumnezeu, nu ne vrea proşti!”

Ottobre 23rd, 2019 No Comments   Posted in Dacia Iluministă

The Universe Wants Us to Optimize Ourselves…

As it turns out, the mind simply is the electromagnetic spectrum, arranged as a frequency-structured singularity.

As it turns out, mathematics comes equipped with a complete explanation of how immaterial dimensionless singularities (minds) can interact with dimensional spacetime (matter). Ontological Fourier mathematics is all about how unextended frequency singularities generate, control and interact with a spacetime domain.

The universe has a mind and wants to do the best for itself. It wants to optimize itself, just as you want to optimize yourself. But you are part of the Cosmic Mind. You are one of its nodes. So, if the universe is trying to make the most of itself, that means it wants you to make the most of you, and it will do all it can to help you make the most of yourself – if, and this is the crucial point, you let it. Sadly, the average person does not.

What does Jung’s remarkable anecdote tell us? (about the scarab beetle). Basically, the universe knew what Jung and the woman were talking about, detected a nearby scarab beetle, and sent it to them, to increase the meaning of their interaction, and thus the overall meaning of the universe.

The whole mind of a human is present in every part of the human body, while the whole mind of the Cosmos (“God”) is present in every part of the physical Cosmos, hence knows exactly what is going on everywhere. In quantum mechanical terms, this is known as entanglement or non-locality. The ancient wisdom is also the basis of holography: the whole is in every part. There is nothing “woo” about this.

Just imagine that the universe is always scanning for opportunities such as this, and always striving to make them happen. However, imagine that there is also a force operating against the universe’s plan to increase meaning. This force is none other than human consciousness, which cuts us off from the universe, the macrocosm, and makes us dwell on our own little portion of the universe, the microcosm, where we are blind to the grand operations of the universe.

The optimized universe is the one where every part of the universe – all of us – are individually optimized. We all become optimized by working together to achieve exactly that, not by trying to put others down so that we can raise ourselves up.

Humanity is cut off from the truth: that we are all mind cells in one Cosmic Mind. We are Many in One, destined to cooperate with each other in the greater interest of the One (of which we are all part.}

We are all in a kind of game, a game to maximize our knowledge and experience of the game. We do so through the reduction of chaos, disorder, entropy. We manage this through cooperation, collaboration, communion, union, synthesis, integration, harmony and interconnectedness.

In fact, for everyone with eyes to see and ears to hear, synchronicity reflects the routine operations of the universe. The universe is always seeking to maximize meaning, and synchronicity is the default mechanism it uses.

Steve Madison
The Universe Has Your Back: Trust the Cosmos . Kindle Edition.

Este posibil ca imaginea să conţină: text

The Reality Spheres

Ottobre 2nd, 2019 No Comments   Posted in Dacia Iluministă
Este posibil ca imaginea să conţină: unul sau mai mulţi oameni
Ralph Bakker

‘The Reality Spheres

Aristotle wrote, “We may take it that the world as a whole was not generated and cannot be destroyed, but is unique and eternal, having no beginning or end of its whole life, containing infinite time.” However, Aristotle drew a distinction between the heavenly universe and the earth. The upper heavenly spheres – made of the perfect, imperishable element of aether – are ungenerated and indestructible. They are eternal and necessary. This is the domain of being. By contrast, the lower spheres, the sublunary spheres, made of the imperfect, perishable elements of fire, air, water and earth, are temporal and contingent. They are generated rather than ungenerated. They are generated from each other and pass into each other. This is the domain of becoming. Aristotle envisaged a “steady state” universe with perfect circular motions above, and ceaseless transformations (conserved overall) below. Within this domain of becoming, Aristotle believed that a great cycle took place, temporal rather than eternal, where everything came to an end and then began again. Aristotle was not far mistaken. We can think of “God” as the eternal Fourier frequency domain, as pure, noumenal being, which equates to perfect reason. However, just as each of us dreams, so does God. All dreams are temporal, contingent, phenomenal constructs, created by eternal minds. Where we dream transient worlds, God (the collection of all monadic minds) dreams a universe, a cosmos, which takes a cosmic age to end. When the universe is created (via the Big Bang), it is pure prime matter where reason is most poorly expressed; reason is totally unconscious. Mind then starts interacting with it and it begins to evolve. It’s then on an inevitable trajectory to maximum, conscious reason. At that final point, at the end of the universe of becoming, the universe understands that it is God and exactly what that means and entails. That’s the end of the universe of becoming. Becoming now equals Being. That is then the end of that dream, and a new dream must begin via a new Big Bang. While the domain of Being stays the same forever, the domain of Becoming cycles between maximum unconscious reason and maximum conscious reason. There are three domains: eternal Being (thesis, mind), temporal Becoming (antithesis, matter) and Being-Becoming (synthesis, mind-matter). “God” inhabits the domain of eternal Being, Matter inhabits the domain of temporal Becoming, and we all inhabit the synthesis domain where mind and matter interact. Evolution means that mind gains more and more power over matter. Matter eventually disappears, leaving nothing but mind, equating to the total triumph of reason, to the total clarity and perfection of reason. “God” involves mind-mind interactions only, Matter involves matter-matter interactions only, while the Mind-Matter domain involves mind-mind, matter-matter, matter-mind and mind-matter interactions. God is the inside, Matter is the outside, while the synthesis domain involves the interaction of the inside and outside. Science studies only the Matter world (the empirical world), involving matter-matter interactions only. Mind is claimed to be nothing but a product, an emergent property, illusion or epiphenomenon of mind. Metaphysics studies pure Being (God = Pure Mind). Ontological mathematics unifies physics and mathematics, allowing the study of Mind (Being), Matter (Becoming) and Mind-Matter (Being-Becoming) and Matter-Mind (Becoming-Being). For Aristotle, matter is potentiality and mind actuality. For Leibniz, matter is unclear and mind clear. Matter is murky reason, mind is reason free of murk. The more materialist you are – the more sensory and emotional you are – the worse your reasoning. The best reasoners are the thinking intuitives because they are the freest of matter. Scientists are not great thinkers because they are too material, too empirical in their thinking. They can’t understand mathematics properly because it’s too abstract, too conceptual for them. They are empirical perceiving types, not rational judging types. Francis Bowen wrote, “The ever-rising development of consciousness, therefore, marks the drift of the current, and shows the direction in which we are hastening.” The universe is a consciousness factory. What it produces is consciousness, more and more of it. The advance of consciousness signifies the retreat of matter. Matter is what opposes consciousness (and what subject is less receptive to consciousness than scientific materialism?). Philosopher Henri Bergson said that matter was inert, and opposed by a vast, vital, living impulse: élan vital. Bergson claimed the universe has two innate tendencies: a material, entropy-generating drive to unmake itself, and a living, entropy-reducing drive to make itself. Matter is opposed to life and mind, and we see this in scientific materialism, which reduces life and mind to mere illusions, epiphenomena or emergent properties of matter. Without life and mind being fundamental to existence, existence must be meaningless, pointless and purposeless, exactly as science says. Matter does not want anything or aim for anything. It has no thoughts, no desires. It is the death force. The Second Law of thermodynamics predicts the Heat Death of the universe, also known as the “Big Freeze” or the “Big Chill” whereby the universe becomes an icy tomb, exhausted of all useful energy, where all energy is evenly distributed. This is true death. For Bergson, science can never get to the root of things. Like a surgeon performing autopsies, it can only analyze dead bodies. It can never reach life and mind, the inside of existence. Science dissects and separates the organic, living reality into dead chunks and then pronounces theories of death (matter), wholly devoid of any reference to life and mind. It is impossible for science to put any symbol into any scientific materialist equation to denote life or mind, to attribute any agency to them, or explain how they could ever come about. There is not, and never can be, any scientific equation that says: x + y = life, or a + b = mind. It is literally impossible to get to life and mind from dead, mindless matter. That’s why scientists have to talk of illusions, epiphenomena and emergence. These are all ways of describing how life and mind can appear miraculously in science – since they are not part of its mind-free, life-free paradigm of dead, meaningless, purposeless matter. Where in the Periodic Table is there any hint of life or mind? Which atoms can generate life or mind? Which property do they possess that can support life or mind? What atomic property will scientists focus on in order to explain qualia, free will, consciousness? Why is ontological mathematics so revolutionary? It’s because it takes the fundamental elements of the system – sinusoidal waves organized into monads – and designates them as the very basis of life and mind. So, wherever you see a wave, you are seeing a basis thought, hence a basis component of life. Therefore, ontological Fourier mathematics is inherently depicting mental, living processes. Because life and mind are fundamental to ontological mathematics, the whole system is about life and mind, meaning and purpose. It’s all built into the math. The equations are not equations of death and mindlessness, but of life and mind. Ontological Fourier mathematics is idealist and rationalist, not materialist and empiricist. It belongs to a wholly different paradigm from science. The equations themselves are alive because their components are alive. Stephen Hawking wrote, “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” The fire is already present in ontological Fourier mathematics because it deals with thoughts (basis waves) and their organization and interaction. The system is alive. The system is a thinking, self-optimizing organism. If you start with death (matter) you can never get to life and mind. You must start with life and mind. Defining the fundamental element of existence as a thought (a sinusoid) means that any operation you carry out with regard to it is automatically reflective of thinking. Scientific death (matter) never comes into it, or only as a type of thinking … matter is reduced to thought, the exact opposite of the scientific trajectory where thought and life are reduced to matter. So, never forget, life and mind can never appear in an equation unless you make the actual units you are manipulating in the equation the essence of life and mind. The biggest intellectual revolution ever was the identification of the sinusoid with thought. This means that all wave equations and wavefunctions concern thoughts, which automatically denote the presence of life and mind. Quantum mechanics – wave mechanics – is about life and mind, not death and lifelessness. That’s why science doesn’t understand quantum mechanics. And it never will. It needs to change its paradigm. If pure mind and life are the inside of reality then the deeper and smaller quantum mechanics goes, the closer it gets to life and mind, the very things that science claims don’t actually exist, and of which it has no understanding at all. To identify sinusoids as basis thoughts is to kill materialism and replace it with idealism. Since sinusoids are pure math, it also means that rationalism takes over from empiricism, with the latter relegated to a subordinate, confirmatory role, rather than the basis of the scientific method. If sinusoids are the basis of thought, and of all reality (which is therefore a giant thought, a universal thought function) then the scientific method must begin with reason and logic – with pure math – rather than with empirical observation. Reason and logic are mental activities, not physical, sensory activities. That’s why rationalism and empiricism are so opposed. Reason and logic presuppose a living, mental reality (idealism), based on the PSR as the foundational principle. Empiricism presupposes a dead, mindless reality based on observable matter, in which case it is impossible to conceive of how we could ever get to reason and logic (thinking activities) from entities that do not possess any mental activity. Everything depends on how you define the fundamental units of science, as living or dead, thinking or non-thinking. Scientific materialism chooses death and mindlessness. Ontological mathematics chooses life and mind, enshrined in sinusoidal monads, which are eternal minds. Stephen Hawking wrote, “The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?” Hawking had no conception of what mathematics is. He could not conceive of its ontology … a living, thinking ontology! No scientist can. Their paradigm precludes it. Nothing has astonished us more than the hatred scientists have towards granting an ontology to mathematics. That’s because if they ever did then there would cease to be a need for science as it is currently practiced. They would put themselves out of a job, and these careerists and functionaries would never accept that. The truth is the last thing they care about. Raymond Lindquist said, “Courage is the power to let go of the familiar.” Scientists are cowards. They never let go of the familiar. They can’t shift paradigm. Bergson denied that science was the primary source of knowledge and said intuition was more important. In fact reason and logic, leading to mathematics, are the most important, but intellectual intuition plays a vital role in getting rational and logical ideas started. For Bergson, life is always struggling against matter and this struggle leads to what he called “creative evolution.” Bergson claimed that thinking resembled the universe. Intuition draws from the life force and scientific analysis from dead matter. In fact, thought is the universe, and matter is just a type of thought. The universe is a vital, thinking, evolving, purposeful organism, a Cosmic Mind. It is not a dead, mechanical, purposeless material machine, as science once claimed, or a non-mechanical casino operating according to chance, accident, randomness, probabilities, statistics, indeterminism, indeterminacy and acausation, as science now claims. The deterministic scientific machine has been replaced by an indeterministic scientific casino based on dice throws and their probable outcomes. Science is now a completely different subject, yet doesn’t admit it is now a 100% different from how the likes of Newton conceived it, which was as a creation of an intelligent God with perfect foreknowledge. Nowadays, the “God” of science wouldn’t have a clue about the future because everything changes from one throw of the dice to the next, and no one can ever know what the outcome of a throw will be. Any throw can trigger the chaotic Butterfly Effect. Ontological mathematics abolishes the crazy dice and restores the PSR – everything has a reason why it thus and not otherwise. Nothing happens by chance. There is no cosmic casino. Since reality is a mind, its purpose is to be a mind that knows itself, to hold up its magic lantern of consciousness and see itself reflected in that wondrous mirror and know itself for what it truly is. The task of the universe is to wipe out matter (entropy), leaving nothing but perfect consciousness (zero entropy). The end of the universe accomplishes exactly that. Just as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin said, we are a Noosphere – an evolving consciousness – converging on an Absolute, an Omega Point of perfect consciousness where we have become God, knowing all things. The domain of becoming is about converting unconscious God (prime matter) into conscious God (matterless). A cycle of the universe ends when its matter, its entropic unconscious thoughts, are eliminated, leaving nothing but pure consciousness, the final outcome of evolution. But the attainment of this glorious object instantly prepares the way for the defining involution event: the Big Bang, which reincarnates the material world. The struggle against the unconscious begins all over again. Francis Bowen wrote “Everything which lives strives after happiness; this is the most universal principle of action that we know of; it is the essence of the Will itself seeking its own gratification. Mere Will, however, though it is the only spring of activity, is essentially blind; it is not merely illogical or irrational, because it does not reason at all, even wrongly. It simply craves, and acts out its cravings in automatic volitions. Hence it is properly alogical, being entirely devoid of reason, just as the Intellect, being in its very nature distinct from Will, cannot act, but simply knows. Consequently, this ill-matched pair, indissolubly united in the Unconscious, cannot cooperate; neither can help the other. Vainly does the all-wise Intellect perceive that the unreasoning Will is entirely in the wrong, since its ceaseless craving for happiness merely increases misery; the alogical Will cannot heed its warnings, and cannot impart its own capacity of action to its wise but helpless companion. As long as they are tied together, like a balky team, they neutralize each other’s powers.” Hartmann, and Schopenhauer before him, were wrong. Will and Intellect are not natural-born competitors and rivals. They have the capacity to cooperate and satisfy their mutual interests. Plato presented the right sort of picture in his theory of the tripartite soul. In the Republic, Plato asserted that the psyche has three parts: the rational (logical), spirited (emotional) and desirous (appetitive). Reason must rule and direct emotion and desire. If emotion and desire are in charge, the result is disaster – as we see in the world we have today. Predatory capitalism, in order to make money, directly targets emotion and appetite and ignores reason. Capitalism is a Desire Machine. It provokes desires and then sells you things to satisfy the desires it has manufactured in you. Thanks to social media, the Desire Magnifier, things are getting worse and worse. You cannot separate the different parts of the psyche, as Hartmann imagined. You must get them to work in harmony, to sublimate themselves, to get rid of their most primitive and selfish aspects (their right-wing aspects). As consciousness increases, left-wing cooperation and rationalism increases. In the end, we create a Community of the Gods – true Communism; and the Society of the Divine – true socialism. You cannot have capitalism in a system of gods. Capitalism relies on a master-slave hierarchy, with the elite (the masters) relentlessly exploiting the slaves, and instilling a false consciousness in them to make them worship the elite as the rightful gods, or representatives of the rightful God. The aspect of us which drives consciousness is reason, the aspect that separates us from the animals. It is the truly immaterial part of us, as Plato and Aristotle both understood. Our desires, appetites, emotions, and sensory observations are all fully engaged with the material world, the irrational, non-conscious world. As the Gnostics understood, we are bright souls enmeshed in dark matter, in desperate need of returning to the light. The Gnostics understood matter to be evil. Today, we can understand that “matter” is a force connected with the deep unconscious. It is “psychoid”, to use Jung’s term, i.e. not quite of the mind proper. The task is for consciousness to overcome matter, the vehicle of the unconscious. It is in our war with matter – the alien “other” that seems so unmindlike – that we are forced to become conscious, to exercise our reason and logic more and more and enter more and more into the mind space rather than physical space. The crime of science is that it uses mathematics to investigate matter, but not to investigate mind. Because it is anti-conceptual and pro-perceptual, it can find no concept, and looks for no concept, to link mathematics to mind rather than matter. Ontological mathematics, by contrast, is all about mind and thought as mathematics. Science privileges the senses (tied to matter) over reason and logic (the primary agents of mind), and uses a butchered version of mathematics, designed to accommodate the manmade ideology of materialism and empiricism. It perversely forces reason and logic to serve the senses rather than the other way around. It builds its method on the senses, not on reason and logic, yet it absurdly claims to be rational and logical. As if. Any rational system begins with the PSR, and its method revolves around reason and logic. That’s what ontological mathematics delivers. Science does not. Science is not about consciousness and the inexorable rise and optimization of consciousness. Science is about non-consciousness (non-mind) and the random behavior of non-consciousness, driven by dice throws. No mind is ever at work, only randomness and probability. Science is incompatible with mind, free will and consciousness. That’s because science is fundamentally based on non-mind, on “matter”. Everything changes when you switch from undefined matter to precisely defined sinusoidal waves, and when you turn this wave-based system into a purely mental system by the simple identification of sinusoids with basis thoughts. Instantly, you have a system exclusively based on thinking, on mind. Reason and logic are the primary means to understand it, not the senses. Scientists are empiricists, not rationalists, and believe that the senses, not reason and logic, are the way to the truth. Kant also played the empiricist card and denounced “pure reason”. Kant had no clue what reality in itself is and declared it unknowable. Ontological mathematics cures this defect instantly. Reality in itself is thought, and thoughts are mathematical, analytic sinusoids. Therefore, everything can be known via analytic, waved-based mathematics. Pure reason is exactly what is needed for a total understanding of reality. Any other approach is irrational and doomed. What is “matter”? It’s what you get when you perform ontological Fourier mathematics and create a spacetime domain full of spacetime objects. These are entirely mental constructs, exactly as our dreams are. Matter is a mental phenomenon, made of waves, i.e. made of thought. Quantum mechanics, which reduces everything to wavefunctions, concurs with this view. Tragically, quantum mechanics has been systemically misinterpreted by materialist and empiricist ideologues in a desperate attempt to defend science’s ineradicable commitment to lifeless, mindless matter as the basis of reality. No scientist can define matter. What does matter have to do with probability wavefunctions? What does it have to do with 1-D strings in an 11-D space? Many Nobel laureates have admitted that “matter” does not exist, but not a single one of them accepted the logical alternative … that quantum mechanics is all about mind. They have abandoned matter but not replaced it with mind. Instead, they have filed the vacuum with irrational magic and miracles: with chance, accident, randomness, probability, statistics, measurement-induced wavefunction collapse, emergentism, indeterminism, indeterminacy, acausation, and so on. Science, these days, rejects both matter and mind and now subscribes to a casino-based model of reality, predicated on dice throws that produce observables which we lazily call “matter”, even though this matter is not solid, enduring, causal, objective and deterministic. It is now possible for scientists to say that the moon does not exist when no one is observing it, a notion which destroys objective reality, and destroys any concept of objective matter. The paradox of Schrödinger’s cat is not something that could ever be asserted of the kind of atoms the ancient Greeks believed in, and which Newton believed in: non-casino matter. How can the laws of gravity function when whole planets and stars can vanish if unobserved? If everyone closed their eyes, the universe itself could vanish. Who knew? If this is not the zenith of absurdity and irrationalism, what is? It’s even more pernicious than religion, which at least acknowledged objective reality. The Platonists, Neoplatonists and Gnostics all recognized that matter is as far as you can get from being, from mind, from spirit, from consciousness. The tragedy of the modern world is that “matter” is the ruling intellectual doctrine of the age. That’s the catastrophe the Enlightenment delivered. We need a new Enlightenment, where mind – mathematics – becomes the ruling doctrine. The Illuminati provide the vanguard of the great struggle to overthrow science and replace it with mathematics, just as science previously overthrew religion. Science is simply the pseudo-religion of matter. It’s time for the truth, it’s time for ontological mathematics. Why is Leibniz so dazzlingly brilliant? Because his whole system is predicated on mind, and explains everything via mind. Monads rule. Why is Hegel so dazzlingly brilliant? Because his whole system is about the journey of a Cosmic Mind, including all of us, to complete and absolute knowledge of itself, to total self-awareness. What ontological mathematics accomplishes is to make the Leibnizian-Hegelian system fully mathematical, hence it allows it to replace wholesale scientific materialism and empiricism (driven by sensory experiments) with scientific idealism and rationalism (driven by mathematics). Conventional science cannot explain why it uses mathematics, and why it would be useless without mathematics. The New Science dispenses with these insurmountable problems and makes science all about mathematics, and in particular all about sinusoidal waves and their extraordinary properties, which are sufficient to explain the entire universe. ===== Francis Bowen wrote, “Happiness is unattainable; but freedom from pain, which is the nearest possible approximation to it, may be secured by a return to nothingness.” This is essentially what Buddhism is: the desire to be free from suffering by ceasing to exist. It has nothing to do with joy, bliss, happiness, pleasure. It is simply about escaping pain. The Buddhist in hell does not dream of heaven, he dreams of not being in hell anymore, by virtue of not existing anymore. He disbelieves in the possibility of heaven. Buddhism tells him to deny it. The Buddha says, “I teach only Suffering and the end of Suffering.” No hint of heaven there! Bowen wrote, “Hence the Intellect forms the conception of a universe in which the Will shall be divided against itself, through the indefinite multiplication of individuals, each striving independently for ends of its own; and the necessary result of such independent action, as we have seen, is the emancipation of Intellect from the Will through the development of Consciousness.” In fact, the universe (of becoming) breaks itself into infinite separate minds in order to provide the biggest possible challenge to Consciousness, and therefore the greatest possible resultant Consciousness when the greatest possible obstacle to Consciousness is overcome. You can’t get to heaven without traversing the whole of hell. The Heaven Gate is on the opposite side from the Hell Gate. Bowen wrote, “This conception of a universe, of course, is instantly realized by the blind Will, which knows not that it is thereby cheated into a contest with itself, that ideas will thus be forced upon it which it has not willed, that thought will thus be severed from action, and that the finite Intellect, thus made independent, will be gradually led, through the enhancement of consciousness and the increase of knowledge, to will the annihilation of all things, and thus to rid itself of the misery of existence.” It is in fact essential for the unitary Will – which meets no resistance – to fragment into infinite fragments (divine sparks) in order to maximize its ability to learn. It now has infinite scope for interacting with itself and learning from itself. What greater challenge could there be? Bowen wrote, “As Intellect can never be separated from the Will in the Unconscious, the ultimate purpose of the universe is to effect this divorce through the action of finite conscious minds and the advancement of knowledge, which must finally correct the illusions which keep up the vain pursuit of happiness, and bring about by common consent the end of all things.” The task of consciousness is not in fact to divorce the will, but to optimize it, to sublimate its primitive drives and make them serve divine ends, to convert the base will of animals into the divine will of gods. Bowen wrote, “Schopenhauer’s philosophy aims at the same result [as Hartmann’s], but proposes to accomplish it by a different method, namely, by advising the individual man to cease to will, and thereby, through asceticism, self-denial, and the privation of nourishment, to cease to be. Hartmann justly objects that this would be only protracted and painful suicide by starvation, and be no more efficient as a means of bringing the world to an end than the death of an individual in the ordinary course of nature. Final deliverance from the misery of this world cannot be obtained by an act of individual Will, as this is merely phenomenal, but only by universal consent, which would be an expression of the universal Will that is both one and all. And this deliverance is not near at hand, but must be worked for as an object in the distant future. It can take place only at the close of ‘the Process,’ at the termination of the struggle between Consciousness and the Will, when the development of the former shall have reached its climax, at the last day, when the cravings of the Will shall be silenced, when activity shall cease, and ‘Time shall be no more.’” Schopenhauer, like the Buddha, taught individual salvation from the “horror” of existence. But this does not bring the world to an end, only the individual’s experience of the world. Hartmann had a much grander conception – getting all minds to cease to will at the same time and then the whole world – their collective construct – would come to an end. Or, more exactly, to get all conscious minds – human minds – to defeat the evil Will. Conscious reason is the antidote to Will. In ontological mathematics, the end of the universe happens as a mathematical inevitability. The universe must end with the maximization of reason and consciousness and the elimination of matter and entropy via the expansion of the universe, which eventually causes the dimensional waves that comprise the physical universe to flatline and thus cease to exist, instantly signifying the death of the material universe, and its restoration to a pure Singularity (Cosmic Mind). Bowen wrote, “We can do something, indeed, to hasten this consummation, by laboring for the advancement of knowledge, which will finally convince the whole human race that all is vanity and vexation of spirit. Not by personal renunciation and cowardly withdrawal from the conflict, therefore as Schopenhauer teaches; but by bearing our burden, by affirming the Will to live with all its pains and sorrows, by devoting ourselves to the cultivation of the intellect and to the education of the race, shall we help to bring the universe nearer to the haven of rest, to the blissful repose of nothingness.” Knowledge is power. Knowledge is freedom. Knowledge is control of our destiny. The task is not to affirm suffering, but to overcome it, to become what we truly are: gods. Hartmann wrote, “Bravely onward, then, in the great Process of development, as laborers in the Master’s vineyard! For it is only this Process which can lead to final redemption.” Redemption does not mean ceasing to will, longing for nothingness. That is a depraved nihilism. To think is to exist. We exist forever because we think forever. We cannot cease thinking any more than we can cease willing. It’s our nature. It’s inbuilt. We are essentially thinking, willing beings. Bowen described Hartmann’s work as an exercise of “perverted ingenuity … It’s an attempt to reconcile materialism with spiritualism, realism with idealism, optimism with pessimism, atheism with the belief in a divine Providence, and monism with common sense.” Well, it’s no more perverted in its ingenuity than any mainstream religion! Or scientific materialism.’

The enlightened Dr. Thomas Stark


Giugno 21st, 2018 No Comments   Posted in Mişcarea Dacia


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,