A Tale of Two Patterns

- Gold only has value if it can be traded. Knowledge only has value if it can be applied.

- Insecurity is loud. Confidence is quiet.

Introduction

Well, as we all know the PI/OM/AC online community is currently in its latest death throes, with a pretty intense and nasty civil war going on between Hyperianism and the AC/PI . This is either the second or third iteration of online Illuminism (*1) that has failed, at least according to the AC. As an outsider, and someone who is not involved in either the AC, or Hyperianism, I wrote a prior post called "The State of the (Collective) Monad" commenting on this situation already.

*1 The first being the "cypher gang" era, the second being the Diabolically Informative era, and the third being the hyperianism era.

After writing this last "state of" post, I thought I was done commenting on the politics of the community. As I've made clear in my prior posts, being an engineer and more technically inclined, I'm not especially interested in the communal aspects of PI, or in establishing a new world order (esp. via Meritocracy). However, I am interested in the personal development potential, the grand insights, the Systems Engineering proto-language, and the deep metaphysical understanding that comes from learning OM, the "crown jewel" of Pythagorean Illuminism. In short, I'm almost exclusively interested in the "math" and not the politics. And since I'm not an active member in any online OM/PI communities (nor am I welcome (*2)), let's face it, it's not really my place to be commenting on something I arguably know nothing about.

*2 But in a weird way, the exclusion has had the fortunate benefit of keeping me from going down with the Titanic at least 2x.

However, with the spate of videos coming out from some of the former Hyperian mods, I must admit that it has been really interesting to hear and see from the people behind the scenes -- even if Hyperian mods are only second-level derivatives of the 8000 or so in the "core" Illuminati (the Hyperian mods communicated with an illuminati communication cell, which is itself a derivate of the core group). In addition to all the "why we hate Morgue" videos there are also the books Delete Hyperianism from David Sinclair, and Take Hyperianism to the morgue, book 1. While I'm not really into the out and out bashing of Morgue, or any individual for that matter, it does give a fascinating insight into the way Hyperianism/PI works at the implementational level, and I've gained a few insights about PI as a result. What I've learned from these insights is what I intend to share in this post.

The AC is usually pretty disciplined about what message they present. This is one obvious advantage of getting your message out solely through books. They don't directly have an official online presence for some reason. This is where they insist on farming it out to groups like hyperianism, or other delegates. So while there is some online activity, it's typically not done by anyone in the AC proper, so if someone says something off-script, you can't necessarily attribute it to the AC. But it's in times of transition, like when they decide to kill off their on-line community, that is to say times of crisis, when they start doing and saying things with less forethought, and their controlled public mask can slip and allow you to see what's really going on behind the scenes. Kind of like Hillary Clinton's "Basket of deplorables" comment. She apologized for saying it, but everyone knows this was a rare moment of truth, and it's how she actually feels, and the only thing she's sorry about is getting caught.

I also noticed this same ugly side when the first iteration of on-line illuminism was being cancelled, e.g. the "cypher gang" era. Try reading Illuminism Contra Discordian by Brother Cato if you want to see how savage they can be. Actually, just now in skimming this book to verify it's the book I was thinking of, I am reminded of how absolutely brutal and indeed sociopathic they can be. Remember, the people they are savaging were their former online supporters. I don't know all the details of the dispute as it was before my time, but the "cypher gang" just seems like a bunch of people exploring ideas, learning new things, trying to come up with an understanding of the world, and having some fun arguing and debating on-line. Of course some of what they say is probably wrong or foolish as they're not professional philosophers, but why be so harsh on them? These are newsgroup postings, like on Reddit. People are just saying things in an impromptu fashion. It's supposed to be fun. It's like a professional musician berating someone who's just learning their instrument. Why not try to work with people and encourage them in a positive way to do better, instead of being a bunch of bullies *4?

*4 I am aware though, that once the cypher gang felt they were abandoned by the AC, they did decide to "turn" on the AC, and started posting overtly negative things. But the thing that kicked the whole dispute off, as far as I know, was they wanted to host a user meet-up (in actual meat-space) where they were to talk about PI, plus some other new-agey ideas. The fact that they didn't ask for permission, plus that they were going to mix in non-PI topics is what caused the AC to become unhinged and turn on their supporters.

But now, with the equally ugly character assassination going on with Morgue and Hyperianism, I'm reminded once again of the Mr. Hyde associated with the doctor Jekyll. The first time, I was so bedazzled by OM, as I was in that sweet spot of the learning curve where I was starting to see ontological reality for the first time, I just ignored the warning signs. But now that it's coming up again, I just don't know if I can ignore it. I can see how seriously they take this topic. Granted, it is a serious topic, but once things start getting down to threats, lawsuits, and character assassination, I'm afraid the game is getting a little too intense for the likes of myself.

My Last Post?

Before I get into the main insight I gained, which will involve a fair amount of setup and explanation, let me motivate the reader by stating that as result of the new insight/model explained in this post, this might be my last post on OM/PI as a result. I know that's a pretty intense statement to make. Believe me, I'm not trying to be a "drama queen" or anything. In fact, this will most likely not be my last post. It's Just that the way I feel right now at the time of this writing, where I'm starting to see what the true nature of the AC is for the first time, and appreciating what the "problem" is with it and online Illuminism, it makes me realize the futility of posting further on the topic of OM. I'll have more to say about this at the end.

The original title of this blog series was "On the road to Pythagorean Illuminism". My goal was to just kind of document my journey of learning OM/PI. My original audience then, as it is now, is "me from six years ago", e.g. I'm writing for my former self. I don't really know who my audience is since I get almost zero feedback. When I first started learning about OM, there were almost no online sites, videos, or facebook pages. And the ones that were there were either rabidly fanatical -- people who just worshipped PI and the AC authors, of whom they felt could do no wrong, or mindless, reactionary "trolls" (I actually hate that word since AC confuses it as simply as anyone who disagrees with them) who obviously never read any of the GS books, and just excused it out of hand as a cult. So my original mission was to satisfy the middle of the market: someone who likes OM, but not mindlessly so.

Whether this is my last post or not, I think it's starting to become clear to me that I am nearing the end of my public journey with OM anyway. I mean, I'm already only posting at the rate of about once every six months. In private, I will continue to progress with further study, especially using it as a springboard for other areas, as I still love OM as much as ever. However, as might have become apparent in some of my later posts, and especially in this post, I am becoming increasingly alienated from the PI and AC. Basically, what I'm saying is I love OM, but I don't like Meritocracy, and I don't like the people who run the AC. With the basic demise of hyperianism and the way in which they are doing it, I don't know if I should be posting anymore. I know it may seem hard for the AC to believe (if they even read my site at all) but I am honestly trying to contribute to the online OM community. Yes, I have a few things that I'm critical of, but I also have plenty of parts where I say how much I like it. And many of my "criticisms" are really just questions -- things I'm trying to figure out if I properly understand it or not. I have never professed to be an expert. I'm just writing for me and my goal is to make people think. Even if I say something stupid or wrong, if I made you think, then I did my job.

And in the spirit of my original title "on the road to PI", I unfortunately have to document the end as well, as ugly as that may be. Look, I appreciate that the AC doesn't like negative comments from "trolls" like me (I don't know if in fact they would consider me to be a troll, but based on what they've written about other "trolls" I would have to say they probably would, a troll basically being someone who doesn't agree with everything they have to say). Believe it or not, I'm not actually trying to be a troll. I am genuinely interested in getting people to learn OM. I think if anyone reads my posts, their curiosity about OM would only be piqued, and would be astonished that anyone could consider it to constitute the work of a troll.

In any event, troll or not, I think I've managed to say about 75% of what I wanted to say anyway, and there's not much use to keeping on posting, especially when it's becoming so obvious to me that I'm despised by the community and esp. the AC as a whole. Can I still, in good faith, try to encourage people to follow a system that is governed by such toxic people? Also, maybe at the end of their third (failed) attempt of getting online PI started, maybe it's a good time for me to bow out, and let them have a clean slate for the fourth go round.

However, like I said I'm not ready to fully say "goodbye" just yet. I certainly don't intend to take down the posts I've generated so far.

But for now, let's establish the language/model of my new insight first.

Design Patterns

Design patterns are an idea from Software Engineering. Basically they're just a template for modeling certain situations that come up over and over again. You can kind of think of them like Jungian archetypes -- a form,structure, or abstraction of something that can be extracted from (and is common to) many baser elements. With the further property that these forms or patterns are sufficiently abstract enough to be considered universal, recognizable in any culture, even potentially an alien one like Martians.

So in this spirit, I would like to propose two patterns that I believe are apropos to OM. Note, in this first section I will merely describe the patterns and not initially relate them to OM. Then, in the next section, I will then relate them to OM, and explain the ramifications.

The first pattern I call the Theosophy pattern.

Theosophy Pattern

The theosophy pattern has two elements: the mumbo jumbo (or vector) and the payload. The mumbo-jumbo is the theoretical foundation of the pattern. It's job is to give a rationalization to the theosophy -- e.g to make it sound important, and convince people it has something deep to say. The second part of the pattern is called the payload. The payload is the most important part of the theosophy pattern, at least to the propagators of it. This is what you want the people indoctrinated into the theosophy to actually believe or do.

We can further break the payload down in two ways: the "official" payload, and the "unofficial" payload. Let's take Christianity for example. The official payload would be something like "we want people to accept Jesus Christ, so the world is a better place, and also so they can go to heaven when they die". The unofficial payload might be "we want them to donate money to our church, and also obey us when we tell them what to do". The payload is typically more emotionally based. People do it subconsciously because they've "bought into" the system. The behavior may even be irrational -- it certainly would be irrational to tithe, or give 10%, of your income to some random institution, but people willingly do it as part of an organized religion.

Of course, you have to motivate people to actually do the desired behavior of the payload. This is where the mumbo jumbo comes in. This is the "intellectual" hook, if you will. It's the technical part of the system, that you need people to buy into so you can then deliver the payload (via memes into their minds). Now, just because it's called "mumbo jumbo" it doesn't necessarily have to be, well, mumbo jumbo. It can be completely rational and make perfect sense. However, in practice it usually is a bunch of bullshit, with all sorts of psychological patterns to subconsciously manipulate people. Of course the Meyers-Briggs personality type of your target audience determines what form the mumbo jumbo takes. In the case of Christianity, which is primarily targeted at SF's (e.g. ESF), you can get away with something as ridiculous as the bible, and people will still buy into it. If your target group is high-IQ INT's, as is the case with OM, then you are going to need a much more realistic, and rational form of "mumbo jumbo".

Another analogy is a virus. The virus body represents the mumbo jumbo, and the nucleic acid in the head represents the payload:

Note, how this is the archetype for all viruses. To deliver a different type of virus you can use the same vessel, you just have to substitute a different payload.

You can think of the payload as the "solution" to the "question" created by the mumbo-jumbo. Kind of like getting men to buy into the belief, the "problem" if you will, that while they're getting older, how will they still appeal to younger women? A rational "solution" to this problem might be something like "get in shape", or "become more successful", but more often than not the solution (or payload) is something along the lines of "buy a red sports car". Basically, in the theosophy pattern the payload comes first: buy a red sports car. Then the question becomes what kind of mumbo-jumbo can we come up with, to make people want to do this? That is to say the payload is the classic "solution looking for a problem", and this is where the mumbo-jumbo is proactively engineered to create the "problem" or backdrop that advances the desire for the solution.

However, it may also be the case that the payload has nothing to do at all with mumbo-jumbo. Once people buy into a theosophy, you can much more readily get them to buy into a payload even if it has nothing to do with the nominal intent of the mumbo-jumbo.

Now, we will cover the second pattern: the Inversion of Control pattern.

The Inversion of Control Pattern

The Inversion of Control (IOC) Pattern AKA the flip-flop pattern. The IOC pattern is when what is secondary becomes primary. Other ways to describe it are when the background becomes the foreground, or when a side effect becomes the primary cause.

An example is the pharmaceutical drug Viagra. It was originally developed as a high blood pressure medication, but during testing lots of patients reported a side effect that, let's just say, got to the hard truth. At the time there were very few, if any, ED treatments available, so this was a very valuable commodity -- much more so than yet another high blood pressure medication, so they quickly pivoted, in an IOC fashion, and made the side effect the primary cause.

Some common phrases related to this pattern are "when the servant becomes the master", or "the tail wagging the dog".

Another example might be someone running a shell company to front some sort of illegal back-end business. In this case the illegal back-end activity is the primary concern, and the shell company is is the secondary concern. However, let's say the particular front-end company was was a fake internet provider company. Now, a shell company has to have at least some semblance of being a "real" company. So let's say they buy a few PC's, and get a few actual customers. Then let's say they also hire one or two techies to run these servers. Now, let's say this happens to be in the early 90's when the Internet started to take off. It could plausibly happen that in this particular case, through sheer dumb luck, that the secondary business may in fact become much more profitable and valuable than the primary concern of money laundering. If this in fact happens, you could say the shell company undergoes an inversion-of-control pattern, and the secondary concern now becomes the primary.

At the risk of belaboring the point, another interesting IOC in the economy as a whole is the relative importance of finance vis a vis economics. Take oil for instance. In the 1970's and 1980's, for every billion dollars in oil traded (e.g. economic activity) there was about 100 million dollars worth of financial instruments associated with that trade (derivatives, insurance, short sales, stock etc). That is to say about 10% of all monetary transactions were financial. Today, for every billion in oil sales there is 1.7 billion worth of financial worth of financial transactions, equal to 170% the value of the oil itself. That's a 17x increase in financial activity, and it's now exceeds the economic activity by 70%. Note, finances (no wealth creation and zero-sum) are supposed to be a secondary aid to the economics (actual wealth creation, and non zero-sum). Nowadays people make more money off the financial instruments of oil than the oil itself. IOC indeed.

The Patterns Applied to OM

So now that we have those quick introductions about our "tale of two patterns" out of the way, we now have the language and model to start giving us some insights about OM vis a vis these patterns.

The Theosophy Pattern Applied to OM

First off, I would say OM definitely follows the Theosophy pattern, which is perhaps not too surprising since even the authors occasionally describe it as a theosophy. Or more accurately, I should say that PI (Pythagorean Illuminism) is a theosophy, since the vector (or mumbo-jumbo) of PI is OM.

OM is the Vector of the theosophy. That is to say OM is the intellectual foundation and hook of the PI theosophy pattern.

So what then is the payload of PI? I said previously that the payload is the most important part of the pattern. If OM is the vector, it can't be the payload. Which seems strange on the surface since nominally OM is supposedly the "core" and central purpose of PI. What could possibly be more important than OM? Well, I would say nothing. I think OM should also be the payload as well. It should be the beginning and the end, the journey and the destination. However, we're not talking about me, rather we're talking about the AC/PI. This is the thing that became quite clear to me after reading all their "Why We hate hyperianism" retaliator material:

The thing that I now realize that the AC/PI cares the most about, their payload, is Meritocracy and radical Jacobinism, and not Ontological Math proper. That is to say the real goal of PI is to create political activists who will work towards a radical overthrow of the current capitalistic form of government.

And from these people they want the "three t's": time, talent, and treasure: not a bunch of lazy good-for-nothing intellectuals, inert theorists who never accomplish anything, but real advocates -- revolutionaries, who will take action and make a difference. Since they openly advocate for Meritocracy and Jacobinism (honestly, mostly just socialism IMO) this perhaps isn't a surprise. But I think what is most surprising to me, something that I initially had trouble realizing, and then trouble admitting, is that this is their primary focus -- something that is much more important to them than even OM itself.

And it's not just me who shares this opinion. The AC wrote a book called "The Dunciad" by Brother Malus that was banned on Amazon. In it they mentioned that there was a college professor, I believe from Spain, who said he wrote some articles that were incorporated into the God Series. The authors denied that anyone outside of their communication cell contributed to the GS. However, since the book was banned on Amazon and subsequently deleted from my Kindle without my permission, I assume this professor sued the AC for libel and won (note: they didn't just merely accuse him of lying, but went full retaliator mode on him and called him a fraud and made fun of him in their usual fashion), and that's why it was removed. I believe he was a credible source and that he did write some essays for the GS, as he was very qualified scholastically, and was gainfully employed -- this is just not something someone of his caliber would decide to randomly make up. After all, how many university professors have even heard of the GS? What would he gain by saying this? Anyway, I remember reading an interview with him where he mentioned that in his interactions with the AC, he said they were mostly interested in talking about Meritocracy. He said, they didn't seem especially interested in talking about philosophy, or math. Of course, I can't remember the guy's name (since I don't have the book anymore), but I distinctly remember him making this point in the interview. I remember because at the time, as well as now, he is one of the few people who has interacted with the AC and actually discussed what the people were like. Of course, it's a complete mystery who is actually in the PI, and that's why it was so fascinating to read this interview. Yes, this is anecdotal evidence, but I thought I'd just offer it as some independent corroboration to my assertion.

The IOC Pattern Applied to OM

Let's now examine how the second pattern relates to OM/PI.

It may seem awfully insulting for me to refer to OM as "mumbo-jumbo". By referring to OM as mumbo-jumbo am I in effect suggesting that OM is a bunch of bullshit? The answer is a resounding no. I do not think OM is BS. I wouldn't have spent six years of my life studying it if I did. However, there are two ways for me to reach this conclusion. First of all, I said the the mumbo-jumbo portion of the Theosophy pattern is oftentimes BS. But it doesn't have to be. It could be a completely rational model. Which I think OM is. However, I think OM probably started out as essentially BS (*5). That's where my second pattern, the Inversion of Control pattern comes into play. You see, something funny happened during the memetic evolution of PI -- the BS mumbo-jumbo of the theosophy pattern underwent the IOC pattern and the mumbo-jumbo turned into a crown jewel.

*5 Certainly, at the earliest stages created by Pythagoras himself, it was certainly incomplete esp. as by the current level of OM. Early pythagoreanism had no monadology, Euler's Eq, Fourier transforms, 6-d space-time etc that the current version has, obviously though through no fault of Pythagoras himself.

OM, previously the mumbo-jumbo in a theosophy pattern, has now become the master. It's now more valuable than any theosophy or ideological payload it's been yoked to. OM is greater than Meritocracy, or radical Jacobinism. It should be unshackled and let free to develop on it's own independent of other doctrines, ideologies, or dogmas.

Theosopoy and Meyer-Briggs

Let's take a little side trip and explore the mumbo-jumbo associated with various theosophies. Let's look at the typical theosophies for the four branches of Meyer-Briggs (MBTI): SF, NF, ST, and NT. Note, the two inner letters of the MBTI constitute basically the four tribes of humanity: SF is sensing-feeling, NF is intuitive-feeling, ST is sensing-thinking, and IT is is intuitive thinking.

For the SF tribe, their modality is religion. As philosopher Daniel Dennett suggests, religion has been cultivated over the centuries via memetic evolution, to optimize the infection rate among sensing-feeling types. SF's are very strong on emotionalism and weak on rationality. Thus, SF religions have been engineered to work on this tribe's feelings and emotions, with the main sacrifice being rationality and logic. So the mumbo-jumbo that infects SF's is all about love and feelings, and is maximally irrational and alienated from the truth.

I'm not going to go further into the other types, since this is a topic well-covered by the God Series and Truth Series already, but suffice it to say the following table holds:

Type       Modality  
----       --------
SF         Religion  
NF         Mysticism/New-ageism  
ST         Science  
NT         Math

The order I presented the table is from least rational (SF) to most rational (NT). All mumbo-jumbo created by the first three tribes will be maximally alienated from the truth, while the one generated by the NT tribe will asymptotically approach the truth. Obviously, mainstream religion is the most alienated from rationalism, reason, and reality. The new-ageism of the NF, while a step up from absurdity of Abrahamism, is still mostly mystical BS. Once we get to ST (Scientific), things start to get a little more interesting, because I will concede that science is becoming maximally useful. But as adherents to the materialistic paradigm, and with a reliance on the senses (empiricism), as far as an understanding of reality goes it's still alienated. Science is only aware of the epistemic side of things and not the ontic side, thus is incomplete.

The only tribe that will "accidentally" or unintentionally, uncover the truth (naturally and without even trying) is the NT tribe. That is to say, given enough time they will reason their to way something that is very powerful and truthful. And that's what happened with OM. It started off as a bunch of loose memes that appeal to NT types (e.g. all is number), that were engineered as part of a larger theosophy called PI (Pythagorean Illuminism). But over time, like a front company that becomes more useful than the shadow company, or the servant overtaking the master, OM evolved via the IOC pattern to become more useful than any theosophy or payload that it might have been tethered to.

So basically that's what's happened with PI. Their mumbo-jumbo has evolved into a first-class citizen. The shell corporation has become viable on it's own. There's no longer any need for it be hitched to some arbitrary payload.

It's abundantly obvious to me from reading all their "retaliator" books (Illuminism Contra Discordian, Delete Hyperianism, Take Hyperianism to the Morgue etc.) that the thing the AC really hates about potential PI followers is when they substitute their personal payload (e.g. wokeism, libertarianism, conservatism etc.) for the AC's preferred payload of Meritocracy/Radical Jacobinism in the Theosophy pattern. I posit to you that if Morgue were doing all the supposedly bad things the AC accuses him of, like being a cult leader, not crediting the AC enough, not sharing the spotlight, and not having a deep understanding of math and philosophy etc., while towing the line on meritocracy, that is to say not advocating for "Californian wokeism", and as a result was recruiting Jacobin activists instead of love and lighters, he would be praised to high-heaven by the AC. That is to say the AC is applying situational ethics -- they would gladly look the other way if they felt they were achieving their real goals.

They don't want to relinquish control over their vector -- a system that is very effective at "infecting" NT types. Once members of the NT tribe accept their "system" they are primed, so they believe, to accept the payload of Meritocracy. I think they realize that Meritocracy on it's own will never get anywhere without the bundling of OM: people need a little "sugar" to accept what is a pretty bitter pill.

This is similar to how a company like Microsoft is uncomfortable having its OS being used for things like porn. Indeed, some companies like PayPal refuse to do business with certain companies. I used to work for a company that had some adult content, and we were unable to accept payment from Paypal as a result. Entities jealously guard their intellectual property and their brand. They want complete control over who can use it and who can't. I think this is how the AC feels towards anyone using OM to deliver an unacceptable payload. The payload the hyperianism is using OM to deliver is "California wokeism", as they say. Indeed, in one of my videos I also suggested the possibility of hitching OM to libertarianism, which to me is highly compatible with OM.

Bottom Line

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the one insight I've had recently, that came from watching all the "Hate Morgue" videos and reading the associated books, is not that the AC is pro-Meritocracy (which I knew), but that the level to which they believe in it is much greater than I thought. In fact, I now realize it's their primary focus. Before I would have said that the AC felt Meritocracy was an important component of PI, one of many, but that OM was their main focus. That is to say, I felt their goal was to spread and promote OM as much as possible, for the sole purpose of promoting OM, not simply as a vehicle for some subsequent political ideology. This may be a subtle distinction, but it yielded a big insight for me.

Maybe it's obvious to everyone else, but if you just read the GS and TS, you may not get this since they do mostly talk about OM, and philosophy.

But when the masks come off, and they start writing without their usual forethought as they do in any of their cancel campaigns, I believe I caught a glimpse of the men behind the curtain.

I realize now, that with respect to OM, my goals and the goals of the AC and are misaligned. I don't think the AC necessarily has the best interests of OM at heart. This is a pretty brazen statement to make considering the AC are the ones who have devised and then delivered all the source material on OM. I definitely believe there is a contingent of people in the PI who passionately care about OM, and are actively refining, presenting, and improving it for the benefit of the whole world. I'm not talking about them. I applaud them. But there also seems to be a rather sizeable contingent who really only care about their political agenda. To them, OM is just a "vector", a system to rope in believers whom they can then usher to help achieve their political aims. To the extent this is true, then I do not consider the AC to be the best stewards of OM proper.

So in the end, what does all this mean? Let's say I'm right and the AC cares more about Meritocracy than OM itself. What does this mean for people like me who are mostly interested in OM only? Well, one thing I used to think was that someday maybe the AC would loosen up a bit, and de-couple OM from the rest of PI, and an independent on-line culture on OM would spontaneously arise in which people like me would feel welcome and free to comment and contribute. Now I think that's fundamentally a pipe dream, and I should just realize that I and others like me will never be welcome online.

I also used to say "Liberate OM". But now I also realize this will never happen. And honestly, why should the AC de-couple OM from PI? I mean, while they didn't create most of the base concepts, they did integrate disparate philosophies into one unified whole. It is their "system" and they did do a lot of work on it. And apparently they do have a copyright on it (belying the notion that it is, in fact, an invention and not a discovery)

Ironically, I remember reading (somewhere) where the AC said they try to tolerate right-wingers (people who emphasize individualism over collectivism) as much as possible under the belief that once they (the right-wingers) recognize that Meritocracy honors individualism at the base, but then at a higher level strives to unite into a cohesive collectivism, then they'll be able to "convert" libertarians like me to Meritocracy (*6). This is probably just as much a fantasy as my belief in liberating OM.

*6 I actually have nothing against the intent of Meritocracy. I'm not opposed to voluntary collectivism etc. As I said before, in a Star Trek, culture of abundance type of environment, even I might be willing to try Meritocracy. Just like I'm not opposed to big infrastructure projects either, in principle. I think it would be totally cool to have high-speed maglev trains everywhere, for instance. If we had enough abundance, then I'm all for it. However, we only have limited resources at this point in time so I'm against being forced to pay for all sorts of stuff I don't think we can afford or truly need.

I think what I need to do, and indeed everyone needs to do, is to just assess the situation for what it is, take a step back, and make an honest assessment. The PI/AC needs to realize if they only insist on appealing to 0.1% of population, they're never going to start a mass political movement. It's Ok if they decide on that, they just need to accept the consequences of doing it. Or they could decide to open it up and realize that, like Microsoft and porn, there will be people using their "operating system" for things they disagree with, and will reflect poorly on their brand ideal.

Likewise, people like me need to stop trying to pretend there will even be an open OM environment out there (as long as the AC is in control). And don't necessarily get mad at the AC or hold it against them for wanting to tightly control their system and their brand. If the AC ever attacked me, or asked me to stop referring to OM, I can just switch to talking about "transcendent mathematical idealism" and then use the 95% of OM that did not come directly from the AC -- that is to say "fork" my own philosophical Linux distribution at that point. After all, they didn't create Monadology, Euler's Equation, Fourier transforms etc. And even though Hyperianism and me differ on politics (I hate wokeism as much as the AC), what I said for me basically applies to them as a whole as well.

On a more positive note, keep this in mind: when in doubt, transcend. I basically have my own philosophy anyway (e.g. distribution) of which OM is only a part. My philosophy also has plenty of physics, functional programming, systems engineering, and other non-OM philosophies. And yes, Libertarianism. So I don't totally line up with the AC and never will. I think it's naive to think that any thinking person will ever totally line up with the AC, but they seem to think this is the case and anyone who tries to defy this is playing at their peril (of being attacked publicly by the AC).

Conclusion

In this paper I attempted to present a model to the reader about the structure of online Illuminism, from which everyone can then have a common language to hopefully make more rational deductions. Then we can explore some of the things that are wrong, or can be improved with online Illuminism.

To that end I introduced two patterns, the theosophy and inversion of control patterns, and then we reasoned about how they applied to OM. Ultimately, I realize that what I end up saying is rank opinion, but I tried to ground it in some neuteral language so the reader can at least understand where I'm coming from even if they don't agree with my analysis or my conclusion.

I tried to keep everything objective and positive. I don't intend this to be an attack piece. I'm just someone who has invested a lot of time and energy into a system, and who cares about it, and is trying in some way to help it.

Till the next time.

==== History

2023-03-15: First draft.
2023-04-25: Second draft.
2023-04-27: First publishing.

2023-05-10: Minor grammatical and spelling revisions.