NOTE: This document contains a number of references to Scionics Philosophy, which was created by the Scionics Institute. Their website is at http://scionics.org. While we do promote the high-quality, completely rational and reality-based philosophy created by the Scionics Institute, it should be noted that the Scionics Institute is an independent organization of its own, separate from the Scio-Illuminati.


2:2 PARALLELS BETWEEN
GNOSTIC-ILLUMINATI AND SCIO-ILLUMINATI
TEACHINGS

It should be noted that the teachings of the Gnostic-Illuminati, eumystical as they are, closely parallel many of the scientific, reality-based teachings of the Scio-Illuminati; this is by design, of course. This provides a eumystical framework – which is nonetheless often in accord with reality in important ways – and which:

  1. resonates with the modern mystical mind, and;

  2. are craftily designed to help propel the less mystically-minded individual to abandon mysticism altogether, and formulate a fully reality-based view of reality.

This newly formulated reality-based view will be very similar in some general aspects to the eumystical view which was rejected.

Mystical Immortal Non-Physical Soul
versus
Non-Mystical Immortal Physical Zon

The Gnostic-Illuminati promotes the mystical concept that each individual has an immortal soul which evolves over time from an essentially unconscious entity to a godlike entity. This has important parallels with the non-mystical Zon concept, first publicly introduced by Frank R. Wallace, in his “Neo-Tech” writings. “Zon” is a term used to describe any conscious being (such as a human) who thinks and acts in a completely non-mystical, rational, objective, reality-based manner. In the original formulation of Wallace this completely non-mystical approach was defined as “fully integrated honesty.” Here is a quote regarding Zon, from the book “Zonpower from Cyberspace,” by the Zon Association:

Zon is a collective word related to the fully integrated honesty of Neo-Tech and comprises (1) the Civilization of the Universe, (2) those operating from its wide-scope perspective, and (3) the power required to control existence – the integrated power to gain limitless wealth and eternal happiness. …Zon is the mind of God. Zon is you!

Just to be completely clear on this issue, despite the quite grandiose language (including the part about “the mind of God”) used above, Zon is an absolutely non-mystical concept. It is the identification of the fact that, through a strict adherence to self-honesty, never allowing one to lie to or to deceive oneself in any manner, one will operate in complete accordance with rationality and reality. Taken to its logical conclusion, this will lead to an ever-increasing understanding and mastery of all aspects of reality. Ultimately this will lead to a god-like state of control, hence, “Zon is the mind of God.”

Zon exists only as a result of a long process of evolution. Life on earth initially evolved from inanimate matter, and then from the simplest of living things to ever-more complex organisms, and eventually to human beings. This evolution will continue, albeit directed volitionally rather than by natural selection, as individuals increasingly reject mysticism and embrace reason and reality. This will naturally result in ever-increasing understanding and control of reality, and ultimately, in various forms of physical immortality and eternally upwardly expanding forms of happiness, fulfillment and pleasure. This is the natural evolution of conceptually conscious beings, when freed from the fetters of mysticism.

This has key parallels with the Gnostic-Illuminati's eumysticism of immortal, eternal souls developing from essentially unconscious entities, into godlike entities. In fact, the mystical concept of the transmigration of souls, or “metempsychosis,” is often presented along with the claim that souls will be “reincarnated” essentially indefinitely, with each reincarnation being an opportunity for further development. Such reincarnation, it is taught, only ceases when the soul finally achieves a sufficient degree of development, and then exists in an essentially godlike state.

These concepts of Gnostic-Illuminati regarding the eumystical “soul” have important parallels with the distinctly non-mystical concept of Zon, as embraced by the Scio-Illuminati. It is natural for human beings to work to extend their lifespan, particularly if this means a longer, healthy, active life, i.e., a longer period of youthfulness, rather than simply extending old age. Medical science is certainly moving in this direction already. If taken to its logical extreme, this can only mean that ultimately humans will enjoy an essentially indefinitely extended youth, with degenerative aging and death essentially eliminated. This would be a form of “eternal youth” and “immortality” achieved through the application of reality-based reason. Other forms of immortality, based on all sorts of biological, cybernetic, and other technologies are also possible.

An important difference between these two types of immortality, i.e., that of the mystical “soul” and that of the non-mystical Zon, is that the mystical immortality of the soul is held as “given,” and therefore allows one to be lazy regarding the need to do anything to attain immortality. The immortality of Zon, on the other hand, is not simply “given.” It requires rational, reality-based hard work to attain, and even then it requires some level of work to maintain. Yet, because it is the ultimate “holy grail” for any rational, living being, it is a task which the non-mystical Zon is compelled to undertake, once the actual possibility of immortality is recognized.

The non-mystical Zon-concept also has important parallels with the mystical god-concept, although the god-concept is approached somewhat differently by the Gnostic-Illuminati and most traditional religions. The Gnostic-Illuminati, as previously stated, eumystically presents “God” as being a soul which has already achieved its highest development. Traditional religions, particularly Abrahamic religions, depict “God” as having eternally existed in this “highest” state, therefore never having needed to undergo any period of development at all.

The Scio-Illuminati, on the other hand, completely dispense with mystical imaginary souls and gods altogether, and instead identify Zon as the true highest development of consciousness and conscious power. Consciousness, like life itself, evolves from the most simple and rudimentary to the most complex and highly developed. The rational, reality-based Zon-concept implies that seeking external divine authority or assistance is futile, and that any such authority or power which exists must originate from within oneself.

Even the mystical role of “creator” has its parallels in Zon. While philosophical naturalism dispenses with all supernatural explanations regarding the creation of the universe or any of the things within it, the concept of Zon has interesting implications regarding the possibility of the intentional creation of this (or any other) universe. Physics provides compelling arguments to indicate that the creation of a universe could become feasible as Zon gains the necessary scientific knowledge and technological prowess.

Laziness and Dishonesty: The Root of Mysticism

The difference between these two types of immortality, the imaginary and “lazy” immortality of the mystical imaginary soul, versus the reality-based “hard work” physical immortality of Zon, illustrates the key difference between the mystical mind and the non-mystical mind. The difference is in the laziness and subsequent intellectual dishonesty of the mystical mind, and in the diligence and subsequent intellectual honesty of the non-mystical mind, i.e., Zon. Biological organisms are required to exert mental effort in order to produce integrated, reality-based thought. The mystic is one who habitually avoids making this effort, defaulting to lazy “easy” thinking. (This is a deceptive type of “easiness,” however, because the short-term value of the “easy” thinking of the mystic always comes at the price of a far greater long-term loss of values.) Like all habits, the longer one defaults to mysticism, the harder it is to break the habit of mysticism. Mental laziness thus leads to a weaker mind. Over time, it becomes increasingly difficult for the mystic to adopt a non-mystical mindset. (Hence the need for carefully crafted eumysticisms as a way of surreptitiously breaking down more harmful mysticisms, and acting as a stepping-stone towards actual non-mysticism.)

The habitually non-mystical Zon, however, is continually increasing in the capacity for reality-based thinking. The effort required actually becomes a sort of pleasure in its own right, and eventually becomes a semi-automatic process, somewhat like breathing. (Breathing proceeds in both a conscious and an unconscious manner: one can consciously control one's breathing in various ways, and yet one's breathing will continue without conscious control as well.) For habitually non-mystical human beings, a protracted period of intense, consciously-directed, integrated thinking can lead to a desire for a period of mental rest; even in the time of “rest” however, the mind will carry on thinking in a largely (although not necessarily exclusively) non-mystical fashion, albeit in a less consciously-directed way.

The Mystical “Morality” of Religion
versus
the Non-mystical Ethics of Zon

One's methods for making all sorts of choices in one's life is largely dependent upon one's belief-system, i.e., one's beliefs about the world, and about various aspects of the world and the things in it, and also of the methods which one uses to determine one's beliefs. One's belief-system may either be mystical, irrational, and non-reality-based, or it may be non-mystical, rational, and reality-based.

For most of human history, the prevailing and most widely adopted belief-systems were those of religion. They posited all sorts of supernatural entities and prescribed all sorts of behaviors based, in some fashion, upon these posited entities. Typically, this involved following the orders or commandments of, or otherwise appeasing or conforming to, a single all-powerful god, or some collection of gods, or various types of spirits, or some supernatural principle, or some combination of these. According to such religions, those behaviors are generally considered “moral” which agree with the supernaturally-based prescriptions; conversely, those behaviors are generally considered “immoral” which are counter to such supernaturally-based prescriptions.

All such supernatural belief-systems are forms of philosophical supernaturalism. Since philosophical supernaturalism is based upon some denial of reason and reality, and since there are essentially infinite ways of denying reason and reality, there are essentially infinite varieties of philosophical supernaturalism – all of which inherently contain contradictions of reason and reality. Any so-called “morality” which is based upon such philosophical supernaturalism must also inherently contain contradictions of reason and reality.

The alternative to philosophical supernaturalism is philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism embraces reason and reality. Whereas there are unlimited ways of denying reason and reality, and only one way of adhering to reason and reality, there is essentially only one ultimate form of philosophical naturalism. Of course, since new information is always coming to light, philosophical naturalism never claims to have absolute truth regarding all things, but integrates any new information which becomes available, thus undergoing a process leading to ever-increasing accuracy and efficacy. (This is unlike the stance of philosophical supernaturalism, which tends to deny or ignore new contradictory information.)

Because of its firm adherence to rationality and reality, philosophical naturalism results in choices and behaviors, and in an overall ethical or moral system, which are likewise firmly based upon rationality and reality. This is not to say that every choice, whether involving ethics or not, will be “absolutely” optimum, due to the possibility of unknown factors; it will, however, be the optimum choice based upon all currently available information.

Here is an excerpt from “The Protocols of Scionics,” published by Scionics Publishing:

Scionics is the invincible philosophy, science and technology of the fully integrated application of philosophical naturalism. (The term “Scionics,” like the word “science,” is derived from the Latin root “scire,” meaning “to know.”) Scionics entails the full utilization of, and adherence to, reality-based, scientifically valid criteria for developing, evaluating, and integrating concepts and beliefs. The Scionics protocols maximize an individual’s capability to respond to all situations with understanding, rationality, control and love, potentiating the extraction of maximum hedonic value from all situations.

The Scio-Illuminati, the Mathematikoi and true masters of the Illuminati, would prefer to directly promote the revolutionary Scionics Protocols to all of humanity. It would be wonderful if everyone would recognize for themselves the unrivaled advantages of this ultimate form of non-mystical philosophical naturalism. The sad fact, however, is that the vast majority of individuals are so blinded by mysticism that they are simply unable to recognize the power, scope and value of Scionics. Thus it is that the mysticism of these individuals must be attacked in a more surreptitious manner.

The Gnostic-Illuminati attempts to break individuals free from harmful traditional religious mysticisms and moral systems by replacing these with much more positive eumysticisms and moral systems. While this is certainly a valuable and powerful technique for reducing the stranglehold of religious mysticism, it often does not eliminate it completely. As such, it is not a final solution to the problem of mysticism, but is merely a step along the path. It is simply a tool we have developed to facilitate the transition from mysticism to non-mysticism. (It must be remembered that it is certain members of the Scio-Illuminati who actually head the Gnostic-Illuminati.)

Scionics embraces more than simply ethics, of course. It ultimately embraces every human activity and every aspect of reality. The eumystical teachings of the Gnostic-Illuminati run parallel to the wide-scope teachings of the Scio-Illuminati, as a means of extending the widest possible eumystical net for the purpose of beneficially entrapping and converting the mystic to non-mysticism. Freedom from this eumystical net is truly achieved, not through some eumystical “gnosis,” but through the the complete non-mysticism of the Scionics Protocols.

Metaphysics, Ontology, and Epistemology

The Gnostic-Illuminati promotes eumystical ideas which are designed to appeal to mystics while also promoting a respect for non-mystical rationality, and a concomitant disdain for irrationality and mysticism. The majority of human beings are essentially mystical, so making ideas appeal to mystics is useful as a means of popularizing them. These eumysticisms contain ideas intended to counteract other more harmful mysticisms, and often entail the positive portrayal of rationality, and the negative portrayal of irrationality.

In order to create such eumystical ideas, and to have them maintain mutual consistency with one another, the Gnostic-Illuminati teaches a set of common fundamental eumystical philosophical principles upon which to base these ideas. These foundational principles are found in metaphysics and ontology, which deal with certain fundamental aspects of reality, and in epistemology, which deals with methods for deriving accurate information from reality.

In ancient times, these foundational eumystical principles were largely created by Socrates, and then developed even further by Plato, under Akousmatikoi influence. Socrates and Plato were both mystics, and hence actually believed their own mysticisms. Neither were ever inducted into the Mathematikoi, of course, as membership required completely non-mystical thinking, just as is required by the Scio-Illuminati today.

Plato was eventually actually expelled from the Akousmatikoi, for exposing some of the so-called “secrets” of the Akousmatikoi. In reality, however, the Akousmatikoi members were tested by being “entrusted” with “secrets” as a means of testing their trustworthiness. These so-called “secrets” actually consisted of eumysticisms, however, the exposure of which would be essentially harmless or even beneficial to the Brotherhood. Plato failed the test of secrecy, and while he was then necessarily expelled from the Akousmatikoi for his betrayal of secrecy, his exposure of these eumysticisms actually proved somewhat beneficial to the mission of the Pythagorean Brotherhood.

To this day, philosophers still talk about the “Platonic realm of ideal forms.” This is the idea that there exists a “higher” realm than the physical world in which we collectively find ourselves, and that this physical world is in some ways actually illusory and unreal. This higher realm is conceived as being the “true reality,” and as being the source of such things as logic and mathematics, as well as such “ideals” as good, beauty, truth, and so on. In this Platonic system, each human being has an immortal soul, with origins in this higher realm, and which repeatedly returns to that realm and then reincarnates. Certain elements of what is commonly considered “learning,” is actually more like “remembering” the ideal realm, or even having direct mental perception of it. Over the centuries, the Akousmatikoi – the Gnostic-Illuminati – has further developed this into a very sophisticated metaphysical, ontological, and epistemological system.

The Mathematikoi – the Scio-Illuminati – has never adopted such a view. Our view, which we have held since the time of Pythagoras himself, is well-illustrated by the following rather long quote from The Protocols of Scionics, in a section titled “Empiricism, Rationalism, and Empiricorationalism:”

Empirical evidence is the evidence of sensory or perceptual experience. Epistemological empiricism is any doctrine which holds that empirical evidence is the proper means for acquiring truth and knowledge, and for forming and evaluating concepts and beliefs.

Attempts are sometimes made to discredit the validity or reliability of empiricism. This is typically done by attacks on the ontological status of the physical world, and of the ability of sensory or perceptual experience to provide any level of reliable information about actual reality. These attacks may hold that it is possible that the apparent reality of the physical world is actually a simulation, or a dream, or the like. They may also hold that, even if the physical world is real in the conventional sense, human senses and perceptions are still fallible and error-prone in a way that the absolute certainty of pure logic is not.

The problem with all such attacks is that there is no model of reality which provides greater explanatory value than the simple and self-evident proposition that the physical world is real in the conventional sense, and that our senses and perceptions are generally reliable for deriving information about the physical world – and that these senses can be vastly augmented by scientific instruments. Any alternative to this simple and self-evident proposition is more complex, and not self-evident – so what is the advantage or justification for taking on such a view? There is none, if one wishes the truth. There is no advantage or justification for adopting a more complex explanation for something, when a simpler one has greater or equal explanatory value. There is no advantage or justification for adopting a non-self-evident explanation for something, when a simpler one has greater or equal explanatory value. (The only so-called “advantage” would be the “advantage” of confusing the issue, which is only helpful when attempting to prop up nonsensical ideas and a mystical worldview, while obscuring or denying reality.) The ontological stance that the physical world is real is simpler and more self-evident than the alternatives, and has greater or equal explanatory value. This is the ontological position of Scionics regarding physical reality, and it is the ontological position upon which the epistemological position of empiricism is based and validated.

Unlike fideism or intuitionism – and despite the attacks of those who would deny the reality of the physical world or the reliability of the senses – empiricism actually has great reliability as an epistemological approach. The evidence of one’s immediate perceptual experience is nearly impossible to doubt. If one wants to know what the weather is outside, for example, one does not employ some mystical spiritual faith or intuition; instead, one can merely step outside, and one’s senses serve as all the evidence one needs.

As human beings, however, we often deal with things which are beyond our immediate perceptual experience. Stepping outside may be a flawless method for determining the weather right here, right now, but it may be a poor method for predicting tomorrow’s weather. When it is necessary to operate beyond the range of our immediate perceptual experience, we must integrate the information we already have to create new information; in other words, we must reason.

Rationalism is any doctrine which holds that reason is the proper means for acquiring truth and knowledge, and for forming and evaluating concepts and beliefs. Reason is very powerful, but it is of limited use for determining certain things about reality in the absence of empirical evidence. Without the evidence of empirical experience, reason is merely logical speculation; when properly used as a means for integrating empirical knowledge, on the other hand, reason becomes a powerful survival tool of the human mind.

Thus, neither empiricism nor rationalism, is sufficient alone as an epistemological approach for human beings, but must be used in conjunction with one another; furthermore, due to the inherently limited nature of human perceptual and reasoning abilities, empiricism and rationalism must be skeptically applied. This requires the testing and retesting of beliefs which may unknowingly be based upon erroneous or incomplete observations or reasoning. This skeptically applied integration of empiricism and rationalism is identified by Scionics as “empiricorationalism.” Empiricorationalism is the creation of models of the world (beliefs) based upon actual empirical observations (empiricism) using valid, logical reasoning (rationalism) and then testing these models to see if they actually hold up under scrutiny (skepticism). Empiricorationalism is the epistemological approach of Scionics philosophy, and the epistemological approach of science.

Scientific knowledge is very different in nature from mystical beliefs. Scientific knowledge is never considered “absolute,” i.e., never considered to be “conclusively” true, beyond doubt and unquestionable; scientific ideas are always subject to further testing. This is in marked contrast to false, mystical “absolutisms:” the acceptance of things unproven and unprovable, which are clung to by mystics as being true beyond doubt or question, and the rejection of things of proven reliability which the mystic refuses to accept. Scientific knowledge is measured in terms of its reliability and predictive power, and this standard of reality-based reliability propels the further advancement of knowledge and power. Mystical beliefs are essentially measured in terms of their conformity with the mystic’s personal faith, feelings, intuitions, etc., and this adherence to invalid epistemological approaches stunts the advancement of reality-based knowledge. The ultimate price of mystical beliefs is ignorance, unhappiness and impotence; the ultimate reward for reality-based thinking is understanding, happiness and power.

The Scio-Illuminati holds exactly the view described above, and in fact urge all who are interested in non-mystical understanding and enlightenment to read The Protocols of Scionics for themselves. The information it contains is absolutely essential.

NOTE: This document contains a number of references to Scionics Philosophy, which was created by the Scionics Institute. Their website is at http://scionics.org. While we do promote the high-quality, completely rational and reality-based philosophy created by the Scionics Institute, it should be noted that the Scionics Institute is an independent organization of its own, separate from the Scio-Illuminati.


2:2 PARALLELS BETWEEN
GNOSTIC-ILLUMINATI AND SCIO-ILLUMINATI
TEACHINGS

It should be noted that the teachings of the Gnostic-Illuminati, eumystical as they are, closely parallel many of the scientific, reality-based teachings of the Scio-Illuminati; this is by design, of course. This provides a eumystical framework – which is nonetheless often in accord with reality in important ways – and which:

  1. resonates with the modern mystical mind, and;

  2. are craftily designed to help propel the less mystically-minded individual to abandon mysticism altogether, and formulate a fully reality-based view of reality.

This newly formulated reality-based view will be very similar in some general aspects to the eumystical view which was rejected.

Mystical Immortal Non-Physical Soul
versus
Non-Mystical Immortal Physical Zon

The Gnostic-Illuminati promotes the mystical concept that each individual has an immortal soul which evolves over time from an essentially unconscious entity to a godlike entity. This has important parallels with the non-mystical Zon concept, first publicly introduced by Frank R. Wallace, in his “Neo-Tech” writings. “Zon” is a term used to describe any conscious being (such as a human) who thinks and acts in a completely non-mystical, rational, objective, reality-based manner. In the original formulation of Wallace this completely non-mystical approach was defined as “fully integrated honesty.” Here is a quote regarding Zon, from the book “Zonpower from Cyberspace,” by the Zon Association:

Zon is a collective word related to the fully integrated honesty of Neo-Tech and comprises (1) the Civilization of the Universe, (2) those operating from its wide-scope perspective, and (3) the power required to control existence – the integrated power to gain limitless wealth and eternal happiness. …Zon is the mind of God. Zon is you!

Just to be completely clear on this issue, despite the quite grandiose language (including the part about “the mind of God”) used above, Zon is an absolutely non-mystical concept. It is the identification of the fact that, through a strict adherence to self-honesty, never allowing one to lie to or to deceive oneself in any manner, one will operate in complete accordance with rationality and reality. Taken to its logical conclusion, this will lead to an ever-increasing understanding and mastery of all aspects of reality. Ultimately this will lead to a god-like state of control, hence, “Zon is the mind of God.”

Zon exists only as a result of a long process of evolution. Life on earth initially evolved from inanimate matter, and then from the simplest of living things to ever-more complex organisms, and eventually to human beings. This evolution will continue, albeit directed volitionally rather than by natural selection, as individuals increasingly reject mysticism and embrace reason and reality. This will naturally result in ever-increasing understanding and control of reality, and ultimately, in various forms of physical immortality and eternally upwardly expanding forms of happiness, fulfillment and pleasure. This is the natural evolution of conceptually conscious beings, when freed from the fetters of mysticism.

This has key parallels with the Gnostic-Illuminati's eumysticism of immortal, eternal souls developing from essentially unconscious entities, into godlike entities. In fact, the mystical concept of the transmigration of souls, or “metempsychosis,” is often presented along with the claim that souls will be “reincarnated” essentially indefinitely, with each reincarnation being an opportunity for further development. Such reincarnation, it is taught, only ceases when the soul finally achieves a sufficient degree of development, and then exists in an essentially godlike state.

These concepts of Gnostic-Illuminati regarding the eumystical “soul” have important parallels with the distinctly non-mystical concept of Zon, as embraced by the Scio-Illuminati. It is natural for human beings to work to extend their lifespan, particularly if this means a longer, healthy, active life, i.e., a longer period of youthfulness, rather than simply extending old age. Medical science is certainly moving in this direction already. If taken to its logical extreme, this can only mean that ultimately humans will enjoy an essentially indefinitely extended youth, with degenerative aging and death essentially eliminated. This would be a form of “eternal youth” and “immortality” achieved through the application of reality-based reason. Other forms of immortality, based on all sorts of biological, cybernetic, and other technologies are also possible.

An important difference between these two types of immortality, i.e., that of the mystical “soul” and that of the non-mystical Zon, is that the mystical immortality of the soul is held as “given,” and therefore allows one to be lazy regarding the need to do anything to attain immortality. The immortality of Zon, on the other hand, is not simply “given.” It requires rational, reality-based hard work to attain, and even then it requires some level of work to maintain. Yet, because it is the ultimate “holy grail” for any rational, living being, it is a task which the non-mystical Zon is compelled to undertake, once the actual possibility of immortality is recognized.

The non-mystical Zon-concept also has important parallels with the mystical god-concept, although the god-concept is approached somewhat differently by the Gnostic-Illuminati and most traditional religions. The Gnostic-Illuminati, as previously stated, eumystically presents “God” as being a soul which has already achieved its highest development. Traditional religions, particularly Abrahamic religions, depict “God” as having eternally existed in this “highest” state, therefore never having needed to undergo any period of development at all.

The Scio-Illuminati, on the other hand, completely dispense with mystical imaginary souls and gods altogether, and instead identify Zon as the true highest development of consciousness and conscious power. Consciousness, like life itself, evolves from the most simple and rudimentary to the most complex and highly developed. The rational, reality-based Zon-concept implies that seeking external divine authority or assistance is futile, and that any such authority or power which exists must originate from within oneself.

Even the mystical role of “creator” has its parallels in Zon. While philosophical naturalism dispenses with all supernatural explanations regarding the creation of the universe or any of the things within it, the concept of Zon has interesting implications regarding the possibility of the intentional creation of this (or any other) universe. Physics provides compelling arguments to indicate that the creation of a universe could become feasible as Zon gains the necessary scientific knowledge and technological prowess.

Laziness and Dishonesty: The Root of Mysticism

The difference between these two types of immortality, the imaginary and “lazy” immortality of the mystical imaginary soul, versus the reality-based “hard work” physical immortality of Zon, illustrates the key difference between the mystical mind and the non-mystical mind. The difference is in the laziness and subsequent intellectual dishonesty of the mystical mind, and in the diligence and subsequent intellectual honesty of the non-mystical mind, i.e., Zon. Biological organisms are required to exert mental effort in order to produce integrated, reality-based thought. The mystic is one who habitually avoids making this effort, defaulting to lazy “easy” thinking. (This is a deceptive type of “easiness,” however, because the short-term value of the “easy” thinking of the mystic always comes at the price of a far greater long-term loss of values.) Like all habits, the longer one defaults to mysticism, the harder it is to break the habit of mysticism. Mental laziness thus leads to a weaker mind. Over time, it becomes increasingly difficult for the mystic to adopt a non-mystical mindset. (Hence the need for carefully crafted eumysticisms as a way of surreptitiously breaking down more harmful mysticisms, and acting as a stepping-stone towards actual non-mysticism.)

The habitually non-mystical Zon, however, is continually increasing in the capacity for reality-based thinking. The effort required actually becomes a sort of pleasure in its own right, and eventually becomes a semi-automatic process, somewhat like breathing. (Breathing proceeds in both a conscious and an unconscious manner: one can consciously control one's breathing in various ways, and yet one's breathing will continue without conscious control as well.) For habitually non-mystical human beings, a protracted period of intense, consciously-directed, integrated thinking can lead to a desire for a period of mental rest; even in the time of “rest” however, the mind will carry on thinking in a largely (although not necessarily exclusively) non-mystical fashion, albeit in a less consciously-directed way.

The Mystical “Morality” of Religion
versus
the Non-mystical Ethics of Zon

One's methods for making all sorts of choices in one's life is largely dependent upon one's belief-system, i.e., one's beliefs about the world, and about various aspects of the world and the things in it, and also of the methods which one uses to determine one's beliefs. One's belief-system may either be mystical, irrational, and non-reality-based, or it may be non-mystical, rational, and reality-based.

For most of human history, the prevailing and most widely adopted belief-systems were those of religion. They posited all sorts of supernatural entities and prescribed all sorts of behaviors based, in some fashion, upon these posited entities. Typically, this involved following the orders or commandments of, or otherwise appeasing or conforming to, a single all-powerful god, or some collection of gods, or various types of spirits, or some supernatural principle, or some combination of these. According to such religions, those behaviors are generally considered “moral” which agree with the supernaturally-based prescriptions; conversely, those behaviors are generally considered “immoral” which are counter to such supernaturally-based prescriptions.

All such supernatural belief-systems are forms of philosophical supernaturalism. Since philosophical supernaturalism is based upon some denial of reason and reality, and since there are essentially infinite ways of denying reason and reality, there are essentially infinite varieties of philosophical supernaturalism – all of which inherently contain contradictions of reason and reality. Any so-called “morality” which is based upon such philosophical supernaturalism must also inherently contain contradictions of reason and reality.

The alternative to philosophical supernaturalism is philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism embraces reason and reality. Whereas there are unlimited ways of denying reason and reality, and only one way of adhering to reason and reality, there is essentially only one ultimate form of philosophical naturalism. Of course, since new information is always coming to light, philosophical naturalism never claims to have absolute truth regarding all things, but integrates any new information which becomes available, thus undergoing a process leading to ever-increasing accuracy and efficacy. (This is unlike the stance of philosophical supernaturalism, which tends to deny or ignore new contradictory information.)

Because of its firm adherence to rationality and reality, philosophical naturalism results in choices and behaviors, and in an overall ethical or moral system, which are likewise firmly based upon rationality and reality. This is not to say that every choice, whether involving ethics or not, will be “absolutely” optimum, due to the possibility of unknown factors; it will, however, be the optimum choice based upon all currently available information.

Here is an excerpt from “The Protocols of Scionics,” published by Scionics Publishing:

Scionics is the invincible philosophy, science and technology of the fully integrated application of philosophical naturalism. (The term “Scionics,” like the word “science,” is derived from the Latin root “scire,” meaning “to know.”) Scionics entails the full utilization of, and adherence to, reality-based, scientifically valid criteria for developing, evaluating, and integrating concepts and beliefs. The Scionics protocols maximize an individual’s capability to respond to all situations with understanding, rationality, control and love, potentiating the extraction of maximum hedonic value from all situations.

The Scio-Illuminati, the Mathematikoi and true masters of the Illuminati, would prefer to directly promote the revolutionary Scionics Protocols to all of humanity. It would be wonderful if everyone would recognize for themselves the unrivaled advantages of this ultimate form of non-mystical philosophical naturalism. The sad fact, however, is that the vast majority of individuals are so blinded by mysticism that they are simply unable to recognize the power, scope and value of Scionics. Thus it is that the mysticism of these individuals must be attacked in a more surreptitious manner.

The Gnostic-Illuminati attempts to break individuals free from harmful traditional religious mysticisms and moral systems by replacing these with much more positive eumysticisms and moral systems. While this is certainly a valuable and powerful technique for reducing the stranglehold of religious mysticism, it often does not eliminate it completely. As such, it is not a final solution to the problem of mysticism, but is merely a step along the path. It is simply a tool we have developed to facilitate the transition from mysticism to non-mysticism. (It must be remembered that it is certain members of the Scio-Illuminati who actually head the Gnostic-Illuminati.)

Scionics embraces more than simply ethics, of course. It ultimately embraces every human activity and every aspect of reality. The eumystical teachings of the Gnostic-Illuminati run parallel to the wide-scope teachings of the Scio-Illuminati, as a means of extending the widest possible eumystical net for the purpose of beneficially entrapping and converting the mystic to non-mysticism. Freedom from this eumystical net is truly achieved, not through some eumystical “gnosis,” but through the the complete non-mysticism of the Scionics Protocols.

Metaphysics, Ontology, and Epistemology

The Gnostic-Illuminati promotes eumystical ideas which are designed to appeal to mystics while also promoting a respect for non-mystical rationality, and a concomitant disdain for irrationality and mysticism. The majority of human beings are essentially mystical, so making ideas appeal to mystics is useful as a means of popularizing them. These eumysticisms contain ideas intended to counteract other more harmful mysticisms, and often entail the positive portrayal of rationality, and the negative portrayal of irrationality.

In order to create such eumystical ideas, and to have them maintain mutual consistency with one another, the Gnostic-Illuminati teaches a set of common fundamental eumystical philosophical principles upon which to base these ideas. These foundational principles are found in metaphysics and ontology, which deal with certain fundamental aspects of reality, and in epistemology, which deals with methods for deriving accurate information from reality.

In ancient times, these foundational eumystical principles were largely created by Socrates, and then developed even further by Plato, under Akousmatikoi influence. Socrates and Plato were both mystics, and hence actually believed their own mysticisms. Neither were ever inducted into the Mathematikoi, of course, as membership required completely non-mystical thinking, just as is required by the Scio-Illuminati today.

Plato was eventually actually expelled from the Akousmatikoi, for exposing some of the so-called “secrets” of the Akousmatikoi. In reality, however, the Akousmatikoi members were tested by being “entrusted” with “secrets” as a means of testing their trustworthiness. These so-called “secrets” actually consisted of eumysticisms, however, the exposure of which would be essentially harmless or even beneficial to the Brotherhood. Plato failed the test of secrecy, and while he was then necessarily expelled from the Akousmatikoi for his betrayal of secrecy, his exposure of these eumysticisms actually proved somewhat beneficial to the mission of the Pythagorean Brotherhood.

To this day, philosophers still talk about the “Platonic realm of ideal forms.” This is the idea that there exists a “higher” realm than the physical world in which we collectively find ourselves, and that this physical world is in some ways actually illusory and unreal. This higher realm is conceived as being the “true reality,” and as being the source of such things as logic and mathematics, as well as such “ideals” as good, beauty, truth, and so on. In this Platonic system, each human being has an immortal soul, with origins in this higher realm, and which repeatedly returns to that realm and then reincarnates. Certain elements of what is commonly considered “learning,” is actually more like “remembering” the ideal realm, or even having direct mental perception of it. Over the centuries, the Akousmatikoi – the Gnostic-Illuminati – has further developed this into a very sophisticated metaphysical, ontological, and epistemological system.

The Mathematikoi – the Scio-Illuminati – has never adopted such a view. Our view, which we have held since the time of Pythagoras himself, is well-illustrated by the following rather long quote from The Protocols of Scionics, in a section titled “Empiricism, Rationalism, and Empiricorationalism:”

Empirical evidence is the evidence of sensory or perceptual experience. Epistemological empiricism is any doctrine which holds that empirical evidence is the proper means for acquiring truth and knowledge, and for forming and evaluating concepts and beliefs.

Attempts are sometimes made to discredit the validity or reliability of empiricism. This is typically done by attacks on the ontological status of the physical world, and of the ability of sensory or perceptual experience to provide any level of reliable information about actual reality. These attacks may hold that it is possible that the apparent reality of the physical world is actually a simulation, or a dream, or the like. They may also hold that, even if the physical world is real in the conventional sense, human senses and perceptions are still fallible and error-prone in a way that the absolute certainty of pure logic is not.

The problem with all such attacks is that there is no model of reality which provides greater explanatory value than the simple and self-evident proposition that the physical world is real in the conventional sense, and that our senses and perceptions are generally reliable for deriving information about the physical world – and that these senses can be vastly augmented by scientific instruments. Any alternative to this simple and self-evident proposition is more complex, and not self-evident – so what is the advantage or justification for taking on such a view? There is none, if one wishes the truth. There is no advantage or justification for adopting a more complex explanation for something, when a simpler one has greater or equal explanatory value. There is no advantage or justification for adopting a non-self-evident explanation for something, when a simpler one has greater or equal explanatory value. (The only so-called “advantage” would be the “advantage” of confusing the issue, which is only helpful when attempting to prop up nonsensical ideas and a mystical worldview, while obscuring or denying reality.) The ontological stance that the physical world is real is simpler and more self-evident than the alternatives, and has greater or equal explanatory value. This is the ontological position of Scionics regarding physical reality, and it is the ontological position upon which the epistemological position of empiricism is based and validated.

Unlike fideism or intuitionism – and despite the attacks of those who would deny the reality of the physical world or the reliability of the senses – empiricism actually has great reliability as an epistemological approach. The evidence of one’s immediate perceptual experience is nearly impossible to doubt. If one wants to know what the weather is outside, for example, one does not employ some mystical spiritual faith or intuition; instead, one can merely step outside, and one’s senses serve as all the evidence one needs.

As human beings, however, we often deal with things which are beyond our immediate perceptual experience. Stepping outside may be a flawless method for determining the weather right here, right now, but it may be a poor method for predicting tomorrow’s weather. When it is necessary to operate beyond the range of our immediate perceptual experience, we must integrate the information we already have to create new information; in other words, we must reason.

Rationalism is any doctrine which holds that reason is the proper means for acquiring truth and knowledge, and for forming and evaluating concepts and beliefs. Reason is very powerful, but it is of limited use for determining certain things about reality in the absence of empirical evidence. Without the evidence of empirical experience, reason is merely logical speculation; when properly used as a means for integrating empirical knowledge, on the other hand, reason becomes a powerful survival tool of the human mind.

Thus, neither empiricism nor rationalism, is sufficient alone as an epistemological approach for human beings, but must be used in conjunction with one another; furthermore, due to the inherently limited nature of human perceptual and reasoning abilities, empiricism and rationalism must be skeptically applied. This requires the testing and retesting of beliefs which may unknowingly be based upon erroneous or incomplete observations or reasoning. This skeptically applied integration of empiricism and rationalism is identified by Scionics as “empiricorationalism.” Empiricorationalism is the creation of models of the world (beliefs) based upon actual empirical observations (empiricism) using valid, logical reasoning (rationalism) and then testing these models to see if they actually hold up under scrutiny (skepticism). Empiricorationalism is the epistemological approach of Scionics philosophy, and the epistemological approach of science.

Scientific knowledge is very different in nature from mystical beliefs. Scientific knowledge is never considered “absolute,” i.e., never considered to be “conclusively” true, beyond doubt and unquestionable; scientific ideas are always subject to further testing. This is in marked contrast to false, mystical “absolutisms:” the acceptance of things unproven and unprovable, which are clung to by mystics as being true beyond doubt or question, and the rejection of things of proven reliability which the mystic refuses to accept. Scientific knowledge is measured in terms of its reliability and predictive power, and this standard of reality-based reliability propels the further advancement of knowledge and power. Mystical beliefs are essentially measured in terms of their conformity with the mystic’s personal faith, feelings, intuitions, etc., and this adherence to invalid epistemological approaches stunts the advancement of reality-based knowledge. The ultimate price of mystical beliefs is ignorance, unhappiness and impotence; the ultimate reward for reality-based thinking is understanding, happiness and power.

The Scio-Illuminati holds exactly the view described above, and in fact urge all who are interested in non-mystical understanding and enlightenment to read The Protocols of Scionics for themselves. The information it contains is absolutely essential.







↑  ↑  ↑  ↑  ↑
Back to top of page