Quotessence
Home / Authors / Thomas Stark

Thomas Stark Quotes

Author

Filter quotes by topic

Famous Thomas Stark Quotes

“Reason, when understood ontologically, takes on an entirely different meaning from the one conventionally assigned to it. It takes on the extra “dimensions” of emotion, perception, intuition, desire and will. All of these are involved in the intricate nexus for providing sufficient reasons for actions. People who don’t understand our work keep reducing reason to one dimension, which means that our central point that reason is ontological and explains everything – including love, human error, insanity, and everything else that, according to the conventional treatment of reason, has nothing to do with reason – has completely escaped them. Reason, in our system, is both syntactic (structural) and semantic (meaningful). Its semantic aspect is what gives it the capacity to generate all the weird and wonderful things that average people do not associate with reason. They regard reason in strictly syntactic, machinelike terms. That is only one aspect of reason. It has many others.”

“Curing humanity of its madness is the biggest challenge there is. The only remedy is to subject everyone from the day they are born to an educational regime of reason, logic, clear and critical thinking, i.e. Logos thinking, and to teach them to see straight through emotional Mythos and understand it for exactly what it is: emotional lies to seduce, manipulate, exploit and control the gullible masses. The sensory Mythos of scientism is as dangerous as the emotional and mystical Mythos of mainstream religion. Only Logos – rationalism and idealism – can provide Ariadne’s golden thread to lead us out of the labyrinth of the lunatics where the Minotaur of Madness devours everyone ritually offered up to it. It’s time to slay the Minotaur and make humanity sane”

“The “Empirical Fallacy” is that experience is knowledge when in fact it is just experience. A person could have infinite experiences and literally know nothing about what reality is. A person could perform a trillion observations and have no more clue about what reality is than someone performing divination in the ancient world, or a cockroach. It is not perceptualism that has led to humanity’s body of knowledge, it is conceptualism. Humanity doesn’t perceive better today, it conceives better, and that is purely thanks to mathematics, reason and logic.”

“Zero is at the core of the PSR because nothing can prevent zero’s existence, it requires nothing, and it is infinitely stable under all transformations. A zero is a singularity, a point, the most stable thing you can possibly get, hence the necessary basis of existence. The PSR is the science of zero.”

“Why do people that ask for “evidence” never ask for rational explanation? What is more reliable? – analytic reason, or the unreliable, fallible, limited, frequently delusional human senses where it is guaranteed that they are showing us only phenomena and never noumena (i.e. things in themselves). You cannot understand reality as a phenomenon, although this is in fact exactly what science tries to do. You can understand reality only as a noumenon – as an intelligible thing in itself – and that’s exactly what ontological mathematics is all about. Anyone that obsesses over phenomenal evidence is an opponent of noumenal truth, which is never subject to phenomenal evidence.”

“The whole shtick of scientism revolves around sensory evidence. How many times must it be said that there is no such thing as self-explanatory sensory evidence? All evidence must be interpreted, and the interpretation is not a perceiving activity but a judging activity. The catastrophic error that worshipers of scientism (autistic sensing types) commit is that they privilege perceiving over judging. They believe that perception is the most important thing, and that judgment must be directed to the maximum degree possible at the perception, and minimize and indeed eliminate any reference to anything that has not been perceived. For worshipers of scientism, perception comes first, and judging is secondary, determined by perceiving. That is what empiricism is all about. It claims that all knowledge comes from experience, that there are no innate ideas, and it revolves around synthetic propositions and a posteriori knowledge. Rationalism, by total contrast, asserts that knowledge comes from logical, rational deduction and that innate ideas form the only secure basis for knowledge. It deals with analytic propositions and a priori knowledge.”

“It’s time to blow scientism out of the water. It’s time for judging to replace perceiving. Every time a worshiper of scientism says, “Where is your sensory evidence?” (a perceiving requirement), they should be met with, “Where is your sufficient reason?” (a judging requirement). That will create cognitive dissonance in them. They will go into meltdown. Where is the sufficient reason that scientific matter exists? According to Big Bang theory, it did not exist prior to the Big Bang, and neither did space and time. In other words, we know that there was an epoch when all the stuff of perceiving – matter, space, time and the physical senses –did not exist. However, all of the stuff of judgment – mathematics – did exist. This is why judging is primary and perceiving secondary, rather than the other way around. Get with the program. Scientism is an entirely false worldview. That’s a fact. The sole thing it gets right is that uses mathematics, which is the true basis of reality.”

“Is the Bible a “source”? Is a commonly accepted scientific fallacy and misinterpretation a “source”? The “sources” once said that the earth was flat, that the earth was at the center of the universe, and that God created the earth as his special project. Why would we take “sources” seriously? All we take seriously are reason, logic, and mathematics. Sources that are in contradiction of these – and nearly all sources are – are worse than useless. What kind of pathetic human being, what kind of intellectual cripple, has to appeal to sources and authorities? Use your reason and logic … then you will end your dependency on “sources”, i.e. authorities.”

“Scientism has done its best to undermine reason and logic. Those of us that belong to the Army of Reason have never left the battlefield. We soldier on, resisting the fierce current trying to push us back onto the shore. We do not deviate from our course. Our destination is clear. The stars shine on us. All is well with the world. The Empyrean lies before us. The fire of truth burns within us. Nothing shall ever quench it. Change is coming. The future is ours. De l’audace, encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace. Audacity, more audacity, and ever more audacity.”

“By sacrificing half of his physical vision, Odin was able to gain higher vision. He traded lower perception for the ability to perceive the non-physical. Where will you go to find knowledge? What price will you pay? What sacrifice will you make? Knowledge is not for the faint-hearted. The highest knowledge is only for the gods. Are you one of them, or do you shun all difficult challenges and remain bound to the earth as a rotting carcass like all the others? The twilight of empiricism is here. Odin finally realized that he needed no eyes, and no senses at all, to understand reality. Reason and logic were all he required.”

“Reason is indeed all about identity, or, rather, tautology. Mathematics is the eternal, necessary system of rational, analytic tautology. Tautology is not “empty”, as it is so often characterized by philosophers. It is in fact the fullest thing there, the analytic ground of existence, and the basis of everything. Mathematical tautology has infinite masks to wear, hence delivers infinite variety. Mathematical tautology provides Leibniz’s world that is “simplest in hypothesis and the richest in phenomena.” No hypothesis cold be simpler than the one revolving around tautologies concerning “nothing.” There is something – existence – because nothing is tautologous, and “something” is how that tautology is expressed. If we write x = 0, where x is any expression that has zero as its net result, then we have a world of infinite possibilities where something (“x”) equals nothing (0).”

“Empiricists say, “Where’s your evidence?” In fact, our evidence is every piece of evidence ever gathered by science. Our disagreement is not with the evidence, it’s with the interpretation of the evidence. Every scientist interprets the evidence via the Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism, leading to wholly bizarre and irrational conclusions. The correct way to interpret the evidence is via rationalism and idealism. When has any scientific experiment ever refuted rationalism and idealism and proved the truth of empiricism and materialism? Scientists are so ignorant and philosophically illiterate that they don’t even realize they are engaged in interpretation rather than factuality.”

“Language necessarily involves bringing any particular under more and more general and universal labels. That’s what conceptualization is all about: reducing particular things to fewer and fewer generalizations and universals, until, ultimately, reality is reduced to just one universal, the supreme concept that explains everything. This one concept is the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). The whole point of concepts is to reach more and more general and universal levels until we ultimately arrive at one concept – the ultimate universal which explains the whole of reality. That concept is the PSR.”

“Reality is defined by the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Anyone who denies this is ipso facto an irrationalist. Whatever they say is necessarily irrational, hence can be immediately discounted. The very act of trying to provide reasons why the Principle of Sufficient Reason is wrong is irrational because, in trying to find reasons, you have already acknowledged the supremacy of the PSR. You cannot use reasons to attack reason while denying the worth of reason. Yet it’s astounding how many people try.”

“Scientists think rationalists are mad because the rationalists are dancing to the Music of the Spheres, to which scientists are stone deaf. Scientists are like the blind describing the visible world to the sighted. The vast majority of reality is hidden from the human senses, yet scientists have chosen to consider the observable as the only reality, and everything else as unreal. In fact, the unobservable is true reality, and the observable is a sensory phenomenal, empirical delusion that actively masks non-sensory, noumenal, rational reality.”

“The ground of the spacetime domain is the frequency domain. What exists beyond spacetime isn’t anything mysterious and unknowable, it’s just frequency, i.e. the domain of pure mind, of pure light, the photonic domain: immaterial, massless, maximally length contracted (it does not experience space) and time dilated (it does not experience time), unextended and dimensionless; everything that matter is not. The photonic domain of mind is simply Leibniz’s world of pure monads, Descartes’ world of thinking substance, and Hegel’s world of the Absolute Idea. It is the inside of reality.”

“In any analysis of any part of the world, it is mandatory to institute a general reasoning in which the whole – the Absolute – is also included. This is what science scrupulously avoids. Science is all about the parts, and ignoring the whole. Science is non-holistic, which is why it cannot arrive at a grand unified, final theory of everything. From the whole you can get to every part, because the whole defines the parts. If you start with the parts, as science does, you can never get to the whole because the parts are necessarily defined piecemeal, heuristically and with no regard to the whole, since the whole is unknown. A bottom-up approach can never work. Only top-down approaches have any chance of working. Empiricists are always parts people and bottom-up people. Rationalists are holistic and top-down. These are opposite worldviews. The PSR is an explanatory, top-down principle. Randomness is a non-explanatory, bottom-up speculation.”

“God’s perfection lies in the domain of Being. In the domain of Becoming, he is totally fragmented and on a mission to put himself back together again. God shatters himself into infinite pieces then puts them all back together again to make a perfect whole. We are all tiny images or reflections of God. We are all cells of God. We are all mirrors of God.”

“The PSR gives rise to ontological mathematics, which is just the exploration of all the different ways in which x = 0 can be explored, and x can be any expression at all, provided it can ultimately be reduced to zero. There are infinite mathematical tautologies, all of which are consistent with the PSR and Occam’s razor. Nothing can be simpler in hypothesis than requiring everything to equal zero, and nothing could be richer in phenomena than this strict requirement since there are infinite ways to generate mathematical expressions that equal zero. So, the law of ultimate simplicity leads, inevitably, to endless variety ... all thanks to mathematics and the equals sign. There is no contradiction whatsoever between total simplicity and infinite variety ... that’s exactly why math is so powerful, and can produce the incredibly varied universe we live in ... all of which is simply “nothing” expressed in different ways. Is that not the ultimate miracle? But it’s not a miracle at all. It is the direct consequence of the PSR, hence is the most rational thing of all.”

“The PSR is equivalent to a generalized version of Euler’s Formula, the most important analytic formula of mathematics, which is in turn ontologically conveyed through mental, metaphysical, mathematical points (monads: eternal sinusoidal energy systems, each of which constitutes an autonomous mind). Despite what science says using the fallacies and incongruities of correspondence, the whole scientific world is in fact rooted in total coherence, in the generalized Euler Formula, the God Equation. The God Equation is ontologically conveyed not by a single eternal God, but by a myriad of eternal minds. All of these minds considered collectively constitute “God”, and they have a net result of zero.”

“Ontological mathematics is operating in such a way as to organize itself into a zero-entropy structure – mathematical perfection. The “Big Bang” is equivalent to the total scrambling of a cosmic Rubik’s Cube. The task of ontological mathematics is then to unscramble the Cube and return it to its original, pristine configuration. Emotionally, this amounts to returning to perfect Love and Bliss. Intellectually, it means reaching a state of perfect logic and reason … thinking perfectly”

“Blabbering on about “evidence” exposes the bankruptcy of your capacity to present a rational argument. No rational, necessary argument has any reliance whatsoever on empirical contingency. None of the eternal truths of reason requires any human senses, or any human experiences, or any human “evidence”. In other words, the eternal truths of reason – the rational basis of existence – have zero reliance on human science.”

“You can never get enough generality. The more general solution the better. The solution to existence is the most general solution of all, the solution least infected by particularity. That is its defining quality. The entire way of thinking mathematically – in terms of simplicity, generality, tautology, elegance, beauty, stability, the eternal, the necessary, coherence, the analytic, the a priori – is totally different from the way a scientist thinks, which is always mired in particularity, inelegance, ugliness, the temporal, the contingent, the ad hoc, the arbitrary, the heuristic, the speculative; in Feynman’s crude guessing game.”

“Euler’s formula – although deceptively simple – is actually staggeringly conceptually difficult to apprehend in its full glory, which is why so many mathematicians and scientists have failed to see its extraordinary scope, range, and ontology, so powerful and extensive as to render it the master equation of existence, from which the whole of mathematics and science can be derived, including general relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces! It’s not called the God Equation for nothing. It is much more mysterious than any theistic God ever proposed.”

“The great rationalist Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am.” The religious mystic the Buddha said, “I think, therefore I am not.” Why is the Buddha much more popular than Descartes? Because the average person barely thinks at all.”

“The temporal, contingent world is, as Leibniz said, a “collection of finite things.” It is possible only because it is underpinned by an eternal, necessary world, comprising a collection of zero-infinity things, i.e. monads.”