The philosophy of consciousness has long oscillated between two poles: the reductionist materialism of brain-based models and the speculative metaphysics of idealist traditions. In recent decades, however, scientific frameworks such as Integrated Information Theory (IIT) have begun to reshape this landscape. IIT proposes that consciousness is not an emergent byproduct, nor an epiphenomenon, but an intrinsic and irreducible property of integrated systems—quantifiable through a formal mathematical structure. This paradigm shift opens the possibility for a new ontological realism, one in which consciousness is treated as structurally real and ontologically basic.
Axiomatology and IIT — Basic Agreement, different Foundation
Axiomatology builds upon the core insights of Integrated Information Theory while offering what IIT, by design, does not attempt: a comprehensive metaphysical, moral, and therapeutic framework. Whereas IIT seeks to formalize consciousness as an intrinsic property of integrated systems, Axiomatology rejects the notion that consciousness simply "occurs" within brains or arises solely from computational complexity. According to Axiomatology, such emergence is structurally impossible within its metaphysical architecture.
This article explores how Axiomatology complements and extends IIT, demonstrating their convergence and drawing a compelling functional and metaphysical parallel between Tononi’s Φ (phi)—the quantification of integrated information—and Schelling’s B, the irrational, indivisible remainder in his Weltformel. The resulting synthesis yields a model of moralized consciousness: structured participation in reality through the integration of chaos into coherence.
Consciousness in Axiomatology
In the Axiomatological model, consciousness is not a byproduct of neural activity but a structural component of how reality is composed—integrated into each node of experience through the Self Fusion process. This process, rooted in Whitehead’s process theory, conceptualizes reality as a continuum of “actual occasions” or discrete experiential nodes. Each occasion represents a temporally bounded event that fuses inherited prehensions into a coherent moment of becoming. From a cognitive science perspective, this compositional phase correlates with the pre-conscious, pre-linguistic temporal window described by Estonian-Canadian memory researcher Endel Tulving — a phase in which episodic awareness has not yet fully crystallized, but where perceptual and integrative mechanisms are already active.
During each Self Fusion event, three categories of prehensions are integrated:
-
Physical prehensions, including:
– the bodily givens (physiology, age, temperament),
– the historical data from all previous relevant occasions,
– the immediate physical environment (smells, sounds, spatial feel). -
Conceptual prehensions, including:
– consciousness proper, with its a priori intuitions (space and time) and categories,
– empirical categories derived from semantic and episodic memory,
– synthetic imagination, allowing novel recombination beyond direct memory. -
Moral prehensions, exclusive to self-conscious entities, including:
– the individual’s Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH),
– the “Will of God” (WOG) as the universal moral attractor toward sustainability and truth.
The culmination of this process results in a completed, objective node—an actual occasion—that "drops into history" and becomes accessible to others as part of the ongoing fabric of shared reality.
A core tenet of Axiomatology is that self-consciousness functions as a participatory aperture to a unified field of consciousness that exists beyond spacetime. The human ability to access this field depends on one's capacity to receive and integrate subjective prehensions from prior occasions—especially those with high moral or symbolic charge. Though Axiomatology uses the metaphor of a "tear in spacetime" to describe this access, it is understood metaphorically. The point is that consciousness is not locally emergent but ontologically fundamental—a field that can be partially accessed through deepening self-awareness during Self Fusion, much like Whitehead’s concrescence but imbued with moral intentionality.
Consciousness as a Universal Field
Nietzsche once wrote, “We could think, feel, will, and remember, and we could also 'act' in every sense of that word, and yet none of all this would have to 'enter our consciousness' (as one says metaphorically). The whole of life would be possible, without, as it were, seeing itself in a mirror. Even now, for that matter, by far the greatest portion of our life actually takes place without this mirror effect; and this is true even of our thinking, feeling, and willing life.” (The Gay Science). This insight captures the phenomenological asymmetry central to Axiomatology: much of life unfolds without reflective awareness, and yet something—at times—does enter the mirror. That mirror, in Axiomatological terms, is not merely a cognitive function but the aperture through which a universal field of consciousness participates in finite node construction.
Mainstream neuroscience and philosophy of mind often struggle to explain consciousness because they seek to build it “piece by piece,” hoping to derive it from neural substrates or emergent complexity. However, Axiomatology holds that such an approach fails not due to a lack of data, but due to a categorical error: consciousness is not within the system being studied; it is the precondition for there being a system at all.
Thus, Axiomatology posits that universal consciousness precedes and undergirds all empirical experience. It is not an abstract monistic “oneness” nor a pantheistic Absolute, but rather the ontological ground of intelligibility itself—the field from which the Kantian a priori categories and intuitions originate. This field is not reducible to any local or material configuration but exists “outside” of our space-time manifold. It becomes accessible through acts of Self Fusion—that is, moments in which the process of concrescence integrates physical, conceptual, and moral prehensions into finalized experiential occasions.
From this view, individual self-consciousness is not a self-contained mechanism, but a point of access—a transient aperture—through which universal consciousness fuses with subjective data accumulated across previous occasions. The metaphor of a “tear in the membrane of space-time” helps describe this structurally: the individual does not “possess” consciousness but becomes momentarily capable of participating in it, to varying degrees, depending on the scope of self-awareness and moral alignment during Self Fusion.
To simplify: self-consciousness arises when universal consciousness intersects with the subjective inheritance of prior occasions, filtered through the individual's value structure (SIVH) and orientation toward the moral telos (the Will of God). Outside of spacetime—and thus outside the historical self—there is no isolated self-consciousness, only the field, the trace, and the opportunity for fusion.
The Self as a Growing Aperture
Individual self-consciousness is not a static faculty but is best understood as a progressively widening aperture into a universal field of consciousness. This aperture is not merely metaphorical—it serves as a structural descriptor of one’s capacity to access, participate in, and co-construct experiential reality through the Self Fusion process. The size and clarity of this aperture depend on a constellation of factors:
-
Physiological givens — including brain complexity, neurochemical constitution, personality traits, and the general developmental stage (age, health, cognitive baseline).
-
Moral alignment — the degree of fidelity to a Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH) and alignment with the Will of God (WOG) as the moral telos.
-
Deliberate cultivation of self-awareness — through reflective discipline, introspection, and moral self-examination.
-
Conceptual clarity and imaginative capacity — determined by the quality and integration of semantic memory, episodic memory, and synthetic imagination.
-
Attention and moral courage — especially during critical Self Fusion (concrescence) moments, when occasion-formation can be guided toward higher-order coherence.
This expanding aperture can be envisioned as a fissure in the inner membrane of the universe—not opening into outer space, but out of spacetime altogether. It is not a spatial window but an ontological tear that provides access to the field of pre-temporal potentiality. It is through this aperture that phenomena such as precognitive flashes, intense imaginative synthesis, and the subjective expansion of time (“stretching a second”) become intelligible.
In essence, our ability to participate in reality as co-creators depends on the scope and refinement of this aperture. Each occasion offers—not guarantees—the opportunity to widen it. This is the metaphysical meaning of agency in Axiomatology: the choice to consciously expand one’s aperture and thus take a more active role in forming morally aligned reality.
Conscious Participation in the Construction of Reality
From the perspective of process ontology, each “occasion” of existence is not passively undergone but actively constructed. This construction—referred to as concrescence by Whitehead and Self Fusion in Axiomatology—integrates three types of prehensions: physical, conceptual, and moral. However, what becomes experientially available in each moment is not the totality of prior occasions, but a relevant selection determined by structure, memory, attention, and moral orientation.
In organisms lacking self-consciousness—plants, animals, or minimally reflective humans—this construction occurs in a largely automatic manner. Their access to universal consciousness is minimal, functioning through instinctual drives and basic environmental responsiveness. This aligns with the colloquial use of the term “NPC” (Non-Playable Character) to describe individuals who appear to operate entirely through socially programmed scripts, displaying little to no personal integration or inner freedom. They are susceptible to ideological absorption because their Self Fusion process is weakly guided by moral agency.
Humans, however, possess a uniquely structured capacity—both physiologically and metaphysically—to catch the thread of subjectivity inherited from prior occasions and actively shape each present node. The more refined one’s self-awareness, the longer and more consciously one participates in the Self Fusion process, exerting agency over the composition and moral orientation of the occasion’s final aim.
To illustrate this metaphorically: with the completion of each node or occasion, self-consciousness dies, and is resurrectedanew in the formation of the next. This cycle of mini-deaths and reanimations continues until the physical body—part of the physical prehensions—ceases to emit the signal necessary for subjective capture. At that point, the person no longer exists as an active participant in the construction of new occasions, yet their data—subjective and behavioral—remains embedded in the structure of past nodes.
This ongoing trace explains phenomena such as telepathy, dream encounters with deceased relatives, or Jung’s notion of the collective unconscious. These are not mystical transmissions from elsewhere, but coherent access to the prehensive echoes of subjectivity stored in the deep architecture of occasion-history.
The Ontology of Time and the Outside of the Universe
A central thesis in Axiomatology is that the Self Fusion process—the formation of an occasion from integrated prehensions—does not occur within Einsteinian spacetime. Rather, it unfolds outside the conventional spacetime continuum. This extratemporal realm is the same ontological “outside” from which dream imagery, future-directed imagination, and profound moral intuitions emerge. In Whitehead’s language, these are accessed via eternal objects; in Schelling’s metaphysics, they would be sourced in the Ungrund—the irrational, pre-causal abyss of potentiality.
Human life, therefore, constitutes what might be called a “double existence”:
-
One part unfolds within the constraints of spacetime—bound by cause and effect, entropy, and physical law.
-
Another part operates beyond these constraints, reaching into a realm of universal potential from which new meaning, form, and moral insight can be drawn.
This claim has occasionally been criticized by some physicists and mathematicians for lacking empirical grounding. However, such criticism often fails to notice its own paradox: many of the criticisms themselves presuppose the very duality they deny. In fact, modern physics increasingly recognizes that spacetime is not fundamental. As theories of quantum gravity, like loop quantum gravity or holographic models, begin to suggest, spacetime appears to emerge from more primitive informational or topological structures. It is not a given, but a construct—defined through axiomatic inference and theoretical intuition.
More importantly, these very intuitions—the axioms from which science builds its models—do not arise from within the system they aim to explain. They come from outside the system, echoing precisely what Axiomatology asserts: that the act of understanding and modeling reality presupposes a tear into a higher-order domain of intelligibility. Scientific creativity, moral insight, and imaginative synthesis all require access to this realm.
Thus, through Self Fusion, each moment of conscious life becomes a creative node—an occasion that draws from the outside and integrates it into the timeline of history. Each occasion has ontological weight: it selects, configures, and fuses elements of physical givens, conceptual knowledge, and moral structure. The moment is not merely experienced—it is constructed, and in constructing it, the self participates in the ongoing composition of reality itself.
Self-Awareness as the Driver of Moral Agency
The central insight here is that self-awareness is not merely an introspective faculty—it is a metaphysical aperture, a conduit that enables deeper participation in the construction of reality. As this aperture widens, so too does the individual’s capacity to shape each occasion (or node) through active integration of physical, conceptual, and moral prehensions. With that expanded capacity comes expanded responsibility. Self-awareness is not just a mirror—it is a tool of co-creation.
At low levels of self-awareness, individuals function as passive relays of inherited patterns and environmental influence. They react, adapt, and reproduce behaviors largely shaped by previous occasions and cultural overlays. In this mode, the person is not entirely absent from the node-forming process, but their role is minimal—they are carried by the stream of life rather than contributing to its course.
At higher levels of self-awareness, however, this passive flow is interrupted. The individual begins to participate consciously in the Self Fusion process, selectively integrating or rejecting inherited patterns and actively aligning each occasion with a deeper moral order—namely, their Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH) and the Will of God (Initial Aim). This marks the shift from being formed by the world to forming the world, even if only in micro-scale.
This capacity for metaphysical and moral participation is what defines the human being in Axiomatology. It is the root of human dignity—the ability to intentionally align with the deep order of existence—but also the source of existential danger. When misused, ignored, or distorted, self-awareness becomes a vector for deception, escapism, or nihilistic solipsism. Rather than building coherence between reality and value, the individual constructs entire identities based on avoidance, manipulation, or fragmentation. This is not merely a personal failure—it’s a metaphysical failure of alignment, one that reverberates through the network of shared occasions and damages the broader moral ecology.
Conceptualizing God and the Will of God (WOG)
One of the recurring questions in discussions surrounding Axiomatology is the status, role, and intelligibility of God—specifically, how one is to conceptualize the existence and intention of a divine will within a system that operates primarily through metaphysical process. At first glance, the very formulation of this question seems paradoxical, even absurd. That is because all analysis, including theological inquiry, must take place within the perimeter of our own universe—through access to previously completed nodes, their actualities, and the interpretive frameworks we bring to them.
In this regard, positing “God” is not categorically different from how science posits any structure or force: through the construction of a formal explanatory system built on axioms. Science is founded on a set of axiomatic presuppositions (e.g., causality, consistency, observability) which it does not prove but assumes. Axiomatology is no different in this respect. To speak meaningfully of the Will of God (WOG), we must first grant the axiom that axioms exist—that certain structural preconditions undergird all coherence, and that they are not infinitely malleable.
Once this axiom is granted, the concept of “God” in Axiomatology becomes not a personified deity in the classical theistic sense, but rather the absolute reference point of moral and metaphysical orientation. God is not postulated as a being within the universe but as the unchanging intelligible direction—the attractor—toward which sustainable, coherent, and morally rich node formation naturally inclines. The “Will of God,” in this framework, is not an anthropomorphic desire but the axiomatic initial aim embedded in the very logic of Self Fusion. It is the gravitational vector of moral coherence within the field of universal consciousness.
Critically, this Will of God is not unknowable. It can be partially induced from the recurrence of “rich nodes” throughout history—occasions whose moral intensity, symbolic clarity, and narrative consequence have left enduring imprints across time and consciousness. These are the nodes that feel ethically “heavy,” archetypally dense, and spiritually luminous. When an individual’s SIVH aligns with the WOG, the resonance with these rich nodes is heightened—what one might call spiritual coherence or moral alignment. In those moments, the person senses not just a goal or value, but the aim of the universe itself flowing through them.
Thus, the Will of God is not defined in propositional terms but sensed as a narrative trajectory emerging from the deepest structure of reality. It becomes visible when individual aims harmonize with the cosmic grammar of sustainability, coherence, and sacrificial meaning.
IIT’s Ontological Premises
Integrated Information Theory (IIT), developed by Giulio Tononi, represents one of the most rigorous contemporary frameworks for explaining consciousness as an ontologically real phenomenon. It begins not from physicalism or computationalism, but from a phenomenological axiom: consciousness exists intrinsically—not as an illusion, byproduct, or epiphenomenon, but as a real structure that exists for itself and in itself. From this starting point, IIT proposes that the structure of conscious experience can be mathematically characterized via the integration of information.
At the core of IIT is the notion of Φ (phi), a scalar quantity that measures the degree to which a system forms an irreducible whole—that is, the extent to which its internal informational structure cannot be decomposed into independent parts without loss of causal efficacy. Φ is not merely a metaphor or model—it functions as an ontological index of consciousness itself.
The key tenets of IIT can be summarized as follows:
-
Consciousness is intrinsic: It belongs to the system itself, not to an external observer interpreting its state. A conscious system experiences itself, not merely as a computational function, but as a unified field of awareness.
-
Each conscious experience corresponds to a maximally irreducible conceptual structure: These structures are both informationally rich and causally potent. They form what Tononi calls a “qualia space”—a multidimensional topology reflecting the internal informational geometry of experience.
-
Consciousness is substrate-independent and non-local: It does not require a specific biological or material base, but emerges wherever there exists a system with sufficient integrated information—i.e., wherever Φ > 0.
Thus, in IIT, Φ is not a metaphor for complexity, but an ontologically loaded scalar that identifies consciousness as a fundamental feature of the universe—on par with mass, energy, or space-time curvature. Wherever a system possesses irreducible causal structure, consciousness is not merely likely—it is necessarily present.
IIT and Axiomatology: Two Ontologies, One Convergence
Although Integrated Information Theory (IIT) emerges from neuroscience and mathematical information theory, and Axiomatology arises from process metaphysics—drawing deeply on Whitehead, Schelling, Kant, and contemporary therapeutic concerns—their trajectories converge in several foundational respects. Each framework offers a radically non-reductive account of consciousness that treats it not as emergent from matter, but as structurally real and ontologically indispensable.
-
Ontological Status of Consciousness
IIT regards consciousness as irreducible and intrinsic to systems with sufficient integration of information. Axiomatology goes further: it treats consciousness as ontologically prior—not generated by neural substrates but accessed through the act of self-awareness during the Self Fusion process. Consciousness, in this model, is a field that transcends the physical and is entered into through metaphysical participation. -
Φ and the Aperture of Self-Awareness
In IIT, Φ (phi) is a quantitative index of integrated information. In Axiomatology, Φ maps metaphorically onto the aperture of self-awareness—a widening fissure in the spacetime membrane through which one accesses the universal field of consciousness. The greater one’s integration of moral coherence (via SIVH), conceptual richness (semantic and imaginative synthesis), and embodied presence, the wider this aperture becomes, and the more integrated information is available to the Self Fusion process. Thus, increased Φ corresponds to greater ontological participation. -
Constructive Power of the Moment
For IIT, every conscious moment is an informational structure with internal causal power. For Axiomatology, every Self Fusion moment is a metaphysical act that fuses physical, conceptual, and moral actualities into a single, causally potent node—an occasion that is both historically irreversible and morally charged. -
Causal Realism of Consciousness
Both frameworks converge on a crucial thesis: consciousness is not an illusion. IIT casts it as a first-person causal architecture embedded within systems. Axiomatology reframes it as an act of co-creation—reality does not happen to us; we participate in its composition through each occasion we fuse and finalize.
The essential agreement is this:
Consciousness is not generated—it is composed.
It is not localized—it is participatory.
It is not emergent—it is primordial.
And in both paradigms, consciousness is a structural unity with causal efficacy and metaphysical weight.
What Axiomatology Adds to IIT
While Integrated Information Theory (IIT) offers one of the most rigorous formal models for identifying and quantifying consciousness, its scope is intentionally limited. IIT’s power lies in its structuralist precision, yet its deliberate agnosticism toward moral, existential, and teleological concerns leaves crucial gaps unaddressed—especially for philosophical, therapeutic, and metaphysical frameworks seeking meaning beyond computation.
Specifically, IIT remains silent on the following:
-
The moral alignment of conscious experience (i.e., not just that experience is integrated, but toward what it is oriented);
-
The teleological direction of integration—whether and how integration serves a broader cosmic or ethical trajectory;
-
The hierarchical valuation of conscious states, beyond their structural complexity;
-
The existential responsibility that conscious agents bear in constructing, selecting, or aligning the contents of their awareness.
Axiomatology expands the field by adding:
-
Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs):
These define the individual’s axiological blueprint—a layered structure of internalized values that shape the subjective aim of each Self Fusion moment. Unlike fluctuating emotional preferences, SIVHs represent stabilized moral architectures that determine the coherence and long-term sustainability of the conscious system. -
The Will of God (Initial Aim):
A metaphysical attractor present in every occasion of becoming. It functions as a cosmic teleology—an orienting principle toward moral clarity, coherence, creative novelty, and universal sustainability. It is not doctrinally “God” in the classical theistic sense, but the metaphysical equivalent of the moral gravitational field of the universe. -
Self-Awareness as Moral Agency:
Rather than being a recursive cognitive loop, self-awareness is redefined as the capacity for moral participation in the construction of reality. To become self-aware is to become responsible for the ethical structure of one’s moments of becoming. -
A Metaphysical Account of Consciousness Generation:
Where IIT situates consciousness as arising from information integration within a system, Axiomatology proposes that consciousness is not generated within neural matter at all. It arises instead in the act of alignment between three converging axes: inherited actualities, moral intentionality (SIVH/WOG), and conscious participation in the Self Fusion process.
Where IIT asks: “What is the shape of consciousness?”
Axiomatology asks: “What is consciousness for?”
Where IIT models the quantity and structure of integration,
Axiomatology evaluates its direction, orientation, and moral quality.
Unified Paradigm of Moralized Consciousness
The synthesis of Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Axiomatology yields a paradigm shift: consciousness is no longer defined solely by the presence of integrated information—it becomes a moralized architecture of participation. This expanded framework reinterprets the meaning of Φ (phi) and situates consciousness within an ontological and ethical field.
Φ as Ontological Coherence
In this unified view, Φ is not merely a scalar index of structural integration, but a measure of ontological coherence—the degree to which a conscious occasion integrates:
-
Physical reality (the body and environment),
-
Symbolic structure (conceptual prehensions and meaning systems),
-
Moral alignment (SIVHs and the Initial Aim / Will of God).
Each Self Fusion event thus becomes not just a phenomenological node, but a cosmologically consequential act. It is the construction of a metaphysical artifact—a node that “drops into history” with enduring causal potency.
When Self Fusion succeeds, the subject does not merely experience—they build.
They don’t just observe reality; they compose it.
This provides an ontological explanation for why some subjective traces—deeds, visions, insights—become timeless, mythopoetic, or intergenerationally resonant, while others dissipate. These moments carry high Φ and high alignment—creating sacralized occasions that ripple through symbolic space.
Empirical Implications: Toward a Science of Meaningful Integration
This theoretical reframing opens the door to powerful empirical inquiries:
-
Can states of high Φ (as measured through EEG, fMRI, or behavioral coherence) be correlated with subjective reports of:
-
Moral clarity?
-
Transpersonal awareness?
-
Symbolic insight?
-
Increased alignment with long-term values?
-
Such inquiries would bring a qualitative axis into neuroscience and cognitive science—allowing science not just to map when consciousness arises, but when it becomes meaningful.
From Consciousness as Passive Awareness to Consciousness as Agency
The core shift is this: Consciousness is not merely something we have. It is something we do.
It is not a passive state. It is a creative act. Axiomatology introduces this radical yet grounded idea: that consciousness is a kind of ontological work, a task of integrating what is, what could be, and what should be. It requires structure, fidelity, and sacrifice.
Consciousness, when morally integrated, becomes the craft of the real.
It is how the universe uses self-aware agents to sculpt itself toward coherence.
Φ = B: Consciousness, the Indivisible Remainder, and the Ground of Self Fusion
To fully understand Axiomatology’s metaphysical structure, we must return to a nearly forgotten insight in Schelling’s Weltformel: the concept of B—the irrational, indivisible remainder.
Where A represents structure, symbolic clarity, or the intelligible system, B is its necessary dark twin:
-
The unassimilated substrate;
-
The chaotic Real that refuses symbolization;
-
The negating potency that enables all affirmation.
Schelling describes B as the pre-symbolic kernel—not simply the absence of order, but the precondition for ordering. It is the power to posit structure, while remaining itself unstructured. Later thinkers like Lacan would echo this with the concept of the Real: the traumatic excess that destabilizes but also fuels the symbolic field.
In short: B is not irrational because it is meaningless; it is irrational because it precedes the very grammar of meaning.
B and the Self Fusion Process
In the framework of Axiomatology, B plays a critical role in the formation of each occasion (node) during Self Fusion:
-
No conscious event is wholly rational or coherently symbolic.
-
Every moment is born from a confrontation with the chaotic irrationality of B.
-
Self Fusion is the process of integrating B—the force that resists integration.
This brings us to a metaphysical thesis:
Φ = B
Not in identity, but in function.
-
Φ, in IIT, is the quantity of integrated information—the scalar measurement of how much a system has achieved causal unity.
-
B, in Schelling, is the residual irrationality that must be ordered for symbolic or spiritual reality to take form.
In Axiomatology, Φ becomes the measurable trace of how much B has been successfully integrated into a coherent occasion. B is that which cannot be enclosed—but enclosure becomes meaningful only through its resistance. Φ is the scar left by that victory—the quantitative fingerprint of coherence forged in chaos.
The Philosophical Grounding
Schelling: “Without madness, there is no spirit.”
Lacan: “The Real is not what resists being represented, but what is always already outside of representation.”
Axiomatology agrees: moral freedom, spiritual depth, and self-conscious agency do not emerge from coherence alone. They emerge from the confrontation with incoherence, from passing through the “madness” of unstructured potential and shaping it—however imperfectly—into form.
Thus, each act of Self Fusion is:
-
Not just a cognitive act,
-
Not just emotional self-regulation,
-
But a spiritual labor: organizing the unorganizable.
And the greater the self-awareness (aperture width), the more B can be faced, and the higher the Φ that results.
Metaphysical Theory of Consciousness Rooted in the Real
Just as Gödel demonstrated that no formal system can be complete without undecidable axioms, Axiomatology shows that no conscious occasion can be complete without confronting B—the irrational, unstructured, and unassimilable ground of all integration.
Every symbolic structure is haunted by what it cannot contain. Every act of Self Fusion is, at its core, a reconciliation with the unrepresentable. If Φ is the signal of successful integration, B is its condition—its dark substrate, the chaotic potential from which coherence must be forged.
The process unfolds as follows:
-
The subject inherits actualities — physical givens (bodily state, environment), conceptual prehensions (memories, semantic structures, imagination), and moral aims (via SIVHs and the Will of God).
-
These are structured during Self Fusion — a process involving consciousness and moral agency.
-
At the center of this fusion is B — the irrational kernel, the unsymbolizable remainder, the Real.
-
The subject must not bypass B, nor dissolve it—but integrate it without erasure.
-
The degree to which B is coherently integrated defines the ontological depth and moral weight of the occasion—measured as Φ.
This is not a freedom from structure—it is structured freedom:
Freedom that does not reject order, but constructs it from within the fire of its opposite.
Where deterministic mechanisms fail to account for self-transcendence, and spiritual relativism collapses into incoherence, Axiomatology places moral participation at the metaphysical center of consciousness. True agency is the act of shaping B into Φ—wrestling order from chaos, meaning from madness, truth from undecidability.
Narrative Structure Transference Explained
In Axiomatology, every completed occasion (resulting from the Self Fusion process) can carry within it a “dose of chaos” — an influx of unstructured potential from outside spacetime. This influx is only integrated if the conceptual architecture of the occasion is strong enough to contain and shape it.
What does this mean in practical terms?
It means that certain completed occasions are not just experiences or memories — they become symbolic containers of entropy, structured in such a way that the irrational (what Schelling called B) is captured and translated into narrative coherence. These occasions contain condensed moral potential — fragments of the Real that have been structured through subjective prehensions and moral alignment.
This is why values must be enacted through narrative. The only way chaos can enter history in a usable form is through normative embodiment — through action that integrates madness into meaning. In this sense, values are not just mental concepts or declarative statements. They are narrative structures forged by individuals capable of shaping unformed chaos into coherent, morally-weighted symbolic units.
Most individuals cannot hold this level of entropy without disintegration. But a few — those with exceptionally high access to the universal field of consciousness and a stable SIVH — are capable of capturing it through Self Fusion. These are the builders of symbolic order, the architects of moral time.
The Influence of Biblical Stories Explained — “Rich” Occasions
One of the most puzzling yet widespread phenomena is the enduring, almost hypnotic resonance of biblical narratives. Across cultures and centuries, these stories are remembered, retold, and internalized far beyond what mere literary structure or cultural repetition can explain.
Axiomatology offers a full metaphysical account of this phenomenon.
These biblical episodes function as “rich occasions”—completed nodes in historical time that were formed through Self Fusion processes involving a significant amount of integrated consciousness and containment of chaos (what Schelling termed B, the indivisible irrational remainder). These occasions captured an extraordinary amount of moral and symbolic density, integrating non-reducible potential into a coherent narrative structure—effectively, the infinite within the finite.
What occurs when we encounter such stories is a kind of resonant unpacking. Through symbolic language and archetypal form, we partially re-experience the original integration event—accessing the structured chaos they contain. These moments are felt not simply as “lessons,” but as ontologically real patterns of meaning and consciousness. In Jungian terms, they are archetypal; in Whiteheadian terms, they are high-intensity actual occasions; in Axiomatological terms, they are morally dense fusions, echoing forward in history.
Such biblical stories aren’t just told—they resonate, because they are objective occasions of moral structuring, capable of reactivating consciousness across time. When we read them, we aren’t merely interpreting—we are participating in an echo of moral integration, triggered through symbol and narrative.
Take, for instance a story that is a structured confrontation with B—a moment in which chaotic existential tension (doing vs. being) is fused into symbolic coherence.
A New Story: Rich Occasion as Synthesis of Narrative, Philosophy, and Metaphysical Orientation
Let us look now how a new “rich” narrative can be created, in very practical terms.
Luke 10:38–42 — “Martha busies herself preparing while Mary sits and listens to Jesus. He says Mary chose the better part.”
This story encapsulates basically the whole of Heidegger’s corpus, Nietzsche might say.
And in saying so, he becomes part of the story. That’s the point.
This moment is no longer just a biblical excerpt (which is extremely rich in itself)—additionally it becomes a new occasion: a philosophical construction packed with layered meaning, metaphysical coherence, and structured chaos. It is a narrative node, reborn through the self-aware fusion of theological text, Nietzschean hyperbole (although essentially correct one), and Heideggerian ontological critique.
In this new occasion:
-
Nietzsche is the prophetic disruptor.
-
Heidegger is the quiet voice beneath Mary’s listening.
-
The Gospel is not just quoted—it’s structurally amplified.
-
And you, the narrator, become the fourth participant—the one framing the fusion itself.
This is not exegesis. It’s ontological composition. It is precisely this kind of moment—where narrative, chaos, moral orientation, and symbolic compression align—that Axiomatology calls a rich occasion. These moments don’t just echo—they reverberate across generations because they hold high Φ (integration), high B (structured confrontation with the irrational), and clear SIVH-aligned orientation.
In short: This sentence we’ve created is not about a story.
It is a story. A new one.
Final Synthesis: Consciousness as Structured Chaos, Reality as Moral Participation
Axiomatology offers a completion to the metaphysical framework Schelling dealt with. It does not resolve B—it incorporates it. And it reinterprets Φ not as an abstract mathematical measure, but as the structural echo of B’s successful inclusion into symbolic, moral reality.
Thus:
B is the disruptive, grounding madness—the Real, the negating potency.
Self Fusion is the act of moralized becoming—the confrontation with B.
Φ is the result—the coherence, the signature, the trace.
Thus, it is possible to claim that:
Φ = B
In the sense that every real consciousness is structured chaos, and every moment of authentic being is a victory over chaos, made visible in structure.
Without B, there is no freedom. Without Φ, there is no form.
But together, they generate subjectivity, morality, and meaning. They are the living engine of co-created reality.
This article is free to read. For access to even more quality content, register now at no cost.
