The Road to AGI: Explaining True Evil as the Systematic Rejection of Physical Actuality and the Construction of False Subjectivity in the Process Framework of Axiomatology

With in the f ramework of Axiomatology, psychological phenomena such as repression and suppression are first approached through the lens of cognitive science and neurophilosophy. This article focuses on the functional implications of suppression—particularly how it compromises working memory, narrows openness to novel ideas (a key predictor of pattern recognition), and ultimately contributes to the construction of a false identity. This false identity, in turn, operates as a compensatory narrative designed to shield the self-conscious agent from painful or dissonant aspects of objective reality.

Drawing from and extending Kant’s model of transcendental idealism, we explore how these psychological defense mechanisms alter the synthetic a priori structuring of experience itself. However, rather than viewing perception as merely constructed internally, we follow Whitehead’s process theory and Axiomatology’s node-based occasion model to propose that repeated suppression of dissonant truths leads to an ontological distortion of self. The individual not only filters perception, but increasingly shapes the process of becoming (self-fusion) in a way that systemically rejects physical actuality.

This act—persistently rejecting what is—is treated in Axiomatology as the technical definition of true evil: the sustained, volitional construction of a pseudo-subjective continuity that aims to override or deny the structure of reality. This article also attempts to correlate these metaphysical insights with contemporary neuroscience, particularly findings related to memory suppression, working memory load, and default mode network distortion.

Repression–Suppression Interaction: Toward a Processual Model in Axiomatology

Traditional psychoanalytic and psychodynamic models have long drawn a sharp conceptual distinction between repression and suppression. Repression is typically described as a static, early-formed defense mechanism—a sealing off of traumatic or conflict-laden episodic memories, often formed during childhood and relegated to the unconscious. These memories are considered functionally inaccessible through ordinary reflection, yet they continue to exert latent influence on behavior, mood, and identity. Therapeutic access is thought to require indirect interpretative methods such as dream analysis, free association, or the deconstruction of linguistic “slips” and defense structures.

Suppression, by contrast, has been treated in these traditions as an active and energy-intensive cognitive process—one whereby an individual knowingly resists the entry of unwanted thoughts, truths, or emotions into conscious awareness. It is considered a voluntary act (or at least one occurring within the bounds of conscious monitoring) and often linked to ego-strength, willpower, or avoidance behavior.

The Axiomatological framework departs from this dualistic treatment and instead views repression and suppression as part of a continuous, interlocking process. Much like laboratories can now manufacture synthetic diamonds or AI models can simulate natural language, the psyche has the capacity to perform an analogous operation: to actively suppressmemories or truths to the point that they become functionally repressed over time. In other words, repression is not necessarily a fixed childhood state but can be the cumulative result of continuous and intentional suppression.

In this model, certain memories—particularly those laden with moral dissonance or existential threat—may be repeatedly pushed down until the individual loses direct access to them, though not without cost. These “suppressed-to-repressed” memory bundles retain a traceable “suppression signature”—they may lack vivid episodic detail, but they carry a residual cognitive load, detectable through increased working memory strain, anxiety, and distorted pattern recognition (e.g., priming errors, interpretative rigidity).

This explains why individuals with significant suppression–repression structures often report experiencing reality in subtly warped ways. Not because they are delusional or psychotic, but because they must constantly allocate cognitive resources to manage internal contradictions. The continued suppression of something they once knew to be true generates a persistent background task in the mind—a low-frequency, high-cost subroutine—affecting perception, availability of working memory, and ultimately, identity formation.

Thus, Axiomatology proposes a layered continuum rather than a binary split: repression is not solely a static residue of childhood trauma, and suppression is not a trivial act of momentary denial. Their dynamic interplay constitutes one of the most energy-consuming processes in the structure of the psyche—and, as we shall explore further, a potential engine of self-deception, false identity, and moral disintegration.

The “Stumbling Block” as Active Command: The Cognitive Architecture of ‘Not-Forgetting’

In cases of sustained repression—particularly where entire nexuses of morally or emotionally charged events are suppressed to the point of episodic amnesia—what often remains intact is not the content of the repressed material, but the meta-cognitive directive: the command to forget. Paradoxically, the episodic memory may be inaccessible, but the internal injunction not to remember persists and becomes structurally embedded within the self-fusion process of every subsequent occasion.

This phenomenon is not merely a vague psychic undercurrent—it is a structurally operative layer of cognition. It functions as an active process akin to a “background task” running in parallel with all higher-order cognition. Over time, the demand to maintain this suppression becomes part of the individual's Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH)—or more precisely, a pseudo-SIVH, engineered not for orientation toward cosmological order or meaning, but for defensive distortion. Its role is to intervene preemptively at the level of semantic access, well before the episodic content can be re-evoked. This pseudo-SIVH becomes a kind of stumbling block—a defensive filtration system that blocks authentic value processing and narrative alignment.

This dynamic is insightfully captured in Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, where Raskolnikov’s psychodynamic torment reveals the duality of suppression and its cognitive cost. In Part 2, Chapter 2, Dostoevsky writes:

“He was in a state of nervous excitement, and at times he was conscious of a desire to forget everything, to be alone, to sleep, to rest, to cease thinking.”

The genius of this line is subtle: if Raskolnikov is at times conscious of the desire to forget everything, then at other times, he is not even consciously aware of that desire. The repression is not limited to the episodic memory of the act (the murder), but extends to the very need to forget it. In Axiomatological terms, the process has become self-sealing—a recursive loop in which the mind must continuously suppress the impulse to remember that it is suppressing.

This recursive repression produces distortions not only in memory access but in identity architecture itself. The pseudo-SIVH becomes increasingly dominant, subtly replacing authentic values with protective placeholders. What appears as “nervous excitement” or “mental fatigue” may, in reality, be the energetic cost of maintaining the suppression field. The individual begins to experience reality through a lens that has been bent—not by trauma alone—but by the ongoing effort not to access the true causal chains that led to the present state.

In terms of process theory, this means that each new occasion—each self-fusion—is tainted not simply by the absence of truth but by the active moral obstruction of truth's emergence. The individual becomes a witness not only to a fragmented past but to a falsified present, built on the compulsive choreography of avoidance. The self, in this sense, becomes less a coherent narrative subject and more a defense mechanism impersonating one.

Neuroscientific Explanation: How Meta-Repression Distorts Working Memory and Identity Integration

From a neurocognitive standpoint, the process of maintaining an active “not-to-remember” directive imposes a significant and measurable cost on brain function—especially within the frontocingulate circuit. Two regions are particularly implicated: the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). The ACC, known for its role in conflict monitoring and affective error detection, becomes chronically hyperactivated in individuals managing repressed memory nexuses under active suppression. In this framework, the ACC does not merely respond to emotionally salient stimuli but acts as an alarm system detecting potential breaches in the internal logic of suppression.

Once this alarm is triggered—such as when an environmental or internal cue approaches the threshold of reactivating a forbidden semantic or episodic trace—the DLPFC intervenes. Its role is to engage in top-down modulation: altering or restructuring the semantic field to maintain the suppression boundary. This produces a compensatory distortion of retrieval mechanics, effectively rewiring associative access routes. The result is a recursive loop where memory is continuously accessed not for truth, but for avoidance.

The resulting neural pattern can be described as follows:

High ACC activation → DLPFC-mediated semantic distortion → episodic memory decoupling.

In plain terms, the very same neurocognitive resources needed for adaptive working memory—specifically those enabling fluid integration of past, present, and future—are hijacked to support semantic filtering. This leads to a paradoxical depletion: the more energy spent not remembering, the less is available for the kind of truthful narrative self-integration that supports psychological coherence.

As this loop becomes habitual, episodic memory vividness diminishes. Over time, memories are not merely inaccessible—they are degraded in clarity and recoded semantically. Protective semantic structures accumulate in layers: stories that guard the story, which guards the core repressed material. This is not simply a lie—it is the architecture of adaptive forgetting. However, this adaptation comes at a cost: the erosion of authentic memory and, with it, the erosion of identity fidelity.

In the language of Axiomatology, this process transforms the self-fusion mechanism into a defensive operation. Instead of constructing reality through transparent integration of physical, conceptual, and moral actualities, the system begins to prioritize semantic obfuscation. Identity, therefore, is not distorted by accident—it is systematically redirected through neural and narrative filtration aimed at avoiding pain. But this redirection is the distortion of identity.

Introduction of a Constructed or “Fake” Identity

Within the Axiomatological framework, the suppression of episodic memory—particularly when tied to moral failure—often necessitates the fabrication of a compensatory self-concept. This phenomenon, while superficially resembling identity reframing techniques employed in basic Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), differs radically in depth and consequence.

For instance, in traditional CBT, a smoker might be encouraged to reframe their identity by affirming, “I am a healthy, athletic person”—an internal semantic shift that theoretically undermines the behavioral logic of smoking. While this can sometimes influence minor habits, it fails catastrophically in contexts of entrenched addiction or trauma, where the underlying neurocognitive and narrative structures remain intact and untransformed.

In the case of suppressed moral failure, however, no direct physical addiction is present. The behavior is not pharmacologically sustained but psychologically quarantined. Still, the underlying mechanism is strikingly similar. The individual, unable to integrate repressed episodic truths, constructs a synthetic semantic overlay—a pseudo-identity—designed to preempt confrontation with the actual memory content.

Examples of such identity fabrications include:

• A person who has embezzled from an employer repeatedly affirms: “I am a meticulous and morally upright professional.”

• A spouse who has committed adultery constructs and rehearses: “Family is my deepest value—I am loyal, transparent, and deeply ethical.”
  
  

These are not lies in the classical sense, intended to deceive others—they are semantic constructs aimed at self-deception through cognitive saturation. Their purpose is not to manipulate the external world, but to manage internal dissonance. These affirmations form the architecture of the pseudo-SIVH (Structured Internal Value Hierarchy), which plays a defensive role in the self-fusion process of every new occasion.

In Whiteheadian terms, each occasion of experience—each node—integrates both physical and conceptual prehensions into a unified act of becoming. When pseudo-identities are in place, the conceptual actuality is hijacked by fabricated semantic material that shields the self from accessing dissonant episodic content. The pseudo-SIVH acts as a semantic gatekeeper, inserting false values at the moral layer of the fusion process. The result is a distortion of both the concrescence (Whitehead’s term for the unification of prehensions into a single occasion) and the moral trajectory of the life-narrative.

This construction of a false identity is not merely a psychological quirk—it is a metaphysical error that reverberates through time. Because the occasion becomes an objectified node in the ongoing stream of reality, these fabricated selves become sedimented into historical actuality. They are not just “errors in thought”—they are distortions in Being.

In the next section, we explore how this dynamic affects not only internal experience but also reshapes the field of potentiality, linking process theory to the ethical consequences of sustained moral suppression.

Self-Fusion in Relation to Neuroscience and Whiteheadian Concrescences

The Self-Fusion process, as articulated within the framework of Axiomatology, finds strong parallels both in Whitehead’s concept of concrescence and in the neuroscientific description of cortical assembly and working memory processes. The formulation of a new node—what Whitehead described as the “becoming of an actual occasion”—can be correlated with the real-time integration of sensory input and internal memory streams in the brain.

In Whitehead’s process theory, each actual occasion inherits data from the past and selectively integrates it into a new unified whole. The filtering of irrelevant prehensions (called negative prehensions) plays a critical role in this selection. Neuroscientifically, this aligns with thalamic gating, early sensory filtering, and inhibitory neural networks, which help eliminate irrelevant data from perceptual consciousness. In the Axiomatological Self-Fusion process, this manifests as a self-conscious prioritization of salient cognitive streams—effectively, internal thalamic-style gating at the semantic level.

More explicitly, top-down attention mechanisms directed by the prefrontal cortex (PFC) are responsible for goal-guided salience detection. During Self-Fusion, this corresponds to the prioritization and clarification of relevant content based on one’s Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH). This prioritization defines the resolution of conceptual and moral content in the fusion process. In Whiteheadian terms, this is the teleological and aesthetic selection of harmonious prehensions, culminating in what he called the subjective aim of the occasion.

The PFC's role in working memory—selecting and maintaining relevant items—corresponds precisely to Whitehead’s integration of prehensions toward unity and coherence. In Self-Fusion, this includes weighing the physical actuality, conceptual actuality, and moral actuality (which includes the “Will of God” as an internalized ethical impulse) before a node “drops into history” as an objective occasion.

The suppression of irrelevant input, mediated through GABAergic inhibition and sparse neural coding, mirrors Whitehead’s concept of non-prehension—those aspects of the world that are filtered out and not consciously felt. In Self-Fusion, this suppression is deliberate and functional, ensuring that only morally and contextually relevant data reaches judgment-level processing.

Furthermore, hippocampal-cortical encoding of significant events, consolidated through long-term potentiation, creates neural “societies” of experience, analogous to Whitehead’s societies of occasions—recurring patterns that persist unless interrupted by sufficient novelty or contradiction. These automatic sequences operate below consciousness until disrupted by moral or aesthetic dissonance, at which point the Self-Fusion mechanism must engage fully to determine a new integrative path.

Whitehead’s emphasis on contrast and intensity corresponds closely to predictive coding models in neuroscience: when there is a significant gap between expectation and reality, neural surprise signals (e.g. dopaminergic novelty tagging) trigger increased attentional load. In Axiomatology, such dissonance—especially between physical-conceptual interpretation and moral alignment—marks a critical moment in the Self-Fusion process. Here, the individual must resolve the contradiction between what is and what ought to be.

Importantly, working memory limitations (typically 4–7 discrete items) align with Whitehead’s model of finite integration within concrescence. The Self-Fusion process must therefore be selective, integrating only as much as can cohere into a unified judgment. This coherence is not merely cognitive but axiological, requiring synthesis between:

• Sensory-physical data

• Conceptual interpretation

• Moral alignment (SIVH + Will of God)

Finally, from a systems neuroscience perspective, neural oscillations in default mode and executive networks allow for temporal integration across multiple domains of input. These mechanisms enable selective semantic activation, which in turn allows episodic memories to be pulled into working memory—precisely what happens in the Self-Fusion process. In this model, past experiences, present input, and future-oriented moral evaluation coalesce into a new occasion of experience, mirroring Whitehead’s metaphysical vision but with explicit ethical and neurocognitive structuring.

Thus, Axiomatology positions Self-Fusion as a metaphysically and neurologically coherent process: the integration of historical inheritance, real-time perceptual content, and morally weighted judgment into a unified moment of being.

The Self in Self-Fusion and the Drastic Effects of Suppression

For many unfamiliar with process-based metaphysics, it can be difficult to conceptualize the precise location or nature of subjective self-consciousness within the Self-Fusion process, especially in the context of Axiomatology. This challenge arises because Axiomatology does not treat reality as a static external domain to be viewed by a detached subject, nor does it reproduce the mental-constructivist assumption that the world is recreated entirely “inside” the mind. While René Descartes placed the self (“I think, therefore I am”) at the center of epistemological certainty, and classical Idealism located all phenomena within the mind, Axiomatology moves beyond even Immanuel Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. In Kant’s system, the noumenal world remains permanently unknowable in its essence, and what we grasp is merely the phenomenal—the filtered result of our cognitive architecture.

Axiomatology, by contrast, relies on process theory to describe the self not as a fixed observing agent, but as a becoming—a dynamic and evolving field of integration. Within this framework, subjective memory is not stored in an abstract, separate container nor simply recalled from a static mental archive. Instead, memory is inherited physically through the physical actuality of past objective occasions. In Whiteheadian terms, these past occasions form societies—clusters of thematically and structurally related actual entities—which shape the inflow of information into each new experiential moment.

Thus, selfhood emerges not from a stable ontological “core,” but from the structured inheritance of temporally ordered experiences, filtered and fused through each new act of concrescence (or in Axiomatological terms, Self-Fusion). In each occasion, the “self” arises through a selective synthesis of:

• Past semantic and episodic memory (as inherited data structures),

• Current sensory input (physical actuality),

• Valuational aim (including the “Will of God” and SIVH).

This synthesis is not passive but occurs under the pressure of an intentional moral valuation structure, what Whitehead called the subjective aim, and Axiomatology further distinguishes through the moral actuality layer.

When suppression is present—especially in cases of deeply internalized deception or psychological denial—it introduces a systematic disruption to this process. The self is no longer inheriting and integrating memory in a coherent arc but actively distorting it, pushing down elements of episodic recall while semantically reconstructing identity through compensatory narratives. Over time, this introduces significant distortions of selfhood: the continuity of experience remains technically intact, but becomes selectively curated by internal censorship, reducing the person’s access to their own integrated past and, as a result, reducing their capacity for full agency in future occasions.

In sum, the self in Axiomatology is not a point in space, nor a metaphysical atom. It is a stream of fused moments, where each node is composed through selective memory inheritance, real-time perception, and moral judgment. The more suppression distorts this process, the more fragmented and constructed the “self” becomes—ultimately leading to existential confusion, misalignment, and a loss of authentic moral agency.

Suppression–Repression Is Identity Reformation

As discussed earlier, when a “stumbling block” is formed in consciousness—i.e., a semi-conscious or unconscious effort to avoid retrieval of painful or morally conflicting memories—this obstruction blocks significant portions of physical and conceptual actualities from entering the Self-Fusion process. What is often not sufficiently recognized, however, is that this very act of blocking is not a separate psychological event: it is the same act as the gradual reformulation of subjective identity.

1. Cognitive Capacity Loss: The Stolen Potential of the Mind

From a neuroscientific standpoint, the suppression of morally dissonant or traumatic episodic memory is mediated primarily through the cooperation of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). This dynamic involves the PFC repeatedly engaging in semantic overwriting—a process in which false or compensatory self-narratives are created to override access to dangerous or destabilizing memories. The ACC, meanwhile, continuously monitors for internal conflict, flagging moral incongruence and psychological dissonance as salience signals, which must then be “soothed” or shut down.

This costs working memory resources. A constant, low-level cognitive operation is required to inhibit retrieval, recalibrate meaning, and suppress contradictory self-perceptions. This effectively reduces the working memory’s available bandwidth for pattern recognition, higher-order reasoning, and learning. In simple terms, psychological repression consumes the fuel of intelligence—not metaphorically, but functionally.

In Axiomatological and process-theoretical terms, this is equivalent to the systematic introduction of negative prehensions—the active exclusion of relevant data from past occasions. A morally or emotionally charged event (often rooted in truth) is treated as if it never happened. It is denied access to the Self-Fusion process through semantic reinterpretation and active inhibition. This is more than ignorance—it is a self-induced epistemic distortion.

This corresponds to what Whitehead referred to as negative prehension: the deliberate non-integration of relevant past data into the current moment of becoming. From the standpoint of Axiomatology, such exclusions violate the Initial Aim—the “Will of God,” which provides a moral direction to every occasion—and are often in conflict with the person’s Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH).

2. Identity Reformation Through Persistent Exclusion

Here lies the crucial, and often underemphasized, insight: the same mechanism that produces the negative prehension is also responsible for constructing the subjective identity. That is, the exclusionary filter that suppresses aspects of past actuality does not simply block information—it becomes the very architecture of the self passed along to the next occasion.

In Whiteheadian terms, this is how a society of occasions forms: a persistent and patterned structure of selfhood, arising from repeated acts of selection and integration. But if the dominant pattern is one of semantic falsification and moral avoidance, then what gets passed on to future moments is not just a filtered version of the truth—it is a structurally falsified self.

This is not merely an error in cognition; it is an ontological fraud. The person is not only lying about something—they are actively becoming the lie. What is suppressed from memory becomes encoded as absence, and this absence is what the identity itself begins to take shape around. Over time, the society of occasions that constitute selfhood becomes so entangled with evasion and denial that the true, morally coherent self is no longer accessible. The self becomes a scaffold of selective exclusions.

In practical terms, this results in deep personality transformations. Not the superficial kind observed through mood or behavior, but shifts in the core narrative logic of the self—how values are ordered, how meaning is derived, and how truth is tolerated. From an Axiomatological standpoint, this transformation is not a neutral adaptation. It is an act against the metaphysical order of value transmission and moral coherence.

And this is precisely why, in contrast to the animal kingdom—where behavior is driven by instinct and lacks the capacity for such complex moral distortion—human beings are capable of true evil. Evil is not merely in what one does, but in the systematic effort to rewrite the logic of reality through willful suppression, moral evasion, and identity reconstruction. It is not just the betrayal of another—it is the betrayal of Being itself.

The Fight Between Good and Evil in the Self-Fusion Process

In the framework of Axiomatology, each new moment of becoming—each occasion of experience—is formed through a triadic inflow of physical, conceptual, and moral actualities. At the heart of the moral actuality lies what Whitehead termed the Initial Aim: the divine persuasion, or the ideal orientation of the occasion toward its best possible integration of novelty, coherence, and moral alignment with the cosmos. In theological terms, this is the Will of God.

However, this ideal aim often enters into direct conflict with inherited prehensions—especially those contaminated by suppressed truths, distorted semantic frameworks, and unresolved moral violations from previous occasions. This is where the battle between good and evil takes form, not merely as a symbolic struggle, but as a neuro-moral conflict embedded in every node of becoming.

Theological Parallels: The Blasphemy Against the Spirit

The Gospel of Matthew (12:31–32, ESV) puts forth a profound theological distinction: “Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” In Axiomatological terms, this unforgivable sin corresponds to the conscious rejection of the Initial Aim—the divine moral pull that appears at each moment of self-fusion. To blaspheme the Spirit is not to sin by error or passion, but to systematically suppress the moral reality that has been granted as an opportunity to align the self with cosmic order.

This is why suppression is not merely a psychological mechanism—it is a metaphysical act of defiance. It is not the murder of another, but the murder of the possibility of redemption within the self. As such, evil is not defined by the deed alone but by the refusal to recognize and re-integrate the Initial Aim into future occasions. This is what Whitehead subtly hints at in his distinction between “negative prehension” and “positive concrescence”: one excludes, the other integrates.

Dostoevsky’s Raskolnikov: A Case Study in Suppression and Redemption

Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment provides a literary enactment of this battle. When Raskolnikov confesses, “Did I murder the old woman? I murdered myself, not her! I crushed myself once for all, for ever… But it was the devil that killed that old woman, not I,” we see the psychic aftermath of a prehension actively severed from the Initial Aim. Raskolnikov did not simply kill another—he fractured his own narrative integrity. In Axiomatological terms, he committed an act of node sabotage: disrupting the coherent alignment of physical, conceptual, and moral actualities in order to create a false self.

The murder becomes the archetypal negative prehension, inherited and integrated into the society of subjective occasions that will define Raskolnikov's identity unless redemption intervenes. This is not abstract: the continued self-exclusion from moral truth manifests psychosomatically, cognitively, and spiritually. His withdrawal, hallucinations, and despair are not just symptoms—they are ontological consequences of a moral rupture.

But Raskolnikov’s return to truth—his confession to Sonia and the full articulation of the murder details—represents the reversal of the suppressive act. He brings forth the hidden physical prehensions, reintegrates the semantic structure, and allows the suppressed episodic truth to re-enter the fusion process. In Whiteheadian terms, he reclaims the concrescenceby allowing the full truth to re-enter the occasion’s becoming. The self, then, is re-formed not through denial but through radical coherence.

This is how good triumphs over evil—not through conquest, but through the reconstitution of moral unity in the present. The only path to moral coherence is not avoidance, but confrontation and integration. This is the reversal of the blasphemy against the Spirit: not merely “feeling guilt,” but allowing the truth—however shattering—to once again inform the process of becoming.

Significance in the Context of Axiomatology

In the framework of Axiomatology, the suppression of moral reality—particularly the suppression of suppression itself—has two profound and intrinsically linked consequences:

1. A reduction in the individual's potential to perceive and act upon reality.

2. The distortion of the subject’s identity over time.

These two effects are not sequential or separate—they are structurally identical. The exact pattern of suppression that consumes working memory and prefrontal attention, preventing the full inflow of physical prehensions (external truths, environmental feedback, embodied memory), is the same pattern that seeds and shapes the ongoing formation of the self.

In more technical terms, the negative prehensions—those aspects of past or present data that are actively excluded from the node formation—are not neutral omissions. They require the repeated construction of semantic replacement structures: narratives, justifications, self-images that must be semantically activated in each new SelfFusion event. These form what we might call defensive identity scaffolding—a self-concept that is emotionally and cognitively maintained to block the reintegration of dissonant truths.

The result is twofold:

• First, cognitive resources are chronically depleted. Working memory and pattern-recognition capacity are hijacked by the need to semantically police incoming information. This weakens openness, learning, and adaptive potential.

• Second, subjective continuity is poisoned. Because each occasion inherits its subjectivity from the society of past occasions, the repeated rejection of moral truth embeds a false moral center in the narrative self. The subject becomes, in a very real metaphysical sense, a narrative built on falsity. Over time, this constitutes not merely a mistake, but a metaphysical deformation of self-consciousness.

Psychological and Theological Implications

Psychologically, this is the willful distortion of self-consciousness—the most profound violation of our cognitive and moral faculties. From a theological standpoint—especially within Christian metaphysics—this amounts to the rejection of the Son (the behavioral instantiation of divine will) and the abuse of the Spirit (consciousness itself) in service of denying the truth revealed by the Father (cosmic order and moral reality). In classical Christian terms, this is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit—the one sin described as “unforgivable” not because it is too evil to be pardoned, but because it systematically destroys the conditions under which redemption can occur.

The psychological phenomenon of suppressing the suppression thus becomes, within Axiomatology, a cosmological event. It is a narrative rebellion—a person weaponizing their God-given faculties (reason, memory, imagination, moral sense) to deny the structure of the universe that sustains those very faculties. It is a false covenant, a construction of identity in opposition to reality and divine order.

Narrative Frame: The Book of Job as Archetype

This dynamic is perhaps most clearly symbolized in the Book of Job. Here, the wager between God and Satan functions as a metaphysical trial of consciousness: Will the behavioral manifestation of man (the Son) remain faithful to the Initial Aim, even through unjust suffering? Satan’s challenge is not merely to inflict pain, but to provoke Job into distorting his internal hierarchy of values—to reframe himself as a victim of an immoral cosmos.

But Job resists. He does not suppress the contradiction; he laments it, wrestles with it, holds fast to coherence, and eventually receives clarity. In this narrative, Job does not overcome evil by defeating it in a conventional sense—he outlasts it by refusing to construct a false narrative of the self. In Axiomatological terms, Job's self-consciousness remains aligned with the will of God and the deeper logic of moral cosmology, even when all circumstantial justifications for that alignment are stripped away.

This is the heart of Axiomatological metaphysics: to live truthfully is to continually compose the self in harmony with reality, coherence, and moral order—even when such fidelity demands pain, sacrifice, or the reconfiguration of identity.

Different Selves and Diverging Subjective Realities

In the framework of Axiomatology, attempts to reconstruct self-consciousness through suppression—especially the suppression of the fact of suppression—initiate a radically divergent trajectory of identity formation. Rather than integrating error, acknowledging sin, and orienting behavior toward a coherent moral ideal, the subject constructs a false nexus of occasions. This sequence of self-fused entities moves away from moral gravity and coherence, and begins to generate an identity whose ontological anchor is deception.

What emerges is not merely a moral deviation but a different person—one constructed through the habitual rejection of moral prehensions, the continuous distortion of incoming physical and conceptual actualities, and the self-protective manipulation of semantic memory. This process creates what might be termed a false continuity of selfhood, built on suppression rather than integration.

Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment should be read, seriously and without irony, as a comedy with a happy ending—a narrative blueprint for moral reconstitution through repentance. What makes the novel a philosophical masterpiece is not just its aesthetic or psychological brilliance, but its mapping of metaphysical mechanics: the anatomy of suppressed guilt, the fragmentation of identity, and the redemption made possible through the conscious re-acceptance of truth.

Raskolnikov is not merely a murderer—he is a man who has constructed a parallel stream of selfhood, one node at a time, each distorted by a refusal to accept the weight of his actions. His self-fused occasions begin to exclude relevant prehensions; his attention narrows, his perception becomes selectively filtered. He begins to “hear” only that which supports the false structure, while resisting—and eventually being haunted by—the truths that threaten its collapse.

This is not metaphor but ontological process. The person’s lived world begins to change. Experience itself becomes warped. Much like in China Miéville’s The City & the City, two individuals might occupy the same spacetime, but perceive utterly different realities, noticing different features, emotionally reacting to different stimuli, and “un-seeing”what does not fit their narrative structure. What Miéville’s surrealism dramatizes, Axiomatology explains metaphysically: suppression creates ontologically separate worlds.

If such an individual were to meet their former self—a version who had chosen to repent instead of suppress—they would appear alien to each other. They would have nothing to talk about, because the structures of salience, memory, and value would no longer align. The one who chose deception may feel aggression, fear, or even hatred toward their uncorrupted counterpart. But the one who chose truth, living in coherence with the Initial Aim and SIVH, would see the other with clarity, sadness, and awe. They would not feel threatened—they would simply recognize the tragedy of self-deformation.

And this is perhaps the core psychological insight of Axiomatology: that identity itself is metaphysically narrative, and that every suppression of moral truth becomes not only a block to potential but a false act of creation, a subtle and cumulative suicide of the true self.

The Funeral Test as the End of a True Self

Heidegger once remarked—allegedly, and quite plausibly—that people should spend more time at funerals. Whether apocryphal or not, the sentiment resonates deeply with his concept of Dasein as being-toward-death, where the completion of one’s existence is always structured from the future, culminating in a moment that is ontologically final, yet epistemically unwitnessable by the self. Death is not merely an end—it is the self’s closure from within the arc of its own temporal unfolding.

Within Axiomatology, this “funeral test” serves as a sudden and often violent rupture in one’s suppressed subjective narrative. The death of a child—above all—represents not only the loss of another being but the irreversible collapse of the future self one could have become through corrective love, sacrifice, or repentance. But this phenomenon is not limited to children: the death of any person with whom one shares a significant nexus of intertwined occasions—a deep mutual history of influence—can trigger a similar metaphysical shattering.

What dies in that moment is not only the other person, but also the true version of the self who could have faced that person again in truth—who could have repaired, reconciled, or restored a chain of broken nodes. The unbearable pain is not only loss; it is also the sudden confrontation with ontological foreclosure—the irreversible closing of a path that should have been walked. This is not guilt in the moralistic sense; it is the metaphysical realization that the moral non-past (all the things one could have done and did not do) is now locked into history, just as unchangeable as any committed act.

And this moral non-past becomes part of the ongoing influx into every new occasion. It either demands greater acts of conscious integration and repentance, or it drives the person deeper into recursive self-deception—which in turn further distorts the structure of self-consciousness.

The core Axiomatological claim here is stark: suppression of a moral lie, and the subsequent semantic scaffolding needed to repress the fact of that suppression, is not a psychological strategy—it is an ontological betrayal. It is an attempt to tamper with the very fabric of self-consciousness by rewriting the memory logic of one's moral history. And because each occasion becomes objectified, each falsified node of identity—built on the deliberate negation of truth—becomes available to others, infused with its built-in vector of distortion, or even what Axiomatology dares to call “pure evil.”

This is why funerals—especially those of individuals who bore witness to parts of our moral narrative—are ontological checkpoints. They puncture the illusion that life can be eternally revised. They force into view the cosmic truth that every falsified moment eventually demands metaphysical payment—and that every continuation of the lie requires ever greater distortion, both of the world and of the self.