Welcome back. In this post I would like to address some questions posed both by critics and which arose from my own doubting, acidic, recursive process about whether the Abraxian framework I’ve articulated can be disconfirmed, or whether it is self-sealing. Most religious beliefs are self-sealing where evil is treated as God either testing people, punishing for transgressions, or that His plan operates beyond human understanding. In other words, “self-sealing” is defined as all evidence, whether good or bad, gets absorbed by the framework. This is common with any metaphysical framework, and my own work is not exempt from this critique. In a sense this is a follow-up to my Collapse of the All Good God: Part 2 essay; the Q&A format worked well there, and so I will be using it again here. What follows is an epistemological audit, peeling apart the layers of argument and asking what evidence, if any, would confirm or disconfirm each layer? This is going to be strange.

The Questions

1. Doesn’t defining Abraxas as totality, containing good and evil and the other pairs of opposites, make the theory unfalsifiable?

If my argument were simply that Abraxas contains everything inside of itself and nothing exists outside of it, then yes, this would be an unfalsifiable closed system. But my argument is narrower: that reality contains no metaphysical ordering principle that resolves the opposition of the opposites. The tensions inherent on this plane between the opposites – between good and evil, light and darkness, matter and spirituality, hot and cold, love and hate, life and death, an infinite number of such pairings – are built into the fabric of reality itself, where these ideas and influences only make sense in terms of their opposites, and therefore it’s more about the absence of a conclusive resolving structure than a claim that everything belongs to one big category.1 It is falsifiable in the sense that observing a conclusive resolving structure would be evidence against this argument.2

2. There’s still a gap between how something feels in the body and what the universe actually is. Isn’t extrapolating from the first to the second improper?

If that was the argument, yes, but it’s not easy to separate these layers. As I’ve discussed previously, my process has been to start on a lower level of observation – politics and culture, mainly – and I would analyze it obsessively until it hit up against irreconcilable contradictions in that layer. My whole Neoliberal Feudalism 130,000 word essay was about this exploration, with over 1,000 mostly establishment citations revealing, in a recursive process, the seams and incoherence of that level of analysis. Once the level hit up against irreconcilable contradictions, the psychosomatic pressure increased in my body until I found an outlet for it – which required me to try to resolve those contradictions at a higher level of abstraction, mainly psychology, until the process repeated and I tried to resolve it with spirituality/metaphysics (the Neofeudal Review project), until the psychosomatic pressure grew again and finally forced resolution on the highest level of the belief hierarchy, that of the God-image. Once I underwent a God-image transformation, I no longer felt nearly as much psychosomatic pressure and I experienced (and continue to experience) a process toward metabolic stabilization. So it isn’t necessarily the case that the metabolic feeling of stabilization or the earlier pressure proves Abraxas, it’s that the God-image stabilizes me metabolically, and the lived experience of that, if it is sustainable longterm with positive mental and psychological benefits that accrue, functions as evidence that the God-image is tracking something real about myself and my experience – although only indirectly, if at all, about reality beyond it.

This is why my work is primarily geared at those who are undergoing a similar crisis. It’s not primarily intended as a conventional philosophical argument aimed at convincing a neutral observer of a metaphysical proposition, although that intent does exist too. This perspective is primarily offering a regulatory architecture, designed to offer a framework to reduce psychosomatic incoherence for those who are approaching a threshold God-image state (where the cost of externally offloading the crucifixion of opposites has come to exceed the cost of bearing it internally, where all redemptive alternatives have been exhausted or falsified), discussed here and here. This threshold is not based on a “special” group or those who are only coherence-regulated; it can happen to anyone whose primary stabilizers (attachment, esteem, meaning, control, coherence) fail and they have exhausted redemption options – and it is happening more and more often as we transition from the aeon of Pisces to Aquarius. Trust in institutions has been collapsing and people are increasingly “redemption hopping” from container to container, desperately hoping someone, anyone, anything can bear the terror and pain and uncertainty of existence for them. Before, the collective egregore (discussed here) of Church and State carried the crucifixion of opposites for people through providing shared narratives, rituals, and expert mediation, but this is increasingly becoming more and more difficult to maintain. The question is increasingly changing from “Is this belief true?” to “Does this understanding contain my experiences without requiring denial, projection, or faith?” This is an age which demands proof, not belief, even if that proof is phenomenological.

Given that the Abraxian ontology emerges from the cascade upwards in the belief hierarchy via psychosomatic pressure, there are three levels of claims here, and the strength of the evidence decreases as one moves up the chain of argument. With this in mind, the three levels of evidentiary claim are as follows:

• Phenomenological: This is the strongest claim, because it is something I actually experience firsthand. Success is determined by whether incorporating a non-redemptive, tragic God-image makes my experiences more metabolically coherent and stabilized over time or not. This is the strongest claim, because it’s about something I actually experience.
• Pragmatic/abductive: This is still primarily a claim about me rather than the world, but it provides some evidence that if I retain my revised God-image over time and if it improves and stabilizes my psyche then it is some evidence that the God-image is a good fit for how I process reality. It is weaker than the phenomenological layer.
• Ontological: This is the weakest claim and the hardest to establish, whether the lower layers somehow describes what the God-image actually is. Just because something feels true doesn’t mean that reality is structured according to my feelings. Success is measured by whether one can continue functioning without collapsing into antinomian predation or offloading the crucifixion of opposites onto institutions or experts.

3. But if collapse, instability, or fragmentation count as evidence against the pragmatic/abductive layer of the framework, couldn’t a critic just say that shows Abraxas is bad for me, not that it’s false? After all, truth can be destabilizing, while falsehood can be stabilizing; how does the pragmatic layer proof the ontological layer?

Yes, collapse, fragmentation, and instability only test the pragmatic/metabolic layers. I had initially proposed in The Collapse of the All Good God: Part 2 that undeniable cosmic justice or verifiable afterlife rewards would count as ontological counter-evidence, but this is a weak ontological counter-claim. I wrote:

What would break Abraxas? Three possibilities: (1) discovery of a non-totalizable remainder (grace, Self, consciousness-source) that can’t be absorbed into the opposites – this would require further god-image evolution, (2) lived experience that contradicts the framework (e.g., undeniable cosmic justice, verifiable afterlife rewards), (3) a psyche metabolically incapable of holding tension who nonetheless achieves wholeness through a different structure – this would prove Abraxas isn’t universal even for coherence-types. I haven’t encountered any of these yet, but the framework remains falsifiable in principle, which is why it’s phenomenological reporting rather than dogma.

On reflection this isn’t really right, because one could argue that even an afterlife wouldn’t necessarily contradict a God-image of totality; it could just be assigned one layer within totality rather than evidence against it. Ouch! Given the more precise claim above that no final ordering principle resolves the opposites, what is required is a demonstrated principle under which good and evil are proven to be derivative (good luck proving that). I don’t see an operational test for this, and I don’t know what would count as demonstrating it or whether it’s even possible to do so. It’s more like a conceptual countercondition than a Popperian falsifier.

In the Collapse: Part II essay I also considered the possibility of some “non-totalizable remainder” – grace that can’t be absorbed into the opposites, basically – that could also be a similar countercondition, but I’m not sure what it would actually look like either; perhaps even if it happened to me I would simply reinterpret it as another feature of totality. There’s another track of evidence I’ll discuss below, that of recursive political/cultural prediction, because it’s an approach that doesn’t depend so much on phenomenology.

4. Doesn’t this theory change the observer, which contaminates the very experience I’m using to test it?

Yes. If I believe in a God-image of totality, then I will interpret events and experience through that lens, which may then serve as confirmation of the validity of the theory – circular logic. This is common among any God-image; if one’s perception of reality constantly violated their God-image, either one would compartmentalize it (resulting in psychosomatic buildup over time) or it would require changing higher level beliefs.

Here’s an example which illustrates this concept. Consider two people: one believes reality is benevolent and a privatio boni all-good God is in charge; as an optimistic, positive, extraverted individual with a shallow focus on the injustices of the world, their nervous system stabilizes around this and “evil” is seen as stated above – a test, punishment, or God’s will being beyond human comprehension. All experiences reinforce this belief and the individual is stabilized. Alternatively, the other person believes reality is tragic, that nothing lasts and everything is ephemeral ala Ozymandias, that life is pain and “evil” confirms that God just doesn’t care; as a pessimistic introvert, the sync between a God-image of Abraxas and perception is psychically stabilizing for this individual (i.e. me). Both of these people can honestly report that their God-image works for them, but because these views are incompatible the “real” God-image cannot be both. This means that metabolic coherence is evidence for whether a specific God-image is a good fit for an individual, but not evidence about what God actually is. So the phenomenological layer cannot reach the ontological layer. But I would argue that if a God-image of totality results in psychological stability over a long period of time, this says something about whether people can inhabit such a non-redemptive, tragic worldview in the modern era (as opposed to, say, the ancient Greeks in a cruder, more primitive era), or whether the heartaches, failures, diseases, deaths, losses will inevitably result in collapse without redemptive hope acting as a long term stabilizer. So this is a cybernetic process: metabolic experience provides evidence over time whether a God-image “works” for my psyche over time (which is a public experiment with a test subject of one), and this unusual God-image in turn reshapes my psyche – both sides are tied to each other.

5. So the first track is phenomenology and whether it results in longitudinal, recursive stability. What’s the second track, and why does it matter?

The second track is cultural and political predictions, conducted for more than a decade now in a recursive fashion. Because it makes claims outside my interior experience such as political incentives, cultural shifts, institutional decay, the behavior of ideologies, all rooted in how one responds to the crucifixion of opposites, these claims may then be tracked independently. The idea is that we are entering a period where the institutional containers for the crucifixion of opposites are failing, and that people are increasingly being forced to carry their own psychic weight – and this is catastrophic for those ill prepared, clinging to a redemptive God-image in a historical epoch which is becoming increasingly grim, increasingly neofeudal and obviously predatory. Those with redemptive God-images are increasingly and desperately “hopping” from one redemptive higher level belief to another, focused on the political Current Thing, turning to Eastern Orthodoxy, hoping the next cultural warrior influencer will save them, because the underlying collective feedback loop that previously sustained their energies is being starved. Tracking this trend and understanding the offloading function gives this track its predictive power.

Now, the predictions have to be specific enough where they could fail – if they’re too vague any outcome could be read as confirmation, which just reproduces the self-sealing problem one level up. One is incentivized to issue vague predictions because retroactive reinterpretation is cheap while specific predictions are expensive – expensive in time, processing power, energy, and reputation. I feel this in myself, of course, and my own predictions have slid between specific enough and too general – something I’ll work on in my upcoming 2027 predictions. I’ve been wrong about a lot of my predictions over the years, and while it’s not entirely comfortable it is absorbable into my framework so long as I am willing to update recursively my predictions over time – the more wrong an important prediction is, the higher up of a belief that requires changing.

In other words, so long as the model is being updated in light of new information it is not self-sealing on that level and it should, in theory, so long as one is smart enough and honest enough and persistent enough, allow one to hone in on what is actually “true” over time on a political and cultural level. What would threaten this isn’t wrong predictions but wrong predictions whose updates require a revision of the base assumptions generating the predictions in the first place – I have not come across this yet, but I’m made plenty of lower level revisions and expect to make plenty more.

So the question here is whether political and cultural predictions over a sustained period of time, so long as they are sufficiently novel and specific, converge on something more “real”, or whether it doesn’t, or worse, whether the predictions are increasingly obfuscated and generalized to increase one’s “hit rate” to increase credibility with readers. If the answer is the former, then it’s a different category of evidence than merely “this works for me.” But even if the political and cultural layers converged on increased accuracy over time, this would not prove that reality is metaphysically Abraxian, just like Newtonian mechanics did not prove Newtonian space, time, and gravity were final ontology. It establishes some sort of instrumental utility but may also suggests that it is perhaps tracking something beyond it, some sort of underlying, background metaphysics, even if it is weak abductive evidence. Furthermore, if this perspective consistently outcompetes other perspectives in terms of political/cultural predictions in the long-term, it makes these other perspectives look empirically weaker, even if it does not logically disprove them.3 So both phenomenological and predictive tracks create opportunities for the framework to fail, which matters abductively even if they are short of offering actual proof.

As stated above, this is therefore a kind of experiment conducted in public. It is a strange one because it isn’t a double-blind study conducted in a laboratory with Rockefeller Institute funding, and I am part of what is being observed (see the observer effect) which changes the evidence available to me. There is no clean separation between hypothesis and observation that a conventional scientific experiment would require (although such supposed separation is a weak fiction; social and professional incentives and institutional pressures cannot be properly acknowledged without undermining the results themselves, which in turn contributes to the massive and acute replication crisis). I can make my assumptions, predictions, revisions, failures, and other factors visible and continue testing whether my recursive framework offers increased explanatory power over time, or alternatively whether continued contact with reality forces another future revision of the God-image itself.

You can see my 2026 predictions here (which will be framed more tightly for 2027 predictions), my series on the upper elites and their intentions here, and fairly recent and tighter predictions about the Democrat Socialists of America here.

6. Doesn’t the Abraxian perspective inherently risk an inevitable sense of inflationary superiority, an anti-redemption redemption narrative – “I’m one of the few who can bear totality, and my alienation proves it”?

Yes, and I have discussed this extensively – the human psyche really wants a redemptive narrative, even if it is an elitist gnostic one, even if is an inverted one, and it can easily become an identity: I see what others don’t, I have the strength to hold the opposites internally that others are too weak to, I see the tragedy underlying reality (an endless cornucopia of violence, of differentiation followed by discarding what is not selected, of the ouroboros snake eating its own tail, forever, as a base condition) better than others, people are still trapped inside the mainstream frameworks while I’ve exited it like Neo in the Matrix. Isolation would be absorbed wrongly as evidence of my superiority, which is an ego-inflating, self-sealing, inflationary trap; it is close to a religious person saying suffering proves their faith or a revolutionary arguing that persecution proves the system fears their truth. The danger is that when one self-seals, one’s perspective becomes more and more divorced from reality over time, ultimately resulting in a rather rude awakening when the suppressed data outside of one’s immediate perception comes crashing back in.

This forces an unpleasant confrontation with an emerging foundational principle: no psychological consequence of holding an Abraxian belief should count as evidence for the truth of that belief. This is a painful but necessary line to draw. Under this principle my psychic stabilization doesn’t prove Abraxas, my alienation doesn’t either, neither does my feeling that it is profound, or my ability to tolerate horror that others don’t, or my understanding of their perspective and their lack of understanding of mine, or a belief that suffering is automatically evidence of depth, or that individuation is superior and guarantees success. This isn’t a glorious, shining road full of superiority and grandiosity; it’s like walking a tightrope over an abyss, where the Self serves as a local guiding influence toward wholeness without final destination or redemptive guarantee, and failure, collapse and inflation are just as available as provisional success. If you don’t feel the horror and terror of this while walking it, you aren’t on it. Feelings explain the phenomenology but not the ontology, and this gulf cannot be bridged no matter how much I would like it to.

7. Does individuation quietly smuggle a redemptive narrative back in that if you individuate, you’ll live a better life?

Not really. Individuation offers an orientation toward wholeness without a redemptive final stage being achievable. Furthermore, because the process involves an unending circumambulation around the center of the Self (“progress” toward wholeness as an organizing principle can go sideways or backwards for extended periods), it can mean losing status, relationships, certainty, career success, or conventional happiness, and total collapse lurks around every corner. There are no guarantees here. So while in some sense individuation does contain a belief that the Self orients a person toward wholeness and wholeness is an attractive measure by which one may measure one’s life (defined as an increase in one’s ability to live without splitting, projecting, or falsifying reality, even if it is painful), this isn’t a claim about receiving happiness or worldly success or afterlife redemption. Furthermore, the results towards wholeness can be assessed psychosomatically by the person undergoing the experience – the results are felt in the here and now.

8. If redemption is not the goal of this perspective, what remains if or once every container for the crucifixion of opposites fails?

This is why Ecclesiastes is important, covered previously here. Qohelet asks if works will stabilize him psychologically, or pleasure, or wisdom, or wealth, reputation, legacy, companionship – the answer is repeatedly no, no, no. It is not that these things are empty, but they are hebel – breath, vapor, amorphous. One can’t own them, their essence is elusive, ungraspable; they are good but they cannot bear the crucifixion of opposites which is the foundational axiom of the Abraxian perspective (discussed further in #9). This is anti-sealing; Qohelet lets the results of each container to play out as an experiment, and they fail – and he acknowledges their failure – despite his hope that they succeed.

The answer he arrives at is much weaker than redemption: receive your portion in life, recognize your limits, and live without final resolution. This is what he called heleq. “Eat, drink, and enjoy your portion” means this is what is available to us, so inhabit your portion of life without demanding it provides more than it actually does or that it will be permanent. There is also a major shift in personal responsibility which occurs, to be discussed below, in both directions (what one is responsible for, what one is not responsible for).

9. Doesn’t the framework make a final claim at the meta-level, that opposites are permanently co-constitutive and that reality contains no final resolving structure? If so, doesn’t this create the closed epistemic system I claim to avoid?

Yes, and this should be admitted instead of hidden. The framework is closed at the meta-level because it asserts an axiom that consciousness arises only from the permanent unresolved tension of opposites and may be constitutive of reality itself, and so any system promising a final resolution of that tension is deficient (and this includes all mainstream religions). This is a settled claim within the framework – there is no eschatology, no Second Coming, no return of the Hidden Imam, no Messiah, no culmination of historical materialism into classless equality, no sacred democracy perfecting mankind (although one may always be proclaimed, of course, as part of elite stratagems). All of these are dynamited.

However, this closure is not arbitrary; it is required for a psyche experiencing an intense psychosomatic mismatch between one’s perception of reality and inherited redemptive God-image. The closure acts as a kind of spiritual surgery: when faced with a gulf between perception and conscious belief, one can either (1) try to ignore it or otherwise falsify one’s perception of reality to match the inherited God-image (which doesn’t work well longterm), or (2) change one’s God-image to match one’s underlying perception of what reality actually contains. If the meta-level was left open that the opposites could be resolved, or that suffering might be redemptive, this framework would collapse into ambivalent relativism and leave the coherence-regulated psyche suffocating. In other words, the closing of the meta-level is what bridges the gulf between experience and God-image. This accomplishes four things psychologically:

1. It halts vertical escalation. For a coherence-oriented individual, a contradiction does not stay local – it climbs upward from event to meaning to worldview to God-image. This framework removes that escalation by fixing the ontology; if the purpose of life is to experience the crucifixion of opposites then there is nowhere higher for the anxiety to go. It can remain at the local level.
2. It converts a threat to the God-image into confirmation of the God-image. In a redemptive system, suffering is a problem for the God-image; it must be explained away as test, punishment, or beyond man’s understanding, which all feel deficient. But because the ontology is fixed here, suffering becomes expected as a condition of living, which validates the model rather than threatens it. This increases energy efficiency by allowing attention to be redirected from vertical to horizontal interactions.
3. It eliminates the search for a hidden resolving principle. The coherence-oriented individual is often trapped in a perpetual quest to find the cosmic justification that will make everything cohere; this is exhausting and metabolically expensive, leaving much less room to actually live life. The framework forecloses that search.
4. It provides a stable bedrock. Even if the crucifixion of opposites is cold and unyielding it is stable, and for a psyche that has experienced the vertigo of a collapsing redemptive framework, a stable floor is preferable to endless freefall.

Therefore the self-sealing nature at the ontological level is both a logical vulnerability and a regulatory utility. The trade-off is unlimited epistemic openness in exchange for the ending of vertical escalation, the inversion of threat into confirmation of the God-image, the termination of the search for cosmic justification, and the provision of a stable floor. The meta-level axiom is not empirically proven but it makes the system cohere for the psyches that need it.

10. So is the framework self-sealing or not?

Only the ontological layer is. I’ve built in exposure points relating to collapse, fragmentation, and functional failure which count against the phenomenological layer even though it doesn’t touch the ontological level directly, and an experience of repeated failed predictions which hit up against foundational parts of the framework would count against the recursive cultural/political level of understanding ( alternatively, successes would show the model is useful, not that its metaphysically true). This is why I’m trying to hold myself to the “no psychological consequence of the belief counts as evidence for the belief” rule.

I can’t fully close the pragmatic/ontological gap detractors press on, but my point isn’t that phenomenological resonance proves ontology, it’s that a metaphysical hypothesis acquires provisional credibility when it organizes experience coherently without requiring denial of disconfirming experience in a sustained manner (track 1), and especially when that coherence is reinforced by independently testable predictions which survive contact with reality (track 2). Both converge on a claim to stop demanding reality resolve its contradictions merely because we find them painful.

11. If the ontological layer is closed and settled, why does the framework remain open at the ethical and practical level? What guidance is offered, if any?

The framework is prescriptive at the ontological level (it tells you what reality is not) but proscriptive at the practical level (it tells you what not to do – don’t offload, don’t collapse, don’t act out – but it does not tell you what to do in any specific situation). This is an inversion of most belief systems; for example, the privatio boni is prescriptive at both levels, where it argues both that God is all-good and therefore you must obey his commandments and listen to his institutions or go to Hell, and this in turn generates specific ethics, politics, and daily practices. The God-as-totality perspective avoids telling you what to do because any fixed prescription derived from the ontology would be a false abstraction: if reality is irreducibly contradictory, then no single rule or set of rules can adequately navigate it without collapsing into one pole or the other. A prescriptive ethics would be a form of offloading (externalizing the crucifixion onto a rulebook) which the framework diagnoses as an error. Prescribing specific actions would recreate the very institutional capture and moral fanaticism the framework is designed to avoid. The privatio boni produces scapegoating, crusading psychology, and institutional hierarchy because it claims to know both the nature of reality and the specific will of God, while the Abraxian framework refuses to derive specific commands from its ontology.

There is always a cost for any approach or perspective in this paradoxical, contradictory reality, though; it is a question of what is the cost and where it is borne. The cost of this openness is that the framework is deficient in encouraging collective action, it is morally indeterminate in concrete crises (relying on the transcendent function of the Self for guidance), and it leaves the individual reliant on the subjective, unpredictable individuation process for orientation. On the flip side, the framework avoids the fanaticism, scapegoating, and institutional capture which afflict prescriptive systems, and it provides diagnostic clarity and somatic stabilization without creating a new ideology, hierarchy, or moral police. Whether this trade-off is acceptable depends on your psychosomatic needs: if you need a comprehensive moral, political or social system as an offloading function for the crucifixion of opposites to provide stability, it will feel incomplete and frustrating. If you are the intended audience – someone whose highest-order redemptive architecture has failed under the weight of irreducible contradiction, and who has recognized that no lateral switch to another redemptive framework can resolve the incoherence, thereby requiring a non-redemptive, tragic container that does not tell you what to do but does tell you what not to collapse into – it may be a helpful architecture which doesn’t reproduce the problem it diagnoses.

Conclusion

Ultimately, reality appears to me to fundamentally consist of irreconcilable opposites, and the response I find most appropriate is to psychologically individuate enough to inhabit these opposites without requiring resolution. I have good reason to believe this framework is a useful way for me to inhabit such an apparently contradictory world. I have some reason to believe it tracks features of that world because of its predictive utility. More broadly, the continued absence of a serious contradiction between the framework and lived experience is itself part of the abductive case – it isn’t proof, but an ongoing reason for retaining the hypothesis provisionally. I do not yet have a method for establishing that its metaphysical interpretation is true, nor a fully operational falsification criterion for that interpretation, and I doubt such a proof is possible. But ultimately, this life must be lived, and if an Abraxian perspective stabilizes my psyche better than the alternatives available to me, then that is sufficient for my current purposes. I do not need to prove that Abraxas is the final metaphysical truth in order to decide that this is the framework I can most honestly and coherently live within.

There is a faint analogy to Pascal’s Wager, though the wager here is different.4 Pascal argued that believing in the face of uncertainty about God’s existence required a cost/benefit analysis: belief was cheap with the potential for unlimited reward, but failure to believe could result in eternal damnation; therefore, the rational response should be belief. The wager here isn’t about maximizing a metaphysical cost/benefit analysis, but about choosing how to inhabit uncertainty in this realm, on this plane, when metaphysical certainty is unavailable. Since worldviews will inevitably organize perception and action, the question becomes which one can survive sustained contact with experience, prediction, criticism, and revision. While Pascal asks which belief is rational given the stakes of being wrong, the Abraxian wager instead asks which framework is worth inhabiting given the impossibility of certainty. It is therefore not a wager that Abraxas is true, but a wager that the hypothesis that best survives reality is worth inhabiting provisionally.

Note: You can sign up to receive email notifications of new posts here.

1

Yes, I understand that the axiom “reality contains no final ordering structure” is ironically a final ordering structure. The denial of the floor is the floor, which creates an uncanny valley effect. This approach halts vertical escalation of experienced contradiction up the chain of belief to the God-image and provides psychological stability (to some anyway), allowing one to recenter one’s energies horizontally to addressing people and experiences situationally.

2

Any sufficiently comprehensive ontological system eventually hits the Münchhausen trilemma, where if one asks “but why?” deeply enough it ultimately terminates in infinite regress, circular reasoning, or an unproven foundational/axiomatic commitment, depending on the specific ontology. Scientific naturalism can explain the “how” but not ultimate “why”, idealism prioritizes consciousness but has trouble explaining the external world, classical theism has twisted itself in a knot over the problem of evil in relation to endless evidence that “evil” is ontologically real and not merely the absence of good, Spinozism has trouble defining its reliance on a necessary substance, Buddhism relies on a redemptive exit of the birth/death life cycle so long as one meditates and detaches enough. There is no neutral epistemic standpoint outside all ontological commitments from which one can verify a comprehensive worldview without remainder. The Abraxian framework’s foundational commitment is that consciousness arises only from the lived experience of unresolved opposites, and that living such opposites – being crucified between them – gives to totality the one thing that it lacks, because consciousness arises from subject/object differentiation which are otherwise united within it. The relevant standard is whether a metaphysical framework makes its assumptions and vulnerabilities explicit, remains open to feedback, and performs better than alternatives in offering psychic stability, resilience, and an increased understanding of the world on a predictive basis.

3

To be more precise, the specific predictions are of a cybernetic/sociological sub-model, that shared narrative structures lose their capacity to metabolize accumulated contradiction under certain conditions. That sub-model does not itself require the metaphysical claim that good and evil are co-original and irreducible; a purely materialist systems-theory account with no God-image and no totality metaphysics attached could theoretically generate similar predictions. So when a prediction lands, what’s confirmed most directly is the sub-model, not the ontology sitting above it. The metaphysics gets whatever credit follows from having generated and organized the sub-model in the first place.

4

Alternatively, the Abraxian wager may be understood through William James’s The Will to Believe, where he argued that the right to adopt a hypothesis cannot be decided on intellectual grounds alone, provided it is living, forced, and momentous. A live option for one psyche is dead for another; forced for one, easily avoidable for another. Below threshold conditions the Abraxian perspective will read as bleak, unnecessary, even perverse; it becomes forced and thereby known only past a specific pressure point when the cost of maintaining a redemptive architecture exceeds its stabilizing capacity, and lateral escape to another redemptive frame is no longer available.