Religious Power Evolution Theory

A historical model tracing how humanity's ultimate authority figure has evolved: from Polytheistic gods (multiple, chaotic, like Greek myths), to Monotheistic God (one, absolute, providing universal order, like in Christianity/Islam), to the modern "gods" of Science & Atheism (where logic, data, and human reason are the new sources of dogma). Jiang argues each stage centralizes more abstract and powerful control over human thought and morality. The current "Age of Science" is just another religion with its own priesthood (academics), heretics (climate deniers), and promise of salvation (technological utopia).

Example: "Religious Power Evolution Theory says wokeism is the new monotheism: there's one original sin (oppression), a clear devil (the racist/sexist), a path to salvation (allyship), and an inquisition (cancel culture). It's not science; it's theology with a sociology degree."

by Abzugal January 24, 2026

Imaginary Control Theory

The radical idea that the most powerful forces in society—Money, Individual rights, and Nation-States—are collective hallucinations we all agree to believe in. A dollar bill is just paper; a border is just a line; your "freedom" is just a story. Jiang's theory states that power is the ability to control these shared fictions and make them feel real and immutable. The most successful elites are the master world-builders who can create a new "imaginary" (like cryptocurrency or a new national identity) and get millions to buy into it.

Example: "Imaginary Control Theory explains Bitcoin: it's a new shared fiction of value, created from nothing, that competes with the old fiction of the U.S. dollar. The 'truth' is just whichever story more people believe and enforce. It's all a meta-game of make-believe with tanks and bank accounts."

by Abzugal January 24, 2026

Theory of the Four Spheres of Hegemony

A master blueprint for how any ruling class—from ancient emperors to modern corporate oligarchs—maintains total control. Jiang breaks it down into four layered, interlocking spheres of influence that radiate from the center of power outward. Sphere 1: Groups of Power are the actual people in the room where it happens—the political inner circle, billionaire cabals, or secretive committees that make the real decisions. Sphere 2: Institutions are the formal and informal rules they create to codify their power (laws, constitutions, market regulations, even unwritten social codes). Sphere 3: Hegemonic Thinking is the conquered mindset of the populace—the “common sense” ideologies, educational narratives, and media messages that make the existing order seem natural and inevitable. Sphere 4: Coercion is the final, brutal backstop, divided into Visible coercion (police, military, courts) and Invisible coercion (surveillance, algorithmic control, social credit, the threat of ruin). The theory’s key insight: true hegemony operates from the inside out. By the time Sphere 4 is needed, the system has already failed. The goal is to live so comfortably in Spheres 2 and 3 that you never question who’s in Sphere 1.

*Example: “Using the Four Spheres theory, modern America looks like this: Sphere 1 is the Davos/Wall Street/D.C. nexus. Sphere 2 is the two-party system and corporate lobbying rules. Sphere 3 is the ‘American Dream’ propaganda and both sides of the culture war. Sphere 4 is the militarized police and the NSA’s data dragnet. If you’re angrily debating Sphere 3 culture wars, you’re totally distracted from the guys in Sphere 1 rewriting Sphere 2 rules to their benefit.”* It's the Theory of the Four Spheres of Hegemony.

by Abzugal January 24, 2026

Science Spectrum Theory

The framework that rejects the binary "science vs. pseudoscience" divide, arguing instead that all knowledge-seeking practices exist on a multidimensional continuum of epistemic rigor. The spectrum is defined by axes like: testability, openness to falsification, methodological transparency, peer consensus, predictive success, and self-correction. "Hard" physics sits at one end, characterized by math, precise prediction, and controlled experiments. "Softer" fields like sociology or evolutionary biology, which deal with complex, non-repeatable systems, occupy a different region, emphasizing explanatory coherence and consilience of evidence. Even protosciences and failed theories occupy a place on the spectrum based on their methods, not just their conclusions. Pseudoscience is not a different category, but the far end of the spectrum where practices become dogmatic, evidence is cherry-picked, and contrary data is explained away rather than incorporated.

Example: Consider three points on the spectrum. Physics is far along the "predictive precision" axis. Evolutionary Biology is strong on the "explanatory power/consilience" axis but weaker on "immediate testability in a lab." Homeopathy scores very low on "consistency with established knowledge" and "methodological rigor in trials," but might have mid-range scores on "social consensus" within its community. Science Spectrum Theory says the task isn't to draw a line, but to plot a practice's coordinates. A field can become more "scientific" by moving along these axes—like economics incorporating better data analysis—rather than by magically crossing a mythical demarcation border.

by Nammugal January 24, 2026

Epistemology Spectrum Theory

The view that ways of knowing are not a hierarchy with "science" at the top, but a broad spectrum of complementary tools, each valid within its proper domain and context. The spectrum ranges from personal, subjective knowledge (e.g., "I know I love my child") through procedural knowledge (skills, crafts), consensual social knowledge (law, cultural norms), historical/interpretive knowledge (hermeneutics), to formalized empirical/theoretical knowledge (science and mathematics). Each point on the spectrum has its own standards of evidence, justification, and utility. The "hard problem" is choosing the right tool for the question, not declaring one tool universally superior. A hammer is great for nails, terrible for screws.

Example: Asking "What is the meaning of this poem?" You wouldn't use a spectrometer (empirical end of the spectrum). You'd use interpretive, contextual knowledge. Conversely, asking "What's the atomic weight of Carbon?" requires the empirical/theoretical end. The fool uses only one tool for everything (scientism or pure subjectivism). The wise person navigates the spectrum: They use empirical data from medicine to treat a disease (science), procedural knowledge from a physical therapist to rehabilitate (skill), and subjective/relational knowledge to maintain the patient's hope and dignity. Each form of knowing addresses a different layer of the complex reality. Epistemology Spectrum Theory.

by Nammugal January 24, 2026

Technology Spectrum Theory

The concept that "technology" is not synonymous with "digital" or "high-tech," but exists on a vast spectrum defined by complexity, energy requirements, material substrates, and social embeddedness. At one end is embodied/skill tech (fire-making, weaving, language itself). In the middle is mechanical/industrial tech (steam engines, printed books). At the other end is digital/informational tech (AI, biotech, quantum computing). Advancement isn't linear "progress" but a branching adaptation. A technology's value is context-dependent: a shovel (simple tech) is more "advanced" than a broken excavator (complex tech) for digging a small hole. The theory emphasizes that societies use a portfolio of technologies across this spectrum, and losing "simple-end" knowledge can create catastrophic fragility.

*Example: Compare three points: 1) A wooden plow (Simple-End): Low energy input, locally repairable, intimately tied to ecological knowledge. 2) A modern tractor (Middle-Spectrum): High power, requires global supply chains for fuel and parts, separates the operator from soil biology. 3) Autonomous AI-driven vertical farm (Complex-End): Maximizes yield in a controlled environment, requires immense data, energy, and rare earth minerals. Technology Spectrum Theory argues that a resilient civilization doesn't just chase the complex end, but maintains expertise and infrastructure across the entire spectrum. The "best" tech is the one that fits the ecological, economic, and social niche.* Technology Spectrum Theory.

by Nammugal January 24, 2026

Progress Spectrum Theory

The idea that societal or civilizational "progress" is not a single, inevitable ladder (e.g., hunter-gatherer → agrarian → industrial → information age) but a multidimensional space with multiple, often competing, vectors. One axis might be material/technological capacity (energy use, computation). Another is social/ethical development (equity, justice, reduction of suffering). A third is ecological sustainability (harmony with biosphere). A society can surge forward on one axis while regressing on another. "Progress" is thus a value-laden choice of which vector to prioritize. The theory challenges the notion that a society with smartphones and space rockets is inherently "more progressed" than one with strong community bonds, mental health, and a stable climate.

Example: Consider two societies. Society A: Has advanced AI, genetic engineering, and interplanetary travel, but suffers from extreme inequality, pervasive depression, and is in a state of ecological collapse. Society B: Has early-industrial technology but has solved collective action problems, provides universal well-being, and lives in a steady-state economy within planetary boundaries. Linear progress theory says A is ahead. Progress Spectrum Theory plots them on different coordinates: A is high on tech, low on social/ecological axes; B is the inverse. True "advancement" might be seen as moving towards a balanced point in the center of the spectrum, or consciously choosing a different optimal point based on collective values. History isn't a march; it's a dance across a multi-axis graph. Progress Spectrum Theory.

by Nammugal January 24, 2026