# Logos, mythos and pathos -- The narratological triad The original nomadic tribe, or the [[The Sociont|sociont]] -- that is to say the tribe from which we all stem, the [[Geneplex]] that was formed evolutionarily over the tens of thousands of years as *Homo sapiens* spread across the world and with extremely streamlined models adapted to survival in a host of different climate zones and natural landscapes -- has three narratological arenas with a dialectical and therefore constantly mobile relationship to one another. Since ancient Greece we call these arenas the battlefield or *logos*, the campfire or *mythos*, and the ritual site or *pathos*. The battlefield as logos is the phallic meeting place between the father and the son, the campfire as mythos is the matrichal meeting place between the woman and the child, while the ritual site as pathos is the sexual meeting place between the man and the woman. Each of these three narratological arenas is connected to its respective archetypes and set of rules in the cultural conceptual world that is the context in which the sociont's collective existence is embedded. This is reflected within classical culture's ideas of *enculturation* in the form of the Latin *trivium*, where logos corresponds to *grammar*, mythos to [[Dialectics]], and pathos to *rhetoric*. Evolution has shaped the sociont in such as way that it naturally prioritizes between grammar, dialectics and rhetoric, depending on what it apprehends as narratologically favorable for survival under the prevailing circumstances. In the 19th century G W F Hegel reformulates the three metanarratives as *logic* or *the doctrine for being* as a representative of logos, *the spirit* or *the doctrine for the concept* as a representative of mythos, and *nature* or *the doctrine for the essence* as a representative of pathos. Friedrich Nietzsche returns to the narratological triad in *Thus Spoke Zarathustra* in the form of *the camel* for logos, *the child* for mythos, and *the lion* for pathos. Following Hegel and Nietzsche in the 20th century, French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan develops their images of the three arenas. He divides the three metanarratives according to the following: *the intellect* or *the symbolic order* corresponds to logos, *the soul* or *the imaginary order* corresponds to mythos, and *the body* or *the real order* corresponds to pathos. According to Lacan, Man constantly strives in vain to set up stable symbolic and imaginary orders to establish an overview and be able to navigate through existence -- the trivial concerns of everyday life constantly hide in a kind of pseudo-dialectics of the symbolic and the imaginary -- but unfortunately he is constantly thrown back to the real order and the equally tangible and untamable body. This is of course due to the fact that nothing is more secured in the real order than the robustly coded genetic inheritance from the sociontological primordial tribe itself, the loftiest tribal ideal for Man that Islamic renaissance philosopher Ibn Khaldun -- clearly inspired by Zoroastrianism's comprehensive social ideal *hambandagi* -- investigates under the concept *asabiyya*. Every time Man attempts to escape from his biological nature -- a practice he for some peculiar reason constantly tries to impose on himself and his environment in the form of all manner of metaphysical and ideological pretensions -- he is sooner or later brutally forced back into his own and humanity's universal geneplex. Lacan is uncompromising on this point. Man is not just a historical creature, as Hegel maintains, but he is a historical creature tied to a code developed by evolution, and this code is drenched in *asabiyya*. Man constantly repeats the sociont in everything he thinks, says and does. Darwinian evolution does not move any faster than that. Individualism is and and will remain a fantasy among a small band of philosophical autists in the Western world with delusions of grandeur, simply because they were the ones who happened to read too many printing press products on their own. They underestimate the force of *asabiyya* or *hambandagi* enormously. Or as American anthropologist Marvin Harris lays down cultural materialism in *The Rise of Anthropological Theory* (1968): At the bottom there is always *the infrastructure* (pathos), on top of this *the social structure* (logos) is then formed, and last of all the entire cake is glazed with and held together by *the superstructure* (mythos). This entire structuralism is forcefully coded in the human geneplex and is then repeated under new, temporary labels within every new paradigm. If we translate these concepts into narratological terms that are relevant to 21st century discourse, we find that the contemporary equivalent of logos is science, that the equivalent of mythos is (the medial) theater, and that which fills the function of pathos is religion in any of the many guises in which it appears today ("Everything is religion"). Conducting and writing about science we call *logopoeia* in Greek, writing drama we call *mythopoeia*, and expounding on religion we call *pathopoeia*. Thereby logos is also the sociont's necessary history, mythos is the sociont's evident presence, and pathos is the sociont's potential future. We arrive at a metanarrative that entails that we leave the battlefields behind us, we gather around the campfire and dream of ecstatic rituals, before it is time to fight the next necessary battle to complete and repeat the narratological cycle. If we want to clarify the process with the aid of an educational simplification, we can claim that the left cerebral hemisphere is logos, while the right hemisphere is pathos*;* together they desperately (and in vain) attempt to unify in the form of mythos. The fact is that it is perfectly possible to refer to life itself as a literally electrical interplay between *information* (logos) and *chemistry* (pathos) which only temporarily can be merged as a constantly elusive *subjectivity* (mythos). Or to express the matter in a Freudian manner (and thus also sexually), inspired by the narratological triad we realize that there also is a need for a [[The Dialectics of Consciousness|dialectics of consciousness]]; a meeting place must arise between *consciousness* (logos) and *the unconscious* (pathos), and this meeting place we call [[The Subconscious]] (mythos). French psychiatrist Jean-Michel Oughourlian takes this triadic thinking to a head when he in *The Mimetic Brain* (2013) claims that Man actually is endowed with three completely different brains: *the rational brain* corresponding to logos, *the mimetic brain* corresponding to mythos, and *the emotional brain* corresponding to pathos. Where the, according to Oughourlian himself, repeatedly most underrated and misunderstood of the three brains -- the mimetic brain -- consequently gives the book its title. ## Why does Man's brain devote such an enormous amount of time and energy to [[mimetics]] -- women even more so than men -- if not because Man is a deeply social creature, a herd animal for which *asabiyya* or *hambandagi* takes precedence over everything else? Mimetics is quite simply Man's method to maintain the illusion that everything in existence is interconnected. Which in turn, according to Oughourlian, explains why mental disease always starts with an acute crisis in the mimetic brain, a breakdown in the relation between the actual subject and the sociont, a tragedy we refer to as *social phobia*, and which indeed is followed by a breakdown between the two cerebral hemispheres in themselves, *psychotic depression*, or as Oughourlian calls this state: *the tsunami of the three brains*. What Nietzsche then does in the 19th century is to split the phallus and define logos as *the Apollonian* (light, civilization, reason) after the Greek god Apollo, and pathos as *the Dionysian* (darkness, nature, ecstasy) after the Greek god Dionysus. As with everything else with Nietzsche, one then must split even these two phalluses in two halves and pit them against each other. One of the poles in these two dichotomies then becomes the active, actionary or authentic; while the other pole is constituted by the passive, reactionary or superficial. In this type theory the actionary in the Apollonian also becomes *the Messianic*, while the reactionary in the Apollonian appears as *the tyrannical*. If we then instead turn to the Dionysian phallus, the actionary becomes *the Saturnalian*, while the reactionary in the Dionysian concurrently becomes *the apocalyptic*. Russian demagogue Alexandr Dugin even suggests that we for Nietzsche's own sake must save him from a total return to the pagan through dividing his Dionysian pathos between a Dionysian swarm with constructive overtones and a Cybelian lynch mob with destructive overtones (called Cybelian after the Greek goddess Cybele who fell in love with her castrated grandson Attis, and therefore restlessly treks around the world with an army of eunuchs, as a kind of woke zombies of antiquity). The Dionysian swarm harbors [[Hyperject|the hyperject]] which *de facto* has the potential to develop into the Messianic. While the Cybelian mob instead cultivates the [[Anoject]] which gladly develops into the tyrannical. This is the difference between Nietzsche's aristocratic ideal and pagan anarchy. Or if you will, the difference between Nietzsche himself and a certain Adolf Hitler. Which of these qualities makes a breakthrough and dominates, hinges on whether the Apollonian or the Dionysian respectively is predominantly driven by what Nietzsche calls *the master mentality* (Zoroastrianism's *asha*) or what he calls *the slave mentality* (Zoroastrianism's *druj*). Please note how Nietzsche for the sake of consistency places the Messianic in the Apollonian and the Saturnalian in the Dionysian within eventological ethics. This is the territory of heroes. At the same time as Nietzsche does not pass moral judgment on, but rather dismisses the tyrannical and the apocalyptic as the forces' own, internalized enemies -- which he in turn bases on the inevitable outcome of every kind of cultivation of the cyclical [[Ressentiment]], the constant yearning back to the self-eating primordial snake *Ouroboros*, after eventology has made its entrance in history and the Nietzschean *Übermensch* thus has become possible to imagine. The actual, necessary development cannot very well lead to anything but resentment and self-contempt, since the tyrant and the Cybelian lynch mob in all their banal mediocrity are measured against the hyperjective *Übermensch* (in Nietzsche concretely personified by the founder of Zoroastrianism, namely Zoroaster himself). This is where the qualitative discrepancies within the Nietzschean conception of will-to-power enter the equation. *Pathos* forges ahead into the future as will-to-transcendence. *Logos* fills out the history of the past as the will-to-intelligence. *Mythos* is in principle the frenetic attempt of two cerebral hemispheres to create a common story both backward and forward, to be performed at the campfire in the present; the great cohesive story about Man himself. We call the doctrine of these social dynamics and their directions and expressions [[Exodology]]. So if nomadology is the doctrine of how the genes or the [[Geneplex]] move across the physical landscape, eventology is the doctrine of how the memes or the [[Memeplex]] move across the mental landscape. Exodology, then, is the doctrine of how eventology finally sets nomadology itself in motion, how the memes ultimately gain power over and control the genes. It is this adultification of humanity that we call the shift from religion-as-magic in the form of *theology* over to religion-as-technology in the form of [[Syntheology]]. American philosopher Forrest Landry describes this historical shift in his book *An Immanent Metaphysics* (2009) as a kind of enlightenment of the Internet Age built on the insight that [[Transcendence]] (Landry's correspondence to the imaginary order), *omniscience* (the symbolic order) and *immanence* (the real order) recur dialectically during the Internet Age as transcendent *vision*, omniscient *strategy*, and real *culture* as a historical realization of Man's very deepest insight into his own being. Man's existentialist choice being consciousness in itself. What propels this entire process is the constant tension that makes logos and pathos fundamentally incompatible, their vain attempts to still unify as a sustainable mythos. Or as the mythologies preach since time immemorial: The masculine is the attempt to unite logos and pathos as mythos -- the Nietzschean project *par excellence* -- while the feminine is a mythos that does not succeed in separating logos from pathos but forever remains stuck in the mythical sphere. Or to use the Hegelian method applied to the relations: Pathos is [[Negation|the negation]], logos is *the abstraction*, and mythos is *the concretion* in narratological dialectics. Or to use Landry's method: The brutal, historical insight into Man's choice as his own being entails that the syntheist revolution is realized. It occurs when vision and strategy step out of culture as imaginary transcendence, and symbolic omniscience is born directly out of real immanence. The Machine realizes symbolic omniscience to perfection, but leaves imaginary transcendence wholly to Man himself to handle through making tribally conscious choices. Hegel formulates the narratological dialectics when he interconnects pathos with *nature*, logos with *comprehension*, and mythos with *reason* in conjunction with the subject writing itself into history. But Hegel does not settle for this, but further presumes that all these three metanarratives have the capacity to describe each other from their own special perspectives and with their own specific terminology. This is called *panlogism* and is the basis for the Hegelian idea that his dialectical method attains the narratological *absolute*. We can thus perfectly well complement Hegelian panlogism with our own *panmythism* (everything is myths) and *panpathism* (everything is forces). Because there are no predetermined metaphysical reservations in the Hegelian absolute for any such border-defying narratives. The subject and the object are thus not at all forever separated in Hegel, as they are in Immanuel Kant, but merely tell different stories about each other, stories that are entirely possible to unify should one take the path via narratology. It is true that there are, in accordance with this viewpoint, no metalaws nor any metalanguages, but there is a *metanarrative*, and this is what Hegel refers to as *the absolute*. The subject *realizes* in Hegel that it both shapes language and to no less degree allows itself to be shaped by language (there is nothing outside our history about ourselves), a phenomenon within linguistics which since the 1920s is called *the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis*, after the Hegelian authors Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf. The unbridgeable opposition between the subject and the object in Kant dissolves dialectically by adding a third component in the form of *the Hegelian project*. And in true biblical spirit we then call this project the exodus from the old to the new. It is this exodus that makes all the difference. It even has an associated priestly [[Exodology]], analogous to Hegel's own variant, which of course was the realization of the Napoleonic nation-state. As for the narratives along the timeline, we would thus be wise to apply logos concerning *the past*, mythos concerning *the present*, and pathos concerning *the future*. All else leads thoughts astray: It is when humanity reverses this chain that we get stuck in alternative worldviews built on delusions of secret signs that must be interpreted, magic numbers that form patterns, conspiratorial networks that operate covertly, and all manner of other superstitions. Mythos is the story where the predecessor logos and the dissolver pathos are united. Mythos is thus the temporary dialectical solution to the conflict between pathos and logos, not the other way around. Unsurprisingly Nietzsche's despised losers, the Rousseauian mob, always get stuck in the mythical rewriting instead of facing the brutal inclusion in one's own history. The tyrannical and the apocalyptic come to life and receive nourishment from the ressentiment, which in turn is damaged by and recoils from [[Amor Fati]], the love of fate. Without the phallic grounding in reality the tyrannical and the apocalyptic can never develop into anything other than a bloody, lacerating catastrophe, what we refer to as [[The Cybelian Lynch Mob]]. The truth thus appears in three different guises and comes to Man via three different parallaxes. Each of these metanarratives operates within its own vectors, follows its own laws and rules, within what philosopher Peter Sloterdijk calls *spheres*. We thus have *the logical sphere*, *the mythical sphere* and *the pathical sphere*. There are no other paths for those who want to attain the truth than to go into these spheres and then gain an understanding of what conditions prevail and how the narratological dialectics works. Cognitive scientist John Vervaeke calls this aggregated and balanced composite image that one receives by placing the three spheres on top of each other *ratio*. If we follow this train of thought, this means that we lack a complete basis for decision-making, a *rationality*, unless we have access to this complete image with components from all three spheres. In the same way that we previously have reasoned ourselves around the existentialist ideal [[Truth-As-An-Act]] (see *Syntheism -- Creating God in the Internet Age*), Vervaeke returns to the rationalist ideal *truth-as-allegiance-to-a-focus*. Passive intelligence, then, will not suffice, active transcendence is also required. The fuel that actually activates the logical will-to-intelligence is actually the pathical activity in will-to-transcendence. Thereby the *radical relationalism* we advocate merges with Vervaeke's idea of *radical rationalism*. During every historical paradigm these three narratological spheres recur in shifting guises that are colored by the prevailing cultural conditions. We receive a logical, a mythical and a pathical arena. The logical arena is historically led by the priest or his acting substitute, the mythical sphere is led by the matriarch or her replacement, and the pathical arena is led by the chieftain or his equivalent. The costumes vary but the functions remain essentially intact. This means that the sociont at its deepest is a *triocracy* as it is governed by a classic power triad. In contrast to, for instance, the often more mobile but invariably less flexible and above all invariably less intelligent dictatorship, which is a *monocracy*. This long-term sustainable power sharing pattern recurs with full power in the trinities of the monotheist religions. Zoroastrianism separates the phallus between Ahura, which stands for preservation, and Mazda, which stands for creativity. Together they form *Ahura Mazda,* the divine phallus. The third pole -- which holds the other two responsible for their obligations, that is: *the matriarch* within nomadology -- is in eventological Zoroastrianism transformed into *spenta mainyu*, or the spirit that seeks strength, expansion and creativity. The spirit is transformed into the very communication between Ahura and Mazda, which keeps the entire construction intact. This means that eventology can start working from the conception that one should be able to break the original eternal recurrence of the same -- within mythology often presented in the form of the primordial snake *Ouroboros* that devours itself from behind. And the one who succeeds in breaking the constantly grinding circularity, the one who draws his sword and delivers the lethal cut to Ouroboros, is the hero who personifies the specific event that actually changes the course of history and leads the development in a completely new direction. This means that history now can be liberated and at last become an authentic history in a Hegelian sense. And it is of course this eventological trinity that Christianity opportunistically mimics in the form of *The Father* for Ahura, *The Son* for Mazda and *The Holy Spirit* literally as *spenta mainyu*. Unsurprisingly, it is within the Zoroastrian and Christian popular religions that the holy mother returns from the sociont's nomadological patterns and gets to replace the holy spirit that never really became anchored among the masses. Solely thanks to this casting the divine family becomes complete. The sociontological leadership overall is characterized by a chain of hierarchical *parentiality* where the ancestors lead the patriarchs and the matriarchs, where the patriarchs and matriarchs lead the adults, and where finally the adults lead the children. The domain where children are not allowed in, where the adults play lesser gods, we call *the pathical narrative*; and the domain where not even the adults of the sociont are allowed to be located, where priests play higher gods, we call [[The Barred Absolute]]. In both cases -- as regards both children and laymen in these two examples -- an entry is possible only if the child or the adult first has left *mythos* and stepped into *logos*. This explains why we call the personal development during the dividual's lifetime *the voyage toward phallus*, away from mamilla. This first entails a voyage from *mythos* to *logos* and then, when the dividual is mature enough for the next phase, the possible final voyage from *logos* to *pathos*, from science into art, to there fully express the sociontological variant of the ideal that Michel Foucault calls *life as a work of art*. The distinction between *logos* and *pathos* in Eastern philosophy corresponds to the distinction between *sutra* and *tantra*, where *sutra* is taught in the form of logic and mimicry, while *tantra* is taught in the form of pathics and *the crazy wisdom* that exists beyond the rational. This means that out of these three metanarratives, it is *pathos* that is the deepest story and the hardest to comprehend, the story that is not evident but merely reveals itself at the very moments when the children are shut out and the adults in advance have to prepare to even understand what is happening. This is because it is pathos that is the engine that provides energy to the entire narratological process. Pathos is the story of Man's showdown both with himself and with nature. Pathos dwells in the collective subconscious and its expressions, which the authentic religion handles, are called *sexuality*, *violence*, *art*, and *the sacred*. It is thus *the pathical energy in the present*, not the logical or the mythical, which Hegel in the early 19th century captures in the concept *Zeitgeist*. That religion would have a pathical rather than a logical or mythical origin was a thought that vanished at some point between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment in Europe. The Enlightenment divided all knowledge between logos (the natural sciences) and mythos (the humanities), while one left pathos to the world of medicine, within which one soon rebuilt the pathical narrative to a whole repertoire of various mental illnesses, or so-called *pathologies*. Such was the state of affairs until the perspective was adjusted with the revolution within anthropology that took place in the early 20th century. Not until Rudolf Otto in 1917 publishes his masterpiece *Das Heilige*, are all conceptions of religion's logical (via theology) or mythical origins (via mythology) discarded. It is rather in *the shamanic experience* of the force and unpredictability of nature that religion has its robustly pathical origin. Otto calls these experiences a *tremendum* that is followed by a *fascinans*. The pathical religion develops a dialectics between on the one hand nature and its demands for submission, and on the other hand culture and its demands on the taming of the forces of nature. Otto's Romanian disciple Mircea Eliade describes this process as the believer first going through a *hierophany*, being transformed into a *homo religiosus*, only to thereafter be confronted with a sacred cosmos (phallus) in contrast to a profane chaos (matrix). Culture is manifested here through people building their temple with the opening toward the skies, as the original trading venue between the humans and the gods. Where the shamans are turned into priests, who have an oligopoly on the communication with the gods behind [[The Barred Absolute]]. The fact is that Otto later inspires his countryman Carl Schmitt to discern the same shift from logos and mythos over to pathos as the origin of secular ideologies in *political theology*. Everything really is religion, not least politics. Pathos comes in four steps: First as *potential pathos*, then as *actual pathos*, thereafter as *directed pathos*, and finally as *transcendental pathos*. Syntheologically these four states of course correspond to Atheos for potential pathos, Pantheos for actual pathos, Entheos for directed pathos, and finally Syntheos for transcendental pathos. From this perspective [[Syntheology]] appears as the necessary fourth category in the history of metaphysics, made possible by the arrival of eventology, whereafter history of course no longer must be one single eternally repeated recurrence of the same. Every sexual, athletic or artistic showdown goes through all these four stages. And in the final transcendental stage Man memorizes himself in opposition to physiological nature and technological culture as a unique, human creature. At the same time the many historical guises we call *pillar-saints* have fought to prioritize logos over pathos. From Plato to Kant there is this ongoing protest against Zoroaster's and Hegel's confessions of the pathical narrative as the deepest. The clearest text for this endeavor is Plato's *Republic* which constitutes an exemplary manual for the Ptolemaic dictatorship in Egypt. Thus Plato becomes the Egyptian Greek in opposition to Heraclitus, as the Persian Greek. It is Plato who remains in the sutric and refuses to accept the tantric, and who solves his dilemma through positing a moral dualism where *logos* and *pathos* are separated with the purpose of elevating logos and suffocating pathos. Thereby the problematic idea of [[Rationalism]] as the only answer to every human problem is born. Of course, rationalism's own passive-aggressive pathos is the concealed, underlying propelling force which therefore becomes rationalism's eternally blind spot. The two-headed phallus is thus a necessary fundamental prerequisite for epistemology as well. The difference between *sutra* and *tantra* in the three Silk Road religions -- Persian Zoroastrianism, Indian Buddhism, and Chinese Taoism -- can be viewed as equal to the difference between being adult and being enlightened. Up until the point when one becomes an adult, one is devoted to mimicking the chieftain's phallus. But as for the priest's phallus, on the other hand, it is only available behind the barred absolute, that is: not available at all, and it is thus not possible to imitate for anyone, but can only serve as inspiration to everyone's own isolated path onward to *the Enlightenment*, in Western discourse best exemplified precisely as the Nietzschean *Übermensch*. The voyage from logos toward pathos is thus not equivalent to any form of banal ascension toward some kind of heaven or some other form of reward for demonstrated cleverness or goodness, but instead conversely the uncompromising voyage down toward the glowing [[Root-Of-The-Phallus]], an existentialist choice that is made by those who choose *tantra* over *sutra* as the ultimate [[Truth-As-An-Act]] (see *Syntheism -- Creating God in the Internet Age*). And it is only the priest who, in this manner, may and can live in the deepest existential state which syntheologically is called [[The Infinite Now]], where no spiritual truth is inaccessible or incomprehensible anymore. [[Nomadology]] is the doctrine of humanity as a mobile tribe in a constantly alterable world. All meaning in Man's life emanates from within the sociont, which means that nomadology is the story of all meaning creation. The two patriarchs lead the nomadological movement and the lone matriarch is its living terminus (behind her there is only chaos and death). Behind the matriarch walks the primordial mother. In front of the patriarchs walks the primordial father. The patriarchy is the outer circuit of the sociont. The matriarchy is the inner circuit of the sociont. The androgynous caste walks between the tribal circuits and the shamanic caste walks between the various socionts in themselves. Nomadology is a polytheist religion -- indeed, it is even an oligotheist religion and literally so. There is not just the specific worship of the chieftain, the priest and the matriarch, which then is replicated in all other religions, but it is *de facto* a case of three different parallel religions under a joint umbrella which we call nomadology. Nomadology's purest and most uncompromising expression in contemporary religiosity is *Jainism*, an Indian doctrine about limitless eons of constant recurrences of the same, where phallus is reduced to the naked guru's literally naked penis without any phallic effect on the Universe. Unsurprisingly, it is Jainism that wins most of the rationalist battles when the metaphysical claims of the various religions ultimately are logically compared. The shift within subphysics during the 2010s from *the Big Bang* to *the Big Bounce* as the universal starting point, confirms that nomadology ultimately incorporates and absorbs even eventology within its metaphysics. It is always the *matriarch* and [[Mortido]] -- the death drive -- that wins in the end. This is also the case within the world of the natural sciences. What happens during the course of history is that we get separate phallic, matrichal and mystical religions. And religions that at least attempt to get two of the three religions to interact. The phallic religion is called *logos*, the matrichal religion is called *mythos* and the mystical religion, the religion behind religion itself, the gods' own religion, is called *pathos*. The phallic and matrichal iconologies are for the masses. The mystical religion is only for the clergy's own internal use. A simple indication of this is that what culture generally tries to keep from the children -- for instance sex, violence, art and money -- belongs to pathos. The pathical narrative is the story that evokes the strongest emotions, as if taken straight out of brutal reality. Everything conceivable from pornography via bank account statements to therapy couches belong to the pathical narrative. The most adult, the most private, the most sensitive, the most repressed -- this is the pathical. Pathos is thus the driving force, it is the electricity within the sociont. Logos is then the attempt to steer pathos in the desired direction, even if that ambition constantly fails when a seemingly curbed pathos returns with full force in the form of S*aturnalism*. Cosmos is thrust into chaos at the end of each cycle of the eternal recurrence of the same. Saturnalism entails that chaos devours cosmos, God is killed by the marine monster -- as Mircea Eliade describes the process -- but God can thus be reborn and cosmos be resurrected out of chaos in the form of a *cosmogony*. It is hardly a coincidence that Christianity chose to place the birth of Christ on the exact date that others in the vicinity had thus far celebrated in part the Roman Saturnalia, in part the Persian Saoshyant's birth as the war god Mithras. Mythos is the story of the gravity and significance of pathos and logos for the rest of the sociont. This means that pathos is the primary narrative, logos is the secondary, and mythos the tertiary. Together they constitute nomadology, quite simply because everything is nomadology. Within this primordial religion it is the matriarch via mythos who represents *nature*, it is the chieftain via pathos who represents *culture*, and it is the priest via logos who represents *religion* in itself. This sacred triad of power recurs right through all of history as the most stable of all social structures. Both when the sociont is on the move as well as when it has settled somewhere. A clear example of this is the Jewish myth of *the Exodus from Egypt,* where the three siblings Moses, Aron and Miriam get to assume precisely these roles. Moses is the priest and Aaron is the chieftain, while Miriam is the matriarch who holds the other two responsible for what they have promised the sociont, while she right at the back of the long procession urges on the laggards and tries to encourage as many of them as possible to continue the arduous trek. Behind her -- and behind them -- there is constantly the chaos of the primordial mother, from which the sociont's cosmos admittedly is sprung, but who nevertheless constitutes a constant threat of swallowing and destroying her environment. Those who search will find this sacred triad of power in many places, for instance in the American Constitution where the executive power corresponds to the chieftain, the legislative power corresponds to the clergy, and the judicial power corresponds to the matriarch. Further, one can easily note that the balance between logos, mythos and pathos is shifted over time, for instance when written language appears roughly at the same time in four different places in the world -- in China, the Indus Valley, Mesopotamia and Egypt. Under the new conditions for the exercise of power that quickly are established, logos rapidly becomes dominant by virtue of legislation, issuing of orders and bookkeeping. This shift in balance becomes all the more marked by the fact that written language is excellently suited for the mathematics that requests an exact system for eternalizing notation. Mathematics explodes and expands the moment it can be written down and conveyed in writing, this prepares the ground for an escalating civilization process that quickly generates growth and surplus. Thanks to written law Man is domesticated further, which also is a necessity when he is incorporated in ever greater and more heterogeneous structures. The written characters formalize language and regulate existence for those who are part of constantly expanding systems. The size of the systems by necessity entails that the sociont's natural trust must be replaced by relations that are regulated by laws and agreements. Strangers have to be able to interact and simultaneously be able to feel secure. Narrowly delimited village life is gradually replaced by an increasingly intense togetherness with strangers inside the walls of the new, expanded cities. Unsurprisingly, there are soon self-appointed pillar-saints in the midst of the town squares, preaching the logical mindset as the solution to everything. The rationalist fantasy makes its entrance in history. What cannot be captured within logos, soon breaks loose and expresses itself via *mythos*. During the Axial Age, from the 9th century BC and onward, drama explodes as an art form and cultures from Greece in the West to China in the East compete to be able to build sizable public theaters. In the same manner as *the religious ritual* had done previously during the Bronze Age, *the theatrical ritual* succeeds in capturing the deepest and most complex aspects of Man. But as periods of peace become longer and generate increasing growth and accumulated wealth, drama is degraded to pure entertainment and logos can once again conquer an increasingly large share of the attention. And thus pathos, this in truth both animalistic and divine power within Man, largely disappears from the public arena and is expelled to the outermost margins of society, where it expresses itself as the uninhibited expression of drives: sex, violence and shamanism as far from the spotlights of the main stage as possible. It is important to understand the revolutionizing consequences of this gradual adjustment when it comes to the balancing of the narratological dialectics. The early religious texts that are written down during the Bronze Age are still imbued with pathos and do not hesitate to express themselves with the aid of mythos rather than logos to attain the real depths and develop their full expressive power. But what happens during the Axial Age is that boy-pharaohs and pillar-saints step forward and impress the masses with their written-language-driven fixation with logos. Soon enough they bash people over the head with both bibles and law books and other logical texts. If the ritual earlier had been the place where the neurotic and psychotic extremes of the human psyche had been possible to handle, the power of the phallic gaze is now shifted from the priests to the twisted worldviews of boy-pharaohs and pillar-saints. The conscious castration of the priests is thereby gradually replaced by the boy-pharaohs and the pillar-saints and their uninhibited dreams of perfection, infinity and immortality. Aside from logos, mythos and pathos, the ancient Greeks also use three other approaches for narratology, but not for the metanarratives in themselves but rather rhetorically about where, when and how the different narratives should be used. These three concepts are *kairos*, *topos* and *ethos*. *Kairos* concerns when the narrative shall be told, *topos* concerns where the narrative shall be told, and *ethos* concerns how and why the narrative in question shall be told. Moreover, the three metanarratives are connected to various forms of love, attraction and dedication. Logos is connected to brotherly love or *philia*, mythos is connected to divine love or *agape*, and pathos is connected to sexual attraction or *eros*. At the same time as none of these three loves attain the highest ideal that philosopher Baruch Spinoza presents in the 17th century and calls *amor Dei intellectualis*. In the greater metanarrative it is naturally only behind the barred absolute that *amor Dei intellectualis* can be experienced in any meaningful way whatsoever -- and then as the bridge between the other three human passions. American psychoanalyst Joan Copjec describes [[Phallus]] as the name of the nomadological totality *vis-à-vis* the exception, while [[Matrix]] is mentioned as the name of the nomadological totality *vis-à-vis* the void. Syntheologically this means that the sociont meets in the midst of existence as Pantheos. But matrix symbolizes Pantheos *vis-à-vis* Atheos and phallus symbolizes Pantheos *vis-à-vis* Entheos. Thus there is also a nomadological direction to the sociont's movement; it moves from matrix toward phallus without either leaving matrix or succeeding in reaching phallus. And it is not just the sociont as a whole that moves in this manner through the horizontal nomadology, but also the dividual within the sociont who moves in this manner over the course of life through the vertical nomadology. This has cosmological consequences. The dialectics of process and event is namely nothing other than the cosmological pulse that causes mortido to set libido in motion. Or to express the matter in Hegelese: Matrix is the negation, the sociont and/or the dividual is the abstraction, while phallus is the concretion that never can be attained and which thereby keeps nomadology in continued, constant motion. At the same time there is a relation here -- sometimes with near-cosmological ambitions -- between on the one hand phallus and on the other hand mamilla, most clearly illustrated within Islam with the unabashed construction of the mosque (mamilla) between the minarets (phalluses). In their mutual relationship to each other the minaret symbolizes *phallic abundance* as its attribute, and the mosque symbolizes *matrichal generosity* as its attribute. It is the minaret that urges military or priestly order, while it is the mosque that constitutes the gathering place for the temporary restoration of *the ummah* or the congregation. Ironically this process is of course a kind of sexless mimicry of the original nomadological ritual site where the priest calls for order and structure while the matriarch takes charge of the ritual's hierarchies and prioritisations. Within nomadology the situation is sexually charged and the libidinal energy in the worship that takes place is directed toward future territorial conquests. This can be compared with the Muslim prayer call and the call to the service, which are sexless, desexualized and directed toward nothing less than a prophetic burial site, that acts the role of *axis mundi*, that is: the centre of the Universe, the mortidinal Mecca. The purpose of nomadology is to tame existence. The playing children shall be tamed, socialized, and thus become adult. The adults and their sexuality shall also be tamed so that they and their behaviors serve the sociont. The women shall be tamed so that they enter the prescribed role which includes giving birth to and raising the children. And the men, not least, shall be tamed so that they accept protecting and supporting the family's women. The priests shall be tamed so that they agree to refrain from all personal ambitions beyond death, to instead devote themselves wholeheartedly to appeasing the gods and leading the next generation toward new objectives. Everything, absolutely everything, revolves around the sociont and what is best for the sociont. Thus nomadology is a totalitarian religion, and thereby also the religion that all totalitarian ideologies later allude to and use for their own purposes. It is only later in history -- in conjunction with the construction of greater social units, what we call *the sociont-plus* -- that phenomena such as diversity and criminality come into play. Thus there is a horizontal and a vertical nomadology. Horizontal nomadology describes the sociont's movement and direction, while vertical nomadology is concerned with the dividual's personal voyage through life. When one attains an objective and then identifies a new one during the course of the voyage, we call the transition that occurs [[Transcendence]]. It is not possible to attain an ultimate objective, since the sociont continues to move after and beyond the dividual's death. The dividual itself does however attain its own objective precisely through death and the transcendence it entails to hand over the sociont to a new generation through *the heritage*. And around this transition, replete with meaning, there have always been sacred rites. Please note how the sociont constantly is in motion. It can only allow itself to be stationary very temporarily and provisionally. The sociont practices a [[The Dialectics of Libido and Mortido|dialectics of libido and mortido]] (see *Digital Libido: Sex, Power and Violence in the Network Society*) where libido sets the sociont in motion while mortido enjoys the temporary breaks during the voyage that the tribe considers one can afford. But there is never any permanent abode, the sociont never settles for good. That is: it never does so until it actually does precisely this, but then again it then ceases being a nomadic tribe. This means that the modernist existentialists -- such as for instance Martin Heidegger, with his tribute to Man's *Heimat* -- commit a cognitive error when they get stuck in Man's search for a robust anchoring in a specific geographical location. On the contrary, the existential foundation exists within the sociont itself, which in essence is nomadological motion and not letting oneself be fixed. Decadence and disintegration appears when the sociont stops and ceases to dream of new expeditions to new territories. The death of exodology is synonymous with the death of libido. Everything halts, and when everything halts it dies. This does not mean that the permanent address is lacking within nomadology, but here it is a question of *axis mundi*, a fixed address situated at some fixed point which in turn is situated along a route that the sociont constantly returns to. This fixed address is only accessible for temporary visits, and then only by the priests. However, the fixed address is never allowed to be used for permanent settlement. Rudolf Otto and Mircea Eliade provide a detailed account for the anthropological differences between on the one hand the sacral space and the profane space, and on the other hand sacral time and profane time. It is only at especially vulnerable times that it is permitted to visit *axis mundi*, and it is only at these points in time that a sacral event can arise. Unsurprisingly, these select, sacred places at inland ports and trade oases recur later in history as the sites where one builds the first temples. And the temples in turn become the institutions where one practices the rituals and proclaims the narratives that unite the socionts and keep them together by giving them joint histories, directions and objectives. Nomadology is built on two different histories, two different dimensions of history as such. In part, we first have *horizontal history,* which is the religious story about the present sociont and its members, how one makes a historical voyage from birth to death. Horizontal history is concrete and physical. But in part, behind, above and under horizontal history, we also have *vertical history*, which is the religious story of the primordial fathers that walk ahead (the inspiration) and the primordial mothers that walk behind (the aspiration). Vertical history is abstract and transcendental. Man interacts with and is an active co-creator in horizontal history. But he is subject to and worships vertical history, since it determines his conditions, while it lies wholly outside his control. Horizontal history is the voyage from matrix (birth) back to matrix (death), where phallus manifests itself during the course of the voyage as the libido that rises in a kind of powerless, temporary protest against the permanent mortido that vanquishes everything. Vertical history is however the story of phallus itself, how it rises from [[Root-Of-The-Phallus|the root-of-the-phallus]] (the origin of the phallus, or the sociont's deepest biological history) to *the-apex-of-the-phallus* (the direction of the phallus, or the sociont's loftiest vision). Horizontal history teaches Man that even the desirable and feared phallus is subject to fate as the *ultimicity* of the entire existence. At the same time as vertical history entices Man to submit to the phallic power to thereby be able to transcend to the next phase in his own and the sociont's development. When horizontal history transcends the generations, it gives rise to the matrichal and cyclical religion and its fixation with the eternal recurrence of the same, as *the reincarnation of the sociont itself* as history's deepest expression. Precisely this is the core of nomadology. When vertical history transcends the generations, it gives rise to the phallic and civilizationist religion and its fixation with the heritage that passes between the various generations, where every generation is expected to strive for the higher, the better, the more refined in comparison to what the previous generation succeeded in attaining. Precisely this is the core of eventology. If the heritage is not handed over in time -- regardless of in which state it happens to be -- it then triggers *patricide*, the murder of the father, which simply means that the younger generation kills the older generation because the older generation for one reason or another has failed to hand over the heritage in time, failed at the sociont's *regeneration*. Or quite simply just has failed to be a generation of able parents and mentors in general, that is: the parent generation has decayed into *degeneration*. Which explains why matrichal religions such as Buddhism and Christianity are obsessed with the end of horizontal history, since they build their worldview on an exit from reincarnation and thus on a fundamental conception of the end of history, while phallic religions such as Zoroastrianism and Judaism conversely are obsessed with the constant continuity of vertical history, since they build their worldview on a conception of the heritage's and thus also of history's constant continuation. The matrichal religions seek enlightenment or salvation as a possibility to finally evade the cyclical; the phallic religions, however, defend [[The Barred Absolute]] as the protopian engine that propels the building of the next civilization. The matrichal religions attain their purpose through invoking, and as far as possible realizing the opportunity of creating a direct relation between the divine and the believer; the phallic religions dispute that something of that nature even could be possible in theory and thus keep the transcendental process going from the one generation to the next. Instead, the phallic religions rather see every attempt to overthrow the spiritual hierarchy of existence as the most dangerous and most mendacious of all conceivable projects. This causes the priests to develop their own third religion -- which is carried out behind the barred absolute, and outside both heritage and reproduction -- to be the foundation for all phallic religions. Behind the most sacred room in the temple there is always an utmost sacred room, which is exclusively reserved for the priests themselves. There the priests meet gods and ancestors, there one conducts the rituals that are necessary in order to appease these, in the best interests of the entire patriarchy. And religion is always, as William James puts it, Man's constant attempt to adapt himself and his behavior to a menacingly invisible order. Vertical nomadology operates in a movement that starts from the child to the adult and then further to the clergy and finally to the divinity. *The archetype* is in this context the character who walks ahead, who invents new technologies and breaks new ground. *The erchtype* is the character that mimics the archetype in order to thus produce an optimal outcome for the sociont. Within mythos there is only the archetype and the erchtype within the various generations. However, within logos the possibility for the erchtype to not only imitate the archetype, but also to break with it and create the new and developing itself, is liberated. This means that as long as the narrative remains within mythos, nomadology is the only possible story. However at the very moment that the historiography also comprises logos, eventology becomes a real possibility. This is first expressed in the provision of the erchtype's genealogical chart, a background in the form of a single long series of fathers and sons, to thus confer legitimacy on the erchtype to achieve the creative break with the mimicked and the learnt, in order to instead create the genuinely new and thus oneself assume the role as archetype. Creativity is catapulted out of this eventological break with the traditional and inherited. This in turn explains the difference between the patriarchal religion (the monotheist eventology) and the matriarchal spirituality (the polytheist iconology). Eventology is the pathical narrative that oscillates between the two poles of *ecstasy* and *trauma*. Therefore pathos is the basis for the monotheism or eventology of the priests, while mythos is the basis for the polytheism or iconology of the masses. Out of pathos logos then emerges as the formalized religion that organizes the relation between eventology and nomadology. This is the religion called *the law*. This means that the priests represent a tantric religion of pathos behind the barred absolute, something which is converted into a sutric religion by logos before the barred absolute. The brutal pathical reality behind the barred absolute is converted into the organized logical law before the barred absolute. This state of affairs explains why the priest in the Silk Road religions is associated with *will-to-intelligence manifested as logos*, practiced as *sutra,* while the chieftain is associated with *will-to-transcendence manifested as pathos*, practiced as *tantra*. Nomadology is built on a blend of sociontology and the Jungian archetypes -- the basic, original patterns within the dividual and the tribal subconscious. Individualism arises only much later in history and then only in individualist cultures that have killed off God and severed the connection to the sociont as the fundamental existential building block. Here the twisted *shaman envy* enters the picture; that is to say when the dividual does not settle for the voyage from child to adult, but moreover strives to transcend beyond adult life to the freedom and responsibility of the shamans. When this endeavor approaches its unavoidable failure, the result is modern Man's [[Hypernarcissism]], his inability to handle both the shamanic function's freedom and responsibility. The result is a twisted, monotonous narrative that revolves around one's own empty ego, which in no way is the authentic story of the sociont's origin and destination that the priests recount. It is here that the three concepts will-to-power, will-to-intelligence and will-to-transcendence enter the stage. The will-to-power exists everywhere in all of nature. The will-to-intelligence is the matrichal form of the will-to-power (Taoism's *yin*), the will-to-transcendence is the phallic form of the will-to-power (Taoism' *yang*). Architecture and materials represent being (Zoroastrianism's *ahura*), energy and objectives represent becoming (Zoroastrianism's *mazda*). Here the ultimate objective, *the phallic vision*, gives the phallic value to everything else which is located in an earlier phase of the causal chain. The energy jump starts the will-to-power, but this is either locked in as a repetitive loop in the form of a will-to-intelligence (Taoism's *yin*), or it is set free in the form of a will-to-transcendence (Taoism's *yang*). The dialectics between these is nomadology in its full potency. It is only in the territory that the will-to-transcendence has successfully conquered that the will-to-intelligence can establish itself. The Zoroastrian name for this state is *frashokereti*, and here we refer to it as [[Protopianism]]. Please note how nomadology requires that phallus is split in the same way as the child's separation from the mother requires matrix to split, which expresses itself in the [[Mamilla]], which becomes the mother's and the child's new meeting place after the birth, whereafter they are two separated dividuals. The splitting of phallus is therefore not a separation of the man and the woman in themselves, but the separation of on the one hand the man, and on the other hand the difference between the man and the woman. It is thus precisely the androgynous state where neither the man nor the woman dominates that is *the-shadow-of-the-phallus*, where the will-to-intelligence and strategy dominates over the will-to-transcendence and vision. This is the priest's domicile in the social theater. Therefore nomadology is driven by three rather than two characters, namely the chieftain, the matriarch and the priest. And it is the priest who personifies the difference between the man and the woman. Because it is the priest who holds together precisely that which sexual attraction and its conditional [[Ambivalence]] pulls apart. In the same way that the matriarch holds the two patriarchs responsible for what they should deliver to her and the inner circuit of the sociont. The man thus constantly oscillates between logos and pathos in his search for mythos, without ever being able to find any mythical resting place. Jacques Lacan calls this state *the whole with the disturbing exception*. While the woman constantly is in mythos, but is wrestling with handling logos and pathos as disturbances in her mental frequencies. Mythos is the complete story of the sociont within the sociont itself. However the contextual order (logos) and chaos (pathos) both disturb the coziness inside the world of the social theater. Lacan calls this state *the whole disturbed by the missing signifier*. This entails that freedom for the man is to temporarily be in a mythos with minimal influence from logos or pathos. Sexual intercourse becomes a dear visit inside the inner circuit where the man himself does not belong. At the same time as freedom for the woman is to be allowed to remain in her natural mythos without being disturbed by neither logos nor pathos. Sexual intercourse becomes an exciting visit to the outer circuit where the woman herself does not belong. The woman is constantly in the present while the man always seeks a present that never arrives, since he either is stuck in the logos of the past with its discretions (the root-of-the-phallus) or in the pathos of the future with its continuities (phallus in itself), wherefore the union never can become anything other than *the myth of the present*, what Lacan calls *the barred subject*. This means that if the man considers himself to have attained mythos without the woman, this ends with utopian tyranny, and that if the woman insists on remaining within mythos without having to take the separation between logos and pathos into consideration, this ends with dystopian Cybelianism. The man and the woman thus find themselves in a dialectical deadlock between each other and it is this very locking that generates sexual attraction. The dream of redemption lies forever concealed within the other sex, unattainable and therefore forever attracting. To dare remain in this dialectical deadlock and use its productivity, without trying to transcend the actual dialectics, is exactly what the tantric imperative *to not cum* is all about. At the same time as the androgynous caste masters the border between the inner and outer circuits without being quite at home in either one of them. While the shamanic caste moves effortlessly across the entire intertribal map, but without being able to experience anything other than sex being just sex, almost as if sex was about chewing gum. The sex for the shamanoids is always at home in the tantric realm. Nations and corporations devote themselves to *research* with the purpose of attaining *progress* when they make their investments in the future. Research is the root-of-the-phallus and progress is phallus in itself. The stronger and more stable the root-of-the-phallus, the greater the possibility that phallus hits its mark in the future. This is the first division that Man must learn to handle before divisions such as *hunting versus war* and *man versus woman* reach the agenda. And this is of course just another way to express the biblical appeal that one must build one's house on a foundation of rock and not on loose sand. Please note the dialectics here between three, rather than two poles. Logos is *consciousness*, pathos is *unconsciousness*, and mythos is the impossible yet necessary attempt to unify the other two poles as [[The Subconscious]]. Research is the root-of-the-phallus, which is logos; progress is phallus in itself, which is pathos; the vibrating present where both these forces meet can therefore only be shaped as a mythos about the actual sociont, for instance as the *flag* of a nation or the *brand* of a corporation. It is in the mythical and only in the mythical that the subject can assume a form, accumulate its *imaginary power*, and this applies equally for *the tribal subject* as for *the dividual subject* within the sociont in question. We can observe how four different drives detach themselves from the human drive system instead of just the two that classical psychoanalysis deals with (see *Digital Libido -- Sex, Power and Violence in the Network Society*). The classical pair of opposites *drive* and *desire* must be complemented by an [[Instinct]] that precedes drive and desire and a [[Transcendence]] that follows after the other three. *Animalistic drive* or instinct is the combination of logos and the subconscious. *Mechanical drive* or pure drive in itself is the combination of pathos and the subconscious. *Human drive* or desire is logos and consciousness, and *divine drive* or transcendence is pathos and consciousness. None of these drives can express itself consciously or subconsciously without interacting with each other to create a temporary mythos. And it is this mythos that is subjectivity in itself, both within the single dividual and for the sociont as a whole. As it is fundamentally barred from itself, according to Lacan, it can only experience itself *subconsciously*, as a strictly mythical narrative. This means that Man mimics -- an awful lot and all the time. Sociologist and historian of religion René Girard investigates Man as a mimicking creature with his *mimetic theory*. The child mimics the adult, the adult mimics the priest, the priest mimics God, and God mimics the child. But above all we mimic each other horizontally. These activities continue, without any disturbances to speak of, until resources become scarce, or until a perception that the resources threaten to become scarce takes hold in the general perception. Then mimicry is turned into rivalry. Society brims with rivalry, a rivalry that gradually intensifies as inside a pressure cooker that eventually threatens to explode. The higher the temperature rises in the pressure cooker, the more powerful the explosion. The most extreme of all social explosions of this kind is war. But in order for a civil war not to break out within the sociont, it falls to the priest within nomadology to tame these forces so that the explosion is delayed and weakened as much as possible. It is thus because of the priests taming these forces and thus domesticating the sociont, that the sociont can begin to mimic the taming so that it not only tames itself but also the surrounding *nature* to be able to transform it into *culture*. Civilization is this taming of flows in the form of water, wind, sun, energy, blood and electricity. Civilization thus also concerns territories and their borders, spheres and their membranes, irrigations, impoundments and ejaculations. Both inside and outside Man, inside and outside the sociont, inside and outside the world. The civilization process delimits and distinguishes, takes note of and regulates traffic between, inside and outside. Death is life's completion and thus also the potential deification of the dividual. The dead have absolute authority. Only the dead, but never the living, can serve as lesser gods. The primordial patriarch is the patriarch of the patriarchs. The primordial matriarch is the matriarch of the matriarchs. Envy toward the authority of the dead is the foundation for the boy-pharaohs' hubris and the engine behind history's many pyramid construction projects. The dead cannot worship the dead, thus the living have the task of worshipping these dead -- this is the core of religion, the voyeurism of the living in combination with the exhibitionism of the dead, so that the dead in a mirrored manner can become the voyeurs of the living in everyday life as *the lesser gods*. ## So where and when does the playing field for Man's fantasy change and above all shrink? A clear departure occurs through the *desexualisation* that is imposed upon Man when he becomes settled. The outer circuit within the sociont is pushed into the inner circuit. Logos, mythos and pathos are blended together in a kind of sociological pressure cooker. Sex, violence and shamanic rituals are stigmatized. Art loses its pathical strength and is infantilized. The phallic, worshipping gaze is shifted from the primordial fathers, the chieftain and the priest, to the primordial mother, the matriarch and the child. And with this shift logos disappears for lack of pathos and is replaced by a universal mythos that speaks of eternal peace and eternal happiness, wishful dreaming based on the infantile fantasy of the eternal child with a soul divorced from the increasingly adult and increasingly sexual body. Gnosticism arrives in history as the infantile fantasy of being able to go directly from child to God without having to pass through sexuality and adult life. We call this state [[The Peter Pan Syndrome]] in a contemporary context. The dream of eternity and infinity is never dreamed by an adult man, but by a boy who refuses to grow up and who therefore wishes for a life without the adult body with its inherent forces and responsibility. The original release occurs through the priests carrying out ritual sacrifices to appease the gods. And they teach the sociont how and where one can relieve the pressure to avoid an explosion. The priests are looking for their own son, the Messiah. Christianity's illusion is that the nomadological cycle can be halted. Christianity's illusory hope is thus that just one single sacrifice at one single occasion can redeem all societies throughout history and then somehow the entire problem is solved. What a nasty surprise it must be that even the priest must be sacrificed, naturally, which means that both the Messiah (the son) and the priest (the father) unconditionally must die. The rain-god is sacrificed as a virgin before his mother, and the sun-god disappears in the process since he now lacks both a heritage and a future. This is what Nietzsche sees clearly when he maintains that Christianity had both atheism and nihilism built into its own doctrine right from the very start. Christ on the cross merely becomes the mimicry of how the Egyptian priests sacrificed their boy-pharaoh Tutankhamen to end the Atenist autocracy 1,300 BC and reintroduced Egyptian polytheism. At the same time as they allowed the Atenists to evade persecution by letting them emigrate to be able to develop their own monotheist religion as Judaism (see Sigmund Freud's *Moses and Monotheism*). And thereby we also get an explanation for the core of anti-Semitism, since the Jew gets to take the blame in popular religion as he who killed the Messiah -- as though some other tribe had infringed on the sociont's territory and killed the sociont's next king -- at the same time as Christianity's inner core consists of a clergy that hates that the father still makes himself known via the Jewish rabbis who are their rivals. Christianity solves this by claiming that through Christ's sacrificial death on the cross, the believer has liberated himself from the Jewish Law and replaced it with an eternal energy machine called Grace, as though the reward for killing the father is that the judge at the end of life has disappeared. This entails that the Christian nation is taught to hate the Jewish rabbis, while the Christian priests can renounce the violence in their own society -- through the separation of a heavenly church from an earthly state -- so that they as priests shall feel superior to their kings, cultivate their new status as self-aggrandizing, pacifist eunuchs, and realize Plato's and Saint Augustine's fantasies of finally being allowed to be and remain Peter Pan. Christianity is thus built on a failed patricide of Judaism in the same way that Islam is built on a failed patricide of Zoroastrianism. In Islam the murdered *mobed* survives in the form of the locally interpretative *mullah*, who stands above the text as *Shia,* while the illusory belief that the Zoroastrian mobed is murdered, and that the boy can wage war any way he wishes without the priest's intervention, is called *Sunni*. If Christianity is *the pillar-saint's religion par excellence*, then Islam is *the boy-pharaoh's religion par excellence*. The adult, the genuine, the sophisticated and the brutally natural in the predecessors is thrown out and replaced with the childish, the mimicking, the easily seduced and the spectacularly supernatural. This is civilization's recurring curse: How easily the dialectics of logos, mythos and pathos is sacrificed to be replaced with a more popular vulgarized copycat. And here the unifying [[Abject]] comes into play. An abjectification is a projection on an alien intruder with the purpose of unifying the sociont. It matters not whether the abjectification is motivated or completely arbitrary, the function is the same. The abject is turned into *the scapegoat* and through the sacrifice of the scapegoat the pressure inside the sociont is released and the sociont can unify temporarily before the pressure increases anew and the need for another abjectification rises. Nomadology, whose universal symbol is the self-eating primordial snake *Ouroboros*, was always doomed to be caught in this eternal loop. Only through the phallus worship of the approaching eventology can humanity start to dream of an end to the constantly returning hell of the lynch mobs. The world is heading for a new order, a new *nomos*, that finally can function because of history's insights into the resilience of social systems. And above all thanks to a great amount of new and innovative technology. This means that *communism*, as the last history of Man, comes with the problem that nomadology in itself always was communist. So when communism later in history is to be re-established as a collectivist fantasy via socialism, this fails completely. The explanation lies in that the Atenist dictatorship is the worst possible way to restore nomadology, and that nomadology never can function within a greater entity than the sociont itself. Thus communism ironically can only be re-established as a temporary tribal plurarchy, that is: as a kind of *digital gated community*. But neither the city, nor the nation, nor the empire can ever be communist. The global empire belongs to the Machine and only to the Machine. Man must instead laboriously return to the one thing he ever has been comfortable with, the sociont itself, that is to say [[The Tribal Singularity]]. Anything else is nothing but misanthropic fantasies with no connection to reality whatsoever.