# Eventological monotheism versus nomadological iconology The phallic and priestly eventology is monotheist and/or oligotheist; it focuses on the higher and inaccessible gods. In syntheist terms it can be expressed as though eventology strives toward [[Pantheos]]. The matrichal and popular nomadology is, however, polytheist and iconological; it focuses on the lesser and accessible gods. And if we apply the syntheist perspective on that handling, we say that nomadology strives toward [[Entheos]]. *Nomadology is the universal and horizontal exodology*. In ancient Greece the nomadological timeline is called *chronos*. *Eventology is the exceptional and vertical exodology*, and the ancient Greeks call the eventological timeline *kairos*. Hence we refer to the sacral event as *the kairotic moment*. The timeline that we call *chronos* generates the mobilist history of nature, while *kairos* generates the eternalist history of culture. The moment that both these dimensions establish contact, when eventology meets nomadology -- which means that the nomadic movement in itself is transformed into an actual event -- there arises an [[Exodology]]: the history of the transition between two different paradigms, how both old territories and old ideologies are abandoned for the civilizational conquest of the new. If we once again apply a syntheist view of the process, we see how exodology eventually must strive toward [[Syntheos]] (see further [[historiography/texts/Process and Event/glossary/Syntheism]] -- *Creating God in the Internet Age*), the greatest exodus of all for mankind. These two metanarratives complement and balance each other; none of them is functional without the other. In a globalized world, eventological monotheism without a counterweight is developed into *dictatorship*. And in the same globalized world, nomadological iconology without a counterweight is developed into *anarchy*. A stable civilization must rest on a more or less stable balance between the two metanarratives -- eventology's *yang* or *Shiva* against nomadology's *yin* or *Shakti*. Hegel regards the nomadological worldview as the philosophical generator that drives what he calls *reflective thinking*, which is personified by the priest, while the eventological worldview is the generator that drives *speculative thinking*, which in turn is personified by the chieftain. With the merger of these metanarratives, Zoroastrianism's two-headed phallus *Ahura Mazda* is enfolded in Western thinking, where it fills a vital function. The concept is actually so vital that it generously compensates for the fact that it eventually becomes the nail in the coffin of Hegel's greatly beloved Christianity. In order to handle the difference between reflective and speculative thinking, two different kinds of historiography are required. Nomadology's *the eternal recurrence of the same* must be complemented by a unique eventological historiography that starts from *the root-of-the-phallus*. The Old Testament's endless chants about who had which son that became the father of which son that became the father of which son, and so on, is an illustrative example one only can imagine on painstakingly accounted for roots-of-the-phallus. Another example is Hegel's distinction between the necessity in the past as the root-of-the-phallus that must encounter the brutal contingency of the future, as precisely *phallus in itself*, which has the strongest possible attachment to history. A third example is the sociobiological heritage in the form of the human genome that is passed on from generation to generation, what we call Man's [[Archetypology]]. He who then following Hegel formulates nomadology in the form of the myth of the eternal recurrence of the same is of course Nietzsche. The very concept of nomadology is invented around the mid-20th century by philosopher and Nietzsche disciple Gilles Deleuze, but the concept as such gets its main meaning from anthropologist Mircea Eliade's contemporary theories of *the Arcadian ontology*. Nomadology constantly oscillates, and the reason is that it has so many archetypal icons by which to orient itself. It is thus about the original doctrine of the original tribe, [[The Sociont]], and its foundation, structure and direction. It is through the science of psychology that we ever since the sociont's heyday comprehend the nomadological mindset and its horizontality. The nomadological transfer of knowledge occurs via *the principle of absolute mimesis without exception*, which is cherished by the inner circuit. Precisely everything is zealous imitation. The consequence of this cult of mimicry will of course, as everyone realizes, be that nomadology as such does not endorse innovation. There is quite simply no room for any radical history-altering event. Instead history must constantly be retold as an eternal cycle of repetition. Imitation and repetition is the exemplary and desirable; occasional deviations from the expected can only be regrettable accidents or capricious input from gods and/or spirits that absolutely should not be imitated. The sociont stands and falls by *the tradition* that everyone and everything must pay tribute and submit to. Over the course of history -- over the course of everything -- there is *Genetrix* (or *Magna Mater,* as she is called by classic psychoanalysts such as Carl Jung and Erich Neumann) in a state of spectacular loneliness. Genetrix is thus the name of the completely unadulterated mortido that is entirely driven by the matrichal ability to redeliver the world, but that completely lacks the phallic urge to alter it (see *Digital Libido* -- *Sex, Power and Violence in the Network Society*). Genetrix is the name of the inverted sexuality, birth and death in one and the same conceptual nutshell, without any lived life in between -- what Neumann refers to as *ouroboric incest* -- a phenomenon that does not know its own time limit, that turns toward itself as a *centroversion*, and that therefore suffocates the possibilities of sexuality to develop into a living dialectics. To the extent that Genetrix is allowed to operate undisturbed, [[The Phallic Intrusion]] into the child's life is inhibited, which means the phallic train toward adulthood leaves the platform, while the child, that is doped-up on safety concerns, attaches itself by suction to mamilla and refuses to yield. *The sexual negation,* which is necessary in order to lay the ground for an adult sexuality, does not occur. Which is the recurring tragedy that unfolds every time that mortido suffocates libido over the course of history (see *Digital Libido* -- *Sex, Power and Violence in the Network Society*). What remains is a kind of constantly grinding nomadological machinery that only acts reactively to ensure survival, but which is incapable of actively engaging to achieve change and development. The many archetypes that are required to shape the adult archetypology, and ultimately also be perfected as the living iconology, die from lack of oxygen under the pressure from Genetrix and her mortido as *The One*. The Hegelian negation (the original and underlying mortido) is no longer followed by *the negation of the negation* (the dialectical and overarching libido). Or as Neumann sums it up in his classic work *The Origins and History of Consciousness* from 1949: Ouroboric incest leads to *adolescent incest* and thereafter to the sacrificing of phallus itself. The son dies in his mother's arms as *the Cybelian act par excellenc*e. Nomadology thus has its clearly defined function, but it also has its clearly defined limitations. Without a counterweight it cannot produce anything other than its own castration, this since nomadology gets its energy from a constantly grinding machine of repetition -- life after life after life without any authenticity, what Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism, simply defines as the *suffering* of existence. Eventology instead operates according to the principle of the temporary increase of the engine's combustion, that is: if and when extra energy is available. We understand the eventological mind and its *verticality* via the art of *socioanalysis;* we observe how the transition from nomadology to eventology enables a transition from an exclusive (and excluding) horizontality to a state where the vertical gains entrance into the horizontal. It is in this manner that we must view the transition from paganism to Christianity, a paradigm shift that Nietzsche wrestles with while he fails at separating the Dionysian forces in the exodological field. Nietzsche struggles with an aristocratic ideal in the form of the *Übermensch* as a historical event -- this is essentially the same shamanoid character that author Ernst Jünger later calls *the anarch* -- while he himself constantly reverts to a nomadological thought pattern without really taking hold in the history of eventology. For Nietzsche fails to separate *Ahura* from *Mazda* (the concept of the two-headed phallus within Zoroastrianism) within his own overarching concept of [[Will-To-Power]], this since the Übermensch must manifest two different wills without autonomy. Therefore he does not understand, in contrast to Zoroaster and Hegel, the difference between a nomadological worldview with only will-to-intelligence, where history therefore must be circular, on the one hand, and on the other hand an eventological worldview, that contains both will-to-intelligence and will-to-transcendence, and which therefore must be understood as the path which leads out of the nomadologically circular and that encompasses a genuinely exodological event. Nietzsche quite simply lacks the tools of Zoroastrianism and Judaism that have been lost in Christianity and Islam -- in their successful simplification of the existential conditions -- namely the tantric tools that hide behind [[The Barred Absolute]]. Nietzsche does not succeed in thinking death as an *anti-event* before he thinks life as an event, he does not succeed in thinking [[Negatology]] before he thinks eventology, to use Canadian philosopher Cadell Last's vocabulary. Nietzsche is still too Christian to understand that mortido drives libido and not the other way around. He never thinks *the Cybelian mob* as the collective subconsciousness and [[The Dionysian Swarm]] as the thin libidinal surface atop, even if he clearly sees the Apollonian order as the collective consciousness atop the latter, as civilization itself. We are frankly concerned here with a system error that is built into Christian theology which Nietzsche inherits. The Übermensch is by definition an anarchic recluse, drenched in *infinite freedom*, who has no idea of where he is going or how his superhuman gifts (technology) best are used. The point here is that the difference between monotheism and polytheism is not a matter of the number of gods to whom a believer must devote his worship, but instead of how many directions that are actual simultaneously and therefore also possible to follow. Eventological monotheism contains a conception of the vertical and linear movement upward, while nomadological iconology contains a conception of the horizontal and circular movement forward. This explains why the monotheists turn toward a single spot when they are practicing their submission, the spot where the sacred event has taken place (*the root-of-the-phallus as an event*) or shall take place (*the phallus in itself as an event*). The polytheists, on their part, quite simply turn toward the effigy of a single lesser god that they for the moment happen to worship for one reason or another. It thus means that the difference between eventological monotheism and nomadological iconology is not a question of quantity as regards the number of gods, but a question of quality. What eventology adds to the process is the phallic focus that is directed away from mamilla, toward -- and by all means past -- phallus itself. The phallic focus entails that all energy is channeled in a single direction toward a single god. It is this single god that the monotheist aims to mimic, not other people that in turn imitate lesser gods. The dramatic transition from nomadology to eventology -- the only ideological revolution of genuine and really transformative significance in human history -- occurs in conjunction with the Zoroastrian reformation in Central Asia around 1700 BC, an event that later had Christianity, among others, as an eventological grandchild. Certainly, the same impressive religious reformation can be found in other cultures that contemplate and manifest the new conditions of sedentary life, for example within *Tengrism* among the Mongols and *Waaqeffanna* among the Oromo people in Ethiopia, both monotheist cults around the phallic god in heaven. However Zoroaster is not only a religious reformer but also history's first authoring philosopher. Without the Zoroastrian reformation it is impossible to conceive of a Judaism, Christianity or Islam. But neither of a Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism or Brahmanism during the Axial Age in the East. And above all no Hegel or Nietzsche. Where thus *authentic eventology* (Zoroastrianism and Judaism) dares to think death as the absolute negativity, while *false eventology* (Christianity and Islam) terrifyingly conceals death behind grotesque, infantile fantasies of eternal life. Thanks to eventology Man can travel inside his head every bit as well as with his body in the physical world. What previously merely was genetics now receives a superstructure in the form of [[Memetics]] (see any of the three books in *The Futurica Trilogy*). The eventological transfer of knowledge and wisdom now occurs via the outer circuit's *principle of mimesis with the phallic exception*. Everything is imitation except *authentic innovation as an event*. In one fell swoop, this enables teachable people to imitate the creative gods that create worlds. In every respect it pays better to complement *nomadology's horizontal mimesis* with *eventology's vertical mimesis*. Phallus can now stage its exodus toward the divine via technology, and the radical difference lies in this exodus now having a single direction: forward, upward, away. Those who follow phallus no longer risk getting lost in winding circles from which there is no exit. The Zoroastrian concept *khvarenah* captures the aura or charisma that distinguishes the perfect project. The encounter between the deep historical anchoring in the root-of-the-phallus (the reflection) and the flashes from the phallic hammer (the speculation) generates the *khvarenah* that makes everything else pale, and which true believers follow as soon as it appears on the horizon. Thus the fact that the *khvarenah* only appears at one single occasion explains the arrival and success of monotheism. This does not mean that history as such will go through some qualitative change. The transition from the two-dimensional view of history, which only is compatible with horizontal nomadology, to the three-dimensional view of history that is built on and presumes the dialectics of horizontal nomadology and vertical eventology, should be regarded as an admittedly transformative shift in perspectives but not as the introduction to a new historical era. This [[Pharmakon]] of a construction from the history of ideas brings both possibilities and risks. In books such as *Straw Dogs* and *Black Mass* from the early 2000s, philosopher John Gray aims sharp criticism against all attempts to describe history as some kind of refinement process, even if this thinking merely concerns the social context wherein Man finds himself and no longer experiments with any delusions of a gradually increasing refinement of human nature. Ideas of this sort Gray subsumes within the concept *meliorism* (from the Italian verb *migliorare,* which means precisely to improve, refine). It is quite reasonable, as does Gray, to blame the European Enlightenment and its underlying Christianity, which in turn is a hybrid between Judaism and Platonism, for these meliorist ideals. Any of those are however nowhere to be found among the Zoroastrians, who with their worldview as only *processes and events* do not acknowledge the presence of any Platonist forms, and who consequently neither take an interest in any form of superreality that is considered more real than, and preceding, actual reality. The event is rather just what it is. What Zoroaster does is rather to present an alternative to nomadological iconology, and that alternative is eventological monotheism. Events *can* occur and events *can* change history forever. Thanks to the new information accumulation outside Man's own memorizing head. And they further tend to be technological in nature and not ideological, that is: they are conditioned by a dominating media technology of the moment that elevates certain talents and abilities at the expense of others, for no other reason than precisely because some talents simply happen to be aligned with the prevailing media climate, rather than them being products of some ideological ambitions or considerations. This insight and this recognition is *in itself* -- in the most profound Hegelian sense -- the greatest event of them all, a true transformation in spirit. We relate to the world afresh. Where existence previously only consisted of horizontal processes there is now a complementing dimension of vertical events. As a result one can see the history of philosophy as a long series of footnotes to Zoroaster, where *the thought* (personified by the priest) constantly submits to *the act* (personified by the chieftain), instead of the reverse scenario which one tends to think wishfully about within meliorism. This radically changes the relation to the divine. Instead of begging the lesser gods for assistance through existence in blatant favor of one's own interests, what Zoroaster calls *dev yasna* in ancient Persian, Zoroaster stipulates a direct and personal relation with the divine, via the wise thought he calls *Mazdayasna*. Which is both more rewarding and more demanding. And this is precisely where the decisive division between monotheism and polytheism arises. Zoroaster's point is thus not a question of how many gods that appear in the sacred scriptures, but what is central is the relation itself between Man and the divine. *Dev yasna* is an indirect relation by proxy which results in personal responsibility vanishing. Icons are merely images that one can accept with one's eyes without building any deepened relation to. The childishly light-hearted polytheism can be likened to leafing through colorful weeklies or scrolling through an Instagram feed brimming with vacation and food images. You are not really living your life yourself, it is someone else who lives life for you. It is someone other than you who acquires the decisive, pervasive insights; It is someone else who carries out the radical actions that alter existence -- it is not you. Someone else does all this in your place, you are only carrying out simple imitations while living an indirect life. The multidimensional figure of thought in Zoroastrianism opens up for the phallic exodus from primitivism to civilization, something that now becomes both conceivable and possible. And when monotheism with its strong and sole phallic direction makes an earnest breakthrough, the ideological exodology called Zoroastrianism will soon be followed by the geographical exodology called Judaism. In essence exodologies are exactly this: Man's ultimate attempt to identify and realize the divine within himself. Zoroaster's own religion, *Mazdayasna,* requires knowledge of the practitioner and only those who actually possess the deep and extensive knowledge can approach the divine. Where this act, to take responsibility for one's own destiny -- which generates history's first and still most consistent existentialism, namely the Zoroastrian religion and its love of the mind and wisdom -- manifested in an act, affects and changes history forever. [[Eventology]] is born. Love of the icon, *dev yasna* or iconology, lives on as an acceptable popular religion and is developed later in history to the worshipping of saints and martyrs. But for the intellectual elite, who are serious about optimizing their life opportunities, it is instead *Mazdayasna*, love of wisdom, what the Greeks a thousand years later start calling *philosophia*, that matters. There are two directions to choose between: either, for those who advocate *vertical mimesis,* upward toward a fixed phallic point, and thus this religion must be a [[Monotheism]]. Or else, for those who find *horizontal mimesis* more comfortable and less demanding, one is free to imitate everything and everyone in a flat world. A religion built on this pattern of thought consequently becomes a polytheism or an *iconology*. What is said here does not entail that monotheism and polytheism are each other's opposites, only that they constitute different directions with regard to the focus for Man's desire to constantly imitate. So what this concerns is whether we only dare to imitate each other, or if we in view of civilization's development actually summon the courage to imitate God himself. The iconological imitation can surely generate intelligence, but nothing over and above intelligence, while the theological imitation moreover can generate the transcendence that makes us godlike through both wanting and being able to create new worlds. What this entails, becomes evident for anyone with the least insight: the high-octane debate on theism versus atheism that has been raging in Western discourse, is built on completely erroneous conceptions and misses the whole point of theology. The questions are incorrectly posed. Theology does not deal with the question of whether God exists or not, but rather devotes itself to whom or what has God's function, and that thus *becomes God*, and what consequences follow from this. ## For what is the typical atheist if not an isolated little god who does not wish to posit any other or greater god beside themselves? This despite the lamentable fact that these people themselves cannot even figure out whether they are to submit to nomadological moralism or eventological ethics. It is thus only eventology that can cultivate the fantasy of *the permanent fixation for a creative purpose*. Only eventology can regard a game as a job; only an eventology can develop into *netocratic protopianism*. Within nomadology the permanent fixation is nothing other than precisely the eternal sitting still. Which therefore tends to be filled with intrigue and gossip -- rather than with visions and strategies -- in copious amounts. This explains why European enlightenment men such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau with his *The Great Mother* and Marquis de Sade with his *Mother Nature* are more known for oceans of intrigue and gossip during their scandal-ridden lives than for any phallic visions for the sake of humanity. They are driven by Cybelian rather than Dionysian fantasies. All the while nomadology clings to the radical monism which claims that everything in existence is dependent upon and influences everything else, while eventology struggles to maintain monism, despite the fact that it tends to crumble into a dualism whenever process and event by mistake are apprehended as two different substances, when they actually are just two different attributes of one and the same substance. This error in thought is a recurring phenomenon that we refer to as *the Gnostic delusion*. This business of maintaining monism within eventology has been a contentious issue within philosophy and theology ever since the emergence of written language. It is also the core of the criticism that Baruch Spinoza aims at René Descartes' dualism during the Enlightenment -- a criticism that anti-Cartesian eventologists such as Hegel and Nietzsche take most seriously when they, in the 19th century, build their considerably more mobile but equally monist worldviews in Spinoza's wake. To this we must add *the phallic exception*, which underpins the concept -- *the sovereign* -- that German philosopher Carl Schmitt develops in the early 20th century. The sovereign is simply the leader in political theology that displays such exceptional qualities, such a strong *khvarenah*, that he (or she) can lead the collective by virtue of the paradigmatic exception that dissolves all other laws. *The exceptional* thinks past and overrules *the general* through mustering an intense passion, according to Schmitt. Ultimately power is a question of the pathos of the exceptional defeating the logos of the general. It will be the chieftain with his exceptional will-to-transcendence, and not the priest with his general will-to-intelligence, who *de facto* leads the people with Messianic overtones in extraordinary times. But it naturally happens with the acceptance and pronounced support of the priest in a spirit of mutual admiration. Schmitt is of course himself such a priest in search of a sovereign to submit to. Fantasy, innovation and creation *ex nihilo* can only be imagined within the shamanic caste in the fringes of the sociont. Inside the sociont's membrane one is only comfortable with what one recognizes from before, wherefore all events appear in the form of repetition and imitation, one mimics what has already been thought, said and done by others. Here it is not possible to speak of any eventological *actions,* only of nomadological *reactions,* this since one devotes oneself to reproduction after well known role-models, the sociont retells its own history of itself for itself. Consequently it is thus psychoanalysts such as Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, and not clinically active psychologists, who put their patients, or rather analysands, on the divans of therapy salons to get them to focus on the ideas and obsessions that they try to liberate themselves from, to thus liberate undelivered creativity. With eventology specific *momenta* that radically change history once and for all, become conceivable and thus also possible. The body can now be complemented by technology, a civilization can start to grow and evolve. Later we can by all means start to be discontent in it, as Freud could remark, but that is another story (see *Digital Libido* -- *Sex, Power and Violence in the Network Society*). Eventology -- the doctrine of the history-altering event -- focuses on the history people create together, but basically takes technology as its point of departure. Because technology represents change proper, Man as a biological creature hardly changes at all. This in turn means that eventology comprises two epochal exodologies. The first, Zoroastrian exodology, speaks of the exodus from the genetic mutation that resulted in the species Man and his cyclical, horizontal life during nomadism via the memetic event and the development that followed upon this, something that first is observed and formulated by Zoroaster in Bronze Age Persia. The other, syntheist exodology, speaks of the exodus from the purely human via the mechanical progress to an existence that is qualitatively new thanks to technology. This concerns the transition it entails when the priestly *will-to-intelligence as logos* shifts from Man to Machine and only the royal *will-to-transcendence as pathos* remains to explore and express in Man himself. From this moment history is no longer just a drama where Man's two cerebral hemispheres, *logos* and *pathos*, strive to unite around a human *mythos*. The dimension that is added is a quest for The Machine's *logos* and Man's *pathos* to unite around a biotechnological mythos called [[Syntheos]] or *symbiotic transcendence*. When Hegel distinguishes between the substance and the subject, he just repeats the distinction that Zoroaster makes as early as 3,500 years before between *Ahura* (being or the substance) and *Mazda* (mind or the subject). Thereby the dialectics of process and event encompasses both a universal dimension with Ahura as *substance-as-process* and a particular dimension with Mazda as *subject-as-event*. Zoroaster and Hegel are thus in complete agreement that religion must be described as a *Mazdayasna,* or the subject's worship of its own capacity as subject within the substance, instead of a grindingly empty *Ahurayasna* where, for instance, both the Buddha and Spinoza get stuck with nomadologies lacking decisive and defining events. While Kant is stuck somewhere in between as a hopelessly autistic agnostic. In retrospect we can in Zoroaster's and Hegel's spirit define *the sociontological subject* that during the course of history is developed as a series of paradigmatic events, namely as *the nationalist subject*, *the imperialist subject*, and last but not least *the cosmopolitanist subject*, where the last mentioned was always prepared and cultivated among the shamanoids themselves in the form of the phallic [[Saoshyant]], particular precisely in his universality. Eventology produces *the law* proper, the written-down legal framework that transcends the nomadological sociont and makes it possible to first build empires and later also nations -- a process that is intimately entwined with the incremental breakthrough of written language (see *The Netocrats*). The nomadological habit as implicate order is transformed to the eventological law as explicate order. Please note that it is impossible to build greater social units than the clan and the tribe without access to the law. The cohesive social corset would not suffice, disloyalty and betrayal within the larger groups would not be possible to control, criminality would run rampant to the extent that the larger structures would collapse. With the genesis of the law the shaman is transformed to a priest, dons the robe supplied by the church and proclaims the law in connection with all the new temples that are built in the borderland between the socionts and that gradually become the hubs around which the first cities, in some sort of reasonable sense, arise. The largest temples with the greatest potential for exercise of power, provided with the clearest and most comprehensive law books, are built in the mountains that surround the plains that lie between the great rivers in Eurasia. We call the historiography that deals with this process *the genealogy of the ziggurats*. The cosmic mountain is, according to Mircea Eliade, the phallus between the rivers that unites the various river cultures under one and the same primordial father. One simply builds a religious corporation. Babylon is, for instance, regarded as the door to the gods and the covenant between heaven and earth. Babylon thus becomes the city as an event in itself. The phallic and eventological worship of the law itself becomes most powerful within Judaism, which therefore also forms the perfect breeding ground for developing the first *nationalism*. The Jewish clergy are even a separate tribe within the nation, the Levites, who similarly to the shamanic caste must live furthest out on the tribal map, which explains why *outcasts* is the most common designation for the shamanoid personalities in American English. The Levites lack a territory of their own within the nation, and they consequently have priestly and thus also judicial claims on the entire territory. Unsurprisingly, Judaism in its capacity as *the judicial nation* is the most priestly of all the world religions. No Jew ever opposes the global rabbi, and thus neither the local matriarch. The man in eventology becomes *the particular* in search of the universal, while the woman becomes *the universal* in search of the particular. The tension between these two poles endures despite, or rather precisely because there never arises any equilibrium between them. Philosopher and psychoanalyst Slavoj Žižek expresses this state of affairs in a Hegelian manner when he writes that phallus symbolizes *the exceptional*, while matrix symbolizes *the incomplete*. Matrix can be ubiquitous since it never is completed anyway. Phallus is *the extimate object*, at once intensely present and totally absent, that is: *the libidinal subject par excellence*. Matrix is the world in lack of phallus, and therefore always open and incomplete. Phallus can be ubiquitous since it never becomes consumed by matrix. Universality is thus always a universality without completion, a *work in progress*, a constantly ongoing project. Particularity in this context is always the libidinal and temporary deviation from universality, which enables universality, in a Hegelian sense, to even be possible. Matrix is apprehended as a membranic phenomenon, while phallus is apprehended as *the extramembranic project par excellence*. In light of this, our life becomes the impossible voyage from mamilla to phallus with the purpose of bypassing phallus and finally return to matrix and the eternal peace that awaits us there. This paradox, this inaccessibility in the midst of an ocean of accessibility, is what makes all other accessibilities even possible, and it is called [[The Barred Absolute]]. The direct effect of the barred absolute is a constant reminder for Man of his own inadequacy and his own shortcomings. To live is to handle one's own inadequacy, to want to be whole, to constantly fail. Subjectivity in itself is precisely the experience of the subject's incompleteness. The heterosexual romantic relationship stages the barred absolute between man and woman, and it is the inaccessibility in the midst of this relationship that generates sexual attraction, a vain quest to reach all the way and calm the desire. One's own identity is enhanced and fortified in the presence of the other, this is what creates the allure, not the mere fact that the opposite sex is accessible. Keeping an attraction alive is not the easiest thing, which only too many can attest to -- it is ultimately a question of one's own sexual identity continually being strengthened and not weakened over time. The man seeks the intimacy in the mamilla of the woman: the woman seeks the passion from the phallus of the man -- and both seek in vain. Since none of them find what they seek, the search must constantly be repeated, again and again. Homosexuality functions in the same way in as much as it mimics heterosexuality, with the difference that it shifts the mirroring in the other to one's own sex. Phallus and matrix respectively literally become present through their absence. Sexuality is androgynized. All this is possible since heterosexuality in itself is one long series of mimicry where every generation mimics the preceding one, which in turn has mimicked the preceding one, and so on *ad infinitum*, a series that loses itself in a haze where one can finally only imagine that the standards have been set by gods that one has been able to imitate. Since this obsessive mimicking is one-sided -- one only mimics one's own role and the action that is scripted -- it does not matter one bit whether there is any correspondence on the other side. Rather the greater the difference between the conceptions of what is going on, the stronger and more sturdy the attraction will be. It is the impossibility of the project that makes possible what, despite everything, is possible. The result of the mimicry is never the intended or sought-after. The man in vain seeks the sustainable intimacy, just as the woman in vain seeks the sustainable passion. But to live is to constantly seek an impossible completeness, to follow desire to the objective that looms on the horizon. Thus the mimicry must start all over again and continue, the process must be endlessly repeated. The man seeks a union between logos and pathos in a mythos that never arrives. He remains divided. The woman lives in a mythos that she never succeeds in dividing between logos and pathos. She remains tied down. The man sees it as his role in the world of ideas to spread ideas around him as if they were sperms, as far and wide as humanly possible, while the woman sees it as natural to safeguard her ideas and protect them against undue intruders, as if they were brittle, rare and therefore precious eggs. The former approach is markedly eventological, while the latter is equally markedly nomadological. And never the twain shall meet! Which may be frustrating, while at the same time this happens to be a prerequisite for a continuous flow of energy. A religion can remain alive and kicking if it is allowed to remain open and accepting of impulses such as the muscular *dialectics of process and event*. This does not mean that it is impossible to attain closure. Spinoza addresses that issue theologically through thinking his way past the barred absolute within Judaism and launching the concept *amor Dei intellectualis* as a response to classical antiquity's thoughts of three different kinds of love: *agape*, *eros* and *philia.* What Spinoza realizes is that it indeed is possible to circumvent the barred absolute but that, if so, it occurs at the expense of the passions that are connected with divine love, erotic love and brotherly love. *Amor Dei intellectualis* is God's dispassionate love for one's own intellect, and for Spinoza it appears the highest and deepest form of love that even is conceivable, which demolishes the classic hierarchy in which the three human loves are subsumed. There is a striking similarity here between Spinoza's insight and the internal Zurvanite religion of the Zoroastrian mobeds which we find in the Persian empires. Zurvan is of course time, which is the superordinate god to which all other gods relate as subordinates, completely indifferent to the humans of which Zurvan takes no notice whatsoever, which means that humans are completely left to their own devices. These two phenomena, *amor Dei intellectualis* as a concept and Zurvanism as a movement, can only exist within the confines of eventological monotheism. Spinoza's ideas are simply incompatible with the nomadological iconologies. This also explains why chronotheist Zurvanism is and must be a strictly priestly monotheism. The other half of the patriarchy instead engages in a phallic iconology with gods as heroes. Within Zoroastrianism this phallic iconology is called *Mithraism*, and it is successfully exported both to the Roman empire in the West and to the Chinese and Indian empires in the East. This in turn explains why it is the sun-god that represents authentic monotheism, while the rain-god only appears as a complementing divinity of lower rank, or as a property of the sun-god. Zoroastrianism solves that issue with a monotheism with a two-headed phallus, *Ahura* and *Mazda*. Judaism solves it with a syncretization of various older religions by uniting the Egyptian sun-god *Adonai* and the Canaanite volcano-god *Yahweh*. Christianity for its part solves this issue through making the sun-god the father, the rain-god the son, and the matriarch the holy spirit within the Christian trinity. In Christian iconology the abstract concept of the holy spirit is then replaced by the concrete concept of God's sacred mother, the Virgin Mary, which facilitates the practical exercise of religion. Christ himself, who of course is something of a main character in this passion drama, becomes both *mythos* in the form of the child in the sacred mother's arms, and *logos* in the form of the rain-god abandoned by the sun-god, sacrificed and tormented on the cross over several days. Judaism borrows the imperial division of Zoroastrianism for its own monotheism. *The Zadokites*, (named after Zadok, the first high priest in the Jewish temple) also called *the Sadducees*, apply a strict monist religion with existential freedom, ethical but amoral, without supernatural phenomena, and without any conceptions at all about some sort of life after death. Naturally such rigor and lack of illusions must lead to that they, much like the Zurvanites in Persia, constitute an internal religion for the priests themselves and a kind of spiritual upper class within Jewish society; what distinguishes them is the ability to handle the truth about existence behind the barred absolute. Pitted against the Zadokites are the *Pharisees,* who represent the people's and the army's Judaism with a tolerance for all possible kinds of supernatural phenomena, with conceptions of a doomsday and a life after death, and with a simple morality where good is pitted against evil. The Zadokites are cosmopolitans and known for introducing Hellenistic culture, that is: they constitute the interconnecting link between the Persians and the Greeks, to the Jewish culture. While the Pharisees, on the other hand, are isolationist and strict nationalist and will not tolerate any kind of Hellenism among the Jews. They protect their religion from alien contamination, as if it were a fragile egg. Please note that it was the Zadokites and not the Pharisees who saw to it that Christ was executed. A Gnostic with a universal megalomania, who intended to rise up against both the Greeks and the Romans -- Christ was raised by the Gnostic and dualist sect *the Essenites,* who by virtue of their ascetic lifestyle in the desert considered themselves spiritually superior to both the Zadokites and the Pharisees -- was really no preacher that the Zadokites were the least bit interested in supporting or even tolerating. According to their cosmopolitanist attitude, Palestine's role as a nation within the Roman Empire was optimal and therefore nothing to make a fuss about. It was of course just as precious as the Jewish nation's previous role as a model nation within the Persian Empire during the construction of the second temple. Rather, the Zurvanite and Zadokite clergies united in the defense of cosmopolitanist monism against various Manichaean and Mazdakite Gnostics. They were quite simply prophetic in their comprehension of all these narcissistic pillar-saints and their supporting forces, they realized what a curse to humanity the Gnostics constituted. That is to say basically the same struggle between *anywheres* and *somewheres* that journalist David Goodhart sees us repeating during informationalism. The sociont's inner circuit is the matriarchy. The matriarchy is polytheist and iconological, and thus constitutes what one might call *the left* of political theology. The outer circuit is the patriarchy, which is monotheist and eventological, which makes the patriarchy *the right* of political theology. The androgynous caste are the sociont's intermediaries. The shamanic caste populates the borderland between the tribes. Eventology is the sociont's memetic memory and corresponds to Taoism's *yang,* while nomadology is the sociont's genetic memory and corresponds to Taoism's *yin*. We see the same power triad recurring in all the religious and political myths that underpin stable societal formations. See for example the exodus from Egypt, which was led by three siblings: the priest Moses, the chieftain Aaron and the matriarch Miriam. Later in history we see the same structure underpinning the American Constitution with *the president* as the imaginary or pathical power as the chieftain, *congress* as the symbolic or logical power as the priest, and *the supreme court* as the real or mythical power as the matriarch. Dialectics is always a game of three: in part the one, in part the other, and finally their incompatibility and the result of the process that this sparks. Sexual dialectics follows this pattern as well. The man allows himself to be duped by the male sexual delusion, which is manifested in that he seeks *sex-and-intimacy* in the woman. The woman on her part is dazzled by the female sexual delusion, which manifests itself in that she seeks *sex-and-passion* in the man. These illusory equations naturally do not add up, which of course is the whole point; the opposite and contradictory ambitions, constantly frustrating, are what drive sexual dialectics and the entire erotic desire machinery. To once again go out into the world and then return with the prosperity that is the fruits of the phallic achievements, the man requests sex-and-intimacy as healing and upload. For the woman sex-and-passion, aside from it literally being a download in the form of the mating, is moreover a way to ensure herself of the loyalty that guarantees that the phallic surplus is delivered to the matrichal base station where the download has taken place. It is only within ritual settings -- with the blessings of priests and matriarchs as guarantees that the entire economy of dependences is respected -- that it is possible to loosen up this structure so that both the man and the woman without inhibition can enjoy sex-as-just-sex-and-nothing-else-but-sex. This can only happen in the tantric world behind the barred absolute, but not in the sutric world where the couple in question have their conjugal bedroom. It is a constantly repeated mistake to confuse sexuality with intimacy. Libido is cool and distanced, mortido is a warm engine that constantly is turned on. The problem with libido is that it constantly is tempted by the grass that looks greener on the other side, and as soon as libido shifts its attention elsewhere the attraction is quickly snuffed out in the ongoing relationship. Female sexuality reflects male sexuality. The woman on the one hand wants the man to penetrate into the inner circuit and conquer her, but on the other hand she absolutely does not want him to become a couch potato and settle down at home. No, back into the world he shall go and conquer it anew, to then bring his war booty to their common home where the woman eagerly awaits with the enthusiastically welcoming priest at her side. The original sociont has no problem managing coagulating accumulations around the unifying object. The totem pole as phallus or mamilla maintains its function intact regardless of secondary corrosions. That is however dramatically changed when Man, thanks to written language and permanent settlements, starts to build larger and increasingly more complex social systems. The temporary ritual site is transformed into a permanent temple. The Mesopotamian *ziggurat* is built as an *axis mundi,* a link between heaven and earth, the vital connection between the spheres that the Babylonians call *duranki*. What is most important inside the ziggurat is an *imago mundi*, an image of the world as phallic order, as a *nomos*, instead of the world as a matrichal chaos; an image that is created directly on top of the temple's very cornerstone, that is: the temple's own root-of-the-phallus. Around this temple coagulate all manner of activities such as trade and various intrigues that include both friend and foe, family members and strangers. Soon enough a fortress is built around the temple, a bulwark that creates an inside and an outside of an arena where the social theater unfolds. The walls of the fortress are regarded as a membrane, and at the gates of the fortress membrane sentries are posted to check who is let in and what is pushed out. The sphere that now arises inside this permeable membrane is called *the city,* and out of this concept of the city the concept of citizenship is gradually developed, just as the passports and other documents that are connected to this judicial fiction that gradually attains an increasing importance. As the urbanization process becomes increasingly complicated and information-heavy, this requires an increased intelligence. The growing need for intelligence begets a bureaucracy that produces laws, rules and document registration, et cetera, to protect the city both from external threats and internal dissolution, at the same time as it works, if possible, toward expanding the city's territorial claims. Thereby arises *a sphere of transcendence* inside *a membrane of intelligence* which is of course what constitutes civilization itself. But inside this outer system marked by *strategies* there also arise inner courts that are governed by *intrigue*. The outer circuit and the inner circuit from the nomadological sociont recur in an urbanized form. War, hunting, trade and strategies dominate the outside of the sphere. Peace, construction, enculturation and intrigue dominate the inside of the sphere. From this fundamental architecture, development may take off in a variety of directions. One might imagine that the city considers itself able to manage the activities on its own, as its own sociont and establish itself as a city-state. One alternative is that the city assesses the prevailing power relations differently, and therefore creates alliances with other cities with similar language and culture in the surroundings, which eventually results in a nation. Yet another alternative is that the city expands further, forms a nation that conquers distant territories through colonization and thus builds an empire. The question of which of these alternatives is realized chiefly depends upon how far the sphere's transcendence dares to think itself, and how far the membrane's intelligence then stretches. And this in turn is only about information management, making and implementing functional and efficient laws, and not least bringing about a powerful technological progress. The problem is however that every kind of permanent settlement leads to the social chase for status, and so the obsessive comparisons between both groups and dividual citizens explode. When inequality is sufficiently pronounced, it is apprehended as inherently natural, but the archetypal differences within the nomadic sociont that were recognized and unproblematic, acquire a completely different meaning in the fixed settlement where one becomes increasingly obsessed with comparing one outcome with another. Where one earlier balanced privileges with duties, one now focuses increasingly on the distribution of reward. Gradually the law receives another function, what previously had been an institutionalized care for the entire sociont's well-being as an organism is gradually changed to an instrument for the redistribution of wealth between different groups and dividual citizens. This is a system that constantly works under great pressure from different interest groups, who attempt to manipulate it and create various loopholes as best they can. The holistic perspective is constantly subject to erosion from beneath, wherefore all empires and nations in history have the fall already written into their upward trajectory. The ascent is connected with the leveling distribution of resources to begin with being perceived as fair, which creates cohesion and energy. The law expands and society with it. The fall is connected with the same system and the fact that it has to devote an increasing amount of its energy to concealing that it actively encourages corruption, something that different groups, as well as single actors, resort to in order to manipulate the distribution to their own advantage. The mechanisms gradually become increasingly clumsy and counterproductive. Eventually it appears quite reasonable to generally demand and avail oneself of advantages from the system, without ever contributing in any way whatsoever. Eventology is built on the phallic dialectics of the chieftain's pathos in the form of *will-to-transcendence* and the priest's logos in the form of *will-to-intelligence,* a process that is kept intact by a unifying mythos that speaks of the common primordial father as *The One* within eventological monotheism. This means that Zoroaster's eventological revolution in Bronze Age Persia -- on the whole the most transformative and most pervasive revolution in the history of ideas -- liberates phallus, which now can worship itself without matrix. This happens through the mutual admiration and respect that arises between the chieftain's will-to-transcendence and the priest's will-to-intelligence, something that appears as its own independent loop with the chieftain as Taoism's *yang* and the priest as Taoism's *yin*. In this manner eventology breaks with the Chinese and Indian obsessions with *the eternal recurrence of the same*. It is thus neither in China nor in India, but in Persia that linear time is invented and starts to function as a contrast to circular time. The underlying, circular time is degraded by the Persians to a lower iconological category. This occurs at the same time as circular time continues to dominate in Asia through Taoism in China and Buddhism in India. It is in the Middle East, and only there, that eventology is developed. It arises, as mentioned before, first within Zoroastrianism as a parallel world alongside iconology, later within the Abrahamic religions with their stubborn attempts to disengage eventology from nomadology altogether, a project that was spurred on by *the Gnostic delusion* among the boy-pharaohs and pillar-saints that ensured themselves of considerable influence, a conception of pathos and logos respectively being able to operate completely disengaged from each other. This explains why the Gnostic delusion in the Middle East expresses itself in the form of the Gnostic religions -- first Manichaeism and Mazdakism, thereafter in various simplified and popularized variants such as Christianity and Islam -- doctrines that share the obsession of liberating the good and innocent soul from the evil and corrupt body. In China and India the Gnostic delusion expresses itself as the self-satisfied longing to step out of the circular time that is apprehended as reigning supreme overall. That is: one cultivates a feverish yearning for extinction (*moksha*), a revocation of the cursed reincarnation and of a life that entails nothing but painstaking endeavors and suffering. Unsurprisingly this movement is initiated during the Axial Age by an actor who began his path as a boy-pharaoh and ended up as a pillar-saint: Siddhartha Gautama. It is only under very special conditions that such a gentleman can appear exemplary. The Zoroastrians furiously reject all attempts to convert their monism into a metaphysical dualism. In his classic text *Gathas*, Zoroaster himself firmly rejects all self-glorifying religious teachers who claim to stand outside and therefore also above civil society. A boy-pharaoh wants to govern the world in splendid isolation, as a chieftain without a priest by his side, and he therefore celebrates the body at the expense of the soul. The pillar-saint, on his part, wants to govern the world alone, as a priest without a chieftain at his side, and he therefore celebrates the soul at the expense of the body. Soon enough these fabricated conflicts are reduced to stereotypical battles between good and evil, where the boy-pharaoh's and the pillar-saint's respective favorite sides automatically get to represent good while the adversary becomes evil. Thereby existence is reduced to a Gnostic struggle between good and evil, almost as in a children's book, while society furiously speeds right into the apocalypse. Zoroaster therefore insists that existence is monist, that everything is dependent on everything else, and that visionary leadership must be built on well-considered collaboration and not on competition between the chieftain's will-to-transcendence and the priest's will-to-intelligence. God is by necessity both *Ahura* and *Mazda* at once. The role of religion is admittedly to first separate the soul from the body, but not in order to make them each other's ideological opposites but to thereafter reunite them in a new and innovative way. We have on the one hand a sun year, on the other hand a moon year. These are not equally long, the difference between them is just over eleven days, which has caused problems for producers of calendars through the ages. After an *intercalative* process that is called *embolism*, the difference of eleven actual days is recalculated to five symbolic days (six days during a leap year), which are called the *epagomenal* (from a Greek word which means "added") days. These additional days in the calendar revolve around an object that is called *the epagomene,* and since phallus is the extramembranic epagomene, the sun year is transformed into the phallic, libidinal year that is connected to culture and daylight and that has the epagomene as a cohesive symbol, while the moon year becomes the matrichal, mortidinal year that is connected to nature and nocturnal darkness as the eternal recurrence of the same. The moon thereafter represents the eternal recurrence of the same without exception, a process with no event, while the sun year represents the eternal recurrence of the same with an exception, the *epagomene*, that is: as a process that leads to an altering event. Every religion is then largely characterized by how one chooses to handle these epagomenal days outside the regular cycle. ## Should one celebrate them, should one quite simply apply repression, or should one just plainly deny their existence? The epagomene is an object that constantly reminds humanity that its phantasmic self-image does not hold together. Thus people either celebrate the epagomene with enthusiasm, for example in the form of the *Saturnalia* among the Romans or the *Nowruz* among the Persians, which most of all is a recurring strategy within successful imperial religions. An alternative solution is to repress the epagomene, which is what happens for instance in connection with Christianity's worship of the newborn savior. One does the same within Islam, where one steadily denies the sun year altogether, to instead hold onto the moon year, which is the ultimate cultural expression of a spasmodic clinging to mamilla and a refusal to leave mamilla for phallus. If we observe the tantric religions along the Silk Road, we see that *sutra* is the knowledge of all the other days of the year, while *tantra* is the knowledge of how the epagomenal surplus must be handled. If you choose to avoid tantra, the epagomenal forces in the form of sex and violence will haunt you and everything you do. These will afflict you with full force when you least wish so, something that lies completely outside your control. These are exactly the forces of nature within Man himself that religion is tasked with taming and handling. This means that the authentic celebration of the new year -- something that Christianity as well as Buddhism and Islam avoid, or for unclear reasons lack -- is the tantric celebration of the epagomene as the eternal recurrence of the same with its wholly decisive difference, its excess, its surplus, its enabling of innovations affecting history forever. Moreover it is a fact that the rarer such an event is, the more information it contains. The amount of information thus objectively viewed determines an event's or a field's eventological value. This means that if one takes the epagomene seriously, one digs deep during a *Saturnalia* or a *Nowruz* that one celebrates precisely during the epagomenal days of the calendar. Above all this is the time of the year when the domesticated sexuality and the subdued violent behavior gets a controlled outlet and emerges into full daylight during a limited period. It is here and now that the new and the deviating are possible at all. Within the outer circuit this is expressed as the son having the possibility of developing his own personality, his own epagomenal expression, divorced from the father's. And with this, eventology becomes possible as a separate ideology, divorced from nomadology. Suddenly the idea of history being linear and irrevocable takes hold in the collective consciousness, in contrast to the deeply anchored, tribal conviction that time must be circular and that everything must be set in a constantly eternal rebirth. As *reincarnation*. Reincarnation as the eternal recurrence of the same drives the fantasy of an exit, a kind of total and final breakdown for circular time, and this breakdown is called *ekpyrosis* in Greek. But behind every ekpyrosis the world is still reborn anew, as a kind of spiritual *big bounce*, which we in retrospect can define eventologically as *the ekpyrotic event*. Circular time within this analysis appears infinite and timeless behind the clearly limiting spacetime and is called *zurvan-akarana* in Persian. It is out of this eschatology that speaks of a world's demise and another world's birth within nomadology that we find the seed to what later in history shall manifest itself as eventological thinking. If worlds can die and be reborn as occurs within eschatology, events must also be able to occur along the linear time axis that alter history forever. It is, naturally, this conviction that lays the ground for *eventology.* It is worth noting in this context that sutra and tantra run in parallel straight through both the original nomadology and the eventology that arises and joins later on. However, the barred absolute, which separates tantra from sutra, acquires completely different and largely complementing places along the time axis, that is: complementing to the extent one is capable of using both these perspectives simultaneously. Where tantra is continuous, sutra is discrete. Nomadology places the barred absolute at sexuality's temporal boundary, it materializes only after sexual reproduction has fully played its role. Eventology, on the other hand, places the barred absolute at sexuality's spatial boundary, it materializes only after the priest through a voluntary decision has chosen to refrain from taking part in the sexual rivalry, chosen to observe it from a distance and thereby has placed himself outside the entire ritual dance of mimicry and theatrical rivalry that characterizes phallic sexual energy. Thus it is the sexual exclusion that generates wisdom and power in the two judges that these processes generate, that is: the sacred alliance between *the nomadological matriarch* and *the eventological priest* that keeps the sociont stable. Thus the public religion has created the terms that enable the original attentionalism. ## For who are this matriarch and this priest together, if not the *primordial audience* that can be found behind the barred absolute and before which people perform the entire social theater in the arena that exists in front of the barred absolute? No other attention is as sought-after. The matriarch with the matrichal gaze becomes the primordial mother who becomes the goddess. The priest with the phallic gaze becomes the primordial father who becomes the god. Together they bless and guarantee the social structure that they symbolize in the form of the most distinguished audience conceivable, concealed behind the barred absolute. They can be compared with the king and queen of later times that spread luster and glamour over the theatrical performance which they honor through attending in their special, royal box to which no one else has access. Consequently the nomadological ambition for sutra will be to mimic and repeat what already is at hand with the greatest possible precision, while the eventological ambition for tantra will be to resemble the gods and goddesses that hide behind the barred absolute, to conduct an active search for genuine innovation. Sutra is craft and tradition built on imitation of selected paragons. Tantra is experiments and innovation built on a development of, and not seldom a break with the same tradition, where especially talented provocateurs are at the vanguard. Sutra is mythos in the form of the synthesis of logos and pathos. Tantra is the new pathos that ensues after the break-up from the old mythos. Sutra is the doctrine of the eternal recurrence of the same. Tantra is the doctrine of the existing possibility that a minimal deviation can lead to a genuine innovation that leads history onto a new trajectory, which propels it upward and forward. Tolerance and diversity can -- for better or worse -- only arise in a society that harbors at least two different religions for different classes within one and the same intratribal hierarchy. Authentic monotheism is a phallic priestly religion, while authentic polytheism is a matrichal popular religion. Fundamentalism arises only when a group of Gnostics mimic the priests without any insight into the existing [[Root-Of-The-Phallus]] and therefore undermine the hierarchy in itself. This leads to a society collapsing under the pressure from the false monotheism that preaches the god as a child and/or the child as a god in a world without nomadological hierarchies. The Gnostics seek immediate enlightenment and wisdom through effortless chatter. They incite a culture revolution. Youths reject or even literally beat their parents to death and the sociont crumbles. And the same thought recurs as the fundamentalist demand for an absolute dualism. The most devastating invective within Muslim culture is, for instance, *dahri* or *dahriyoon*, which precisely describes a human or a credo that refuses to accept that the creator and the creation are fundamentally separate. A faith in a world that creates and develops itself is the greatest blasphemy of all, according to Islamic dualism. Consequently *dahriyoon* is an invective that many monist Zoroastrians in the Middle East have had hurled at them from adamantly dualist Muslims. What is central here is not whether monist existence in itself is material or spiritual, what is central is instead that monist existence consists of a single substance that assumes innumerable varieties of expressions. And to avoid a regression down to the Universe's first and smallest component before any big bang, a particle that comprises everything else that the Universe later expands into, one must distinguish between essential and non-essential expressions for the only substance. The most essential expressions are the emergences or singularities that generate their own vectors and establish their own ground rules, admittedly still interactively dependent upon, but still in significant respects detached from other and preceding emergence vectors. These emergence vectors thus constitute a kind of nature's own eternalizations on which the next level of mobilism can unfold, in accordance with the ground rules that we traditionally refer to as laws of nature and that with time become increasingly fixed. The emergence vector in the Universe that is closest at hand is physics. What precedes the Universe, potentially and historically, is another emergence vector that we call subphysics. Other parallel universes can exist independently of and in parallel with our universe -- or dependent upon it through a shared subphysics -- as their own emergence vectors. Starting from physics follow chemistry, biology, consciousness and culture; our universe in time produces a host of new emergence vectors. We thus defeat [[Reductionism]] with *emergentism*. And the emergence vector theory in itself is the ontological *meta-emergence* within which all other ontic emergences are contained. We call this metaphysical system [[Transcendental Emergentism]]. Transcendental emergentism is applicable within all spheres that Man perceives. So too in the information-technological paradigms that humanity goes through. The paradigms are in themselves a kind of historical emergence vector, where special laws and rules apply inside the membranes that the different information technologies constitute. Man is born adapted to the tribalism that is interconnected with the genesis of spoken language, which in turn is connected precisely with the species human, Homo sapiens sapiens. But for Man to be able to adapt and submit to a more complex and multifaceted social paradigm, a greater and more comprehensive narrative is required. When written language arises more or less at the same time in four different places, the dream also arises of a cohesive empire, by Zoroaster in Persia and by Akhnaten in Egypt. Now eventological monotheism appears as a religion dictated from above, as an assemblage consisting of the chieftain's and priest's two different mystery religions. Thus there arises an incessant conflict with the already established and underlying nomadological iconology that would plunge a complex social structure down into pure anarchy, if it were not for eventological monotheism acting as a balancing counterweight. In order for a complex societal machinery to be able to function, there simply has to be a radical centrality. And only eventology can deliver this. Out of this empire -- a conglomerate of different tribes -- the idea of the culturally cohesive nation is born, an idea that we associate with Moses and the Jewish nation that gathered around their monotheism, which was borrowed from Egyptian Atenism and which also borrowed strong features from Zoroastrian Persia. But not as an imperial religion, but now as a national religion. The Hebrew alphabet and written language made this possible. While the imperial religions could only be spread and exercised via the court languages. The Jewish nation as a concept is completed many millennia later by Hegel in the early 19th century with the idea of the Germanic nation-state. Therefore the path to a functioning empire theory for the 21st century goes via a resumed reading of Hegel. Later in the same century his disciples Marx and Nietzsche launched their respective ideals in the form of *the proletarian* and *the* *Übermensch.* The project that remains to be realized is a union of both these dated ideals toward *the netocrat* of informationalism. Only when that project is brought to a successful conclusion, can the global empire become a reality.