# The two-headed phallus and the dialectics of will-to-transcendence and will-to-intelligence We always work on the basis of two time dimensions. On the one hand we have the priestly duration and subphysics, on the other hand we have the royal time and physics. Eventology is the dynamic interplay between them. Or if we start from Roman philosopher Seneca's idea that religion is what people believe to be true, what the wise know is false, and what the leaders find useful, nomadology is what people believe to be true, while eventology is what the priests and chieftains must agree on, after every paradigm shift, as the theoretical and practical implication respectively of the common worldview. Within the Zoroastrian tradition the priestly duration and subphysics has its own religion in the form of *Zurvanism*, and the same is true for the royal time and physics, whose religion is *Mithraism*. The starting point in the former case is our instinctive unwillingness to determine our own date of death in advance. The necessary submission occurs when Zurvan intervenes and kills the priest, as the formal opposite of when Mithras defeats and kills the bull. Zoroastrianism is then the aggregate nomadology that harbors both these phallic religions and arranges an encounter with the third, matrichal religion, which goes under the name of *communism* and which makes use of a polytheist *iconology*. The imperialist religion is only complete as three religions under one and the same umbrella, as three different metanarratives under one [[Narratology]]. Each of these different power centers within nomadology also has its own shadow. Every center, every religious story, does by virtue of this shadow represent its own expression of violence within the pathical narrative. *Open aggression*, which is represented by the chieftain, we call *violence of the first order*. *Virtual aggression,* which is represented by the priest, we call *violence of the second order*. And *passive aggression,* which is represented by the matriarch, we call *violence of the third order*. Together, layered on top of each other, these three different levels of violence constitute the basis for the exercise of power in any given society. In modern society it is the military that exercises violence of the first order, while it is the police that exercises violence of the second order. The judicial system -- as a paradigmatic substitute for the original, pagan lynch mob -- then exercises violence of the third order. In each of the three cases, just as is naturally the case for the aggregate, sanctioned exercise of violence, the state claims a monopoly on violence. This is how the state safeguards power over a society. At the same time it is the libidinal aggressiveness at the dividual citizen level that underpins necessary creativity. The chieftain is, for instance, ultimately a warrior who is, or at least is expected to be, prepared to sacrifice his own life (Zoroastrianism's *haurvatat*) for the sociont's survival (Zoroastrianism's *ameretat*). A situation where this comes to a head contains enormous amounts of open aggression. The chieftain as a warrior therefore personifies *nomadology at war*. However the war comes and goes, and is periodically replaced by a more or less sustainable peace during which a society can build prosperity and prepare for an uncertain future. Then the chieftain's archetype is transformed from the warrior to the hunter, which thereby is the ideal for *nomadology at peace*. When Man later leaves nomadic life for permanent settlement, open aggression is reshaped, which means that the chieftain's archetype for *eventology at war* is transformed to the military as the ideal, while the chieftain's archetype for *eventology at peace* is transformed to the engineer as the ideal. What then happens when humanity gets used to permanent settlement, is that the same open aggression receives a new function and meaning in a new context; gradually the chieftain's archetype for *eventology at war* is transformed to the military as the ideal and for *eventology at peace* to the engineer as the ideal. Consequently the chieftain of the open aggression is eventually appointed king of the nation and emperor of the empire. It is the hero of open aggression who possesses the decisive leadership quality that sociologist Max Weber calls *charisma*. The world consists namely of spheres -- as German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk describes existence in his ambitious trilogy *Spheres* -- and these spheres are delimited by *membranes*. Within and between the spheres there is an intense traffic of flows that are slowed down, controlled and channeled onward in accordance with the system's regulatory framework of membrane sentries. These memory functions of these membrane sentries are what underpin what we call *intelligence*, and we call the study of these functions [[Membranics]]. ## Nourishment must be added and excrement must be displaced, so what is nourishment and what is excrement for the sphere in question? ## And how is such knowledge programmed or built up by evolution over time? When this vigorous intelligence then is accumulated to a certain critical level, *will*-*to-transcendence* is activated. This phenomenon, will-to-transcendence, must thereafter be channeled. Further, it is necessary to tame and nurture it, to cultivate will-to-transcendence until it is developed to some sort of territorial or ideological vector. Throughout history this has occurred in the form of various phallic projects, for instance hunting, war, trade and technological innovation. Will-to-transcendence, which is called *eros* among the ancient Greeks and *ahura* among the ancient Persians, is expressed as the pathical [[Truth-As-An-Act]]. It is summed up on the drawing board as *the vision*. In his classical treatise *The Art of War* Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu expresses this will-to-transcendence as the formal leadership for an army. Will-to-intelligence, what is called *thumos* among the ancient Greeks and *mazda* among the ancient Persians, is expressed as the logical *truth-as-a-fact*. It is summed up on the drawing board as *the strategy*. Sun Tzu quite simply sums up will-to-intelligence as the real leadership for an army. The relation between these two wills to power receives an elegant twist at the very event. Truth-as-an-act generates *the implicate self,* the subject that leads history up to the event. Truth-as-a-fact generates *the explicate ego,* the subject that ties history together and creates narratological continuity after the event. According to an accepted and deeply rooted view in a Western discourse that prefers to gaze into its own Western navel, it is Greek philosopher Parmenides who first of all splits *The One* and distinguishes between being on the one hand, and thought on the other hand. Which is to distort history substantially. It is a delusion to think that it could be as simple as a diffusely defined Eastern discourse continuing to entertain a nomadological worldview, while an equally diffusely defined Western discourse would develop a new eventological worldview after Parmenides had arrived at his unique and revolutionary insight. What anyone who is broad-minded and unprejudiced instead can observe, is that this break-up occurs much earlier, in conjunction with the cultural settlement between the Persians and the Indians. It is Persian reformer Zoroaster who tidies up among the concepts and loosens the ties between the different phallic components in the Indo-Iranian triad -- *trika* in Sanskrit -- which was comprised of *iccha* for desire, *jnana* for knowledge and *kriya* for the act. The eventological remark Zoroaster makes is that desire in itself is an act in the form of a will-to-transcendence, in the same way as knowledge in itself is an act in the form of a will-to-intelligence. Thereby the concept of *kriya* is depleted of all real meaning and no longer fills any function within *trika*. Fundamentally everything in a Zoroastrian or Nietzschean worldview is permeated by a single will to activity -- quite simply a will to power -- what Zoroaster calls *asha vahishta*, which can be translated as [[Libido]] in Latin. With this maneuver, and the void that arises within *trika*, there is space for Zoroaster to develop a third position which causes the triad to stand strong. And this third position is death as the defining event that separates the perfect life, or *haurvatat,* from the life that transcends life itself, or *ameretat*. This most ultimate of all events Zoroaster terms *chinavat*. With this concept existence for the first time in history becomes mortal, and with this concept Man is removed from the eternal recurrence of the same, or *reincarnation*. When Siddhartha Gautama later develops *nirvana* as the desirable ideal within his persistently nomadological Buddhism, this is, in other words, nothing more nor less than an individualization of the tribal event that *chinavat* already is within eventological Zoroastrianism. The wheel is thereby invented once again, but is used in a different way. It is admittedly true that precisely you are extinguished at the moment of death, but the sociont, or *anjuman,* survives you. The Zoroastrian point is that it is your death that, *vis-à-vis* the *anjuman,* affords life both a purpose, a meaning, as well as hope. Death is quite simply *the event par excellence* in Zoroastrian eventology, the hub around which the entire existence revolves. An idea that is only fully developed in Western philosophy with Hegel and Nietzsche in 19th century Germany. Which is precisely what we mean when we say that narratology, with its logos and pathos, replaces the old mythos of reincarnation with the new mythos of the event. What Buddhism can offer is one long struggle, replete with denial and deprivation, only to ultimately attain the extinction of the dividual subject as the most anti-climatic non-event conceivable, a quest whose only transcendental endpoint is that the Buddha himself, like a shaman who is long lost in the wilderness, finally must return to the sociont to proclaim his unique wisdom of denial and deprivation, since everything else would transform the entire project into one big pretentious ego-trip. In this manner Buddhism also receives a community. Zoroastrianism's cherished *anjuman* becomes Buddhism's cherished *sangha*. The difference is that the *anjuman* harbors an eventological culture built on a dialectics of negation and oscillation, while the *sangha* harbors a nomadological culture built solely on negation. It is perhaps not surprising that these two religions were able to live in peace as spiritual neighbours along the Asian trade routes and cross-fertilize each other. Tibetan Buddhism under the heading *vajrayana* is a perfect hybrid. Zoroaster's reversal of the relation between the two wills has dramatic consequences. He places the *yang* and och *yin* of Taoism and the *Shiva* and *Shakti* of Hinduism furthest back in the theological sequence -- where the sexual dichotomy reasonably belongs -- subordinate to the sociont's overarching interests and not culled from the interests of the anjuman. This means that the prerequisites for the Hindu dance that is carried out by the god *Shiva* as consciousness and the goddess *Shakti* as energy, are not at hand. Instead it will be within Shiva himself that the first dichotomy arises, when the divine consciousness is split and becomes the two-headed phallus. Consciousness can only be manifested as the collaboration between priestly wisdom and royal energy. This lays the ground for the necessary phallic dichotomies, in part between intelligence and transcendence, in part -- and later -- between war and hunting. This in turn entails that female primordial power is manifested by the matriarch who organizes the sexual ritual, and not by the virgin who has been trained by the matriarch to become the chieftain's energetic mistress. Nomadological reincarnation is of course no longer included in the equation. Archetypology is subordinated to the event rather than to the process. The matriarch is thus the mother who once bestowed life, who controls reproduction and who ultimately returns as the mortidinal mother who reclaims life. The matriarch is the judge, *chinavat*, and it is only after having obtained her approval that Shiva can have his Shakti as a reward for having killed the dragon. And precisely this is the whole point, since there neither exists a *chinavat*, a *haurvatat*, or even an ecstatic *ameretat* without the matriarch who in the guise of the mortidinal mother reclaims what in any case always had been on loan, since this of course actually is hers and the sociont's property. Thus *chinavat,* as well as the ensuing *polgazar* -- becomes the ritual celebration of the memory of the dead person -- exactly the events where an aged generation dies and makes room for a new, younger generation to which it passes the torch. This means that the actual power ultimately lies not with the two-headed phallus, but with fate itself, with the matriarch who constitutes the final institution before which war, hunting, and eventually life in its entirety is tried. ## Then the question is: Who has the ultimate power over the ritual which marks that Shiva, in the capacity of the figure -- phallus -- that unites the king and the priest, finally will get to meet the energy-bestowing, virginal Shakti, as the matrix, if not *Zurvan*, the sexless primordial god, who of course *de facto* is time itself? It is hard to even conceive of anything more matrichal than this Zoroastrianism's genuinely fundamental construction. It is thus no coincidence that the massively erudite Nietzsche chooses the historical Zoroaster -- the beginning and end of morality, according to Nietzsche himself in *Ecce Homo* -- as the main character in his masterpiece *Thus Spoke Zarathustra*. He does this by accompanying the truth-seeking Zarathustra with *the camel* as logos, *the lion* as pathos, and *the child* as mythos. The camel personifies priestly will-to-intelligence, the lion personifies royal will-to-transcendence, while the child personifies matrichal *will-to-reproduction*. Please note that there never exists any possibility whatsoever of narratological release via logos or pathos but only via mythos. It is only via the child's innocent mimicry (*ameretat*) of the preceding generation's behavior (*haurvatat*) that a new narratology becomes possible. This is because the child always tells its story as an attempt to copy the preceding story, what Nietzsche calls *the eternal recurrence of the same*, but with a minimal, decisive deviation. And it is thanks to this deviation, enabled by the impossibility of exact repetition -- via for instance a new medial expression, as Marshall McLuhan remarks -- that the event, according to Nietzsche, becomes possible in contrast to the otherwise monumental process. Hegel agrees as he also maintains that neither *logic* nor *emotion* can generate the releasing narratology, it can only be conveyed by *the spirit*, which produces a temporary release before the entire dialectics is repeated. In his constantly rewritten lifework *Science of Logic*, Hegel expresses this as the subject being a necessary surface *vis-à-vis* the substance that is a contingent depth, and then gives the relation between them the name *the throne of God*. The necessary surface is logos, the contingent depth is pathos, together they form the Hegelian two-headed phallus, and then rule the world from this throne of God, as history's own mythos. Where Hegel's (in)famous a*bsolute knowledge* is the insight that this always is and always has been the case, and that this paradoxical relation (see *The Global Empire*) never reaches any end. The narratology eventually becomes conscious of itself as narratology in itself, and this is the absolute knowledge. The historical Zoroaster gives the two-headed phallus the name *Ahura Mazda* (or *Mazda Ahura,* depending on preference), where *Ahura* represents "being" and *Mazda* represents "mind" within *The One*. Process and event -- the only meta-ideas worthy of the name -- are united in one and the same theology. Ahura is the reification of the material world or *getig*. Mazda is the reification of the mental world or *menog*. Following this move Zoroaster creates the first philosophical religion without any supernatural elements whatsoever, by consciously choosing a ranking where Mazda precedes Ahura. He chooses what the anthropologist Erich Neumann calls *the higher phallus* or Mazda before *the lower phallus* or Ahura. There and then dialectics is born with the separation and merging of *getig* and *menog* as a continuous process, a becoming in being, in a joint world. *Mazdayasna* means precisely "love of wisdom", the concept that the Greeks a millennium later translate to *philosophia*. Parmenides was thus not the first. The Greeks' greatest invention was rather the development of the matrichal *drama* as will-to-reproduction *vis-à-vis* the Persians' two-headed phallus. This is a conscious choice for the Persians, a transcendental [[Truth-As-An-Act]] in itself. Man designates logos or the higher phallus as primary *vis-à-vis* pathos or the lower phallus. This constitutes the very definition of culture's victory over nature, even if culture naturally is directly connected with and dependent on nature (the Zoroastrian symbol for the cultural connection with history is called *barsom*). The Persians could also have chosen to follow the path of least resistance and just continued favoring nomadology at the expense of eventology; they could have continued being *ahurayasna* instead of *mazdayasna*, they could have made a permanent self-image that focused on the love of being rather than on the love of wisdom. They could have continued to dedicate their prayers to the Universe in itself, instead of developing the libidinal activity within this universe. But then no change would ever have occurred, something of that nature would not even have been conceivable, all of humanity would have remained in the nomadological primordial religion over an obscurely long period, and the project called civilization would have been postponed for a highly indeterminate future. The lower phallus would also in the future be the sole and one-headed phallus. *Shiva* as well as *Shakti* would remain as miserably lonely. But most important by far is that society now is led by the two-headed phallus. The alternative would be nomadological demise, at the same time as eventology is and remains an impossibility. Or as British general Charles Gordon so unerringly expresses the matter in his memoirs from the late 19th century: "The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools". Interestingly, Hinduism retained the nomadological orientation by continuing to preach reincarnation and the recurring separation of the rain-god Shiva from the sun-god Vishnu. Which can be compared with Italian Renaissance philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli's insightful recommendation for all the world's princes to always keep a naysaying *devil's advocate* at hand, armed with complete freedom *vis-à-vis* the prince's court with all its conflicts and intrigues. Shiva and Vishnu shall not just be kept separate -- they are subjects to a myriad of their own archetypal cults within the colorful Hindu caste system -- moreover they shall finally be united anew, but now as separate institutions. This is an expression of the principle of *the two-headed phallus par excellence.* It is not about avoiding the god or the prince becoming angry, it is about avoiding the god or the prince becoming stupid. Which is much worse, of course. At the same time as Zoroastrianism during the Axial Age developed via Gnostic mimicry into Christianity and Islam, Hinduism developed during the Axial Age via Gnostic mimicry into Buddhism and Jainism, the ingratiating and therefore popular religions of the pillar-saints, which in their orthodox forms tended to implode. This is the same Gnostic mistake that later is repeated within the political ideologies that propagate either just liberalism, or also just socialism, during industrialism. Without the two-headed phallus [[The Barred Absolute]] disappears, and thereby the difference between the sacred and the profane also disappears. In such a society the priest is at best replaced by the Machine, which mass produces intelligence, but without any ability whatsoever to produce transcendence. ## What remains then is but a caustic soup of cynical nihilism. But what else could be expected? Intelligence without transcendence can of course never be anything over and above the mimicking craft. American philosopher Forrest Landry takes this necessity to a head in his work *Immanent Metaphysics*. His argument is brilliant in all its simplicity: Complexity cannot *per se* be handled with even more complexity. Believing such a thing is rather to repeat a mistake that constantly recurs throughout history. Rather complexity is what will-to-intelligence handles on its own. Thus an ingenious simplicity, a decisive principle, *a decisive existential choice* rather than an expression of any free will, must break through the intelligence as a radical will-to-transcendence to thus enable the decentralized diversity that is necessary for humanity's and civilization's survival. Landry achieves this splitting of phallus through starting from matrix as a cultural rather than a natural phenomenon. The real hides in the culture that Landry calls *immanence*. The symbolic hides in the strategy that Landry calls *omniscience*. And the imaginary hides in the vision that Landry calls [[Transcendence]]. Where no matter how much strategy, nothing can ever function unless there first is a single clear, cohesive vision that runs the entire process -- the philosophical Messianic project *par excellence*. Landry even uses mathematical formulae to prove this in his work. The exodological ground rule is that the pathical narrative must lead the logical narrative and not the other way around. Similarly, authentic art always requires a will-to-transcendence that is built on a foundation of optimal intelligence. Or to express the matter in a Zoroastrian manner: there is no Zoroaster without a Vishtaspa. Or to put it in Jewish terms: there is no Moses without an Aaron. The art that aims higher and deeper than something purely decorative, must take an eventological worldview as its point of departure and a conception of genuine change, transformation. Thereby the *museification* of late capitalist society should be regarded as a nostalgic retreat to the nomadological stage and thus also as a portent of *the death of Art*. The projectivity of Art is to constantly strive for and constantly fail in externalizing the unwieldy oscillation of existence, but not to museify the already fixed approximations. In authentic eventology the two heads of the phallus meet in mutual admiration behind the barred absolute. There and only there can Parmenides' cherished *The One* be found. Pathos and logos are united into mythos. If it is will-to-intelligence that freezes the world in order to be able to tame and comprehend it, it is will-to-transcendence that then sets the world in motion anew, in order to thus be able to widen it and conquer a piece of new territory. Will-to-intelligence is called *the-root-of-the-phallus*, will-to-transcendence is called [[Phallus|the phallus]]. These two wills meet and collaborate during war and during hunting. The pathical activism during war and hunting is synonymous with will-to-transcendence. The logical activism during war and hunting is synonymous with will-to-intelligence. ## The body and the mind interact with each other; the mind is also body --what else could it be? Another way of saying this is that biology and psychology interact intensely and intimately and ultimately are different aspects of the same thing. The purpose of all these processes is to produce optimal protection (war) and optimal provision (hunting). We call these phallic battlefields and trading posts *the outer circuit*. The outer circuit then generates *phallic membranics,* behind which the inner circuit arises. Here the objective and significance of transcendence, which constitutes the outer circuit's future beyond one's own death, is placed. The woman with the child, who survives the man; the man's heritage, protected and controlled by the matriarch, the inner circuit's undisputed leader. ## The borderland between the outer and inner circuits is called *sexuality*, an area that religion regulates through *the sexual ritual* as the reward that is granted after successful hunting, war and reproduction, about which the matriarch always has the final word. How could it be otherwise? The sociont's welfare stands and falls with protection and resources being delivered to her. Without that delivery, all dreams perish of any heritage whatsoever that can be passed on after a man's long life. This is the core of religion. The warriors of the outer circuit (the Indian caste system's *kshatriya*) conquer and defend a territory on behalf of the entire inner circuit as *protection*. We call this *will-to-expansion,* something that at a later stage in history generates *urban industrialism*. The hunters of the outer circuit (the Indian caste system's *vaishya*) take down their prey and deliver this to the inner circuit as *provision*. We call this *will-to-accumulation,* something that later in history generates *rural agriculture*. When permanent settlement is established, society's warriors are tamed and re-schooled to the engineers that lead society's artisans and create civilization's infrastructure. As part of the same process society's hunters are tamed and re-schooled to the instructors that supervise society's agricultural laborers. None of this occurs without friction. The envy that arises toward what is perceived as undue privileges, results in a by-product by way of an attack on phallus as such in the form of ideologies critical of civilization, such as pacifism (directed against the warrior) and vegetarianism (directed against the hunter). The problem is that every time anti-phallic ideologies of this kind take root throughout history, the outer circuit is drastically weakened. Under these new prerequisites the inner circuit can at an initial stage cash in a higher status and exercise greater influence, only to then discover that it is without protection against external attacks and that it is afflicted with an alarming resource shortage as a consequence of the outer circuit's sudden weakness. *The utopian project* sports a splendid, self-aggrandizing rhetoric but leaves the inner circuit without a necessary, protective membrane. The anarchic state that then arises is *the apocalypse,* a prelude that signals the onset of an empire's or a paradigm's collapse. The recently cheering inner circuit suddenly realizes that it is exposed to the uninhibited ravages of alien powers. During the apocalypse the primary line of defense is destroyed first, in the form of chieftains and priests. Thereafter the secondary line of defense is destroyed, consisting of warriors and hunters. What then remains is the third line of defense -- ordinary men and women, defenseless against the rage of the gods, the forces of nature, and the hostile powers. The entire pathical energy is transformed from violence to a sexuality that rapidly is brutalized (see *Digital Libido -- Sex, Power and Violence in the Network Society*). For lack of battlefields and trading posts, libido's entire phallic energy is channeled through the sexual expression, which then is the only outlet that remains. It is above all this that characterizes the apocalyptic state: the phallic causality chain is broken. The first two stations -- the battlefield and the trading post -- are wiped out and sexuality, which has been moved furthest ahead, now becomes the objective and meaning of everything. A consequence of this is that the non-sexually mature children are sexualized, which is because the children no longer can/may spend their childish years of growing-up slowly learning to create an adult stance to mind and body, nor to war and hunting. Instead they are directly forced, wholly unprepared, into the complicated dichotomy between phallus and matrix. The shamanic activities that adults also carefully avoid taking part in without due preparation, suddenly become available to all, including the very young. Sex and drugs become hobbies that occupy children that are so small that they have attained neither the biological nor the psychological maturity that is necessary in order to be able to handle such forces. Which perhaps they may never be able to do. If phallus is abjectified and rejected, this is exactly what one can and should expect. Precisely everything falls prey to nihilistic hedonism. Which is the kiss of death for civilization's own libido, which in turn opens the door to a sphere entirely ruled by mortido. This is precisely how Friedrich Nietzsche imagines what he calls *the death of God*. In the attentionalist network society with its obsession with exhibitionism and voyeurism, we straightforwardly call this phenomenon *the absence of the phallic gaze* (see *Digital Libido -- Sex, Power and Violence in the Network Society*). Before the barred absolute the perspectives are rapidly diminished from the divine to the human (all too human). For lack of the rejected testosterone, what once was strategy slackens to instead appear as *intrigue*, and intrigue is driven by the banal *truth-as-gossip*. The ability for systematization that was favored before the apocalypse is now completely superseded, requested by no one, and replaced by a constant demand for empathy. Everyone feels sorry for themselves and insist on sympathy from the surrounding world. Everyone suffers from mental illness and wants attention both for this and for having the courage to publicly admit how they are suffering. The formal ambition is to break what is called "a culture of silence", which leads to no one being silent any longer, which in turn means that no one is listening since everyone is screaming at each other. One has to be empathetic with oneself, to the extent this is possible. What used to be visions for a future disappears with the phallic energy; what remains is pure survival and the marking of the same in the form of fashions, labels and various other banal status markers. This condition without phallic presence, drained of the substance of authentic truth, is what we call *decorationism* (exhaustively treated in *Digital Libido -- Sex, Power and Violence in the Network Society*). And decorationism explodes precisely during the pre-apocalyptic state, when the [[Saoshyant]] is lacking the most. The apparently paradoxical but fully logical consequence is that war, hunting and not least sex become the subject of general contempt. One loses all discernment and cannot separate the potentially destructive but in regulated forms nonetheless functioning sexuality, on the one hand, and the lamentable abuse on the other, rather one is mistaken for the other and soon enough they are treated as one and the same thing. Apparently this even becomes a position on which one can build an entire academic career. In the void that arises then, various expressions of decadence thrive, such as pacifism, vegetarianism and asexuality (which naturally is nothing other than an expression of a desperate denial). Such a state can only prevail over a limited period, namely until the pathos returns with full force in the form of *the real* and thus corrects people's sense of reality and reminds us that there actually is both an inner and an outer reality to relate to. Imaginary as well as symbolic fantasies will only take us thus far, sooner or later the proper work of relating to reality has to be undertaken anyway. The two-headed phallus is built on *the dialectics of eternalism and mobilism* (see *The Global Empire*). But before we in this way split Nietzsche's will-to-power into in part will-to-intelligence, and in part will-to-transcendence, it is necessary to first in the same manner expose his predecessor Kant's phenomenology. Because we do have a problem with Kantian phenomenology: it cannot be used as a universal model that applies for all relations between subject and object, where the subject always creates a phenomenon that starts from the relation to a noumenon that by definition is inaccessible. Several philosophers attack Kant precisely for this [[Correlationism]] -- for instance French syntheologist Quentin Meillassoux, who advocates a speculative realism in his work *Après La Finitude* from 2006. But it is hardly correlationism as such that is the problem here. What is problematic, however, is the lack of imagination that is expressed in the repeated quest to, at any cost, cling to Kantian phenomenology, as though it were universally valid for all subject/object-relations. Kant successfully negates the passive monism in Spinoza, but as with Taoism he eventually settles for a kind of mortidinal correlationism that does not harbor any explanation for the energy that monism actually develops. ## So what then propels the relation between subject and object? ## And if indeed there is a drive beneath that relation, why would it, in that case, allow itself to be confined to Kant's metaphysical prison where everything is preordained? In that case it would not be of much value. And as so often, it is within sexuality we are shown how much the accepted dialectics underestimates the power in the dynamics that are at stake. When it comes to sexuality, and above all our Freudian relations to the three different sex organs, [[Matrix]], [[Mamilla]] and [[Phallus]] (see *Digital Libido -- Sex, Power and Violence in the Network Society*), it is precisely the relation to these organs that is the noumenal and not the phenomenal. This means we must replace a Kantian phenomenology with an interactive *phenomenoumenology* in order to be able to detach ourselves from Kant and move on to Hegel, which is the same as detaching ourselves from passive dualism in order to transition to active monism, which entails a considerable leap in Western thinking. Consequently it is the matrix out of which we are born -- and which a large part of us constantly longs back to -- which is the noumenon, not the phenomenon; in the same way as it is the mamilla -- that feeds us and which we suck with heart and soul from birth until *the phallic intrusion* -- which is the noumenon and not the phenomenon, just as the phallus that robs us of the mamilla's illusorily promising security -- only to eject us into a chaotic and contingent world through which we make our arduous journey toward adult maturity -- which also is the noumenon and not the phenomenon. Kantian dualism is a dead end and the instinctual archetypology leads us out of it, since it does not provide us with any guidance regarding life's most intense moments. A phenomenological reduction of these quantities to simply three banal sex organs is something that occurs later in life and which therefore is secondary in the phenomenology that thereby becomes inverted. This means that Kantian correlationism as such admittedly is correct, but if the very correlation shall be possible to take seriously we must reformulate the complex in the form of a relationalist phenomenoumenology. Here the logical phenomenology is the engine that powers the priestly will-to-intelligence, while the pathical *noumenology* is the engine that powers the royal will-to-transcendence. Together both these figures of thought constitute the foundations for an understanding of the world that lies beyond the Kantian reactionary worldview and that is aligned with the Zoroastrian actionary worldview. *The logical truth-as-a-fact* can be complemented with *the pathical truth-as-an-act* the very moment Kantian correlationism is completed by being transformed into an interactive phenomenoumenology. If the phenomenal is a direct experience, and if the noumenal is an indirect and so to speak editorially processed experience, they are still only the explicate and implicate versions respectively of one and the same phenomenoumenological relation. The correlation must be operational and cannot be substantial, since it is only through the very operation that the unit in question receives its relationalist substance. This is exactly what Hegel emphatically maintains when he criticizes both Spinoza and Schelling for solely relying on *Verstand* (Hegel's expression for logos) but not, however, on *Vernunft* (Hegel's expression for pathos). It is thus the lack of *pathos* in both Spinoza and Schelling that causes the necessary shift from logos via pathos to mythos not to take place, nor being able to take place within the confines of their philosophical systems. They never succeed in scaling or circumventing the Platonist wall that Kant has built around his autistic worldview. Spinoza and Schelling simply do not understand the enormous power of sexuality. This is a mystery that is overlooked in silence. Instead these gentlemen stroll happy-go-luckily through life in a kind of romantic haze, hand-in-hand with the mother figure that never leaves their side. They rather absentmindedly and in a distanced manner observe various objects around them, objects that they are far too afraid of to engage with for real. A perverse stance is admittedly the best suited for the philosopher. But it is, *nota bene*, a stance that he or she has attained after having been engaged in sexuality and fully has understood the enormous power of the libido -- definitely not by fearfully choosing to view the world through the presexual eyes of an inhibited teenager. It is thus Hegel who launches [[The Two-Headed Phallus]] in Western philosophy. This is the concept that Hegel calls *the divided One*. Will-to-intelligence is *the Hegelian subject* as *Verstand*, as logos, but will-to-transcendence is *the Hegelian project* as *Vernunft,* as pathos. Elsewhere the religious mythologies constantly return, before Christianity's division between on the one hand the father, and on the other hand the son, to the two twins that are born out of the original matrix. This is all about the phallic dialectics of the visionary chieftain with his *project* and the strategic priest with his *system* within the patriarchy. The project is carried out while affected systems are upheld. It is about the pathical myths of *the dragon* and *the tower*, with the dragon as a symbol of sexuality and the tower as a symbol of religion. The dragon must be defeated for the tower to be erected, and the tower is then adorned by the door to the barred absolute. Will-to-power rules within all of nature. It drives forth the twins' very existence. But will-to-power is split between will-to-transcendence and will-to-intelligence within culture. The chieftain and the priest together personify will-to-power, which the patriarchy have made sure to tame through the conversion from nature to culture. The chieftain personifies *the explicate phallus* through his physical presence, while the priest personifies *the implicate phallus* through his virtual potentiality. Martin Heidegger identifies these two perspectives as *the ready-to-hand* and *the present-at-hand* in the object, and these stand in a dialectical relation to each other. Will-to-transcendence is to apply the present-at-hand to the ready-to-hand, precisely as the chieftain does in and through his activities. It is this application that is called *vision*. Will-to-intelligence is conversely to apply the ready-to-hand to the present-at-hand precisely as the priest does in his activities. It is this application that is called strategy. Will-to-transcendence is the eventological form of will-to-power (Taoism's *yang* and Zoroastrianism's *ahura*) that is exercised by the phallic chieftain; will-to-intelligence is the nomadological form of will-to-power (Taoism's *yin* and Zoroastrianism's *mazda*) that is exercised by the pseudo-androgynous priest. Will-to-transcendence is driven by libido as a protest against mortido -- for libido is precisely the will that stubbornly attempts to transcend life itself, as a kind of life's overwhelming surplus. Mortido, however, expresses itself as will-to-intelligence through binding itself in a nomadological manner to life's circularity. But mortido's collection and processing of data would never occur if will-to-transcendence did not inspire and lead mortido in the Taoist tango they are dancing together. Or if we use the Hegelian conceptual apparatus: Libido is best described as a single isolated point called *the subject* in an ocean of mortido called *the substance*. It is thus the subject that is the event and the substance that is the process in Hegel, and the subject is always transcendental in the sense that it attempts to defeat and conquer the substance to avoid being drowned by it. This is will-to-power in its deepest and most dialectical form. The priest represents the sun-god and being, and is called *Majestes*, while the chieftain represents the rain-god and becoming, and is called *Tremendum*. Majestes impresses through the accumulated knowledge, Tremendum impresses through the optimized capacity to act. Together Majestes as *logos* and Tremendum as *pathos* form the optimized will-to-power, whose *mythos* is called *Imperium*. The priest then has an advantage over the chieftain, which is that the priest can handle the hormonal shrinkage of the priestly strategy to *the matrichal intrigue*. No corresponding shrinkage of the royal vision exists. The vision is either libidinal and functioning, or else it is mortidinal, which leads to its collapse. However, the strategy can readily shrink to an intrigue -- in principle this is the difference between injecting either testosterone or estrogen into the process -- just as well as the intrigue can be widened to a strategy. Exactly this art of scaling is the central task of the priestly archetype. Classic stories by authors such as Shakespeare and Dostoevsky are largely built on those dynamics, and pronounced priestly figures such as Machiavelli and Richelieu have masterfully developed their ability to manipulate with the aid of these differences for the purpose of running a sophisticated power play. It is the priest and no one else who smoothly moves from the military battlefield to the royal court, and back again, by virtue of his shamanoid talent for crossing boundaries. This has dramatic consequences for the large majority of men who are sociobiologically subordinate to the chieftain. They comprehend the vertical hierarchy which is a prerequisite for giving orders, and they comprehend the horizontal exercise of power that is a prerequisite for successfully executed teamwork. What they however do not understand at all is the feminine hierarchization that enables a diagonal contact and giving orders between different levels in the social rank, that is: from a given higher position without either a formal or informal responsibility for the lower position obliquely beneath. This is the blind spot for a large majority of men, quite simply because it is pointless during both war and hunting since unambiguousness and clarity is then of the greatest importance. However this is a hierarchy that exists in every nightclub queue and at the door to every VIP lounge in the world, and it is handled nonchalantly as a matter of course more or less solely by women with elevated status and by members of the boundary-crossing shamanic and androgynous castes. The condescending authoritarian gaze obliquely downward from above is, thus, the heterosexual man's blind spot in the urban, digital society, something that is exploited maximally by women *vis-à-vis* both men and other women in the form of various modern variants of classic *shit testing*: different kinds of gambits to put the other to the test through crassly assessing the reaction. It is the attention and sensitivity to all these minor, symbolic details that makes the outer circuit strongly dependent on the priest and his powerfully carried out will-to-intelligence. There is no [[Phallus]] to access for the man or for anyone at all unless there is first a robustly anchored *root-of-the phallus*. Please note that the sociont collapses the moment the priestly will-to-intelligence stands alone without the royal will-to-transcendence, and vice versa. The dynamics between the two of them are necessary for the sociont's survival and development. When for instance Iranian philosopher Reza Negarestani convincingly argues for a *philosophy that advocates intelligence* rather than a *philosophy that advocates mind* in light of Man's historic encounter with the Machine, he overlooks that intelligence without transcendence is lost in a kind of eternal Platonist sterile loop. His Swedish colleague Nick Bostrom makes the same Platonist error in his book *Superintelligence*. They arrive where they arrive because intelligence in itself neither has any will nor any movement. It is not heading anywhere at all. We are left powerless with a root-of-the-phallus without phallus, a logos without pathos, an engine without fuel, a kind of Kantian power without any Hegelian movement, or for that matter any Nietzschean will. What we really need, to a greater extent than ever, is will-to-transcendence, this because history should not throw itself -- and us -- out and down into the abyss of crippling nihilism. What originally was the nomadological will to get up in the morning and journey on toward greener pastures on the horizon, is transformed during the development of civilization to the eventological will to move on to new, more creative and innovative platforms to henceforth operate from these. It is this force that is called *pathos,* and it is this symbol that is called [[Phallus]]. Without these we are lost in an ocean of possibilities that cannot be valued or compared with each other. The eventological knowledge transfer occurs via *the principle of mimesis with the phallic exception*, which is generally contained within the outer circuit. Everything is mimicry except *authentic novelty as an event*. The phallic exception recurs behind a concept that philosopher Carl Schmitt in the early 20th century terms *the sovereign*. Thus the sovereign is simply the leader in political theology who is so exceptional that he can lead by virtue of the exception that dissolves other laws. *The exceptional* thinks past and runs over *the general* with intense passion, according to Schmitt. Ultimately power is a question of *pathos* as the exceptional defeating *logos* as the general. It is the chieftain with his exceptional will-to-transcendence, and not the priest with his general will-to-intelligence, who achieves the phallic leadership that extraordinary times require. The priest personifies the library, the chieftain personifies the body mass and blood circulation. Together they represent the dynamic societal body. The priest is driven by a sense of *reality* and provides *legitimacy* to phallus as a representative of and expert on history. Will-to-intelligence starts from the-root-of-the-phallus and collates the profound history of the sociont in particular and humanity in general. The chieftain is driven by a sense of *life* and provides *justification* to phallus as a representative of and expert on the future. Will-to-transcendence starts from the utopian ideal and collates the long-term strategy for the sociont in particular and humanity in general. Will-to-intelligence is *the father* from history and will-to-transcendence is *the son* from the future; both meet in the present as *the holy spirit* and deliver the priestly vision, as the eventological architecture, and the royal vision, as the nomadological engineering science, to the matriarch, so that the sociont can be divinized in the form of the sacred family. Please note that *forgiveness* as an ethical principle only occurs in eventological religions. Since nomadological religions only preach the eternal recurrence of the same, the act as such also recurs and can therefore only result in a pagan *karma*. You are sentenced for your actions, and punishment is meted out as in *Dante's Inferno*, forever. This explains why pagan lynch mobs constantly exact eternal punishment and endless compensation (for themselves) for alleged injustices. Eventology is of course revolutionary inasmuch as it enables a future that is more or less radically different from the past. Thus eventology permits one making mistakes as long as one learns something from these mistakes, so that the next time one carries out an act, one has modified one's course of action and hopes for a more favorable outcome. And should it once again become evident that one has made a mistake, it is important that it is another mistake and not the same, and then one has to return to the drawing board yet again. This is absolutely central to the transition from *nomadological moralism* to *eventological ethics*. One mistake is anything but an unreasonable consequence of new circumstances, not a sign of stupidity, which is why one simply just gets up and tries anew. This means that the nomadological fixation with *the act* is replaced by the eventological fixation with *the intention*. Thus the prerequisites disappear for every conception of *karma*, and also, as Zoroaster understands at an early stage, all need for reincarnation and resurrection from the dead as exits from the pagan, closed loop. After Zoroaster it is but the odd boy-pharaoh and pillar-saint who invokes nomadological moralism as a principle, in the form of shaming and accusing people of sin in order to compel them to submit to their infantile doctrines. The construction of civilization as such continues unabated, but with ethics proper and without banal moralism. What the civilization process ultimately is about is how to continually transform what was yesterday's magic into tomorrow's technology. The creating god with his magic has to give way to the created god that comes with technology. What is fundamental is then precisely the principle of the great forgiveness -- you make an attempt, and you make a new one, again and again, and as long as you make new attempts and learn from the mistakes you are doing the right thing. Which of course also applies to the development of religion itself (there are no religions, there is just religion as such, and religion must like everything else be paradigmatically adjusted and reformed). This is *phallic forgiveness*, one of eventology's most essential and most valuable contributions to humanity. And this forgiveness is both imperial and infinite when it arises from the priest's will-to-intelligence, since it then is the priest's forgiveness of the chieftain's incessant shortcomings. Which does not prevent that phallic forgiveness at the same time is national and finite when it arises out of the chieftain's will-to-transcendence, since it then becomes the chieftain's forgiveness of the priest's incessant shortcomings. This is how one builds something enduring, and it is these theories and this activism of forgiveness that nationalists and imperialists alike devote so much effort to with the purpose of, in similarity with the alchemists, sifting out the exceptional gold that trumps the general, which customarily otherwise settles for clans, tribes and regional subcultures. Carl Schmitt is clear on the world being monist and not dualist, which means that *there cannot be any division between religion and politics*. Religion is political in the same way that politics is religious. All of this is included in the same memeplex. Schmitt uses the concept of political theology, and therein includes all of Man's thoughts and activities. This view is what we emphasize when we say that "everything is religion" (see *Syntheism -- Creating God in the Internet Age*). Nonetheless, the history of ideas is one big graveyard filled with misdirected and false dualism, where the most striking example of all is the Western division between church and state, which arises in the 5th century AD. The explanation is a repeatedly unsuccessful mimicry of the first and inevitable duality, namely the organizational division between the chieftain on the one hand and the priest on the other, the construction that we call [[The Two-Headed Phallus]]. While the Zoroastrian Persians developed the two-headed phallus as the principle for the exercise of power, the Egyptians tried to dream themselves past the necessary division between an embodiment of in part body, in part mind in the Persian landscape of four twin rivers, of not just one but two Mesopotamias. Instead the Egyptians extended the monist autocracy in their *Monopotamia*, a project that was realized by the Atenists under the pharaoh Akhnaten in the 14th century BC. The result was pure hell. One placed all energy and all resources in Atenist Egypt on the pharaoh's own worship of the sun disc, while the subjects were ordered to worship their pharaoh as the only one with legitimacy to worship this worship-worthy sun disc. All other activities in Egyptian society ground to a halt. Neither defense nor food production functioned any longer. The connections with Nazi gas chambers and the Chinese culture revolution are evident. This is the authentic dictatorship under the false phallus, while of course phallic authenticity requires a two-headed phallus, a condition that quite simply is ignored. It is precisely through this stubborn avoidance of the phallus' necessary power-sharing that history fills up with boy-pharaohs and pillar-saints, figures that act predecessors to the pathetic individualists of late capitalism, narcissists and eventually autists, locked into their pompous, atomist fantasies of their own awesomeness. The reasonable response to this Messiah complex pandemic is of course a resounding renaissance for the Nietzschean reading of Zoroaster and Heraclitus: "There is nothing less than two". Syntheistically we express this as though the only unit that is just one is the Universe itself, and its name is [[Pantheos]]. The concealed predecessor to the Universe, the empty virtuality without actuality, is called [[Atheos]] and it is Atheos who rules out that anything other than Pantheos can be less than two in number. Instead the inner god inside Pantheos, that is to say [[Entheos]], is the god of multiplicity. And the first instance of Entheos is the two-headed phallus, where the one phallic head is the priest, who is anchored in Pantheos in the form of will-to-intelligence, while the other phallic head is the chieftain who is anchored in Syntheos in the form of will-to-transcendence. Entheos is thus the name of the place where the priest and the chieftain meet. The sociont and its history is the entire eventological movement that stretches from Atheos to Pantheos, and via Entheos further to Syntheos (see *Syntheism -- Creating God in the Internet Age*). If the woman lives on in the nomadological realm and furthermore represents biological reproduction, the man lives in the eventological realm and represents technological development. The woman bears the child, which is human nature, while the man builds the god which is human culture. This means that without the two-headed phallus humanity soon loses its way. Instead of complementing logical dualities, boy-pharaohs and pillar-saints start dividing existence into moral dualisms. When the sun is pitted against the rain, it is the rain that must be sacrificed, otherwise it is no longer possible for the hedonist boy-pharaoh to be eternalized in the sunlight. When the soul is pitted against the body, it is the body that must be sacrificed, otherwise the ascetic pillar-saint cannot pride himself with having liberated himself from the desires of the flesh. But these antagonisms are not genuine but just as falsely constructed as they are destructive. The combination of power and infantility requires that the fantasy about the child-god and/or god-child is maintained. And this is possible only if one ignores -- or rather annihilates -- the link between the child and the god, that is: the adult world in all its brutal monism. Heidegger is fully aware of what order is at hand when he claims that *logos* must start from *pathos* in order to become the Nietzschean will-to-power. This also applies to the philosopher himself, since *philosophy is the translation of pathos to logos*, if we transfer Heidegger's priorities to our own vocabulary. But when Heidegger regards violence (that is *pathos*) as a necessary engine of living thought (that is *logos*), which is reasonable, Heidegger makes the mistake to try to read the nuances into the concept logos as a Greek logos à la Heraclitus, which he praises as commendably civilizational, and pits this against a Jewish logos à la the Gospel of John, which he rejects as primitive. It is actually within Heidegger's own protestant Christianity that logos and pathos are mixed up and become impossible to separate. They appear here either as submission *vis-à-vis* a logos without pathos within *Protestantism,* or else as submission *vis-à-vis* a pathos without logos within *fascism*. Unsurprisingly Heidegger joins the German Nazi Party, and thus willingly submits to an Adolf Hitler who of course is the boy-pharaoh *par excellence*, while it is protestant priests, for instance Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who actually sacrifice their own lives in protest against Hitler and the Nazi mass murders. The dynamics between logos and pathos is complex -- they act as two different components in a future *mythos*, something that both the Persians and the Jews as well as the pre-Socratic Greeks were fully aware of, before Plato began promoting the pillar-saint's delusory dream of a logos that precedes and is primary *vis-à-vis* pathos, that is: a mathematical universe of ideas of which our reality only is an imperfect copy. Out of this delusion follow Plato's political ideas of the philosopher as dictator. Without the phallic dialectics this is of course where the patriarchy must arrive, with the philosopher-king realized as Adolf Hitler. The priest may not become the chieftain and the chieftain may not become the priest. *Mazda* and *Ahura* must always be kept separate to be able to complement each other and keep each other in check. Or to view it from a different angle: the quality of the information that is conveyed upward in a hierarchy, and thereby also the quality of the basis for the decision-making that is at hand, drops dramatically when it is a dictator to whom one reports. A dictator lacks legitimacy and rather goes about strengthening his own position than the quality of decision-making in other respects. Bearers of bad news tend not to be so long-lived. The information flow is developed toward *convergence* and away from *divergence*. In the world of bodies, it is will-to-transcendence that is the substance, while will-to-intelligence is the subjectivity, this is the case since it is subjectivity that rides the body mass as its substance. The first subject is always *the priest*, who stands alone in the wilderness and observes the world and the sociont at a distance. This is abundantly clear when Zoroaster in the capacity of priest and founder of religion is superordinate to the chieftain Vishtaspa within Zoroastrianism. This is also clear when Moses as priest and legislator is superordinate to Aaron as chieftain and warlord within Judaism. However, in the sensual world, these roles shift with will-to-intelligence as substance and will-to-transcendence as subjectivity, this since it is subjectivity that rides the sensual fantasy as its substance. In both these situations will-as-substance is much more powerful and comprehensive than subjectivity. The subject in this context, is only the less important rider who is located atop the enormous beast that is called will-topower. Not infrequently, the explosive will-to-power dislodges the subject who sits anything but firmly in the saddle. Psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan calls this event *the intrusion of the real.* Libido is a force of nature, literally, which the subject in vain strives to harness. In Lacan's own works it is Hegel who represents the priestly office as *knowledge* in the form of will-to-intelligence (truth-as-a-fact), while Marx represents the royal office as *truth* in the form of will-to-transcendence (truth-as-an-act). Lacan thus handles the pressure from the real with the aid of a symbolic order à la Hegel and an imaginary order à la Marx. The real remains seemingly tamed like a slumbering volcano until the next eruption no longer can be avoided. One can thus say that Lacan confirms Zoroaster's prophecy that the history of philosophy ultimately only can be understood as a love affair between these two phallic poles. What Lacan contributes is that the matrichal -- or chaos -- causally always precedes the phallic -- or order. First there is the chaos goddess in the form of the real, blowing up Man's dreamy fantasies. Only thereafter can the priest with the aid of knowledge restore the symbolic order (Hegel) including anointing the chieftain, while the chieftain with the aid of truth can recreate the imaginary order (Marx). The priest and the chieftain at the apex of the Mithraic hierarchy must time after time slay the libidinal bull with joint efforts. The priest with the knowledge-based strategy and the chieftain with the truth-based vision. Where the matrix at hand moves from the old to the new paradigm, or from the old to the new territory. The phallic dialectics of will-to-transcendence and will-to-intelligence is one axis in a diagram where the phenomenological dialectics of eternalism and mobilism constitutes the other axis. These wills must be seen in relation to the general drive system that Man is subject to. In the book *Digital Libido -- Sex, Power and Violence in the Network Society* we give an account of four such drives. The first of these is [[Instinct]], which Man shares with animals and which we therefore also call *animalistic drive*. Instinct operates through direct contact with and within the body and in accordance with pre-learned or biologically programmed patterns. Thereafter comes pure [[Drive]] in itself, which appears fixed and machine-like for Man and which therefore also is called *mechanical drive*. When Man seeks security and safety in the familiar, and stubbornly returns to the same repetitive compulsive behavior, it is pure drive that affects our senses and our decision-making. But also direct, insistent needs with an origin in the body such as hunger, thirst, weariness and sexual excitement belong to the domains of drive. After pure drive there is [[Desire]], which is driven by language and by illusion, according to which what is named actually corresponds to what the drive system seeks; desire is therefore also called *human drive*. Since desire really only strives to remain active, its obscure objective constantly shifts and never allows itself to be conquered. That is: desire is doomed to always be disappointed even with its most successful conquests -- the object never corresponds to the unreasonably lofty expectations -- wherefore the search always must start anew, again and again, and continue forever. Eventually, when what is hopeless in the project becomes painfully evident, the drive arrives that tempts Man beyond life itself, a new phase in the quest for the new and higher, [[Transcendence]], or as it is also called: *sacral drive*. If desire is a byproduct of language and thinking, transcendence instead is a byproduct of culture and Man's interaction with his fellow humans, within and beyond the local sociont. The libidinal will-to-transcendence and will-to-intelligence also have their mortidinal equivalents. Will-to-transcendence corresponds to the mortidinal *will-to-extinction*. Will-to-intelligence corresponds to the mortidinal *will-to-arrogance*. At the same time will-to-power in itself has a truly mortidinal engine that keeps the machinery running. It is, as Slavoj Žižek observes -- with respect to Hegel's concept of *the night of the world* as the subject's foundation -- the subject itself that is exactly the catastrophe that it deep down fears and that it does everything possible to try to avoid becoming. Will-to-transcendence and will-to-intelligence thus operate as a thin film atop a powerful mortidinal engine, which becomes obvious when these wills are threatened by corruption or manipulation from the surrounding world. This becomes particularly clear when we define these wills through *the phallic gaze,* which they by definition themselves comprise. The chieftain's phallic gaze is horizontal and internal. The priest's phallic gaze is vertical and external. This creates the internal dynamics where people see the chieftain, where the chieftain sees the priest, where the priest sees the people, and where the people's role is personified by the matriarch, who completes the nomadological power triad. Which is then connected to people mimicking the matriarch's gaze, in order to identify their desires with hers. What is interesting is how the domestication of Man's animal nature in three steps under a priestly subjectivity that Zoroaster advocates, has such striking similarities with *the ethics of psychoanalysis* that Lacan constructs in the 20th century. Zoroaster begins with identifying a subjectivity in the imaginary that he calls *humata*. He then continues by identifying a subjectivity in the symbolic that he calls *hukhta*. And he completes the loop by identifying a subjectivity in the factual, mimicking activity that he calls *huvarshta*. You are *humata*, you are *hukhta* and you are *huvarshta*, and you cannot escape anywhere else -- you are even in a Hegelian sense the conflict between the three steps, since your subjectivity identifies with all three steps at once as a loop -- but you are forced to wholly and fully identify yourself with these experiences and activities. It is then and only then that you deserve to be called an *ashavan*, a retainer of truth. Then and only then do you deserve through your *navjote* to be a member of your *anjuman* -- a state for which the correct contemplation, *tushna maiti*, is excellent support. Unsurprisingly these three ethical steps recur in tantric Buddhism, Zoroastrianism's sister religion. Within Dzogchen Buddhism *humata* corresponds to *dharmakaya*, *hukhta* corresponds to *sambhogakaya*, and *huvarshta* corresponds to *nirmanakaya*. It is then only logical that neither Zoroastrianism nor Buddhism contain any laws or moral rules that one must obey within the congregation -- Zoroastrianism's *anjuman* or Buddhism's *sangha* -- since an insight into what the connection between *humata*, *hukhta* and *huvarshta* actually means is all that is needed in order for one to be able to create a complete ethics. It is fully possible for *the local ashavan* to serve *the global Saoshyant* with a clean conscience, when or if he arrives. The imaginary and the symbolic recur as a kind of Hegelian fantasies in Lacan, where the third step is *the real* that casts aside and crumbles these fantasies, as a much-needed break in the production of fantasies and symbols, something that throws Man back to the starting point of the loop called subjectivity. ## Fantasies are thereafter built anew, they comprise to a certain extent the insights that followed after the real's intrusion into the previous activity. But what then is *the real*? Well, it is absolutely not reality as such in any pre-Kantian sense, but the real must rather be understood as a radically effective reminder that there actually is an external reality beyond the representations on the whole, a reality that does not allow itself to be controlled by the dividual's or the sociont's increasingly self-absorbed fantasies about their own significance. This means that the real by no means needs to come from an external source, rather it is even more effective and more tumultuous if it is an internal phenomenon that the subject completely lacks control of. And Sigmund Freud had of course already solved that issue for Lacan. The subject is, as we know, not master in its own house and only controls part of its own activity. All that remains, the entire dark, unexplored continent that the subject has no insight into, is *the real par excellence*. The proper Freudian name for this phenomenon is [[The Subconscious]]. ## So how does Zoroaster's *huvarshta* relate to Lacan's *the real* and Freud's [[The Subconscious]] if all three still refer to one and the same existentialist ethics? Here Belgian philosopher and mathematician Thomas Hamelryck is of great interest, since he tends to connect anthropologist René Girard's idea of universal mimicry and rivalry with both Buddhist tantra and Lacanian psychoanalysis. For Zoroaster *huvarshta* first and foremost is an act, the ultimate truth-as-an-act which it is possible to uncompromisingly identify oneself with (see *Syntheism -- Creating God in the Internet Age*). You become what you do, the act tells the truth. And what you do further determines how you in the next step reflect on, or rather fantasize about the world, if we return to Lacan. Thus far Zoroaster and Lacan are in complete agreement. However history does not end there. Girard argues that since Man's behavior to 99 per cent is about the mimicking of superordinate authorities and nothing else, identity can only be generated tribally and precisely through repeated mimicking. However, Girard admits that the mimicry is concealed to Man as precisely mimicry. Man experiences, as Zoroaster observes, his actions as original and thereby identity-generating. Which makes subjectivity one big existentialist hoax, since truth-as-an-act ultimately just is *mimickingas-an-act*. And this is most clearly seen in that the dividual not just mimics the behaviors of others, but also fantasizes of the other's desire and then mimics the other's desire. This generates an intense rivalry over the same object of desire within the sociont, which leads to enormous tensions that sooner or later must have an outlet. And this outlet is the search for the [[Abject]], the arbitrarily selected scapegoat, whose elimination recreates the illusion of unity and collaboration within the sociont. At least until the entire process must be repeated again, which occurs time after time. The problem here is that it is impossible for us to see this chain of events in ourselves. The difference between the original act and the act of mimicking is every human's blind spot. And it is this blind spot that, according to Hamelryck, is subjectivity in its purest form, precisely because it is the difference between the hoax called *consciousness* and the brutal and inconvenient truth about our non-existence as terrified and unimaginative automatoms in a herd that we are totally dependent on, even for the most simple needs that are connected with our survival, called *subconsciousness*. Only the god can carry out the genuinely original act, and only the priest can seem to be doing the same in the capacity of he who mimics the god himself, a god that fortunately is concealed to the rest of us behind the barred absolute. For all that the rest of us do is to mimic our leaders and role models, from the moment we are born until we die. Zoroaster's ethical imperative thereby becomes even stronger and more relevant: You are and can only be your actions, and your highly temporary fantasies of these actions' significance for history. The name for this ethical principle is the untranslatable *huvarshta*.