# Paradigmatics, membranics and archetypology In a short essay called *Postscript on the Societies of Control* (1990), Gilles Deleuze gives an account of the difference between societies governed by discipline and control respectively -- we can, for instance, compare between on the one hand the penal colony and on the other hand the electronic ankle tag -- and he shows how creativity and innovation sooner or later will be suffocated in the increasingly totalitarian societies that emerge during the 20th century and that bear clear traces of the Rousseauian dream of the one-party state free from opposition and friction. Totalitarian systems can admittedly mimic with devastating efficacy -- industrialism and its machines are and remain the triumphant culmination of totalitarianism in history -- but they cannot create new values or concepts. Their worst enemy is what we call [[Protopianism]], faith in the constant incremental improvement of technological processes as the highest creative and spiritual value. ## But where did the impulse to create the totalitarian state awaken in the first place? ## What went wrong -- not in a moral but in a strictly strategic sense -- when totalitarianism emerged in history and appealed to a certain kind of young boys with very high ambitions in terms of extended power for their own part, but with no ambitions at all with respect to extended knowledge? ## What happened when eventology no longer concerned the sociont's collective interest, but instead was directly connected with the autocratic tyrant's well-being? ## Where do we most appropriately search if we want to unearth *the genealogy of dictatorship and dogmatism*? Gnosticism arises not with what we call the soul's dualist desire to liberate itself from the body, but instead with the conflict between the boy-pharaoh and the pillar-saint for the matriarch's approving gaze. A will-to-transcendence that for some reason ignores or fights a will-to-intelligence atrophies to a *tyranny of the boy-pharaoh*, which naturally is a classic recipe for *dictatorship*. A will-to-intelligence that for some reason ignores or fights will-to-transcendence does however always end as a *tyranny of the pillar-saint,* which entails an uncompromising *dogmatism*. And in these cases either pathos or logos must lead to a mythos, which transforms mythos to either a pure pathos or a pure logos. This means that in every single case of tyranny of this kind, two of three key metanarratives are lost. This in turn means that the necessary dialectics will collapse. The result is dictatorship or dogmatism via ideological fundamentalism. Either the rain-god kills the sun-god, or the sun-god kills the rain-god. It is this primitive hate of one's brother in the undeveloped human that drives him to neurotic dualism. And it is Gnostic dualism that propels culture to the crucial crossroads where church and state go their separate ways. It is a development that is underpinned by a more or less pronounced assumption that religion and nation would be able to coexist in a constantly ongoing conflict with each other, without at least one of these poles losing its authenticity. For what is the separation between church and state, fundamentally, if not a cynical agreement on a division of society between a boy-pharaoh's dictatorship that prevails within the social body and a pillar-saint's dogmatism that rules the social soul -- a peace treaty that confirms that society no longer is cohesive but is irreparably torn apart. Instead of interacting with and complementing each other, the chieftain's *vision* and the priest's *strategy* now are at cross purposes and their words fall on deaf ears. The dynamic contact between a faith in reality and a faith in the future is broken, which means that the one cannot gain strength in or be reflected by the other, and vice versa. The root has lost its phallus and the phallus has lost its root. Every time the reality that is called science and the future that is called spirituality change places with each other -- which happens constantly when the contact between them is broken -- this results in ideological madness and social collapse. The chieftain's and the priest's synchronicity is necessary, for without it, it will -- as the historical Zoroaster emphatically maintains -- be impossible to keep logos, mythos and pathos separate. The religion that in favorable conditions holds a society together, is then replaced by ideologies that emphasize either the king or the priest at the other's expense, which results in eternal and insoluble conflicts. Zoroaster's and Hegel's vision of precisely a religion that unites people and holds the sociont together, is lost. Ever since the Axial Age, exactly this has been the constantly recurring complex of problems that has caused the civilization process to derail and crash. Existence is full of diversity. But diversity is not inexhaustible nor boundless, and the fact that diversity exists entails that existence cannot be infinite. The concepts *diversity* and *infinity* are incompatible with each other, since what is deviating within diversity indicates that there is somewhere where a conceived infinity cannot reach all the way, and consequently an infinity is literally inconceivable. It is not possible to imagine a partial infinity, an infinity must own ubiquity to really be infinite. Thereby it also must be *The One*, which by definition precludes precisely diversity. Thus existence contains many, but not infinitely many, *enormities,* and no infinities. And conversely existence contains many *enormitesimals* but no infinitesimals. Even if we study continuous objects without distinctions, the continuities in themselves are limited as entireties. It is thus only a mathematical and no material limit we are dealing with. Therefore the correct concept in the context is *enormitesimality*, that is: that which Hegel a tad sloppily and imprecisely terms *the good infinity* in contrast to the substandard, or perhaps rather purely illusory *bad infinity* we have unmasked and rejected above. Which brings us to the problems that arise as soon as we speak of infinite regression, infinite circularity and infinite tautology. The very idea of an infinite anything whatsoever is built on untenable basic conceptions and all these three concepts collapse as soon as the emergence arises. For the simple reason that an emergence always implies its own finitude. Precisely this is the key to Hegel's mobilist *coherentism* and how this relates contrarily in part to Kant's eternalist correlationism, in part also to Descartes' and Spinoza's respective axiomatic fundamentalisms. That is: there are no laws outside an emergence vector. Everything that exists outside the emergence vector is contingent *vis-à-vis* the vector itself. Hegel's point here is that the more problems that are solved within the emergence vector, the more coherent the vector will be *vis-à-vis* itself. And this is the only thing that is of interest for the dialectics. If the plurality within the emergence vector then starts to spin-off and operate in a manner all its own without discernible connection to the rest of the vector -- a process called [[Cephalization]] -- this only means that a new emergence has taken place and that a new emergence vector is born, where the habits that existed before the emergence now have become the internal laws of the new vector. We describe this as though the older and greater emergence vector is the implicate predecessor of the new emergence vector's explicate expression. The pressure or the circumstances within the implicate order that have caused the emergence we in good Hegelian spirit refer to as *plurality objections*. And these plurality objections are at hand until a new emergence arises. This emergentist logic can just as well be applied to paradigms and membranes. People are, for instance, thanks to evolutionarily conditioned modifications, to varying degrees of intimacy and intensity suited for dealing with the social spheres that are constituted by the family, the clan and the tribe. Man is quite simply capable of handling such *coherence intensity* -- to borrow an expression from American Hegelian philosopher Adrian Johnston -- in order to in various ways relate to the laws and rules that are built into the drive systems that permeate these spheres. He can only act from innate, instinctual hierarchies that naturally are not underpinned by, nor have any need for formal laws and rules. But when these familiar spheres change and expand to greater and more complex membranes in greater and more complex paradigms, the overview and control is rapidly lost for the human dividual, wherefore various tension phenomena such as criminality and lynch mobs arise in the social arena. The plurality objections explode in number. Then these new hierarchies must be quickly learnt with external aid -- which in turn necessitates relevant media technologies -- otherwise the systems quickly cease to function. There is, for instance, not the slightest possibility for an isolated illiterate to reasonably visualize a modern globalized and digitalized world. In order to passably be able to handle the exploding diversity, an ability to develop solid coherences is required, both logical and mythical as well as pathical (with the aid of adequate metanarratives in every instance), with associated complex technologies. This genuinely comprehensive project is only possible to conduct via Hegelian coherentism, which thereby is posited in an opposing relation *vis-à-vis* all forms of empirical attempts to get a handle on complex systems that involve separate layers of emergences, paradigms and membranes. A system has a limited ability for coherence before it implodes under the pressure from its own contingency. This is because all systems are subject to [[The Principle of Explanatory Closure]] (see *Syntheism -- Creating God in the Internet Age*), since every system is in a perpetual state of flux. Hegel's stance on this is to prioritize antagonism and conflict before coherence and harmony (which in any case merely indicates that the system in question has lost all its dynamics and has frozen to ice) through paradoxist dialectics. Nomadology may be infinite in its eternal, cyclical repetition, but eventology is driven by *the finitude of the event*. Thus only the systems that on their own succeed in generating their own coherence will survive, that is: freezing the habits that prevail when the emergence takes place and thereafter holding on to these, which thereby is established as the system's identity-creating self-image. Which entails that it only is a matter of time before an emergence vector becomes so complex that it must generate a *self-consciousness* for someone to be able to apprehend it as an entirety, what Hegel calls *the substance-as-subject*. Thus Hegelian coherence is the predecessor to what we call *will-to-intelligence,* which aided by a complementing will-to-transcendence consciously can generate entirely new paradigms, membranes and ultimately even brand new cultural emergences. The process of civilization accelerates dramatically during the Bronze Age in the Middle East. Around 1700 BC Persian prophet Zoroaster appears as a reformer and founder of religion in a land of two rivers called Transoxiana, between the rivers Syr Darya and Amu Darya in present Central Asia. The Zoroastrian religion is strongly colored by the landscapes in the two Mesopotamias -- lands of two rivers -- where it takes root. Civilization can only be built on functioning power-sharing, and this power-sharing in itself ensures the diversity and the tolerance that makes an empire of tribes and nations dynamic and resilient. Zoroaster sums up his ideas in the text *Gathas,* where he defines the decisive differences between a nomadic lifestyle with a nomadological religion on the one hand, and a settled lifestyle with the new eventological religion that this lifestyle necessitates on the other hand. Zoroaster then practices what he preaches when he builds the first Persian Empire along with his best friend and armor-bearer, the king Vishtaspa -- Zoroaster as the most elevated priest (later called *mobed-en-mobed*, or the priest of priests) and Vishtaspa as the most elevated chieftain (later called *shah-enshah*, or the king of kings). Thereby the model for the Mesopotamian empires is complete and ready to be put into practice. Persia and Egypt influence each other intensely. When the Persian tandem government proves successful, it is over time mimicked by the Egyptians, who around 1300 BC start to experiment with a reformation of their own religion after a Persian model. This much-needed renewal however fizzles out into the desert sand since the pharaoh Akhnaten is anything but fond of the thought of sharing power with someone else. So instead of espousing the Persian model, where one separates the king's being (Ahura) from the priest's mind (Mazda), characterized by the geography of dual rivers and the function of temples between rivers as a cohesive force, Akhnaten pushes through the idea of Egypt as a *Monopotamia*, a one-river country governed by an autocratic pharaoh, who sits on both chairs and acts both as king and priest at the same time, and who thereby also is divine. It is therefore only logical that it is the Egyptians who focus strongly on life on the other side of death and who build enormous and enormously resource-consuming pyramids in eternal honor of their pharaohs. They embalm their dead to spruce them up and make them presentable to an imagined existence in the realm of the dead, while the Persians place their relatives' dead bodies in the desert where they are devoured by vultures and other scavengers, this to instead focus on life here and now, building roads and trading posts. The Persians realize that dead bodies are dead and leave these to their destiny, to instead celebrate *polgazar*, the memory of the dead, which one commemorates on the day of death over the following 70 years. It is thus the Egyptians who invent totalitarian dictatorship. Akhnaten on his part worships the sun disc as God, while all his subjects are told to worship him. He thus ushers Egypt away from pagan polytheism and proclaims *Atenism*; he has scores of monuments connected with the previous iconological religion destroyed. The comprehensive project to restore order in badly scarred Egypt was then launched as early as during his son and successor, the multi-diseased and ailment-stricken Tutankhamen, who did not succeed in having any children surviving him and who thereby ended the 18th dynasty. The Egyptian clergy was restored. After the death of Tutankhamen -- whose causes have been subject to massive speculation -- the work of covering the tracks from Akhnaten and *Atenism* was intensified. The old autocrat was long spoken of merely as "the enemy" or "the criminal". However the genie was already out of the bottle and impossible to push back in; totalitarian dictatorship was created and remained an alluring alternative to those who conceived of autocracy as synonymous with efficiency. Ever since Akhnaten, all of history's boy-pharaohs have done their utmost to imitate him. While consistently ignoring the fact that the cost of his experiment was enormous and that just after Tutankhamen's death, a dramatic period in Middle East history was begun known as *the Bronze Age collapse*. The opposite of will-to-intelligence is consequently called *will-to-destruction* and constitutes the death drive in its purest form -- the substance-as-subject turned toward itself with the purpose of attaining paradigmatic extinction -- that is: as a living dead primordial force that neither has the good sense to die nor knows what it is supposed to do with itself, an internalized violence surplus that cannot even reproduce itself in order to at some point eventually die in peace, and that therefore ferociously attacks everything that crosses its path and hates all forms of resistance or questioning. Its will is to halt, and preferably extinguish history itself. Its expression is *totalitarianism*. The false dialectics of the gnostic delusion is thus false in the literal sense, there is no dialectics involved at all, only simulation. What we call the soul's hatred of the body entails that the body is not worth listening to for a single moment, nor worthy of any engagement at all, and therefore must be annihilated. The easiest thing for the boy-pharaoh or the pillar-saint to do is then to seat themselves on the spiritual throne and act *the lofty spirit* who then identifies a hated and despised [[Abject]] that is forced to act the low body and which therefore becomes confined to the pillory. The boy-pharaoh and/or the pillar-saint take the throne from the phallic gaze and seat themselves there with their *amour-de-soi,* filled with glowing hatred toward every hint of *amour-propre*. The soul is given free rein as subject to stone the body as abject. It is no longer possible to request logic or coherence in any line of argument; what remains is nothing but the tyrant's own boyish fantasies which demand total submission. The delusion according to which the stoning of the body is dialectical makes the soul believe in the liberation from the shackles of sexuality. When all prerequisites for critical thinking thus are eliminated, the Gnostic fantasies of perfection, infinity and immortality can take flight unimpededly. This explains why the boy-pharaohs and the pillar-saints next dream of a *free sexuality*, the total delusion which proclaims that all children can get whatever they wish for without any form of effort or reciprocal act. Therefore the two obstacles that stand in the way of sexuality-as-reward in the phallic causality chain must be eliminated. The first obstacle is the dialectics of the chieftain as will-to-transcendence and the priest as will-to-intelligence, where the boy-pharaoh falls for the temptation to believe that he already is equipped to be chieftain, ready to be dictator of a territory and a population without any need whatsoever for priestly intelligence. He already knows everything of importance. At the same time the pillar-saint falls for the same temptation by imagining himself ready to be priest without any need whatsoever for the chieftain's transcendence. Thanks to himself and no one else, heaven on Earth awaits around the bend and all owe him thanks. The pillar-saint already has all the miraculous powers needed to impress the women and is ready to proclaim himself dictator of the spiritual realm, which naturally soars high above all worldly troubles and concerns, drenched, as it is, in the boundless surplus of the great mamilla. This is perfect: constant reward with no demands. However the annoying problem here -- what stands in the way of free sexuality handing the boy-pharaoh and the pillar-saint all they desire and yearn for, without them having to take any form of adult responsibility or deliver any form of effort in return -- is that sexuality works in exactly the opposite way. First the delivery, then the reward. Meanwhile it is *the war for the sociontic protection* and *the hunt for the sociontic provision* that only the adult chieftain and the adult priest can handle together by virtue of their visions and strategies in dynamic interplay. Therefore the boy-pharaoh and the pillar-saint themselves attack these needs of protection and provision as a phallic whole through preaching *pacifism* and *vegetarianism*, time-typical fashions that explode in popularity during the Axial Age. Ever since, pacifism and vegetarianism are the harbingers that signal an impending apocalypse in the form of *the sexual supernova,* which entails a collapse of civilization. The fact that phallus is rejected, at the same time as the boy-pharaoh takes the chieftain's place and the pillar-saint replaces the priest, leads to a permanent conflict between hedonism and asceticism. Body and spirit are separated from each other and are pitted against each other as presumably natural antagonists and the dynamic interplay ceases. It is like looking in a funhouse mirror; if it were not so tragic it would be funny. The boy-pharaoh and the pillar-saint divide the earthly and the celestial between them -- imagine a megalomaniacal parody of the chieftain's and the priest's division of labor within the sociont -- but instead of collaborating, both spheres enter into extreme nihilism. The sociontic causality chain -- where war and hunting link forward to the sexual ritual -- has been obliterated. Thereby only the apocalypse remains. That women stop bearing children and priests become pedophiles is nothing to be shocked or surprised by when the surrounding culture frantically tries to clear away old traditional phenomena such as bullfighting and fox-hunting in a quest to appease a pacifist-vegetarian ideal. A functioning and functional relation between man and woman presupposes a secure relation between man and nature -- it is thus nomadology views cause and effect in terms of sexuality. The shaman can sleep with anyone he wishes at any time; he or she can also experiment with his or her own body's chemistry with the risks this entails. But this lack of rules is less suited for the sociont's other adults -- not to mention the sociont's children. There may be an ever so strong yearning for shamanoid magic, but what is missing is a preparedness to pay the price and shoulder the responsibility for the forces one in that case would be unleashing. The boy-pharaoh and the pillar-saint sever the ties between logos on the one hand and both mythos and pathos on the other. The past, present and future are expected to submit to laws that only the boy-pharaoh and/or the pillar-saint understand and even believe themselves able to control. Abjective imperfection is cleared away and the Gnostic's totalitarian fantasies materialize, seemingly with no resistance whatsoever. The imperfect, the finite, the mortal, all that pertains to the physical world's asymmetries, must be culled from existence to pave the way for a Platonist world filled with pure forms and clean ideals. Thereby the adult artisan's grounding in reality through the Zoroastrian principle of the all-encompassing *intranscience* of existence becomes an acute ideological threat to the pillar-saint. An illustrative example of this is the Japanese handicraft culture's aesthetic ideal *mono no aware,* which deliberately avoids everything by way of symmetries and pure forms, precisely to avoid getting stuck in the pillar-saint's infantile banalities. The East Asian cultures have always fought the constant eternalisation of existence that became the norm in Western thinking after Platonist formalism, a history that Korean-German philosopher and Seon Buddhist monk Byung-Chul Han outlines in a series of spectacular books in the early 21st century. *Authentic eventology* is about leading people away from mimetic deadlock, toward a new and greater territory and/or a new era with new philosophical overtones. We make a distinction here between two different kinds of historical *exodologies*. The first Zoroastrian exodology is about the exodus from the genetic progress during nomadism to the memetic progress during feudalism, something that first is formulated by Zoroaster in Bronze Age Persia. The second syntheist exodology is about the exodus from human progress to mechanical progress. This concerns the technological rite of passage that occurs when will-to-intelligence moves out from Man and into Machine, whereafter it is only will-to-transcendence that remains to explore and formulate in and for Man himself. From this moment history no longer becomes a struggle between Man's two cerebral hemispheres, logos and pathos, about uniting around a human mythos, but instead a struggle between the machine's logos and Man's pathos, about uniting around a biotechnological mythos that is called [[Syntheos]]. Einsteinian spacetime, with its expanding universe, is the direct result of oscillating relations. Fixed fields collide and become relative processes, and all that we associate with the materiality of physics is consequences of these relations. We call this principle *radical relationalism*. Or as Nietzsche puts it: "Nothing is less than two." At least nothing other than the Universe in itself, as an entirety. But nothing prevents us from experimenting with theories of several, parallel universes. And should we view the matter from a dialectical perspective, the statement: "nothing is less than three" applies. That is: should we expand panrelationalism and in a Hegelian spirit develop it into a [[Pandialecticism]], there must always be a third force over and above the two that we already initially postulate, a force that oscillates and sets both of the other two in motion. And with this recurring separability, it follows that physics must be connected with the local and explicate order. It has to relate to Einsteinian spacetime, which constitutes its foundation. Subphysics is however global and implicate. But subphysics' various fields of virtualities never meet, their *hyperstances* remain precisely this and can without relationalism not unify and produce the *substances* that are what follow from these relations. Only through active relations can [[Subsistence]] attain a minimum of existence and become *potent*. From the relations come *relata*, this is the core of panrelationalism. Syntheologically we express this complex as though [[Atheos]] represents the virtual or the foundation of being, [[Pantheos]] represents the actual or being, while [[Entheos]] represents the mental or becoming (see *Syntheism -- Creating God in the Internet Age*). This entails that the emergence vectors metaphysics and subphysics operate within Atheos, that the emergence vectors physics and chemistry operate within Pantheos, while the emergence vectors biology and mind operate within Entheos. We then reserve the fourth category [[Syntheos]] for the future and the new cultural emergence vectors that it inevitably brings. Man projects his creativity, his technology, and his creative relation to technology, and the name of that which Man and Machine will create together but which does not yet exist, namely [[God]], on to the syntheological point forward and upward that bears the name [[Syntheos]]. It is then possible to undertake the same journey through Man's own history. But then we exchange the natural emergences for the cultural paradigm shifts, just as we exchange the natural emergence vectors for the cultural paradigms. [[Emergence Vector Theory]] transitions into becoming what we call [[Paradigmatics]], as the cultural rather than the natural philosophy of existence's fundamental *difference*. And nothing is more important within philosophy than paradigmatics. Process philosopher Alfred North Whitehead problematizes this issue thoroughly in his book *Modes of Thought* (1938). First of all, argues Whitehead, the philosopher must establish the *importance* in existence. ## That is: Exactly what it is that the philosopher should prioritize and what, if so, will the consequences be of this decision? ## How does this fundamental prioritization and the strictly neutral decision about the importance then determine the value of everything else that the philosopher thereafter examines and establishes? ## What age does he live in, who are his fellow humans, and how and why are they different from other agents who are active within other historical paradigms? ## How should these therefore be supported or, if need be, exposed or where appropriate even be counteracted? All this falls within the jurisdiction of paradigmatics. First a paradigmatics that governs the prioritizations must be laid down according to *the principle of paradigmatic importance*, then the studies and the creativity can take over and dominate the reasoning. The decision on importance generates *interest*, interest then enables *discrimination*, discrimination leads to a *hierarchy*, and hierarchization generates continued *stimulus*. It is then above all a question of a stimulus to seek new importance. This process is synonymous with Hegelian *freedom*, Whiteheadian *creativity*, or what we call *the protopian state.* If we dodge these fundamental considerations, philosophy -- according to Whitehead -- only becomes one banal and superficial hobby among countless others. It will never be able to achieve anything meaningful and its historical mission will never be carried out. Which brings us to [[The Dialectics of Eternalism and Mobilism]] (see *The Global Empire*) and its role within paradigmatics and membranics. French philosopher Alain Badiou devotes considerable energy and space to developing the concept *compter-pour-un,* which in typical Platonist spirit is a kind of eternalization without complementing dialectical mobilization. But sooner or later Badiou also must set *compter-pour-un* in motion, and eventually he does so through creating a *dialectics of the consistent multiplicity and the inconsistent multiplicity*. There is much to gain through Badiou's inverted Platonism -- inverted since Plato uses *The One* as the axiomatic cornerstone for his system construction while Badiou uses *the irreducible diversity* for the corresponding purpose -- and its alluring [[Entheism]], since the Badiouian dialectics of multiplicities helps us circumvent the blind alley that is the Kantian dualism between phenomenon and noumenon. The inspiration even comes in a true Platonist spirit directly from mathematics -- namely from Georg Cantor's work with *transfinities* in the late 19th century -- as a way for infinities to relate directly to each other. This is enabled through Badiou understanding that eternalism behind the consistent multiplicity is epistemological, while mobilism behind the inconsistent multiplicity is ontological. Therefore Badiou's reasoning also results in [[The Principle of Explanatory Closure]] (see *Syntheism -- Creating God in the Internet Age*) as what is fundamental for ontoepistemology, and he thereby shuts the door to Kantian correlationism for good. Badiou however never succeeds in explaining how his eternalism (the consistent multiplicity) and his mobilism (the inconsistent multiplicity) relate to each other in a monist universe. Badiou refuses to understand the relation as dialectical, which is based on him at any cost wanting to counter a Hegelian renaissance within philosophy. This results in Badiou settling in what his witty colleague Peter Sloterdijk sarcastically calls *Plato as the cult of an intelligence that comes in from the dead.* The explanation is that Badiou's line of argument doesn't go deep enough. Eternalism is epistemology in itself, it is epistemology's built-in conditions. Mobilism is ontology in itself, it is ontology's built-in conditions. But for ontoepistemology's sake these must also be set in motion *vis-à-vis* each other. It is an epistemological fact that the world must be frozen in order to become phenomenologically tangible. But one must of course be clear about the fact that one now only is acting on a phenomenological level, as soon as we are talking about ontology we must be clear about every system in every context constantly being in motion and that the eternalization is admitted a necessity but nevertheless a fiction. On an ontological level everything oscillates in existence, both *vis-à-vis* itself and *vis-à-vis* everything else. Nothing of any onto-phenomenological significance whatsoever is -- or can be -- ontically fixed. Not even a beautiful Badiouian thought in itself, which never can be fixed more firmly than as *the ontological symbol,* which of course his texts are full of. Heraclitus was always correct, the oscillation is ontically universal. This also applies for *general emergence vector theory,* which we otherwise are extremely careful about invoking, since the minimal energy consumption, when mass comes into play, always is *the oscillating condition* rather than the fixed state (that which Badiou's rival Slavoj Žižek, calls *less than nothing*). And it is exactly this which is called the dialectics of eternalism and mobilism, since the interactor to the relation is necessary for the observer's fantasy of the fictive eternalizations' existence to take hold. Rather, the dialectics of eternalism and mobilism can also be applied outside ontoepistemology as *the dialectics of discretion and continuity*. No matter how discretely delimited the smallest components of spacetime or physics are, it is, thanks to their constant oscillation, impossible to fix them in any meaningful sense. Thus they can according to the principle of pandialecticism only be described as dialectical phenomena. What is fundamental about existence is thus not the relation between the consistent multiplicity and the inconsistent multiplicity, as Badiou imagines with his anti-dialecticism. What is fundamental is instead the productive dialectics of the discrete units that are the building blocks within most of the emergence vectors -- and the constant oscillation within and between these in themselves eternalized units -- where the discretions kill Badiou's fantasies of irreducible multiplicities (it is perfectly possible to count discretions as determined ones and zeros), at the same time as the constant oscillating of the discretions causes them to maintain a kind of panorganist life, something that raises obstacles to Badiou's Platonist project to fixate the irreductionist building blocks of existence in a frozen schema that is meant to have ontological value, which of course by definition is ruled out. Rather, we end up in a state where the closer we come to the discretion's most intrinsic essence, the more powerfully this discretion in itself oscillates, so much that it eventually -- at least in some meaningful sense -- only can be described as a *continuum*. The delimitation cancels itself. There is thus no more of a continuum in the noumenal world than the eternalization can have a corresponding ontic existence. However this does not matter. The dialectics of discretion and oscillation teaches us to humbly accept that the principle of explanatory closure also applies in the microscopically tiny. Where friends of the natural sciences naturally know this by the name of *Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.* This is what invariably happens when Platonists -- and by all means also inverted Platonists -- confuse mathematics (the very archetype for a created representation) with the world itself (which mathematics in some mysterious way is presumed to permeate and serve as a model for). The radical *mathematicism* of Badiou and others ultimately only describes (and can only describe) mathematics in itself; it does not describe any pathical spheres outside the limited logos of mathematics. Just like so called intelligence tests only measure the ability to solve the type of task that is included in the intelligence tests, but however not intelligence in any other sense than the strictly tautological (intelligence is what an intelligence test measures), since intelligence just as transcendence is a *dialectical abstraction* that only can be described via *mythos* but absolutely not via logos. The representation is eternalism as *logos*. But the represented is and remains mobilism as *pathos*. We are speaking of two wholly distinct levels, and it is the irreducible difference between them that is the cause of the dialectics of eternalism and mobilism, something that ultimately only can be expressed through a temporary *mythos*. This therefore also applies to the dialectics of discretion and continuity. And its mythos is of course called [[Oscillation]]. This means that it is not at all odd if it is damned difficult to fuse the discretion's sacred area [[Quantum Organics]] with continuity's sacred area, the *theory of relativity*. We have of course right from the start decided that the former operates concretely and the latter operates abstractly, and that they moreover operate in their own respective ends of our physical Universe. It is hard to imagine a divide that is quite as impossible to bridge as this. This *decoherence* that increases in step with our scaling up the Universe, generates the principle of explanatory closure between the ontic fields. The coherent in the fundamental is rapidly dissolved by oscillations and negations when gravity hurls itself over the coherent, blows up the membranics, and dissolves the coherence. And then philosophy once again has nothing other to resort to than [[Pandialecticism]]. The perfect example of [[The Dialectics of Eternalism and Mobilism]] is the tempestuous relation between order and chaos within subjectivity. The subject in itself is an eternalization, that is: a fiction (see *The Body Machines*). It means that this subject by definition is arbitrary and temporary. As soon as the world is set in motion again the subjective experience disappears to be replaced by a new one, which in practice generates a new subject, although this becomes too arduous to process wherefore we instead maintain a fictitious conception of the subject's permanence. In order for it to function, the mind and the body must find/create a new platform on which the subject is placed. This arbitrary, temporary, ambivalent and incomplete fixation is the next subjective experience. This is a process that never ends. Over time, a series of memories is formed around these crystallized experiences, a series of fictitious *ego momenta*, and the eternalization of this series is in itself the very subjectivity or *the eternalist subject*. However, the world around the eternalist subject has of course been in a mobilist chaos all the while. And a memory of an experience is naturally not a preserved copy of the original experience, but a completely new experience that moreover constantly renews itself and changes in step with the experienced subject developing. It is a case of an endless series of unfinished and therefore by necessity fixed relations along the timeline, a subject that in every single moment appears clearly defined but that becomes vague as soon as we follow it along the time axis. And this is the bedrock of Hegelian dialectics. What we call process is what Hegel calls *substance,* while what we call event is what Hegel calls *subject*. The reason why we opt to use other concepts is that we take a major interest in *the grand narratology* of human history, while Hegel devotes himself to building a pandialectical ontoepistemology. Which means that the Hegelian project can be designated as *the narrativization of historical being* -- or, if you will, *the memetic voyage toward the completion of the absolute*. According to the same dialectical logic, all explicate subjects emanate from an implicate predecessor. We call this phenomenon *paradigmatic embryonism*. All subjects within the social theater have such an embryonic implicate predecessor that we call an [[Asubject]]. In the same way the tyrant and the superego are preceded by *the* [[Anoject]], while the Saoshyant or the hero is preceded by [[Hyperject|the hyperject]]. The scapegoat's embryonic predecessor in the social theater has been identified by Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben as *Homo sacer*, a concept taken from Roman law. A *Homo sacer* is banned, excluded from the religious and political community, made invisible. The explication of all these asubjectivities we call a *transject*. A subject's transjectivity is thus the part of its identity that strives upward and forward, beyond itself, the expression for its transcendental drive to expand. The transjective is quite simply *the phallic* rather than the matrichal element within the subject. This since the transject, so to speak, only lives without any further reflections. Birth and death unfold within the matrichal jurisdiction, but the life that is lived in between, as a kind of experienced eternity within what must be a finitude, is the libidinal state. The transject is thus the phallic in its purest form, the very libidinal in itself within the libidinal subject. This state of affairs is reflected dialectically in that the matrichal mind focuses on the present, while the phallic mind is obsessed with either the past (the root-of-the-phallus) or the future (phallus in itself), without ever really taking hold in the actual. To be born or die is the matrichal entry and exit respectively. But to leave a territory or an era behind in order to enter another dimension, is what we call *the phallic exodus*. The doctrine of both these forms of migration is called [[Exodology]], and the dual perspective can naturally only be maintained in a society that recognizes both process and event as fundamental principles. Neither can there exist any exodology unless an eventology first is at hand. The exodus is quite simply the ultimate event. Only someone who first thinks the event, can think the exodus as a transjective alternative to the anojective lynch mob. This in turn explains why all societies that become settled and maintain nomadology as process without event as religion, always develop into harsh and unyielding caste systems. If the event does not even exist as an idea, nor is the exodus even possible to imagine, and without the exodus, no one can do anything other than to passively accept the place and the role in society to which one is born. The son cannot do anything other than imitate the father, can never liberate himself and realize an alternative talent. In the long term not even birth and death remain here, but the entire existence becomes one long, spinning cycle of the same, only process and no event, only hopeless repetition and endless imitation. This means that eventology, and eventology only, can produce *authentic imperialism* and *authentic nationalism* (which thus should not be confused with various narrow-minded aberrations). There are no empires or nations before the arrival of eventology. Nomadological imitations of imperialism and nationalism therefore, for better or worse, never become anything other than decentralized and sluggish caste systems. Zoroastrianism is *the Hegelian universality par excellence* while Hinduism is *the Spinozist multitude par excellence*. The Zoroastrian phallus is topped by a living and constantly mutable fire. The Shaivite lingam in India is however nothing but a cold and fixed stone. Thus the Jewish diaspora, raised within Zoroastrianism, can be understood as an eventological nation that searches for a lost empire, while the Romani diaspora, raised within Hinduism in the same parts of the world, only can be comprehended as a nomadological caste that searches for a lost system for itself and other castes. Which explains why it became easier for the Jewish nation to position itself successfully within Islamic and Christian eventologies, than it ever was for the Romani caste to position itself successfully within what from a nomadological perspective was an incomprehensibly mutable surrounding world. Both these subcultures were unfortunately equally badly afflicted by pogroms, since alien tribes within larger populations -- materially successful or not -- always are apprehended as shamanoid elements that should confine themselves to wedding music, astrology and abstract value transfer, but who should stay well clear of everything by way of society's commanding heights. ## So what then does Western exodology look like right now, after the pathos-driven *Renaissance* and the logos-driven *Enlightenment* with their different eventological ambitions have shaped modern Europe? Well, it is above all about two German philosophers, contemporary with and voyeuristically fascinated by the French Revolution. First in the history of ideas, there is Kant, thereafter follows Hegel, and it is in the transition between them that the last remnants of Gnostic naivete is weeded out of European philosophy. If Kant imagines libido as some kind of independent and magical breath of life, all such conceptions disappear with Hegelian dialectics. The body and the spirit are once again thrust into each other's arms, as in a fusion reactor charged with universal dialectics. Hegel is the first Western philosopher who has an eye for how mortido lurks beneath everything else, while libido dances on a thin film and constitutes mortido's necessary dialectical turn, and nothing more than this. And with that movement there is only one exit for the brutally embodied mind to settle with its own fragile finitude, and this is [[The Dialectics of Libido and Mortido]] (see *Digital Libido -- Sex, Power and Violence in the Network Society*). Or as we choose to call this legacy from the Hegelian revolution: *the dialectics of negation and oscillation*. Never before has *ironic nihilism* -- which adumbrates the Messianic arrival of affirmative nihilism -- manifested itself as clearly as here. No wonder Hegel refers to this priestly form of nihilism as *absolute knowledge*. While he passes on affirmation for Nietzsche to deal with. The Hegelian insight is in other words not wholly dissimilar to the situation which propelled the Zoroastrian priests in ancient Persia to avoid Ahura Mazda to instead themselves worship *Zurvan*, the sexless monster in the form of *time,* the relentless power that lies concealed beneath everything else in existence, that could not care less for banal human goings-on, that robs the priests of every form of weapon and forces them to handle the chieftain and the rest of the sociont themselves without divine sanction. The process and the event are complemented by this negation in the history of ideas, something that in Hegel goes under the designation *the absolute*. No Western philosopher before Hegel fully realizes the central value of *the mortidinal negation*. We experiment frantically with non-identities, we fumble in despair for pseudo-identities, and we desperately create one temporary identity after the other until the dialectical machinery shreds our rudimentary attempts at identity production anew. It is not at all unreasonable to claim that this revolution has kept existentialist philosophy diligently occupied ever since it was introduced. Without Hegel: no Nietzsche. Without Hegel: no Kierkegaard. Without Hegel: no Marx. Without Hegel: no Darwin. Without Hegel: no Freud. And above all, without Hegel: no [[Paradigmatics]]. And so on. Or to express the matter slightly more formally: Hegelian dialectics is launched with [[Negation|the negation]] (which otherwise roughly corresponds to the antithesis), this because the *abstraction* (roughly corresponding to the thesis) cannot be discerned without the negation, wherefore the dialectical process cannot begin and definitely not produce any *concretion* (roughly corresponding to the synthesis). This is the explanation to why we see Hegel as *syntheism's* actual originator in *Syntheism -- Creating God in the Internet Age*. Please note how these changes enable provisional stabilities when the negation is flattened and loses its power and *the temporary concretion* -- or as we phenomenologically call it, [[Eternalization|the eternalization]] -- takes over the arena. The name of this eternalization is the object, and it is of course tempting to presume that the object's surrounding world is as fixed in spacetime as the object appears to be. One usually calls these temporarily fixed states *laws of nature*, even if a more accurate concept would be *habits of nature,* to stress the temporary nature of the state of things. All that is needed is of course the transdeterminist genesis of a new negation, which demolishes the prerequisites for the object and the laws of nature anew, which in turn leads to emergentist dialectics compelling a new equilibrium that naturally is temporary and provisional. The only thing that is enduring is thus *the tautology of metaphysics* which underpins *the transdeterminist emergence vector theory*. We express this in terms of information-theory as though the eternalizations are a temporary, radical limitation of available information in that all movements are frozen, and the name of this eventological truth-as-an-act is [[Phallus]]. Where phallus only can exist and act with credibility when it sees itself as an information-negating provisional. However, therein lies its enormous strength in changing the rules of the game in a terrain filled with objects. This state of affairs naturally also applies libidinally. A phallus that lacks challenges and that therefore finds itself in a landscape that it knows all too well, will be afflicted by *the neurotic impotence* that follows from this. While a phallus that instead is drenched in too many challenges at the same time, and therefore finds itself in a landscape that it does not recognize at all, thus a landscape that *de facto* lacks fixed points of support by which to eternalize and orient itself, instead will be afflicted by *psychotic impotence*. Potency as the foundation for will-to-power can only be maintained through the phallic distancing from the object. As such, *potentiality* is the bridge and nothing but the bridge between *virtuality* and *actuality*. Almost like an *ontological mythos* in between the logos of virtuality and the pathos of actuality. Where potency and potentiality must be understood as Spinozistically equivalent. There is no difference whatsoever between for instance metaphysics and physiological libido in this respect. A living dialectics must be played out on top of a secure foundation, or else potency will soon disappear in an equally infantile and vain quest for a perfect balance and eternal harmony. And no one handles this libidinal distance better than the perverted phallic gaze that has the advantage of working with a priestly distance to the social theater. Which brings us over to [[Paradigmatics]], that is: the doctrine of how various social systems are developed and identified along the time axis. Out of paradigmatics follows [[Archetypology]], that is: the doctrine of how various talents within various social systems are identified, rewarded, developed and transcended along the time axis. A paradigmatics applied atop an archetypology creates a tribal map that we call the sociont's *gestalt*. And this gestalt's adaptation to and interaction with the surrounding world is what we refer to as the sociont's [[Membranics]]. Thereby we can also safeguard the creative freedom in the process. The archetype is locally determined by natural evolution. Paradigmatics is locally determined by cultural evolution. But between these two a membranics within which the subject can act freely and indeterministically, is created. It is thus the very gaps in our transdeterminist universe that enables what we call *the membranics of freedom*. We then decide ourselves whether we use this freedom to cultivate *the nostalgic Dystopia*, *the phallic Utopia*, or *the dialectical Protopia* in these much-needed gaps. But we can only enjoy the fruits of membranics inside the *sphere* that the membrane itself forms. And the sphere's capacity is entirely dependent on how much *memory* there is freed up inside the membrane. If the membranical process releases more information than the memory can handle, this results in collapse. Intelligence is thus to a great extent the ability to coordinate memory and membranics. Outside the sphere, freedom is then quickly eroded when it is subjected to the *decoherence* that is generated by all the external forces that the membrane otherwise keeps at bay. The greater the scale we are dealing with, the more gravitation. Every form of creativity is *de facto* impossible without a functioning membranics. There must always be limits that encapsulate the decoherence for a system to stay cohesive and be productive. And the Aristotelian science *par excellence* for this boundary-setting is precisely membranics. What is decisive is always the size of the sociont -- capitalism's individualism is too neurotic and capitalism's collectivism is too psychotic for any of them to function in the long term. It is only the traditional sociont's size that enables the actual *phenomenoumenology* to form an attachment to the secure gestalt which it is born to project and orient itself by. The sociont's gestalt, its *archetypography*, is thus the very membrane for intratribalism within which Man creates his social identity and finds maximal security. [[Emergence Vector Theory]] is then the doctrine of the exclusive effects and consequences of radical events along the time axis overall. It is thus about Man's deepest possible understanding of nature's prerequisites. Emergence vector theory is the mother of the natural sciences. Paradigmatics is Man's deepest possible understanding of the prerequisites of culture. Paradigmatics is the mother of the social sciences. Archetypology is then the doctrine of how the sociont identifies itself and its various talents as gestalt, on the basis of the optimal paradigmatics within the optimal emergence vector theory. If one then also draws a map of the gestalt, one has earned the title archetypographer. In the competition for space and resources that prevails between different spheres, evolution soon comes to prioritize the membranics that take care to protect and prioritize their most valuable components. We call this process [[Cephalization]]. It soon becomes clear that memory and the sex organs are prioritized in all systems where these are central for the system's survival and existential value hierarchy. Thus memory and sex organs will be protected with extra care and placed high above ground or deep within the sphere as a sphere is cephalized ever more powerfully. What we can observe if we study history is how offshoots through cephalization increase the efficiency and optimize the protection for the cephalized organ. Within natural history we call such a cephalization [[Emergence]]; within cultural history we call the corresponding level displacement *paradigm shift*: within existence on the whole we sum up that sort of decisive cephalization as [[Exodology]]. Another way of viewing the course of events that develop along the time axis is to describe paradigmatics as the studies of the temporary, while archetypology is the studies of the enduring or *the transparadigmatic*, where archetypology replaces all attempts to find eternal forms beyond the transience of existence. ## For what are the archetypes that of course have been cultivated over tens of thousands of years of sociontic practice, if not the real and relationalist forms that Man constantly seeks grounding and security in? Paradigmatics is thus fundamentally technological, while archetypology is fundamentally psychological and begins with the studies of the two-headed phallus, to then transition to the studies of the two sexes as the foundation for the sociont with its circuits and borderlands. All this is also depicted within the sociont, whose emergence best is described as a general membranics. This concerns how spheres succeed in surviving in the first place without collapsing because of either external pressure or internal overloading. This concerns how spheres rid themselves of, or rather displace burdens from their territory. This concerns distinguishing between blood and urine and between nourishment and excrement. All this is encompassed within the concept of [[Membranics]]. Paradigmatics is the landscape within which the archetypes time and again must find themselves within a paradigmatically temporary but archetypologically timeless guise. Membranics is the manner in which the archetypes interact with and control this process. If membranics does not suffice to handle the complexity in the new paradigm, there remains the possibility of [[Cephalization]] of the sociont's most important and membranically most adaptive components, which thereby are liberated and can generate a new sociont, better adapted to the new paradigm, a kind of provisional, technologically driven nomadology that we call [[Exodology]]. This becomes clear when we compare the highest ideals during the last four paradigms that humanity has gone through. During [[Primitivism]], with the nomadological sociont as the universally sole state, ethics was concerned with a strict membranics for the sociont in itself. There were forces and creatures inside the membrane and one was faithful to these until death. Naturally there were also forces and creatures outside the membrane, and these one would chase away or beat to death as soon as the opportunity presented itself. Only the odd shaman had permission to deviate from this strict ethics, on carefully selected occasions, precisely because the shaman had the task of handling the communication with the outside world, both the horizontal communication with strangers and the vertical communication with gods, demons and ancestors. In all other matters loyalty toward the membranics was absolute, and this archetypology lives on, as all other things nomadological, to this day in the form of the constantly mandatory and seldom questioned loyalty *vis-à-vis* one's own group. We call this series of human primordial values *archetypological membranics*. During feudalism it becomes necessary to expand ethics to apply to a loyalty *vis-à-vis* a larger group and if possible to an even more brutal setting of boundaries *vis-à-vis* external groups. Permanent settlement has generated larger societies with weaker membranics and diluted loyalties. This has consequences, among others *criminality* presents itself in the form of stealing and killing within the membrane whose entire purpose is to keep everyone safe. The cause is, as mentioned, that the archetypal loyalty within the sociont becomes diluted in a greater intramembranic population. But with feudalism there also come the written narratives that enjoy extensive dissemination and that remain constant despite this spread, thanks to the written word. The gods have become fewer and thereby more powerful. And these narratives preach *good versus evil* -- via cautionary tales and formal commandments, or at best as a trained and through repetition schooled will to constructiveness instead of destructiveness, as in Zoroastrianism's *asha* versus *druj* -- as an extension of and compensation for the archetypological membranics within the nomadological sociont. However one does not swear one's loyalty *vis-à-vis* the sociont in itself, but instead *vis-à-vis* the engineering-scientific construction that the collective jointly has succeeded in building within the stronghold's or the city's membranics, personified by the sole god in the form of the chieftain and the priest as the two-headed phallus. Which brings us to the theological aspect of the development of empires and nations. Because under capitalism ethics must consequently be extended further, both through printed and mass distributed narratives of the advantages and the necessity of increasingly large social units, but also in the form of powerful implementation of the actual ethics through detailed control via a law enforcement organization inside the membrane, under the epithet *law and order*. War and hunting are directed inward instead of outward through the hunt for criminal enemies within one's own community. ## The more expensive slavery can be abolished in favor of the cheaper salaried labor -- why pay for food and subsistence for someone that one first has to buy and then take care of, since the person in question constitutes a valuable asset, when it suffices to cheaply buy someone's time and then quite simply substitute them when they have injured themselves or died as a result of the hard work? -- and the ideology of the narratives thereafter changes through slavery being declared evil and inhuman, while diligence and salaried work are elevated to the highest virtues in the capitalist metanarrative, quite regardless of whether we are speaking of *liberalism, socialism* or an overarching metanarrative such as *Protestant Christianity*. The great sphere becomes the omnipotent nation-state and the small sphere becomes the obedient citizen, with the creative corporation as the intermediate sphere where the work and income is produced and where the social status is confirmed in a wealth directory rather than a nobility calendar. However the dichotomy good versus evil fractures under the pressure from the comprehensive changes and the conflict that is based on the existential distance to the original sociont -- something that creates insecurity and weakens all loyalties. With no slavery, faith in eternal life as compensation for precisely slavery, vanishes. Thinkers step forward, from Hegel via Marx to Nietzsche, who reject the moralist dialectics that is imagined to arise between good and evil, and who replace this with *the ethical dialectics of intelligence and stupidity*. The men now populate a world controlled by corporative and bureaucratic *strategies*; the women are thrust into a world controlled by corporative and bureaucratic *intrigues*. In this brave new world the only solution is to believe in oneself as a lone but unfortunately mortal hero in the eternal struggle against the rest of the world. In this struggle the victor is the [[Individual]] that believes in himself and who succeeds in everything he does *on his own* before he collapses and dies from exhaustion. From Descartes via Kant to the chain-smoking Marlboro Man himself. During informationalism, as social complexity increases exponentially, it consequently becomes necessary to extend ethics further. Nietzsche's cunning maneuver in *Beyond Good and Evil* -- when he kills the Christian slave mentality with its will-to-submission, which revolves around good and evil, and replaces it with the Nietzschean master mentality, built on will-to-power, which revolves around intelligence and stupidity -- must be carried out anew. This time the task is to formulate *Beyond intelligence and stupidity*, since intelligence (and thereby also stupidity) during informationalism will be dealt with by the Machine, and then as will-to-intelligence. Which leaves Man with fewer rather than more building blocks to tinker with. What remains is merely [[The Dialectics of Libido and Mortido]] in its purest form. At the same time as humanity desperately must save the planet via [[Ecotopianism]], and also save the peaceful relation to the stranger via [[Cosmopolitanism]] for the sake of its own survival. This means that archetypological membranics lives on, and on top of it also good versus evil and intelligence versus stupidity. However now we must make our way past all these dichotomies and onward to informationalist freedom and creativity, [[Protopianism]], and the path that leads there goes via negations and reductions, until only the dialectics of libido and mortido remains in its most pristine form. Man is pathos, Machine is logos, and between these two a protopianism is developed that is a prerequisite for it being possible to build [[Syntheos]].