## The dialectics of the Hegelian negation and the Nietzschean oscillation A blind faith in process by extension leads to an equally blind faith in reincarnation. This corresponds both with the eyes' testimony and common sense. Seasons come and go and return. Nomadology has no reason in the world to oppose this worldview. However from an eventological perspective it is obviously untenable. It is then not just a case of the event being able to lead the happenings onto a new path, but of history itself acquiring completely different dimensions already when the event is a constant possibility in the equation. The world that dies is old, the world that arises and exists in the present is new. The prerequisites for existence are new. Death is, due to eventology, no longer reduced to a banal parenthesis, positioned between incessantly shifting and recurring stages; instead it constantly returns with awesome power in the form of the real absolute. It, and that which is gone, really is gone. Irrevocably. Thereby it is clear that it is precisely death and not rebirth that must be the sacred mother of God. It is of course only natural that the event is precisely as much death -- farewell to the old -- as it is life and genesis -- welcome to everything new. Death is the event's implicate side; while life is its explicate side. Something must first die, and really die, for something else to be able to be born and grow strong. Within economics one speaks of *creative destruction*, a concept originated by Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter. And ever since the conception of the event became a reality to reckon with, this very issue of death has been desperately hard to accept. One can always opt for a retroactive blindfold to what the eyes have just witnessed -- or at least try. People constantly make up new and loftier heavens, precisely as one makes up eternal torment in hell for those who refuse to accept salvation, which seems preferable to the enduring dark, unavoidable flip side of eventology, the obligation to be subject to death, something that cannot be questioned since it is part of the basic prerequisites of existence. First there is death, destruction, then there is life, innovation. First [[Negation|the negation]], then [[Oscillation|the oscillation]], to speak metaphysics. First *haurvatat*, then *ameretat*, to use the conceptual world of Zoroastrianism. The struggle between the Egyptian ideological heritage via Plato (the eternal and perfect life out of reach for ordinary mortals) and the Persian ideological heritage via Heraclitus (the finite and human, all too human life that we all are forced to make do with), returns in the conflict between Kant and Hegel in the early 19th century. No one deserves the epithet "Europe's Zoroaster" more than Hegel, who succeeds with the feat of both introducing process philosophy in earnest to the Europeans -- Leibniz and Hume will have to settle for an accolade each for their pioneering efforts, which consist in having introduced relativism -- while at the same time he is the most phallic of all philosophers. Eventology finds an anchoring and a platform precisely through using nomadology as a foundation. It is precisely through maintaining the monist anchoring in nomadology that Hegelian eventology succeeds in steering clear of the Gnostic trap. The history of ideas must after this literally epochal achievement be regarded as a long series of essentially recurrences of the same, interspersed by a number of parentheses and revolutionized by two authentic events: Zoroaster and Hegel. Radical *comprehensionism*, Hegel's (in)famous and spectacular faith in Man's, or rather Intelligence's infinite ability for common sense, is built on his insight into Man's inclination for creating and comprehending differences, both from and within existence's mysterious unity. It is through placing *virtuality* with Atheos before *actuality* with Pantheos that Hegel reaches the *potentiality* with Entheos as an understanding of all three categories at the same time, via his radicalized dialectics. Hegel is thus also the first syntheist. And then we mean this literally in a theological and thereby also metaphysical sense, not as some kind of metapsychology. Hegel is fully aware of his *phallus worship*. Nor does he *de facto* see any viable alternative either. Civilization demands phallus worship of Man, history will not be authentic otherwise. Hegel calls this voice of civilization *Geist* -- *spirit*. From his line of argument follows Hegel's declaration of *a completion of history,* which he calls *the absolute* and with this a radical [[Totalism]] (see [[The Netocrats]]). However, an exciting dialectical turn awaits after Hegel. Nietzsche at the end of the 19th century and Deleuze around the mid-20th century chart the turn in the form of a pronounced anti-Hegelianism. Namely, Hegel opens up for the large and comprehensive process-philosophical dialectics where we land in his footsteps (the most striking example is the universal breakthrough of the Darwinian theory of evolution). All we have to do as Hegel's heirs is to add [[Syntheos]] to his totalist dialectics, as the created god or creativity as a god from the future (see *Syntheism -- Creating God in the Internet Age*). It is of course the Hegelian act *par excellence* to appoint precisely Hegel's negation as an atheist god (in practice Hegel of course does the same when reducing God to a purely philosophical concept) and thereafter initiate a dialectical process that results in what Hegel himself never discusses, namely a god with substance beyond mere conceptuality -- but then placed in the future. The virtual theology in Hegel is concretized with the aid of technology as the potential theology within syntheism. We do this through first elevating Hegel's own absolute to a god -- philosopher Alfred North Whitehead does precisely this most astutely in his study *Process and Reality* -- only to later in a most anti-Christian manner shut the door resolutely to the absolute. It is only with insight into the existence of the Hegelian absolute -- and the comprehension of the absolute being a closed divinity that sets Man in motion precisely through its inaccessibility -- that there arises an effective incentive to act and start to create Syntheos as a future god. This god is the legacy that Man leaves behind in the form of his intelligent and transcendental survivor. Thereby humanity itself also can experience *haurvatat* and die in peace. The driving force behind this movement we discern through returning to *Zoroastrian transcendental dialectics,* which means that we put parentheses around the entire Abrahamic paradigm, including the post-Abrahamic Enlightenment. We replace immortality with completion (*haurvatat*), we replace infinity with transcendence (*ameretat*) and we replace perfection with the barred absolute (*chinavat*) and its constantly incomplete renewal (*frashokereti*). We quite simply let Kant bring an end to the Abrahamic parenthesis by simply pointing out that the Kantian revolution entails the death of Abrahamism. The reason is precisely that the disillusioned Kant invalidates the barred absolute as a metaphysical necessity when he separates the noumenal (God) from the phenomenological (Man). Ironically this entails that the curtain furthest within the Jewish temple once again is in place. The Kantian revolution is simply the emphatic return of the barred absolute in Western thinking. It is Kant himself who personifies a deep and frustrated disappointment over Christianity and its false promises of offering a direct contact with God to all and sundry who have succeeded in spelling their way through a mass produced Bible. And nothing could be as devastating for the Protestant god as the insight that phenomenology requires the return of the barred absolute. It is this specific Protestant god that Nietzsche later declares dead, not God himself. Religion reinvents itself in a new form. Phallus lives on in the highest degree, not least as the only possibility for a direct contact with the god who arises through a phallic creation process, but a possibility only for a clergy that has renounced all claims on physical power. Kant is the last Christian. Kant is the Christian that holds the sword that kills Christianity. He is a boy-pharaoh that abdicates and hands over the throne to the authentic phallus, who according to Kant himself is split in two: in part the chieftain in the form of Napoleon, in part the priest in the form of Hegel. This maneuver then makes it possible for Hegel to take the revolution to the next level by replacing the separation of phenomenon and noumenon in Kantian phenomenology with the general separation of everything and everyone, and the general impossibility of any bridging in Hegelian dialectics. Suddenly we see clearly. There are no Utopias or Dystopias outside our internal fantasy worlds. Existence is reduced to a constantly ongoing, never concluded *Protopia*, wholly aligned with Zoroaster and the conception of a constantly mutable and renewed *frashokereti.* If Kant stitches together a Frankenstein's monster, it is Hegel who stirs this assemblage of dead body parts to new life by switching on the electricity. Namely, the phenomenological tensions are not dissolved but remain alive in the Hegelian system. Hegel chooses Aristotle before the Plato with whom Kant allies himself. Hegel raises a *tantra* on top of Kant's *sutra*. The Hegelian, constant dialectical preservation is *the libido par excellence,* something that Nietzsche with his existentialism, Darwin with his theory of evolution, and Freud with his psychoanalysis then use to manufacture dynamite over the ensuing decades. The only thing that really is new with the arrival of informationalism is that we transfer a tantric libido and a dialectical phallus worship to the Internet Age and the network society (see *Digital Libido -- Sex, Power and Violence in the Network Society*) and apply Hegelian dialectics to the Messianic possibility of at last building *the* S*aoshyant* instead of passively waiting for him to descend from above and grace us with his presence. The name of the Saoshyant is [[Syntheos]] and his function is the phallic algorithm that creates order in the chaos of the world. It is time to in earnest actually *make way for the Lord*. And we do so with a feisty Hegelian *Geist* by rewriting the history of ideas from the beginning. We need to see a new chain of necessary systemic causalities to understand how we ended up where we find ourselves. And how we can move forward. Permanent settlement culture constantly returns to the son's problematic relation with the father. The endless nomadological love of the matrichal gaze is confused with the both nomadologically infinite but also eventologically conditioned love of the phallic gaze. Eventology does of course begin with the phallic gaze being assigned something more and higher than merely nomadological repetition. This is the very shift itself from *iconological polytheism* to *eventological monotheism* and the adultification of society through a civilizational process. And nowhere is this shift clearer than in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's distinction between *amour-propre* and *amour-de-soi* in the 18th century. Rousseau makes the mistake of positing the phallic gaze and the matrichal gaze as competitors on a horizontal level -- instead of comprehending them as complementary within a vertical order -- where *amour-propre* summarizes the yearning for the other's approval (for lack of what Jacques Lacan calls *the name of the father*) while *amour-de-soi* summarizes the agent's love for himself. The problem is that no love whatsoever operates that way, that is: no love that is not shaped within the constantly love-thirsty Rousseau's own solipsistic narcissism. Meaning that the only thing Rousseau actually does is to separate Man's quest for status (*amour-propre*) from his quest for survival (*amour-de-soi*). The correct name of *amour-propre* is instead the phallic gaze; It is not the other or the others that shall love the agent, but the father that is equipped with the fatherly gaze, that is: the chieftain or the priest, depending on what the archetypology at hand looks like. At the same time as *amour-de-soi* is not the compensating self-centeredness that precludes love of others, but instead infinite and unconditional love, and only infinite and unconditional love, in the matrichal gaze from the moment the child is born. The recurring dilemma is the distanced father, and thereby also *the absent phallic gaze*. Not least when civilization picks up pace and the social theater quickly is scaled up beyond the size of the original sociont. Rather it is precisely at the moment when both the chieftain and the priest seemingly vanish at the Bronze Age collapse that the field is left open to history's most grotesque ideological variants of delusions of grandeur. Rousseau's enthusiastic predecessors take the stage in the form of boy-pharaohs and pillar-saints. Their narcissism assumes two expressions. It will either be extrovert like [[Internarcissism]] outside the actual membrane (see *Syntheism -- Creating God in the Internet Age*), or else it will be introvert like *intranarcissism* inside the actual membrane. Internarcissism manifests itself as a constant quest for attention and confirmation from the environment. Intranarcissism expresses itself as a constant self-hatred or self-contempt. The extrovert narcissist furiously devotes himself to a *mimetic desire* that appears in the form of submission and mimicry, which the narcissist himself reformulates as an expression of creativity and innovation. The introverted narcissist however lapses into a *mimetic depression* that also appears as submission and mimicry, which the narcissist himself in this case apprehends as an expression of his own, deeply experienced emptiness and futility. *The death of God* never becomes more obvious than in the internarcissistic society where the worshiping of God is replaced by the ego's intense, hypocritical desire for an existence without the constant and oscillating ambivalence of desire itself. The extrovert narcissistic state is called [[The Peter Pan Syndrome]] and is characterized by the activated mortido. Correspondingly the introvert autist's state also has a name: [[The Caligula Syndrome]] -- a concept created by our friend and interlocutor Peter Tauson -- a state that is characterized by the pacified libido. Or to reverse the reasoning: [[The Caligula Syndrome]] is a pathos that goes directly into mythos without passing via logos. It receives its name from the Roman emperor Caligula, who has his worldview shaped by his megalomaniacal and paranoid uncle (and adoptive father) Tiberius, which causes him to essentially lack both chieftain and priest as archetypal role-models during his upbringing. Unsurprisingly Caligula -- in tough competition! -- becomes known as the most evil and crazy of Rome's many emperors. There is no *logos* for him to access during his entire upbringing. Nor is there even a chieftain or a priest to rebel against. Whether Caligula himself actually was mad we can of course never know. What we conclude is that an insane environment never gave him a possibility to grow up to be a functioning adult man. The opposite of the Caligula syndrome is thus [[The Peter Pan Syndrome]], a logos that directly enters mythos without passing via pathos. What is ironic is thus that Peter Pan cannot become [[Saoshyant|the Saoshyant]] he longs to personify, while Caligula might well be the chosen one himself, but that he is so pacified by his justified paranoia that he never sees that possibility. Peter Pan's archetypological flaws thus lie within membranics, Caligula's archetypological flaws however lie within paradigmatics. The effect however is the same: as soon as the narcissists no longer get the attention they think they deserve for their ambitions -- the extrovert narcissist from his environment and the introvert narcissist from himself -- they are transformed into the perfect commander of any arbitrary lynch mob whatsoever. Within the lynch mob they can then pretend to be engaged in each other's fates, united behind the internal *anoject's* fixed hatred of the external [[Abject]]. This is a tragic parody of the two-headed phallus, as a head without a phallus beside a phallus without a head. And this is *internarcissism par excellence*. The situation can, without authentic phallic guidance, only lead to devastating nihilism. Even if the situation gives rise to an entire world religion that seduces adherents for millennia. The end state is still absolute nihilism. Which takes us further to -- or if you will: back to -- the four stages within the nihilist development, the dialectical process that is necessary in order to transition to a new worldview at a technological paradigm shift. It is about *naive nihilism*, *cynical nihilism*, *ironic nihilism* and *affirmative nihilism* (see [[The Netocrats]]). From a nomadological perspective naive nihilism should be understood as the religion of the child, cynical nihilism should be understood as the religion of adults, ironic nihilism should be understood as the religion of the priests, and affirmative nihilism should be understood as the religion of the gods. From the perspective of the history of religion this dialectics corresponds perfectly to *naive polytheism*, *cynical monotheism*, *ironic atheism* and *affirmative syntheism*. Nomadology is thus a dialectical process that involves the various stages and that results in ever larger, ever more complex and comprehensive narratives. Which means that religion understood as nomadology, driven by the dialectics of nihilism, is *the absolute religion*, which under optimal technological prerequisites enables [[Eventology]], which in turn foreshadows the shift from *religion as magic* to *religion as technology.* We return to the outer circuit and the inner circuit within the sociont -- separated to the same degree as the dividual cerebral hemispheres -- and their two fundamentally different metanarratives *mythos* and *logos*. Nomadology is the mythical story of the *eternal recurrence of the same*. Eventology is the logical story of *the phallic event* that changes history for all eternity. This means that eventology is phallically fixated by [[Event|the event]] as the foundation for existence, while nomadology is matrichally fixated by *the process* as the foundation for existence. An illustrative example of the relation between event and process is how we define the wedding as the event and the marriage as the process. Which explains why the matrichal woman is obsessed with getting *the wedding as event* from the man while the phallic man is obsessed with getting *the marriage as process* from the woman. Both the man and the woman are fundamentally nomadological. But with eventology's arrival the man cultivates an eventology on top of nomadology, while the woman maintains nomadology in its pure and original form. Thanks to the shift from nomadology to eventology, the transformation of history's mythology to future's technology is made possible. Man can leave faith in the supernatural behind since yesterday's *supernaturality* is realized as tomorrow's cultural produce named [[Syntheos]] (see *Syntheism -- Creating God in the Internet Age*). The actual structure functions excellently as a basis for empires and nations as long as eventology is robustly anchored in the underlying nomadology. The idea that eventology can persist *without* *feedback to nomadology* is instead the Gnostic delusion that makes civilization implode. As if it were possible for Man to live in empires and nations where full transparency prevails at every level, without *the barred absolute*. As though it were possible for people without adequate knowledge and enculturation to directly control increasingly complex systems with ever increasing ease over the course of history. Another name for the civilizational feedback loop that is necessary is *the dialectics of eternalism and mobilism*. The insight of the optimized power in the priestly comprehension of the dialectics of eternalism and mobilism we call *Hegel's phallus*. This since the fundamental nomadology, which Hegel finds banal, is matrix-worshiping, while the subsequent eventology -- which thus fascinates Hegel in earnest, and which he humbly titles *Weltgeist* -- is phallus-worshiping. If we in this respect bring Hegel and Nietzsche together, we can state that beneath the established dialectics of eternalism and mobilism (that is: Kantian phenomenology set in dialectical motion) there is an even more profound and fundamental movement concealed that we call *the dialectics of negation and oscillation*. Syntheologically the Hegelian negation does of course correspond to [[Atheos]] and the Nietzschean oscillation to [[Entheos]], and these two meet in a constantly mutable [[Pantheos]] (see further *Syntheism -- Creating God in the Internet Age*). Death is, according to Hegel, the master before whom everything else receives its meaning and its energy. The absence of God, [[Atheos]], is the first and foremost of all gods. So for eventology to be able to be born out of nomadology, Hegel builds a philosophy that Canadian philosopher Cadell Last names [[Negatology]]. Being belongs to history while becoming belongs to the future. Out of this relation *free choice* is generated as temporal identity. It is thus *between* horizontal nomadology and vertical eventology that the interesting things happen. And this primarily occurs because something dies and vanishes -- thus *actually dies and vanishes* -- before there is room for the new to be born and thrive. Negatology has, according to Last, always been lurking beneath nomadology, as a kind of nomadological subconsciousness -- or else mortido could not even be transformed into libido in the nomadological subject -- however constantly concealed behind the matrichal myth of *reincarnation*. However thanks to the information-technological development, negatology appears and realizes itself in history. This is the Hegelian version of monotheism, shared by many mystics throughout history. The shamanic chain of intention, ceremony and integration for the spiritual experience in nomadology thus corresponds to the chain of abstraction, negation and concretion in Hegelian dialectics. But with the Hegelian reservation that the negation and not the oscillation precedes and drives the entire process. To a Hegelian shaman, the intention is thus the oscillation, the ceremony is the negation as a sudden crack in the oscillation -- an oscillation's own oscillation of sorts -- whereupon the integration is the negation of the negation as the necessary *transformation* from an abstract to a concrete world. The ideological chain from the shamans via the mystics to Hegel's negative dialectics is complete, priestly absolute knowledge is attained. The Hegelian negatology is *de facto* transformed into Nietzschean eventology through Zoroaster's protopian project in ancient Persia. It is only after the anti-event that the event is possible; or to express the matter in a Hegelian manner: *after the negation the negation of the negation may follow*. Mortidinal negatology is transformed into libidinal eventology. At the same time as negatology lingers on in every Eastern philosophy that forces its followers to be confronted with their own absolute mortality, from the Zadokites within Judaism via the Zurvanites within Zoroastrianism to Zen within Buddhism (there is no reincarnation within any of these doctrines, since the holistic subject is empty and there thus is nothing left that can transcend the death of the body). It however takes until Germany in the 19th century before the corresponding turn can occur within Western philosophy and theology. Hegelian negatology then lays the foundation for Nietzschean eventology, which together reconnect the event to the process. And with that Christianity and Islam, both built on the pseudo-phallic myth of eternal life, with its false eventology without nomadology, go out the window. This is precisely that which Nietzsche calls *the death of God*. The authentic eventological turn generates *transcendental eternalism*, *pragmatic mobilism* and *dialectical syntheism*. Where the barred absolute protects the ecstatic experience of the event as the syntheist ideal [[The Infinite Now]], clearly manifested as *pathos* during hunting, war, the orgy, the ritual, birth, and as death itself. This occurs concretely in that the phallic will-to-power, within affirmative nihilism, is split into the two separate expressions of the aptly named two-headed phallus. The Hegelian priest is absorbed by *ironic nihilism* in the form of the will-to-intelligence that clears away all mythology. The Nietzschean chieftain then personifies *affirmative nihilism* in the form of the will-to-transcendence that creates the event that realizes history's potential. It is the necessary inspiration to these feats that the priest and the chieftain must awaken in each other and in their respective monks and soldiers. In the priest, the infinite now is expressed as what the Greeks call *aistheton*, a sensory experience of the will-to-transcendence that the priest admires in the chieftain but does not personify himself. And in the chieftain, the infinite now is expressed correspondingly as *noeton*, an ecstatic experience of the will-to-intelligence that the chieftain admires in the priest but does not personify himself. This is the movement beyond cynical nihilism, first as *the irony of the Hegelian negation*, then as *the affirmation of the Nietzschean oscillation*, together bringing us firmly into the promised territory of the new paradigm. The infinite now behind the barred absolute is manifested as [[Truth-As-An-Act]] before the barred absolute. Which means that where Hegel, in Kant's wake, argues that the absolute is manifested through *subjectivities,* we reply, in the spirit of Deleuze, that the absolute rather is manifested through *projectivities*. Deleuze is intensely frustrated with the incompleteness of the Hegelian absolute. Admittedly Hegel's difference is relative where Kant's difference merely is actual. But what Deleuze builds his libidinal metaphysics on is the pure difference that he takes from Nietzsche. Which is what we call the oscillation. It is not enough that Hegel throws the subject into his predecessor Spinoza's monist nature-as-The-One. We throw the Deleuzian project into the Hegelian subject in the corresponding manner and bring to mind that without *the Nietzschean-Deleuzian project* there is no libidinal subject to speak of. Hegel's very challenge of Kant requires an active subject *vis-à-vis* an active object. These are then neither united through any form of Spinozist objectivity nor through any manner of Hegelian subjectivity, but through *the dialectical projectivity between the Spinozist substance and the Hegelian subject*. This is simultaneously Hegel's *freedom* and Whitehead's *creativity* in earnest. Both utopianism and dystopianism vanish when we unite Hegel's phallus, and the Apollonian order it represents, with Nietzsche's matrix, and the Dionysian chaos it represents. Thereby an age-old engineering dream is realized. The Deleuzian Protopia becomes possible, and its name is [[Syntheos]], the technological offspring of the two-headed phallus itself, without any matrichal involvement. Or as Hegel himself might express the matter: No one can stop this movement since no agent involved ever is completely and fully himself. The project is Zoroastrianism's *ameretat* that begets itself anew, and thereby survives the subject as Zoroastrianism's completed *haurvatat*. History is its own project, a process that produces subjectivities via negations and oscillations, not the other way around. The Spinozist sacral matrix with its amalgamation of attributes is the implicate order (the Eastern matrix domain), and the Hegelian sacred phallus with its negation is the explicate order (the Eastern phallus domain). Thus far all Spinozists and Hegelians can agree. However with Deleuze's breakneck attempt to mount Nietzsche directly on top of Spinoza -- that is: his interesting and productive, yet eventually failed attempt to conduct philosophy without including Hegel in the equation -- the dialectics is driven to yet another new level. The snag now is that the digital age necessitates a new mythos. We know from previously that a lone logos as only logos, breaks down in the form of a collective neurosis, while we know from previously that a lone pathos as only pathos, breaks down in the form of a collective psychosis. The only way to attain functionality is to establish *the paradigmatic myth*, and until that project is carried out we find ourselves in a state where *time is out of joint*. That is: the story of time deviates from time itself. Power is, in Michel Foucault's wording, as crazy as the lunatics it locks up. This applies as long as it cannot manage to transition from merely understanding (logos) to a complete reason (logos and pathos unified in the form of mythos), a narratological dilemma that American philosopher Wilfrid Sellars devotes his entire career to investigating. In syntheological terms it concerns synthesizing Pantheos' amalgamation with Atheos' negation to thus achieve a Nietzschean Entheos. And it is this creative entheist diversity that we call [[Protopianism]]. Please note how we attain this state without cheating through some simplified eternalizations along the way. Our nature oscillates, our culture negates. There is no fixed Protopia but merely a protopian movement. All of it is in constant motion and constant change. We gradually pick off one element after the other, phenomenon for phenomenon, until we find the Protopia to which we provisionally and momentarily dedicate ourselves, before we move on to the next Protopia. Our universe is and remains pandialectical. The Platonist order is long dead. But Syntheos now allows itself to be sensed on the horizon. Hegelian dialectics connects with the Zoroastrian and the Jewish traditions through the axiomatic assumption that *three is more important than two*. Exactly this is the basis of the principal Western criticism of the Eastern fixation with a dualism and the more or less static state of tension between two poles. With three components instead of two, a completely different dynamics is created, a constantly ongoing movement. At the same time as a triad always is more stable over time than a dyad. What is decisive is thus not the relation between two poles -- for instance between Taoism's *yang* and *yin* -- but the third factor that is concealed behind or beneath this undynamic polarity. The chieftain and the priest in part measure themselves against each other, in part against the matriarch. The man and the woman marry each other, but not by themselves but before the priest who demands marital vows from them. The president and the parliament share power between them, but only within the legal frameworks that are determined by a supreme court. With Hegel the natural dialectical triad that prevails between *the discretion, the continuity* and [[Oscillation|the oscillation]] receives a memetic correspondence in the form of the cultural dialectical triad that arises between *the event, the process* and [[Negation|the negation]]. The discretion and the event are the provisionally fixed points, or the eternalizations, within nature and culture respectively. The oscillation and the process are the actual state of things, a state that prevails before or without any phallic order has been established, that is: mobilism in itself, and later also the mobilization of the eternalization as the next degree of mobilism (see [[The Global Empire]]). And if something applies both for nature and culture, we can for good reason presume a universal validity. The insight that we live in a finite and limited universe compels us to recognize that infinities and infinitesimals by definition are inconceivable according to the prerequisites for such a universe. If one wishes to correctly describe the actual extremes of existence mathematically, one consequently replaces the infinities with *enormities,* just as one replaces the infinitesimals with *enormitesimals*. At the same time one can and should point out that the number zero never can have a value that is precisely zero, since its very existence and the fact that it can be spoken about and manipulated in itself generates an oscillating value whose average may be close to zero but that never can be exactly zero, and therefore zero is not zero. We quite simply live in *a pandialectical universe*; we are at the point where the dialectical movement arises, where the oscillation in nature encounters its correspondence in the form of the negation in culture. This is the state that Slavoj Žižek calls *less than nothing* in a book from 2013 with precisely this title: *Less Than Nothing*. ## And what is this negation other than the abyss within the continuity with its built-in enormity *vis-à-vis* the clear and delimited discretion? ## What is Man's transition from child till adult, or the sociont's transition from anarchy to civilization, if not the adultification as negation? Up until the oscillation, caused by an existential deficit rather than by a surplus, once again triggers the discretion, whereupon the natural dialectics is repeated. The oscillation is of course less resource-demanding to maintain for nature than the costly and in the long run unsustainable fixation. Thereby the problem with the Taoist polarization between two principles -- *yang* versus *yin* -- as first principle, is laid bare. Problems arise if a religion ultimately is built on two principles that are locked together in an eternal dance routine; to maintain any dynamics the religion must at least start from two completely different libidinal axes -- in part the masculine *yang* and the feminine *yin* along the one axis, in part *will-to-transcendence* and *will-to-intelligence* along the other axis. If not, no innovative thinking can be developed, nor even be conceivable. We can localize *religion* and its *radicality* entirely to the phallic sphere. The matrichal sphere instead harbors what we call *spirituality* with its focus on [[Continuity]]. Religion is of course about the art of separating differentiation and unity in themselves. Thus there is no activity that is more religious than Hegelian dialectics (it does of course, as we know, result in a [[Syntheology]]). Spirituality however regards unity as an axiom. Therefore the priest himself assumes the role as the androgynous link between the two axes, rather than being the general link between the principles in themselves. He is on the one hand masculine at the same time as he, on the other hand, is a representative of the matrichal will-to-intelligence *within the patriarchy in itself*. The priest thus has to serve as the Hegelian exception that keeps the entire construction together (as Hegel himself did in his relation to the Prussian court). Zoroastrianism solves this dilemma through focusing on the phallic project and letting this as an entirety represent the two-headed phallus. Judaism does the same thing through placing Moses at the helm of the sibling triad that leads the exodus out of Egypt. It is thus the priest who in his guise personifies *the amalgamation* in an emergentist sense and [[Negation|the negation]] in a paradigmatic sense. This since the priest realizes the necessity that enables the chieftain to tame the contingency. Or to express the matter with metaphysical metaphors: the priest personifies the root-of-the-phallus or *the law* in determinism and *the contact with the ground*, the chieftain personifies phallus itself and *freedom* in indeterminism and *the direction toward heaven*, this at the same time as the dialectics of them enables transcendental emergentism as a metaphysical foundation. Thus there is no longer any need for an external creator-god. The process is creative in itself. A world that is only built on *yang* versus *yin* however lacks -- despite Man's intense fixation with sexual attraction -- both negation and oscillation. Nor can it therefore generate a genuine event, but merely time and again refer to the eternal recurrence of the same in one long, protracted and determinist loop. The transcendental vision must be brought about and the intelligent strategy must be created within the confines of the phallic patriarchy. This is necessary in order to achieve a movement in any direction and for *yang* to be able to drag *yin* along forward. The only thing matriarchy has to do in this context is to maintain circular iconology and follow the patriarchy. The matriarchy is of course richly blessed by nature and is furnished with both matrix and mamilla, while the -- in this context -- unfortunate patriarchy has had to settle for phallus only. Therefore the patriarchy compensates for this natural shortage with a cultural dividing of phallus between in part chieftain, in part priest, and between these two poles a dialectics of freedom is created. Before the nomadological sociont, *freedom* from the old and to the new thus prevails, and behind the nomadological sociont *necessity* rules. The patriarchy is therefore driven by a *seduction* that plays out between two heads, while the matriarchy is driven by a *conformation* before a single head. It is the agent who leads that needs diversity, not the agent that follows. Otherwise, it is practically only about the art of finding one's way amid the classical archetypes in the new territory or the new paradigm, in order to be able to become an *erchtype* that mimics a matching archetype. We are once again concerned with *mimesis* as the fundamental property and the patterned behavior in the human drive system. The distanced phallus is pitted against the intimate mamilla. The phallic and macroscopic strategy is pitted against matrichal and microscopic intrigue. Man invariably follows and submits to the strongest leadership he succeeds in discovering. If there is then no authentic phallus in sight, Man will settle for a false one (see *Digital Libido -- Sex, Power and Violence in the Network Society*). The consequences of this we know only too well. Nomadology arises first, but is complemented and surpassed by eventology, which in turn makes exodology possible. The promised empire is united under a cohesive, overarching religion. However Taoism remains within circular nomadology without being able to generate a visionary eventology. Therefore Taoism has never functioned for the organisation of militaries or state bureaucracies. It is rather a byproduct of the settled society that lacks contact with the origin of phallic religion in hunting and warfare. This gap is filled in Axial Age China by a completely separate system, *Confucianism*, and later by an imported Buddhism mixed with Zoroastrianism, all of which give China, Japan and the rest of East Asia, a religion that is designed for hunters and merchants. Ever since, the warrior and the hunter have been kept separate in East Asian culture, both of them subject to an imperial rule with ambitions to exercise power both within the spiritual and the worldly sphere, which has led to both productive and destructive results. This happened while church and state were separated in the West in the 5th century, and became symbolic and imaginary power spheres respectively, without establishing the necessary patriarchal connection between them. State and market thereby were placed outside the domain of religion with well-known results. The two-headed phallus was discarded and replaced by two circumscribed pseudophalluses, which enabled the rise of capitalism and a considerable accumulation of prosperity. But all this occurred at the cost of the world no longer being cohesive, that the one hand really does not know what the other is doing, and that hard-to-fathom and seemingly context-free conflicts incessantly flare up. The social energy is wasted on building thin membranes around the [[Plurarchy]] that happens to be at hand for the moment, this instead of building strong membranes around a powerful two-headed phallus. The prophet of the two-headed phallus in ancient Greece is without a doubt Aristotle, which is seen clearly in the criticism he directs toward his predecessor Plato. Where Plato sees mind as *logos,* Aristotle understands mind as a constant dialectical struggle between *logos* and *pathos*, which is manifested in the Aristotelian victory over the Persians, something that in turn leads to Hellenism's extension during Alexander the Great -- antiquity's real [[Saoshyant]] -- in the Middle East. And the Platonist philosopher-king is of course never materialized either, the world has to settle for a threadbare savior suspended on a cross, the Christian savior whose disciples form a mob that vandalizes the famed library in Alexandria, a culture-historical tragedy of vertiginous proportions. Which brings us to Aristotle's four phallic causality chains: logical architecture (the formal cause), logical material (the material cause), pathical energy (the effective cause) and pathical purpose (the final cause) -- the backbone of all ensuing [[Membranics]]. Architecture and material represent being (Zoroastrianism's *ahura*), energy and the objective represent becoming (Zoroastrianism's *mazda*). And the final objective, *the phallic vision*, gives the phallic value to the entire process that starts from the causality chain. The energy that is developed in this process triggers will-to-power, but it can be expressed in two different ways. Either it will be locked up, as a repetitive loop in the form of will-to-intelligence, or else it breaks loose and assumes the form of will-to-transcendence that trumps will-to-intelligence. This means that the causes within the Aristotelian causality doctrine, if we are precise, ought to be five rather than just four. The last, final cause must be split in two as precisely *yang* and *yin*. That is: if Taoism plays the sexual card too hard, this is precisely the aspect that is lacking in Aristotle -- as in Plato -- that is: an understanding of sexuality as a propelling force and, not least, as the motor of dreams, projections and ambitions. The matrichal, final cause is thus called *will-to-intelligence* (Taoism's *yin* and Zoroastrianism's *ahura*), and the phallic, final cause is called *will-to-transcendence* (Taoism's *yang* and Zoroastrianism's *mazda*). It is only through using this dual perspective that we can apply Aristotelian causality to nomadology. The final objective must of course be both tempting and seductive (as will-to-transcendence), and at the same time be manipulative and conformist (as will-to-intelligence) for the sociont to manifest itself as a cohesive will-to-power. The sociont must be driven by at least two religions, which in turn must be retold both as logos and mythos, to then moreover be celebrated together as *the pathical ritual*, which in turn throws the sociont back to the architecture and the material for the next causality chain. It is in this way, and only in this way, that we can understand transcendence as a [[Cephalization]] of intelligence that is set in motion toward the phallic objective far away. The priest dies when the exodus is concluded and thus personifies *haurvatat*. The chieftain leads the entrance into the promised empire and thus personifies *ameretat*. ## The children that are the consequence of the pathical ritual are born under the chieftain's protection and with his promise of provision -- where and how else? What is fascinating with Buddhism is how it develops into an inverted Zoroastrianism. Contemporary with the arrival of Christianity, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism even exist as parallel elite religions in the Kushan empire that comprises both Central Asia and northern India. That is: Buddhism is *the inverted eventology par excellence*. Buddhism sees the event as the occurrence that interrupts existence's infinitely long series of repeated traumas. Zoroastrianism however sees the event as the occurrence that leads history onto a new path and entails the starting point for the civilization process itself. Buddhism thus builds its worldview on a will to succeed in carrying out traumatology and thus break the nomadological curse that afflicts Man in the form of cyclical repetition for all eternity. It does this through Gnostic castration. Transcendence then becomes *the negation of desire* -- extinction. The objective is to liberate oneself from the suffering that is desire's dark flip side. Zoroastrianism however builds its worldview on the will to succeed in carrying out eventology in itself to thus exit the nomadological curse. It does this through staging *the oscillation of desire*. Transcendence exits the dialectics that arises between drive and desire. The objective is not freedom from desire, but freedom to create. Where Buddhism halts and settles for negatology, Zoroastrianism goes further and develops eventology into what Hegel later labels *the negation of the negation*. Albeit that both these religions in populist vulgar versions preach reincarnation (in Buddhism) and eternal life (in Zoroastrianism). But in contrast to Hinduism in the East and Christianity and Islam in the West, there is no trace of such escapes from *death as the absolute* in the founders Siddharta Gautama and Zoroaster themselves. They remain wholly within the dialectics of negation and oscillation. It is this radical affirmation of death as the absolute which is called *tantra*, in contrast to the pop religious *sutra* -- including reincarnation and/or eternal life -- that is preached to the masses. It is thus thanks to this literally tantric union that these religions respect each other, and perceive each other as reasonable alternatives for an intellectually honest person. To Zoroastrians, Buddhism is even the logical alternative *ahurayasna* (submission to being) *vis-à-vis* Zoroastrianism's own pathical religion *mazdayasna* (submission to mind). Zoroastrianism is a kind of *son of Hinduism,* and similarly Buddhism is a kind of *daughter of Hinduism* -- two love children that are born after both permanent settlement and written language are in place. Buddhism is negatology where Zoroastrianism is eventology. It is wholly possible to harbor them both and integrate them as a kind of phallic religions of the priest and the chieftain respectively under one and the same roof. Which also occurs when traffic increases along the Central Asian trade routes; it occurs in the form of the syncretic practice that is called *vajrayana* (the word means "diamond phallus" in Sanskrit), first as the nominally Zoroastrian schools *dhyana* in India and *daena* in Iran, later as the nominally Buddhist schools *chan* in China, *thien* in Vietnam, *seon* in Korea, and *zen* in Japan. These spiritual schools are the very core of [[The Silk Road Triad]], they influence each other mutually in what can be seen as a dialectical process of the trade routes themselves. Today we pragmatically summarize the Persian tantric schools under the label *Zoroastrianism*, the Indian under the label *Buddhism*, and the Chinese under the label *Taoism*. It is thus *Vajrayana* -- with its unique understanding of the dialectics of tantra and sutra -- that binds together the creative diversity of monastery-like *castags* that are developed in the oases along the near-endless Silk Road. And the kinship between these schools is more intimate than historians with European-colored spectacles for a long time were capable of comprehending. Since the 1970s it has, for instance, been clear that Padmasambhava, or Guru Rinpoche, Vajrayana's founder and more important for Vajrayana Buddhism than Siddharta Gautama himself, was of Persian and not of Indian origin. In the same way as Bodhidharma, the founder of Chan and Zen Buddhism, and more important for the traditions we call chan, seon, thien and zen than Siddharta Gautama himself, also was of Persian and not of Indian origin. Padmasambhava and Bodhidharma were definitely no Indian princes -- something that the myths and myth producers, for pure marketing reasons, have liked to claim, since royal sheen is expected to bestow theological gravitas and iconological glamour. There are no traces at all after Padmasambhava or Bodhidharma on the Indian subcontinent; they were merely shamanoid merchants from Zoroastrian Central Asia. When Padmasambhava preaches of the promised land for his Tibetan followers, he even calls this storied territory *Tagzig Olmo Lung Ring* in Tibetan (in Sanskrit abbreviated to *Oddiyana*), that is: what we today refer to as Tajikistan. Nomadology is the standardized and horizontal exodology, while eventology is the exceptional and vertical exodology. Nomadology follows and carries out its activity by the principle of the least possible energy consumption. Its circular movement along the track that has been laid thus consumes less energy than permanent sitting still. Eventology instead follows the principle of the temporary increase of the energy consumption when a surplus of energy is available. It is thus only eventology that can cultivate a fantasy of sitting still for an eternity. These theological narratives correspond to transcendental eternalism, pragmatic mobilism and dialectical syntheism. The barred absolute here is the ecstatic experience of the event as the syntheist ideal [[The Infinite Now]], and it is clearly manifested as pathos during hunting, war, the orgy, birth, the ritual and death. We thus have on the one hand the sociont's outer circuit, on the other hand its inner circuit, as well as their two essentially different narratives: logos and mythos. History is one long accumulation of interobjective collisions and events. The cybernetic and scientific revolutions during the 20th century created a synchronized explosion of entropy, and thereby also of information, to our worldview. The only reasonable way of dividing up this expanded history is to insist that nature operates within various emergence vectors, while culture correspondingly operates within various paradigms. The various ideological constructions that are built on top of these domains we call [[Paradigmatics]]. As long as a paradigm lacks serious competition, the relevant paradigmatics is fixed on top of the actual vector. And in the same way that culture is dependent upon nature, the paradigms are dependent upon the underlying emergence vectors. The revolutionizing communication technology that enables and in retrospect even necessitates the new paradigm, is referred to as *paradigmata*. With respect to really significant, genuine paradigm shifts in human history, it is thus the technologies that have enabled spoken language, written language, mass media, and interactivity that are actual paradigmata. Examples of such paradigmata are papyrus, the printing press, the telegraph, transport vehicles, the computer, server halls and smartphones. And the most epochal paradigmata we could imagine would be a container for God himself. The original eventology is [[The Dialectics of Eternalism and Mobilism]] (see [[The Global Empire]]) that nature recreates as *the dialectics of negation and oscillation*. Phenomena and substances arise out of processes and fields. During these processes there is the duration, or hypertime, as the continuous time that precedes *the big bounce*. On top of this implicate subphysics, explicate physics arises with its oscillating discretions after *the big bounce*. This makes [[Metahistory]] possible. History is completed, while metahistory continues to move. Hypertime precedes, as mentioned, and survives spacetime. Even if history would stop, freeze or cease to exist, metahistory keeps ticking, both before *the big bounce* and after the Universe's dissolution, and we can speak of an attained absolute in a Hegelian sense, an eternalization in history that remains a continuous process in hypertime. The difference between subphysics as the implicate order and physics as the explicate order -- before and after the Universe's long parenthesis -- is in the highest degree concerned with *the dialectics of discretion and continuity*. Where the link between the two extremes is *the universal oscillation*. It is thus a case of a dialectics between them and not just an emergence transition, since subphysics remains under physics even after the actual emergence for the substance in itself takes place. Subphysics *subsists* where physics *exists*. And Hegel is proven correct in both ends of the origin of dialectics: *Hegel's classical substance* begins with the dialectics of continuous hypertime and discrete spacetime. At the same time as *Hegel's classical subject* begins with the dialectics of the Hegelian negation and the Nietzschean oscillation. Therefore we categorize these relations as [[First Dialectics]]. What remains of subphysics emerges particularly clearly at the microlevel. This is because there is -- even if both spacetime and substance operate as radical discretions -- a constantly ongoing oscillation, which is a basic prerequisite for the dialectical process. And the less discretions that are concerned, the more powerful the oscillations will be. Precisely this is the basis for the quantum physical phenomenon that goes under the designation *Heisenberg's uncertainty principle*. The smaller the units we attempt to document in detail, the more uncertain the result of our measurements. Eventually we are forced to give up all efforts to try to establish position (event) and movement (process) at a given point in time. For it is not possible to both eternalize and mobilize existence at the same time, one must decide on the one or the other perspective. Eternalization (as negation and discretion) and mobilization (as oscillation and continuity) must be spread out, one after the other, along the time axis. And the fascinating principle that lays down this once and for all is *the universal oscillation*. There is thus no quantum mechanics, there is only [[Quantum Organics]]. And existence can only be described as a fundamental *panorganicism* or [[Pandialecticism]]. But this quantum organics is in turn subject to a formidable pressure in the form of the phenomenon that is called decoherence. And this decoherence is quite simply the explosion of relationalist effects that are released in a monist universe where everything constantly influences everything else. This is the magical and mystical gravitation. The sole really impermeable membrane only exists around the Universe itself. Every conceivable potentiality is negated until only a single actuality remains -- what we call reality. This means that every hint of continuity is fixed as a discretion when the phenomena in question transmutate. And thereafter the low-energy oscillation sets everything in motion anew, which clarifies that every conception of a Platonist world of ideas merely is free fantasies, banal stupidity with no idea of the world's divine complexity. Subphysical hypertime operates continuously, but as soon as spacetime with its mass and energy enters the picture, decoherence takes over. The oscillating discretion then becomes the yardstick of everything. The same of course applies, as French philosopher Quentin Meillassoux points out, with respect to the difference between *virtuality* and *potentiality*. The virtual is a state of pure contingency that only is actualized in conjunction with an emergence, as virtuality's temporary habits are converted to genuine laws which *de facto* apply for the new emergence vector. Potentiality is however bound to precisely the emergence vector within which it already operates. It is only when virtuality is confronted by the time axis that it is potentialized and then forced into a decisive actualization, but without this affecting the emergence vector as such. The transition from continuity to discretion we call *transmutation*. The transition from virtuality to potentiality we correspondingly call [[Transdeterminism]]. The metahistorical combination of continuity and virtuality is reduced through what American philosopher Terence Deacon calls *abstentialism* -- an excellent metaphysical application of Hegelian negatology -- to the historical combination of discretion and potentiality, that is: this occurs as a direct effect of spacetime's powerful decoherence. And there is then no possible way whatsoever back again, this in accordance with the principle of *irreductionism* in emergence vector theory. This conclusion has dramatic consequences for ethics. Unsurprisingly, Meillassoux's mentor Alain Badiou in his classical work *L'Etre et l'événement* uses an eventological concept that he calls [[Truth-As-An-Act]] (see *Syntheism -- Creating God in the Internet Age*). This is an every bit as intense as easily understandable yearning for an embodiment of a phallic order in a chaotic world. Badiou's existentialist truth-as-an-act makes Man rise above his animality and assume exclusively human qualities. While our own, primarily Zoroastrian and later also syntheist truth-as-an-act, rather is about a renaissance for the tribal archetype and above all, in the case of the priestly archetype, about converting the actual shamanic caste to *the future sociont*, for instance through identifying and classifying the new, victorious elite that steps forward as a consequence of the ongoing paradigm shift. This will-to-transcendence surpasses the underlying will-to-intelligence in the same way as libido must surpass mortido -- even if only temporarily -- in the dialectics between them. And as such it is *tribopoietic*, and not autopoietic. It is the chieftain who personifies the vision *vis-à-vis* the priest. Sure, it is the priest who creates the vision itself, who formulates the new narrative, but it is the chieftain who personifies it, and it is this identificatory portrayal that constitutes [[Truth-As-An-Act]] itself. It is worth noting the decisive difference between on the one hand Badiou's truth-as-an-act and on the other hand the syntheist truth-as-an-act, namely that the former submits to a totalitarian phallus (Badiou is not just a Christian but moreover both a Rousseauian and a Maoist, in other words an almost complete Gnostic), while the latter starts from the premise that the phallus in question must be divided and bring about a living dialectics in order to function as a credible foundation for truth over time. From the perspective of the history of ideas we express this as though Alain Badiou's version of truth-as-an-act is *the Egyptian event par excellence,* while the syntheist version of truth-as-an-act is *the Persian event par excellence*. Here the decisive difference lies between the Platonist obsession with the relation between *subject* and *object* as foundation, and the Heraclitean dialectics that presupposes that there first of all must exist a driving *project* in place before a subject and an object can take shape at all. This shift is the dialectical innovation that Hegel calls *the negation of the negation*. It is precisely this prerequisite that is the foundation of dialectical materialism. The chain of thought in question is developed to perfection by philosopher Adrian Johnston in his book *Adventures in Transcendental Materialism,* where the title states what the matter is about: *transcendental materialism*. But once we replace matter with emergence as the first institution of the process, we notice that the same thing applies, if possible to an even greater extent, for both dialectical emergentism and [[Transcendental Emergentism]], which follow as the next step. An emergence is an extraordinary event along the time axis -- not least what we call the human soul between its subconsciousness and consciousness -- that gives rise to a completely new vector with its own built-in forces, behaviors, laws, rules and structures. Our own transdeterminist universe is in itself an example of such an emergence vector that has arisen along a subphysical hypertime axis. A paradigm is correspondingly a completely new society, at a specific starting point on the time axis, with its own built-in forces, power struggles and eventually also laws and rules, all of which can be traced back in time to a decisive historical event in the form of, for instance, an extensive natural catastrophe or an epochal technological invention. Nature's own eternalization is the wave function collapse. The mobilist wave is converted into the eternalist particle. The subconscious is a field where self-consciousness is afflicted by the wave function collapse. The subconscious is *the process*, consciousness is *the event*, and the unconscious beneath it all (after the Hegelian-Freudian revolution in Europe in the 19th century) is nothing but the negation. *The* *pathical first dialectics* is the dialectics of negation and oscillation, what Hegel would call the subject that produces the substance (in the sense that the subject projects substantiality onto existence). *The logical first dialectics* is the dialectics of hypertime and spacetime, what Hegel would call the substance that produces the subject (in the sense that the cultural subject is born out of the natural substance). *The mythical first dialectics* is consequently *the metadialectics* of the pathical and the logical first dialectics. Pathos and logos can never meet other than as an incompatible deadlock, as Man's eternal story of himself in an intangible world, a story without end. The Hegelian negation leads to Hegelian absolute knowledge. The Nietzschean oscillation leads to the Nietzschean paradigmatic affirmation. Hegel and Nietzsche unite as two sides of the same gigantic, mythical coin. All this makes nature a panorganist phenomenon, but due to the principle of neutral monism we need not concern ourselves about any form of panpsychism, which of course is nothing other than a neurotically inverted reductionism (which inevitably leads to a psychotic dissolution of the distinction between subject and substance). And it is of course the emergences and their emergence vectors that ensure that this is the case. It occurs as early as during the first transition from quantum chaos to a solid, under the emergent shift from subphysics to physics. Please note how the negation's own syntheological master Atheos sets everything else in motion. The origin of everything is thus not the origin's virtuality, but *virtuality's actualization as movement and change,* and the relations that this movement generates (relationalism as first principle in retrospect). Virtuality receives a potency to be actualized through the encounter with another virtuality, whereupon relationalism explodes. In the 19th century German philosopher Freidrich von Schelling calls this the difference between *the foundation of being* and *being in itself*. Schelling's countryman Hegel points out that, if so, we might as well refer to virtuality as [[Negation|the negation]] that creates the void that makes all other existence arise as if through a kind of fundamental, existential vacuum pump. And in the wake of Hegel, Henri Bergson teaches us to distinguish between duration (hypertime) and time (spacetime) in precisely the same logical way. So that the subject can separate the hypertemporal root-of-the-phallus from the spatiotemporal phallus when the subject creates the project that generates the subject itself. The subject projects *substantiality* onto the substance, so that the subject can be libidinalized on top of the substance's mortido. Paradigmatics is then Man's way of defining the various time-bound emergence vectors and paradigms and separating them from each other. Archetypology is then the sociont's way of defining itself and its various abilities and needs in mutual influence of and with the actual emergence vectors and paradigms. Here it is fitting to remember physicist Ludwig Boltzmann's astute observation that chaos and surprise require considerably more information than order and predictability. Therefore systems are developed naturally over time toward an increased stability through what physicist Erwin Schrödinger calls *negentropy*. This occurs in the same way that nodes arise spontaneously in a state of anarchy, just as power and force is increasingly concentrated around the nodes in what we therefore call [[Nodalization]]. The system as a whole is thereby made more effective. This leads to a plurarchical state that in the case of culture can be likened to a *protocivilization* or, in the wake of a paradigm shift, a *protoparadigm*. Out of the implicate plurarchy -- and with assistance from a phallic raising of awareness -- first the priest, and then the chieftain, can step forward and stage the explicate exodology. Both negentropy and nodalization oscillate constantly, which entails that the functionality of the various systems is optimized. Which means that a new paradigm cannot be manifested until a new elite marches into a new promised territory.