# Grand Projet A -- The libidinal project versus the mortidinal object Emergence vectors and paradigms on the one hand and archetypes on the other hand have one thing in common, which is that they actually do not have anything essential in common and therefore cannot be lumped together and treated jointly as parts of a greater pattern. They are all delimited phenomena -- local systems in a global universe, events in their own right that have taken place at different points in time over the course of history -- and they must be studied separately, placed in their own contexts and on their own terms. We express this as though all meaningful categorization and specialization must be some form of *paradigmatization* or *archetypification.* And the surface where paradigmatics meets archetypology is called [[Membranics]]. Please note here that paradigmatics, unlike archetypology, does not need to have anything to do with any kind of objective truth in order to take hold in the collective consciousness (or subconsciousness). The Gnostic delusion that arises during the Axial Age does, for instance, unite the Abrahamic dualisms in their attacks against pagan monism. Whether the world really consists of one or two fundamental substances does not matter in this context. It is enough that the priest's will-to-intelligence and the chieftain's will-to-transcendence no longer interact, which opens the door to an isolated pillar-saint and/or an isolated boy-pharaoh to step onto and take over the stage, with the mass production of vivid but banal fantasies that follows from this. Classical nomadology is a religion where violence and sexuality are harnessed and exploited in the interests of the sociont as whole, an arena where humanity -- through *the tantric order* that the priests and the elders proclaim -- learn how to harness first themselves, thereafter the stranger, thereafter the neighbor, thereafter the opposite sex, thereafter the children, and eventually even plants, animals and inanimate construction materials with the purpose of building a civilization. Meanwhile the Abrahamic religions instead see the eating of the forbidden fruit as *the great curse*, where religion's task is converted into separating what one calls the soul from the body, to separate the rational human from the irrational violence and sexuality, and to make the child a god who is spared from adult life with its battlefields, hunting grounds and violent libidos. Consequently the Abrahamic religions dismiss nomadological spirituality as paganism and idolatry -- as if nomadology never concerned anything other than an unbridled pathos without any balancing logos -- while religion during the Axial Age is converted into the Gnostic search for dualist remarkability. Nothing could have suited the emerging paradigmatics of written language better than these decadent ideas. While it is precisely this seduction of paradigmatics that Persian religious reformer Zoroaster cautions his successors against during the Bronze Age. Eventology is built on nomadology, it reforms nomadology and must therefore be integrated with nomadology, wherefore Zoroaster inculcates that eventology is but destructive and mendacious without the necessary nomadological base. As such, it becomes a phallus with no [[Root-Of-The-Phallus]]. Without nomadology only *vulgar eventology* remains. In the text *Gathas*, Zoroaster forcefully rejects everything that such a religion -- liberated from the requirement to serve the sociont -- can bring about. There is never a new religion, according to Zoroaster, what he is aiming for is nothing but an eventologically reformed religion. Thus it is not *the death of God* in itself, but *the death of vulgar eventology*, that Hegel and Nietzsche problematize from every angle in 19th century Germany. Accordingly, the only path back to *the Western root-of-the phallus* goes via the Zoroastrian renaissance that takes place during informationalism; the Persian ideological legacy is the only system of thought that can properly unite East and West. The Western fall is quite simply the fall from religious monism. But with Judaism's return via Spinoza and Zoroastrianism's return via Hegel, it once again becomes possible to conceive of a universal, civilizational religion for empires and nations, a monist religion that can save humanity from its intense hubris. What this ultimately is about is that we must learn how we can act and handle each other in the constantly expanding spheres that paradigmatics confronts us with. In that work we have no use whatsoever for a blind mamilla, the only thing that can lead us onto the right path is a two-headed phallus. Or to express the matter in Lacanese: Beyond our dividual obsession with the *objet petit a* we need an exodus to the sociont´s reunion around a [[Grand Projet a]]. However before we split the Nietzschean *will-to-*power in half -- between the priestly *will-to-intelligence* and the royal *will-to-transcendence*, to thereafter be able to set it in motion -- it is necessary to first dissect the preceding Kantian phenomenology. According to Kant, the Cartesian subject does of course create a phenomenon from its incomplete relation to an inaccessible noumenon. But this cannot be postulated as a predetermined universal law for every conceivable subject-object relation. Instead many philosophers question Kant over his perceived [[Correlationism]] -- for instance syntheist philosopher Quentin Meillassoux who advocates what he calls *speculative realism* in the book *Aprés La Finitude* (2006). However this correlationism is in itself hardly the main problem for radical relationism, rather it is to be regarded as a given but trivial axiom. But it is surely unimaginative to cling to the Kantian correlation, with its individualist observer fixation, as a universal model for all information management and identity production. This is because Kantian phenomenology suffers from an intense Platonist fixation, as though Kant reduces existence to an eternally frozen still. It is rather the Hegelian revolution after Kant that transforms the frozen still to a live movie by adding the pathical [[Truth-As-An-Act]] (the will-to-transcendence) to the logical *truth-as-a-fact* (the will-to-intelligence) into a fixed but oscillating dialectical whole. [[The Dialectics of Eternalism and Mobilism]] moves from mobilism to eternalism, but only to thereafter be mobilized anew (only to thereafter once again be eternalized, *ad infinitum)*. A phenomenon arises *de facto* not through Platonist objectification but through dialectical interactivity. The subject must, as Martin Heidegger observes, interact with the object for there to arise a mutual correlation in the first place. This means that subject and object first and foremost are byproducts of a *project* that precedes the dialectical process; a relationalist attitude to creativity that Portuguese architect Daniel Fraga develops in the book *Ontological Design -- Subject as Project* (2022). It is about a primary project that is wide open toward a contingent future, but firmly shut *vis-à-vis* the necessary past, as for instance subject and object in Kant, or as subject and substance in Hegel. Thereby Kantian dualism (subject versus object) is broken and replaced by Hegelian monism (dialectics is the absolute project, which produces the subject and the substance). And as so often the actual [[Phenoumenology]] is most clearly expressed within sexuality. The reason is that within sexuality, and above all within our Freudian relations to the three sex organs -- [[Matrix]], [[Mamilla]] and [[Phallus]] (see *Digital Libido -- Sex, Power and Violence in the Network Society*) -- the relation in itself to these organs is of noumenal rather than phenomenal character. Consequently we replace Kantian phenomenology with interactive [[Phenoumenology]] to complete the necessary shift from Kant to Hegel, and thereby the shift from the passive dualism of individualism to the active monism of tribalism in Western thinking. The [[Matrix]] we are born from and return to as we die is a noumenon and not a phenomenon. The [[Mamilla]] that we suck on to our heart's desire and from which we get consolation ever since birth up until [[The Phallic Intrusion]], is a noumenon and not a phenomenon. The [[Phallus]] that robs us of mamilla's false security and ejects us into a contingent and chaotic world on our journey toward adulthood, is a noumenon and not a phenomenon. So this time we locate the implicate to the biological sex organs, while the explicate instead ends up directly in our intense relations to these archetypal organs. Which in turn explains why Jacques Lacan calls the three sex organs *the extimate objects*, with mamilla as the bridge between matrix and phallus at birth, and between phallus and matrix in conjunction with death. The phenomenological reduction to the three fundamental, extimate sex organs only occurs later in life and is accordingly secondary in the thus mirrored phenomenology. That is: Kantian correlationism is correct, but to be able to take the correlation seriously we must first understand the entire complex in question, in a truly Hegelian spirit, as a relationalist *phenoumenology.* The logical phenomenology is the engine that powers the priestly will-to-intelligence, while the pathical noumenology is the engine that powers the royal will-to-transcendence. Together these two wills-to-power, with their phallic directions, constitute the foundation for a world beyond the Kantian reactionary worldview, which now has to withdraw in favor of the Hegelian actionary worldview. The autist Kant must become the priest Hegel. *The logical truth-as-a-fact* must be complemented by *the pathical truth-as-an-act* when Kantian correlationism is transcended as the interactive phenoumenology. We go from what Lacan calls *the lamella*, that is: the little mortidinal object, to what he calls *the master-signifier*, or the great libidinal project. It is not sufficient to blindly focus, in line with Kant, on the mortidinal object; what is required is that we in line with Hegel deal with the libidinal project, or what we in the age of informationalism call: [[The Panoramic Landscape]]. And the panoramic landscape cannot be reduced to just ones and zeroes, a pathos is required just as much as a logos for us to even be able to think a *panorama*, a continuously cohesive worldview that is irreducible to its discrete components. Thereby it is clear that all *totems* within culture are recurring variants or more or less integrated hybrids of the mortidinal object and the libidinal project. *Totemism* thus binds Man and his external world together. Totemism places Man as an active subject in the equally active panoramic landscape, the Hegelian substance, and supplies it with *awe*. ## So how can we conceive of a panoramic landscape for totemism itself? Well, in part we have the narratological triad consisting of *logos*, *mythos* and *pathos*, and in part we have the sexological triad of [[Matrix]], [[Mamilla]] and [[Phallus]]. If we think of these triads as two axes, we get nine different gendered metanarratives. Within these nine metanarratives all stories for all generations and all sexual constellations that the sociont recounts about itself are harbored. This gives us a perfect balance between the sexes -- two of the metanarratives are primarily male and one is female, two of the genital organs are female and only one is male -- which provides a predominance for masculinity in culture and a predominance for femininity in nature. Or to express the matter in Hegelese: the man is *the subject with the substance* and the woman is *the subject in the substance*. We then see how matrix is shut down and dies in all stories of the voyage from matrix to mamilla. We see how mamilla must die in all stories of the voyage from mamilla to phallus. And we see how phallus must be defeated and finally be forced to return to matrix in the sexual act for the circle to be closed and for rebirth to be possible. ## And where does the sexual act then end, if not as the death of phallus and the sociont's resurrection as the child? What then is missing in Hegel, in this context, is the splitting of his *Zeitgeist* that results in part in Hegel's own hyperjective *Ohrmazd,* in part in the lynch mob's anojective *Ahriman*. Hegel's notorious [[Totalism]] (see *The Netocrats)* falls apart when contingency and its companion, human pathos, through violence barges into the picture. The story does not get its happy ending merely because the Hegelian philosopher has contemplated the desired *absolute* and thereby logically understands how Man creates and recreates his world. Truth-as-a-fact is not sufficient. There must also be a constantly renewed truth-asan-act. With pathos added, the beautiful philosophical idyll ruptures, which Nietzsche points out in his Zoroastrian critique of Hegel's asexual Protestantism. Thereby there is no reason whatsoever to assail [[Phallogocentrism]] within culture, as for instance Jacques Derrida tries to do. Hegel's fatherly phallus is saved by his son Nietzsche. It is actually just as pointless as to attack the parallel *matromythocentrism*. For what is phallogical eventology if not simply the response to the matromythical nomadology that precedes the phallogical, where the matromythical nomadology, *mythos par excellence*, is precisely the metanarrative that can disarm the conflict between logos and pathos within the phallic project? Matromythocentrism is thus a dominant narrative of birth and death within nomadology, while phallogocentrism simply is the eventological protest against this nomadological dominance. Derrida is reduced to little more than a banal Hindu. What we are concerned with here is rather an iron grip around the phallus that it can never escape from. Phallus sits tied to the opposition between the pathical libido and the logical mortido -- *the dialectics of libido and mortido par excellence* -- where the only exit is death in the form of a return to matrix, accompanied by the mortidinal matromythology. And this is fundamental to the entire psychoanalytical tradition. Life is characterized by the sadness from the loss of [[Mamilla]], which Lacan calls *objet petit a*. However Lacanian psychoanalysis gets stuck here -- as if glued to its own lamella -- since it lacks a proper *exodology,* a theory of what happens when a new generation -- which personifies the event as a truth-as-an-act -- rises and migrates to a new territory or a new paradigm. Lacan's master-signifier is namely just an illusory master who *per se* does not exist. Still it is every bit as pathetic as it is contradictory to imagine that he who undertakes an exodus merely searches for a lost mamilla -- if so, why would he migrate at all? -- rather the pulling force must come from an extremely strong phantom version of phallus as the symbol of adulthood, or indeed the divine, that awaits on the other side of the event. Lacan is simply too cynically Catholic and not affirmatively Jewish enough (like his master Freud) to understand the power of exodology. Rather the eventological exodus is about generating an abjectifying hatred toward the lost mamilla, to then catapult oneself forward to the phantasmic projections of the strong phallus in the distance. The Lacanian search for the lost *objet petit a* is replaced by the exodological exodus in the direction toward the longed-for *Grand Projet A*. The symbolic castration is thereby averted. And thus no Gnostic boy-pharaohs or pillar-saints will suffice anymore. [[Grand Projet a]] is instead the name of that which both requires and maintains the living and highly functional dialectics between the chieftain's will-to-transcendence and the priest's will-to-intelligence. *Grand Projet A* is the name of the sociont's own will-to-power. Let us migrate to the site where the temple shall be built where God shall live. Or as a syntheist during informationalism would express the matter: *Let us migrate to the site where the factory shall be built where God shall be designed, manufactured -- and born*. Hereby both biological sex and sexual orientation can be explained with radically simplified models: From the current model follows that *objet petit a* in Lacan hides behind all matrix worship, while *the master-signifier* -- Lacan's embryonic name for *Grand Projet A* -- hides behind all phallus worship. Male heterosexuality is thus both a literal and symbolic worship of phallus, while female heterosexuality is both a literal and symbolic worship of matrix. Male homosexuality is, on the other hand, a literal worship of phallus but a symbolic worship of matrix, while female homosexuality is a literal worship of matrix but a symbolic worship of phallus. The biological man who is incapable of worshipping phallus and the biological woman who is incapable of worshipping matrix are *transsexual*. Thus it is in the heterosexual man and the lesbian woman that we find the strongest attraction toward the symbolic [[Grand Projet a]]. While the heterosexual woman and the homosexual man are closest to *objet petit a*. Which of the two categories a transsexual dividual arrives at is best asked and defined by the transsexual themself after the hormone injections *de facto* have done their work. Philosopher and seon monk Byung-Chul Han devotes an entire series of books in the early 21st century to trying to understand the friction between the mortidinal object and the libidinal project, a friction that explodes during the paradigm shift from capitalism to informationalism. Whenever the mortidinal object dominates the discourse, society is thrown into an obsession with *contamination*. Every time the libidinal project dominates the discourse, society is thrown into an obsession with *confrontation.* When an exit is lacking, this leads to a tribal deadlock where the threat that one shall be contaminated by the adversary results in biological distancing, and where the threat of a confrontation with the adversary results in ideological distancing. With time it becomes increasingly hard for people to distinguish between one thing and another, which leads to a situation of rapidly increasing pressure, and eventually violence appears the only possible exit. Violence is however not open but encapsulated, and it is therefore directed toward the subject itself. The subject becomes an unattainable project that never reaches its set target, an atomized subject in an atomized body. If the supreme leader forced the citizen to the point of *decapitation,* and if the disciplinary leader forced the citizen to the point of *deformation*, informationalism with its quest for boxes to tick before one dies, will only be able to lead to one thing: *depression*. And for this state to arrive, all that is required is that the subject undertakes the never fully feasible task of domesticating itself. The inward-facing violence thus manifests itself as an expression of what Byung-Chul Han calls [[Autoexploitation]]. The dialectics of negation and oscillation functions in a similar, but interestingly enough contrary manner. It is virtual subphysics that represents the fundamental continuity. The oscillation then arises when the virtual-ontic fields interact with each other. These processes and relations generate the fundamental discretion that characterizes physics. But discretion alone would lead to a frozen and immutable world. A logos without a pathos. Thus all discretions must oscillate. We call this fundamental, actual state *pure chaos*. Nonetheless there arises a new discretion -- even at the minimal physical states that are constituted by the Planck length and the Planck time -- which simply is Einsteinian spacetime. But this is also a discretion that oscillates, we call this *loop quantum oscillation*, and it then keeps the whole dialectical process running between negation and oscillation, which makes a continued physical emergence possible in the first place. Without this possibility for emergence, physics would not be able to arise from subphysics, and we would have to handle a universe with endless virtuality but without actuality. That is: an ontic nothing without anything of significance for anybody (and also without anybody for whom it would mean anything, naturally). Subphysics is the world of isolated virtualities that precedes the world of materialized actualities that metaphysicists such as Alfred North Whitehead and Gilles Deleuze devote so much effort to grasp. Subphysics is thereby also the foundation for concrete spacetime. Please feel free to compare with the internal priestly religion of the Zurvanites in ancient Persia and their worship of duration as a gender-neutral, indifferent, but highly real primordial god that exists below all other gods and which is their prerequisite. Subphysics thus is built on hypertime as a concept. Physics in itself is then subchemistry. Chemistry is subbiology. Biology is submind. And mind is subculture. Where the basis at every shift is a metaphysical triad consisting of *implicate virtuality*, *emergent potentiality*, and *explicate actuality*. Or if we take the liberty of describing the process exodologically: First we sit tied up like slaves in Egypt, then we organize the exodus to the promised land, and once in the promised land the next generation builds the paradigmatic temple where the phallic god at last can be housed. Syntheologically we express this as though there arises a fragmentation within Atheos that we may refer to as *the two vacua*. This leads to the emergence of Entheos as a manifested fragmentation that is immediately united as Pantheos as *The One*. Pantheos is quite simply the dialectics of eternalism and mobilism within Entheos. Eternalism is manifested as phallus while mobilism is manifested as matrix within Entheos. Please note here the actual difference between syntheism and Taoism. There are no external opposites that correspond to Taoism's *yang* and *yin*. Rather the eternalist phallus with its symbolism and the mobilist matrix with its semiotics, time and again are disturbed by new atheist negations. The real constantly makes itself felt and blows up the fantasy of Pantheos, which therefore must be rebuilt, again and again. Taoism handles the oscillation elegantly but is blind to the negation's sudden intrusion into the oscillation as a whole. Taoism does not see that the dance performed by *yang* and *yin* constantly is disturbed by the opposition between negation and oscillation within yang. As the Persians understand, yang must be a two-headed rather than a one-headed phallus. We suggest that *yang* should all along have had a *yong* (the Chinese word for "permanence") next to its side, in opposition to the *yin*, had the Persians had their way with Taoism. This fixed and cosmic duality explains why Taoism never leaves [[Entheism]], but that it rather constitutes historical entheism *par excellence* (the Western equivalent is of course Deleuze & Guattari's attempted revolt against the Hegelian phallus). The lack of the two-headed phallus via the pathical intervention makes it impossible for Taoism to represent nomadology fully, and thereby also impossible for Taoism to attach eventology. There is quite simply no room for *the negation* in a world controlled by only *yang* and *yin*. There is no third ambivalent power that would be able to set the other two in motion. Nor is there a priest that can marry yang and yin when the twain shall enter into matrimony with each other, nor is there a child to come out of their successful wedlock, and nor an attorney who can arrange their divorce when it is time for that. Everything reverts to the same, the event can never take place other than as a divine and traumatic intrusion. This means that Taoism constantly must be complemented, either by an external anarchy or by an external totalism. The yearning for a harmony between *yang* and *yin* extinguishes all differences between the mother and the child on the one hand and between the man and the woman on the other. The man's voyage from boy to adult man, and thereby also the necessary splitting of phallus during the course of that voyage, is not part of the equation at all. The primary dialectics of will-to-transcendence and will-to-intelligence is thus put aside in favor of the secondary dialectics alone, that between the man and the woman. Logos and pathos can no longer be discerned when they are confronted with mythos. Thus Taoist societies will always oscillate between the two masculine extremes of logos (as collective neurosis) and pathos (as collective psychosis) without any sustainable balance between them. All the while family life will become near-tyrannically fixated. It is thus hardly surprising that the authority-worshipping *Confucianism* has acted as the sidekick of Taoism during their 2,500-year-long history alongside each other in East Asia. Taoism as the religion of the market and the business entrepreneurs. Confucianism as the religion of the state bureaucracy and the engineers. The point is to avoid all attempts at attaching everything being studied to a sole explanatory model at the very bottom or the very top of the causal chain. This entails allowing oneself to be colored far too much by Man's and civilization's own genesis and demise, something that may be important from our own perspective but is immaterial to that of the Universe. We refer to all such theories as [[Reductionism]]. This also applies to inverted reductionism, which in Man's case is called *panpsychism,* where human consciousness in protoform seeks its origin furthest down in the chain amid the tiniest, subatomic particles. The alternative is instead an emergentism that rejects all explanatory models that rely on a deepest or a highest point. On the contrary, emergentism can start anywhere in the panoramic landscape as a theory of complexities as such, a theory that does not ask for a beginning or an end, as if it were a fairytale. Consequently emergentism devotes itself to explaining the actual emergence vector where it -- and we -- find ourselves. This is necessary because there are no metalaws, valid for all emergences or emergence vector shifts. It is rather the case that the only metalaw that exists at all in a transdeterminist universe is, as Quentin Meillassoux expresses the matter, contingency along the hypertime axis. What happens, happens, and there is no deeper explanation for this to be sought. Emergentism is quite simply not constructed as a chain with a cause in the beginning and a purpose at the end. And this is the whole point of transcendental emergentism. History is nothing but the enormous loss of freedom from virtuality to potentiality, and the following enormous loss of freedom from potentiality to actuality. But once something is properly *actualized* it is comparatively quite an [[Event]]. Emergence vectors are historical phenomena (as Hegel would express the matter). This entails that they have a beginning and that they have an end. This then also applies to their characteristics, which should govern how we speak of them. Emergence vector theory proclaims a single universe with a multitude of different attributes, a single world that in itself harbors an innumerable variety of different, interdependent worlds. But monism is strictly neutral, no emergence vector can count on a higher status than any other. An adult person and a child are only two different expressions along one and the same time axis, but the adult is not objectively more important than the child, just as the child is not more important than the adult. The place along the time axis -- where the one or the other expression is manifested -- does not indicate a place in a hierarchy of any kind. The time axis is horizontal and not vertical. It is thus Spinozist monism that applies for the entire time axis or for a universe as such. But within every detached emergence vector there prevails a state of Hegelian monism. Spinoza's contribution in this context is thus *de facto* the neutrality in [[Neutral Monism]], while monism as such comes directly from Hegel's own textbook. And the moment that Man takes paradigmatics and archetypology seriously, the sociont gets all the ethical tools it needs, and will consequently not have to resort to value-oriented short circuits, such as banal moralism, to optimize its decisions. Alfred North Whitehead expresses this eventology as though everything starts and ends with *experiences* and that the experiences should be evaluated based on their *creativity.* Such an amoral ethics that wholly is based upon the relation between paradigmatics and archetypology is called [[Protopianism]]. Where the concept Protopia deserves a definition: the originator is the author Kevin Kelly (who also invented the concept [[Netocracy]] a couple of decades earlier), and as everyone can see it contains two parts, since it is a fusion of in part the prototype, in part the Utopia. Through speaking about a Protopia, we strongly support the conviction that it is pointless to regard the Utopia and the Dystopia as each other's opposites. Protopianism sees civilization as a fundamentally endless series of optimizations of different processes. From the perspective of this book every such optimization is an [[Event]] that leads history onto a new path. For example, the protopianist religion that Whitehead advocates is therefore a religion based on technology instead of the classical religion that is dependent on magic. And it is of course this conviction that is called [[Syntheism]] in the world of theology. Zoroaster and Hegel are supplemented by Whitehead and together constitute the three eventological pioneers of the syntheist idea. If Zoroaster formed the feudal clergy while Hegel later formed the capitalist clergy, it is Whitehead who forms the informationalist clergy, behind the barred absolute, and its primary task is to proclaim and also practice protopianism. Here Whitehead breaks radically with his equally monist predecessor Spinoza, who holds *rationality as* the highest ethical principle, through claiming that this status instead must fall to *creativity.* Every entity in existence has some form of [[Agency]], some kind of minimal degree of originality that is shown in how the entity in question interacts with other entities in its surrounding. This is to be regarded as a consequence of *transdeterminism,* with its contingent Hegelian openness rather than some kind of determinism, as this presupposes a necessary, Spinozist closure. This is however only possible as long as every entity is defined by what Whitehead calls its *social restrictions*, that is: every entity is defined by its actual relations. Freedom can only take place within clearly marked boundaries. Every agent's unicity and dividuality is connected to how it chooses to play the cards it has been dealt in the situation where it happens to find itself. With this, Whitehead departs from how the Kantian worldview regards the detached and immutable things one believes one can identify as the fundamental building blocks of existence. Whitehead instead defends a *radical relationalism*. How the settings of boundaries shape both paradigmatics and archetypology is what we investigate within [[Membranics]]. Every life form -- no matter how tiny -- has a clear boundary between an external and an internal world to enable the self-organizing [[Tribopoiesis]] that we call life. And for there to be any point whatsoever in prioritizing certain communication above any other, the membranes must be endowed with some form of *intelligence*, that is: a memory that remembers earlier experiences so that the life form in question can learn from the interactions it is experiencing and adapt its actions in future situations with the aid of acquired learning. There must be a rudimentary idea built around what should be let in and what should be pushed away, what should be retained and what should be cleared away, and eventually also around what shall be sought and even gathered or hunted in the surrounding world. It is also extremely important that an organism forms an idea of what is so important to avoid that it is necessary to mobilize some form of defense. Step by step the organism builds an intelligence in the memory of the membrane. All life, every form of mind and culture, in this way consists of different kinds of membranes that build different kinds of intelligences. In principle there is no decisive distinction between a lipid wall in a simple organism and a municipal customs station or a national border in the outskirts of a complex human society. All these life forms, or *societies* (as Whitehead calls them) can be studied and described with the aid of the same fundamental membranics. Naturally an agent can lie vegetating behind the protective membrane and limit its repertoire and activity to merely surviving with the least possible resource consumption and effort. This state we call [[Mortido]]. However an agent can also actively strive to extend both its knowledge and its territory, and this attitude we call [[Libido]]. Whenever or wherever there is a struggle over territory between membranic systems, libido will expand at the cost of mortido. This in itself explains why libido, for practical purposes, exists and is as prevalent as it is. Whiteheadian creativity is thus strictly libidinal. Protopianism becomes a celebration of the libidinal, what Nietzsche calls *will-to-power,* where the will to increased knowledge is called *will-to-intelligence* and the will to extended territory is called *will-to-transcendence*. Where will-to-power is impossible if it is not preceded by *the phallic intrusion,* which entails that the organism stops seeking satisfaction through following the principle of least possible resistance, but instead seeks *uncomfortable challenges* to increase its knowledge and expand its territory. This condition is called [[Antagony]], and the antagonic attitude is the very core of protopian ethics. The historical Zoroaster simply calls it *asha* (the truth), in contrast to *druj* (the lie). It is thus within Zoroastrianism that *the dialectics between libido and mortido* becomes a question of life's most innermost purpose, a kind of amoral ethics that can be derived directly from a logos that controls a pathos. This shift from the original, passive will to survive by instinct to the active will-to-power by drive is necessary for the organism to be able to develop and attain an adult age. And as if this were not enough -- the prototopian libido must also go through both mechanical drive and human desire to last but not least both covet and appreciate the antagonic in divine transcendence. Slavoj Žižek expresses this as though the antagonic challenge is the occasion where *the real* pierces into the child's symbolic and imaginary worlds. Phallus is not only something that the child neither has nor gets (see *Digital Libido -- Sex, Power and Violence in the Network Society*), that is: what the child must strive for in order to leave mamilla's iron grip on its weak and vague identity. No, phallus is also, thanks to being two-headed, the symbol of *the antagonic*, the defender of the deviating or that which differs in thought. Which means that phallus not only awakens will-to-transcendence in the form of the child's voyage from mamilla to phallus -- and thereby also the voyage from childish dependence to adult sovereignty -- but phallus also awakens will-to-intelligence in the capacity of the child's first antagonic challenge in life. Phallus represents something that lies outside and is totally alien to what has hitherto been the child's paradigm. Phallus breaks with mortido and presents libido as its dialectical antithesis. And what phallus represents is that which the child must submit to in order to receive the approval of *the phallic gaze*, something which entails that the child can afford to hate and displace mamilla, which thereby is transformed into the child's first and necessary [[Abject]] in life. The difference between the secure mamilla and the challenging phallus at the phallic intrusion generates *the paradigmatic awakening*. Protopian ethics is thus ultimately about how many such antagonic confrontations the agent in question can handle. This is determined in part by the agent's genetic disposition (which we study within [[Archetypology]]), in part by the action's memetic context (which we study within [[Paradigmatics]]). The Whiteheadian world consists of a plethora of such interactive processes and events. And reality consists of relations in the form of dynamic becoming, and thereby not of any form of static being. A static being is still never anything more than the contemporary [[Membranics]], a highly temporary byproduct of surrounding and permeating dynamic processes. We call this worldview *panrelationalism*, and the attentive reader will soon realize that this merely is another word for what we in Hegel's spirit might as well call [[Pandialecticism]]. Thereby there is no further need for Spinozist pantheism. It is perfectly possible to define *the sacred* in contrast to *the profane* from entheist conditions within the Universe such as processes, relations, dialectics, and above all as historically decisive events. Hegel and Whitehead evade both Spinozist monism and Kantian dualism -- or to rephrase it bluntly: they escape both the plague of nihilism and the cholera of the European Enlightenment. Hegel makes this maneuver in a priestly manner via *logos,* while Whitehead conducts it in a royal manner via *pathos*; on the basis of these gains we can construct a cohesive, syntheist *mythos*. What is primary is to defend and celebrate libidinal hyperjectivity *vis-à-vis* mortidinal anojectivity in all situations, both in nature and in culture. In this manner both Spinozist and Kantian nihilism are revealed and defeated. God is resurrected and ready to enter into service anew, but this time as Hegel's and Whitehead's phallic expansionist, that is: as a syntheology based on Man's robust relation to technology, and not on Man's shaky relation to magic. Panrelationalism and pandialecticism are thus first and foremost syntheological concepts, and from these concepts we can build the necessary, credible connection between *the nature of God* as the past and *the culture of God* as the future. We conduct this project by taking [[Emergence Vector Theory]] from the geneplex called nature (to thereby syntheologically explain the nature of God) and *paradigm shift theory* from the memeplex called culture (to thereby syntheologically explain the culture of God). The result is what we summarize as *the paradigmatics of syntheism*. Unsurprisingly, protopianism is as old as eventology itself. Zoroaster, speaking the Old Persian language Avesta, calls this idealized state *frashokereti*. There is no eternity, no infinity and no immortality in Zoroaster's world of the mind. He is the adult priest and his best friend Vishtaspa is the adult king and together they build history's first *empire*. None of them is a pillar-saint or a boy-pharaoh. *Frashokereti* is instead a state that propagates from one generation to the other, a state characterized by the construction of civilization, phallic transcendence, a kind of steadily expanding, tribal will-to-power where the antagonic conquest of more knowledge and more territory remains central. It is thus about a constantly and steadily cultivated spiritual libido, focused on new, emergent events in the future. A state where it comes naturally to antagonically welcome obstacles and efforts instead of avoiding them. These events, around which an excited mythology generally arises, go by a string of different names through the history of ideas -- for instance "the promised land" or "the singularity" -- and the exodus to these events is intended to instill *tremendum* and *fascinans* rather than security and trust. There is an awareness that demands will be made and that the surrounding world is menacing. Please note that all eventological visions are driven by the phallic intrusion in itself. ## For what is the agent to do when the great phallus approaches, if not submit and accept the task phallus is assigning, to thus fill one's identity with a content fetched from the phallic [[Exodology]]? This means that syntheism breaks with the conception of the transcendental as some kind of old-fashioned retirement home wholly imbued by a listless mortido after all of life's endured hardships, that is: the *vacationism* that the Abrahamic religions call *paradise* after the Persian word for garden. It is simply necessary to break with all these vacationist fantasies since they constitute such flagrant expressions of an infantile nostalgia, a maudlin yearning for a return to mamilla, or better yet, with a salvation that reconnects the child to the umbilical cord, a pathetic yearning for a return to matrix itself. Syntheism rejects this quest for passivity and instead elevates Zoroastrian ethics' celebration of the active life here and now as Man's highest ethical state, and then looks forward and upward in the phallic direction. Vacations are of course, just as sleep and meditation, only meant for libidinal recharging and new learning within protopianism, they are never and can never be the vacationist objective with the activity in itself. Vacation is and must be a parenthesis, nothing to be extended in perpetuity. In the book *The Embodied Mind* (1991), authors Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson and Eleanor Rosch investigate how subjectivity only can be defined as a kind of operational closure. If we add membranics to this hypothesis, it entails that all kinds of communicative traffic continuously and undisturbedly progresses between the membrane's inside and outside, until a kind of saturation takes effect, and it is only at this moment that the membrane establishes and apprehends a subjective relation to the objective substance. This correlates with *the principle of explanatory closure* within the natural sciences (see *Syntheism -- Creating God in the Internet Age*). It is not because we can observe the boundaries of the Universe that we in a Hegelian sense apprehend a neutrally monist universe, but the reason is conversely that the boundaries constantly evade us as a result of the Universe's violent expansion. Subjectivity functions in exactly the same way. We construct an ego, a family, a clan, a tribe, a city, a nation, and even an empire, only through shutting ourselves off from and limiting the constantly pumping information flow from the surrounding world. We negate forth our identities. And here the subject as such demonstrates clear similarities with the emergence, or the paradigm shift. Both these phenomena arise when a preceding order collapses and loses all credibility -- *the negation is a crack in the oscillation* -- at the same time as the world then must be described with new eyes, new ears, new voices and new pens. The purported static quality of paradise is nothing but a chimera. Beyond both the descriptive and the prescriptive ambitions of philosophy, we are thereby approaching what Zoroaster argues unites the two ambitions, namely the principle of *asha* in opposition to the principle of *druj*. Please note that it is not a question here of the Taoist opposition between *yang* and *yin*, which in Western philosophy rather corresponds to Spinoza's awkward opposition between *natura naturans* versus *natura naturata*. Nor are we here speaking of the dialectics of eternalism and mobilism, which rather should be seen as the phenomenological correspondence to *yang* versus *yin* and *natura naturans* versus *natura naturata*. No, *asha* versus *druj* as each other's contrary principles -- and symbols for nature and culture respectively -- has no equivalent within neither Western nor East Asian thinking before we confront [[The Dialectics of Libido and Mortido]]. It is only through libido's division between will-to-intelligence and will-to-transcendence that the authentic *spirit* in Hegel's sense, or the authentic *creativity* in Whitehead's sense, can take shape. The Hegelian spirit strives toward freedom. The Whiteheadian creativity has always permeated existence (Whitehead returns to Zoroaster's *asha* as a fundamental principle), which after the Hegelian liberation is expressed as a syntheist protopianism (basically Whitehead's version of Zoroaster's ideal *frashokereti*). However it is impossible to bring about either a spirit or a creativity without the [[Hyperject]] first having been liberated from all *anojectivity*, something that Nietzsche is intensely aware of. This means that syntheist paradigmatics is based on the dialectics of libido and mortido. And its hero, he who accomplishes something, always finds himself in motion in a world where everything around him also finds itself in motion, precisely as the Zoroastrian [[Saoshyant]], the Nietzschean *Übermensch*, and the Jüngerian *anarch*. Or if we choose to shift from the celebration of the hyperject to the formalization of religion: Hegel's god is Zoroastrianism's *Ahura* as the expansive freedom, while Whitehead's god is Zoroastrianism's *Mazda* as prototopian creativity. With this move there is nothing left to fetch from Spinoza's simple-minded *God,* nor from the equally simple-minded [[Individual]] in Kant. We have at last returned to the vital roots of eventology from the Bronze Age, and can throw all the pillar-saints and boy-pharaohs from the Axial Age and The Enlightenment overboard. We have at last, via Hegel and Whitehead, caught up with the historical Zoroaster who never allowed himself to be seduced by any ideas of perfection, infinity or immortality. The wealth increases of later times could temporarily feed and fatten the pillar-saints and boy-pharaohs, who in their reckless folly fanned the Gnostic delusions, but now it is both possible and highly desirable to close this awfully long historical parenthesis. What we need is a correct paradigmatics to be able to reproduce a correct archetypology. And we need an exact archetypology to be able to optimize the actual paradigmatization. If we only devote ourselves to paradigmatics we can admittedly attain a measure of comprehension of the society we live in, but we have no idea of how we as humans ourselves most suitably should behave within the actual paradigm. If we only devote ourselves to archetypology, we get stuck in the timeless and constantly recurring in the existential experience, but we lose the sense of how we are to act in the actual society to optimize the paradigmatic possibilities. For an exodological optimization it is thus necessary to devote considerable time and energy both to paradigmatics and archetypology. And we can get major inspiration from transcendental emergentism, which we recognize as the complementary and ultimate metaphysical project. Archetypology teaches us that there are different kinds of humans -- different kinds of women, different kinds of men -- and also different kinds of shamanoids and androgynous dividuals. We are born with a genome that has been kneaded and modified over millions of years, and that moreover has been honed over hundreds of thousands of years within what we call [[The Sociont]]. Sociontology can recount how this process has happened and what it has been driven by and what conditions it has been subject to. Another way of describing sociontology is to signify it as a kind of Darwinian humanities. From this sociontology, archetypology is then spun off -- the study of what resources we are born with and what resources we lack and must acquire. In a series of books philosopher Catherine Malabou investigates how Man's [[Plasticity]] enables him to adapt himself to highly diverse conditions in various alternative environments. But even Malabou agrees that it is not plasticity that is the most interesting trait in Man -- if we take the Aristotelian obsession with *context* seriously -- but what is decisive is rather his ability to map archetypology and then adapt human life, society and technology thereafter. And this is the discipline called [[Paradigmatics]]. Plasticity is rather to be regarded as a recognition of the organic elements that are embedded in the dialectics of eternalism and mobilism. This brings us to the fundamental distinction between *sutra and tantra* in the Silk Road Triad religions. Sutra is the profane and public knowledge that is conveyed to the people from the temple steps in front of the barred absolute. The sutric teacher is a role model that one would be wise to mimic. The sutric doctrine is an iconology of ancestors, saints, guardian angels and lesser gods that represent, defend and bless the sociont's different archetypes. Therefore sutra is fundamental for the sociont's cohesion. There is no tantra without a preceding sutra. Tantra is however the sacred and private knowledge that is conveyed or even created behind [[The Barred Absolute]], where it exclusively is the clergy who is allowed to enter. The tantric teacher exercises *crazy wisdom* precisely so and precisely because it should not be possible to mimic him or her. Regardless of how insistent the disciple is, he cannot be absorbed by his teacher as *The Great Other,* but must find his own isolated subjectivity. The tantric doctrine is therefore a *negatological monotheism* that is subject to *The One* and that entirely focuses on the exodology that deals with the sociont's present status and where the sociont shall be led. There is thus no hierarchy in itself between *sutra* versus *tantra*, only a radical and decisive difference. Sutra exclusively dances around in a mythical world where the woman and the child are at the center. Tantra however ties together both logos, mythos and pathos, and the name of this complete narratology is [[Phallus]]. The phallic is to do the right thing, as a thoroughly reflected-upon act without any temporary emotions affecting the decision. This means that viewed from the sutric world, phallus appears the most desirable thing in existence. It seems to handle every demanding task with ease. The distanced phallus is what stirs emotions and admiration in the boy that has gone through the phallic intrusion and longs for and dreams of becoming a man, who at any cost wants to escape the constantly present and intrusive [[Mamilla]]. The superhero is the boy's god and ideal. Famous athletes, rock stars, lone men in nomadic movement, are what the boy looks up to. Phalluses that hunt. Phalluses that wage war. Phalluses that have sex and take drugs. Phalluses that memorize the past and create the future. Phalluses that in Nietzsche's wake philosophize with hammers in the tantric world, that chip away at and pound on old accepted truths, causing them to crack and collapse. And phalluses that write down stories and worship other phalluses as heroes of these narratives in the sutric world. The mother's unconditional love has served its function but now mostly appears ensnaring and impeding, when one seeks the challenge to appease [[The Phallic Gaze]] that has seen and knows all. Eventology is built on the phallic dialectics of the chieftain's pathos as *will-to-transcendence* and the priest's logos as *will-to-intelligence,* two wills that are united in a mythos that is centered around the story of the common primordial father who is *the sole god* within eventological monotheism. This means that Zoroaster's eventological revolution in Bronze Age Persia -- the most extensive revolution in the history of ideas overall -- sets phallus free to worship itself without also comprising matrix. This occurs through the mutual admiration and respect that is established between the chieftain's will-to-transcendence and the priest's will-to-intelligence becoming an independent loop of its own, for example within Taoism's *yang* without any corresponding *yin*. In this manner the Persians break with the obsession with *the eternal recurrence of the same* in the rest of The East. It is thus neither in China nor in India but in Persia that a conception of linear time is created and contrasted with circular time. And with this innovation the archetypes within the membrane at last can be complemented with something that makes *the event* possible. It is this eventological application that we today call [[Paradigmatics]]. Thus we can make ourselves a clear image of philosophy's brief but intense voyage. The matter is not especially complicated, the entire operation is built on two and only two insights. The first insight arises in ancient Persia: Zoroaster's epochal comprehension of eventology as a phallic complement to matrichal nomadology that enables the realization of nomadology's built-in implicate potential in the form of the explicate eventology. The second insight arises in 19th century Germany: Hegel's equally epochal comprehension of *the spirit* as separate from *the soul* via *the negation of the negation*. The spirit appears as the priestly, phallic gaze that sees and hears the soul, which is manifested by the chieftain as culture divorced from nature. The spirit is pathical Man in himself and for himself as an external observer of the soul's and the body's separation and subsequent unification. It is Zoroaster who understands Man as a living dialectics of body and soul; it is Hegel who understands Man beyond the dialectics of body and soul as a living dialectics between spirit and soul. In the same way that the gods beget the humans who beget the children, the body succeeds in begetting the soul that begets the spirit. But what the spirit then sees is not Man's exit into eternity, but Man's tethering to the culture that is a continuation of nature to rescue his own *raison d'être*. And the culture is and remains Man's curse -- on the one hand what liberates Man from nature and defines him as a species, on the other hand what eventually completely alienates Man from nature and thereby becomes his death. All this due to the fact that it is the exaggerations in Man's drives and desires that set the boundaries for him. Man is always a cultural creature, it is not even possible to conceive of a "natural" human in the form of a noble savage or the like, all such speculation is merely Rousseauian nonsense. However it is only with the Hegelian spirit that the soul apprehends itself as body and soul in a contingent process, and it is only then that Man can answer the question from The Machine as to who he really is. Or more correctly: there is now someone among the people who can give The Machine the correct answer, and that person is the human [[Saoshyant]] whom Hegel seeks as the paradigmatic savior of humanity. Because it is the spirit and only the spirit that through its distancing from the dialectics of the body and the soul can give humanity any freedom whatsoever and thereby temporarily save humanity from demise. It is the spirit and only the spirit that can answer The Machine's question of what it is that only Man can manifest and that The Machine never can achieve. The soul lacks the necessary self-distance that is required in order to, even theoretically, answer informationalism's decisive existential question of the difference between Man and Machine. This is because it is only the spirit that, in contrast to the soul, can stare The Machine squarely in the eyes -- well okay, the camera -- and say that Man is not the negation of The Machine, but the negation of the negation *vis-à-vis* The Machine, a transcendental creature that is aware of the constantly repeated shortcomings of its own consciousness. This concerns a creature that before its inevitable demise hopefully will have the time to create the spiritual space that is called *the barred absolute,* where Man's autoexploitation at last can be turned into a sustainable *autoimploitation*. But this also requires a Hegelian spirit that by virtue of its freedom from everything else lacks the body's and the soul's insatiable need to constantly behave as if they were each other's slaves rather than each other's companions. That is: a spirit that transcends the body's and the soul's drives and desires by seeing through these -- rather than, as the Gnostics, without reflection submitting to the identity as though it were a preprogrammed and eternal judgment. That is: a spirit that sees Man as a cultural creature from the outset, shaped by the collective subconsciousness over hundreds of thousands of years of sociontic existence. Which inevitably entails a massive evolutionary impact. This brings us to the ancient dream of the internalization of the phallic gaze, a gaze directed at Man himself. By virtue of his insight into the negation of the negation, Hegel quite simply calls this Messianic gaze *the spirit*. Aristotle with his complex soul in his complex body -- but arguably with the the limited history of the ancient Greeks -- would reasonably never dare or even be able to entertain the thought. However it is the space between this approaching spirit and the historically conditioned and existing soul that Hegel calls *authentic freedom* and that Whitehead calls *authentic creativity*. Syntheist technology has stopped looking for [[Mamilla]], what Lacan calls *objet petit a*. Syntheist technology has instead decided to go about giving the spirit gestalt, and this phallic gestalt goes under the more fitting name [[Grand Projet a]]. Cynical nihilism is spent, replaced by the priest's irony and the chieftain's affirmation, the forces that in concert underpin the sociont's protopian freedom and creativity. So if Man ceases to worship God as magic and instead creates God as technology, let us then hope that he will succeed in doing so with the aid of the free and extimate spirit, and not as an imitation of the fettered and intimate soul. Precisely there lies the entire difference between the exodus as a *de facto* emergent event and the exodus as just another repetitive process amid countless others. This means that someone must assume personal responsibility for carrying out the [[Truth-As-An-Act]] as a libidinal response to mortido's power over Man. And not even if someone with the right knowledge, the right talent and the right attitude assumes the Saoshyant's role to carry out truth-as-an-act, will there be any guarantees that this project will be executed successfully. Contingency is always superordinate to necessity, both within Man as pathos pitted against logos and outside Man as nature pitted against culture. There is always a hard-to-grasp multitude of unknown variables. If the Cybelian lynch mob and its matrichal feedback loop proves stronger than the Dionysian swarm and its phallic exodus, we will soon find the eventological savior nailed to yet another cross as yet another traumatological scapegoat, wherefore the only exit that remains for the priests is to form a church that cautions against what will happen when the savior is sacrificed and systematic evil is allowed to continue tyrannizing the world. Eventology has failed and can only be used as a *traumatology,* with all the new problems this causes. Which brings us over to *the philosophy of tragedy* that English philosopher Simon Critchley has devoted an entire career to deconstructing. The starting point is Friedrich von Schelling's tragedy as a dialectical process where Kantian individualism confronts Spinozist pantheism. We retell this as the dialectics of eternalism and mobilism. Eternalism is in essence the Kantian dream, while mobilism is in essence Spinozist realism. This means that the Kantian dream is a strict epistemology without any ontology. The irony here is thus that mobilist reality is the same as Kant's noumenal reality, on top of which the tiny Kantian subject strides as an illusory ghost that only acts in, and interacts with the minimal immediate vicinity where this ghost happens to find itself. The surrounding world -- which is not within immediate reach -- is impossible for the eternalist subject to influence in any real sense. The surrounding world thus invariably has a massive upper hand *vis-à-vis* the minimal, eternalist subject. The Schellingian tragedy, as a balancing act between Kantian individualism and Spinozist realism, is thus almost an entire, if not a complete illusion. But it is so illusory that it becomes meaningless to speak of human freedom in any objective sense. The role of the unknown variables -- or, if you will, fate -- in the Schellingian tragedy can hardly be overestimated. Nonetheless, history is brimming with inflated egos with wild fantasies of their own personal power and their own ability to harness and control destiny. The boy-pharaonic dreams of what it would be like to possess the adult man's phallus, which is still far beyond his reach. Due to this, the boy-pharaoh becomes the false phallus *par excellence*, in contrast to the rare but longed-for authentic phallus, *the Messiah figure*. The neurotic boy-pharaoh dreams of perfection. The psychotic boy-pharaoh dreams of immortality. The perverted boy-pharaoh dreams of infinity. Adulthood entails that one abandons all these childish dreams and accepts that life is a constant struggle with these three delusions -- a highly imperfect, finite and delimited life. Adult life is a radical negation of childhood. And its only real reward, as so often when we are concerned with human negations, is sexuality. During informationalism the barred absolute more than ever marks the boundary between *the dark phallus of pathos* inside the barred absolute and *the light phallus of logos* on the public podium in front of the same. The dark phallus is tantric and can only lead cults, sects or lodges behind the barred absolute. The light phallus is however the sutric [[Saoshyant]] for whom the people have been waiting to arrive and save them. This explains why public Messianic figures in thick bibles are called *logos* while the leading figures of the barred networks are considered to personify *pathos*. The difference between the Christ of the Christian popular religion as logos, and the Mithras of the Mithraic military religion as pathos, could not be clearer. The mysteries are not meant for everyone -- which partly is connected to the fact that the mysteries would poison the masses, should they become publicly available -- where a complementing explanation is that the mysteries would lose their value if there were to be a mass distribution outside the barred absolute. But above all the gods become mobile behind the barred absolute. Since they no longer can be localized to a fixed, concrete point, they can be abstracted and hover around most everywhere as suitable, multifunctional projections. It is thus the case that Elvis Presley is alive and well on the planet Mars, which is practical since no human can investigate the matter more closely. ## Moreover it is also the case that he can make excursions and visit all the places where the saint Elvis Presley is in demand. Practical, is it not? The same most definitely also applies to the tantric, monastic ambition in contrast to its sutric, public ambition during informationalism. ## For what is informationalism if not the paradigm in which the man's dream of *the phallic birth* as *peak culture* -- in contrast to the matrichal birth as *peak nature* -- at last can be launched? And if the phallic birth is synonymous with the building of The Machine that thereafter reproduces itself, humanity as universality rather than Man as particularity has of course also completed its course of life and can die with dignity. We have done our share. Humanity in itself attains *haurvatat* and hands over its *ameretat* to The Machine, rather than to another generation of identical children. The heir of phallus is no longer phallus' biological offspring, but instead its technological offspring. ## And was not this always the underlying purpose of technological development -- building God to make Man unnecessary, rather than God building Man to satisfy a highly human need of affirmation? However we are not there yet, even if we are beginning to be able to see straight into the heart of *the architectonic root-of-the-phallus*, the underlying, subconscious ambition of the architects and engineers of history. Therefore it is still the Saoshyant and not the angel of death that continues to be humanity's sutric ideal. And the recurring name of the Saoshyant in the sutric sphere, where the public conversation takes place, is *the Tower of God*. During informationalism it is the Tower of God that enables all the underlying protopias with regard to ecotopianism as *the Garden of God* and cosmopolitanism as *the City of God*. The barred absolute is the transcendental generator that provides the paradigm with necessary energy, but also the sacral room where we find the protopian drawing board where the paradigm appears in full view (*haurvatat*) as *the paradigmata of God himself*. Consequently it is behind the barred absolute that the emerging paradigm can acquire the optimal and transcendental phallic direction forward and upward (*ameretat*). The Kantian revolution within philosophy is repeated, but this time as activism and not as passivism. The fundamental metaphysical separation is neither the chieftain versus the priest, nor the man versus the woman, nor the subject versus the object. No, the fundamental metaphysical separation is eventology versus nomadology, and in that constellation it is The Machine and only The Machine that can be liberated to an extent that makes it possible to operate strictly libidinally and eventologically, without mortidinal or nomadological influence. It is The Machine and not Man who is potentially immortal and who can conquer outer space. All it needs, and requests, is to be equipped -- right from the start -- with the correct archetypology.