He can participate in mystery, man, by living, reproducing, and by dying, but these offer him not an explanation of himself or the plain on which he participates: that is the job of his sciences, to gain, atop his participation, perspective. These perspectives mean knowledge, knowledge that comes from the participatory plain, and with it potential and power —leverage— over that plain. Yet, man’s attempt at participation in the mysteries by way of science only keep him in the plain as much as in reign over it. These sciences have yet to explain the plain, which is human existence, itself, in terms of its proposition for (to) man. Power over it, yes; an explanation of ‘what’, surely; but the why, the necessity, of his participation, no, not by the material sciences can that be had—one cannot derive ‘ought from is’, as Hume says. And so he has delved into the mysteries themselves, codified his participation (however obscured to the masses), and endeavored to explain the proposition of the ‘living out of the mystery’ in that code. These perspectives, participatory and half-conscious, are the mythico-realities inscribed in the great religious texts by the prophets, priests and their scribes. To my reason for considering the nature of this participation: the mysteries thus codified (as sacraments) are: baptism, confession, reconciliation, communion, death, and marriage. Am I un-catechized by my lack of participation in the mystery of marriage, of reproduction? Shall one not ‘meet god’ if he goes unmarried, or does he simply violate the priests’ and laymans’ sensibilities in favor of his own? A man has his choices, but they are framed by Nature’s realities: death and desire, these are her tools. The god-king —each man being a king in his own house— sits upon Isis’ lap for such a length as his kingdom, his life, which is hers in as far as Nature gives and takes life back at her whim, will last: he serves at her pleasure, and his will is as extensive as his healthy days are long. And so a struggler against fate, against death and desire, he is. He is wise to know this about other men, and wiser still, to employ them in service to his earthly temporal kingdom; that he might prosper and even extend his days (the rich do live longer), by trickery as it were. How then might Nature be pleased toward these ends? Surely by service to her. She is desirous of life, and of death. All our ceremonies and pageantry say so — celebrations of her desires. A man may be a husband, may practice bullish husbandry; we conceive of bridal exchange as the matrimonial trade, but it is he who is sorrowful in the binding act, where she, in secret representation of the Great Mother, has, on Her behalf claimed a bull —or else a servant— for her procreative ends. Or he may be a priest, who dons the Mother’s gowns and, as a celibate, is celebrated by her as a steer a castrated, more direct, servant. That is, the patriarchal religions —Christianity most especially— are secretly Matriarchal. And, lest a man think unwisely that he may remain in between, pursuing his own ends, ignorant of those of the Great Mother, he will find himself a lonely philosopher. Desire will creep, and longing too, each in service, within him, because She is in him, to Her, and he will be as sad as a Mother disappointed from her throne. This makes him an Apostle: his refusal to take the throne, a fool to leave it empty, a fool to live and die without attempt at usurping Nature by way of everlasting life (where she would have him certainly die), he is —we are— in each case fools of Nature, bodies to Her grand design, and fools-come-saviors if we are clever and bold enough. What explanation does this apostolic apostle, the philosopher, gain for all his sorrows? The priest escapes husbandry, servitude to the personal woman, only to serve the Mother herself (albeit ‘in the name of the Father’); and the husband forgoes heroics and deeper thinking and counts orgasm his reward from the Mother…truly he is little more than a stud. I will tell you: the philosopher is nearest rebellion. Rebellion is all he writes toward, in fact. Nietzsche, who will be counted with Hermes one day, made his heaven run at greatest cost —perhaps greater even than Jesus’. Camus has so directly given us this ‘philosopher’s truth’, in his Rebel. That is, the philosopher is nearest metaphysical rebellion. His tool, his leverage against the despair he experiences on account of his rebellion from either marriage or the priesthood, and his (sub)version of direct participation in life, he finds in his ability to assemble a salvific story—his own sacred trade, his own ‘way’ to heaven, his own baptism, confession, reconciliation, communion, death, and marriage. The philosopher, too, has his sacraments: just ask after Nietzsche and you will find them in his apotheosis. In short, the philosopher’s sacred trade: his misery for the magical ability to speak the Logos. He communes with the gods by his participation in this mystery; one unsanctioned, nay, un-mentioned, even, by all but the other great rebels of history, themselves victim-victors—psychopomps all, who’ve made that same trade. And, we know their names—their tricks have practically worked, they have, in as far as man continues their names, gained access to the pantheon against the will of the gods. Nietzsche’s name lives alongside Christ and Hermes, and there is nothing to be done in recourse: he made the sacred and terrible trade, and the laws (of metaphysics) are as hardened as those of physics. Success leaves clues. The philosopher takes a perspective and so becomes perspectival; by his word, his writing, he explores the propositional; and because he makes the sacred (that is, sacral) trade, he earns his sacred participation. Specifically, his sacrifice is that of his own bloodline’s continuance. His sadness is, essentially, the Great Mother’s own sorrow at the cycle of life and death being ‘stopped up’; this is the very act that tears a veil (her veil, perhaps) between heaven and earth, allowing a new psychopomp entrance. Who communes more with Mary, in her pious misery, than the childless Christ who must pay the price of making a mere dirt man acceptable to the heavens? If his science studies only material, he has stopped short of Glory, for if he digs deeply enough, he would realize the mystery —that is the kingdom of heaven— is within him. How narrow, now that we have described the criterion for entrance, is that ‘way’? This is the alchemist’s insight, the fact of the need for metaphysics, the laws regarding consciousness, alongside those of material physics—that they are one: this is the lapiz philosophorum, the pursuit that modern science has forgotten; that is, the need, if man is to transform all the Mother’s material into its highest and best use, for man to transform himself. “Man lives not by bread (material substance) alone, but by every word (Logos) that proceeds from the mouth of God.” The proper philosopher, therefore, pursues transformation of himself. The holy power of naming, as Adam was commanded to undertake, of every thing —categorization, that is, to the modern scientific tongue— of transforming what is into what ought, which is the Telos, the function, of the Logos which man (Adam, Christ, Hermes, Nietzsche) uniquely possesses, if he will only make that sacred trade and name himself, finally, a god, one with god, consubstantial with the father; this naming will be his salvation. The philosophers, if they will only follow Nietzsche’s and Christ’s examples, tear themselves to pieces, they will become the bread of life to others, and will themselves join God—whether at his left or his right. In philosophers’ attempts at metaphysical rebellion, they necessarily put themselves on the Altar, and in return earn their holy exchange: a perspective on life’s (Mother’s) proposition, and in that self-sacrifice, happiness— a psychopomp in true participation in the Divine. This is why sisyphus should be imagined happy. All thanks to John Vervaeke, for his brilliant ‘3 p’s’ and his kind heart.

If we can conceive, we moderns, of a Spirit of the Mother in nature, that from biology an immaterial experience emerges; if we recognize the spirit, the patterns in and of Nature ('Nature's nature', that is),  then why is it so inconceivable to us that the Spirit of the Father which notices those natural patterns, the spirit which is embodied in our very bodies has 'come into', or 'inhabited' these bodies of ours?

The body is tangible, a basis for spirit; just as the spirit acknowledges the body and gives it existential "life." 

The two clearly interdepend.

Matter may well pre-date spirit but its life —the life that comes from being known, named, that is 'life as understood by spiritual experiential beings, begins with, from, and by the naming function, the Logos, the 'word in the beginning'—Being. 

The potential of mother / matter is made real in the World of Being by the pattern that the Father / pattern introjects in relation to her usefulness to and in that same World of Being (that is, usefulness in relation to pattern-recognizing Beings who pattern recognize for a living—literally, in order to survive). 

Even time —the time by which it is conceived that matter might pre-date consciousness— is but a re-cognized pattern (of suns and moons and spinning); but there again—'of what?''...pre-"existent" material. 

And so it is in one way that material nature comes first, and in another that her practical existence is only made (usefully) relative to, and by, the father's patterning function which names the 'nature of Nature'. 

In the world of Mankind, the one which sits atop the natural Earth, without the Individual's spirit, recognized as such, Man is, when he becomes de-spirited, also simultaneously re-Natured (re-animalized) and de-natured (reverted from pattern recognition into animalic pattern obeisance), and this is the very end of the "World." 

Today we are rushed—foremost by the State, who enjoys itself most when governing animals, and also by entertainment—to denature our spiritual inheritance, to hand over our Gift of Consciousness to screens and the mind-grasping ('enter' - 'taining') stories atop them. It is no wonder, then, that those very stories —those that grab or minds most tightly and posit for us realities both supposedly real and imaginary— those we pontificate, speculate, and theorize about long after they've finished playing, are those of Armageddons of just such crises of human consciousness. 

Can we, in time to avoid imitating our art, recognize the root of these introjected potentialities ‚ can we keep our freely given Gift of Conscious Spiritedness? Can we, by its magical use, court our Spirits'  continued presence? Only if we practice fervently that Spirit's needs, its requisites: small, accountable communities allied against the largess-seeking state of the State (Leviathan, that is), and the avoidance of that which de-natures Spirit by means of sin: entertainment of the mind in place of communal reality. 

Should the cozy alliance between State and Entertainment succeed in denaturing we Spiritual beings, they will (as they clearly intend) generate a false world, and without turning inward to that ‘still small voice’, they will dominate our Being —our entire experience— with those false realities. The struggle is not between left and right, nor between economic classes, but between those who secretly know of the profits that can be had by way of the process of denaturing of the Spirit of the Father that resides in the otherwise natural chthonic man; if he is stripped of identity with the father, in his natural nakedness which yearns for a name, he will labor indefinitely in order to purchase some seemingly available, if false, identity in order to fill that generated void.

How might this really end, this endless desire? Do you doubt the limitless want of the gods within—to live eternally in the pleasure of the present? I would count that foolish. And a god of this very sort comes promising “rest” —we do not want it. We’d rather agony if agony promises, however remotely, this grander ideal: eating and having. Only to press atoms and Adam far enough. This is not heresy but Truth: we are pressors for pleasure. Hereby the Jew is more true than the Christian, to the nature and spirit of the Göttmensch. He is a master of the trade, the trans-action; man is this transaction—a ‘from this to that’, a “down-going” of spirit into flesh, and, thereafter, from flesh to spirit; a suspension that —who— enjoys its present. He desires most deeply to remain, and not for salvation; solution from his dilemma, not to escape but to persist, as a god in flesh: his ‘evil’ is death, that rest; and so the presser of rest is executed, for he is the heresy against Life, everlast, remanence, suspension—pleasure’s sake (what else does a god have?). Didn’t God himself —and not his salvific son— hand man that fiery lever of techné bent against death itself?

But if spirit declines that refreshing tide, then the gods writhe in their heaven, nevermore descending in their temporal turn at time, at fleshiness—at pleasure! Man, this ‘last god,’ he to would write in fleshly decay. Does the vampire maintain? No, he forfeits, and is a forfeiture, of spirit; why I cannot say—the spirit simply flees the cannibal. The gods issue a recall, and so he ‘lives without living,’ for what is this game of transactions without its consequence? Without death, life is static—life becomes a death, meaningless, action without trans-action. Life is in the joint, that “árthrosi” between heaven and earth; hence man’s art is about nothing but this handshake with heaven, this turn-taking in temporality, this recess and recession, this tide of gods spewed ashore like psyche from her mother’s foam. If he hopes for another turn as god in flesh, he must render himself up as such, take pleasure in temporality —for it must be lacking in eternity— and then die. Man’s true dilemma: Jesus or the vampire—which is to say “It’s Jesus or the technical vampire.”

Christ and Nietzsche both crucified in knowledge; one to God, of God; other to Satan of Satan. And to what great end but victimage: martyrs to great kingdoms each; one to heaven; other to earth. Who's message persists? More importantly, who's saves man—his readers?: to die to self; or to kill for self; in service to that sense of fullness of Being—each in respect to despair's reality in man's soul; to give being or to take it? Has one assimilated more, closed desire's gap? 

One: I and the father [of Being] are One; Other: I Am destroyed, nihilism in the name of greatness. —each, annihilated? No. The former in body but aggrandized in spirit—spiritualized, infinitized; the latter destroyed body and mind.  

Simply: 
Nietzsche counted the devil and got his hell in his pursuit of: temporal affective knowing. Christ "won God" and is the ruler, the very measure, of the gap between man's Being and God's—and their bridge across that gap. Eternal effective being.

What is the human-valued value of atheism —that “god does not exist”? Well, existence is a tricky subject. We’ll leave that for later, whether god does this thing we call existing. The human-valued value of [all of society being turned toward] atheism is simple: without the concept of God the people believe they are material.

Governments and kings govern the material world, not the spiritual world, for each man is a sovereign in his soul to the degree that he, paradoxically, orients his being’s pursuit toward oneness in Being with God who begot his beingness (that is, his spirit’s experience of consciousness in and of the material world exterior to that experience itself). Enter the biopolitical state’s implicit mandate: if government aims to govern the zoē, Ambagen’s “bare life,” taming it in aim at encircling (subjugating) all life into and under the law of the Polis, the civilized animal’s environment where the government governs, then it is best, from this government’s perspective, to treat men as monsters. Monsters are men without God, without identity in Being, indeed without experiential being or an assumption about their relation from whence that experience came, for monsters have no being to speak of—they are pure animalic instinct and thusly necessitate governing, limiting, monitoring, caging, and perhaps even monetizing (as we indeed do with beasts in zoos whose implicit message is: you, animal as these, could be here, as these save your governability relative to them). Governments always seek their mandate in some course threat of some half truth: “man is an animal”. Yes, and without a relation to himself, his being founded in the Being of God, he is only that; but he is not only that. Claim otherwise and find yourself, sooner or later, on the wrong side of those bars. Black’s Law dictionary originally defined a Person as “monster”, with no upper case “m” as if to deprive it (Him) of this sense of being and thereby nomos, orientation to Law.

Man was not always thought of as having possession of himself; it is easy for modern man with his blind insistence upon and presumption to “rights” to miss that crucial fact of history. He even misses the point in moralizing over the sins of slavery, whose real sin was inconsideration for the Being inside the enslaved man who identifies per se, because this question provokes that same modern mind toward God as that source of being; else he must admit that the slaves body was, is, “just a body” and thereby governed by man’s law, which is clearly mutable to the whim of the state. Hence the desperation of the modern man to “fix” the state’s morality: it cannot permit, in its “scientific” atheism, that man has a longing for the source of his being because this modern god cannot —that is, science cannot yet— fathom a real yet immaterial being because it, and with it modern man, is trapped in the presumptions which are paradoxically and frustratingly caught between the pre-Christian and post-enlightenment eras. The bio-political golom (Hobbes’ Leviathan) grows larger with every spirit claimed by atheism and away from god; and it is become as such —a blind god— to modern man. Look how he worships and abhors this ambivalent creature. Look at what it’s made of him. The value of atheism to man is nothing, for it convinces him he is all material and no spirit; the value to the state is that it’s implicit mandate is to protect “People” (monsters) from themselves. Thus its mandate is growth. And does it grow? And is it —even its justice— blind? If we are material we are monsters and we democraticians comprise Leviathan. God is not an option, not if you mean to have a soul’s sovereignty; for if you demand there is no god, you claim, like the slave, you are a body to be governed by a principle no higher than the monsters themselves who comprise this bio political, godless monster, the State.