In the previous articles we found that the Mysticism of Union with a personal God can either adhere to Monism (including Panentheism) or reject to think in dichotomical categories by accepting both Unity and Difference and giving a solution to the problem of the One and the Many not based on exclusivity (Christian Tri-Une God). Monistic worldviews, as we have by now repeatedly seen, cannot avoid operating under a dialectical paradigm.

In addition, we saw how among Christianity, two of its main denominations, by adding the Filioque clause and engaging in dialectical thinking through the increased importance given to human reason and philosophy, unknowingly modified original Christian tenets. This lead to interpreting salvation in an increasingly monistic (Catholic Beatific Vision of God [Internal Union, or the One]) or pluralistic way (Protestant Heaven as a place [External Union, or the Many]), instead of the patristic non-dialectical view of deification (Theosis; Interpenetration [One/Many]).

We saw how Orthodox Christianity, in contrast, fought to keep operating under the revealed non-dialectical paradigm, which protected it against innovation in doctrine and the undermining of the characteristically Christian belief in Unity in Difference, the One and the Many.

Because of all the above, Christianity stands in a particular and unique position in metaphysical matters, refusing to be reduced to another “doctrine of the One”, while most other current worldviews eventually fall under this category in one way or another, as we have been discussing throughout this website.

Given the incompatibility between the metaphysical foundations of Christianity and the One, we cannot but avoid taking a stand, since both cannot be true.

The problem is, then, how to make that decision?

Cornelius Van Til, when explaining the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God, noted the impossibility of finding a non-dialectical solution to the problem of the One and the Many through a non-Trinitarian God. Do we agree with him? Can we provide a sound alternative to this statement? Pursuing this line of thought may be a fruitful endeavour in our quest, as it was for many in the past.

In contrast, a theology that focuses on both unity and difference has the metaphysical grounds to establish, for example, a form of government more tolerant of said difference (e.g., the Byzantine Empire). It is also incapable of understanding the concept of “just war” as anything more than a contradiction in terms, only allowing the use of violence for self-defense purposes.

This, not only tolerance, but love of uniqueness in turn makes possible to define the Christian Tri-Une God as the God of love (1 John 4:7-11). However, this is not the case for the God of the Philosophers (and therefore of human Reason), who loves knowledge above all else (Self-knowledge, the One knowing Itself) and defines oneness as a merger erasing any particularity.

This brings us to the notion of authority. Given that faith is an unavoidable part of human existence, do we choose to place our faith regarding theological matters in human reason alone and in its dialectical Either/Or logic? Or do we place it in revealed theology and in the witness of the many martyrs who willingly gave their life away in order to affirm the truth they experienced?²In this regard, trying to interpret the Holy Bible as a scientific textbook to be rationalized in search for scientific facts instead of as a theological compilation of inspired books would be a categorical error.³Theology does not exclude reason, it just subordinates it to revelation. Reason, of old called the handmaiden of theology, is used to derive the implications of theology. However, it cannot by itself establish God´s First Principles, as by definition they concern a plane of existence above human reason.

Another example would be the consequences of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura (“the Bible alone”), and how removing tradition⁴The same tradition that was the whole faith of the early Christians that had no Holy Bible to rely on, since the compilation of the biblical canon was not fixed until a few centuries later. from Christian life has led to a proliferation of different interpretations of Christian tenets that has resulted in the increasing fragmentation of Protestantism into a number of denominations with doctrines progressively more distant from original patristic Christianity.

Pentecostalism and Charismatic movements are probably the most clear examples of this, with their extreme emphasis on pietistic “mystical manifestations” such as glossolalia, falling to the ground, moans and cries during worship services. Those experiences, at best, would have been judged by traditional monks and mystics as totally alien and even opposed to the serene and peaceful experiences of holiness they experienced through the Uncreated Light of God (as St. Symeon the New Theologian explained).

Obviously, all worldviews have good and bad apples, and problems arise in all of them due to the mere “human factor”. Orthodox Christianity is no exception, with aspects such as ethnocentrism being an unresolved issue. However, this does not detract from the fact that, even when applied to worldviews and their metaphysical axioms, the saying “by their fruits you shall know them” (Matthew 7:20) still holds true.

Another fruitful line of investigation for us could be, as we previously saw HERE and HERE, the recurring symbolism and metaphysical doctrines taught by popular media, overwhelmingly in favour of certain worldviews (Panentheism, impersonal Monism or the One) to the detriment of others which, if anything, tend to be attacked (usually Christianity).

Do we believe that this is all coincidence? Then, we have to explain the consistency of the doctrines being taught and their recurrence among different media and different times.

Do we believe that there is an intention, an agenda, behind it? In that case, is it one that has our best interests in mind or not? What is the endgame? Is it to catalyse human spiritual evolution? Is it to delude us? These are questions that we all have to answer for ourselves.

In order to better answer these questions, it is the hope of the author of this website that it can serve as a tool to identify these narratives, their origins and their metaphysical building blocks, as well as the worldviews that are consistent with them and those that are incompatible, in order to see through the layers of increasingly common symbolism and metaphysical content that exists in our world and that we are all too often unaware of.

As a farewell message to the last section of this website and, indeed, as a general summary of The Metaphysical Compass Project, the author would like to humbly make a few final remarks:

• In times of crisis and conflict, a solution that aims to achieve indiscriminate unity may seem (or even be) good in that precise moment, but not necessarily represent the truth or be a good long term solution. It is important to be vigilant about the pre-suppositions and implications that any such solution entails for our vision of reality.

• The metaphysical pieces that would be needed for a future mass initiation are already being put in place through mass media and popular culture. Presumably, it would only take a global crisis that involves the “death and resurrection” of modern society to weave them together and create a new dominant worldview.

This worldview could be an old one (e.g., Panentheism / Non-Dualism) or a completely new one that we still do not know about. Whatever the case may be, the assertion that Jesus Christ was the Incarnation of God as revealed in the Scriptures will probably be incompatible with any of them.

It will also be in all probability incompatible with the both One and Many non-dialectical solution offered by the Trinitarian God of Christianity, best preserved, despite all obstacles, in Orthodox Christianity.

• If we believe that there are signs that we are heading towards an engineered spiritual crisis, the most logical response is, regardless of whether we prepare otherwise or not, to prioritize our spiritual health and that of our loved ones.

It is not fruitful to engage in deep theoretical analysis alone, which easily makes us feel smarter while leaving us in the same spiritual place. If there are “hidden hands” steering history, there is ultimately a spiritual component in them and, in that case, it is very unlikely that we will be always able to outsmart them⁵“The psychological trials of dwellers in the last times will be equal to the physical trials of the martyrs. In order to face these trials we must be living in a different world.”
― Rose, Fr. Seraphim (Hieromonk).. As we have seen, an extra twist can always be given to any dialectical narrative.

Even though books can be illuminating intermediate steps, the logical response in such a scenario is to understand what it means to lead a spiritual life and act accordingly. To do this, we do not have to become experts in geopolitics, we just have to remain vigilant and work to get closer to God.

In addition, if the reader’s path leads him, like it led the author of this book, to be interested in Orthodox Christianity, the first step to “act accordingly” would be to contact a local priest, who will be the person best positioned to resolve any doubts that they may have, both theological and about the practical aspects of the Christian spiritual life. In all probability, especially if the talk happens after Liturgy and the priest is nice, he will also share some food.

In any case, we hope that this work will enable the reader to better understand and unravel the key metaphysical presuppositions of any present or future worldview, which will invariably be defined by its stance on the problem of the One and the Many and the solution, dialectical or not, given to it. We also hope that the knowledge acquired about symbolism and dialectical processes applied to the governance of society will enable the reader to interpret contemporary events from a deeper perspective, helping them to better understand their underlying narratives.

1. The One and the Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy. R.J. Rushdoony.
2. Mysticism, Sacred and Profane: an Inquiry Into Some Varieties of Praeternatural Experience. R.C. Zaehner.
3. God, History, and Dialectic. Vol. I-II. Joseph P. Farrell.
4. Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future. Fr. Seraphim Rose.
5. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Vladimir Lossky.

1. “The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax” (the abolition of the tax effectively implying the end of religious tolerance for non-Muslims). ― Sahih al-Bukhari 2476. Book 46, Hadith 7.
2. In this regard, trying to interpret the Holy Bible as a scientific textbook to be rationalized in search for scientific facts instead of as a theological compilation of inspired books would be a categorical error.
3. Theology does not exclude reason, it just subordinates it to revelation. Reason, of old called the handmaiden of theology, is used to derive the implications of theology. However, it cannot by itself establish God´s first principles, as by definition they concern a plane of existence above human reason.
4. The same tradition that was the whole faith of the early Christians that had no Holy Bible to rely on, since the compilation of the biblical canon was not fixed until a few centuries later.
5. “The psychological trials of dwellers in the last times will be equal to the physical trials of the martyrs. In order to face these trials we must be living in a different world.” ― Rose, Fr. Seraphim (Hieromonk).