The value of the more general and abstract efforts of politi- cal theory, of what may perhaps be called the philosophy of the state, is often questioned. It is urged on the one hand that the true science of politics cannot go beyond the study of the actual organization of government and of its relations to other social and economic institutions. On the other hand, it is asserted that political philosophy, because it is necessarily a priori in method, cannot do more than ring the changes on certain fundamental types of theory which were stated once for all in the far-distant past. Thus, for example, Professor Dunning in his recent book on Political Theories Irom Rousseau to SPencer says, "Greek Thought on this problem [the justification of authority and submission] in the fourth and third centuries before Christ in- cluded substantially all the solutions ever suggested. " 1) Nevertheless, with some ups and downs, political philosophy goes on; it is one of those subjects of pennanent human inter- est which, whether "scientific" or not, men are not likely to abandon. To be sure, it does at times degenerate into an apol- ogy for special interests in their endless struggle for power. This danger can scarcely be avoided when men undertake to weigh values and to estimate the importance of tendencies that have not yet eventuated in political fact. But notwithstanding this danger, the criticism of principles is indispensable.

In May 1954 twelve select members from several disparate organisations including Freemasonry, Propaganda Due, Opus Dei and the Knights of Malta demanded a highly classified meeting with the Special Assistant to the President of the United States. They sought total suppression of an antediluvian artefact captured from German forces in the last days of World War II. The horribly disfigured keeper of an obscure archive within the Vatican is compiling a dossier that reveals a message coded by the Knights Templar within a stained-glass window before their extermination in the 14th century; a message deliberately concealed by an underground fraternity since it was hidden in the Holy Bible 2,000 years ago. As a young boy during the final days of World War II, Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Antonio Valla witnessed a terrifying truth, forever altering the course of his life. This unspeakable event has steeled his determination to uphold the conservative doctrines of the Holy Church. Anything less would be heresy. Yet within the Holy See, an outcast toils relentlessly in the archives of the Apostolic Penitentiary, compiling the most heretical and subversive information ever gleaned from the ancient manuscripts. The very authority of the Holy See is now threatened. Should this information be released, it would topple established religion and science. Powerful interests are determined that this man be stopped, but it appears he has friends in high places. The keeper has been transmitting information to a secret society that seeks to uncover the explosive truth of human genesis. They seek the help of Aiden Keyes, a paleo-anthropologist who has uncovered an ancient crypt in Baalbek, Lebanon. Aiden discovers a curious reference in the Holy Bible echoed in other historical documents such as the 6,000 year old Sumerian writings: "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. There were Nephilim on the earth on those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them..." But his discovery is compromised by a covert agency that is chartered with maintaining a fictional religious history. Their goal is to obscure the incredible truth of human origins. Aiden, together with the uncompromising but beautiful Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Languages, Keisha Peterson, must now fight malevolent forces that are gathering. They must fight for their lives, and more importantly, for the release of a revelation that will change the world forever.

Regarding paradoxes, Wittgenstein stated: 'It is the business of philosophy not to resolve a contradiction by means of a mathematics or logic discovery but to get a clear view of the state of ... affairs before the contradiction is resolved. (And this does not mean that one is side stepping a difficulty.) Wittgenstein believed philosophy has the responsibility to resolve paradoxes through an interpretation of what seems most reasonable. It is then mathematics and logic, which follow and validate or invalidate such a view. It is the function of the philosophical field known as metaphysics to examine the concept of the whole. Is the physical the whole? If the physical is not the whole then what lies beyond the physical, meta - beyond, physics - the physical? Kant proposed a metaphysical system of limited existence 'containing' infinite possibilities. Such a perception is metaphysical in nature for it places a limit upon the whole leading to the question regarding what lies beyond the limit itself. Such a topic lies well beyond the parameters regarding a dialectic of space and time. In fact, such a topic lies beyond the parameters regarding a dialectic of the void of space and time. We will not ignore such a topic, rather we will address the topic of what lies beyond the limits of the whole in Tractate 18: The Emergence of Theoretical Metaphysics. What then are we to examine within this tractate: Tractate 6: Kant and the Void of Space and Time? We are to examine space and time, the void of space and time, passive observation, active observation. In spite of the pronouncements of philosophers to follow Kant, meta-physics, is not dead. Meta-physics has just been set aside while we await a new metaphysical system. Kant said we have no choice but to establish a more comprehensive metaphysical system before we relegate his system to the archives of ancient history. Such then becomes the task of this dialectic for the very purpose of this work to establish both a new metaphysical model and the rationality regarding the new metaphysical model. As we shall see, however, the task of 'replacing' Kant's system is not to be attempted through the process of destroying Kant metaphysical model but rather the new model is established through the process of fusing Aristotle's, Kant's, and Hegel's model all into one metaphysical model. First: The universe evolves as our thoughts evolve. Second: The concept of a system is critical to metaphysics. Regarding the first concept: The perception, the universe evolves as our thoughts evolve, provides the rationale as to why our understanding of the 'Greater' picture is so important. The concept that the universe evolves as our thoughts evolve implies we actively 'form' what 'will be' as opposed to the past Aristotelian perception that we are merely observers of 'what is'. Regarding the second concept: Kant was the first to propose such an upside down concept as the universe itself evolving as our thoughts evolved. Kant turned metaphysics and thus philosophy on its head just as Copernicus turned cosmology and thus science on its head. Kant was the first metaphysician to step beyond the perceptual metaphysical perception of the day. Kant was able to step beyond the perception of the day regarding the observer passively observing. Kant, however, was unable to step beyond the perception of the day regarding the existence of an Aristotelian closed system. Such conflicting positions generated unwieldy metaphysical contradictions. Kant innovated a perception incapable of being 'confined' within an Aristotelian closed system and thus found himself incapable of finding both first truth and his dearly sought categorical imperative. It is these two concepts, first truth and categorical imperatives, that this work will examine and resolve.

Aristotle divided the universe into incremental layers of distance heading outward from a center. As such humankind became confined to the limits of 'a' system. We are an amazing species. Confining humanity to the restrictions of a closed space does something to humanity's psyche. It does not matter if the confines are physical or abstract, the results are the same. Confinement generates an overpowering need to 'escape', to once again 'breath' the air of expansiveness, to 'breath' the air of freedom, to 'breath' the air of the 'open spaces', to journey unimpeded. The closure of the system was not necessarily a 'negative' development. Aristotle moved humanity in the direction of understanding our universe as a physical entity. Aristotle's perceptions allowed science to evolve as just that, science. The development of science provided the means by which we could understand what lies within 'the system'. Our problem as a species, however, does not exist with understanding what lies 'inside' Aristotle's system but rather understanding what lies 'outside' Aristotle's system. Multiple philosophical paradoxes emerged through our decision to diminish the significance of the abstract. Ethical issues developed through our decision to disregard the interrelationship between the abstract and the physical, between seamlessness and multiplicity. 'Aristotle's system' leads us to the perception that 'the whole' is the universe and the universe is 'the whole'. 'Aristotle's system' leads to the philosophical perception that 'God is dead', metaphysics is dead, and philosophy reached its end with the development of the 'Hegelian non-Cartesian system'. It may have taken thousands of years, but philosophy, through 'Aristotle's system' reached the same point science reached in the mid-twentieth century: Philosophy reached the point of 'believing' there is nothing 'new' to learn. Philosophically much of society believes the only 'new' perceptions left to explore are simply variations of what we already 'know'. In regards to science, how wrong we were, as the second half of the twentieth century so dramatically pointed out. It may have taken thousands of years, but philosophy, through 'Aristotle's system' reached the same point science reached in the mid-twentieth century: Philosophy reached the point of 'believing' there is nothing 'new' to learn. Philosophically much of society believes the only 'new' perceptions left to explore are simply variations of what we already 'know'. In regards to science, how wrong we were, as the second half of the twentieth century so dramatically pointed out. In regards to philosophy, philosophy is about to discover it is no different than science in this regard. We cannot blame Aristotle for our having given up our pursuits regarding the essence of the whole, individuality, and the universe. Aristotle did not force us to take the limited approach we took. We, humanity, made that decision. In order to resolve our socially conflicting views and actions, we need to step back in time and begin to examine the entities of individuality, the universe, and the whole from a fresh perspective. Philosophical paradoxes will remain paradoxes until we integrate all three entities into 'a' system we can understand. Such a model is the task of philosophy to develop. The model of the 'whole' is what philosophy/reason must develop. Science measures, probes, and observes the universe. Mathematics formulates the universe. Religion stabilizes actions of free will within the universe. Philosophy - and metaphysics in particular - expands our perception of the whole and defines the role the universe and the individual play within such a system. Is there an alternative? Absolutely, and the alternative is provided within the pages of this book

Part I: Creating the paradox of a Perfect System 1. Introduction This tractate, Tractate 5: Leibniz and Theodicy, appears relatively unimportant when compared to the voluminous material found within the previous tractates. One must not forget, however, that we are dealing with abstractual concepts... ... It is theodicy we must examine in order to understand how we are to redirect the 'masquerading metaphysician' back to becoming a purist, a legitimate metaphysician as opposed to acting within an ontologist masquerading as a metaphysician. It is Leibniz who introduced the concept of 'perfection' and 'imperfection' and labeled such a concept with a unique term of its own, theodicy... ...In terms of the shortness of the tractate, there is no doubt the tractate is 'shorter. The concepts with which the work, The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception, deals are abstractual in nature and as such 'perfection' and 'imperfection' are found to be, metaphysically speaking, non-relativistic in nature. Should one feel uncomfortable with the concept of puristic non-relativistic values of abstraction, one may find comfort in reexamining the diagram introducing this tractate. Upon doing so, admirers of Leibniz may find comfort in observing that although the tractate regarding Leibniz may be 'shorter' than the other tractates, Leibniz and the concept with which he dealt take up more space within the diagram and require the listing of his name more frequently than any other philosopher. In addition, the diagram credits Leibniz with having established the first thought of there acting within a distinctly separate and independent 'location' existing 'isolated from' the physical. So much for the 'shortness' of the Leibniz' tractate, but what of the emotional approach versus the less objective approach found within the tractate itself as 'compared' to the first four tractates? Leibniz introduced a very emotional concept, the concept of humanity, the concept of all forms of abstractual knowing acting within 'imperfect' versus simply the individual in the puristic sense of the word. Such personal re-characterization of our very essence deserves its own unique emotional response. Leibniz, through his work, re-characterizes our, humanity's, actions as being 'imperfect'. Leibniz creates the concept of imperfection becoming a location of the lack of 'perfect quality' through the emergence of a new location. As the new location emerges, its characteristic becomes defined: Perfection exists. As such the concept of 'omni...' spreads to action as well as knowledge, power, and presence. Through Leibniz, 'Separation through exclusion' becomes a necessity. And where will examining Leibniz and theodicy take us? It will take us to the metaphysician who perhaps was the first philosopher since Leibniz to discard the facade of being 'an ontologist working in the guise of a metaphysician'. It will take us to the work of Immanuel Kant himself. Leibniz attempted to create a term to resolve what he considered to be a paradox underscoring religious and philosophical thought. Theodicy, a term introduced by Leibniz to characterize the topic of God's government of the world in relation to the nature of man. The problem is the justification of God's goodness and justice in view of the evil in the world. He attempted to compartmentalize the contradictory discussion regarding the concept of a 'perfect' God being 'perfectly good' while allowing 'evil' to exist, while allowing evil to take place, while allowing evil to be created 'within' It's personal creation which 'lesser' 'beings' call 'the universe'. But Leibniz failed to recognize that as soon as he accepted the first three forms of 'omni-', omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, than the fourth form, omnibenevolence, became an invalid concern to both religion and philosophy.