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.

If we united religion, science and philosophy, what would it offer us? If we united religion, science and philosophy, what would it offer us? What would if offer us as a speciess? It may provide us with a means of coming to a consensus regarding what it is we believe we are and why it is we believe we exist. It was Carl Sagan who best expressed it when he said: "We are privileged to influence and perhaps control our future. I believe we have an obligation to fight for others, who came before us, and to whom we are all beholden and for all those who, if we are wise enough, will come after. There is no cause more urgent, no dedication more fitting then to protect the future of our speciess. Nearly all our problems are made by humans and can be solved by humans. No social convention, no political system, no economic hypothesis, no religious dogma is more important." The means of developing such a consensus is through the development of a concept defined by Stephen Hawking as a 'universal philosophy.' This 'universal philosophy' could be achieved by using a process developed by Husserl: using 'bracketing' and applying the process of 'reduction' as outlined by Husserl. 'Bracketing' is the process of eliminating any superfluous and irrelevant perceptions that are a part of our everyday lives until one is left with life's primary essentials. 'Reduction' is the process of examining what remains, the primary essentials - to make sense of ones 'intentionality'. In short, it is Husserl's development of process that helps us to develop Hawking's concept of a 'universal philosophy'. It is the process of 'bracketing' and 'reduction' that helps us to formulate answers to the three basic questions: Where are we? What are we? Why do we exist? In essence, it is Husserl who has defined the process and Hawking who has named the product of that process. A search for purpose is in essence a search for a 'universal philosophy' based upon 'truths'. This 'universal philosophy' - this means of modeling a 'universal ethic' upon which we and all life throughout the universe can agree - needs to be found in order to resolve the many socially divisive issues we confront as a speciess. Perhaps more importantly, we need to develop this understanding, this model, before we confront other life forms with which we may have decidedly differing views. If our speciess does not put such a consensus in place, we may once again find ourselves divided and in conflict. As history has shown over and over again, we will find ourselves at war with each other. We will be a divided speciess attempting to cully favor with differing intellectual life forms which we will undoubtedly encounter as we push the limits of our presence beyond our earth, to the far reaches of our solar system, our galaxy, and to the very edge of the universe itself. To prevent this, we need to develop a 'universal philosophy' capable of supporting and embracing all religions, scientific thought, variety of philosophies, and perceptions that we as a speciess have so uniquely developed. Once we have developed such a philosophy, we will need to test it. ... We need to be sure it unilaterally encourages the concept of creative thought and freedom of action. For if a model of a universal philosophy does not take on this characteristic of free action and thinking, it can never be considered 'universal'. Once a model of a 'universal philosophy' has been developed, it can be tested in terms of its validity as a universal philosophy by observing the degree of constraint it imposes upon God. The less constraining the model, the more universal it will be. This process of building a model of a 'universal philosophy' - that will act as a foundation for our present perceptions - is in essence a search for truth. Perceptions are concepts we form regarding what we understand to be 'truths'. As a speciess, we appear to have three means of forming what we bel

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.

Boethius argued we must accept free will as being recessive, submissive to divine foreknowledge, determinism, pre-destination, and predestination. Now if submissive independence is not an error, what is? Is Boethius to blame for our having been unable to resolve the paradox regarding free will and divine foreknowledge? An alternative metaphysical perception, metaphysical model, to Boethius' metaphysical perception exists and is presented within this tractate. The problem is to gain the attention of religion, philosophy, and science, all of who have rejected the very validity of metaphysics itself. Boethius moves our perceptual understanding regarding the system being filled with free will into that of being 'the' system filled with both free will and divine foreknowledge. As such, free will and divine foreknowledge, with the help of Boethius, now have a location within which they can be found. However, the understanding regarding the role of both free will and divine foreknowledge as well as the understanding regarding the interrelationship between free will and divine foreknowledge not only remain in a state of confusion but even more disconcerting, the existence of such an interrelationship is not recognized as a significant aspect of the 'larger' system. It is this state of this confusion which will be specifically addressed within this tractate.