PARTHENOGENESIS AND THE UNSPEAKABLE NAME OF GOD by Simpa Omoluabi

By

Omoluabi S. Simpa

PARTHENOGENESIS

AND THE

UNSPEAKABLE NAME OF GOD

By

Omoluabi S. Simpa

Introduction

In the first part abridgement of the original essay which is titled ‘The Judeo-Christian Journey Heavenward’ is Oedipus complex’ I took the privilege to explain my idiosyncratic nature of God as being different from that referred to as the Almighty GOD or LORD, the reader should be mindful of that, in that this is a personal understanding of what is biblically ostensible and to this end  I do appreciate that whom is God, that whom said ‘let there be light’ in the Beginning which I referred to as Lucifer or Venus and as well is the outcast for to this end this is Man based on my Oedipal analysis, I mean God the first outcast and  this is Man, not in the human sense but it is this very nature to which we humans aspire, which in the line of such thoughts in a poem of my collection ‘Prelibation of Aroha’ I wrote;

‘What is man? For we are yet men. This is man:

THE RECONCILIAION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS & BEAUTY.’

The very poem is titled Torrid Curfew a thought which came among some other lines alluding to Christopher Okigbo towards the ending of the poem which on writing in the same poem upon writing the lines

‘Before heaven’s portal we stand without gender

and the PASSPHRASE is NOTHING BUT RIGHTHEOUS-

NESS,’,

the entire picture of what the beginning stanzas of Okigbo’s poem Heavensgate was communicating came clear, what he Okigbo meant by the ‘watchman with the watchword at hevensgate’, a realization to which I immediately interpreted in allusion to him making mention of the words ‘WATCHWORD’ and ‘WATCHMAN’ in quotes. My lines read,

…Before heaven’s portal we stand without gender,

and the PASSPHRASE is NOTHING BUT RIGHTHEOUS-

NESS, the ‘WATCHWORD’ with the ‘WATCHMAN’.

I AM THE STAR FORESHADOWED.

What is man? For we are yet men. This is man:

THE RECONCILIAION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS & BEAUTY.

The words of the lines by Christopher Okigbo alluded to in my lines reads below in the beginning stanzas of heavensgate:

‘Before you mother Idoto

naked I stand

before your watery presence

a prodigal

leaning on an oil bean

lost in your legend.

Under your power wait I

on barefoot

watchman for the watchword

atheavensgate;…

This very passage of the poem is structured on the Prodigal story and the Oedipus complex which is ostensibly present and more so on the nature of the Judeo-Christian conceptualization of heaven to which end in conclusion of the first part abridgement of the work originally of the stream of consciousness at large, I had ended it with a poem I had written on the must-not-mention-name of GOD, but this is part of a number of such poems a thought which Okigbo had hinted upon in another poem of his, I can’t remember which for I no longer have the copy of a collection of his poems, but then he made mention a lyric in allusion to the ‘adversary’ as it is Biblically pictured saying ‘a name we must not mention’, at this time it never really bothered me much what the name would be until afterwards on thoughts about Oedipus it struck me what the name was to which I had written a poem, the very poem which I had included in the closing of the essay ‘The Judeo-Christian Journey Heavenward is Oedipus complex’, thoughts which actually spurred me to taking to my writing this essay in its original form of  the stream of consciousness, a presentation which was largely a world of theogonic and idiosyncratic thoughts in chaos with the poet trying to make some sense of a nether world which influences the world at large by religions which in the course of imaginative pursuits in mythmaking I finally had a grip of the matter to which I make abridgements in this essay and the previous ‘The Judeo-Christian Journey Heavenward is Oedipus complex’. The line ‘a name we must not mention’ by Okigbo simply alludes to the adversary in Judeo-Christian understanding and also to the name for God for which Adonai is substituted that must not be mentioned,  which in my biblical understanding I have expressed as Lucifer and in my mythopoeic correspondence in Yoruba mythology I have called Olokun and that called the LORD I have  explained as meaning Satan which in Yoruba mythological correspondence I call Eleduwa which is the author of ‘Oduduwa’, Oduduwa whom is called the founder of the human race but I have take the poetic of interpreting the term Odudwa as concurrently meaning ‘our darkness’ and also ‘our black heritage’, and by saying ‘our darkness’ it is a pictorial interpretation which I correspond to the statements in Gen 1:1-4 .

PARTHENOGENNESIS

AND THE

UNSPEAKABLE NAME OF GOD

Must-not-mention-name of God

Son of Man son of God son of Mary

Jesus God in flesh Mary LORD in flesh

The dark things in remembrance we refresh

The queer and Oedipal Christian story.

Battle between God and Satan the LORD

That I a queer songbird must speak the word

Speak the word of God the freedom of speech

‘gainst a satanic constituted leech

Sucking the blood of the people of God

Mosquito lords drinking my outcast blood.

If we reason ‘bout the name Adonai

In truth and fairness I must not deny

That that who is our God is a motherfucker

The first motherfucker the prince Lucifer.                         Omoluabi S. Simpa

‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…’, this very portion I have described as a completely meiotic portion in the sense that this occurrence of the Beginning  was a revolutionary phase in which God the first outcast interfered, which I deemed captured by Moses in the declaration of ‘Light’ by God, light being an opposition to darkness which was the natural state that I call the satanic state of the Beginning, all these I consider including the revolutionary interference as recapitulative in human existence, recapitulation of as it all happened in the Beginning before the first deliverance which is the messianism that in ‘theodite imagery’ is perceived as a parthenogenetic birth by the Jews, and from this ongoingly in a ‘world without end’ are recapitulations interfered with by revolutions in human lives and other existence within the Beginning the entity within which dwell heaven and earth recapitulating in their respective nature and revolutionary nature which I believe to be meiotic from the cosmogonic and theogonic matters surrounding Gen1:1 in that I perceive the nature of God as androgynous, even the very beginning verses of Gen1:1 is a meiotic scripture in that the Beginning is a noun in being and the very occurrences that gave way for the declaration ‘let there be light…’ is the end to which all acts of humanity with other forms of existence follow through in reformation, recycling, and revolution particularly which marks the end of an era or age for light symbolically is representative in nature in the genesis of the hope filled new, a new beginning, all these in terms of as it was written by Moses ‘let there be light and there was light’ on the declaration of God are all recapitulated in revolutions, reformations, recyclings in our existence were light symbolically translates as a new  beginning for such things as an egalitarian existence flooding away despotism or autocracy as darkness,the come of things bringing joy on the fading away of a state nimbus with despair and sadness which is symbolically darkness, for the natural nature of things in the Beginning is darkness, it as such the nature of  justice and liberty are diversifyingly spread across lives as groups, and individuals longing for liberty, fruitfulness after long-sufferings, given an existence that has gone through series of evolutionary patience that put things in that state of barrenness or famine which is assumed when a woman or the earth has not been fruitful respectively in the nature of barrenness and famine, with the individual having done as supposed and waiting relatively beyond measure, in hope for fruitfulness, an understanding Biblically allegorized in the experience of Sarah, for Abraham and Sarah are allegories of  the Beginning but inherently in their longing for a child is a recapitulation of the patience of God in the Beginning out of which he hoped to be delivered, and Lot and his wife were actually allegories of Adam and Eve, but then the case of Adam and Eve is a tale in the classic that is differently told in the light of their love in the characters of Orpheus and Eurydice but then there is an interchanged similitude in relationship with the Lot story in that it was Orpheus whom got to turning around, but in the case of Lot it was his wife who did the turning around, for both story I held a different view in my play ‘ADAM and EVE and the MARRIAGE GOD’ in creating an instance of it in  the original characters of Adam and his spouse, a simple act of revolution which has encapsulated mankind in all affairs, and behind that simple warning of not to turn around, it indicates towards the forbidden in the light of the revolution of man turning back to the beginning, and it turned out the case of Lot was the first given account of incestry, a subtle narration on the Judeo-Christian thought of the nature of man and his destiny which is of a revolutionary nature and in which the story on Lot is a capture of the period of the Old Testament as an age of vengeance while the New in the prodigal story is the capture of the age commencing with forgiveness on the death of the Messiah, a predicted ‘certainty’ of repentance or the return of the Prodigal son back to heaven variantly expressed by the classics in Oedipus. The story on Lot agrees with the Oedipus story, though not the first ‘Genesis’ story of such warning, a precedent story is that of Noah and his son Ham, a narration which gives a different view of whose nakedness was revealed or who was exposed in the garden, a view expressed by Luigi Pirandello in his own way in the play Six Characters In Search For An Author for which reason in the quoted reviews Bernard Shaw referred to it as ‘original’but this is because it was a Garden of Eden inspired tale where symbolizing the devil is the step-daughter of the paterfamilias who symbolizing God was red handedly caught in a solicitous act in which he was rendered exposed and in which the knowledge of it is used by the step-daughter in blackmailing insinuations which strengthens her influence over him, the step-father, and as subtly expressed in the book of Genesis by prophet Moses there is the hint to it of the occurrence of an illicit or scandalous affair by Adam and Eve in the nature of the bride or wife of the true husbandman moving off with the best man or a servant as it happened to the paterfamilias symbolizing God who saw his wife ending up with his apprentice which was were the rift in the family began, a story of Eden Garden story, to which I hold a different notion in my play ‘ADAM and EVE and the MARRIAGE GOD’, but the Beginning in its natural state is what is expressed in Abraham and Sarah resulting to the long awaited birth of Isaac, which in my mythopoeic would mean the birth of Olokun or Lucifer or the birth of God, simply put every birth is recapitulative of the birth of God, the birth of Man, but given my line as I have quoted in the introductory passage of the poem Torrid Curfew that; ‘What is man? For we are yet men. This is man:/THE RECONCILIAION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS & BEAUTY’… this is the very nature of God as I perceive God androgynously and the androgynous is a meiotic nature which inheres in the Christian understanding in the wisdom of patience and longsuffering, given the first deliverance from a revolutionary interference in an evolutionary process which goes seen in humans as expressed in their growth from centuries to centuries in industrialization and technology, and so much for the human effort in the science of stem-cell technology, a revolutionary pursuit that tends towards the superman, ‘Frankenstein’, to which I fear the ultimate  emergence would be on the discovery or understanding of parthenogenesis and how to manipulate this that creatures can be manufactured, frighteningly and above all the manufacture of human nature, in that same sense that we humans do deem ourselves godlike and I dare say if these happens it is the foreshadowing likelihood of humanity being relegated which obviously is one of the thoughts expressed in my play ‘Adam and Eve and the Marriage God’ for to be able to create ‘humanoids’ by having parthenogenetic means effected in artificial creation means the Beginning has been created or if it is one more androgynous in nature it means God has been created whichever way it goes it echoes of the rebirth of Oedipus, Lucifer, the outcast and all these are reliant on the scientific understanding of the meiotic and as well mitotic, this is a philosophical fear, but without doubt it would be a repeat of the process of ‘oduduwa’, that is the darkness of hardship and slavery for these man made ‘aliens’ and human becomes God in the human-made actualization of these aliens by effecting parthenogenesis artificially. But this very sort of new beginning comes about after putting an end of a long standing state of things previously on the part of humans always on the set off of a revolutionary or promethean move, and this is by our individual creativity, and as occasion demands a synergy of individuals, and they are all an androgynous/parthenogenetic display of the Beginning-nter-God nature in the individual being, the nature of the parthenogenetic author of creation and the resultant androgynous nature that became delivered influencing all what humans in all forms of production and reproduction in taking to in the Godhead likeness as written in Genesis 1:26. In the appreciation of the Godhead, saying Godhead I mean the Beginning and God, which in popular religions such as Judaeo-Christianity and Islam whichever way they chose to see any of the Godhead they have always ascribed the masculine role, as the father, to God and heaven is not mentioned as mother in their holy writ but popularly described as feminine, some thanks to the usage heaven’s gate by Shakespeare and Okigbo, I also guilty indeed, but this Godhead parthenogenetic and androgynous entity is what in elements in their atomic nature stands if we see it from ‘theodite imagery’ representation represented as the neutron and the heavens and earth of the creation and of course having evolved, based on the circumstance played are the electron and proton which is the representation of pessimism and optimism, that on the common ground of homecoming and the seek of mankind for salvation, the Oedipus story and the Prodigal story by Jesus Christ have respectively exemplified. Jocasta and Laius as allegories of curiosity is as saying curiosity and necessity are allegories of the first pairs of chromosomes in their nuclear nature, whatever the nature was, certainly dark and hard, it was out of this the heavens and the earth were born of a nuclear fission with the neutron staying indestructible, and using the ‘theodite imagery’ of living natures the dark hard state ran in its own equivalent of mitosis which would be the very evolutionary process from which the revolutionary happened a meiotic nature in nuclear fission that resulted to the Man which is God delivered making a balanced out existence of what symbolically would be heaven and earth, which respectively in gender nature translates to femininity and masculinity to which end I perceive the initial nature was more likely earth if you take my symbolical meaning in contrast to the religious notions of heaven, earth meaning the natural state as I have earlier explained, to which there is reason in Moses saying from the man God created the woman, this nucleic egg or atom is the almost inextricability nature of the parthenogenetic nature, upon which a liberation was ensued that created relatively two bodies given the categorization as the heavens and the earth coming out of a split fission based on a meiotic occurrence which biologically is an unusual cell division process in comparison to most cells which are processed in mitotic divisions to which end it is biologically called normal, which in a way of word usage would mean abnormal for the meiotic which is the androgynous the nature in which I picture God. If we are to in ‘theodite imagery’ biologically recapitulate the Beginning in relation to the deliverance of God it is certainly an asexual one in which the production journey was from mitotic to the unusual meiotic. If the meiotic should ultimately mean something it is largely a breakaway from the mitotic, a breakaway from the normal in which is based successful run of the mechanism for the natural state.

The ecclesiastical triumvirate expression of the Godhead made up of Father, Son and Holy spirit is so on the grounds of the absence of coital necessity to reproduce given the natures as I see them as the Beginning a parthenogenetic entity and God an androgynous one, but then in the light of the Oedipus complex and my assertion of the ‘must-not-mention name’ of God it clearly states why the same nature is God the father and also God the son, and not the nature of God the son being explained as the heir which is us. In the epigraph poem of this essay I capture the name substituted away for Adonai if the irreverent conditions are placed on the outcast which reads out in the last line of the sonnet as:

…that who is our God is a motherfucker

The first motherfucker the prince Lucifer.

This is so if Oedipus is to bear the brunt of the situation, but the other way round in the poem which I had made available in the essay ‘The  Judeo-Christian Journey Heavenwards is Oedipus complex’ because the parents are to blame to which I say as against Ola Rotimi’s adaptation of Oedipus titled the ‘The gods are not to blame’, that the gods are to blame for the final turnout of the outcast, which in messianism brought about a balance in that in the declaration of ‘let there be light’ what followed was the creation of ‘the heavens and the earth’ which is an expression with a polygamous or polyandrous undertone, of course the Semites stuck with polygamy, but then the other way round would be the case as for certain Indian cultures, and as to the heavens and the earth being feminine and masculine respectively or otherwise are attributes that are no absolutes with them which is in a resemblance to the androgynous and parthenogenetic reasons for heaven and earth, for that in the sense we consider earth as mother the entity heaven is therefore imbued with a masculine status but then the entity heaven becomes feminine when collectively we refer to humanity as mankind or man which is a masculine nature. ‘So God created man in his own image…male and female He created them’(KJV), the word man is more likely a representation of the original nucleus which is like the existence of a nation were one party had an effeminate nature not necessarily made up of females and the other a masculine nature not necessarily made up of males, that in the fission divided into commensurate equal halves, maybe as a result of a celestial incompatibility, or of not being able to coexist, and these masculine and feminine bodies necessarily was not as we have it now with ourselves in boy and girl nature, but this very nature probably came to be us in an evolutionary journey, not void of revolutionary initiatives in the realm of things as whichever way they took back then, but then every nature of theirs is accumulated in man or humankind as we have today, largely through memory or better put the psyche, and certainly the race of humanity does not rule out the possibility of a triumph from a catastrophic event, which is obvious in all sphere of industriousness in renaissance, revival, change, resistance, all which in various pursuits are indicated in the belief of an apocalyptic revival or renaissance as appreciated in Christianity and some other religions haunting human thoughts, whose likelihood is glaring in the portents of war and revolutions, which in a fearful way nuclear weaponry currently is the height of man’s destructive potential, an indication towards square-one, and at least someone has attempted the use of it in a civil war in the middle east all in the course of a reformation in a  revolutionary course against the old establishment whom if they think of change would rather that things be left evolutionarily, and all these  attitudes of revolution is what which in such narratives as Adam and Eve with the LORD, Jocasta and Laius as parents to Oedipus, The Prodigal son and the king, Lot and his wife to Abraham you have characters inspired out of curiosity and necessity sometimes needless and they are all related by a human inherence allegorized in the common actions of mobility of ‘turning around’ indicating towards the revolutionary nature of mankind unto salvation by whatever means and on the aftermath result in tragic outcomes for human existence either as a group or individually. The term mankind I find more appropriate as specifically meaning a revolutionary nature which is allusion to the nature of God whom I have explained as the Man, the nature to which we aspire for ‘we are yet men’, which means calling humanity mankind is a reference to the revolutionary nature inherent in the individual by the nature of the Oedipus complex for a heavenly life in that God being the first revolutionary, the first Messiah by virgin birth, by parthenogenesis the very messianic conception of the Hebrews which I am inclined to giving by curiosity as a poet.

You can’t satisfy curiosity without satisfying necessity in that they are originated in the same value, a nature of inherence like the parthenogenetic pre-existence of originality which is an entity of Unity and Unity in mathematical terms is expressed as one (1), a parthenogenetic onei .e the Beginning  out of which must have asexually developed the mitotic and meiotic in the analogical light of male and female as two separate but independent bodies being one in their own respect, but that they were born or split from a single original nucleus and if any is to be in gender represented as the mitotic precursor in the view of prophet Moses that would be the man out of which was made the woman, this simply makes the pair, each one amount to one raised to the power of half in which in mathematical indices can be expressed taking curiosity and necessity as our variants:

curiosity=1^½= 0.5, necessity= 1^½ = 0.5

Added together 0.5+0.5=1.0=1, i.e. Unity. But then let’s have in equation curiosity represented as c, necessity as n and Unity as U

c =0.5 n =0.5

c + n =U therefore U=0.5+0.5=1

U=1

But then also how do we arrive at C and N separately? It therefore means

c = U/(c + n) 2 = U/(c + n)+(c + n)= 1^½ or 0.5

n = U/ (n + c)2= U/(n + c)+(n + c)=1^½ or 0.5

But in doing some further investigation necessitated out of curiosity just to investigate 1 (one) in other words Unity, although not detailed here, I ended with the result 1. Of course what was I expecting? But truly I had nothing particularly in mind only being curious and of this I made a formula for 1. In the course of the experimentation I represented all factors of c and n as n since they were commensurately equal and on that equality in relation to Unity is the crux of the little arithmetic.

U = (m (n) × q) g = 1

In the light of the primordial origination the characters Adam and Eve are representatives of the gameto-nature, gamete which is an English word borrowed from the Greek words gamete and gametes respectively meaning wife and husband, I mention this because the process with which I arrived at 1 (one) I refer to as a recycling or reformation process of the nature of Unity on review was actually a meiotic division in that ‘n’ is the constant of the formula to the end that any number positive or negative integer, fraction or decimal which is adopted for ‘n’ in the formula U = (m (n) × q) g would give the value 1 (one). I had used the term chromosomes in a general biology knowledge of it being codes of the reproductive cells  but then I had later after this moment of elementary mathematics read a dictionary quick-definition of the meiotic and mitotic process of chromosomal divisions, at which I attributed to the arithmetic exercise as being a meiotic processed one, for what I had factored was that since to figure zero-point-five (0.5) from one (1) one (1) has to be divided by 2, it then takes four 0.5s to make 2 which means for each i.e ‘n’ and ‘c’ respectively we have four potential forms containing the value 0.5 which amounts to eight entities of 0.5s in 1 (one) containing a percentage or fractional space of 0.125 which is relative to the potential of 0.5 in 1 (one) before the split, from which I deduct probably a very needless hypothesis from my formulation that U/n² or (U/n³)n is the potential of a form ‘n’ before a split from an original form U, because the result of this for a form needless to say for it is what we witness in nuclear and atomic energy, which in numbers under the idea of unity as 1 (one) shows that one-tenth of an entity is potent with a hundredth of the original entity which means the original entity has the potential of a thousand of itself, but then this thousandth potential amounts to every atomic or nucleic independence, a continuum which provided the original energy of split inheres in every resulting split putting humanity and its existence in relation to its progenitory past as one that suffers a congenital fate which is akin to the atomic Hiroshima disaster fated against the life of children yet unborn. This certainly of continuum tunes with Einstein’s feel of the human potential an impression which doubtless he had gotten from his mathematicking.

The figuration of 8 halves in 1 complies with the haploid states coming together to form a diploid state, the meiotic is to be noted here because the English word meiosis as well means understatement, the very word ‘beginning’ as aligned in the statement of Genesis 1, is nothing but an understatement, nothing but a meiosis, the verse in itself is a meiotic verse of the primordial nucleus-nuclei fission caught in the expression ‘heavens and earth’ and I here make reference to the classic nature of the muses, daughters whom are nine of the relationship between Zeus the chief-god and Mnemosyne who is memory, I hereby mention that the Christian muse is the Holy Spirit and it is the almighty memory which was hinted in the statement of Jesus Christ saying as noted in John 14:26- ‘But the counselor , the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you’(RSV), the nature of Zeus and Mnemosyne is not farfetched from the God-Beginning which I have highlighted as a meiotic occurrence in Genesis1:1 to which an octad occurrence is hinted in the classic variant of Zeus and Mnemosyne, but then the muses of the classic are nine daughters one more than the haploid-duo number of biological meiosis, but then why would the haploids be named daughters by the biologists, the point is that the Greek classic does have a way of picturing different characters that would be fulfilled in a singular biblical character, a good example are the characters Adonis and Dionysus, though not the only ones, but are characters that meets in the character of Jesus Christ, although he is also Abel who is understood as a precursor to Jesus Christ which in this same way detracted from the androgynous nature of God as I perceive is Mnemosyne the classic embodiment of memory not considered as a muse but compensated as the ninth muse which should have been Zeus-Mnemosyne if they are expressed as I express the Beginning nature in the Yoruba gods as Oya-Sango, which if there were eight daughters of the fission in Genesis 1, the chief muse of the eight would be embodied in the Godhead as the almighty memory.

In the perspective of (m (n) × q) g I termed it the meiotic or androgynous formula for to this end I have seen fit to express Olokun in my mythopoeic as having eight daughters and not nine like Zeus, and these daughters given my arithmetic arrival at 1 or Unity, and given other forms of it like Fermat’s, these forms of 1 (one), with their relative constant which is the independent variable, are analogous to the recycling of an original form into different forms and  nature is  always on the course of reformation which is the Beginning-nter-Godand whose likeness humanity is said to be made in Genesis 1:27, and this way of things which is a continuous show of our necessitated-curious dissatisfaction and given my statement that in the Beginning the state of things was ‘satisfactory’ before a state of dissatisfaction which is inherent-hunger of a form of emptiness or space that was concealed but resulted from a laying of waste, a certain reform of destroying or chaos that renders to a formation from which is a recreation, a reformation as well, all an act of recycling or revolution of things, revolution a turn-around, the turning-around of things, but still of the same constituents that was laid waste. In the light of hunger analogized as emptiness due to fruitlessness either in the agrarian sense or uterine, these human natures are traces or hints of that so-so-so distant core of origination, our most remote primeval heritage, for we lay waste in the form of excreta leaving the belly at need for food, we deliver a baby or abort one and if the womb is still intact it is left empty to be conceived. The Beginning inherently recyclic, conceiving ideas partly through humanity, and inherently paradoxical given the word recreation it certainly must be a pastime for the Beginning-nter-God relationship in relation to all things, for by a little stretch of the imagination the words recreation, reformation, recycling, revolution, turn-around are commensurately one. The Beginning as the LORD is neither feminine or masculine just as well as the androgynous, given the entities called as I perceive of the Bible the LORD and the outcast son God which is Man that we humans are yet to become as for my view as a poet which we can only be on the grounds of Messianism, that itis the only sense by which we can come to exist outside the Beginning like Christ which is God the first delivered and outcast of the Beginning, the Beginning parthenogenetically immanent with necessity in the nature of dissatisfaction inherent in its own satanic satisfaction its natural sate of darkness, dissatisfaction being the God nature earlier on in the Beginning, the Beginning that most certainly was the one given in my view, that embodied the satisfied state,  and along came an androgynous or asexual affair which as I have tried to make clear so far given my mythopoeic world in biblical appreciation of the world, a state of dissatisfaction on the part of God before becoming God that must have called whatever be the nature of things, certainly unpalatable in the symbolism of the absence of light, called for the desire for a turnaround of things to which I consider God that whom I term as Man as a cyclic force, a revolutionary to which end became the first Messiah, declaring ‘let there be light’, a declaration of liberation and also a restoration of power, the Judaic or Mosaic world of Messianism born out of parthenogenesis, a birth I call androgynous because the true nature of the Christ spirit would be nothing short of hermaphroditic, one in which the masculine finds balance with the feminine side, which in Jungian psychology is where a male finds absolute balance with the anima and the female absolute balance with the animus, to which end in earthly existence individuals who strive to achieve this state of balance will find such things as homosexuality tolerable, it is a failure of this balance that I believe that makes an individual find homosexuality repulsive, more so such a balance would help the individual against misogynistic and gender biased chauvinistic tendencies, and given that the Christ state is an androgynous one which was a form of cosmogonic meiosis of the events of Genesis 1, the traits of the Beginning-nter-God preordained to inhere in all things at least as far as the material universe is concerned with humans in a universe who through evolutions had not being able to shed this inheritance, an infinitesimal reform revolting misoneism, to the Beginning being conceived with hunger having laid waste, and there by hunger-cum-emptiness in the form of fruitlessness in the form of barrenness or starvation and to satisfy the need of the emptiness or space of that which was laid waste brings to a reformation of the waste, recreation of variant forms of need in an act of recycling, precursor of the saying ‘variety is the spice of life’, to refill the emptiness, undo the dissatisfaction, the Beginning conceiving ideas, creating needs out of that which preexisted, then redestroyed, a metabolic process only to build up again from the waste laid, indeed the apothegm ‘there is always room for improvement’, all these have become our inheritance from the nucleic fission infinitesimally pictured in Genesis 1. This is a process we play and replay in different forms, variant ways, on earth; this primordial action which can be also made clear in relation of the words edifice and edification to the statement; ‘In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ Edifice being the Beginning, and the edification which is the ‘lofty business’ of God with the Beginning in bidsof improving within, and in this nature, we, mankind, heirs of the Beginning, always trying to improve our minds which transfer on the earth by our never stopping to improve earth. The very expression never stopping to improve earth is a double edged sword that cuts here and there at once, which is a human nature of improvement unto destruction. We, humans, are the regent-God in the earth which is a regent-Beginning giving the limitation of the five senses. Mankind or humanity-inter-mother earth is a translation of the relationship of the Beginning (Satan) and God(Man) in Oedipus complex. The Beginning in the light of being the edifice and in edification continuum was preoccupied with all things and before that which became Man and God became delivered to the end of an outcast or secession, and the definition for this relationship is likely the first catch-22. The picture that comes to mind in considering a catch-22 situation is that that makes it appear the preoccupations are sort of occupants in the Beginning like the egg and the fowl, in that these occupants are the ones whom built this Beginning and ended up not being unable to get out in that this Beginning came alive, given this death must be the only way out of the mother-nature, and it is therefore seemingly that the only way to escape the earth while in living presence is by mysticism to which end it is termed self-annihilation, because mystical experiences are means to be one with nature which actually is a death experience and the final come of death in itself is Oedipus complex, and this is the paradoxical existence of life-in-death which is Oedipus complex generated if one appreciates the complex as an evergoing affair between the Beginning and God, which recapitulates in human life in recycling, recreating the need from the waste whose satisfaction derives from being able to fulfill that which from which it was initially laid waste and that which laid the waste can only be fulfilled or satisfied by taking in back in metamorphoric form that which it has passed out, an act captured in two biblical instances one of which is that of Jesus saying that which enters the body defies it not but that which comes out of it, a ‘theodite imagery’ of ingestion and defecation and that of the story of the woman created out of man Genesis2: 21-23, a need for mankind out of his own body for ‘it is not good for man to be alone’ which remotely in tandem highlights the idea of a waste, but then this is misogynistic, but on the whole Messianism in Oedipus complex picture is ‘misohomoist’, male biased, which is misogynistically countered in Lot and his daughters, to which end is another possible theohomologous interpretation by the ‘Lot complex’, and all these are that the body must not return to consume that which it disposed, and in the Oedipus complex sense and ‘Lot complex’ it is made to appear that it is the delivered or disposed that craves that out of which it came; but then in relation to the man out of which the woman was made a contradictory picture is presented by the joke about ‘nowhere like home’ so men must return to the arms of women, but this tempts with the idea that it should be that it was of the woman’s ribs man should be said to have been made and make it fit to blame the woman for the incidence with the snake because since it is the waste that seeks that out of which it came, because the said joke is Oedipus complex supportive and ‘Lot complex’ supportive’, the man should be that created out of the woman, but then I rule not out the possibility of a turnaround in the process from age to age, but this account of the first human-female is actually an ostensible account whose message I expressed in a poem I titled The Rib And The Woman. The joke of coming into the arms of women by men is a quaint and quick capture of the homecoming situation with which humanity is affected by the remote core,  the split originate nucleus from the Beginning having wired us with recreation, revolution, recycling, reformation, to homecoming in which man is exemplified by the fulfillment of Jesus Christ in the Prodigal story positively inspired on the proton side of the originate nucleus and negatively inspired by the electron side of the originate nucleus as exemplified in Oedipus of the classics and the neutron must be the infinite Godhead of the parthenogenetic Beginning and the androgynous God Man, indestructible creative forces locked in self-destructiveness, and are ever forgiving for the Gods are to blame for our troubles. But then all these, our experiences, tells us mankind is a revolutionary race, always caught as a dependent variable in the presence of complicating variables to pick amongst choices in-between two extremes, good and evil, light and darkness etc. which the true strive of man per time is to assert being an independent variable which is actually by making a choice which is not made optional, for the making of a choice is not choosing among that which is made available as it is popularly expressed, but the making of choice is the ability to initiate one which was not made optional in a context that tells one that one has no choice a meaning well hidden in the Cain and Abel story, which on the pessimistic side tells us in Oedipus that oneness, the harmony of Unity on earth by scientific pursuits and growth is ruled out of achievement for it is a trying to make heaven in flesh and blood whose ultimate goal is to achieve everlasting life on earth to which end Christianity like lots of religion believe it’s only achievable beyond death, that the discovery of heaven resides optimistically with the soul, the hope of the Prodigal, outside the limits of the flesh in awakening after death, but the thing with human advancement scientifically to live in comfort on earth from the agrarian onset has been conceptualized as originally sinful, but then the concept of making heaven after death in the Judaeo-Christian view ends up being the same thing, the original sin has to be committed to gain pass.

The Judeo precursory teaching about the coming of Christ unto the actualization of heaven for mankind in the conceptual imagery of the life and death of Jesus Christ amounts to a revolutionary in the definition of revolution as, when the act of one satisfies the body. The singular act of Jesus Christ which is revolutionary, has made, in the individualistic acceptance of him as the truthful one, every man fit for heaven as far as Christianity is concerned but this has been wrongly thought of as only those who accepts him, this is a fact post-testified by Apostle Paul with Jesus having done so in his teaching and preaching unto self-fulfilling prophecy which is a Messianic holding the Jews hoped for and there are those who do not see this as having being fulfilled by Jesus Christ. The death of Jesus is the fulfilling of the repentance, return, recycle, revolution, turnaround of the Prodigal child whose singular action brought or brings satisfaction to the body (of Christ) and this points at individual Messianism, because if Christianity is being Christ-like, it means the individual should aspire to being a source of salvation, for the word Messiah means the same as Christ whose practice is termed Christianity also translatable as Messianism, the savioural actions unto salvation which means salvation is by the self, clearly shows what Jesus meant by having died for all in absolving the sin of everyone on his body upon his death emphasizes that man on earth cannot be free from sin to which end he said except ones righteousness is more than the Pharisee he would not make heaven, this is heaven in the afterlife sense which in God being the first outcast is what is also the outer wilderness or darkness, and making this heaven I described in the first part ‘The Judeo-Christian Journey Heavenward is Oedipus complex’, as been able to get out of the Beginning in which exists heaven and earth by been delivered as God was based on Messianic deeds to which end Jesus gave the story of ‘The good Samaritan’, telling the Jews that one does not have to be a Jew to make the kingdom which in today’s world transfers on the religion of Christianity that  one does not have to be a Christian in the sense of confessing Jesus Christ as your savior to make heaven, for every ones sin has been absolved and the Messianism of an individual is upon him as exemplified in the deed of the Samaritan.

Secondly the conceptual imagery of Christ’s being whom by which we come into heaven is as incestuous as the picture of Oedipus and Jocasta, and would have been absolved of this haram if the Beginning, i.e. the ‘beginning’ of Genesis 1:1 in which humanity exists as I have made clear is interpreted as heaven the motherland but then the case of virgin Mary’s immaculate conception nullifies it; the motherland thing is only possible with earth as regent-Godmother and humans as regent-God which actually is hint of the Beginning and God nature, the Beginning to which the ‘Prodigal’ the imagery for mankind is returned to as home is one grown out of the imagery of the son in amorous embrace with his Beginning, his origin Jesus only being a microcosmic show of God, the notion expressed by the ancient Greeks allegorically stated in Oedipus and Jocasta, the idea of not mentioning the mother in the triumvirate is to keep as much a lid on the Oedipal notion for Oedipus as God definitely is true interpretation of God the Son and God the Father while Jocasta is the Beginning whom is the Mother-God, God the Mother captured in the birth of Jesus as the Messiah God and his mother Mary as Mother-God.

Jesus Christ is the Lord our righteousness, in other words he is the uprightness of mankind, the uprightness of humanity, the uprightness of man, this is a Judaeo-prophecy in tandem with the ‘theodite imagery’ double entendre which is accounted for by prophet Jeremiah of two chapters in his eponymous work, chapters 23 verse 6 and 33 verse 16, the very essence of the resurrection of Christ, by which we come into heaven, since in the Beginning on creation of heaven and earth we are partly heirs of the father God whose we become fully on achieving the state of Christ unto the moment of death, but the point is heaven been conceptualized in womanhood for which Canaan for the Israelites was painted as flowing with milk and honey, and we furthermore have the red sea which is the path to liberty  a conceptualization of the orifice in the loin-cloth, being breakthrough in parting by the outstretched rod of Moses on the way to Canaan Land, the annexation of heaven on earth, this s the Judeo-Christian conceptual contrivance of salvation, liberty, and unifying love, a sex appealing ideal which is well appreciated in the west in the pursuit of human justice and liberty, well appreciated by great poets and which personally this revelation influenced part of my poetry and I as a poet consider to be the most refined conceptualization of human desires in pursuit of independence individualistic-wise and nationhood-wise, except for the homecoming contrivance appreciated pessimistically by the classics in Oedipus hypothetically in terms of the afterlife, but in certainty for reality. Intrinsically in the human system, without inducements of herbs, what is sweeter than orgasm? Jesus Christ is the uprightness of Man in uniting us with ‘heaven’ the mother the kingdom of which we are children but this is the union of God (Man) and Satan (Mother-God) the tale of Oedipus, which can be pictured in various forms of embrace, maybe locked in a fight, amorously locked, or an agreement of embrace to peace keeping  which in a sense would mean the madness and paradoxes bedeviling the earth and this is the rapturous aspect of Christianity but it is only the second phase of the union for the first of it was his death, for the death of Jesus Christ was a human sacrifice in the imagery of the pureblood consummation of a virginity, that reversed the role of man to that of the feminine, the virgin one, which was in itself marking the beginning of an apocalypse for it is also the signaling of the end of the age, the end of the age of innocence, ushering a new age as it was in paradise with the first gamete and gametes in the story of Adam and Eve, and a prophecy echoed in the book of Isaiah puts the United States of America or probably their founding fathers had contrived this to fulfilling the holy scriptures in the picture to be the new Jerusalem but one which also makes them to bear the mark conceptualizing the end of the age, the end of the age of innocence, for the statue is one Biblically inspired, but paradoxically this a picture of Babylon as well, hitherto these are thoughts I have captured in some of my poetry, like Virgo, where I referred to America as a virgin, where they stand pictured as a New Jerusalem which in the light of the end of the age of innocence always shortened as the end of the age. Hymen to this end is the embodiment Jesus took in its classical meaning and orificial on the cross marking the end of the age, the end of the age of innocence.

Parthenogenesis and androgyny are the bio-forms of synecdoche, for when we say mother-earth we are as well saying heaven and hell, we as well are saying, GOD, God, father, mother, fatherland, motherland, if you chose to apply in any context. It is clearly implied or stated in the notion of my mentioning about the divine triumvirate of the Godhead that I have meant God the Holy Spirit to have been simply called God the Mother, yes I have, but then it was completely avoided to be mentioned as such in the bible or some other popular text of holy writ of the Jews for to quell beforehand any ideas of the origin of things being born of a coital design, but then this suppression only indicates that they believe what their fear is about, a thought that many years later made Mohammed express his concerns having accepted that Jesus was a virgin delivery in verse 35 of Sura 19 titled Maryam, but then the foundation of the Quran is an adaptation of the Torah, and in the light of feminine rejection with the things of heaven Mohammed conceptualized the enjoyment of Paradise for only men in describing the ultimate reward as carnal pleasures with wide-eyed and shy-eyed fair women, the promise of climax and ecstasy, but then our mothers and sisters are left out for there is no place for them in Paradise as far as sex is the ultimate, except there shall be room for lesbianism leaving out those whom are heterosexual; so far as there are women to satisfy the men, there should as well be virile males to do same unto our mothers and sisters whom make Paradise why should we be bothered about our mothers since in that state such relations are null and void, the thing is that there is a subtle indication that only men will return to the source and women into nothingness, but then it implies the very imagery of the rebuttal of the original sin on the part of the female gender. It is an issue to mentioning God the Father and God the Son and not a daughter or mother mentioned but then God the Holy Spirit which is clearly an immaterial entity as the nature of spirits in reality,  but shows as an aspect of the Godhood feminity which Mohammed shies from based on the feminine suggestion that in another recount of the birth of Jesus Christ the Angel speaking to him spoke to him in Sura 21:19 saying, ‘And she who was chaste, therefore We breathed into her [something] of Our Spirit and made her and her son a token for [all] people’ (Mohammad Marmaduke Pickthal). Why wasn’t it a chaste man? The account is actually is actually an acceptance of parthenogenesis of the nature of the birth of Jesus Christ, which indicates in Mary the nature of that which gave birth to God whom I have explained as the outcast in thetheohomology of Oedipus, and the Angel saying Our Spirit is correspondent to the Holy Spirit, which in Mary would be the embodiment of it in the nature of the Beginning making the Beginning appear womanly. The masculine gender or nature is recognized in the spiritual realm and the feminine is denied that recognition, because it is considered unbefitting, but then unlike father and son whose analogy are obtainable in flesh, the Spirit has none which is so because the Semitic society like lots of societies are established on patriarchal authority, and this emphasis on the absence of a mother is why in certain biblical stories the heroes that come to save the day are bastards, the illegitimate ones e.g. David and Jephthah, but David most notably, the forefather well associated with Jesus Christ like he was directly his father. All these story of the illegitimate, the bastard son-child becoming the hero are hints to the belief of the immaculate conception or virgin birth of the Beginning as free from sexy business, but then the word parthenogenesis is actually formed from two Greek words, parthenos and genesis, respectively meaning virgin and beginning or birth, which amounts to virgin-beginning or virgin-birth, and in the biblical tales the mother of heroes such as Jephthah and David are kept in the shade of shadows because they are concubines or prostitutes not worthy of mention which is a conceptual way of saying in the first delivery by God there was no feminine identity or sexual relations, but then it is a picture which is wrong in the sense that the Godhead is expressed in what is equal to the catch phrase ‘all for one, one for all’, God the Father God the Son and God the Mother(Holy Spirit) a clear relationship of synecdoche and parthenogenetic entity, but how do we  split them, we don’t, so it would be ridiculous for anyone to start asking questions about coitus, the split was only done to explain aspects of the Beginning entity in relationship to humanity or man .i.e. male and female the evolvement of the Son in the first nucleus experience rendered in fission into the ‘heavens and the earth’. This form of virgin birth was expected but it dare not be in the nature of David and Jephthah, it has to be perfect, it has to be in the absence of sexual relations, it has to be from a virgin-woman and hence it was Mary the mother of Jesus and this echoes a lot about the prejudice  of not mentioning God the Mother in the judicious triumvirate recognition of the parthenogenetic beginning, of course the Catholics do say ‘Mary the mother of God’, God being Jesus Christ her son, this reverent notion is a material analogy of the Beginning, the divine parthenogenesis, but thanks to Joseph whom refrained from making her, Mary, a public example on knowing of her pregnancy before they got married, but then since they got married I have no doubt, because it is what you and I would do, that he did seek evidence of the virginity, for there is nothing unchaste or unlawful about it since it was a business that they would definitely come to in consummation, and there is no doubt that at this juncture the doubts of Joseph were quelled since he can’t raise a case of an implanted evidence, or he did forebear from making her a public example. The nature of God as the Father and Son is purely Oedipus as son and father to the children of his mother Jocasta who is the Mother-God and largely the embodiment of the Holy Spirit, but basically the Godhead has no gender specification, the Mother-God who is the LORD Satan in conception being parthenogenetic as the Mosaic vision captured it and in the nature of how I perceive the very ‘deliverance’ of God as androgynous in meiosis, and the particularity of God the Holy Spirit in the divine triumvirate having no material entity analogy only makes for a patriarchal denial of the feminine in conceptualization. This divine force of creation is incorporeal on the earth. The Godhead is Holy Spirit, it is this nature that has put the pursuit of individualism in man because this nature is the true individual, for the word individual is a word compact formed of the words ‘indivisible duality’ the desire to be free, to be free speeched, for freedom of expression, freedom from slavery or oppression or suppression, all these are simply existential. Then does the incest suggestion amount to the Holy Spirit? Simply put, it is what the spiritual concept amounts to in the apex of heavenly salvation, for death itself is incestuous in the light of this Judeo-Christian ‘theodite imagery’, because the biblical account of the misdeed of Adam and Eve incurred curses in Genesis 3:16-19 which can be seen as mythical explanations of human labourings, and then as for the curse that set our death for good, it is stated that from dust we come and to dust shall we surely return, this is simply in tune with the incestuous concept, a thought which in my poem ‘The Heart of Liberty’, I expressed as ‘an original condemnation’, for in commensuration with the Judeo-Christian concept, grave is the heaven’s gate or death is the grave gate of heaven, which like  from the same above cited poem of mine is the line ‘heaven’s gate is the graveyard’ which is a conceptualized expression fit as exemplum in the literary joke made out from a quote of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, ‘I have come to bury Caesar, not to praise him’, a joke caught in poetry by Khayyam in his Rubaiyat 19, Caesar being the phallus, and the burial place, which we know, we need not spell out, is as well the gateway to paradise or heaven in the man-union-heaven  Judeo-Christian ‘theodite imagery’ conceptualization, this amorous expression is something popular only people popularly do not put much of mind to it, for instance I was enjoying a free drink of a soldier whom I knew from nowhere and some chair away he was busy telling his inamorata in pidgin English: ‘when I dey on top e be like paradise’, that is when he is on top it feels like paradise, apparently this was in one of those women places. Even the case of Abraham and Sarah outrightly was a hint of the parthenogenetic nature of the GOD the Beginning which in Sarah gives it a more feminine perspective, and Sarah’s obstetrical experience was a precursor to Mary’s the birth of Jesus Christ, for the Sarah situation was one whereby in wait for the promise an allegorical precursor to the children of Israel and every society waiting for a Messiah which is mostly a revolutionary ideology embodied in a person or persons against the oppressive authority, but with Sarah Abraham ‘altruistically’ tried to bring it to pass telling Sarah to pretend before the king in the land of Egypt as his sibling in the account of Genesis chapter 12, although they happened to be step-siblings, but for the beauty of Sarah he feared it may attract hostilities from the royalty in Egypt if he presents himself a husband, but then Abraham cannot be this fearful and Sarah so compliant for fear for her husband’s safety, for they repeated this action in another account given in Genesis chapter 20. I term it ‘altruistic’ for Abraham and Sarah having had so much faith in the revelation and understood that the child was not to come from a coital act between them, and altruistically Sarah had gone ahead with the plan which was on all occasions interrupted and discontinued by God through divine interventions. Of course that goes against the telling of Moses on the surface of Abraham being a man of faith, but it is only trying not to put the faith of Abraham in doubt, although in the light that I have pictured this episode of Abraham’s life it makes it appear that what Abraham and Sarah had concluded upon was to justify the end by the means. Some may want to ask if Sarah had gotten pregnant in any of the instances with the kings what would have come of it. Such a question remains hypothetical. It could have been a son or a daughter, but then I have no doubt Abraham would be grafted into palace life, influence the laws to favor the ascendancy of the son-child to the throne on the demise of the king who will be murdered, and while the son is in grooming for kingship, Sarah queen regent hypocritically playing chaste would be having it off with Abraham. Preposterous! you may say: for how am I sure it was going to be a son. That question should be meant for Abraham. And I will say, a man who had so much faith in a parthenogenetic revelation in those olden years why will he not have faith as such for the materialization of a son. If my analysis is preposterous what will you say of this tactic between husband and wife?

I felt compelled to call (m (n) ×q) g = 1, Androgynous formula, this is because I arrived at it deducing from 1 (one) in relation to 1^1/2 (one raised to the power of half)  only to return to 1 (one) not particularly suspecting any number for the end result since I just wanted to see what value my curiosity would produce and it so happened to be 1 (one), but what I don’t remember exactly was what it was that made me test immediately the representation ‘n’ with another number at which I figured with any number as ‘n’ in the formula one would always end with the value 1(one). Now it is no complicated mathematics if one were playing with a number because the formula (m (n) ×q) g = 1 × 1, 1/1, on analysis shows every factor can be accounted for in ‘n’, which make for U = (n²(⁽n) × n/n³) where U/n³ makes for 0.125 in my experimentation as the potential of any form ‘n’ that can be derived from an original form U by an induced split in that since every formulation can be represented in ‘n’. I more deem it in terms as parthenogenesis as well as I do meiotic i.e androgynous, because besides dividing itself as any to give 1 (one), only 1 (one) can multiply itself to give you 1 (one) and I arrived at this by simply being curious, although an elementary pupil with luck by being playful with figures could come to this but then I did not come to it as such. Parthenogenesis is good as saying the immanence of a sperm in the egg, to which in the Hebrew appreciation of the beginning in Gen1:1 which for me is the Beginning and my appreciation of God’s nature, the parthenogenesis simply of Gen1:1 was an asexual parturition expressed into a production of meiosis out of the mitotic norm cosmogonic forces of which is God then as Lucifer or in my correspondence Olokun therein in the Beginning made the attainment of Godhood, but then given the Oedipal nature of things we humans amount to being the partial seeds of God, within Mother-God the mother of God via a relationship captured in theohomology in Jocasta and Oedipus, as such we are broken-heirs of the Beginning-nter-God as has been already clearly stated in a popular Church-Christian song that says ‘We are heirs of the Father/ We heirs with the Son/ We are children of the Kingdom/ We are family we are one’, this is a subtle denial of the maternal presence, a failure to acknowledge the maternal presence calling it the Kingdom, and indeed it is the Kingdom of heaven and hell or heaven and earth on mother-earth.But this Oedipal complexity is solved if we remain existential in our understanding of the situation and largely the problem is as such given that the theodite imagery of the Beginning was conceptualized as a parthenogenesis, that out of parthenogenesis God was delivered which for Christianity was earthly recapitulated in Jesus Christ and his mother Mary.

But then at this point I here propound the ‘Theory of Homecoming’. The ‘Home coming theory’ means a conceptualization by a religion or an individual of the deeds meant to fulfill the ultimate spiritual state, a status which stays with you upon death. In Christianity this is the state of Christ which makes you fit for heaven, and in religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism this is the state of nirvana, which makes nirvana an homecoming theory. This is different from theohomology in that theohomologizing is the conceptualizing of a work of literature to interpret the relationship between the earthly and the divine in which the home coming theory would certainly be embedded, to this end the homecoming theory in by conceptualization of Christianity is one whose ultimate deliverance is not solely based on death but that the individual must have attained a Messiaanic state by deeds while alive on earth and then on death he or she is finally delivered as God in meiosis in the beginning, and this state of meiosis which actualizes an androgynous nature by ‘theodite imagery’ in the life of an individual is achieving a state of balance whereby the individual as a female gains a balance with her animus and the male a balance with his anima, to this end is analogical the creation of the heavens and the earth, of course heaven is in the plural, as for that I have my personal conception of it as the heavens also implying the daughters of the meiotic process which as well I correspond to the muses and in togetherness this is the nature of the Holy Spirit in that singular verse of Gen-1:1. The achievement of this balance is a meiotic deliverance in the state of mind which androgynously materializes in the individual’s unprejudiced approach to life, the acceptance of gender equality, the abolishment of a system that produces a state of the outcast in that it is the survival of the state of the outcast that revolutions, violence of the suppressed would constantly be witnessed as I have captured in interpreting the Oedipus story as an oracle on society that the maintenance of an  imperial or oppressive system in a society results to the unavoidable existence of the state of the outcast who in such a state in the individuals are enforced to use violence, bring about revolutions and rebellion to which end I wrote and recorded the poem Oedipus in my understanding it as a story of revolution in relation to the outcast in the society. The achievement of a balance between the individual and the self is what produces the Christ whom on death would be completely delivered from within the Beginning whom is the Mother-God who delivered God through parthenogenesis, and as well is the total deliverance from Satan since the Beginning is what I call the LORD Satan which in the Yoruba mythology I interpret as Eleduwa the author of oduduwa (our darkness) that in Yoruba mythical characters I pronounce as Oya-Sango in my mythopoeic. By the ‘Homecoming theory’ in my perception, if there be reincarnations it is only if the individual on dying have not achieved the androgynous state of balance to ensure deliverance out of the Beginning and therefore would remain within the Beginning to be born again until that state is achieved in a given life time, the state of the Messiah the state of Christ which is an altruistic driven life, a life of self-sacrifice.

The journey heavenward based on a the ‘theodite imagery’ of incest, in material analogy, since incest is an immorality, means the journey to heaven is sinful, and the making of heaven the ultimate sin whereby heaven can only be made in righteousness so to avoid this one must die standing sinful, but then this is because of the overruling of male-chauvinism for if heaven is our origin it would have been more fit as the Almighty GOD the mother, but for fear of the incestuous meaning in the light of the Prodigal’s repentance God the father deemed better because the male chauvinism did not let them describe the Almighty GOD outright in a state of parthenogenesis, for then the Almighty GOD which is the Beginning written in the noun beginning as the first letter not stated in caps in Gen1:1 ‘In the beginning…’ would be more motherly or womanly or feminine in outlook and eyebrows would be raised, and this is what Sarah and Mary hints at and this notion is the very name of the Almighty GOD and God raises, which in Hebrew is considered unspeakable in that the very fact of death in analogical aptly captures this imagery in the act of burial as an incestuous ritual which as in Khayam’srubaiyat 19 the dead is Caesar (the individual) whom is the phallus of we the regent-child god in that ‘ye men are gods’ which is analogical to God, and Caesar(phallus) buried in the grave which is the heaven’sgate, the orifice of the mother earth being the regent-God which simply translates to the Almighty GOD and gives us an Almighty GOD that sleeps with the child, or God the child that sleeps with the mother, for which the Hebrews adopted for the Almighty God whom is the LORD and for God whom is the Son as well the Father,the name Adonai in substitution for the unspeakable name, an effect to which I wrote the sonnets, ‘Must-not-mention-name of GOD’ which concluded the essay ‘The Judeo-Christian Journey Heavenwards is Oedipus complex’ and the very one ‘Must-not-mention-name of God’ which I make epigraph to this essay.

In the light of human parthenogenetic origination I here call God, INDIVIDUO, and the very creation of God that made for the heavens and earth by fission (secession) was an asexual realization in which we in the Beginning must aspire to an androgynous nature, a state of asexual entity in the light of a heavenly return in spirit after death, if we hold on to a reconciliation to an otherworldly reality, which is that the human seeks to unite with the other split from the nuclear fission following the androgynous entity God the first deliverance away from the Beginning, God and its crew being the meiotic which is the unusual as against the normal mitosis to which end the Christ-life is an unusual life style that is self-sacrificial which means the mitotic translates as the orthodoxy, the traditional the norm; and in the light of the Prodigal story the reconciliation could be seen as to do with the offended sibling, which is our self with which we seek union, and this notion that the aspiration is asexual makes it free from sexy business, to this end it appears that God parted from the Beginning with one-half which would mean our spirits, which in Jungian terms would be meaning the anima and the animus and this would mean the ultimate union with the self, having been able to achieve that state of Christian or Messianic balance on earth, the balance of the proton and electron, day and, light and darkness. Probably the same tussle goes on on the other divide to unite with the self you and I on earth, or maybe it is a form of call to which a man or woman would have to answer his or her calling our true names to come home to ourselves.

I call this my androgynous formula, which is U= (n² (n) × n/n³) n/n²= 1 or (n² (n) × 1/n²) 1/n

I end this somewhat desultory discourse with two stanzas of twenty-one syllabic tristichs;

God the Father-Mother-God the Holy

God we the child undelivered

Yet unborn

O this pantheistic existence

God foreternal in labour

The three-in-one

GLOSSARY

Eleduwa:Creator of all things in Yoruba mythology which I translate in my mythopoeic as the Beginning.

Homecoming theory:This means a conceptualization by a religion or an individual of the deeds meant to fulfilling the ultimate spiritual state, a status which stays with you upon death. In Christianity this is the state of Christ which makes you fit for heaven, and in religions such as Hinduism. Buddhism and Jainism this is the state of nirvana, which makes nirvana an homecoming theory.

Olokun: God of the depths of the ocean which in mythopoeic I equate with Lucifer and picture as the first child of Oya-Sango or Eleduwa.

Oya:Mother goddess in Yoruba mythology

Oya-Sango: Is my mythopoeic expression of the nature of the Beginning as parthenogenesis which in Yoruba terms       is Eleduwa (The creator of all)

Oduduwa: In Yoruba myth is the creator of humankind which in my mythopoeic as an expression meaning our darkness, whose authorship I ascribe to Eleduwa the Beginning.

Sango:Husband to Oya in Yoruba mythology.

Theodite imagery:The conceptualization of an immaterial awareness or phenomenon with a material exemplar, where the material exemplar is a reinforcement of the awareness or belief and the material exemplar is (of course) a microcosmic model to a detailed definition of the awareness or phenomenon.

Theohomology: This is every or any work of art that is used to conceptualize the relationship between divine forces and humanity, in which it necessarily does not have to be the intent of the author which makes it individualistic in that the work by an individual can be conceived personally as the nature of human relationship with the divine.

All rights reserved. Omoluabi S. Simpa ©