To My Great Teachers: Past, Present, and Future—For the Love of the World—and to Joseph Cropsey, Intellectual Father and Friend Riemann Hypothesis: Sixth Impression—A Certain Hesitation and Qualification of My Conjecture I now want to explore what I believe to be a basic and fundamental ambiguity of my cosmological conjecture, and one which, significantly, must be taken into account, if the problem is to attain greater clarity, from the standpoint of physical theory: I have indicated my believe that the peak of cosmological physics is at the heart of Nietzschean Will-to-power as Art as argued by Heidegger, namely that modern Philosophy—as explicitly argued by Heidegger in his four volume work on Nietzschean Philosophy—"culminated in metaphysics" (Cf. Aristotle's physics and meta-physics), or that, to use a strictly Heideggerian formulation, Western metaphysics culminated in "the age of the world picture," which is centrally what I have outlined regarding the dual conic geometry produced from the Hydrogen atom and its trinitarian nucleus, comprised of, ex hypothesi, a composite neutrino, consisting of an electron/positron pair (or the beautiful and elegant model offered by E. Sternglass in "Before the Big Bang") which articulated a space-time geometry at the heart of Paul Dirac's relativized version of Quantum theory, which I believe is much more than a quantum theory, for I believe it lays the basis of a quantum cosmological creation—articulating the space-time geometry, which I have indicated:— And this geometry on hypothesis provides a window into both the past and the future, since the electron/positron pair are essentially articulating geometrically the full spectrum of space time points within the multiverse or a portion of it, but from two different foci: one moving forward in time one moving backward, but both visible from the event horizon of the system. The creation of this system, or what Oswald Spengler references in his work as the "Machine" (see Volume two, "Decline of the west: World Historical Perspectives") is a sub-cosmos, eternally or sempiternally cycling as a quantum mechanical Black hole—which is just what Sternglass explicitly states in his profound book, but he significantly departs from modern interpretations of Einstein's work in many respects, for he believes that Einstein re-introduced the aether concept in his "General Relativity Theory," and I have began to think that there may be a neutrino field which provides the basis for the absolute reference point of absolute space-time argued for by Newton, pace Leibnitz in their historic debate. What still remains a mystery is whether this Nietzschean Heideggerian creation of a sub-cosmos (see Lee Smolin "The Life of the Cosmos") is the entire cosmos or just a sub cosmos within the multi-verse, for the answer to this question is not idle but determines to a greater or lesser degree, if we have a complete theory or a theory of everything or if there is still a great mystery of the nature of the Aristotelian "prima materia" out of which a sub-cosmos has been fashioned by the Platonic Monogenesis: In Plato, the Monogenesis creates out of primitive matter that is not fully subject to control or is bound by a principle he calls "Anake" or necessity, and this means that the cosmos or copy of a cosmos (see Heisenberg's "Matrix" mechanics) brought into being must contain evil or not exist. So this way of conceiving the matter brings out what is beautifully implicit in Stanley Rosen's excellent interpretation of "Thus Spake Zarathustra," "The Mask of Enlightenment," namely, if final and conclusive knowledge or a theory of everything is not possessed, then even if a sub-cosmos is brought into being through will-to-power as art—the highest expression of Nietzschean will-to-power—chaos is still the reigning principle, and the Cartesian Dream, so far from being fulfilled, becomes an incoherent Nightmare, for complete "clarity and distinction"—the prerequisites of the fulfillment of Cartesian mastery and possession of nature would, then, not obtain, and Kant's fundamental insight of an unbridgeable lacuna between the world as "phenomenally" experienced and the world as "neumenally" actual would not have been overcome, but remain the central alienating premise of modern philosophy:— That is to say the enlightenment project to overcome man's alienation through a reasoned and completely cogent account of all reality would prove untenable, and what follows from this, it seems to me, would be some sort of vitiating Nihilism, unless as a response to this—and this may be the central core of postmodern/post-structuralist critique—man made this the basis of creation and a new religion, that is an embrace of the victory of tragic insight and thus the basis for a return of the gods, now conceived as man's and woman's embrace of tragic wisdom, or what Nietzsche argues, or at least Strauss does in his "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyong Good and Evil," that this vindicates, rather than refutes, God—for man can then on this tragic wisdom create without apparent divine constraint or known divine constraint:— So mans artistic impulse can be indulged at last without fear, which is not unrelated to the Epicurean goal of aiding man in overcoming his primal fear of religious sanction. But, then, the deepest consequence of this would be that even our most rigorous sciences, indeed physics itself, would remain, as Spengler and Strauss argue forcefully and beautifully, an "interpretation," a way of a culture viewing reality, not the decisive and only way that nature can be interpreted, but a "perspectival" bodying forth of the Faustian culture's soul or life feeling, not to be used as an absolute standard against which other cultures are to to judged inferior in any way: this would liberate us from our ethnocentric biases and open our eyes to the great world of cultures and insights that lay elsewhere on the geographic histrico-political landscape of Being and Time: Sapere Aude!