Transvaluation

Genesis 1:28—“Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”—has echoed through history as a divine mandate for expansion, conquest, and civilization-building. It has served as a justification for missionary work, for the colonial project, and, in the modern era, for capitalism’s relentless push to the frontiers of human life. European missionaries carried this verse in their hearts as they journeyed to foreign lands, seeking to fulfill God’s command, not just in the spiritual sense of spreading the Gospel, but in the material sense of cultivating, ordering, and ultimately subduing the lands and peoples they encountered. Garry Skinner and the Watoto ministry in Uganda represent a modern continuation of this legacy, blending religious fervor with structural intervention, bringing the gospel, education, and Western-style development to a country whose colonial past was already shaped by similar projects. Their mission echoes the same logic that once sent European settlers across the Atlantic—carrying not only the Word of God but the mechanics of civilization, capitalism, and dominion.

But what happens when this mandate is read not through the lens of divine promise, but through Nietzsche’s formula for history? Nietzsche described three approaches to history: the antiquarian, the monumental, and the critical. Each of these perspectives casts a different light on the European missionary impulse, including its capitalist undercurrents and its inevitable conquests.

Fig. 20 What Exactly is Identity. A node may represent goats (in general) and another sheep (in general). But the identity of any specific animal (not its species) is a network. For this reason we might have a “black sheep”, distinct in certain ways – perhaps more like a goat than other sheep. But that’s all dull stuff. Mistaken identity is often the fuel of comedy, usually when the adversarial is mistaken for the cooperative or even the transactional.

From an antiquarian perspective, the missionary legacy is preserved as a sacred and necessary tradition, an unbroken lineage of believers who heeded Genesis 1:28, pushing forward the kingdom of God in lands that had yet to receive it. The antiquarian view would see Garry Skinner and Watoto as heirs to this great calling, restoring dignity and purpose to the lives of orphans, building schools, and elevating Uganda into a new kind of civilization. It is this same vision that motivated the early Christianization of Europe, the establishment of churches in every conquered land, and the justification of European settlement in the Americas. But antiquarian history is often blind to the suffering entailed in these missions; it sees only the preservation of an idea, not the violence of its application. This perspective cannot answer the haunting question of North America’s indigenous populations—“Where are they?”—because it does not wish to look. It preserves only what it deems worthy of being remembered, ignoring the costs of dominion.

The monumental perspective treats missionary expansion as part of the grand saga of civilization, a testament to human greatness and divine will. Here, Genesis 1:28 is understood as a decree not just for religious expansion, but for economic and political dominance. It is no coincidence that European expansion often followed missionary work; the conquest of souls was inevitably tied to the conquest of markets, lands, and resources. When the Europeans arrived in America, they not only spread the Gospel but also reshaped the continent in their own image, exterminating or displacing the native populations to make way for a new order. Capitalism, in this sense, is the successor to missionary zeal—it seeks to multiply, replenish, and subdue, albeit through financial conquest rather than religious conversion. Watoto’s model of development, which includes economic uplift alongside spiritual guidance, is a modern reflection of this same logic. It is a reminder that faith and capitalism often walk hand in hand, each reinforcing the other’s claim to universal dominion. But the monumental view also has its blind spots: it glorifies the achievements of empire while suppressing the memory of those who were crushed beneath its weight. It makes conquest seem like destiny, a historical necessity rather than a choice with consequences.

Nietzsche’s critical history, however, forces us to confront the darker side of Genesis 1:28. It demands that we ask whether the European conquest of the world—through faith, through capitalism, through sheer will—was truly righteous, or merely an exercise in power masked as divine duty. The critical historian recognizes that what was called “dominion” was often nothing more than destruction, that “subduing” the earth often meant erasing those who lived upon it. The indigenous peoples of North America were not merely converted or assimilated; they were slaughtered, displaced, and ultimately written out of the very history that had claimed to bring them enlightenment. And so we must ask: Is dominion truly a fulfillment of God’s will, or is it the will to power masquerading as righteousness? When Garry Skinner and Watoto bring Western-style development to Uganda, are they truly elevating the people, or are they continuing a long tradition of subjugation, one where the West retains dominion under the guise of charity?

This is where capitalism reenters the scene, as the 21st century’s most efficient mechanism for dominion. It does not need swords or missionaries—it only needs market access. Where the Europeans once converted by the Bible and the gun, capitalism converts by the smartphone and the loan. If Genesis 1:28 was once a religious mandate, it has now been secularized into an economic doctrine. The frontier is no longer a distant land to be explored but a market to be captured. Whether through faith or finance, the goal remains the same: dominion over the earth and everything that moves upon it.

But the critical historian must ask—at what cost? Nietzsche would likely see the legacy of Genesis 1:28 as a colossal act of will to power, one that shaped the world but also consumed it in the process. And as we look around today, at the ghostly absence of the indigenous peoples in North America, at the relentless march of capitalism into every corner of the globe, at the uneasy intersection of faith and empire, we must ask: Is this truly what was meant by replenishing the earth? Or have we merely exhausted it in pursuit of dominion?

Show code cell source Hide code cell source

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import networkx as nx

# Define the neural network layers
def define_layers():
    return {
        'Suis': ['Improbability', 'Planet', 'Alive', 'Loss', "Trial", 'Error'],  # Static
        'Voir': ['Witness'],  
        'Choisis': ['Faith', 'Decision'],  
        'Deviens': ['Adversarial', 'Transactional', 'Hope'],  
        "M'èléve": ['Victory', 'Payoff', 'Loyalty', 'Charity', 'Love']  
    }

# Assign colors to nodes
def assign_colors():
    color_map = {
        'yellow': ['Witness'],  
        'paleturquoise': ['Error', 'Decision', 'Hope', 'Love'],  
        'lightgreen': ["Trial", 'Transactional', 'Payoff', 'Charity', 'Loyalty'],  
        'lightsalmon': ['Alive', 'Loss', 'Faith', 'Adversarial', 'Victory'],
    }
    return {node: color for color, nodes in color_map.items() for node in nodes}

# Define edge weights (hardcoded for editing)
def define_edges():
    return {
        ('Improbability', 'Witness'): '1/99',
        ('Planet', 'Witness'): '5/95',
        ('Alive', 'Witness'): '20/80',
        ('Loss', 'Witness'): '51/49',
        ("Trial", 'Witness'): '80/20',
        ('Error', 'Witness'): '95/5',
        ('Witness', 'Faith'): '20/80',
        ('Witness', 'Decision'): '80/20',
        ('Faith', 'Adversarial'): '49/51',
        ('Faith', 'Transactional'): '80/20',
        ('Faith', 'Hope'): '95/5',
        ('Decision', 'Adversarial'): '5/95',
        ('Decision', 'Transactional'): '20/80',
        ('Decision', 'Hope'): '51/49',
        ('Adversarial', 'Victory'): '80/20',
        ('Adversarial', 'Payoff'): '85/15',
        ('Adversarial', 'Loyalty'): '90/10',
        ('Adversarial', 'Charity'): '95/5',
        ('Adversarial', 'Love'): '99/1',
        ('Transactional', 'Victory'): '1/9',
        ('Transactional', 'Payoff'): '1/8',
        ('Transactional', 'Loyalty'): '1/7',
        ('Transactional', 'Charity'): '1/6',
        ('Transactional', 'Love'): '1/5',
        ('Hope', 'Victory'): '1/99',
        ('Hope', 'Payoff'): '5/95',
        ('Hope', 'Loyalty'): '10/90',
        ('Hope', 'Charity'): '15/85',
        ('Hope', 'Love'): '20/80'
    }

# Calculate positions for nodes
def calculate_positions(layer, x_offset):
    y_positions = np.linspace(-len(layer) / 2, len(layer) / 2, len(layer))
    return [(x_offset, y) for y in y_positions]

# Create and visualize the neural network graph
def visualize_nn():
    layers = define_layers()
    colors = assign_colors()
    edges = define_edges()
    G = nx.DiGraph()
    pos = {}
    node_colors = []
    
    # Add nodes and assign positions
    for i, (layer_name, nodes) in enumerate(layers.items()):
        positions = calculate_positions(nodes, x_offset=i * 2)
        for node, position in zip(nodes, positions):
            G.add_node(node, layer=layer_name)
            pos[node] = position
            node_colors.append(colors.get(node, 'lightgray'))   
    
    # Add edges with weights
    for (source, target), weight in edges.items():
        if source in G.nodes and target in G.nodes:
            G.add_edge(source, target, weight=weight)
    
    # Draw the graph
    plt.figure(figsize=(12, 8))
    edges_labels = {(u, v): d["weight"] for u, v, d in G.edges(data=True)}
    
    nx.draw(
        G, pos, with_labels=True, node_color=node_colors, edge_color='gray',
        node_size=3000, font_size=9, connectionstyle="arc3,rad=0.2"
    )
    nx.draw_networkx_edge_labels(G, pos, edge_labels=edges_labels, font_size=8)
    plt.title("Heritage, Resources, Static (y) vs. Adaptation, Resourcefulness, Dynamic (x)", fontsize=15)
    plt.show()

# Run the visualization
visualize_nn()

Fig. 21 Nvidia vs. Music. APIs between Nvidias CUDA & their clients (yellowstone node: G1 & G2) are here replaced by the ear-drum & vestibular apparatus. The chief enterprise in music is listening and responding (N1, N2, N3) as well as coordination and syncronization with others too (N4 & N5). Whether its classical or improvisational and participatory, a massive and infinite combinatorial landscape is available for composer, maestro, performer, audience. And who are we to say what exactly music optimizes?