Within Mocombeian structurationism, phenomenological structuralism, this work posits that two ontological forms of how human beings would evolve to reproduce their being in the material world emerged amongst the species: the Vodou Ethic, the spirit of communism, the Protestant Ethic, and the spirit of capitalism. The two forms (or metaphors for organizing the material world communally or individualistically) of system and social integration, contrary to Hegel and Marx, are not dialectically related. However, the world as it is in-itself favors the Vodou Ethic and the spirit of communism over the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism.

Mocombeian consciousness field theory, like Kantian and Hegelian metaphysics and epistemologies, makes a distinction between the phenomenal world and the noumenal world. In Mocombeian metaphysics and epistemology, the distinction is between the phenomenal world and the absolute vacuum (noumenal world), a nontemporal and non-spatial probability wave function where all the forces and particles of reality are one and gives rise to the superimposed and entangled phenomenal worlds of the multiverse. The latter, absolute vacuum, transmits embodied individuated consciousness as a frequency wavelength to brains of entangled and superimposed phenomenal worlds of the multiverse [1-4]. Hence, in Mocombe’s consciousness field theory, consciousness is a fifth force of nature that is both universal and particular. In the absolute vacuum consciousness is universal and the fifth force of nature that encompasses all the contents and lived-experiences of the multiverse as a probability wave function. In the phenomenal world, it (universal consciousness) is a frequency wavelength, from the absolute vacuum, that is received and facilitated by brains where it is particularized as embodied individual consciousness, and universalized, via the science of religion, as a God, gods, devils, and/or ancestors with powers from an alternative dimension, i.e., the absolute vacuum, from that of the phenomenal world where, given their perceived powers and influences in the phenomenal world, humans worship or fear them/it/him or her. Within the metaphysics of the aforementioned Mocombeian structurations, phenomenological structural sociology, this work posits that two ontological and sociological forms of how human beings would evolve to reproduce their being in the material world emerged amongst the species: the Vodou Ethic and the spirit of communism (communally); and the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism (antagonistically and individually). Sociologically speaking, the two forms (or metaphors) of system and social integration, contrary to Hegel and Marx, are not dialectically related. However, the world as it is in-itself favors the Vodou Ethic and the spirit of communism over the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism.

Sociology is the scientific study of society and human actions. Three dominant figures and their sociological approaches dominate the discipline: Max Weber, symbolic interactionism; Emile Durkheim, structural functionalism; and Karl Marx, conflict theory. All subsequent sociological theorists would build on the approaches of these three men in the discipline even though their approaches are unable to adequately resolve the problematic of what determines the constitution of society and human actions, i.e., the institutions of society or the rational potentiality of the human actor. In Mocombeian phenomenological structural sociology, all societies in recorded human history have been Durkheimian mechanical solidarities or system cities constituted based on the mode of production, power, and power relations operating through five systems, i.e., mode of production, communicative discourse, language, ideology, and ideological apparatuses. It is upon this theoretical assumption that all theories of society and human actions must commence. This notion of Western societies, as Durkheimian organic solidarities, representing a break from all societies in recorded history, according to Mocombe, is an ideological (economic) myth perpetuated by the sociological imaginations of Western bourgeois intellectuals such as Durkheim and Habermas, amongst many others. Contemporary (bourgeois) sociology in the West assumes that Western (neo) liberal (capitalist) democracy represents the nature of reality as such by which all human societies ought to be constituted, and agential initiatives determined. The focus in the academy becomes one of integrating the power and power relations, as highlighted by Marxian conflict theorists, via identity politics and negative dialectical thinking, by which the latter (Western liberal democracy) is constituted for an understanding of societal constitution that focuses on how rational human beings use symbols to create meaning and interact with each other in institutions in their everyday lives to recursively (re) organize and reproduce society as an organic whole or solidarity where conflicts of differing interests are resolved dialectically and negative dialectically, i.e., reconciling or synthesizing contradictions and or conflicts for (rational) social cohesion and total freedom (i.e., in the Hegelian sense). Academically, this latter position is usually juxtaposed against so-called primitive societies, which are said to be Durkheimian mechanical solidarities where social actors are forced, through social norms and mores, to internalize and recursively organize and reproduce the same actions and beliefs (of the collective conscience) in their daily practices. On these three assumptions (conflict, social cohesion, and interaction) regarding the constitution of Western liberal democratic societies, in relation to so-called primitive societies, three independent major approaches or paradigms in Western academia would emerge amongst bourgeois academics to dominate sociological theory: structural functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism. Symbolic interactionism is a micro level approach that focuses on symbols and how (rational) people interact with each other by recursively (re) organizing and reproducing these symbols (and their meanings) in their everyday lives to constitute society and social relationships based on shared meanings and understandings. Structural functionalism and conflict theories are macro level approaches, which focus on the constitution of society from the perspective of institutions. Structural functionalism views society as a cohesive whole with interdependent parts, i.e., people, institutions, etc., which contribute to society’s functioning as an organic whole.

Whereas structural functionalists emphasize the social cohesiveness of society; conflict theory, on the contrary, highlights competition between unequal groups (racial, cultural, class, etc.) and power as the basis for the constitution and ever-changing nature of societal institutions. In the West, all three perspectives, and their methodological approaches (quantitative, qualitative, and mix-methods), are incorporated in the research process to suggest that in the aggregate they represent the scientific and universal basis upon which societal and human agential constitutions are determined, studied, and understood in the field of sociology. All three perspectives, whether independently or synthesized as highlighted in contemporary sociology to explain the constitution of so-called primitive and Western societies, are problematic from the standpoint of human social agency and the constitution of society, however. Symbolic interactionism emphasizes the actions of individuals and the meanings they attribute to those actions as the basis for the constitution of society at the expense of the overarching structures, i.e., institutions, social relations, etc., which stabilize and give individuals their practical activities. Structural functionalism highlights the cohesiveness of the groups in society at the expense of differentiating actions and conflicts amongst and between them. Conversely, conflict theory emphasizes the power and power relations between and amongst groups and their emerging conflicts at the expense of their social cohesion. These individual problems are not resolved when synthesized as is done by Western scholars to represent Western (neo) liberal democracy, against so-called primitive societies, as a paragon of the sociological imagination; instead, the agency problematic, just as in primitive societies, becomes more profound as it is difficult for scholars to draw the distinction between where social structure is determinant versus human agency. Moreover, since the 1960’s with the advent of postmodern and post-structural theories into the theoretical discourses of social science academics, given the shift from industrial to postindustrial societies, a new struggle regarding the origins and nature of agency, identity, and consciousness vis-à-vis the aforementioned (agential and societal) sociological problematics regarding the constitution of society and the individual has dominated social science and philosophical theories. The issue centers on several factors raised by postmodern and post-structural thinkers in the likes of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Jacques Lacan against the structuralism of the sciences, 1) they question the validity regarding the Cartesian rational individual, which Foucault and Derrida deny in favor of their attempt to dissolve the subject altogether; 2) they question the interdependency of the constitution of a stable structure and a distinct subject with agency, in denying the latter they undermine the former; 3) they question the status of science; 4) finally, they question the possibility of the objectivity of any language of description or analysis. Although these four factors raised in the writings of Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida, and Michel Foucault, amongst many other scholars trying to understand social actions in postindustrial societies, are theoretically legitimate and have posed tremendous problems for the social sciences and their constitution as a science based on the notion of a stable structure constituted by stable (rational) subjects with agency. These problems have not adequately been addressed by Marxist social theorists in the social sciences like Louis Althusser, Pierre Bourdieu, Jürgen Habermas, Anthony Giddens, and Marshall Sahlins working, under the umbrella of structurationist sociology (Giddens’s term), to resolve this structure/agency issue by attempting to synthesize the rationality of the individual with the phenomenological discourses of the former theorists, and Marxist and structural Marxist philosophy. Against the absurdity of postmodern and post-structural thought, which denies rationality to the human subject or a stable structure, the structure/agency debate in the social sciences, from a structurationist perspective, emphasize the rational origins, vis-à-vis a stable structure, of the reproduced and transformed social actions of social actors that constitute a social structure or society. Two questions are raised from this standpoint: are social actors determined and driven by internal (rational) invariable structures of the mind (Lévi-Strauss, 1963; Bell, 1985 [1982]), or are social actor’s automatons determined and driven by external relational structures of signification (Parsons, 1951; Althusser, 2001 [1971]))? Thus, in the social scientific form of the debate, biological determinism, i.e., innate senses of anything, as well as the Levi-Straussian sense, i.e., innate structure of the mind, were out rightly rejected. Also, the idea that social actors are irreducibly situated subjects who act and react based on rational calculations as they respond to particular external social processes (social structure) or stimuli was for the most part dismissed. Total rationality was viewed as an impossibility given the inability of social actors to either know all the choices available to them in the present or know the complete future outcomes of those choices. This made rationality necessarily relative to a frame of reference or structure of signification, which rejects the ontology of the indeterminacy of meaning and decentered subject of postmodern/post-structural theorizing. Hence, the focus in the study of action and interaction in the social sciences was thus not a matter of denying or minimizing the rational potential of social actors as postmodern and post-structural thinkers do, but expressed rather an urgent need to understand where ‘the system’ or structure that limits their knowledge and stabilizes society “comes from how it is produced and reproduced, and how it may have changed in the past or be changed in the future” [5]. In other words, thinkers plagued by this debate, sought “to explain the relationship(s) that obtain between human action, on the one hand, and some global entity which we may call the system, [or social structure, structure, or culture] on the other”, when the latter (i.e., the system) is not a necessary reflection of neither biology, nor the structure of the mind, but an external force of socially constructed rules of conduct, i.e., categorical boundaries, that stabilizes society and thereby constitute the identity of social actors as argued by Talcott Parsons and Louis Althusser. From roughly 1975 to the present, an enormous strand of critical writings, expounding a great many strands of theoretical schools of thought, combined to challenge this post-World War II structuralist matrix, which denied alternative agencies, outside the relational logic of a structure, system, or culture to social actors. Some were advanced by rationalist thinkers seeking to preserve the idea of individuals as solitary thinkers who act in a purposive rational way, while others were offered by theorists dedicated to preserving the tenets of structural functionalism and structural-Marxism (conflict theory) while explicating the functional role of difference or the variability of practices amongst social actors within social structure not as an invariable by-product of the mind but as an external unified structure of signification or system and its differentiation. Considering this action-oriented response to account for the different provinces of meaning within systems or structures of signification, the term praxis or structurationist (Giddens’ term) theorists will serve as the dominant label for the arguments expounded in opposition to the idealism of postmodernism and post-structuralism, symbolic interactionism, Parsonian structural-functionalism, and variants of structural Marxism by prominent theorists such as Pierre Bourdieu, Marshall Sahlins, Anthony Giddens, and Jürgen Habermas [6,5]. These arguments are complex, and to examine them together is necessarily to do violence to the purity of notions advanced separately by various authors. The exercise is nevertheless useful at least for revealing their main and common objective, i.e., to resolve the structure/agency debate of the social sciences.

Structural-functionalists and Structural-Marxists (conflict theorists) in attempting to understand social action (i.e., praxis) within social structures of signification privilege social relations, structural differentiation, and reproduction via linguistic and symbolic representation over biological determining elements (i.e., race, sex, etc.), for meaning, human action, and consciousness constructions. In doing so, however, they fail to account for the origins and nature of the different provinces of meaning, human action, and consciousness existing within, but at the same time, outside the relational or dialectical prescribed logic of the social structure (structural reproduction and differentiation). Neo-structuralists or structurationists in the likes of Pierre Bourdieu (1990 [1980], 1984) with his theory of practice (habitus or constructivist structuralism), Marshall Sahlins (1976, 1995 [1981]) through myth praxis, Anthony Giddens (1984) through his theory of structuration, and Jurgen Habermas (1987 [1981], 1984 [1981]) with his theory of “communicative action,” however, attempt to do just that, “explain the relationship(s) that obtain between human action, on the one hand, and some global entity which we may call the system, [or social structure, structure, or culture] on the other” in order to capture the nature of social action, reproduction, transformation, and differentiation within structures of signification. They attempt to do so, for the most part, through “the central notion of the ‘duality of structure’ which refers to ‘the essential recursiveness of social life, as constituted in social practices: structure is both medium and outcome of the reproduction of practices’” [7]. That is, structures are not only external to social actors, but are internal rules and resources (“form of consciousness”) produced and reproduced by actors “unconsciously” (intuitively) in their practices. From this perspective, accordingly, structure, i.e., culture or, sociological speaking, social structure, “may set conditions to the historical process, but it is dissolved and reformulated in material practice, so that history becomes the realization, in the form of society, of the actual [(embodied rules)] resources people put into play” [8]. In this understanding, the structure is not an epiphenomenon of the structure of the mind but is a result of the internalization by social actors of external (social structural) rules of conduct, which are sanctioned, recursively (re) organized, reproduced, and differentiated in material practice. Thus, social structure, human action, meaning, and consciousness are mutually constituted and united together as “practical consciousness,” i.e., a duality. Ostensibly, like symbolic interactionism, structuralism, structural functionalism, and structural Marxism, the structurationist response to account for the nature of human action within structures of signification by collapsing structure with agency through the notion of duality, however, is also problematic. That is, the central notion of the duality of structure prevents praxis theorists from accounting for the origins and relational nature of the variability of praxis or “practical consciousness’s” within a particular structure of signification. That is to say, the part/whole dialectic of the “duality” concept cannot account for the origins of alternative “practical consciousness’s” that arises as a result of three other structuring structures: 1) the drives and sensibilities (anatomy and physiology) of the body and brain, 2) the drives and impulses, phenomenal properties, qualia, of embodied recycled/entangled/superimposed subatomic particles, psychions, and 3) the praxes arising from the human ability to defer meaning in ego-centered communicative discourse during the internalization process as suggested by postmodern and post-structural theory [9]. In essence, structurationists are only able to account for the dialectic of 4) structural reproduction and differentiation stemming from the means and mode of production of a society and their ideological apparatuses [9,1,2].

Mocombeian phenomenological structuralism (phenomenological structural sociology) resolves the structurationist agential problematic. Mocombe’s structuration’s, like traditional structurationist theory, is a sociological theory that views the constitution of society, human identity, and social agency as a duality and dualism. The paradigm posits that societal and agential constitution are a result of power relations, interpellation, and socialization or embourgeoisement via five systems, i.e., mode of production, language, ideology, ideological apparatuses, and communicative discourse, which are constituted and reified within two dominant (ontological) types (the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism or the Vodou Ethic and the spirit of communism) of system/social structure or what Mocombe (2019) calls a “social class language game” by persons, power elites, who control the means and modes of production in a material resource framework determined by the specie’s responses to the material resource framework. Culture is the characteristics placed, by those who control the material resources in a particular material resource framework, on the two (ontological) forms of system and social integration, which are metaphors for how the human species satisfies its material needs (communally or a Hobbesian struggle of all against all for individual wealth, i.e., capital) in the material framework that is the earth. Once interpellated and socialized (or embourgeoised in neoliberal capitalism) by these five systems, which are reified as a social structure and society, social actors recursively organize, reproduce, and are differentiated by the rules of conduct of the social structure, which are sanctioned by the power elites (rentier oligarchs in neoliberal capitalism) who control the means and modes of production, language, ideology, ideological apparatuses, and communicative discourse in a material resource framework. Hence, societal and agential constitution are both duality and dualism: a dualism given the reification of the social structure or the constitution of society via the five systems by those who control the means and modes of production in a material resource framework; and a duality given the internalization of the rules of the five systems, which become the (structurally differentiated) agential initiatives or praxes of social actors. Difference, or alternative social praxis, in Mocombe’s structuration theory, phenomenological structuralism, is not structural differentiation revealed by praxis as articulated by traditional structurationists; instead, it is a result of actions arising from the deferment of meaning and ego-centered communication given the interaction of two other structuring structures (physiological drives of the body and brain; and phenomenal properties of subatomic, carrier, particles that constitute the human subject) during the interpellation and socialization or embourgeoisiement of social actors throughout their life span or cycle, which produces alternative praxis that is exercised at the expense of the threat these practices may pose to the ontological security of social actors in the social structure or society. These alternative praxes occur in both forms of system and social integration of the human species and become structurally differentiated in order to (relationally) define the norms, values, ideas, and ideals of the two by their respective power elites. Hence, Mocombe’s theoretical (structural Marxist) framework is a universal framework that makes no gender, racial, or ethnic distinctions in its application. Gender, racial, and ethnic (so-called intersectional) identities are structurally differentiated serial identities that do not offer alternative praxes (form of system and social integration) to the current dominant social class language game, i.e., the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism; instead, they are standpoint theories not alternative ontological forms of system or social integration. To serve, as a counter-hegemonic different form of system and social integration, the serial identities would have to experience structural differentiation within the alternative form of system and social integration from which they originally were differentiated. That is, if they were constituted and reified within the practices of the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism, to serve as an alternative to the latter they would have to be interpellated, constituted, and reified within the Vodou Ethic and the spirit of communism form of system and social integration, which would make their practical consciousness incommensurable with the practices of the latter. The reverse also holds true; serial identities differentiated with the ontology of the Vodou Ethic and the spirit of communism to serve as an alternative counterhegemonic praxis would have to be interpellated, constituted, and reified within the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism.

Hence, according to Mocombeian structurationist theory, more specifically, the material world is a product of a fifth-dimensional nontemporal and nonspatial probability wave function, the absolute vacuum, with phenomenal properties, qualia, that gives rise to integrated four-dimensional space times (multiverses) that are constituted with objects with phenomenal properties that are logically and materially interrelated to form entangled and superimposed consciousness fields. From these philosophical positions human society would, sociogenetically, evolve and develop as two (antidialectical) distinct ontological and religious forms of system and social integrations (totalities), contingent upon the human species’ first encounter with the material resource framework that is the earth, which have undergone rationalization. In a bountiful environment, the Vodou Ethic and the spirit of communism emerged and was reified; in a less bountiful environment/ecology, the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism evolved and became reified by those who controlled the material resource framework. Both agents of the totalities who controlled the materials of the resource framework required for bodily survival produced and structured the world mechanically and antidialectically through five systems, i.e., the mode of production, language, ideology, ideological apparatuses, and medium of communicative discourse, in order to interpellate, socialize, and integrate the human individual into their form of system and social integration, which they equate (through religion) with the noumena of the absolute vacuum or the nature of reality as such. The agents of the latter, the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, emphasized humanist ideals and the subjugation of the earth and all others, especially agents of the Vodou Ethic and the spirit of communism, they encountered. Revolutionary imperatives, given the human beings ontogenetic ability to defer meaning in ego-centered communicative discourse, as found in the antihumanist writings of postcolonial scholars such as Fanon, existentialists like Nietzsche, and critical theorists of the Frankfurt school within the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism became associated with divergence, total freedom of the human individual from societal constraints (represented as the nature of reality as such), which were viewed as domineering, and free will. The former, the Vodou Ethic and the spirit of communism, promoted an antihumanist philosophy, which differed from the antihumanism of revolutionary agents of the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism in that the emphasis was not on the liberation of humanity from the objectivity (metanarrative) of the social structure as highlighted in postcolonial, Nietzschean, and Frankfurt school antihumanisms, which insisted on a more all-inclusive universality of the social system that promoted total freedom of the individual from metanarratives; instead, the antihumanist emphasis of the Vodou Ethic and the spirit of communism was on the decentering of the human subject as an individual free agent for interpellating them for balance, harmony, and subsistence living within the view of nature (the noumena of the absolute vacuum) as the determinant of existence and agency, i.e., fate. Revolutionary imperatives within the Vodou Ethic and the spirit of communism were tantamount, given both forms of system and social integration were mechanical and antidialectical, to the antihumanist philosophies found in the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism. The philosophy of phenomenological structuralism, however, rejects both the humanism of the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism and its antihumanist attacks for the initial antihumanism of the Vodou Ethic and the spirit of communism in that the latter, with nature as the determinant for and of human praxis, is the more veridical form of system and social interaction so as to prevent the destruction of the material resource framework we require to exist in the world as revealed by the absolute vacuum. This does not mean I reject freedom of the will for fate; instead, I accept fate with the understanding that we act freely knowing that we are destined to eternally recursively organize and reproduce our lives over and over again in the same material resource framework (or other variants of it in the multiverse) till the destruction of the multiverse and our return to the absolute vacuum. Human agency, which revolutionaries in both forms of system and social integration claim to fight for, is an illusion of embodiment that negates our connection (via consciousness) to the noumena of the absolute vacuum, which in the end, as many religions, and now science, purports, makes us one with the multiverse.

In other words, according to Mocombe, early on in the multiverse, before the aggregation of matter into physical worlds, there was no consciousness (and therefore no God); consciousness emerged as a result of aggregated matter, with sense perceiving apparatuses, affectively, perceptively, and cognitively, i.e., the dimensions of consciousness, experiencing aggregated material realities with Schumann waves where they, initially, sought pleasure and unpleased between themselves and the material reality through, in the human sphere, three (ready-to-hand, unready-to-hand, and present-at-hand) phenomenal stances of the brain/mind, i.e., what Heidegger calls the analytics of Dasein, which would give rise to the contents (qualia) of consciousness. Ready-to-hand refers to the unconscious experience of material reality as it appears to the human actor; unready-to-hand refers to the contemplative problem-solving aspect of the human actor when experiencing material reality; and the present-at-hand structural stance refers to self-awareness of the human actor. Local (human) consciousness emerged from the electrical firing in the aggregated (material) brain (which gives rise to the initial states and structures of consciousness), and the rest of the central/peripheral nervous system, connected to sense perceiving apparatuses, which produced a psychonic wave, which became tied to the Schumann wave of aggregated material reality created by the absolute vacuum, the nonlocal probability wave function out of which the multiverse emerged, where ultimately consciousness comes to reside nonlocally via it carrier particle, psychion. Upon death or the disaggregation of material reality, the elementary particles of the psychonic waves of aggregated matter becomes a psychion, with the qualia (contents of consciousness), phenomenal properties, from their (affective, perceptive, and cognitive) experiences as subatomic particle, that either collapses (as a resonating channel of a frequency wavelength) in other Schumann waves of the multiverse where the same matter exists or collapses into the absolute vacuum, if all of the same forms of the aggregated matter has been disaggregated, of the multiverse with the other elementary particles of the original four forces of nature. At the nonlocal (absolute vacuum) level, consciousness is a wave function, an elementary particle of the absolute vacuum or zero-point field who’s subatomic (carrier) particle, psychion, has phenomenal properties or qualia, informational content of recycled consciousness, mass, charge, and spin, which produces a consciousness field tied to the nonlocality of the absolute vacuum. The field, and its subatomic particles, psychions, are locally connected, as psychon, to material realities via their Schumann waves, material realities produced by, and connected to, the absolute vacuum, as resonating frequency wavelength channels/stations. They, psychion, the elementary (carrier) particle of consciousness with phenomenal properties, mass, charge, and spin, are embodied as, psychon, a resonating channel/station on the wavelength frequency of the absolute vacuum and entangled Schumann waves via the brain, brainstem (ARAS system), and central nervous system, which serves as a receiver and facilitator (antenna) of consciousness in material realities with Schumann waves. The psychion, psychon once integrated or embodied by the human brain and brainstem, is neurochemically integrated in the brain via the dopaminergic ventral tegmental area (VTA) in conjunction with the functional connectivity from the brainstem areas regulating arousal to the cortical networks supporting internal and external awareness. “The energetic-metabolic processes focusing on [adenosine triphosphate] ATP, glucose, and ?-aminobutyrate/glutamate are [also] indispensable for functional connectivity (FC) of normal brain networks that renders consciousness possible” (Chen & Zhang, 2021, p. 1). Once internal and external awareness is determined sub atomically (embodiment as a resonating channel/station on the frequency wavelength of the absolute vacuum and entangled Schumann waves with qualia, i.e., phenomenal properties, mass, charge, and spin), structurally (via the brainstem and the central nervous system), and neurochemically (dopamine, ATP, etc.), the firing of neurons, from the energy (current) of the subatomic particle, psychion/psychon, produces a psychotic wave that (affectively, perceptively, and cognitively) ties, via its charge and resonance, the human being to the electromagnetic wave, Schumann wave, of the earth or material reality thereby localizing and individuating consciousness, which is now local and nonlocal and dependent upon the brainstem, brain, and central/peripheral nervous systems, and their physical substrates, acting on consciousness, to receive and facilitate an initial affective phenomenal conscious experience in material reality where the individual seeks a balance and harmony (homeostasis) between their bodies and material reality via pleasure and unpleased. (Local, given embodiment and connection to the Schumann wave of material reality, which is nonlocal connected to the consciousness field, which is produced by the absolute vacuum). The qualia of this initial affect, emerges and evolves, cognitively, emotionally, etc., and becomes individuated consciousness’s, which are, each individuated consciousness, resonating (distinct) channels/stations on the frequency wavelength of entangled and superimposed Schumann waves, material realities, which are produced by and connected to the absolute vacuum via a fifth force of nature, i.e., the consciousness field and its subatomic (carrier) particle, psychion. Hence, consciousness, early on (at the very beginning of the evolution of aggregate matter), emerges from the initial neuronal activities of the brainstem and central/peripheral nervous systems experiencing local material reality, which produces its first phenomenal essence, i.e., qualia, which is the effect of pleasure and unpleased [10,1,2]. This initial essence, which produces other emerging essences (emergent essence), phenomenal experiences, qualia, via the brain, body, and the central/peripheral nervous systems, held together by the brain’s electromagnetic field, once constituted from experience of material realities with Schumann waves, is absorbed and recycled throughout a global consciousness field (cosmopsychism) created by the absolute vacuum, zero-point field, following matter disaggregation, of the multiverse to continuously produce beings with (local) consciousness, psychion/psychon, that have phenomenal properties or qualia, which becomes embodied in the physical substrates of the brain to facilitate consciousness, which can be impaired if the mechanical brain is damaged or under the influences of drugs, alcohol, etc. Hence neural correlates of the brain come to facilitate and act on consciousness, which following matter aggregation is a fifth force, psychion, of nature with phenomenal properties, mass, charge, and spin, resonating as an individuated channel or station of the material brain from the absolute vacuum or zero-point field in entangled and superimposed Schumann waves of material realities.

In this Mocombeian view, consciousness is not fundamental as argued in the post-materialist camp; instead, it is an emergent (material) property, emergent panpsychism (once emerged from first aggregated simple beings firing neurons consciousness becomes an emergent essence of the multiverse) that morphs into the cosmopsychism, of the multiverse, as argued in the materialist camp, which is constituted and expressed, in the human sphere through subatomic particle aggregation, mode of production, language, ideology, ideological apparatuses, communicative discourse, and praxis. Simple and complex beings’, resonating as different channels/stations or wavelengths of the same frequency and phase, Schumann waves of entangled and superimposed material realities throughout the multiverse, experience (sensation) of aggregated matter created by the initial four forces of nature from the absolute vacuum gives rise to their initial (affective) qualia whose constitutive subatomic particle, psychion, is the elementary particle (with phenomenal properties, mass, charge, and spin) that constitutes emerging consciousness fields as resonating psychonic waves. Consciousness, from this perspective, is an emergent fifth force of nature with an elementary particle, psychion, which produces a consciousness field, from the absolute vacuum, tied to the electromagnetic waves, Schumann waves, of superimposed and entangled physical worlds via the brain’s psychonic waves produced from the firing of neurons. The firing of neurons in the structures (ARAS system) of the brain, and the central nervous system, produces the psychonic electromagnetic wave, composed of the psychion with qualia, sense experiences of aggregate matter, which ties the individual to the Schumann waves, the electromagnetic fields of (superimposed and entangled) physical worlds of the multiverse, which emerge from, and tied to, the absolute vacuum or zero-point field of nonlocal space where the elementary particles of the forces of nature are one in the form of a probability wave function. The absolute vacuum transmits individual consciousness, and all that we experience, as a resonating frequency wavelength, channel or station with phenomenal properties, qualia, on the Schumann resonance of the earth and the psychonic wave of the individual, which share the same frequency with different amplitude. The brain is a receiver and facilitator of consciousness with the elementary particle, psychion, of consciousness serving as the resonating channel or station of individuated consciousness, and the Schumann and psychonic waves serving as the bandwidth; the absolute vacuum produces a carrier wave, i.e., the psychonic waves of individual consciousness, that is modulated in frequency by the signal that is to be transmitted in the form of the psychonic wave of the psychion to individual consciousness. Following matter disaggregation across and throughout the multiverse, the psychion, subatomic particle of consciousness, and its qualia, phenomenal property, is subsequently integrated into the absolute vacuum, the probability wave function of the multiverse, which in its inception was only four forces, where all the fundamental forces of nature emerged, of the multiverse to give rise to future worlds with conscious simple and complex beings whose qualia, phenomenal properties, is never destroyed (emergent panpsychism), but is the frequency of an individual consciousness recycled throughout the multiverse. For Mocombe what accounts for the unity of experience is the psychion, subatomic particle, of the emergent psychonic/panpsychic subatomic field of the multiverse that has phenomenal properties, qualia, which gets embodied as a resonating neuronal particle of the aggregated brain, which experiences a material resource framework as an “I,” a channel/station of, or on, a frequency wavelength, whose phenomenal properties, subjective experiences of material reality, following matter disaggregation either returns back to the field or collapses in other worlds, with their own consciousness fields, where the same matter exists as distinct resonating frequency channels of wavelengths (individual psychionic waves connected to Schumann waves of multiverses connected to the absolute vacuum as frequency wavelengths, which can be measured in Hertz). The consciousness field is a classical field produced by accelerating psychionic charges that contain and transmit all the phenomenal properties, qualia, of the absolute vacuum to the Schumann waves of material realities, and the psychonic waves of brains, brainstems, and central nervous systems connected to the latter, Schumann waves, which are connected to the former, absolute vacuum or zero-point field as a frequency signal. The field is the combination of a psychonic field or wave (produced by the psychionic elementary particle), an electric field, and a magnetic field. The psychonic field or wave, like the magnetic field, is produced by moving charges or currents, and the electric field stationary charges. The consciousness field can be regarded as a smooth, continuous field that propagates in a wavelike manner, and interacts with charges and currents. The reciprocal information transfer between the absolute vacuum, which constitutes a fifth dimension, the Schumann waves of entangled and superimposed material realities with consciousness fields, which exist in the four dimensions of space-time, and the psychion/psychon of subjects of experience takes place via the distinct resonances of everyone, which is a rhythmic channel/station on the frequency wavelength that is entangled and superimposed between the absolute vacuum, Schumann waves, and the psychonic waves of subjects of experience.

Out of the aforementioned material, biological, and psychological processes, two (ontological and sociological) antidialectical (contrary to Hegel and Marx) modes of organizing the material resource framework of the earth would characterize human societies, in various forms, since their initial being-in-the-world: The Vodou Ethic and the spirit of communism; and the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism. The former is in line with how we ought to organize our way of being-in-the-world-with-others to fit in accordance with sustaining balance and harmony with the physics’ of the multiverse, its material resource frameworks, and subsistence living; the latter, the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism, the basis upon which the left and right, contemporarily, constitutes society and recursively organize and reproduce their being-in-the-world, is problematic and dangerous as it is a product of ideology and conflict with the material resource framework of our universe. In other words, the logic here is that Karl Marx’s materialism is the product of the first group of embodied human beings’ initial encounter with the material world. Upon that initial ready-to-hand (Heidegger’s term, which I translate as unconscious processes) encounter, driven by the affective drives of the body and impulses of subatomic particles, two present-at-hand (conscious) worldviews, social class language games, emerged and became reified via five systems, i.e., mode of production, language, ideologies, ideological apparatuses, and communicative discourse. In a fruitful and bountiful environment, as early humankind encountered ready-to-hand in Africa prior to their migration elsewhere, a harmonious (affective) disposition towards the world took hold, which was juxtaposed against an antagonistic disposition arising from a lack of resources, etc., as was found among Europeans who migrated out of Africa to Europe. According to Cheik Anta Diop (1981, 1988, 1989), as a result of these experiences African and most people of color on the earth, the Taino people of the Caribbean, for example, who inherited hospitable environments, shared certain linguistic and cultural commonalities that formed a tapestry that laid the basis, present-at-hand, i.e., cognitively, for African cultural unity, which was reified and diametrically opposed to the European cultural unity that would develop, unready-to-hand and present-at-hand, in the barren and harsh environments of Europe as early humans migrated out of Africa [11-25].

What Diop called the Southern Cradle-Egyptian Model (African): 1) Abundance of vital resources, 2) Sedentary-agricultural, 3) Gentle, idealistic, peaceful nature with a spirit of justice, 4) Matriarchal family, 5) Emancipation of women in domestic life, 6) territorial state, 7) Xenophilia, 8) Cosmopolitanism, 9) Social Collectivism, 10) Material solidarity alleviating moral or material misery, 11) Idea of peace, justice, goodness, and optimism, and 12) Literature emphasizes novel tales, fables, and comedy, emerged, present-at-hand, among the people of color in tropical climates with bountiful resources. This Southern Cradle-Egyptian Model was diametrically opposed to an unready-to-hand and present-at-hand Northern Cradle-Greek Model: (European), 1) Bareness of resources, 2) Nomadic-hunting (piracy), 3) Ferocious, warlike nature with spirit of survival, 4) Patriarchal family, 5) Debasement/enslavement of women, 6) City state (fort), 7) Xenophobia, 8) Parochialism, 9) Individualism, 10) Moral solitude, 11) Disgust for existence, pessimism, 12) Literature favors tragedy.

The European/Greek model, over time became reified and recursively reorganized and reproduced, present-at-hand, as the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism under the leadership of Pastors, merchants, and owners in their encounter with Feudal Christianity; and the former, African model, as the Vodou Ethic and the spirit of communism under the leadership of priests, priestesses, healers, and elders (oungan, manbo, gangan, and granmoun in the Kreyol language of African/Taino/Haitian Vodou). Hence unlike Karl Marx, which views the origins of modern capitalist relations of production via the notion of primitive accumulation, Mocombeian consciousness field theory and phenomenological structuralism are in agreement with Max Weber and views it as the product of the (ideological) structures of signification of European Protestant Christianity, i.e., the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism reified via ideological apparatuses based on the mode of production, which Mocombe juxtapose against the African Vodou Ethic and spirit of communism of the original inhabitants of the earth who, because of their material abundance, did not develop and reify an antagonistic present-at-hand (ideological) view of the world as their European counterparts who experienced hardship in satisfying their basic needs. In other words, African peoples, and other people of color originally inhabited the earth, ready-to-hand (the initial phenomenal structure of consciousness), in environments with abundance of vital resources and as such sought a balance and harmony between themselves, the world, and their social class language game. Over time, their tribal and village leaders developed present-at-hand structural ideologies, Vodou; ideological apparatuses, villages, Lakous, peristyles, lwa yo, and herbal medicine; and modes of productions, subsistence agriculture, husbandry, and komes that reified their experiences and formed a tapestry, i.e., social class language game under the leadership of oungan yo, manbo yo, and granmoun yo (elders) that laid the basis for African cultural/structural unity, which was diametrically opposed to an European cultural/structural unity that encountered, ready-to-hand, a barren material resource framework. The latter because they were unable to satisfy their bodily needs in the barren material resource framework of Europe, in other words, became unready-to-hand and developed an antagonistic (pathological-pathogenic) stance vis-à-vis the world, which became reified, present-at-hand, as the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism when they encountered Christianity under the leadership, initially, of Pastors and merchants. Hence, what Cheikh Anta Diop called the Southern Cradle-Egyptian Model (African), which Mocombe calls the Vodou Ethic and the spirit of communism social class language game, emerged, ready-to-hand and present-at-hand, among the Africans, and the Northern Cradle-Greek (European) Model, or the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism social class language game, emerged, unready-to-hand and present-at-hand, among the Europeans as the structures that attempt to limit the unfolding of human action in the material resource framework of the earth [26-32]. In an ideal state, the latter sought embourgeoisement and domination; and the former, ounganification/manboification, egalitarianism, harmony, balance, perfection, and subsistence living. Either models, or structuring structures, interpellated and subjectified individual Beings of their material resource frameworks via different modes of production, languages, ideologies, ideological apparatuses, and communicative discourses. Historically, both models converged on the island of Hispaniola, at the height of the slave trade and African enslavement during the eighteenth century, where the enslaved Africans of Haiti juxtaposed the latter against the former in the attempt to overthrow it on the island. Jean-Jacques Dessalines, the founder of the Haitian nation-state, attempted to synthesize the two positions in a Kojeveian sense; to no avail, as the mulatto elites and petit-bourgeois blacks on the island assassinated him in favor of mercantilism and liberalism of the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism at the expense of the Vodou Ethic and the spirit of communism, which the Africans implemented in the mountains and provinces of the country. Contemporarily, the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism, in the form of neoliberal globalization, appears to have won out, with the exception of China (with its Chinese socialist characteristics on the Vodou Ethic and the spirit of communism), over the Vodou Ethic and the spirit of communism to the detriment of life on earth as life under the former is no longer tied to the physics of the multiverse, its material resource framework, and subsistence living. Instead, life has been “disembodied” (Karl Polanyi’s term) from the (Meta) physical environment and tied to the ideology of the economy and mode of production, post industrialism, with its emphasis on economic gain, greed, exploitation, self-actualization, self-gratification, and environmental degradation. For Mocombe, the latter is an antagonistic worldview that must be done away with in its entirety and replaced with a demystified and demythologized version of the former, i.e., the Vodou Ethic and the spirit of communism, and its lakou system on a global scale as Stalin attempted to do. It is the struggle between agents of these two ontological forms of system and social integration, which has shaped human society since their evolution on this planet. Future research must 1) continue to search for evidence of multiverses and other forms of existence tied to our present world, which will be similarly constituted as our own universe, and 2) proofs for the existence of the field of consciousness or consciousness field and its force, psychion, in order to falsify or verify Mocombe’s overall theories of phenomenological structuralism and consciousness fields [33-38] (Table 1).

Table 1:  Characteristics of Brain Waves.

1. Mocombe PC. Consciousness field theory. Archives in Neurology & Neuros. 2021a; 9: 1-6.
2. Mocombe PC. The consciousness field. Advances in Bioengineering & Biomedical Science Res. 2021b: 5; 11-16.
3. Mocombe PC. Psychonic A Priori Truths, J International Neurology and Neurological Research. 2025; 1: 04.
4. Mocombe PC. The Consciousness Field and the Refutation of Kantian Epistemology, Philosophy Study. 2025a; 15: 83-90.
5. Ortner S. Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties, Comparative Studies in Society and History. 1984; 26: 126-66.
6. Crothers C. Technical advances in general sociological theory: the potential contribution of post structurationist sociology. Perspectives. 2003; 26: 3-6.
7. Archer MS. Structuration versus Morphogenesis. In H.J. Helle and S.N. Eisenstadt (Eds.), Macro-Sociological Theory: Perspectives on Sociological Theory. 1985; 58-88.
8. Sahlins M. Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 1995b.
9. Mocombe Paul C. The vodou ethic and the spirit of communism: the practical consciousness of the african people of haiti. Maryland: University Press of America. 2016.  
10. Mocombe Paul C. The theory of phenomenological structuralism. United Kingdom: Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2019.
11. Anderson T. The Big Bang may be a Black Hole inside another Universe. 2020.
12. Blackburn S. The oxford dictionary of philosophy. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. 1994.
13. Pierre B. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste (Richard Nice, Trans.). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. 1984.
14. Bourdieu P. The Forms of Capital. In J.E. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education Westport: Greenwood Press. 1986; 241-258.
15. Bourdieu P. The Logic of Practice (Richard Nice, Trans.). California: Stanford University Press. 1990.
16. Chalmers DJ. Facing up to the problem of consciousness. J Conscious. 1995; 2: 200-219.
17. Chalmers DJ. The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford University Press. 1996.
18. Chalmers D J. What is a neural correlate of consciousness?, in Neural Correlates of Consciousness: Empirical and Conceptual Questions, ed. T. Metzinger (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). 2000; 17-39.
19. Chalmers DJ. Strong and weak emergence, in The Reemergence of Emergence, ed P. Clayton and P. Davies (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press). 2006; 244-255.
20. Chen Y, Zhang J. How energy supports our brain to yield consciousness: insights from neuroimaging based on the neuroenergetics hypothesis. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience. 2021; 15.
21. Cohen J. Protestantism and capitalism: the mechanisms of influence. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 2002.
22. Diop C A. Civilization or barbarism: an authentic anthropology. New York: Lawrence Hill Books. 1981.
23. Gauthier Richard. Big bangs created by univon particles from a conscious quantum field towards the next scientific revolution accessed 2020.
24. Giddens A. The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press. 1984.
25. Jurgen H. The theory of communicative action: lifeworld and system: a critique of functionalist reason (Volume 2, Thomas McCarthy,Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press. 1987.
26. Jurgen H. The theory of communicative action: reason and the rationalization of society boston: Beacon Press. 1984.
27. Hameroff S, Roger P. Consciousness in the Universe: A Review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory. Physics of Life Reviews. 2014; 11: 39-78.
28. Joseph EH. Africanisms in American Culture. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 1990a.
29. Joseph EH. The Origins of African-American Culture. In Joseph Holloway (Ed.), Africanisms in American Culture (19-33). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 1990b.
30. Horkheimer Max, Theodor WA. Dialectic of Enlightenment (John Cumming, Trans.)New York: Continuum. 2000.
31. Kenneth H, Andrea C. The Dark Side of the Protestant Ethic: A Comparative Analysis of Welfare Reform. Sociological Theory. 2005; 23: 1-24.
32. James CLR. The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution. Vintage. 1986.
33. Lester RK. Gods in the Global Village: The World’s Religions in Sociological Perspective. California: Sage Publications. 2007.
34. Lukacs, Georg. History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics (Rodney Livingstone, Trans). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 1971.  
35. Lukacs G. A Defence of History and Class Consciousness: Tailism and the Dialectic (Esther Leslie, Trans.). London and New York: Verso. 2000.
36. Marcuse H. One-Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press. 1964.
37. Marcuse H. Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud. Boston: Beacon Press. 1974.
38. Marx K, Friedrich E. The Communist Manifesto. London, England: Penguin Books. 1964.
39. Marx K. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (Volume 1, Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling, Trans.). New York: International Publishers. 2024.
40. Marx K. The German Ideology. New York: Prometheus Books. 1998.
41. McFadden J. Integrating information in the brain’s em field: the cemi field theory of consciousness, neuroscience of consciousness.1998; 6: 1-13.
42. McMichael P. Development and social change: a global perspective. Los Angeles, California: Sage Publications. 1998.
43. Mocombe PC. The soul-less souls of black folk: a sociological reconsideration of black consciousness as du boisian double consciousness. Maryland: University Press of America. 2009.
44. Russell B. The history of western philosophy. New York: Simon & Schuster. 1945.
45. Sahlins M. How natives think: about captain cook, For Example. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1995a.
46. Sahlins M. The Political Economy of Grandeur in Hawaii from 18101830. In Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney (Ed.), Culture through Time: Anthropological Approaches (pp. 26-56). California: Stanford University Press. 1990. 
47. Sahlins M. Captain cook at hawaii. The J Polynesian Society. 1989; 4: 371-423.
48. Sahlins M. Islands of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1985.
49. Sahlins M. (Parsons). The Apotheosis of Captain Cook. In Michel Izard and Pierre Smith (Eds), Between Belief and Transgression. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1985; 73-102.
50. Sahlins M. Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 1976.
51. Thomson G. On modern philosophy. Canada: Thomson Wadsworth. 2004.
52.  Lommel PV. Consciousness beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. 2010.
53. Max W. The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (Talcott Parsons, Trans.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1958.