“Introducing The Andro-Machina:Death of the Three Creatures (version 1 and 2)”
– “Daisy Day”
Summary: Elena Bartlett (1809-1825)
Introduction to Daisy Day
Daisy Day (1771-1825), her stage name, was to her contemporaries (mainly S.J. Brand and Julia Q. Goldmann) and still today considered a very controversial figure. Her life, including Days’ real name; Prior to her publications of: “The letters addressed to the Illuminated”(referring to the Enlightenment); “The letters addressed to our god-father Nobles and the generous loansharks of the Bourghs”; "The collected written speeches of Daisy Day at Agorport town square addressing the cognitively-dysfunctional commoners"…remains unknown.
She was the first to criticise the Enlightenment for “advocating separation of sciences, arts, and lives”. She was the first of the Suffragettes. The second above mentioned “Letters” inspired Millferd Manson and Watson Evans Taylor. In particular, Mansons’ constitutional-strength “Expanding Act on Gendered Royal Titles” – introducing mandatory linear primogeniture for all noble and all land-owning inheritance in Nasphilitae. In Taylors’ case, it were the “Constitutional Act on Rationalised Assembly Representation”, “Act of Commoner Suffrage”, and “Consolidation Act Regulating Anti-Trust Laws and Chartered Companies (Edition one)”.
Day is considered the first Utopian writer, influencing: “Later Goldmann” (after Julia adapted some of Daisy’s elements, preceded by two decades of rivalry), Ian Zachary, agent Eric Xor, agent Andrew Johnson (Rolland Krenstone), and the Peer House Edwards in creating the AID. Subsequently, all events related to AID’s Department Nine experimentation. Sometimes (but not by many), she’s called “a proto-radical”. A better description was given by Ian Zachary:
“The first among equals of Romanticists; an Egoist-Universalist derived from theology, cosmology, and Christology; The Apocatastasis Monadist; and first Universalist.”
Her “Death of the Three Creatures”, published in 1811. and 1822., mark the end of Enlightenment thought in Nasphilitae and the beginning of the Romanticist “Revived Universal ideal, counter-intellectual, restorative yet re-interpretive Renaissance and Reformation thought” Romanticism in the philosophical sense would last until 1910’s appearance of the Pragmatic School, formally ending in 1964. with Howard Dinbars’ “Answering Ian Zachary:Creation of Pragmatism”.
Quick Link TOC:
→ “Death of the Three Creatures,The Rose and The Cross”
→ “Death of the Three Creatures,Doctrina Alchemia Aenigmatia”
→ “Introducing The Andro-Machina”
—> Utopian ideal of the Andro-Machina features
Overview of the three works:
“Death of the Three Creatures” is a two-part work, the first being subtitled “The Rose and The Cross” (1811). is set on Xion. The second, subtitled “Doctrina Alchemia Aenigmatia” (1822). is set in “Shuv Endeesterots Restitutionis LOGOS”.
Which is one among many other controversies. Namely, “Shuv” is Judaic-language for “return/returning (to)”; “Endeesterots” is a transliteration of Aegean comparative declension for "defective"; “Restitutionis” is Montacian for “restorative”. “LOGOS” is the term Daisy Day always uses when talking about God.
“Young Goldmann” mocked Daisy for writing in a style “resembling a period before even Protoiridine”; she would turn out ot be more correct than she would have hoped for. “Doctrina Alchemia Aenigmatica” used primitive encryption methods. Namely, a white typewriter ink and a special cipher code, which appears to have been self-made.
Upon discovering this, when the books’ paper colouration had decayed enough for the white ink to be readable; Darzens’ First Deputy Head of State (Durand Edwards), kept suggesting the Chartering establishment of a cryptology agency. Four years later, Darzens was convinced enough to Charter the Establishment of the Agency for Identification and Documentation.
Death of The Three Creatures:The Cross and The Rose
“Xion, cosmogenesis, the principal focus inter-human affinities through the central mediatrix of universal convergence, then first about virtue-good-right we must say both what it is and from what it comes. First of all, we must axialite that every science and every art and every life, must have an end, and a good one. No science or art or life exists for evil” […] “And generally, one can see that it’s not part of any science or art or life to consider the question of virtue-good-right in particular. Why not? Because good occurs in all of their parts. Good is them, that of substances, quality, quantity, time, relation, instrument…”
These are the opening statements. Xion appears to refer not so much the Planet in an astrological sense, but rather in a sense of a fictional event; Xion is where or the result of the cosmogenesis event. The commas then seem to indicate a sequence. In (during or after) cosmogenesis, the principle of human relations is set. The principle is “the central mediatrix” – which is how every Abrahamic confession define its’ Halls of Worship.
Day negates all of them, instead stating that the central mediatrix (that which is between Divinity and Humans) is “Universal Convergence”.
Her definition and defense of universal virtue-good-right is then given an example in the form of constructing a house with very specific symbols.
“The point in case of all arts, sciences, and lives; it’s not one of them or a part of them which makes a house, but then another which makes a good house. The differentiation comes then from the Mastery of whichever Stonemason is building the good house. Next, a house provides life with habitat safe from nuisances such as thunderstorms, for instance. To build a house requires convergence of arts, sciences, and life.”
“A good house has appropriate facilities, but must also be mindful of this universality – A diagonal Cross, and the Wonders of the Green Rose.”
She will elaborate why such is the case for a “Good House” a decade later.
Death of The Three Creatures:Doctrina Alchemia Aenigmatia
→ Symbols of part one: Day examines, in too much detail, every two-dimensional shape, arriving to the conclusion that:
“The Saltire is penultimate good. In it, Divinity is addressed. It is addressed in the most aesthetically virtuous manner.”
“The Green Rose has not to it attachments of mundane symbolics. It is modular: In symbol, in growth, in colouration, in modification. As modularity is the predestination for the Central Mediatrix, us humans have a way to represent our final destination – It is the most virtuous Décor.”
→ “Shuv Endeesterots Restitutionis LOGOS”: Is the actual first paragraph if the book describing what “Universal Convergence” meant.
“Restoration of the perfect condition. Final salvation of all humans, a universal restoration for all souls which have ever been, of all things uttered, a reparation of the wicked and the fallen. To return into Xion, All, which existed since the Cosmogenesis.”
She then begins her defense by citing: Chronicles 16, Isaiah 9, Romans 8, Ephesians 4, Peter 4, John 1, Exodus 19, Gittin 4, and the Horebs: toroth, mitzvot, mishpatim, chuzim, edoth avodah.
Introducing The Andro-Machina:
Published post-mortem in 1827., by her former rival Julia Q. Goldmann. Apparently, upon reading this work, Goldmann was convinced to follow Days’ arguments. This is evident as elements in *“Older Goldmann”*s writing draw heavy inspirations from Daisy.
The Andro-Machina is further expansion of Days universal convergence. It takes a feminist approach here, though she rejected that labelling and would be abandoned by feminists of the 1940-1970s Sexual Revolution. Reasons for this are in the first three sentences of the book:
“Compatibility of the human sexes is contradictory, if we are merely aspiring a xerox of the biological, then we are without grace of LOGOS’ essence in complex cognitive thoughts.
Opposite of them, the sex:gender Pluralists; who I must ask, if gender is plural, how is then sexuality also not a choice?
Of all this brain-diseased patients, I only acknowledge the Separatists such as Goldmann, for it is at the very least not contradictory within itself.”
…It’s now probably adequate to mention that Daisy despised reproductive activity. A large portion of the Andro-Machina criticises men for sexual promiscuity. However;
“Which is no justifiable excuse for women to now also partake in this degradation of humans and their penultimate goal.”
Utopian ideal of “Andro-Machina”, features:
-
Daisy describes the “Andro-Machina” as: “A non-existent simultaneously being, event, world.”
-
It is “Term chosen for what will come upon after the Restitutionis”.
-
The “Andro” references “androstenediol”, a synthetically made hormone mixture of both male and female sex genes, experimented at the time by eugenicists.
-
The “Machina” is two-fold: It is both “contrived” by humans, and a “device” by which humans “reconcile with Divinity.”
-
It is a syncretic product of the Divinity and of the Humanity.
-
As it is divine, it has no sex distinctions.
Daisy Day was a “Unionist” Suffragette. She rejects genders as anything more than grammatical tools; Opposes sexuality and sex, albeit indiscriminately. She concludes both the “Unionist Movement” and the book by the following statement:
“The reason Andro-Machina is a Utopia is because, we cannot, sadly, though yet, abolish sex as a species, and unify into the Divine.”