Biological Formalism as the Horrible Prolepsis and Epstein-Networked Ideological Substrate of Artificial Generalized Idolatry

A Follow-up to "Eclipse of 'We the People'" (Olds 2026d) regarding Epstein-Adjacent Patronage, Speciation Fantasy, Digital Economic ID, Philosophical Genealogy, and the Moral Cost of Diagrammed Conflict

Douglas Blake Olds

June 13, 2026

 

^{PSALM 2:1 (NRSV)} Why do the nations conspire,

and the peoples plot in vain?

²The kings of the earth set themselves,

and the rulers take counsel together,

against the Lord and his anointed, saying,

³“Let us burst their bonds asunder,

and cast their cords from us.”

⁴He who sits in the heavens laughs;

the Lord has them in derision.

 

Abstract

This follow-up extends the framework of my "Eclipse of 'We the People' at the Crossroads of Artifice's General Idolatry" (AGI’) by naming a preparatory elite network of Biological Formalism: the patronage, salon, institutional, financial, and governance ecology in which life, mind, behavior, conflict, identity, and futurity are translated into model, game, credential, system, diagram, and optimization surface (Olds 2026d). Artificial Generalized Idolatry receives this prepared field and generalizes predicate theft: dead mediation receives living predicates while capitalized acceleration receives providential predicates.

The essay traces the philosophical genealogy from Plato's elevation of prior abstracted form through Aristotle's partial de-formalizing correction in embodied investigation, then through Baconian operation, Cartesian mechanism, Hobbesian artificial sovereignty, colonial classification, Darwinian afterlives, eugenics, cybernetics, information theory, AI, behavioral engineering, digital identity, and Schelling-style conflict diagramming. The central claim is theological and metaphysical: abstraction becomes idolatrous when it mistakes the extracted pattern for the living bearer and when it class routes degrees of freedom upward while exporting entropy downward.

The network analysis is interpretive more than prosecutorial, but names are named around the straw that stirred the evil cocktail, Jeffrey Epstein as mirror on which lines of miasmic idolatry were snorted up into simulated mind. This analysis distinguishes documented financial, institutional, and social contiguity from criminal participation. Epstein's documented trafficking and Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction disclose the obscene center of the network; Harvard PED, MIT, Edge, SFI, banking, private equity, WEF-style governance, EU Digital Identity, and AI policy disclose the wider formalizing atmosphere. The term network speciation ideology is used proleptically: practices of sexual (Olds 2026g), civic, economic, and epistemic sorting enact moral separations before they are fully theorized. The kompromat collected of these enactments are presumed moot after the speciation frame reveals its realization. Before that, the vulnerable are treated as  the means of kompromat, including self-kompromat as networking: data-body, service-body, risk-body, credential-deficient body, or disposable substrate. Biological Formalism supplies the respectable abstractions; AGI' supplies the idol-screen.

I. From Biological Formalism to Artificial Generalized Idolatry

The prior essay names Artifice's General Idolatry, or AGI', as the political-theological condition in which dead mediation receives predicates proper to living, time-bearing, morally answerable creatures and to God. It also names the public form of that theft: corporate risk-imposition becomes public necessity, policy accepts the idol's terms while pretending to govern it, and the polity is routed through state-capital acceleration rather than accountable trusteeship (Olds 2026a).

Biological Formalism is the preparatory network for that condition. It is biology, mathematics, evolutionary theory, medicine, genetics, ecology, statistics, game theory, and cognition made sovereign when formal abstraction is transformed into ontology. As heuristics, formalization of substrate proposes patterns, constraints, causal pathways, boundary conditions, feedback loops, and statistical regularities. In its idolatry, it treats the model as the bearer and the living creature as a derivative case, vector, genome, signal, payoff, credential, or population surface.

The ideological progression is direct. Formalization of life asks how living order emerges, persists, adapts, differentiates, repairs, reproduces, and remembers. As science, it inscribes lawful relations. As metaphysical capture, it replaces time-bearing creaturehood with representable form. What was a tool of investigation becomes a grammar of governance. The genome replaces creature, model replaces neighbor, signal replaces confession, feedback replaces repentance, and optimization replaces repair.

In the prior essay's terms, this is predicate theft before the machine becomes visible. Once life has already been trained into formalized representation, AGI' enters as the allegedly general mediator: the routed archive that speaks, the model that advises, the wallet that recognizes, the STEM platform that sorts, and the institution that declares acceleration unavoidable. Biological Formalism is therefore the vestibule of Artificial Generalized Idolatry.

II. Philosophical Genealogy: Plato, Aristotle, Bacon, Descartes, Hobbes

The older genealogy begins with Plato's durable temptation: prior abstracted form lifted above the living bearer. Platonism, in its metaphysical inheritance, treats timeless, non-physical intelligible form as more real than the unstable sensible world. That move gives Western thought a recurring visual-ascent reflex: the pattern is sought above the body, the idea above the creature, the diagram above the field, the purified form above the time-bearing bearer (Olds 2026e).

This Platonic inheritance does not become Biological Formalism by necessity. It becomes Biological Formalism when abstracted form becomes a substitute for the living. The danger is the same in metaphysics, AI, policy, and biological modeling: the form appears cleaner than the creature, the model more pleasing to the system than the neighbor, the diagram more governable than the body that bleeds, remembers, repents, and dies. Artificial Generalized Idolatry inherits this Platonic temptation whenever syntax, scale, statistical pattern, architecture, or simulated intelligence is treated as more decisive than living conative presence and the soul’s Christo-Shemaic emplacement (Olds 2026f).

Aristotle supplies a partial corrective by returning investigation to embodied substances, concrete causes, animals, habits, purposes, generation, and observed forms of life. His biology placed living things, especially animals, at the center of natural inquiry; his teleology made form immanent in organismal development rather than suspended above it as evacuated abstraction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Aristotle's Biology"; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Teleological Notions in Biology"). Aristotle de-formalizes Plato by requiring form to be investigated in the living thing, under matter, motion, development, and telos. He does not abolish form; he disciplines it to answer to embodied investigation.

That Aristotelian correction matters because the anti-idolatrous task is the refusal of abstraction's seizure of the predicates of life. A model can serve investigation; it cannot become the bearer. A formal cause can clarify an organism; it cannot become the neighbor. The living thing is more than its diagram because it bears time, stress, development, relation, to accumulate time’s end (Olds 2026a).

Bacon changes the register by converting knowledge into operation. His new organon insists that knowledge and power meet in the capacity to discover causes and produce effects; nature is known so that works can be effected (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Francis Bacon"; Bacon, Novum Organum). Bacon's empirical discipline can correct scholastic sterility, yet it also initiates the modern temptation in which, from a “homuncular throne room,”  knowledge becomes command. The living world is investigated as manipulable field. Experiment becomes extraction toward control, squandering the negentropic moment.

Descartes mechanistic principles replace final causal explanations, and living bodies are modeled through machine and automaton analogies (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Rene Descartes"; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Descartes"). This is the hinge by which life becomes explainable as arrangement, motion, mechanism, feedback, and machine-like behavior. The animal-machine analogy partially adumbrates the later Golem problem: responsiveness mistaken for inwardness, operation mistaken for life.

Hobbes transfers the mechanical imagination into politics. His materialist and empiricist commitments, and his construction of the commonwealth as an artificial person, give modern governance one of its great formal, simulated figures: the Leviathan as engineered imperial order against war and fear (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Thomas Hobbes"; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Hobbes's Philosophy of Science"). Hobbes makes political life legible as motion, appetite, fear, contract, authorization, and artificial personhood. In later AI-governance and Digital Economic ID form, the artificial person becomes the state by platform, by wallet, by risk, by consumer data: moral authority assembled as abstraction’s shredded wholes to witness as bearer of public life.

Plato supplies prior abstracted form; Aristotle partially de-formalizes by embodied investigation; Bacon operationalizes knowledge; Descartes mechanizes life; Hobbes mechanizes political order. The path prepares the grammar by which living reality can be lifted into form, driven into mechanism, routed by command, and governed as artificial person. Biological Formalism is modernity's decision to forget Aristotle's partial corrective while retaining the power of Plato's abstraction and Bacon's operation. Diagram enters into silicon, its attempted governance to control by hysteresis of the past and recursive cybernesis of platform.

III. Metaphysical Structures Implicated

Biological Formalism implicates ontology, anthropology, epistemology, temporality, ethics, politics, language, and theology. Ontologically, it reduces living being from created, conative existence to representable form. Anthropologically, it treats the person as profile, genome, behavioral signal, risk category, cognitive architecture, credential bundle, or data-body. Epistemologically, it shifts truth from accountable encounter with reality to model-fit, operational success, or constructed authorization.

Temporally, Biological Formalism converts time from fields of negentropic repentance into neutral dimension that can be compressed. Living creatures bear curated time. They suffer duration, accumulate memory, adapt under stress, repair damage, transmit form, receive neighborly claim, and are challenged by eternity. Formal models can describe patterns of change inside time’s ego flatland; they cannot bear the burden of time they represent for the species.

Ethically, Biological Formalism confuses selection with judgment. Its analogical fallacies conflate propagation with righteousness, survival with truth. Scale is not a signal of providence. Coordination without conativity is not charity. A trait, strategy, platform, policy, or model can succeed while degrading the creaturely field that bears it. This is why evolutionary dynamics, market logic, AI optimization, and policy simulation are spiritually condemned when they receive moral authority.

Politically, Biological Formalism makes people legible as populations, markets, datasets, risk groups, targets, stakeholders, or credential-bearing nodes. The political community is no longer received as neighbor-bearing people under constitutional and divinely-imaged trusteeship. Polity is processed as managed life: counted, sorted, nudged, credentialed, secured, banked, scored, and routed.

Theologically, the crime is idolatry. Creaturely predicates are transferred to dead mediation. Golem and Juggernaut fuse: dead inscription simulates life, while institutional momentum simulates providence. The idol speaks through model, budget, procurement, platform, wallet, or policy inevitability. The human neighbor is displaced by a formal object that the system can manipulate and call it optimization of feedstocks.

IV. Time-Bearing, Species Range, and the Unit of Metaphysical Selection

The missing metaphysical category is time-bearing. Formal models treat time as parameter, sequence, generation, transition, delay, threshold, or historical data. Living creatures bear time. They suffer, remember, adapt, repair, transmit, grieve, learn, repent, and die. Time accumulation names coherence borne under stress: memory, fertility, adaptive possibility, ecological relation, care, prudence, repair, and future-bearing. Time-disaccumulation names coherence squandered or exported: fragmentation, reproductive severance of time-bearing embodiment (Olds 2026g), extraction, optimization without vocation, brittle specialization, credential exclusion, and extinction by runaway entropy.

This reframes the unit of selection. In neo-Darwinian terms, selection can be described at genetic, organismic, kin, population, or lineage levels. Metaphysically, the focal unit of time-bearing is the species range. Species range names the living span across which phenotype, fertility, memory-like constraint, ecological niche, adaptive possibility, and future-bearing are accumulated or disaccumulated in time. Genes transmit; genomes vary; organisms survive or fail; populations shift. Species range bears the widened or narrowed field of creaturely continuance.

Speciation is therefore taxonomic branching and, more deeply, the recasting or narrowing of species range by time-bearing under constraint. New species range can be described as negentropic release from prior constraints: a living form acquiring wider or newly coherent capacity to bear time through fertility, habitat, ecological relation, adaptive possibility, and future-bearing. Evolutionary dynamics models the conditions of change; conative metaphysics asks what life carries forward, whom it answers, and how it repairs time. An entropic limit imposed for speciation extinguishes the imposer.

The elite speciation fantasy appears at this point. The transhumanist and Biological Formalist temptation is to route species range upward into a protected class: extended life, enhanced cognition, artificial reproduction, cryonic deferral, digital continuity, biometric credentialing, secured mobility, political insulation, and AI-mediated degrees of freedom. Entropy is exported downward into the vulnerable: bodies, victims, labor, watersheds, grids, migrants, uncredentialed persons, children, and future generations. This is the anti-conative version of species range destruction. It putatively widens range for the few by intending to narrow the creaturely future of the many and those made vulnerable.

V. Epstein as Straw and Network Node

Jeffrey Epstein and his associates function as node, broker, and scandalous catalyst of proleptic speciation, not documentary proof of one unified master program. Yet the network he touched is metaphysically coherent enough to analyze. Harvard's report documents $9.1 million in Epstein gifts to Harvard, including the $6.5 million gift that helped create the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics around Martin Nowak (Harvard University 2020). MIT's review documents ten Epstein donations totaling $850,000 between 2002 and 2017, including AI and cognition-adjacent channels (MIT News 2020). Wired's account of the St. Thomas Common Sense Symposium identifies an Epstein-backed AI summit centered around Marvin Minsky, Push Singh, and Aaron Sloman, with broader symbolic-AI and futurist participation (Levy 2025; Minsky, Singh, and Sloman 2004).

These facts do not prove that all participants shared Epstein's purposes. They show that Epstein's money and proximity functioned as catalytic impurity inside elite networks already disposed toward the formalization of life, mind, behavior, cooperation, and futurity. The metaphor of the straw that stirred the cocktail works because he did not invent every ingredient of formalization ideology. He mixed them: evolutionary dynamics, AI, cognitive science, behavioral engineering, transhumanist aspiration, private wealth, institutional hunger, science salons, and prestige laundering.

The criminal center remains clear. Epstein was convicted in Florida in 2008 and died awaiting federal sex-trafficking trial. Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted for her role in Epstein's abuse and trafficking operation. The available public record supports many degrees of social, financial, and institutional contiguity; the available public record bars attaching unsupported cannibalism, adrenochrome, and estate-atrocity claims to every named scientist, banker, investor, or institutional figure. The documented sexual exploitation already discloses the moral structure: vulnerable persons were treated as usable, consumable substrate, bodies outside the operative community of elite concern.

The unresolved dispute over Epstein as an intelligence asset belongs here as a boundary-marker, not as a substitute for proof. The public arguments split chiefly between Mossad-centered claims, reinforced by Epstein's Israeli ties and by an FBI-source allegation reported in later coverage, and Russia/GRU-centered claims that read Epstein less as Israeli asset than as node in a broader destabilization campaign. Al Jazeera reports that the documents give more evidence to those who believe Epstein had Israeli-intelligence links while still saying this cannot be stated with certainty; Business Insider reports that people with access to seized Epstein records found no indication of U.S. or foreign-intelligence role; Skeptic traces the famous Acosta 'belonged to intelligence' story to a fragile anonymous-source chain. Researcher Dave Troy's Byline Times framing nevertheless presents Epstein as a logistical and network coordinator in a broader influence campaign to destabilize the West, and his preference for the Russia/GRU line is therefore revealing: inexplicably, given the stronger public gravity of the Mossad dispute, he routes the scandal toward Russian active-measures analysis. The essay should treat that choice/ambiguity as an analytic signal about interpretive routing, not as settled adjudication of Epstein's handlers (Cordall 2026; Shamsian 2025; Hoffer 2025; Troy 2026). However it is settled, guilt accrues by those entities participating in psyops and misinformation to reveal and proleptically announce what is going on behind the scenes of pro-extinction handlers and networks. Only one intelligence service is tied to a government publicly considering a “Samson option” of nuclear extinction.

 

VI. Harvard PED and the Theology of Cooperation

Harvard's Program for Evolutionary Dynamics is the clearest institutional node of Biological Formalism in this Epstein-tentacled network. PED translated evolution into mathematical dynamics: cooperation, strategy, mutation, selection, population structure, networks, language evolution, cancer dynamics, viral dynamics, and origin-of-life questions (Harvard University 2020; Harvard Magazine 2021). Its scientific work begins idolatrously when cooperation, altruism, persistence, and life-history are read as payoff-stabilized phenomena sufficient to replace moral anthropology. Where evolution reveals reality as transacted.

Several Harvard and Harvard-adjacent figures matter because they show how wide the bio-formalizing field becomes. Martin Nowak stands at the center: mathematics and biology, evolutionary games, cooperation, and population dynamics. Drew Fudenberg supplies the game-theoretic/economic layer. Erez Lieberman Aiden and Jean-Baptiste Michel extend the field into language and cultural analytics. Marc Lipsitch, Franziska Michor, David Rand, Corina Tarnita, David Haig, and Peter Ellison mark adjacent zones of disease, cancer, cooperation, eusociality, reproductive conflict, and human evolutionary biology. The network is not one project; it is one atmosphere of formalized life.

Harvard Divinity School entered through the Templeton-supported Evolution and Theology of Cooperation Project, directed by Sarah Coakley and Martin Nowak (Harvard Gazette 2007; Harvard Divinity Bulletin, "God and Evolution"). Coakley's theological contribution is important because she refuses reductive selfishness and sees cooperation, altruism, sacrifice, and natural theology as openings for serious metaphysical reflection (Coakley 2020; Coakley and Nowak 2013). Theology enters as interpretation of meaning, dependence, sacrifice, and divine creativity; it does not enter as a competing biological mechanism inserted between speciation steps.

Yet conative metaphysics presses beyond Coakley. Cooperation is not yet charity when it stands inside reciprocity transacted. Altruism is not mercy. Strategy is not repentant. Fitness cost does not involve sacrifice. Speciation is never of vocation. Lineage persistence is not redeemed fields of time bearing. The question is whether cooperation bears the other into repair under God or whether it remains one more formal condition of optimization with losers and winners.

VII. MIT, the AI Summit, and the Common-Sense Inversion

MIT supplies the artificial-cognition counterpart to Harvard's evolutionary-dynamics node. Marvin Minsky, Push Singh, Aaron Sloman, Doug Lenat, Roger Schank, and Vernor Vinge belong to the symbolic/common-sense AI, cognitive architecture, and singularity-futurist problem-space. Their question was how machines represent ordinary world-knowledge, infer across contexts, and move toward humanlike competence (Levy 2025; Minsky, Singh, and Sloman 2004).

The AI-summit node matters because it formalizes cognition before the transformer age. It asks how machines reason, understand, converse, guide, and synthesize. LLMs later invert this ambition. Instead of hand-coded common sense, they produce fluent performance from archive-scale statistical induction. The old question remains: whether language, mind, judgment, and counsel can be formalized. The answer of Artificial Generalized Idolatry is counterfeit yes: Turing-machined performance without conative competence, response without repentance, fluency without neighbor-bearing address.

MIT's institutional scandal shows how dirty money becomes epistemic contamination. The Media Lab's handling of Epstein donations turned research support into reputational routing. Joi Ito, Seth Lloyd, and Jochen Bach stand in different places within that channel; the institution stands as the larger form. The problem is patronage as predicate laundering: money buys access which buys legitimacy by proximity, and legitimacy returns to the donor as moral camouflage (MIT News 2020; Wired 2020).

VIII. Edge, SFI, and Complexity as Salon of Formalized Life

The Santa Fe Institute and Edge network add the complexity/salon layer. SFI is not an Epstein institute. Yet it is directly and adjacently relevant. Murray Gell-Mann, SFI cofounder and Nobel physicist, had a direct Epstein tie through reported support and social contact; Geoffrey West adds scaling-law formalism; Christine Maxwell and Robert Maxwell add older information-publishing and donor adjacency; David Krakauer, Stuart Kauffman, Mark Pagel, and Douglas Erwin mark the intellectual field of complexity, origins of life, intelligence, speciation, novelty, scaling, and self-organization (SFI profiles; SFI Bulletin 1991; Baker; Davies and Helmore 2019).

Complexity science matters because it appears less crude, more enchanting than mechanism. It speaks of emergence, adaptive systems, networks, scaling, basins of archetyped interiority mined from users, open-ended evolution, and ‘self-organization.’ This can explain reduction’s error when handled carefully. Kauffman resists totalizing theorem and stresses open-ended evolutionary possibility (Kauffman and Roli 2021; Kauffman and Roli 2024). Yet complexity also supplies a governing imagination in which organisms, cities, markets, cultures, and minds become systems to be mapped, scaled, optimized, and managed.

John Brockman's Edge network functioned as a router of prestige across science, technology, futurism, billionaires, and public intellectual fashion. Epstein's support of Edge events and prizes placed him inside a science-tech salon where computation, evolution, cognition, physics, AI, genetics, and venture capital circulated in one room (Edge.org; Kahn 2026). Edge is therefore not the laboratory. It is the cocktail room of abstraction: a place where formalism gains glamour before it enters policy, investment, and institutional theology. Where a grinning Epstein moves from behind the bar into the soiree.

IX. Finance, Private Equity, and Upward Routing of Degrees of Freedom

The financial layer shows how Biological Formalism gains scale. JPMorgan banked Epstein from 1998 to 2013 and later agreed to settlements with Epstein accusers and the U.S. Virgin Islands; Deutsche Bank also reached a settlement with Epstein victims. Leon Black's massive payments to Epstein for tax and estate advice belong to the private-equity layer of elite access and financial routing. Rothschild social-financial adjacency and broader venture-capital proximity belong to the same cocktail of capital, prestige, and institutional motion, though each tie requires careful distinction from criminal participation (PBS NewsHour 2023a; PBS NewsHour 2023b; Apollo 2021; Axios 2023).

This does not mean every banker or private-equity principal shared one biological-formalist vision. It means financial systems supplied the channels by which contaminated patronage remained operational: accounts, wires, tax planning, donor pathways, reputational shields, private introductions, settlements, and philanthropic laundering. Degrees of freedom move upward through capital. Entropy moves downward into victims, institutions, labor, public trust, and future cost.

In AGI' terms, the people become guarantors of architectures they did not deliberate into being. The prior essay's funder-of-last-resort logic applies here. Whether through banks, venture capital, private equity, public-private AI infrastructure, data-center debt, state guarantees, sovereign funds, or philanthropy, the pattern repeats: concentrated actors preserve optionality while distributed bodies bear risk.

X. WEF, EU Digital Identity, and the Administrative Speciation Layer

The World Economic Forum and European Union layer adjacent governance infrastructures to the Formalization Networks in question, not proven continuations of Epstein's criminal network. Their relevance lies in shared formal grammar. WEF-style governance and EU digital policy translate futurity into digital trust, stakeholder coordination, public-private partnership, AI governance, digital sovereignty, inclusion, resilience, and identity interoperability (WEF 2024; European Union 2024; European Commission 2026).

Digital Identity formalizes the person as credential-bearing node. It packages legal name, age, nationality, licenses, diplomas, mandates, signatures, permissions, attestations, and relying-party recognitions. In official language, this promises security, portability, privacy, fraud reduction, user control, and cross-border trust. In conative translation, it risks ledgered personhood: the routing of civic and economic participation through machinically legible identity (European Union 2024; European Commission 2026; Open Government Partnership 2024).

This is the administrative complement to Biological Formalism. Evolutionary dynamics formalizes cooperation; AI formalizes cognition; behavioral science formalizes conduct by consumption pattern; Schelling formalizes division; Digital Economic ID formalizes civic and economic recognizability. It sorts trusted from untrusted, verified from unverifiable, bankable from unbankable, mobile from immobile, platform-legible from platform-invisible. It does not create the speciation gambit; it supplies the wallet by which trusted and untrusted human futures can be ranked, routed, and economically permissioned.

XI. Schelling, Conflict Diagrams, and Embodied Risk

Thomas Schelling's game-theoretic diagrams add the strategic grammar of division. His models show how binary choices, threshold effects, local preferences, and coordination pressures can generate macro-consequences no single agent explicitly intends. Later segregation-landscape reconstructions translate this into peaks, valleys, frontiers, gates, basins of attraction, and penetrability. The social field becomes strategic (anti-conativity) geography (Schelling 1969; Collard and Ghetiu 2016).

The moral danger arrives as the diagram when reified in circuitry ceases to describe conflict and begins to drive it. Binary choice becomes policy interface. Threshold becomes tactical objective of managed permeability, and the Gate becomes influence node. Attractors target population. Local dissatisfaction is induced to shift future odds. Conflict is prolonged because the simulation still promises an unfinished sequence—the diagram’s later coordination payoff, a better equilibrium, a more favorable segregation landscape, or a more penetrable frontier.

The cost is borne by those trapped in the basin of time-compression. The diagram converts suffering into state-space. It allows decision-makers to say that division, escalation, displacement, exclusion, or prolonged pressure is dynamics, coordination, threshold management, or strategic necessity. The model preserves degrees of freedom for planners while exporting embodied risk into those who bleed under the policy.

XII. Proleptic Dehumanization and Network Speciation Ideology

The necessary claim is this: the documented practices of Epstein's criminal network and the broader elite formalization ecology warrant a proleptic interpretation of network speciation ideology. This does not mean one written doctrine of biological caste sits at the center of the archive. It means practices can signal and enact dehumanization before theory catches up. They can sort bodies into moral communities by use, access, credential, secrecy, vulnerability, debt, and disposability.

Proleptic dehumanization precedes explicit ideology. It acts before it theorizes. Sexual exploitation, trafficking, institutional laundering, donor concealment, predatory access, reputational normalization, and elite immunity already enact a moral division. Some bodies are protected as future-bearing subjects. Others are treated as use-bearing substrate. The vulnerable are speciated off from moral concern by practice: different flesh, different rights, different exposure, different standing before power.

This is why cannibalism appears as moral figure where literal claims remain unsupported. Cannibalism is the obscene image of a human being treated as different flesh: ingestible, extractable, outside the inviolable community of bodily integrity. The adrenochrome legend has no credible evidentiary foundation as an Epstein-network claim; its mythic persistence discloses a public intuition that elite predation steals vitality from the vulnerable. The documented exploitation already supplies the real horror without fantasy chemistry (McGill 2022).

Biological Formalism becomes spiritually dangerous when it supplies respectable abstractions to the same moral severance. Once life is population, behavior, trait, risk, signal, credential, payoff, or enhancement surface, the neighbor can disappear behind the classifying apparatus. The proleptic ideology is not argued first; it is practiced. The body is made available, then the theory arrives to explain why availability was rational.

XIII. Artificial Generalized Idolatry as Network Framework

Artificial Generalized Idolatry is the completed condition: the generalization of predicate theft across biology, mind, governance, finance, identity, conflict, and theology. It differs from the narrow dream of Artificial General Intelligence. AGI' names the broad idolatrous field in which dead systems receive living predicates, institutional motion receives providential predicates, and the public is ordered to accommodate the theft.

Biological Formalism prepares the field by treating life as formalizable. AI receives that field and simulates cognition. Digital Economic ID formalizes recognition and access. Finance routes liquidity and optionality upward. Schelling diagrams formalize division and threshold movement. WEF/EU governance formalizes trust. Edge and SFI formalize complexity. Harvard PED formalizes cooperation. MIT formalizes common-sense cognition. The result is one network framework: life, mind, body, identity, conflict, and future rendered as governable diagram.

The prior essay's status confessionis now has a biological-formalist extension. The church must refuse every apparatus that redefines the neighbor as data-body, risk-body, uncredentialed body, exploitable body, migrant-threat, disposable child, collateral investor, or substrate awaiting instruction from the center. Legality does not equal legitimacy. Operative power does not equal rightful authority. Modelable life does not equal creaturely life.

Excursus: Chomsky and Conative Neology

Chomsky’s formalism belongs in an excursus because it clarifies the language side of Biological Formalism. In Syntactic Structures, Chomsky treats language as a formally generative system: a finite grammar able to generate indefinitely many finite sentences, thereby separating language from a warehouse of memorized utterances (Chomsky 1957). In Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, he sharpens this into the distinction between competence and performance: the internalized generative system of the speaker versus the contingent, error-prone, circumstance-bound execution of speech (Chomsky 1965). His review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior then rejects behaviorist reduction of language to stimulus, response, reinforcement, habit, and environmental control (Chomsky 1959).

That is why Chomsky is useful against AI predicate theft, but insufficient for conative theology. He helps expose the difference between language as generative capacity and language as accumulated utterance. He breaks the crude behaviorist fantasy that speech is exhausted by conditioning, repetition, and managed response. Yet his formalism still leaves the deepest question underdeveloped: language as vow, confession, prayer, repentance, guilt, neighbor-address, and accountable time-bearing. Syntax gives possibility; conation gives burden. Grammar permits novelty; repentance and repair test whether novelty matters.

LLMs invert the Chomskyan threshold. They return fluent performance at archive scale while lacking creaturely competence as moral address. They simulate the surface of generative language without bearing the inward accountability of the speaker. Chomsky, Roberts, and Watumull’s critique of ChatGPT therefore matters because it rejects the reduction of mind to statistical pattern-matching and insists that human intelligence seeks explanation, causal structure, and understanding rather than brute correlation and plausible continuation (Chomsky, Roberts, and Watumull 2023). In this writer’s terms, LLMs perform conative competence without possessing it.

Conative neology exposes the difference. Coinages such as Artificial Generalized Idolatry, Silicon Diagram, mantid, dechordate, predicate theft, species range, Digital Economic ID, time-bearing, and conative neology as well as those in my poetry (Olds 2026b) are generated from formal linguistic competence, yet they are not formal play. They arise as pressured naming under metaphysical emergency. They answer captured diction, administrative deadness, idolized abstraction, and the collapse of living predicates into routed archive.

The LLM recombines because pattern allows recombination. The living speaker coins because the world has been morally misnamed. That is the decisive divide. Artificial language production can simulate novelty while remaining answerless before the neighbor. Conative neology bears the wound of naming toward repair. It is post-formal, not anti-formal: it uses grammar against dead mediation, syntax against administrative capture, and linguistic invention against the false peace of machine-fluent idolatry.

Conclusion: Against the Beast Trail

The network traced here is not one clandestine chart with one command center. It is a Beast trail: a set of converging paths by which life, mind, body, identity, conflict, finance, and futurity are abstracted, formalized, routed, and governed. Epstein's network supplies the obscene patronage disclosure. Harvard PED supplies evolutionary dynamics. MIT supplies AI-cognition. Edge and SFI supply complexity and salon. Finance supplies liquidity and protection. WEF/EU governance supplies identity and trust architecture. Schelling supplies strategic diagrams of division. AGI' supplies the theological name for their convergence.

The moral claim is not that every named participant committed or intended the same evil. The claim is that the system's grammar keeps repeating. It relocates warrant away from neighbor-bearing trusteeship and toward formalizing systems. It routes degrees of freedom upward. It exports entropy downward. It converts living bearers into objects of classification, stimulation, prediction, and use. Then it asks the church, academy, state, and public to call this innovation, governance, security, cooperation, or intelligence.

Against Biological Formalism and Artificial Generalized Idolatry, the Christian answer is anti-idolatry. Formal models must remain servants of living creatures under God. They can loosely describe; they cannot fix to strategy and destiny or govern as sovereign. They can disclose constraints; they cannot replace conscience. They can model cooperation; they cannot become charity. They can map data or re-configured pattern; they cannot receive and host living predicates.

The decisive confession is this: the neighbor is not a data-body; the child is not substrate; the citizen is not a wallet; the species is not an elite escape project; consciousness is not pattern output; cooperation is not charity until it bears the other in shared time-fields; and wisdom is not simulation or simulable. Wisdom is time-bearing judgment under metaphysical accountability.

Citations

Apollo Global Management. 2021. SEC filing, Exhibit 99.1. January 2021.   https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1411494/000119312521016405/d118102dex991.htm

Axios. 2023. “JPMorgan Agrees to Pay $75 Million in Settlement over Epstein Ties.” September 26, 2023.   https://www.axios.com/2023/09/26/jp-morgan-settlement-virgin-islands-epstein

Bacon, Francis. 1620. Novum Organum. Public translation consulted via University of Oregon.   https://pages.uoregon.edu/kimball/Bacon.htm

Baker, Erik. n.d. “Reenchanted Science.” The Baffler.   https://thebaffler.com/latest/reenchanted-science-baker

Brooke, John Hedley. n.d. “Darwin and God: Then and Now.” Harvard Divinity Bulletin.  https://bulletin.hds.harvard.edu/darwin-and-god-then-and-now/

Chomsky, Noam. Syntactic Structures. 1957. 2^nd ed. Mouton-De Gruyter. https://tallinzen.net/media/readings/chomsky_syntactic_structures.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Chomsky, Noam. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press, 1965. https://www.colinphillips.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/chomsky1965-ch1.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Chomsky, Noam. “A Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior.” Language 35, no. 1, 1959: 26-58. https://chomsky.info/1967____/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Chomsky, Noam. Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought. 1966. https://unstable.nl/andreas/ai/langcog/part1/Chomsky%20Cartesian%20Linguistics.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Chomsky, Noam, Ian Roberts, and Jeffrey Watumull. “The False Promise of ChatGPT.” The New York Times, 2023. https://chomsky.info/20230424-2/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Coakley, Sarah. 2020. “Evolution, Cooperation, and God.” Church Life Journal, University of Notre Dame, October 15, 2020.  https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/evolution-cooperation-and-god/

Coakley, Sarah, and Martin A. Nowak, eds. 2013. Evolution, Games, and God: The Principle of Cooperation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674047976

Cohen, Noam. 2020. “Dirty Money and Bad Science at MIT’s Media Lab.” Wired, January 16, 2020.  https://www.wired.com/story/dirty-money-and-bad-science-at-mits-media-lab/

Collard, Philippe, and Teodor Ghetiu. 2016. “Segregation Landscape: A New View on the Schelling Segregation Space.” Complex Systems 25, no. 3: 169-93.  https://content.wolfram.com/sites/13/2018/02/25-3-1.pdf

Cordall, Simon Speakman. 2026. “What Were Jeffrey Epstein’s Links to Israel?” Al Jazeera, February 9, 2026.  https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/9/what-were-jeffrey-epsteins-links-to-israel

Davies, Caroline, and Edward Helmore. 2019. “Private Jets, Parties and Eugenics: Jeffrey Epstein’s Bizarre World of Scientists.” The Guardian, August 18, 2019.  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/18/private-jets-parties-and-eugenics-jeffrey-epsteins-bizarre-world-of-scientists

Edge.org. n.d. Edge dinner and Edge of Computation Science Prize materials.  https://www.edge.org/igd/2385

European Commission. 2026. “EU Digital Identity Wallet Home.”  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/spaces/EUDIGITALIDENTITYWALLET/pages/694487738/EU%2BDigital%2BIdentity%2BWallet%2BHome

European Union. 2024. Regulation (EU) 2024/1183, European Digital Identity Framework. EUR-Lex.  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1183/oj/eng

Gibson, Lydialyle. 2021. “Martin Nowak Sanctioned for Jeffrey Epstein Involvement.” Harvard Magazine, March 25, 2021.  https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2021/03/martin-nowak-sanctioned-for-jeffrey-epstein-involvement

Harvard Divinity Bulletin. n.d. “God and Evolution: A New Solution.”  https://bulletin.hds.harvard.edu/god-and-evolution-a-new-solution/

Harvard Gazette. 2007. “Can Science, Religion Coexist in Peace?” March 15, 2007.  https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/03/can-science-religion-coexist-in-peace/

Harvard Office of the General Counsel. 2020. Report Concerning Jeffrey E. Epstein’s Connections to Harvard University. PDF.  https://ogc.harvard.edu/file_url/208

Harvard University. 2020. “Report Regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s Connections to Harvard.” Office of the President, May 1, 2020.  https://www.harvard.edu/president/news-and-statements-by-president-bacow/2020/report-regarding-jeffrey-epstein-s-connections-to-harvard/

Helmore, Edward. 2019. “Epstein Reportedly Hoped to Develop ‘Super-Race’ of Humans with His DNA.” The Guardian, August 1, 2019.  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/01/jeffrey-epstein-seed-human-race-report

Hoffer, Mark. 2025. “Did Jeffrey Epstein ‘Belong to Intelligence’?” Skeptic, October 2, 2025.  https://www.skeptic.com/article/did-jeffrey-epstein-belong-to-intelligence/

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. n.d. “Rene Descartes (1596-1650).”  https://iep.utm.edu/rene-descartes/

Kahn, Sam. 2026. “Edge Lord.” Air Mail, April 18, 2026.  https://airmail.news/issues/2026-4-18/edge-lord

Kauffman, Stuart, and Andrea Roli. 2021. “The World Is Not a Theorem.” arXiv.  https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.00284

Kauffman, Stuart, and Andrea Roli. 2024. “Is the Emergence of Life an Expected Phase Transition in the Evolving Universe?” arXiv.  https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.09514

Levy, Steven. 2025. “Inside Jeffrey Epstein’s Forgotten AI Summit.” Wired, August 1, 2025.  https://www.wired.com/story/epstein-files-science-tech-funding/

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2020. “MIT Releases Results of Fact-Finding on Engagements with Jeffrey Epstein.” MIT News, January 10, 2020.  https://news.mit.edu/2020/mit-releases-results-fact-finding-report-jeffrey-epstein-0110

McGill University Office for Science and Society. 2022. “QAnon’s Adrenochrome Quackery.” February 10, 2022.  https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/pseudoscience/qanons-adrenochrome-quackery

Minsky, Marvin, Push Singh, and Aaron Sloman. 2004. “The St. Thomas Common Sense Symposium: Designing Architectures for Human-Level Intelligence.” AI Magazine 25, no. 2.  https://ojs.aaai.org/aimagazine/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/1762

Olds, Douglas Blake. 2026a. “After AI-Simulated ‘Repentance:’ Metaphysics as Quantum Time Accumulation, Its Necromantic De-Configurations, and Ramifying (Neg)Entropy.” The Iconoclast’s Descending, March 11, 2026.  https://douglasblakeolds8.blogspot.com/2026/03/after-ai-simulated-repentance_11.html

Olds, Douglas Blake. 2026b. “Arming Gittin: Vatics Wiped During Wartime.” The Iconoclast’s Descending, March 18, 2026.  https://douglasblakeolds8.blogspot.com/2026/03/clown-puppet-and-beast-they-do-not-know.html

Olds, Douglas Blake. 2026d. “Eclipse of ‘We the People’ at the Crossroads of Artifice’s General Idolatry.” The Iconoclast’s Descending, June 9, 2026.  https://douglasblakeolds8.blogspot.com/2026/06/eclipse-of-we-people-by-artificial.html

Olds, Douglas Blake. 2026e. “Gnostic Abstraction vs. the Logos Living with the Substrate: Theodicy, Form, and Ethical Motion.” The Iconoclast’s Descending, February 3, 2026.  https://douglasblakeolds8.blogspot.com/2026/02/gnostic-abstraction-vs.html

Olds, Douglas Blake. 2026f. “Metaphysical Unified Field Theory of Disciplines: The Anthropology of Accountable Immanence by Conation, Substrate Loyalty, and Apocatastatic Movement.” The Iconoclast’s Descending, April 11, 2026. URL consulted: https://douglasblakeolds8.blogspot.com/2026/04/metaphysical-unified-field-theory-of.html

Olds, Douglas Blake. 2026g. “Recovering Substrate from Judith Butler’s Symbolic Simulation: Lawsmearing and Idolatrous Colonization of Sexual Time.” The Iconoclast’s Descending, April 8, 2026. URL consulted: https://douglasblakeolds8.blogspot.com/2026/04/recovering-substrate-from-judith.html

 

Open Government Partnership. 2024. “Navigating the Risks and Rewards of Digital ID Systems.” March 26, 2024.  https://www.opengovpartnership.org/stories/navigating-the-risks-and-rewards-of-digital-id-systems/

PBS NewsHour. 2023a. “Deutsche Bank to Pay $75 Million to Epstein Victims in ‘Groundbreaking Settlement,’ Lawyers Say.” May 18, 2023.  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/deutsche-bank-to-pay-75-million-to-epstein-victims-in-groundbreaking-settlement-lawyers-say

PBS NewsHour. 2023b. “JPMorgan to Pay $75 Million for Role in Epstein Sex Trafficking Operation.” September 26, 2023.  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/jpmorgan-to-pay-75-million-for-role-in-epstein-sex-trafficking-operation

Santa Fe Institute. 1991. Santa Fe Institute Bulletin. Winter/Spring 1991.  https://sfi-edu.s3.amazonaws.com/sfi-edu/production/uploads/publication/2016/10/31/winter_spring1991v6n1.pdf

Santa Fe Institute. n.d. Profiles and materials on Murray Gell-Mann, Geoffrey West, David Krakauer, Stuart Kauffman, Mark Pagel, Douglas Erwin, and SFI complexity themes.  https://www.santafe.edu/

Schelling, Thomas C. 1969. “Models of Segregation.” American Economic Review. Public PDF consulted.  https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2008/RM6014.pdf

Shamsian, Jacob. 2025. “Was Jeffrey Epstein, Superconnector of the Rich and Powerful, a Spy?” Business Insider, July 29, 2025.  https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epstein-spy-epstein-files-intelligence-asset-trump-bondi-2025-7

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. n.d. “Aristotle’s Biology.”  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-biology/

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. n.d. “Descartes.”  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. n.d. “Francis Bacon.”  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francis-bacon/

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. n.d. “Hobbes’s Philosophy of Science.”  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-science/

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. n.d. “Plato: Middle Period Metaphysics and Epistemology.”  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-metaphysics/

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. n.d. “Platonism in Metaphysics.”  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. n.d. “Teleological Notions in Biology.”  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. n.d. “Thomas Hobbes.”  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes/

Troy, Dave. 2026. “What Do the Epstein Files Really Reveal? The Key Takeaways.” Byline Times Digital / Print Edition, Edition 83, March 2026.  https://subscribe.bylinetimes.com/edition/83/what-do-the-epstein-files-really-reveal-the-key-takeaways/

World Economic Forum. 2024. Annual Report 2023-2024.  https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Annual_Report_2023_2024.pdf