So is there a libidinal will at all that has access to several options, and where the chosen option (or the postponement of the same) entails a possibility of renewed and updated self-identification?

It is absolutely vital here to understand how self-awareness arises.
Self-awareness is in itself a consequence of shortcomings and
limitations, or it would not have arisen at all. Thinking is the
activation of the failure to intuitively understand and interact with
the surrounding world. No one understands or investigates this better
than Hegel, who builds his theory of the subject as a constant failure
on a constantly ongoing antagonism, which in turn drives all of the
arisen subject’s dialectical reasoning. Here Hegel sides with
Zoroastrianism and Protestantism in contrast to Taoism and Catholicism.
There is no logical or mythical order and structure in this process that
instead is clearly pathical, disharmonious and unbalanced. Instability
is right from the start built into the Hegelian synthesis, and it is
then released in the form of internal antagonisms. And it is precisely
this which, according to Hegel, makes the subject the strongest
expression of the substance. Just as his predecessors David Hume and
Immanuel Kant, Hegel attacks the Cartesian subject that has been the
norm since the mid-17th century. However they handle the issue in
different ways and come to different conclusions. Hume settles for a
stable subject that tries to relate to a mobile world, Kant, on his
part, gets stuck with a mobile subject that is encapsulated in a fixed
world (which in theory it would be able to experience directly if it
were not for the subject’s own limitations), while only Hegel succeeds
in handling constant movement at all levels of the complex. No person
and no thing is fixed. Both substance and subject are relations that
consist of other relations where relata only constitute temporarily
surfacing byproducts connected to the ongoing processes. The pathical
subject pulsates and vibrates ambivalently behind both logos and mythos.

The reason is because of the notion that we need all three. We have the Physosphere, the Biosphere and the yet to emerge Noosophere. What if, the Physosphere is the original logos, biosphere is the original pathos and noosophere is the original mythos. And that therefore the planet as concept makes sense for the physosphere, the network as concept makes sense to describe the biosphere, yet we don’t know how to think about the noosophere.

Another remark then is that we have taking action (oscillation), and failue (negation), at the fundation of the dialectics.

Because it’s precisely effective syntesis of oscillation and negation. Where oscillation is biology and negation is physics. If then the myth is perspectival, we understand why the noosophere is pluralist and not monist.

Hegel’s argument vis-à-vis Kant is that the latter demystifies the
subject in a way that nevertheless is fundamentally mystifying. Kant
works with a psychology for the soul, a cosmology for the world, and a
theology for God. Psychology for the soul is a Kantian pathos. Cosmology
for the world is a Kantian logos. And theology about God is a Kantian
mythos. All these three quantities are foregone conclusions in an
unclear manner, according to Kant. Hegel’s revolt against Kant is a
battle for a narratological liberation. The Hegelian subject is namely
liberated from all forms of preordained psychologies, cosmologies and
theologies; it has to settle for its own internal dialectics. This
speculative Pandialecticism is the Hegelian absolute. All
metanarratives -- logos, mythos and pathos -- are fundamentally
dialectical, according to Hegel. It is not even possible to speak of a
psychology, cosmology or even a theology as something other than
dialectical phenomena in Hegel, and definitely not as any preordained
eternalizations, as in Kant. Thanks to Hegelian pandialecticism, which
affirms and handles movement in all of being’s dimensions, it becomes
possible to take the path of thinking toward radical relationalism.

The enemy here is the “preordained eternalisations” that is to say for those that don’t speak Bard & Söderqvist, no categorical fixations at the level of the noosphere. Which means that we can throw DSM in the dustbin. This is the core argument of the whole book, you you look at how much emphasis they lay on this idea, that self-understandings should be grounded is relationship and these are always temporal. This is why the collective with a dunbar cap refered to as the sociont, own narratives about itselfs and its agents is to be liberated from DSM and similar fixations.

In Zoroastrian terms we would express this as though the ameretat our
generation longs for already lies inherent in our worldview and lies
ready to pathically explode as the next generation’s haurvatat. Where
what is important is that the subject is pathical and neither logical
nor mythical. The dividual identity sprouts from the sociont and its
history as the barred absolute. In front of this barred absolute,
dividuality is awakened as the embodiment of an actual archetype in the
form of the mimicking erchtype. The subject’s primary function is to
entwine The Great Trauma in the form of an abandonment of mamilla with
the great event in the form of the yearning for phallus. Mamilla is
the barred absolute from the past, phallus is the barred absolute in the
future. The path backward is however barred forever. The subject can
therefore only hope to become the agent who carries out his
Truth-As-An-Act by submitting to phallus. This irrefutable demand for
submission is the strength of phallus as the concrete absolute.

Forget about physics or noosphere, when we talk about human beings we are refering to emotions and values and nothing else.

It’s obvious that the Great Trauma for Swedes is Greta Thunberg.

For anyone who doesn’t speak fluid Bard & Söderqvist at this point, then we can throw away atheos and lock the key. What remains is animal expression and a narratological liberation. That means we are effectivly talking about biosphere and noosophere.

However monotheist phallus worship does not suffice. The sociont does
not merely need a vision and a direction, but moreover a strategy, and a
strategy one can only build on knowledge. Or to use a more solemn word:
wisdom. Therefore religion’s origin is every bit as much an issue of
mana as an issue of Phallus. Romanian anthropologist Mircea Eliade
traces the mana to the theological shift from the ancestors to the
gods. At the same moment that the ancestors, in the capacity of the
symbolic vessels for and intermediaries of the transmitted wisdom within
the sociont, are depersonified and universalized -- that is: when it no
longer matters who within the sociont is offspring to which primordial
father or primordial mother, when the entire tribe has been accorded the
same common primordial father and primordial mother -- the ancestors are
converted into the lesser gods. It is this conversion that is called
metaphysical reification, and it can only be applied to the already
dead (there is always something vulgar and dubious about statues and
other memorials of people who are still alive). The function is the
mana, a kind of impersonal but constantly present force that humanity
must struggle with in all situations. It is thus on top of this mana
that the priest names the gods to concretize what sacrifices the gods
require from the faithful.

This is overreach.

For the masculine subject, this displacement and radical
self-identification occurs through the subject submitting to culture as
logos. For the feminine subject, the same process occurs through the
subject submitting to nature as mythos. This means that the law is
introduced to organize the outer circuit, while the inner circuit is
free to act precisely as it wishes, since it still only can act within
the confines of the consequences of the law being upheld in the outer
circuit. This explains why all the world’s prisons are full of
heterosexual men and a few lesbians, but not of heterosexual women or
homosexual men. The law is thus the name of the phallic religion that
makes it possible to expand the sizes of clans and tribes further toward
city states, nations and entire empires. And no religion carries this
out more naturally than Judaism, with its unique union between the
nation and religion under the same roof. Antisemitism is not just like
any racism, antisemitism is deep down Nation Envy.

This is just incoherent nonsense.

The balance between logos, mythos and pathos is maintained through the
narrative constantly reiterating the importance of Zoroastrian ethics
through The Phallic Principle of Tribal Contribution. The question of
what the tribe can do for you is the child’s question, while the
question of what you can do for the tribe is the adult’s question. Every
time someone demands a freedom or a right without conveying something of
value in return, we are in practice seeing a little child who
vociferously tries to cry its way to even more breast milk. And this, of
course, we would rather not have to see grown-up people do, just like
this applies to subservient beggars and infuriated demonstrators alike,
both of whom give rise to virtually the same unease. A proud adult who
takes responsibility for themselves and their own, who finds joy in
contributing to the common good, is however beautiful, not least in
their own eyes.

Exchange? Naturally you can do that on Amazon…

From The Frankfurt School to Betty Friedan in The Feminine Mystique:
the totalitarian Platonism of the Western left is underpinned by a total
ignorance of, or an equally total disinterest in Man’s pathical
tribalism. One instead chooses to focus on a logical conflict between
individual and collective that then is attacked via Platonist theories
of false consciousness. Please note that the demand that is directed
from the subservient beggar or the infuriated demonstrator always is a
demand without discernible direction or final destination. There is no
point where the demand is satisfied and where the beggar or the
demonstrator is done demanding, has taken their responsibility as an
adult and fully-fledged member of the community by starting to do their
part for the common good. These are mouths that never become satiated.
The revenue from begging and the benefits one, if applicable, has
succeeded in hassling one’s way to receiving, are usually spent in the
form of immediate consumption rather than as investments in a future
where the little child’s dependence on an offering mamilla would be but
a memory.

The childishly demanding position is not conceived as a transitory
phase. The extended paper cup outside the supermarket entrance and the
indignant list of demands from the allegedly aggrieved group will never
disappear. It is a question of compensation for supposed injustices in
the past and certainly no help for self-help. The stern and
demand-ridden gaze of the self-pitying child will never be tempered. It
is no passing phase but a permanent scenario. What we are witnessing
here is the development of the permanent dependence on mamilla, a
dependence that is seen as a given by all the narcissists who by pure
principle refrain from growing up and taking their own responsibility.
In the postcapitalist society even the slaves are no longer working. The
workers have, in Jean Baudrillard’s words, been turned into work
mannequins. Not because there necessarily is a lack of tasks, but
because these for various reasons can be claimed to be humiliating to
carry out. Hence all these reproachful gazes and angry accusations, all
these hungry mouths in all these rich societies, mouths that never can
be satiated, demands that never are met.

Whenever it is possible to score political points on claimed injustices,
the rulers get out their tax tables and start to outline changes that
are aimed at leveling. This is a principle that tends to dominate in
systems where politicians primarily strive to become re-elected and only
thereafter may consider achieving something of value. The money one
pulls in from working people as if by magic becomes common funds and the
state coffers become one big mamilla squirting out breast milk to all
who ask for it, and even to many others for the sake of re-electability.
One for instance doles out child allowance to everyone, as if the idea
that parents themselves should support their children were completely
absurd. In such a society matrichal magic knocks out phallic technology,
mythos is decoupled from logos, ideas of cause and effect are denied and
ridiculed. The entrepreneurs become fewer in step with bureaucrats
increasing their numbers, and the struggle for provision increasingly
turns into a struggle for privileges. One distributes a shrinking pie
instead of primarily ensuring that the overall pie is growing. When the
phallic principle of tribal contribution is weakened, society loses
momentum and prosperity-creating dynamics. Increasing numbers consider
themselves belonging to so-called weak groups to be propped up by a
dwindling few. With increased poverty comes increasing anarchy:
different factions that demand benefits from each other.

Furthermore the phallic principle of tribal contribution applies equally
for social groups relative to larger entities as it applies to the
single dividual. We can view two popular subcultures from late
capitalism that appear to survive and develop even in the Internet Age,
namely feminism and androgynism. Both these movements arose during
late capitalism as matrichal reactions to the catastrophes that
contributed to ending the golden age of the phalluses, with concrete
phallic failures such as Hitler and Stalin and abstract phallic threats
such as the atomic bomb and environmental pollution. Feminism further
harvested public opinion success when it proudly emphasized women’s
shouldering responsibility for half of society and demanded matching
remuneration from the state and the market for this contribution.
Androgynism also succeeded when it proudly emphasized the androgynous
caste’s contribution to society as a mediating vessel between the
male-dominated outer circuit and the female-dominated inner circuit in
society. The androgynous person does of course not become an adult by
developing from a boy to a man, or from a girl to a woman, but attains
their adulthood through blending a cocktail of both the man and the
woman. It is precisely in the role as the one who moves across
boundaries that the androgynous person discovers their adulthood,
precisely through personifying the phallic principle of tribal
contribution as the sociont’s own internal go-between.

Thus far all this is excellent. A society that is not constantly
questioned stagnates, and sustainable ideas can withstand criticism. The
problem is that both feminism and androgynism developed diverse sects
and cults marked by infantile internarcissism. The principle of tribal
contribution that generates pride and strength was eventually replaced
by the eternal accusation that can only generate bitterness and greed.
When Western feminism and androgynism in practice had finished
triumphing and should have closed down their activism in the form of a
becoming matricide -- or perhaps better yet should have migrated to
other more needy parts of the world -- the movements were instead
usurped by state-financed funeral wailers who constantly hunt
increasingly absurd renderings of alleged crimes to keep alive the
eternal production of accusations that never can be compensated for. And
as long as there is no demand for a stated final destination from these
movements, they will gladly milk the phallus via the state apparatus for
a constantly snowballing compensation for old, increasingly fabricated
injustices. If there is a system to exploit, it will be exploited. That
is: until a Messianic project arrives that reinstates the sociont and
its integrity. For the phallic principle of tribal contribution will
return with full power the moment society is presented with a complete
and authentic archetypology for humanity. We are working on it.