In fact, we have left this creature to his mideonic fate as our analysis jumps to a different level of macrohistory, indeed, nothing less than macroevolution. 

Our connection between history and evolution can be pursued in additional blogbook series of this type, but the point for us here is that we have potentially reconciled the idea of evolution and history in a way that ironically wishes to redefine the irony latent in the scoffing Nietzsche's mockery of the 'last man'. 

For us the relativity of first and last men can be seen in the transposition of the idea to that of the first and last of the apes, man, in the evolution of homo sapiens. We tend to focus on the early generation of history in the wake of some putative earlier evolution of man. But in our formulation the 'evolution' of man is on-going, reaching even into the present and future of civilization, with the counter-evolution of history from that evolution indicated in the relationship of the eonic sequence to the emerging self-consciousness of those destined to be left to their self-evolution. 

So perhaps Nietzsche had a point, to wit, that man is destined to something more than the stabilization as a type in an economic fixation of bourgeois existence. Sounds like Marx. The human creature can or should or must in the end generate the true first from the last man, or better, the last man, evolved from the first. In the nonce the confusions of Nietzsche over the nature of the overman, perhaps as some Darwinian supermonster, are to be reminded of the considerations of those who got it right the first time, starting with Rousseau, who pointed to the necessity of equalization in the context of decayed nightmares called 'civilization', and the way in which our eonic sequence gives expression to that different concept of evolution seen in the evolution of freedom, a far cry from the degenerated fiasco of theory visible in the scientism of Darwinism, which so misled the genius of Nietzsche. 

Top