Thanks for the very interesting response. Precisely how the problem/mystery distinction maps onto the Kantian distinctions of phenomenal/noumenal or conditioned/conditions is very complex and something to be addressed by continuing research, although I do definitely agree that there is something of substance here.

One slight quibble concerns your appeal to Gödel's theorem. In essence, Gödel developed a technique (as it were) by which one could show that any formal system which is capable of representing finite arithmetic will contain a formula P, such that neither P nor -P are provable within the system, and yet, one can show within the meta-theory that P is "true". So, in a sense, there will always be true but unprovable formulae, but this doesn't hold for any particular formula.

This result differs from the undecidability of Cantor's continuum hypothesis. Here, one has a particular proposition which is provably undecidable within ZF set theory. It is an interesting question to what extent there are undecidable propositions of finite arithmetic independent of the Gödelian technique. Paris and Harrington have shown that the finite Ramsay Theorem is true but unprovable. This is one case, there may be many more. Thus, Gödel's actual results don't give us definite examples of "mysteries", although they certainly show that the boundary of mathematical space is not flush with the boundary of our formalisms.

OK, I knew I shouldn't have meddled with the maths!

But can you clarify what you are saying about Gödel in relation to mysteries? What precisely is the relationship between the incompleteness theorem and mysteries?

Great to see you here John - hope you'll be around for some Goedel chat when it comes up.
Even for now, think you can usefully help to 'disintimidate' it, since even though the incompleteness theorem is quite elaborate, Goedel coding is a major achievement in its own right - in the most powerful tradition of basic arithmetic - and not especially daunting.
Know from previous conversations that you take a 'logicist' (rather than arithmeticist) view of this, even defending an extremely ugly alternative to G-coding from some philosophy bod i forget who - but the sheer conceptual elegance of the original code is worthy of immense respect IMHO.

mark - note you've disallowed comments entirely on your post above, isn't this maybe a step too far? Know troll-defence policies have become heatedly controversial, but I for one am definitely willing to give pragmatism a good listening and would rather see you ruthlessly eliminating trollism than shutting down discussion altogether - especially given that the Nash post opens lots of interesting avenues (he had his own qabbalistic system as you know, highly baroque from a practical PoV - but arithmetically very clean - actually quite close to the Goedel code in its fidelity to Euclid's fundamental theorem of arithmetic).

nick - seems that mark has finally decided to hermetically seal himself off from all and every possible criticism in order to save himself getting battered any further - bless. Could it be that K-Punk has finally gone KerPlunk?

K-Punk = KerPlunk? - But was that the objective? If so it seems sadly uninspired.
I'm in no way a Cold Rationalism disciple - and to be honest I'm also radically unclear about its connection to hyperstition - but surely persecutory targetting of mark on a personal level is an entirely contemptible way of expressing ideological disagreement.

Yes, since the CR position seems to rest on a repudiation of "Nietzsche-and-his-neoromantic-cronies" fatal mistake in decoupling (i) the basic intuition that sense/value and truth are not necessarily conjoined, from (ii) the "actual scientific truth of nihilism", which mistake leads to a position demonised as 'gliberal' ('all stories about the world are equally valid, they just have different degrees of force'), thus the CR recourse to rational truth-seeking - the interesting question this raises is how can you hope to stitch this back together with hyperstition, which is (potentially) a more sophisticated position than either of these, but closer to Nietzsche's intuition than to CRism?

KP=KP, given what you (yes quite rightly) say, I think any further bashing will only damage what validity the 'trolls' position ever had; surely pulverizing an enemy until they emerge as an sympathetic persecuted anti-hero, you emerge as equally 'shrill and harrying', and the whole sorry cycle begins again - cannot be a wise tactic....

>> surely persecutory targetting of mark on a personal level is an entirely contemptible way of expressing ideological disagreement

Yes, indeed it would be - that is, *if mark were a PERSON*.

Anticipated response: alright, in that case, you really *are* just saying 'come on, admit it, everything is personal, it's all about baboonery and personal feuds ...' etc.

Nonsense. Admittedly, it can be fun having the odd poke in order to bring Mark down off his high horse a little, yes. But substantive, reasoned objections have also been forwarded which -- if Mark is to convince anyone that his 'Cold Ratinalist' position is anything more than a lot of huffing and puffing of hot air, at least -- demand a considered response. Mark's total refusal to respond to serious criticism in any other way than by either dogmatic reiteration or puerile name-calling inevitably invites the kind of ridicule and ad hominem counter-attacks which -- while they can admittedly from time to time introduce a little levity (often sorely lacking in these discussions) -- we would all ultimately prefer to leave out of serious philosophical discussion. If Mark is intent on closing down all comment boxes, thus giving free, unobstructed reign to his soliloquys, frankly, nobody is going to bother even listening any more (and I, personally, have definitely heard enough already to last me a lifetime).

Last point: if Mark is uncomfortable about the kind of attacks launched against him over this past week, perhaps he ought to consider making his points in a less polemically-charged and deliberately *provocative* manner? After-all, if you spend your life running off at the mouth and abusing everyone left, right and centre -- well, fairly obviously, sooner of later someone is going to give you much deserved slap.

Anyway, as someone else also said to you in recent days, you obviously have everything already figured out, so, what can anyone else possibly say except -- bon chance!

>> I think any further bashing will only damage what validity the 'trolls' position ever had; surely pulverizing an enemy until they emerge as an sympathetic persecuted anti-hero, you emerge as equally 'shrill and harrying', and the whole sorry cycle begins again - cannot be a wise tactic....

Of course, you're obviously right about this. I suppose I was just frustrated by the total lack of response from Mark and was trying to provoke him out of his hole -- but you're right that these are puerile tactics. Anyway, if I *do* make any further contributions in the future (though it's very unlikely), I promise not to revert to such moronic bullying.

K-Punk = KerPlunk? - "you obviously have everything already figured out, so, what can anyone else possibly say except -- bon chance!"
- If this 'you' is general it seems a ridiculous accusation. Almost nothing is 'figured out' and it is difficult to see where anything to the contrary has ever been asserted.
To reiterate to the point of emetic weariness - only personalistic snark is being threatened with elimination (and even in those cases liberalism looks like winning out predominantly).

PS. K-P = KP? - If the 'you' is just mark, could this blog please be spared the fate of becoming a default K-Punk bashing zone.

Yes, sorry -- the 'you' was supposed to refer solely to Mark. Re the 'bashing': I can perfectly well see why it would be both irritating and tiresome, especially on this site, so please accept my sincere apologies. I'll be doing no more k-punk 'bashing', here or elsewhere. Ciao.

K-P =KP? - Apologies wholly accepted - why not launch a Cold Rationalism Watch site? Seems from what's been happening here that you'd have an Instapundit-level audience within a year ;)

PS. KP = 45 - reign of Khattak if ever i've seen it.

>Almost nothing is 'figured out'

yes, just to clarify, when I say (on other thread) :It[CR]'s basically an exalted and disciplinary-minded species of 'common sense' that evades all ambiguity. - I don't mean (as it would no doubt be misinterpreted) that I believe in the necessary retention of an area of floaty creative ambiguity, I mean that the CR 'position', if it can be called that, constitutes a horrendous squandering of important and productive problems for the sake of a nice feeling of confident, triumphant vigour.

********** _FIN_ ***************

Nick, Reza, if we're allowed to go back to 'first principles' like this, rather than take the piss perenially I'd be interested in a technical thread on numerology/decimal reduction/kabbalistics. I promise not to get angry.

>>> Nick, Reza, if we're allowed to go back to 'first principles' like this, rather than take the piss perenially I'd be interested in a technical thread on numerology/decimal reduction/kabbalistics. I promise not to get angry.

lol ... just a suggestion: start with some questions and we will post them here for discussion.

OK Well my basic question is what the combined mechanism of numerisation/decimal reduction (which I assume is behind the regular X=Y=Z statements made hereabouts) is supposed to offer: given that it consists basically of systematically hacking out and disposing of information, pulping everything into a mush and then doing a sort of reconstituted-potato-snack manouevre. What is being said/produced when you say X = Y = Z ? Obviously I realise that its done in the spirit of Barker's comment that [remembered quote] the key to signals analysis is the vigorous repudiation of all preconceived expectations of meaning and sense. But what is it that distinguishes one such system from another, or is it simply a case of choosing one and sticking with it until you become attuned to getting something out of it (even so, I still don't understand quite _what_ you get out of the X=Y=Z except a childish glee!)

If I can make a strained analogy, in the case of ley lines, it has been shown mathematically that, given any square mile of map, you can 'find' multiple convincing ley lines; however if you're "on the ground", at least the discovery of a ley line has a relation to a psychogeographical assemblage (you, in the landscape). Which isn't the case with numerological systems (ie there is no question of the numerologist's unconscious 'participation' in the process). Actually, in this respect perhaps the I Ching might be a better example to contrast it with.

Is it simply that numerology supplies the most rigorously evacuated form of arithmetic - a self-sufficient calculus and a tracking of actually-existing, contingent difference? If so, what is the significance (sorry, couldn't police myself to think of any other word) of pursuing this, and isn't the sheer wastage of information a problem?

Hope that doesn't all sound hopelessly missing-the-point.

Undercurrent - hope your questions yield multiple responses, since there are certainly multiple 'positions' on this floating around even here (topic is totally 'unconverged').
From my PoV (feeding on Barrow and trad. of Anglossic qabbala when required), some preliminary pointers to further discussion:
1) All qabbalistic practice in this restricted (gematria) sense is deeply embedded in particular hyperstitional lines and thus dis-authorized at the Numogrammatic level of pure digital connectivity. It is 'merely' an improvised way of ensuring crash numerization of all linguistic complexes (speaking for AQ, those in the neoroman alphabet A-Z).
2) Information is added rather than lost, the equation ensures the preservation (rather than substitution) of the linguistic original, while supplementing it with a series of rigorously (numerically) decoded resonances. These resonances are scandalously 'incredible' (a virtue within the field of hyperstitional unbelief) and account for the possible proliferation of methods, as well as for complete skepticism - which is surely the most 'natural' response. Such 'crash-qabbalization' would only be 'justified' in a chaosmos thoroughly transpierced by occultural conspiracy, non-secular to 'the core' - this is its provocation (against Good Sense). In the past Ccru has called this dimension of the practice 'coincidence engineering'.
3) Qabbalization demonstrates a savage destruction of meaning (which does not in fact take place) to produce a momentary micro-seismic event in the linguistic order (of logical communication). A series of such events can perhaps play a supportive role in delineating the numogrammatic multiverse (as if by instants of sheet-lightning on a dark night).
4) "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" = 777 [This is surely extraordinary 'beyond belief' - are people simply refusing to register it?]
Thelema = Number = Crypt = Theta = 127 = TX (((((:)))))
Countdown = 210
Death = Time = 83 = Prime 23 (23 = Prime 9) [Freud/Burroughs synthesized qabbalistically]
In the qabbalistic regions you don't ask whether it's meaningful, but only if it's demonstrable - so in this spirit I also ask Barrow's competitors to indicate their most striking results.
5) 'Qabbala 101 part 2' is long overdue, BtW 101 TX = (:(:(:)))

that really is a load of rubbish though isn't it Nick? Even worse than cold rationalism really (which is what? not wanking when you want to? give us a clue k punk!)

Undercurrent,

sorry for my irrelevant questions which are not interrogative ... forgive me for putting them into How and What classical interrogative machines ... I just want to unlock some answers for myself in regard to geophilosophy?

1. How do you define / demarcate a landscape (whose temporal / mereologic cognition definitely affects psychological patterns through certain mediums; example, the ‘event’ of ‘you in a landscape’ should be assembled through an ecological niche [constituted of divisors, surfaces, surfactants, Ab-parthood relationships, mediums, etc.], without being in a niche [a temporal mereologic dwelling system] you can hardly get a cognitive pattern of a landscape)?

2. What is a psychogeographical assemblage?

Nick,

Forgive me for clumsily putting this into question (which is not a philosophical interrogation) ... am fascinated to grasp it completely. Maybe I have missed something.

>>> but only if it's demonstrable

based on what it is demonstrable? surely there should be an underlying meshwork based on which it becomes demonstrable? what / where is it?

Reza - I'm taking the underlying 'network' as assigned gematria values and elementary arithmetic - with the former raising no issues of principle beyond those involved in assigning values to any set of numerals. Qabbalistic calculations are noncontroversial, only their 'significance' is disputable (and IMHO all involved will readily admit they are strictly nonsensical).

Nick,

again the same question about 'gematria values and elementary arithmetic'; do they connect to another network? or let me put it this this way (sorry if it looks naive) what is in numbers that makes them the most positive vectors towards positive Unbelief? guess, we discussed it in the past but we didn't develope it. and i guess this must be one of the basic questions for those who are interested in The Numogram ... so i strip my questions from any technical diversity.

If unbelief communicates with belief then numeric vectors also pass belief as thier primary zone, now, how is possible to grasp the alignment of numbers towards belief or unbelief? When / Where is the positive unbelief triggered in this panorama?

Nick,

>>> "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" = 777 [This is surely extraordinary 'beyond belief' - are people simply refusing to register it?]

>>> http://hyperstition.abstractdynamics.org/archives/003609.html
>>> "Why did Crowley entitle his book of qabbalistic essays '777'?" asks Barrow-Scholar Peter Vysparov.

No. It doesn't register with me. And maybe this is where Reza's questions come in ... I remember the evil nun who kept us after class until we could count to 100. It was right in front of us. Didn't register. The glee comes when the pattern unfolds (reveals?) itself. Something else happens when you're asked, "what comes after 100?" And you see infinity.

Why doesn't [DWTWSBTWOTL = 777] register?

This discussion also makes me wonder: are numbers viral?

Reza - your questions definitely require some careful thought and a full post

Northanger - "are numbers viral?" This could be taken at a number of different levels (specific numbers? number systems? viral RNA as molecular numbers?) and the response might be positive at several of them. IMHO the basic trend of this question is deliciously intense and persuasive.

"Why doesn't [DWTWSBTWOTL = 777] register?"
Does
DO (= 37) + WHAT (= 88) + THOU (= 100) + WILT (= 100) + SHALL (= 97) + BE (= 25) + THE (= 60) + WHOLE (= 108) + OF (= 39) + THE (= 60) + LAW (= 63) = 777 [!!!]
help at all - oh well, worth a try ;)

Could you be persuaded to pass on some elementary remarks about your own qabbalistic methods?

PS. Wish i'd had an evil nun rather than bored State ed. bureaucrats.

>>> DO (= 37) + WHAT (= 88) + THOU (= 100) + WILT (= 100) + SHALL (= 97) + BE (= 25) + THE (= 60) + WHOLE (= 108) + OF (= 39) + THE (= 60) + LAW (= 63) = 777 [!!!]

{ah ... i mushed the letters together and didn't count each word separately!}

Nick,

My father is a surgeon who taught me games of strategy, tactics, analysis and memory. Many years ...

{hmm ... there are 11 letters, never quite noticed that before}

... after the evil nun, I played a game of chess with my father. Who beat me. Turned the board around, put the kings back ...

{777 - 418 = 359}

... and proceeded to beat me again with the other color. Since then, I have always been able to recognize superior intelligence -- and avoid all chess players. So I fail to see how discussing my meager qabbalistic methods are worthy of discussion. Especially since you gave part of it away: it's simple arithmetic. The other part is being taught by a master.

{359 = ShTN (Satan)}

Yes, it did help a little and you provided more possibilites to consider.

{hmm ... the 777 virus}

Northanger,

It’s great to have you here. Agree with Nick, we’d like to hear more.

ABJAD: Shaytan=370=Ghaar (Kata, Abyss)

northanger - your numerical and linguistic references (not to mention the material on your site) reveal your profound immersion in this entire problematic, so I am confident that the utter vulgarity of the Alphanumeric Qabbala from a traditional viewpoint (I say this with no defensiveness or apology) will have struck you - its brutally innovative character has evidently functioned as a key to its resilient hermeticism.
Of course, all educated qabbalists have expected the Anglossic gematria to echo traditional forms, resonating with those of the Hebrews, Greeks (and later Arabs and Persians, which Reza is my window onto of course). It seems inconceivable from this point of view that a 'master' such as Crowley could have recognized a system based on simple modular numeracies of the modern type (in the AQ version, mod-36, proceeding in strict conformity with hexadecimal notation (0-F...)). There are ambiguous hints however (in the Book of Thoth, in at least one table he re-numbers the Hebrew alphabet in the same numeral-supplementing fashion, with aleph as 10).
Vysparov's question cited by you above continues to tantalize me, but even if Crowley did himself 'deliberately' work with the AQ, numerous levels of coincidence remain.
Another thing, while the AQ 'explains' the status of AL as a key (AL = 31 (10 + 21) = Aleph (1) + Lamed (30)) - the 'promise' of an Anglossic gematria given in the Book of the Law remains entirely cryptic.

Liber AL. Book II.
55. Thou shalt obtain the order & value of the English Alphabet; thou shalt find new symbols to attribute them unto.

75. Aye! listen to the numbers & the words:
76. 4 6 3 8 A B K 2 4 A L G M O R 3 Y X 24 89 R P S T O V A L. What meaneth this, o prophet? Thou knowest not; nor shalt thou know ever. There cometh one to follow thee: he shall expound it. But remember, o chose none, to be me; to follow the love of Nu in the star-lit heaven; to look forth upon men, to tell them this glad word.

"What meaneth this" indeed. Utter bafflement.

nick -
I'm afraid (don't want to moan, etc) that a lot of what you say is already too far-gone for it to make sense to me right now (eg "deeply embedded in particular hyperstitional lines and thus dis-authorized at the Numogrammatic level of pure digital connectivity" !) but let me try to simplify what I do understand for myself:
(1)It's simply _a_ way to ensure numerization of language. There is no _right_ way to do so, so therefore you may as well use a working model that has the benefit of a long pedigree (why this numerization is desirable is obviously a large part of what's at stake though. Are you saying that the aim is to produce a fully mathemomechanical model of the world, and it doesn't matter where you start - I suspect not...)

(2)There is no 'end product' of gematrialization (I don't know the terms here, so you'll forgive me for inventing them). What you get once you have initially numerized a word/phrase (with no loss of information) is both the simply numerized result, plus a set of supplementary versions progressively mulched through the decimal-reduction process (a bit like derivatives in calculus?) so that we have a multilevel mapping from words at the 'top' to dense networks of interconnections in the 'depths'. Taken together, the whole assemblage is a seething multiplication of information rather than a subtraction. I can see that.

These two points are interesting, but as for the 'demonstrations' I don't think that they get the sceptic anywhere. The only way you could show that these 'amazing' results had any real importance would be if they were to provide the basis of a practice of some sort (again, I'd like to investigate the connection or nonconnection with the I Ching). My response to Reza should make this point clearer...

Reza:
I was being vague, of course ;) What do I mean by a psychogeograhpical assemblage...well, ley lines were 'discovered' by a businessman who was driving through england and suddenly reached a vantage point where he 'saw' an unmarked straight line reaching for miles, with little relation to the 'overcoded' modern landscape. Since then the 'existence' of ley lines has been disputed (ancient trackways, shamanic pilgrimage lines, 'energy ducts' etc.) What is interesting, of course, is that they are produced by the meeting of your unconscious mind/perception, and the landscape; and if you pursue them (that is, walk them) you 'make them real' in some hyperstitional sense. So what I mean by a psychogeographical assemblage is a becoming or material vector, neither imagined nor 'physically real' revealed by the contingent coincidence of 'you, in a landscape'. I was contrasting that to gematrialization, where there _is_ an undisputable reality to the numerical results (nick:"Qabbalistic calculations are noncontroversial, only their 'significance' is disputable"). But obviously it's this question of 'reality'(difference) that's fundamentally at stake.

"what is in numbers that makes them the most positive vectors towards positive Unbelief" - this is what's most compelling in Badiou, IMHO, the basic idea that number is the element that leads us into textures of reality that are utterly outlandish and seem to bear absolutely no relation to any phenomenologically-sanctioned 'reality' but are nevertheless non-negotiably real; now, if they were simply a novelty that wouldn't necessarily be important, but the fact is that these apparently bizarre and 'useless' discoveries turn out to be incredibly powerful in practical - that is, computational - situations. The precise question then is, in what situations are gematrial calculations transformed from mere curiosities into something powerfully practical?

ps I'm a hopeless amateur at calculus. I meant that you might analogise to the process where you differentiate over and over again to get a different curve (which relates to different traits) each time...

>>> The precise question then is, in what situations are gematrial calculations transformed from mere curiosities into something powerfully practical?

Nick,

How is Uncle AL's puzzle pertinent to the discussion of Hyperstition?

Reza,

Did you get any 55 ABJAD values yet? What is the number of letters for short and long ABJAD?

[IDEA = MAN = ADAM = 55]

.............
Liber AL. Book II. 55. Thou shalt obtain the order & value of the English Alphabet; thou shalt find new symbols to attribute them unto.

{checkmate}

Liber AL I, II, III
7. Behold! it is revealed by Aiwass the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat.
7. I am the Magician and the Exorcist. I am the axle of the wheel, and the cube in the circle. "Come unto me" is a foolish word: for it is I that go.
7. I will give you a war-engine.

Robin,

Yes, Watkins’ ley lines are definitely exciting hyperstitional subjects (Geopathic stress / health, Tellurian openings to the Outside and as you suggest shamanistic pilgrimage, and other geomantic threads) ... there is a fascinating paper by Varzi, Casati and Smith, three cognitive philosophers, heavily under the influence of Gibson, who modeled ley lines as ‘events’ and according to the temporal relations constructed through mereologic links between the Subject (person) and its niche in a given landscape (so the concrete geologic processes [diagenesis] that give rise to any landscape or face-ground machine). Unfortunately, can’t find the paper on the net; it should be in my archive. The fascinating thing is the point where these hyperstitional entities (entity-as-event) are connected to geophilosophy of landscape. They insist that the event of ley lines as a process mainly happens through the anomalous mereologic bonds between events (primary entities?). If we take this account, the role of unconscious becomes insignificant (but not faded), then we have a shift from the preceptor as the ‘one who makes real’ to the preceptor as a part of the system, an affording surface and a medium (or a nexus) of other mereologic events which render ‘ley lines’. Anyway, looking forward to more materials on this and if you have time a short article on ley lines as hyperstitional entities.

>>> non-negotiably real.

Another question rises here: Why?

Undercurrent -
"deeply embedded in particular hyperstitional lines and thus dis-authorized at the Numogrammatic level of pure digital connectivity" - come on! this isn't hard.
All the qabbalistic systems floated here are 'carried' by avatars, and thus lack absolute status vis-a-vis the (forgive me for this!) pure decimal implex of the Numogram.
But maybe this is just H. Hackhammer-style Lemurian fundamentalism? - apologies, night's coming on here and the reign of confusion is digging in its claws.
You seem to suggest 'scepticism' is a problem to be overcome, rather than a resource of unbelief to be cherished - utter scepticism + morbid fascination is the formula, so if we can just crank up the morbid fascination ... ;)
"I suspect not" - afraid you're right - your questions are great though, so response imminent (some cross-chat with the Badiou discussion elsewhere? - we'll cope somehow)

northanger - "Liber AL. Book II. 55." - good to see someone has their eyes open.
Confirmation from my PoV that pretentions to mastery will always be subverted by impersonal qabbalistic 'coincidences' - collective spirals are the only social arrangements that will ultimately find anything

northanger,

>>> Did you get any 55 ABJAD values yet?

Not yet; but i'm working on it.

>>> What is the number of letters for short and long ABJAD?

ABJAD-e Kabir (complete, major): see
http://hyperstition.abstractdynamics.org/archives/003448.html

ABJAD-e Saghier (incomplete, minor): Alif = 1, Ba = 2, Jeem = 3, Dal = 4, Haa = 5, Waw = 6, Za = 7, Ha = 8, Toin = 9, Ya = 10, Kaaf = 5, Laam = 6, Meem = 4, Noon = 2, Seen = Aborted, Ayn = 10, Fa = 8, Saad = 6, Qaf (Ghaaf) = 4, Raa = 8, Sheen = Aborted, Ta = 4, Sa = 8, Kha = Aborted, Zal = 4, Dhwad = 8, Zoin = Aborted, Ghayn = 4

BTW, have a few remarks on ‘Al’ according to ABJAD (will post them soon).

>Robin,

reza are you trying to imply that undercurrent is to be identified with a person, how dare you ;)

>Yes, Watkins’ ley lines are definitely exciting hyperstitional
>subjects

Definitely. Watkins also invented the pinhole camera (er...not sure why that's interesting actually ;)

>mereologic links

what does mereologic mean?

> If we take this account, the role of unconscious becomes
>insignificant

yes, I quite accept this point: it shouldn't be modelled as a synthetic product of a subject/object encounter, but as a signal from shared palaeostratic resonances (or something...). As a photographer I am very aware of this; the ideal of (a certain tradition of) photography is to set up a routine so that the mechanical process of noticing and capturing becomes automatic; then the results will reveal something about such unattributable psycho-socio-environmental mappings (hence the triadic link between cities, surrealism and photography). When you see a photograph and don't understand why you took it, but somehow it haunts you as the ghost of something real , then you have succeeded (and I say much the same about Bacon, whose painting has a unique relation to photography)

Would love to see the paper you mention if you find it.

>>> non-negotiably real.
>>Another question rises here: Why?

Presumably because, as Badiou says there is no such thing as being lazy in maths; to perform the calculation is to experience its compelling reality. You can't understand it *and* dispute it. The simplest yet most powerful example of all this is the complex plane: produced hyperstitionally by imagining that the square root of -1 exists; as soon as it becomes clear that this results in a consistent system (with the omnipresent fictional entity acting as a sort of lubricant to allow number to slip out of its confinement in a single dimension), it becomes real; and later reveals astonishingly powerful relations to physical reality.

I always thought it was particularly comical how the mandelbrot set became a symbol of stoner neo-hippiedom since despite its pretty colours it's a terrifying lovecraftian abomination whose utter abject mechanoid genesis only makes the thing's eldritch writhing unfathomability more terrifying from the POV of Spirit ((C) that phrase) ;)

nick: I'm honestly not playing dumb (I'm sure there are other more reticent lurkers who would back me up here). You need to make some effort to create some decoded edges to this jargoplex, if it is to connect to the outside...intimations of gothic grandeur are not enough...I realise the very concept of instrumentality may be moot, but humour us...

>utter scepticism + morbid fascination is the formula

formula for what...? Surely you could construct similar justifications for any otaku-solipsistic practice (becoming obsessed by conspiracy theories about Princess Diana, for instance); as dark and dangerous as it might seem it affines dangerously to mere narcissistic time-passing entertainment unless the machine can be plugged into social production processes (and beyond) somehow.

this Alain Badiou?
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/badiou/badiou-on-evil.html
In philosophy and psychoanalytic theory, evil is back ... In 1993, the philosopher Alain Badiou published Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil, an analysis, critique, and reformulation of the discourse of evil in contemporary thought. Rejecting both the theological and the scientific (psychological, sociological, etc.) interpretations of evil. he locates good and evil in the very structure of human subjectivity, agency, and freedom ... The interview with Alain Badiou was conducted via email in July-August 2001. Alain Badiou asked to add the final paragraphs of his interview after the events of 11 September. {first question} "You argue that in our philosophical and political discourses today, evil is "self-evident," and that both this "self-evidence" and this conception of "evil" are problematic."

BADIOU = 32 = HAMON-GOG (GoN gematria)

Hamon-Gog: Multitude of Gog, the name of the valley in which the slaughtered forces of Gog are to be buried # Eze 39:11,15 "the valley of the passengers on the east of the sea." --Ezekiel 39:11

7 = TA (or TOIN is nine in ABJAD) = THE POST-911 THING = UNDERCURRENT (sorry) = [northanger's real name]

91 = NICK LAND + REZA NEGARESTANI = DIVIDE, ADD, MULTIPLY AND UNDERSTAND

(using GoN gematria)

with apologies to northanger for the comparison (and obviously not wanting to 'troll'), just heaping up 'demonstrations' is really no more helpful than k-punk's repeatedly saying he's not a person...

Surely one can only grant these 'equivalences' the importance that is being solicited on their behalf, if one already subscribes to some notion of significance (totally against Barker's dictum)? It all seems to come down to choosing what correspondences you publish according to their interpretative significance, which sort of defeats the object (certainly it would destroy any interest I have in the process if it turned out to be merely a hyperdeconstructive practice of interpretation).

Undercurrent,

I agree.

LOL!

Undercurrent - determined to cooperate with your agenda here (explaining the 'jargoplex' etc.) but think you have to meet us in the middle - your recent scolding of northanger is really verging on totalitarianism - there's plenty of space here for every (non-trollish) line of development, from lucid exegesis and discussion through nonsensical demonstrations to gothic jargoplexing (all of which I would like to see more of) ... hopefully as we 'self-organize' these different modes of proliferation can separate themselves out into variegated threads ('let a hundred flowers of evil bloom' and all that tasty liberal stuff)

Ironically, while I'm probably quite close to you on the primacy of the practical, Badiou - who you cite in this regard - seems to dismiss this criteria as 'technicism' and valorizes pure mathematico-platonic apprehension of the infinite (isn't even science is suspect to him, let alone engineering?). Sure, Imaginary numbers yield practical results, but Cantorian set theory doesn't obviously do so. Anyway, Badiou's politics are still indecipherable to me from the infinitesimal contact with his work I have so far enjoyed, so I'd be interested to know more about that.

When it comes to numbers, D&Gons would surely route the problematic of 'pragmatics' through the culture of the nomad war machine, where numbers directly produce agentic composites ('units') - e.g. the name of the Hazara in Afghanistan, a NWM relic population, means 'the hundred' - so NWM popular numeracy schematizes the auto-division of the social being, with the number taking on the character of a 'subject'.
Without in any way wanting to denigrate engineering, the NWM functionalization of the number obviously radically exceeds mere technical application
Of course, how this relates to qabbalization remains unclear

northanger - apologies for being a pest on this subject, but where can i go for an intro to GoN gematria (tried searching your site, but so far ineffectually)

PS. sorry for grammatical garbaging of last-comment-but-one - just woken up here, or more accurately, obviously haven't
Also would like (without quite singing KUMBAYA (= 137 (= prime-X))) to express my delight at presence of northanger and undercurrent here in such great form - think if this site can remain swollen enough to host both rigorous sceptical inquiry and finely-honed qabbalistic insight its unutterable powers will shake the earth to its foundations, or something like that ...

Nick,

............................invisibility cloak.......................................
28 = OPEN SESAME = {28 ABJAD major letters} = {28 Liber AL puzzlies*}

*4 6 3 8 A B K 2 4 A L G M O R 3 Y X 24 89 R P S T O V A L = 28 characters (two ligatures)

28 letters (east) + 28 puzzlies (west) = 56

GoN 56 = Gematria of Nothing; the work of the wand and the work of the sword; THIS IS THE ROARING VOICE OF THUNDER (Liber Arachnid); LAND OF THE WATCHERS; REINCARNATED; SORCERER + NECROMANCER; shoggothic apocalypse; THE KEY AND GATE; Fiery Darts To Fan The Earth {Enochian Key: 6}; DAOX (5678) Times In The OL (24th) Part Of A Moment {Enochian Key: 10}; Judgment of the Highest {Enochian Key: 19}; Nyarlathotep is "the Dreamer"; HALL OF MAATI; Standing alone my senses reel {Learning to Fly by Pink Floyd}; Could blow this soul right through the roof of the night {Learning to Fly by Pink Floyd}; The key to the maze is the last expansion of this form; THE BROTHERHOOD OF NINE

24 = KUMBAYA = QIYAMAH = LEARNING TO FLY

OPEN SESAME (28) – JARGOPLEX (18) = NUMOGRAM (10)
JARGOPLEX (18) – OPEN SESAME (28) = HYPERSTITION (-10)
OPEN SESAME + JARGOPLEX + NUMOGRAM = 56
...................................................................................................

Nick,

GoN Calc
http://www.deathandhell.com/gematria/innuendo.html

Gematria of Nothing FAQ
http://www.deathandhell.com/faq.html

Liber Arachnid
http://www.deathandhell.com/arachnid.html

Gematria of Nothing (Infekshun)
http://chaospace.hyperlinx.cz/index.php?act_id=4&id=24

northanger
++ thanks - much digesting to do

Reza + Nick = 25

............................invisibility cloak.......................................
25 =
CIPHER
NUMBER NINE
WATCHER OF THE WEST {Antares}
ARIEL (Satevis | Antares) - Flame or Light of God - Watcher of the West

LINE OF FLIGHT = 45 = {Pandemonium}
PANDEMONIUM = 29 = THE EQUINOX OF THE GODS
2 CRAZY ACE FLYBOYS = 24
STRATEGY = CHORONOZON = CROWLEY = BURROUGHS = TRANSLATORS = ASTRONOMERS = -3
-----------------------------
MY EXQUISITE PLEASURE = 2 = SORCEROUS TRIGGERS
...................................................................................................

Nick, Northanger,

There is a proverb among the Quranic / ABJAD scholars in regard to AL (Aleph and Lamed or Laam): there is no Aleph and Laam without Meem:

The second sura (Al Baghara) starts with the well-known Quran’s invitation to all other Books for a challenge. Alif Laam Meem (one of the secret gates of the Koran) comes before this verse (aayeh). Alif Laam Meem are among the Muqattaat letters of the Koran.

Sura 2: “Alif Laam Meem. This IS the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those ‘who fear Allah’ (Motaghien [= 600] or those who use Taghieh?).”

Taqieyah: (strategic dissimulation). The belief of the concealment of the true beliefs in situations where harm or death will definitely be encountered if the true beliefs are declared.

Six chapters in the Koran begin with these Muqattaat letters (Alef Laam Meem):

(A): The number of chapter (Sura) in the Koran; (B): Occurrences (the letter Alif); (C) Occurrences (the letter Laam); (D) Occurrences (the letter Meem); (E) Sum

(A)-- (B)-- (C)-- (D)-- (E)
2 -- 4502-- 3202-- 2195-- 9899 (19x521)
3-- 2521-- 1892-- 1249-- 5662 (19x298)
29-- 774-- 554-- 344-- 1672 (19x88)
30-- 544-- 393-- 317-- 1254 (19x66)
31-- 347-- 297-- 173-- 817 (19x43)
32-- 257-- 155-- 158-- 570 (19x30)

==== 8945-- 6493-- 4436-- 19874 (19x1046)

What we have here is 19, or one of the most active numeric subroutines of the Koran. 19 is one of the keys.

northanger - thanks for that ...
so it's all in Death and Hell.
More persuaded by the GoN II version, at least by superficial elegance ('0' in GoN I seems redundant to me), but having not worked with this I'll gladly defer to any comments you feel inclined to make on the subject.

PS. For anyone else interested in the GoN northanger has been using, this might be the most direct link: http://www.deathandhell.com/index2.html (you can click on GoN I or II for the actual values).

Reza - not sure I quite understand your comment - in the "Occurrences (the letter ...)" keys, did you forget to switch second and third "Alif"s to "Laam" and "Meem"?
If not, I'm lost (and if so might still be lost, but I'll postpone that predicament).

oh, sorry i just copied/pasted the same thing many times ... corrected the post.

Plus, Alef (consists of three letters: Alef [1] + Laam [30] + Fa [80] = 111)

Alef = 111 = Alef (1) + Ya (10) + Ghaaf (100)

It only needs another ‘1’ (1000 = Ghayn) to become the complete Number of ABJAD: 1111 or 11:11

Both in Islamic and Kabalistic traditions, Aleph also means ‘One Thousand’; so we already have it (1111).

1111 Tic-Xenotated = (((:)))(:(:(:)))

{GoN} ALM = 16 = PERSIA; QUATREFOIL; Govern Those That Govern {Enochian Key: 19}; AVESTA; MERCURII (Liber 231); AUD; DGon

http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/aba/chap4.html

12 = Muqattaat = Lamassu = Frodo
26 = Taqieyah
26 = NTI{AL}TIA (diagonal Hex name divisible by 15)
15 = AL
59 = secret gates of the Koran
59 = IT IS THE DAWN OF THE AEON {V&V, DES, 26th Æthyr}
59 = Mitochondria are transmitted only by women {Parasite Eve}
59 = A Mighty Guard Of Fire {Enochian Key: 9}
59 = The Virgin of God is enthroned upon an oyster-shell {Liber 231:3}
41 = strategic dissimulation
41= ABOMINATION
158 = belief of the concealment of the true beliefs
158 = they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

Liber Arcanorum (231)
http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib231.html
ALEPH (Atu Fool)~ 0. A, the heart of IAO, dwelleth in ecstasy in the secret place of the thunders. Between Asar and Asi he abideth in joy.
LAMED (Atu Adjustment) ~ 11. Also the lady Maat with her feather and her sword abode to judge the righteous. For Fate was already established.
MEM (Atu Hanged Man) ~ 12. Then the holy one appeared in the great water of the North; as a golden dawn did he appear, bringing benediction to the fallen universe.

Liber AL I, II, III
19. O azure-lidded woman, bend upon them!
19. Is a God to live in a dog? No! but the highest are of us. They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.
19. That stele they shall call the Abomination of Desolation; count well its name, & it shall be to you as 718.

Nick,

>>> GoN II
You know even numbers are feminine & unlucky. {hehe} Seriously, I think you should use it.

Reza,

[1] Explain Muqattaat.
[2] What is the challenge of the Quran to all other books.
[3] Does "This IS the Book; in it is guidance sure" refer to Sura 2 or the Quran itself.
[4] Brief synopsis of the six chapters beginning with Alef Laam Meem.
[5] Why is there no Aleph and Laam without Meem.

Reza,

{GoN} 16 = ALM = MERCURII {Mercury goes direct today -- mercury is the ruling planet of gemini (the twins) and rules all forms of communication: books, television, internet, computers ... alphabets}

ALM = 53 = GOD (or DOG, Liber AL II:19)

Nick + Reza,

GoN II. I change my mind. ABJAD-major (28-letters) is installed on the Numogram establishing its numerology (its rules need to be formalized). The GoN has no direct relationship with the Numogram whatsoever. Neither does Anglossic, Tic Xenotation, or ABJAD-minor. IMHO. What are you doing with all of these alphabets?

The ABJAD version of the numogram: phase 1
http://hyperstition.abstractdynamics.org/archives/003448.html

We are a network! (A note on the ABJAD installment of the numogram)
http://hyperstition.abstractdynamics.org/archives/003584.html

northanger - think Reza's installation of ABJAD on the Numogram has high generality - providing a schema appropriate for all decimally reducible qabbalistic systems. Not sure how it would work for the negative values in GoN, unless by reversing (or ignoring) signs.
TX is sub-decimal (nonmodular) and decodes any numeracy into sheer (Euclidean) arithmetical relation - it's a notational tool with no commitments so shouldn't really be classed among qabbalistic systems / gematrias.

"What are you doing with all of these alphabets?" - seems like the Undercurrent question raised from another direction, thus equally worthy of fuller treatment than an off-the-cuff comment.
Your virus remark offers the preliminaries - gematrias spread (through users).
What do users do with them?
How are they invested by other agencies (which transmit signal through them)?
- These Q.s need a post.

IMHO, "GoN" is perceived as -virus- you are suggesting something else. || viral reproduction :: attachment : penetration : replication : assembly : release || {Not sure how it would work for the negative values in GoN, unless by reversing (or ignoring) signs} "Once inside the host cell, the virus induces the host cell to synthesize the necessary components for its replication."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus

Undercurrent,

>>> reza are you trying to imply that undercurrent is to be identified with a person, how dare you ;)

oops, I’m really sorry ... after all, what do you expect from a rotting oedipus in cyberspace? ;)

>>> what does mereologic mean?

It is one of the basic topics of logics, metaphysics, eco-logics and cognitive philosophy. Mereology simply means any relationship emerged based on the role of a Part within a Whole (mostly along the axis of entity-as-event and regarding the temporal / spatial relations between accommodating and dwelling systems), even ab-parthood relationships (also sometimes mereology is oversimplified as part-whole relationships ... but this mainly returns to classic definitions). Mereology is, of course, very vast and multifaceted.

For some basic definitions, see: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/

Basic Problems of Mereotopology (a very simplistic and introductive essay by Varzi):

http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/rd/65456421%2C604629%2C1%2C0.25%2CDownload/http%3AqSqqSqwww.columbia.eduqSq%7Eav72qSqpapersqSqFois_1998.pdf

I have found rigorous mereotopology very helpful in grasping a concrete account of Deleuze-Guattarian geophilosophy. Some recommendations if you are interested:

J. J. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception
O Stock (ed.), Spatial and Temporal Reasoning
A. U. Frank and W. Kuhn (eds.), A Theoretical Basis for GIS
B. Taylor, Modes of Occurrence: Verbs, Adverbs and Events
(etc.)

>>> hence the triadic link between cities, surrealism and photography

Urbanomics? Needless to say, I wish to see a detailed article about these links at undercurrent. To this extent: Photography is thinking in terms of events, which as Deleuze reminds, is very difficult.

>>> Would love to see the paper you mention if you find it.

Let me exhume all zip files in my archive ... will try to find it. I like to read it again too.

Nick,

>>> - These Q.s need a post.

Nick, i can't wait for the post ...

Northanger,

will answer your questions as soon as i can log on to hyperstition (i'm posting this comment from another place)

Northanger,

>>> viral phases

i guess you missed one: Virus Uncoating [uncoating of the virus membrane] 'Robbins Pathology' without uncoating the gate to the host cannot entirely be engineered.

|| viral reproduction :: attachment : virus uncoating : penetration : replication : assembly : release ||

hmmm. well, if GoN = virus then are we uncoating numbers? how does number shed its membrane? how does a gematria system shed its skin?

On GoN. Positive(+)/neutral(=)/negative(-) features as evaluated loftily, prior to serious experimental engagement.
1) Derived by revelation - this locates it in mainstream occult tradition (back to at least the origins of monotheism and probably through Khem to unspeakable antiquity). This makes it interesting, since qabbalism is historically bound to the topic of supramundane signal, but also negative since it shatters immanence in the name of a transcendent authority (=/-).
2) Ciphering by sequential unitary increments, GoN breaks with qabbalistic tradition and installs itself indisputably in modernity, a prerequisite IMHO for a truly intense affinity with the Anglobal-oecumenic alphabet. Usage of negative numbers and relation to zero reinforces this modernity (=/+).
3) As consequence of (2) GoN operates as a (highly) compressive qabbalism, producing small numerical outcomes in comparison with traditional gematrias. This might be considered negative in that it reduces the scale of coincidence production (improbability), or positive in that it increases connectivity (resonance waves) - my tendency is to the latter judgement. The introduction of a negative array dilutes this effect (basically halves it) (=/+).
4) By distributing values 0-9 (GoN I) or 1-9 (GoN II) this gematria reproduces redundancy typical of traditional systems. This both shatters its digital immanence (by entering into relation of overcoding with numerals) and reduces its versatility (by eradicating any strictly numerical functionality) (-).
5) Is GoN supported by a reservoir of spectacular demonstrations? Simple ignorance on my part here, but if there is a lack of demonstrable results the user is once again thrown back onto transcendent criteria of validity (principally, authority of revelation) (=/-/+??).

Since these points are not necessarily evenly weighted, to attempt to use them for an overall evaluation would have no value. Not necessarily at a stage where I'm enthused to start rampantly spreading GoN-virus yet.

Unless modulus is the coating for a tic-xenotative viral machinery (just fantasizing) don't see where you're going to get a membrane from.

northanger - in lieu of doing the work, highly persuaded by reference of AL puzzle to Enochian tables. Too much to take in right now.

Nick: "your recent scolding of northanger is really verging on totalitarianism " come one, don't be silly...who's acting as troll (=bad vibe amplification unit) here? Quite agree there is room for all (kumbaya) and I'm sure northanger didn't take it personally, it wasn't meant like that, only as impatient demand for enlighten(ok, enarken)ment.

Agree that engineering-applicability can't be cited as support for nomad potentiality of number (or at least, that it begs the question). I'm unclear about "NWM popular numeracy", would like to pursue this foggy line further. Also how to distinguish functionalisation from instrumentalism, pragmatic 'working' from scientific 'usefulness' (think this is germane wrt nick's badiou point, too). Anyhow we're in dire need of a new thread now....

Reza: thanks for mereotopological pointers. Urbanomics = a sociological term - the study of how trends spread from urban center to periphery (but when I first used it I didn't realise it was a real word, I just 'invented' it from its general etymological sense.) Photography/Psychogeographical event: I have a piece in progress about this (links with Baudrillard's writing on photography (better than his other stuff, photography as last possibility of becoming-technical-object for the human. [Baudrillard is a photographer himself].)

Lastly, A treat...an (almost too good to be true) piece of dialogue that succinctly treats the relationship between mathematics and belief (see recent discussions at hyperstition), with hyperstitional entity as lubricating-supplement; and the complicity of institutionalised dogma and institutionalised relativism:

' "But..." Lyra struggled to find the words she wanted: "but it en't true is it? Not true like chemistry and engineering, not that kind of true? There wasn't really an Adam and Eve? The Cassington Scholar told me it was just a kind of fairy-tale."

"The Cassington Scholarship is traditionally given to a free-thinker; it's his function to challenge the faith of the Scholars. Naturally he'd say that. But think of Adam and Eve like an imaginary number, like the square root of minus one: you can never see any concrete proof that it exists, but if you include it in your equations, you can calculate all manner of things that couldn't be imagined without it" '

(Philip Pullman: Northern Lights)

northanger: must admit that some of the stuff from GoN is intriguing (like east = -west), but this is still couched in terms of enthusiasm for 'symbolically significant' results. Nick, could you post a link to whatever system you're using too?

"Mereotopology... is highly general and highly domain independent. It is ontologically neutral, treating all entities as individuals, i.e., as entities of the lowest logical type. (Set theory, by contrast, forces a distinction in ontological status between the first and second arguments of its primitive relation.)" Could this be a good way to dismantle ontomaths, then?

Undercurrent - realize i went into meta-scolding, apologies (but think 'troll' accusation should be reserved for non-immanent personalized abuse).
Gotta crash (if you can find Qabbala 101 pt1, think that outlines the Anglossic gematria, otherwise i'll provide a link tomorrow)

thx, in the spirit of experiment eleutheria (RUTH=ROBIN=103) is now hard at work.

Undercurrent - just dragged out of bed by guilt at my scrooginess to appeal to your techie side and say just keep counting from hexadecimal ... but who needs redundant advice?
Not that I've any idea who RUTH = ROBIN might be referring to. 103 = prime-R too, so you've got a triple whammy.

Still, hyperstition is out of reach (am getting paranoid ... Does the Apocalypse begin from iran?).

Undercurrent,

just a quick answer: mereotopology

Varzi's article as i mentioned is oversimplified; no , in its more sophisticated forms, mereotopology doesn't treat entities as individuals but events (however not exactly in a Deleuzian sense) made out of spatio-temporal connections / relations. however, usually, according to its inflexible principles, it cannot be separated from ontological laws. An exception: Gibson (who was an eco-logical psychologist) brought so much diversities to the field which was previously an ontological ground for part-whole-boundary subjects.

Baudrillard and photography: the only parts of his writings I can read without reactionary knee jerk are his writings about Photography. His photos are also not bad ;)

++++

This is an archive for logics and mereology: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/varzi96part.html

(you can always use the 'related articles' link to expand the archive)

baudrillard can only be trusted when he gets excited (photography, the chapter about graffiti in Symbolic Exchange and Death). Other than that you have to treat him as a depressive symptom ;)

Nick techie side is already fatally appealed to...you'll see how...

Some WoT-related seasonal/topical offerings:
QABBALA = YHVH = ISLAM = YULE
ISLAM + W = prime-W = CHRIST

I love the smell of MOABs in the morning!

Undercurrent - can't wait

Northanger,

>>> [1] Explain Muqattaat.

Mughatta’at letters: There are twenty-nine Suras in the Koran that start with disjointed letters, known in Arabic as Al-Maghata’at. These letters on their own have no obvious meaning. There are numerous interpretations to the meaning and purpose of these letters. Some of the prominent Islamic commentators like Az-Zamacheryand, Al-Baaqilaanee and Ibn Asaakir claim that their purpose is to prove the miraculous nature of the Koran. As if to say “the Koran is made up of these letters; now, can anybody imitate one verse of it?” Sometimes, Mughatta’at letters are called the gates of Koran.

>>> [2] What is the challenge of the Quran to all other books.

No one can imitate a verse of it in Arabic (let alone the Book itself); or The Book, itself, is the unparalleled miracle of Mohammad.

>>> [3] Does "This IS the Book; in it is guidance sure" refer to Sura 2 or the Quran itself.

Yes to the Koran itself but in a very strange way (few people have mentioned it): the Koran refers to itself as ‘That Book’ not ‘This Book’ (Zaaleka instead of Haaza); is this a schizophrenic twist?

>>> [4] Brief synopsis of the six chapters beginning with Alef Laam Meem.

Check this page for summaries: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/
(chapters 2, 3, 29, 30, 31, 32)

>>> [5] Why is there no Aleph and Laam without Meem.

Because in the Koran whenever Aleph and Laam appear as separated (independent) letters, they are succeeded by the letter Meem. Some commentators suggest that ALM is Alam or the Secret Name of Allah, the 100th name of Allah which was not revealed in the Koran. Also because ‘Aleph Laam Meem’ is the first cipher that the Koran presents before declaring its uniqueness.

ok well this is how I see it...realtime...

http://www.urbanomic.com/gematrix.html

using any mapping you want (or the two preset ones, GoN and nick's hyperhex). It shows the initial numerical translation plus n layers of decimal reduction. I think I got this right (at least, DWTWSBTWOTL works as 777!)

What I wanted to do was to do this graphically so you could compare the vectors of different phrases as they descended through the layers of decimal mulching and see the attractors working across the levels. Also to add the possibility of shifting the ciphers left and right. But this is enough for now I think...

[disclaimer: undercurrent takes no responsibility for any havoc this may wreak on your browser/computer/brain. you need Flash 4 plugin]

{newbie stuff}. A line of escape is different from a line of flight, yes? Laughter disarms by illuminating & appropriating all lines of escape. (Superior intelligence has a certain rigor to it and if you can't stand the inquiry you need to go play with your barbie dolls and stop playing chess with the big man. i'm a-ok flyboy.)

this doesn't mean anything........(GoN I)
-4 = SNARKY = JESUS = INSTITUTE NEW GOVERNMENT = FOUR = TRUE = PEST = VCU
27 = APOCALYPSE = MAGOG = VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY
157 = {II:55. Thou shalt obtain the order & value of the English Alphabet; thou shalt find new symbols to attribute them unto.}
1+5+7=1+3=4
4 = RHIZOME = EMERGENT PROPERTY = NEOPHYTE
51 = RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
100 = Does the Apocalypse begin from iran?
100 = A false balance {Proverbs 11:1}
100 = "My friend somehow had left the room, but I'm not sure where he went at the time {Liber Arachnid Commentary}"
100 = Which Opens The Glory Of God To The Center Of The Earth {Enochian Key: 18}
100 = Partakers of Undefiled Knowledge {Enochian Key: 19}
14 = MARK K-P = IRAN

the northanger may be fooled, but thinks hyperstition, being oedipal(=36 = binah), may be playing a great game of chess. but i'm still a newbie, so i dunno....

SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE = 44 = hyperstition.abstractdynamics.org
RHIZOME (4) x IRAQ (11) = 44
ALAM = 29 = THE EQUINOX OF THE GODS

ABYSMAL NUMMIFICATION OF THE SIGNIFIER = 1 = DWTWSBTWOTL

northanger
I'm not sure you should use it, your productivity is too dangerously high already!

>may be playing a great game of chess.

COLDRATIONALISM = 300 -> 3 using HeX
divide it in two to get
CHECKMATE = 150 -> 6
(rules of the game : it doubles by splitting)

;)

whoa......LOL!

undercurrent
(whoa on the double-splitting stuff)

my productivity?!
>>> ABYSMAL NUMMIFICATION OF THE SIGNIFIER

excellent bit of work there, btw

Undercurrent -
Swooning in (almost) wordless awe.
Try JARGOPLEX on your infernal machine.

Think you've also mechanomically delineated a hugely intriguing topic that has remained latent until now (at least here) - the searing affinity between digital technology and qabbalization

GoN2: WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT = 55

We need a glossary
- new terms i love: jargoplex, nummification, hyperhex, gematrix ...

Note on the wondrous Gematrix engine:
Decimal reduction (DR) is evidently a crucial dimension of qabbalistic signals processing - Undercurrent's description (glossed) as an excavation of digital attractors seems an excellent way of understanding it.
However, on issue of information maintenance its worth pointing out that other features of the unreduced number that get mulched out by DR are fully preserved by arithmetical analysis (by tic xenotation / factorization), so these should IMHO take a certain priority insofar as the exegesis of the number is concerned.
[recent example, that 103 DRs to 4 is a relatively paltry result compared to its TX of ((:)(:)(:)) IMHO]

Reza - how far can we go before this thread blows up the server?
Hot button link to the Urbanomic Gematrix would also be good at some point, don't you think?

Az-Za - LOL = 66 (GoN2:3), FATWA = 96 (GoN2:19)

Sorry to interrupt, but what has all this to do with my distinction between problems and mysteries? Also, surely you know that esoteric hobbies such as kabbalah and numerology, like celebrity trivia and football statistics (cf. undercurrent's comparisons with otaku-solipsistic practice, becoming obsessed by conspiracy theories about Princess Diana etc.) is but an invention of the political elites designed to keep the masses distracted and thus as far away from meaningful participation in the public realm as possible?

>>> if this site can remain swollen enough to host both rigorous sceptical inquiry and finely-honed qabbalistic insight its unutterable powers will shake the earth to its foundations, or something like that ...

Hmmmm, yes - or something like that ...

Well, I'm just glad that they're keeping MY name out of it! C'mon Noam, let's go solve some problems ...

http://www.submission.org/miracle/alif.html

good discussion
troll is a verb

peace & love

Sufi - thanks, very interesting link

Noam Chomsky - "an invention of the political elites designed to keep the masses distracted" - does this mean we get a TV show?

Az-za - sincere apologies for annihilation

nick,

ah.....my first question.
what is "Az-za"?

when you do this: GoN2:3, what do mean?

>>> 103 DRs to 4 is a relatively paltry result compared to its TX of ((:)(:)(:))

why is 4 paltry to ((:)(:)(:))?

(btw, i am double-checking that Gon2 55)

northanger -
Az-za short for "Az-Zamacheryand = 2 CRAZY ACE FLYBOYS = Shaytan = 370" whose prophetic insights - now sadly lost to H. blog readers - seem to have thrown Hyperstition into a major international crisis (I have a copy of the Book of Az-za if anyone needs one - don't use Hyperstition board for this discussion though - click on my name for email). If Az-Za is out there - tried to contact you, but your email was junk.
Note to readers: Please try to be sensitive to intercultural vulnerabilities of this space - we don't want to censor discussion, but some of us occupy precarious situations.

can now see "GoN2:3" might seem obscure - just means in "GoN II has value of 3"

"why is 4 paltry [compared] to ((:)(:)(:))?" - multilevel Q., but crude answer is just to restate Undercurrent's loss of information point - digital reduction deliberately destroys information in order to facilitate convergence between disparate numbers (with the decimal 'attractor' acting as a neutron star - if not quite a black-hole - crushing-out complexity). Obviously this convergence is an important component of the qabbalistic sense of the number, but it doesn't adequately substitute for it. No dismissiveness viz DR intended.

nick,

Ah... Methinks I should creep quietly back to my quiet hidey hole.

AND, only slight error ... this is GoN I, not II

WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT = 55

this is GoN II

WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT = 40

did {((reza))} give you a copy of my deleted post? this appears there

nick,

JARGOPLEX is one of Undercurrent's invented words (i'm guessing) about you making an effort to "create some decoded edges".

Why is the fact that the Decimal reduction (DR) of JARGOPLEX = 9 such a humdinger for you?

What meaning are you placing on this? Can we expect some DECODED stuff in the near future.

(strongly suggest you look that up)

northanger -
GoN1 - you're sure? - can't access the Gematrix from work so i've no choice but to believe you!
If so, Undercurrent should be persuaded to upgrade from GoN1 to GoN2, what do you think?

Liked the fact JARGOPLEX acts as a zone of convergence between GoN and HeX on the Gematrix. Guess that's relatively common at final stage (GoN 0 and negs make exact probability slightly obscure), but this one goes up a level (to 18).
Will look up DECODED (and no doubt thousands of other words) after work - when I can prostrate myself before the Gematrix (computer here doesn't support Flash).

Not sure what you mean by deleted post - unless you are 'the Evil One', in which case I annihilated you myself at R.s strict instructions - anyway, thought I recognized the phrase, searched but couldn't find it ... sorry for redundancy.

What hidey hole? (if this is another "I am the Evil One" remark, if so just wink, or better still, let us pass over the matter in silence [chuckle]). Actually good if you are "..." [the unmentionable one] because then you understand why we had to take such illiberal measures to suppress you.

positive it's GoN I.

You said earlier: "'0' in GoN I seems redundant to me" -- be aware that you cannot escape ZERO. Add all GoN II letter values and they equal zero; add all GoN I values and you get 13 = FOLLY OF NUMBERS = CRIKEY (1+3=4) ... as far as "upgrading" ... DWTWSBTWOTL.

DECODED decimal reduction in GoN I & Hex is 4.

CRIKEY ... it's so fast and loose in here you get confused about who you're talking to, huh? No ... this is a post i (northanger) deleted on my journal with 55 values, etc.

now that i've been confused with "the evil one", i *know* it's time to go ...

LOL

northanger - "Add all GoN II letter values and they equal zero" - that's why it seems redundant to have '0' included among the original values. I was assuming the GoN crew had realized this themselves, and upgraded to a neater symmetrical 0-sum system.
Still, somewhat traumatic if "WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT = 55" goes down with the rusty hulk of GoN I.

Now to be really obtuse - what exactly was the GoN1 DWTWSBTWOTL thing? (I've been blinded by hyperhex fanaticism on this point)

Damn! so "..." is still out there, probably feeling really pissed

nick.

I have always found it interesting, being a woman, discovering how Babalon deals with men (Crowley, Parsons, Birocco, another guy i know ... ye gods, now you!).

Be careful my friend. In GoN I:

56 = I BABALON
56 = IT IS I BABALON YE FOOLS

(read earlier post)

crikey!

i ain't posting this one here.

can i send it to you?

northanger - even by your standards that was really cryptic

Why did you delete your 55 post?

nick,

me cryptic?!

I deleted it because everyone seemed to be in delete mode. Why not me?

northanger - our posts crossed, just to add to total conversational dislocation
"can i send it to you?" of course

Undercurrent, that is fucking cool.

But before I carried away with mulching endless words through the Nummificator, I have to ask anyone: what is the most interesting thing about noting that certain words share a numerical value?

Aren't you still relying on some semantic relation between the words that a given number shares to confirm some significance to the number? If not please someone explain why not ..

Not wanting to spoil the party or anything - perhaps I am just not getting what all the fun is about.

Is it that patterns can be found not only between words mulched through either gematrix, but that there may be patterns to be 'discovered' between these respective patterns?

Even if so, what does this imply?

If not, maybe I am just totally lost, or looking for some 'deeper' point to it all.

i'm still off the entire net ... am posting this comment (the 100th) from another place.

Nick, northanger is pointing to a post at his own journal about hyperstition, ccru and cold-me, not the one i asked you to delete.

Az-Zamacheryand = 2 CRAZY ACE FLYBOYS = Shaytan = 370,

My sincere apologies for deleting your post ... as you may have noticed i live in iran so the post was a bit 'too problematic'. i hope you understand; if you want to hear more about the reasons, please contact me. once again, my apologies.

Undercurrent: "The precise question then is, in what situations are gematrial calculations transformed from mere curiosities into something powerfully practical?"

I have a feeling this is a great question, Undercurrent, but what could a ‘powerfully practical’ calculation possibly look like, in order to be able to distinguish it from a ‘mere curiosity’?

Noam Chomsky,

just a quick answer:

Ismaiel Aien, the Iranian political historian, in his masterwork on Freemasonry in Iran, discusses that while conspiracy theories look as phenomenal hobbies for the masses; they contaminate the channel regimes by which macro-politics of the state targets collectivities. Conspiracy theories produce too much noise, too much offbeat signal (superfluous or trash-politics: polytics?) for these channels. The result is a sabotage of political agencies, pushing their affect space to produce anomalies. The contamination between conspiracy theories and what is established as the real politics is mutual and irreversible. If the state uses a strategic weapon to distract masses, this does not mean that the weapon always functions properly and not targeting its so-called users at the same time (as a two-edged sword). Aien coins the term ‘political pollution’ (polytics?) for this process which progressively becomes out of control for the State’s macropolitics. Conspiracy theories are surely running as strategic weapons, and the State and its lines of command 'try' to work with them through the plane of logistics (the plane through which strategy becomes communicable for political agencies and lines of command).

And it is mainly on the plane of logistics that the strategy can be opened to anthropomorphic participation (lines of command) since the autonomy, tactical multiplicity and inter-dimensional dynamism [1] of strategy render it impossible to be located (loss of trace); a traceability which is prerequisite for all voluntary participations of different entities / agencies with strategy. To this extent, who can guarantee strategy is in the battlefield when it is supposed to be and not somewhere else engineering war polytics of its own? This sinister question is always concealed by lines of command which frequently seek to communicate with strategy through the plane of logistics to protect their military survival, both ‘by’ and ‘from’ strategy: A political irony, which results in political pollution and gradual but brutal erosion of the state’s macropolitics.

[1] also the multiplying semiotics of strategy: multiplicative trajectories -- not disappearance of trajectories -- enmesh an intricate space of traces instead of cutting all traces (which consequently produces an empty space or 'politics of disappearance' appropriate for the state’s simulacra industry.) Such an empty space made out of the 'aesthetic of disappearance' is a latent factory for producing the State's invisible warmachines.

seek to communicate with strategy = 39 = BEING OPEN

(you know Reza, if i permutate your name i get the name of my father)

Reza - we want you back!

Tachi - "Aren't you still relying on some semantic relation between the words that a given number shares to confirm some significance to the number?"
Still going to be a bit evasive here because I'm hoping for a long wave of discussion on all this, so just a truncated response at the moment.
Think there are probably a multiplicity of qabbalistic agendas, procedures, agencies, motivations and functions. Hyperstitionally, it would be expected that each carrier-line had a singular qabbalistic orientation, without any possibility of totalization by a master-position or 'Qabbalistic philosophy'. As this thread has demonstrated, qabbalistic practices and performances are evidently able to run away without the need for any coherent theory, legitimation or purpose. This could be attested from the perspective of occult history, hyperstitional method, technological potential or sheer empiricism (back to this thread).
So IMHO (= 81 = CCRU) 'theory' has a secondary position, 'making sense' of what has already begun to operate, appropriating it to a variety of strategies or research programmes (Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals springs to mind, but that's probably just me). The importance of the viral schema is at least in part that it captures this priority of the practical - why does virus spread? It can be technized (as a genetic engineering tool for instance), it might become adopted into a piece of ecological machinery, bacteria uses it to swap information, it might even follow some deep strategy imperceptable to current human microbiology - but basically it just spreads, because spreading works and anything that doesn't spread most probably doesn't get to do anything else either.
On your more specific question about whether qabbala is parasitic upon significance, it seems to me the opposite is more the case. The 'scandal' of qabbalistic affinities is that they produce cross-linkages on the basis of supposedly arbitrary informational properties, so that any significance whatsoever should be dismissed as 'pure coincidence' from the perspective of logical communication. Of course, working with words - on a tide of primary decoding - always offers the opportunity to exploit the code (as a surplus value), for the purpose of demonstration, communicative inflection or simple stratic assimilation (as Undercurrent says, we are all amphibiously half-glued into the strata, so the 'ideal' of an absolute qabbalistic intelligence perfectly indifferent to the conventional semiotics of language belongs to science fiction or horror, not for sure to any of 'us' except as an unsustainable pretention). Given that your stimulating questions seem to be posed entirely at the level of conventional linguistic values - with qabbalistic 'argument' (by way of numerical equivalences) playing no apparent role, I can only assume you are not suggesting indifference to such quotidian semiotics on your own part - of course the bulk of communicative interaction between semistratic beings will remain deeply enmeshed in these lexical values. I hope I am not entirely losing the gist of your question here.
Qabbalism is a signals processing technique, and my guess is that there is a delight in pattern-hunting that hints at realms of subterranean sense and profoundly unfamiliar intelligences, opening the narrowly structured world of social conversation onto chaotic (coincidence-drenched) 'societies' of unimagined kinds. Qabbalism is like SETI, although (I guess) the signaletic material it processes is vastly more intricately structured and suggestive. That qabbalistic results could be anything other than frivolous noise is a prospect so extreme, that the mere intimation of it is sufficient to cast the qabbalist into an intoxicating encounter with 'Outsideness'.
Why are people lured into listening to elctromagnetic buzz from distant stars, playing with ouija boards, participating in vudu rituals, reading Lovecraft ... my guess is that "what all the fun is about" is the same in every case - making contact with the Outside.
Obviously hoping there'll be much more on this question ...

Time-lapsing right out of the thread - missed the last three comments - so Reza, can we relax now?

Hex
81 = CCRU {DR:9}

GoN
81 = LET HIM THAT READETH UNDERSTAND {Mark 13:14}
(this phrase is DR:9 in Hex and GoN)

Noam, Tachi : a certain trickster once proposed to me : 'hermetic practices have no subversive potential'. I love to play, but I'm still unconvinced on this main point. So, thanks to Reza for his response to this.

Digital tech has an affinity with this stuff at least insofar as it can accelerate it with uncertain results. Must say that I find the 'attractor-plumbing' aspect more interesting than the comparison of 'final results'.

Will try to digest Nick and Reza's substantial posts and be back later (must try to spend some time _away_ from the keyboard today)

Everyone: just post up here the specifications for other matrices and I will add them to the default options.

Reza: hope that whatever it is has been fought off for now.

TACHI = 86 = REZA ... join the '14' apocalypse club (140 = VAUUNG, my [HeX] qabbalistic twin) ... as far as my researches with Reza have been able to ascertain, smells pretty goddamn sulphurous in the 14 territories ...

NORTHANGER = 210 = COUNTDOWN ... what's that about?
There's been something vaguely terrifying about your recent comments (hope you don't take exception to the 'vaguely' and 'recent') - finally actually looked at the GoN on the Gematrix and (of course) you're right - I've got a talent for blindness (the Smurfs found me so ineducable they spat me out after drilling holes in my mind)
"LET HIM THAT READETH UNDERSTAND" - did you follow the Sufi link? - a certain resonance with this

nick,

NORTHANGER = 210 = COUNTDOWN

ah, that means, i should go to bed now. do i hafta?

me ... terrifying? :O)

your talent for blindness is exceeded by your talent for sheer utter density. feel better?

In the heat of, uh, relocating my signal (since I dropped it somewhere along the logistical coastline) I did relay Sufi's excellent link and must extend extensive, uh, exquisities in that direction.

;)

nick, reza - your two posts above take things into exactly the zone I had hoped: the question of radical arbitrariness (melting significance into generalised kabbalistic non-sense) has incredible importance to pop-philosophy/conceptual contagions/transversal material semiotics (see coincidence of my recent post on space invaders http://blog.urbanomic.com/dread/archives/2004/12/insert_coinsfor.html ) . Also good to see explicitly the evolution of the 'admit it, it's signifiance/admit it, it's not' differend into a more fertile 'amphibious' form (signifiance as fatal flaw or proneness-to-virus).
Hope to build on this (but could someone please start a new thread!).

What is Prime-R?

On the question of digital acceleration, presumably you could run the whole dictionary through something like this and end up with a model of all connections at all levels of vertical descent - hasn't anyone thought to do this before?

Nick - thanks for your reply to my poopering question; actually not really meant to spoil anything. I am pushing, lightly, gently, at where my boundaries are, just feeling out my way in this relatively new terrain. I'd like the chance to engage with some of your comments later when time permits, but want to say a big thank you for taking the time to deal with my questions seriously.

[Nick] my "questions seem to be posed entirely at the level of conventional linguistic values - with qabbalistic 'argument' (by way of numerical equivalences) playing no apparent role, I can only assume you are not suggesting indifference to such quotidian semiotics on your own part" - What? I don't buy into anything special about 'meaning' or 'significance' which is why I was bothered by a seeming reliance on relationships betweeen words to confer value to shared numeric code. My greater interest is not just in questioning whether there is something wrong about leaning on linguistic semiotics to unearth raw numeric processing, but rather to provoke a shared examination of the relationship between linguistic and numeric semiotics - I am not valuing 'theory' above practice, or anything like that, but just being cautious about steering libidinal energy into the most honestly productive channels.

>>TACHI = 86 = REZA ... join the '14' apocalypse club - MORE ON THIS PLEASE!

badly worded last post - I mean I am cautious since I hope to invest energy in the most productive channels ... headache, more later

northanger:
>Can we expect some DECODED stuff in the near future.
>(strongly suggest you look that up)

because DECODED=103 ?

hmm...so it's clear what our duty is...:)

Tachi,

this may be irrating, so forgive me and i'm butting in, i know ...

but if you're a 86 then you resonate to a LONG-PERIOD HIGHTLY ECCENTRIC ORBIT just like Reza which means you have as much DENSITY as Reza does (as you so richly illustrated just now) and are quite capable of setting off way amazing SORCEROUS TRIGGERS like the Great Reza. And if you became as great as Reza, well, you're a NUMBER NINE and that means you're part of that niner club thingy.

hyperstitionally speaking of course

Oh Great Nummifakator,

{gee, i need to look that up}

you're just suffering from FLUXIONAL DYNAMISM, i suggest you consult the AVATAR OF SET, make sure you reach the GATEWAYS OF SLUMBER so you can awaken to your role as one of the NEPHILIM, because you're just one of those ANGELS, y'know ...

DECODED is that DR thingy you invented. DECODED is 4 in GoN and Hex. I said so way up there^

northanger - get some sleep :D

okie dokie smokie.

btw, the 119th post:

119 = SACRED WORD THAT IS THE LAST LEVER OF THE KEY TO THE LITTLE DOOR BEYOND THE ABYSS {V&V, DES, 26th Æthyr}

As many have said before: don't you guys ever sleep?

Tachi - really value your questions, and trying to respond helpfully, honest ;)
See Undercurrent response to my response - think approach has interesting and producive similarities to yours, viz invigorating skepticism and a prediliction for the interrogative mode - definitely not remotely irritating (except in the best sense of the word) - hope the headache not Hyperstition induced (copious amounts of qabbalistic debauch, alcohol, sleeplessness and anxiety about theocratic oppression helps a lot IMHO)

northanger - as usual, you're overloading the circuits - I'm heading into DECODED now so you can see I'm behind the curve - confident I'm not the only one ...
119 - keeps coming up - what was that all about? -Reza and I were planning a qabbalistic dictionary so we could immediately access this kind of thing (forgotten qabbalistic complexes) - interested? (Undercurrent has cranked this notion up by galactic magnitudes if I'm understanding the suggestion)

Undercurrent - clock is excellent addition to the site, suddenly technology is on our side! Now I can watch everyone's sleep deprivation in real time.
"prime-R?" - you know this already, R = [HeX] 27, 27th prime = 103.
Strongly recommend immersion in the shallows of the prime number series (at least up to prime-Z = 149), they're delicious.
"presumably you could run the whole dictionary through something like this ..." - what whole dictionary? You mean like the OED? - us sad qabbalistic day-labourers don't even get to imagine thoughts like that - that's what florid technoschizoids are for. Wow! This planet really is going to cook!
Yes we do need a new post/thread - but we could always shift upstairs a level, where Tachi was before the numbo-jumbo party dragged him down here to the basement. I get a week off from Thursday so I'm now delaying the long promised Post 'til then - maybe Reza's got a more immediate plan

northanger - "but if you're a 86 then you resonate to a LONG-PERIOD HIGHTLY ECCENTRIC ORBIT just like Reza"
- how on earth do you discover things like this? (did i mention the word 'terrifying' or - more to the point - UTTER HORROR - something like a CHRONOSEISMIC DISTURBANCE, as all the DAMNED-TO-THE-ABYSS-SHRIEKING DOOMED NUMBER FOURTEENS slide off the edge of the world to COOK IN HELL)
Tachi take note ;)
(Reza knows already)

>>> "Az-Zamacheryand = 2 CRAZY ACE FLYBOYS = Shaytan = 370" ... whose prophetic insights ... seem to have thrown Hyperstition into a major international crisis ... Note to readers: Please try to be sensitive to intercultural vulnerabilities of this space - we don't want to censor discussion, but some of us occupy precarious situations.

>>> My sincere apologies for deleting your post ... as you may have noticed i live in iran so the post was a bit 'too problematic'. i hope you understand ...

Nick, Reza -- I can quite see that my translation of excerpts from Qu'ran might seem a tad controversial to some, and obviously the furthest thing from my intentions in posting it was to get anyone in trouble. Also (obv.) no need to apologise for deleting it -- It only took me a few minutes to write anyway, and I think there were probably only a few funny lines (errrm, I mean, note-worthy re-translations) in there anyway (e.g. "when the oceans start to act a bit weird").

Reza -- Chomsky sends his sincere thanks for your very thought-provoking response and is about the revise 'Necessary Illusions', 'Manufacturing Content' etc. in order to take it into account ;)

>>> as Undercurrent says, we are all amphibiously half-glued into the strata, so the 'ideal' of an absolute qabbalistic intelligence perfectly indifferent to the conventional semiotics of language belongs to science fiction or horror, not for sure to any of 'us' except as an unsustainable pretention ...

Nick -- thanks for unambiguously declaring your lack of sympathy for a recently much-discussed pseudo-rationalism ... Mr Bloot nods in (open / non-conspiratorial) recognition.

Az-za
Will treasure the Prophetic Book forever - thanks for understanding our second-order theofascist clampdown

Fascinating discussion, all.

THISTLE = 156
[my middle name] = 93
[my full name] = 358

thistle - If I'm remembering correctly Kenneth Grant had a real 156 thing going

http://www.billheidrick.com/works/hgemat.htm

[my first name] = 82 = Full of Holes
[my last name] = 183 = Field of Blood, weapons of war

But a question for everyone here: What becomes of the meaning-values of numbers expropriated from one linguistic context to another? Is there a way of accounting for the gloss in translation from, say, English gematria to Hebrew?

Also, is there an Atlantean alphabet?

nick,

156 = KAOS/BABALON, the great beast and the whore of revelations, conjoined. This is via Hebrew transliteration, I think.

http://www.biroco.com/kaos/

I haven't read any Grant to speak of. Care to elaborate?

>>> As many have said before: don't you guys ever sleep?
sleep deprivation is the poor man's drug

>>> 358
{Enochian: expletive deleted}
{777 - 419 = 358}

//Heb 358 = Shame; Shilo shall come; the Messiah, Nechesh, the Serpent that initiated Eve; (Taking the three HB:H's in AHYHVH as concealing the Mothers, we get GR:Iota. GR:Alpha. GR:Omega. &) AShYAVM//

{darnit. that came up the other day but i forgot the context. goes to show if you don't write these things down they come back to bite you in your ... is that a prophetic pun? yes indeedy it is: PROPHETIC PUN = 7 = [my first name])

good morning, thistle. nice to see ya.

...still digesting this 'good meal'...

>You mean like the OED? - us sad qabbalistic day-labourers
>don't even get to imagine thoughts like that
yeah, well...you workers and your 'intense hobbies', eh, LOL!

Actually I think it would be more interesting, instead of doing a dictionary, to do an actual piece of text (ie the hyperstition archive, geology of morals, or something) and see what sort of banding/patterning is displ