Hyperstition contributor Tachi has submitted a large number of thoughtful questions about numogrammatic hyperstition which will hopefully stimulate some vigorous discussion of basic principles and methods.
The responses given here are meant to be uncontroversial and preliminary, based on a mish-mash of Cthulhu Club insights and suggestions, so if other members of the Hyperstition crew have any problems with them I hope they'll make corrective remarks.
I've taken the liberty of renumbering Tachi's original questions.
Q.1. "I am particularly intrigued and perplexed by the decimal numogram? What is its function?? I don't just mean as a tool, I mean what is it actually doing. Sure, I am keen to know to what extent you think it is an instrument and what you are using it for? How can it not have a purpose, as well as a function? But is it off the leash yet?? You cannot simply ignore the conscious aspect of its creation; after all it has been constructed carefully with a lot of conscious thought regarding its internal consistency and relation to externally resonant mapping systems. But separate from that, Is it really doing anything, and if not, why not?"
A.1. The Numogram [click on the Ccru link on the right for image] is unfolded out of decimal numeracy, which it inhabits as an implex. It is therefore discovered more than 'created', its virtual existence being coincident with decimal numeracy itself.
If it has a radically immanent function, independent of apprehension, it is probably best conceived on the abstract model of virus - sheer spreading.
However, it is more practical to attribute functionalizations of the Numogram to particular hyperstitional lineages, in which it is put to work in accordance with determinate programmes. The most elaborated lineage (partially) unearthed to date is that of Cthulhu Club research and techno-sorcerous practice (associated with such names as Echidna Stillwell, Peter Vysparov, Daniel C Barker and Mme Centauri). Within all the variegated off-shoots of the Cthulhu Club lineage, the Numogram is functionalized as a time map.
Conceiving the Numogram as a time map has a number of implications:
(a) Rather than representing any concrete empirical reality it operates 'schematically' in a crypto-kantian sense ('diagrammatically' or 'figuratively'). Applications of the Numogram to concrete fields are mediated by time-systems, time cultures and (most typically) time politics or time wars.
(b) The Kantian association of arithmetic and time is also pertinent, with the Numogram inhering in elementary decimal notation and procedures, rather than in advanced number theory. It is crucial to the propagation and resilience of Numogrammatics that it is affined with popular numeracy rather than professional /technical mathematics.
(c) The Numogram 'takes up' the time-mapping functions of the Chinese I Ching, the Hebrew Tree of Life, and other chrono-numeric systems (such as that of the Dogon). Its 'resonances' or partial isomorphies with these perhaps best capture its virtual-abstract and hyperchronic reality. Because the Numogram charts an intense involvement in fate it provokes oracular appropriations akin to those found in most occult traditions (such usages are, of course, hyperstitionally sedimented and in no way transcendently authoritative).
(d) The widely hyped description of the Numogram as a 'time-travelling device' remain subject to explication and confirmation by rigorous procedural formulation and experiment. Nevertheless, it is plausible to maintain that all hyperstitional lineages intersect with time-travel programmes of some kind.
Q.2. "How much is the Numogram useful as a tool to understand events, and how much is it functioning in the creation of events?"
A.2. Hyperstitional-occultural sub-historicism seeks a region of convergence between these options, where the Numogram 'clicks' onto itself coincidentally as supreme method and ultimate object. By marking-over all cultural / political programmes as actually degenerated concretions of virtual numogrammatic impulses, hyperstition lines them up for savage decoding.
This is why the role of the AOE meta-conspiracy is so decisive, since the diagrammatic directives guiding this vast covert movement are pre-eminently described by the Atlantean Cross, a manifestly decayed version of the Lemurian Numogram.
Q.3. "It must have been fun to synthesise the Numogram from other stratic, discarded and lost material. But if we are not to believe in the Numogram, how are we to use it in a state of not-believing? I am still coming to terms with the notion of not 'believing' but not 'not believing'."
A.3. The Numogram is auto-synthesized out of elementary decimal operations (including one - 9-twinning or 'zygonovism' - that is neither arithmetically nor occulturally traditional). It's relation to "stratic, discarded and lost material" occurs through subsequent applications, relayed through hyperstitional lineages which relativize them. These applications are radically non-authoritative and incredible, typically motivated to engender a maximum of 'unbelief' and thus lateral proliferation through alternative applications / lineages.
The Numogram itself has no thetic content, only procedural consistency. It thus entirely eludes the problematic of belief.
Tachi also raises various technical questions about Numogrammatics. Perhaps thew most important thing to note here is that these issues are basically terminological, referring to the ways preliminary explorations of the Numogram have tagged various aspects of its cartography. There is nothing remotely 'sacred' about any of this, different carriers might adopt quite different terms and emphasize different relations.
Basic responses:
Q.4.1. "What is an impulse entity, and what is its significance in the context of the Numogram (don't mean anything to do with signifier)?"
A.4.1. An imp(ulse entity) is a term coined by Peter Vysparov for any condensation within the Numogram that seems to designate a 'thing' - of whatever scale - to which strategic purpose, communicative potentiality or intelligence can be attributed. The term 'Imp' is colloquially used to denote Numogrammatic coagulations below the level of Lemurs/demons.
Q.4.2. "What is the functional difference between a gate and a channel? It seems that they could be the same thing, though we are accustomed to thinking of both channel and gate as a physical things, when both could be considered as switches."
A.4.2. The terms 'gate' and 'channel' - as used numogrammtically, also seem to have been originally coined by Vysparov, although this cannot be confidently confirmed. A channel is opened by unlocking a gate, but the difference in vocabulary is again basically conceptual / terminological ('justified' by its use value within particular research programmes or practices). It seems quite productive to envisage gates/channels as time-switches (anomalies or disturbances).
Q.4.3. "What is a Sarkonian mesh-tag?? How does it function?"
A.4.3. Oskar Sarkon's techno-mathematical overcoding of the Pandemonium array (consisting of all entities defined by non-repeating descending decimal clusters) employed 'mesh-tags' as reference markers. Relatively little follow-up work has been undertaken in this area - in large part because Sarkon's own investigations have without exception resulted in intelligence-catastrophies and escalating Anthropol involvement - so the functional potential of mesh-tagging remains uncertain.
There's a lot more, but too much at once could be bad for digestion.
Posted by at December 17, 2004 04:42 AMHi guys - got myself totally tangled up into Khattakoid spin with Movable Type - can't even log on now, so can't delete this double post.
Could any of the Masters passing by please eradicate the redundant version of this above?
Much appreciated.
Ignore last message obviously (lost the plot so thoroughly I'm trolling my own posts)
Posted by: nick at December 17, 2004 07:46 AMNick, quick response for now, since your answers will take a while to filter in: thanks for sharing my questions and your answers; I hope others will join in this thread, and overload it with such stimulating discussion that we are forced to open up new threads and channels to cope with the influx! I have to pause for thought, since I can feel more questions coming out without necessarily understanding what is going on. It may be an overload issue, but I don't want to rush in; interested actually in what you think are the more pertinent questions above and the lines most worth pursuing. More soon.
Posted by: Tachi at December 17, 2004 11:43 AMTachi - Main thing for now, I think, is to ensure a convergence of productive lines with carrier production in order to comply with hyperstitional method.
Ultimately I hope to draw out more from Reza about Middle Eastern chronopolitics, but think a staged approach probably required to attain convergence (between topic and rigorous hyperstitional principles).
Obviously, let us all know what you're most interested in pursuing here.
Sorry Nick et al. to post a question off topic, but I am curious why someone spamed my forum from hyperstition
http://thescu.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=14&t=138&s=812b8a55f85ea1f5caab5e412a860b11
I am not at all irratated or anything, but curious. My forums have been mostly dead for, well, a long time.
Love
TheScuApologizesForInteruptingTheConversation
Scu - can't follow your link from here (PRC) for some reason, but can say unreservedly that I don't know anything about this episode. What exactly was done?
Posted by: nick at December 20, 2004 04:40 AMScu,
It doesn't look like a spam, merely like an announcement (actually it is the annoucement we spread on the net) ... now, it is strange the virus is automatically spreading over at Disinformation and many other places. we are not into this vile propagation; strange enough that my cold-me annoucement and CCRU's annoucement for digital hyperstition are now available on porn sites and some of really irrelevant websites: cosmetics, sperm banking, etc ... lol ... so, please remove it if it is annoying.
Posted by: Reza at December 20, 2004 05:40 AMoh, and it's very old. so, delete it if you can. best, reza
Posted by: Reza at December 20, 2004 05:41 AMScu - Update. Reza has explained situation, on last thread (below, comments #47-8).
Posted by: nick at December 20, 2004 05:42 AMThanks for the explaination.
It is not at all a bother, just a mere curiosity.
Nick, don't have the time to make a full response, but would like an elaboration, if poss, on this:
[Nick:]"the Numogram 'clicks' onto itself coincidentally as supreme method and ultimate object. By marking-over all cultural / political programmes as actually degenerated concretions of virtual numogrammatic impulses, hyperstition lines them up for savage decoding."
Especially the latter part.
I am still struggling to get to grips with this. It seems you are saying there is no possible distinction between Numogram as tool to understand events and as immanent diagram in the generation of events. Correct?
I accept the Numogram is not a representation, but what is it doing A) as an instrument? and B) as an abstract machine?
Some unpacking of your previous response would be appreciated (the more along the lines of the Economist style-guide perhaps the better).
Another thing is that it seems that words you and others are qabbalizing into numeric code are still being considered as significantly related by virtue of their semantic meaning - lining up pairs of words, or more, as sharing number values are supposed to be interesting for what reason? ...
More soon, and thanks for your time ...
Posted by: Tachi at December 20, 2004 01:39 PMTachi - apologies for jargoplexing.
Basic sense of the sentence you cite is:
The Numogram is both used to analyse events and also projected into the origin events, with the AOE as an example (an Atlantean conspiracy based on a technomagical culture derived from a degenerated Lemurian 'source').
By referring the cultural mega-objects of its attention back to a lost Numogrammatic origin, hyperstition transfers them onto a terrain upon which they can be ruthlessly dissected. The success of this strategy requires real coincidence (it is not mere PoMo relativism) and thus can be considered an overall strategic 'gambit' - which could fail - based on the assumption that an infrastructural decimalism has in fact pre-processed the terrain of engagement.
If this is still too jargoplexed I'll try again later - I'm shutting down for the night over here.
To be pedantic on the Q. of "possible difference" between the Numogram as method and historical generator (I suspect I've displaced your question a little) - I'd say such a difference is certainly logical possibility, but its absence in fact is the 'lucky' coincidence feeding hyperstitional impetus. If the Numogram provides a (/the?) site of convergence between method and event, it seals hyperstition's cryptic alliance with fate.
Can feel lucidity receding, in part because this discussion is really about time-travel ... so I won't try to push this further just now. Realize it has only scratched the surface (at best), hopefully we can dig down a lot further in a collective zig-zag.
Once Reza's jargoplexing gets moving that's also something to see ;)
Also won't get started on qabbalism here - there's a lot of explosive momentum in that discussion from all sides right now, so sure there'll be plenty of opportunities to pursue those questions coherently later.
Good to see you back
Posted by: nick at December 20, 2004 02:33 PMIt's so nice and roomy up here - guess I'll just hang out on my lonesome until the frothing mob surge up from the pit ...
Posted by: nick at December 22, 2004 01:09 AMRoomy for sure. It's getting sweaty in the problems and mysteries pit. And the fact that the nummificator was spawned in there and infected everyone with number-mulchitus hasn't helped. Maybe we can offer free needles in here or something?
Posted by: Tachi at December 22, 2004 03:06 AMTachi - the blog's evidently undergoing a bizarre
metamorphosis - if it can sustain anything like this level of nummutational libido we'll need to encourage some self-organization by specializing threads (hence your needles?)- but for now I expect sheer Tohu Bohu.
You thinking Pinhead-type needles?
[NUMBER = NEDDLES, oops ... twitch, twitch]
Of course that should be NUMBER = NEEDLES, blame the numbo-junky twitching
Posted by: nick at December 22, 2004 03:44 AMLOL, Nick, twitch, twitch, spasm, convulse .. was actually thinking syringe, maybe we need acupunture and moxibustion.
Posted by: Tachi at December 22, 2004 04:12 AMBUT maybe we need acupunture and moxibustion ...
to channel, spasm, twitch ..
PS which gematrix you using? (you see my post on other thread?)
Posted by: Tachi at December 22, 2004 04:14 AMTachi - "which gematrix [option] you using?" - treating the AQ as standard (like a good Barrow boy, or WAR = YOB as northanger might say, but I prefer CUR)
Posted by: nick at December 22, 2004 04:28 AMthis mean barking spinozian hound dog, kinda smelly and evil looking, chased me in here.
Posted by: northanger at December 22, 2004 05:24 AMTOPIC?
Tool vs. Abstract Machine (immanent diagram) || Understanding Events vs Generating Events
VIRAL STAGE?
Posted by: northanger at December 22, 2004 05:43 AMLe Numogrammé (The Numogram)
discovered vs. created
existence = numeracy
abstract vs. function
function = timemap
|| TIMEMAP : are there differences in style, approach, method in Stillwell / Vysparov / Barker / Centauri?
empirical reality vs. {virtual reality?} -- as this relates to function (TIMEMAP)
virtual reality = schematically / diagrammatically / figuratively <> in a crypto-kantian sense
|| CRYPTO-KANTIAN SENSE: stuck
Posted by: northanger at December 22, 2004 06:11 AMNicholas [;)]: "treating the AQ as standard (like a good Barrow boy, or WAR = YOB as northanger might say, but I prefer CUR)"
AQ? CUR?
Are you using GoN, HeX or what??
Posted by: Tachi at December 22, 2004 06:46 AMAnglossic Qabbala = AQ
CUR aka "dog", (nick as mean smelly dog)
nicholas has renamed "HeX" as "AQ" by fiat on The Nummificator (thereby, rampant chaos insues)
i think that's how it goes
Posted by: northanger at December 22, 2004 06:55 AMNorthanger: Le Numogrammé = LOL
... Le Matricule de la matraquer!
Posted by: Tachi at December 22, 2004 06:57 AMor, he's calling AQ - Alphanumerica Qabbalah (let me run back downstairs and check!)
Posted by: northanger at December 22, 2004 06:59 AMyou translate that and i'll go sort out AQ, okie dokie?
Posted by: northanger at December 22, 2004 07:00 AMNorthanger - cheers.
"Anglossic Qabbala = AQ
CUR aka "dog", (nick as mean smelly dog)"
Sorry - so the AQ is the same as Nummificator's HeX? Need to get Undercurrant to rename that then.
(Undercurrant = 4; Robin = 4)
Posted by: Tachi at December 22, 2004 07:00 AM>> so the AQ is the same as Nummificator's HeX?
yes, but i think nicholas keeps changing the "A" part: it's either ALPHANUMERIC or ANGLOSSIC. i was going to check in the sweaty basement.
Posted by: northanger at December 22, 2004 07:02 AMnorthanger - "are there differences in style, approach, method in Stillwell / Vysparov / Barker / Centauri?" - absolutely.
While all loosely allied by the Cthulhu Club, they have widely diverging fields of research, methods and intellectual personalities.
[] Stillwell. 'Discovers' the Numogram among the Nma tribes of Sumatra. Dedicates her life to the excavation of a Muvian (very late Lemurian) ur-culture, which in her estimation seems to have had a predominantly Sino-Indian tonality. Life-long student of the I Ching. Has been described (not unreasonably) as a Palaeo-ethnographer.
[] Vysparov. Betrays secrets of the AOE (Atlantean Metatronic Magic) but remains attached to Atlantean Black Magic, definitely a dodgy occultist. Systematizes Numogrammatic material as the Pandemonium System of 'Lemurian demonism and time-sorcery' (sometimes accused of giving it an unnecessarily dark cast). Highly qabbalistic in approach (intellectually indebted to 'the divine' August Barrow).
[] Barker. Part of a younger generation, but entered into relation with Cthulhu Club after Stillwell assisted him in recovery from serious psychotic episode. Rigorously mathematical and cryptographic, when not scraping insectoid tic-clusters from his writhing tentacles in hyperspace.
[] Centauri. Half-Haitian, vudu adept, cartomancer, astrologer, spiritualist, decadologist, Black Atlantean magician. Mixes taste for baroque systematic elaboration (based on quasi-stable resolutions of incoherent hybridity) with the occasional headless goat hanging from the ceiling.
Should also mention Chain Horowitz, grandson of the Mad Rabbi of Kiev, Torah scholar (orthodox to the point of howling blasphemy), guided 'by the Nephilim' to the Mu archive in Tibet. Obscure linguistic researches into lost decimal alphabet of BABAL.
"in a crypto-kantian sense" - Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is basically a book about time. It argues that the relationship between thought and sensation is only possible because time 'already' provides an infrastructure supporting both sides). A 'schema' is required to connect an intellectual category with the 'pure intuition' (time and space) hosting appearances, thus enabling the emergence of an 'object' (a component of intelligible experience). This is why I thought the referencre especially relevant to Tachi's Q.s, which seemed in part to be asking whether the Numogram belonged to thought or to the world (sorry Tachi, know I'm paraphrasing and simplifying). A Kantian schema is situated in the 'between' ... and it's quite (hence 'crypto-') like a time-map.
>>> All Tachi's sixes have reminded me that I've got to try and mobilize a glossary shift - Stillwell uses HEX (= 64) as a term of Numogram cartography, for the inner wheel of the Numogram (Vysparov's "Time Circuit") - perfect combination of I Ching (numerical) and occult allusions plus qabbalistic exactitude. Hyperhex/Anglossic/Barrow gematria has a far less compelling call on 'Hex' IM(in this case not very)HO ... so unless people start calling it something else I'll start stamping my foot and pouting
[I'll use AQ, for Alphanumeric Qabbalism, until one of you guys comes up with something better]
>>> PS. Of course, since AQ = 36, maybe no one will.
there you go.
Posted by: northanger at December 22, 2004 07:11 AMI recall some French papers (that's where "Le Numogrammé" comes from Tachi) part of Stillwell's late diaries. Since she discovered the Numogram this could help me understand things a little better. Can you shed some light on that? Is there a translation available?
Doesn't "crypto" mean secret, hidden? Are you saying "hidden-Kant" then? I've heard about some of these philo guys having some gnostic (hidden) stuff in there work -- is Kant one of those? Sorry for all the dense questions!
Posted by: northanger at December 22, 2004 07:23 AMNick: This is why I thought the referencre especially relevant to Tachi's Q.s, which seemed in part to be asking whether the Numogram belonged to thought or to the world (sorry Tachi, know I'm paraphrasing and simplifying). A Kantian schema is situated in the 'between'
Fair enough to simplify in this way. I was in part asking if the Numogram is a product or a producer of events, in part if it is a tool or a machine, ... but more than simply is it X 'or' Y, I was trying to get at exactly HOW it can be BOTH.
I guess being 'in between' is a straddling, implying it is both. And as such, how do these different aspects connect? What is their relation and what guides it?
Maybe this is too abstract, I am hoping to come back down to gritty shitty reality ...
Posted by: Tachi at December 22, 2004 07:27 AMnick,
then there's Kant's analytic / synthetic thingy -- what's the deal with that? does that have any bearing here? and i certainly understand NO QABBALAH IN HERE, but if Kant is discussing arithmetic, then ... surely a (minute) digression on this topic might be helpful. i mean, there *are* NUMBERS on the N.U.M.O.g.r.a.m, aren't there?
northanger = kantian cluelessness
Posted by: northanger at December 22, 2004 07:35 AMTachi - found your last qabbalistic equation completely unintelligible [unless its in GoN and at least one of the results is 0]
Posted by: nick at December 22, 2004 07:50 AM>>> UNDERCURRANT+ROBIN=UNDERCURRENT
this equation? {even more confused!}
northanger - 'crypto-' really referring to fact that all kinds of subsequent terms, 'the figural', 'diagrammatics' etc. are secretly kantian ... but also Kant is secretly something else ("is Kant one of those" yup (not yap) - for instance, some evidence he had concealed fins) ...
"there you go" - There I go where?
"analytic/synthetic thingy" entirely relevant - if i start on this now my boss will disembowel me in the centre of the office -
Very crude (but basically right) for Kant:
Time = Synthesis = Arithmetic
So what do you make of his '7 + 5 = 12' obsession?
Haven't yet come across an interesting take on that.
Tachi - actually think my original response to your Q.s was better than the cod-philosopher kantian v1.2.
Reason I constantly sneak away from this question though is that it is grotesquely ab-hyperstitional to attempt to settle this at a single authoritative level ... the hyperstitional method of getting "back down to gritty shitty reality" is to adopt/construct an appropriate carrier - otherwise, multiplicity and experimentation gets processed out of the investigation ... So we have to make somebody up who'll pursue the things you want pursued (unless an already available carrier-shell is already broadly on the 'right track') - ++ willing to co-operate with you on that ...
I know I'm scrambling this nick, but the reason i brought up Stillwell's french papers was because of that "Limbic Key" Cecil Curtis goes on about (my french & memory are horrible, but think Stillwell found a paper by Cristall somebody in Tunisia called +clé limbique+ and i'm positive she even studied that 19 miracle in the Quran--go figure). Isn't this limbic key where your [virus - sheer spreading] hooks in? (IMHO, Nungkyyii Prophecy is a complete fabrication; however, i'm getting an inkling that this is exactly [x marks the spot] where Stillwell.....hold on a sec, i'll go check, i think it's in the Vault of Murmurs).
sorry, i know i'm being a total exo-pest! i know every "problem" can be remedied of course.
Posted by: northanger at December 22, 2004 08:30 AMnorthanger, Tachi - Undercurrant/current equation - told you I was blind
AQ stands for 36
nick - did you get email on that 36? i think it may illuminate your blind as a bat issue. Since we're being honest, let me admit i tend toward projection. Blindness + Projection = Oil + Water. This also refers to freud and jung i think.
Posted by: northanger at December 22, 2004 08:46 AMnorthanger - "did you get email on that 36?" - probably there, just can't see it ;)
"Blindness + Projection = Oil + Water" - I'd kind of imagined (blurrily) that projection caused blindness - (take latest example, couldn't see 'Undercurrant' because I 'knew' it was going to be 'Undercurrent' - seems to me quite typical, too much expectation). Pomoid hypertrophy of degenerated Kantian subjectivism same phenomenon on a bigger scale - it's why I'm reluctant to rush the Tachi question - any chance to slow-down perception might help actually spotting something - Don Juan's 'stopping the world' - (whole issue kind of ironic being a copy-editor and all) -heavy-duty psychiatric tranquillizers would probably help - but assuming for you projection means something different?
nick - thanks for being honest. usually, i find, in team situations, that we're all suffering from the same problem. however, being hyperstitions we can use this....
brain fart: i meet so many people that think MATH = HORROR. they run away from it. and if you say numogram is unfolded by decimal numeracy (and that's just counting 0,1,2,3...) that this FEAR negates openness by its very nature. IE, even if you're "counting" it fails to "register". numogram as implex (whoa, too difficult for me to digest, can't afford you!) cannot transform into fractal unfoldment. [reza's viral-uncoating may suggest something here]. ARITHMETIC as VIRUS. (can't catch that, let me get innoculated). de-cycling (whatever) immediately freezes.
numogram is not "discovered" when chemical FEAR present. no way to force it or create it. And I think this is the limbic key. if perception perceives numogrammic immanency as PROBLEM to solve in spite of -- what do you have? flipside is TRANSFERENCE suggesting strategy for viral sheer-spreading. (stupid simplicities, refer to hardcore freudy|jungys).
but whadda i know?
Posted by: northanger at December 22, 2004 09:27 AMdidn't collective consciousness come about from a dream jung had of house with all of these levels. at the basement it was older and as he went up each flight the rooms got lighter and more modern? something like that?
what the heck did i bring up from the basement? {scratching head}
Posted by: northanger at December 22, 2004 10:13 AMnorthanger - due to severe time-faulting missed your 8:30 comment on this thread first time around - much there very intriguing
[highly recommended to others]
it was the best i could come with on the fly. (as it were)
Posted by: northanger at December 22, 2004 10:42 AMnorthanger - were you deliberately trying to leave this thread at the unmentionable number your last comment was at?
Posted by: nick at December 22, 2004 11:30 AMNick: "So we have to make somebody up who'll pursue the things you want pursued (unless an already available carrier-shell is already broadly on the 'right track') - ++ willing to co-operate with you on that ..."
I have a lot of reading to catch up on first re. currant carriers ;) .. is this part of rendering tranaparent carrier production??
Stupid question, but how do you 'make up' a carrier? Of course I relish the idea of cooperating with you on that. Where to start? First I need to drag myself away from the Nummificator ..
Posted by: Tachi at December 22, 2004 11:51 AM>>> make somebody up who'll pursue the things you want pursued
if you made a person up, what would you want to pursue?
Posted by: northanger at December 22, 2004 11:56 AM>>> make somebody up who'll pursue the things you want pursued
if you made a person up, what would you want to pursue?
I'd pursue China's desire for energy and natural resource, oil and gas in Central Asia, links with islam in China, and WoT.
Posted by: Tachi at December 22, 2004 12:26 PMTachi - probably lots of interesting experimental approaches to carrier production - Ccru tended to build them around singular lines of investigation, typically with a distinctive Numogrammatic curve.
It may be your topics are so concrete and geopolitical that they should be simultaneously pursued from 'the other side' - theoretically - with the objective of identifying and tagging hyperstitionally suggestive traits and features (which could later be targeted as carrier emergence areas)
Sure Reza will have plenty of useful practical tips on this
Nick - sure, I am interested in these concrete areas from a theorectical perspective, but not for the sake of developing theory. Yes, the development of theory is important from my point of view in order, mainly, not to be duped or deluded about the world in which I live. But the theory I would be interested in would be have to be at once active (pragmatic, better -programmatic [can hear a voice saying numogramatic]).
The challenge for the development of any theory to grasp (or apprehend/anticipate) real events whilst simultaneously generating hyperstitional lines is to maintain an accurate take on unfolding reality. Would the generation of fictions, however enmeshed with 'fact', not risk compromising this?
Call me a realist, but it doesnt matter to me how the shit becomes real - that is a separate issue from whether it is or not - what unfolds around us may be the product of machinically unconscious hyperstitional propagation; the shit still stinks.
What is important for me is that hyperstition theory may help us, vile primates that we are, to appreciate the unconscious, hyperstitious quality of reality production. Yet this is different from a group of us collectively and consciously generating a hybrid of fiction and fact through a mob of made-up characters.
And when I think of the shit hitting the fan out here I begin to doubt what impact we can have altogether. Its not that I yearn for impossible peace, but rather am sliding back to what I see as a rift between how unconscious hyperstition operates - like market hype - and how we can be catalystic for hyperstitional propagation.
Perhaps I am just way off. I cant seem to bring the Numogram into this either. Your feedback welcome.
Posted by: Tachi at December 22, 2004 03:24 PMUndercurrent - the nummificator only displays 16 'base' level entries, so those further down the alphabetical list wont display. Sorry, but anything we can do to display all entries for a given numeric value? This is going to haunt you now ...!
Posted by: Tachi at December 22, 2004 04:16 PMTachi - "The challenge for the development of any theory to grasp (or apprehend/anticipate) real events whilst simultaneously generating hyperstitional lines is to maintain an accurate take on unfolding reality. Would the generation of fictions, however enmeshed with 'fact', not risk compromising this?"
IMHO this question is spot on - but it is not the events that are being 'fictionalized' - think the 'artificial' of artificial intelligence - carriers are cogntive prostheses, allowing lines of thought to be constructed without the interference of quotidian social being and its inevitable compromises ...
promise i won't use 'quotidian' again for at least a week
Posted by: nick at December 22, 2004 04:55 PMmassive amounts of coffee (a quotidial amount methinks) helps follow this thread of thinking. and maybe breadcrumbs too.
Posted by: northanger at December 22, 2004 06:47 PMtachi - not sure what you mean here...don't think this is true (there's no limit on the glosso entries)
Posted by: undercurrent at December 22, 2004 10:13 PM
Hmmmm, sounds suspiciously to me like Nick just read Heidegger's KPM to save himself time when revising for his undergraduate exams ... just as Heidegger didn't have time to read beyond the schematism chapter before his debate at Davos. So, KrV is "basically a book about time"? Well that's perhaps true in this sense: that almost no-one seems to have found the time TO READ IT PROPERLY! I mean, do you really think I, the greatest of them all, the one who Mendelsohn called the All-Destroyer, would have spent ten years writing a 1000-page book (and by the way, only *8* of those pages are devoted to the schematism, and I'm done with that by page 150!) in order to reach *that* conclusion -- i.e. that transcendental imagination qua originary time schematizes the categories?! Come off it! Heidegger doesn't seem to have even noticed that I make a (rather crucial) distinction between understanding and REASON ... Really, if you think *that* book is "basically about" human temporality and finitude, or about explaining how intuitions and concepts get together to produce empirical objects ... well, you may as well have not bothered picking it up in the first place.
I must go and make some more mustard ...
Posted by: Immanual Kant at December 22, 2004 10:38 PMCurious thing, that I can't spell my own name though, eh? Immanual = Immanuel ... and now you've got me misusing mathematical notation too! (Roger Trigg taught me symbolic logic, and I'm sure he said that the 'equals' sign is transitive ... no wait, that was Gregg Hunt -- Trigg taught me how to lure small Moroccan boys ...)
Here's the missing 's' from Mandelssohn by the way: s
Posted by: Immanuel Kant at December 22, 2004 10:49 PMtachi - there is no limit on how many it shows....give me an example and I will check it out tho'.
Posted by: undercurrent at December 22, 2004 11:06 PMTRANSENDENTAL SCHEMATISM OF THE IMAGINATION = participating amphibiously in both domains = CONCEPTS AND INTUITIONS = Zeitlichkeit (woher Temporalität?) = connectivity without rule-governedness is blind; rule-governedness without connectivity is empty = AMPLIATIVE or EXPLICATIVE = 5 + 7 = 12 is (not?) synthetic apriori = the rigorization of arithmetic = nor can Allah change it ("even for God") = the most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way = persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic = true radicalness is arithmetical = *callous* rationalism? = quotidian BS
Posted by: Maimonides at December 22, 2004 11:15 PMMr Maimonides, is there a guide for the perplexed on 5 + 7 = 12? thank you!
Posted by: northanger at December 22, 2004 11:22 PM>>> Here's the missing 's' from Mandelssohn by the way: s
And here's the 'e' in exchange for the 'a': e
"More than anyone before him, Mendelssohn deserves criedit for bringing the Jew out of the ghetto and into the mainstream of modern culture."
Who, today, reads Moses Mendelssohn?
Posted by: Immanuel Kant at December 22, 2004 11:23 PM{{MUTTERING: nor can Allah change it ("even for God") = mundane existence = FUCK THAT SHIT = EXCUSE MY FRENCH}}
Posted by: northanger at December 22, 2004 11:33 PMthat nummy thing has a bug in it, doesn't like ampersands
Posted by: northanger at December 22, 2004 11:37 PMyeah, that'd be right. &'s will fuck it up. I never bother to put checks in the code for that sort of thing. That's why I hate doing that shit for a living - it's not enough to bolt together something that works, you have to securitise idiotproof it to the nth degree too. Programming utterly useless leaky viral monstrosities for no financial gain is far better, that's why I'm an anticapitalist...
Posted by: undercurrent at December 23, 2004 12:19 AM>>> So what do you make of his '7 + 5 = 12' obsession? Haven't yet come across an interesting take on that.
Kant set a very bad example by encouraging generations of philosophers to believe that they could grasp the essence of mathematical judgement through a single example like 7 + 5 = 12. This is a bit like someone saying that one can grasp the relation between philosophy and poetry by reciting Humpty Dumpty. After all, this is just a bunch of verses, just like 7 + 5 = 12 is just a bunch of numbers.
It is striking that, whether one considers a philosophical text written in the little style or one written in the grand style, no justification whatsoever seems to be required for quoting poetry, but no-one would ever dream of quoting a piece of mathematical reasoning. No-one seems to consider it acceptable to dispense with Hölderlin or Rimbaud or Pessoa in favour of Humpty-Dumpty, or to ditch Wagner for Julio Iglesias. But as soon as it is a question of mathematics, either the reader simply loses interest, or immediately associates it with the little style, which is to say, with epistemology, the history of science, specialization.
[1] What is "mathematical judgement"?
[2] And if this (WOMAN=111=OTHER) does not grasp the essence of mathematical judgement -- how SHOULD it be expressed?
[3] Totally understand: without decoding FIRST [7], [+], [5], [=], [12] you cannot begin to grasp this expression.
[4] Cos frankly, WOMAN=111=OTHER -- have no idea what this means. Without understanding, there's no action, agreement, or purpose. It just is.
>>> yeah, that'd be right. &'s will fuck it up.
undercurrent, you need to delete "NUMOGRAM Q" from the GoN I list. It should be NUMOGRAM QA. (which sounds like a division of microsoft or something (numogram quality assurance))
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 01:22 AMImmanual Kant - isn't the book called CRITIQUE of Pure Reason (= junk all that atemporalized dogmatic-dialectic bullshit)
Alain Badiou - recalled you saying all that ('nothing very much to Kant's incessant 7 + 5 = 12') of course, but hard to believe it's the end of the matter
Posted by: nick at December 23, 2004 01:30 AM>>> So what do you make of his '7 + 5 = 12' obsession? Haven't yet come across an interesting take on that.
"Denn ich nehme zuerst die Zahl 7, und, indem ich fuer den Begriff der 5 die Finger meiner Hand als Anschauung zu Hilfe nehme, so tue ich die Einheiten, die ich voher zusammennahm, um die Zahl 5 auszumachen, nun an jenem meinem Bilde nach und nach zure Zahl 7, und sehr so die Zahl 12 entspringen." (B15-16)
Could it be simply that Kant had five fingers on one hand, seven on the other, and that he thought that all arithmetic depended upon 'intuitive' (anschauunglich) aids (e.g. fingers) and was thus synthetic a priori because he had never in fact ever counted beyond 12?
To be fair to Manny, though, it's easy to look back on his notion of mathematics (Euclidean geometry, arithmetic) 200+ years on as hopelessly naive, but given the state of mathematics circa 1781, one could hardly have reached any other conclusion. To fault Kant for not having anticipated the arithmeticization of the calculus -- which development had to wait for the likes of Bolzano, Cauchy, Weierstrass, Vantro, Dedekind (or whatever radically impersonal 'cold rational' forces were taking charge of these passive carriers [sorry: couldn't resist]) -- is as churlish as the analogous claim that Kant's entire Copernican revolution foundered upon his inability to anticipate the advent of non-euclidean geometries (which latter claim is, in any case, strictly speaking inaccurate).
Alain has a point I suppose, but then again I'd take Lewis Carroll over Hölderlin or Trakl any day ;)
Nick: "Who said Trakl?"
Posted by: Sheer Tohu Bohu at December 23, 2004 01:35 AMSheer Tohu Bohu - "given the state of mathematics circa 1781" - don't really buy this, after all Euclid discovered the infinitude of the prime number series in the third century BC ... Badiou might be after something more, but we're just contextualizing the apparent poverty of '7 + 5 = 12' against the grandeur of elementary arithmetic
Posted by: nick at December 23, 2004 01:46 AM
>>> which latter claim is, in any case, strictly speaking inaccurate
i.e. Kant *did* in fact anticipate/countenance the notion of non-euclidean geometries ... arguably (though this is controversial) even required them ...
Vantro (?) = Cantor
>>> isn't the book called CRITIQUE of Pure Reason -- yes, but Reason (in both its speculative and practical employments) remain far and away more central to Kant's concerns than the imagination or temporality (surely this is uncontroversial?). Arguably, Kant's greatest achievement in KrV was to have produced a radically new notion of 'Vernuft' in terms of which it is radically distinguished from all cognitive/psychological operations (though obviously, this isn't the place to try and convince you of that now!)-- but all this is worked out at great length in the *Dialetic*, which readers such as Heidegger (and, to be fair, nearly everyone else [Hermann Cohen being the most important exception IMHO]) mistakenly regard as merely supplementary to the 'real, positive' doctine of the Aesthetic/Analytic.
>>> all that atemporalized dogmatic-dialectic bullshit
Do you mean to suggest that the rigorization / arithmeticization of the calculus (e.g. Bolzano's radical, painstaking elimination of all spatiotemporal, 'dynamic' and psychological notions from calculus) was a mistake and that Kant was right all along?
Sorry -- if you don't want to pursue all this, btw, I'm happy to drop it like a heavy bag of shopping after a long walk in the cold during which my fingers have started to develop gangrene.
Arithmetic/time versus pseudo-simultaneity (/atemporality) of logical judgement
Posted by: nick at December 23, 2004 02:01 AM
Sorry -- promise I won't use 'radical' or cognates again for at least a century.
Sheer Tohu Bohu - [last comment time-faulted] - suspect I'm too hostile to Kant's 'real' project (establishing an empirically invulnerable, self-consistent and authoritative tribunal of rationality that would reign in the practical realm without risk of technocapitalist contamination) to evaluate his work in a way that has any scholarly plausibility - not interested enough in philosophy to be honest (unless he's got fins he can stay on the bookshelf)
will check out Bolzano - but surely you're not assimilating the 'detemporalization' at stake in "rigorization / arithmetization of the calculus" to the 'timelessness' of dogmatic reason?
Posted by: nick at December 23, 2004 02:12 AM>>> but surely you're not assimilating the 'detemporalization' at stake in "rigorization / arithmetization of the calculus" to the 'timelessness' of dogmatic reason?
Well, that depends on what your imputation of a critique of 'dogmatic reason = timeless reason' to Kant amounts to, but I doubt we'd have too many bones of contention here to fight over if we could be bothered to explain ourselves to each other, which we (quite understandably) can't in any case ;) Bed beckons ...
>>> not interested enough in philosophy to be honest
Hmm, never believe people when they use the word 'honest' in that way (e.g., 'look, I really don't give two shits about all this anyway, *to be honest*'-- always rsounds a little disingenuously to me, as if they're trying to convince *themselves* of what they say. But oh well, have it your way -- far be it from me to suggest that if you think you're not doing philosophy (even: *any more*) you're probably just doing it badly ;)
Nighty night all.
Okay, someone says WOMAN=111=OTHER. How can it be evaluated? Here's one way:
AQ WOMAN = 111
GoN I WOMAN = 4
GoN II WOMAN = 3
111 = 1 + 1 + 1 = 3
AQ OTHER = 111
GoN I OTHER = 4
GoN II OTHER = 3
anyway you dice this phrase it's gonna point to COLD RATIONALISM.
AQ COLD RATIONALISM = 300
GoN I COLD RATIONALISM = 45
GoN II COLD RATIONALISM = 48
3 + 0 + 0 = 3
4 + 5 = 9
(4 + 8) = 12 = (1 + 2) = 3
using decimal reduction, it can be clearly shown that for two of the number systems 3 = 3 = 3; however, what about 9?
we need to expand the definition of "decimal reduction" to include addition, subtraction, and division.
therefore, 9 / 3 = 3 can be shown to indicate that 9/3 = 3 = 3, and by this express some special property.
we can also restate WOMAN=111=OTHER to WOMAN=COLD RATIONALISM=OTHER, and prove (based on the rules we are using) they are both equal.
Question: is this mathematics or arithmetic or both? (honestly don't know myself -- because all I see myself doing is simple arithmetic while all these other posts are talking about mathematics).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic
mathematics would have to deal with this, i think:
[if you made a person up, what would you want to pursue?] -- WOMAN=111=OTHER
[WOMAN=111=OTHER] -- mumbo jumbo
[WOMAN=111=OTHER +equals+ WOMAN=COLD RATIONALISM=OTHER]
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 02:37 AM>>> far be it from me to suggest that if you think you're not doing philosophy (even: *any more*) you're probably just doing it badly ;)
most of us are doing it badly, including me
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 02:46 AM"if you think you're not doing philosophy ... you're probably just doing it badly"
Why do philosphers think its all about them?
It's not as if they've ever actually achieved anything.
no proof here, but i think philosophy has done quite a lot
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 02:54 AMnorthanger - "but i think philosophy has done quite a lot" - ahhh! northanger, you're so sweeeeet!
Hey, philosophers, northanger says you're not really a bunch of ineffectual totalitarian parasites!
INEFFECTUAL TOTALITARIAN PARASITES = nothing very interesting (so that seems right)
Posted by: nick at December 23, 2004 04:54 AMi'm not sure whether WOMAN=111=OTHER was a direct response to my question.
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 04:57 AMNick, Northanger - you two got some special libidinal thang going on! The heat between you is, er, making me all sweaty.
...
war on terror = nummification = sexual energy = 264
Posted by: Tachi at December 23, 2004 05:01 AMNorthanger: "i'm not sure whether WOMAN=111=OTHER was a direct response to my question."
Which q. was that?
Posted by: Tachi at December 23, 2004 05:02 AMTachi - "The heat between you is, er, making me all sweaty" - don't you start!
WOMAN = ABYSS = OTHER - is AQ cool or what?
Posted by: nick at December 23, 2004 05:06 AM>>> Which q. was that?
[if you made a person up, what would you want to pursue?]
-------------
nick: So we have to make somebody up who'll pursue the things you want pursued (unless an already available carrier-shell is already broadly on the 'right track') - ++ willing to co-operate with you on that ...
tachi: I have a lot of reading to catch up on first re. currant carriers ;) .. is this part of rendering tranaparent carrier production?? Stupid question, but how do you 'make up' a carrier? Of course I relish the idea of cooperating with you on that. Where to start? First I need to drag myself away from the Nummificator ..
northanger: if you made a person up, what would you want to pursue?
tachi: WOMAN=111=OTHER
tachi {directly responding to my queston}: if you made a person up, what would you want to pursue? I'd pursue China's desire for energy and natural resource, oil and gas in Central Asia, links with islam in China, and WoT.
northanger: and what is WoT?
tachi: {no response}
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 05:12 AM>>> ahhh! northanger, you're so sweeeeet!
nicholas, i'm going to have to find another name for you.
okay, what do you call this room if "downstairs" is the basement? i like to know why this room and that room are both SWEATY.
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 05:16 AMnick- ah, found a name for you, you INEFFECTUAL TOTALITARIAN PARASITES!
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 05:19 AMactually, i can use it singularly, then Reza is laughing, haha!
hey nick! you INEFFECTUAL TOTALITARIAN PARASITE!
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 05:22 AM"hey nick! you INEFFECTUAL TOTALITARIAN PARASITE!"
Tachi - are you feeling less sweaty yet?
Posted by: nick at December 23, 2004 05:42 AMNorthanger - WoT is WAR ON TERROR
And er, I'm not just sweaty, I'm STICKY. This ain't the basement, LOVE, this is the BUNKER!
Posted by: Tachi at December 23, 2004 10:29 AMthe BUNKER is a DESERT.
USE ME, I'm in CHAINS. LUST.
but if this is the CRYPT it must be DUST.
Posted by: Tachi at December 23, 2004 10:33 AM
*Ineffectual*, moi? Are you quite sure about that?
("... we're both ineffectual nobodies, barking into the void ...")
Posted by: Immanuel Kant at December 23, 2004 12:07 PMGreetings My Lord Azhi Dahaka. I could never ignore you in the void.
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 12:16 PMImmanuel Kant - Chill, no one said you were ineffectual - northanger said you weren't ineffectual (it's obvious she really respects you)
Posted by: nick at December 23, 2004 12:19 PMSocrates+Plato+Aristotle - but you have to admit you're a kind of losers club - imagine the nightmare if Plato (for definite instance) hadn't been ineffectual
Posted by: nick at December 23, 2004 12:21 PM
Ineffectual, moi?! Don't you know that I recently lectured at Princeton about nothing less than 9/11?
Anyone care to suggest that Socrates+Plato+Aristotle = even 10% of a Euclid?
Posted by: nick at December 23, 2004 12:24 PM
>>> Socrates+Plato+Aristotle - but you have to admit you're a kind of losers club
>>> Anyone care to suggest that Socrates+Plato+Aristotle = even 10% of a Euclid?
Now you're just being very silly Nicholas ... lol
oh, gosh, i've never even read a single one of them, Nicholas. can't figure that angle out any which way.
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 12:28 PMIneffectual, moi?
Must love you and leave you.
(Oooo -- Nick and Northanger sitting in a tree, K. I. S. ....)
Posted by: Nick Land circa 1994 at December 23, 2004 12:28 PM>but you have to admit you're a kind of losers club
daddy, can I join?
Posted by: alain badiou at December 23, 2004 12:29 PMcan i just take the turing test and get this all over with?
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 12:31 PM>>> imagine the nightmare if Plato (for definite instance) hadn't been ineffectual
Plato *wasn't* ineffectual -- in fact, that's one of the most absurd claims I've ever heard
Re the Republic: Plato is clear that it could never ultimately be *realised* (which is why Kant uses it as exemplar of a [regulative] idea of reason in KrV). As for "nightmare" -- I never stop *dreaming* about it! (last point not *entirely* sincere)
PHILOSOPHIE IN EFFEKT MUTHAFUCKA! Ciao x
Posted by: Bloot=Sheer Tohu Bohu = Immanuel Kant at December 23, 2004 12:35 PMhello Mr Badiou, glad to see you made it out of the basement.
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 12:39 PMalain badiou wrote: >>> but you have to admit you're a kind of losers club
daddy, can I join?
Hahahahahahaha!
Nick: "Tachi - 'The challenge for the development of any theory to grasp (or apprehend/anticipate) real events whilst simultaneously generating hyperstitional lines is to maintain an accurate take on unfolding reality. Would the generation of fictions, however enmeshed with 'fact', not risk compromising this?'
IMHO this question is spot on - but it is not the events that are being 'fictionalized' - think the 'artificial' of artificial intelligence - carriers are cogntive prostheses, allowing lines of thought to be constructed without the interference of quotidian social being and its inevitable compromises ... "
Thanks, so are you saying then that it is only the carriers that are being fictionalized, or that nothing is ficitonalized? If so is this because our grip on reality may be as artificial as reality itself is?
Then what we have is a more sophisticated scenario than just a real/fiction polarity to play with; this raises more complex issues as to the 'nature' (for want of a better, less organic word) of reality. So we are doing philosophy are we not?
Posted by: Tachi at December 23, 2004 12:54 PMBloot and associates - "PHILOSOPHIE IN EFFEKT MUTHAFUCKA" - is that a GoN1 message, gangsta rap, street-level philosophy or some combination?
C'mon, you know Plato's a fascist freak
Posted by: nick at December 23, 2004 12:55 PMTachi - can't get (pseudo-)philosophical right now, blootie-pie will be on my case
Posted by: nick at December 23, 2004 12:57 PMI don't think any of you have the last word on myseries or problems. You haven't even begun to conceive of the inconceivable horrors that lurk on the inside of immanent otherness. You'll be larking and flirting about when the horror spirals into this miserably mundane dimension of pitiless existence, and won't even realize that Hyperstition was just some sick joke to keep you all occupied with silly number games and juvenile food slinging.
Posted by: H.P. Lovecraft at December 23, 2004 01:01 PM>>> I don't think any of you have the last word on myseries or problems ...
myseries = miseries? Freudian slippage?
You haven't even begun to conceive of the inconceivable ...
Hmm, funny that. I wonder why?
>>> You'll be larking and flirting about when the horror spirals into this miserably mundane dimension of pitiless existence ...
*Pity* Is *that* what you value?
Weariness, which wants to reach the ultimate with a single leap, with a death-leap, a poor ignorant weariness, which no longer wants even to want: that created all gods and afterworlds.
There are preachers of death: and the earth is full of those to whom departure from life must be preached.
Let them preach departure from life and depart themselves!
They would like to be dead, and we should approve of their wish!
Also Sprach Zarathustra.
>>> and won't even realize that Hyperstition was just some sick joke to keep you all occupied with silly number games and juvenile food slinging
You're shitting me? And I thought I'd finally returned to the Bosom of the Lord via this site!
Oh well, not to worry. I'll just lob some more pastry about and have a wank.
BLOOT = ADAM = BEING
LOVECRAFT + BLOOT = ANONYMOUS UNTIL NOW
not any more
Posted by: northanger at December 24, 2004 04:13 AM"I thought I'd finally returned to the Bosom of the Lord via this site!" - an easy mistake to make
since 136 = The Avenging Angel
decided to bump it up a notch
137 = A receiving; the Qabalah
=============PREVIOUS #138 The Son of GOD - AQ 138 = BN ALHYM=============
[#139] AQ 555 = Hiddekel, the eastern river of Eden HDQL (=77 OTO)
AQ 130 = HIDDEKEL=HYPHEN
D26 IH = HOMOGENOUS CATALYST=LA, A NOTE TO FOLLOW SEW=SOUNDS INTERESTING=THE EASTERN RIVER OF EDEN