[While foaming bubbling numbo-jumbo reigns, this post is based upon the abstract for an as-yet virtual essay that would be part of a Ccru collection. Obviously interested in any feedback.]
Qwernomic subcultures result from the legacy of the typewriter and its computational simulation, based upon the shift-locked code systems implicitly produced by the Sholes or Universal (‘Qwerty’) Keyboard. Sketching the emergence and diffusion of the ‘secret/secretarial’ qwernomic subculture within global technocapitalism isolates a field of diagonal communication between anthropomorphic signs and the molecular traffic signals of the mutating ‘machinic unconscious,’ outlining an antipolitical semiotic pragmatism and Godless qabbalism consistent with what Ccru calls “coincidence engineering.”
The emergence of technologically supported typewriting practices in the final decades of the 19th Century coincided with a profound reconstruction of the global economic order, associated with an equally radical re-arrangement of the concrete composition of the terrestrial machinic unconscious (at least in its anthropomorphic shallows). The interconnected explosions of modern corporate organization and endo-corporate bureaucracy, (gendered) office work, typographic information deposits, psychoanalysis, literary modernism, anglophone qabbalism, cryptographic machinery and mechanized computation all tracked the mass installation of typing skills into the human nervous system, in accordance with the Qwerty arrangement of the Sholes Keyboard.
The keyboard effected a twin digitization of language, both sealing its abstraction from the oral-pneumatic apparatus (into manual-digital motor-processes) and decomposing it into discrete elements coded onto the keys of a finger-activated mechanism. In parallel, it redistributed the ‘arbitrariness’ of the phonological sign into the key sequence of the new device, according to principles that remain obscure, contested, and shrouded in myth. Once the Sholes distribution had technofrozen and socially shift-locked into a resilient standard, a generalized assumption that Qwerty was predominantly arbitrary (quasi-randomly allocated) functioned to pre-emptively dissipate pattern-hunting semiotic inquiry. Challenges from alternative ‘scientific’ keyboards were undermined by skepticism about the very idea of a rational arrangement of the keys. In this respect, Qwerty conformed to a typical trend among oecumenic sign systems, with the sheer inertia of mass-acceptance marginalizing analytical or reformist tendencies to a fringe of philosophical eccentricity or even psychotic delusion. Qwerty thus exploited the mask of accident to construct a positive unconscious tropism or uninvestigated massive transmutation - the subliminal instantiation of a new cultural system.
Of course, there may be nothing behind the mask. Conventional wisdom would accept no other conclusion. Yet even in this case a large set of investigable Qwernomic ‘phenomena’ remain, consisting of Qwerty-induced coding patterns and potential surplus values, virtual sciences, subcultures, undercurrents, cryptographic methods and partially coherent deliria. Such Qwenomena may be nothing other than the qabbalistic materials of Azathoth, the blind idiot God, whose meaningless pipings lead all semiotic disciplines into the bubbling abyss of futile insanity. A true and dispassionate science, however, has no right or reason to be intimidated by such consequences. Only false - ideological - science, serving as the fawning guardian of securocratic humanism, can justify a prejudice in favour of anthropomorphically acceptable outcomes. Qwerty has in any case long been accepted. The rest is destiny.
Whilst the two dimensional array of the standard (Anglospherean) keyboard opens the potential for a variety of linear unfoldings – from the left/right, top/bottom, spirals … and equally diverging approaches to the inclusion of the number line, punctuation marks, function keys … - the conventions of Neoroman textual organization (top-bottom, left-right) provide the key to a preliminary Qwertian alphabet: QWERTYUIOPASDFGHJKLZXCVBNM.
If, at least provisionally, this linearization and selection is accepted, each letter is recoded as the difference between two ordinal values. Pattern can be extracted from these twin orderings in a huge variety of ways.
One approach involves the adoption of a qabbalistic procedure belonging conceptually to combinatorial arithmetic.
Consider the typical problem: given an alphabet of length n, how many non-repeating two-letter combinations are possible?
The arithmetical formula for resolving this problem is (n x n-1) /2, coinciding with the operation of ‘digital (or triangular) cumulation’ of n-1. Digital cumulation is second only to digital reduction as a qabbalistic tool (explicitly esteemed at least since Pythagoras). (Pascal’s triangle can be used to expand this combinatorial analysis to higher levels).
As an illustration, take only the first four letters of the Neoroman alphabet. To produce a matrix of binary combinations, order is employed as a procedural criterion, automatically excluding redundant combinations.
Thus, ‘A’ combines with ‘B, C, and D’, ‘B’ combines with ‘C and D’, ‘C’ combines with ‘D’.
Arithmetical confirmation is, of course, easily obtained: 3 + 2 + 1 = 6, equivalent to the digital cumulation of (4 -1 =) 3, and to (4 x 3)/2.
If non-repeating combinations of any length are permitted from an alphabet of length n, the formula for the number of combination is (2 to the nth power) -1 (Mersenne numbers, including an intriguing set of primes). The entire virtual vocabulary of non-repeating (non-anagrammatic) Neoroman ‘words’ is thus (2 to the 26th) -1 (or M-26).
As a consequence of this procedure, all the terms making up a well-formed combinatorial ‘vocabulary’ will be internally structured by an ordering principle drawn directly from the ‘alphabet’ in question.
Returning to the qabbalistic analysis of Qwertian, and applying these procedures restrictively (yet again, there are quite obvious alternatives, ignored here) leads to the virtual – or even actual (sadly, I’ve done this many times) – compilation of an Alpha-Qwernomic ‘language’ consisting of those combinations consistent with parallel applications of the previously elaborated criteria.
For instance, ‘AE’ – permitted in Neoroman – is now excluded, due to the inverse ordering found in the Qwertian sequence. (It might be noted at this point that the familiarity of the Qwertian ‘middle row’ letter-sequence A…DFGHJKL immediately ensures a prominent region of resonance – while the bottom row hints stongly at a reverse folding, however, such qwernotectonic issues exceed the scope of this introduction).
Resulting from an intricate interference pattern, the scope of the Alpha-Qwertian vocabulary is radically ‘empirical’ (in the sense that it derives from the fact of the Sholes Keyboard, the ‘logic’ of which – if such a thing exists at all – remains utterly obscure). It would be exceedingly surprising if an arithmetical formula of manageable complexity were able to usefully contribute to its estimation.
The Alpha-Qwertian dictionary has both alphabetical and Qwertian versions, with identical content but alternative ordering arrangements. Prioritizing the alphabet (out of courtesy to our gracious oecumenical hosts), gives the initial entries:
A, Ab, Abm, Abn, Ac, Acm, Acn, Acv …
It is procedurally productive to understand this vocabulary as a system of envelopments, as if each term was involuting into itself, in accordance with a non-metric ordinal sequence appropriate to intensities.
One tool facilitating this approach requires the articulation of the two series, with the second inverted:
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ-MNBVCXZLKJHGFDSAPOIUYTREWQ
(or its mirror-image: QWERTYUIOPASDFGHJKLZXCVBNM-ZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA, pragmatically appropriate to the Qwertian version of the Alpha-Qwertian dictionary).
If the twin instances of the same letter are treated as marking the perimeter of a circle, the overall pattern of envelopments is exactly charted. One can see immediately, for instance, that both instances of the letter ‘B’ fall within the circle described by ‘A’ in its twin instantiations. ‘B’ is thus enveloped by ‘A’ – making ‘AB’ a consistent combination. Systems of concentric circles correspond to tolerated Alpha-Qwertian constructions.
A complete Alpha-Qwertian dictionary is actually quite short, but as to its potential usage …
[Can’t seriously expect anyone to get further than this, so I better stop]
Posted by nick at December 23, 2004 12:12 PMtalk about a cliffhanger....
>(sadly, I’ve done this many times)
LOL!
yeah, but I'm not addicted, I can stop any time I want.
Posted by: undercurrent at December 23, 2004 12:36 PM"talk about a cliffhanger...." - they don't call me 'the Barbara Cartland of Qweroplexion' for nothing ...
Posted by: nick at December 23, 2004 12:36 PMUndercurrent - last time i saw a case that bad, it was northanger - so watch out
Posted by: nick at December 23, 2004 12:39 PM>>> yeah, but I'm not addicted, I can stop any time I want.
addicted = northanger
gosh, you cured me from ever wanting to be on a computer ever again.
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 12:49 PMyou know, there's something interesting here that goes to the heart of the big philosophical problem, that is the apparently irrevocable fissure between phenomenology (naive tracking of matter from apparent bedrock of subject-conditioned-position) and let's say 'scientific rationalism as materialism' (attempt to objectively systematise matter independent of any reference to said position) and a diagonal between the two.
Because if you ask the question 'why choose qwernomics' it's obvious that the empirical task is proceeding quite naively by anthropo-instinct, by starting with the things close to hand (ahem) (this is basically the same question as the amphibious line that arises from 'admit it, you're searching for significance'). And yet by introducing callous automatism the phenomenological process is stripped of its usual prejudices; meaning that ideally you end up with a practice that is neither disingenuous w/regard to its contingent situatedness nor narcissistically caged by it.
Now one further speculative step : "The programme will proceed in its own way" - Interested in how this connects with artistic/aesthetic automatism (ley lines, photographic/painterly channelling of event) with its still-insufficiently-dismantled relation to a personal unconscious/expression.
Could programmatic occultism, the plumbing of the numerical-noumenal, also be a defusing of the apparent polarity between 'CR' position of scientific evacuation of sense (total analytic transparency and apparent imperviousness to interpretation or sense, blocked by imperious 'noumenal' metaphysical perspective) and 'Nietzsche' position of multiplicitous perspectivized narratives (questions of consistence blocked by 'phenomenal' relation to personalised body-states/emotions) - this rupture being a result of Kant's posing all questions in terms of access/conditioning, which the totally irrational-but-consistent automatism of the Kabbala-process takes us beyond (towards the machinic unconscious, which it would be entirely possible [ie a problem not a mystery] to define numerically). The only question would be how long it takes you to find your way 'out' of the labyrinth; it may be futile in terms of human life span - but that doesn't affect the rigour of the method ;)
Realise that this is all quick and needs colouring-in if not substantial reworking.
Posted by: undercurrent at December 23, 2004 12:51 PMoh WTF, here are my other questions:
1.Empirical hypothesis of attempted outside contact: (a)what sort of proposition is this ('something is trying to tell us something') (b)why is numerics the most likely place to come across the signal (Reza's question)
2.On what grounds is the Kabbalistic programme said to be less 'plausible' than (eg) particle physics (question of techinicy/applicability?) (relates to stuff above on anthroprobing)
3.Programmatic as opposed to doctrinal occultism : is this the same distinction in religions (ie vudu/catholocism)?
4.Calculator/Glossary distinction - results are interpretable, method is not (whereas philosophy is characterised by the interminable interpretability of method, perhaps?)
Posted by: undercurrent at December 23, 2004 12:52 PMone more provocative Q: isn't this where Derida/Derrida (even more than D&G) should have ended up (another case of blockage)?
Posted by: undercurrent at December 23, 2004 01:02 PMUndercurrent - you're clearly getting this jargoplex thing ;)
How have you managed to get all this together in 10 minutes? - i need a digestion break
northanger - phew! thought you were pouting there for a minute
Posted by: nick at December 23, 2004 01:27 PMwell, i had to reboot anyway ... nicholas, interesting proposition. that's all 231 gates stuff. okay, map 22-Heb to qwerty and see what you get.
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 01:29 PMPS. get past the 'coherent' part and its all your qabbalistic gate thingies
Posted by: nick at December 23, 2004 01:30 PM>in 10 minutes?
it's the fallout from 6 months of trying to formulate a phd proposal
Undercurrent - [still on digesion break but] should be harder to acknowledge this - totally agree with Der(r)ida point - have to remember though that among all the Anglo/Gallic aggravations is a different keyboard arrangement (had to do some editing for a French co. here and it almost drove me out of my mind - hard to imagine i'm sure - trying to use their goddamn keyboards)
Being cruel, think all pomological discourses avoid anything that might entail quantifiable criteria of evaluation (look at Der(r)ida's number stuff in Glas - no way you could bring numerical tools to bear on it)
Hope [viz Phd comments] you're not pouting as well ;)
>>> Could programmatic occultism ... be a defusing of the apparent polarity between 'CR' position of scientific evacuation of sense + multiplicitous perspectivized narratives ... which the totally irrational-but-consistent automatism of the Kabbala-process takes us beyond [machinic unconscious] <> [ie a problem not a mystery] + DEFINE IT NUMERICALLY.
>>> The only question would be how long it takes you to find your way 'out' of the labyrinth; it may be futile in terms of human life span - but that doesn't affect the rigour of the method ;)
yes.
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 01:42 PM1.Empirical hypothesis of attempted outside contact: (a)what sort of proposition is this ('something is trying to tell us something') (b)why is numerics the most likely place to come across the signal (Reza's question)
i can't tell you rationally. but one day, before all this crazy counting started, someone was talking to me and i realized: we speak in numbers. (eg, computer programming ASSEMBLER/MACHINE language vs. HIGH LEVEL language).
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 01:45 PM2.On what grounds is the Kabbalistic programme said to be less 'plausible' than (eg) particle physics (question of techinicy/applicability?) (relates to stuff above on anthroprobing)
confusion/prejudice about "scientific method" (physicists just as likely to be mystics as kabbalists) ++ misunderstanding (hidden|secret) of kabbalistic method (they can throw down an axiom just as well as a mathematician -- just looks different)
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 01:53 PM3.Programmatic as opposed to doctrinal occultism : is this the same distinction in religions (ie vudu/catholocism)?
yes.....
PROGRAM = abstraction? = VUDU
DOCTRINE = don't/do = CATHOLIC
surprising how many "catholics" one finds in occultism when you tell them you "play" with demons. also, some kabbalists may cringe: 484 pairs?!
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 01:59 PM4.Calculator/Glossary distinction - results are interpretable, method is not (whereas philosophy is characterised by the interminable interpretability of method, perhaps?)
From my experience, there is no distinction between the calculator, the glossary, the results, the method, and the programmer. I can formulate an equation -- but it may take me an hour. Which gets to the heart of question #2 -- kabbalists never wanted their methods known openly.
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 02:10 PMI'm sure that northanger's experience is pretty close to the near-psychosis that all programmers occasionally lapse into (everything becomes raw information). Thing about speech as assembly-language is intriguing though...say more...should be able to excavate other consigned-to-mental-dustbin techie knowledge here too (operating system stacks as crypts, blocked APIs).
>Being cruel, think all pomological discourses avoid anything >that might entail quantifiable criteria of evaluation
agreed, but it's often hard to see things sliding (ie analysis of tic-cultures can drift into cult-studs interpretationism, qwernomics into cultural-history). Problem here with rigorous definition of 'cultures', perhaps? IMHO even a vulgar lab-research approach approach (eg mapping hyperhex genome) is better to start with, or to keep feet on ground whilst dabbling in metadiscourses.
>Hope [viz Phd comments] you're not pouting as well ;)
??
Had a feeling that TfA gave D(r)Da the bad write-up (as state-employed incontinent phenomenocrony) that only his 'followers' justly deserved. He's also conscientious on this matter of situatedness/amphibiousness. But I suppose it's a matter of 'where did it start to go wrong'.
Posted by: undercurrent at December 23, 2004 02:19 PMnicholas, what does any of this have to do with hyperstition?
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 02:20 PM>>> I'm sure that northanger's experience is pretty close to the near-psychosis that all programmers occasionally lapse into (everything becomes raw information). Thing about speech as assembly-language is intriguing though...say more...
someone called on phone, topic: money. hey, guess what i just realized something (yeah?) we talk in numbers. i explain fibonnaci, yadda. loan money. and then make first number chart. later accelerated by 9/11 with mindboggling feats of obsessive-compulsive activity (whoa, a nested IF statement w/o looking in the help file!) while singing kumbayah.
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 02:27 PMundercurrent - didn't think the questions were directed to me, but it helped, glad to do it. great questions.
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 02:28 PM>what does any of this have to do with hyperstition?
defluffing it !
Posted by: undercurrent at December 23, 2004 02:29 PMnicholas, what does any of this have to do with hyperstition?
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 02:29 PMstrip it of all remaining encumbrances of hammer-horror metanarrative schlock.
I don't speak for hyperstition, though...I'm not even sure whether it's possible to define it in any interesting way ('things that make themselves real'?), just seems to work well as a disorganizational marker.
speaking abstractly, the problem with WoT is that "enemy" isn't defined. we're so rich with possibilities! internal - physical - national - universal - and way outside. everyone's an enemy and there's no trust anywhere. it's difficult to collapse all these meanings since they occur on all these levels.
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 02:39 PM>>> strip it of all remaining encumbrances of hammer-horror metanarrative schlock.
well, if you mean "remove all the shit the creator put it" -- i see the fluff.
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 02:41 PMUndercurrent: "I don't speak for hyperstition, though...I'm not even sure whether it's possible to define it in any interesting way ('things that make themselves real'?), just seems to work well as a disorganizational marker."
Hmm. what is a 'disorganizational marker'?
Hyperstition as clever marketing for a product/service that doesn't yet exist.
Posted by: H.P. Lovecraft at December 23, 2004 03:05 PMUndercurrent - great questions by the way. How do they relate to your PhD? Can we go over what you think as the more pertinent re. Hyperstition?
Posted by: overcurrent at December 23, 2004 03:07 PMHyperstition: Reality Comes out of the Closet of the Fictional
Posted by: overground at December 23, 2004 03:08 PM>>> Hyperstition: Reality Comes out of the Closet of the Fictional
ROTFLMAO, that is so so right on. Reality in the Closet. LOL. perfection.
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 03:14 PM>>> Hyperstition as clever marketing for a product/service that doesn't yet exist.
well, i finally figued out today that the numogram = home page.
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 03:16 PMUndercurrent, northanger - you're both overloading the circuits -
>>what does any of this have to do with hyperstition?
> defluffing it !
- not sure about that, but i can see where you're (Uc) coming from, there's a problem with absolutizing the investigative lineage (through ego-identification, which doesn't arise with the strict formulae, but with the topic definitions and methodological decisions (forks)) - can see only way to make this persuasive is to arithmetize hyperstitional procedures, but then ...
Reza's Q. (via northanger - damn! can't find it now ... glossed) 'why numbers' - which in weird way meets Badiou and hypermathematical/ supranumeric abstraction ('forget numbers'?) ...
that's why i tried to raise 'subrational' numeracy issue on previous post - phenomenology / mathematics opposition (fluff / antifluff) can miss a lot (not trying to be a pathetic gliberal here) ... [now i'm just gibbering]
only ever deleted two posts. first one i got so mad i tore a hole through every angel in (i'm sure) a fifty mile radius:
HOW DO WE IDENTIFY EACH OTHER?!
nalvage appeared
gon1 speaks, i hit POST
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 03:27 PMis this what all the LETS HIT DELETE stuff was about?
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 03:38 PM>Hmm. what is a 'disorganizational marker'?
helps to hold together a lot of things that otherwise would seem like totally disconnected issues, without being precisely definable 'in itself'...
Phd question is way too personalist, and the person in question is too confused to answer anyway.
Nick, the devil is in the lacunae (...)
Posted by: undercurrent at December 23, 2004 03:43 PMthat's why there are keys and gates and zones and stuff --so this doesn't happen:
i know peter, who are you?
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 03:48 PMHYPERSTITION NECESSARILY INVOLVES AN OPENING UP OF/TO THE OUTSIDE
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 03:51 PMUndercurrent - abject apologies for personalism ...
"starting with the things close to hand (ahem)" - think this is spot on, immanence really is right beneath your fingers ... (relates back to Derrida topic too - escaping the phenomenological model in the direction of the practical)
keep going back to your 12:52 comment, but think those points constitute more of a long term guide than an immediately response-stim
LOL
Had a feeling that TfA gave D(r)Da the bad write-up (as state-employed incontinent phenomenocrony) that only his 'followers' justly deserved. He's also conscientious on this matter of situatedness/amphibiousness. But I suppose it's a matter of 'where did it start to go wrong'.
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 03:56 PMOnly point worth making about TfA - "mistah Kurtz, he dead"
Posted by: nick at December 23, 2004 03:59 PMI've got to get away from this f*cking machine, too.
I posted something new, btw, as a gift to Prince of Persia RN , if he's out there watching somewhere...
I just hope for the sake of your eyesight that you're not reading this on an Amstrad greenscreen.
Posted by: undercurrent at December 23, 2004 04:05 PM>>> keep going back to your 12:52 comment
yeah, constant in my mind was, why do people go crazy when this happens (for me it was worse)
now, if you want somebody to kick a hole through something, call nicholas
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 04:16 PM"He's also conscientious on this matter of situatedness/amphibiousness"
(still being cruel) - amphibiousness isn't just flapping pathetically on the water line - still less revelling in the fact
situatedness/amphibiousness
human/whatever?
yes, but some people can recognize you instantly
THE WORD HAS BEEN SPOKEN
{smart! --angels can be kinda dumb some time with all that flapping around|
MICHAEL, (Tasoheter | Aldebaran) Who is as God; Military Commander of the Heavenly Host - Watcher of the East
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 04:44 PM"THE WORD HAS BEEN SPOKEN" - confused about how something can be GoN1/2 consistent - but then it's getting late and i'm too lazy to work it out
Posted by: nick at December 23, 2004 04:45 PMGABRIEL, (Hastorang | Fomalhaut) Mighty Power of God - Watcher of the South
ARIEL (Satevis | Antares) - Mighty Flame of God - Watcher of the West
RAPHAEL (Venant | Regulus) - Healer of God - Watcher of the West (shut up nicholai}
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 04:48 PMnorthanger - is there anyone other than you who takes both GoN1 and GoN2 seriously? don't close neighbours normally hate each other? are you in danger of being a bit of a gliberal on this issue?
Posted by: nick at December 23, 2004 04:49 PM>>> GoN1/2 can't even agree on GOD - is that a problem?
tell me the name of god, nicholas
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 04:49 PMam i interrupting something deeply meaningful and spiritual?
Posted by: nick at December 23, 2004 04:50 PM>>> am i interrupting something deeply meaningful and spiritual?
no
Posted by: northanger at December 23, 2004 04:53 PMIHVH: Aries (Fire—Cardinal)
Angel of Mercy: QThH + AL (Kethahel)—IHVH
Angel of Severity: HThQ + IH (Hatakiah)—IHVH
IHHV: Sagittarius (Fire—Mutable)
Angel of Mercy: QTzH + AL (Kazahel)—IHHV
Angel of Severity: HTzQ + IH (Hazekiah)—IHHV
IVHH: Leo (Fire—Fixed)
Angel of Mercy: QLI + AL (Keliel)—IVHH
Angel of Severity: ILQ + IH (Yelekiah)—IVHH
HVHI: Cancer (Water—Cardinal)
Angel of Mercy: DVI + AL (Daviel)—HVHI
Angel of Severity: IVD + IH (Yodiah)—HVHI
HVIH: Pisces (Water—Mutable)
Angel of Mercy: DMV + AL (Demuel)—HVIH
Angel of Severity: VMD + IH (Vamediah)—HVIH
HHIV: Scorpio (Water—Fixed)
Angel of Mercy: DAB + AL (Dabael)—HHIV
Angel of Severity: BAD + IH (Badiah)—HHIV
VHIH: Libra (Air—Cardinal)
Angel of Mercy: VAH + AL (Vahael)—VHIH
Angel of Severity: HAV + IH (Haviah)—VHIH
VHHI: Gemini (Air—Mutable)
Angel of Mercy: VIH + AL (Vihael)—VHHI
Angel of Severity: HIV + IH (Hiviah)—VHHI
VIHH: Aquarius (Air—Mutable)
Angel of Mercy: VIV + AL (Vivael)—VIHH
Angel of Severity: VIV + IH (Viviah)—VIHH
HIHV: Capricorn (Earth—Cardinal)
Angel of Mercy: ShBV + AL (Shabuel)—HIHV
Angel of Severity: VBSh + IH (Vabashiah)—HIHV
HIVH: Virgo (Earth—Mutable)
Angel of Mercy: ShHV + AL (Shahavel)—HIVH
Angel of Severity: VHSh + IH (Vaheshiah)—HIVH
HHVI: Taurus (Earth—Fixed)
Angel of Mercy: ShIA + AL (Shiael)—HHVI
Angel of Severity: AISh + IH (Aishiah)—HHVI
GOD = (::::) - the holy Tetramacallit
"I can stop any time I want"
>>> insomniacs = angels
Aber Lebendige machen alle den Fehler, dass sie zu stark unterschieden. Engel (sagt man) wuessten off nicht, on sie unter Legenden gehn oder Toten.
[Yet the living are wrong to distinguish so clearly. Angels (it's said) are often unsure whether they pass among the living or the dead.]
Posted by: Rilke at December 23, 2004 05:00 PM
>>> tell me the name of god, nicholas
Genius. If I ever write a novel (I won't), that line will be in it. Just for that, it'd been worth it. Thanks.
Posted by: Bloot = Rilke = Az-za at December 23, 2004 05:03 PMGot to get 'Qwertypography' in somehow
also
QWYZ = CRYPT.
'Qwyz' is an Alpha-Qwertian word (tagged with an '*' from now on - as in *qryz)
H.P.Lovecraft - "Hyperstition as clever marketing for a product/service that doesn't yet exist"
- like this formulation, but also think the 'product' is the Numogram.
Hyperstition as the ‘sticky’ coating for a core of qabbalistic-replication machinery …
Bloot - "Just for that, it'd been worth it." - Stoical as always - know you've been through a lot recently, but we share your pain ;)
Posted by: nick at December 24, 2004 02:48 AMcorrection: RAPHAEL = watcher of the NORTH
(need to work on my stage directions)
>>> "arh" ??
what?
just wondering.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Questions ...
[1] Is this Universal Law and therefore Eternal?
[2] Is this Global Law and therefore Political?
[3] Is this the Law of Nations and therefore Unity?
[4] Is this the Law of the Kollective and We'll Figure it Out as We Go?
[5] Is this Individual Law and therefore Anarchy?
As you choose, you shall be governed. As you choose a green line makes witness: Here and No Further for this is LAW (called a declaration thingy, i think)
Posted by: northanger at December 24, 2004 06:35 AM[First Part of the A-QD. It's not necessarily the most exciting chapter, but it gives an idea. (Part 2 is a lot shorter)].
Liber Qwyz.
Qryz of the Qwerm, or
The Qwertian Book of Numbers.
A Complete and Ordinated Alpha-Qwertian Dictionary (Oecumenic Version).
Part 1.
A(0), Ab(1), Abm(2), Abn(3), Ac(4), Acm(5), Acn(6), Acv(7), Ad(8), Adf(9), Adfg(10), Adfgh(11), Adfghj(12), Adfghjk(13), Adfghjkl(14), Adfghjklm(15), Adfghjkln(16), Adfghjklv(17), Adfghjklx(18), Adfghjklz(19), Adfghjkm(20), Adfghjkn(21), Adfghjkv(22), Adfghjkx(23), Adfghjkz(24), Adfghjl(25), Adfghjlm(26), Adfghjln(27), Adfghjlv(28), Adfghjlx(29), Adfghjlz(30), Adfghjm(31), Adfghjn(32), Adfghjv(33), Adfghjx(34), Adfghjz(35), Adfghk(36), Adfghkl(37), Adfghklm(38), Adfghkln(39), Adfghklv(40), Adfghklx(41), Adfghklz(42), Adfghkm(43), Adfghkn(44), Adfghkv(45), Adfghkx(46), Adfghkz(47), Adfghl(48), Adfghlm(49), Adfghln(50), Adfghlv(51), Adfghlx(52), Adfghlz(53), Adfghm(54), Adfghn(55), Adfghv(56), Adfghx(57), Adfghz(58), Adfgj(59), Adfgjk(60), Adfgjkl(61), Adfgjklm(62), Adfgjkln(63), Adfgjklv(64), Adfgjklx(65), Adfgjklz(66), Adfgjkm(67), Adfgjkn(68), Adfgjkv(69), Adfgjkx(70), Adfgjkz(71), Adfgjl(72), Adfgjlm(73), Adfgjln(74), Adfgjlv(75), Adfgjlx(76), Adfgjlz(77), Adfgjm(78), Adfgjn(79), Adfgjv(80), Adfgjx(81), Adfgjz(82), Adfgk(83), Adfgkl(84), Adfgklm(85), Adfgkln(86), Adfgklv(87), Adfgklx(88), Adfgklz(89), Adfgkm(90), Adfgkn(91), Adfgkv(92), Adfgkx(93), Adfgkz(94), Adfgl(95), Adfglm(96), Adfgln(97), Adfglv(98), Adfglx(99), Adfglz(100), Adfgm(101), Adfgn(102), Adfgv(103), Adfgx(104), Adfgz(105), Adfh(106), Adfhj(107), Adfhjk(108), Adfhjkl(109), Adfhjklm(110), Adfhjkln(111), Adfhjklv(112), Adfhjklx(113), Adfhjklz(114), Adfhjkm(115), Adfhjkn(116), Adfhjkv(117), Adfhjkx(118), Adfhjkz(119), Adfhjl(120), Adfhjlm(121), Adfhjln(122), Adfhjlv(123), Adfhjlx(124), Adfhjlz(125), Adfhjm(126), Adfhjn(127), Adfhjv(128), Adfhjx(129), Adfhjz(130), Adfhk(131), Adfhkl(132), Adfhklm(133), Adfhkln(134), Adfhklv(135), Adfhklx(136), Adfhklz(137), Adfhkm(138), Adfhkn(139), Adfhkv(140), Adfhkx(141), Adfhkz(142), Adfhl(143), Adfhlm(144), Adfhln(145), Adfhlv(146), Adfhlx(147), Adfhlz(148), Adfhm(149), Adfhn(150), Adfhv(151), Adfhx(152), Adfhz(153), Adfj(154), Adfjk(155), Adfjkl(156), Adfjklm(157), Adfjkln(158), Adfjklv(159), Adfjklx(160), Adfjklz(161), Adfjkm(162), Adfjkn(163), Adfjkv(164), Adfjkx(165), Adfjkz(166), Adfjl(167), Adfjlm(168), Adfjln(169), Adfjlv(170), Adfjlx(171), Adfjlz(172), Adfjm(173), Adfjn(174), Adfjv(175), Adfjx(176), Adfjz(177), Adfk(178), Adfkl(179), Adfklm(180), Adfkln(181), Adfklv(182), Adfklx(183), Adfklz(184), Adfkm(185), Adfkn(186), Adfkv(187), Adfkx(188), Adfkz(189), Adfl(190), Adflm(191), Adfln(192), Adflv(193), Adflx(194), Adflz(195), Adfm(196), Adfn(197), Adfv(198), Adfx(199), Adfz(200), Adg(201), Adgh(202), Adghj(203), Adghjk(204), Adghjkl(205), Adghjklm(206), Adghjkln(207), Adghjklv(208), Adghjklx(209), Adghjklz(210), Adghjkm(211), Adghjkn(212), Adghjkv(213), Adghjkx(214), Adghjkz(215), Adghjl(216), Adghjlm(217), Adghjln(218), Adghjlv(219), Adghjlx(220), Adghjlz(221), Adghjm(222), Adghjn(223), Adghjv(224), Adghjx(225), Adghjz(226), Adghk(227), Adghkl(228), Adghklm(229), Adghkln(230), Adghklv(231), Adghklx(232), Adghklz(233), Adghkm(234), Adghkn(235), Adghkv(236), Adghkx(237), Adghkz(238), Adghl(239), Adghlm(240), Adghln(241), Adghlv(242), Adghlx(243), Adghlz(244), Adghm(245), Adghn(246), Adghv(247), Adghx(248), Adghz(249), Adgj(250), Adgjk(251), Adgjkl(252), Adgjklm(253), Adgjkln(254), Adgjklv(255), Adgjklx(256), Adgjklz(257), Adgjkm(258), Adgjkn(259), Adgjkv(260), Adgjkx(261), Adgjkz(262), Adgjl(263), Adgjlm(264), Adgjln(265), Adgjlv(266), Adgjlx(267), Adgjlz(268), Adgjm(269), Adgjn(270), Adgjv(271), Adgjx(272), Adgjz(273), Adgk(274), Adgkl(275), Adgklm(276), Adgkln(277), Adgklv(278), Adgklx(279), Adgklz(280), Adgkm(281), Adgkn(282), Adgkv(283), Adgkx(284), Adgkz(285), Adgl(286), Adglm(287), Adgln(288), Adglv(289), Adglx(290), Adglz(291), Adgm(292), Adgn(293), Adgv(294), Adgx(295), Adgz(296), Adh(297), Adhj(298), Adhjk(299), Adhjkl(300), Adhjklm(301), Adhjkln(302), Adhjklv(303), Adhjklx(304), Adhjklz(305), Adhjkm(306), Adhjkn(307), Adhjkv(308), Adhjkx(309), Adhjkz(310), Adhjl(311), Adhjlm(312), Adhjln(313), Adhjlv(314), Adhjlx(315), Adhjlz(316), Adhjm(317), Adhjn(318), Adhjv(319), Adhjx(320), Adhjz(321), Adhk(322), Adhkl(323), Adhklm(324), Adhkln(325), Adhklv(326), Adhklx(327), Adhklz(328), Adhkm(329), Adhkn(330), Adhkv(331), Adhkx(332), Adhkz(333), Adhl(334), Adhlm(335), Adhln(336), Adhlv(337), Adhlx(338), Adhlz(339), Adhm(340), Adhn(341), Adhv(342), Adhx(343), Adhz(344), Adj(345), Adjk(346), Adjkl(347), Adjklm(348), Adjkln(349), Adjklv(350), Adjklx(351), Adjklz(352), Adjkm(353), Adjkn(354), Adjkv(355), Adjkx(356), Adjkz(357), Adjl(358), Adjlm(359), Adjln(360), Adjlv(361), Adjlx(362), Adjlz(363), Adjm(364), Adjn(365), Adjv(366), Adjx(367), Adjz(368), Adk(369), Adkl(370), Adklm(371), Adkln(372), Adklv(373), Adklx(374), Adklz(375), Adkm(376), Adkn(377), Adkv(378), Adkx(379), Adkz(380), Adl(381), Adlm(382), Adln(383), Adlv(384), Adlx(385), Adlz(386), Adm(387), Adn(388), Adv(389), Adx(390), Adz(391), Af(392), Afg(393), Afgh(394), Afghj(395), Afghjk(396), Afghjkl(397), Afghjklm(398), Afghjkln(399), Afghjklv(400), Afghjklx(401), Afghjklz(402), Afghjkm(403), Afghjkn(404), Afghjkv(405), Afghjkx(406), Afghjkz(407), Afghjl(408), Afghjlm(409), Afghjln(410), Afghjlv(411), Afghjlx(412), Afghjlz(413), Afghjm(414), Afghjn(415), Afghjv(416), Afghjx(417), Afghjz(418), Afghk(419), Afghkl(420), Afghklm(421), Afghkln(422), Afghklv(423), Afghklx(424), Afghklz(425), Afghkm(426), Afghkn(427), Afghkv(428), Afghkx(429), Afghkz(430), Afghl(431), Afghlm(432), Afghln(433), Afghlv(434), Afghlx(435), Afghlz(436), Afghm(437), Afghn(438), Afghv(439), Afghx(440), Afghz(441), Afgj(442), Afgjk(443), Afgjkl(444), Afgjklm(445), Afgjkln(446), Afgjklv(447), Afgjklx(448), Afgjklz(449), Afgjkm(450), Afgjkn(451), Afgjkv(452), Afgjkx(453), Afgjkz(454), Afgjl(455), Afgjlm(456), Afgjln(457), Afgjlv(458), Afgjlx(459), Afgjlz(460), Afgjm(461), Afgjn(462), Afgjv(463), Afgjx(464), Afgjz(465), Afgk(466), Afgkl(467), Afgklm(468), Afgkln(469), Afgklv(470), Afgklx(471), Afgklz(472), Afgkm(473), Afgkn(474), Afgkv(475), Afgkx(476), Afgkz(477), Afgl(478), Afglm(479), Afgln(480), Afglv(481), Afglx(482), Afglz(483), Afgm(484), Afgn(485), Afgv(486), Afgx(487), Afgz(488).
Afh(489), Afhj(490), Afhjk(491), Afhjkl(492), Afhjklm(493), Afhjkln(494), Afhjklv(495), Afhjklx(496), Afhjklz(497), Afhjkm(498), Afhjkn(499), Afhjkv(500), Afhjkx(501), Afhjkz(502), Afhjl(503), Afhjlm(504), Afhjln(505), Afhjlv(506), Afhjlx(507), Afhjlz(508), Afhjm(509), Afhjn(510), Afhjv(511), Afhjx(512), Afhjz(513), Afhk(514), Afhkl(515), Afhklm(516), Afhkln(517), Afhklv(518), Afhklx(519), Afhklz(520), Afhkm(521), Afhkn(522), Afhkv(523), Afhkx(524), Afhkz(525), Afhl(526), Afhlm(527), Afhln(528), Afhlv(529), Afhlx(530), Afhlz(531), Afhm(532), Afhn(533), Afhv(534), Afhx(535), Afhz(536), Afj(537), Afjk(538), Afjkl(539), Afjklm(540), Afjkln(541), Afjklv(542), Afjklx(543), Afjklz(544), Afjkm(545), Afjkn(546), Afjkv(547), Afjkx(548), Afjkz(549), Afjl(550), Afjlm(551), Afjln(552), Afjlv(553), Afjlx(554), Afjlz(555), Afjm(556), Afjn(557), Afjv(558), Afjx(559), Afjz(560).
Afk(561), Afkl(562), Afklm(563), Afkln(564), Afklv(565), Afklx(566), Afklz(567), Afkm(568), Afkn(569), Afkv(570), Afkx(571), Afkz(572), Afl(573), Aflm(574), Afln(575), Aflv(576), Aflx(577), Aflz(578), Afm(579), Afn(580), Afv(581), Afx(582), Afz(583).
Ag(584), Agh(585), Aghj(586), Aghjk(587), Aghjkl(588), Aghjklm(589), Aghjkln(590), Aghjklv(591), Aghjklx(592), Aghjklz(593), Aghjkm(594), Aghjkn(595), Aghjkv(596), Aghjkx(597), Aghjkz(598), Aghjl(599), Aghjlm(600), Aghjln(601), Aghjlv(602), Aghjlx(603), Aghjlz(604), Aghjm(605), Aghjn(606), Aghjv(607), Aghjx(608), Aghjz(609), Aghk(610), Aghkl(611), Aghklm(612), Aghkln(613), Aghklv(614), Aghklx(615), Aghklz(616), Aghkm(617), Aghkn(618), Aghkv(619), Aghkx(620), Aghkz(621), Aghl(622), Aghlm(623), Aghln(624), Aghlv(625), Aghlx(626), Aghlz(627), Aghm(628), Aghn(629), Aghv(630), Aghx(631), Aghz(632), Agj(633), Agjk(634), Agjkl(635), Agjklm(636), Agjkln(637), Agjklv(638), Agjklx(639), Agjklz(640), Agjkm(641), Agjkn(642), Agjkv(643), Agjkx(644), Agjkz(645), Agjl(646), Agjlm(647), Agjln(648), Agjlv(649), Agjlx(650), Agjlz(651), Agjm(652), Agjn(653), Agjv(654), Agjx(655), Agjz(656), Agk(657), Agkl(658), Agklm(659), Agkln(660), Agklv(661), Agklx(662), Agklz(663), Agkm(664), Agkn(665), Agkv(666), Agkx(667), Agkz(668), Agl(669), Aglm(670), Agln(671), Aglv(672), Aglx(673), Aglz(674).
Agm(675), Agn(676), Agv(677), Agx(678), Agz(679), Ah(680), Ahj(681), Ahjk(682), Ahjkl(683), Ahjklm(684), Ahjkln(685), Ahjklv(686), Ahjklx(687), Ahjklz(688), Ahjkm(689), Ahjkn(690), Ahjkv(691), Ahjkx(692), Ahjkz(693), Ahjl(694), Ahjlm(695), Ahjln(696), Ahjlv(697), Ahjlx(698), Ahjlz(699), Ahjm(700), Ahjn(701), Ahjv(702), Ahjx(703), Ahjz(704), Ahk(705), Ahkl(706), Ahklm(707), Ahkln(708), Ahklv(709), Ahklx(710), Ahklz(711), Ahkm(712), Ahkn(713), Ahkv(714), Ahkx(715), Ahkz(716), Ahl(717), Ahlm(718), Ahln(719), Ahlv(720), Ahlx(721), Ahlz(722), Ahm(723), Ahn(724), Ahv(725), Ahx(726), Ahz(727).
Aj(728), Ajk(729), Ajkl(730), Ajklm(731), Ajkln(732), Ajklv(733), Ajklx(734), Ajklz(735), Ajkm(736), Ajkn(737), Ajkv(738), Ajkx(739), Ajkz(740), Ajl(741), Ajlm(742), Ajln(743), Ajlv(744), Ajlx(745), Ajlz(746), Ajm(747), Ajn(748), Ajv(749), Ajx(750), Ajz(751), Ak(752), Akl(753), Aklm(754), Akln(755), Aklv(756), Aklx(757), Aklz(758), Akm(759), Akn(760), Akv(761), Akx(762), Akz(763), Al(764), Alm(765), Aln(766), Alv(767), Alx(768), Alz(769), Am(770), An(771), As(772), Asv(773), Asx(774), Asz(775). Av(776), Ax(777), Az(778).
Ignore the random punctuation - it doesn't have any significance (don't let it spoil your enjoyment).
Posted by: nick at December 24, 2004 10:11 AMgod & the devil are in the numbers nick. 777, hmm. Liber Qwyz? Quiz what? another type of nummificator?
hey, do you know what the hieroglyphics on Liber 777 mean? (should i expect an answer...nope!)
Posted by: northanger at December 24, 2004 10:25 AM>amphibiousness isn't just flapping pathetically on the water
>line - still less revelling in the fact
yeah this is the problem with that particular frenchman now in the early stages of decomposition.
Is there a 101 on tic notation here somewhere too?
Posted by: undercurrent at December 24, 2004 11:23 AMticnic, i mean nick, do you have a delimited txt file of Liber Qwyz in 1-777 order? be good to see this in single column, 7x111 array, and 21x37 array.
also, letter count would be good so the entire series can be sorted by that number.
Posted by: northanger at December 24, 2004 01:56 PM777 numbers in 7 x 111 array || difference between row values = 49 (or,colnum x colnum = 7 x 7 = 49) | difference between column values = rownum (111).
777 numbers in 21 x 37 array || difference between row values = 441 (or, colnum x colnum = 21 x 21 = 441) | difference between column values = rownum (37). BTW, first row 1 to 21 = 231.
interesting: arrays maintain these row|col differences even if you change the starting number.
Posted by: northanger at December 24, 2004 03:14 PMalright, you've finally broken my brain. ...got to thinking though. have any of you considered keyboard shortcuts as a truncated form of sigilization? (too many comments to digest at once, sorry).
in the use of audio software, particularly environments like max/msp, the ability to code certain sequences of qwerty utterances can control the generative outcomes of a bit of audio/video. start with a seed, talk to it a bit, germinate/generate. are we talking the new speak and spell here?
Posted by: me_i_a at December 24, 2004 04:03 PMToo plastered to respond to rash of interesting Q.s here until (my) morning
Undercurrent - yes, there's a Tic Xenotation intro. (on this blog) - this system is so utterly rigorous and uncommitted to weird shit of any kind that anyone with a genuine interest in number will get into it (Barker rigorized it while on a NASA project, before any evidence of pyschosis or occult interest) - it's just Euclid's Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic consistently notationalized - will give ref. tomorrow
*Az(778) - trying to tell me something (which had kind of bubbled up from the past and been ignored) - as the D&Gons say (from memory so might not be exactly right) 'subtract the unique from the multiplicity to be constituted' - single letters should be expunged from the dictionary, because they have not undergone any relevant selction process, and thus impose themselves as dogmatic presuppositions of the complete system - think all the ordinates should be n-1, with 'A' deducted
(If anyone thinks this is blatant retro-engineering of preconceived qabbalistic outcomes, please say so (though unless your case is extraordinarily persuasive it will probably be overridden, since the procedural grounds for this revision are so strong IMHO))
PS. this problem (retro-engineering) is an intriguing qabbalistic topic in itself, usually encountered in cases where a definite numerical result is artificially built into a semiotic array constructively, rather than being discovered analytically (attesting to an unconscious synthetic 'producer' from outside deliberated human communication) - of course in such cases nothing is 'discovered' at all, except perhaps constraints on lexotectonic artifice.
How to differentiate the depravity of such 'synthetic qabbalism' from productive responses to qabbalistically-detected signal?
take 484 letter-pair array, create 22 x 22 decimal-array (numbers 1-22)
http://www.cyberaxis.net/assets/imgs/northanger/220/484-array.gif
since these are letter-pairs, add number-pairs together (FIRST ROW: 1+1, 1+2, 1+3 ... SECOND ROW 2+1, 2+2, 2+3 ...).
[01] there is no number 1
[02] all numbers, starting from first row, first column (1 + 1 = 2) increase by ONE l-r|t-b
[03] number range in array is 2 to 44 (sequential)
[04] first number (1 +1 = 2) divided by last number (22 + 22 = 44) = 22
[05] values for each column + each row = 22
[06] column values = 275-297-319-341-363-385-407-429-451-473-495-517-539-561-583-605-627-649-671-693-715-737
[07] row values = 275-297-319-341-363-385-407-429-451-473-495-517-539-561-583-605-627-649-671-693-715-737
[08] note: these values increase by 22
[09] col + row values / 11 = 25-27-29-31-33-35-37-39-41-43-45-47-49-51-53-55-57-59-61-63-65-67
[10] note: check 5, 9, 55 and other divisors for interesting patterns
[11] left diagonal: 02-04-06-08-10-12-14-16-18-20-22-24-26-28-30-32-34-36-38-40-42-44
[12] right diagonal: 23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23-23
[13] diag difference: 21-19-17-15-13-11-9-7-5-3-1-1-3-5-7-9-11-13-15-17-19-21
interesting: while this (1-22) array does not begin with one, it seems to express an abundance of the number 23
analysis[1] of 484 letter-pairs using Kabbalistic Method of 231 gates creates a *pattern distinction* between masculine (odd) + feminine (even) numbers. above findings suggests something different going on underneath alphabets.
[1] http://www.livejournal.com/~northanger/2004/12/11/
Posted by: northanger at December 24, 2004 09:25 PMdoesn't badiou say numbers are more ontological than words?
btw, nicholas, would never have looked at 484 letter pairs from decimal pov, Liber Qwyz proving to be quite revealing
Posted by: northanger at December 24, 2004 09:52 PMfallen in addicted afflicted assumptive dimensions ... forgot to mention: remove gentle LURGO from pandemonium in order to ...
484 / 44 = 11
ni table eventually morphed into hypercube (let's subtract all numbers & make everything zero, shall we) --chaoslite theory : create from nothing.
no top | no bottom; however, internally, row of zeros crossing rows of ... and dammit, now i can't find that excel spreadsheet!
Posted by: northanger at December 24, 2004 10:32 PMnorthanger - messing with Lurgo now! maybe you've got some advice on winding up Khattak too ;)
- seriously, will take some time to check out your results (they're presented in a pretty dense format)
"it seems to express an abundance of the number 23" - always decidedly ominous, of course
Undercurrent - Tic Xenotation: http://hyperstition.abstractdynamics.org/archives/003538.html
[or just search: Tic Xenotation - it's the only result for some reason]
Also, begging you abjectly to change HEX key to AQ on the Gematrix, otherwise Vauung's going to end up killing northanger
Me-i-a - "have any of you considered keyboard shortcuts as a truncated form of sigilization?" - this is wonderfully technosorcerously 'irreverant' - be interesting to hear a spelled-out version
"are we talking the new speak and spell here?" - apologies for ignorance, but what's 'speak and spell'?
Just to make sure everyone's on the same Alpha-Qwertian plam-leaf: Ab(0) - Az(777)
If stubborn holdouts want to pass the obviously deeply corrupted version pasted here previously over to a deviant carrier, almost certainly triggering a qabbalo-sorcerous war, don't let last night's high-handed whisky-fueled fighting-talk - with its description of resistors "probably be[ing] overridden" - get in your way ...
Posted by: nick at December 25, 2004 06:52 AM>>> maybe you've got some advice on winding up Khattak too ;)
yeah, he already wound up, but i can handle him like a T.
>>> pretty dense format
i'm not the Dense One, nicholas.
>>> seems to express an abundance of the number 23" - always decidedly ominous, of course
23 thought of as *the strange attractor* [insert eerie music here please] in GON research
Posted by: northanger at December 25, 2004 01:48 PMLike the 777 arrays suggestions - I'm crap at diagrams but maybe i'll try to put Reza on it once we've got some clearer sense of 'content' (= what goes in the boxes, assuming that A-Q 'vocabulary has had quite enough exposure just recently) - Undercurrent, despite technical genius, is also falling to something approaching my abject level on the diagrams front - from graphic design PoV, presentation of the new Dread mod-26 alphabetic qabbala was [interject epithet of choice] ...
Posted by: nick at December 25, 2004 01:59 PM
CLARIFY: Dread mod-26 alphabetic qabbala was [CTRL ALT DLT] ...
you don't like this idea?
Posted by: northanger at December 25, 2004 02:22 PM"you don't like this idea?" - just commenting at the marketing level (lining-up the cipher etc.)
Posted by: nick at December 25, 2004 11:09 PMi realized something. you {1} use an indirect approach in your communication, {2} you seem to be a deconstructionist (ala, Derrida)
i know little about 1 and 2, but i would like to have a direct inquiry with you about time travel, how it relates to qwernomics, and how it directly relates to my kabbalistic studies & discoveries
how can we proceed with this?
Posted by: northanger at December 25, 2004 11:21 PM>>> December 25, 2004 11:21 PM
this question is for nick and/or reza
northanger -
{1} You saying we're Kierkegaardians? ;)
(But maybe some strategic overlaps, via 'fictionalized' discursive relays)
{2} Definitely not deconstructionists! (Sure Reza would confirm in most decisive terms.)
Deconstruction ('the fuzz') = flapping complacently on the shore-line forever. Programme for a self-perpetuating intellectual bureaucracy. Totally collapses in respect to number.
As for time-travel - now we're getting somewhere ... [need some posts ASAP on this, think there's one coming from Reza any time now (so to speak)]
Posted by: nick at December 26, 2004 12:25 AM{1} yeah, and you're making me just as schizzy as you are -- [i'm going to stop and go watch TV!]
Posted by: northanger at December 26, 2004 01:53 AM{2} Definitely not deconstructionists!
:Oţ
>>> Deconstruction ('the fuzz') = flapping complacently on the shore-line forever. Programme for a self-perpetuating intellectual bureaucracy. Totally collapses in respect to number.
got that
>>> As for time-travel - now we're getting somewhere ... [need some posts ASAP on this, think there's one coming from Reza any time now (so to speak)]
::tapping foot:: where is it? (funny -in gon2-speak-[funny works in aq2] how religion creates belief
question: do you think DWTWSBTWOTL works like the numogram?
Posted by: northanger at December 26, 2004 09:55 AM"do you think DWTWSBTWOTL works like the numogram?" - need this questions massively unpacking, but sure it won't get lost in the Tohu Bohu
As for Reza - he's back in his 'man of mystery' mode - hope to see him back here soon (he promised a post on the time-structure of Islamic apocalypticsm)
nick, before The Qwertian Book of Numbers disappears into the abyss, can we get a link on the home page for easy access?
Posted by: northanger at January 5, 2005 11:53 PMnorthanger - going to post a complete and 'accurate' Liber Qwyz in the fullness of time (which is reducible by frequent hassling)
Posted by: nick at January 6, 2005 02:41 PMdon't want to rush you, but you should put a link to the 'accurate' Liber Qwyz on the home page.
Posted by: northanger at January 6, 2005 09:03 PMuntil then, we'll just continue to work with the 'inaccurate' version of Liber Qwyz
Posted by: northanger at January 6, 2005 09:04 PMi didnt read this. and while i partially agree i cant help but think of spanish fleas.
Posted by: unstable at February 24, 2006 02:33 AM