Against Numerology
Consider first an extraordinarily direct numerological manifesto:
“When the qualitative aspects are included in our conception of numbers, they become more than simple quantities 1, 2, 3, 4; they acquire an archetypal character as Unity, Opposition, Conjunction, Completion. They are then analogous to more familiar [Jungian] archetypes... ”
It is hard to imagine a more ‘archetypal’ expression of numerological ambition than this. Yet rather than meeting this claim with docile compliance, the qabbalist is compelled to raise a number of awkward questions:
1) How can a numerological coding that proceeds in this fashion avoid entrapping itself among the very smallest of Naturals at the toe-damping edge of the number line? If ‘4’ symbolizes the archetype ‘Completion,’ what to make of 127, 709, 1023, or similar small Naturals? Do they also have analogues among the intelligible archetypes? How would one ‘qualitize’ (2^127)-1, or a larger number (of which there are a very considerable number)?
2) Is an ‘archetype’ more basic than a number in its unsymbolized state? Does ‘qualitizing’ a number reveal a more elementary truth, a germ the number itself conceals, or does it merely re-package the number for convenient anthropomorphic consumption, gift-wrapping the intolerable inhumanity of alogical numerical difference and connectivity?
3) Why should a number be considered ‘quantitative’ in its Natural state? Is it not that the imposition of a quantity/quality categorization upon the number requires a logical or philosophical overcoding, a projection of intelligibility alien to the number itself? Quantity is the decadence of number (while quality is its perversion), so - since arithmetic provides no basis for a reduction of the numerical to the quantitative - what is the supposed source of this (numeric-quantitative) identification (other than a disabling preliminary innumeracy)?
4) If ‘1’ numerologically evokes ‘Unity,’ why should UNITY not qabbalistically ‘evoke’ 134 (= 8, its Numogrammtic twin) with equal pertinence? Can any expressible ‘archetype’ avoid re-dissolution into the unfamiliarity of raw number pattern? Numerology might assimilate ‘2’ to opposition, but OPPOSITION = 238 = 13 = 4 (twice 2, and the Numogrammatic twin of (‘4’ = COMPLETION = 212 =) 5), while even if numerological ‘3’ as CONJUNCTION = 237 = 12 = 3 finds itself qabbalisitically confirmed (at the extremity of its decimalization), this is not, perhaps, in an altogether comfortable mode?
Numerology may be fascinated by numbers, but its basic orientation is profoundly antinumerical. It seeks – essentially – to redeem number, through symbolic absolution into a ‘higher’ significance. As if the concept of ‘opposition’ represented an elevation above the (‘mere’) number two, rather than a restriction, subjectivization, logicization and generalized perversion, directed to anthropomorphic use-value and psychological satisfaction.
Archetypes are sad limitations of the species, while numbers are an eternal hypercosmic delight.
Nevertheless, qabbalism is right up against numerology, insofar as it arises ‘here,’ within a specific biological and logocratic environment. The errors of numerology are only the common failures of logic and philosophy, human vanities, crudified in the interest of mass dissemination, but essentially uncorrupted. The numeric-critique (or transcendental arithmetic) of a Goedel (or Turing, or Chaitin (or Badiou?(??(???)))) can be rigorously transferred to this controversy, demonstrating - within each particular milieu - that overcodings of numerical relation by intelligible forms - ‘archetypes’ or ‘logics’ - are unsustainable reductions, reefed on the unsurpassable semiotic potency of number. Goedel has shown that there is always a number, in fact an infinitude of (Natural) numbers, that simulate, parody, logically dialectize, paradoxically dismantle, archetypally hypervert, and in whatever way necessary subvert each and every overcoding of arithmetic. Number cannot be superseded. There is no possibility of an authoritative ‘philosophy of arithmetic’ or numerological gnosis.
Qabbala assumes that semiotics is ‘always already’ cryptography, that the cryptographic sphere is undelimitable. It proceeds on the assumption that there cannot be an original (unproblematic) coding, providing the basis for any solid definition or archetypal symbol, since the terms required for such a coding are incapable of attaining the pure ‘arbitrariness’ that would ensure the absence of prior cryptographic investment. There is not - and can never be - any ‘plain text,’ except as a naïve political assumption about (the relative (non)insidiousness of) coding agencies and the presupposition that communicative signs accessibly exist that are not already ‘in code.’ Since everything is coded, or (at least) potentially coded, nothing is (definitively) symbolic. Qabbalistic cryptocultures – even those yet to come – ensure that number cannot be discussed or situated without subliminal or (more typically) wholly unconscious participation in numerical practices. Logos, including that of numerology, is also always something other than itself, and in fact very many things.
Qabbalism thus operates as an inverse or complementary Goedelian double-coding. Where Goedel demonstrated that the number line is infested by virtual discursive systems of undelimitable topicality and complexity, pre-emptively dismantling the prospects of any conceivable supranumerical metadiscourse, qabbala demonstrates that discourses are themselves intrinsically redoubled (and further multiplied) by coincidental numerical systems which enter into patterns of connectivity entirely independent of logical regimentation.
The supposed numerical de-activation of the alphabet, marking semiotic modernity (the era of specialized numerical signs), has an extremely fragile foundation, relying as it does upon the discontinuation of specific cultural procedures (precisely those that withdraw into ‘occultism’) rather than essential characteristics of signs themselves. The persistent numerical functionalization of the modern alphabet – with sorting procedures based on alphabetical ordering as the most prominent example – provides incontestible evidence (if any was required) that the semiotic substructure of all Oecumenic communications remains stubbornly amphibious between logos and nomos, perpetually agitated by numerical temptations and uncircumscribed polyprocesses.
At the discursive level, any ‘rigorization of qabbala’ can only be a floating city, with each and every definition, argument and manifesto continually calving off into unmasterable numerical currents and alogical resonances. How could qabbala be counterposed to a code, to meaning and reason, when CODE (= 63) finds duplicitous harmonics in MEANING = REASON = 126? If qabbala positions itself discursively AGAINST NUMEROLOGY (= 369), the echoes of its novanomic signature perpetuate themselves even through such unlikely terms as SIGNIFICANCE (= 207) and SIGNIFICATION (= 252). Pronouncements that begin as projected logical discriminations revert to variations on triplicity and the number nine, performing a base qabbalistic subversion of philosophical legislation and its authority to define (or delimit connectivity).
No polemic against numerology – whether conducted in the name of qabbala or of Oecumenic common reason – will transcend the magmic qabbalistic flux that multiplies and mutates its sense. Perhaps dreams of numerological archetypes even sharpen the lust for semiotic invention, opening new avenues for qabbalistic incursion. But this at least is certain: Numbers do not require – and will never find - any kind of logical redemption. They are an eternal hypercosmic delight.
quick first response (maybe confused, trying to work through similar "issues" myself): If qualitisation depends on intuition, then since (ass persuasively researched by Ifrah) 'intensive' intuition of number only reaches four, qualitisation is bound to founder at the same place (Even 'completion' is somewhat dodgy IMO). Numerology seems to consist rather in the production/exploration of intensive or qualitative numerical assemblages and connections that go _beyond_ any such 'natural' predilictions, a perversion of sense by number rather than a reversion to prenumeric intuition.
Given something such as MEANING=126=REASON, since no 'demonstration' is conceivable of such number-patterns being independent of anthropic/interpretative affect (insofar as 'pattern' only exists in its recognition), can't any account * of the existence of pattern-tracking systems assembled for 'delights' sake, freed from rationalist justification, be accused of being mere anthropology, or at best an undirected transcendental inquiry?
*although numerology seems as an activity indistinguishable from any 'dispassionate' account of itself, giving weight to the 'delight' thesis.
Posted by: u/c at January 28, 2005 01:20 PMu/c - think i'm in total agreement with first point (can't see how numerology could imaginably stretch to even moderately sized (non-minute) Naturals).
Let's bracket 'hypercosmic delight' for the moment - think it will come back on atheistic strategy discussion that you've triggered (with a lot of unlife in it, IMHO)
Not sure i'm reconstructing this right, but think there might be a kind of inversion confusion - the whole MEANING = 126 issue arose through qabbalistic subversion of the neat definitional positioning of the qabbalistic approach i had been attempting (before being forced to retire in confusion when numerically mocked by all the terms involved) - just trying to positivize the abject humiliation of my own philosophical pretentions
it's not "my position", I'm just trying to see whether/how popular-numeracy-type accounts can escape from such anthropological/transcendentalist accusations (imo this cognate with Badiou's dismissal of AO/ATP as 'phenomenological pottering', despite my disagreement I feel compelled to search for a rigorous response). Doesn't really matter which way you invert it...
(Obv, agree that numerical concupiscence as trigger is not something to be dismissed lightly)
Agreement, here, for the most part. Various numerologies impose rather arbitrary constraints - necessarily so - through which number is translated into a typically more humane discourse. The complexity of the number system allows certain programs to achieve phantom integrity.
"Rigorization of qabbala": It may be that any semiotic coding of the number line will eventually brush us up against ontological extravagance ("a commitment to a wealth of entities that are utterly counterintuitive"), but this is only doubtfully demonstrable, only intuitive.
Posted by: thistle at January 28, 2005 02:31 PMu/c - not attributing any 'position' to you - in fact lost entirely in solipsistic delirium between my own ramblings and the qabbalistic slidings that run way with them in all directions.
"numerical concupiscence," on the other hand, is your own line of exacerbation - looking for a piece of numbo 'as' no doubt ;)
PS. beginning to have bad feelings about this badiou dude
PPS. can tell from your remarks there's something interesting brewing up on the pop-nomo front
thistle - elaboration of both paras of your first comment would be welcome. They're quite dense (and suggestive).
AO/ATP - Capitalism and Schizophrenia parts I & II (Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaux)
wait til you read the Dedekind chapter, it's great :) I think (speaking unphilosophically for a short moment) getting involved in philodebate wd be a mistake, one just has to take the good bits (excellent clarity on numbomatters). The 'being' side is great (apart from apparently otiose ontological assertions), the truth side rather dubious (but IMO similar to hyperstitional position : through fidelity to a substantially unknowable universally-addressed fiction, it becomes an effective truth...sounds familiar...).
Hm...anyway the nummificator was interesting in that the more material that was ammassed the less interesting it got (contrary to expectations) because for every delight-sparking result you could see 54 results that you'd be hard-stretched to make anything of. Suggesting that the fascination is in inverse proportion to systematisation and mysticism thrive only on an incomplete (not to say flaky) semi-systematisation?
Posted by: u/c at January 28, 2005 03:34 PMNick, I'll attempt.
Arbitrary constraints: If qabbalistic programs are hermeneutic gaming, they seem more weighted to the side of gaming than hermeneutics. If qabbala is gaming (playing on the surface) rather than hermeneutics (investigation of the depths, of all "archetypes," "natures," of the intensely familiar), then the rules of engagement should be front-loaded, and all interpretive results emitted from the game should be mindful of the arbitrary constraints set down at the beginning. This does not mean that game rules cannot be reverse engineered from hermeneutic numerologies but the recognition must be made that all attempts to reduce numerologic noodling to archetypes is futile because the archetypes themselves are subject to Frankensteinian decomposition and admixture.
Phantom integrity: Certain numerological programs will maintain a sense distinguished meaning among the qualitative interpretations of their numeric elements, but this occurs only at a certain scale. (Of course, this general statement could be made of many physical sciences.) Outside this scale, with larger numbers as you suggest, the weird properties of numbers, er, multiply, enforcing contradictory equivocations. Various numerologies could be investigated to see what number they generally "hold up to." For instance, AQ might be "good" or "pure" or "integrated" within a range of 1 to 1031 or somesuch, where GoN might operationize between -345 and 291 (whatever). General boundary markers could be determined where a given numerologic program transitions from "good" to "evil"--evil, of course, meaning where things become more interesting. Within these boundaries, the numerology operates with a phantom integrity, suggesting deep meanings and correlations, whereas outside these boundaries, the meanings and correlations become increasingly difficult to parse or become more subversive.
Ontologically extravagant: (This phrase is taken from the Mereology page at plato.stanford.edu. The borrowing is perhaps inadvisable.) But the nondemonstrability of the ultimate futility of any and all numerological programs, this is intuitively correct, but it would take some doing to formalize the proof (presuming one wouldn't ransack it from the beginning by applying numerological noodling).
Posted by: thistle at January 28, 2005 03:42 PM>nondemonstrability of the ultimate futility of any and all
>numerological programs,
>it would take some doing to formalize the proof
should be taken up as a serious research strand!
Posted by: u/c at January 28, 2005 03:47 PMNick: lost entirely in solipsistic delirium between my own ramblings and the qabbalistic slidings that run way with them in all directions.
-----
U/C: Numerology seems to consist rather in the production/exploration of intensive or qualitative numerical assemblages and connections that go _beyond_ any such 'natural' predilictions...
-----
Yes, numerology taxes/exercises decisiveness by opening up a horrific labyrinth of possible productive lines.
Posted by: thistle at January 28, 2005 03:49 PMif only someone had put a warning label on the kool-aid, I would be happily reading Zizek now.
Posted by: u/c at January 28, 2005 04:04 PMthistle - permit me a preliminary and inadequate remark (prior to 'full' digestion of your comment) - think assimilation of any gematria (whether AQ or some inferior distraction ;)) to 'numerology' profoundly mistaken - of course, a gematria will tend to focus on small numbers for 'anthropolgical' reasons, but its applicability in principle is unlimited (you could AQ the WWW every day, without difficulty in principle, ignoring issues of technical complexity). The same applies to such decadent gematrias as GoN (whatever that's up to now).
Numerology, on the other hand, is intrinsically incapable of dealing with large numbers - due to strict limits on the 'domain of significance' imposed by the human nervous system (hence the tree of life as a decimal bedrock of integrable meaning). Numerization and numerology are not only distinct, they are opposed, with the latter recuperating the former, returning number to what it is dissolving. Why should AQ (for instance) ever reach a limit? It could always brutally decimalize through digital reduction. Gematrias tend to cope well with large numbers, since their typical (ignoring freaks like Nash qabbala) crunching of place value tends to rapidly crush numbers into a comfortable domain.
Aha, yes, I guess you've caught me. But you'll never keep me! I'll strike again! Ha, ha, ha!
Or something.
I wasn't quite clear on your distinction between numerology and gematria, thinking you were taking the latter as a branch of the former rather than a distinctive approach. This was coordinated in my understanding of the post by a peculiar reading of "qabbalism is right up against numerology" where "against" was taken as meaning "beside" or "in the vicinity of" rather than "in opposition to." Okay, okay, okay.
Posted by: thistle at January 28, 2005 05:16 PMhttp://www.tribe.net/template/pub%2Ctribes%2CTribePhotoAlbum.vm/context/tribe?tribeid=cba5b034-80cb-4754-a2c3-043d6a72100d
http://www.tribe.net/template/pub%2CViewPhoto.vm/context/tribe?page=1¤toffset=5&parentid=cba5b034-80cb-4754-a2c3-043d6a72100d&sortby twisted spastic brainywoe stainthrow
http://www.tribe.net/template/pub%2CViewPhoto.vm/context/tribe?page=2¤toffset=9&parentid=cba5b034-80cb-4754-a2c3-043d6a72100d&sortby puzzle puzzle wizzy wussy wazzall woosy and away we wonder
Posted by: piet at January 28, 2005 05:26 PMthistle - hint of panic in your last post makes me feel right at home - yes, everything is going totally to hell ...
Posted by: nick at January 28, 2005 05:36 PMI, too, skated right over the opposition between gematria and numerology - not sure I have a handle on what 'numerology' is in that case (sure I have been using the two interchangeably, in fact)
Posted by: u/c at January 28, 2005 05:41 PMIt would seem then, Nick, in your formulation, that numerology plugs meaning into number by affixing certain discursive terms to numbers (1=unity, 2=opposition, 3=conjunction, 4=completion). Gematria investigates preexisting word-word equivalences by first reducing individual letters to numbers, then adding these letter-numbers together. But doesn't qabbala shuttle between these two practices (among others)? Is decimal reduction (= 300 = 3 + 0 + 0 = 3) then the domain of numerology or gematria?
Posted by: thistle at January 28, 2005 05:55 PM"At the discursive level, any ‘rigorization of qabbala’ can only be a floating city, with each and every definition, argument and manifesto continually calving off into unmasterable numerical currents and alogical resonances."
Precisely, that's a beaut and exactly why I claim all figuring futile yet figuratieve vingervlugheid (aptness with metaphor in order to tempt the solarly volatile meaning into hankering down and adding its photonically fanned bits and bites to weaving true worth and weight towards freedom and mobility = eyefeed of occultivation.
Posted by: piet at January 28, 2005 06:27 PMcan't ever get it right at once
Precisely, that's a beaut and exactly why I PROclaim all figuring futile yet 'figuratieve vingervlugheid' (aptness with metaphor .. . . in order to tempt the solarly volatile meaning into hankering down and adding its photonically fanned bits and bites to weaving true worth and weight towards freedom and mobility = eyefeed of occultivation . .. .in other words, in order to escape the endless coding, ignore the beckoning symbolsystemflaw/niches that won't let up obtruding into and distorting moderate effective restraint regarding them) essential and a way one sees one's way winding towards generation of truely profuse too but lots less lost and idle 'stuff' specks of dust, spectacles of sparks, spatters and spickles of unspeakables, all ready to enchant exactly in the measure one refuses to be sidetracked and distracted by mere code and boring symbol
Posted by: piet at January 28, 2005 06:41 PM
"Numbers do not require – and will never find - any kind of logical redemption. They are an eternal hypercosmic delight."
Today I scolded a dutch anarchastrospher webwriter for using the 'moses' table smashing' (plutonic illuson with cool and collected saturnalian law') metaphor without switching from the figurative (favoring, selective) into the literal (grounding) mode. I didn't do so without adding such a back- and underside to his rant so as to allow him to let go of his monolithic way with law (where it stands for a mere, yet at the same time deified ((hiding the step from 1 to two (((hence all others))) here)) means). Dust specks, innumerable and innumerably combined, ditto composed, composted and compartmentated in organic descendants of their usually slower, more reliable and deliberate akinaccountancy . .. it's not the smash (act, put on) that counts, it's the result(ing substance, lightened up, sensitized, subtleized suscepti- and sensibilitated material aggregation and interactibility quotient that matters most on surfaces struck by the type of celestial beckoning that has us wander)
Posted by: piet at January 28, 2005 07:06 PM"Numbers do not require – and will never find - any kind of logical redemption. They are an eternal hypercosmic delight."
lets asssume numbers are/stand for dust and are indeed numb dumb notseekers, nutsy perhaps but far as yet from nati, nazi and all that social trouble, whatever . .. . . ..if dust is oxidized matter than reduction could stand their redemption resulting in far from unlight, delicately lit, delighted, much lighter in 'soortelijk gewicht', alightable and open to as well as already opened by light, all it takes is a baptist who takes his task literally enough and another combative bataillan bites the dust .. . ..
Posted by: piet at January 28, 2005 07:23 PMthistle - you get it exactly (hadn't realized i was being so obscure) - on final q.: had considered DR to be definitely on the side of gematria rather than numerology, but now you've clearly raised the question, actually realize it's not so obvious, in fact subtle and tantalizing ... (DR compression functioning as adjunct to numerological recoding?)
piet - hi, your lucidity always much appreciated
Posted by: nick at January 29, 2005 03:57 AMnick - still processing this, but ---
AQ 69 = SIN = WAR
and cur, among other things.
Posted by: northanger at January 29, 2005 04:54 AMreza should appreciate this - POLEMOS means WAR.
AQ 158 = VERSUS = AHATHOOR = ASHEMOGHA = DEEP PAST = DEEP-SHIT = EMPRESS = FASCINUM = FORBIDDEN = GAME OVER = HUSSEIN = INFINITE = INTEGRAL = LOATHING = MOHOMMED = POLEMOS = PROMISE = SHOOT ME = SWEETER = THYSELF = TRACTOR = VERSUS = VORTEX = WRETCHED
D26 DK = SPENGLER
Posted by: northanger at January 29, 2005 05:13 AMnick - HYPERCOSMIC DELIGHT is such a trigger word for me ... i went orgasmic.
Posted by: northanger at January 29, 2005 05:16 AMEARLIER OMISSION EMITTED IN CAPS
.. . . ..if dust is oxidized matter than reduction could BE SAID TO stand FOR their redemption resulting
Posted by: piet at January 29, 2005 08:37 AMnorthanger - "SIN = WAR" = CUR = KALI
nightmare bitch-goddess, flipside of HOLY hell queen 96 (Iblis-Durga), extremely fierce and intercoiling. (Cur/Pest duo long-term intimate acquaintances, so these numbers very special to Vauung)
so vauung doesn't get confused--
KALI, nightmare bitch-goddess, flipside of HOLY hell queen 96 (Iblis-Durga), extremely fierce and intercoiling.
Posted by: northanger at January 29, 2005 09:32 AMnorthanger - Kali/Cur/Sin ... (the names can slide about ...)
Posted by: nick at January 29, 2005 10:23 AM>Kali/Cur/Sin ... (the names can slide about ...)
Mcauley Culkin?
Posted by: u/c at January 29, 2005 10:37 AMNIC'S UR-KALI (or: KALI INCURS; I SURAL NICK), nightmare bitch-goddess, flipside of HOLY hell queen 96 (Iblis-Durga), extremely fierce and intercoiling.
AQ 207 = NICKL+RISAU = THE OLD ONES = (UN)CURSING
Posted by: northanger at January 29, 2005 10:42 AMnorthanger - "NICKL+RISAU" - this surely utterly ridiculous
Posted by: nick at January 29, 2005 11:02 AMhttp://www.schuledesrades.org/palme/gzsw/ka_05_02.htm got a grasp of grammar?
Posted by: piet at February 1, 2005 12:41 PM"'NICKL+RISAU' - this surely utterly ridiculous" - yes & no. what kabbalah & gematria can generate (in one sense) are lines of access. ie:
nickel is one of five ferromagnetic elements; valued for the alloys it forms; 65% of nickel consumed in the Western World is used to make austenitic stainless steel; US & Canadian coin; most of the nickel on Earth is believed to be concentrated in the planet's core. ferromagnetism is a phenomenon by which a material exhibits spontaneous magnetization--one of the strongest forms of magnetism.
the Werner Risau-Prize is awarded by the Max-Planck Institute for "Outstanding Studies in Endothelial Cell Biology". many of Werner Risau's (b. 1953 – d. 1998) papers are cited in stem cell research. "Werner had some very strong (usually correct) ideas about the mechanisms of angiogenesis, often in contradiction to established dogma ... his intuition is proving to be correct. One of Werner's hallmarks was his ability to conduct science in a collaborative manner, often involving several investigators and laboratories to solve an important problem. His dedication to deliver high-quality research has been a consistent feature of his scientific career. Many researchers, both established experts as well as young newcomers to the field of angiogenesis, have benefited enormously from Werner's concise and clear, yet critical and creative reviews". --http://atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/4/829. Werner Risau keywords: morphogenesis, endothelium, angiogenesis, blood-brain barrier, stem cell.
of course. NICKL & RISAU are silly. but a quick+dirty search unearthed some, possibly, hyperstitional possibilities.
Posted by: northanger at February 4, 2005 06:28 PMUK Patent Application
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/patents/ukpatent.htm
NON-METALLIC, MONOATOMIC FORMS OF TRANSITION ELEMENTS. This invention relates to the monoatomic forms of certain transition and noble metal elements, namely, gold, silver, copper, cobalt, nickel and the six platinum group elements. More particularly, this invention relates to the separation of the aforesaid transition and noble metal elements from naturally occurring materials in their orbitally rearranged monoatomic forms, and to the preparation of the aforesaid transition and noble metal elements in their orbitally rearranged monoatomic forms from their commercial metallic forms ... For the purposes of this application, the following definitions shall apply: transition elements ("T-metals") means the metallic or cationic form of gold, silver, copper, cobalt and nickel, and the six platinum group elements, i.e., platinum, palladium, rhodium, iridium, ruthenium, and osmium; and "ORME" means the [O]rbitally [R]earranged [M]onoatomic [E]lemental forms of each of the T-metals.
AQ 161 = ALEISTER = AMDRANISA = BEEZLEBUB = SERAPHIM = STEM CELL = TALISMAN = TAQIYYA = TERRIBLE = TUKKAMU
AQ 208 = AGAROSE GELS = MESH-NUMBER = MONOATOMIC = NECROMANCER = RESURRECT = THE HANGED MAN = WHITE MAGICK
AQ 225 = ENDOTHELIUM = FOURTH DEATH = GOD THE FATHER = GROUP WORK = KARKHE RIVER = LORD OF LIGHT = MAGNANIMITY = RA HOOR KHUT = TELECOMMERCE = THREE FOURS = VIROTECHNIC
AQ 232 = ABDUL ALHAZRED = ABJAD WATCHERS = ANGIOGENESIS = ANTI-OEDIPUS = CIPHEROLOGY = LATENT DUTY = LUX FLAMMUS = PRIMA MATERIA = PSYCHONAUT = SET SEQUENCE = SYNCRETION
AQ 234 = SACRED CALENDAR = FIVE FIVE FIVE = MULTIVERSE = NINE NINE NINE = SHIA RELIGION = SUPER ALLOY = TECHNO-FUNGAL = THE BLANK SPACE
AQ 249 = AFRO-FUTURES = AMPHIBOLOGICAL = DEMONOGRAPHY = DIPOLE MOMENT = FLAMING SWORD = GOG MAGOG HILLS = OUTSIDENESS = QWERWOLVES = RESTRICTION = TIME-SORCERY = WAR IS OUR GOD
AQ 250 = MATERIAL EFFECT = A PERFECT CIRCLE = CYALIS THELEMA = CYNOCEPHALUS = FIGURE IT OUT = FORTH-SPEAKER = JESUS CHRIST = LAVENDER MIST = PANJ TAN-E AAL-E ABBA = PATER NOSTER = PERSEVERANDO = THE ANCIENT ONE = WERNER RISAU
AQ 251 = A SEASON IN HELL = ADEPTUS MAJOR = BLACK BROTHERS = FERROMAGNETIC = FOUR ONE EIGHT = I AM LIFE I AM DEATH = MAGICKAL GROUP
AQ 278 = UNEXPLODED BOMB = ENOCHIAN ALPHABET = HALTING PROBLEM = INTRINSIC LINK = MAGNETIC MOMENT = MOLECULAR EARTH = PARANOID STREAK = SHEMHAMPHORASH = THE ANCIENT ONES = TRIANGULATION
AQ 280 = HUMAN USE-VALUE = CRYPTOGRAPHY = MORPHOGENESIS = MYSTIFICATION = NUCLEAR WINTER = QABBALA UNSHELLED = ROYAL ARCH DEGREE = TYPHONIAN O.T.O. = WEST IS BAD NEWS
AQ 290 = [OS][IR][RU][PT][RH][PD] = I SHOT THE LEMUR = OUTRAGED DENIALS = ASTRO-ANALYSIS = GROWTH FACTORS = HOLY DAIMON ANGEL = JEAN GABRIEL C.IALIS = NORTHANGER ABBEY = SHEMHAMPHORASCH
AQ 316 = BLOOD-BRAIN BARRIER = SACKCLOTH AND ASHES = TESTICULAR CANCER = THE ENGLISH TAROT = ZONING OUT INTO
AQ 346 = TOTALLY ARTIFICIAL = EMBRYONIC STEM CELL = ULTIMATE NAKEDNESS = VAULT OF MURMURS
Northanger - quick question: what point are you trying to make with all these associations? Totally unsure I can make any sense/use of these lists of words and numbers. Are we supposed to 'see' something meaningful in there, and if so, by what account other than as a coincidental semoitic grouping?
Nick, Thistle .. interesting discussion re. difference between numerology and numerization/gematria. My take on this difference is quite crude but basically I see the latter as part of the former - gematria is used in all types of numerology, but this doesnt mean all gematria are necessarily numerological. Since gematria are basically systems which map, pair, two different codes - numbers and letters. But numerology proceeds to assign metaphysical, semoitic value to numbers whilst gematria in themselves do not. Interested in your comments to refine my somewhat simplistic view. What do you say Northhanger?
Posted by: Tachi at February 7, 2005 03:10 PM"Northanger - quick question: what point are you trying to make with all these associations? Totally unsure I can make any sense/use of these lists of words and numbers. Are we supposed to 'see' something meaningful in there, and if so, by what account other than as a coincidental semoitic grouping?" - not making points (don't get it / don't use it). anyhow, issues previously discussed on several posts re: alphanumeric qabbala. me, mostly too lazy to enter all these words into nummifier. since, a word or two seems to send nick into a strange but joyous paroxysm - wonderful. plus, three main thinkers on this blog are doing something interesting with _number_. yadda yadda.
Posted by: northanger at February 8, 2005 03:09 AMps. (forgetting the obvious). look waaaaaaay up on top of this page & um, read that too.
Posted by: northanger at February 8, 2005 03:11 AMpps. been typing up Scholem's chapter ten "Gematria" from his "Kabbalah". stepping back a moment, gematria has a long history & understanding its traditional sense may help. John Opsopaus' short article can get you started -
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/OM/BA/SNHIG.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gematria
http://members.optusnet.com.au/fmet/main/isopsephia.html
in Sheinkin's "Path of the Kabbalah" he states that K "represents the secret, mystical part of Judaism" - it is a religious tradition & "the Kabbalistic path is the basis for all the later Western paths; all are in some sense derivatives of it" - see Colin Low's big pic diagram - http://www.digital-brilliance.com/kab/bigpicture/bigpicture.htm (not too sure how he rates on the persian aspect of things)
rephrasing your question: what point were the persians/greeks/jews trying to make with all these associations? -- there were interested in the divine.
again Sheinkin: In Judaism there are two Bibles: the written & the oral. The oral Bible has two apsects: common knowledge & secret knowledge. "Why the secret knowledge? This question leads us to another fundamental Kabbalistic principle: that the Bible or Torah represents, in modern terminology, 'an owner's manual to the universe'".
now, residing in the big pic. we return to alphanumeric qabbala: what are they trying to accomplish here?
ppps. in light of badiou + paul. Sheinkin's first chapter identifies the person and the time in which Judaism + Christianity were split in two. makes badiou's focus extremely interesting.
being "interested in the divine" - what kind of qualification is this?
"we return to alphanumeric qabbala: what are they trying to accomplish here?" - indeed
Posted by: Tachi at February 8, 2005 07:01 AMTachi - there are 'strategic' questions about how to line up these terms (don't mean anything particularly melodramatic by that, if it sounds pretentious). Obviously there are alternative approaches that could be pushed, but i'd definitely aim to 'devalorize' numerology as much as possible, so treating it as a degenerated offshoot of qabbala rather than a general category is more acceptable in this respect. In same vein:
northanger - stripping-out or inverting all theomystical content from 'kabbalah' in order to isolate a submathematical and atheopolemical 'qabbala' is an analogous 'strategic' decision - Qabbala is finely tuned to infuriate the hell out of God (or simply to perform the dead reckonings of calculative unbelief for the serene secularists amongst us (e.g. u/c))
Posted by: nick at February 14, 2005 01:51 AM