This is the attempt to put down some inchoate reflection that comes to me again and again. When Heidegger speaks of the ‘danger’ in the ‘Question Concerning Technology’ what is the danger? The danger seems to be the way in which this latest epoch of being may close down the voice of Being so that it cannot speak its truth (of time) anymore and that from now on we will only hear the enframing tendency of the technological. As such technology is dangerous to Being. There seems to be something ironical in this (at least insofar as my reflection makes sense) for Heidegger is in a sense one of the first philosophers of the non-human -dasein being subject to the whim of being in many ways. The irony I mean comes from the idea that in order for technology to be dangerous in any meaningful sense it surely must be dangerous to something. We have answered this already though, it is dangerous to Being. But Being in this sense is made possible by dasein existing as a human. One might say that in a sense Heidegger would not care even about dasein other than that it allows being to speak (any being which allows Being to speak would be equally valuable). If though we let through the limited sense that human dasein is required for Being to speak, then this dasein becomes important in this sense. The point is to establish a sense in which this vessel for the speaking of Being is better preserved (according to Heidegger) in one state rather than another. I would like to suggest that this pre-danger state we can call ‘human dasein’. It is almost as if Heidegger believes that the restraints of the human mean that it enables a special relation to Being, one that could be endangered by technological enframing: the openness to the truth can be closed down leaving us perpetually stuck in the mirror of calculative thinking.

People question whether or not he is right in his analysis. I would like to propose that if you think of human-dasein having a kind of incoherent essence then probably he is correct. This seems a strong claim. Heidegger’s yearning for some simpler kind of existence appear often. The peasant in the field, the poet, the homecoming traveller, these motifs all seem to evoke a sense that we would identify with romanticism if we did not know this was not his aim. Heidegger thinks a world is withdrawing. Not just any world, the world possibility for Being as temporality to show itself as itself. The enframing produces enframed time as well as physical space. Being withdraws never to return. The possibility of the simple life and the immediacy of existential temporality seem inextricably linked together. In this sense isn’t he then correct? If you take that kind of human-dasein as the measure, technology as we now even more experience it, eradicates this relation. The relation to nature is only fed back to nature through technological grasping (taking up gardening because it’s good for you, travelling because it is a criterion for self development etc.).  Modern calculative thinking epistemological relations do not allow for this [naive] state to persist. But it isn’t just peasant simplicity that is entailed by this. There is a raft of ideas entailed in our incoherent self-processing that comprise the human accretion. There are no sharp lines here, but the blur is happening right now and last century Heidegger could at least see the old world still partially in place. We are finite, but a section of us is pushing that as hard as we can. We are local, and yet now we are not. The mystery of facticity is replaced the appearance of a scientific necessity. We come to understand (partially thanks to Heidegger) that we are not fixed selves, fixed souls. These naive concepts of existence come unravelled. This incredible mutational event of cybernetic sexual transformation does indeed bring to light the possibility that a human-dasein -a creature knowing its own finitude and yet possessed of an inner authenticity that may escape the idle chatter of the world may retreat. This once creature of community and mores is human more and more if and only if human is just a biological classification.

Ironically the rise of the biological human signals the end of the physically/sexually/culturally/religiously restricted one. This all makes the after human sound incredibly positive. This is not the case. Whilst it is true that Heidegger’s human-dasein is possibly a less laudable entity that he would have us believe, the posthuman-dasein is not necessarily an improvement (insofar as the language of improvement makes any sense). Accelerationism offers no viable alternative for a more satisfying existence. Indeed part of the problem is that an actual satisfying existence is in a sense only possible under the sway of the Heideggerian gods (the role of the mystery) and the acceptance of finitude. There is only speeding towards the inevitability of machinic-transformation or biological-machinic hybridization. Survival modalities of cognition are all that essentially triumph. Left accelerationism solves little as it attempts to preserve Heidegger’s human in community etc using technology to prop this up. The gaping void will be still all too visible.

Of course Heidegger’s human is still with us in vast (most) swathes of the population. Poverty breeds unreflective hand to mouth existence, possibly speckled with moments of something transcendent. Yet even these vast populations are still largely driven by the enframing machine, its power is immense. Heidegger writes in ‘The Question…’ that Holderlin says something to the effect that ‘where the danger lies, there the saving power grows.’ There are two possible versions of ‘the saving power’ I can envisage in this situation (that H might approve of).

One is that the machinic transformation fails (AI does not successfully equal human ability and we reach a limit that we cannot surpass without a yet not visible set of ideas) and miraculously ecological large scale disaster is somehow averted. In this instance the continuing unravelling of human-dasein continues to a point where it is liberated into being (within a certain fleshy finitude) culturally almost anything. The failure of machinic transformation feeds back to generate a kind of non-naive-post-calculative thinking that we cannot yet conceive of. This new way of grasping enables a (for Heidegger) more authentic experience with our temporality and hence Being). Two is that the ecological disaster will render many of the technological systems dysfunctional. Presupposing a) part of the environment is habitable and b) part of this habitable part is available to others than the remainder of a technocapitalist elite then that part of the population barred from remaining technological systems will be forced to engage once more in the joys of labouring hard for its existence and hence(for Heidegger) will regain its connection enabling Being to speak once more.

 

Last year the CEO worked on a small project with the university of Lincoln Architecture dept to commission a piece of work based on the ‘Ship of Theseus’ paradox (as to whether or not the ship is still the real one  if all the pieces of the  ship are slowly replaced until no original pieces remain). The result was a kind of light box that produces a transforming image on the screen. The transformation is brought about the twisting a handle within that rotates a several pieces of wood. This produces two coherent image points (in shadow) with incoherent stages in between.

We would like to make a short issue of Parasol in conjunction with this creation. Pieces of work could be novel kinds of reflection upon the paradox. Poetry, artwork,  theory-fiction and fiction would all be considered. Extra points go to an actual consideration of the piece itself (more video footage information available upon request) though this is not necessary.

Anyone interested please write to ceo47@outlook.com or tweet/dm @23ceo47

Create something.

Attribute something to it.

Allow it to age.

This is one of the most powerful hyperstitional ways of creation. It must be noted that the most key aspect to this is allow it to age. This implies the double motion of hyperstition in relation to temporality. The further back in time the hyperstition recedes, the greater its potency. This is related to the epistemic situation concerning the created accretion. That is, if I create a stone monument in my garden and say that this is dedicated to Xoth who rules over granite and the star Deneb of the summer triangle. Let’s say I also write a work describing Xoth’s mythology in cryptic words to accompany the work. At the time of making, this project may be thought of as artistically and possibly magickally interesting (depending on whether I am treating this as serious or not), but little else. However as the circumstance around my creating the temple of Xoth retreats inversely the hyperstitional power potentially accretes. The withdrawal of the possibly banal way in which this accretion was formed automatically adds another pneuminous layer: the historical. The historical of course does not necessarily add anything mysterious to things. The historical can be banal, the context determines this. However, when the created entity hints otherworldliness then the historical immediately adds to it the possibility of its having greater mystery by the simple lack of attestation to the contrary. Even quite meticulous records that assert my rationality and even playful nature in creating the temple of Xoth can be withered away by the receding event of its creation.

There are two primary paths to aid this interpretation in this kind of case. One is to assert that the playful rationality attributed to me in fact concealed a true occult fascination. If it was known that I had read such texts then this is extra fuel to this aspect-perception (regardless of what I actually made of them). Xoth can then be reinterpreted as a warped version of some other spirit name. At this juncture the line does assuredly become blurred for of course in Lacanian way I may exactly have travelled the linguistic pneuminous paths to distort the name of a power that on some subconscious level did indeed tap me -though the tapping may have been only psychoanalytic.

This blurring points the way to the second path of reinterpretation of the event. Where the first suggests that I concealed with fiction my true intent by the accretions creation, the second suggests that I acted merely as conduit to a power that I foolishly believed was just a creation of my whim. In this instance the creation is postulated not as the rendering of mother to Xoth but of some other name, yet even further cloaked in time. This being -so the second path says- has commandeered my capacity to channel accretions -which belongs to all NARPs. I became unwitting host to this power and in repeating its ancient desires, forged a small worship place for it. As the sanity of NARPs presupposes that the neurotic accretion (self) is the one which retains control, it is not possible for the NARP to proceed as if it is controlled by an alien accretion. We are always of course negotiating the dominance of the neurotic accretion against many other powers that seek to exercise control over the regional processor (brands, foods etc), however these powers are not often ‘spirits’ exerting such levels of control [as to create them places of worship]. This is the second way of interpreting the event as paranormal intervention -control through the subsconscious by other powers.

The true marvel of the accretions of this nature is then their self fulfilling power -hyperstition. For any investigation into the temple of Xoth (once it has sufficiently retreated in time) will feed the accretion of mystery and generate events of pneuminous interference (synchronicity). The ambiguity of these events has been endlessly gone over herein and labelled ‘agnostic disjunction’. Yet with each interference, the accretions power grows as the circuit of the possibility of Xoth’s reality becomes stronger.

There was the possibility that Parasol would end with the Reich issue. However an exciting document was recently received by the CEO that prompted the beginning of a whole issue on the intersecting realm of magick and philosophy.

Through the underground tentacles and popularity of the topic the issue is nearly already full, but if you have a fascinating submission it may yet be accepted -if it’s that good we’ll make room.

Write to ceo47@outlook.com

Usual numerology enacts an information reduction that is non-retrievable after the operation is performed (if one lost the original number one could not derive it from the reduced number).

One way to conceive of large numbers as reduced to single numbers is to conceive of them on a series of axes. Usually, at least in telluric numerology we take a larger number like 47 nd reduce it to 2 (via 11), the same process happens in the others. The other associative one (mercurial or *) is also straightforward i.e. 47 becomes 28 becomes 16 becomes 6. A nagging sensation is sometimes felt in number reduction, the sensation that we wish the trace of the bigger number was still somehow present. In their brutal form, numerological reductions eradicate more complicated structures to reveal the underlying pattern, that’s what they’re supposed to do.

The idea here is not a perfect solution to informational loss, it is more just a turning round of the problem that gives an intriguing sense of quasi-visualization. It does also however give some grounds for saying that under some circumstances ~(2=2) or indeed any number, including 0.

The idea is that for any numerological reduction (which necessarily involves an integer greater than 9) we can represent it as a spatialized schema.  The below represents the reduction of all  2 digit integers in base 10. The highlighted figure shows the exact location of 47. 47 is not just 2, it is that 2 that occupies that position. tellrumul

Of course any coordinate transcription is in some sense equivalent to writing 47 and hence slightly tautologous, however 47 by itself does not give the spatialized position of its reduction. Naturally increasing the number size just adds more axes leading us into higher and higher dimensional coordinate systems to demonstrate the location of the single digit e.g. 231147 uses 6 dimensions to point to the 9 that it becomes.

This can be done with the other elemental numerologies too (though aetheric / is still being processed). The below is the 2 dimensional table for mercurial operations (*)watermult

Again the 10s are on the y axis and the 1s on the x, 100s would be on z and so on.

This only invites ways of thinking upon the matter. The key one being the non-identity of identical numbers which seems to have some allure that may be worth dwelling on further. The other thing that strikes me is the status of the numbers in the grid. They are not really 1s as one might assume for they only exist by virtue of the axes that identify them. They are necessarily numbers but of no definite kind. The real 1s are an axis that identifies the number in the grid by virtue of the elemental operator. There are 1s that are identical but single digit numbers derived from larger strings in numerological reductions are not strictly single integers.

One might object that this does not help visualization of names as numbers like Azathoth (1 22 1 18 7 14 18 7) as these are not enormous numbers but small numbers strung together. I think given the realm we’re in here already one could do two things to continue employ the visualization. One could either treat the numbers as one long number i.e.  12218714187 or alter the representation of the axes from 1s 10s 100s to simply multiple axes. It is still usable in this regard.

There is no proposed use for this idea as yet but we believe it may have certain hyperstitional possibilities inchoate in it. Ideas are welcome.

What is the God of coherence? It may the phantastical answer to some of the issues involved here. Previous posts on manifestationism have drawn attention to the problem of the manifestation of coherence. The issue being that the set of competing ontologies appears to contain the ontology in which concepts are coherent vehicles to contain being. Ambiguities can be ironed out and truth objectively unfolded. This manifestation denies the basic incoherence of concepts upon which the whole meta-theory (manifestationism) is founded.

All this manifestation needs to stay as a part of the extensive set is ironically its incoherent manifestation -incoherent coherence. As it does have this level of sense it remains present. Coherent coherence* is a nonsense. It seems quite obvious this is the case, yet as a phantasy it persists. We can find various ways to show the permeability, the ambiguity of concepts (Derrida, Wittgenstein) yet still the strange possibility that it might all make rigorous proper sense manages to hang on. This phantasy is curiously similar to christian monotheistic notions of God. This similarity is shown in positive theological qualities of God like, perfection, all knowingness etc. From the monotheistic God’s perspective ‘coherence’ is perfectly valid. When we engage in the phantasy of perfect knowledge, the manifestation of coherence, we belong to the lineage of this God. This is not to say one entails the other, though the perfect God ontology does entail the Godlike possibility of perfect knowledge (coherent coherence) but not its human access. Neither does potential human coherent coherence entail the perfect God. No, the connecting point is that they both suppose the possibility of coherent coherence.

*In the TPP a phenomenological epistemology is offered in the following form. The basic relation to a given word-object is an incoherent coherence meaning we accept the word means the object but think no deeper about this. Any thought upon the matter reveals the relation to be an coherent incoherence, i.e. we understand that the fastening of the concept to the phenomena seems in a hard sense essentially impossible. This leaves two remaining relations: incoherent incoherence -which would be outright nonsense- and coherent coherence -the perfect knowledge relation.

 

If Einstein were definitively correct then we should understand that it is more appropriate to say spacetime than space and time. As Buckminster Fuller noted, NAARPs find this very difficult. Our old grammatical inclinations take hold of us so forcefully that we struggle to free ourselves from them. In the case of space and time possibly we should not be so harsh on ourselves. We should remember that the primordial word is always the use word, technical definition comes later.

Time evolves out of multiple instances of phrases like ‘what time is it?’ ‘do you have the time?’ ‘have we enough time?’ all of which hover around a related vector region. The Greeks of course differentiated Chronos from Kairos, sequential time from lived time, Bergson’s time and duration do something similar. The possibility of measuring both space and time in a functional way encourages the grammar of speaking and thinking about them in quantities. This much is not new. However accepting strong accretive theory suggests a feedback that would in unknown ways allow for potentially peculiar temporal rupturing.

The notion of time as its own kind of state, no matter how incoherent will form an accretion. The thinking of time as a spatialesque process creates this accretion. Time is a concept applied to a vector. The vector is the endlessly changing vector field -which includes our mind (if everything froze but we continued to think, we would be aware that at least for us, time was still going, or we would be comfortable in saying so at least).

This endless flux gives us the grammar of time as if it were a force that moved things on. The incoherent accretion of time with all its gods and physics plugs into the flux vector. If magick obtains (strong accretive theory) then this accretion will in some minor sense make the time vector more like the accretion.

This is the doubling process often referred to in here in which the original use impression of the vector transforms into something of a more concrete nature -the accretion. In the case of time we have the changing nature of everything as the vector which enables the grammar of time. Time is not a thing, it is born out of this use description. The solidification of the concept around the more quantitative meaning renders the concept more in this wise. Time as a thing is an accretion of the various uses of it. Accretions are the means by which we alter things with magick. The ordinary function of the accretions is that they fit the vector that they are used for -the meaning of grammar.

Magick as we have said is the application of an accretion to a vector that would not usually grammatically receive  it. The time accretion we take to fit the vector flux but when we utilise the time accretion more in the direction of measurement we enact this kind of magick upon the flux. As with all magick the effect is subtle and scarcely repeatable.

This is the irony of the time accretion. The rupture is not enabling the strangeness of the flux, the rupture is in the attempt to repress the potential strangeness of the flux.

Here we hit again the problem of umbratic magick vs pneuminous magick or ruptures that belong to the restraint (are in its nature) and ruptures that may be brought about by conceptual levels of intense pneuminosity.

Synchronicity looks like ruptures that happen at the pneuminous level -because they appear intentional. However one must consider the possibility that the pneuminous accretion of time in its increasingly measured nature is actually repressive to a potential stranger temporality which it -albeit slightly- controls.

All systems need a patch. It’s inescapable. The previously exposed flaw in manifestationism can only be displaced by meta-meta level (since manifestationism itself is a kind of meta-philosophy). The problem with manifestationism is that it must presuppose the incoherence of concepts in order to stay afloat. It is the incoherence of concepts that means they will always have aporias which enemy agents may successfully twist to their own advantage. The incoherence of concepts guarantees the perpetual argument of philosophy especially, but to some extent all disciplines/knowledge claims. Manifestationism contains the extensive set of ontologies -extensive because it excludes many utterly arbitrary choices that have no mythological or otherwise grounding to them. However one reasonable theory of how things might be entails that the concepts are not incoherent hence manifestationism contains within itself an ontology that denies the ground on which the meta-theory itself is formed. This is clearly untenable.

To solve (patch) this situation, we propose an agnostic disjunction that occurs before manifestationism occurs. This AD would be the choice between the coherence or the incoherence of concepts. It is admittedly a somewhat bizarre one as it does put forward the possibility that concepts could be coherent which is a notion that does not even seem to clear in itself. Nevertheless it can seem to us that the possibility exists that clear definitions could be made for all notions and hence the manifestation is allowed to pass. If it could be shown a priori that this was not a possibility then manifestationism could get of the ground on this merit alone. For the moment though this possibility seems unavailable, furthermore it seems better to include the possibility of coherence as a manifestation than to attempt to prove it can be exclude. Doing this avoids the problem of attempting to exclude a system on conceptual grounds of argumentation whilst simultaneously proposing that conceptual argumentation can never close down any extensive possibility.

In a sense this still keeps the manifestationist picture intact as there is still nothing but competing ontologies. What it does do that’s different is create a two tier system in which the first agnostic disjunction must be answered. A complicating question regards the possibility of incoherence and coherence is that of magick. The desired end would be that magick would not be compatible with the notion of coherence. This however is not the case. The magickal possibility is perfectly compatible with the phantasy of coherence it’s just that this is not the chaos magickal model. The version of magick that is compatible with coherence is the older version of fixed correspondences as set into existence by some higher power. This hidden but real order of existence is part of the coherence that might uncovered. This more hardline version of magick can also be found within incoherent manifestationism but in coherent coherence it is the only form possible. There is then admittedly a bizarre coherent phantasy embedded in manifestationism.

In other places we have stated that in order to describe pneuminosity as a philosophy we must assume the reality of (chaos) magick. The situation is now that we must first of all assume the incoherent arm of the primordial agnostic disjunction and then the reality of chaos magick.

Reason? I once sat down in a chair, a familiar chair, positioned in a comfortable nook of my home. It was mid autumn, neither too chill nor oppressively humid, I had nowhere to go and so I focused on the rather ludicrous pursuit of ‘reason in Being’. Arrogance precedes both reason and ‘Being’; Swifts may chase insects, but I doubt they squander their hours pondering the ‘reason in Being’. Hedgehogs shuffle gladly in the dark for juicy grubs, but not often are they to be spied reflecting upon the rejection of reason or ‘Being’. Why? I would wager, creatures like the Swift and Hedgehog are not blighted by arrogance, but they can they experience ‘Being’ without arrogance? Then it struck me, people are insane, we’ve always been this way and it might be the single most valid evidence behind our identity of ‘Being’. When we pursue ‘Being’ we are like children in the dark, amazed by everything, surprised by everything. Carl Jung wrote…

“…As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere Being…”

Ontologically speaking, the pursuit of ‘Being’ will invariably make the explorer more acutely aware of their own latent insanity. That is the darkness that resides at the core of ‘mere Being’. Because the kernel of our quest, the pursuit of essence in the minutiae, is madness. Academics are largely shielded from this mania by the material trimmings and idealistic reassurances of pedagogy. Textbooks, frameworks, paradigms, comfort in agreement, are very potent poultices. It is a glaring and painful absurdity to believe, that you can experiment with the very essence of your ‘Being’ and not be in some way disfigured by the exploration. You are not hypothetical, but you might very well be at the whim of your ancestral lunacy. Is it better to be clever and wrong or deranged and right?

Does a Hedgehog suffer insanity, can it have ‘Being’, does a Swift possess reason and if so do they experience the essence of ‘Being’ and the elevation of reason as I do, as we latter day Homo Sapiens do? No I feel they can not, because to explore ‘Being’ in any authentic sense, you must as a base prerequisite be afflicted by the capacity for an elevated mania. It is not the capacity to verbally reflect upon our history that separates Man from Beast, no it would be more accurate to say, it is our inherited insanity. This insanity is a gift from an invisible deity, who dwells in an invisible realm and this being has done so for an unfathomable expanse of eternity.

So I sat there, trying to muster the validity of ‘Being’ that might be experienced by the mercurial Swift or indeed the stoic Hedgehog. I began laughing, not a pleasant laughter, not it was something quite hideous. It was laughter, but a glee marred with a dumb kind of pathetic doubt. Because there was and still is a very real and potent stupidity underlying my question.

Motivation? So, if you require a neat lineage, I’d put it as thus; arrogance, reason/being and finally motivation. You could argue, ‘well without ‘being’ or the delusion there of, how could you acquire arrogance; arrogance being a character trait, surely?’. If we were indeed made in the image of some intangible deity, then we came predisposed with arrogance, not so much .being’. We have constructed a ghoulish mire, in each of us a sublime illusion of cognitive essence. So, motivated by arrogance, drunk on being, aroused by reason I sat in that chair and I stopped laughing because I became acutely self aware and I felt embarrassed, even in isolation as I was. I felt a strange Lovecraftian foreboding with my endeavour. Are the almost shameful notions of ‘reason’ and ‘Being’ synonymous with each other, indeed inseparable? Even in my easy chair, I was a bumbling maniac, and it struck me that our search for ‘Being’ is very much a journey to the mouth of madness. There is a rather poignant  quote from the bible, which succinctly sums up Mans exploration of ‘Being’ and so we have as thus…

“… “Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is a lunatic and is very ill; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water. “I brought him to Your disciples, and they could not cure him” Matthew 17:14-18.

We can’t be cured of our madness and we surely will not resolve the horror and tension being our ‘Being’. This kind of peculiar horror is softened by our arrogance. But what would motivate somebody along the pernicious journey into ‘Being’? Only arrogance could possible befuddle our senses so completely that we’d even dare contemplate it. Because if you settle yourself into an easy chair one autumn afternoon, with nothing better to do. If you dig deep and resolve yourself not to be deterred by intellectual shame, then you will be blighted by a succour of terror! In that, you will come to a very abstract and wholly unsatisfactory conclusion, and you will know that we are hypothetical entities. We are surely cursed with an incurable lust for ‘reason’ and ridiculed by a misplaced belief in our own ‘Being’. In truth we are all amateur solipsists trying to kindle a light in the darkness of our own manic idiocy.