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 or tweet/dm @23ceo47

The CEO is not interested in the reality of numerology as such. Its interest extends as a further account of accretion formation. Yet numerology holds a particular mythological connection with regards to the emergence of the pneuminous accretive theory so in this way the numerology is accreted to the theory itself.

In the pre internet world experiments occurred. The experiments were naïve occult engagements. There was one who, out of sight of others, claimed to have been in touch with an entity named Jupiter. A fascination with this entity led to a question that comes from the canon of spirit associations. This question  was ‘what is your number?’. The answer  to this question was unambiguously given as 47. This clue, at the time all taken as naïve occult reality, was investigated further.

47 Synthesis Sigil

Various particular synchronicities aside the most impressive feature of this number was being comprehended not as 47 but more as 4 and 7. An informational interference in the number system demonstrates this pattern. A book on magick in mentioned that ‘the highest form of a number is itself squared and cross added’. Accepting this notion with no reflection on any of the terms, the standard integers were checked. This yielded the following result.




4 (see 2)

5^2=(25)+=7 (see 2)

6^2=(36)+=9 (see 3)

7 (see 2)


9 (see 3)

As can be  noted, this means that numbers 2, 4, 5, 7 all result in an endless cycle of alternating 4 and 7. 3, 6, 9 all become 9 and 1 and 8 are 1.

There were strange half tales at the time. All unverifiable but among them there was a bizarre account of a cult that met in an ordinary house in the local city, that was identifiable on the street due its red curtains. This information was supposedly received through occult means and though these events are all apocryphal, the description of the drapes was quite specific.

Jupiter became more communicative and revealed itself as one of 6 key powers that could be associated with previous pantheons (e.g. Olympians) if need be.

These were:







There were inane communications from these entities and speculations about various rotated forms of the 4 7 synthesis shape that formed the Cerwhol (a kind of home for them). Intimations about a giant night-time and the common ultra-terrestrial like babble. Jupiter was revealed as Elphuisias, which curiously adds up (in the Chaldean system) to 47.

Rotation of 4 7 sigil and Cerewhol formation (bottom)Enter a caption



Disclaimer: The CEO is by no means an anti-scientific organisation. The content herein concerns the Gods’ perspective and not necessarily the mortals at all. As such the piece can be interpreted in a manifestationist light.

The Fate of the Feast of Being.

It so happened that in the realm of the Gods there was to be a feast. The deities took an eternity in its preparation, for this feast was to be the greatest feast ever and the feast of the divine is naturally the best feast possible. Furthermore one cannot enumerate or describe the contents of this feast in human language for this feast is necessarily in excess to all our concepts of the comestible. What we can say is that the feast of the divine is the feast of being, and its consumption by the deities was to be the greatest unfolding of divinity’s fusing with its own works.

In that timeless world –which contains in it the essence of time- the Gods prepared to eat the feast, the relish of the Gods in their being-towards-the-feast-of-the-divine was itself nearly as great as the feast itself. Thus the realm of the Gods was filled with the anticipation of the holy. One can only dream of the gloriousness of this timeless time in its golden glory. The infinite halls of the Gods decked in ethereal splendour, finery beyond finery, decoration upon decoration, this event –which is the event of all events- promised to be the greatest happening and becoming and having been. Yet this having-been would be so great as to never dwell in its pastness, for the essence of the feast of being contains all that is and will be.

Now there dwelled also, in the timeless realm of the Gods, a dog. The dog was the companion of the Gods, but in truth it was a wretched beast, its wretchedness and its beastness were evident to all the deities, but they in their glory petted it and kept it. The Gods knew what the dog was and they felt it was better to keep an eye on it than let it stray around the divine realm, for the dog was the dog of science. Unlike the glorious divine realm and its inhabitants, the dog of science was more easily describable being more concrete in its appearance. The dog of science was in fact a rather rotund Labrador that shuffled and puffed its way around the divine realm. The dog of science was a sickening beast and many of the divine thought it would soon die, and frankly many of them thought that was the best thing for it.

At the timeless time of the feast of being, the dog of science of was puffing its way around the glorious banquet hall, sniffing at the food of divinity. The dog of science though, was a stupid beast and knew nothing about the glorious nature of the feast; to the dog of science the feast of being was simply more food like any other.

It came about –which was the essence of coming-about-ness- that the feast of being was due to commence. The Gods had gathered in the hall of halls and sat at table of tables to eat the feast of feasts. In all this glory, no one paid any attention to the dog of science, which lay slumped under the table in a wretchedly unhealthy pile of beast.  Now in that instant before the first mouthful of the feast of being was tasted –and we must not forget the incredible relish that the Gods felt towards the feast- there came an interruption. The interruption was a knock from the world of mortals at the door of the divine realm. The Gods longed to ignore the knock at the divine door yet knew they could not, for due to the law the Gods are compelled to always answer the door. So thusly coerced to answer the door, the Gods left the feast of being and went to see who was there, though they knew that there was no one there and that the knock was simply that, a knock from the mortal realm. Such knocks are not uncommon in the realm of Gods, yet necessarily they can never have anyone behind them, for no mortal may be behind the door when the Gods answer[i].

So the Gods go to the door and open it, they open it wide and peer out, checking carefully in all directions, for the Gods are nothing if not meticulous. Yet it is as always and there is no one there. However what is that happens whilst the Gods leave the feast of being? Well, whilst the Gods are away answering the door, the banquet hall is empty, that is except for the wretched dog of science. In the absence of the Gods the dog of science heaves itself to its feet and moves its turgid carcass close to the edge of the table of the feast of being. Again it sniffs the feast, and as before, finds nothing special in this, the best feast ever. However the dog is hungry, it licks its slavering maw and drools at the prospect of dinner. Now nearly overcome with excitement at the prospect of food, the dog of science begins to form a plan.

In an effort of almost titanic proportions, this most rubbish of beasts heaves its front two legs up onto the table where the feast is laid and once there it pauses, sniffs and drools until its saliva makes a small puddle on the tablecloth of tablecloths. Now from this position all the beast can do is stare, for the feast of being is too far in the middle of the table. But the dog of science, though fat and wretched, is cunning. The dog presses its legs down hard against the tablecloth and begins to shuffle its hind legs backwards, in this way the dog of science –slowly but surely- drags the divine table cloth –upon which is the feast of feasts- towards the edge of the table. Soon the dog has the feast close to the edge of the table where it could begin to feed, but no, the dog is not satisfied with a mouthful and it drags the tablecloth further until parts of the feast begin to spill onto the floor.

Here then is the true beginning of the tragedy of tragedies as the first dishes of the feast of being falls to the floor. Yet the dog of science is not satisfied with this initial spillage and now that it has part of the tablecloth reachable from the floor, it grabs it in its mouth and begins to drag again. If the Gods were aware of this tragedy then they would assuredly stop it, but they are away and the feast of being cannot defend itself. And so it happens that glorious dish by glorious dish falls off the side of that greatest of tables until ultimately the feast of being, the most glorious achievement of divinity, is nothing but the greatest mess the divine realm has ever borne witness to.

Now, seemingly content to have rendered the entire feast upon the floor, the dog of science begins to feed, hungrily wolfing down the best meal ever, yet its feeding is not a moment of magnificence and relish, of taste beyond taste. No, the experience of the dog of science is no different from its ordinary dinner, except perhaps that –on this occasion- there is more of it. So the dog of science eats and eats the feast of being. In fact the dog of science does not cease until the whole of the feast has been consumed.

Can one imagine the horror of the Gods when they return from the door? Can one conceive of what the deities must feel when their being-towards-the-feast-of-being is greeted not with the feast of being, but instead with the huge bloated evil dog of science lying on the holiest of tablecloths unable to move from its gorging.

Frankly the Gods are appalled, but this appalledness is the essence of being appalled, it is the most upsetting sensation ever. Of course in many ways to say they are appalled is not to say anything remotely adequate. They are horrified and terrified, they weep and gnash their teeth, they wail they the wail of wailings. Yet what does the dog of science do? Well it lies there on the tablecloth and looks at the Gods for it has no idea that there is a problem. It possibly wonders if they aren’t going to eat something themselves, but this is only conjecture. It certainly doesn’t know what all the wailing and crying is about. It is a blessing for the Gods that they cannot read the mind of the dog of science, as if they could it might increase further their distress and this is a happening not to be contemplated[ii].

But what is this sensation that the dog of science now feels? What is that rumbling in its insidious stomach? The dog of science doesn’t know immediately but soon finds out. For the divine food is of course the richest, finest food ever. In fact the divine dinner is –quite naturally- too rich for the wretched dog of science and now the dog of science discovers this. The dog of science feels terrible so it raises itself to it pathetic feet and makes its way to the porch outside. In doing this the dog of science believes it is being quite well behaved for it would not dream of being sick in front of the Gods in their fine banquet hall.

So the dog of science gets outside to the porch and there, it begins to be sick. In truth, the dog of science is violently sick on the porch, which is hardly surprising since it just consumed the whole of the feast of being. The Gods look on in horror at the worst spectacle ever; one might say the worst spectacle possible. That wretched beast that they have allowed to hang around the divine realm, that they have fed, that they have looked after; not content with eating the feast of feasts is now vomiting it up on their own porch. We said before that we did not wish to contemplate what would happen if the Gods state were to worsen, yet now that is what happens. The Gods stare with the horror of horrors at this terrifying image: the dog, the sick, the porch. They try to understand, they try to say the words ‘The dog of science has eaten the feast of being whilst our backs were turned and now is throwing it up all over the porch’. But they cannot say these terrible words; some of them manage half the sentence others cannot even say the first word. Now this horror –the Gods believe- is at least the final horror and it maybe that this horror itself is enough to taint the divine realm forever. But no, this is not the end of the terror, for now having been sick for some considerable period of time the dog stands still, sick dripping out its maw. It looks at the Gods in their distress and probably it believes they are crying because the dog has been sick. The dog of science is very touched by this, but believes the Gods should not fret, for now the dog of science feels fine. In fact the dog of science feels so fine that it believes there should not even be any need for the wastage in front of it –which is the sick of the feast of being.

And now we reach it, the final horror that assuredly ruins the allness of everything for all eternity. The dog of science droops its head towards the sick of the feast of being and once more, begins to feed. Well, as one can imagine the Gods horror is even greater than before, it is the essence of disgust and more. Yet the increased state of revulsion amongst the Gods does not seem to bother the dog of science, it feeds and feeds until once more the feast of being is –in its new state- yet again totally consumed.

Well now the state of the Gods is so dreadful that ultimately when they can stare no more, the Gods are forced to flee. Yet what happens in the Gods absence, well the dog stares at the empty realm, but is not bothered for it suddenly has a more pressing matter, that is once more it does not feel too well. Fortunately for the dog of science it is already outside, so again it begins to be sick, sicking up the rich sick of the feast of being. It is, in all honesty, just as well that by now the Gods have fled, for we do not wish to contemplate what they would feel in observing this. And what is more, this happening is one that seems to have trapped the dog of science, for again and again it eats the sick of sick and again and again it vomits up –all be it each time slightly finer- the sick of the feast of being. The divine realm then, is now devoid of divinity; there is only the dog and the cycle of the sick of the feast of being and its being re-consumed on the porch.

It so happens eventually that the mortals who knocked on the door to the divine realm become curious as to why no one answered it. Eventually the mortals peer in, for they know also that according to the law the Gods must always answer the door, hence something must be amiss[iii]. What greets the mortal sight upon entry is not the brilliance of divinity’s dwelling, but an empty realm, devoid of glory. All they find is the dog of science being sick on the porch then eating its sick. This then is the dilemma that faces the mortals. Should they try to stop the dog from its cycle of being sick and feeding? And if so how? Should they beat it with sticks then try to clean up the sick or should they befriend it, perhaps by offering a different less rich kind of food? If they do distract it what should they do with the sick? Should they sift through it to see if something can be rescued, to see if they can perhaps learn something from the sick of the feast of being? Or maybe they should just leave the dog to its hideous cycle and attempt to find where it is that the deities have fled to. These questions and many more face the mortals, who can say what they will decide…



[i] There is on this point some debate about the originary state of the myth, for though no one could question the truth of that law which compels the Gods to always answer the door, there does exist a version in which the mortals ask to come in to partake of the feast of being. In this version an argument ensues between the Gods and mortals as to whether they should be allowed in. The mortals argue that since –in many respects- the feast of being is for their benefit, it stands to reason that they should be allowed in. Whilst the Gods understandably reply that whilst it is true that the feast of being does find its reflection in the mortal realm, it is not directly for the mortals to partake in. It is of course in the time that this debate takes up that the dog of science commits the crime of crimes. There is of course an obvious consequence from this version. For in this case it is the mortals themselves who are indirectly responsible for ruining the feast of being and thus fall out of favour with the Gods, whereas in the version presented here it is the meticulousness of the Gods that is the chief problem. There are of course those who say the mortals are to blame in either case as we cannot blame the Gods for making sure there is no one at the door. Interestingly enough we might note two links with the respective version in terms of Christianity. The version above tells us that no mortal may be behind the door when the Gods answer it and who could fail to see the parallel with this and the well known notion that one cannot look upon the face of God and live. The second point regards the version where the mortals argue with the Gods and are hence responsible for ruining everything. This of course can be easily interpreted as the fall of mankind.

[ii] A debate has sprung up about the sensation that the Gods experience, for we are told that when they first encounter the dog of science after it has eaten the feast that this is ‘the most upsetting sensation ever’. Yet then first there is one reference to a sensation worse than this i.e. when it is imagined what they would feel if they could read the mind of the dog of science. Then later we are told that such an event actually occurs i.e. when the dog is sick. Some scholars have conjectured that for an effective reading we must add the word ‘bearable’ to the description of the sensation, so that it reads ‘the most upsetting sensation ever that is bearable’. Those who disagree with this state that the addition is not necessary as under no circumstance can the sensation be described as bearable for we are told it is the worst possible sensation. The reply to this is of course that ‘how then, is it that the sensation becomes worse later?’ Here theorists have conjectured that we must look for a kind of transcendence of the sensation of worstness and that it is this transcendence that is responsible for the Gods being forced to flee. This theory of transcendence has been modified to cover the even worsening of the sensation when the dog begins to eat its own sick, hence we end up with the following schema.


What is felt when the Gods encounter the dog           =              The most upsetting sensation ever.

when it has eaten the feast.


What is felt when the Gods view the dog being         =              The transcendence of the most upsetting

sick.                                                                                               sensation ever.


What is felt when the Gods view the dog eating        =              The transcendence of the transcendence

the sick.                                                                                        of the most upsetting sensation ever.


To this though, the advocates of the addition of the word ‘bearable’ will simply claim that the theory of transcendence is but another way of saying the same thing as adding the word ‘bearable’.

[iii] There is a good deal of discussion as to the nature of the door upon which the mortals knock. A certain school –in line with the idea that the mortals wish to join the feast- believe that the door is in fact the door to the banquet hall. This would seem to be a hard claim to defend as we are told at the end that the mortals peer through the door and see the porch and the dog. How is this possible if the banquet door is the one upon which they knocked?  It seems very unlikely that there would be a porch inside the banquet hall. This school then point to the unclear translation and that this explanation of the two doors has been lost through the years of rewriting. They state that it may be that there are two doors but that, the first time the knock is mentioned –the disturbance of the feast- they knock on the banquet door having already knocked on this further outer door. The second time they knock it is only on the outer door, as when they enter it is obvious that the divine realm has been deserted. A consequence of this theory is that the mortals may have frequently visited the divine realm when they deities do not answer these more outer doors. Of course if one wishes to keep to the doctrine that the mortals must not be behind the door when the deities open it, then one must allow that they have sufficient time to escape the divine realm when they hear the Gods approach.

It must be said though, that the majority of interpretations do not side with the theory of the two doors. The more popular interpretation is that there is in fact only one door upon which the mortals ‘knock’ and that we should not –in our analysis- attempt to be too literal about the door and its location. These scholars hold that the mortals knock is not a knock on the banquet hall door and that furthermore, their advent into the ex-divine realm is almost certainly the first time they have been in. The knock that takes place before the feast is going to commence is upon a figurative door that is especially from the mortal realm, moreover the Gods know this when they go to answer it. This theory also aids those who wish to defend the theory that it was not an argument but the fastidious checking of the Gods that there was no one there. It helps for it means that the Gods must traipse out of the banquet hall –for the mortals see the porch when they come in hence it must be outside- to get to the door hence giving the dog of science more time to eat the divine feast.




The CEO is looking for people with exciting ontological speculations in the region of the magick/philosophy crossover (but not necessarily just that area, straight-forward philosophy/occultism also considered) to write for its blog. Whilst funds last we can currently pay about 2p per word. Articles should be 500-1000 words.


@23ceo47 (twitter)


There is a sensation that I feel, maybe that many of you feel in observing the path the early Nick Land trod. It’s commonplace to observe a kind of distance from Land’s political alignments of more recent times. I feel a sense of agreement with the distancing and that there are a variety of seriously flawed thoughts that are taken as self evident in this thought. As with Heidegger though, the flaws don’t outweigh the contribution.

The thread I want to comment on here regards the feeling I mentioned at the start. This feeling is one of recognition. Already I’m aware this is dodgy ground. I have no particular status in the philosophical theory world so it sounds like an awful hubris. It isn’t meant to and I might even be wrong -feelings are often projections and themselves flawed in this way. I’ll try to avoid the hubris claim by explaining what I mean.

I think the seed of almost all the Landian project (in its hyperstitional CCRU glory) is in his little paper on qabalah. It is hard to write any of this and do justice to the matter. The suggestion though, is that Land has experienced a confirmatory synchronistic experience to the syzygy pairing of the single base 10 integers or other related numogrammatical work. Equally it may be (and strikes me as more likely that) in attempting to contact the outside through various means he disclosed this information and founded the system after the fact (the issue is confused by the CCRU usage of time, which might suggest the after the fact normal time discovery was its retro temporal inception).

In case you don’t know the message that confirms the numogrammatical syzgys let’s go over it. Land notes that the simplest form of numerology would be to just count the amount of letters in the word. I’m not sure about this claim particularly since it already means there is a split between letters and numbers -which we don’t find in the early hebrew influenced alphabets- but nevertheless we can go with it. He applies this to the words that we use to write the numbers to see if this displays some kind of useful decoding. It reveals the following:

ONE + EIGHT = NINE + ZERO. (3 + 5 = (4 + 4 =) 8)
TWO + SEVEN = NINE + ZERO. (3 + 5 = (4 + 4 =) 8)
THREE + SIX = NINE + ZERO. (5 + 3 = (4 + 4 =) 8)
FOUR + FIVE = NINE + ZERO. (4 + 4 = (4 + 4 =) 8)

This Land rightly notes is quite impressive. Let’s take it in. Either the syzygy pairings can be derived straight from the arbitrary length of the words of the numbers or they confirm them. Either way this is an impressive synchronicity that crosses the number-word boundary and intimates (as Land notes) a clue about the relation between 8 and 9. Marko Rodin would raise an eyebrow for sure. He calculates an approximate probability which doesn’t make it seem outrageous. Except of course it is pretty outrageous. Even if his calculation holds up we still have the fact that this entity (Land) with this research program (such as it is) received this confirmation. Such intimations have elsewhere certainly been held to be absolute confirmations of the truth of religious paths. Here though, the chaos magickal insight seems to be held up and no universal level of significance is attributed. Instead this connection is used as part of the apparatus to hang the rest of the numogrammatical machinery off.

Yet I feel (and this is the resonance part) the numerological insight to be the driver. I feel it has this role precisely because of the actual exhilaration that such disclosures can impart to the experiencing being. The work at the CEO is almost entirely about that moment and its implications: we exist happily in a solid reality and yet sometimes things happen that show massive cracks, thankfully due to probability we can assimilate the cracks into the solidity, yet the nagging sense that maybe they really were cracks doesn’t leave -some of us. I think Land, probably along with a variety of other synchronistic type experiences, despite the flatness of his tone, feels the [p]numinous glow of his little numerological disclosure.

I might be projecting but I think there is a resonance with my own ‘disclosures’. Originally (many years ago) a series of naive occult experiments furnished me with two things. A spirit named Jupiter and its number: 47. These made no numerological match in letter translation but a series of endless numerological investigations produced the following system.

The foundation of the system is derived from the following squaring of base 10 coupled with the classic numerological process of cross addition formalized as n+ e.g.


Now in  some book or other (I think by Tony Willis) I once read that ‘the highest incarnation of a number is itself multiplied by itself  (squaring) and reduced (cross addition). This rule was taken to heart at the time and thus the results were felt to reflect a significance that chaos magickal insights would later show for what they are. Nevertheless the experiments were interesting and convincing in a similar wise to the numogrammatical confirmation.



2=4=(16)+=7=(49)+=(13)+=4 and will repeat this endlessly thus we can write 4v7








Thus from this perspective, taking this rule as truth, the highest manifestation of the numbers is 1, and oscillation of 4v7 and 9.

Of course like Land I’ve been stuck here with the privileging of the tellurian/mercurial numerology (addition/multiplication), something we’re working to correct slowly. The above however represents a significant synchronicity insofar as I had the 47 number first then discovered the pattern after (I knew nothing about Pomona in these days at all).

Synchronicity 2 also turns on the tellurian/mercurial systems but is in a sense more impressive. Consider that cross addition ((123)+=6) suggests the possibility of a relation, indeed says that under certain condition (a particular base) there is a relation between a number higher than the highest single integer and one of the single integers. The general impression would be that this is in a sense arbitrary or at least meaningless. What has 53 e.g. got to do with 8? Very little other than the cross addition relationship.

What is truly fascinating is the that the squares of 4 and 7 give numbers whose cross addition then has a demonstrable reality in a triangle comprised of units 1 at the top 3 on the next line down, then 5, 7 and so on.

Triangles of this kind of unit construction are remarkable as they also provide squares. The number that will be squared is the height of the triangle. So if I have a triangle of 2 height, the total number of units in the triangle will be 4, if 3 it will be nine and so on.

The relation to the issue of cross addition is as follows. If I have a triangle of a height of 4, necessarily it will be comprised of 16 units. The base however will be 7 units(1+6). There is one relation uncovered here for the base will always have the relation to the height 2n-1. If the height is 12 the base is 23 and so on.

The second relation that is more interesting to us here is the one concerning squares. Squares of 4s and 7s even of cross addition ones will always reduce to 7s or 4s respectively but the base seems to often (though not always) reveal a relation between the number itself, the square and the cross addition of the square.

These are the most concrete examples:

4 becomes 16 becomes 7 (the base units of 4)

7 becomes 49 becomes 13 (the base units of the 7 triangle) becomes 4

These require a tweak to make them work but are still quite convincing.

13 becomes 169 becomes (curiously by preserving the first two digits as a whole number) 16+9=25 is the base number.

16 becomes 256 becomes 31 (by the same logic above) which is the base number and also reduces to 4.

22 becomes 484 and a similar logic derives the base. This time we extract 40 and add 8+4=12=3, re-add them and we have 43, the base number.

31 gives us 961, if we cross out the 9 for 9=0 in base 10 cross addition we immediately have the base number again.

It doesn’t always work though…

25*25=625=13=4, or course the 7/4 transformation is preserved but the base relation is not. The base would be 49 and 625 does not have a relation to it. And no doubt there are others.



This is then leaves the question that I still don’t have a coherent answer to:

How can a supposedly arbitrary number like 13 that has no relation to 4 in itself (as base 10 is arbitrary) have the above demonstrated level of necessary connection?

This second confirmatory synchronicity can easily leave a person obsessed with the significance of what they’re doing. Thankfully books like Cosmic Trigger 1 quite easily help sort this kind of problem out (Clearly Land new these works well though their significance for his work seems to be largely overlooked).

The CEO doesn’t have and isn’t likely to have the clout that the CCRU generated and they are quite different projects. What I feel is that there is a  potential similarity in how the synchronistic background drove the philosophy that followed.

The CEO is proud to announce the long awaited Orgone Accumulator is finally available for usage in the University of Lincoln Library. The device was commissioned by the CEO and designed by UoL architecture students. Staff, students and members of the public are welcome to sit in the accumulator, though please ask at the library desk first as there is a ‘do not disturb sign’ available to hang on it (there is no external or internal lock) whilst inside.

The accumulator is part of the CEO’s wider Reich season which also includes an issue of it’s journal Parasol on Reich and the orgone theory (deadline  early May for submissions, write to for details).

The CEO’s comprehension of the accumulator neither agrees straightforwardly with the Reichian ‘orgone as real life-energy’ theory nor the sceptical placebo model. Whilst accepting both of these are competing manifestations, the CEO considers it more plausible that the device functions as what might be considered a ‘static magickal ritual’.

That is, Reich’s specifications have formed the ritual format, these having been enacted the device (vector) is imbued with the informational imprint of the accretion ‘orgone accumulator’. Now the accretion ‘orgone accumulator’ emanates from the Reichian theory that makes it possible (a related accretion) and as such it entails the healing properties he believed it possessed. So whilst it is true that the device does have the potency ascribed to it by Reich and advocates, this is not true for the reason they believed -the orgone field is not scientifically visible. This also means that sceptics will not benefit greatly from the accumulator since their accretive formations will be in competition with the those of the static ritual -and information like this is incredibly easy to disrupt- which obviously reinforces their opinion.

To this extent, even the open minded and accepting may find the accumulator challenged, firstly since the default state of (this) society is a scientific-rational hegemony and disentangling one’s self-accretion from this is almost impossible and secondly since (as anyone who has tried any magick will understand) rituals are notoriously difficult to predict/comprehend in their results. This of course potentially widens the net as to what the accumulator might do. Effects could be wider socio-economic (e.g.) rather  than simply psycho-physical.

However don’t let any of this put you off coming in for a dose; there are (on this interpretation) still informational powers inherent in it that are working to make it function, working to enable orgone to exist to fulfil  the function that it was perceived to do/be i.e. to help/heal. It just needs a little help from you too.


University of Lincoln, Centre for Experimental Ontology Orgone Accumulator

The Centre for Experimental Ontology is pleased to announce that the Orgone accumulator project is now underway. The project which is run in conjunction with the architecture department at the University of Lincoln will hopefully have the accumulator finished by the end of October. This will then form the centre piece of a display in the University library where staff and students (and members of the public) will be able to interact with it. Reich and related areas will form the theme for the second issue of the CEO’s journal ‘Parasol’.

There is no spatial, chronological or privileged difference anymore between the real and the concept it mirrors. The real is imaginary and the imaginary is real. It is the closing of this distance that creates a flat, immanant and blindly operational space which I call assimilation. We cannot even relapse into older physicalist notions of the real such as external space and time: an action figure toy does not breathe-in the atmosphere of such a ‘space’, it’s context does not refer to that context shared by physical bodies in space and their social-political narrative.

King Kong is no less real than the chair you are sitting on. Both can be represented in external or eidetic space, Both have a use tem in language (i.e “have you seen King Kong?” or “where is my chair?”). Both have other relations that differ from their present use; King Kong is identified through various relations, contexts and histories such as Science-fiction, the toy industry, the film industry, exoticism, the place Skull Island etc.

Reality – the sum of experience – is not weird, funny nor horrific, ‘It’ simply is. The only other capacity that can achieve this indifference, this reality, is neurosis (hence equating neurosis with experience). In Freud’s Beyond the Pleasure Principle neurosis is the only thing that escapes designation (goes ‘beyond’ it). Content in the mind is designated as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘pleasurable’ or ‘painful’ but neurosis is the condition which produces content in the brain; it decides, through repetition, whether X will appear bad or good. In other words, the neurotic capacity to repeat and fixate (i.e to simulate experience) is found in both sane and insane experiences, both happy and sad ones. Ergo neurosis is this indifferent reality that we speak of (or at least the condition for it). The ability of this Expressivist (Deleuze) or Contructivist neurosis is precisely what Baudrillard is talking about when he observes the relative autonomy of simulation and simulacra (from army training courses to Disney Land); that the real is manipulable based on the relatability of signs, and it is only ‘use’ (and the conventionalising of use) that separates the reality of Disney Land from the reality of a romantic relationship, a 9 – 5 job etc. To be sure, there will be simulations (assimilations) that appear without your consent (what has been ontically found in traditional psychological neurosis); your mind will try and make a reality out of something, a web of designations that one could live within. Based on generic and personal dialectics between general concepts (their ‘shareability’) and your experience, such tensions will spark semantic tensions, but this doesn’t have to be exclusively psychological; a man’s fear of nudity might stem from him encountering his parents having sexual intercourse at an early age, but other symptoms can occur simply by living in a restrictive society. The idea of getting up at 6am the next morning is semantically implicated by the state of drunkenness I am in at midnight. These are not neutral concepts changing under circumstances of the individual; they are concepts that have their own pleasure principle, their own likes and dislikes, their own preferable assimilative processes. 

Similar to psychology, however, there seems to be a heuristic difference between process and form; the almost vitalist force of un-designateable reality, of infinite neuroses and assimilations, that only take on meaning when formed and chafed by humans (or living creatures), that become representations amongst other representations like some form of atomistic idealism. The designation of meaning is superimposed onto the domesticated world through our practices, and we inherit these meanings as they enjoy dominion over us or become ‘challenged’ (Nietzsche). The usability of the concept has always carried a correlate of desire with it (the need to be used) and hence concepts cannot be severed from the desire for designation, ergo, concept traces will always tell you more than what is designated on the surface (see Graham Freestone – ‘Spider-Spit’). We always knew this sensitive fragility in the ‘human subject’ (the psychological subject) but now its time to look at the concepts ‘themselves’, as artefacts of the incoherence/incommensurability of present day human.

The first dictum of psychology ; one should never blame themselves for themselves.