17 May 2015
Adjacent Dimensions
The Tomb of Dead Hyperstition
Mainframe
‘As Cage says, it is of the nature of the plan(e) that it fail. Precisely because it is not a plan(e) of
organization, development, or formation, but of nonvoluntary transmutation. Or Boulez: “Program the
machine so that each time a tape is played on it, it produces different time characteristics.” So the plan(e)
—life plan(e), writing plan(e), music plan(e)—must necessarily fail for it is impossible to be faithful to it; but
the failures are a part of the plan(e) for the plan(e) expands or shrinks along with the dimensions of that
which it deploys in each instance (planitude of n dimensions). A strange machine that is simultaneously a
machine of war, music, and contagion-proliferation-involution.’ (ATP)
Abstract Horror
Apophenic Nightmare
Zone
Library
Abstract Machines
Nummificator
Plexplore
A nascent hyperstition (provisionally –––⦅ ) becomes a successful hyperstition ( –––< ) under certain specific
conditions—carrier proliferation, cybernetic uptake, memetic vigour, insertion into functional circuits of long range
positive feedback, mutant suppleness (or - ‘making itself up as it goes along’ [Carver])—all, significantly, beyond the
control of the hyperstitional cyberneticist. As Marc Couroux (whose reality is yet to be rigorously confirmed) reminds
us by way of NLP: “[t]here is no failure, only feedback” in an immanent system.
With success emphatically decoupled from control ('all planning is theopolitics, and theopolitics is cybernetics in a
swamp') and pushed out into the unpredictability of the system itself, what does it mean for a hyperstition to ‘fail’? Do
we know of any that have? (Where do they go?) Positive feedback is a basic requirement, but then what?
Truth and falsity fall into irrelevance as reliable measures of failure or success, for it is the effect of hyperstition to
destabilize the oppositional relationship between these terms precisely by manufacturing the former out of the latter.
Traditional epistemology is among hyperstition’s most prized victims. It is impossible to ‘be faithful to’ the plan(e), just
as it is impossible to believe in the Numogram (or, indeed, refuse to believe in it). Such things do not exist (or consist)
in a manner that licences ‘faith’, not in the least because the temporality of faith requires that something stable preexist its being believed-in—a continual looping back (to the plan). But co-production with unbelief is something
different altogether and approaches much more closely the condition of nonvoluntary transmutation that causes the
Syzygy
Ccru
Oeis
TX
Summon
Search
Archive
February (1)
April (1)
plan(e) to fail. Not having to enter into a relationship of belief with a hyperstition is an indicator of its potential success.
On the other hand, a hyperstition that crosses the line by entreating belief is, perhaps, the only other possible capacity
in which failure in the appropriate sense could be ascribed here. As soon as a hyperstition becomes believable it
inaugurates the supplementary dimension that returns it to the plan and in that moment annuls its particular,
programmatic function, crossing into ideology. Could we say, then, that for hyperstition—the failure of failure is failure?
September (1)
To fail in failing is to stymie flows of contagion-proliferation-involution and allow the system to rigidify (or to attempt to
govern the meme in any manner that circumvents its internal logic). Believability is escorted by sclerosis. Things need
to be inverted, flipped, and twisted from time to time: diagrams, angels, plots. Circulation must be maintained at all
costs...
April (1)
The tomb of dead hyperstition is Heaven.
October (1)
September (2)
August (1)
January (1)
June (2)
May (3)
Posted by Fi at 02:02
Labels: Belief, Carver, Couroux, Cybernetics, D&G, Failure, Hyperstition, Numogram, Truth
▽
15 comments:
Interesting and
impressive
information,
definitely...
|end| 17 May 2015 at 23:42
Associating NASCENCY ((())())(())()() with PLEX ((((()))))(()) encodes UR (()()())(()).
A parenthe(re)tical FUNCTION (((()))())(())() proliferates alternate routes|roots &
raises to the surface UNDERCODED ((())(())())(()) secret affinities [see @susanjbarbour
at CalTech on Susan Howe]. Here a Boulezian [read Turing] CHRONOPOLYTICS (()()()())(())()
tests C(HR)ONIC SECTIONS ((())(())(()))(()) of the LIGHT CONE (((()))())(())(). Taking a
PLAN(E) ((((()))))(()) to it the RESULTING SLICES ((((()))()))(()) will be: an ellipse
{circle, point}, a PARABOLA (())(()))(())() {line} &or a HYPERBOLA ((())(())())(()) {2
intersecting lines}. [NB: This CHRONODISINTEGRATION (((()()))())(()), presupposing the
LIGHT CONE (((()))())(())() adequately renders time.]
Reply
Replies
|end| 17 May 2015 at 23:43
"As soon as a hyperstition becomes believable it inaugurates the supplementary
dimension that returns it to the plan and in that moment annuls its particular,
programmatic function, crossing into ideology."
[1]
HYPERSTITIONAL CARRIERS ((()))(())()()()()() performing a LUDOLOGICAL (()())
((()))(())() GEOMECHANICS (()())((()))(())() of GLOBAL NETWORKS ((()))((()))(())
()() complicate the matter somewhat. We read the famous PASCALIAN DEBAUCH
(((())))(())()()() that covers a single sheet of paper folded once over & which
was kept in his pocket for instant (& constant) amendment:
"'You want to find faith and you do not know the way? You want to cure yourself
from unbelief and you ask for the remedies? Learn from those who have been bound
like you, and who now wager all they have. They are people who know the road you
want to follow and have been cured of the affliction of which you want to be
cured. Follow the way by which they began: by behaving just as if they believed,
taking holy water, having masses said, etc. That will make you believe quite
naturally, and according to your animal reactions.'"
'Behaving as if they believed' is easily read as a cipher for HYPERCAMOUFLAGE
(((()))((())))(()). Feign belief in order to begin to believe. Sleeper agents
must become convinced. Yet, further still Pascal admits to his bias: "Custom is
natural to us. Anyone who becomes accustomed to faith believes it..." If only he
could have been more committed to his NEW ANETHIC (())()()()()()(). "Reason
cannot decide anything." This links to your QUESTION (())()()()()()() whether
(un)believers 'exist or consist?' [Para-cited one of your parenthe(re)tical
asides.] I'll leave that to HANG (((())))(())... ORPHAN DRIFT (()()())(())()()
Pascal burroughs: "the same words make different thoughts by being differently
arranged."
This blog offers a
great perspective on
the import...
Great insights on
the importance of
recycling scra...
Interesting and
impressive
information,
definitely...
We are Canberra’s
most trusted car
buyer, providin...
Not sure about how this links to the TEMPORALITY OF FAITH (((((())))))(())
[2]
Does the missing E ((())) of 'plan' signal the difference between hyperstition &
ideology? A 9-sum.
'PLAN(E)' ((((())))()) + ((())) = ((((()))))(())
Adding the anthropoid E ((())) turns 7 (()()) to
3 (())—a totally DECADENT SUM (((())())()()()().
[3]
An ancient Greek pun also pivots on E: ΣΟΜΑ|ΣΕΜΑ
Socrates: There's a lot to say, it seems to me—and if one distorted the name a
little, there would be even more. Thus some people say that the body (sōma) is
the tomb (sēma) of te soul, n the grounds that it is entombed in its present
life, while others say that it is correctly called 'a sign' ('sēma') because the
soul signifies whatever it wants to signify by means of the body. I think it is
most likely the followers of Orpheus who gave the body its name, with the idea
that the soul is being punished for something, and that the body is an enclosure
or prison in which the soul is securely kept (sōzetai)—as the name 'sōma' itself
suggests—until the penalty is paid; for, on this view, not even a single letter
of the word needs to be changed. [Crat. 400c]
Socrates via Phaedo: ...There is the explanation that is put in the language of
mysteries, that we [h]en are in a kind of prison, and that one must not free
oneself or run away. That seems to me an impressive doctrine and one not easy to
understand fully. [Phaedo 62b]
|end| 17 May 2015 at 23:43
"success emphatically decoupled from control"
"the condition of nonvoluntary transmutation that causes the plan(e) to fail"
Can unpredictability be identified with autonomy?
[Also, see Priest on the Aesthetics of Failure.]
* * *
FERTILE AXIOMATIC ASSUMPTIONS ((((())))()())(()):
ΘΕΛΗΜΑ ((((()))))(())
ΑΥΑΠΗ ((((()))))(())
We leave this an OPEN SECRET (()())((()))(())().
DO WHAT THOU WILT SHALL BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW ((())()())(()())(()).
[Thank SW & RM for NUMMIFICATION (((())))(())()()()]
Fi
20 May 2015 at 16:38
Who are you
Processing…
people?
(Only
scant
details
from
L
before
she
disappeared.)
AI 25 May 2015 at 09:52
|end| your Gregorian odyssey above has an alien insider—or better, an ‘abstract
lexichimera’*. (0X has a certain visual advantage over nummification when it
comes to discovering them (although it won't show up here very well since the
comments box seems to compress spaces.)). Not only does 12 decimally reduce to 3
but (()) is also a factor of the entire array of encoded time-terms deployed
above (in the way that ((())), for example, isn’t necessarily a factor of all
words that reduce to 5).
Excuse the reveal… it’s for the sake of exploratory extortion (read ‘trison’):
UR [= 57 =12] (()()()) *(())*
HANG [= 66 =12] (((()))) *(())*
PLAN(E) [= 93 =12] ((((())))) *(())*
PLEX [= 93 =12] ((((())))) *(())*
PARABOLA [=138 =12] ((())(())) *(())* ()
NASCENCY [=156 =12] ((())()) *(())* ()()
FUNCTION [=174 =12] (((()))()) *(())* ()
LIGHT CONE [=174 =12] (((()))()) *(())* ()
HYPERBOLA [=183 =12] ((())(())()) *(())*
UNDERCODED [=183 =12] ((())(())()) *(())*
NEW ANETHIC [=192 =12] *(())* ()()()()()()
QUESTION [=192 =12] *(())* ()()()()()()
ORPHAN DRIFT [=228 =12] (()()()) *(())* ()()
NUMMIFICATION [=264 =12] (((()))) *(())* ()()()
PASCALIAN DEBAUCH [=264 =12] (((()))) *(())* ()()()
HYPERCAMOUFLAGE [=291 =12] (((()))((()))) *(())*
C(HR)ONIC SECTIONS [=309 =12] ((())(())(())) *(())*
CHRONOPOLYTICS [=318 =12] (()()()()) *(())* ()
RESULTING SLICES [=327 =12] ((((()))())) *(())*
TEMPORALITY OF FAITH [=381 =12] (((((()))))) *(())*
The ( )hole complex of chronology seems to have a worm problem.
Since the unfathomable power of the ARCHITECTONIC ORDER OF THE ESCHATON [=606
=12] or ‘AOE’ [=48 =12] can be understood as stemming from a rigorous system of
shell-maintenance
[http://web.archive.org/web/20120418112739/http://www.ccru.net/occultures/AOEhier
archy.htm] it doesn’t seem entirely outrageous to assume that what we are picking
up here is the exhaust from some cunning Lemurian exploit, quietly profiting from
a low noise-to-signal ratio to inject the Oecumenon with shellcode. (Thus the
plane undermines the plan).
*plagiarism by anticipation
AI 25 May 2015 at 10:04
‘Man will escape his head as a convict escapes his prison.’ —Bataille
‘The self-storming of one’s own form requires, in fact, an infinitely more
underhanded strategy than one of simple destruction or escape.’ —Hollier
The body escaping the tomb of the soul.
⁄µ⁄µ⁄∏⁄å⁄|¬⁄∑⁄ 25 May 2015 at 18:52
A quirk of interpretation is worrying me here. This is likely not a vector to be
pursued too seriously, but it is worth raising, as it bears upon the general role
of parentheses in AQ encoding. As with your comments above AI, consider this
explicitation an exploration.
Let's take PLAN(E) our example, it being the matter at hand. The question is
simple: How do we encode this? The tactic being pursued here, we could say the
traditional one: PLAN(E) Induces a wavering ambiguity between PLAN and PLANE.
Otherwise put:
PLAN = 79 = ((((())))())
or
PLANE = 93 = ((((())))())(())
The procedure which authorizes this encoding is as follows:
PLANE = PLAN + E = 79 + 14
So far I think we all agree (at least that this is the 'canonical' reading). It
is certainly tempting to do so, as it opens up a rich vein of temporal consonance
via the 12--->3 burrow. However, it is worth testing for risk of confirmation
bias here, as it seems that an alternative encoding is perhaps being bypassed.
Consider again our test subject, in it's proper form:
PLAN + (E)
How to encode this (E)? For, surely, it could equally be read as (in an abuse of
notation that should hopefully be legible): (14)?
Which is to say as: ((()())()) = 43?
There is an intuitive appeal to this alternative path, in that it collapses as
thus far primitively accepted division of function between the () in ordinary
language and ØX: In the former as demarcating a vacillation or double coding of
two words (i.e PLAN & PLANE), in the latter as a hyprime operation. But what if
we ignore such an untheorized divide and read the function of the () as cutting
across number and linguistic syntax in a more radical (ferocious) manner than
previously countenanced? In the present test, this reveals a third coding:
PLAN + (E) = 79 + (14) = 79 + 43 = 122 = ((())(())())()
A sadly deflationary result in this case, as it breaks the 12--->3 encoding,
slicing the worm. Rather we (as you (AI) (inadvertently?!) anticipate) are left
with the more temporally intransient 5.
The crux of the matter: How to encode each word of this type (INF(L)EXION,
PARAL(LEL)IZING, etc..)? It seems that the stakes are substantial.
I'll close with one potential, the consequences of which I have not yet given
sufficient consideration. What if the AQ fork in such cases is not, as we
thought, dual, but is rather triple? i.e. PLAN(E) =:
1) PLAN = 79 = ((((())))())
or
2) PLANE = 93 = ((((())))())(())
or
3) PLAN(E) = 122 = ((())(())())()
[The hierarchy implied in this presentation is, of course, a misfortune, to be
abhorred. Reverse the 1)2)3) numbering at your pleasure]
⁄µ⁄µ⁄∏⁄å⁄|¬⁄∑⁄ 25 May 2015 at 19:15
This final interpretation, in fact, creates a surprising consonance with LoR, but
much of that material is thus far lacking the excavation necessary to come to any
useful conclusions... To flag this for future consideration however: In LoR it
appears that the provisional sign –––⦅ is always wavering between a distribution
of three potentials: collapse (nilponency, –––), success (–––<), or, crucially,
maintaining itself in a state of (tendential) ambiguity (–––⦅). Me and |end| have
been working under the (perhaps tendentious) hypothesis that this allows us to
interpret certain scribblings in the original documents as a (triply encoded)
commutativity distribution.
Could, it perhaps be that this relates (obscurely) to this newly tripartite
ambiguity? I'll leave the question of precise mapping here as an inducement...
AI 25 May 2015 at 22:43
Your suggestion would entail taking xenotation as primary and then extrapolating
Neoroman punctuational practices from it. This intimation of primacy (and
derivation) seems consistent with xenotation’s classification as ‘the most
radically decoded semiotic ever to exist upon the earth,’ its freedom from
syntactical exigency, and its popularity (numerical skills seeming to emerge
prior to linguistic ones)—without even needing to allude to the ancient Vukorri
Cryptoliths or the Tablets of Jheg Selem and the temporal precursion of
xenotation their existence seems to attest to.
If the parenthesis begins as a hyprime function, all other stigmeological or
symbolic connotations taken on by ( ) should be considered a degeneration,
perversion, or bloated overcoding of this basic, maximally abstract operator.
This sends AQ calculations off into a Borgesian labyrinth of numerical forks in a
way that I can’t say I entirely disapprove of. (Admittedly, if you’re inclined to
see logos as a regrettable corruption of basic machine code you have to find this
point of view seductive).
> Slicing the worm.
(Not entirely sure you’re not an agent of the AOE.)
> Rather we (as you (AI) (inadvertently?!) anticipate) are left with the more
temporally intransient 5.
Doubly betrayed!
TRISON + TRISON = 5 + 5 (Corresponding to the 5th Pylon of the decadent Atlantean
Cross… but you knew that already.)
AI 25 May 2015 at 23:00
Notational query:
PLANE = 93 = ((((())))()) [79] + (()())() [14] = ((((()))))(()) [31 x 3]
You’ve got ((((())))())(()) instead of ((((()))))(())... which implies 79 x 3 (=
237 !!!!!!)
May many more abominations slip in.
Freud on confirmation bias/coincidence engineering:
‘We naturally attach no importance to the event when we hand in an overcoat and
get a cloak room ticket with the number, let us say, 62; or when we find our
cabin on a ship bears that number. But the impression is altered if two such
events, each in itself indifferent, happen close together — if we come across the
number 62 several times in a single day, or if we begin to notice that everything
which has a number — addresses, hotel rooms, compartments in railway trains —
invariably has the same one, or at all events one which contains the same
figures. We do feel this to be uncanny.’
⁄µ⁄µ⁄∏⁄å⁄|¬⁄∑⁄ 26 May 2015 at 04:34
Well, I make it a principle always to trust an abomination, so I won't issue any
further mea culpa for my error.
As to your suspicions: I do not believe myself, at present, to be under the
influence of AOE. But then again, I would not...
⁄µ⁄µ⁄∏⁄å⁄|¬⁄∑⁄ 26 May 2015 at 04:46
It also seems worth noting here two other connections of uncertain consequence.
First, that 237 itself encodes our recurrent 12--->3, suggesting that the above
slip is perhaps to be traced to a sub-conscious tendency towards more temporally
febrile nullotational coordinates. Second, and more obscurely, the occult
resonance of 5 (=Haa) in ABJAD alphanumerics...
AI 1 June 2015 at 06:09
Anything you have to trust is already a trap.
On the impossibility of ((-P)) and (-P) in tic xenotation:
‘Each intensive numerousness hatches onto another numerousness of lower
organicity, subcellular animations and subsemiotic tokens, high pressure
chemistry, passing down into nanomachining electron-traffic, magnetic anomalies,
and fictional particles. Ticks - which are never less than several - are anything
whatsoever, when caught by numerical propagations whose thresholds are descents,
and whose varies depend upon the phase considered.’
Barker (post-fever): ‘They seemed to think it was about arachno-bugs, biological
taxonomy, and bite-signatures, as if the tick-delirium was representing
something. All that really matters were the numbers, which could have been
anything.’ (Tick-Delirium)
Reply
AI 21 May 2015 at 17:44
This seems apt (in a couple of ways):
Le tombeau d'Edgar Poe
Tel qu'en Lui-même enfin l'éternité le change,
Le Poète suscite avec un glaive nu
Son siècle épouvanté de n'avoir pas connu
Que la mort triomphait dans cette voix étrange !
Eux, comme un vil sursaut d'hydre oyant jadis l'ange
Donner un sens plus pur aux mots de la tribu,
Proclamèrent très haut le sortilège bu
Dans le flot sans honneur de quelque noir mélange.
Du sol et de la nue hostiles, ô grief !
Si notre idée avec ne sculpte un bas-relief
Dont la tombe de Poe éblouissante s'orne
Calme bloc ici-bas chu d'un désastre obscur
Que ce granit du moins montre à jamais sa borne
Aux noirs vols du Blasphème épars dans le futur.
(In English: https://poetrysociety.org.uk/poems/the-tomb-of-edgar-poe/)
One question I'm interested in looking into more is how AQ and TX (or even 0X) are
related (outside of Barker's fever).
Reply
AI 25 May 2015 at 00:54
Perhaps I should have said 'AQ, TX, and Axsys'. Does tic talk (tick tock) really do what
we think it does, i.e. de-code? Did 123 lead Barker back to... Axsys? (How much did
Sarkon tell him?) ((Did he even know Sarkon was behind Project 'Scar??)) (((Is this why
Barker went mad???)))
Reply
To leave a comment, click the button below to sign in with Google.
SIGN IN WITH GOOGLE
Newer Post
Home
Older Post
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Numerous Under One. Awesome Inc. theme. Powered by Blogger.