25 May 2015


Strange how LoR notationwhich, as far as I know, has yet to be fully exhumedinstalls a solid link between 0X (or degenerately, TX), AQ, and hyperstitional circuitry. I.e. PLEX [as opposed to thenif < ] reciprocally codes NASCENCY [ –––⦅ ], executing CHRONOPOLYTICAL incisions into (and as) standardized, modulo-12, clock-timeunderwritten by AQ consistency in (())()().

If, as you suppose |end|, the LIGHT CONE ‘adequately renders time,’ then time is symmetrical, radiating outwards from UR in twinned CYCLES of (())() (mirrored expansion-retraction) so that the outer point [6a] converges with outer point [6b] as its inversion, creating a brief moment of occult ingress for a WAVE to travel from [6a] DAWN as augural SUNRISE to [6b] DAWN as inaugural GENESIS. Perhaps I am forced into this thought by the strange path my research has taken of late, but I cannot help but see here the twinning system of Kusta ben Luka’s notorious DOUBLE GYRE.

The gyre system, as perhaps you are aware, was divulged to George and William Butler Yeats via demonic agents known as the Instructors, although the system’s terrestrial journey passes through a series of other carriers ‘before’ it gets to the Yeats’.
 To be distressingly brief, the diagram is a tool for scale-neutral augury, as well as invocation. (If this sounds familiar to you, I urge you read my articles 'The Riddle of the Al-Raschid Esoterica: Item 423' Journal of Occult Histories, vol.9, Spring (2012): 23-45 and ‘The Templexed Abomination of Terrestrial Modernity: Notes on the Spiral Codex of the Court of Harun Al-Raschid,' Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, (Sydney: CCNESA, 2012): 99-140.One thing my research has taught me is that time is never straight-forward and I am convinced that your intimations of HYPERCAMOUFLAGE are not misplaced. From experience I can tell you that CHRONOCAMO is always in effect when DAWN and DAWN meet in PLEX, confirming your suspicion of an occulted numerical agent. 

This was among Linda’s papers (part of an unattributed manuscript she had been annotating):

‘To be inside history is to have a relation to Chronos. Yet (universal) history is not itself chronological. Pure Chronos - the State’s (synchronic) time - can never be fully-realised, for two reasons: there is always more than one State, and the State (as a form) is always in a relation with the time-systems of the two other social regimes (the primitive socius - which “precedes” it - and capitalism - which “succeeds” it). “Before appearing the State already acts …”. (ATP) The State appears “all at once” as history’s only break. ... Crashing into history, the State sets off time waves that move in both directions at once. “It is necessary ... to conceptualize the contemporaneousness or coexistence of ... the two directions of time - of the primitive peoples ‘before’ the State, and of the State ‘after’ the primitive peoples - as if the two waves that seem to us to exclude or succeed each other unfolded simultaneously in an ‘archaeological’, micropolitical, micrological, molecular field.” (ATP)’

17 May 2015

The Tomb of Dead Hyperstition

‘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)

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 pre-exist 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 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?

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...

The tomb of dead hyperstition is Heaven.

11 May 2015

Empty Set

'In this anonymous territory of literary imagination—where identity disintegrates and all authors become shadowlike, where all voices become masks of an impersonal nightwalker consciousness—to cite names at the outset would be to enter into a profound theoretical inconsistency… In essence, their enigmatic tonality, its madness and its fever, its hallucination and its amnesia, descends from the fact that they do not write as writers: they forget this designation with relentless precision (this is their own admission), erasing all self-awareness as a unitary, enclosed being, and instead becoming a faceless engraver, for this exhaustion is the very master code of their originality, the threshold of a previously untouched sphere.'