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.


  1. 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.]

    1. "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."

      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."
      Not sure about how this links to the TEMPORALITY OF FAITH (((((())))))(())

      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 (((())())()()()().

      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]

    2. "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 (((())))(())()()()]

    3. Who are you people? (Only scant details from L before she disappeared.) Processing…

    4. |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/AOEhierarchy.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

    5. ‘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.

    6. 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 = ((((())))())
      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 = ((((())))())
      2) PLANE = 93 = ((((())))())(())
      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]

    7. 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...

    8. 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.)

    9. 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.’

    10. 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...

    11. 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...

    12. 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)

  2. 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).

  3. 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???)))