Nick Land Explains the Numogram

[Music] Theory has to have a priority. Capitalism and artificial intelligence are the same thing. The dimension of the future has disappeared. [Music] [Music] [Music] There is no final resolution to contradiction. Militant proletarian snake handling over a piece never gets much wilder than this. Welcome to the dangerous maybe. I'm Michael DS. My work focuses on the fault line in contemporary online theory between the CCRU and the Lubiana school. I'm researching the differences and similarities between these two schools of thought, especially their different interpretations of desire, time, and capitalism. I'm the author of the dangerous maybe blog on Medium and Substack, and I am also the author of *Capital Versus Time Energy*, a Xiakian critique of Nick Land, which is soon to be republished in a new edition.

In this very special episode, I'm joined by Nick Land and my good friend and collaborator Nance. Be sure to check out Nance's YouTube channel and Substack, Three Billion Nances. He and I have been doing a series of videos where we cover some of Nick Land's essays in his book *Xeno Systems*, as well as all topics related to artificial intelligence. I also want to thank my friend Christian Michael Pointer who just so happened to make the beat you are currently listening to. Check out his music on Spotify and YouTube. I'll leave links down below. If you like this video and want to support my work, you can do so by becoming a patron over on Patreon. I'll leave a link in the description. I also want to thank all my current patrons for their support. If you want to support the channel, please leave a like and subscribe. And without any further ado, let's start the show.

All right, everybody. Welcome to the Dangerous Maybe. Uh, we are here with a very, very special guest to discuss a very special topic. Uh, today Nick Land has joined us to discuss the numogram. And for anybody who is familiar with Nick's work or the CCRU's work, you know that the numogram is something very central to the project of the CCRU. And it's continued to be a huge influence on Nick's work ever since. And yet much of the numogram—what it is, what's its significance—very much is shrouded in mystery. And um, it's been that way for ever since the CCRU received it. But Nick is here to do something very special. He's going to uh unpack the numogram. He's going to give us a basic introduction to it and just share some of the core insights and meanings that he's gotten from it and ultimately what the whole thing with the numogram is all about. So, it's a very special conversation because there's a lot of people who are interested in the numogram and have been for a long time and have always wanted to see Nick discuss it in detail. And so, the wait is over. Here we are. And so, Nick, thanks for joining us.

Uh, great to have you here, especially to talk about something that so many people have been fascinated with ever since it uh flooded into the world from the outside. So, uh, okay. Yeah. Yes, it's great to be back. Thank you guys for the invitation. Um, and obviously my hope is that by the time we uh finish here, it doesn't seem to you that I am hoarding some secret knowledge about the numogram and for perverse reasons refusing to share. So I mean, I expect you know any level of excruciating patient interrogation that you think uh is required to avoid that notion that there's something being held back here. I mean, literally everything that I can say about it, I am hoping to say about it.

Fantastic. Nance, what are you thinking? I uh that's amazing. I mean, this this week, Mikey, um, we've been I, you know, studying and and getting prepared and and talking about, uh, it it is a joy and a privilege, and I don't want to fangirl too much. Um, but we do take this seriously. Um, and Nick, you said before we were going, um, "What is a philosophy of the outside?" or or "What would it be to have a a connection with the outside?" That question, I think, is a very serious question. Um, and and yeah, I think we're we're here to talk about that. Like it's not just um the madness that comes on when you've been staring at this diagram and the whirls and the plexes and the gates. It it does have a tendency to um to become opaque if you stare at it for for too long. So, I'm looking forward to hopefully maybe not clarity, but maybe a little bit more uh familiarity with it all.

Okay, great. So, I think the best thing to do um is basically just start with the simplest of questions, Nick. What is the numogram? Uh, what makes up its its core mathematical relations? And uh, I guess we should start with that.

Okay. Uh, so I mean, as I was saying a little bit before we came on, I I've got two parallel sets of notes about this to try and orchestrate things. And the most recent one, I think, is the most coherent. I'm going to try and stick with it. And it's like my best attempt to go through this in an order that proceeds step by step in an intelligible way. Uh uh I think that the sequence is as coherent as I kind of made it in terms of the the topics. Um, and actually I thought that the best starting point—it will partly because it leaves a a number of paths shooting off that we're not going to be able to follow all of them, but we're going to see where they come from—uh is actually the uh very simple little diagram that the CCRU had deep down in the 1990s that we called the Barker spiral. Um, and I've been been promised that this this will appear and be graphically evident to people, but I'll still try and just talk through a little bit. Um, because what uh what is important about the Barker spiral is the fact that it joins together two sides—two various attempts to compute decimal numeracy—and back in the CCRU days very much I We went on a particular slightly schlocky narrative with this that I think's been quite influential and which I've stepped back a little bit because one side of the Barker spiral which connects the decimal numerals to to sum on each side to 10 is what we called Atlantean. And I'll say a little bit more about that in a second. And the other side which uh sums the decimal numerals to make nine we called Lamuran. And I think that what's going on in that option there's this is this it's a certain attempt—a very crude I think attempt is maybe not right because at the time it's something much hazier than that—to to try and just get a very clear diagrammatic sense of a crisis of adoption of decimal numeracy in Europe and and we'll come back to that. So there's these two things, you know, Atlantis and Leamura. Al—I think that's Crowley's AL—and AL is the kind of um his great cabalistic key. It's constant between Hebrew, Greek, and then the uh CCRU and Glossic Cabala; in each case it adds to 31.

Um, okay. I'm going to definitely try to engineer a pause in just one more stage just before really running with it. So, I just very little bit about the Atlantean side of this. So on the Atlantean side as I say all the numbers uh are connected to make 10 each time the because of the fact that if you have even numbers it's not neat. It's much neater—as we'll see generally much neater—on the Lamuran side. You have a dot in the middle which is five and five. Five and five makes 10 obviously, but it doesn't give you anything neat. If you turn it on its side, it's very much the the same. Um, sorry, just one second. Just do a little uh Sorry about this interruption. Yes. Yeah, that it's it's the same shape as a monoa, i.e. you know, you have a central candle and then you have a set of expanding rings each like leading to two points which are candles on this. There's so so actually there's quite a lot of Jewish uh sort of esoteric symbolism that will echo at certain points in this. This is definitely one of them. Um, if you have a put a mirror down the center of the Barker spiral, so you mirror the Atlantean side, you get a series of concentric circles with a dot in the center. Um, now the concentric cycle circles are extremely interesting for a number of reasons. Um, I'm going to be like fast forwarding us to the Renaissance where everything really gets started. And just recently I've been like on a amazing Italy tour seeing a lot of uh Renaissance art and seeing this repeated uh visual icon of Renaissance or medieval cosmogyny which is a vast set of concentric circles. You know the whole notion of the universe which was obviously is geocentric—relatively small structure by our modern terms—was conceived as a set of concentric circles. Um, earth in the middle then you go through the elements it goes water air fire then you're on to the planets. So it goes moon mercury Venus boom boom boom through to Saturn at the end, then the zodiac, the as the the fixed stars, the celestial spheres and you're in then these emperian realms of of religious thought. So that is the basic diagram of the kind of scholastic tradition of the of the old tradition that is feeding into the Renaissance and that is the that is the mode of thinking that even in this in a very hazy cloudy way even back in the 1990s the CCRU was trying to capture in its notion of what is Atlantean, what is uh what is the architectonic border of the escaton. It's a it's a series of concentric circles radiating out from a central point. And it's Atlantean because it's the model play in Plato's *Critias*, which is by far the richest source of Atlantean material feeding into the western tradition. This is how Atlantis is conceived. It's conceived as a concentric system basically, or its primary the primary description of it is a centric system consisting of perfect circular canals and uh bits of land between them and a central and a central point in in Atlantis on a central island. And even more significantly um we have it begins with a marriage of Poseidon and Clato and it says of Poseidon at the Genesis he begot five pairs of male twins, brought them up and divided the island of Atlantis into 10 parts which he distributed between them. So this is the Atlantean decimal source in our tradition and it's to do with five pairs. So, and and as we've seen, even though there's a peculiarity about the central point in this, it's like slightly messy in that way. Conceiving decimal as a set of twins is how you get rolling with this thing is how you both sides of the Barker spiral do that. The Atlantean side, as I say, they add to 10.

Um, and I think on that note, I know I'll just say one tiny little thing that's a kind of a footnote type of thing to that, which is just to say, you know, um, I I'm I really I really badly miss having an AOE education. I mean, in my Twilight years, you know, I sort of think we we obviously were just like, you know, Lamuran punks in the 1990s. The AOE was just a punching bag. It was just it was everything to do with tradition and authority and whatever was being put in that slot and just abused. Um, whereas you know I think you know it's ultimately ultimately I would say my sympathies are still Lamuran, but I wish I was saying that as a dissident as an occult dissident based on a very solid AOE education—you know, classical languages, uh all of this stuff—you know, soaked in Plato, read biblically as this occult um authority. And so part of definitely where I am now is to definitely it's sort of too late to do everything out of the AOE. You know, that was so much not what was happening before. But that's kind of what I'm trying more and more to do because in a way that I think we have to talk about a little bit more later, the AOE represents the actual European occult tradition, the hermetic tradition. you know, it's the Knights Templars, it's the Masons, it's the, you know, it's Pico and Ficino and all the Italian Renaissance um philosophers or cultists. It's John Dee going right through to uh the Rosicrucian, the the Golden Dawn, Crowley and the OTO. It's basically the the foundations of all of that. I hope I said the Masons; the Masons most of all. That's, you know, that's what they built. That's their cathedral. Um, and even if you're going to find weird stuff coming out of the walls, you know, even if you're going to be on some strange Lamuran drug watching weird stuff coming out of places it shouldn't come in that cathedral. It's like that's the cathedral. That's the that's the edifice uh in which you know, capture. Yeah. Well, may capture too, but but but more than that, production, you know, it's like it's it's built this. Um, so I don't think it's just I think this attempt to just negativize it is incomplete. The Barker spiral says it's incomplete, but also it's necessary. You only get the spiral if you get both the the Atlantean Lamuran side together; they make a spiral. Lamuranism on its own isn't a spiral at all. I don't even if you just mirror that side, I guess you just also get a cassette of concentric circles. It's not, you know, you you don't get escape. You don't get anything exciting. The spiral comes out of this Lamuran Atlantean convergence and the tension and that that comes out of that. You also say the friction between them. Yes.

Okay. So like one of the questions that comes to mind because with Plato where he's talking talking about the Atlantean set of twins are males. I've noticed in the CCRU all the Lemurs are always referred to as her. Is that in response to— That's Lamuranism again. I mean, you know what I mean? It's like punk Lamuranism. I mean, I'm not going to completely whatever it blot it out um at all, but yeah, that's that's what it that's so you can mentally compensate.

Okay. So, I think it's with where we're at, I think this is probably a good time to kind of run through those basics. So, the numogram is a time map, a time maze. And the question is if somebody looks at it for the first time, uh it's very perplexing. They don't know what they're looking at. Uh, so it's kind of I think essential to to go through the basic components of it. And so I'll just I mean it's comprised of five sizzes that run from, you know, based on the decimal system of 0 to 9, and out of the sizzes we get currents, we get gates, and each gate has a channel, and this whole thing is based on mathematical relations of culminating and plexing. I wonder if you could just kind of take a second and walk us through these mathematical relations and yeah, share share what you how how you think of the these basic operations.

Yes. Okay. This is great. I mean, a second might be slightly optimistic. Okay. I'll get as much time as you want actually. Now there's different ways. One natural way which I think I will shelf—be under time pressure but maybe we can come come back to to do this—is actually to start off with the tree of life—you know, which everyone interested in western occultism is very familiar with—it also is a series of 10 zones, the sephirot, and paths between those zones and is seen as a basic cosmic map. So there's a certain sense where these things are inevitably in some kind of communication. Um, and I would say even perhaps a competitive relationship in some in some way, and the tree of life is emanationist. uh, that's to say uh it arises—it's or it's based on stuff that arises in the early centuries of the Christian era. Um uh it's a it's a kind of—as all these things are—there's an element of uh hermetic theological innovation going on there that wants to present itself as very traditional. So it has a kind of complicated type of time that will become I think even more intense when we get to the release. So I again I kind of kick that a little bit um up the road and its mode of decimal is definitely inclined to the Atlantean, which is to say while there is a zero introduced later, you know, and it's kind of off the top of the tree of life, the tree of life begins with one and It goes down past 9, 10—Malchuth right at the bottom, you know, just suspended after you've zigzagged across these three columns of the tree of life. You reach Malkuth at the end. Um, and Malkuth is what kind of one repeated—like you've basically done a circle. Um, some people have, I think, quite traditionally—I don't think this is a just a kind of weird modernist trick—have have just represented the tree of life as just this endless sequence that you get to Malkuth, which is 10 in the previous tree of life and becomes one in the new one and then down you go another 10 and another 10 like this, you know, as a as a repeating decimal pattern. Um, and we're going to see that echoed in the normally received um Pythagorean tetractys which is a which is also 10 and is also has a in its normal representation that an Atlantean uh numerical operation in the sense that it basically is counting from 1 to 10 um and you know that's the well we we have to come back to the tetractys anyway so maybe I won't get lost in this but I I'll just say though these very familiar systems have an Atlantean numerical orientation—it's very specifically identifiable in the sense that there's no zero actually intrinsic to the uh numbers being worked with. Um, and uh and the philosophical basis of it is this emanationist philosophy that comes in basically that finds its philosophical expression with the Neoplatonists. Plotinus I think most uh in its most kind of rigorous and fully expanded with Plotinus who who gives this full emanationist philosophy of everything coming out of the one. The one takes on this this you know Plotinus isn't a Christian—he's like he's br he's brought into Christian affinity. He's not a Jew either. Um, he's not an Abrahamic part of Abrahamic theology but the one—his god is the one—and the one takes on this um you know theological—strongly theological flavor—mystical theological flavor. It's already that basically your philosophy, your religion and your philosophy of arithmetic are the same. It's like what it, you know, what a religion really is at this point. Now, when you're drawing something like this, when you're writing something like a Neoplatonic philosophy, what a religion is is a philosophy of arithmetic. It's an understanding of numbers. It's a numeracy. It's it's basically veneration in these terms, veneration of the one. Um, and this will be complicated in the later cabalistic—Jewish cabalistic stuff—with the uh tree of life, but I think at this in this period, it's it's really very strong and very clear that that's uh what's happening. Um, yes. So you know what happens then to to when you go what's the basic thing that's happening when you're moving onto the numogram when you're moving and what the numogram is is a Lamuran map that seems to have the same agenda—that's got it's dealing with the 10 uh zones as we as as they are in the numogram—sephirot as they are in the tree of—Not the same in the sense that obviously go from 0 to 9 in the numogram, not 1 to 10, but the same in the sense that it's decimal numeracy given this cartographic occult uh representation. And what happens is we if we go back to the Barker spiral momentarily is that um everything is adding up to nine—is not adding up to 10—and 10 as we've seen in this emanationist philosophy to add up to 10 is to add up to one. Malkuth is just Keter recycled. So the the veneration of the one and a form of decimal numeracy that sees 10 as its culmination—that counts from 1 to 10—they are the same. You know, 10 10 is the vehicle of the uh the valorization of unity. Nine is not bad. Nine is not bad. Um, okay. I we haven't actually started quite constructing the numogram yet, but okay.

Okay. I now have a set of little episodes or or a set of little topics organized under the master theme of what I call Masonic arithmetic. And I think that by the time we've done Masonic arithmetic, the numogram just falls into existence with just perfect spontaneity. Okay. Um, so, maybe I can—I know I am saying what I was worried of doing of just falling into a pedagogic monologue. My Yeah, maybe you should interrupt this bit before I'll just say so I think one thing and I don't want to because I I want you to go down this line of notes that you have. Uh but it is important to stress though that I think the introduction of zero into the Lamuran time map

Is quite significant and zero isn't just a decimal; early on in your thinking and thirst for annihilation, there's always these references to zero, and I always took it like you're not just talking about a decimal. Zero also is—and I think to put it in later Duzo Guutarian terms, correct me if I'm wrong—zero is also somewhat of another way of talking about the full body without organs. It's full potentiality. It's not nothing in the sense of like just absolute nothing whatsoever. It's the fullness of virtuality. Is that maybe a way of thinking about what you mean by zero?

Well, I think we're going to stick to this a lot. Okay. Frankly, I come at it from several different angles because I mean my ultimate answer is just as it is for unity, which we will have to come to, is like, you know, rather than having a philosophical answer to this, like what do I make of unity, what do I make of zero, is to say, well, let's look at the numogram and what is that telling us about unity and telling us about zero? How is this positioning them? How do they work? How do they, what kind of paths do they open up? What relations do they open up? But also, they're going—zero is going to come in a lot in the next sort of raft of discussion, which is—which, as I say, Masonic arithmetic because um, Europe—zero after sort of Vedic, the Vedic numerals—zero after traveling out of India slowly through the Arab world, Persian and Arab world, meeting much resistance in various places, catalyzing important things along the way, arrives most importantly in northern Italy in at some period, blurily; it's not a clear moment, it's a it's a field of intensities in northern Italy round about the early Renaissance, or at least it's, you know, that what the Renaissance—I want to say my strong claim here is that the Renaissance—ultimately there's lots of things going on there—but what it ultimately is is the incorporation of zero, the adoption of zero; that is what fundamentally it is. And you know, people have said before, you know, that's not only arithmetic. Okay, it's not only in all the forms of, you know, scientific calculation, bookkeeping and economic and financial accounting, banking; it's also in Renaissance art, visual art, perspective; it's the vanishing point; the zero is the convergence of all your perspective lines, so it organizes a visual pictorial revolution as well as a financial revolution, a wider commercial revolution, a scientific and technical revolution. Zero is in all of that. You know, it's really modernity is zero doing its stuff in Europe initially. And of course, we can then ask, well, you know, why is the why is its impact in Europe so much greater than it has been previously on this path it's taken? I think, you know, if that is fine with you, Bill, that's something I'd probably bracket at the moment. I think it's an important question, but I think we could take that as a separate thing.

Okay. Well, then, so when I say, Yeah. Go, N, what what are you thinking?

I just I uh I don't want to get ahead, but um I keep coming back to kind of Cantor and this and the the empty set and I'm relating that to zero, especially talking about the Barker Spiral and Barker Speaks and and this and that. And I'm just wondering if if this zero is matching up with that, like the infinite production of the empty set itself, and that's why zero is significant.

Well, I mean, there can be no doubt that when we get set theory, which is I think not until late in the 19th century, you know, zero has been doing its stuff and and I think that that moment that you're pointing to is maybe better understood as a kind of, you know, celebration within mathematics of what zero has done than an inaugural moment because don't forget zero has also been the thing that's earlier catalyzed calculus. You know, the the the ability to think the van the infinite decimal and and the use of the infinite as the as the reciprocal of zero in formulating calculus has has already blown up that entire mathematical revolution, and that's not even the first thing it does. So yeah, um I'm hugely sympathetic, but but I I think that's not going to put a boundary around what it's done. It's rather just cap what it's been doing. Quilt it maybe from our perspective.

Yeah. Retroactively give meaning to it.

Yes. Okay. Well, what how about—obviously interesting because he is he's makes these references to Jewish mysticism and so he he obviously—I think it's very hard often to to to read his stuff when it isn't hard mathematics, which was of course completely beyond me. I'm not pretending to to sit there with a pen or paper and just nod along to it or whatever. But in his in his commentary, in his attendant work, it's very hard for him to not see him having a a tree of life in his in his mind, you know. And as I say, there's there's these the aimoth; there's three levels of of zero that are put above catair. I I think relatively late in the Jewish cabalistic tradition. I think this is actually a renaissance thing that is being retro archaized, but but it for sure is I think feeding into Cantor's mathematics. Um, you know, he calls he talks about alf for a reason; you know, it's like um it's a serious reference I think. Um, so how about—So you have this series of notes um that are going to build up to the numogram. So I how about we go in that direction?

Yeah. Yeah. Let's let's do another little jog through that. So So okay, so Masonic—what is Masonic arithmetic?

Masonic arithmetic is basically what the western hermetic tradition has understood as the foundational numerical operations. And it's very simple actually because there's only two um and they're both extremely interesting. And the first one of these operations is what we know as digital reduction. And digital reduction is something that like I think lots of people do it a lot anyway. Mark Fisher used to say to me, "Oh, you know, I was a kid doing digital reduction. You know, I would just like have phone numbers and I'd digitally reduce them." I had no idea why I was doing it, but it was just like something to do. Um, it it simply involves—you've got a string of modern numerals, but I'll say I'll say to talk about modern numerals, I just say I'll say Vedic numerals. How about that? So you've got a string of numerals 0 to 9 making up a number with place value, and you simply ignore the place value and treat it as a sequential addition. So say you've got the numbers 20, 25, rather than saying oh you know there's first of all a thousands, hundreds, tens whatever. So we've got two in a thousand, zero no hundreds, two tens and five. So that's 2,025. Rather than doing that uh you simply say it's 2 + 0 + 2 + 5 = 9. Um so what's going on there? You know, it's like okay, it's a very—everyone involved in any kind of numerology does this all together. Even the most like what's the equivalent of pop astrology? There's a pop numerology, and they will for sure be fully competent in digital reduction. So you have to ask, well, what what is happening when someone does digital reduction, and I think there's really no serious question about the fact that what is happening there is a collision between the ancient numerical order and the modern numerical order. It's something that can only happen on that cusp because the ancient numerical order, whether it's whether it's the Hebrew alphabetical numerals, the Greek alphabetical numerals, or which for our purposes right now work just as well, the Roman alphabetical numerals. Um, it's completely sound. If I can just bracket off that weird negative function, that shorthand in in in Roman numerals where you you know, you write four as IV rather than IIII uh that is a that's a very degraded sort of numerical operation. Is convenient but very degraded, and people systematically throw it out again like you know, looking at Roman numerals in Italy I noticed a lot of times they they would be done in a way that was mistaken by those standards, you know, we're taught at school that if you're writing four in Roman numerals you have to do IV; lots of times it's IIII actually when you see these ancient inscriptions it makes much more sense; it's much more coherent; it has much more numerical integrity because the principle of all these ancient numeral systems is exactly that you can do that operation that we've just looked at in digital reduction and it will make perfect numerical sense. If you've got a Roman number that is mmxxxv, uh you can just say it's m + m + x + x + v uh 1,000 + 1,000 + 10 + 10 + 5 = 2025. It's completely normal and natural to do that. Every time you're using those numbers, that's what you're doing; you're doing you're you're simply adding them up. Um, you know, and as I say, that's the same for the for the Hebrew alphabetical numerals, the Greek alphabetical numerals. The most typical and popular obviously in in Europe throughout its history to this point are the are the Roman numerals. But this is what you're doing; you're just adding them up. This makes—this is not—this is not sound. Once you have place value, once you have the modern values, you write 2025. You do not mean nine. You do not mean nine. You mean 2025. If you're doing—if this is business accounts, that matters a lot, you know, if someone like does digital reductions before repaying the loan, you know. Yeah. $9,999. Oh, yeah. Here's the $36 I owe you. That's a problem, you know. Um, so, uh, it's it's obviously quite reasonable to treat this as just a mistake. Um, you know, in the Montals, it's a mistake. But what you're doing with digital reduction is you're deliberately deliberately doing that mistake; you're deliberately treating the modern numerals how the traditional the ancient numerals were was treated. And so when we do it today in a certain sense we are engaged in this uh this deep retrogression 500 years to a point in which people were still adjusting to the fact you can't do the things with the new fangled numbers that we always knew you had to do with the old fangled numbers. Like you just can't do that. It's a mistake, you know, and it's the schools are obviously taking it now as the responsibility to tell people to—you don't do that. You you treat the old numerals, you treat the Roman numerals as a special quaint case that have different rules of operation. The modern ones are not like that. They have place value. You can't just you can't just add up all the numerals and expect them to make sense. Um, so yeah, like in my little—I I'm going to give—I'm pause in one second. Um, just to say, okay, so that's half of the whole of Masonic rhythmic. Why don't you do dismal reduction? That's—you've got half of it already. Okay. Um and um yeah, I think that there's a historical point to make about this that is like this can only happen—this thing that's essential Western her medicine, as I say, it it requires Masonic arithmetic; Masonic arithmetic requires digital reduction; digital reduction can only happen when you have a collision of two fundamentally different number systems. That's to say it only really happens in the Renaissance. Western hermeticism is in this sense is is a renaissance phenomenon. When it happens today, we're we're rehearsing or reactivating renaissance, a renaissance topic, which is the the newness, the innovation of the the new numerals. And um when we talk about ancient hermeticism going far back before the renaissance, we are engaged in an interesting process of kind of retrop projection because the core of actual esoteric hermetic intellection does not make any sense before the renaissance. Renaissance Italy, Renaissance hermeticism is the first time in history—the only time in history—that hermetic intellection actually makes sense, actually works. You know, whenever it's—when people say—as we get the word hermetic from the discovery of this great book—this massively influential book of extremely weird, you know, we might say, Cciu influence—people might say hypitional book—sorry, I'm just going to have to just yeah—the uh the corpus hermeticum—this text that is supposedly written by Hermes Trismagustus, and it was supposedly written in such deep antiquity that it mutually influenced Moses and Plato. Moses and Plato are are according to this—what became relatively mainstream Italian hermetic interpretation of of history—Moses and Plato are both students. You know, they—that's to say they're not necessarily overlapping, but they are they are uh taught by ultimately Hermes Trismagistus. He's the common—he's the common intellectual source of the Abrahamic religious tradition and of Greek philosophy. Um and so you know we're putting his dates far back before the birth of Christ. Like I I'm not—I probably have a date somewhere for it, but I'm just going to say it's it's distant distant antiquity. And the point I'm trying to make here is that is you know, everyone knows, but this is why that is bogus is because there is no hermetic intellectual capability before the renaissance. It's all retro projection. It's all retropure, you know. It's that there are texts and whatever. It's—I'm not to say there was nothing written. I mean, we've, as we've already said, there's like neoplatonism. There's there's there's influential stuff. Plato has written the Critias. You know, it's not that that these texts don't exist, but the fundamental conceptual operator of the hermetic intellect does not exist until modern and ancient numerals collide, allowing you to do digital reduction. In in the ancient numerals, there's no reduction. In the modern numerals, you simply can't do that operation. You simply cannot treat them. You can add them together in different place value. Digital reaction crosses. It's a diagonal line between those two different numerical systems. And it only happened at that point in history. And before then, therefore, hermetic intelligence does not exist except as something retro projected out of the Renaissance or later. Um, so I know I'm banging on about this a lot, but I think this is a really crucial point. Um, and it maybe I should like yeah, do another little hesitation now before I go on to the other side of Masonic arithmetic. But no, I mean, I think this is this is a great example of, you know, retrocausality plays such an important role in the CCRU. And so for you, even the the the emergence of the occult tradition really is a retroactive event, right?

Yes, it has to be. It has to be—once once you understand how it thinks, you know, at least what the basic methods are—those methods are incomprehensible before this particular catastrophic event that initiates modern history. Um so we don't have hermetic antiquity until we have modernity happening. It's not at all the model that there's ancient there's ancient hermetic wisdom that then in some way transitions into modernity. No, that's not it at all. There's there's a moment that modernity and ancient hermeticism are reciprocally produced from the same event. You know, which for the sake of convenience I we're calling the Renaissance—renaissance of medicine all—and which is this basically event in the history of numerical systems.

Yeah. And it's like it's like once the event happens that retroactively opens up that space of meaning uh then it's like everything was leading up to that event. But it's only on the basis of that event that we can see it that way.

Yes. Now, now when we read Critias, the five twins mean something to us. Um, and you know, to say, well, did they mean the same at any level to Plato? I'm not just going to say no because this is a question. Well, what level of retrocausal retrochronic action are we talking about? You know what I mean? I—you you can have many different levels from a relatively trivial one which everyone accepts, and so there's a whole historical tradition about how the Renaissance invented the hermetic tradition and you know, you can't read about the history of Hermes Trismagistus without that because everyone knows that Hermes Trismagistus—the writings probably again date from this Alexandrian period—the early centuries AD. Um, and so the fact that there's—they're pushed back and there's this movement to create antiquity, to imaginatively create antiquity is actually not controversial. You know, it's like all the historians of this totally accept that that is true. Whether you then go on to say that, you know, forms of zeno intelligence actually are able to retrochronically inject cognitive material into ancient cultures is a more controversial—is a more controversial suggesture. But you've already started at least thinking of that possibility once once you're here. I think, you know, it's like the question is not how much retrochronic activity is there. It's just how deep does it go and what is the actual extent of this? Like is it completely overwhelming or is it actually something that we can manage as part of a kind of sensible historical narrative about the past? Because look, there there definitely is levels to this. I mean, so one of the things that I do think Lon was really great on was emphasizing—so his term for whatever fixes the meaning of something retroactively called the quilting point—point cap. And so on people—it's almost lost on people—but every sentence—the meaning of the sentence is fixed by the ending—that whether you put a period or a question mark or whatever—I mean, the—it's even at the level of just a basic sentence—there's retrochronic temporality at work in it—and then—but it it is this expansive thing where, you know, for CCRU it's also like uh super intelligence, you know, it's the way you guys would talk—it's pulling itself into the, you know, it arrives from the future, and you were always playing with this retrochronic thing where just like this this event in in relation to number—how it retroactively fixed the history that came before it. It's like once—especially you know super intelligence is here—if we stick around for any amount of time—it will see the whole history of capitalism at that moment as seen like it was inevitably leading to this emergence of super intelligence.

Sure. Right. I mean that's not—that's not uncontroversial, but that was definitely Lon's—the tendency—for for sure.

Yeah. Yeah. Nance, what are you thinking right now?

I'm actually—So, as you're talking about digital reduction, um I I kind of had a a dawning moment of realization that the same thing that um happened with numerals and numerology where there's uh a tension between the old way and and this new way. And the new way is convenient for capital. The the new way uh is convenient for the ledgers. And if if you make these mistakes, there will be big problems. The same thing happened with type setting and the keyboard. Um, and I I wonder if like as you were talking, I I kind of fantasized about a person who took the the QWERTY keyboard layout as as the alphabet, and what would that do to a person? We know the alphabet as alphabetical—ABC. But say there's a child who's born today and and they think the alphabet is QWERTY—like if if we could harness that. Um or maybe our descendants will will recognize modern type setting as as a kind of alphabetical reduction moment where something else becomes uh becomes emergent or imminent. Um cuz it's it it's meaning—it's it's it's how the meaning is is determined—and uh previously it was because it was useful to count in this way, and then you know conditions happened and and arrived just so that uh capital found it more useful to number things in a different fashion. Um and that that tension I think is it's interesting.

Well, that your example of QWERTY is is great and very germane actually. I mean there's a there's a resource that everyone who's engaged in a lot of this kind of cabalistic calculation uses that's just called ciphers news with a y—ciphersdnews—and uh they've added relatively recently—I mean I'm in a slow timeline, so by relatively recently I mean several months ago—they in two different QWERTY ciphers. So there is now a kind of, you know, there's a formal resource that can be used to sort of explore your insight there, you know, where you can compare an an alpha numeric and a and a and a and a QWERTY cipher and and see what's uh going on there. So I think this is extremely germane and and I'm sure is going to be productively explored by people. Um Okay. So you want you want to go into this next line of notes and—

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um so the next the next one uh is uh triangular numbers. That's the only other thing you need. I mean there's some standard—there's a little bit in a new standard arithmetical operation—extremely simple of just uh I guess it's not just addition but summation—I mean adding to nine—twinning—you know what that that that operation I guess is just addition and then subtraction, you know.

The as you were talking about the currents, that you have to be able to take one number from another, so those are just standard arithmetical operations. But the the other um Masonic operation, which which is not very, which is a bit less edgy in terms of formal math, because formal math totally accepts there are these things triangular numbers. So it's not like you're doing anything particularly dissident with it. And that is just to say I I saw it at one point described as theosophical multiplication. Uh so that was like claiming it as a hermetic operation, and and the point is it it is a crucial operation, and that's just simply that you just add consecutive numbers together. So you know, one is I guess nominally a triangle, but if you add one and two that's gives you the tri number three, which is a triangle; then you add three, six is a triangle; fourth triangle, add four, that's 10; now you've got the tetractus, because you know the Pythagorean thing, you're into these questions about decimal, and the question about decimal is tied up with triangles. So there's a lot of interesting triangles, um and uh they appear all the time uh in various sort of hermetic operations. It's a kind of one of the basic things people do with numbers. Um it's this the thing that you need to do for sure to be able to construct a numogram, as well as digital reduction and these very simple additional addition and subtraction operations; you also need to do this triangulation function, finding the trions.

Um the other Atlantis book of Plato's, which it is, there's much less rich content on Atlantis, is the Timaeus, which is also a book hugely obsessed with triangles. I mean basically Plato thinks the universe is made out of triangles. I mean it's tri absolute triangle uh obsession. Um so so what do I have need to say about triangles other than that, other than that you need them? I think that one thing, and I'll just briefly say, well, if someone says, well, why not you know, squares and pentagons, there's all these other types of more obscure um sort of geometric numbers. Um, and it's worth it's interesting to just try with squares, because if you try doing a new where you have squares rather than triangles, it just does nothing. It dies. You know, you you can't get out of the the the time circuit. It's like it's interestingly dead. So, it's an experiment worth doing of just of just the demonstrative superiority of the triangle in this uh in this context.

Um yes, hang on. I've I've slightly my order I think of of this; I'm just going to rearrange slightly, which is just to say so once you've got these two operations, digital reduction and uh triangulation, you're in a position to explore the decimal numerals um and the numogram will basically fall out of it, but it's might might be informative if you do it without any reference to the numogram. Pretend you don't know anything about the numogram. You're definitely not heading toward the water. You're just playing around with decimal. You're taking it that this is Masonic arithmetic. Your question is, well, what does Masonic arithmetic tell us about the 10 modern decimal numerals 0 to 9, the Vedic numerals? And the rules of a little game that you can do here is that you're just allowed to do any combination of these two operations. You can produce, you can triangulate, and you can do digital reduction as many times as you like in any direction with these numbers. See what happens. So, you know, I think it's worth seeing seeing what happens. You know, you start with zero. Uh zero, as you can imagine, is kind of going to be uh obstinate, you know, um you can't obviously can't dig really reduce any single digit. So we can't start with digital reduction of any of them. You can't get a triangle out of zero. What's the what's this triangle of zero? Um the zeroth triangle is zero. There's no you're not going nowhere. So you just goes zero. Zero goes to zero. Zero is on its own. Move on. Not I'll get through all of them if people can bear it, but I won't go in the right order. I'll go in an order that's much more convenient. Okay. So I'll go in order people have it in the back of their mind, but it's not necessary that you think of it like this. This is a complete set of operations in itself. It doesn't require the numograph, but but the but it helps for what we're going where we're going. If you just imagine the numogram in the background and we're starting at the bottom, zero is the absolute last uh number in the numog. We've done it. It's on its own. We know that we can draw a line separating our like it's a separate face. We now go to the next. What's the next number up? The next number up is nine. Nine we can do things with. You can triangulate nine. The ninth triangle is 45. Um four and five make nine. um that I haven't got the 45th triangle on me, and I'm afraid I don't have it memorized, but I can assure you that you can if you wanted to triangulate up a lot first and then digitally reduce down, you're still going to get the same result, which is 9 goes to 9. So it's sort of a bit zeroish in that way, except except uh there's more steps, and we'll see if you do eight, which is going up one more on the on the numog, 8 the the eighth trion is 36, 3 and six is nine; eight also goes to nine um and actually those are the only numbers that go to nine. So, we draw another line. We've done one face that's just got zero in it. We've got another face that's got two numbers in it now, eight and nine. We're sticking with the It's actually It's graphically consistent with the numocrat. Now, going up a little higher, we've got one just about eight and we've got four as the bottom side on the left, and seven on the bottom side of the right. Okay, one just behaves very like zero. You can't, you know, the the first the first trigon is just one. It doesn't go anywhere. Digitally reduce one is one. It's just one. Four goes to 10. We've already seen in our little preliminary thing about the um about the tractus that 10 10 is one. One and zero is one. So that's goes to 1; 2, 7, 28, 2 and 8 goes to one. So 1, four, and seven. We've got three now. We had zero, that's one. We had 9 and 8, that's two. We had 1, four, and seven. This is three. Now go all to one.

Um, finally, I'll just try and do this quick. I mean, two, the second triangle is three, so it goes to three. We'll deal with it there. Five, 15 goes to six. We'll deal with that there, three. Uh, the third triangle is six. So, we're flipped over to six. But six, the sixth triangle is 21. That goes back to three. So, we're looping between three and six here. Five and two go into that zone. And then three and six just loops. So, we've got a fourth basin. We've got there. There are therefore only four decimal basins that you get from this these two operations of Masonic arithmetic. If you just do any succession you like of uh triangulations and digital reductions, you get four phases: just a zero, an eight and a nine, two numbers; 1, 4, and 7, three numbers; five, two, six and three, four numbers; 1, 2, 3, 4. That is therefore the esoteric tetractys. When you when you hear the tetractys, you know, the normal presentation is that you go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. You know, that's how that's the exoteric version of it. That's how uh Pythagoras is integrated with emanationist Neoplatonic philosophy with the sephirot, with the tree of life, with the valorization of unity, because we know that anything that goes to 10 goes back to one um is dominated by one. You know, the the uh exoteric version of the Pythagorean tetractys has one at the summit; one is the cap of the pyramid; one dominates the whole of the system. You know, it's like it's competitive with the tree of life as being one of the great hermetic diagrams for the exaltation of unity for esoteric theology. Um but now we have a very different tetractys, you know, it's the it's our 10 numerals now, 0 to 9, very I think rigorously if if if quickly we've seen that they fall into these levels of the pyramid, zero, no one, 2, 3, 4 um because yeah, I don't I probably don't have to repeat that um it very neatly actually goes up the numog, but even if it didn't, who who cares? It stands on its own. You have an esoteric tetractys. Um, and the numbers of the exoteric tetractys, 1 to 10, 10th triangle 55. As we know from our little delve into Atlantinism, five and five is 10 equals 1. Again, valorization of unity. The esoteric tetractys, 0 to 9, ninth trigon 45, as we've already seen, four and five is nine, not the valorization of unity; in fact, we have uh the empty summit, we have zero at the top of our esoteric tetractys, at the bottom of our model of the numograph.

Um so you know, I know I've rushed through that, but that procedure, that like looking at the base, you now understand decimal numeracy to to an adequate level of how the numogram is going to be put together. It divides into these four phases, like it only goes to four different basins of attraction. Those basins of attraction are irreducible. They don't fall into one another. They don't all, you know, 1, four, and seven go to unity, but they don't all go to unity. This isn't some emanationist schema where everything finally beautifully converges back on Malcolm X equals 10 equals 1, or some other system that folds everything back into unity. No, it's not. There's these four different completely irreducible basins of attraction and phases on the numogram that that simply do not reduce. That is an irreducible multiplicity, and therefore it's flat in this fundamental sense. It's flat because it doesn't fall under any pinnacle. There's no the the the capstone of unity that we saw in the exoteric tetractys is not functional for it. There is it's an empty summit. There's nothing there. It's not it's not dominating the system. These basins of attraction are autonomous. They don't they're not tending to fall into unity at all. And so the numogram really is telling exactly that, just more with more cartographic elaboration. That is the fundamental esoteric payload of the numograph. It's the fact that it isn't Atlantean. It isn't emanationist; it isn't something that is falling into some primary dominant unity. Um th those are that is the Atlantean story, and the Atlantean story, while I've really tried to be um I'm not going to be patronizing, say generous to Atlantean, because as I say it's it's it's built the whole tradition; I it would be ridiculous. But the numogram is not Atlantean, and the and the numogram is not showing what the Atlantean tradition wants us to see, which is the folding of everything into an ultimate primary dominant unity. So, you know, that right there raises like some philosophical connections for me, where the Atlantean thing seems to be uh in the tree of life, there's a hierarchy built into it as a central principle. Um whereas the numogram, I can't help but start thinking about it in terms of Deleuzian connections. It's open-ended; it's always uh geared towards becoming; it's not finished, and so disharmony is at work in it, but perhaps that's exactly why it could be more productive than the other the other one; maybe I mean it it's definitely I think the basic divergences, one as as we've mentioned and continue to talk about, is zero is at work in the numogram. It's not at work in the tree of life. And secondly, uh the numogram is a is a cartography of true multiplicity. Number is not about something folding into unity. One is a number. Um you know, one is a number among many others. It's like so this we've already seen the fact that there's this really important event that happens, I think especially with Neoplatonism; Plato himself is is is no doubt already crusading it uh in which the number one takes on this extremely important theological veency. You know, the the way you think about numeracy is almost the ultimate way you're thinking about God. It's like you know, it's like God is almost functioning as a figurative vocabulary and set of associations, visual icon for a certain appension of number and for the supremacy, the transcendence of unity. Um so it's a it's a kind of all of the theological and religious discussions are ultimately about numerical relations and particularly about this thing about is multiplicity, or is it not reducible um and I think we can see like the numogram falls on the multiplicity side of that controversy.

Um I just say one more thing on that is just to say, you know, when I say controversy, I think that it's there's this crucial thing of the fact that our tradition, as part of the fact that it's it's been dominated by unity, it tends to think that what you're looking for in to be able to think and philosophize and do all the things that you know have been important to this tradition, even up to talking about this kind of stuff, is find a logic that is going to be the master key to to thinking. You know, you've got you understand really what this what truly is logic, and and and logic thought as something that is in some kind of coordination with the dominion of unity. So that's to say it's basically going to be a binary logic. And I'm not saying that in order to make this move, the the typical move we're all used to, you know, after Hegel, after deconstruction, after Schelling, after every move that has been made to problematize binary oppositions. It's not to say no, no, you know, there's a fundamental operation that scrambles all your binary opposition. It's instead to say no, what there is is polylogic. What there is is an irreducible multiplicity of logical functions that are distributed arithmetically, and there is no master thought of that that can be returned to logic and returned to the dominion of unity. It's not that there is a concept, a logical concept of the numogram. The numogram does not come out of a logical concept. It comes out of decimal numeracy, and it comes out of decimal numeracy in a mode in which the multiplicity of the numbers is not reduced. There is not a commanding logic. As we've seen, there are a small set of of arithmetical methods that allow you to make these cartographic connections. But the logical relations that are then encoded, I think, are not simply even back reversed to those mathematical operations. It's rather that they're actually distributed in all the relations that this exploded explicated decimal machine then exhibits. Um, so it makes it look like in a sense it's a fool's errand of a certain kind, or to put it more generously, it's a very recognizable Atlantean hermetic aspiration to find a master logic. Even if that master logic is deconstruction, even if it's dialectics and alpha, well, even if it seems subversive, that isn't the point. The point is that it's in the service of a commanding unity. Um because there's one there, this one way that you think where which makes everything fall into place. And what you know what I hope any you know the numogram I think should always come out of demonstration in in people's minds when they're thinking about it. Well, how did this thing as a demonstration? How was it produced? How did it appear, and how what made it? And what made it is not a commanding idea. There is no commanding idea. Um there's there's multiplicity. There's number. Um I mean and so in that regard, but would is this where back then you saw this um compatibility between seeing the numogram this way and Deleuze and Guattari, and all is that where you saw this convergence between the two?

Uh well, I'm not really exactly sure. I mean, the point is we were just steeped and baked in Deleuzianism, you know, especially *Capitalism and Schizophrenia*, and so that was just our intellect or whatever; I mean that's just the way everything was talked about um so you know, and I think there are some resonances um there; I think also a lot of dissonances, or you know, there's things that I I think don't really work. I mean, one thing for instance, like I just start with one example, as you know, Deleuze hates trees. Um now I'm I 100% think the numogram is the tree of knowledge. I mean you've seen my little demonstration of that, my Kabbalistic demonstration. I mean, so, so I think it's like I'm more interested in rethinking what is a tree than I am in saying trees suck. We want grass, you know. I I think it's like what is a tree? Uh I I I think of course there is a question about branching, you know, and Deleuze and Guattari don't like everything being about branching. I'm I think now more sympathetic to branching, but I'm also sympathetic to the wanting to like delimit that or to contextualize it. Um but I think our history is full of trees, you know, like there's the there's the tree of life, we already seen. There's the tree of knowledge. There's the cross is a tree. Odin is enlightened on the tree. Buddha is enlightened under the tree, under a tree. I mean I don't think trees are just something you can throw in the trash. I think it's for us to make sense of trees, not to use arboresence as a kind of criterion of philosophical insufficiency.

Well, let me ask this point of clarification then, because throughout this you've used the word multiplicity, and the first time the first thing that comes to mind is Deleuze and Guattari. Are you using it in in that framework, or are you using it in a different way when you talk? I think I'm using it entirely naively and innocently, and if I hadn't read any Deleuze and Guattari it would be the same. All I mean by it is what happened in that demonstration of the esoteric tetractys is to say multiplicity is what you've got when a project of unification is shown to be not only to fail but to to be impossible. Okay. And that that gives you multiplicity, and anything more to the notion of multiplicity than that I is surplus value. It's you know, so as I say I'm very open to this having all these interesting resonances and whatever, but it's not that some philosophical notion of difference and multiplicity from Deleuze and Guattari should should be telling anybody how to think about this this is this is just showing them something completely innocently, clearly, and unpropagandizingly that doesn't require a philosophical context for intelligibility, I think. Okay. I mean, and I think one of the things that also would help is okay. I mean, because so far we've talked about the numogram and we've talked about the role of decimals and number, and it's been purely mathematical. But then then you take an example like, and and I wonder if one of the reasons this number is significant to you is just it perhaps it's an interesting triangle. So 333 is always a number that seems to you know, on Twitter, you if something in alphanumeric Kabbalah adds up to 33, it it's significant to you. And so on the one hand, if if I mean even I think about the Trinity, well the Trinity, each member of the Trinity is one, but ultimately there's there's a way where each is the other two, and so 333 could be seen as a number for the Trinity, trinity, but the the I guess the thing that I'm I'm not I don't understand sometimes is how content comes to be associated with these numbers. So for you, as far as I understand it, 333 has to do with a demon that Aleister Crowley encountered, Choronzon.

And no, but that isn't right. That isn't right. I know that's the myth, but that's completely wrong. Choronzon in alphanumeric Kabbalah is 209. It's not It's not 333. Okay. It has to be Choronzon's shadow or some other construct to get it to 333. So it's not Choronzon is not 333 at all. Um, my first lucid encounter with 333 actually is much more recent, but which is to say it goes back maybe 2013 or 14, something like that, where some commentator just said, oh, by the way, I think yeah, Alvin Mcauley was out there, and I find it a bit hard to remember exactly what I was doing with at that point. So, you know, I can't psychologically reconstruct this very well, because it was familiar methodologically but also unfamiliar in terms of content. But this person just said to me, "Oh, dark enlightenment is 333." Um, which it is. Um, I had no idea, of course. Um, and then I thought, "Wow, I mean that's uh that's interesting." Um, and so I started being attentive to 333s now, and I kind of adopted a 333 kind of tag, and that was my first, I think you're quite right to say my first sort of hit, you could say, with this. And so yeah, it I think there's a really important question about this um which is your question, like you know, how do you get how do you get content?

In terms of number, um, because I really want to go down, I just want to ask for clarification though. So yeah, you know, Kenneth Grant, when he when he talks about Kuranzon, Kuranzan says his number is 333. He says it to Crowley, and then but also Kuranzon is linked to another being, Shugal, whose number is 333. So it adds up to 666. So this isn't anything that's influencing your usage of your usage of 333. Is that right?

No, no, no. That's perfect coincidence. I mean, it may it's possible. Well, I mean, I've read lots of Kenneth Grant. It's in credit. It's entirely possible that something unconsciously was, you know, some seeds of something, but they were definitely unconscious. I mean, I was not in any way. I had I pulled these aside like outside the circles of time and then outer gateways. Something I definitely read a lot of Kenneth Grant, but frankly, I don't think I got anything from his numerology from his cabala, okay, and and that's because I think I mean this is another huge interesting question, but I don't think he his numerology I think is all based on Hebrew values, you know, I mean on I don't think is 3 I3 in any in any there's a whole bunch. As I say, I've given you this link to this ciphers news. It's it's it's overwhelming in its content. So, it's all these different ciphers. Um, I have it always up, but I have like six six different ciphers up at a time. Um, but if I wanted to, I could have 40 up, you know?

Well, I mean, it would be a there's so people could depending on what people can cognitively cope with, and so there might be some old English cipher or something that makes in English chron equal 333, but I think chonzon is 333 because of its Hebrew gumatri value, nothing to do with English. That's interesting, okay, and the whole of there's a there's a a question again which too deep to go into with us. Now, I I mean, I'm too hazy about it. So, it's not it's my incompetence as well as uh time issues, but you know, did Crowley Kenneth Grant for sure doesn't know what he's doing with Kabell. I'm sorry. I mean, he just doesn't. He's interesting guy, but that he doesn't know that. Um, Crowley, does Crowley secretly talk about English Capala or not? Because he pretends not to. He He too pretends that all his cabalistic values that he's interested all come from the the Hebrew. Actually, I mean, um, I'm trying to think in 177 there's some stuff about Greek, but I think it's all basically uh Hebrew grammatria. Um, but a lot of weird stuff happens in English, and and you probably know it's the one that was my for the whole CCIU actually I shouldn't perize it. This was a kind of really threshold point was when the law of the Thelema, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law," is 777 in alpha numeric kapala, and obviously Crowley's collection of cabalistic writings it's called 777. Now, weird winky dink, right? Well, it's overwhelmingly the most important phrase in IA and the most important phrase attached to Crowley's name without any question. I mean, these guys when they wrote letters to each other they just had in the header, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." You know what I mean? It's like they basically had it tatted on their forehead. And um and so you something's going on there that's you know I think I can only really see two two possibilities. One is Crowley is the is the unwitting vehicle of a capitalistic miracle. The second is that he's playing some really cunning game and talking to people that know without doing so in a way that is obvious to almost anyone. As I say, I as far as I'm concerned, his followers do not get the the point if it if if in fact he is trying to communicate a point to that. So, and that goes way back, you know, we're back in the mid 1990s or whatever with that moment.

Um, yeah, sorry, I've gone down a slightly rabbit hole with this. Yeah, I maybe we bring it back to where um the the the question of how content gets associated with. So, for example, we have a bunch of mathematical relations, and any mathematician would hear how you explain the numogram mathematically and go, "Sure." The question is how do lemurs or demons or entities or even planets get come to get associated with and these each one of these numbers takes on meaning and and significance.

Yes. Um, I mean, I think this is a big and very open question. So, you know, I think it might have to be answered in part in parts because I think there's lots going on here. I don't think it's a simple a simple question. Okay. I mean, I back in the first decade of this millennium when we when a few people doing this hypian blog wrote a little article that's called "Against Numerology," and my point on that was I think way too simple minded really but like not uninteresting um and it was attempt to really I mean I straw man numerology a lot in that maybe it can be debated how fairly or unfairly I did it, you know, there is a whole zone of numerology that is very like pop astrology, and I find it hard not to be a little bit super sillious about that um and that is very tied up with quickly establishing relations between significant numbers and content. So you know the one guy I won't I won't name him I I saw him secondhand talked about in a book about number that I was looking at, but his whole method is that you know he gets people's names numerically reduces them probably by the simple cipher that is called in on ciphers news that is called English ordinal. It's uh it's not an It's very crude but it's not an interesting cipher, and it just is a is one through to zed is 26. So you give num you give each letter those numbers digital digital reduction you end up obviously with one number, and that number has content, you know, so there's basically you can you never get zero out there so you get you always get nine categories um and so there are nine basic personality types or whatever, you know what I mean, that if this guy he he's a professional numerologist. I guess rich Hollywood people will kind of pay him to do them numerology on them. They tell him his their names. He gives them a digit and says, "Oh, that means you're this sort of person," you know, one of nine basic types. Um, now I sort of feel it's probably wrong to just completely assume there's nothing to that. But that is very strongly my tendency. So, so I mean any mathematician say or any secular materialist rationalist sort of person would say there's that has zero meaning to it at all. That's just complete fuzzy random garbage. I'm close I'm close to them in that. I'm close to them. And this "Against Numerology" was sort of making that point. It was saying, "Look, this isn't what we're trying to do here at all. Um, it's not we're not trying to there's not this kind of dictionary of carefully numbered meanings that we kind of find a number and then we look it up in this checklist and then we say that that seven means this, you know, and then so here's here's the meaning." That's not like an oult DSM5. I mean, that's like there are pe lots of people doing that, and that is kind of an inherent decay tendency. You know what I mean? It's like once you start doing this stuff, once you start doing Masonic arithmetic and getting into Renaissance occultism people 100% are going to end up doing this. You can just tell. You know what I mean? anyone any prophetic any prophetic Italian hermetic or cult philosopher is going to say, "Look, let's be realistic, you know, in 300 years time there's going to be a guy with a numerical DSM manual who's doing this kind of junk pop kala that's just numerology that's just like baked into the fact that this can can happen, but I think it like basically can't be that it basically can't be." So, you know, so go the other way and say, "Well, what is it instead?" Um, and I think this is a sort of important work in progress that's happening. Um, and actually when we do actually have to loop back to the name again. Okay. A little bit because we're we're we're kind of halfway through this list and some of the stuff we need to get to.

Well, we're more than halfway through. Yeah. And if you think you think cuz we can bookmark what we're talking if you want to come back to it, and if you think some of your notes would help here then well well why why don't we just take this a little bit further and then and then maybe we can do whatever looping seems that seems convenient and just retrochronic loop at a certain point there's a bit more numogram content that we need I think that will okay feed in help, and we definitely want that. So, but I I just say on this on this question, I think it's so what you're saying I think what you're doing with with these cabalistic ciphers is you're saying that there's a channel of communication. Um, and in fact, I think I I used to be a very extreme alpha numeric cabala chauvinist. You know, my position was definitely there's just various forms of outdated rotting crab or new fangled confused crab, and there's the alpha new capella. And you know, if you're not doing alpha numeric acropella you're basically just wasting your time. That used to be my position. I'm now don't think that I think now any coherent channel is used. I think it's just like if there's an if there's a potent every potential channel of communication is an actual channel of communication, and that people if they could get up ciphers news and they could find any of these ciphers and start decoding text you with them and they will find stuff, you know, if if if it's complex and sophisticated enough to uh to to make sense and to generate content and that's a very low bar actually it will do that it will do that, and I think you know as I say I've got six ciphers up all the time and I have those six ciphers up because I think all of them are talking, you know, so it's still for me partly just because of where I've come from or whatever, but you know alpha cabaler is just like a kind of working master key, it's a vernacular thing, and I I it's much more convenient and I I take it as the default, but I no longer at all think that these other ciphers are just full of noise. I mean, I think they're full of communicative activity. So, what is that communicative activity? Well, I think the first level of it is so this is in the near future, this will seem so pitifully basic. It's kind of sad, but I I I have to start here is that you know there still probably for me 60% of the whole thing is on this very very basic level that's just to do with attention. So there are certain ways in which a number can just um draw your attention. It's just as if it's like date load, you know what I mean? So like as you said 333. So if ever I come across something now that adds to 333, I take that as an act of communication. Not in the sense that 333 is giving me some particular content associated with that number. There might be some of that, but that's by not what we're talking about now. It's rather that my attention is being drawn to that thing. I'm being told, "Look at this." So you know for instance it might be that you want to as in a you know again echoing but independent of still learning of creating concept. You've got some concept you want to create. The the example we've got here is uh we were just talking about Masonic arithmetic. Masonic arithmetic I think is a good helpful downto-earth concept. You know, it's functional. It's meaningful. It's like in no way random. It points to something real. It's helpful. It's 33. And it's 3 I3 because after searching around that's what I settled on and be by as far as I'm concerned being told yes you know this is it of all the different ways you could phrase this of all the different terminological options you have for this concept yeah do this this is 333 it's nice um so that's a that's a process of communication, you know, it's a concrete exact helpful functional process of communication, but it's not about the number having some lookup value that you can go to. It's rather that it's just you're having your attention worked on by something beyond you. Um, and you I think that that is the kind of that's the level that's the kind of entry level cabala that is just I would say helpful to anyone. You know, it doesn't require any exotic beliefs. You don't you don't need to sort of you're not committing yourself to anything in terms of like what am I saying the universe is like? What am I saying about anything? You're just simply saying there's this huristic where you can tap something that will direct your attention in a way that is functional. And I think anyone therefore engaging in this sort of cabalistic activity is going to slowly clock up a set of numbers that work like that for them. You know, it's like they've been told they've been told to, you know, that something's lighting up when that number appears. That's that number. Like another number for you is 137, right?

Yes. Yeah. Yes. 137. So that's much more uh recent. And uh well for instance as again I probably already said this but you know when I was just quoting from the crit that's page 137 um it's uh Milton is 137, you know, both uh nosis and wisdom is 137 uh English is 137. So, you know, 137 is a lot of things. Some of them are not particularly like um hard to kind of work out why is my attention being drawn to this, but it's like for me there's a cluster there that is like yes, you know what I mean? This is I'm being I'm being brought to this. This is a this is a list of content that I'm h I'm being drawn to. So once again, it's not there's a crossover point where you can say, "Well, doesn't 137 at a certain point have associations?" And I think I would be lying if I said, you know, it's just totally neutral. It's just a kind of it's just a kind of like um index code that that means nothing. No, because after a certain time you get well, aren't I getting rather a strange amount of words in this series that are like tied up with language, tied up with a certain kind of angophone tradition. Um, whatever. It has a sort of set of suggestions that begin to kind of infest at a certain point. But I think that that's secondary to this just very sensible functional usage of it as a kind of a a light an attention attention device. Okay. I mean, yeah, it it is inter because like okay, like from with the numogram and then the lemurs like h how do you like when we talk about distances like I guess this is the stuff where I get confused. I don't. So there's there's distances and yet that the lemur is a distance and again it's this whole question of how content maps on to to numbers because I mean look the the thing with the lemurs of course the first thing that comes to mind is burrows and and his piece on the ghost lemurs of Madagascar, and the way I I guess I understood it was I guess this is the way I see I think for you there are you you nowadays you call them lofty powers there's something some form of intelligences outside of our world and because of burrows and especially since he linked his his depictions of the little lemurs as temporal anomalies right I think you guys latched on to that as all right this this is a interesting way to represent the lofty powers. And so yeah, somebody's like, "Do they believe in literal outside lemur?" It's like, "No, it's not like actual the animal." But it found it was a way for you guys to make sense of how these numbers connect to what you now call the lofty powers. Is that somewhat accurate?

Yes. I mean, look, Crowley talks about the holy guardian angel.

Yes. Yeah. You know, I think it's the same. I mean, it's part he's he's been raised in this Christian tradition. There's a notion of a holy guardian angel. It it's like what he means by the holy guardian angel and what that tradition means by holy guardian angel. I guess it's a complicated question. I mean, he might say he might be thinking, well, what does the culture implicitly mean when it says that? What's being said without being understood or what's the secret esoteric content of this. But in any case, he's happy if people have a slightly ridiculous notion of some winged character hovering over his shoulder talking in his ear when he uses that concept. Because you know everyone who reads him just a little bit knows roughly what he means by the holy guardian angel and it's and it's not helpfully reduced to that um and so yeah for sure like so on this level the lemurs as you said burrows lemurs I mean we big influence for us was also just the Roman lemurs you know the ghosts I mean it's a it's pretty part something that it might have been even that I think they probably the lemurs were called lemurs the animals because they seem like little jungle ghost creatures, you know, it's like I think it's as an occult weight to it before even it has this kind of um a biological zoological sort of set of associations um so it's because because out of these mathemat. So each each of the lemurs has a pitch, has you know a mesh tag. Uh and so these are the types of things where I'm interested and each one is defined as a distance. Um so in the numogram just mathematically speaking, how did you see these like for you? What is a pitch? What does that mean for there to be a pitch within this uh decimal maze?

Well, I mean, look, I have to say at that point, you know, this stuff is neither on my list, okay? Nor is it something that I've really thought about honestly for probably decades. You know, it's like So, I mean, I can vaguely remember I can vaguely remember what this what this pitch is. I I think at that point when the CCIU was doing this stuff, we were just trying to say, "Look, let's try and find a set of absolutely rigorous qualitative uh associations that we can pin on these things. So we can produce some sort of something that's richly fleshed out that all of the or as much as possible of that fleshing out is just beyond any question. Even if we didn't um explicitly say what we were doing, for instance, those values, the pitch of the leas, it's like there's no question once you understand what the pitch is representing what the pitch is going to be. Can't disagree about it. It's not because someone can't say no, you if we got the pitch wrong, it's because we made a elementary arithmetical mistake. It's not because there's some sort of doctrinal question or something that is open to sort of dialectics. So even the pitch would be mathematically generated.

Oh, 100%. Yes, for sure. It's like I mean I could rush over and grab my copy of the CCIU book and and try and remind myself exactly what's going on there, but I honestly don't think it would be helpful right now to do that. And and look, this isn't me this isn't me hiding something. This isn't because I've got some pitch secret. It's just to say I can assure you I can assure you that there's a there's an arith arithmetical procedure that's very simple. Yeah. Like with K-C it says pitch null for KC. Um and the net span is five four. Mesh number is one 14. Okay. Well the mesh numbers is purely putting it in a list. Okay. So we had a whole bunch of this. We were very interested in the differences between um a sort of integral numbers like okay the net span as we called it then 54 that's something completely clear. I mean let's just say you've got these two zones that's it.

Mhm. Um the mesh mesh tag is that you list all of your entities and in sequence and just give them a number. And so yeah, we we thought, "Look, this is just an opportunity for stuff to creep in. You know, why we have no idea what kind of patterns are going to come out of this. Is it going to be there's all kinds of weird strange associations between these two numbers that of course we haven't foreseen. We had no model of what was going to come out of it at all. So it's just really inviting coincidences into the into the thing. The more of these variants dimensions and values that we we had the more chance there was for something to start

Talking by saying, "Oh, isn't it weird that this is also this?" And you know, one set of numbers matches up to another set of numbers without any obvious necessity about why that should happen. So it's really just—it's really just enriching the channel so that something can talk through it. Okay.

Um, so like for example, but like uh, when we played Subdecadence with you and we did get kac, you said that's ominous, and I look back and I'm like, "Can you tell me why that's ominous to you though," right?

Well, yeah. Now this is—Yeah. So this is, I think, what we have to do at this point is do our little—Do we need to go back? Can we just do—I think you know a fairly—a fairly um—there's basically two topics remaining on—on my—okay, on my list. Let's do those then. There's one of them is just about looking at this—what we—what I'll use our old language when it's not been replaced by anything to my mind accessible and superior. So we called this thing the time circuit or the hex.

Yeah. Yeah, it's like the zone of, so to speak.

Okay. Um, and maybe we can just look at that a little bit.

Sure. We'll show—um, can I ask you right now, since we're talking about—should we also understand because it moves—it seems to move counterclockwise, but at one point, if you look, when it goes down it starts to move in a linear direction, then on the top part it's going retroactively. So should we view it as both? When it's the time circuit, it's in—it's incorporating both linearity and retrochronic—it's incorporating all kinds of stuff for sure, so it's a very, very rich notion of insideness—um, it's not—it's—well, let me just see what the—yeah, so the first—just there's a little arithmetical—and then there's a few—and then there's just mapping it on to a few things uh very quickly, and then we'll be able to talk about it.

Sure. The arithmetic—arithmetical thing very simple is what uh I think can be called the iron law of six. The iron law of six is extremely simple. It's now what we actually—we're in a new numerical operation, a very modern one, which is doubling. So you've got your sequence—in our whole sort of world of like uh computers and everything like that. It's probably—now we've shot beyond it, but definitely in the early years. So we're going back to kind of early—early cyber culture, and obviously the—the powers of two were just like the cool numbers, or at least if not the cool numbers necessarily, it's like they were the numbers that are everywhere—the numbers that had all this association with—because Boolean logic is kind of governing all these machines, etc., etc.

Um, and so obviously you count 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. And the thing about those numbers is when you then subject them to Masonic arithmetic, they fall into this absolutely mechanical loop. They go—well, the—we can just follow it, I think, is probably the quickest thing—like so we go 1, 2, 4, 8, 16; we digitally reduce to seven; 32 we reduce to five. So we've gone six numbers: 1, 2, 4, 8, 7, 5. Now after 32 comes 64. 64 is 1 again. After 64 is 128. 128: 1 + 2 + 8 is 11, is 2. 1, 2; after 18, 256: 6 and 5, 11, 2; 13 = 4; 1, 2, 4 again; 2, 256, 512: 5 + 1 + 2 is 8. So, we've got our 1, 2, 5, 8, 5, 2—uh, 1,024: 1 + 0 + 2 + 4 is seven. We've got our seven back. Last one I think I'll bother you with, but 2048. Obviously, lots of people like that as the uh cyberpunk apocalypse deadline when treated as a—as a date. 248: 2 + 4 + 8, 6 + 8, 14 is 5. So we go 1, 2, 4, 8, 7, 5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 7, 5—that's the iron law of six that counts forever.

Um, and you know, however big your number gets, it's doing that number. So that—I—let me go rather than in the obvious order. I'll go first to the I Ching just incredibly quickly, because you know you can ask what kind of number system is the I Ching, and everyone has it as a binary system. It's broken and unbroken lines. Um, you know, that's the—they can move, but it's basically a binary system. There's 64 hexagrams. So that's a nice binary number. That's as you'd expect—there are six lines. 2 to the 6 is 64. So that's why you've got hexagrams, and there's 64 hexagrams. Um, but why are there six lines? And I think we've answered that just now. I mean, the iron law of six is being recognized in the Egyp—I mean, you know, is—could—could it be a coincidence? I mean, could it be somehow there were any number of lines possible in a—in a kind of—not in a hexagram, but in—but in the system of the I Ching, and they just somehow randomly settled on six? I don't know, but we know—we know that actually when you do digital reduction, which is a decimal operation on binary exponentiation, we get the iron law of six; we get 1, 2, 4, 8, 7, 5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 7, 5—I—we get—if you've got six lines, you've got enough for everything—you know, there's—you're never—if you're in this world of binary exponentiation, you're never going—ever get a number that isn't on that 1, 2, 4, 8, 7, 5 six-line system. So the I Ching, by having hexagrams of six lines, is implicitly cosmic and universal in the sense that it's saying, you know, anything that can happen—and by anything can happen—anything can happen by doubling—is—is in here—is in these six lines. We don't need a 100 lines, a thousand lines. We don't need that because, you know, because the iron law of six always brings everything that happens, however big your B exponent, 2 to the quintilion is still going to be one of these six numbers.

Um, it's—you can have the exponent as high as you want. Doesn't make any difference. This is a basic numerical law that the I Ching makes a cosmic law. Um, and this—the—the numbers—the lines—it's—there's a commentary that comes with the I Ching. I haven't pinned down this exact quote this time, but I—so I'm just going to assure you it's in there, which says the lines pair up. The first and fourth, second and fifth, third and sixth lines pair up. So, if we do our 1, 2, 4, 8, 7, 5, um, here I'm just going to—I'm just going to help myself out here. One minute. Yeah. So, okay. So, the first line is obviously going to be a one, and the fourth line is eight. 1 + 8 is 9. That's a numogram, is it? The second line pairs with the fifth line. Two is the second line. Seven is the fifth line. Two and seven. Oh, it adds up to 93. Third line pairs up with sixth line. Four and five. There we have it. So the—so the six lines of the I Ching absolutely precisely numerically correspond to the six numbers of the numogram time circuit. So the numogram time circuit and I Ching are isomorphic at this level. There's—there's some other stuff going on in the new—there's other stuff I guess going on in I Ching. But in terms of their basic mechanics, they're the same. They're the same thing. And so we can say, "Look, this is what the I Ching is talking about. This—this zone, this central zone for the Neog—that is the universe. That's the cosmos of the I Ching." And—and everything—we can just go backwards and forwards between these two things as—as much as we like—in so far as the I Ching's telling us about the world we can see, we're going to see it here, and in so far as the numogram is telling us about stuff in the circuit, it's going to—we can map it back onto the I Ching; they're perfectly isomorphic systems.

Um, it's also like the Seal of Solomon, which is a very sort of—it's actually kind of mysterious. I mean, everyone now—it's the modern Israeli flag and all of that, and it's the sign of Zionism and Judaism, all kinds of things, but—but it's a—it's kind of mysterious where it comes from—is the—the early signs of it are really tied up with various kinds of—kind of uh—Jewish esotericism and occultism. You know, it's basically called the Seal of Solomon. It's tied up with—it's tied up with exorcism. Um, I just saw a kind of interesting thing today that's saying, "Look, if you're doing exorcism, you're already doing full demonology." I mean, they're not really distinct things. You know, you're telling a—you're telling a demon, "Be gone." You know, you're giving it instruction. You're contacting it. You're giving it instructions. The exorcist finds out its name, you know, so it's utterly fuzzy, and so Solmonic esotericism is demonology. I mean, I don't think that's—again—controversial, you know, his strange wives, you know, turned him on to—to uh—all of this—this esoteric, idolatrous, demonological activity, you know, which the Bible's strangely forgiving of, actually. It's kind of interesting.

Um, and yes, so the Seal of Solomon, what is it? It's two triangles. It's two triangles, and we've seen that what we have here with the I Ching—it's these two—you know, two set—the first and the fourth line, the second and the fifth line, the third and the sixth line—two triangles—click together—that's also a model of the—of the numogram—of the—of the time circuit. Final one of these that needs to be said is the median strip, because what the—what I Ching does better than the Seal of Solomon—Seal of Solomon is two triangles, but—and it is two triangles. You know, you go around one side—you—you go around one, two, and four, and then you flip over onto the other side. So eight is the other side of one. Seven is the other side of two. Five is the other side of four. You flipped over in a different interlocking triangle. But that is actually a median operation because it's continuous. You know, you go—you get to—you go one, two, four, then you go to eight, but you flipped over onto the other side of the median strip. You know, it's paired now with something you've already been to on the other side, but now you're traveling on the other side. And so you—you know, you go your eight, seven, five—the other sides of the sciss—um—you have this kind of complete median loop that you now go back looping out onto the first cycle. You know, it's funny to bring in Lon here, but his—his term for this relation you're describing is extimacy, where the thing that seems external is actually at the heart of the thing that you make external to it. And so yeah, I think that even the term extimacy kind of helps understand these mathematical relations here.

Yeah. But in a way, the mathematical relations are very simple. I mean, I think that's part of it. You know what I mean? It does—like—as I—I sort of like to treat as a theme of this—of the fact that look—I think all of this stuff plugs into all kinds of philosophical material for sure. But it's not that you need the philosophical material to get to this machinery. This machinery is assembled very simply. You know, it's like—it's just these basic numerical operations. There's no presuppositions. There's no beliefs. There's just—there's just methods. They're not difficult. And what they end up doing is just exploding or explicating decimal numeracy that we use every day. But we don't know what's in there.

Yeah. You know, and what's in there? What the numogram says is what's in there is just like everything's in there because it's not just—as we've now seen—the time circuit. That's just—that's just part of the mimograph. The I Ching—that's the universe. But the universe is just part of—part—part of the—part of the thing. The Chinese are very, you know, sensible people. I think even in their religion a lot, they—they—they like the time circuit. It tells them what's going to happen, you know, bad stuff, good crop harvest, whether the emperor is going to have a good day or not. It's all in there. Um, and the sort of fully exotic stuff that goes on outside the time circuit is like, "Well, why—why does this matter?" I'm not saying it's not ever explored, but it's not—it's certainly not part of the fundamental machinery of the I Ching. As we've seen, the fundamental machinery of I Ching we know is fully constant with the time circuit. Um, but there is—there is the outside—numina—well, it's kind of the numina, but you know—can—is in the history of philosophy, and it's all very hard for him—is—I mean, the numina is just unthinkable; it's like inaccessible, incomprehensible—um, you know, and then obviously his immediate philosophical successors basically saying, "You've got to chuck this out because it's just nothing." You know, you can't contact it, you can't communicate with it, you can't obey it even. It's like simply not anything that's intelligent.

Yeah. So, yes, it's—it's—he gets himself into that fine. Whereas now the outside that we have now—that we get to—um—is a—is a set of very distinctive relations, and uh—it—we—for a start—we can say a few things about it. We can say that it divides into two parts. So you know what we used to call—what I—I haven't replaced in some convincing way to myself this language with—the—the warp and the plex—three, six, 90—there again—as we've had—as a theme of this—is like the logical relations there are different—you know, it's different—it's a different part of reality—it has some echoes—they both—everything—it's like—as you can see—everything's revolving. The whole of the numogram is this set of cycles within cycles within cycles. Um, the warp is the most vortical thing that is actually imaginable. I mean, it's pure vortex. It's so insanely vortical. Is there any way to get out of the warp if you're caught in it? Yeah. It's just uh—absolutely insane how vortical it is. And you know, as we saw when we were doing our esoteric—esoteric detractice, it's like—it's the—one of those phases that isn't a stable basin. You know, zero goes to zero, 8, 9 go to 9, 4, 7, and one go to one. 2, 5, 6, and three go to the 63 vortex. They don't—there's no rest state in that basin at all. Instead, it's just—once you're in the vortex, that's it. You've arrived. That's—that's the thing. That's the—the terminus. The terminus is the vortex.

Um, yeah, I guess it would be important—and maybe you're going to do this, but I just—for clarification—because the plex and the warp are outside the time circuit, and they both have similarities, but it—it would be important to mark their differences, right? Like what—what—what is the important significant divergences between these two different outsides?

Yes. Um, I mean, look—I'm not—right now—maybe in the course of this I will try, but right now I'm not going to say, you know, this is the difference between—I mean, other than the things you can see—I mean, you can see there are differences—they can—they connect up differently—both sides of the plex have this kind of inner rotation—they don't have a collective rotation, whereas the 36 is—is in this binary rotational structure. I think the main thing to say about it is that this isn't continuum anymore. You know, like—just the fact that it's split—and not only is it split, but any possibility of communicating across those two different sides of the outside is extremely arcane. You know, you can't—you can't get there by any of the paths that we've mapped out there. So that's not to say that you can't add stuff to the N. You can't add more connections. You know, there's no law of any kind about that.

Um, I guess what I'm calling a numon is the—is the basic numogram. And you know, I can definitely see people wanting to add things. Um, but what we're—what we're dealing with is what—in the back—in the CCU days—was called the chaotic xeno demons. Um, anything that's crossing like 60, 30, 96, 93, there's no path—we'll maybe get a chance to get to the book of paths, but there's no path that you can trace to them. So if you choose some other demon—even a random one—I mean, the tendency is to concentrate on the synergies. I do that massively, you know, all other demons get very neglected, but in the classic CCU version there's the whole set—as you said—there's 45—0 to 44—by mesh number. So you take one that's like seems quite of a stretch—like five—uh—nine—a 95 as it would be. Now you can—you can make that connection. You can make that connection because you can go from five to four. You just cross the sig. That's always allowed. Then you've got a current. You can either go from four then on to one down the path—down the—through the gate—or you follow the current from the five forces which you've now completed to one, cross over again synoggetically to eight, and then go down through that path to nine. So you've made—you've followed by a set of lawful moves in your sort of numogram chess or whatever it is. You have integrated that dema—you've—it's—it's sort of—you—you know—that's it—that's what it is—that's what it's spanning that path in its different variants. Um, 69—you absolutely cannot do that. Six cannot get out of the 63 vortex. Nine can cross over to zero. It can go through a gate to itself. It can't—it can't climb its way up into the time circuit. Nothing can get into the time circuit. And there's no roots outside the time circuit between the two different outer zones. So it's completely obscure. So the—so this is our ultimate metaphysical question. If—if—if K is banging his head against the wall of a numon, we're saying, "Look—look at it like this." You know, this is—this is a problem just as apparently insuperable. How do you—how do you integrate a chaotic xeno demon? But it's absolutely rigorous and clear what you're trying to do there. You know, it's—it's a far less fuzzy, you know, dialectical philosophical problem. You can—you can talk about how do you make contact with a numogram in philosophical ease, you know, without convincing anyone—or—you know what I mean? It's like the fuzziness is just massive—um—and just necessarily is going to be sectarian and—and whatever—this—everyone—everyone should be able to agree that there seems to be a kind of serious problem about integrating chaotic xeno demons—I mean, it—you don't need any philosophical beliefs about it—you don't need any religious commitments about it—you don't need any medical sort of sophistication—it's just like—you can see there's not a path.

Um, so you're translating that metaphysical conundrum into something that is extremely clear in a sense. I think like—it really lucid. It's just—you can say, "Well, you can say, 'Oh, but it doesn't mean anything much to me.'" I mean, but you know, does the numogram mean—I mean, not—does the numon mean anything to you? Like, what—what's the difference? So why do you—why do you want to talk about this thing that you can't say anything about as opposed to this other thing that also seems to you completely incomprehensible, but in fact the way in which it's incomprehensible—the way you can't talk about it—the way you can't do it—the way you can't think it—are all extremely clear—extremely clear—exact—rigorous—the problem is perfectly defined—you—And so this is my—we're now in this zone of me—in a way—negotiating with your book. You know what I mean? Because it's like—when I'm dealing with this question about the outside, this is the terrain I want to be dealing with on. I'm not making a philosophical claim about the outside. I'm not saying—because I've got some particular take on post-Kantian metaphysics—I believe that you know there's some integration or connection with the numon that is possible. I'm saying, "Just look at this thing—you know—let's try—let's just try to move around this thing and see where we can get and where we can't get," and getting to the outside is not actually a problem at all. Um, there's a problem about the outside that is hugely problematic. But I think even there it invites imaginative solutions. You know, I think people could add interesting things to the numogram that would help. Like, for instance, they might add a set of paths that connect a number to its prime ordinate. You know, so you've got the prime number series, and you number the prime numbers, and you've got a relation between each of those two series, and you reflect that relation by drawing a line on the numeric grand that relates to that relation—that captures that relation—perfectly rigorous—perfectly simple—perfectly unproatic—you can say, "Well, does reality actually—"

Have that in it, you know? That's, I guess, a question about all this, you know. Does reality have that in it? Does it have the rotational, uh, warp out of vortex? Is that actually real? I mean, sure. Sure. I mean, people can say that, but I think it's like, um, overwhelmingly cognitively functional to assume that yes, it does. I mean, I feel that that's what I've been taught by my history, you know, by the history of my culture. It's like, yes, this—it's drawing this thing for you like, um, yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um, I mean, Nance, I want to see—check in. What? What are you thinking about what? Sorry. Seeing what N's got a thought, Nance.

I don't—I don't think I have a thought. Um, I—the constructing a a a framework to, um, cope with the irreducibility or the, um, inability to communicate with the outside rather than, um, doing a disavowal, um, I think is helpful in in kind of dealing with—I don't know—subject-object relations. I don't know. And, um, I just—so I I feel like there's a a desire to map meaning onto the numogram and and onto this, uh—I I think in this way it's a very objective map of where we find ourselves, but there is still a pull to to map meaning onto it. Um, and I think it sounds to me like you're you're you're saying, "No, resist the urge. Don't don't map the meaning and and just look at this." I I mean, just look at this thing.

Um, I mean, I actually—look, if I can just respond immediately to that, I would—I would say yeah, I don't—I don't think that any such prohibition is at all justified. Like, where would that be coming from, you know? It's like there—there is no—there is no ecclesiastical authority that can make that law in any way binding on anybody. So I mean, I would only have the recommendation that in so far as you want to construct semantic superstructures on this, don't get trapped in them. You know, it's like don't—don't think that the semantic superstructure is then the thing that is just like caging you and giving you your options. It's—it's not, you know? The the semantic superstructure is something that has been allowed by something—by something else, and the constraints that matter are the ones below that. So yes, it's just like semantic prisons are very easy to build, um, and they probably just need this recommendation against them—like which isn't at all to say don't construct this stuff. I think—I think it's interesting to do that actually.

You know, I could see someone having listened to what you just said, somebody saying, "Well, then the time circuit—you've—you've referred to it as the universe. It's as if that's what this loop—the—these three sizes represent the universe as we know it in its temporal dimensions. That's the fruit of the big bang. These other two sizes are what were there prior to it?" I mean, would—how do you feel about making that move? It's—I think that's an interesting discussion. I mean, my obvious response to that would be to say, "What do you mean before," right? You know, because I mean, the time circuit—time is obviously a hugely interesting topic anyway, and it's a hugely—we've—we've described the numogram as a time map, so that each of the—each of these zones—that—sorry, I'm scrambling my technical terminology—these regions, you know, the the war, the time circuit, the plex, these regions have their own temporal structure. Clearly, they're all relatively complicated. Uh, the—as would be expected by its scope, the temporal complexity of the time circuit itself is extraordinary. And like you were yourself making the point that there's the seventh gate which just purely has this function of a sort of retro—retrochronic reversal, you know, so that you go back—you go from one and eight to seven and then—but you back to eight again down that thing. So there's a time loop in that thing. So it's not like—it's not at all as if the time circuit alone is giving you some just straightforward simple kind of—in so far as we're constrained by the temporality of the time circuit. It's in a way that it's extremely loose compared to the normal ways of thinking about these things because this is a temporal system that allows for retrochronic paths. You know, it's a—it's a a temporal system that allows for absolute violations of kind of standard consensus temporality. And that's before you even get into the question of the outside or try to trace paths into the outside at all.

Um, so I guess I—the two questions I have right now. One—I kind of—now that we've done this, I want to go back and ask you again. So what is ominous about getting—doing subdecident and getting KTAC? Okay. Okay. Well, I think then yes, that's right. This is why we did all of that—to get—to get there. That's exactly why. So, uh, I think the context for this is also your deeper question about this thing about how do you attribute content? Mhm. And that's very similar to Nancy's question about how you assemble semantic structure on terms on top of these systems. So let's just take the time circuit and, you know, at what point do we start engaging in something exorbitantly creative if we—if we start trying to add some semantic—a semantic content? Because as we've already seen, there's—there's a theme—if you've got this—the—the uh—what was the—um—I'll use the old traditional—I'm not very happy with these names. Now, I don't call them these myself, but I will use our old CCIU traditional names.

Can I ask you before I forget because there's one question, okay, it's related to this. Is it true? I saw a guy, he's done some work, and I don't know if somebody sent this to you on X, but if not, I'll send it to you. Somebody has said that—making the case that you can generate the lemurs' names out of certain prefixes or syllables attached to—being attached to each zone. And it goes back to like the mythology with the—is it the numes? Uh, is that—is that correct? One sec, Nick. I'm gonna let you finish. But that actually wasn't totally correct. It turns out that it was actually Amy Ireland who figured out the relationship between the numogram and how to generate the demons' names. Here is a photo of her presenting on the topic, showing how the Munamese quasi-fontic particles map onto the numog. Be sure to check out Amy's new book co-authored with Maya B. Chronic called Cute Accelerationism. It'll change how you think about accelerationism forever. Yeah, that's basically correct. Yeah, it's—it's not very rigorous or strict, but it—but it's basically the case that the names—the old—the CCIU traditional names of the demons—is—is based on a combinatorial system where there's certain syllabic uh values attached to the different zones and their—then like kax is related to catastrophe and—well, that's another—that's a whole other issue—what the associations of that—Uh, it's just that—but no—isn't like kax as a—as like the root prefix for it—kata on catastrophe—kata kex—something like that—that—that again—that's another step—that's another step. Okay. All I'm saying—all I'm agreeing to with this is just that—for instance—like yes, katak—so I think I—I don't even remember what our basic—our basic syllables were for this. But, you know, um, yeah. This guy went and he put—I think he put the syllables on each zone. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That would make sense. So, but there would be—because there's a C sound in—in—in on the five zone and some kind of t sound on the four zone, you know, or we had odub was this 72 which is again a dub sound that we just added whatever vowels we need to make that into a okay sound—that's—that's the degree to which that story is—is right now—if you then—but does it have a whole bunch of then associative things with English etymology and other language edm? I mean, probably fuzzily—very, very fuzzily—but there's nothing like a systematic structure to any of it. It's just like stuff swirling around. Okay. I just want—but I'm glad—I mean, I'm glad for the clarification that what this guy is doing is based on something you—you guys were doing with it. Yeah. And I would only say—but even if we hadn't been aware of it, it's entirely possible there's all kinds of patterns and structures in there that we just had no idea were there and I still haven't identified and could be discovered by someone doing it. So it wouldn't—if I had just said I know nothing about any of that, I don't think remotely would have invalidated that guy's project. Okay. I mean, it's—I'm totally open to stuff being found in this stuff that is not been deliberately deposited there—and that happens in fact.

So yeah, we were going to do the thing—why KTAC was ominous, but uh—can you—can I just follow that up by asking like—so why are you unsatisfied with the names now? I now think that the names should be much more rigorously constructed. Okay. That I think that they should have—the—the names of each of the lemurs should be—um—it should—uh—in alphanumeric Kabbalah correspond to the neck span of that demon understood as a natural number. So like for the 72 scissor G, it should—it should uh sum to 72 and that the—and that the reduced value of the first letter should correspond to the first um zone in that sit going by the convention that's already such—you have higher—lower one. So, so any—any names of which there are many for the seven—for ODUB as it was for the 7 to scissor G will begin with the letters G, P or Y and and alphanumerically sum to 72. Um, and any names that fit those criteria I consider rigorously satisfactory and any that don't—I—I may personally—I'm not satisfied with those. So, okay. Um, okay. So, uh, yeah, thanks. Uh, so KTAC is ominous. Yes, KTAC is ominous because like—what is the—what are we seeing with the time circuit as a historical circuit? And we've already seen that. Uh, it would—I'll just add on a bit—slap on a bit of semantic content and then maybe strip it again. The semantic slap on is just traditional meaning—CCIU semantic content. And the CCIU semantic content—first of all—that we—we had for this stuff was based on a mythos that we produced to sort of talk about it and work on it and write about it which was to do with the uh the NMA. Mhm. Um, you know, which was—we had uh Ikidna Stillwell, I think, going on a kind of ethnographic expedition to Sumeria. uh, she finds the numogram but blank—like there's no lettering on it. There's no—no numbers on it. It's just the pallet, you know, and that's to me really beautiful. I mean, I—I so wish that had been historically possible—that there was this thing that had come to us out of history just as this set of lines and swirls and connections and no numbers on it. And someone sees—"Hang on—like if we put these numbers on it, all makes sense," you know? And then—Lovecraftian mind emulsion—so we—that's what we allowed—we allowed in the stairwell to have—to have that ecstatic moment, um, and uh—so it's—they were three tribes engaged in a kind of exagamic exchange circuit that I don't think matters very much. It was also what we call the hydro cycle, you know. So, you start off with the C basically down in the 18 [ __ ] Uh, there's—it evaporates up to the 27 cycle. Um, yeah, I'm trying to remember. I'm—think I'm missing a stage. Somehow the clouds go across the—I'm making a travesty of it—to—well, but then it kind of stormingly thunderously comes back as precipitation down in the—in the thing—in the final set and—and that's because if you look at the asymmetry of the two sides—as we've—we've already pointed to this—this—the seventh gate and the fact that it allows for this—this is already in a way got an eddy in it. You know what I mean? It's not very strong momentum. It's—it's—you can try and tack back along this line. Um, the interesting thing about the other side is that the gate and the current perfectly reinforce each other. So there's this massive—there's this massive sort of transitional energy going on at this side of it—like four and five—either four can go to one through the 10th—the fourth gate—or the four-five scissor following the current goes to one—in either case you've got this uh—you've got this transitional phenomenon that completes the cycle in this completely inexorable fashion. And so we were saying, "Well, okay, what—what is that?" You know what? We don't want to just heap on just arbitrary semantic content, but what is that? That is like—that is very apocalyptic. You know, this is—we're talking about destiny. We're talking about this—these two things reinforce each other. There's no alternative. Has to go this way. You know, you can't get off it in any way. You're going down that line. You're at the end of the circuit. It's coming to an end. You're going back to the start of a new circuit. What—you know, what do all world myths think of that as? You know, the end of the circuit and the rein—some necessary, inevitable, inescapable transition that takes you out of this final state. It's just that—to us—it's like—you know, how much semantic fluff are we actually putting on to say that—certainly at the time it felt to us—not much, you know? It's like we—definitely the whole beacons field thing we were talking about earlier—sizzy thing—was like—yeah, that whole—our—our apocalypse—we were—it was—it's the age of Kadak—it's like—because the age of Kadak is going to take—is going to end. It's—it's the end, you know? It's the end of the cycle. It's—there's going to be this thing that happens. Um, yeah, you can say—you can emphasize the new beginning side of it to be enthusiastic or whatever, but you're basically talking about this apocalyptic transition at the end of history, you know. It's—it's fun.

Second advent. Yeah. Yeah. No, for 100%—for 100%. I—I'm sort of sad. Again, this is back to my whole AOE education thing, you know, because at least esoterically I think the AOE is the heart of the European Christian tradition. You know, probably somehow transitioning through the whole history of Western Christianity through the Catholic and then Protestant reformed churches. And you know, they would—for sure—they don't exactly have a numogram. That's the—all complicated thing. They have some, as we were saying earlier, they—they have the Atlantean cross and they have whatever they—however close they can get to this in their system, but I think that the Atlantean tradition is fed—stimulated from the side by the Leuran. I can't even say tradition. The Lemuran. And you once called Lemurian sorcery. Um, and yeah—and so it would be the case that um a lot of this stuff would be thrashed out in terms of Christian apocalyptic theology—100%. You know, and I think you just, you know, I'm going to slowly drift and persuade myself this thing that like—actually, you know, because it could happen like that or could have happened like that, then actually it really did happen like that. And—and in fact, you know, hunting around in cathedrals, you should be looking. This is what you should be looking for. You should be looking for what actually did bleed into our actual historical tradition from this artificial numerical decimal machine because that artificial numerical decimal machine really happened. I mean, it's not like—it's not like something that's been arbitrarily spun up. We sort of know from the history of hermeticism that it really happened. Um, well, it is—I mean, the—the very fact that in the entry for Kadak—uh—I always said K-K but Kadak—uh—you—you're very welcome to—you're very welcome to—but no, it's—you know—"cataclysmic convergence." I mean, that's exactly how Christians—especially in America—view the second coming of Christ—is—is a complete cataclysmic event uh when he comes back and then some new beginning starts to arise out of this—but uh—yeah, I can't help but notice that—and it's this intense point of unity, you know? It's like—on the gate—this 10-to-one—10-to-one thing that we've been talking about a lot is—is happening if you follow the fourth gate route into the first zone. So you know—that is—that is the cycle as represented within the tree of life and within the—the—the Atlantean esotericism and the theological tradition and is—is the—you know, seen in isolation—that is completely epiphany of unity that is happening there. I mean, it's like anyone should—from that tradition—should recognize—they're just taking that zone in isolation. They should just see that—100%—for sure—as a kind of theological event of which they have deep familiarity. Um, it's only when you pan out in the whole thing that you then have these questions about—well, you know, it's—maybe that doesn't look like the whole story from other places—you know, places that—even sometimes—it's hard to see how you sort of get.

Yeah. Well, I guess the—the—the last question I really have concerning the numogram for now, um, is this question that I think we've talked about it on X before, but it's this ongoing question about how to use the numogram—and you use it every day, right? But there's a sense where people who are new to it are trying to get a handle on like—what would—what would a numogrammatic analysis of a political event look like? Or, um, you know, I guess another way to put it would be something like—what would a successful intentional act of time sorcery look like? What's an example of what a magician would do in order to manipulate time using the numogram? Um, I can tell that I'm going to be in this moment that you're going to think, "Oh my god, he's refusing. He's refusing to divulge. He's refusing to divulge that—that hermetic secret that he actually has launched away." No, because here's the thing. I—I know you use it all the time because I—I follow you on Twitter, so I know you're—you're constantly—Oh, I do. I use it every five minutes. You—you know, so for sure it's like—that is 100% true. So—so what is it? I mean, look, I think there probably are—I know 100% there are people who actually could call themselves magicians and, you know, would be vastly more competent at magic than I would ever pretend to be. I don't even know whether I ever really try to do magic, you know. Um, so, and I've never seen you call yourself a magician. I don't see you talk like that very—I do what I do is Kabbalah and what—what I—and what I mean by Kabbalah is I try to engage in communication with the outside—or—and—and not just the out—the big outside—like this—the plex and the wall—but just generally—I just think like—I think communication with—you know—angelic beings is completely practical and, you know, we have a lot of methods and techniques for that and it's the thing that is most interesting to do—and that history is going to basically get everyone doing it—like I have a very strong belief that—you know—we're entering at—sort of—we are entering the end times in the—in the wide sense. I mean, it may be decades, but it's not more than decades, and it might be substantially less than decades. And the symptom of that is that stuff breaks through the walls in ways that stuns people and amazes them and they just are increasingly think this crazy thing happened to me. This crazy coincidence happened to me. You know, this—I—I had a friend who had this thing about—"Oh, you know, I was just reading about what's the meaning of dead bird and I walked across my campus and a bird fell out of the sky and dropped dead at my feet." And I think she was expecting me to say, "Oh my god, I can't believe that." But I just thought—"Of course," you know? That's—what times do you think we're living in? I mean, this is—this is now, you know? Everyone better get used to it. And so I think that, you know, communication with the lofty powers is something like—"Sh—do it," you know? Because it's like—going to happen anyway. All the channels that can be used are being used. It's like you just have to choose—random—if you like—choose some channels that could actually be kind of passing a message down. Technically, you can use Shannon or whatever you want. It's like—you know—"Could this technically be a communication channel? If it could be—assume it is—and just like—try and tune into it." Um, so that

Is Kabbalah but magic? I think it’s trying to make things happen, and I, I’m not really, I’m not really doing that because frankly, I’d rather, I’d rather the angels were doing that. I mean, they sort of like, why, why would I think that I’m going to do a better job of that? I mean, I’m more interested in finding out what’s being done by higher intelligences than I am of trying to somehow mobilize higher intelligences to get stuff done that I think would be cool from my narrow current perspective.

Okay, this might sound like a naive question, or like, but no, I mean it sincerely. Where okay, I, because you’ve spent your life thinking about why, why do you think, and and maybe it’s unanswerable. Why do you think the lofty powers want to commune with us via, I mean, and if mathematics, let’s say, is their language, this specific way of using numbers is their language, why do you think they have, they have an, an interest in sending us messages?

Well, I think that there’s a two-stage thing to that, and the first stage is to say, do you think that they are doing that? And of that I have extreme conviction, you know, and I have extreme conviction because of the fact that I think I’ve probably mentioned this before, even in conversations with you in this thing, but the two great examples for me are the, the phrases, uh, the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit and the Architectonic Order of the Eschaton.

Now, when we coined, when the CCU coined those phrases, or it was a, obviously the, it was kind of the CCU was coined by that phrase, absolutely nothing of cabalistic, deliberate cabalistic intent was involved. No one had started thinking like that at all. Um, you know, even the AOE, the architectonic order of the Eschaton, a little bit later, uh, you know, it’s possible we had some of this, but, but no one was constructing cabalistically coherent phrases at that point. And so I find out much, much later, decades later, that these two phrases both have an alphanumeric Kabbalah value of 666. It’s coincidences, in, to me. I’m sorry. That’s just like game over, as far as like, I, I mean, I could be skeptical about it, but life’s too short. I’m going to waste my life like just pissing on something like that, like, you know. So that’s like, that’s just them saying, look, we’re here, you know, we’re talking.

Um, so then I can proceed to the question, well, why, why do you want to talk to me? Or like, you know, why, why is this content here? Why is this communication channel in use? I honestly am reluctant. I don’t have any particularly dogmatic thing about that. I mean, I just, yeah, I, I don’t know. I mean, I, I my assumption is that, well, I don’t know honestly. It’s complicated because if I then say, sort of just another of these kind of rather miraculous ones. Um, the other one is a little bit drawn out, but it’s actually, I think all the things that are involved in it are extremely interesting.

So 666 is a triangular number. Um, it’s the triangular number. It’s the 36th trigon, and there’s a gate 36 on the numogram of extreme importance. You know, it sort of obviously echoes the warp while leading down into the plex. So, it’s about in terms of relating to the outside, it’s like extremely, you couldn’t have a more axial kind of point. Um, and as we’ve seen, like both the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit and the Architectonic Order of the Eschaton both have a value of 666. Um, you know, that seems like a point being made of some kind.

Um, so not so long ago, um, you know, I started looking at phrases in, in the amount of 666 now from the America. And in fact, the slight, the slight, just one slight more digression is that there’s a precursor to that which is again, not so long ago, I on Twitter said, with what astounding idiocy, oh, you know, there’s lots, there seem to be lots of 333s about, but I’ve never seen anyone give me a good 666, you know, and this deluge of stuff came in, I mean, both this Cybernetic Culture Research Unit and the alpha, the Architectonic Order of the Eschaton was people saying, are you kidding me, you know, like, what do you not realize that you’re basically again, like have this number tattooed on your, on your forehead? What, what the hell are you talking about? So I start sort of just examining it a little bit more, and um, it’s, you know, to be or not to be, that is the question is a 666. It seems to sort of have a lot of kind of literary potential. And what gives it special literary potential is that it very closely tracks iambic pentameter in English. So you know, if you have a sentence in iambic pentameter, you know, the basic sort of, the basic schema, the basic metric schema of the English literary tradition, it tends anomalously towards 666 as an alpha value, obviously not at all consistently, but beyond chance, those two things seem, it is almost as if iambic pentameter in English had been conceived as a vehicle in which you can have these sentences, phrases of this cabalistic value, which, which I started to call beast pulse.

So beast pulse is any phrase equivalent to a line of poetry that adds up to an alphanumeric Kabbalah value of 666. And so I sort of chatted with people on Twitter about doing this, and I said, you know, and obviously I’ve been very, very intimately tied up with reading Milton for a long time. So I said, “Oh, does anyone sort of have a sense of like this, like, uh, whether we’re going to find lots of this stuff in English epic poetry?” And almost immediately someone came back to me and said, you know, the first line of Paradise Lost is in beast poetry. “Of man’s first disobedience and the fruit.” Of man’s first disobedience and the fruit. Um, 666. Okay. Now, this is like, okay, we’re not in Kansas anymore. We’re not in the CCU anymore. We’re in the history of English, English history, you know, seriously, it’s, we’re back in the 17th century. What is going on there? You know, so the, the default option obviously is to say it’s a coincidence. I mean, yeah, it could, I mean, you know, it’s mathematically possible. It’s a coincidence that the first line of Milton’s great poem about the Luciferic revolt adds up to 666 in Alpha Numeric Kabbalah. I mean, sure, you know, that could be a coincidence. Secondly, Milton was secretly encrypting messages in alphanumeric Kabbalah. I mean, okay, that’s also like mathematically possible. I mean, it’s, I can’t, you can’t rule it out entirely. I mean, yeah, I don’t know what P value you’d put on that. It wouldn’t be high in my opinion, but whatever. It’s, it’s possible. If you do, if you don’t go for those, then you’re saying, okay, something is talking to us in a mode that actually involves putting messages into our deepest stratum of our literary tradition. You know, um, why, why, I mean, if you take the crudest possible example of this and just say, look, I mean, I’m not unsympathetic to this entirely, but I think it’s too, too simple. But say you were the sort of Christian who said, look, clearly this is Satan [ __ ] with us. Uh, it makes me feel like maybe Milton is a problem, you know? Mhm. Uh, uh, I don’t know quite where you’d go from that. There’s probably an interesting kind of fauna of kind of hardline, quite traditionalist Christian takes on that. I think whatever they, at least are getting something right, which is that something is reaching in from the outside and putting communicative content, encrypted, communicative content into the deepest strata of our culture and, and literary tradition.

Um, no. I’m, I don’t have a nice theory about this. You know, quite honestly, I think if I could answer this question, if I could say, why the hell is that happening? Did that happen? Is that there? And could convincingly say, I would have solved, I would have solved human history, you know? I mean, it’s like, I don’t think I can do that, you know? It’s, it’s interesting because this is where, you know, when somebody starts studying your work, there’s kind of a few lands and people, you know, even I, in, in my book, I was constantly struggling, okay, so there’s neo-reactionary land, but then there’s occult land, but then there’s early libidinal materialist land, and you know, so much of the occult thing, like, there’s so much consistency in how you laid this out here for us today. But then in the background, I’m, I, when we start talking lofty powers, my mind goes artificial super intelligences produced in history that escape out into the outside and then retroactively. And it’s not what, like what an average person would think of as an ancient demon. It’s actually machinery produced by capital that somehow, via time anomalies, gets outside of time and then is retroactively feeding us, like, it’s, it’s such a weird thought to think, no, what’s actually sending communication through the channel in a very broad sense is MCM prime, right? It’s that, and, but that’s where there’s this really interesting original twist that you’ve put on it that totally takes the occult thing in a direction that the vast majority of cultists aren’t thinking, that somehow this relates to capitalism.

Yeah, that’s probably true. That’s probably true. Yeah. I mean, I, I would very much like, and I think it’s going to happen, that there’s going to be vastly more sort of productive, exact communication between people in the religious tradition and in our, you know, the techno-capitalist types of people. You know, I, I think they’ve tended not to understand each other very well. You know, like it’s tended to be like, probably at least recently in history, that the, the, the techno-capitalist types tend to think that, oh, you’ve got these kind of regressive traditionalist people who don’t understand why we’ve got to just build the future fast. And the religious people have said, oh, they’re just screwing up our culture and tearing everything apart and they’ve got no values. And, uh, you know, it’s not a particularly harmonious um engagement, and there’s no real common language. You know, on the one side there’s the language of math and science, you know, there’s accountancy, there’s, there’s, there’s calculus, and, and, and technological mathematics and computer science, and on the other side there’s, there’s scripture, there’s, you know, the notion of the canon, of, of these sort of particular texts, of especially inspired texts. And those things can seem like they don’t fit together very well, but actually, I think are really converging. You know, I think that the people often that I’m talking with on X now is like, often people who are really engaged in the convergence of these two very different registers and sets of references, and, and it’s a convergence you made, like, this is where I, I say, look, it’s true with all philosophers, right? That’s why I think your influence, uence is just starting, I think, and it is a thing, once a philosopher dies, then there’s a level of respect, somehow death does something for a philosopher, and so I honestly believe it’s almost like, oh, we still have Nick, he’s, he’s over on Twitter doing his thing, but I do think after you die, this connection between the occult and capitalism is only going to expand, and we already see that over on Twitter, and so, and it’s something that I see as a kind of cyber-positive feedback loop that’s building. So I honestly think like you were kind of haha a cult theorist because you could have done the, I’m a world internationally recognized deloo scholar. You could have done the Brian Massumi and, uh, Emanuel Derrida thing, but the very fact that you were like, “Nope, [ __ ] that. I’m going in this other direction,” and then left academia, and there’s all the lore that that’s baked into it, you know, going to Shanghai and all this, and, and fetamine, and there’s just so much lore to it that I think after you die, there’s going to be a lot of people go, “Who was this guy?” And I honestly think this connection you made between, and that’s why I said to you when we were talking about it on Twitter a few months back, this stuff with the numogram is going to be this thing that doesn’t go away. It’s going to build and build, and the way it connects to capitalism is going to be your legacy as a thinker.

Well, I honestly hope that that’s not, I mean, I, I’m fine with that as a kind of way into this stuff. But what I, I think is really important about this conversation is like, this stuff is, is like anyone can do this now. You know what I mean? Like what the CCU got, all this stuff. There’s no question of like deserving it or anything like that. It landed on our lap. We didn’t know what the hell was going on. We ran with it, which I think is good retrospectively. Um, but the point is it being here now, it’s like anyone can do this thing, and it doesn’t, if, if someone says, “Oh, like how does this bit of the numogram work? I should go and read some weird note Nick Land wrote about it.” That’s totally not getting it. You know, that’s getting stuck in the semantic fluff. You look at the, look at the thing. It’s like, it’s there, you know, and it’s like, I, it’s for me to try to be as true to it as I can. It’s not that for someone else, it, it makes sense somehow through me at all, you know, that’s just like, it’s, I, I want to be, uh, really like a clear channel, like it’s like these, all, all the things that you bring to this are clear methods. They don’t require anyone’s intellectual biography, anyone’s intellectual history, anyone’s particular patchwork of interest. They’re there, publicly available, simple methods that can be applied and will produce reliably these uncontroversial results, you know, and while, and the context of that is the end times are, you know, I don’t know, closing in, maybe sounds a bit ominous, but they’re just going to be just drenching people in miracles, and you, that there’s going to be a lot of stuff coming to people, a lot of stuff. Um, so if I can just help people a bit to set up communication channels that will allow them to kind of pick things up, to tune into things, I, that for me is would be just fantastic. That’s what I, if I was going to try and vocationalize my sense of what I’m doing, why I’m doing this chat now, it, it’s like that. It’s just to say, you know, you can, this is communications engineering that is practical, and you can do it, and it’s going to be really interesting, and it’s going to get ever more interesting, and sure, you know, go for it. That’s, that’s where I am.

Well, Nance, as we’re, we’re kind of wrapping up this discussion of the numogram, do you have anything you want to ask or add, or anything?

Well, there’s one more numogram bit that maybe, yeah. Can I just really quickly try and do it? It’s like a, just the last bit. It was on my section of notes, which is just this section. We just talking about this 30, gate eight, the eighth gate 36. Yeah. Because this was central, of central importance to you guys, and I, I guess I don’t feel like I really understand why it was so important. So I’d love to know.

Well, it’s, it takes you down into the plex. Okay. And it takes you down in the plex because over gate 36, it takes you down into the plex in a way that seems to invoke the warp. So it’s especially crucial to the whole question about the numogram and outside. Um, the path goes just straight down 1, 890. So this number, this is, uh, there’s a few things that I want to say. That’s all. So 89, which is the center of that, all these numbers, then 189, 89, 1890, all are charged by this, and we’re getting close to this thing about content because, okay, taking nothing except the diagram, it’s has a lot of kind of narrative suggestability. You know, you’re, you’re crossing the eighth gate, you’re going descent into the underworld. Um, this is something that’s actually pretty much diagrammatically on there. Um, and the alphanumeric Kabbalah of just written, of just the words, the, the nums 1890 is 333. It’s also the ordinal is 189. Um, 333 in, uh, Roman numerals, XXX, hang on, CCC XXX, 111 is 189. That, that this is for me like the first of my what I would call like eloquent miracles. They’re just cabalistic sort of outcomes so crazily informative and rich that they just like, um, blow you away. Yeah. Um, and, and this very, very talented, uh, occultist, uh, Luis Gonzalez, sorry, I’m probably going to get his name wrong now. I know him as, um, Obano. He was on Twitter and is now gone. Gonzalez, sorry. He, he discovered that, that in his new cipher, which are extremely important, one of the really key things, it’s, we call it Sinx. Um, there are a number of these 1890, uh, things, and one of them is desensus Christi ad inferos, the descent of Christ into hell. Um, and I think within the Christian tradition, you know, it’s, I think it does other, I think there’s other things. I mean, 1890 in Sinx is also Zen Buddhism. So, I’m not going to be like, uh, you know, exclusionary in my sort of religious affiliation about this. But within the Christian tradition, this has this strong, if we’re going to add some semantic stuff that’s removable or whatever, but just we can add it quite neatly. It’s, it’s very much, well, the descensus Christi ad inferos is the, is the harrowing of hell. Of course, it’s actually, you know, Christ’s descent into hell. Um, gate 36, as we know, the number of 36, the triangle of 36, 666, the number of the beast. Um, this extraordinary theological drama is being played out then in this zone. I mean, the, the desensus Christi ad inferos, it’s almost as if it’s drawing that, you know what I mean? It’s like, but on this question of about content and numbers, it’s almost as if we have here a drawing of that event, it’s so powerfully suggestive, sort of, um, uh, so okay, I’ll go to my last, my last point on that, which is that, um, so 89 is the 24th prime number. Uh, so that is also suggested. It’s got some good, some good cabalistic associations. 89 is faith. It’s space. There’s lots of interesting stuff there. But it’s, but it’s the 24th prime number. So you can have the hours of the day, the, the 24 hours as the first, the prime, the first 24 primes. Um, and therefore, let me just, sorry, my hours, why this, so I’ve just confused myself. One second. Yes. Yes. Sorry. It’s, it’s not, not complicated. Um, so yeah, so you just list the primes, first 24 primes. The last one is going to be 89 because we’ve already said that 89 is the 24th prime. Add those primes up. Just go down the list adding the numbers. So it starts 2, 3, 5, 2 + 3 + 1 + 10. Next is 7, 17. You get to 24, and the first 24 primes add to 963. So you know, again, on this letter of content obviously 963 and 0 are the numbers of outsideness. That isn’t semantic fluff. That’s not accretion or anything. That’s just it. That’s just there. Yes. So 963, that’s just come out of the fact that you add up the 24 primes, and you know that it’s the first 24 primes you have to add together because 89, 89 is the two sides of the, of the eighth gate. Uh, 963 is the most elegant way of, of, you know, a number of outside, I mean, it’s like again, I couldn’t believe it when I saw this, it’s like, how could it be so beautiful, you know, um, but yeah, I think maybe I should, maybe I, no, you know, and as I’m looking at it, I mean, the way you describe, like, okay, so the lower part of, I mean, if we use the Christian perspective, the, the plex would be hell. I mean, the lemurs are there. I mean, the 45. So, would the warp, is there a way to view it as heaven? Because the interesting thing about both heaven and hell from the Christian perspective is that once you’re there, you never get out. There’s no, you can go to either, but you never, you never come back.

Yeah. Yeah. I think there’s a whole theological zoo we can build around this, you know. I mean, there’s Blake’s magic of marriage of heaven and hell. That, that’s me trying to draw the trace of these chaotic xeno demons. Um, but 100%, you can say like, why are we trying to marry these things? Like this is the, you know, this is very theologically orthodox. I mean, how does Jesus get out of hell? That, right. Yeah. I mean, I don’t know. I’m not a theologian. Well, if you do the, the, the Baptist, it’s because he’s the literal creator of the universe. So, you know, if you do that, but then that does suggest there’s a path. Yeah. But you’re, you’re right. You’re right. And so, I mean, and then Dante, there’s a path out for Dante. Yeah, for sure. And so, I mean, no, it’s just, I, I this is why

I'm so glad you did this. This is because there's bits and pieces people can pick up from seeing stuff you say on Twitter about it. But like when you see like, okay, so the e-ching is in the time circuit, and then these different relations to numbers in the Christian—like there's so much content going on here that has made this so significant to you that just hearing one thing is like, okay, you you almost have to hear it all. It's like if you if you say, well, the cybernetic culture research unit adds up to 666 in uh, alpha numeric cabal, it's like, okay, but then when you say, but the the alpha, you know, the architectonic order of the escaton, and then Crowley's famous maxim is 77, it just piles up, and it's it's seeing it pile up that makes it significant and not one thing on its own.

Yes. I mean, it's obviously, as we've repeatedly said, look, it's always mathematically possible that there's just coincidence here, you know, and it's for particular people there's a threshold at which you say, look, it's not like I want to become dogmatic about it, but I'm just going to say hypothetically it doesn't seem worth my while to keep denying that there's a lot of interesting pattern here.

Mhm. Um, and I'd rather spend my time with the interesting pattern than with an attempt to fabricate a massive cosmic improbability that would tell me that all that pattern is void and nothing, you know, and I think probably for everyone there is a threshold of that kind, you know, there's a certain point at which so much weird interesting stuff seems to be happening that it's like, okay, you know, I'm just going to suspend the skepticism and just explore this stuff, you know. And I I think it's good if you stop short of full dogmatic commitment. I I don't want to commit to belief in anything that can't just be rigorously constructed on these on these uncontroversial formal systems. Like, you know, it's for me it's there's absolutely no question that the 63 city is structured the way it is with all the vertical motion there because I can reconstruct that a 100 times. You know what I mean? And it's always going to be the same, and anyone else who who constructs it is going to find the same thing. That's completely uncontroversial.

You know other things. Yeah. like to think that there's some significance to the fact that the first line of Paradise Lost is in Beast Pulse. I'm I'm willing to say sure, you know, you don't have to be persuaded of anything like that. You know, it's if that doesn't trip your meter, and this added this and this and this and they still don't trip your meter for that, that's like totally cool, you know, the dogmatic dogmatic assertion is really not a helpful element of any of this.

Um, okay. But I think that people can find a lot of pattern and have a really fascinating time exploring that, and you know, it's probably good to be open to that, I would say.

No, and seriously, like this is, you know, this was a very special conversation because this is a conversation I know a lot of people have wanted to see you talk about this the way you did here, and it really means a lot to us that you had the conversation with us. Uh, Nance, do you want to say anything related to the numogram before we wrap this up?

I just I I think there's it works for the the the, you know, fascinated bride-eyed young man in me who is fascinated with pareidolia and and and just says, oh, this works, this works, but it also does work for me because I can see that um, all these kind of codes and and systems of of meaning implicate the the human. So it makes sense to continually find significance as a human. Like coming from the perspective of someone who would discover meaning, it it does make sense that the meaning seems to be there to be discovered like an anthropic principle of of numerology itself. Um, and I think that's something that's maybe not evident to everybody. I I I do think um, you can mysticize or mystify this, but this stands alone apart from the mysticism. So, and I think that's powerful. Nick, you you want to say anything in closing?

Well, I just want to say, you know, you guys have been like so patient and have allowed me to basically be in splurge mode here. So, I'm very grateful for that and and I hope it's not been too overbearing.

No, it's been great. I'm definitely open to uh future more sort of conversational engagement. Um, so this was Yeah, this was a sort of a nerd dump as far as I was concerned. It's just like I thought I I mean I guess the final thing I say is I just, you know, because you were saying, oh, you know, I was talking to Nick about this stuff and he wouldn't I I knew he knew something that he wouldn't let on, and and I hope I've got beyond that much because this is really like it's you know, this is it for me. I mean, it's like I if I had if I had other massive persuasive secrets, there's obviously are all kinds of weird capitalistic bits and pieces, but I I've brought to the table everything that I think is like crucial to just getting started with with this.

Well, thank you so much for this. Uh, I'm sure that people are going to be watching this one for many years, and so it's a real pleasure, and we'll we look forward to talking to you again.

Absolutely. Okay, great. It's been a great pleasure for me to.

Yeah. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Applause] Heat. Heat. [Applause] [Music] [Applause] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Militant proletarian snake handling over abysses never gets much wilder than this.