I wish to disclose more explicitly a certain metaphysical pattern I discovered in things as wildly divergent as the topological mapping of key words in the book of Genesis to torroids, to Heyting algebra, to the metaphysical diagrams of Cusanus, modern physics and biology, my own philosophy, and in fact, all philosophy; to music theory, so on and so forth, as well as the ars I developed for utilizing this structure as an engine of thought, creative tool, etc. A structure that is capable of encoding and decoding all human knowledge. Music theory to linguistics, to ontology, semiotics, history, theology, all the way to the occult sciences; alchemy, astrology, Western cabala and Judaic kabbalah alike, Gnosticism, etc. etc. Why would such a structure be valuable? It has to do with “meaning” itself being the result of self-embedding, autopropagating, self-organizing systems, for if a perfectly-self embedded structure could be found, it could be used to embed (to ‘understand’/‘explain’) any other self-embedding structure, and that is in fact what ‘meaning’ signifies: such structures, that is, the embedding of such structures. To possess the ultimately self-embedded system would give us a key to all human and divine knowledge, and a means to accomplishing its integration and cross-correlation. Of such a structure, we have Yeats to refer to, who says of the faith of the mystic Judwalis Arabs, who purportedly discovered just such an abstract form:

“To the Judwalis, as interpreted by Michael Robartes, all living minds have likewise a fundamental mathematical movement, however adapted in plant, or animal, or man to particular circumstance; and when you have found this movement and calculated its relations, you can foretell the entire future of that mind. A supreme religious act of their faith is to fix the attention on the mathematical form of this movement until the whole past and future of humanity, or of an individual man, shall be present to the intellect as if it were accomplished in a single moment. The intensity of the Beatific Vision when it comes depends, upon the intensity of this realisation. It is possible in this way, seeing that death itself is marked upon the mathematical figure, which passes beyond it, to follow the soul into the highest heaven and the deepest hell. This doctrine is, they contend, not fatalistic because the mathematical figure is an expression of the mind’s desire and the more rapid the development of the figure the greater the freedom of the soul. The figure while the soul is in the body, or suffering from the consequences of that life, is usually drawn as a double cone, the narrow end of each cone being in the centre of the broad end of the other.”

Note that the ‘crystalline seeds or programs for the unfolding of being’, as stated in the next excerpted text, refer to the ‘self-embedding’ of various systems in the self-embedded structure of an ultimate abstraction, (like how lie groups are embedded in higher dimensional polygons that can be projected into lower-dimensional lattices, or how the 6-dimensional hypercube of a Boolean algebra can be represented by infinitesimal 3-dimensional slices) or what this text calls a hieroglyph, for this process of self-embedding is the ‘unfolding’ of Being. William Irwin Thompson, “The time Falling Bodies Take to Light; Mythology, Sexuality, and the Origins of Culture”:

“… the unitive state of the great mystics; it is a state of being, analogous to music, in which myth is not simply a description, but a performance of the very reality it seeks to describe. Here history becomes the performance of myth, for the experience of recalling (anamnesis) enlightens the individual to see that myth is the history of the soul. … In these parables and koans of spiritual enlightenment, there are certain root structures or archetypes of order that derive from principles of cosmic order. These principles are not so much symbols of being as they are crystalline seeds, or programs, for the unfolding of being. At this level, we have moved beyond the symbolic or figurative level of consciousness to the hieroglyphic. The hieroglyphs are really the nonverbal forms of the languages of gods or angels, for the bottom levels of angelic intelligence overlap with the highest levels of human. That an initiate like Plato can think in the hieroglyphic language of archetypes when he is in an exalted state of consciousness.”

As Damascius and the Diadochus tell us, such hieroglyphic images are used because communion with the Ineffable One behind all causation is impossible. We thus separate ourselves from the All and ascribe to it predicates that apply only to us, until,- yielding at the precipice of such impossible endeavors,- we learn, not only to observe, but to think with and speak through the divine Images or Forms, which are hardly the sophrosune or passivity most read Plato as indicating, but rather a mode of active, creative force and expression.

The rediscovery of this true meaning of the “Forms” is essential. To the classical evaluation of the golden, silver, and twilight ages of Men, that apocalyptical aeon must be superadded,- that in which the cycles of history, by corso and ricorso, have, in the words of Vico, become interpenetrating, spirognomic, ‘spiralized’ and fractalized, through whose mysteria we might be returned to the golden age of heroes,- the mythic era, by means of such Images. I believe that this ricorso manifested itself, for example, in the work of the Hermetic philosophers, whose multi-media texts somehow anticipated the modern internet,- whose strange confluences of disparate bodies of knowledge anticipated the post-romantic deviation from structuralist classicism, preferring a view toward man’s overall psychological organization, and that mode of analysis for which all hermeneutic efforts are staked on recovering signatures of such an underlying phusis,- the anamnesis of Plato, or the ‘history of the soul’. In our era, digital media has permitted a vast correlation of strange knowledges, that is, just such a ricorso as we find in the work of those Hermeticists who, having paved the way for the Renaissance, the rediscovery of our classics, etc. perhaps give us hope that we too might be paving the way for another Renaissance.

At any rate, the structure I discovered, I call the spirogram, but the first consideration to be made is a certain substructure of it: the tetrapole. I prefer to model the tetrapolar network on 1) Damascius’ four-fold causal map of the Ineffable, 2) a doubled-dialectic model of immanence-transcendence, (what the Areopagatie called the lepsis and Plotinus called the epistrophe) and 3) Bruno’s multi-dimensional elaboration of the Phaedrus’ account of divine ascent.

As I write here:

" The opposition of Man and God cannot be explicated by a univocal dualism, like that formulated by the Hegelian dialectic. Instead, both man and God must be multivocally de-composed into their own self-opposition, (their ‘bivalence’, recalling the term used at the beginning of this essay) each revealing two principalities at work such that, in their dynamic rearrangement, a four-fold pattern (the ‘tetrapole’) emerges through an ‘inner and outer’ dialectic that traces the interpenetrating, spirognomic dance of the immanent and transcendent within the superimmanent and supertranscendent prime-cause, as Eriugena calls it, which exists both outside and within time,- inside of, external to, and within all of Nature. The first opposition: Being and Nonbeing, the other, Dasein and Sosein. The two dialectics are developed by utilizing ‘dialectical triads’, (these triads are worked out by Cusanus, namely in his diagrammatics of the enneagon) in which the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis of the univocal dialectic are replaced by two agonistic categories including a third category signifying a ‘non-opposition’ in which the other two are reified negatively, following Bataille’s formulation of the ‘absent third’, or the ‘non-synthesis’ of Spare’s symbolic hermaphrodite.

Damascius likewise made use of the tetrapole in clarifying the causality of his Ineffable, arranged in terms of the Limit-Principle opposing the Unlimited-Principle and the Limit-Element opposing the Unlimited-Element. Nerciat’s unique, highly syncretic divinatory cabala, Zoroaster’s Telescope, also relates a four-fold double opposition, namely of Sisamoro and Senamira on the one hand,- the Zoroastrean principles of ultimate Good and Evil,- and Sallak and Sokak, or the destructive and affirming daemons/intelligences, whose confluences ebb and flood within each of the planets, presided over by the 28 angels of the Lunar Mansions. In Yeats, who also figures the 28 Lunar Mansions in his visualization of the spirogram, this four-part structure again makes an appearance, in two contexts: as the Celestial Body (solar-static) opposing Spirit (solar-active) and the Passionate Body (lunar-static) opposing the Husk; (lunar-active) then once more, in the Will (antithetical-active) opposing the Mask, (antithetical-static) and the creative mind (primary-active) opposing the Body of Fate. (primary-static) Both of these noted systems, interestingly, involve prognostication on vast time-scales, as opposed to the personal horoscopes offered by nearly all other divinatory systems. This is no coincidence, for indeed both systems have integrated a spirognomic pattern that naturally lends itself to supra-human proportion. Kircher similarly diagrams the 28 mansions of the moon in relation to a twin-gyre system he named the sciathericum seleniacum.

One of the many exceedingly profound diagrams (Fig. XIII) in Welling’s Opus Mago-Cabalisticum depicts the New Jerusalem as a transcendental hyperobject outside of linear time,- or, more properly stated, a supertranscendant ‘first cause’, like that in Damascius’ account of the Ineffable and Eriugena’s Periphyseon, collapsed from a higher-dimensional tesseract. (This tesseract being a 4-dimensional spatio-temporal construct, much like the tesseract is collapsed into the 3-dimensional ‘Cube of Saturn’ representing both alchemical lead and linear time.) This tesseract features a Geraldian tetrapole at the center, seemingly projecting from this center-point the immanent Jersualem at the beginning of History,- visualized as its own tetrapolar network within the cube,- while also being interpenetrated by a transcendent Jersusalem at the end of History,- visualized by a secondary, outer tetrapolar network external to the cube,- with the total structure therefor representing the fundamental pattern of History indexing four ‘periods of crisis’ as epistemological blind-spots underlying transitions of phase during which what Kant called the antinomies of transcendental reason unfold in a kind of binary-switching network implicated by the tesseract’s 16 vertices, as so many unpredictable transformations of concepts into their opposites at those points where the minima or ebb of one gyre is transfered to the maxima or flood of the second gyre,- (in the language set forth in Kunze’s metaleptic discourse, such transformations indicate a ‘site of exception’ and ‘predicative-reversal’ across the ‘chiasmus’) of moved into mover, immanent into transcendent, etc.- recalling what Yeats said of Cusanus’ Sphaerica, which was “a phaseless sphere that becomes phasal in our thought; Nicholas of Cusa’s undivided reality which human experience divides into opposites”. The two permutations of the tetrapole used by Yeats, as noted in the preceding paragraph, can of course be readily combined with Welling’s diagram. "

Next thing to consider is the Idearium.

The “Idearium” is a central diagram in one of my books featuring a square with its four points labeled after one of the four epistemes in my combinatory metaphysics: epistemos, ontos, immanence, and transcendence. There is a horizontal line with nine items written across it (comparatio to ektheosis) signifying one of the two inter-penetrating dialectics unfolded out of the tetrapolar network, with a vertical column (dianoia to noia) thus marking the later dialectic. The 9 by 9 expansion of the resulting table gives 81 subcategories which, with the 18 categories of the two main dialectics, populates the table with 99 total entries. The horizontal lines (like ‘comparatio to ektheosis’ or ‘dianoia to aisthesis’) are all meant to be written across circles, and the 10 resulting circles are meant to be placed on top of each other to form a volvelle you can turn around to find new associations between all the categories, new verticalities, for every movement horizontally causes an automatic change in the string of entires read vertically through the interpenetrating circulatio. This Tabula Omnis Idearium is thus a zairja or philosophical computer; through its art, one can literally think three dimensionally, as you are thinking in the dimension of the horizontal, that of the vertical, and that of the shifting table. As I elaborate here:

" One can observe in the structure of the Idearium a movement beyond the simple diagrammatics of Lull to a kind of three-dimensional ratio circularis, recalling both the extension Bruno made to the model of erotic ascent and descent in the Phaedrus and Ficino to his own multi-dimensional ascent, discent, and circulatio of the daemon, as well as the ars cyclognomica or ‘cylognomic art’ of Cornelius Gemma. As Hiro Hirae elaborates, in “Cosmology, Medicine, and Natural Philosophy in Renaissance Louvain”: “… the mind of the practitioner of the cyclognomic art thus performs a kind of ratio circularis in three dimensions, each of the figures allowing the user to move longitudinally (the ‘vertical’ fulfillment of the Phaedrus’ metaxy, ie. the noesis) and latitudinally (metalepsis and dianoea) as well as in particular columns. This mental running over of the cells of the circular diagrams is compared by Gemma to the golden chain of Homer (Homeri illam catenam auream) in which the mind runs to and fro, passing now latitudinally, now longitudinally …”

The Idearium is simply a 3-dimensional extrapolation of the spirogram, in which the ‘inner and outer dialectic’ of the four unique metaphysical vocities is encoded as a dynamic zairja-based techne.

The Pythagorean Cabalism of Nature signifies what Dee calls a symbolic theology; a kind of semiotic reconstruction and simulation of reality itself, fulfilling the Renaissance dream of connecting representation and that represented, the world of speech and the world of matter,- that is, sympathetic magia- for, at the highest-most level of abstraction, that being our symbolic theology, to represent a thing is to invoke the thing itself; the representation and that represented become one. In the same way the Sigilium Aemeth and Monad are capable of encoding all 16th century astrological, kabbalistic, geometrical, and alchemical knowledge, so the Spirogram, from a more comprehensive advantage, accomplishes the same,- extending its potential to that of encoding all possible human knowledge. Some ‘encoded’ forms of the spirogram: the four epistemes, Mallarme’s tetrapole, Lacan’s four discourses, Harman’s four-fold epistemological withdraw of the hyperobject, the twin-spiral of the Overtone-Undertone series, Cusanus’ Enneagon and its four interpenetrating circles, Giraldus’ diagrams, * etc. etc. This same duplicated polarity or ‘doubled-double’ is seen in Damascius’ Causality of the Ineffable, in which his own ‘Ungrund’, that is, the Ineffable as situated higher in the ontological hierarchy than even the One, is enfolded with the One in a series of revelatory emanations. In Harman’s system, this doubled-double is constituted by noumenon and phenomenon on the one side, and by persistent unity and constituent plurality on the other. Peter Wolfendale, “Object-Oriented Philosophy; the Noumenon’s New Clothes”: “Things are not just torn between their subterranean execution and its phenomenal effects, but also between their persistent unity and its constituent plurality.”

  • Yeats speaks explicitly of such a ‘semiotic reconstruction’ of the world, in Vision: “The mind, whether expressed in history or in the individual life, has a precise movement, which can be quickened or slackened but cannot be fundamentally altered, and this movement can be expressed by a mathematical form. (The double-gyre or spirogram of Giraldus.) … A supreme religious act of the Judwalis’ faith is to fix the attention on the mathematical form of this movement until the whole past and future of humanity, or of an individual man, (simply the history and future of Mind) shall be present to the intellect as if it were accomplished in a single moment.”

Cusanus’ metaphysics involves a grand contemplation of the Sphere as an ultimate reality which, in collapsing on itself in the entrance into human consciousness, must necessarily express itself through the series of antinomies embodied diagrammatically in the polar network of the enneagon. It is to this series of antinomies within the phenomenal expression of human consciousness, as succeeded temporally moment to moment toward an interminable future state,- much as the surface of the sphere itself can be recomposed by superimposing an infinite number of lower-dimensional planes,- to which Yeats properly refers in mentioning a fundamental ‘movement’ of thought whose pattern could be conceived in a mathematical or purely abstract form,- the tetrapolar ‘spirogram’.

As Giraldus-Yeats associate a solar and lunar polarity to each of the two gyres, so each of the two gyres may be thought to possess its own poles and antipodes which, when encoded by the epistemes, give four categories in combination, between which the pattern of the spirogram is plotted as a trajectory constantly in motion. On one gyre, we have the dual categories of nullity per transcendentiam and nullity per privationem, while on the other, Being per transcendentiam and Being per privationem, ie. the agon of Being and Non-Being alongside the agon of Dasein and Sosein; the interplay of Absence and Presence, Nullity and Being.


  1. Epistemos: the Ungrund.

Nothingness per privationem: Boehme’s Ungrund, Schelling’s Un-Intuitable, Bovillus’ concept of nothingness, Damascius’s Ineffable. While serving as the first of the epistemes, this one also proves the most obscure. Very few philosophers have conceptualized it, and those that did, were for the most part left out of the canon simply due to the unusual or ‘aporetic’ (I do not use the word aporia at a whim for, indeed, the ‘esoteric Plato’, often directly opposing the exoteric Plato, must be placed into this small order of thinkers.) mode of argument. Bovillus and Damscius both seem to invest to the philosopher’s experience of the “nothingness of first principles”, or the nullity of Being per privationem, (what I call ‘pure negation’ or ‘gnostic fire’) a certain ethical quality, in that it spurs us toward embracing an ethical struggle with the incommunicable for the sake of our fellows. See Kalogiratou’s essay, “Damscius and the Practice of the Philosophical Life: On the Impossibility of Communication about and Communion with the First Principles.”

  1. Ontic Episteme: the Grund.
    Nothingness per transcendentiam: Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, Eriguena; Apophatic theology; Parmenides, Thales, etc. In this category we must also include concepts like Lacan’s model of desire,- a metonymic propulsion around an empty core or existential lack,- and the Cartesian cogito, whereby a differential ontological minima is established in the form of the empty subjectivity of the self-observing consciousness likewise appercepted from the mental schemata in Kant’s formulation of transcendental imagination.

  2. Immanent Episteme.
    Being per privationem: Being(s) exist as privations from an ultimate being. Pantheism. Spinoza; (all qualities as variable quanta of a central affect, a ruling qualia a la. joy) Nietzsche; (all will as a variable quanta of the Will to Power) Heidegger.

  3. Transcendent Episteme:
    Being per transcendentiam. Being(s) exist, that is, are qualified, only in their participation within an ultimate Being, (Being itself) from which they inhere those qualities and are temporally differentiated. Hegel. Most metaphysics. The common interpretation of Plato. No satisfactory theory of participation (what Plato calls the choreia) has emerged, though the philosophers named here, and countless others, made the attempt to formulate just such a theory, with it often becoming their singular, overwhelming ambition. Schelling too, advanced through all three epistemes in a unique way throughout the course of his own writing in pursuit of a theory of participation.

Concerning these four approaches to the interplay of absence and presence, it should be noted that the nominalists, tracing their own intellectual heritage from the likes of Plato and Pythagoras, claim a direct connection between sign and signifier, such that magic can occur by activating sympathetic associations between language and the world, like that employed by talismans and amulets, by literal ‘magic words’, the ritual re-enactment of divine dramas seen in the Eleusinian, Orphic, and especially Mithraic rites, etc.

Pseudo-nominalists like Dee affirm that there is such a direct connection, though once available only to some signs and their signifieds, namely at the highest level of abstraction, in which the structure of reality itself can be semiotically reconstructed or simulated by certain powerful signs, like the monad. Mathematical Platonists would also fall into this category.

The Realists, in which the entire field of modern linguistics is contained, claim meaning to be related by signs only through their syntax, that is, there arrangement with other signs under a given system of grammatical rules and contextual or idiomatic conventions, such that a number like zero, which literally refers to nothing external and thus cannot possibly have any ‘sympathy’ with something outside the sign-system, can generate meaningful statements when used in correct syntax.

The CCRU’s tic-decoding, along with a variety of ‘post-structuralist’ camps, gives us a formula for a kind of hyper-realist position in which all semantic content is reduced to a pure syntax, such that any sign or sign-system can be reconstructed from any other purely through syntactic recombination, therefor rendering meaning itself in a state of radical contingency."

The spirogram is tetrapolar, but a tetrapole is not by itself a spirogram. The spirogram is an ur-zairja capable of producing other zairjas; a tetrapole capable of enfolding other tetrapoles in on itself.

One part of my work is explicating the pattern itself, “Mathematically, Magically, Cabalistically, and Anagogically considered”, as John Dee said of his attempt at explicating the symbol of the Monas Heiroglyphica to the Emperor. Another part of my work is actually encoding all human knowledge with it to create a full system of knowledge along the lines of Iziquerdo’s Pharus Scientiarum or Gemma’s Ars Cyclognomica; a vast compendia in which every branch of knowledge is inter-related with every other. After successfully encoding all human knowledge with it, which I finished some time ago, I reversed the operation and developed all kinds of different systems based on this one inherent structure, the spirogram, which is the metaphysical substrate of reality itself,- for its power to integrate, co-relate, and embed is equal only to its power to project, create, and express. Indeed we are far beyond mere philosophy here: he who masters this structure and its ars, possesses unparalleled ability to expand his creative will into whatever branch of science or form of art he wishes, indeed perhaps all of them. I expanded the structure into a whole system of music theory, (the twin-gyre system superimposed on the circulatio and the tetrapole take the form of a dual temporality expressed between the Undertone and Overtone series, where every shift in one or the other automatically causes a shift across the circle of fifths, just as every horizontal shift causes new vertical associations to appear on the Idearium.) a combined epistemology-ontology-metaphysics-semiotics with the episteme model, a model of history integrating economics, psychoanalysis, media technology, etc.

Considered musically, one might imagine the entire doubled pattern of the Undertone-Overtone series, but the ends of each of the two opposing series are twisted, so that the two become a gyre. Then imagine the circle of fifths and place this gyre, horizontally, passing through its center: every tightening or loosening of the gyre/spiral causes movement along the circle of fifths, either to the right or left; the notes in the two series are, in other words, transposed in either direction to corresponding notes on the circle of fifths. This reciprocal pattern is the basis of my own meta-tonal system, which essentially maps out the relationship of the ‘Universal Gravity’ of the Circle of Fifths to the ‘Telluric Gravity’ of the tightening/loosening gyre.

My main sources in uncovering this structure were Hinaxius’ lost translations of Apollonius the Gnostic Prophet, who discusses the subtle geometries of the Mizan, by which the stellar or ‘astromantic’ forces are brought into coherent unities or ‘balances’. It is a form of higher alchemy. Add to that Cusanus’ ‘spherical metaphysics’, upon whose diagrams I superimposed the balances of the Mizan, throw in Giraldus, Yeats’ recovery of Judwalis philosophy, the Arabic zairja-mystics or diagrammaticists explored in the work of Kunze, etc.

The spirogram is, in other words, the ultimate self-reflexive system, entirely embedded in itself, such that any other system can be permuted from it. Why? Because the ultimately self-embedded system could explain all other self-embedded systems, and that is what a system is- a self-embedded, self-reproducing structure like the developing embryo, a dna double helix,- any dynamical self-organizing system, including the universe itself. Rigorously defining this concept of self-embedding requires a naturalist and a transcendentalist conceptualization; I will begin with the former, citing one of my books:

" The nomos, analogous to the ‘emergent operators’ of certain string-processing schemata, spontaneously increases the information-contents of a system while allowing that system, from within itself, to exploit its own organizational processes in order to access that new information, re-incorporating it in its own evolutionary trajectory, such that a kind of self-modification occurs, by which the strict I-O model of Darwinian selection by environmental pressures is wholly overcome. The nomos, in a word, permits circular self-selection, self-modification, and self-direction, [“Dynamics-based considerations (differential equations, kinetic models, etc.) of the circular ‘self-supporting’ processes necessarily deprive them of their meaning.”… Self-Modifying Systems in Biology and Cognitive Science, a New Framework for Dynamics, Information and Complexity. George Kampis.] and this through processes within which any computable structure might be embedded while at the same time remaining irreducible to any computable structure themselves. ["Liberman shows that abstract enzyme systems can realize any normal algorithm, using enzyme function as substitution rule and molecular subsequences (‘addresses’) as markers of the place where substitution has to be done. A simple example for such a system is the set of ‘emergent operators’ in the Holland system. Most interestingly, cellular proteins and DNA/RNA sequences do actually contain such ‘addresses’, halting symbols., ,etc. so the analogy is very natural and deep. … These systems are not programs but they can embed any computer program … " Kampis, ibid.] "

And from the transcendental, or purely philosophical perspective, we have here a passage in which ‘self-embedding’ refers to a ‘self-mapping’ of Simplicius’ concept of empereia:

" … Socrates, by discovering
the forces of marginalization which compromised the integrity of the demos and therefor the
liberty of the individual, allowed for the possibility of the individual to reassert himself, through
self-directed language or ‘philosophy’, against the hegemony of Athenian power,- yet, sophists
adequately skilled in the use of this new language or ‘mental technology’, as Stiegler calls it,
whose political application would become clear in the coming centuries, could easily co-opt it
for far less reverent purposes.) converting subjectivity, as boundary, into that object bound by the
inscriptive structures (phyla) of externalized language, (thus we may understand by this
conversion, more precisely, a subordination of the autopoiesis of self to the allopoiesis of
Luhmann’s divergent phyla, or in yet another lexicon, that of the Simplician empeiria or
self-mapping taxon to an extraneous nomos in the derivation of a kind of psychosocial ‘syn-tax’
in which the mutual differentiation of self and other informs the horizon of emergence under
which the collective demos appears as yet another manifestation of the image of techne) and that
intervening programmatic or ‘techne’, whereby the fatal ‘patterning’ of behavior (In pataphysical
aesthetics, we might relate this concept of ‘patterning’ to the instrumentation of the conditions of
vision as technical praxis and the reduction of the artistic object to gestural performativity,
namely as an opening- not to the emergence of the ‘missing-third’, but to the possibility of its
emergence, whereby the secondary-process of individuation is sublated by the primary as a
poemenon, that is, an unabsorbed negativity or kenotically emptied and thus transindividuated
possibility-phenomenon whose basic aporia, as non-philosophy, or a purely speculative opening
to its own lack, demands the reactivation of the process of individuation in its opposite,- as
philosophy,- insofar as non-philosophy is incapable of questioning the Grund of philosophy’s
emergence, whose interpellative discourse would lie necessarily beyond the horizon of its own
epistemological blind-spot, but only that of its own emergence and missing-third. Thus the third
does not negotiate absence and presence in a metaphysical-univocal positivization of the
dialectic, but serves as the kind of Sparean point of nucleation discussed in these texts, around
which tertiary identities are accreted beyond the mappable strictures of individuation from the
constitutive dyads driving the very individuation-process itself.) is finally achieved and
free-mimesis begins propagating through the consequently induced repetition of certain patterns,
(culture as virality; what Stiegler calls nanomutational grammatisation) as having replaced the
‘analogue signal’ of the pre-digital universe."

This “possibility-phenomenon”, upon which all possibility of the human subject exists, is bound to a ‘transcendental auton’ upon which it is meta-teleologically suspended, like the first digit of PI upon the transfinite ‘last’ digit of the interminable series. This suspension in the transcendental auton offers yet another vantage toward the concept of the tetrapole as a kind of doubled-dialectic. I go into great detail on this ‘super-teleological’ suspension of the Object in the Non-Object in this section, where I relate it to several different versions of the tetrapole drawn up from different sources, like Harman and Morton’s object-oriented-ontology:

" A theory of theory,- a philosophy of philosophy,- a ‘theory of everything’, cannot formally exist, because Theory [Philosophy] cannot account for its own Negativity, that is, for its own negation, which would be ‘pure negation’- that Negativity which cannot be accounted for through Theory or ‘absorbed’ by the strictures of System, in Bataille’s formula,- or the ‘secret of consciousness’ as appercepted by the appropriate schema through transcendental synthesis, which Kant claimed existed only in the depths of the soul, rent fatally beyond the veil of the Dialectic. This is the nature of Bataillean violence: the fundamental scissure of Discourse. Thus when we point the dialectic against itself,- when we work out a dialectic of the dialectic,- as Kierkegaard ironically recapitulated the Hegelian philosophy, we achieve what Kierkegaard called the ‘paradox’ (what Plato called the ‘aporia’) as an engine of thought, while similarly, when we invert the dialectic, as Marx did, we initiate a process of de-construction by which all concepts are dissolved into elementary fragments of material-history and reduced to a singular quanta of Force a la. the Will to Power. As the Hegelian thought builds up, within the movement of Geist, the Babel-tower of positive knowledge toward the Absolute, so the Marxist dialectic deconstructs System and descends toward a bare materiality, within whose conflux of elementary forces the image of Utopia has been hopelessly distorted. A reductio ad absurdum of the categorical Negation occurs as well, when we attempt to circumscribe a dialectic of the dialectic, leading to Baidou’s ‘bad infinity’ 1 and Bataille’s un-absorbed Negative as an accumulation of those entropic stresses upon the system of Capital produced by the flow of material-history, to again return to the Marxist formula. This reduction was precisely the meaning of ‘Death’ in Heidegger’s account of Being. Heidegger sought in fact to fully explicate Dasein’s opening toward Death by bearing the Negative to its implicated reductio ad absurdum, (this titanic struggle was his project of de-struktion) peering beyond the veil of History through a kind of ontological black-hole compressed within the folds of Aryan race-memory, whose event-horizon had trapped the European soul within the inescapable orbit of Capital, Modernity, the image of Techne(ology) and the merely ontic,- that is, the metaphysical Presence of ousia’s Absence, toward which the human dimension is properly enfolded by Death,- by Death as a kind of noetic ‘escape route’ out of the ‘phenomenal bind’ of correlationist philosophy, [Or, in other words, an escape route out of the confused nebula, bereft of political or ‘emancipatory’ potential, found in the purely intermediate or initiatory role of Dasein, which rests on a movement from its own horizon of possibilities (Moglichkeit) to the disclosure of an actual futurity, (Wirklichkeit) to be later grasped by a pure ontology of time in which the movement from potentiality to actuality, in terms of the Aristotelian categories, becomes a movement from the non-ego to ego,- that is, a kind of cosmic awakening of insensate matter to Geist reenacted on the part of Dasein. “Hoher als die Wirklichkeit steht die Moglichkeit.” Ernest Joos, 1983: “Lukacs’ last autocriticism, the Ontology; On the Usefulness of Ontology.” On the inter-mediation of Heidggerian disclosure, see Raymond E. Gogel, “Quest for Measure; the Phenomenological Problem of Truth.”] in Meillassoux’s reconceptualization of ‘finitude’, which we must also pair with our conceptualization of Dasein. [See: Anamnesis; Aesthetics After Finitude. When the post-Kantian correlationist doxa is dispensed with, we are left with an ‘un-territorialized’ domain of the human Subject formerly rejected by the three modes of Kant’s critique,- criticism, skepticism, and dogmatisma, a la. ‘philosophy’,- an uninhabited subjectivity awaiting a new ‘terraforming aesthetics’, just as we are provided with the converse, that is, a hyperrealist or ‘inhuman’ vision of the cosmos in which the distinction between primary and secondary, or ‘subjective’ and ‘external’ qualities has been extinguished. In “The Existence of the Divine”, Meillassoux calls this radically contingent separation of the human subject and the ‘arche fossil’ of the Real simply, “the impossibility of the whole”, for whose assertion object-oriented ontology and speculative realists, like Harman, have been accused, to some extent justifiably,- and to a greater extent, unsurprisingly, given the fact that we find here an oblique continuance of the Heideggarian strain,- of disavowing the philosophic vocity of the Subject,- much as the assertion of Dasein disavows the vocity of the ‘human’ subject. The chiasmus torn in this absent Whole, or the ‘disjunction of exteriority and immanence’,- in order to be brought out of the theoretical depth of the impossible and so made philosophically readable,- must be conceptualized through a new, properly ontological thinking-through of Time, which Heidegger had promised in the third division of Being and Time, but had not achieved, and Badiou simply ignored. While I find great intellectual sympathy in OOO and speculative realism, most especially with regard to their implicit rejection of the pre-Socratics as well as the respective modern equivalents in the cult of popular science, (A thinking which undermines philosophy, like the pre-Socratics and the sophists equally accomplished, as though philosophy were simply an outdated mode of science,- as opposed to a fundamentally different human project entirely. See Harman’s book “Object-Oriented Ontology” for a great account of the Pre-Socratics in their undermining of the Western philosophical project.) or likewise an assumed faith in the tenability of a Theory of Everything, it should be clear from my own conceptualization of the episteme that an alternative to their theorizations of a pure ontology of time is pursued in these books. In the third dialectical triad, the logoic chiasmus noted here is intellectually supplanted by the ‘lepsis’, such that the pure ontology of temporality is then left to trace the movement of a super-transcendent methexis (toward ektheosis) through the super-immanent lepsis (using Eriugena’s notions of supra-immanence and supra-transcendence) and its resulting perichoreia,- an ‘Image’ of Time which cannot be reduced to the merely intramundane or ‘encosmic’ (See Joshua Ramey, in “The Hermetic Deleuze: Philosophy and Spiritual Ordeal.” Thus: “The cosmological and metaphysical problem for orthodox Christian thinkers was that, if in creation the same divine being is both the expressor and the expressed of a world, how it is possible to avoid the unwanted consequence that God’s nature might be limited to the expression of intramundane or merely encosmic possibilities? Some kind of process theology seems to loom, whereby God’s essence would be seen as restricted by time, or even that God might be forced to discover God’s own essence through time.”) movement from potentiality to actuality within the ‘tritogenos’ like that at the basis of a causal or correlationist theorization of temporality,- namely as a distinctive vocity: the vocity of the Subject as a kind of “hepatic inscription of the chora” capable of confronting the “choraic motility of the semiotic” and infiltrating the symbolic order, as divine perichoresis, with an intrusion of jousissance (beyond the threshold of structured and socially reinforced libido) which embodies the inherent lacuna 2 or instability of the body, that is, the Negativity of the mortal Subject, whose unstable forces, as graphe or traces of more elemental universal forces, therefor draw the subject upward into the visionary ekstasis of the eidos,- into the mantic presence of the Symbolic.] * The inability of Theory to account for its own Negation leads to what I have named ‘mimetic hyperinflation’, while the subversion of mimesis appears as a consequence of the perfection of techne as a hypermnemata, in whose image the direction of human history has been deterministically bent. We take the hypermnemata as a potential theory of the ‘Spectacle’,- meaning, a conceptualization of the Spectacle amenable to philosophical analysis, namely through the use of the episteme-model of vocity and Truth, (and its respective counter-Hegelian epistemology and aporetic metaphysics) by which the underlying ‘mnema’ of the technomimetic subtrate might be excavated from its own autopoietically generated materials without encouraging further viral transmission of those materials. The first task of such a project would be the deployment of a kind of buffer-zone in which the mnematic core of ‘System’ might be unloaded, with a secondary protocol focused on a re-engagement of the symbolic-exchange function and thus, eventually, a reconstruction of philosophy out of its at that point inert materials. The episteme, as a model of the subject’s unique vocity as well as that of the variable thresholds to the Real which the Subject can access, promises a theoretical explication of the category of ‘experience’, that is, an explication of the experiential subject’s vocity, recalling one of Walter Benjamin’s most urgent tasks,- (for he felt that it was this,- a conceptualization of the nature of experience in its totality,- which the Kantian framework most urgently lacked, with the ‘secret’ of the appercepted subject being said to reside unutterably in the soul, by Kant himself) a task which, given the limitations of critical-theory as merely a mimetically inverted Hegelian dialectic, was fated to remain unfulfilled. Such a model of human experience,- one of experience in its totality, in its vocity,- would, in its praxis, give rise to a theory of creativity, not merely an aesthetics- and therefor, would materialize the very creative techniques and strategies as served for its subject precisely as what I have before called “a mode of aisthesis capable of conforming the very effects whose techne it informs and so inverting the series of causes”,- that linear series whose ultimate telos is self-fulfilled in the image of Capital. (ie. inverting the structure of temporal co-relation, to use the terms utilized in the present text.) It is with these techniques that the reconstructive task hinted at here would be initially surmounted. **

  1. The ‘bad infinity’ of the Hegelian dialectic can be traced all the way back to the Aristotelian deconstruction of the Eleatic and Pythagorean monads. See Luigi Borzacchini, “Incommensurability , Music, and Continuum: a cognitive approach.”, on the artificial construction of the mathematical continuum and the evolution of its more philosophic underpinnings: “To outline this evolution, I must first and foremost remind … that the Pythagorean monad could not be divided. However, Aristotelian empiricism could not remain insensitive to the idea of the ‘one’ as a measure unit, and Aristotle’s philosophy had to remove the antinomy inherent in the idea of ‘One’, both indivisible- the ‘Being’ in the Eleatic framework, and the monad, both unit and point, in Pythagoream Mathematics- and divisible, the measure unit of the ‘magnitude’. The solution required that the idea of continuity based on the divisibility-of-the-magnitude had to be connected to the idea of continuity based on the singleness-of-the-separating-extremes through the idea of sign/point. A sign/point can always and everywhere, potentially but not actually, distinguish/divide the continuum, whereas a unity actually is an already distinguished and well defined object to be considered as a whole.” (He calls this ‘apeironic’ treatment of the concept of continuous magnitude the hidden evolutive principle of Greek-descended models of the mathematical continuum. He goes on elsewhere, describing it in “The Sophist: Genesis of Formal Thinking in Philosophy and Mathematics”, as “the source of never ending paradoxes well recognizable ever since the beginning of formal thinking. Negation, truth and being ground an antinomical argument, from the “negative judgement paradox” (impossibility of asserting falsity), through the “liar paradox” (contradictory nature of self-asserting falsity), to set-theoretical paradoxes and to Gödel’s and Tarski’s limitative theorems.”) In fact, this incommensurability of the two formulations of the monad, the 0-dimensional substrate for all higher abstraction, and the consequent duplicity of the Pre-Aristotelian and Aristotelian models of the continuum, can be observed by us in the modern crisis concerning the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and relativity, for, as Bohm states, concerning his notion of an Implicate Order, this is in reality simply an incompatibility between the continuum modelled in relativity, which represents indiscrete continuous motion, and that in quantum mechanics, which concerns discrete transformations and phase-spaces, spin-systems and discontinuous motion,- that is, ‘quantized’ motion: “…in relativity, movement is continuous, causally determinate and well defined, while in quantum mechanics it is discontinuous, not causally determinate and not well-defined. Each theory is committed to its own notions of essentially static and fragmentary modes of existence (relativity to that of separate events connectible by signals, and quantum mechanics to a well-defined quantum state). One thus sees that a new kind of theory is needed which drops these basic commitments and at most recovers some essential features of the older theories as abstract forms derived from a deeper reality in which what prevails is unbroken wholeness.” This inherent antinomy appears elsewhere in modern research, as in the relationship between parallel D-branes and muti-sheet spacetime, citing Pei-Ming Ho and Yong-Shi Wu, in “Noncummutative Geometry and D-Branes”: “Indeed, there are striking similarities between the D-brane dynamics and the non-commutative geometric construction of the standard model: the parallel D-branes versus the multi-sheet space-time, the inter-brane connections versus the Higgs fields, and so on.” The continuous and discontinuous models of the continuum and their integral paradox thus go all the way back to the very foundations of Western logic and, just as Aristotle failed to unite them by way of categorical reasoning and dialectical synthesis, so any further attempts at a constructed synthesis on the part of modern physics is equally unlikely to bear much fruit.

  2. The lacuna serves, when ‘digitally modulated’ by the binary logic of the chiasmus, as a ‘site of exception’ or Kunzean metalepsis, that is, as an ambient signal through which the ‘stochastic resonance’ itself becomes an extravalence and trans-apparition, a steganographic liquidity and non-representation “to be mapped in a flux of encryptions”,- [See Cabrales and Carruthers on ‘Poetry as Cosmic War’.] a feedback-loop for the Landian abomena of the ‘Outside’ within an abiding-between conceptuality and matter, recalling the manner in which Irigaray and Plant define the female symbolic lacuna as a kind of binary zero,- not a lack of signification, not simply an ‘exception’ from the system of positive male exchanges and the driven metonymy of libidinous becomings, not an absence at the missing center of gravity,- but a zone of multiplicities which, like the Cantorian aleph, enables that proliferating digital continua to exist from which it itself springs forth as a ‘ghost in the machine’,- a phantasmal extroprojection, the technological excruciation of self-sublimed capital making way for the anastrophe, that is, an anthropocentric de-conditioning. However, the hypermnematic conversion of the productive forces of the Market ensures that these forces cannot exceed capitalist control,- which is, was, or never-was, the fundamental hope of accelerationist doxa and the aesthetic praxis of its xenopoetics, or the essential feature of an anastrophic reorganization of market-forces. [Benjamin Noys, Cybernetic Phuturism: The Politics of Acceleration.]

  • For more on this term, as it relates to the Platonic theory of Presence, see Nicolet., Isar, “Chora: Tracing the Presence”; Review of European Studies, 2009. The perichoreia defines the final manifestation of the chora’s impossible presence. The aporia of metaphysical Presence is one of Plato’s most significant, reaching its most energetic pitch of course, in the Timaeus. Presence is here encoded by the unstable logic of the ‘chora’,- a kind of hypnagogic or transitional phase (tritogenos) between the immaterial eidos, on the one hand, and the material eidolon on the other, that is, the world of Being and that of the Image, the world of the actual and the potential. The ‘impossible presence’ of the choreia, (like that of the Aristotelian monadology noted above) which is absent from itself, only instantiates the distorted logic of ‘pure difference’ for which it has been so often attacked by critical theorists with the mistaking of absence for presence, with the conflation of negativity and knowledge,- for such a misconstrual of the eidos for eidolon,- arising out of the reduction of this ‘Image of Time’ (the perichoreia) to its ontological minima, that is, the chora or ‘Being of Time’,- (as stated concerning the correlationalist dynamis) gives rise to an illegible graphe of the Platonic choreia,- and thus, to the loss of its hepatic inscription in the choreia of the body, which replicates the ‘Form’ of the higher universe in the lower one as a ‘participation’, according to Plato’s account and the cosmology of the Timaeus. Recapitulating what we have said regarding Stellardi and thought’s own impossibility, or negativity, as the very engine of thought, we find Sallis reaching the nearly identical conclusion, specifically with regard to his delineation of certain aporias within the Platonic corpus. He tells us: “What is it that thus withholds the Platonic text from metaphysics at the very moment when metaphysics is founded? What is it that holds the Platonic text at the threshold of metaphysics?” Heidegger understands the lethe to be a kind of choraic counter to phusis,- one which performs the basic phenomenological closure and counters all emergence into presence, thus imposing a ‘phenomenological withdraw’ which, at a lower level of abstraction, echoes that withdrawal we have already discussed at the epistemological level. Sallis indicates that it is precisely this belonging of the lethe to aletheia that renders the impossible presence of the choreia as Thought’s very arche: “Then it would be a matter of tracing in the dialogue the lines- or, rather, the shadows- of archaic closure, of the closure belonging to the arche, belonging within the origin at the origin, at the threshold of metaphysics.” Thus, we draw the main insight from Sallis’ “Phenomenology and the End of Metaphysics”, as succinctly given in Bernard Freydberg’s interpretation, citing “The Thought of John Sallis; Phenomenology, Plato, Imagination; Delimitations”: “The end of metaphysics has been, is always, prefigured in its beginning. The drive to presence constitutive of metaphysics reaches its limit- is delimited- at its outset by that which makes it possible at all: aletheia, to which lethe essentially belongs. “Beginning” and “End” no longer constitute an opposition and most surely do not constitute a temporal order of any kind.” Of course, the perichoreia is just this “image of Time”, which cannot be absorbed by any temporal order.

** I would clarify several terms in relation to what has been said here. The interaction of the primary and secondary processes, (the inorganic and organic, the inhuman and human, cosmic and egoic, social and individual; the ‘anorganic’ and ‘aorgic’, to recall Schelling’s distinction) borrowing the terms used in Simondon’s socio-psychology, has thus far occurred on great scales of time,- giving rise to what Land and the CCRU referred to as long-range feedback cycles,- the kind of cycles we find ourselves unable to statistically model, much like the massive data-sets related to weather patterns and their computer-driven prediction, which had inspired the concept of the hyperobject. This unpredictable feedback-cycle has produced an epistemological blind-spot (this blind-spot is, simply “critical-theory”.) within which one such hyperobject (A ‘dragon’; see Consolandi, in: “I Saw a Dragon! - Envisioning Hyperobjects: culture, collaboration and madness in the Anthropocene.” Note also J. Sheu, in: “Conceiving the Hyperobject in Stanisław Lem’s Solaris”. ) has been generated, namely through the process I refer to as mimetic hyperinflation: Capital. Capital represents a final submission of the secondary or human, individuating process, to the primary one. The hypermnemata is the auto-poetically generated form in which the secondary process, ie. human history, has been re-encoded on the higher-dimensional surface of the unreadable hyperobject. This sociological trajectory, because it is the eventuality of an inertial telos suspended within the image of Capital itself, constitutes the self-fulfilling prophecy par excellence,- inevitable, perhaps, though only from within its own ontological horizon. The question is one of first reaching an ontological ground-zero, or what I have called the skhisma,- an ontological-minima of differentiation,- and then finally escaping that horizon. In the past, man possessed a metaphysics, and not merely a statistics-driven, scientifically derived model of himself and the world, as that reified by critical-theory, such that a revitalization of metaphysics is required in order to excavate the human mnema from the process of material-history. The ‘episteme’ is posited as just such a metaphysics.

As Theory cannot circumscribe its own Negation, so neither can Theory circumscribe its own Essence,- it’s positivity or Affirmation. Harman’s account of hyperobjects lies in the notion of epistemological withdrawal. The contingent sensual qualities of an object, as available to our senses, do not modulate the essence of the object, such that objects can only enter into relationship with one another on the level of the sensual, whose ontological gaps can therefor never be reconstructed within the fabric of the symbolic. Objects thus contain a haunting core unavailable to the absorptive grasp of System, by which relationships are capacitated and governed. The problem is that, through the formation of perceptive relationships between objects, new objects are created, which in turn telescope hidden essences of their own, further miring System in the kind of entropic stresses about which Bataille was so concerned. Here we also find negation as a driving force in the ‘engine of thought’, though one potentially destructive in its ‘unrestrained mimesis’ of essences. Theory, when attempting to fathom its own hidden essence through the fabric of relationships available to it on the part of whichever System theory has chosen to operate under, cannot help but effloresce from out of its own confabulations ever new multiplicities of impossible essences, whose veil (the ‘confused nebula’ noted above) renders Theory’s own essence progressively more and more unreadable,- that is, more and more inaccessible to the vertical element of the philosopher’s ‘symplokeides’. * All such networks of explosive essences exceed the limits of the singular human ego, such that, when perceived as relational complexes undulating or ‘phasing’ in and out of our own local Real from a higher-dimensional vantage, we might regard them as hyperobjects.

  • The symplokeides, as “the active-passive becoming of ideas”, [Deleuze and the Passions, P. 10.] is embedded in a world for which, due to its finitude, no logoi, vocity, or distinctive mode can enjoy a purely active role in the governance of the field of discourse, the principle of whose activity must be recovered, in the vertical or noetic sense, as a special unity [Concerning the symploke-eidea, see: Charles H. Kahn, “Why is the Sophist a Sequel to the Theatetus?”, Michael Morris, “Parmenides, Plato and the Semantics of Not-Being.”, and Kenneth Sacks, in “Polybius on the Writing of History”, P. 118: “… the symploke directly relates to the special unity in history which demands illumination by the historian …”] available to the conception of the philosopher alone, who posits that ‘interweaving of Forms’ by which the nature of the active One and the passive Many,- of the active Many and the passive One,- are discovered within their ‘transconsistent discourse’, [Graham Priest, In Contradiction: A Study of the Transconsistent. In this book it is adequately explained, that neither the Hegelian inconsistency nor the arguments Kant used to produce the antinomies are true dialetheic specifications, to whose class there belongs only the logical paradoxes of self-reference. Recall the distinction between merely linguistic paradoxes, logical paradoxes, and paradoxes of the aleph-null, that is, paradoxes of meaning itself.] that is, their active-passive combination,- the basic dialetheia or double-truth. [Socrates, in the Philebus: “The combination of the One and Man is an unaging and immortal attribute of discourse.”]

The Stoics were the first to seriously reckon with the aporias of the early metaphysics, having thought-through the challenges given to them by Parmenides and his ecstatic vision of the Ontos. For the stoics, a four-fold category of incorporeals was elaborated, of which language, that is, the logos,- or what they preferred to call the lekta, [See Sellars, “An Ethics of the Event”; Angelaki, Vol. 11.] was included. Parmenides, having perfected the circularity of thought-thinking-thinking, asserted that nothing untrue can be thought, since, if it could, it would not be part of the All of Being or Ontos, and therefor would not be able to exist as a thought within any human mind, since all thought is contained within the Ontos as part of the All, and,- should such an untruth exist outside of it,- the All would in that case, paradoxically, no longer be the All, which is of course impossible. Human thought, for the Stoics,- as one of their incorporeals,- is irreducible to the pure abstraction of the Ontos, and exists outside of it as a material remainder, like the free multiplicities that Deleuze (note the “Logic of Sense”) utilized to ground his own rhizomatics or ‘reversed Platonism’. Thus the untrue, that is, something outside the merely ontic, (the ontological minima of differentiation at the level of Being) can in fact be thought. The possibility of the untrue, of self-deception, of philosophizing oneself into madness and fantasy, thus demanded, for the Stoics, a turn to empiricism over Platonic metaphysics, while for Deleuze it demanded a similar empiricism, though one creative in purpose,- one designed to carry reason into madness, into the radical creativity of the schizophreniac. While the Stoics lacked the technical language to fully explain their theory of incorporeals, philosophers of the medieval period returned to it and dedicated new resources to the elaboration of a theory of eidesis more internally consistent than the pure abstractions of Parmenides, namely the ‘potentia dei’ on account of which man can access a ‘visio intuitiva’ or intuitive knowledge of a non-existing object, that is, an object beyond the ‘material remainder’ or ontic minima of differentiation demanded (‘per privationem’) by the Parmenidean ontos, upon whose basis the privilege of the abstract category might be reinstated. This use of the ‘potentia dei’ is further refined over time, eventually giving us the ‘transcendental auton’ and the leptic interdependency of immanence-transcendence, or thought’s basic ‘symploke,’- were it only the Flesh redeemed ex anastasin nekron [saved from death] or a Soul ex anastasin sarcos, [saved from the flesh. We find the first, traditional phrase replaced by the later, indicating no slight Gnostic influence in the opinion of Celsus, in one of the Greek variations of the Nicene Creed, namely that found in the Symbolum Codex Sangallensis: sarcos anastasin zoin aeonion.] that contemplates its object, in accordance with the German mystic Matthias Scheeben, sub creatura intellectualis,-- in visio intuitiva der Gottlichkeit, in creatura intellectualis ab Mitteilbarkeit. [P. Norbert Hoffmann, Natur und Gnade; die Theologie der gottesschau als vollendeter Vergottlichung des Geistgeshopfes bei Scheeben. Analecta Greogriana edita Vol. 160: die Gottanschauung, aufweist als etwas an sich nur Gott als Gott Zustehendes und die Kreatur als Kreatur Ubersteigendes. … Die konkre Struktur aber des gennanten Spannungsfeldes im Zu- und Gegeninader von Natur und Gnade entwirft Scheeben dann- und hier liegt sein weiteres Verdienst- auf dem Grundriss des Begriffs geistige Kreatur. Auf ihn projiziert er den Inhalt unmittelbar Gott schauen und leitet dann einerseits die Transzcendenz (Gottlichkeit, der visio intuitiva creatura intellectualis) der visio andererseits ihre Immanenz. (Mitteilbarkeit ab visio intuitiva-creatura intellectualis.) On the distinction of the ‘visio intuitiva’ and ‘creatura intellectualis’, see Danus Slangendorpius, in: Theses Theologicae de Tribus capitibus Christianae Religionis nempe Arbitrio Hominis. Liberum arbitrium in homine, est facultas naturalium virium, quae obiecta naturalia quodammodo eligit aut repudiat. Facultas naturalium virium, partim ex obiectis, in quae fertur hoc arbitrium, partim adiunctis, hominis deprehenditur. Frantz, in Institutiones Theologicae De Deo Uno, Et Trino Usui; P. 185: Dissertatio III, de Visibilitate Dei. Nihil hic de visione abstractiva quaerimus, aliunde jam in manibus est, Deum naturali lumine ex effectis agnosci; subit igitur unice sciscitari: an visio intuitiva creaturae intelligenti concedenda, sive facultas naturalium virium, sive peculiare Dei adjutorium spectetur? Gonettus, in Cursus: Visio intuitiva, quae intuitive videret essentiam divinam non visis relationibus, videret Deum ut est in se unus, licet non videret Deum, ut est in se triuus; sed ex eo, quod videret Deum, ut est in se unus, licet illum non videret, ut est in se trinus, videret illum secundum id, quod est obiectum essentiale beatificum. Ripaldus, de Ente Supernaturali Disputationes Theologiae. At per te visio intuitiva Dei, prout intuitiva est, et differens a non intuitiva repugnat apprehendi absque cognitione perfectionum consequentium naturam tanquam objecti secundarii. … Potest admitti beari hominem formaliter visione creaturarum in Deo, si visio Dei beans hominem repraesentat essentialiter creaturas in Deo. Franzelin, Tractatus de Deo Uno Secundum Naturam: Nulli creaturae immediata visio divinae essentiae naturalis est.]

  • Alfredo Gatto, in “William of Ockham and the Odium Dei”, explains this medieval development of the Stoa: “According to the Venerabilis Inceptor, each single individuality is an atomic fact. Objects are therefore released from any archetypal structure which threatens their individuality, since they are exclusively bound to the will of divine liberty. God’s omnipotence could then subtract any entity from its system of common relations. Now, if there is a difference between the intuitive knowledge of an object and the object intuited, and if God, in addiction, could subtract each res from the set of its current relations, the homo viator cannot exclude that the absolute fact [res absoluta] represented by the intuitive knowledge of a non-existing object could not exist without the presence of the object- since, for instance, the sensible representation of a color [visio coloris sensitiva] could be preserved by God even if the color does not exist (the two things, in fact, are wholly distinct) We have to focus our attention on the possibility that God, de potentia absoluta, allows man to have an intuitive knowledge of a non-existing object. In spite of appearances, this possibility does not overturn the system of human knowledge.”

On this self-embedding as the functional ground of the mimetic function itself, upon which human language depends:

" … Through the Event, which
should be conceived of as a symmetrical inscription-ascription responsible for grounding
the mimetic function itself, it is possible to map the serial logic and
economic-determinism of the death-drive hidden within the dislocated paraphilias out of
which the spatio-temporal continuum of the value-exchange, conducted upon the
pan-hemispheric market in the image of Steigler’s techne, finally opens up to the
free-play of the accelerating, exponentially technologically reinforced inventory,- the
endless stream of devices, phones, internet, etc. used to construct within the virtual media
of the symbolic-exchange the oblated godform and idealization-body of commodified
beauty, digital stimulation, organosynthetic hypertrophy and ever smoother, ever sleeker
and more hairless plasticity of form,- of the continuous parade of bodily perfections and
the gladiatorial arena of sexual competition,- of sexuality rather transformed into a
competition- of the libidinal re-circulation around the missing-center of the
primary-narcissistic fantasy whose regressive sinthome and entropic accumulation of
Negativity,- of scizzure, rupture and above all, thanatos,- within the hollowed-out
Utopian center of Capital and the abortive strictures of its own sublated logic, threatens
the very System whose excesses have thus far proved System to be the guarantor of the
fantasy’s existence, now approaching its imminent collapse from within and the final
deterioration of the suspension of its operational mimesis to the point of an actual
reversal of its function, which would induce a paralysis and gradual extinction of
meaning instead of merely a replication of the nullified core of the cathetcted investment
in the image of Capital. Language evolved to negotiate the hyperinflation of the aura
surrounding the Event … "

To return to the more general concept of a self-embedding system: according to Penrose, all self-organizing systems originate in an informational gradient or negentropic potential between highly entropic or low-informational states and higher-energy states. That negentropic potentiality is ‘information’, and the gradient between the lower and higher energy states influences the extent to which, and the ease with which, information can be extracted from the later. The informational gradient between the universe as it existed before the cosmological expansion and only a nanosecond afterward was so great, following big-bang cosmology, that it brought into existence a kinetic effluxion of matter-antimatter pairings whose inherent asymmetry led to baryogenesis,- the stage in cosmological evolution in which one of the two outlasted the other and preponderated, if only by an infintesimal percentage,- for otherwise, the two would have entirely annihilated one another, leaving us a universe of nothing but perfectly diffuse radiation and attenutating interstellar gas. This informational gradient gave rise, obviously, well, to everything; to all of us. To take another example, the informational gradient between the high-energy state of undiffused photons ejected from the sun in mostly ultraviolent, gamma, x-ray frequency, etc. and that of the photons slowed down by our atmosphere and brought into the visible spectrum was great enough that simple organisms could actually begin extracting the information from this visible light, using it to overcome entropy on a local scale and build the simple proteins at the base of the chain of life through photosynthesis, whereby solar energy is converted through biosynthetic pathways and stored in a relatively stable, molecular form. (The fossil fuels we extract from the planet testify to this stability, given the fact that many millions of years later they still provide us with an ample energy reserve.) The tetrapole signifies two passages through the informational gradient: a movement of the outer toward the inner, and then of the inner toward outer, in a recapitulating, doubled-dialectic: God descending to man via immanent coparticipation, as Eriugena calls it, and Man ascending to God in transcendental emanation or ‘gnosis’. The spirogram simply traces the self-embedding, recursive, self-propagating trajectory of this doubled movement, in a form similar to what Young likened to the mathematical torus. Citing Frank Barr’s summary of Young:

[ " According to Young (1976a; 1980), the seven stages of process, which are found throughout ancient wisdom and esoteric literature, represent the seven topological distinctions possible with the torus, the most complex natural topological entity. The torus (Figure 2) is a self-referential “time-structure” with numerous unique properties (Young, 1976) such as:

Composition from two rotating “perpendicular circularities”;

The shape of a vortex, an entity which is consubstantial with its matrix–i.e., the only means by which self-sustained motion can exist in a given medium;

The same volume formula, 2pi²R³, as the Einstein-Eddington universe, the so-called hypersphere.

A universal distribution, occurring with photons and particles through the cellular centriole to the universal hypersphere;

The ability to reconcile the continuum of relativity and the discreteness of quantum theory;

The means to explain the ancient puzzle of “free will in a universe run by God” or how there can be self-determined entities in the continuum; and

Seven topological distinctions–(i.e., a map drawn on the surface of a torus requires seven colors in order for all bordering countries to be distinguished by differences in color).

Toroidal process may be schematically represented by a reflexive 7-staged arc manifesting on the previously described four levels. Through understanding and application of the arc of freedom and constraint, such universal myths as the “fall” of man from the “paradise” of freedom into deterministic matter and his eventual redemptive “virgin birth” (or self organizational/bootstrap “turn” back towards freedom) can be fully appreciated." ]

If I placed two flashing lights on a circulating ring, you would not be able to determine it was in fact a ring simply by observing the lights. Three lights arranged upon the ring would, however, demonstrate its proper shape:

(David R. Jones, on the operations of the Sigillum Aemeth) “Here we use basic Classical (such as Ptolemy) and Grimoric forms as set forth in Dee’s Propaedeumata Aphoristica. Simply stated Astronomical or positional, Astrological or symbolic and Chronological via traditional governments of hours. Form is achieved by using set theory and isolating each aspect until all three overlap into a triangulation. In simplest terms this may be achieved, for instance, when a planet is above the horizon, on its day and in its hour and when it is in a sign which it rules. For these purposes the circumference is attributed the Celestial sphere and thus the positions of the planets on the background of the stars, the Archangels of the Septagon to the government of Planetary hours and this to the rulership of temporal conditions, and to the angelic exemplars of the planets are attributed the basic symbolism of astrological rulership. More anon, but let us first look at each section in turn.”

Three points are needed, in other words, to define rotation, much as the 4-dimensional tesseract of the spatio-temporal hyperobject, in order to be collapsed into the 3-dimensional universe we inhabit, or thereby projected ‘hologrammatically’, requires just these three spatial dimensions, freeing the fourth dimension to a successive movement of an object in motion through snapshots of “time”, be it conceived in terms of the antinomic schemata of Kant’s transcendental apperception of the human subject or as quantized frames along the Planck scale. The dialectical triads are paired to a model of this circulatio at its various levels of abstraction, of which there are precisely six. (Seven, including the spirogram itself.) The inner and outer dialectic are each constituted by three distinctive levels of abstraction, with a tri-partite dialectical triad defining each of these levels, with a total of nine abstractions for each, or six total levels of abstraction and 18 abstractions across the tetrapolar network of the two interacting dialectics.

On the ‘inner and outer dialectic’:

The asyntheme, posited as a pure-negation, that is,- an indefinable vocity between two elements
of a bijective hermeneusis, thus forms a mental continuum within which the self-referential
‘images’ are submit to contractio and explicatio,- images that must never be admitted equal
reality in an ontological hierarchy to either term in the bijection (the outer-dialectic) to which
they might be made to refer in a specific dialogical-form, (an instance of the inner-dialectic, that
is, a unique vocity’) with these irreducible terms indicating, on the one hand, man’s
experiential-constructible mental contents, or, on the other hand, the divine reality toward which
the human animus is expanded by Cusanus’ ‘circle of knowledge’,- a circulus whereby the Stoical
pneuma of a thermodynamically homogenized universe, as an imperceptible qualitas or latent
frequency, is heightened by stochastic resonances with the ambient signal propagated by the
animus and thereby extracted as a local phenomena capable of discretizing the energetic
continuity which, without such volumetric resonances and the propagation of a kind of ambient
white-noise, would be far too weak a signal to directly observe. The positing of this Negativity
and the explicato (to further appropriate the terminology employed by Cusanus) of a new
continuum (an inner-dialectic) therefrom, between whose bijected components a new form of
politics might emerge in contractio between, for example, capitalism and communism, or any
one and another element within the outer-dialectic,- and that without reducing either component
to its own integral vocity,-* (for doing so would uni-vocally reduce both of them and convert the
Negative into a positive objectification of knowledge) just as the numbers one and three are not
reduced to the number two on the mathematical continuum, but instead explicated in an infinite
series of fractions or liminal components,- offers us perhaps the only viable solution to the
problems associated with the subversion of mimesis.

  • Recall, by counterexample, the work of Paulus Venutus. Here, haecceity (this-ness) is posited as an empty signifier between the formally distinguished categories of Essence and Being, or significatory predicates by which the existential principle of individuation is discovered, though,- as is typical of scholastic reasoning, this principle is employed by him in a univocal and irreversible mode, that is, in a total reduction of all identitas to what Scotus called the ‘real-identity’, a singular signification from whose order the nominalist forms are maintained, not as a transcendental auton, but, in their independence and fundamental separation from any Subject, as an abstract res. It is the very plurality of philosophic identity for which I stake the brunt of my argument.

The inner dialectic’s conformability to the outer dialectic is our only standard of philosophic
Truth. That is to say, any Sosein or qualitative determination of Being, (like my present
determinate awareness and awareness of self, taken as a global electro-chemical phenomenon
generated by a neural connectome instantiated within my brain architecture) if it possesses
Dasein, (an ontological horizon, ie. all possible variations and combinations of the previously
noted electrical-chemical phenomenon and its constituent patterns given my unique
connectome,- an aggregate thereby conceived as a mathematical totality representing all possible
experience available to me) must necessarily be recapitulated within the outer dialectic between
the purity of Being, that is, the substantia of an Eriugena, Schelling, or Spinoza, and the qualitas
of (b)eing thereby individuated,- the Substance and Attribute of the Augustinian-scholastic
language, thus nullifying merely accidental qualities from the Totality, (the ‘perichoresis of
divine attributes’ is simply the result of such nullification) though in a manner quite different
than Parmenides had sought to expurgate all memory of the accidental from the image of the
‘All-Being’. The more general our model of philosophic Truth becomes, the more completely do
we eliminate from our mental universe the traces of merely accidental qualities. One might
assume that Socrates becoming a philosopher is one such accidental quality, and that, in the
endless parallel worlds unfolded from out of the multiverse, there are universes in which
Socrates failed to realize his destiny and become a philosopher, instead taking to carpentry, or
farming, or any number of things. However, in those universes in which Socrates failed to
become a philosopher, we observe a failure in the outer dialectic’s recapitulation of an inner
form, namely that expressed between Socrates’ Sosein and Dasein, that is, his qualitative
determination, as a totalization of certain intrinsic factors constitutive of his identity, and the
Dasein or ontological horizon in which those factors could possibly be totalized as a coherent
aggregate. Only in that universe in which he becomes a philosopher does the ontological horizon
appear in which those intrinsic factors could be so totalized, thereby providing a form that the
outer dialectic can recapitulate, in keeping with our model of Truth. It is precisely by means of
this coherent aggregation, as an inner form recapitulated within the outer dialectic, that the inner
dialectic is able to achieve the Platonic eidesis and so free itself from the more primitive mode of
reasoning demonstrated by the pre-Socratics and, most cogently, in the All-Being or
Parmenidean ontos, (a mode of reasoning Parmenides himself refers to as heuresis) and thus
differentiate (multi-vocally) its contents at exceedingly higher levels of abstraction, these being
the level of the immanent and the transcendent episteme. Parmenides reasons about the
All-Being in the following way: if something can be thought, then it must exist- for if it did not
exist, that is, if it had no Being, then it could not be thought. This univocal equivalence between
Thought and Being itself, a kind of absolute identification, is quite simply, the ‘ontos’. In our
present discourse, however, we see that, by conceiving the All of Being, Parmenides had merely
proclaimed himself the Being of the All, such that the ontos more properly functions (just as in
the example of determinate awareness and all potential awareness expressed by a distinct
connectome) as an identification only of an inner form or mathematical aggregate and an
external recapitulation of its coherent organizational principle in an identitas, * such that all
individuals would possess a unique ontos,- an initial episteme grounding a philosopher’s entire
potential development, or past, present, and future history, as I have before written of when
talking about the sudden emergence of full formed philosophies by the island-universes known
as the Dorics and pre-Socratics.

In short: the philosophy of the episteme can posit an essentially undefinable term, that is, the
category of unabsorbed Negativity, yet,- through the bijective hermeneutic of the antinomies,-
establishes a continuum (the inner-dialectic) between experientially constructible objects of
reflection and the indefinable abstractions of recursive functions (the external-dialectic) which
confronted the Hegelian system with an impermeable bad infinity, such that the motive-force of
the counter-dialectic is sustained by an asymptotic and unpredictable clinamen or swerve in the
series, like that plotted and captured in the motions of the stars by the ancient zairja or in the
double-gyre of the spiromantic dance of twin contraries, whereby liminal forms at the boundary
of the antinomic doubles, gathered in the extremum of their respective continua like Sparean
transindividuated thirds or the feather-soul of the Persian poets, are agitated and swept up into
the poles like Anaximander’s vortices, phasing in and out of actuality from potentiality as an
ever-fleeting spectral-chiasmus and thus, enriching continually the Ground of Thought.

A spirogram plots these 18 abstractions within its twin gyres, which themselves topologically conform the abstracted contents of the dialectic to the six cumulative levels of abstraction, (ie. Three levels of abstraction for each set of three triads in the two dialectics, with six in all across both. These six levels of abstraction can be readily corelated with Proclus’s extension of the dialectic to a bipartite system,- a two-fold dialectic, as doubled from the original univocal dialectic and its tripartite dialectical Neoplatonic arrangements: Hyparxis-Dunamis-Nous-Logos-Thumos-Epithumos; or, placed into their dialectical pairings: Hyparxis-Epithumos, Dunamis-Thumos, Nous-Logos.) with a seventh level of course existing ‘silently’ in terms of the spirogram itself, as the ultimate abstraction or ‘self-embedded system’.

The Three Triads of the Outer Dialectic:

Comparatio Remotio Excess (Ontic)
Prohodos Epistrophe Mone (Immanent)
Lepsis Methexis Ektheosis (Transcendent)

The Three Triads of the Inner Dialelctic:

Dianoea Parabasis Pyramus (Ontic)
Apocrisis Epistasis Epicrisis (Immanent)
Mimesis Automatos Noia (Transcendent)

There is, in other words, a 6-level structre embedded within each spirogram, that is, the sequence of 6 dialectical triads recapitulated by the circulations of the two dialectics within themselves and around each other and the iterations of the 18 potential abstractions. (Each triad is an entire circulatio defined by three elements within the tripartite schema associated to it. There are three triads for each of the two dialectics, and 9 abstractions within each set of these three triads, with 18 total.) This ‘diagonal cycle’ (If you look in the matrices above, these diagonal cycles are formed by moving from dianoea to noia or mimesis to pyramus; comparatio to ektheosis or lepsis to excessus. Such diagonal cycles imply a complete movement through the spirognomically interpenetrating triads of the two dialectics, and the relation between these four objects, eg. dianoea, pyramus, mimesis, and noia, are reduced formula for the tetrapolar networks across the inner and outer dialectic.) completes one gyre, and the second gyre then repeats an inner-or-outer dialectic, which also embeds a 9-stage process. A more detailed explication of the ‘diagonal cycles’ is given in the Idearium, such that the horizontal (discursive) is the modality of dianoea in comparatio; the neither-neither operator is the modality of parabasis in remotio; the Bataillean third is the modality of the Pyramus/Thisbe operator in excessus; the Simondonian pre-individual field is the modality of the apocrisis in prohodos; the katabasis is the modality of the epistasis in epistrophe; capital is the modality of the epicrisis in mone, etc.

Refer to the Idearium Tabulis Omnia Coincidentiae. If you look at ‘noia’ and go over to the excessus column, you find the word Eros. Eros is indeed the vertical-daemonic element in which the psychical excess is sublimed. Look at noia and go over to its remotio column, you find temporality; indeed, Time is the ontological Horizon in which the human subject is grounded in negative-being like Heidegger’s Dasein, necessitating as it does a ‘being towards death’, that is, a being toward negativity.

The triad: the interplay of 1) the inner and 2) the outer via 3) an informational gradient; the three parts of the Hebraic classification of the soul; Aristotle and Plato’s tripartite soul; the alchemical tria-prima; etc. The interplay of 1) The Platono-eidetic world of the divine forms, that is, the vertical, 2) the mundane world of corporeal life, that is, the horizontal-daemonic element, and 3) the ‘metaxy’ or ‘meta-axis’ erected beneath the mundane world toward the heavens, this being known as the Yggdrasill tree, as the omphalos or world-navel, etc. The metaxy might also be likened to Pythagoras’ monochord, as discussed by Fludd. From “The Cambridge History of Science; Volume 3; Renaissance Anti-Aristotelianisms: Mathematical Order and Harmony”: “Fludd’s image of the world was based on the monochord, a string stretched between two bridges that was widely used in theoretical studies of music. He pictured the cosmos as a monochord, with one end of the string anchored at the center of the earth, and the other in the Heavens. The sun is placed squarely at the middle of the string, dividing the string into two octaves. The notes of the scale then mark out different regions of the cosmos, both subsolar and supersolar. Another more geometrical rendering of the same basic cosmology is given in Figure 2.2. This representation introduces two pyramids, which Fludd calls the material pyramid and the formal pyramid. The actual sounding music of the world results from an interaction between the two.” Also: the three mystical veils; Khosketh, Queseth, Paroketh, or the three alchemical birds associated with flight beyond or penetration of those veils, being the raven, dove/peacock, and phoenix.

The triad plus the primary process: the four descending levels of zoharic subcreation, ABYA; the Saturnine cube or lead of the philosophers; the cubic projection/collapse of the tesseract; the elemental quaternity and the many tetrapolar networks. By doubling: the Egypto-Chaldean Ogdoad or 8 “old gods”, opposing the later invention of the 9 ‘new gods’. By including the female counterparts to the Ogdoad in a system of emanation or syzygy, we have the 16 gods ascribable to the 16 vertices of the planar projection/collapse of the tesseract, whose 16 vertices organize a binary-switching network used in the ritual deconstruction of the human ego. The four Aristotelian causes modeled in the Sirr al-khalīqa.

The triad plus the primary and secondary process: the 5-part quarternity energized by Spiritus. When both energized by Spiritus or magickal will and organized by Intellectus, we have the pentagram of initiated magick.

The seven abstract levels: the 7 astrological planets, 7 alchemico-planetary metals, the 7 Valentinian-Ophidian archons, etc. Also: the triad plus the 2 processes and 2 subprocesses of the cosmogony, the four processes detailed by Yeats’ system; the 7 chakras, etc. As the seven chakras are configured by the metaxis of the kundalinic serpent, so the sephirot are configured by the metaxy of the middle-pillar, etc.

The seven levels of abstractions plus the triad: the tetractys and the decimal sphaerica.

The nine abstractions of the inner or outer dialectic without the other: the sephirot and negative or mirrored qllipoth.

The nine abstractions of one dialectic by itself plus the three unspoken abstractions of the epistemos associated with one of the dialectics by itself: the 12 members of the zodiac. (Also, the nine abstractions of one dialectic plus the triad.)

The 18 abstractions across the two dialectics: the result of the nine Gnostic emanationist syzygetic pairings; basis of the nummagram and enneagon.

The 18 abstractions plus the four primary-secondary processes and subprocesses: the 22 Hebrew letters and their recombinant 231 ‘Gates of Wisdom’.

The 18 abstractions plus the six abstractions associated without the seventh unspoken level, (or the six members of the three dialectical triads) the epistemos: the 24 solar hours at the basis of the 64-Hexagrams of the Iching; with further addition of the four epistemes themselves in the form of the primary-secondary, primary-primary, secondary-primary, and secondary-secondary doubles or ‘subprocesses’, we have the 28 lunar mansions or ‘lunar zodiac’ inhering the twin-gyres of the spirogram in Yeat’s lunar model.

These correspondences are endcoded spirogrammatically through a proxy system of numerology I developed based on Cusanus’ metaphysics. The “Tabula Enneagonis” elaborates part of this numerology, while the “Tabula Sphaerica Explicata” details the rest. That numerological system and gematria culminate in 7 divine names associated with the archons: Haromaiel, Sithalech, Elmalan-Yashai, Macalum, Lelliavah, Achapagiel, Canalamsit, Haziani, Alamel/Alamelham.

The doubled spiral appears as a zigzag pattern encoded in the Biblical text:

"The ‘sacred binary’ of the Zoharic tradition is permuted from the 22 Hebrew letters arranged, following the diagrams of the Sefer Yetzirah, along the circumference of a circle and correlated by what we would, in modern combinatorics, call Brujin sequences, to produce the 231 Gates of Wisdom, forming a zig-zag, cross-lineating pattern named the Leviathan by the Kabbalists, (“Malut Leviat Hem”) or the ‘Engraving of the Divine Serpent’. When this pattern is reduced to the plane and superimposed on the circle, it forms a twin-gyre like system, or yet another instance of the spirogrammatic structure noted here in only a few of its endless variations. I would furthermore note that the ecstatic-prophetic kabbalah of Abulafia, quite distinct as it is from the more theoretical Lurianic kabbalah, the philosophic and literary Zoharic kabbalah, and the Hermetic, Western cabala, (each of which deserve study) is entirely developed out of a singular esoteric praxis which, at its heart, constitutes a kind of extended meditative recitation of the entire sacred binary’s 231 permutations, in linear alphabetical order, from first to last, in which the Master of the inner Torah essentially traverses the skeletal outline of the Godhead’s storehouse of eidetic hieroglyphs constituted therefrom, (eventually inserting between the two letters of each dyadic sigillum one or more of the five primary vowels, so as to generate lists of words from them which, in successive passage through the Gates, may then be used to further generate entire sentences and cumulative texts) learning eventually to permeate this ‘womb’ or Binah-consciousness with the ‘photic body’, saturating the empty DAAT with new godforms from whose semiotic superabundance he draws the potency of the Yesod-consciousness into stable images imprinted by Tiferet,- from which he draws, in a word, the inexhaustible creative energies peculiar to Abulafia, which may of course be expended freely upon any object the practitioner of such techniques desires, though Abulafia himself insists on the use of such hypercognitive states and creative fervor in attaining to prophetic vision. "

I was saving this to include at the end of the post because it goes into some very advanced gematriac techniques, which not many people would be interested in trying to follow. As I detail:

" The Tower-Star, using imagery from the Hermetic Tarot, are psychodynamically unified
while, to draw on Kabbalah, Tiferet, or the receptive feminine-matrix of the divinity,- which we
understand as the pale dove, the heart of longing burnt with sin,- perishes. Following its death,
the alchemical peacock then collects and disperses the prismatic illumination of the Star itself
over its thousand-colored tail, each feather bearing a color and an eye,- the thousand eyes of Isis,
the subtile veil of Nature,- just as physical light is broken into distinct colors through a prism,
until the phoenix eventually rises as a psychological Resurrection of the dove, mounting the
Tower (for beautiful though it may be, the peacock is not able to fly and sit upon the great Eye of
the Tower) in order to recollect the myriad colors back into the singular, pure, white solar-alba,
having translated (through the formula of tiferet, which receives the creative impulse of the
upper triad) the Idea of the fragmentating universe of the lower-material triad grounded on
Malkuth, (this Idea, which requires the energies from the upper in order to be realized, is simply
the idea ‘creation’; Genesis, etc.) as described by the kabbalists, to the supernal triad grounded on
Keter, thereby moving from what, in the Gnostic syzygy, is denoted by feminine potentiality or
‘sophia’, to the masculine typus of the Christ-consciousness, utilized by the Demiurge to model
the material world prior to creation; from potential to the revealed divine,- in this way balancing
the paths of the middle-triad and thus generating stable partzuf-configurations between the lower
triad and the higher/supernal triad, called the micro- and macroposcopus respectively, by the
kabbalists, or the ‘little and great face’ of the God-Man. This process under-girds the ‘sophianic
psychology’ of conventional Gnosticism, kabbalism, Ficinian neoplatonism, etc.

The tower-star recalls the mystery of the (two) points, in Kabbalah. To begin elaborating on this
mystery, one must keep in mind the order of the Four Descending Worlds, which unfold from
one another in a manner similar to higher-dimensional mathematical objects, from the
perspective of a lower-dimensional observer. Malkut is directly connected to Keter in the first
world of descent, [The first world of Descent is called Atziluth, the celestial prototype of the
three lower worlds.] which is a purely ‘astral’ domain that existed long before the physical world
was made; the angels for example, were created in this universe, along with the sephirot or
sparks themselves. This first world is called the “Head” in Lurianic terms, or Godhead, reflected
abyssally in the empty image of knowledge or Daat, at least as it appears to those within the
fourth and last world of descent. [Assiah.] At any rate, the Macroposcopus or ‘Head’ refers to the
‘Head’ of God in the partzuf-series of the first-world, being composed of Kether, Chokmah, and
Binah, that is, the supernal triad, and Malkut, which is placed at the center of this triad in the
first-world of Descent, representing God’s ‘direct emanation of creative intent’ and forming a
four-part stable unity, which is the empty matrix of the first-world, the protophanos or the
‘womb’ of creation, out of which the lower three worlds will be later constituted. This is called
the mystery of the two points,- a direct or two-point connection between Malkut and Keter which
is visually projected by drawing two Trees beside one another and then a twisting line from
Malkut, on the bottom of one tree, to Keter, at the top of the other: these are the two trees of Life
and Death, from which the fruit of life and knowledge grew back at the Garden, while this
‘twisting line’ is the twisting ‘biblical serpent’ of the Garden, coiled around the tree- the first of
the Angels, the fallen Lucifer, etc.

In the second world of Descent, [Briah] Malkut moves down one position, from central to the
Head to the central position in the next emanation, which would be Tiferet on the Tree, (we are
moving down the Middle Period of course) thus moving from the “Head” of the Macroposcopus
[the God-head: Keter, Binah, Chokmah] to the “Shoulders” of the Microposcopus, [Gevurah and
Hesed] thereby separating itself from the God-Head and creating the middle triad, * [The middle
triad, being Tiferet, Gevurah, Hesed. Thus there is created likewise, the third world of descent,
named the Yetsirah, again supervened and stabilized by Tiferet within the middle triad.] and then
down again, (converted from Binah to Tiferet to Yesod, that is, from the Head to the Shoulders
to the Womb to the Genitals) until in the fourth and final world of descent, Malkut has stabilized
at the very bottom of the Tree, with the conversion having completed, placing Keter at the top of
the Tree- from our vantage here in the fourth-world.

In the first, again, Keter and Malkut are stabilized via a direct connection, with Malkut being
further configured symbolically as the Beard of the God-Head, with Binah and Chokmah the
Eyes. But this fourth descent of Malkut is the Kingdom, the physical world, or our universe, our
fourth-world of descent- a universe of fully differentiated matter, spirit, and soul, which, in
Gnostic lore, is the domain of the great Serpent, the hidden tiferet of Matter, just as the
Shaitan/Satan was called the most beautiful of the angels. [The Zohar states that the imprint of
the engraving, taken from the Sefer Yetzirah,- the Book of Formation,- (or, the book of the ‘third
world’, since Yetzirah, the name of the third-descent, literally means formation.) resembles a
snake with its head extended beside its tail, ie. Keter extended to Malkut, or what the Greeks
would call the uroborus. This ‘engraving’ means the pattern of the 231 gates. There are 231 lines
you can draw between each of the 22 letters of the Hebrew language, after arranging them into a
circle. When one moves on a Path, this is really just a generalization of serial movements
between components within the more high-resolution model of the 231 gates, which are able to
describe both connections between letters and sephirot at the same time.]

This ‘hidden Serpent’ is the mystery of Malkut’s ‘autogenerating’ property, originating in the
direct connection to Keter in the first-world. This mystery is seen in the fact that you can take
any sephira or ‘spark’ within the fourth world, look within it microscopically, and regenerate a
new Tree, in which the whole two-points pattern repeats a fractalized cycle of four more
universes or ‘worlds’, all following the same pattern I just specified. This pattern is in fact what
creates the 231 gates, a linguistic code specified in the Sefer Yetzirah. And then you can do so
again, endlessly generating four-worlds within four-worlds, sephira within sephira; this is the
wheels-within-wheels or Ophanim. Note that this is a two-dimensional representation of it; this
snake/urobour looking pattern, as it appears written down with the 22 letters, when
multidimensionally projected, would appear more like a torus. This is how infinities are
mathematically projected, via nested torroidal spheres, given the fact than any sequence of
numbers can, in 5-dimensional space, be generalized as a location.

Keep one thing in mind though- the TZIMTZUM, or divine contraction of the Ayn, created a
recursive infinity. God drew himself into a single point, emptying the space that would be
required to bring forth the world. That empty space is what we call the DAAT, the empty matrix
of Knowledge, but for God, because Keter and Malkut were directly linked after the initial
Expansion, the Daat was permeated by the divine-intent behind Creation. This was of course too
great to actually be contained, and led to an infinite series of miniature, microscale tzitzum. God
draws himself into a point to create a void, and then he expands to fill this void; the expansion
pours forth and reverberates, such that god re-contracts, and expands again. He did this an
infinite number of times, with each cycle creating one of the Sparks in expansion, and a
containing Vessel in contraction. The two together, Spark and Vessel, we call Sephirot. The
shattering of the Vessels takes place, and not all of the Sparks endured. An infinite number were
not contained and simply ceased to exist, such that the 22 letters of Hebrew are based on an
original set of enduring forms, the first few letters,- forms that persisted throughout the
expansions and contractions to eventually precipitate our Four Descending Worlds. Qlipothic
Kabbalah as well as my own System are about exploring these ‘xenologics’, the forgotten ‘letters’
of pre-creating, in order to siphon spectral energies from those beings that did not persist long
enough to descend into Vessels,- Beings infinite in number.

  • This first separation of Keter-Malkut incidentally converts Binah into what the Zohar calls the womb, “the pregnant waters upon which the spirit of God moved”,- for Binah will become, in the next world of descent, the model for feminine receptivity or Tiferet/Beauty, by which the lower triad ‘receives’ impregnation by the supernal, as I noted above, in a metaphorical pregnancy of God’s creative-intent. Interestingly, we can perform a gematriac abstraction here, which none have pointed out to my knowledge, save for me. The quadratic pattern in the first world is, as I have demonstrated, Keter+Chokmah+Binah+Malkuth, but after Malkuth moves down and connects the upper and lower triads through the middle triad, whose stabilizing form is Tiferet, you get a fractal repetition of this four-part structure within the next world of descent, that is, the second world. Now you add the first letter of Tiferet and the first letters of the other two sephira in the middle Triad, so that you put together Shin, Tat and Nun, which spells the word Shaitan or Satan, again- the Serpent. In the third fractal repetition, you do this over once more, as Malkuth moves down from the Womb/Tiferet to the Shoulder of the Microposcopus and then to the genitals of the Microposcopus as Yesod, so that you add the first letter of Yesod plus that of each of the three sephira of the lower triad, (Netzah, Hod, and Yesod) ie. Ain, Zain and Tzade, which denotes the
    Bahir-serpent, ie. the word for the Leviathan. Following this pattern again, but looking at the conversions of Chokmah instead of Binah, you end up creating the word for the Behemoth instead of the Leviathan.

To generalize a decimal-based model from the 22 letters of the Kabbalistic one, so as to more
perfectly illustrate this patterning:

The first digit of one line is always the last digit of the next line. 0 and 1 signify the Aleph-Binah
connection, which is where the pattern is initiated in the Yetzirah. The beginning line has 0 at the
beginning and 9 at the end, this generalizing what will slowly uncoil throughout the pattern like a
snake, as does Keter-Malkut.



You see that I started over: I did so because 0 is in the second-digit spot on the last line in the
partition above; I have started with 9, just as the last line leaves off above, and placed 1 in the
second spot on the next line, so that 0 is above 1 again, moving from the last line of the top
diagram to the first line of the bottom diagram. Then I just repeat the whole pattern over again. If
you go through that whole pattern, eventually every two-digit combination will be present
somewhere; 8 beside 6, 9 beside 1, 2 beside 9, etc. etc. In kabbalah, this is done with the 22
letters, eventually reaching that point after 231 permutations. Each two-digit combination
designates a potential point to cross over from one gate to another, thus moving between the
letters and sephira.

The 231 gates model 7 levels of abstraction, upon which the 32 paths are recapitulated, with a final number indicating a completion of the total cycle. (231 divided by 7= 33.) Adding all the divisors of the 231 gates gives 384, which is the number of lines used to compress the I-Ching into a 64-tetrahedron, indicating that the 231 gates could be mapped 3-dimensionally to form the same double-spiral as the I-Ching.

Jerome Levi, Structuralism and Kabbalah: Sciences of Mysticism or Mystifications of Science:

" In Kabbalah, the two letter units are called sha’arim, gates, since if one would perceive each of the letters of the unit as a pillar on each side of a gateway, one can pass through the gateway from either direction, thus obtaining two different permutations of the two-letter units from one gate” (Ginsburgh 2005:2).4Thus, when the Sefer Yetzirah reads, “Twenty-two foundation letters: He placed them in a circlelike a wall with 231 Gates. The Circle oscillates back and forth” (Kaplan1997:108), the reference is to the complete series of combinations of these two-letter units that are the elements of meaning in Hebrew (Figure 3).Why does the Sefer Yetzirah specify that there are 231 Gates? “This can be calculated mathematically: since there are 22 letters we take one of the 22and match it with one of the 21 remaining letters, which results in 462(22•21) possible matches. This gives us all the possible permutations of two-letter units including both permutations of the same sha’ar, gate. In order to arrive at the exact number of sha’arim, we must divide the result by the number of permutations available for the same two letters (2!) by which we arrive at the number 231" (Ginsburgh 2005:2-3).Noteworthy for the purpose of this article is that this type of permutation relating to the combinatorial design that exhausts the possibilities within a series is one of the recurring mathematical metaphors basic to the works of Lévi-Strauss. It is central to his notion of the algebraic structure of the “transformation group” (Almeida 1990:367-372): an invariance theory, which he uses to analyze generalized exchange, in the field of kin-ship, and different versions of a myth, in the domain of mythology, asserting “when we have succeeded in organizing a whole series of variants into a kind of permutation group, we are in a position to formulate the law of that group” (Lévi-Strauss 1963:228)."

Of course, one can approach a gate from two directions, so there are, including the reversed permutations, 462, with 1540 possible ternary combinations of the binary gates. Thus the 22 letters, the 231-462 gates, and the 1540 three-letter root words, constitute the first three levels of the Hebrew language’s internal code for information ordering/processing. The gates in fact serve as an informational-gradient between the other two levels, by which energy passes from diffuse to undiffuse states, thereby generating a negentropic potential. (‘meaning’) In other words, Hebrew seems to be a symbolic language that functions by transforming elementary binary units into progressively richer, more dynamic structures through a kind of ‘intrinisc’ or internal semiotic, an encoded algebra, just as a six-dimensional hypercube mapped by the Boolean lattice can be unfolded into myriad sublattices at lower dimensional projections, all the way down to the binary urs themselves. As stated by someone who reached the same conclusion about the I Ching’s internal semiotic: The Yijing as a Symbolic Language for Abstraction, Andreas Schöter:


Binary Representation
In today’s digital world, bit-wise representation has become the dominant means of recording
and processing information. The word “bit” is a contraction of the phrase “binary digit” and a
bit, which entokens the distinction between 0 and 1, between nothing and something, is the
smallest possible unit of information. In physics, experience shows that the status of any
particular “particle” as a basic building block of reality is contingent on further
experimentation; indeed, the idea of a particle itself becomes questionable. However, in
information theory there is no case for supposing that this binary distinction can be further
reduced. Although there might be uncertainty over the value in any particular instance, the
distinction between 0 and 1 is to be taken as conceptually fundamental.
Binary representation provides the basic formalism for computer programs and their rich
algorithmic possibilities. It is the very fundamentality of the binary notation that provides
such tremendous representational versatility.
Symbolic Language
What do we mean by a symbolic language? In the context of this discussion, we shall take it
to be composed of some fixed set of symbols (the words of the language), and some rules for
transforming between symbols and for combining groups of symbols into structures (the
grammar of the language). The symbols themselves are taken to have meaning, where this
meaning comes about by virtue of reference to objects in the domain being symbolized. The
rules themselves should also have meaning, representing processes and structures in the
Enumerating all the possible combinations of open and closed lines over six places, the 64
hexagrams can be seen as the first systematic, symbolic language for categorization. The
hexagrams themselves are the symbols of the language. The traditional method of
representing changing lines, which generates relationships between pairs of symbols, is one
example of a rule of symbol transformation. Other traditional elements of the Yijing which
provide the transformation rules include the extraction of nuclear hexagrams, and the various
methods of deriving opposite hexagrams."

… Elsewhere:

" As already suggested, the most natural way of describing the structure of the relationships between the hexagrams of the Yijing is as a six dimensional hypercube. This comes about by considering the dimensionality of the lattice structure induced by the Boolean algebra of the symbols. Of course, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the human mind to grasp a six dimensional structure except as a mathematical abstraction. Hence the need for various simplifications of this base structure.

Chorand’s spheres, the Teikemeier/Drasny sphere, and my own construction of Unfolding are, essentially, all ways to project this complex six dimensional structure into an apprehensible form in three dimensional space.

With Unfoldings, the full six dimensional lattice structure is systematically unfolded into a sequence of lower dimensional sublattices with clear relationships between each substructure and the whole. The dimensionality of the sublattices is well-defined and uniform for each unfolding. I have suggested that this provides an algebraic model of Bohm’s notion of the unfolding of the explicate order from the implicate order. Technical details of Unfoldings can be found in my paper The Yijing as a Symbolic Language for Abstraction.

With Chorand’s spheres, the six dimensional hypercube is split into two spheres, each sphere is unproblematically a two dimensional surface curved in the third dimension. One sphere, the External Sphere, starts with the Receptive 000000 and Creative 111111 as the poles of the principle axis and builds the structure according to similar principles to Teikemeier/Drasny, but restricts the construction to retain the appropriate dimensionality. This sphere is composed of 32 hexagrams. Chorand’s Internal Sphere starts with Before Completion 010101 and After Completion 010101 as the poles of the principle axis and applies the same construction principles to build a second sphere composed of the remaining 32 symbols. Thus, Chorand partitions the six dimensional hypercube into two independent three dimensional spheres. The full description of the Chorand construction can be found here."

Where the I Ching lends itself to representation as a Boolean algebra through the Complement Operator, the 22 letters of Hebrew lend themselves, through the Jacobi-identity and the relevant logical operators, to representation as a Lie algebra, where the 22 letters are a vector space (g) scaled by numbers corresponding to the sephirot (of which there are 10) and the 231 gates are the field, (f) similarly encoding lie-groups within higher-dimensional structures (ie. polygons. The E8 lattice for example is a 2-d representation of a 3-dimensional representation of a 4-dimensional projection of an 8-dimensional object.) embedded in the gates, only one of which is the 64-tetrahedron that itself encodes the entirety of the I-Ching. (“An important class of infinite-dimensional real Lie algebras arises in differential topology. The space of smooth vector fields on a differentiable manifold M forms a Lie algebra, where the Lie bracket is defined to be the commutator of vector fields. One way of expressing the Lie bracket is through the formalism of Lie derivatives, which identifies a vector field X with a first order partial differential operator LX acting on smooth functions by letting LX(f) be the directional derivative of the function f in the direction of X.”) One could represent both the Gates and the I-ching with a Hasse diagram as well, though this would be a monumental task.

Returning to Yeats.

Yeats’s thought is fundamentally dualistic and, although the single gyre contains a fundamental dualism in the two boundaries of its form, the base and the apex, it is more natural for Yeats to use a doubled form. Since the apex or minimum of one element implies the maximum of its dualistic opposite, these double cones intersect so that the two gyres are the complementary opposites of each other.

In this formulation, if each gyre is depicted as a single principle, then the gyre moves from the total preponderance of one principle over the other, through increasing admixture of the second principle to equality at the point where the surfaces cross each other, until the minimum of the first and the maximum of the second principle are reached. At this point the reflux starts, so that there is never more than a momentary predominance of either principle, and the system is constant movement.

Classically, this is the kind of interrelation depicted in the Yin-Yang mandala or in any form of wheel expressing two polar opposites. As in the representation of the Yin-Yang polarity, the maximum of one gyre contains the minimum of its opposite at its centre, so that, even as this minimum briefly touches zero, it is still inherent within the whole.

Yeats uses the cycle of the Moon’s phases as the visual symbol of the interplay between his two defining principles, the Tinctures, primary and antithetical, the poles of which are symbolised by the dark of the Moon and the full Moon. Although this is shown as a disc divided into shaded and white halves in A Vision (AV B 80), it is more accurate to depict it as a disc where black and white are the extremes, with shades of grey in between.

The two diagrams represent the same idea, of two interacting principles which increase and decrease in a reciprocal relationship with each other. There are no fixed stages and the change is gradual rather than discrete, however once the cycle is applied to human life, death and birth mark radical changes of state for the human soul, and it becomes both natural and necessary to mark these divisions, which Yeats takes as the twenty-eight stages symbolised by the Phases of the Moon (see the Wheel). Even within history, where the transitions are not marked and are clearly gradual, the Phases provide a useful notation to show the point that the cycle has reached, so that they are maintained, or adapted to a twelvefold scheme (see the historical gyres).

It is good that he brings up the Yin-Yang symbol’s twin-spiral structure, because reconfiguring the hexagrams of the I-Ching on the surface of a sphere reveals: a twin-gyre system exactly like the others noted here. Where Yeats used the Moon to model it, this uses the passage of the solar year. The Yi-Globe also models 7 levels of abstraction, like the other twin-gyres. The sages who composed the I-Ching began from a ternary principle of Man-Heaven-Earth, which is what derived a seven-stage Hierarchy into which the hexagrams were arranged, for between the two forms of hexagram modelling the ‘Creative’ and the ‘Receptive’, we have Creative-Heaven, Creative-Earth, Creative-Man, and Receptive-Heaven, Receptive-Earth, Receptive-Man, and finally the abstraction of the Yi-Globe itself. The goal of the Tao is, naturally, to ascend completely from the most rudimentary level, Receptive-Earth, to the highest, Creative-Heaven. (Note, on another correspondence between the I-Ching and Yetzirahtic kabbalah. If each of these 7 possibilities is assigned a letter, there are 1540 different three-letter combinations that can be made; the number of three-letter roots in Hebrew- 1540. 1540 divided by 7 is 220; adding the 10 sephirot plus Malkut to 220 gives a value of 231, the number of paths on the Tree of Life. Abulafia notes, while discussing these combinations, that 220 multiplied by 7 yields 1540, indicating by gematriac reduction the 70 primary languages discussed by the Kabbalistics. The number of possible four-letter words is 7315.)

“The double spiral represents the completion of the sigmoid line, and the ability of the sigmoid line to express the intercommunication between two opposing principles is clearly shown in the Chinese Yin-Yang symbol.” [Cirlot: pp. 306-307].
“From a cosmic point of view, the double spiral may be regarded as the flattened projection of the two halves of the egg of the world, … or of the Upper and Lower Waters.” [ibid.].
“This double spiral … which can be regarded as the planar projection of the two hemispheres of the Androgyne, offers an image of the alternating rhythm of evolution and involution, of birth and death.” A citation from Elie Lebasquais [in Guénon: p. 31].
“The two spirals can be considered as the indication of a cosmic force acting in opposite direction in each of the two hemispheres, which, in their broader application, are of course the two halves of the ‘World Egg’, the points around which the two spirals coil being the two poles.” [Guénon: p.31-32].

Dude I can’t do this. I kept trying to format the text and make it pretty but it keeps giving me errors, that I have put in more text than one post can take. I’m done. Figure it out for yourself. I can’t be bothered anymore. Yeah it’s about 50 pages. 50 pages is literally just a footnote. The first volumes of my primary work are over 10,000 pages, At any rate, to be blunt, 'm not spending one more minute trying to format this text for the post. I’m done. I have other things to do. I’m going to go drink now and pop pills now. Fukc it,

I reference a bunch of diagrams like the I-Ching Globe projection and Damascius’ model of Casuality, so I just will include this: Every diagram I passively mentioned is in there, I’m done.

How fucking rude. When you have that much writing you put it in a book, not a post. I will NEVER read this thread because of what you’ve done.

Wait isn’t that a redundancy? If you didn’t do what I say ‘you’ve done’, I wouldn’t read the writing in that case either because it would be in a book.

Wtf is going in here.

30 pages long as it is-- Yeah, but see: this is all basically a footnote on what the 231 gates are. That is why I posted it. Lol, a book? Which of my books do you want to read, the 6,000 page, or the 12,000 page one? I’ll give you a link to order them in 12 volumes but I am done typing. I don’t have the energy or time for it. You got something to say? Take the next couple weeks to figure out how to say it and I will respond. But none of you have shit. Because of that, all I am doing now is dropping some knowledge when I have the free time. You can take and develop it with your own research, do nothing, or suck my fat cock and 10 pack abs, I really don’t care. Peace. I’m going back to contemplating the Autiot-Yassod for another couple of weeks straight, fuck off, you bunch of degenerates.

Dude I know you’re the smartest person in the universe, but u ain’t gotta flex all the time with those long ass posts.

I’ll flex as much as I fucking want you fucking fuck, especially when I’m drunk. I’ll flex all over your fucking face, and especially on the faggot bitch named Fixed, the cocksmoking no-nothing motherfucker faggot. Fuck I thank the Gods that he came out and told me how much of a fucking dipshit he was all on his own so I didn’t have to waste anymore time with it. Anyway the only reason I am sitting upright at the keyboard now is because I am wasted beyond reason. Whatever I had to say, I wrote more sober, that is what I pasted. Mostly about the two dialectics and the 231 gates. I can’t think or write anymore. I am going to go pass out. Whatever I had to share, I wrote in what I pasted. I am… done… for the day. Night, Week. Month, fduck it

This sounds spiteful and disrespectful to me.

“the faggot bitch named Fixed, the cocksmoking no-nothing motherfucker faggot.”

Jakob the fixed barbarium was once one of my most promising young students, but succumb to the dark side, did he… so abandon him, I did.

him just doi’n his thang

lettin. it all hang out

Lol, you think that was disrespectful? Yeah man, I guess it was. What tipped you off? The phrase “fucking fuck” or the phrase “faggot bitch”? I come out with it if I feel like disrespecting someone. He’s the fucking asshole that started it with me by insinuating I was some kind of traitor to the US constitution, even though he never could explain explain what I was betraying. I don’t like when people lose arguments and resort to calling me a traitor or morally bankrupt or not arguing in good faith- so fuck him.