CEO Mythological Numerology and CCRU Comparison Notes 2

As various dialectics occurred there was more reflection in the system and the internet slowly appeared. This yielded two major fascinating notions. One was that this was not the first time the number 47 had been picked out as significant, an American college (Pomona) had for many years been treating the number as mystically significant (albeit in a tongue in cheek way). The students of this college had gone on to be early Star Trek writers and had put 47 deliberately in the program. The second was the discovery of the 23 synchronicity and the general chaos magickal worldview. The former was a quasi reinforcing substantial synchronicity in its own right, the latter a relativizing experience that rationalized the whole experience into what would become accretive theory.

Excessive exposure and the above mentioned relativism enabled distress to permeate the system and the investigations were abandoned. At least under the auspice of these dogmatic beings. Less deity bound numerical investigations however continued which yielded interesting results. This notion of cross addition is a strange thing e.g. (123)+=6). It suggests the possibility of a relation, indeed says that under certain condition (a particular numerical base) there is a relation between any number that must be written as two or more integers and one of the single integers. The sceptical (indeed rational) account would be that this relation is in a sense arbitrary (because the base is arbitrary) or at least meaningless. What has 53 e.g. got to do with 8? Very little other than the cross addition relationship.

What was found to be fascinating was that in a triangle comprised of units 1 at the top 3 on the next line down, then 5, 7 and so on, the squares of 4 and 7 give numbers whose cross addition has a demonstrable connection (to the square).

Triangles of this kind of unit construction are remarkable as they also provide squares.

The number that will be squared is the height of the triangle. So if I have a triangle of 2 height, the total number of units in the triangle will be 4, if 3 it will be 9 and so on.

One relation to the issue of cross addition is as follows: If I have a triangle of a height of 4, necessarily it will be comprised of 16 units. The base however will be 7 units (1+6). The formula uncovered here for the base will always have the relation to the height b=2h-1. If the height is 12 the base is 23 and so on.

The more interesting relation that we intimated is the one concerning squares. Squares of 4s and 7s even of cross addition ones will always reduce to 7s or 4s respectively but the base seems to (though not always) reveal an actual relation between the number itself, the square and the cross addition of the square.

These are the most concrete examples:

4 becomes (16)+ becomes 7 (the base units of 4)

7 becomes (49)+ becomes (13)+ (the base units of the 7 triangle) becomes 4

These require a tweak to make them work but are still quite convincing.

(13)+ becomes 169 becomes (curiously by preserving the first two digits as a whole number) 16+9=25 is the base number.

16 becomes 256 becomes 31 (by the same logic above) which is the base number and also reduces to 4.

22 becomes 484 and a similar logic derives the base. This time we extract 40 and add 8+4=12=3, re-add them and we have 43, the base number.

31 gives us 961, if we cross out the 9 (9=0 in base 10 cross addition) we immediately have the base number again.

After a point though the rule becomes indecipherable at least so far.

In 25*25=625=13=4, or course the 7/4 transformation is preserved but the base relation is not. The base would be 49 and 625 does not have a relation to it. And no doubt there are others.

However this disintegration of sense in a way does not render the earlier relations any less impressive. The consider the base an arbitrary way of setting the numbers up whereas the triangle numerical structure has a seemingly less arbitrary status (I can see that can be argued but probably you can at least feel what I mean).

But how can a supposedly arbitrary number like 13 that has no relation to 4 in itself have this level of necessary connection?  There is here no appeal to a ‘real’ magickal status to this work, but the uncovering of something that seems to bridge the necessary arbitrary gap makes a powerful impact. It is this precise experience that seems comparable to Nick Land’s uncovering of a relation between the syzgys (8-1, 7-2, 6-3, 4-5) and their arbitrary word signifiers. Again, the supposedly arbitrary is manifest in the necessary. The CCRU schema shares a 9 oriented system and a preference for the hex circuit based on doubling 1-2-4-8-7-5 and cross addition with one Marko Rodin (an agent of various dubious ontologies). The triangle squaring relation however reveals an alternative hex circuit the Rodin-CCRU model.

The revealing investigation concerned what would happen if we lined up the number of units in a given row of the triangle with the number of the triangle itself.

Thus the pairings are:

1-1

2-3

3-5

4-7

5-9

9-8

8-6

6-2

The ending return to 2 suggests a circuit and that’s what we have. Looking at 1-1 one we can see this goes nowhere, however as 2 pairs to 3 it invites us to see what 3 pairs with and so on. This yields the following hex circuit. 2-3-5-9-8-6

It is true there is no necessity in laying this out in a pseudo kabbalistic manner (the CCRU writings point this out) however  as the system evolved out of various qabalistic investigations, the basic shape was retained. Furthermore what was noticed was that the numbers that been so for so long taken to be key (4 and 7) could now take their place as on the meeting points where the connecting lines crossed. The below shows an earlier, still tarotically infected version before the symbols and names were all properly reworked as an experiment in accretion itself. 1 and 10 are respectively placed at the top and bottom.

What the CCRU began to draw attention to quite rightly was limitations of cross addition, these however were only slightly manifest in the numogram (some usage of subtraction). This acknowledgement needs expanding upon. Elsewhere on the CEO blog we have intimated this with reference to tellurian (+) sulphuric (-) mercurial (*) and aetheric (/) numerologies. Each operator offers new possibilities for tunnels to be travelled in the ‘decimal labyrinth’.

But accretions do not wither easily. The earlier mythology dwells on subtly. 4 and 7 are at the heart of this system. The circuit is 6 like the 6 ultraterrestrials who insinuated themselves into the tale, the red curtains of the cult were echoed in the black lodge years later (Lynch too knew the 47 thing (it’s referenced in Inland Empire)) and the below image from a Trevor Constable book on orgone powered UFOs shows something very similar to the rotated 47 shapes mentioned earlier (and the CEO has shown an interest in orgone).

We consider there may be something of a tendency to view the numogram as a new orthodoxy which results in an undermining of its hyperstitional status and ironically its true potency. For all the accretive power of the CCRU the numogram isn’t the hyperstition, it’s a hyperstition. There are so many circuits and paths to tread and unfold, even in the simple decimal whole integer world -complex numbers beckon incredible potential that should not be eschewed.

As explained the CEO does have deep connections as a kind of agent for a 4-7 centred system. These however are recognised as (under at least a rational chaos magick ontology) contingent formations. The true power (under the magick obtains arm of the AD) is the ability to accrete itself. This is a demonstration not a fiat.