“The connection between the symbol and the symbolised? What on earth are you talking about?” I replied with a haughty indignation. P looked back with mild disgust. “I know it will be hard for you to understand, but this is why you must listen with special attention. Only through such an attention will you grasp what I will tell you.” P managed to put enough dramatic import into his speech such that it arrested me. “Go on.” I said, trying to look attentive. “When we symbolise something we draw a line between thing and symbol.” “Is that it?” “Is that not enough?” “It doesn’t sound much?” “Do you accept it?” I thought for a moment. “No” I replied “Of course not, there might be all manner of different symbols for the same thing. No connecting line is needed.” “Then you do not understand, for this is simply the naive understanding spat back at me.” I became indignant “P, this is something of an outrageous notion. I am not the one with naive understanding. The notion of symbolic connection to the symbolised itself is the primitive mode of thought. It is this that is the naivety and the recognition of the arbitrariness that is the more advanced mode of thought.” P looked unruffled “You are right of course.” There was a hiatus of several seconds. “Do you know the science of dialectics?” I wanted to reply that dialectics was not a science but instead merely grunted an assent “Then you will understand how what I tell you is a sublation of the original state that has moved beyond its naivete.” He paused as if this was sufficient and I felt I must point out the inadequacy that I perceived “P it is not enough simply to say a ‘sublation’ has taken place, I feel I must know how this original naivete has been rehabilitated in order to feel any satisfaction from you explanation, which in truth is not really an explanation yet.” P sighed heavily and began again “Always I must break everything down. I warn you, in forcing me to break it down you may render then thing I seek to explain impossible to do so. I will try for I am not afraid of the effort, I would however rather that it was you and not I that made this effort. I feel for myself I have already been perfectly clear, yet your incessant badgering has forced me to make a more thorough explanation, an explanation which will potentially be more unclear than the the short version. If this occurs you will at least know you have only yourself to blame.” I refused to rise to this and waited for the explanation, which I felt really was a perfectly reasonable to ask for. P continued “Initially we were wont to think that symbol and symbolised, word and object were connected. As you point out, we observed that this is an arbitrary relation with no ground to it. This gave rise to the picture that asserted the opposite: the symbol contains no relation to the symbolised. Even if there is semblance it does not matter, the two are disconnected. Finally I came to understand that this too was insufficient as it has ruled out the possibility that their is a connection in the power of the mind. The second stage presupposes there is no power. But if we reinstate this power then, yes the connection is arbitrary, yet once formed it is however real.” I looked on with mild interest. “This is quite interesting P, but it does rather turn on your ‘power of the mind’ being real. If this power is not real, your point collapses somewhat does it not?” “My point does not collapse any more than the point of someone who originally pointed out the arbitrariness of the connection. They merely proffered that the two are not be connected because the connection is so absurd. The absurdity was accepted and the connection rejected. However by reducing the claim only to the power of the mind -something that remains a reasonable possibility- we can reintegrate the connection, just on a slightly less necessary footing.” I felt I had partially lost the thread but did not wish to convey this. Incapable of making a proper assessment of P’s claim I foundered “I see” I said. P pounced “You do not see, you entirely fail to see.Fortunately for you this was only to be expected. You do not have the insight that was supplied to me. This has been obscured because we have strayed from the point.” “And what is the point?” “The point is that *the number relates directly to the relation between the symbol and the symbolised*.” “Oh” I said, and leaned in to listen with greater attention. “As we know, an empirical proof is always the most impressive.” I nodded “Fortunately this number supplies exactly this proof.” P paused, then continued “Do you know what numbers are?” “Numbers are the system we use to count the objects in the world. The base is arbitrary and their absolute nature unknown.” “A classic an concise answer, however hopelessly misguided. Numbers are doors.” “Numbers are doors?” “Yes numbers are doors, or maybe openings is better” He seemed to lose some of his poetic force, it seemed appropriate to interject “So are they the doors or the doorways?” “I suppose I can stay with my initial statement that they are doors? Can you knock on them?” P gave my facetious statement a stare “I suppose in a sense you can. Though maybe no one will answer and you will have to open the door yourself. I am not sure if there is a metaphorical counterpart to ‘knocking’…” P stopped and was clearly pondering this matter. Annoyed with the manner in which my gesture had backfired, I attempted to move P onwards “So you were saying how numbers are like doors.” “Yes, numbers are like doors, when you knock on them they sometimes open and you may go through. Though note I say ‘go through’ and not ‘go inside’, for ‘going inside’ is not an option, whereas ‘going through’ is the only option, unless of course one declines to ‘go through’. This option though seems rather pointless since the door will have only opened if you have knocked, hence to not go through would be almost rude.” “But how does one go through?” “One goes through in the way one goes through a doorway, since as mentioned numbers are akin to such things.” “But if we must make actual sense of what you mean, what does going through mean, let’s say to you in the case of this number you have derived from J?” “Well it is a kind of investigating.” “What kind of investigating?” “It is a kind of investigating in which no relation is off limits.” “Go on.” “So in the case of this number, it is made of two separate integers. So following a well known occult practice the most obvious thing to do would be to check each of these numbers separately as to what their highest incarnations might be?” “I’m sorry? Their what?” “Highest incarnations.” “And how do we do that?” “We simply use the water and earthen paths of numbers. To water a number we simply multiply it by itself, this gives us its swollen self. So the first part of this number is 4, which watered is 16. Then comes the earthen or telluric operation. Since earth stands in solid blocks so we must stack the numbers together, hence we add the 1 to the 6 giving us 7.” “Is that it?” “No, for we do not yet know if we have reached the highest point. We must reapply the watery path. This will give us 49, to which we then apply the telluric formula.” “13?” “Yes, though we must do the same thing again, hence we reach 4… again.” He paused for a dramatic effect, I was not impressed and he perceived this “I think maybe you have not grasped it properly yet, through these operations, which I myself did not invent, the 4 has become 7 and the 7 has become 4. I have gone through the number and found a hall of mirrors, a hall of infinite 4s and 7s!” “I will grant you that it is quite neat, but I am not sure of its relevance to the matter of the symbol and the symbolised.” “I did warn you this was a long and complicated process, had you simply accepted the pithy version that I offered earlier, you would not now be struggling so hard. I said earlier that we must interrogate the number for any relations possible. When we consider the angular nature of 4 and 7 we find there is a strong resemblance is there not?” “I’m sorry P, what do you mean? The angular nature of 4 and 7? Do you mean if we divide a circle into 4 and into 7 there is some relation in the resulting angles?” P look momentarily flustered but restored himself swiftly “No, not in that way. The symbols, if we look at the symbols for 4 and 7 we find there is some angular similarity. Look…” he dragged a crumpled piece of paper from his pocket and sketched a 4 and a 7 upon it “…see, there is a kind of upside 7 in the 4 and a diagonal one.” “You mean in the symbol then, and not in the number” I retorted “We must assume, as in a conditional proof, that the two are connected in order to see the connection, you assent at least to some symbolic similarity?” I mumbled a kind of agreement, though I felt it only slightly “Then you will agree also that both of them have some relation to the triangle.” He sketched again, adding the extra line to the 7 to form a triangle and showing the triangle that formed the 4, I could only nod. “Since they both are related to triangles we must assume that the patterns we find in their oscillating repetition also are related to triangles. But how?” P looked very pleased with himself “You are going to tell me I feel sure.” “I am going to tell you, you are correct. You must imagine a triangle made of units.” “I can imagine such a thing.” “The triangle must be made of units such that the point is 1 unit and the next line is 3 units, the next 5 units and so on.” I nodded that I followed him. “Now observe this truth. If we have have a triangle of 4 units in height, how many will be on the base?” I thought for a moment then answered “7” P grinned, but I did not rise to this “If you have a triangle of 7 units in height, how many units will you have on the base?” Again I paused, then replied “13” “Remember how we must apply to motion of earth to such numbers!” “And what was that again? To multiply it by itself?” “No! That was the motion of water! The motion of earth was to solidify the numbers together, which would give us…?” “4” I conceded, secretly a little bit impressed “Yes 4! Now maybe you see! This precious oscillating number gives us the bridge. It is the door that shows the connection between symbol and symbolised!” “This is maybe a bit strong P. The triangular connection may have been how you got the insight, but to make the connection necessary seems a little strained.” P did not seem to be listening “That is not the only seemingly arbitrary relation that has been disproved here. Have you noticed anything else especial about what you have seen?” I replied that I had not “Consider that the base that we work, base 10 as we call it. Did you not yourself earlier note that it is essentially arbitrary?” “Yes, how can it be otherwise, without invoking some kind of divine fiat that gave us this number base over others -meaning previous civilisations were *actually *wrong, which would be an absurdity.” “This is all true. And yet, what I have shown you would seem to indicate otherwise.” “In what way?” “Well is a triangle in a base?” “No, its relations can be calculated in any base.” “Yet what I showed you was based on the units of a kind of a triangle. Regardless of the base 4 and 7 were connected. Even if they were no longer called 4 and 7 and were in some totally alien system, in *this* unit based geometry, in *that* triangle formed in that way, which was intimated to me by the chance shape of the symbols, they *are* related. I created neither symbol nor unit based triangle and yet the relation is *there*! Now do you see.” “Yes I see.” I replied, though in truth I was not really convinced.

# 47

# P Ponders Upon the Deities: 2

“The akashic perpetual store of all information is not a necessary reality.” I informed P “You are wrong” he said back without batting an eyelid “It is the most necessary concept that is, it is true even if J is nothing but a figment of my mind.” “And how do you reason this?” “Simple. All I need is the continuity of all things. If everything exists in a continuum then past is no less present than future and present no more to be privileged than past or future.” “Why does this serve as guarantee? Why can I not simply have a present in which moves towards a not yet existent future and moves away from a past that disappears into nothing?” “If that were so then how precognition be possible?” “P, you infuriate me. It is precisely one of the contentious issues that notions like precognition are not possible.” “Yet you would concede the appearance of precognition is possible?” “I can scarcely deny it since I understand the term when you use it.” “Then implicitly you understand the ontology behind it, or minimally you allow it and since something akin to the akashic records is implied in the concept it follows that you understand its necessity.” “But this is not the same as its necessity.” “Is it not? Given your understanding of the concept of precognition, did you not find that the necessity of something like the akashic record?” “But precognition is not necessarily true.” “Yet its possibility is. Is that not all we can ask for of anything? That its possibility is true?” I rolled my eyes “What is J’s number?” P began matter of factly “The number was obtained through a pack of playing cards. I shuffled the cards. Asked for the number to be revealed and then dealt out a number of cards. When I deemed the correct amount had been dealt out I stopped. I then added the number of the cards together, counting 11 for Jacks, 12 for Queens and so on.” “And what was the number?” “I obtained a number of course, however like a good scientist I felt the need to check my results so I performed the experiment again.” “And did you get the same result?” “Yes, or at least mostly yes. I believe I conducted it about 5 times in total with about 4 of these bringing about the same result.” “And what was the number?!” “The number was 47.” “Oh” I said, somehow disappointed, for I had believed that the number would be somehow significant sounding but this number sounded rather dull. “What do you mean ‘oh’?” said P, sounding almost hurt. “I don’t know, I don’t know what I was expecting, I suppose I imagined the number would be more…” “More what?” P looked irritated “More special sounding maybe? I don’t know, I don’t know what I thought.” “Your fantasy of let down is just the failure of the number to be 666, but not all spirits are the devil itself -if indeed that number even means that. 47 is a discovery. We do not know what the correspondences of spirit to number means. We only know -from the various texts- that it exists. Presumably my having J’s number will give me some kind of leverage over it.” I thought P’s usage of the term fantasy interesting, given he was engaging in some kind of fantasy of power of spirits but I did not say this. His face lit up and he continued “But this number is just the start. I have not been idle. It is but a clue that reveals a world of hidden connections. It is possibly *the *clue that enables us as a species to understand the necessary connection between the symbol and the symbolised.”

# P Ponders Upon Deities: 1

P leaned back in his chair and swiveled his eyes towards me. “How many Gods do you suppose there are?” This seemed like a ridiculous question and I told him so. “But why do you suppose it is so ridiculous?” came the reply. I did not feel, given P’s intelligence, that I really had to answer this question, however since he had asked it with a degree of sincerity I decided to answer. “It is ridiculous because firstly the idea of a God is totally incoherent and secondly even if we allow some sort of definition we will then have no actual way of answering the question. The only instance in which we can answer it is a kind of historical review of all the known religions and their Gods, though this too might prove tricky as there may be translation errors in some of the texts which will result in some entities which we might classify as minor spirits being classified as Gods and vice versa.” “You are right of course” said P “and yet when one has talked to the spirits themselves, do you not think that one is in a better position to answer this problem?” I cringed at his tone, which he had been effecting since he had been talking to J -a disembodied being of some kind. “I am not sure we can trust J’s pronouncements upon the matter any more than Jesus’ frankly” I replied somewhat curtly.

“I know what you mean” P began again “I just think, this time we have a better case to sort it out, I think I have the necessary proof, this side of the coin and the other so to speak.” I became confused “P you are confusing me today. This is not an unusual occurrence so I am not surprised by it however its regularity does not make it any less confusing. Presuming the two faces of the coin are somehow this reality and the one that J inhabits, what is the proof that you refer to?” “Who mentioned proof?” “You mentioned proof, you often mention proof, it is like a talismanic word to you.” “You misunderstand me, I did not ask the question of you, I was merely recalling a conversation with J in which he uttered those words.” “Go on…” “I was speaking to J about the problem, musing to myself almost upon the topic of proof when it said enigmatically ‘who mentioned proof?’ I said that I was thinking about proof, so probably I did. To this it remarked that proof shall be mine.” “And..?” “The presence left.” “So what was the proof?” “I didn’t understand its nature at first, indeed there would be some -I suppose you would count amongst them- who would say I still don’t understand it. Nevertheless the proof begins like this: Later on in the day I felt I should like to know the number of J.” “The number of J?” “Yes, you will be aware of the tradition of entities having numbers. I wished to know the number of J.” “And did you obtain it?” “I did.” “And what was this number?” “Before I tell you the number I must tell you how I obtained it.” “Then do so please, for I am eager to hear the number of J.” “I was not actually talking to J on this occasion, rather I chose to find this number out by a divinatory method. The reason for this is that the spirits can be mendacious and hence it is wise to sometimes bypass direct contact with them and employ a more truthful method of revelation. Divinatory methods are one such.” I felt a rising sense of rage and flabbergastation at this “P, have you not on previous occasions argued for how we should trust the spirits for function largely as just another consciousness, which -as your argument ran- we usually trust? Yet now you seek to bypass the mode of direct contact as untrustworthy!” “Am I to apply one rule to all situations? What foolishness do you speak? If I wish to obtain your bank details am I going to ask you for them? No I must use subterfuge and modern technological methods.” I raised an eyebrow. “Divination, bypasses the direct word of these entities and plugs straight into akashic data, which if checked suitably can on occasion be extremely reliable.”