In ‘What is Philosophy?’ Deleuze and Guattari describe 3 ways in which we understand the chaos that we are and that surrounds us. These are Philosophy, Science and Art. The chaos of existence is filtered in each place by a different plane. Philosophy has a plane of immanence, science has a plane of referennce and art has a plane of composition. Each of these planes in turn has a different types of structure that.

Deleuze and Guattari seem to want to place magickal type phenomena on the plane of immanence. I am not entirely sure this is correct and I propose that magick be considered to be drawn on a different plane. It is true that magick, considered as a opening of ontologies by implication is drawn on the plane of immanence, however when magick is magick as craft and not philosophy it is drawn on its own plane. That is, an ontology that accounts for paranormality may be drawn on the plane of immanence precisely because doing so draws conceptual apparatus for this description.

Considering this matter this does seem to create kind of heuristic division in the analysis. Magick must be divided into naive and chaos magick. Naive magick accepts the system that it works with unreflectively as real, the spirits, Gods, incantations are the actual entities. Whilst chaos magick utilises belief to harness any given system, acknowledging that each system is a construct and not a real ultimate unit of spiritual reality. The former of these is not inscribed upon the plane of immanence whereas the chaos magickal underpinning is a redrawing of the plane of immanence, it is a conceptual (philosophical) alteration of the ontology of magick. As praxis though, neither of them is drawn upon the plane of immanence but rather they are drawn on an occult plane, that is nevertheless entirely entwined with the other 3 planes -and not of an especial transcendent nature.

The occult plane is laid over the chaos as the others are and acts as a filter, it shares a curious cross section of the traits of the others. It has the open endedness of the philosophical concept by having an infinitely receding causal structure, yet it strives for the coordinated nature of the scientific plane of reference —spells can be very specific in material, spatial and temporal co-ordination in their attempt for replicability. It also gathers affects and percepts in its construction (scents, sigils, visualisations) and its very nature accords to the description of art in that it finds the hidden language within language (divinatory, numerological practices). Despite this intersection of planes the occult plane still has its own essential feature, these we may call adepts.

The adept is a becoming that emerges between two or more phenomena whose relation is entirely undetectable other than by occult means. This becoming is one of endless potential that may be utilised by the sorcerer or may remain inert. E.g. We might form an adept between red things as a general adept structure. We might then seek to connect two red things through a magickal act and intensify the adept further. At a scientific level any discovered connection between the red things (frequency) here is not relevant, the red percept (and we do mean percept in Deleuzo-Guattarian sense, it is not just a perception) creates an adept in relation to another red percept. The adept itself could be called a pneuminous structure, it is through these structures that magick ‘operates’.

Let us consider the synchronicity as an example of adept formation. A person becomes, through a significant experience, attached to the number 47. They begin to experience the number in their lives in strange uncanny way. It (the number) seems curiously common and to appear in strange places that seem definitely out of line with their previous experience of reality. Because we are considering a paranormal compatible ontology here, we will bracket off the materialist coincidence model(1). These instances of the numbers’ manifestations are adepts. They are connected through the rupture event that attached the power/accretion to the particular person —this too was an adept. This is not psychological connection, this is a real connection, it is as if in the umbratic it was like a fungus of connecting mycelial threads; the fruiting bodies (the mushrooms) were the synchronicity (the adept).

None of this though should be conceived with the model of reality that we commonly hold, material, consistent, fixed. Adepts look like they do because they are ruptures in the solid; the proliferated pneuminous mycelial threads inserting themselves into a reality that might have been otherwise. The involved person is not deluded, they are more like infected. But the infection is related to what we call spritual. The infection can be used to learn the nature of things; it is the closest regular perception gets to seeing multidimensionality.

(1)This though is an incredibly complicated issue that crosses over the areas of an occult phenomenology and a metaphysics compatible with the phenomena being ‘actual’. That is, the same agnostic disjunctive issue in a sense raises its head. The adept as we define it, is justified in having its own occult plane whether or not there is anything occurring that constitutes magick/paranormality.

Anyone who thinks that the full excess of the numogram is a great discovery is kidding themselves. The digital pandemonium, demons, gates, it’s all pure accretive attachment. It is in this sense nothing more than Enochian magick and possibly something less. Of course the statement that it might be equivalent grants it considerable potential power. As an intimately crafted chaos-magickal hyperstitional accretion it is quite amazing. But most of it is just colouring in.

The lines though (that are not colouring in) sometimes don’t get seen in all there glory. It is this (I take to be Landian) discovery that I refer to:

Zero + Nine

One + Eight

Two + Seven

Three + Six

Four + Five

This is it. This is the thing of beauty. All the rest is accreted to it through attractive derivations that emanate from its spell -with the possible exception of the ‘gate of the five angles’ which details how one may add 90+81+72+63+54 to equal 360, thus connecting deep decimalisation to the base 60 of the Babylonians, historically tenuous but nicely done.

I would wager that the discovery of actual lines sent a shockwave through the receiving consciousness that it still does not properly understand. This is because you cannot understand it. Discoveries like this are as disturbing as full blown paranormal encounters. They look preposterous. They fill you with a sense of receiving something special and simultaneously you are aware that they can be simply a massive coincidence that just happened to occur in the structural threshold of language and number.

I have elsewhere labelled this sensation agnostic disjunctive, that is a split that cannot be answered, one can only choose to be an agent for one side -even if one thinks one has simply chosen the obviously true one.

It would be hard to be an agent for the above connection as it is even more insane sounding that 23, 47 or any of those. These at least, whilst they draw examples of power from recurring in various ways are not in the same league as this particular synchronicity. Look at it.

The actual totally contingent words for 0 and 9 have the same number of letters. The opposite of this distal pair also have the same (4 and 5). The middle three each have 3 and 5 letters respectively. All the totals of the letters thus equal 8 and all the pairs of integers equal 9.

What does it mean? Any Wittgensteinian can tell you it doesn’t mean anything. However if they pay attention to the language game they can also concede that it looks like it suggests that it might mean something, and because it is so preposterous it can act as a criterion for grammar than makes it cogent -agnostic disjunction.

Should anyone think that they can dismiss the appearance with simple coincidence they should consider that this appearance is exactly what it would look like it if was a weird transversal hint from dimensional directions considerably alien to our own. They then must consider if they know that this is not the case. When they conclude (as they must) that they know no such thing, they must also concede that since the appearance of the weirdness is epistemically equal to that of the coincidental model they must also give in to (minimally) the agnostic disjunctive level (and maybe consider being and agent for the alternative).

One can repeat the calculation very calmly but the real madness of the thing has to be acutely felt. Here are the English language numbers, a totally contingent system; here is base 10, also totally contingent (digital accretive reasoning accepted but bracketed off as still not rendering it necessary). The number of letters in the pairings makes a kind of pattern that whilst empty is eerily (in Fisher’s sense) is filled with hidden presence. There is no step you can take without descending into insane dogma (like Marko Rodin did with the Bahai faith), so what did Land do? He sidestepped and built a chaos-magickal accretion all over it. This no doubt created a feedback of further synchroncity, however the nub, the core of it is there. That is the motor.

I could be totally off the mark with some of the psychological speculation, but in identifying the only core part that sits there as an actual anomaly of hinted insane communication that cannot be decoded, I do not think I am mistaken at all.

I once encountered one of these myself when in the pre-internet world I was obsessively investigating the number 47 and all things 4 and 7 -itself the product of hints from the other world.

Triangles like the below can show square numbers. The square of the number of units high the triangle is, is the total number of units of the triangle. For instance a triangle 2 units high comprises of 4 units (its square).

I was insanely trying to understand if there was any logic to cross addition and had already worked out that if one squares then cross adds all the decimal numbers one gets either 1 4v7 or 9 i.e.:

2^2=4^2=(16)+=7^2=(49)+=(13)+=4^2 etc
3^2=9^2=(81)+=9 etc
4 see 2
5^2=(25)+=7 see 2
6^2=(36)+=9 see 3
7 see 2
8^2=(64)+=(10)+=1 see 1
9 see 3

What these triangles do is actually give a meaning to squaring and cross addition in some limited circumstances.

For instance 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). That is the base actually reveals the cross additional answer.

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

With small adjustments, these can also function.

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 for 9=0 in base 10 cross addition we immediately have the base number again.

After this the signal becomes too hidden. However the first two on their own are quite sufficient. It created a sensation (in me) of crossing over the lines. The (p)numinous sensation is formed by the following string of events:

Being given 47 as number of a ‘spirit’,

Finding a method in a book that said ‘squaring and cross addition reveals numbers higher essence’ (simply naively accepted at the time),

Applying this to the base 10 system and finding the alternating 4v7 therein (this already seemed quite ridiculous),

Recognising base 10 as contingent (1+3 has no intrinsic link to 4) but then finding that a triangle of that kind of units (a fairly uncontroversial triangle) contained traces of the lines of contingency being crossed i.e. the triangle is a necessary invariant system, yet the when side units are squared for 4s and 7s, the base reveals a number related to the cross addition. Because it is seeming true that 49 has no actual link to 13 and 4 (the contingency of the base) why do base 10 manipulations in conjunction with the triangle units create answers commensurate with cross addition?

Surely it shouldn’t happen -but it does.

This may be less impressive than the moment in which the syzygy pairings were disclosed but the agnostic disjunctive feeling would likely be the same. A path was followed and then there was the trace, the signal. Accretions form around the signals. Other powers are immediately attracted. But when we strip them away, the signal is still there, stark and impenetrable as ever.

And they are impenetrable. Keel showed fairly well that the beings out there are either psychic garbage of our own formation or a mixture of entities many of which are highly mendacious or will simply tell us what we want to hear. The appearance (or the consequence of the appearance) of these signals is that reality is alterable from angles we cannot conceive of but also that they may be signals, signals the could be decoded. This of course contradicts my statement of them as impenetrable. I think this is another agnostic disjunctive level. The appearance of the signal (if signal it is) is such that, whilst we can almost certainly not be able to interpret it properly.

The phantasy though exists, that we might.

Manhorcan or ‘Into Restless Light’ is a work by the poet Seranoga. The text seems to speak of a kind of double world and a connecting point between them. The word Manhorcan seems to be of his own invention and from its use elsewhere we can be fairly sure it refers to a triangular like formation that occurs naturally in the branches of trees. The text also intimates something of the passing of beings between these worlds and suggests three ways in which this occurs. One is being conjured ‘recitations’, two is that beings may pass through without being summoned ‘you do not always need a key, and thia same rule applies to me’ and three is suggested as a combination of dreams and fear. The spinning shapes referred to at the end have never been successfully deciphered.

A hidden gate between the trees,
A soaring spire that rests at ease,
Behind the circle stands a man,
Who crosses where he first began…

You’d want to see the motion,
You’d want to be the notion,
A slope that hinted downwards,
But lines that stated roundness,

Look at surroundings all are green,
But nothing is quite what it seems,
For here duality strikes twice,
With all the errors of that might,

Into restless light,
That seemed to shimmer with the night,
As cones exist in double lives,
To enter all those within strive,

Com Manhorcan, Rai Manhorcan,
Com Manhorcan, Rai Manhorcan,

Ah Recitations, the cause of visitations,
A spiral drawn between the lines,
No god could ever hope to find,
You do not always need a key,
And this same rule applies to me,

Siamese twin of this world,
And liquid night,
Into restless light…

A hidden gate between the trees,
A soaring spire that rests at ease,
Behind the circle stands a man,
Who crosses where he first began,
And at its end of spinning round,
Revealing more beneath the ground,
The opposite, the self invert,
The hidden land within the earth,

Com Manhorcan, Rai Manhorcan,
Com Manhorcan, Rai Manhorcan,

I crossed in dreamed ascension,
Released by intervention,

Look at surroundings I am here,
Existence constant feeding fear,

Gaps in nothing,
Spinning shapes appear…

“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.

“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.”