by on

This Tooth is called Passion. In the Hyperqabalah it is Pnaslokied, it is the feeder node for Bnasupach which is related to Pan. Passion as a primal energy feeding Pan seems appropriate.

The notion of feeding is relevant to the note. From a level of ordinary reality one is forced to concede that a piece of art made by an artificial intelligence may be superior to one made by a human artist. Furthermore as AI gets better, so its ability to produce works of art that surpass human abilities will continue.

However from the pneuminous perspective the works remain quite different owing to the underlying metaphysical structure. Pneuminous theory is there to make an ontological connection between phenomena that is actual and not psychological. Things are literally connected on the conceptual (pneuminous) plane and the pneuma can actually do things (magick).

This means that at least in part the artists intent (such as they have one) is a real factor that can never be separated from the art as the pneuminous fibers continue to cling to it, even in death. That is, the dead artist is still an accretion in the pneuma and their fibres still cling to the vector that is the art object. This perpetual connection may be correctly or incorrectly read. Even if incorrectly it does not mean it is wrong experience of art, only that it is wrong in relation to the artists connecting pneuma, the original accretion. The new perspective forms further accretions onto the vector which layer on top of the earlier artists intentional levels.

When AI produces art it does so with none of the intent or passion or conceptual play that humans do. Its accretive relation is totally different to that of a human artist. Because of the way humans form pneuminous accretions, they are entangled with the objects. AI will be producing some kind of pneuminous relation but it is not at all similar to the human relation.

In the diagram we can see that the subject S perceives the art object AO . It folds it into its own pneuminous field understanding it as the artist does or otherwise. Either way there is an increase of pneuma to the AO vector. In the AI relation the subject still perceives/interprets the work but the creator only produces through algorhythmic lines which can contain nothing like ordinary artistic involvement/dedication —there is nothing like effort in the same sense involved. Furthermore, in the human relation, the artist perceives its own art work thus adding extra layers of complexity. The work is created and interpreted by the artist as well as being interpreted by the subject. In the AI relation the artist does not then perceive the work, the work is not appraised by the artist (unless prompted) it has no connection to it other than slender impersonal pneuminous fibres of necessity.

We might argue that currently AI is still prompted by a human and then appraised/selected. This is largely true however it doesn’t massively change the metaphysical difference. There would then be an ‘artist’ behind the AI on the bottom right (in the diagram) which would supply some sense of intent. The pneuminous structure would be somewhat connected but it would still not be identical to a totally human produced artwork. Furthermore the pure AI model can stand as we can readily conceive of an AI artist that once programmed creates things at its own behest, yet still cannot be said to employ effort and passion in the same way.

This is all a moot point in a sense as whilst the pneuminous theory does present a model in which the metaphysical structure of art would be literally different between the various modes, it would also be impossible to tell this difference. No part of this argument says the pneuminous relation is visible, only that under a certain conception of reality, it is necessary.

by on

The Mouth of See widens further. This 3rdTooth is called Artemis. Artemis was a cruel Goddess of chastity and wild beasts. Artemis mercilessly punished mortals -poor Actaeon was ripped apart as a deer by his own hunting dogs after accidently seeing the Goddess naked. Artemis is the veil to the other world which should not be punctured. This is why she is chastity. She herself commands the phallus (bow and arrow) with which she defends the other world. It is the node Asnerist in the Hyperqabalah which is fed by Gramier and preceded by Teufos.

The pre-ontology is an almost impossible realm to describe. I don’t pretend to be able to see it clearly. However I think certain phenomenological activities and my play with occult systems as they pass through my region, sometimes have given me glimpses of this.

The problem with the pre-ontology and its relation to the vector field is that the vector field has no concepts in it by definition, so to be able to see it purely is probably impossible (Merleau-Ponty understood this). Sunyata in Buddhism seems to have a description of a kind of state in which the field is free of accretions yet all action is still possible, indeed improved. This sense of emptiness does seem flickeringly visible and in perceiving it one gets the sense that the ground that is seen could give rise to so many conceptual possibilities. It is simulataneously understood as the world we know and empty at the same time. The emptiness looks, is identical and yet due to its emptiness it looks different. When seen as empty, the pre-ontology albeit flickeringly, shows through.

This empty state suddenly reveals that the trees are stil trees but maybe not the regular trees that we know. Everything is more open. This ground always becomes an ontology, to regular awareness the accretions must take hold and a world appears. But underneath it is always what gives rise to it and this is not an academic fancy but an experiencable realm. The pre-ontology can help make sense of descriptions of the world like one finds in the old weird fiction writers like Machen and Blackwood. These intense, living, dark, pagan worlds are visible in the pre-ontology or rather they can spring out of it. These worlds themselves are accretions, layers. But they are not the regular accretions we perceive.

In this sense it is not simply a stripping away that reveals these worlds, but rather a stripping away and reassembly. The entry into them in this sense is perfectly real as (according to the theory) the accretions are not psychologically inert but ontolgically active.

If the pre-ontology can be held and the right route found, then Artemis can indeed be found in the wood. Though who would want to find her, I do not know.

by on

This Tooth is called Being or in the Hyperqabalah it is the node ‘Triebnegesin’. It is the feeder node for the yestertooth of Eskatology (Daagolenyfo).

Lovecraftian is an adjective for a whole family of phenomena. Some earlier than Lovecraft himself. One example of this being Chambers’ famous ‘The King in Yellow.’ One way in which we an look upon this set of weirdness is its ability to disengage from the conventional take on monsters (fairyland creatures, dragon like creatures and devils/demons, the undead). These forms may be revisited but they are reappropriated under new guises. It is a phenomenon that many of us may have experienced to see some fantastic world or city in a dream and feel that this has some reality to more than a mere dream. Whilst this may or may not be true, our inability to frequently visit such places at will means they still fall under the category of dream, no matter how luminous and interesting they may have seemed.

What Chambers’ Lovecraft, Machen etc did was to facilitate the perception of these worlds as real, persisting dimensions that push up against our own. The inhabitants of which look, from the human perception, like something extremely sinister (though by their own standards they may well not be so).

Of course we cannot answer any question regarding the reality of such worlds. Hypersitition can solidify such inventions and project them back into history. What we rummage here for a is a comment on a sort of sideways movement that either accesses them or creates them.

This somehow all ties to the pluralistic spirituality talked about elsewhere. The systems all have some kind of interaction with a pre-intellectual awarenesss. Access to this awareness is a wellspring from which a certain different kind of intelligence persists. Buddhism clearly acknowledges the existence of the spirits as things one may meet on the way, however they are their powers are said to be distractions to the true way.

This again is not the discussion here (the trueness of one way). The point is fading from me as I write. The word rivulets returns to me, every time I go through the process. There are flows in the pneuma, great accretive structures either real of archetypal that move laterally to a vertical axis towards and away from ‘enlightenment’, which itself is just one possibility.

In the lateral flows are created or exist strange worlds which may feed back into our own (hyperstition). The experience of a book like the ‘King in Yellow’ is one that I feel some empathy with. Like, many I have seen a book not dissimilar to this in dreams -though I would not consider it sinister, but rather very strange. This book is related to the Hyperqabalah. There is no claim of universal importance here, only an observation of the way in which the other world interacts with this one through strange feedback loops.

by on

This Tooth is called Superman/Boudica. It is weird that it has this double title. No doubt this is partially to do with its relation to the Chariot of the Tarot (which features the notion of chariot and hero). It is also remarkable, as was commented before, that in the Hyperqabalah (Eildour), it is the feeder node of the Teufos which is fetus. Hence Superman and Boudica produce the child. However the child as Hyperqabalah node has the curious name Teufos, reminiscent of Teufel (German for the Devil) and also Te UFOs , which could be an adaptation of the Te Deum. It’s tree is the holly, its animal the hare.

How can we make sense of Sunyata? What has happened to the relation to the accretions? Such a person is said to live through a primordial intelligence, seeing things as they are. We can translate this into seeing the vector field itself, but this only makes a certain level of sense. This is because to experience the vector field is to see the regions with no concepts. This is what Sunyata does, however the event of Sunyata also has a being that can still function, they can still use the concepts. 

What are we to make of this? In the ordinary situation the concepts plug into the vectors connecting self-accretion and external vector via accretions (of pneuma) attached to the vector. Clearly the Sunyata person-site is still functioning with the same array of concepts but also has at their disposal other ones that are invisible to regular NARPs ( Neurotic Accretion, Regional Processor) to use the old CEO terminology).

Since we speculate pneuma as a kind of substance, possibly a much simpler process of conceptual naming and recognition is employed in relation to the vector field. The pneuminous accretion is there but reduced to practically nothing; something we don’t consider possible with the heavy accretive layers we commonly attach to things. This gossamer level of minimal attachment is all that is required to enable the same level of communication whilst also revealing the vector field (a sort of things nakedly as they are to humans) itself. The description is of greater richness of perception. One can easily see how the conceptual (accretive) removal could achieve this. The questions remain about more a priori concepts (Kantian categories) and how much Sunyata also can remove these.