# The Book of Numbers 4: Hyperqabalah Shape and Accretive Layers.

Shape

Recent work on the hyperqab has revealed a much more suitable shape. The below shape utilises the circuit of numbers d-f-j-s-l-w-u-p-h-n-d as a circle with the feeders connecting in from the outside. Two cones are formed by the circle connecting to a above and m below. Each number from the circuit connects to a and m. In the centre of the circle is absolute 0. All the circuit numbers form extra paths by connecting to 0, a and m also connect to 0 forming a vertical axis to the system. This forms a total of 52 paths in this instantiation of the hyperqab. We must remember that there are in fact 529 virtual paths to the hyperqab and that any instantiation is to some extent arbitrary. However this instantiation reflects the circuit well, whilst the cones form a powerful symbol of the double-world as it appears to us.

Nodes

The nodes of the hyperqab are the paths of the CEO adjusted qabalah. This is the reason for the name. The whole system is moved up a kind of dimensional level. The 22 paths of the flat tree become paths in a 23 node system utilising base 23. The CEO adjusted the hermetic qabalah by utilising the gra-tree as it fitted with the 47 based circuit in base 10. It then reaccreted the names of the paths and sigilised them. This cannot remove the previous accreted layers however it does make the latest layer take control of the path accretions to some extent. Again, magick is really to root of the accretive term employed as a general philosophy herein. Accretions in this sense are literally conceptual substance stuck together: a symbol, an idea, a number, force them together with the mind until they stick and there you have it, an accretion of pneuma.

To progress we must familiarise ourselves with the nodes of the hyperqab. In doing so we will eventually be in a position to understand the paths of the hyperqab. The table given below shows the accretive layering of the hyperqab nodes as they are rooted in the CEO gra-tree paths.

# Notes on the Epistemology of Beings in a Reticular Ontology

Recent considerations have moved my theorising away from outright human contingent paranormality –conceptuality as active substance– to a possibility that includes human accretive forces as only one element in the sea of what we call anomalous phenomena. Currently being played with is a ‘reticular ontology’, that is, a conception of everything as and endless series of lines or fibres. This is appropriated from reported occult conceptions of reality in this wise (e.g. the web of wyrd, Castaneda) in conjunction with Deleuze and Guattari’s notion of a line of flight.

Perception of the reticulum is supposed to be the closest one can have to seeing existence as it is in itself (note we do not say this is the case, we merely engage with the concept). It is also sometimes called ‘seeing energy’.

Now a feature of the reticulum is that once perceived, the separation of the perceiving being from the externality is considerably challenged. The lines can be clearly seen to extend straight from the being into the ‘outside’. There is a kind of boundary in so far as the being of awareness is a kind of node, yet the connectivity to the whole is immediately present. Furthermore the lines cannot be considered purely to exist in the regular spatial coordinates available to us; the lines bypass temporality as we know it and dimensionality.

A reticular ontology is essentially panpsychic insofar as all the lines are formed of awareness in a sense. Access to the reticulum is access to greater awareness -all psychic type events can be considered momentary reticular access. The reticulum as a whole is entirely self-aware. This is a postulate.

The formation of nodes (beings like ourselves) has an interesting consequence from this perspective. The more nodes develop there own internal awareness the more they believe they are capable of grasping what is going on. Unfortunately for the nodes, the more the awareness becomes centralised in the node, the less it actually accesses the reticulum. This then is the formula of the inverse increase in awareness in relation to the development of the node:

The greater awareness in the node, the less awareness of connectivity to the reticulum.

This means almost the opposite of Hegel’s PoS is true. The development of conscious is a retrograde step, worse still is self-consciousness, increasing narrowment of reticular awareness continues to occur until the crowning glory of this occurs -the state.

This tragedy also seems to entail a strong kind of unpleasant Kantianism. The more developed we become in investigating things with our own developed tools (maths, science) the less access we actually will have to the thing in itself. Of course Kant bars access to the thing in itself anyway, however the reticular as possible perception not only places the thing in itself partially within reach, it also means human rational attempts to fathom it necessarily get further from it. Consequentially all ‘lower species’ as we think of them have an increased reticular access, with this increasing further as one ends up in the inorganic.

Please don’t misunderstand. This is not an anti-scientific stance. Even if the node/reticular concept is accurate we generally do not live perceiving the reticulum and science has been of tremendous value to us. This occurrence of delving further and further away from perceptual access to something like the in-itself cannot necessarily be seen as worse than reticular access. Our investigations in this relatively solid seeming reality function well so the withdrawal from the reticular possibility can also be seen as highly epistemically satisfying.

This leads us to a second point about such an ontology. When we say that perceiving the reticulum is the actual connection to the ‘outside’, we consider it as a totally time/space transcendent perspective in which anything can be known (though equally there must be caution here, accounts like Monroe’s would suggest that even reticular access has many layers to it). It is minimally a totally superior epistemic state to regular human capacity. So it is easy to consider regular human perception as subtractive in its relation to reality. Even without the reticulum and simply with regard to our scientific understanding there is much we cannot see/hear/detect etc. We subtract from reality and our perception of the world is what we get.

Two points complicate this picture. The reticular ontology is totally compatible with human formed conceptual accretions which we literally layer over the regions of the outside. In the reticulum these are perceivable as emanating lines to nodes (accretions are different kinds of nodes) whereas from regular perception we often confuse concept and object.

This means we not only subtract, but that we add. We add pneuma to the externality and it stays there in the reticulum. However this actual state of confusion of regular perception -in which the connecting lines are not visible is also different from reticular perception, which for all its superior access is subtractive of the human state of perception. So our reality is additive and subtractive

Secondly then, this is why we couch reticular access as only the closest thing to seeing things as they are, for whilst it does show the accretions stuck to the vectors, it does not and cannot show the actual confusion of the nodally perceived reality state itself.

That is, even reticular access itself is subtractive.