This is today’s association in the tooth of ‘who?’ There is some kind of scene here though it is dim to me. A holly tree stands on the edge of some kind of wood, in the holly tree is a hawk, in the wild meadow on the edge of the wood is a horse. A tall wooden T stands in the field. The number is 18 which is: earth 9, fire -7v9, air .125v8, water 8. It is a descending part of a great path that begins in Fate, the upper section of it is the embryo or hanged man. These two parts are separated by the unconscious.
This day belongs to twilight or at least this is the accretion we wish to forge. It connects love to the unconsious, that is in that direction -from 8 to 7 (so that would be 15 earth, -1 v 1 fire, 1.142847 v0.875 air and 56 water). Blackbirds dwell here in the blackthorn trees, the aa is threonine. The letter is S actually which shows how badly this process is going as I thought that was Pan but the number is 17. It forms the lower part of the great path with pneumatology (15) with the unconscious between the two.
Today belongs to Pan in the pneuminous calendar, and to the tooth (and accretion formed along the axis sixteenth, teenth, teeth, tooth, which makes me think of the year as a mouth of teeth) of ‘who’, the second tooth.
Pan runs from will down to intellect or vice versa, I have not securely accreted this flow. Its imagery contains the elder tree and sparrows therein, the amino acid serine. The satyr is nearby. Bryony grows up the elder. Double negation is its inference. The letter is R, the number is 16. Between 6 and 9 its earth (addition relation) is 15, its fire relation is (minus) -3 v 3, its water relation (multiplication) 54 and its air (division) relation 1.5 v .6666666.
Dead McCartney Post is now here:
Please note the Aston Villa of Ormen has now moved to here
Here is the calendar should anyone wish to see it.
feel free to ask about it too.
So first of all we’re told that Bowie has been given a constellation and then we’re told he can’t really have one. But then we’re told it’s ok because he can have an asterism. What interests me here is the accretive examples we’ve got here and more than the subject matter itself (though I do quite like the idea of being able to point to the Bowie stars (however that’s quite unlikely they very dim anyway)).
The naive reaction here is ‘fuck you! you can’t say we can’t have a Bowie constellation!’ Which is kind of true. I appreciate this sentiment entirely, the patronising tone of some of the articles saying things akin to ‘stop being silly little Bowie people you can’t ‘really’ have a constellation because it’s not that simple, you see ‘the man’ has to say it’s ok, and ‘the man’ didn’t say it’s ok so actually fuck you, you overly emotional ego worshippers, no you can’t just have a constellation because some Belgians said it’s ok’ was a little irksome.
That’s the point, we want to say, you can’t say that. The problem is they can say that and people can believe it and reiterate to you that ‘the Bowie constellation isn’t a real one you know, the man didn’t allow it’. And no matter how much you want to say ‘well stick it to the man dude, that constellation rocks!’ because we enter into certain agreements, they are kind of correct.
The system of pneuminous accretions supports the only meaning truth can actually have in these instances. The accretion ‘constellation’ is being restrained by various pneuminous threads to tie it to the other accretions that we call ‘official’. These have a disclosing apophansis of power which is what gives the ‘real constellation’ its weight and leaves the Bowieites clutching merely an asterism accretion. Who until this knew about the asterism accretion? I didn’t. Things like the big dipper fall in this category, the non official accretions so sometimes these are very powerful as precisely in this example. I read a description of these as sometimes helping children understanding the position of the stars in the real constellations. This seems particularly mental to me as of course they aren’t answerable to a primordial stellar ontology that is the ‘real constellations’. They are just as real, it’s just that because (phenomenologically) the original stellar accretions (the old and official constellations have a lot of pneuma attached to them they have more power.
The Bowie constellation in one sense can be a call to arms for stellar creativity because, to bounce back to the other side, even though the official constellation accretion has power this power is only determined by that recognition. The theoretical difference I advocate here is that this power isn’t merely convention, it’s a kind of actual power in the form of accreted information or pneuma, the same force that is used in magick. So do you know what? You could look at the sky and make all your own pictures and whilst those millenia old hoary accretions will try to stop you, with effort you can accrete new pneuminous forms in the sky and feeble though those threads might be, those perceptions of yours are instantaneously pneuminously fixing themselves to the umbratic stars. Sounds cool heh?