Below is a little simple painting of the system. I like it because its nice and simple and shows something like the right colours.  I’ve been dwelling on the powerful number accretions concerning 23 and 47. I’ve also been thinking that what we must remember when we forge these diagrammatic accretions is that there are more lines that extend outwards. 23 as breaking apart is symbolic of being any path that exits from the discrete system. I think there are 18 exterior links that can be made directly. Probably these need looking at.

2n+1 is interesting when we consider no whole starting point but rather -as in the law of 5s- take 5 or even .5 as the starting point. A half is the beginning? For 2n+1 it must be.








Today is a Death day.

Wear Lilac, Gorse, Laburnum and Herb Robert.



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.twlight

Bowie Constellation Accretion

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?

David Bowie Accretive Threads.

Let’s try and say something about an accretion. What is an accretion? Well we’re using the term to describe something that happens in what we might heuristically call the informational world, I call this pneuma. It’s very hard to talk about because it inevitably is pretty much everything and then in turn everything is a concept also found in the pneuma as part of out way of trying to understand the umbra (the dark hidden part of reality). Have I reinvented Apollo and Dionysus, earth and world? Yes probably, but I think it’s different partially because the theory attempts to directly tackle the problem of magick, and the problem of magick persists precisely because you can’t prove it doesn’t obtain, so it constantly is sucked into the doubting space.

So David Bowie just died and now many things are sa[i]d. Blackstar makes it pretty bloody obvious he’s going to die, but it’s more than that to me and to you. Many people feel some kind of horrible sense of part of their world having died, I think this is because of damage done on the pneuminous level by his passing, we should remember however that essentially his accretion is still here (at least phenomenologically). I think Blackstar makes a brilliant example of an accretion because of the way I can see it proliferating, fascinating, capturing people and ideas (pneuma), a friend of mine would call this neurosis, but I prefer the accretive term.

What am I on about? So Blackstar was released as a single first of all and at this point it accretes to Bowie and the images/words in the product (clearly this starts earlier when Bowie first gets the idea, which in turn would be a thread linking it to possibly one of the ideas below). Major Tom’s death, pentagrams, some kind of funeral, the button eyed character, the villa of Ormen (serpent as has been pointed out to me by the internet, the relevant site is here but then you already knew that). Even as I write this more threads leap out at me Ormen, ‘Or Men’, which suggests to me Deleuze’s dysjunctive synthesis, Or (old french for gold, (golden years)) Men, gold men, reminiscent of the idea of the superman. I saw some nonsense about ‘Villa of Ormen’ being a ‘Lover of Iman’ anagram’. It doesn’t really work because of the extra l of course and it seems unlikely Bowie would be happy to let this imperfection slide. But is this a pneuminous connection? Absolutely. Once brought into being, it’s there, its informational link is undeniable whether or not it was intended. Looking at it we can do more here. There was a rumour that Blackstar was about ISIS the muslim group. Bowie then denied this but it’s too late, the link is forged. We should here remember that an Imam is a Muslim religious leader, so the false anagram can be linked here too. Isis of course is also an Egyptian, goddess and daughter of Nuit, it is also the character on Atu 17 The Star and the Star in question is Sirius about which we’ll hear more below (it’s all bit Derrida meets RAW this isn’t it?)

The more I think the more there is no end to it, it’s the most amazing accretion. Think of the Crowley Poem ‘Lyric of Love to Leah’. Now ‘Let’s Dance’ is in part based upon this and features its reference to Sirius (it is transformed into Serious in the song (is this real? in actuality probably, pneuminously definitely)). Well as everyone knows there is also Sirius B which could very reasonably be called a ‘blackstar’ as it is outside of our vision. Given his Crowleyish knowledge I don’t think a blackstar, Sirius connection is stretching it really at all. Whilst we’re at it let’s remind ourselves that Bowie and Crowley were born and died in the same year 1947. Bowie was born before Crowley died so let’s not get carried away with reincarnation but there is something interesting here in the numbers. Now 47 is the atomic number of silver and one of the Crowleyite orders is called the Argentum Astrum or Silver Star and the silver star is a reference to? Yes, Sirius of course, so back to our hidden blackstar again.

I’ve written extensively about the numbers 1 47 9 elsewhere (the link isn’t exhaustive). To be brief when you square and cross add our 1-9, they all boil down to an alternating 4/7 a 1 and 9. So what? So nothing. This is just what happens in base 10 (it doesn’t happen in the other bases). We can’t say what it means but we can say there is a link purely by this connection on the pneuminous (informational level (this mantra may be getting tedious now)), all you need from there is for the pneuma to be affecting the umbra and we’re home (magick is real). Of course because of the nature of the beast though,  this link is impossible to establish or disprove, phenomenologically at least.

The fact that I have linked, in my little accretion (yes you are an accretion too) the number 47 to magick and synchronicity makes it all the more personal. ‘Well that’s all very subjective’, well yes it is on the one hand but then since that subject object divide is a very dodgy heuristic you’ll not mind if I sit that out. I would however add that entirely independently to me there is the whole Pomona 47 thing and what did those people end up putting the meme into, oh yes Star Trek (more star accretive threads). Would Bowie, know about the 47 thing? Possibly, certainly Lynch does as we know from Inland Empire (the door number and the homeless woman Pomona scene) and Bowie and Lynch have various connections (Lost Highway, Twin Peaks spring to mind but there may be others). Does that make it objective? Of course not, don’t be so silly, now stop it with your subject/object thing and lets crack on. What else is there? Oh yes the Elvis thing. Very nice, almost certainly intentional accretion and of course ‘Elvis lives’ (Lazarus). Back to numbers of course we cannot escape mentioning 23 (Bowie loved Burroughs). Ziggy Stardust arrives at this address (23 Heddon Street), on the album cover the sign K West  hangs, which of course has prompted further accretions. The Kanye West/Bowie thing has been around a bit but of course is made all the better for ‘blackstar’. What bigger ‘blackstar’ is there, and loathe him and his ego you might but remember Bowie was subject to the odd moment of madness and that Kanye has been credited as real musical innovator. Does that mean he is the anointed one? No of course not, but it does mean the ‘blackstar’ accretion includes him in its pneuminous tendrils. Do you see what I mean? The ‘blackstar’ accretion on the pneuminous level necessarily connects him. But is that just spuriously true of any ‘blackstar’? Morgan Freeman e.g.? No because the link is stronger than just that because of the sign, and because of the musical innovator bit. Is the sign on Ziggy Stardust and echo from the future? Maybe, who knows, that’s the Kantian problem of limitation and the reason we have to bracket these speculations, they are just that. The bad side of this bracketing is outright dismissal, absolutely these phenomena are related but when we make that relation dogmatic speculation about the nature of reality and destiny this is a sticky wicket, but we can say there is a relation because pneuminously it is necessarily true.

Another current linkage is the cancer one. A blackstar is a breast cancer lesion of some kind (as I understand it). People link that to his cancer but don’t really make it gel (because it’s breast cancer which is rare in men). There is a way to link it though and it again belongs to Crowley. You see in the book of the Thoth he says ‘the milk of the stars from her paps‘ which are breasts. And which tarot is he referring to? Yes that’s right ‘the star’.

In my own little numerology system I just checked Ormen and curiously that adds to 23. There’s another synchronicity. Dog Star, Diamond dogs, you can go on and on with this and they will all be true, some with big strong threads forged by Bowie himself (Elvis one) and weak filaments like my passing Diamond Dogs comment there. The played backwards interpretations, this kind of nonsense they all have a relation because he lays the accretion open by especial virtue of his own accretion already allowing magickal connections. Furthermore existence being what it is, it will open and open down practically any tunnel you choose (this is of course the problem with religion also, it too gives you confirmation that your path is ‘true’).

I asked a friend of mine what they thought of  the button eyed character in Lazarus and Blackstar and they replied it made them think of Coraline but they couldn’t remember who wrote it. I got confused and thought they were talking about the doll Olympia from Hoffman’s ‘Sandman’ (which features as Freud’s key example of the Uncanny but it wasn’t the same thing  (obviously) but low and behold when we found out who wrote it is was Gaiman, who of course also wrote ‘the Sandman’ and Gaiman’s Lucifer is based on the Bowie. Is that too tenuous? It is a bit, but it still has a thread weaving its way. Oh but then Lucifer is the morning star so that makes it a bit better, a bit thicker. Of course part of this thread (button eyes to Lucifer) wove its way for me just now because I’m tinkering with this business. Is it like the degrees of separation thing or is it something like synchronicity? it’s impossible to answer the question, (again) which is precisely the point (you cannot remove this manifestation of reality). One of the stranger Bowie tributes  I’ve come across features some kind of wizard incinerating a Bowie imposter named Johnson. This one I’m afraid I haven’t been able to link back (yet).

I’m saying that magick presupposes a connection between information and an ability for the information to interact with the putative solidity (pneuma and umbra). I don’t say this is true, I say this perspective is solidly built into how we experience things. Phenomena accreting together is a necessary way in which things happen. Blackstar just happens to be perfectly poised to accrete like nothing else at the moment, partially because through Bowie it plugs straight into that whole world of magickal connections. And if you think you smell the whiff of chaos magick about all of this I wouldn’t say that was off trail. The idea here is different insofar as it aims a kind of phenomenological grounding of the matter rather than speculative physics (the pneuma is not posited as speculative physics rather as necessary condition).

Anyway enough, this isn’t a Bowie conspiracy page, this is something to tell you how amazing reality manifests itself as and that there is no absolute undermining to this amazingness (just as there is no proof either). This is something Bowie understood. Somewhere towards the end of the Cosmic Trigger there is a Paul Krassner quote: ‘reality is silly putty’. This is the manifestation.