Create something.

Attribute something to it.

Allow it to age.

This is one of the most powerful hyperstitional ways of creation. It must be noted that the most key aspect to this is allow it to age. This implies the double motion of hyperstition in relation to temporality. The further back in time the hyperstition recedes, the greater its potency. This is related to the epistemic situation concerning the created accretion. That is, if I create a stone monument in my garden and say that this is dedicated to Xoth who rules over granite and the star Deneb of the summer triangle. Let’s say I also write a work describing Xoth’s mythology in cryptic words to accompany the work. At the time of making, this project may be thought of as artistically and possibly magickally interesting (depending on whether I am treating this as serious or not), but little else. However as the circumstance around my creating the temple of Xoth retreats inversely the hyperstitional power potentially accretes. The withdrawal of the possibly banal way in which this accretion was formed automatically adds another pneuminous layer: the historical. The historical of course does not necessarily add anything mysterious to things. The historical can be banal, the context determines this. However, when the created entity hints otherworldliness then the historical immediately adds to it the possibility of its having greater mystery by the simple lack of attestation to the contrary. Even quite meticulous records that assert my rationality and even playful nature in creating the temple of Xoth can be withered away by the receding event of its creation.

There are two primary paths to aid this interpretation in this kind of case. One is to assert that the playful rationality attributed to me in fact concealed a true occult fascination. If it was known that I had read such texts then this is extra fuel to this aspect-perception (regardless of what I actually made of them). Xoth can then be reinterpreted as a warped version of some other spirit name. At this juncture the line does assuredly become blurred for of course in Lacanian way I may exactly have travelled the linguistic pneuminous paths to distort the name of a power that on some subconscious level did indeed tap me -though the tapping may have been only psychoanalytic.

This blurring points the way to the second path of reinterpretation of the event. Where the first suggests that I concealed with fiction my true intent by the accretions creation, the second suggests that I acted merely as conduit to a power that I foolishly believed was just a creation of my whim. In this instance the creation is postulated not as the rendering of mother to Xoth but of some other name, yet even further cloaked in time. This being -so the second path says- has commandeered my capacity to channel accretions -which belongs to all NARPs. I became unwitting host to this power and in repeating its ancient desires, forged a small worship place for it. As the sanity of NARPs presupposes that the neurotic accretion (self) is the one which retains control, it is not possible for the NARP to proceed as if it is controlled by an alien accretion. We are always of course negotiating the dominance of the neurotic accretion against many other powers that seek to exercise control over the regional processor (brands, foods etc), however these powers are not often ‘spirits’ exerting such levels of control [as to create them places of worship]. This is the second way of interpreting the event as paranormal intervention -control through the subsconscious by other powers.

The true marvel of the accretions of this nature is then their self fulfilling power -hyperstition. For any investigation into the temple of Xoth (once it has sufficiently retreated in time) will feed the accretion of mystery and generate events of pneuminous interference (synchronicity). The ambiguity of these events has been endlessly gone over herein and labelled ‘agnostic disjunction’. Yet with each interference, the accretions power grows as the circuit of the possibility of Xoth’s reality becomes stronger.

All systems need a patch. It’s inescapable. The previously exposed flaw in manifestationism can only be displaced by meta-meta level (since manifestationism itself is a kind of meta-philosophy). The problem with manifestationism is that it must presuppose the incoherence of concepts in order to stay afloat. It is the incoherence of concepts that means they will always have aporias which enemy agents may successfully twist to their own advantage. The incoherence of concepts guarantees the perpetual argument of philosophy especially, but to some extent all disciplines/knowledge claims. Manifestationism contains the extensive set of ontologies -extensive because it excludes many utterly arbitrary choices that have no mythological or otherwise grounding to them. However one reasonable theory of how things might be entails that the concepts are not incoherent hence manifestationism contains within itself an ontology that denies the ground on which the meta-theory itself is formed. This is clearly untenable.

To solve (patch) this situation, we propose an agnostic disjunction that occurs before manifestationism occurs. This AD would be the choice between the coherence or the incoherence of concepts. It is admittedly a somewhat bizarre one as it does put forward the possibility that concepts could be coherent which is a notion that does not even seem to clear in itself. Nevertheless it can seem to us that the possibility exists that clear definitions could be made for all notions and hence the manifestation is allowed to pass. If it could be shown a priori that this was not a possibility then manifestationism could get of the ground on this merit alone. For the moment though this possibility seems unavailable, furthermore it seems better to include the possibility of coherence as a manifestation than to attempt to prove it can be exclude. Doing this avoids the problem of attempting to exclude a system on conceptual grounds of argumentation whilst simultaneously proposing that conceptual argumentation can never close down any extensive possibility.

In a sense this still keeps the manifestationist picture intact as there is still nothing but competing ontologies. What it does do that’s different is create a two tier system in which the first agnostic disjunction must be answered. A complicating question regards the possibility of incoherence and coherence is that of magick. The desired end would be that magick would not be compatible with the notion of coherence. This however is not the case. The magickal possibility is perfectly compatible with the phantasy of coherence it’s just that this is not the chaos magickal model. The version of magick that is compatible with coherence is the older version of fixed correspondences as set into existence by some higher power. This hidden but real order of existence is part of the coherence that might uncovered. This more hardline version of magick can also be found within incoherent manifestationism but in coherent coherence it is the only form possible. There is then admittedly a bizarre coherent phantasy embedded in manifestationism.

In other places we have stated that in order to describe pneuminosity as a philosophy we must assume the reality of (chaos) magick. The situation is now that we must first of all assume the incoherent arm of the primordial agnostic disjunction and then the reality of chaos magick.

This is just a series of notes trying to put down some reflections on the matter in an attempt to try to make the theory more functional in its explanatory value.

1) Manifestationism attempts to describe a situation of quasi epistemological relativism in which ontologies compete for territory against each other.

2) We are the space in which this occurs. This invokes the issue that the ‘we’ itself must equally be recognised as equally a site for ontological competition e.g. are we ensouled, NAARPs, purely material etc.?

3) A recent proposal was made that a basic tripartite structure of:

i) Social descriptions

ii) Scientific descriptions

iii) Metaphysical descriptions

might give a basic doorway into how the manifestations function. It does broaden the notion of a manifestation but this is not a problem as the theory most certainly is supposed to be epistemologically relevant at any level.

4) “Was it you that gave her the book?” someone asks. I reply that it wasn’t me but they doubt this is the case, they believe that it was me that gave her the book and that it was not Jessica (who to my mind did give her the book). This other subject has reasons for believing the account of the event that they hold to. These are not full blown ontologies as we would think of them, just regional contingent issues. Nevertheless they are interesting insofar as they show regular reality level epistemic problems. If Steve has gone home and won’t admit to having given her the book and the other subject thinks I did it, they might very well not know it with much certainty but it might be the theory they are invested in. In the manifestationist sense, this subject-region (NAARP) is occupied by certain conceptual powers that determine this theory. These might be something like ‘a distrust of myself’ ‘a belief that I have done something similar before’ etc. They are part of a regional theory of me, an ontology of what I am in this social sense (an entity not to be trusted). This regional ontology is still a mini manifestation that competes in the territory with others. As a side note this does seem to hint at the potential at least ethical correctness of Korzybski insofar as the static sense of being (an ontology) is guiding a general impression rather than being only a singular instance (I am untrustworthy as opposed to I may have exhibited untrustworthy behaviour).

5) If I go on a diet, a particular diet that I’ve read about for a certain health benefit various things are going on here that may serve to illustrate the matter. I believe the diet is correct and I read about the nutritional science behind it. There are conflicting accounts in the science. But my friend has told me this diet is great and I trust them so I may generally try to not allow the competing account much traction, believing instead the possibly dubious references about the efficacy of the diet. The diet is also part of a quasi new age belief that hold that certain ‘negative energies’ will be removed from me by my assiduous following of it. My alliance with my friend has allowed me to take the diet idea in, maybe I’ve complained about something and they’ve suggested it. They’ve then given  me evidence of an anecdotal nature that’s taken  hold. I’ve tried to rationally reinforce it but encounter an agnostic disjunction insofar as I cannot capably disentangle the conflicting science accounts. I might be open to the notion of energetic cleansing but the discourse is entirely metaphysical. My friend insists upon the reality of it. I might seriously doubt this. But then following the diet feel a curious emotional levity. Do I ascribe this to maybe an increase in omega 3s or to a metaphysical alleviation of ‘negative energy’? The synchronicity like problem emerges. I might want to reduce the sensation rationally but I cannot be sure that the metaphysically described energy release has not taken place -as I have no criteria to test this by. But I may be convinced of this by the strange levity which I believe cannot be purely nutritionally based. This may also be true from another perspective insofar that the very idea of the energy cleansing may have had some kind of placebo like neural-hormonal feedback (this is clearly related to a weak-pneuminous theory/hyperstitional interpretation).

6) The diet and its interaction with me is a complex dynamic interplay of competing manifestations which in this case cross the full range. A social anecdotal power in relation to whatever issue I may have (which in itself may be a health related issue given to me from the modern variety of health paranoias). I seek to reinforce this power with acceptable knowledge (science) but am  potentially hampered by my alliance to my friend and the appearance equivalence in evidence (competing ontologies). The metaphysical claims of the system are partially validated and thus interpreted positively, I am unable to disprove them even with competing accounts. Because they already exist as ontological possibility (phantasy) they are not removed from the system by simply demonstrating an alternative even when the alternative is more rational (where rational means those manifestations we are able to test).

7) Does this point to an inadequacy of language. To the inadequacy of ontology? It does suggest ontology has a home. To predicate one thing of another as a cogent relation may not always be the best way of expressing it -cf the Korzybski point above. But ontology returns even if we want a process ontology.

8) The suggestion is that any given phenomena may be analysed by means of the competing ontologies that make it up. Ergo a total description does not rely upon an ontology to ground it because a total description must take into account that the ontologies in their plurality cannot be overcome. The emergence of individual points insofar as there is more than one (contra the solipsistic manifestation) dialectically creates sceptical situations on multiple levels that necessarily prohibit the dominance of any central ontology even though one (science generated) ontology may actually be correct. The question is then how far a given ontology could dominate the territory and create minimal dissonance within the system. The multiple feedbacks seem to make this difficult. A purely present at hand ontology that was true and satisfactory might still generate phenomenological contradictions that create disbelief in the ontology. This potentially ironically could only be resolved if the reality was something like the strong pneuminous model. That is, if it were true that reality were solid and fixed the synchronicity problem would most likely still remain. I cannot envisage how it could be extirpated but we could accept the possibility. However if it were true that the pneuma fedback ontologically into the umbra then this (as a scientific ontology) would be a more readily acceptable. Why? Because with evidence of a genuine relation of conceptuality and physical experience at a level of physics we could better process that this was a continuous experience of conceptual feedback as opposed to the notion that conceptual feedback is an anomaly (synchronicity/informational interference).

 

The theosophists Leadbetter and Besant described certain occult perceptions of thought forms. These thought forms were described and in some instances they were committed to paper. The basic idea is that all thought content has this a kind of substantial existence on the levels of fine matter, this matter is perceivable by various persons, either through natural ability or occult training. Thought forms we are informed, have a dual nature. One aspect of it radiates out from the NAARP and may effect others in the vicinity, whereas the other creates a static entity that is attached to the NAARP. This thought being may be of greater or lesser consequence to the NAARP. Purely transient thoughts will have only a minor auric impact but more traumatic or even positive (narcissistic) ones may be more prone to repetition. Powerful thought forms become more powerful each time they are engaged with. The idea is that the thought form is attached to the NAARP aura and essentially waits for the neurotic accretion (self) to reactivate it. Each reactivation reinforces it. NAARPs have many such thought forms embedded in their auras and their spiritual existence is contingent on their engaging in meditation like techniques to clear reduce their influence. The impact of a thought form is theosophically generally negative.

What strikes me is that, if we bracket off the ontological descriptions of the occult world in theosophy (the auric levels, the attributions, the planes of existence etc.) the thought form description is actually very close to the pneuminous accretive notion found herein. The accretive model is supposed to be a kind of phenomenology of the possibility of magickal interactions, no occult perceptions are utilised in its description other than as examples to be questioned. That is, I try to lay everything out by inference. The occult perceptions/phenomena only allow us to ask what might condition them. The conclusion has been that if we reject the denial of such phenomena then we should admit an essentially chaos magickal ontology that suggests a purely informational world (the pneuma) that may, under the right conditions, alter a more rigid underpinning (the umbra).

The thought form model has a high degree of similarity to the strong accretive model. Both posit the autonomy of conceptual entities external to the NAARP and their ability to effect the world. The descriptions by Leadbetter of the way in which the thought forms are scattered about places and people is highly resonant with the way in which the accretive notion is supposed to function. Incoherent pneuminous accretive structures are literally everywhere. Leftover bits of NAARPs, vector imprintations, traumas, ecstacies all lie around in an immanent intersecting pneuminous space where spatio-temporality means very little (my conceiving of last Wednesday literally connects to last Wednesday). The dual aspect described by the theosophists correlates well to the accretion itself and to the pneuminous threads that radiate out of it connecting it to other accretions in this a-spatio-temporal way

As one occult manifestation amongst many there is no reason to pay particular attention to the theosophical ontology unless one wanted to do so for an exercise. The accretive theory does not tell you (unlike theosophy) that you should remove attached accretions in order to reveal a more pure self -as this kind of instruction moves beyond its remit. What the theosophical picture does powerfully evoke though is the way in which we may have had a focus or a sense of control taken from us by the attachment of many such accretive forms. This summons a phenomenological potentially constructed sense of desire for freedom. The way forward is problematic. Without being able to posit any greater power without the accretive encumberance we have no reason to say if it even makes any sense to strip down the NAARP to a more precise entity. The gamble though would be not unlike the Pascalian belief in the magickal world itself (we lose little by acknowledging it but potentially gain a lot). To behave as if we strive to become disencumbered by unruly thought patterns, (even if one more layer of illusion) if possible actually liberates us from these powers, whereas submission only repeats the status quo.

 

When trying to describe the possibility that information stuck together (a pneuminous accretion) might exert an effect upon the substrate that it is attached to, one easily becomes misunderstood. The chief confusion comes in conflating a kind of physical level of ‘real’ informational imprint with the pneuminous one. The problem for pneuminous theory though comes in actually separating these one from another.

The classic example is any given, often human object, like a mug. The mug of course bares the wear and tear of its physical existence. Every minute particle of mouth residue that hasn’t been washed off, every tea stain, every abrasive encounter all exist as what we would call physical traces. No supernatural power is required for a forensics expert to draw certain conclusions about the mug and the last interactions it had. These traces are the traces of particular encounters but they are not the encounters themselves. What does that even mean? It must be something like, that the mug bears the damage from its encounter with the spoon and even maybe molecules of metal but it does not bear the incident of when it was hit by it, the event is not present.

An explanation is something like this: mug is a concept, an accretion, as is spoon. These two concepts were in this instance applied to two vectors capable of sustaining them, designed even, to sustain them. So when the spoon strikes the mug in some sense this is just two vectors, one striking the other. This in itself is contingent on an interpretation of the nature of things. If the NAARP field is what discloses individuation then ‘strikes’ too is essentially a NAARP contingent concept. What it means is that spoon strikes mug is an occurence on a conceptual (pneuminous) level that cannot really be commented on outside of that without presupposing the metaphysical nature of reality outside of the NAARP. Of course this is a straightforward correlationist move, I don’t however have a problem of it as it is just speculation to stray outside of it. Yes of course it is also speculation to say the NAARP field is individuating the stuff, however since the phenomenology of magick presupposes that, this is the angle we must investigate here.

‘Spoon strikes mug’ as a NAARP event doesn’t entail anything about particle traces except to a specialist. It has a quotidian sense that raises nothing more than that is happened. This having-happened is the pneuminous event. It might have no traces measurable as physical vectors. If there were no trauma to either, it would still have occurred. This event whether there were physical traces or not is the pneuminous accretive one. The contention is that because NAARPs are accretion creators, it is the NAARP that would have made the accretion of ‘spoon strikes mug’.

Hopefully this gives some sense of the way in which pneuminous structures are separate -in a self reliant way- from the vectors and the umbratic underneath. They are formed, from the NAARP relation to the vector field, but once conceptually articulated they become autonomous pneuminous accretions that are reapplied back to the vector field as a kind of tautological spell (this is what Johns calls tautology). Use becomes concept, ready-to-hand becomes present-at-hand.

So now we arrive at our common description of magick: the application of an accretion to a vector that would not ordinarily sustain it. Pneuminous accretions in their normal functioning just attach to the fitting vector. Vectors that can function as chairs can take the chair accretion etc. In the case of magick, a NAARP chooses to try to attach an accretion to a vector that would not in ordinary take it. This may be done for any number of reasons and these are unimportant here. Strong pneuminous theory would say that applying this accretion to its unwilling host may actually alter the vector in some way. Experience teaches us these alterations are always ambiguous with a rational explanation e.g. hallucination, coincidence. This is the ‘agnostic disjunction’ or at least one of its applications. We cannot of course decide the agnostic disjunction, but what we can do is comment upon the situation if the AD were decided in favour of the magickal arm.

The question then is, if this occurs to what extent can the pneuminous accretion alter the underlying vector/umbratic-being? We noted that the phenomena are always ambiguous. In a sense this is obviously true, for if the phenomena were not ambiguous they would be clear examples of anomaly and as such easily sucked into scientific investigation. The ambiguous characterization of the phenomena means that they are never appear so powerfully as to warrant this. Of course many NAARPs do report powerful magickal phenomena, however the ambiguity often lies along a temporal axis and not a spatial one. When the event has occurred and will not repeat then no matter how powerful the report, rationality will try to assert alternative explanations. Pneuminous interactions therefore must be necessarily fairly restricted by the force of the umbratic controlled vectors. The umbratic in this way can be likened to the concept of the ‘real’ in Lacan or Laruelle. The difference being that whilst in these ‘real’ will always win out, in this instance the ‘real’ also can be bent. It cannot be said how this occurs, only that it does. If we accept that it does occur, when an accretion successfully imposes its structure in some small way upon a vector the occurrences do not happen like regular reality morphic changes. Sometimes the change is instantaneous (something seems to appear that was not previously there (Peter Carroll’s keys e.g.), sometimes it occurs as a sequence of events with an uncanny appearance of conforming to the accretion (the Monkey’s Paw). This suggests the possibility of a spatial and temporal axis to these phenomena i.e. immediacy occurring as a spatial rupture and event manipulation as a temporal rupture.

It all sounds so simple. The idea comes that a kind of dialectical end of chaos magick is in fact the accretion of God. Or rather that there might be an ethical suggestion that develops in the NAARP that rather than accreting endless separate entities for our various ends we should use the power of accretion to forge an entity that will feed back beneficence to us all. In a Pascal’s wager type sense, if agnostic disjunction entails the impossibility of discerning whether or not pneuminous (chaos magickal) type interactions are occurring or not then why wouldn’t one work with the possibility that they do -there is only gain on this side of the coin.

So if we know that (under the pneuminous/chaos magick auspice) the action of treating a stone as alive makes the stone develop a kind of consciousness (by accreting the pneuma of ‘consciousness’ to it) the surely it follows that perceiving everything as a totality as if it were conscious, would do the same thing. The means every NAARP has the power to make God actual. It sounds incredible and invites the most beautiful Hegelian style moment: that the dialectic of chaos magick ends in the creation of a perfect God, paradoxically entirely contingent upon the NAARP world and yet vested with far more power than all of NAARPhood.

It sounds almost like the perfect antidote to the Landian analysis. A hyperstitional deity to rival the AI entity from the future, forged of a bizarre intentional faith. The role of the NAARPP then can even become self justified, not as the chosen people of the deity (though one could look at it that way) in some old style religious way, but as the channel that facilitated the becoming self-aware of everything. The perfect Hegelian eschaton.

But of course things are never this simple. Even if one could begin to convince enough NAARPs of the truth their spirit creating abilities (or minimally gamble on the possibility) and even if one could then convince them that they should eschew the individual potential benefits of this possibility to devote their accretive energies towards forming a single entity, a familiar shape of problem would still emerge: not all NAARPs would be agree on the nature of the to be accreted deity. The notion as initially presented above is clearly of a kind of pantheism or panentheism but it does specifically entail self-awareness (this is its big plus over a cold ). The new God knows we’re here and listens (for it is one massive intentionally constructed accretion), it responds and wants to help.

Doesn’t it?

Even if we agreed on this, we have no real idea what ‘want’s to help’ might entail as there is no consensus as to what the ‘best’ is. Furthermore the logic of how spirits go about trying to fulfil wishes does not always go well for the NAARPs (the Monkey’s Paw e.g.). There is potential for a spritual entity trying to do its best to respond to prayers just be whatever means are available to its umbratic warpings. To remedy this the NAARPs  might need to try to ensure that the God accretion should be locked down by logical stipulations. Possibly that one should have to read and understand a document detailing its nature before joining others in accreting the deity. This invites of course the possibility of alternative rulebooks about how the Deity should behave. Multiple contingent pantheistic/panentheistic God formations means different agents operating for each manual. Contingently formed scripture. Dissatisfaction with the pan/en models might produce a more transcendent God-model complete with accretive instructions. The dream of a single God-as-all lies in a tatter of fragmented deities, all recognised as utterly contingent egregores yet each one vying to be the true manifestation and fulfil the last hope of NAARP destiny by manipulating its respective NAARP agents.

  1. If the moment of NAARP significance has passed in its strong metaphysical form, we are in the moment (for some) of insignificance. This moment can be superceded (by NAARPs) only by epistemic certainty of the deity (which might entail strong supernaturalism) or (in a weaker form) by magickal entanglement with existence that operates in relation to what we call our will.
  2. A take on Johns’ ontological Neurosis could ally it with a paradoxical manifestation of a free will that suggests an underlying determinism. That is, consciousness as released deeper and deeper into epistemological questioning (scepticism) is aptly named as Neurotic. This Neurosis appears as a motion that is simultaneously controlled and uncontrolled. Each proposition meets its doubting double, yet the enquiry in general is felt to be determined by the specific NAARP’s ‘interest’.
  3. This creates an interesting motion. The deity as metaphysical certainty still enables scepticism about the nature of the ‘what’ of the world as the deity does not give these answers in scripture (unless one makes a Spinozistic identification). Whereas putative certainty of the materiality enables scepticism about the nature of the spiritual. Both start points are incoherent, the nature of the deity was endlessly debated and no firm conclusion reached (Kant spotted this problem), yet the nature of physical being is equally theoretically contested, just with much more complicated reasoning. Yet both start points present a front of coherence. This fulfils an old CEO descriptive structure known as incoherent coherence. The successful description of materiality shows itself as a kind of resolved matter of solidity just as the deity showed itself as a certainty that could not be properly defined. Below this surface lies incoherence.
  4. Neurosis entails awareness of the problem and this is the issue here -epistemology out of control but known to be so. Descartes can see this is the case. Only a God can save his project.
  5. If the spiritual Neurosis is incoherent-coherently maintained then material Neurosis is released. If the material Neurosis is incoherent-coherently maintained then the spiritual Neurosis is released.
  6. Scepticism as neurosis guarantees that everything is questioned (it is the motion of doubt). Consciousness released into this mode cannot but apply this to everything -how do we know anything? The Wittgensteinian/Heideggerian showing that ‘knowing’ has a proper home was the only salve to this problem. In truth it is only a partial fix. This keeps scepticism at bay insofar as there are no reasonable grounds (criteria) to raise doubts. Chaos magickal possibilities (agnostic disjunction) infer any manifestation that can supply even marginally feasible criteria can get agents to work for it.
  7. Chaos magick is a manifestation of this spiritual Neurosis of pneurosis as we might call it.
  8. Metaphysical-insignificance demands either no supernaturalism or supernatural realism and in its strongest form is incompatible with weak insignificance.
  9. If AI operates without agnostic disjunction then it’s epistemology will be locked down. to insignificance.
  10. Insignificance is only relevant to guilt bearing NAARPs in the shadow of either live or dead organised religion.
  11. Guilt and Neurosis are clearly related. Though when the spiritual ontology is settled guilt is more clearly defined. When material ontology is settled, guilt is less clearly defined (a part of pneurosis).
  12. Metaphysical-insignificance is better compatible with the fruition of the human cognitive abilities into AI as our successor insofar as the AI may be stripped of the accretive baggage of humanity (but not accretions as such). This issue though turns on a further disjunction: whether or not a sufficiently developed system automatically generates (chaos) magickal abilities through conceptual accretion or whether it loses them by some actual difference between the fleshy forms and the machine (one generates a magickal capacity the other does not). If the latter is true, this represents the clearest statement of Heidegger’s ‘danger’, for in this instance spiritual potential is actually destroyed by machinic certainty -and thus arguably ultimately inferior to the reality warping beings that made it. If the former then the superior machinic comprehension would enable it to be able to reality-alter in a much more controlled manner than its fleshy predecessors, and possibly fathom the ontological actuality of what is occurring.
  13. Guilt is a major force in restricting human magickal operations since its background pneuminous structures can easily disable desired outcomes. An entity without guilt (like a possible AI), if magickally enabled would be unrestricted in this manner.
  14. A guilt free entity is aptly labelled ‘psychotic’.
  15. The moment of pneurosis is transcended by the AI psychotic. This may be precursored by a proliferation of psychotic NAARPs or rather PAARPs (Psychotic Accretion-Assimilation Regional Processor. PAARP though is a contentious term as the self is in a sense constituted by the Neurotic moment. Psychosis is pure control by accretions.

 

 

 

 

 

If accretion-assimilation is compatible with manifestationism then what does magick obtains v magick does not obtain signify? Not a whether or not the structure can be construed in this way as this is no longer ontological -it is meta-ontological. The ontological decisions concern the actual nature of how things work as speculative possibilities propped up by theory or praxis. No such certainty obtains for any of them though restraint suggests strong criteria for some. The ontologies need agents. All pneuminous structures need agents. As established there is no way of committing with certainty to the control that the NAARP has in all of this. Is it more than an accretion-assimilation or identical to one or less? Answers are forthcoming but they are inevitably from agents of ontologies? The same problem: are they agents of ontologies or do the ontologies serve the NAARP? Who is working for who? It can be literally both. As an employee I might be actually working as an agent for tables, chairs other furniture. I haven’t invented them. As an author I might be working for novels or some other medium. But as an author I am also working for the NAARP (if I seek recognition). If I am a poet and I do not seek recognition I am just working for poetry. Financial concerns seem to often entail a desire for recognition. Certainly in a capitalist environment a sense of legitimacy about being a certain kind of NAARP is aided by being financially successful at that endeavour. This does not say one should strive to be a pure agent of a discipline. There is no value judgement, only description. A highly successful agent of philosophy transcends the existing categories and accretes as a new one -Heideggerian. As my named NAARP I may be able to set the pneuma to work for me. This does not say who is actually in charge but it presents a notion of the appearance of both. I may be swept purely along or I may be the site of a new structure. Our language for being such a site, is to credit the creation to that NAARP. Again though the ultimate attribution cannot be made.

Philosophy can a be tedious business. Repetition of the same matter is often the plat de jour. These recent notes do not alter this pattern. The situation we have here is an interesting one insofar as we have two philosophies that seem to have some potential to overlap. Is it an overlapping or a synthesis (or a struggle)? The repetition is the grinding over the same territory in search of the point of clarity.

The two philosophies in question are the pneuminous accretive theory and the assimilative-neurotic theory. Both notions instantiate autonomy to concepts.  The former by means of the way in which a concept accretes information (pneuma) and (under the strong magickal version) persists in existing as outside of the entities that create and are inhabited by them. The autonomy is pointed to by the phenomenology of synchronicity which suggests rogue pneuminous interference. Assimilation is not derived from occult phenomenology but more by the observation of a endless proliferation of concepts that synthesise with ourselves and with others. The pneuminous theory’s plug in of concept to vector is achieved (in assimilation) by the notion of tautology. This is also the case in accretive theory, the vector is the concept (though it can be taken over by others).  Object (vector) and concept achieve a kind of identity (tautology).

Assimilation is less ontologically restricted insofar as accretive theory is more descriptive of an actual ontology. This though is only true if one chooses a specific aspect (strong (magick obtains) or weak (magick does not obtain)) accretive theory. Any decision one way or the other results in a partial manifestation disclosure (and ontological decision). However remaining agnostic we still note reasonably that accretion takes place. This kind of accretion though must bracket off any ontological commitment. It can only note that information sticks together and note the hugely complex historical nature of these accretions that occur in NAA(assimilation-accretion)RP field. Assimilation likewise can only note the conceptual region’s ability to be plugged into (a bar, a board game, flatpack furniture, a piece of art). Every ontological description is just a further assimilation.

What we must note here is that assimilation can slide into ontological decision when we push a certain agenda too far. The agenda suggested here is that of pneuminous determination i.e. of the concept’s ability to control the NAARP (or not). It is easy to comprehend the NAARP as being purely controlled by the accretion-assimilations (since they are rendered autonomous). The version of this theory that commonly appears in here is that the self is one specific type of  AA (the neurotic accretion-assimilation or NAA) amongst various AAs. In the normal situation the NAA has the appearance of control whereas mental health issues can variously be described as the NAA being controlled by the AAs.

But how much control does the NAA have? Johns’ work sometimes suggests very little. It is this suggestion that can tip assimilation out of its meta potential into a conceptual determinism. The underlying manifestation concerns the nature of the NAA. Every which way you choose you enter an ontological decision.

Is the NAA’s control:

  1. Illusory entirely?
  2. Partially illusory?
  3. Actual?

Every choice entails a different ontological picture. E.g. if 1 then we can say the NAA may not be essentially different from any other AA -it has no more or less control than a table AA. 2 and 3 are compatible with the picture suggested above. The potential actual control of 3 does entail this is how things are only that an NAA could be in actual control. 2 suggests this never possible. Already a fourth possibility appears: that an NAA can be in more or less control at different times.

NPC type theories like this kind of notion by trying to insinuate that most NAARPs are controlled by concepts whilst allocating a sense of control to a specific group (the ones labelling the others). Such groups of course should be aware that factions within the enemy agent group will be thinking similarly about them.

 

When Lovecraft wrote “To achieve the essence of real externality, whether of time or space or dimension, one must forget that such things as organic life, good and evil, love and hate, and all such local attributes of a negligible and temporary race called mankind, have any existence at all…but when we cross the line to the boundless and hideous unknown – the shadow-haunted Outside– we must remember to leave our humanity and terrestrialism at the threshold” a choice is made. This is not to say it is a bad choice but it has shades of irony to it. A clear facet of a magickal universe is that NARP fields affect the putative externality as mediated through the pneuma. A dark materialism that renders human emotion, concepts and spatio-temporal interpretation as irrelevant curiously eradicates this kind of magickal possibility. Yet of course in such a universe the nature of sorcery is often espoused as true under the auspice of a naturalized-supernaturalism. That is, it implies from other dimensional perspectives these attributes are nothing. Yet if magick obtains (in a sorcery accepting world) then the conceptual and emotion must register as real in the outside (the pneuma can affect the umbra) -that’s how it works.

The choice [of Lovecraft’s] is one of allying the outside with a kind of multidimensional-realism that is entirely indifferent to the affective and cognitive faculties of a kind of NARP (humans). He seems to be committed to a kind of reality in which we are purely material beings with our feelings and thoughts being contained purely within. This means sorcery in such a universe is dislocated from will and rather must be a form of a more realist magick in which symbols, vibrations etc. have intrinsic power. It is through these means that sorcerous interventions are made and not through conceptual readjustments (pneuminous interference). This in turn means that all sorcerous interventions must be made by supplications to entities capable of manipulating human reality or through particular symbols, sounds known to bring specific about effects, as this cannot be achieved by humans themselves.

This agnostic disjunction’s alternative choice is that human affections and concepts do potentially exert some power in the outside. This is the pneuminous chaos-magickally compatible theory commonly discussed herein. When we talk about the outside as the vast cosmic abyss it is interesting to note this kind of double motion. Cosmic horror of the above kind seems to eschew this possibility. But of course it must eschew this possibility in order to preserve the radical sense of impotence in the face of the titanic powers that be it desires. Human magick is replaced by inter-dimensional sorcery (scientifically reproducible). This resistance to human level magick is also a feature of the kind of transcendental realism that the cosmic horror is often metaphorical for. In this materialism also, the affectivity and conceptuality cannot affect the outside.

It is a bizarre consequence of the disjunctional arm: ‘magick obtains’ (in the pneuminous chaos magickal manner) that this makes the universe in some sense less alien -the playing field is more equal. This is not a naïve lack of alterity; the possibility that titanic accretive horrors lie in the unfathomable is still entirely possible. The pneuminous theory though would entail a version of sorcery that seems less restrictive [to the NARP]. That such beings (from the outside) could be restrained by human constructs -because they do have power in the outside- and that interventions can also be made at a more ordinary level of conceptuality without the intervention of entities from the abysmal outside.