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 This moment can be superceded (by NAARPs) only by epistemic certainty of the deity (which might entail strong supernaturalism) or (in a weaker form) by magickal entanglement with existence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.

 

 

 

 

 

In this informal chat Johns continues his thoughts on the threefold of experience (Heidegger) and the constant conflicts of concepts which create productive difference (Hegel’s dialectic). Johns suggests that the contemporary ‘subject’ is determined by societies power to employ it as yet another object of value within its system of arbitrary value. Johns explains that this operation functions on the false notion of reality as tautological (pragmatist) and the subject as tautological (the subject as tool).

In this informal chat Charles Johns, editor of The Neurotic Turn, tries to describe his two philosophical terms ‘neurosis’ and ‘assimilation’. He also tries to explain why he thinks these descriptions become necessarily disclosed and why they are necessarily prevalent in our current epoch (for example the exclusion of the definition of neurosis in the 1980’s within the D.S.M created a repressed symptom, or, the uprise of mass-conformism and iphone narcissism shows a larger more acceptable state of neurosis etc).

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.

 

1

The ontological emptiness of the assimilation becomes more apparent. Assimilation does not require to be anything other than an incoherent region that you (another assimilation) plug into. A bar, a supermarket, a psychological theory, a recipe. As an existing structure that you willingly allow yourself to be taken over by, it has no ontological nature in itself. Any ontology is an assimilation. Accretion is a possible counterpart to assimilation. Accretion just says that for any assimilation all the activity within that assimilation is retained. It lingers. Every interaction within the assimilation that every occurred sticks together under the title of the assimilation. This is the accretion. One could argue that accretion is not necessary for assimilation insofar as accretion insists on an ontology of informational (pneuminous) retention. This is certainly true. However, the possibility that the accretion forms is readily given by the a strong manifestation of a continual history of any assimilation. The resulting AD is nearly the usual one: does the the assimilation retain its information or does it not? Of course, the physical traces are not in dispute. It is the strong case of a pure pneuminous residue that is crucial. Is there are a sense of the pure conceptual retained in the assimilation? It is in a sense the same answer. No, the assimilation passes over its history, yet simultaneously upon any reflection its history reemerges. It is as usual, only the occult case that forces the strong sense of the accretion.

The question can be posed of the accretion as to whether or not it requires the concept assimilation. The answer is that it must as the accretion is in some sense just this endless stuck togetherness of pneuma. The kernel in a sense is the assimilation. This has some sense of being the use term. The basic rules for the usage of the word. Assimilation immediately accretes yet equally it stays partially aside from the accretion by being an almost pure act of doing that facilitates the pneuma’s accretion.

2

Agnostic disjunction for anomaly suggest an obtains/did not obtain choice. This itself is hardly decisive. Obtains means that the effect was greater than impressions that occurred only in the NARP’s RP. The accretion did something to the apparently stable vector. Does not obtain, means the externality responds in no way to accretions applied to it. Every perceived response is purely projected and in no way actual. The accretions stayed only within the RP. It’s just the difference between the anomaly was a hallucination or the anomaly actually occurred. Neither instance esp the first actually tells us what it means for it to be the case. That is, the agnostic disjunction only provides a gateway towards obscure possibilities (manifestations). Mutable worlds are a shimmering realm of possibilities ranging from multiverses to solipsistically mutable reality tunnels and on. There are very little criteria to pick between them -unless maybe if you’re physicist, but given the omnipresent possibility of doubt it may be that this is little help in ruling out possibilities.

Here is an interview I (Charlie Johns) did with The Moscow Museum of Modern Art about my latest editorial work The Neurotic Turn. I decided to be more historical and psychological than philosophical/metaphysical in this discussion. It charts a trajectory of neurosis from the 19th – 21st century through its relation to technology and the proliferation of stimuli found in the modern urban environment (what georg simmel had called the metropolis).

Read the article here

The accretive theory in its strong form (agnostic disjunction: magick-obtains side) would give us a notion of art in which a) there exists the incoherent art-accretion and b) that the vector that is interpreted as art is imbued literally with the pneuma that the creator (artist) pours into the vector. There is a sense in here that the spiritual sense that Hegel speaks of regarding the Greek experience of the sculpture as spiritual can be reconstituted by this theory. Not in an identical sense but in a sense that seems related. That is, if the pneuminous world can be thought of as plugging into a restraining umbratic (as mediated by the vector field) and if we concede (owing to the magickal interpretation here understood as the ability of the pneuma to affect the umbra -the application of a concept to a vector that would not ordinarily take it) then the pneuminous form shimmers with a literal life of its own. The sculpture of the God is absolutely the God, we perceive the accretion directly.

Art putatively devoid of this characteristic may seem representational, in a sense it is so (there is an assimilation-accretion of representation) however if the accretive theory is held to, then many forms of life can be easily viewed as living spirit (pneuma). The representational image is literally attached to that which it represents -like an inadvertent piece of sympathetic magick. From umbratic restraint, to vector, to pneuma, the connection (in this manifestation) is not illusory but absolutely necessary and potentially potent. We see the accretion directly, the image is the accretion which through fine threads of pneuma is tied back to some distant vector, imprinted in turn by the Narp who engendered it (the artist). Such a theory does of course entail not necessarily that there is a correct interpretation of the work but there is the artist’s interpretation and it does dwell on in the work as a force, a central element of the accretive structure.

What of art of the imagination? Art of the imagination is the pure pneuminous form dragged to umbratic restraint. Vectors assembled and imprinted with pneuminous power. The work as forged in the Narp’s pure pneuminous manipulations, once set down is the accretion bound. This binding is also it’s escape into a wider field. For whilst any accretion may float freely of a particular Narp, when they do they warp and shift as they go, never landing the same twice. Once the work is restrained, other Narps may see it and thus it accretes to their accretions and from their interpretations. In this way the accretion proliferates, exists in the different Narp-fields as that art work, with that name, free to manifest in idle thought, dream and beyond.

Yet of course this is true of everything. All simple things: tables, pens, tupperware pots and cups, are pneuminous forms imprinted upon suitable vectors. They too are alive with pneuma. The difference is precisely in the way the pneuma is seen. The mundanity of the thing is too an pneuminous structure. If we are told this was once a wizard’s pen, maybe we would look upon it differently, we might accrete this wizard to the pen and treat the item quite differently (if it were true the wizard’s imprint would be on the pen whether we liked it or not).

This specialness is true of art. Art is interpreted as art. A creation with an excess well beyond any financial or practical aspect. Art needs engaging with as art. I say ‘this is my art’ and you look at it thusly. Many forms of it are easily perceivable as such. The vectors take the art accretion. Yet since the last century it has been noticed that one may apply the art accretion to a vector that would not ordinarily take it (Duchamp, found objects etc). As if a spell was cast (which it was) the artist says ‘and now this is art’ and by this action the art accretion is attached to it, and thus it is art, for the accretion is literally now in it. But art is not magick as such. This is the difference. Magick intends to affect the vector/umbra. Art, using restraint, arranges the pneuma in such a way that whilst restrained, the restraint fades away, it emphasises the pureness of the pneuminous accretion.

And it seems from here it must possible -as has been noted- that we might take this escaped art accretion and attach as and when we will to whatever we wish. Taking Hegelian spiritual succour from all manner of arrangements of things on our travels. Such a final dissemination of the accretion represents in a sense a true end of art whereby the perception of anything with the correct aspect flip plugs into the art accretion and renders it as this pure image like spectacle, suddenly lifted from its actual home. Art becomes a category of perception.

Whilst it is possible that the work of the best artist in this sense is forced to compete with the creations of the world around us, what is still also true is that the artist themselves as a kind of Narp, will persist. Some Narps are vectors that we aptly apply the concept artist to and some Narps may try to summon the concept of artist to themselves by magick (though it suits them not).

What am I assimilating?
What is assimilating me?

What does this mean?

In the first person phenomenological conscious register that we accept, we can divide thinking into two directions: the first is a kind of Heideggerian notion: what is our thinking directed towards? Why do these thoughts have special purchase for me? The second direction is the awareness that consciousness flows through me hence I am in a sense in the middle of thinking; I am already affirming a train or mode of thought when I am thinking; if I am worried about my friend Emma I have to ask skeptically what the value of emma means, whether she is indeed an object for this thinking etc.

Note that these two directional ways of thinking do not deal directly with the problem of an external world or even a substantial self. This bracketing is hence phenomenological in character. The questioning is Wittgensteinian in style also because any metaphysical nominalism of a realm beyond the human or an external real world is simply characterised as whether such content can be mobilised within the sphere of assimilation (within a sphere of meaning and use). Assimilation is only ever charting the developments or unfoldings of meaning as use through tracking the processes that such meanings and uses disclose in first person consciousness.

To be assimilated by thoughts is somewhat the standard in philosophical discourse since Wittgenstein, Heidegger and others (conceptual shot-through-ness). However, to assimilate thought is less acceptable. In the act of thinking – similar to the appropriation of thinking – it is not so much the content of the thought itself (content qua content) but rather why or how such content of thought finds form, meaning and use through the ‘subjects’ ownership of that thought. This at first may sound simple; thought is made meaningful when a subject uses it to her/his advantage. Yet it is not always for our advantage (sometime it is to our detriment like the neurotic).

Also we cannot separate the subject from the thought itself; there is no cause to do this philosophically. Instead we have an immanence whereby all our thoughts already seem to be formed as ours whether we want or acknowledge such. We soon find that there is no character of thought that is not always already complicit in an act of becoming actual. When we say becoming actual we do not wholly mean in a Deleuzian sense. What we mean is more quasi-psychological; thought needs to involve itself in a mechanism (the subject) whereby it brings about a meaning and use at the same time as it exists. Thoughts have to be assimilated, accretions have to have information actively charged within themselves. This could be an argument for an absolute relativism; every thought necessarily must relate to another thought or the trajectory that it itself has hypostatised. There is a nice wink to Freestone here as this suggests that any thought about something outside of thought is itself carnated with an active use or potential to it (returning itself back to the dynamics of assimilation (or accretion)). Yet not all assimilations have to have direct contact with another. The sensuous experiences of the qualities black, red or rough only have to relate to each other by contiguity (or conjunctive synthesis) through the assemblage of my own mind; they do not actually relate anymore than I relate to Neptune.

This is where the theory of the narp comes in (neurotic accretion regional processor). The narp is always in the face of at least one disjunction; the belief in the assimilation (the belief that I am interacting with a world where the thoughts in my head have purchase in or towards a reality) OR the refusal of it. Either way, the assimilation will take what it can get hold of. Notice that believing in the assimilation does not necessarily mean believing in a solid-world or a reciprocal world, it only means that the subject believes in the process of meaning-as-use.

When we accept assimilations of thought and its effect upon objects and such we then rely less on the initial impetus of the assimilative thought and more on the nominated objects whos job it is to reflect such thoughts back to us (‘accretions’ in my terminology). ‘Objects’ become pointers for concepts, caricatures of concepts that almost always need developing, reworking/re-assimilating.

Can these pointers affect other pointers? In other words can quasi-autonomous signs (or objects) affect each other? The question has already in a sense been answered; if the idea (the assimilation) has been made whereby such could be the case then things will appear to function through that belief.

This philosophy leaves space for a myriad of phenomena even though it initially is split into the two dynamic poles I stated at the beginning of this text. What if a prior assimilation still feels worthy of meaning when an individual or society has deemed it redundant?

Touching an object (i.e interacting with assimilations and further assimilating) is like playing with fire. At the peripheries of the object the assimilation will transcend it. Meaning-as-use- now has no need for its ‘physical’ restraint and can signify to the subject in horrific ways (the neurotic). Don’t forget – the mind ‘itself’ is meant to be assimilated as an ‘object’ yet its assimilative qualities always far outstretch it!!!!!