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.

There was the possibility that Parasol would end with the Reich issue. However an exciting document was recently received by the CEO that prompted the beginning of a whole issue on the intersecting realm of magick and philosophy.

Through the underground tentacles and popularity of the topic the issue is nearly already full, but if you have a fascinating submission it may yet be accepted -if it’s that good we’ll make room.

Write to

Usual numerology enacts an information reduction that is non-retrievable after the operation is performed (if one lost the original number one could not derive it from the reduced number).

One way to conceive of large numbers as reduced to single numbers is to conceive of them on a series of axes. Usually, at least in telluric numerology we take a larger number like 47 nd reduce it to 2 (via 11), the same process happens in the others. The other associative one (mercurial or *) is also straightforward i.e. 47 becomes 28 becomes 16 becomes 6. A nagging sensation is sometimes felt in number reduction, the sensation that we wish the trace of the bigger number was still somehow present. In their brutal form, numerological reductions eradicate more complicated structures to reveal the underlying pattern, that’s what they’re supposed to do.

The idea here is not a perfect solution to informational loss, it is more just a turning round of the problem that gives an intriguing sense of quasi-visualization. It does also however give some grounds for saying that under some circumstances ~(2=2) or indeed any number, including 0.

The idea is that for any numerological reduction (which necessarily involves an integer greater than 9) we can represent it as a spatialized schema.  The below represents the reduction of all  2 digit integers in base 10. The highlighted figure shows the exact location of 47. 47 is not just 2, it is that 2 that occupies that position. tellrumul

Of course any coordinate transcription is in some sense equivalent to writing 47 and hence slightly tautologous, however 47 by itself does not give the spatialized position of its reduction. Naturally increasing the number size just adds more axes leading us into higher and higher dimensional coordinate systems to demonstrate the location of the single digit e.g. 231147 uses 6 dimensions to point to the 9 that it becomes.

This can be done with the other elemental numerologies too (though aetheric / is still being processed). The below is the 2 dimensional table for mercurial operations (*)watermult

Again the 10s are on the y axis and the 1s on the x, 100s would be on z and so on.

This only invites ways of thinking upon the matter. The key one being the non-identity of identical numbers which seems to have some allure that may be worth dwelling on further. The other thing that strikes me is the status of the numbers in the grid. They are not really 1s as one might assume for they only exist by virtue of the axes that identify them. They are necessarily numbers but of no definite kind. The real 1s are an axis that identifies the number in the grid by virtue of the elemental operator. There are 1s that are identical but single digit numbers derived from larger strings in numerological reductions are not strictly single integers.

One might object that this does not help visualization of names as numbers like Azathoth (1 22 1 18 7 14 18 7) as these are not enormous numbers but small numbers strung together. I think given the realm we’re in here already one could do two things to continue employ the visualization. One could either treat the numbers as one long number i.e.  12218714187 or alter the representation of the axes from 1s 10s 100s to simply multiple axes. It is still usable in this regard.

There is no proposed use for this idea as yet but we believe it may have certain hyperstitional possibilities inchoate in it. Ideas are welcome.

If Einstein were definitively correct then we should understand that it is more appropriate to say spacetime than space and time. As Buckminster Fuller noted, NAARPs find this very difficult. Our old grammatical inclinations take hold of us so forcefully that we struggle to free ourselves from them. In the case of space and time possibly we should not be so harsh on ourselves. We should remember that the primordial word is always the use word, technical definition comes later.

Time evolves out of multiple instances of phrases like ‘what time is it?’ ‘do you have the time?’ ‘have we enough time?’ all of which hover around a related vector region. The Greeks of course differentiated Chronos from Kairos, sequential time from lived time, Bergson’s time and duration do something similar. The possibility of measuring both space and time in a functional way encourages the grammar of speaking and thinking about them in quantities. This much is not new. However accepting strong accretive theory suggests a feedback that would in unknown ways allow for potentially peculiar temporal rupturing.

The notion of time as its own kind of state, no matter how incoherent will form an accretion. The thinking of time as a spatialesque process creates this accretion. Time is a concept applied to a vector. The vector is the endlessly changing vector field -which includes our mind (if everything froze but we continued to think, we would be aware that at least for us, time was still going, or we would be comfortable in saying so at least).

This endless flux gives us the grammar of time as if it were a force that moved things on. The incoherent accretion of time with all its gods and physics plugs into the flux vector. If magick obtains (strong accretive theory) then this accretion will in some minor sense make the time vector more like the accretion.

This is the doubling process often referred to in here in which the original use impression of the vector transforms into something of a more concrete nature -the accretion. In the case of time we have the changing nature of everything as the vector which enables the grammar of time. Time is not a thing, it is born out of this use description. The solidification of the concept around the more quantitative meaning renders the concept more in this wise. Time as a thing is an accretion of the various uses of it. Accretions are the means by which we alter things with magick. The ordinary function of the accretions is that they fit the vector that they are used for -the meaning of grammar.

Magick as we have said is the application of an accretion to a vector that would not usually grammatically receive  it. The time accretion we take to fit the vector flux but when we utilise the time accretion more in the direction of measurement we enact this kind of magick upon the flux. As with all magick the effect is subtle and scarcely repeatable.

This is the irony of the time accretion. The rupture is not enabling the strangeness of the flux, the rupture is in the attempt to repress the potential strangeness of the flux.

Here we hit again the problem of umbratic magick vs pneuminous magick or ruptures that belong to the restraint (are in its nature) and ruptures that may be brought about by conceptual levels of intense pneuminosity.

Synchronicity looks like ruptures that happen at the pneuminous level -because they appear intentional. However one must consider the possibility that the pneuminous accretion of time in its increasingly measured nature is actually repressive to a potential stranger temporality which it -albeit slightly- controls.

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.

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.


Reiteration is a common theme in philosophy. To this end I feel compelled to reiterate one of the central theses involved here. This is the notion of the concept being able to alter the thing it conceptualises. This has been referred to sometimes as the ‘pneuma affecting the umbra’ though more recent theoretical developments complicate this picture (the vector field).

The result has been a more a three layered idea. In this notion there is the concept (the pneuminous accretion) that is applied to the vector field. The vector field is the closest to blank pneuma that we can get, it is still perceived/felt/smelled/heard/experienced, only no conceptual determination of great clarity results from this. Only when a field of information is applied does the vector field disclosed into multiple accretions -think of a field of grasses and how as one learns to become an expert on different grasses the field slowly begins to look very different as it shows itself as a fascinating multiplicity rather than an incoherent blur. There is always some low level of conceptualisation (pneuminous accretion) going on in the vector field, even if it is just a struggling attempt (it looks like a kind of sand?) because in order to be at all, some level of hermeneutic is always present.

The umbra is what is beyond even the vector field. The umbra is the idea of the unperceived. In a sense it depends precisely on the magickal notion for its cogence. To reiterate again, this magickal cogence depends on the idea that the concept is capable of somehow altering the vector towards its nature. Ideal essences are extracted by NAARPs and then projected back onto vectors. The umbratic as a reality to some extent depends on the notion that the NAARP created accretions are affective -for if they were not then the umbratic with or without pneuma attached to it would be identical. The umbratic is the phantasy of the unperceived -the primary qualities. To reiterate (again) the suggestion is that the conceptual powers applied by the NAARPs can enact a small amount of strange alteration upon that which is grasped by them and that this hidden mode of being has an unspeakable nature that manifests to us only as the restraints we perceive e.g. solidity, continuity etc.

The vector field is essentially pneuminous but the idea that it exists outside of accretive perception is the umbratic. The umbratic is an incoherent necessary idea that plagues us. Logical rational thought seems to defeat it, yet it always desires to return. I believe I know that others perceive things yet even conceiving of the notion of the area behind my back invokes the feeling of the umbratic even if I know someone else can see this space.

Conceptuality then is taken to be an action applied to a region of the vector field and an action that does something and not nothing. NAARPs refine concepts. The application of the concept to a vector is the gateway to the inner vector but only under the auspice of the accretion involved. This is the notion of the interface and the meaning of animism. If I would talk to a stone I must select it. Once I have selected the stone I must, even if I do not name it, acknowledge it as ‘this stone’. In this way the accretion is formed. This stone looks like this, I found it here. If I want to talk to the stones I must decide they can listen. If they can listen I must imbue them with this ability. This forms the accretion around the stone-vector of this ability. The name, the acknowledgement I give the stone forms the accretion that renders possible that the stone can communicate. In this theory the stone was not alive in any sense until we activated it with the accretive capacity. The stone vector does not usually take the accretions ‘alive’ ‘conscious’ but now we have applied them to it and through this application it may respond. The formed accretion makes the stone alive. The accretion is the interface to the vector which is imbued with the concept -which allows it access to the umbratic. Things actually are things but not in the naïve way in which we so often think them to be, and neither are they not them either.

“And where were you last night young lady?” Enquired my owlish father, peering over his poached eggs. I was not fooled by the calmness of the question, his eyes betrayed a simmering anger. “Last night?” I feigned surprise. “Yes Sophie, last night. The one in which you did not come home at all!” Outburst. “Well?” the calmness returned “I, I met someone” Apoplexy threatened “You did  what? A man?!” “Yes, no, sort of, I didn’t mean to.” The awful implications of my disappearance only now seemed to dawn upon me. “What man? Where is he? Did he touch you?” “No no, not at all, at least I don’t think so…” as these words came out I could see I had to be less vague “You don’t think so?!” “No, no father he didn’t!” “Then what were you, a 14 year old girl, doing with this man all night?” The horror of accounting for this dawned on me deeper and deeper, I began to tremble. “Nothing, he, said he knew a short cut home, across the downs back to here.” “Oh he did did he, and I suppose you stopped to pick flowers off the path too!” I looked at the breakfast table. “Sophie, have you any idea how dangerous that could have been?” I started to cry “Did he hurt you?” I sobbed onto the table cloth, “Did that bastard hurt you? Because if he did…” “He, he did’t h hurt me.” “Then what, you stopped to play tiddly winks? Sophie you were gone all night!” “No, we w walked ac cross the d downs, I didn’t know where we were.” “Then why did you go? What were you thinking?” “I d don’t know, I wasn’t scared, father it was… strange.” My father paused, something arrested the anger in him, some interest was piqued. I looked up from the table cloth. “I don’t know where I was.” I said through tears “And I don’t know how I appeared in bed this morning. He looked shocked. “Sophie, you haven’t been to bed! Between your mother and nanny and I someone has been waiting up for you all night!” “Father I don’t understand” Waves of distress overcame me, accounting for my actions had seemed like a problem, but now realising that I couldn’t  account for them. This was an anguish my mind could take. “Sophie…” calm but firm “Sophie, who was he?” “He, he said he was my uncle. He was like a frog.” the absurdity just came out “Your Uncle? But you know both your uncles. One lives in Newport and the other in London.” “He wasn’t either of those uncles father, he was a different uncle.” “What do you mean? What was his name?” “He said his name was Ambrose.” The word dropped like a stone into the room as if it were a pool. The ripples were visible. My father’s whole expression wavered, and trembled the recomposed slightly “Ambrose, you say?” “Yes…” I mirrored his waver “uncle Ambrose.” “Uncle Ambrose?” “Yes.” My father lost his composure and the colour drained out of him. Silence filled the room. “Father?” “Mm?” The replay came as if he returned from somewhere distant. “Do, do you know him?” “Who?” “Uncle Ambrose?” “Him, oh, yes, maybe. Sophie…” “Yes father.” “Sophie, maybe since you just came down from upstairs, maybe you you weren’t out all night, maybe you were there all along and we didn’t see you.” “But I remember him father, I remember being out in the hills in the dark, I remember the glowing stones in the twilight.” The fake composure tried to reassert itself “Sophie, Sophie, listen to yourself, glowing stones, dark hills, these are dreams not reality. No, you must have come back when we didn’t notice and you must have slept in a flat and inconspicuous way and we, we your worried guardians have been fools.” I was almost carried along with this narrative, if only because the ill formed images of the twilit path seemed more disturbing than this notion that I had been at home and dreamt it. The concealment however was too great for the vivid feeling that I had not dreamt it. “Who is uncle Ambrose?” He twitched slightly “I, I’m sure I should ask you the same, since it was your dream and not mine.” He tried to make this sound jovial, but his anxiety showed through “You said you something like you might know him father, what did you mean?” “That oh, I don’t know, I must have been thinking of someone else.” “Who?” “No one, nothing, nothing to do with this.” “Father your lying!” “Don’t! Don’t say that! Ambrose is a phantom, a fiend, a nothing!” The words erupted suddenly, his anxiety dissipated a fearful intensity gripped him and he stared at me with pointed eyes “A devil!” “But where do you…” “Sophie, I do not know if you dreamed him or saw him, it matters not a jot of difference. If you see him Sophie you must hide and run or both.” “But why? What do you mean? I am quite unharmed.” He calmed again as if accessed a place in which to talk of this was allowed “Things like Ambrose give clues, Sophie, the clue here is the name.” “I looked quizzically on.” “Think Sophie, think, his name is ‘uncle Ambrose’. U A are the initials. These stand for no less than ‘Utter’ ‘Abomination’. Do you see? This is what he is!” There was something persuasive in my fathers tone that rendered his decoding as quite sensible, even powerful. I began to feel frightened at this unmasking of his nature.



In this paper what we want to offer is quite possibly the most satisfying and infuriating answer to all the effectivity of complementary medicine you’re going to find. This holds true whether you are a skeptic or believer. The notion is grounded in a certain kind of philosophical position. I appreciate most of you –the readership- are not philosophers or chaos magicians. I hope you can bear with me in as simple elucidation as I can manage to render the overall point cogent. Initially the paper covers the idea of vector theory, before considering some of the problems that the effectivity of complementary medicine faces. The convincingness of some claims of CM is taken seriously but counterposed against its failure to show up in RCTs. The conclusion is that CM needs to retreat to basically a magical explanation but that rationalists should not treat this as a retreat into nonsense.

Read the rest of the draft essay here.

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.