Lovecraft has become a little bit cultural-theoretically trite. One cannot move without jostling up against the old ones in certain theory worlds. Yet of course the power of these beings either as allegory/hyperstition/actual alien/paranormal reality is what sustains them.

Here though we’re interested in just these two primarily because of the suffix ‘thoth’ that ends them both. This suffix identity connects both these beings necessarily to the Egyptian Thoth, god of wisdom and writing. This offers us ways of accreting these entities that may be fruitful for our own purposes. Elsewhere the spirit Azazel has been attached to the alphabet by means of the break down AZ (A-Z) EL, lord of the A-Z. The second AZ is sometimes seen as an intimation of a second dark alphabet of which Azazel also presides. Azathoth can easily be subsumed by a similar accretive pattern. Az-Thoth: the being is clearly deeply connected to the ontological ground of communication itself. This nuclear chaos of all things reminds of the second sphere in in the pnumogram: ‘khaos’.

The notion of the ‘blind idiot god’ is reminiscent of nothing other than the primal idiot or ‘fool’ of the tarot (Advent, or Aloof) in the pneuminous system. This idiocy is often considered the highest wisdom, or at least the gateway to it (the path from the Khaos upwards to the uppermost is Advent). As belonging to the essence of division (the Platonic dyad of the Tubingen school), Azathoth is the possibility of communication and hence is god of the letters that have not yet occured. Az-a-thoth, the second a reveals the negation of Thoth i.e. Alphabet not Thoth. Yet in Thoth’s being mentioned he is necessarily present in some way (he has not yet arrived). Azathoth is the god of the second az of Az[az]el, which hides and is prior.

Yogsothoth is better disclosed as Iok-Sotot. Why? Because the I rather than the Y reveals the pair of gods as AI. We are told Iok-Sotot is the gateway. Iok-sotot is pneuma itself (pure information). Iok reminds us of joke. Peter Carroll’s chaos god and its laughter is reminiscent. Joke is an accretive resonance that shows the connection between the entities. Language as the cosmic joke, communication as a the great joke of existence talking to itself by Iok-sotot and Azaothoth’s cosmic symbiosis.

Azathoth is umbratic restraint (the nucleus). As the gateway, Iok-sotot facilitates the possibility of connection between umbra and pneuma (because pneuma can effect the umbra) in a manner not unlike the Landian description of the AI god from the future. The AI god from the future is the unity of Azathoth-Iok-sotot (the singularity), which hides behind our blithely used phrase ‘Artificial Intelligence’.

If the secular society is looking too frightening maybe there is a way out of this. You might think, hang on there Schlep it’s not looking frightening it’s looking positive, atheism is absolutely the way forward. This possibly ought to be the case, except of course that phenomena keep happening that prop up otherworldly interpretations of existence. Denying these from materialist angles has no force against a mindset that already believes powers exist that make these phenomena possible.

Atheism ends in a terrible empty nihilism that frankly we’re ill equipped to deal with as an organism. We might feel it’s ok, but the yawning chasm of the lack of telos will bite eventually. Chaos magick doesn’t solve this in its current form insofar as it simply advocates individuals take charge of their local regions by magickal manipulation through whatever means they find will best function. This level of existential-magickal play is all very well but has ultimately no greater psychological salve than materialism.

However there is a way out of this malaise. Heidegger supplies the clue with his famous ominous phrase ‘Nur noch ein Gott kann uns retten’ or ‘Only a God can save us now’. Thankfully owing to positive manifestation of chaos magick we could in fact forge this very entity-accretion through mass pneuminous agreement.  This massive pneuminous reflection of our Narp-selves could be charged to create a new incredible teleology which then would in fact be real. We would have auto-posed our own destining and could forge this new entity appropriate to the world we find it. We could even inscribe a sacred ritual that would undo this entity and lock it away for a time when it has stagnated so the destruction of it is much easier and Narps would know when it was over. This would of course invite unscrupulous enemies of the new world religion to try to obtain the sacred scrolls that destroyed this new deity.

But at least it would be interesting

The question perpetually arises as to whether or not manifestationism in some way establishes itself as a force that somehow transcends its role as meta-philosophy and paradoxically backs one of the manifestations.

This seeming ridiculous hubris of a notion is what must be strived for to forge -as all philosophers strive for- the most perfect all encompassing machine possible.

Manifestationism is, we will recall the notion that every philosophy/theory is a competing manifestation of how things might be. Manifestation has a sceptical aspect to it insofar as it denies we can know for certainty any of the manifestations are definitively correct -even if one of them was. Of course some of the competing manfestations are themselves theories that speak of certain knowledge whereas others are more sceptical. This seems to show that there is some bias in manifestationism i.e. in espousing a pluralism that cannot settle on a definite system the sceptical element is in-built.

However manifestationism does not deny that one of the manifestations might be correct, it is simply that we in our limited Kantian way cannot tell which one it is. Saying that kind of thing makes out that this is just a Kantian philosophy. Well in one sense this is hard to deny and in another it’s very easy: transcendental idealism is a manifestation and hence not ascertainable as the definitive answer. So it’s reminiscent of Kant but it’s not Kant. Manifestationism is saying that each manifestation-field  (Narp, subject, take your pick) is not sufficiently equipped to be able know with certainty which manifestation is correct. It seems reasonable that all manifestation-fields should adhere to those manifestations which are most functional, however this is clearly not the case as many manifestation-fields are occupied by manifestations taken to be deeply untrue by other manifestations i.e. flat-earthers, UFO enthusiasts etc exist, and utilise their sceptical right to deny manifestations that consider them as nonsense. We like to rationalise these perspectives away with confirmation bias etc. but this only shows that we have already bought into a series of manifestations that accept confirmation bias as an explanatory notion in this respect.

So manifestationism is saying that there is an epistemological barrier with regards to understanding which manifestationism is most true. Experience at the level of the individual manifestation-field might determine unshakeable faith to a manifestation rejected by the larger field-sets.

Manifestationism also must take the same meta-scepticism about the ontology of the being that is where the manifestation processing takes place itself, hence the term manifestation-field as a notion trying to distance itself from any particular ontological bias -which is even present in Narp.

The interesting issue arises when we consider the manifestation of pure information. This ontology (pneuminosity)  says everything is information -that is, insofar as there are discreta they have relations between them which may be constituted as information. Every manifestation is a priori information. The question the other manifestations must answer to free themselves is ‘how are they not information?’. This denial seems impossible. Is then a manifestationist philosophy also a philosophy of pure information? Information in a sense seems to be an a priori that transcends the manifestationist’s scepticism. Even the speculation that all is really a non-informational continuum is contradicted by the possibility of the speculation itself. The meaning of such an ontology is one in which the continuum is pure energetic motion in which there are no discreta as such so the informational relation as description loses its force. Information as ontology gains its force from beings which conceptualise.

This means that the following manifestations are laid bare:

I) The manifestationist field encompasses a realm that is unaffected by the manifestation-field.  That is, whether there is or is not a manifestation field, this realm remains identical.


II) The manifestationist field actually affects the putative externality that the manifestations arise to comprehend -the content of the manifestation-field. In this case the information generated in the manifestation-field means that the realm with no manifestation field and the realm with one are not identical.

Something like these manifestations constitutes the primary philosophical disclosure, the primary agnostic disjunction. Alongside monism and pluralism, probably this is the fundamental basis of trying to create any ontology. But we digress.

It is not possible to escape manifestationism without privileging one manifestation, which you would have to know to be certain in order to deny the living pluralism. No ontology is compatible with manifestationism except a pure informational ontology where this pure informational level is not an idealism but rather only idealism/realism/monism/pluralism as information, it is something prior to any of these. As soon as the information is decided as an ontology it lapses into a manifestation.

There’s something fascinating here that needs more work. This will have to wait for another day.




Manifestationism is shown by agnostic disjunction. The clear case of which is the pneuminous interference case (the inability to know the nature of the paranormal event). This immediately can be seen to have implications for our interpretation of all manner of phenomena. Agnostic disjunction is an immanent process that discloses manifestationism as the nature of our background pneuminous hermeneutic. We live in a flicker of solidity and fluidity. What is presented to us as what is the case is only the case on the back of prior understanding. What is reported as true by particular Narps or large accretive entities (media) has easy criteria for its doubt/acceptance -people/organizations lie for their own ends. These criteria are variously accepted or rejected by the individual Narp.

Recent neo/speculative materialist trends do nothing to help the matter. They busy themselves with overturning a perceived problem with the restrictions of correlationist thought. All this achieves is highlighting the manifestation of realism as opposed to the very humble Kantian approach. It’s easy to see why. The staggering progress of science makes the Kantian limitation look ridiculous to some extent. The problem is no matter how ridiculous it might seem the Kantian stranglehold will not give way. It is always possible to perceive any anti-correlationist argument with skepticism. No matter how preposterous it might seem, the thing that we are could be ordering the structure of things in a seriously extreme manner. Equally of course the neo-materialism could be correct.

This dual possibility of correctness is again an agnostic disjunction and as mentioned, agnostic disjunction discloses manifestationism. Manifestationism is not another correlationism other than in a kind of epistemological sense. Manifestationism as tied to agnostic disjunction does say that you cannot know which philosophy is correct. This is somewhat in line with Laruelle’s notion of philosophical decision as endlessly self perpetuating. A possibility here though is that a philosophy is not a contingent activity, it is a necessary one of any being possessed of a certain degree of self-reflexivity. Such a being will always generate some kind of ontology even if it is not spelled out as an ontology. What is also true of what manifestationism says is that there may in fact be correct interpretations, these are not an impossibility. What is impossible is for us to be certain about them.

The question then is how to escape the circularity of asking what the site of the manifestations is. Any answer seems tied to being another manifestation. The answer seems though that it must be the same. The self-comprehension of the site is itself a flickering series of manifestations: a soul, a psychological self, a nothingness, a site of competing conceptual beings (tick). This must also be the case because any self-comprehension description must also be agnostic-disjunctive ontologically riddled supposition.

The next question is what determines which manifestations are dominant? The aforementioned power of science on various fronts serves to drive criteria that weaken the Kantian grip (but does not break it). This is a more interesting question insofar as the answer is less obvious.  Obviously it would once more invoke the circularity if there were an actual answer. The answer is once again that the determining factors of the dominating manifestations is agnostic-disjunctive multiple.

Here though it is worth noting that it is outside of manifestationism to say that all of the manifestations are information (pneuma) where information is a minimal relation between two putative discreta. Any decision on the nature of information is manifestation but there is the possibility of the bracketed acceptance a priori that it all must be information within the site of manifestations (bracketing off flat ontologies that obviate any such relations) -the tentative Narp.

This means the question as to what manifestation is dominant is entirely convertible into what information is dominant in a given site. This means everything in the manifestation site is information in the form of concepts: these are accretions of information (still no transgression of manifestationism has take place here) or pneuma as we call it generally.

This allows us the very general proposition which includes all senses of a self:

The site of manifestations is a region of conceptual interactions of multiple kinds.

Tentatively the multiple kinds could be the recently re-accreted 5 part description of the site:

+Telluric:       Anality

/Zephyric:      Neophobic/phillic

-Suphuric:      Awareness relation (interna/external)

*Hydric:          Affectivity control

=Pneumic:     Alterity Relation

Further exploration clearly needed.

This is a note upon work to come. Whilst the numogram demonstrates fascinating hyperstitional interactions, the decimal labyrinth has greater decoding potential as yet up-tapped (accreted). The primary liberation comes from the accretion of old elements to mathematical operators. At first glance this quaternity maps neatly onto the standard Jungian schema. However following discordian reasoning the recently reaccreted big five (Neurotic Accretion Constitution: 1) Alterity Relation. 2) Anality 3) Affectivity Control 4) Neo-philia/phobia 5) Awareness direction.) can be equally mapped onto mathematical operators so long as equivalence is included as a fifth element (pneuma). This complexifies the situation considerably by meaning it is no longer obvious we should simply cross add. 10=1 is only true under the Tellurian power. Aquarian power renders 10 as 0 (1*0=).

More to follow

Firstly here marks the first attempt to re-appropriate/accrete the term pneumatology which I originally read in Nietzsche (Human all too Human). Hitherto when writing about the philosophy of pneuma I have tended to call it pneuminosity and for some reason shied away from the term pneumatology. That though is really the fitting term. A lot of certainly what I write is the study of pneuma.

What do I mean by pneuma though? Historically translated as ‘breath’ ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’, pneuma here is not unrelated to these senses. However rather than this religio-vitalist flavour, pneuma in CEO writing has a different twist. Pneuma here is the term for information. But why do we need another term for information? The coining of it comes from various angles. The seduction of the word and the desire to use it (which would now be understood as the concept creature itself having attached to my own neurotic accretion) play a role but this is just the start. The extra work the term pneuma performs is that of trying to talk about information as if it were in some sense a substance. Everything a Narp can sense is in some sense information. Information informs the Narp or is predecided by the Narp. But rather than just being a relation, information as pneuma is said to be ‘stuff’. Why though? Why would you want to make such a nonsensical usage of it?

The answer turns entirely on the roots of the whole philosophy (at least the end of it that I write, the other philosophy at the CEO (Neurosis Asssimilation) is intimately related but does not come from the same place) which lies in magick and synchronicity (reaccreted to pneuminous interference). The argument goes (briefly) like this:

In synchronicity (like 23/47 style enigmas) the subject experiences a rupture which raises a question about the nature of reality before them.

There are three options broadly speaking: 1) Statistical probability (the event was nothing special, just an unusual possibility that happened to occur) 2) Predetermined harmony -things were set up in some wise for the events to coincide in this way or 3) Reality in some ineffable way shifted towards/in relation to the subject. This phenomenology of synchronicity raises this as one of the fundamental agnostic disjunctions that determine what ontology we work for. Adherents of 1 commonly believe that this version is ‘true’ because it explains the phenomenon. What this misses is that the synchronicitous phenomenon raises the question about the nature of reality right at a super-certainty level whereas the probability explanation presupposes the material level of the world to tell you the phenomena occurred within that remit (it’s a question begging argument). The synchronicitous phenomenon is evidence that reality has suddenly behaved in a very peculiar manner, it’s just ambiguous evidence and since the solid world probability explanation is what holds most of the time its very easy to believe this must be somehow more true. One cannot though tell someone that there experience was definitely accountable in terms of the probability argument without absolute certainty that the reality bending did not take place -because that’s what you have to answer, and supplying and alternative materialist explanation doesn’t do that. Hence the term ‘agnostic’ disjunction. We have an ‘or’ proposition that we cannot actually decide the answer on.

Of the three options then number 1 has been extensively explored by other thinkers/scientists, we’re not ignoring it or even denying  it, it is the ground of the most successful manifestations that exist. Option 2 is interesting but is not treated with much interest here just because it doesn’t seem to reflect the phenomenological sentiment of the experience -though it certainly needs more thinking about. Option 3 though is the nub of the matter. The mind boggling sensation of reality restructuring itself is right at the essence of the description of magick as experienced.

Accepting that the enquiry is not a blind denial of the other manifestations but simply an investigation into ‘option 3’ we ask in a Kantian style of enquiry: what is the condition of possibility that this can happen? And the answer we believe is that either reality is purely informational and can under some circumstances alter itself or that there are in fact two levels: an informational level and a level of resistance and that the informational level under certain circumstances can alter the resistance level. Here we have of course another agnostic disjunction. The focus is on information because the phenomenon is almost defined by a incursion by some symbol that has a kind of prior meaning to the subject appearing in a manner that looks uncanny to the point it seems it must be for me. Rather than the materiality being in charge of information, the information is in charge of the materiality. This sudden active power ascribed to information is its transformation into pneuma. The reason the description herein focuses on the seemingly more implausible split level pneuma and resistance model is again phenomenological. That is, precisely because there is a resistance in what we call the physical world that is not there in pure pneuma (in imagination there is no limit as to what can be transformed into what). This resistance we call the umbra. As written about elsewhere, the umbra arises all the time quite naturally as a paradoxical pneuminous form of the beyond-pneuma. That is, as soon as you try to push an ontology of pure pneuma (a pure magickal idealism) the notion still arises within it that, no matter how incoherent there is a remainder outside of the pneuma. This remaineder is the manifestation of the umbra.

The chaos magick bit? If everything is displayed as a landscape of information hovering over a heuristic shadowy resistance which can sometimes be bent/altered by the information  then this bending of course is magick. Synchronicity (pneuminous interference) is just uncontrolled happenings of this kind. What the philosophy does is take the chaos magickal notion that entities can be created (egregores) by practitioners and applies it to the world of ‘normality’. So created spirits are accretions of pneuma, ones that are made for certain purposes. But why would we have one ontology over there for magick and another in ‘normal’ reality? Tea cups, phones, companies, countries, people therefore are also accretions of pneuma. They don’t function in any obstensibly magickal manner because they are not created with this intentional structure. The term accretion is an accretion of pneuma. It flattens the ontology between magick and non-magick (as Crowley astutely already spotted). Words can have power because they are largely the pivot around which the accretion is woven hence they are threads that can give access to (indeed are part of) a given accretion.

Of course you can’t give a precise metaphysics about how this works, that would be for a more advanced science. But what you can say is if you take option 3 as obtaining it is on these occasions the information and not the material that has the power. This is all we need for some form of pneuma (a concept which no doubt will bear repeated refining) to go through.