Previously known as the S word, then II, PI is the latest showing of the concept of the pneuma breaking through apparent umbratic rigidity. One of the most common evidences for actual connection to ‘the outside’.

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.

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.

What do we mean by the claim of insignificance? Basically that in an unfeeling potentially infinite universe we have no position of meaning to anything other than ourselves. A lot of discourse in certain philosophical/cultural spheres turns on the obvious truth of this premise. I don’t want to say that this isn’t true, but I do want to point out that the notion isn’t quite as simple as it seems.

This notion of significance is metaphysical. Historically we could hold onto cosmic significance because God was actively looking out for us, or at least observing us. God cares about what we do and is all powerful. This means that despite the size of the existence, if the very thing that created it all has actual attention/rules for us then we must be in some sense important in the grand scheme.  It’s not hard to see where this heads. The Nietzschean death of God in one fell swoop shatters this significance leaving us to work out a self justifying scheme to prop up our psychic relation to existence. Of course the aforementioned DoG hasn’t happened to a lot of the population but where it has (largely the western world) it’s not hard to hear the cold harsh materialist message taken as gospel. A vast empty cosmos awaits out there. We have discovered we mean nothing, we are insignificant. A rare phenomena in the scheme of things, but without a creator the rarity is just statistical.

This all seems very reasonable. Science is very powerful at supplying good explanations that can be repeated and making good theories that sometimes have to wait a while to be tested (but that still offer decent accounts). It’s ability to do so creates an atmosphere of trust that it can uncover anything. As such the insignificance thesis proceeds as a backdrop to the general program and in some cases is worn as a kind of badge of honour. What we must not miss though in this story is that NAARPs that ascribe to the cosmic insignificance thesis are agents for that ontology. They literally work for ‘insignificance’ (an amazing display of Hegelianism alive in the system today). This is not unreasonable. It seems (from a current rational point of view) a likely scenario. It is however a choice and not the necessary truth. It looks like a good bet compared to the accretive monsters of the mass religions but in a sense this is all. One of the biggest problems for a dogmatic religion is of course (apart from any doctrines that look extremely unlikely) that there are other dogmatic religions. Any religion claiming sovereign truth is always going to look suspect in the face of others doing likewise for the simple reason that you can’t tell why one should be more true than the other. The often unpalatable anti-scientific content and the failure to agree amongst themselves makes religion an unlikely choice for the rationalist.

Magickal endeavours throw a spanner in these works -kind of. An acceptance that magick ‘works’ means that the NAARP somehow manages to affect the outside without physically touching it or speaking to another device/NAARP. Magick has two faces though, one (I) being a kind of scientific magick in which symbols, vibrations, numbers really do have a cosmic significance and as such can be reliably manipulated (under certain circumstances), whilst the other (II) being the chaos magickal one in which the symbols etc. are just vehicles for the intent of the practitioner. Both of these are compatible with metaphysical-insignificance but the latter especially does complicate what we must mean by it.

Only magick (I) can comfortably cooexist (ideologically) with religion. That is (I) often makes use of powers inherent in the religion that one is not supposed to deal with (spirits). In this way (I) is a kind of supplement to a certain religions. (II) is much more problematic for religion insofar as it entails the implication that the God of the religion itself is an egregore or accretion and the whole set up is a massive chaos magickal activity that has gained so much autonomy it now cannot afford its contingent truth to get out. One could ascribe chaos magick as the rational face of magick. Indeed acceptance of Chaos magick resolves the problem of religions insofar as it grants they are all simultaneously real and wrong at the same time. Their level of reality though does mean that within the religion magickal-type effects will occur (that act as reinforcers for believers). Neither are the believers deluded; the Jesus accretion or whatever really is responding to them, it’s just that the Jesus accretion isn’t really the one and only face of spiritual truth. Chaos magick is more rational than magick (I) but to many who would subscribe to insignificance it’s not really that rational (they will likely believe it to be psychologically explainable (AD -magick does not obtain).

All magickal phenomena are subject to agnostic disjunction and the manifestations that the NAARP is working for will decide which side of the disjunction they side with (magick obtains v does not obtain). The combination of insignificant cosmos and ‘magick does not obtain’ is not problematic. Indeed as intimated on a previous post on the Lovecraftian outside these sit reasonably along side. That is, since the sounds, symbols etc. intrinsically have a certain power it is merely the putting them in the right place and time that procures the result. We don’t have to dwell on the problems of the implementation and underlying science, we only have to note the theoretical possibility and how this separates the NAARP from bringing the effect about by force of will, that is whilst there is a will, the action is brought about in a similar way in which on  desires to make a table and thus goes about the procedure for making one. It is just a case of putting the pieces in the correct order, magick is just a cold spiritual science.

The position that is problematic is the accommodation of chaos magick and insignificance. It is not necessarily problematic but it does raise some complications. Chaos magick means that the medium is purely contingent. Any medium capable of carrying the request will do. This means the symbols, vibrations have no intrinsic power, these are just vectors to be imprinted by the desired result. The request is necessarily in a informational (pneumious) form hence to repeat myself for the nth time it must be possible for the pneuma to affect the umbra (for the information to overcome the seeming restraint of the outside). This means though, unless we want to say that existence has two distinct modes (magickal and non-magickal), then the potential for this kind of affect is always with us (Crowley’s ‘Every intentional act is a magickal act’). Existence is perpetually reacting to NAARP desiring relations. The pneuminous accretive notion kicks in here to explain unintentional magick like synchronicity (informational interference) as the pneuminous accretions are quite autonomous and not necessarily at the behest of any NAARP. Of course this doesn’t entail metaphysical significance in the same way. Magick obtaining does not entail metaphysical meaning any more than it does a God. It does however offer a couple of potential escape routes.

One is that a reactive existence in a chaos magickal type way does ironically raise the possibility that the outside/whole is just listening to the request and acquiescing -Magick becomes a way to talk to a very fluid Spinozistic God. This doesn’t say this is the case, but it does suggest that one then has as good a criteria that the whole listens and responds as one does to say the chaos magickal effect is just our ability to control an area of it by force of will. I think this gives a weak form of metaphysical significance. It is not humans as the chosen race of the Deity, but it does mean the wholeness of everything is in some sense aware of NAARP activities and listens to them, hence it is not cold and uncaring per se, it tries to respond. The level of intent behind the response of course could only be speculated upon but this still guarantees a connection with the outside. Pneuminous relations are returned to their meaning as ‘spirit’.

The second entails the strange notion that if we accept we are in and part of a series of potentially magickal accretions then we can enable a version of the ontological argument. That is, the very notion of accreting forms that entail universal significance in a bizarre way would actually does so. This wouldn’t be the metaphysical significance of the one and only deity but rather a second order metaphysical significance derived from an accretive deity-proxy for existence itself. A line of Hegelian thought can be uncovered here to suggest that the accretion of this significance, though through a contingent proxy, is actually the way in which the pneuma (through NAARP structures) accretes the only kind of strong metaphysical significance possible. Having said that though, it could be argued that (for the NAARP population we’re talking about here) that dialectical moment has been and gone and the moment.

Either we must accept the (i) continuation of informational relations outside of the Narp-field or (ii) we postulate that this umbratic notion might, outside of the Narp-field exist in a manner necessarily unintelligible to us (non-information).

Conscious experience is said to constantly presuppose a vast and complicated world that facilitates it -atomic, cellular etc. This is true under the auspice of the first option but possibly unintelligible under the second. The thesis that emerges under the second (which is the one amenable to pneuminous interference (magick)) is the teasing out of the intuition of the disappearing of that world in its outside of the Narp-field. But here it becomes clear there is nothing clear about the Narp-field.

This is the land where Meillasoux like thought wants to point out the sheer madness of our continuing with a Kantian agenda in the face of an inescapably continuing world. The issue is not of a inescapably continuing world though, rather it is of the ontological status of this continuing world when it escapes our various fields of detection (umbra).

The umbra before was said to dwell in the beyond perception, but now we have an extension that possibly gives greater cogence to it. The umbra is also in hidden in the small and the great. Wherever we can no longer differentiate such that we can categorise then the umbratic is there. The fact that atomic/microscopic inspection discloses the same reality over and over again does not entail that this is exhaustive of the nature of it when it is not being drawn into the Narp-field proper.

Again it must be noted that this is not what we say is the case, only what is the case under a strict following of the possibility that unperceived being is actually different from perceived being (agnostic disjunction). To add extra confusion to this though, once we have the conceptual perception e.g. that air is these various gases which have these atomic natures, the vector that takes the air concept then becomes infected with this strict conceptualisation. This may be an accurate characterisation of concept and vector or it may be a concept that is overly simplifying the vector and rendering it closer to this simplification in the process.

In this way discussions about informational (pneuminous) relations between simpler beings are only intelligible insofar as we attribute the common existence that we are capable of understanding (even its scientific extensions) to these simpler beings (rocks). Insofar as this comprehension is reasonable (it is not unreasonable, but not unassailable) at what point do these pneuminous relations become what we consider accretions proper?

No answer given here should be taken as perfect, for this is just a working through. The answer though must surely concern the point at which a region processes information in such way that it retains it for temporal functionality -it can repeat the communication. This fulfils the basic notion of ‘this means this’ and thus a simple accretion is created. From this simple basis it seems the regions acquire greater complexity. When a region can process in such way that it recognises a phenomenon as a certain phenomenon and can indicate this to another region there is a further development. The accretion can then be passed on, thus amplifying the size of the accretion (no two perspectives, as is fondly pointed out, are identical). Taking parts of the vector field to be a kind of phenomenon is the primal form of magick. The ability to recognise this and manipulate it further is the Narp technological development we call [chaos] magick.

I was recently asked the following question regarding the TV theory.

1) Can an accretion float outside of its transcendental vector?

The answer can on be couched in terms of manifestationism (agnostic disjunction). That is, there is a prior level of determination at the Narp level that decides which ontology is being worked for (as an agent). If the Narp is working (largely, as there is no such thing as a pure agent) for the  ‘magick obtains’ arm of the disjunction then certainly the accretion is taken to be able to float outside its vector in a very literal manner. Though it may have been forged by the Narp, it swiftly exits this region to the autonomous pneuminous realm. In regular experience this is the process of abstracting a concept from the experience of the vector (set of restraints) that gave rise to that grammar (concept). The floating free in the magickal sense is what enables the cogency of applying concepts to vectors that would not give rise to them e.g. applying ‘fish’ to a cardboard box. The implication being that in some manner which is thought to be potentised by ritual etc, the fish accretion is then literally attached to the cardboard box (where cardboard box is a vector with cogent concept attached to it). This might generate pneuminous interference patterns around this box relating to ichthyoid phenomena, or it might not (such interactions are very hard to gauge). Nevertheless the theory says that the incoherent fish accretion would in some sense be attached to that vector (the cardboard box).

On the other arm of the agnostic disjunction (magick does not obtain), the concept is housed within the Narp and is transmitted only through commincation. The vector theory can still hold epistemologically but no vectors either appropriately or inappropriately are ever affected by the accretion. The accretion ‘fish’ as applied to the box will do nothing more that generate confirmation bias or be subject to statistical possibility of ichthyoid event. Cardboard box is a use term that works for that vector but is no more imprinted into the vector that anything (because Narp concepts do not have the ability to exert this kind of force). Abstraction is of course still possible and accretive archetypal forms still arise (a common image of a fish). They float around in Narps, but not outside of them (conceptual pneuma needs a processing unit to contain its complexity).


2) Is the body (or in our language the concept of the body) a significant factor in the making actual of magick?

Magick almost disintegrates in our hands here and we are reminded how ill defined the term is. I tend to lump under this heading any phenomena that it is possible to conceive as having been the result of a pneuminous-accretive interaction at a distance from any particular Narp, as opposed to what we would call either a regular pneuminous effect (an instruction) a physical one. The synchronicities are always some of the best examples as they are clearly symbolic interactions with reality at an eventful level: the pneuma has somehow manipulated the putative physicality. Result of magickal operations have a similar structure and are basically consciously-manipulated synchronicity. Information (pneuma) has been instructed to imprint itself in what we call ‘reality’ and sometimes it (agnostic disjunction accepted) works. This can make an impression that the body-vector is not so significant. It seems we have something of a split arising that mirrors the concerns between information at a lower level than conceptual. Concepts are called accretions because they are composed of various pneuminous strands accreted together. The body as an entity with a good degree of autonomy to the conscious part can be conceived as having its own agenda. In a sense it is an excellent and direct example of the way in which pneuminous-accretions can alter their vector. Psycho-somatic effects are what is indicated here; free floating concept creatures (accretions) can positively (a Narp level value judgement) or negatively affect the running of the regional processor (body). Positive thinking is an attempt to imprint certain pneuminous accretions into the Narp-vector to alter its attitude to events, likewise calling yourself a failure is literally attaching the failure accretion to your Narp -this will likely increase the level of failure experienced. Thinking you’re feel ill makes you feel ill etc.

All conceptual comprehensions of the body are of course rendered in pneuminous-accretions. It seems if we want to attribute magickal power to the body we must in some sense separate it from the conscious part. Despite much talk about overcoming this opposition, in fact it is a highly functional heuristic that is often made more cogent by occult practice (think of OBEs). The vector that enables the concept mind does not have physicality as part of its restraints. In chaos magick the emphasis is often on utilising whatever works. To this extent, believing my body to be a kind of magickal energy generating machine (e.g. through Taoist practice) is not true of the vector region we call the body itself, it is rather an pneuminous attachment to the vector that then functions to enable magickal force (like imposing fish on box). The alternative to this (elsewhere in the blog relatedly discussed as Umbratic Magick) is that the body-vector really does have the ability to exert magickal effects. That is, it is an appropriate conceptual application to treat the vector thus. Much magick does treat it very much in this way, sexual practice is frequently used to: raise magickal force, shut down the mind for sigil activation etc.

It seems the body as a storehouse of force is a ‘significant factor’ in the ‘making actual’ of magick. This though it must be admitted can still be contingent association.  If ‘magick obtains’ it is conceivable that bodily emphasised means of realising it are just a way of enacting pneuminous-interference and not a way that can be privileged. To suggest that the body is in some sense privileged entity to be magickally drawn upon is to open up the second arm of the agnostic disjunction: magick accretions can be attached to any vectors with equal efficacy/magickal accretions are greater empowered by being attached to certain vectors (e.g. the body, though this might also hold true of certain symbols).

This is an incomplete answer, though it gets someway to opening up the field. The reemergence of the umbratic/pneuminous magick disjunction needs further exploring. Also brought up again is the need for a distinction in the way the simpler pneuminous interactions show themselves to be in contradistinction to the actions of the accretions -even if these are only heuristics.

Science is the means of trying to apply accurate concepts to the vector field. The concept should not be mistaken for the  vector field. However unlike the standard Korzybski map is not the territory, Narp epistemology must always accept the possibility that the map interacts with the territory literally. This is the ‘magick’ obtains arm of the agnostic disjunction: magick obtains/does not obtain. Under this option whilst it is totally accepted that the general behaviour of existence is that the map and territory should not be confused, what also must be taken into account is the way in which once a kind of being (like a Narp) comes into existence and starts making complicated systems to understand the vector field, the concepts and the names it uses for the vector field regions actually start to affect the vector fields themselves.

Natural objects and Narp made objects operate in slightly different ways in relation to vectors though both fit the vector model. Science (in a broad sweep) is the closest description we can forge of the restraints of the vector field and ways in which it shows itself as categorisable. Technology (Narp made objects) is objects made out the existing vector field that may already be conceptually attached at a science level that facilitates the doing of something. The likelihood that a vector field region is not already conceptually attached is slim but possible e.g. if somehow we don’t have a generalised ‘stone’ concept and go straight to calling it ‘hammer’ (a technology).

The scientific unfolding of the vector field into greater detail sometimes creates linguistic confusions i.e. if we had two metals indistinguishable phenomenologically (as a vector they both take the same concept), then at an atomic level we are able to distinguish them, we say one really is this metal and the other one that was maybe mined in this region, is not. Historically was it always not that metal? No, it was that metal, the choice was arbitrary as to which one was the real one, the phenomenological criteria that grammatically grounded the conceptual attachment to the larger vector are not wrong, they are just the limits of the time. The deeper description of the vector is not a correction, it looks like a correction because we choose to say that one metal is the real one . This does not mean we cannot look upon some vector descriptions as historically erroneous. Using the concept phlogiston to describe some of the vector region was fruitful up to a point but ultimately the vector field did not behave as the phlogiston  concept wanted it to. One might be able to generate some synchronistic effects by trying to apply the phlogiston concept (concept interference) but generally the vector field will resist the application.

Technology is always substrate independent, unless the substrate is part of the description e.g. a titanium hammer requires that that the vector field behave both in accordance with the titanium concept and the hammer concept. Technology, whether it’s spanners, tables, phone, cars, often suggests a certain appearance either in one culture or across cultural zones. This is the accreted archetype. Its existence is formed by the reflection of usage item into common type. This accreted form often creates a confusing appearance that the form of the concept is this. However this is incorrect. Technology is substrate independent: a gravity manipulator hammer is still a hammer.

‘This is my great grandfather’s special pen’ describes the vector field in a certain way. Only one region of it is actually described by this concept. But the accretion of it is separable from the vector field as well as being attached to a region of it (even if that region has temporally passed). If the actual vector region has been replaced by a counterfeit and I do not know, the accretion of  then pen continues to be attached to the vector. This then becomes a curious hybrid magick object unintentionally. To me I still retain the pen and imbue the vector with the accretion of the story of the pen. In this way it actually becomes infected with the concept of the original pen and might produce interference to that effect.

Pneuminous threads weave strangely.

The headless rite is said to be a preliminary to the Ars Goetia and part of the process for  invoking the holy guardian angel. Of course these themselves are just various accretive play-forms within the pneuma. The ritual itself is an excellent thing to contemplate with regards to pneuminous accretions as well as serving as a significant pneuminous interference trigger. ‘Do the words of power have power?’ Do they really have power? Yes, they have power, they have power accreted  upon them by all the voices that ever uttered them in tones of passion or dull repetition. Every connection through every grimoire, every interpretation, every contemplation links these phenomena and in this linking lies the accretion. Of course the question of whether they have real power is also answerable to the agnostic disjunction ‘does magick obtain or not?’ but as this is, unknowable, we are as well to act upon its truth as upon its untruth.

Having said that, this headless rite supplied here is altered. What power grants me the right to such sacrilege? Just the fact there is no such rule. Yes I concede, the rite is hoary with pneuminous threads woven again and again, and these give it a certain force. But in experimental ontology we must be brave to restructure such things, not to destroy to breath new life into them.

Feel free to try it and report back.

The headless rite of Balthazar Schlep


It seems important to make notes on a project of this gravity. It’s no good just jumping in half heartedly.

A new God-accretion should be negotiated with previous religious entities to satisfactorily encompass them such that remaining sects are just rogue peripheral groups lacking psychic force. These cannot be eradicated and are an inevitable feature of any dominating system.

The whole system will not be faith based in an ordinary sense as the contingent creation of the entity will be explicit.

This of course denies scholastic style logic that something with less reality cannot make something with more. The project indeed will be premised on the possibility that by magickal genesis a being of greater power can be brought into pneuminous-existence. This is achieved purely by the description of the entity as being of that nature.

Narps should not be encouraged to think of themselves being a conduit for this entity as this tends to generate fear, however some sense of this is inevitable given the being is by definition all powerful and has been essentially invoked (voiced-in) by them.

The pneuminous formation of this should rightly be understood as a truly awesome event in Narp-history. The engenderment of a time-transcendent entity that solves all teleological problems must done correctly.

The conduit problem arises perpetually because it is so easy to conceive of the creation of such a God as merely the correct hermeneutic method to uncover the God. That is because the God (presuming we define it with this level of power) is defined with this level of a-temporal ominipotence it must necessarily have known we are going to uncover it and hence our own actions are its means of self creation.

This of course is similar to the Landian notion of the techno-god of capital assembling itself from the future. This entity differs insofar as a much greater conscious effort would be performed to create this being. One might  even begin to set up a polarity between the AI ontic god of the future and the pure pneuminous God defined as necessarily more powerful than anything.

Of course as rational-Narps it is well documented that that pneuminous interference (miracles, synchronicities and other anomalies) are notoriously hard to control. To this extent the God’s actions -though defined as positive to ourselves generally- must remain somewhat inscrutable and understood as limited with regards to repeated direct influence in the material realm. Definitions as to its nature must iron out inconsistencies about all loving deities and perils of materiality and Narp-action.

In this way one can see a fascinating argument develop concerning the self-assembling physical God of technology and the pneuminous God of restricted benevolence. Of course the all powerful entity can act when beseeched by Narps to do so, it is just that these actions take the form of agnostic disjunctive results. The question emerges once more whether AI would necessarily generate the power of pneuminous interference which is given to Narps as a default. In other words ‘is magickal exertion upon the externality (to the robot/Narp) only a feature of naturally biological beings and from AI or is it automatically generated with a certain level of conceptualisation/desire ability?

Manifestationism should not be thought of as abstract philosophical theory. Manifestationism is disclosed by agnostic disjunctive events. Pneuminous interference (synchronicity) is a paradigm experience of this kind, presenting as it does an unresolveable disclosure of solid or fluid worlds. This allows us to see that this kind of multiplicity of incoherent ontologies hover immanently to us constantly, the pneuminous interference case is just an obvious one. The ontological conceptions are locked into various alliances using the Narps (us) as nodes. This is not a call to break free, this is a description which might suggest new ways to conceptualise our relation to these powers. We are also concepts. This again is not the simple: we are concepts labouring under the illusion of indviduality, each Narp is a unique configuration of external accretive plugins and a name-accretion. In the usual situation the name accretion is so dominant its agenthood for the other powers is obscured, though what we call mental illness often displays the reversal of this dominance. An interlocking series of self generating Tulpas.

The primary transference is onto things. This is ontological doubling of the self. What do we mean by this? The guiding thread is the pneuminous accretion, (the bundle of informational stuff that can exist externally to the Narp). What we’re considering here is how affectivity is often linked to accretions and how this affectivity is the extension of what is perceived as awareness in a very primitive manner. This is a technical sounding abstraction for trying to describe something like really liking your car. This gets right to the heart of the accretive problem and the satisfying kind of description of existence it seeks to achieve. It immediately runs into creating heuristic levels of accretions, but if that’s what we need that’s what we have to have. Again an example. The much loved family car of several years that has acquired a name and a gender has accreted all these different kinds of pneuma, implicit in these is a kind of simple consciousness ‘come on girl, you can do it!’ the father might exhort to the car. Again the pneuminous interference agnostic disjunction comes into play. That is, on times when the car suddenly starts upon exhortation there is the incoherent notion that it did actually respond, then the moment has passed, of course solid world discourse resumes and life continues -but the possibility remains as grounded in actual event. In contradistinction to this loved car, let us consider a newly acquired car that exists on perpetual hire. This vehicle is of course still an accretion -as this is vacuously true of anything- but it has not accreted affective pneuma, at least to nowhere near the same extent, and neither is it likely to. It remains closer to the level of ready-to-handness. But here do we not raise an curious immediate aside? In claiming that the ready-to-hand (meaning as use) is this functional level deprived largely of affectivity, do we not uncover that what is called present-at-hand is not in fact cold and theoretical (or at least not just) but also has the capacity to the receptive site of affectivity. Not just broken, obstructive things, as Heidegger said, but things that drawn our affection or even hatred, stand out as things that give reflection.

Gives reflection is a serendipitous term that takes us back to our starting point. The loved thing grants us reflection on that thing as an individual thing and in doing so increases our ability to understand others of its kind e.g. a much loved jug from a certain potter is that much loved jug, but from this love comes knowledge of this history (quite possibly at least, through investment in wanting to know the thing), this knowledge in turn enables recognition of the attached accretions when other similar pottery is encountered.  But gives reflection also gives literal ‘reflection’ in the mirroring sense. The affective pneuma that attaches to the thing of course comes from the Narp itself. Narp and thing become accreted, yet there is also pneuma of separation -it is an informational structure itself that the thing is separate from the Narp. The affective pneuma as having come from that particular Narp is necessarily part of it in all its psychoanalytic particularity, as such the primitive pneuminous structure of affectivity that the thing acquires is a  [partial] mirror of the Narp. Affectivity is unlocked as possibly the defining feature of certain accretions that lift them out of functional and/or theoretical status -this too is a heuristic.

There is a problem before any of this gets off the ground. What are the things in the first place? This is where manifestationism steps in, for in honesty no one can say whether there is a Kantian-esque structuration of whatever is ‘external’ to the Narp going on or if the things have a pre-existent self giving. If we work with the pneuma though it is more like Kant. We are asked envisage a field that is pure information -the Narp field. The Narp field is the pneuma. Is there an implication that there is some ineffable something outside of the pneuma? Yes, this appears as an idea in philosophy. It is again an agnostic disjunction situation to ask if it is the same as that which is in the Narp field. This turns on the undecideable nature of the pneuma. But the magickal phenomenon basically suggests that it is different outside of the pneuminous field which ironically presents solidity (when it is the pneuminous paths themselves that produce the magickal results).

So the things? The things seem to be outlines of the umbratic in the pneuma. This Kantian style effect is shaping the umbra to its nature. It is these outlines that are called, the given, the chtonicphusis and they are heuristically real. They form the brute possibility for the grammar of separation, hardness, transparency etc. But these concepts too are pneuma (because for us it all is). This brutal cthonic is the realm of the things  that then have proceed to accrete more and more pneuma from particular Narp experiences and universal ones (concept formation).

The pneuminous outline is doubled under word, extracted into pure pneuminous form and placed back into the original cthonic structure.