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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is an attempt to solve the problem I often perceive to occur in OOO in its sloppy ignorance of all the linguistic philosophical progress that was made last century. I think it’s pertinent because the language relation is crucial to understand the alternative realities that lie flickeringly present beside the dominant materialist convictions. Let me say that the notion is under construction so I expect some conceptual difficulties. Nevertheless here at the CEO we are encouraged by the potential exhibited so far.

The term vector is taken from the notion as a host which carries a parasite, the parasites here though are concepts. The vector term can be used in a fairly ordinary solid world compatible philosophy or it is equally applicable to the fluid world magickal one.

  1. Vectors are the phantasy of the myth of the given. Phantasies are agnostic disjunctive options that are not dominant but that will not go away. The notion of pre-interpretive perception is exactly such a thing. It looks cogent and not cogent at the same time. We can somehow easily conceive that we could see things without our having names of them yet when challenged we find that perceptual content is comprehensive conceptually grasped albeit incoherently.
  2. Vectors are regions (vectors do not settle Kantian or otherwise arguments) that have certain natures, certain restraints to them. These restraints enable conceptual attachment (accretion).
  3. E.g. the classic hammer. The ready-to-hand hammer before it has reached further accretive levels (noun/image like present-at-handiness) is still the primary form of attachment to a vector. If you want to say that the people had a concept ‘stone’ then we acknowledge that ‘stone’ too is attached to a vector. Vector regions enable the concept stone via accretive similarity (hardness, coldness, in the earthness), but all the concepts are formed by the Narps or other beings capable of some kind of informational cognition. The set of restraints that enables the vector to facilitate the concept stone, enables the facilitation of hammer (with some further restraints, like shape etc).
  4. There is no talk of vectors as noumenal or in themselves, they are just what allows certain conceptual attachments to make sense. They are not real objects. ‘Real objects’ has a grammar depending on your ontology that is itself facilitated by certain vectors, what kind of thing can have ‘real object’ attached to it? This sends us down a circularity that reminds us of the need for manifestationism (the competing world of ontologies) indeed vectors may be able to part of manifestationist theory as the transcendental condition of what can count as some kind of discreta in a given ontology.
  5. This is worth repeating and may indeed end up as the stumbling block. Vectors are not objects, rather object is a concept attached to a transcendental vector. OOO wants to widen this to non-physical objects, this is a reasonable aim that the vector notion aims to deal with more successfully than ‘object’. Objects in ooo are not carriers for concepts, they are often phrased as simply being something. This is inadequate for their description in relation to other things. A ‘stone’ is not lying next to a ‘hammer’ outside of our perception, unless of course we think of the strong pneuminosity theory in which the hammer accretion is actually attached to the vector, making it in some sense a hammer for anything. There is certainly a complicated picture to paint in relation to the nature of different kinds of objects, we should be wary of simple reductions.
  6. In a sense a vector is not a discreta, as discreta is the basic restraint for ‘object’. Vectors are preconceptual restraints in accessible being that allow concept attachment, either as use or just name (‘this is called Maxwell’, doesn’t tell me what its for, or how it will behave). We might in this respect speak of a vector field as potentially comprised of regions that disclose themselves owing the Narp interaction.
  7. A given ontology wants to say ‘this is an object’. To do this it must cogently be able to say what restraints apply. Object is also a concept. If the grammar of this ontology says that physical discreta are objects, then vector regions for this concept must have e.g. discretion and space taking as features.
  8. The vector can only be detected by its transcendental status. If concepts are autonomous they may attach to each other (pure pneuma) or to umbra (vector regions). Concepts are not just for Narps, animals clearly have some degree of conceptualisation and other pneuminous bundles with processing abilities may also exist. Noun-concepts are just a refined more accretive form of pneuminous relation.
  9. The restraint by the vector makes the accretion of the pneuma possible (the concept formation).
  10. Objects do not ‘withdraw’ because there is no object to withdraw. An object cogently spoke of as such is an object which relies on a vector. The vector does not withdraw, it is just the host for the object concept, it is visible as such.
  11. A concept may inhabit any vector that allows it to do so (meaning as use).
  12. In magick we may attach concepts to vectors that seem to defy the grammar of the restraints of the vector e.g. this piece of paper has the power of healing.
  13. Vectors deny any concept being applicable to them.


The philosophy of pneuma herein does not try to be some jargon like nonsense -though of course hardly any writers set out to achieve this. Terms like this become a kind of short hand for what the author wants to convey. Of course it’s so easy for the shorthand that is so clear to the author to become impenetrable to the readers Appropriating a term and utilising it with your own rules is a satisfying reterritorialization or re-accretion. The term used by myself is pneuma. Pneuma has come to mean a kind of informational substance that I think I have probably presupposed the cogency of without seriously exploring it. This writing makes some attempt to fill in part of the technical picture behind pneuma and its accretions. Why pneuma though? There is something arbitrary and appropriate about the choice. I came across the word pneumatology in Nietzsche as I have mentioned elsewhere (see Pneumatology and Chaos Magick). It’s meaning of breath and spirit connoted the hermetic air element, and from here the air element’s association of communication, hence pneuma came to mean the spirit of communication (information).

Information is a relation between one point which is external to another in some grammatical sense (it is cogent to say so). The point which is external is taken a) to be external and b) to be of a certain nature to the other point. The only things we can exercise relative certainty of their having informational relations are those beings which disclose themselves as having awareness. This does not deny the manifestation of the external reality of stones etc but it does mean attributing informational relations between stones and earth might not be cogent.

Information at the level of Narps becomes commonly transmitted in linguistic verbal and non verbal actions. Wittgenstein’s essential position is taken to be unassailable unless there is somehow an actual attachment between word and object. The meaning of a word is certainly primarily its use. The only way in which designation is possible is if some kind of metaphysical connection were forged between word and noema. If there is no such connection then usage controls all means of language employment.

A picture something like the following is taken to be the process of designation formation: readiness to hand of things entails only that they have a usage with no ontological examination of the what it is made of. The regular occurrence of such equipment forms stable associative names, shapes and material that come to dominate the equipment as archetypal form (a transformative process of accreting other information to the word). This is the accretion of information. On the periphery of this dominant accretive form are all the variant vectors that might still count as supportive of the accretion. This dominant image/word accretion then is rarefied into a pure informational realm (commonly called mind). It becomes idea-image associative of the what-for as relevant to it.

This accretive image is then what becomes seemingly determinative of what a thing is such that it counts as that thing, a strong version of this entails there is an ontological shoring up of the vector by the accretion so it becomes more like the accretion (seeing a thing as a thing attaches it to that thing literally in some ineffable way). Of course it is always possible for this to be reformed/re-accreted. In the region in which the informational accretion is dominant it exerts an  actual force of constraint upon the vector as thing. This is minimally a connecting force. A line of connection between being of awareness  and thing-accretion. Via the accretion of information the thing thought of is actually connected to and not just in the mind. This is achieved because the information in the aware being and that attached to the externality are the same.

Something like this set up makes actual designation possible. The informational accretion when triggered attaches to that thing literally by pneuminous thread. Unique designation entails something like magickal connectivity (sympathetic magick).

Wittgenstein understood how language (nouns esp) appears as if it has this strange ability to touch the thing it seems to refer to. This appearance is a manifestation –a way in which things show themselves. But this manifestation of designation entails actual metaphysical connectivity which does not entail magickal manipulation but certainly makes it look a lot more reasonable.

The above does not say this manifestation is the correct one, what it does say is that the appearance of something like a reality in which words actually plug into putatively external  things is a reality that shows itself all the time. Compound this appearance with all manner of low grade agnostic paranormal manifestations (telepathy, synchronicity etc) and we hope to  show why a serious metaphysical exploration of these implications is relevant. This does not conflate phenomenology with metaphysics (as Wolfendale accuses Harman of) as in this case the metaphysics in immanent to the phenomenology of what is being dealt with. The agnostic disjunction is a constant flickering between this showing and that of rationalist solidity.


How then are we to conceive of that endless source of problems: the object? The stickiness of pneuma (information) suggests something like this: There is a founding level of pneuma founded still again upon a kind of transcendental phantasy of that which is outside perception: the umbratic. To reiterate, the umbratic is the idea  of something existing outside of perceptual relation. The phantasy of the remainder.

The umbratic is a necessary theoretical level to avoid ooo type errors of granting reality of atoms as we understand them to atoms in themselves i.e. making the demarcation atom might make no sense outside of human conception. We cannot extirpate the phantasy of the umbratic no matter how much we wish to. The umbratic allows the possibility of materiality persisting in our absence, yet also the possibility of a much more fluid reality bent into spatio-temporal shape by our selves (a further pneuminous structure).

What this hierarchical structuration suggests is something like the Heideggerian difference between hermeneutic and apophantic as. These correlate to the ready-to-hand and present-at-hand respectively. These suggest different grammars for these different levels which in turn suggests that the cogent laying out of something like a flat ontology is a vain hope. I suppose it would turn on what you meant by that, but I think that the differing ways in which things can be spoken of renders the notion that they can be made to fit a notion of ‘object’ where the definition is sufficient to encompass any noun structural game is not possible or at least certainly not by ooo.

The thing I want to explore is this difference. The difference arises in something like the realm our attempts to create an ontology of what things are made of as spatio-temporal/dynamic entities. We want to understand stones as stones by their mineral make up. The presupposition of atomism in the sense of different elemental atoms (we do not deny it) means ‘what is it made of?’ can be answered in these terms. We accept still this is somewhat artificial insofar as stones would just be stones at one point as phenomenologically determined. If we then define stones owing to the new element theory and demarcate some things as stones and some as not. If there were some things for which we used to use the term stones that are now excluded it does not seem to make sense to say that we corrected the understanding of the past. The analysis is improved but the word stones remit has been artificially restricted insofar as we cannot say that the previous usage was ‘incorrect’.

A stone used as a hammer is made of stone. This conceptual usage is now attached to stones. This is the meaning of accretion (information stuck together). The usage information of hammering is accreted to stone. Of course ‘hammer’ can escape stones and begin its own life made in all manner of form and shapes. Hammer is a use concept accreted to a set of standard images of what it normally looks like in a given culture, a flickering between hermeneusis and apophansis. This flickering is seen in stone too. Stone arises as use (hermeneusis) and transforms into definition (apophansis). The hammer concept must be carried by some vector suitable for it. There must be restraints in the system that make it viable (I cannot make a candy floss hammer). The founding disclosures of hardness, heaviness make the vector suitable for hammer to inhabit. The notion of the vector seems possibly productive. Is ‘stone’ an inhabitant upon a vector too, like an ooo core? This at least is a better way of phrasing it than often appears in ooo -the vector as much needed meta-term. There is a kind of at least phenomenological difference down here. I do not see stones as made of stone, the grammar of stone does not require this, though a hammer when actualised must be made of something ontologically different from the concept hammer, a vector that can give home to the usage/definition. This vector is the umbratic restraint. Is the vector real? What does that mean? The grammar of ‘real’ often entails that which persists away from ourselves . It contains a trace of the phantasy of outside of the correlation. The vector fulfils this grammar in the way reality ostensibly manifests but the vector is hard to define as existing as that discrete thing outside of our classification. If I say ‘that patch of grass’ have I made a vector? It looks less clear than if I say ‘this stone’. Do any of our vector borders stand up to existence as conceived outside of ourselves? The answer of course is ‘they might’ (agnostic disjunction) -ooo dwells upon instantiating that they do and how we can talk about this.

This doesn’t help any attempt to try to make imaginary entities ontologically equivalent. If I think about a living blue box with legs called Max, I am aware I have imagined it, this is part of it’s grammar. If I am a chaos magician I might want to make this entity functional (this has its own grammar). Is Max a vector? It is only made of information (called pneuma variously on this site, precisely to give this sense of information as a kind of substance). Max’s apophansis is pneuma (and then the question (the whole question of my work) is whether or not the pneuma can affect the umbra) and Max’s hermeneusis is Max the imaginary box (here the flickering occurs precisely between how real  (Magickally effective or not) the imagination is). Max though is a bit like the stone insofar as it is tautologous to say the imagination is made of the imagination however unlike the stone Max is a vector only insofar as he is pneuma stuck together (accreted) by ourselves; the restraint on Max’s being is not umbratic it is purely pneuminous. The stone vector does  not show this grammar, it has the presupposition of some kind existence prior to us (even if it is not in this form).

This notion of umbra is, as we say, a kind of transcendental. The umbra acting as vectors, restrain certain primal pneuminous forms (consistent names/usages). These in turn have multiplied, accreted, de-accreted, re-accreted both in attachment to vectors and as forms of pure pneuma. Yes they are both pneuminous, but one has the notion of the umbratic vector behind it and one is freed from this weight. This demarcation needs to be recognised for a decent ontological description.



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’.

There is no spatial, chronological or privileged difference anymore between the real and the concept it mirrors. The real is imaginary and the imaginary is real. It is the closing of this distance that creates a flat, immanant and blindly operational space which I call assimilation. We cannot even relapse into older physicalist notions of the real such as external space and time: an action figure toy does not breathe-in the atmosphere of such a ‘space’, it’s context does not refer to that context shared by physical bodies in space and their social-political narrative.

King Kong is no less real than the chair you are sitting on. Both can be represented in external or eidetic space, Both have a use tem in language (i.e “have you seen King Kong?” or “where is my chair?”). Both have other relations that differ from their present use; King Kong is identified through various relations, contexts and histories such as Science-fiction, the toy industry, the film industry, exoticism, the place Skull Island etc.

Reality – the sum of experience – is not weird, funny nor horrific, ‘It’ simply is. The only other capacity that can achieve this indifference, this reality, is neurosis (hence equating neurosis with experience). In Freud’s Beyond the Pleasure Principle neurosis is the only thing that escapes designation (goes ‘beyond’ it). Content in the mind is designated as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘pleasurable’ or ‘painful’ but neurosis is the condition which produces content in the brain; it decides, through repetition, whether X will appear bad or good. In other words, the neurotic capacity to repeat and fixate (i.e to simulate experience) is found in both sane and insane experiences, both happy and sad ones. Ergo neurosis is this indifferent reality that we speak of (or at least the condition for it). The ability of this Expressivist (Deleuze) or Contructivist neurosis is precisely what Baudrillard is talking about when he observes the relative autonomy of simulation and simulacra (from army training courses to Disney Land); that the real is manipulable based on the relatability of signs, and it is only ‘use’ (and the conventionalising of use) that separates the reality of Disney Land from the reality of a romantic relationship, a 9 – 5 job etc. To be sure, there will be simulations (assimilations) that appear without your consent (what has been ontically found in traditional psychological neurosis); your mind will try and make a reality out of something, a web of designations that one could live within. Based on generic and personal dialectics between general concepts (their ‘shareability’) and your experience, such tensions will spark semantic tensions, but this doesn’t have to be exclusively psychological; a man’s fear of nudity might stem from him encountering his parents having sexual intercourse at an early age, but other symptoms can occur simply by living in a restrictive society. The idea of getting up at 6am the next morning is semantically implicated by the state of drunkenness I am in at midnight. These are not neutral concepts changing under circumstances of the individual; they are concepts that have their own pleasure principle, their own likes and dislikes, their own preferable assimilative processes. 

Similar to psychology, however, there seems to be a heuristic difference between process and form; the almost vitalist force of un-designateable reality, of infinite neuroses and assimilations, that only take on meaning when formed and chafed by humans (or living creatures), that become representations amongst other representations like some form of atomistic idealism. The designation of meaning is superimposed onto the domesticated world through our practices, and we inherit these meanings as they enjoy dominion over us or become ‘challenged’ (Nietzsche). The usability of the concept has always carried a correlate of desire with it (the need to be used) and hence concepts cannot be severed from the desire for designation, ergo, concept traces will always tell you more than what is designated on the surface (see Graham Freestone – ‘Spider-Spit’). We always knew this sensitive fragility in the ‘human subject’ (the psychological subject) but now its time to look at the concepts ‘themselves’, as artefacts of the incoherence/incommensurability of present day human.

The first dictum of psychology ; one should never blame themselves for themselves.

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.