This is just a series of notes trying to put down some reflections on the matter in an attempt to try to make the theory more functional in its explanatory value.

1) Manifestationism attempts to describe a situation of quasi epistemological relativism in which ontologies compete for territory against each other.

2) We are the space in which this occurs. This invokes the issue that the ‘we’ itself must equally be recognised as equally a site for ontological competition e.g. are we ensouled, NAARPs, purely material etc.?

3) A recent proposal was made that a basic tripartite structure of:

i) Social descriptions

ii) Scientific descriptions

iii) Metaphysical descriptions

might give a basic doorway into how the manifestations function. It does broaden the notion of a manifestation but this is not a problem as the theory most certainly is supposed to be epistemologically relevant at any level.

4) “Was it you that gave her the book?” someone asks. I reply that it wasn’t me but they doubt this is the case, they believe that it was me that gave her the book and that it was not Jessica (who to my mind did give her the book). This other subject has reasons for believing the account of the event that they hold to. These are not full blown ontologies as we would think of them, just regional contingent issues. Nevertheless they are interesting insofar as they show regular reality level epistemic problems. If Steve has gone home and won’t admit to having given her the book and the other subject thinks I did it, they might very well not know it with much certainty but it might be the theory they are invested in. In the manifestationist sense, this subject-region (NAARP) is occupied by certain conceptual powers that determine this theory. These might be something like ‘a distrust of myself’ ‘a belief that I have done something similar before’ etc. They are part of a regional theory of me, an ontology of what I am in this social sense (an entity not to be trusted). This regional ontology is still a mini manifestation that competes in the territory with others. As a side note this does seem to hint at the potential at least ethical correctness of Korzybski insofar as the static sense of being (an ontology) is guiding a general impression rather than being only a singular instance (I am untrustworthy as opposed to I may have exhibited untrustworthy behaviour).

5) If I go on a diet, a particular diet that I’ve read about for a certain health benefit various things are going on here that may serve to illustrate the matter. I believe the diet is correct and I read about the nutritional science behind it. There are conflicting accounts in the science. But my friend has told me this diet is great and I trust them so I may generally try to not allow the competing account much traction, believing instead the possibly dubious references about the efficacy of the diet. The diet is also part of a quasi new age belief that hold that certain ‘negative energies’ will be removed from me by my assiduous following of it. My alliance with my friend has allowed me to take the diet idea in, maybe I’ve complained about something and they’ve suggested it. They’ve then given  me evidence of an anecdotal nature that’s taken  hold. I’ve tried to rationally reinforce it but encounter an agnostic disjunction insofar as I cannot capably disentangle the conflicting science accounts. I might be open to the notion of energetic cleansing but the discourse is entirely metaphysical. My friend insists upon the reality of it. I might seriously doubt this. But then following the diet feel a curious emotional levity. Do I ascribe this to maybe an increase in omega 3s or to a metaphysical alleviation of ‘negative energy’? The synchronicity like problem emerges. I might want to reduce the sensation rationally but I cannot be sure that the metaphysically described energy release has not taken place -as I have no criteria to test this by. But I may be convinced of this by the strange levity which I believe cannot be purely nutritionally based. This may also be true from another perspective insofar that the very idea of the energy cleansing may have had some kind of placebo like neural-hormonal feedback (this is clearly related to a weak-pneuminous theory/hyperstitional interpretation).

6) The diet and its interaction with me is a complex dynamic interplay of competing manifestations which in this case cross the full range. A social anecdotal power in relation to whatever issue I may have (which in itself may be a health related issue given to me from the modern variety of health paranoias). I seek to reinforce this power with acceptable knowledge (science) but am  potentially hampered by my alliance to my friend and the appearance equivalence in evidence (competing ontologies). The metaphysical claims of the system are partially validated and thus interpreted positively, I am unable to disprove them even with competing accounts. Because they already exist as ontological possibility (phantasy) they are not removed from the system by simply demonstrating an alternative even when the alternative is more rational (where rational means those manifestations we are able to test).

7) Does this point to an inadequacy of language. To the inadequacy of ontology? It does suggest ontology has a home. To predicate one thing of another as a cogent relation may not always be the best way of expressing it -cf the Korzybski point above. But ontology returns even if we want a process ontology.

8) The suggestion is that any given phenomena may be analysed by means of the competing ontologies that make it up. Ergo a total description does not rely upon an ontology to ground it because a total description must take into account that the ontologies in their plurality cannot be overcome. The emergence of individual points insofar as there is more than one (contra the solipsistic manifestation) dialectically creates sceptical situations on multiple levels that necessarily prohibit the dominance of any central ontology even though one (science generated) ontology may actually be correct. The question is then how far a given ontology could dominate the territory and create minimal dissonance within the system. The multiple feedbacks seem to make this difficult. A purely present at hand ontology that was true and satisfactory might still generate phenomenological contradictions that create disbelief in the ontology. This potentially ironically could only be resolved if the reality was something like the strong pneuminous model. That is, if it were true that reality were solid and fixed the synchronicity problem would most likely still remain. I cannot envisage how it could be extirpated but we could accept the possibility. However if it were true that the pneuma fedback ontologically into the umbra then this (as a scientific ontology) would be a more readily acceptable. Why? Because with evidence of a genuine relation of conceptuality and physical experience at a level of physics we could better process that this was a continuous experience of conceptual feedback as opposed to the notion that conceptual feedback is an anomaly (synchronicity/informational interference).

 

The theosophists Leadbetter and Besant described certain occult perceptions of thought forms. These thought forms were described and in some instances they were committed to paper. The basic idea is that all thought content has this a kind of substantial existence on the levels of fine matter, this matter is perceivable by various persons, either through natural ability or occult training. Thought forms we are informed, have a dual nature. One aspect of it radiates out from the NAARP and may effect others in the vicinity, whereas the other creates a static entity that is attached to the NAARP. This thought being may be of greater or lesser consequence to the NAARP. Purely transient thoughts will have only a minor auric impact but more traumatic or even positive (narcissistic) ones may be more prone to repetition. Powerful thought forms become more powerful each time they are engaged with. The idea is that the thought form is attached to the NAARP aura and essentially waits for the neurotic accretion (self) to reactivate it. Each reactivation reinforces it. NAARPs have many such thought forms embedded in their auras and their spiritual existence is contingent on their engaging in meditation like techniques to clear reduce their influence. The impact of a thought form is theosophically generally negative.

What strikes me is that, if we bracket off the ontological descriptions of the occult world in theosophy (the auric levels, the attributions, the planes of existence etc.) the thought form description is actually very close to the pneuminous accretive notion found herein. The accretive model is supposed to be a kind of phenomenology of the possibility of magickal interactions, no occult perceptions are utilised in its description other than as examples to be questioned. That is, I try to lay everything out by inference. The occult perceptions/phenomena only allow us to ask what might condition them. The conclusion has been that if we reject the denial of such phenomena then we should admit an essentially chaos magickal ontology that suggests a purely informational world (the pneuma) that may, under the right conditions, alter a more rigid underpinning (the umbra).

The thought form model has a high degree of similarity to the strong accretive model. Both posit the autonomy of conceptual entities external to the NAARP and their ability to effect the world. The descriptions by Leadbetter of the way in which the thought forms are scattered about places and people is highly resonant with the way in which the accretive notion is supposed to function. Incoherent pneuminous accretive structures are literally everywhere. Leftover bits of NAARPs, vector imprintations, traumas, ecstacies all lie around in an immanent intersecting pneuminous space where spatio-temporality means very little (my conceiving of last Wednesday literally connects to last Wednesday). The dual aspect described by the theosophists correlates well to the accretion itself and to the pneuminous threads that radiate out of it connecting it to other accretions in this a-spatio-temporal way

As one occult manifestation amongst many there is no reason to pay particular attention to the theosophical ontology unless one wanted to do so for an exercise. The accretive theory does not tell you (unlike theosophy) that you should remove attached accretions in order to reveal a more pure self -as this kind of instruction moves beyond its remit. What the theosophical picture does powerfully evoke though is the way in which we may have had a focus or a sense of control taken from us by the attachment of many such accretive forms. This summons a phenomenological potentially constructed sense of desire for freedom. The way forward is problematic. Without being able to posit any greater power without the accretive encumberance we have no reason to say if it even makes any sense to strip down the NAARP to a more precise entity. The gamble though would be not unlike the Pascalian belief in the magickal world itself (we lose little by acknowledging it but potentially gain a lot). To behave as if we strive to become disencumbered by unruly thought patterns, (even if one more layer of illusion) if possible actually liberates us from these powers, whereas submission only repeats the status quo.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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.

We have elsewhere written about the AZ as the alphabet and how Azathoth is the comprised of the privation of Thoth (writing) and the second AZ of Azazel, this second AZ being the hidden alphabet that cannot be written -the umbratic. Recent sigilistic experiments have revealed potential accretive links. One is the tenuous but poetic phrase ‘Onsebeus hides in the umbratic’. Onsebeus is the power of the hidden, the undisclosed literally unperceived. The name flickered the famous spirit Asmodeus to mind. There are a series of reversals in the two names. The d and the b switch, the n switches to m and then exchanges place from 2nd 3rd and 3rd to second respectively. Asmodeus is known as an earth spirit in some sources whereas Onsebeus is attached more to the subconscious -in the pneuminous system it is associated with the navel centre which is his seat of these id like powers. This simple linkage conjures the AZ which in pronunciation also prefixes its name: AZmodeus. The question is which AZ? The umbratic alphabet of Azathoth or the pneuminous AZ of presence? We should recall that the space of the clearing before us is given to AZollo and that the association of the dark earth belongs only partially to the umbratic Onsebeus but more so to the power Durranos. Durranos as the earth power is clearly the home of AZmodeus. But this does not clearly tell us which AZ the entity is an agent for. It does prompt us to register that many accretive entities work for the AZ. AZAZel is the power (God) of the double alphabet.

The pneuminous alphabet (that we use) of Iok-Sotot-AZollo is 4.

The umbratic alphabet of AZathoth-Onsebeus that cannot ever be  is 7.

In the system herein AZAZel is the hexagram though elsewhere AZAZel is the pentagram, for it must strike the middle between 4 and 7 and there is no room for 5.5…

Yet.

When Lovecraft wrote “To achieve the essence of real externality, whether of time or space or dimension, one must forget that such things as organic life, good and evil, love and hate, and all such local attributes of a negligible and temporary race called mankind, have any existence at all…but when we cross the line to the boundless and hideous unknown – the shadow-haunted Outside– we must remember to leave our humanity and terrestrialism at the threshold” a choice is made. This is not to say it is a bad choice but it has shades of irony to it. A clear facet of a magickal universe is that NARP fields affect the putative externality as mediated through the pneuma. A dark materialism that renders human emotion, concepts and spatio-temporal interpretation as irrelevant curiously eradicates this kind of magickal possibility. Yet of course in such a universe the nature of sorcery is often espoused as true under the auspice of a naturalized-supernaturalism. That is, it implies from other dimensional perspectives these attributes are nothing. Yet if magick obtains (in a sorcery accepting world) then the conceptual and emotion must register as real in the outside (the pneuma can affect the umbra) -that’s how it works.

The choice [of Lovecraft’s] is one of allying the outside with a kind of multidimensional-realism that is entirely indifferent to the affective and cognitive faculties of a kind of NARP (humans). He seems to be committed to a kind of reality in which we are purely material beings with our feelings and thoughts being contained purely within. This means sorcery in such a universe is dislocated from will and rather must be a form of a more realist magick in which symbols, vibrations etc. have intrinsic power. It is through these means that sorcerous interventions are made and not through conceptual readjustments (pneuminous interference). This in turn means that all sorcerous interventions must be made by supplications to entities capable of manipulating human reality or through particular symbols, sounds known to bring specific about effects, as this cannot be achieved by humans themselves.

This agnostic disjunction’s alternative choice is that human affections and concepts do potentially exert some power in the outside. This is the pneuminous chaos-magickally compatible theory commonly discussed herein. When we talk about the outside as the vast cosmic abyss it is interesting to note this kind of double motion. Cosmic horror of the above kind seems to eschew this possibility. But of course it must eschew this possibility in order to preserve the radical sense of impotence in the face of the titanic powers that be it desires. Human magick is replaced by inter-dimensional sorcery (scientifically reproducible). This resistance to human level magick is also a feature of the kind of transcendental realism that the cosmic horror is often metaphorical for. In this materialism also, the affectivity and conceptuality cannot affect the outside.

It is a bizarre consequence of the disjunctional arm: ‘magick obtains’ (in the pneuminous chaos magickal manner) that this makes the universe in some sense less alien -the playing field is more equal. This is not a naïve lack of alterity; the possibility that titanic accretive horrors lie in the unfathomable is still entirely possible. The pneuminous theory though would entail a version of sorcery that seems less restrictive [to the NARP]. That such beings (from the outside) could be restrained by human constructs -because they do have power in the outside- and that interventions can also be made at a more ordinary level of conceptuality without the intervention of entities from the abysmal outside.

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).

“As for P, well P was a different matter. P was in a position to acknowledge -better than myself probably- the strangeness of the event, yet he seemed oblivious to the potential moral content. Q’s disappearnce was for him, a source of fascination, yet so great was this fascination that it eclipsed all other sense in his head, even senses pertinent to his own occult inquiry, thus again, in this sense also Q. was utterly gone.”

The notion increasingly presses that the titular agnostic disjunction may be the disjunction that colours all manifestations (ontological decisions). This clearly needs seriously thinking through but it seems a promising corridor. The claim possibly sounds extreme because of the usage of the term magick. In fairness this could be extreme as pneuminous manifestations go all the way up to the strangest cryptid encounter (and down to the simple synchronicity).

The disjunction is disclosed on the interpretation of the encounter. Does it actually seem to entail an alteration in the structure of the seemingly solid externality or doesn’t it? This externality is either inert to the conceptual overlay (pneuma) or it isn’t. In the occult event the externality seems breached by the pneuma, but the interpretation may draw it back into something commensurate with the solid externality -illusion, hallucination, confirmation bias.

In the Narp the different assimilation-accretions compete to take control of this space. This is difficult to move freely beyond because the nature of the Narp is also agnostic disjunctive: Is there an actual whole self or are there just the competing assimilation-accretions? What even would this difference look like?

In fact the latter entails the former insofar as the name of the Narp forms the centre around which the pneuminous structure accretes. This name-accretion is what we usually call the self, as such it is just one more assimilation-accretion in the Narp, except that in what we call psychological health, it is the dominant one (the neurotic accretion from the term NARP). The first arm of the disjunction on the Narp nature does not mean this. It rather suggests a real self somehow independent of the name. There are no doubt various shades of these but the basic real self or contingent self disjunction is primordial to the problem.

Now neither arm of contingent self/real self does not ally itself necessarily with either arm of magick obtains/does not obtain, rather it discloses these options:

i)  Real self-Magick obtains

ii)  Real self-Magick does not obtain

iii) Contingent self-Magick obtains

iv) Contingent self-Magick does not obtain

i)  The sense of (i) is difficult as of magick entails that information affects what it overlays, we cannot have a self that resists pneuminous interaction (claims itself to be apart from it). It is true that one could define magick such that it only affected reality outside of the self and one might also define the self as the higher self (the ensouled ontologies also feature here). In this sense it is possible to rescue (i). It is however minimally the most untenable of the manifestations.

ii) Is a situation a lot of people identify with. The self is real but our concepts do not affect the externality. It is difficult to make sense of this insofar as a rigid self is always difficult to justify -it is hard to see how any kind of self is inert to our interactions with it (without defining it out of harms way). However it has a coherence for people’s beliefs insofar as the solid external reality is reflected by a similar inward picture.

iii) This is the chaos magickal world commensurate with the philosophy described herein generally. The self is an assimilation-accretion and the possibility of the various assimilation-accretions linking up to make the externality change are actual.

iv) Describes a very rational understanding of the world. Pneuma cannot restructure reality but the self is recognised as contingent. As such assimilation-accretions happen but only at psychological level.

It will be noted in this that there are more manifestations lurking that have not yet been uncovered. The situation is constantly being referred to as one of a Narp conceptually comprehending an externality. This is of course what it looks like yet this situation itself is fraught by manifestationist decision. There may be no actual externality. The whole thing might be nothing but Berklean idea without even a God to prop it up. Of course this kind of idealism is difficult -a pure pneuma with no umbra-  because nothing then is given to determine why the world looks like one thing and not another and why it hangs together so well. It is however perfectly functional with magick, which now is not a conceptual overlay overpowering an umbratic but just restructuring of the information. This does also leaves the problem of within the pure idealism there are solid ideas and unsolid ones yet one can however posit this kind of idealism without actually having to explain its mechanics. It is a manifestation and one requires no externality that exists at all without the Narp. This pure idealism must also have its non-magickal opposite. This would be a situation of pure ideality which nevertheless is completely solid. In this manifestation, if it were possible to peek round the curtain one would see there was literally nothing outside of the Narp-field (presumably other aware beings too) yet within it it held together in an absolute consistency in which the idea world was not swayed by the ideas in each Narp. It is always interesting to note that such a pure idealism cannot extirpate the phantasy of the umbratic. Of course the idealism looks extremely untenable anyway but even from within one would still come up with the notion of what is there outside the Narp-field. The idealism must be raised as a manifestation though its agents are few and far between. It just needs noting as the means by which the externality may be rendered incoherent.

This incoherent idealism supplies the reinforcing clue to our starting point. The notion is that each ontology is not a singular ontology, but rather each is a manifestation but must also be bifurcated into its magick obtains/magick does not obtain disjunctive forms. This raises the possibility of other non-pneuminous magickal conceptions. For example transcendental realist/magick-obtains might invoke a completely different condition of possibility [for magick], a picture that might look more like a Harmanian occasionalism.

 

It is a testament to the situation that I feel embarrassed writing this. However part of my writing has always been anecdotal as I feel this helps it hook [the theory] to experience. My wife was raising swiftlings that had fallen from nests. This task is somewhat harrowing as they have to be ready to go before the other swifts leave -swifts are here in the UK for 12 weeks approx. There were three; after some weeks of nurture one swift successfully took off, but the other two looked weren’t looking hopeful. One kept trying to fly but just couldn’t, it would flutter and drop to the ground whilst the other would make no attempt to leave. All the swifts left the sky bar two, that clearly would leave any day now. Things looked desperate and I felt for both wife and swifts (as they have to be put to sleep if they wouldn’t fly). Such situations like all those of a degree of despair call for requests from transcendent powers. In organised religion it’s called prayer, otherwise it’s magick/sorcery -whatever you will (no pun intended).

I did nothing elaborate but retrospectively I can see it ticks the chaos magickal boxes. As I lay in bed before sleep I went with my quite poor visualization skills to see the swift God[dess] to ask for help in encouraging it’s children to take flight. Frankly I can’t remember a lot of what happened. In truth all I know is that I woke up in the morning and had completely forgotten about it. Fairly early I must have driven off to do some early morning task. As I returned up my street I met the aforementioned wife walking up it towards me looking around as she went. I pulled up and she told me that both the swifts had gone and flown down this road. She was extremely surprised at this as one (the fluttering one) had been deemed hopeless from suspected damaged air sacks and the other was still extremely timid only yesterday. However on the first attempt to release them both had flown straight away. She was now checking the gardens down the street in case they had crashed, but could not see them anywhere.

It was only at this point that I actually remembered my previous night’s supplication. The wave of excited shock is one I have had before but so far for me it is scarcely less strange each time. Maybe there is some inuring that comes with the possibility being accepted at all, but otherwise the reality rupture affect (yes I mean affect) is still is quite profound.

This is the moment. This is the same sensation that all of this is about. The point is not to tell you that the swift spirit is real and can help your injured swiftlings or indeed any spirit is ‘real’. The message is the same: existence shows itself in such a way that it can appear that informational actions (what I call pneuminous) can affect the restraint of the everyday world (the umbratic). It is completely understood that the above anecdote can represent nothing more than chance. The swifts were due to leave, maybe they were pushed to action by their own innate knowledge that it was time to go. However, in order to be certain that it was chance I must know the how things are with apodicticity (as opposed to apodidaeity (swift joke)).  If I do not know this then in asserting chance as the truth, I beg the question by helping myself to the assumption of a materialist ontology in order to deny the possibility of magick.

This moment is the same one that discloses manifestationism, not as a meta-philosophy as such (though it is one) but more as the very nature of our relation to how we accept what things are. Ontologies compete for our attention. As agents we work for various ontologies. Agnostic disjunction means that we have to choose in order to act, though the choice is only by virtue of what ontology (accretion) we work for. Philosophy in this sense shatters the naivety of being and agent of the truth. Of course many NARPs believe they exactly are that i.e. that they are working for the true ontology. Without the agnostic disjunctive/manifestationist insight anyone can end up as a dogmatic agent of an ontology. Laruelle achieves something similar with the notion of ‘philosophical decision’ but somehow seems to close ontology down non-philosophically. Non-philosophy is not a meta-philosophy, manifestationism in part definitely is -though it is an immanent one. Philosophy (this philosophy) means recognising the agnostic disjunction wherever it pops up so you may ask ‘why am I an agent for this choice?’

Paranormal phenomena are special because the nature of these events perpetually keeps the manifestationist agenda open. Paranormality can only be drawn into science as legitimate, it cannot be defeated by it. Any attempt by a ruling ontology to define away such events, results in the same question begging problem outlined above, this psychologically manifests in mistrust of authority -a similar pattern is found in competing political ontologies, where dominant democratic capitalist accretions become doubted by their agents (and begin to lose them). Post truth is one such consequence.

I want to say there is something wrong with certain accelerationist trends that overly fetishise and glorify technology but I can’t really. Not without committing myself as an agent of an untenable naturalism. I can feel though the power of that accretion in its appeal, Srnicek and Williams call it ‘folk politics’ and find it as untenable as I do. What I do think though is that there is some kind of tendency created by the fetishised techno-accelerationist coolness to reject common natural aesthetic beauty. Obviously ‘natural’ is a difficult , what I mean by it though is something maybe approaching the term biophilia. This too is inadequate as I feel what I mean would also encompass the stones and the weather and not just the fauna and flora. There has to be a way to not overly romanticise and yet learn from the romantics. Heidegger was close to this. A magickally open ontology that can harmonise the technological/accelerationist aura (in Benjamin’s sense) and simultaneously permit the NARP’s engagement with ‘nature’ is required.

A suitable accretion that harmonises these two tendencies is of course, the swift.

1) Twin Peaks as cruelty.

Whatever is your stance on the finale of Twin Peaks, one thing is for sure: it was cruel. Open ended and dark, it not only gave no answers to us, but it left our good, immaculate hero stained. After the doppelganger/worms have feasted for the last 25 years on his and his beloved’s carcasses, he then either became lost in an unknown time loop that brought him back to the past, before any of his effort even existed, or stranded in a future, in which every familiar face has been erased from the plane of existence. Of course, for some, this was an act of gratuitous ontological sadism. Far from that, others are convinced that this is a dark metaphysical statement, which doubles one of the most unsettling proposition of deleuzian philosophy.

In Difference and Repetion, Deleuze wrote: «Cruelty is nothing but determination as such, that precise point at which the determined maintains its essential relation with the undetermined, that rigorous abstract line fed by chiaroscuro» (Difference and Repetition, p. 29). The upshot of this statement, which, on a surface level, could just seem a pretty obscure form of philosophical mumbling, is, as Reza Negarestani noted in Differential cruelty, very clearly: existing in all of its varied significances = determination from an undetermined background/Umbratic plane = an act of cruelty. This, of course, doesn’t only entail the conscious processes that we trigger with our actions. For example, being born is, following this skeletal outline of Dark Deleuzism, the cruelest of all determinations, setting in motion an accretion-without-consent against the possibility of non-being/being-one-with-the-the-HyperUnCreation-of-Umbra and chaining each and every one of the newborns to an illusory fixity. As Artaud put it: «For it seems to me that creation and life itself are defined only by a kind of rigor, hence a fundamental cruelty, which leads things to their ineluctable end at whatever cost» (The Theater and Its Double, p. 103). This is, they think, the upshot of David Lynch and Mark Frost’s finale: Judy/the Red Goddess/Umbra eternally wins, because she is able to demonstrate to the starry-eyed Agent Cooper (any accretion whatever) that everything he could possibly do to right the wrongs that haunt him is, at the end of the day, cruel, an act of cruel accretion. He not only will always fail, like Morpheus – too weak not to look back to check the wellbeing of the simulacrum of his loved one, condemning her either to repetition or to non-existence – but he’s always confronted with the cruelty of an ontologically pluralistic universe made of accreted or volatile pneumas.

2) Cruelty as ethics. So that’s it? The non-cruel ontologists may ask. Luckily, the party of cruelty not only has a dismal metaphysics at their disposal, but also a blackened ethics to propose. After all, we know how Judy/the Red Goddess/Umbra wins. Cooper, in an act of all-too-human weakness looked back. He triggered, the party says, the disappearance of Laura Palmer and the destruction of the whole universe. He looked back and undid the whole world with his own eyes. Therefore, the cruel party proposes a radical, mercyless solution: let us be as cruel as Judy, as oceanic as Umbra, let us eat cosmos and let us follow her Chtonic left-hand path of pneumas-without-accretions. Rather than surrendering to Cooper’s humanist fears and behaviors, let us join Judy/The Red Goddess/Umbra. Never look back, no matter how long Sarah will try to capture Laura’s pneuma, without being afraid of the unknown consequences of our journey. After all, no one promised us that we will have the peace we are hoping for; the only thing we really know for sure, is the (existence of an) alien world, radically disfigured by our transgression of time and space. As Negarestani wrote: «In the wake of the philosophy of cruelty, ethics can return to the mathesis of the problem once again wherein the problem is not determined by its solution or conditions but by its capacity to generate fields of the problematic» (Differential Cruelty, p. 82). Judy demands to be destroyed with her own sword and daggers, and be reborn once again in us.

3) She’s universal emptiness. But that’s not enough! The party of cruelty says; if we want to appreciate David Lynch and Mark Frost’s sadomasochistic ontology, we have to push ourselves forward and consider the show in its entirety, not just the finale. This last season, they contend, was the actualization of a greater plan for this universe: the desecration of the fixity of the monistic substance and the annihilation of the World, both inside and outside the Twin Peaks’ mythos. As spectators, we witnessed a grotesque puppet show, whose protagonists resembled the lovely characters we have learned to love in the past two seasons, but felt way too hollow to be the “real” thing. They were as thin as our own breath. Two prime examples were, of course, Dougie Jones and Diane: Dougie Jones looked just like our beloved Coop, but he was, actually, just an empty, lost pneuma. An alternative and not fully realized accretion, stranded in a world in which he was probably never meant to be summoned, of an accretion (Agent Cooper) who, in what we think was our past, we have learned to love. On the other hand, for months, we grew attached to Diane’s loud mouth, only to find out that she was nothing more than a half realized accretion, directed by an alien, malignant will. She was the particular embodiment of a form of universal emptiness, in a dreadful cosmos where not even the owls are what they seem.

4) Us is Them. Therefore, for these theorists, the upshot of the cruel Frostian and Lynchian metaphysics is that there is no such thing as this world. Everyone and everything is a tulpa/accretion of some alien pneuma, set against the non-field (the kabbalistic dark Waters of HyperUnCreation of the Leviathan/Umbra) of the darkened powers/the left hand path/Umbra. Can it be our situation? It is.

5) The endtimes. Hail Umbra.