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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.



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

Read the rest of the draft essay here.

Philosophy can a be tedious business. Repetition of the same matter is often the plat de jour. These recent notes do not alter this pattern. The situation we have here is an interesting one insofar as we have two philosophies that seem to have some potential to overlap. Is it an overlapping or a synthesis (or a struggle)? The repetition is the grinding over the same territory in search of the point of clarity.

The two philosophies in question are the pneuminous accretive theory and the assimilative-neurotic theory. Both notions instantiate autonomy to concepts.  The former by means of the way in which a concept accretes information (pneuma) and (under the strong magickal version) persists in existing as outside of the entities that create and are inhabited by them. The autonomy is pointed to by the phenomenology of synchronicity which suggests rogue pneuminous interference. Assimilation is not derived from occult phenomenology but more by the observation of a endless proliferation of concepts that synthesise with ourselves and with others. The pneuminous theory’s plug in of concept to vector is achieved (in assimilation) by the notion of tautology. This is also the case in accretive theory, the vector is the concept (though it can be taken over by others).  Object (vector) and concept achieve a kind of identity (tautology).

Assimilation is less ontologically restricted insofar as accretive theory is more descriptive of an actual ontology. This though is only true if one chooses a specific aspect (strong (magick obtains) or weak (magick does not obtain)) accretive theory. Any decision one way or the other results in a partial manifestation disclosure (and ontological decision). However remaining agnostic we still note reasonably that accretion takes place. This kind of accretion though must bracket off any ontological commitment. It can only note that information sticks together and note the hugely complex historical nature of these accretions that occur in NAA(assimilation-accretion)RP field. Assimilation likewise can only note the conceptual region’s ability to be plugged into (a bar, a board game, flatpack furniture, a piece of art). Every ontological description is just a further assimilation.

What we must note here is that assimilation can slide into ontological decision when we push a certain agenda too far. The agenda suggested here is that of pneuminous determination i.e. of the concept’s ability to control the NAARP (or not). It is easy to comprehend the NAARP as being purely controlled by the accretion-assimilations (since they are rendered autonomous). The version of this theory that commonly appears in here is that the self is one specific type of  AA (the neurotic accretion-assimilation or NAA) amongst various AAs. In the normal situation the NAA has the appearance of control whereas mental health issues can variously be described as the NAA being controlled by the AAs.

But how much control does the NAA have? Johns’ work sometimes suggests very little. It is this suggestion that can tip assimilation out of its meta potential into a conceptual determinism. The underlying manifestation concerns the nature of the NAA. Every which way you choose you enter an ontological decision.

Is the NAA’s control:

  1. Illusory entirely?
  2. Partially illusory?
  3. Actual?

Every choice entails a different ontological picture. E.g. if 1 then we can say the NAA may not be essentially different from any other AA -it has no more or less control than a table AA. 2 and 3 are compatible with the picture suggested above. The potential actual control of 3 does entail this is how things are only that an NAA could be in actual control. 2 suggests this never possible. Already a fourth possibility appears: that an NAA can be in more or less control at different times.

NPC type theories like this kind of notion by trying to insinuate that most NAARPs are controlled by concepts whilst allocating a sense of control to a specific group (the ones labelling the others). Such groups of course should be aware that factions within the enemy agent group will be thinking similarly about them.


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).

Moving between the observation ambiguously anomalous phenomena as philosophical observation and incoherent acceptance is an edge that has no reconciliation to it. Probably in terms of ‘occult development’ in the ‘systems’ it may well be totally incompatible. Yet these observations such as I can come back from this world to make them is what I’m trying to do here. To this extent I want to share what happened to me yesterday and note how illustrative it is of the pneuminous-vector theory put forward here (accepting that is only one manifestation).

I went for a walk with some dogs. As it happens I was indulging in an old practice that I haven’t done with any regularity for years. This is that of eye crossing as mentioned in the much (possibly with good cause) maligned Casteneda books. If you don’t know it, it’s a bit like looking at magic eye pictures without the magic eye picture. You look to a point beyond everything in your vision, then look to a point in front of your vision, you repeat this for a long time. This activity is attributed with enabling a variety of things e.g. mind clearing, hypnogogic generating, other world perceiving.  Answering what it actually does involves submitting to a given manifestation (is it a psychological or a magickal effect) which one cannot do.

In this instance I am indulging in an incoherent non-directed magickal type interaction. I don’t know why I’m doing it as such but it seems an interesting exercise in what I might perceive -given that in the past it has yielded some anomalous results. If I indulge a projected feeling I note that I perceive the effect feels quite strong, this again is a kind of incoherent articulation of otherworldly perception, or the closeness of that world. Recent Keelian, Reichian  and Trevor James Constable readings have put me in a place of considering ultraterrestrial existence in the ether. There is an openness. Despite this general feeling I walk and eye cross with medium concentration success. The sensation is interesting but nothing really peculiar is perceived. I forget about this and continue to do this activity as I go through a small pine copse that has come to be known as ‘creepy wood’. I have no sense of perturbation by creepy wood, though it does look a bit creepy and I can note that if one pressed me for a feeling, I would say it doesn’t feel very nice (I have in fact owing to my Twin Peaks pathology, come to associate it with Ghostwood). Again though such feelings can just be a double projection based upon its appearance in relation to various media images of ‘spooky woods’ rather than to any innate iniquity that I am picking up on.

However as I go through a certain section, still crossing my eyes I see fairly clearly and with some alarm that a section of wooded area to my left moves like a shadow went across it. This arrests me and gives me a mild alarm. Not wanting to indulge in literally being startled by me own shadow I move back to test if the phenomena is cause by my blocking light. I discover this clearly isn’t the case and move on slightly hastily. I consider that whatever it was I saw might indeed be some product of the eye crossing activity, either a trick product or actually perceiving some kind of spirit type accretion. I consider in my mode of allowing these kinds of thoughts that it is close to midsummer which is classically a time of some thinness and that this idea, if only as accretion could facilitate such beings to be more visible. I continue the walk with no further weirdness. I go home finish the evening activities and go to bed.

About 12:30 I awake from an awful nightmare of some kind of being closing in on me in a situation there is no escape from. This sensation of trappedness causes me to jerk myself awake. Immediately my mind connects the vision from the wood with the nightmare invoking the paranoia that the whatever it was has followed me from creepy wood and now is plaguing me in its own special way. I commence  a series of banishing type rituals in my minds eye which I feel are being fought as I conduct them. I remember -because of the Castaneda crossing activity- some spouting of Don Juan’s about certain kinds of things that inhabit lonely places and will sometimes latch onto people. None of which is helpful. Eventually I calm myself and go back to sleep. There are no more nightmares.

None of the point of my telling any of this is the reality of a spooky story. The point is entirely about the ability of the NARP to accrete this tale and what it illustrates. My general NARP as confessed has a kind of openness to these phenomena and simultaneously a recognition of what the sceptic will say to deny them. From a strong occult perspective the story facilitates an image of beings that live in the woods and can follow the unwary home, or minimally some kind of encounter with a spirit/ghost in the wood -even the occultist would not believe it necessary the dream was directly brought about by the entity.

From a sceptical point of view it’s a kind of trick of the light/my eyes that I got into a flap about because I was predisposed to spooky thoughts. The dream may have been entirely unrelated -remember I had no negative sense from this encounter until after the fact- and had more to do with the red wine that than anything else.

Yet pneuminous-accretively we have a tale that sits astride both these versions. There is a good chance if I think that wood looks a bit creepy (whatever we mean by that) so do other people. Hence the vector region that is the wood will be infected with this feedback. If the strong pneuminous theory holds, then the seeing-the-wood-as-creepy is actually making it so. Our accreted fantasies attach to this vector predisposing the place to phenomena like I witnessed. Now whether or not I saw a something that could in any reasonable sense be said to be there without me -something that belonged ‘there’- is immaterial (pardon the pun). My perception of it, despite my sceptical checking decided it was some kind of spirit, the phenomena was seen-as that. The vector of whatever I saw is impressed with this notion. The nightmare is a perfect extra segment in the accretive story. It immediately summons the events of earlier in the wood and makes sense of the unity -combined with the warnings of a fictitious Yacqui Shaman. The fantasy of the nightmare summoning spirit from the wood is created and tenuously it is a real connection (because my NARP has connected it). The banishing rituals in  this sense did not attest to a real spirit that needed banishing, they were necessary to break apart the accreted pneuma by completing its own narrative (if I cannot flip to so stronger rational materialism as to rob the event of any effect it is better to seal it off on its own terms).

So in the quasi-rational way I tried to diffuse my own automatic accretion mechanisms. It is interesting to consider though how, had I not these reflections I might easily be swept along with a much more naïve occult-realist approach. This in turn would feedback into the existence of the same putative entity forming a greater pneuminous power as a ‘negative spirit’ in that region. Literally a optical trick would be transformed into an accreted entity that in turn would be visible to others and in turn perpetuate the notion of autonomous spirits (which in fairness is exactly what it would be).

Of course such claims are not claims to the explanation. I act here as an agent of various chaos magickal notions. The possibility of the outright utter nonsense of all it in a psychologically discrete materialist world is a serious contender as is the realist occult world in which autonomous ultra-terrestrial style entities can hover in and out of our plane of existence. This is the agnostic disjunction. The pneuminous accretive-vector version needs to be seen to be on the table as a third force. This is of course recognizable as chaos magickal doctrine, the addition I try to push here (on the site generally) is that the same notion is necessarily occurring for all our everyday objects and functions as a cogent ontology that covers magickal and regular phenomena equally.



The vector field should not be mistaken for an in-itself. The vector field presents as an undifferentiated mass on multiple planes the offers interpretations. Yet there is an interpreter of an unknown kind and of unknown limitations -ourselves- in there. The vector field cannot tell you if it would be identical without the interpreting entities (Narps or maybe Sarps (Self Accretion Regional Processor) is better -less negatively laden) therein. The vector field in itself is theoretically the product of even lower organisational structuring -like a Kantian structuration (this raised the notion of the umbratic, which is not identical to the vector field).

Manifestations are interpretations of the nature of the vector field as a totality -competing ontologies.

Regions of the vector field are objects and relations between objects.

It is very hard to articulate this as it is still partially inchoate.

Just because an object is human made does not mean it cannot be a vector. There is no privileging of stones etc. Any given cultural ridden or natural situation is still the vector field -as a kind of epoche.

Activities like thinking are the occurrence of something identifiable as a language game. Consequently there is a vector region that the concept is applied to. This will largely have two criteria i) first person ‘I was thinking really hard about that problem’ ii) second person ‘you look liked you were thinking  about something’. The first case has direct access to if they really were contemplating a problem and the second does not. These cases constitute the basic grammar for the thought language game. Both turn on the fact that the utterances are intelligible to others not access to the ‘real state of thinking’.

Nevertheless vector theory can also incorporate this. The external behaviour and mental activity -however it might happen- are the vectors. ‘Thinking’ as a concept is applied to them both. This is an accretion (the two modes of the language game).

In magickal ontological considerations ‘thinking’ is an accretion not just of epiphenomenal information but of an informational substance called herein ‘pneuma’. The accreted pneuma of ‘thinking’ as reified out of the language game level to the accretive level. The vector region that has the ‘thinking accretion’ attached to it, literally has it attached to it. The region called thinking is being controlled by the ‘thinking’ accretion. As this is a regular occurrence no anomalous phenomena result -it is just the application of concept to vector. But it still is magickal insofar as there is an ontological effect, the pneuma is changing the vector.


Again, the vector field need not exist ever as any kind of prior state of things, it is perfectly cogent to conceive of it after the interpretive event. In this way the conception of the vector field is a kind of epoche.

The vector field is not conceived as one more phenomenology of perception, though in line with the notion that ‘magick completes philosophy’ an account of perception is necessary in a philosophy that includes the magickal manifestation as a possibility.

The vector field enables philosophies (manifestations) that can be compatible or incompatible with a magickally open ontology. The way it deals with this is by saying concepts are attached to vectors rather than using confusing language that identifies the vector with the object.

Identification of word and vector is a kind of possibility but this only occurs in a magickal ontology -it is what secures the metaphysical connection between the two (real designation). In an ontology where the this is not the case Wittgenstein must be admitted as correct as the word then can only mean the use.

Magick is the application of a concept to a vector that would not take it without interference.

The love spell is a classic example of this. The vector here is the one who does not love the lover. ‘That they should love me’ is the concept that the sorcerer seeks to apply to the vector. Success results in the one who did not love the lover now reciprocating (and probably some kind of inevitable tragedy).

The effect of the application of a concept to an unreceptive vector is extremely difficult but if obtaining at all the necessarily taking place at minute levels all the time. What has your desk got to do with a mouse? Nothing, until that connection is formed. But now there is the most tiny pneuminous thread connecting the vector with desk concept attached to the mouse accretion  (the informational form of mice). Indulge this connection and before you know it the line between your desk and mouse will have increased. Such uncontrolled acts of magick can lead to a variety of phenomena, e.g. simple psychological association between desks and mice or mouse related informational interference in the desk area -images, real mice, mice droppings etc.

This process is just the normal process of the relation to the vector field and an extension of the meaning of Crowley’s ‘Every intentional act is a magickal act’. We might rather say every conceptual relation is a magickal act.

What is the vector field? The space of possible implantations by concepts? This definition may have some value and as this is a fairly ad hoc piece of writing we’ll leave it for now. The concept of the vector field as explored elsewhere on the blog seems, in a sense, so boringly familiar. It’s the idea of uninterpreted existence. Any region in any plane that it is possible for us to name is part of the vector field. Vectors as individuated regions given names are commonly called objects except this is in a sense one stage further than vector because object is still a concept. The rejoinder to this is that of course a vector is also a concept. Yes and this is the reason the term vector field is employed, this at least gives the prior heuristic of undifferentiated stuff. This undifferentiation though is not a description of a spatio-temporal surround of the organism, rather it applies to every plane. So the mind and the contents therein are also part of the vector field. Questions as to whether or not the notion is helpful in understanding a thorough description are precisely the point of the writing.

The vector field is broken up into regions, as mentioned these are the ‘objects’ or ‘vectors’. The term vector is there to emphasise the way in which the region is capable of taking a usage word within it -the vector is host to the concept. Any region of the vector field that can have the word cup employed of it is potentially a cup (that’s the grammar of saying ‘this vector houses the cup concept’. Regions that cannot take this usage are not cups. A key question that arises that any such theory must face is ‘what is doing the breaking up into regions?’ This is answered in the same way. Vector theory in a sense is a phenomenology. It cannot tell you what the subject is because ‘subject’ is a concept imposed upon a region of the vector field. Vector theory cannot privilege one term for the mind, individual, subject, dasein. Philosophical argument ensues when a) one says that this vector is best suited to this concept and others disagree and b) there are no clear criteria that can be established to enable a relatively settled fixation of the concept-rules. Consciousness is  a perfect example in this way. No clearly agreed boundaries or nature exist for the application of the rules for this word. In this way the notion is related to manifestationism which can itself be subjected to vector theory. In manifestationism ontologies are the implantations for the vector field itself (what is the nature of everything?) We then argue philosophically about which is the most logically cogent ontology. This in turn raises more fascinating challenges for vector theory.

Do formal systems plug into vectors? Surely they must, but non-physical ones. This goes too far already since physical is a concept applied to the vector field. Numbers are relatively easy (maybe). The possibility of number needs the concept of individuation to facilitate it. There must be in the vector field the ability to group separate regions of the vector field to form the rules ‘this is two, this is three’ -note this does side with transcendental realism or idealism, these are manifestations that are possible interpretations of the vector field.

But what about logic? Logic as an expression is applied to the field on a level in which the concepts are considered related to each other in a certain way. There are rules for the language game of ‘that sounds logical’ but formality takes it to another level. Logic formally uses a variety of concepts but again (and this is what we have to mean by a variety of planes of the vector field) ‘and’ is a concept applied the notion of grouping vector field regions just as ‘or’ is a concept applied to a minimum of one alternative obtaining out of a minimum of two choices. I think this must related to accretive nature of pneuma (information). Conceptuality must be functional in some sense for logic to be possible. Concepts act as a vectors for the possibility of logic. The extraction of ‘if…then’ from the conceptual interactions is not necessary and its a priori determinations (formal ones) are grounded in an individuated dynamic vector field. Or not because in saying that I may have presupposed a manifestation -that of saying that logic emerges empirically. We do not wish to say that, we only wish to show the vectors for logic. In this sense surely the point stands. If we bracket off the a priori if…then (the mathematical) we are at least allowed to note that what we can logical operations can be grounded in the dynamic vector field. What do we mean by this? Again the vector field isn’t just the inside looking out, it is prior to that, it is all feelings, sights, perceptions, sensations even calling them anything. It has elsewhere been called the greater sensorium, but even this is too much. The breakdown into internal/external is itself a comprehension of the vector field. Logic is enabled by the multiplicity of vector field occurrences. The way the vector field behaves means these points (individuated themselves (us/animals etc)) learn the regularities of the field which generates namings and relations (logic). Two points i) abstraction occurs on the back of naming/relations of implanted into the vector field (it is noted that since the same ‘if…then’ relation obtains variously xs and ys can substitute for ‘raining’ and ‘wet’ etc) ii) logic as a reified accretion feeds back on itself and presents a seemingly a priori  system.

The vector field behaves in such a way as to enable concepts that facilitate logical abstraction. The vectors for this are the observations of the relations between the concepts as applied to the vector field. Logic feeds off this lower level of implantation into the ‘solid’ vector field to be ‘Logic’ which is itself and accretion or egregore.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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