The Impossibility of the Extirpation of Synchronicity qua Synchronicity from Experience.

Let us try once more to get this insanely simple argument down.


1) We are commonly given a solid sense of reality by which we may reliably maneuver in the world.

2) Sometimes things can happen which present a difficulty for this sense of reality e.g. I am focused on various synchronistic phenomena owing to having reread the Cosmic Trigger -for those who do not know this work, key elements are Sirius, its reference as a Dog star and the number 23. I then, with others decide on the philosophy forum reading from next weeks; this is to be chapter 10 of Deleuze and Guattari’s Thousand Plateau’s. It so turns out -to my surprise- not only is this on page 232 but that it also features a plate of a dog person. I duly register this as a synchronistic phenomena. A secondary phenomena occurs one day later in a John Holt education book in which only a few pages in I encounter an experiment featuring 23 people and the word SPECTRA on the same page (the name of the being Geller was in touch with apparently). Maybe not quite with the same force, but this still triggers my attention in the same way.

3) If I accept that the world is a 3d spatio temporal framework of a certain materialist cast, I can write this experience off as coincidence and reality selection.

4) But in order to make a judgement of certainty at this level I need stronger epistemic relation than is ordinarily required. Following Wittgenstein, we can only make sense of ‘doubt’ where we can ‘know’. Ordinarily I do not doubt the world in its solidity, the grammar of the word does not arise from here. However faced with this instance (the synchronistic event) in order to know in the strong sense that the perceived synchronistic event was not ‘real’ I would have to know how reality is ‘really’ working. Hence a second kind of knowledge is required, one more akin to Cartesian certainty. It is more akin to this because the Cartesian criteria ask us to reflect upon our individual perception of the world and not to allow ourselves the presuppositions of a really existing world that will continue to behave in the way it previously did. The relevant point being that the solid regularity of it is actually in question here. Yet I have to have certainty that there is no room in ‘reality’ (which here is used to mean existence as it actually is) for some kind of rearrangement of the world in order to know that the rearrangement option has no validity to it. As such my cognitive relation to the world must be able to easily refute any arguments against the synchronistic version. I find however that with the requisite level of certainty I am unable to discount notions such as ‘how can you be sure that reality did not simply rearrange itself?’ or that speculative notions like the ‘multiverse’ or ‘reality tunnels’ are not reasonable descriptions of the phenomenon. I can in fact, only appeal to the solidity of the world as I originally found it and the science commensurate to that solid approach in order to refute this claim. But this attitude does not help in this instance for such approaches are predicated only on the solidity of reality. All the knowledge has been generated from subject’s reporting only on this aspect. Thus there can be no refutation by appeal to this knowledge, it is just the dry reiteration that things are not really like that and an appeal to reality selection and coincidence.

5) Any other possible explanations for the anomalous event means i) either the solid reality view isn’t random (i.e. there was a connection between the phenomenon and the subject but rather at the level of predetermination) or ii) that there is something amiss with the solid view of reality and that the putative solidity, despite being dutiful reliable, is in fact subject to a kind of rearrangement not coherent to our ordinary way of looking at the world. This incoherent possibility is not one possibility but rather an open plurality of possibilities (speculations).

6) In short, because of the nature of the conundrum the synchronicity presents, I do not have access to any ordinary relation to the world to tell myself of its non-reality.

7) Hence I must just choose to believe the solid picture over the non-solid or determinate picture. Hence both responses are rational (or irrational) because neither are grounded in any greater certainty. The consistent solidity of the world is not an argument to tell me that sometimes it does not behave in that manner and indeed in the synchronisitic instance I have before me good evidence to the contrary.

8) Equally I would be foolish if I did not listen to the coincidence picture but in listening to it I must be careful not to buy into it just  because it is the explanation I am given. Statistically it might make sense but this is not a guarantee of its truth.

9) The resultant, essentially transcendental agnosticism between the informational event (the synchronicity) having an actual (incoherent) relation to the subject and its having no relation to the subject is the key result insofar as it shows the coincidence world view to not have the necessity it would ike.

10) This we believe to be the rational establishment that there is no possibility of extirpating the interpretation of a synchronistic phenomenon as synchronistic (meaningful) as opposed to coincidence. Likewise it would be impossible to remove the non-belief in the phenomena (their reduction to non-meaningful events.

11)We must highlight the possibility that even the synchronistic event as meaningful is slightly misleading, for the possibility also exists that there is an actual relation between subject and event and yet it still the event is not meaningful (where meaningful means the event gives guidance in some way to the subject). This thesis is part of the thesis which says that the reality of the non-solid model does not entail things are not in a sense random. It only entails that a putative external informationally constructed world is in fact intimately tied to the subject.

12) The rational establishment of the inability to discern any of these possibilities over the other is important as it means all consciousness no matter how dogmatic about one version or the other is ultimately ungrounded. As such the possibility selected must be one taken, to an extent on belief.

13) We call the belief projection into the un-grounded, φantasy. Here it does not have a negative character but rather just is the nature of the application of belief to a model put forward (either hegemonically/subconsciously or actively/consciously).

14) ‘Reality’ as such has two senses. i) A term to attempt to refer to how things actually are (even if this is the fantasy (a different term) of knowing the unknowable) and ii) the φantasy commonly accepted in a culture as (i).




The Doctrine of Psychic Accretions


1)      Beware! Things are not as they seem; your discrete and solid world is permeated by something else. What is this else?! I hear you cry. This else is the impossible double of all things that makes them things at all! What nonsense! I hear you cry. There can be no double to what is! Yet there is; the impossible pneuma makes all things what they are.

2)      What is this pneuma of which you speak and how is it the double of that which is? The truth if we dare to use this word here: is that it is not the double of things, it is the thing itself! But it is the double insofar as the shadowy and mysterious also has a kind of being which the pneuma attaches to. This shadowy behind is necessarily there yet only the pneuma shows itself.

3)      This is a most amusing mystery for it was thought that the pneuma was the mysterious when in fact the pneuma is the only part we can ever come into contact with.

4)      The human is a pneumatic assimilator. A being, that is which processes the pneuma and reforms it in infinite ways. These are the accretions.

5)      The pneuminous is not solid but infinitely thin. It weaves its fine web around us. It cocoons the shadow world in glorious being and allows it to be.

6)      The shadow world is severe, inhospitable, in-human, without the pneuma we cannot even say we would go mad and die for even madness is pneumatically processed –it cannot be otherwise, the assimilator is just assimilating the pneuma in a certain way –or some pneuminous forms are imposing themselves upon the assimilator.

7)      The pneuma cradles us. It showers us in things. It gives us ourselves.

8)      But these things in their simple manifestation may attract more pneuma; thus the pneuma accretes, it sticks together and forms great chimeras and monsters. These ethereal beasts may float freely or they may reach out towards us and attach. Beware!

9)      You cannot see their attachment directly but you can feel it. See that beloved thing of yours. That beloved thing is a pneuminous accretion! It may not be pernicious (yet), it may be just a relatively small attachment to your self-accretion, floating along behind you, attached my its pneuminous thread.

10)   Know this too! That shadowy world and the world of the pneuminous, they are not separate! The shadow world appear impervious to the pneuma, like it is just a vessel for it, but this is not true, for in some instances the pneuma is so fierce and powerful that it can move this shadowy world in its likeness.

11)   The human accretion disputes this; it would wish it were not the case. Give me my pneuma but let it be just the harmless showing of the shadow-world. Yet the pneuma will not lie down and be this epiphenomena, in the right time and mode its claws stick firm to the world of shadows and rend it out of shape.

12)   There is no escape from the pneuma for the pneumatic assimilator, for the awareness is formed by the pneuma, even the talk of the world of shadows is the pneuma in action.

13)   The pneuma does not strive, but the accretions do! The self is an accretion of pneuma formed by many forces. Many forces emit from the accretion.

14)   The pneumatic assimilator is made up of the shadow world, it cannot not be. From the shadow world emits something we call natural. There are many beings like this, rocks , trees, lakes, sees, each one is pneuma already formed. The pneuminous disclosure is in this way obvious to the being of awareness.

15)   Ia! The paradox of being! How can the pneuma be already formed without the being of awareness? The world is the hidden shadow world cloaked in pneuma.

16)   That which announces what it is, announces only this. All further announcements of the phepneumenon are never an absolute but one further announcement. Thus frogs may become frogs and toads. Grass becomes the grasses.

17)   The being of awareness that we call ourselves is a rupture in the movement of the pneuma. For in this being the pneuma is rent in all manner of ways unspeakable.

18)   What is the being? Is the being the pneuma also? There is a reciprocation between the seed from the shadow world and the pneuma . This seed contains within it will and desire. We are already within the loop. The seeds only awareness is within the fold of the pneuma. It is immediately taught how the pneuma forms and thus joins itself to the accretions.

19)   The being may be attached to an accretion and yet not possess it. It may desire an accretion and not possess it.

20)   Though you can see the accretion with your own eyes you cannot see the lines that attach them –but you can feel them.

21)   A favoured thing was lost. The sense of loss weakened the accretions attachment. The absence of the shadowy part to which the pneuma had become attached brought sorrow. The pneuma began to fade. We might let that accretion go or it might cling to us as accretion only, indeed the memory is a trace of pneuma we cannot easily remove forever, we might not wish to. Yet stronger accretions linger without their shadow and cause us ill.

22)   Let us be clear. The accretion is in two places in a sense. In the intangible realm of the pneuma and visibly attached to the shadow world. Everything you can see, you understand under some idea, this idea is the pneuma. When you imagine an object, you see purepneuminous accretion. Imagination is an act of summoning pneuma to form.

23)   Does the pneuma hold the shadow world still or does the shadow world hold the pneuma still? This is a question which cannot be answered. Being offers only the manifestation of both possibilities.

24)   We are pneuminous beings. By the time we can reflect upon this matter it is too late to reflect upon the formation of the pneuminous self. We can say we are something which has awareness of the pneuma and as such sees other pneuminous selves. How can the self be pneuminous? How can that which is information be information?

25)   I see something. That I see something is due to the pneuma already attached to the shadowy part –we cannot perceive the shadow part directly, only through the pneuma. When I see it as something else more pneuma attaches to the thing displacing the other pneuminous perception.

26)   The being such as we are obviously processes the pneuma. It is a pneumatic assimilator. It takes in the pneuma, processes it, but also its extending lines of what we called perception are also made up of it.

27)   The pneumatic assimilator that is ourselves, is endlessly complex in its ways of reconfiguring the pneuma.

28)   Of course when the pneumatic assimilator perceives others, they are perceived pneumaticatically. When I dislike someone, even if I do so for wrong reasons, I attach to their pneuminous self the concepts for my dislike of them. They may dispel this pneuminous attachment or they may strengthen it.

29)   What are these concepts of which I speak? They are pneuminous accretions! Nebulous and yet charged with the powers that emit from the assimilator: hatred, desire, longing, ignorance

30)   The pneuminous world is beyond complicated with threads extending in all ways, sensible in our spatiality and temporality and also outside of both. To note this terrifying complexity is not a reason to deny it. We may be restricted on how much we can actually say of its functioning, yet we may approach and acknowledge its being and this may be a start.

31)   It may be there was a temporality before the pneumatic assimilator in which pneuma and shadow coexisted happily (possibly there was no pneuma until the assimilator appeared). But then the shadow world produced the assimilator creating new configurations of the pneuma.

32)   Is this the substantialisation of mind? Yes it is that. What kind of substance is this? Substance is too an accretion formed of pneuma. It has the kind of being that information has.

33)   The attachment of the accretions is formed basically of like and dislike –in their various manifestations. Both of these attitudes towards a thing will attach to it. Accretions of pneuma accrete further by the various attachments we make to them. Granny’s pen that I now have, has granny’s accretion attached to it, though she may be dead; the pen may be a thing of dread that I dare not dispense with or a thing of joy, or possibly an item of mildly indifferent sentimental attachment; all of these feelings are the lines of attachment. This does not say that granny’s accretion is attached just for me just in my mind as it were; it says that there are lines that still attach to granny’s accretion.

34)   What would ‘just in my mind’ mean here at all? There is no ‘just in my mind’ for all the contents of thought that were perceived to have the grammar of internality were in fact external within the pneuminous realm. But external to what? The pneuminous self? No they are not external to it except in the sense that they might be severed and leave other parts of the pneuminous self-intact.

35)   Part of the doctrine amounts to this: if you draw a face on a piece of paper and give it a name and talk to it that face will accrete, the more you can interpret it as conscious the more conscious it will be. The pneumatic power to interpret beings of awareness as aware is part of the concept we attach to them. Does this exist in its own right? Yes the assimilator possesses awareness hypothetically outside of any pneumatic interpreter, but as within the circle of pneuma already, the concept exists as an accretion it can then be applied as a noesis. So the pneuma has heuristically two kinds of accretion: emotionally charged and information. These are not so different though. One is not particularly charged by emotion, in the simple taking to be of something. The functional attitude is one of the oldest kinds of lines that attaches to a thing.

36)   The things of humans and the things of nature are different. One possess has a kind of being such that its already presentness gives it the tendency for a certain accretion to be formed. The lake gives itself as a lake. With the things of human craft it is different. The accretion may not be so similar in its manifestation. The difficulty of determining a thing from another culture shows this.

37)   Awe can be felt in the connecting lines (as the connecting lines) to the numinous. The grand interpretations of the world and its great powers ‘God’ ‘Spirit’ are too accretions, these accretions are vast and powerful. The desire is always to create the accretion that connects to the shadow world, to be at one with it. Though sometimes it creates the accretion which seems to be separate from the pneuma conflated with the shadow world. Like a transcendent God. Conceive of the madness of this accretion! Tremble at its insane power! Its horrifying cosmic self belief in its own reality though it is but pneuma accreted. Such beings must be torn down for the revelation of the pneuma as it is.

38)   In this way, by this action we come to see the horrifying possibilities of what the pneuma is. For it is all that is (being is the realm of the pneuma). Everything you wished for and did not wish for exists in some form pneumatically.

39)   Any organisation has a pneuminous accretion which is its being. When things are said to be more than the sum of their parts it is the whole pneuminous form that is being talked about. When you work for an organisation or are part of one you become part of the accretion, its lines of power attach to you.

40)   The imagination is a vital tool here for we must use it to understand the threads of the pneuma which are invisible. Think of something: you are attached to that pneuminous being through a connecting line, it cannot be otherwise.#

41)   Do you deny the pneuma? Then what are you seeing such that you see things as anything? Do you suppose you see the things that are there?! What madness! There may be something like a spatial environment outside of the pneuminous, but these things you see, they are informationally processed and as such pneuminous!

42)   This is a symbol of death, the priestess said. And so it was!

43)   Death is an accretion too!

44)   The pneuma appears as apart from the human. The pneuma manifests the possibility of its externality.

45)   The pneuminous accretion of the pneuma itself is all we can muster from within the pneuma. Pneuma is just one word for this substance, which itself has lines of power connecting it to all manner of other accretions. Its usage in this sense is intentional for the attachments it has seem appropriate.