The matter is frequently posited as epistemological. Everything here is couched in terms of epistemology and the notion that reality in its various guises is always open or doubt -or the flipside of this: phantasy.
But what is the situation when we have not had the privilege of the scientific rationality in order to couch it in these terms? In this situation the incoherent faeries and spirits are simply what is. Under these circumstances, does a stubborn kind of soul utter phrases like ‘you fools there are no such things faeries’.
Is this identical to the modern world solidity? It surely is related. What circumstances allow the different manifestations to dominate. Quantum physics is not needed for the phenomenology in the Tractatus but its cultural impact has opened an incoherent window for people to believe there is a part of the accepted canons of knowledge which gives them its blessing.
The disclosure of strange things is only possible against a background of non strange things. These things are wont to be called reality. The business herein becomes strange. Consider that for us to have laid down what is real we must make a demarcation and say this is real. An ontology expresses this. That choice however must take into account the non-real as that which was decided against, indeed the non-real must have preceded the decision of the real. Hence when we consider our dialectic is the real is less real than the non-real. Do you see what I mean? If we insist that the real is what truly is, then there was something before this, the unreal. Is this gibberish? The real made an incursion into the non-real and claimed it as real but what was real, what was there was the non-real out of which reality sprang as the fundamentally non-real to the non-real’s true reality.
It is long postulated in this work that the existence of certain kinds of beings (down the corridor) is in fact far more similar to the existence of the beings we ordinarily encounter than it would seem. We are wont to believe that ourselves as real selves wander around, maybe damaged but essentially whole.
There are two versions of the existence of spirits i) tells us there is either one or many extra dimensional realms in which these beings reside and visit us or be summoned by us and ii) in which the beings are generated by ourselves.
The empirical evidence -such as it is- weighs against (i) insofar as the there is little or no harmony between the various descriptions of spirit worlds. It is of course still a phantasy-manifestation and as such unremoveable and suddenly what I sought to write on takes a different turn.
There seems to be a problem there insofar the whole enterprise (the Tractatus) is predicated on the notion that certain experiences supply the criteria for radical doubt to be possible -reasonable- yet now from working within the space opened by the legitimacy of the doubt -the phantasy- we uncover another phantasy: that of the fixed spirit world with its own hierarchies etc. Furthermore down the line of this madness the multiple descriptions could still not be the result of our forming these worlds but rather of their active external to ourselves existence and severe multiplicity -the multiple descriptions in fact adhere to multiple worlds.
It is true of course that this phantasy will like the one we describe persist as a nagging part. Yet the meaning of the reality accretion currently in play is one that marginalises occult phenomena generally. We adhere to the notion of criteria as necessary to make the doubt reasonable. The criteria for the fixed spirit world are more difficult precisely because they need to invoke wilder and wilder pictures to maintain their sense. No one is pretending what we are trying to say is acceptable to many hard headed materialists -who will invoke the coincidence on the basis of an a priori spatio temporal framework- but obviously I think its fairly reasonable and that a relativistic description a la khaos magick is what is disclosed, that is the previous model for the phenomena -the fixed spirit world of beings- no longer serves as adequate criteria for the phenomena, but if there is still a remainder when rational materialism has done it’s best then this does not reinvoke the fixed model but rather brings into play an essentially Kantian reversal. We constitute the entities rather than their having an independent existence. But this of course opens up the umbratic speculation of the unconscious, but that’s for another day.
So it boils down to this: is an extra phenomenological force needed as manifestation or is the rendering of pneuma sufficient? The notion of energia which fuels the pneuma is certainly a manifestation, but possibly its aspect perception is sufficient. It would seem that the notion here is that when I see something as something it acquires these properties -all be it slightly. Thus when I see an inanimate doll as animate it acquires a sense of consciousness -an identical process to the invocation of a spirit except there is an umbratic counterpart. In this sense no energy theory is needed for it was the interpretation which did the altering. The notion of energy would be in this sense subsumed under the belief of the interpretation. The energy theorist might say that it is precisely this effort of interpretation which gives energy to the being, but it seems more that the interpretant expended energy themselves rather than imbued energy into the pneumatic entity.
It is clear to me that what is called in chaos magick an ‘egregore’ is practical identical to my notion of accretion. The difference is only one of extension of use for I say if magickal entities may be constituted in this way then the same substance or pneuma as I have taken to call it is in operation all the time (every act is a magickal act). All concepts are egregores. They can be directed by the -itself an accretion- notion of autonomy -the formation of a spirit-but they need not be. The fact the pneuma attaches to an umbratic/cthonic counter part does not mean it is not still pneuma just as the the pure spirit egregore is, for after the fact I might, if I so desired invoke the table, but this table would be purely pneuminous and not hold my cup of tea.
This seems all very reasonable. Demarcating falsely between magickal beings and regular concepts seems a bad move, however it does then beg the question ‘what activates the pneuma to be active, that is in a magickal sense?’. It must be somehow more or different to the table (concept).
Naturally I am not concerned whether or not anything ever actually happened; the matter is only this: what are the adequate ontological descriptions that occur either overt or as presuppositions in order for a magickal event to obtain?’ So given that I am left to wonder ‘is pneuma sufficient as a concept to account for this?’
Much has been made of my incoherence notion -by me obviously. The question that discloses itself in clarity now is: is the incoherence that I express exists in a conceptual formation pre analysis on Derridean/Wittgensteinian horizons (incoherent coherence) the same as the incoherence found in the synchronistic phenomenon? This has certainly been my claim, that is that the sense of incoherent belief that this phenomena has a sense to it yet if you ask me how this sense happens I am unable to give it to you, that this sense is the same as the problem I have when I try to account for the wholeness of the sense of a words functioning. If this identity does not hold then I have simply reified incoherence and then linked two things. I can indeed would argue that this is find because the accretion of incoherence a priori links the two but this is unconvincing unless you accept the accretions themselves whose ontology is somewhat incoherent…
Let’s dwell on these a moment and see if we understand any clearer what we’re talking about. Do we need two categories? I think so yes. The umbratic is the never perceived at all ever, the rear side of the perceptual object and the putative behind of the appearance. An unknowable existence which presents its manifestation in exactly that impossible idea of there being something in our absence. So there is the manifestation of something which we overlay with our pneuma accreting capacities. The pneuma overlays the umbra. Is that clear? Clear ish I suppose. So what do I need the cthonic for? Well I when I was reading something about Lacan I saw something about his notion of the real. Now the real for Lacan would probably cover both of these but I feel there is a separation to make. The passage I read said that there was no break in the real, that it was us that chopped it (conceptually) up.
This isn’t so helpful for this dark Umbratic existence which ironically partially contains the manifestation of things still being separate outside of our view. The chtonic for me would be more the sense of the given that I think I thought I could attribute to the umbratic in a recent post. The cthonic is more like a Husserlian hyle. There may be areas in my perception that are undifferentiated, that are to me an mass of approaching unconceptual space. Explanatory words given to me immediately attract pneuma. So are we saying here there may be experiences without pneuma? I think not, just that in some instances the pneuma is so thin we have a close to non-pneumatic experience. This is not an experience of the in itself, this is closer to Sartre’s experience of a tree. The field of being is highly conceptually(pneumatically) restricted which produces an uncanny effect.