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.