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?’