So that means the answer to the riddle what is 23 (or 47 for that matter or indeed 11:11 or any of the other ones)? is that it is a free floating accretion of information that has somehow become perfectly poised to become what it has become and thus to become pneuminously ‘real’ by virtue of its accretion. It may well be (inevitably is) more complicated than this, but lets say Burroughs comes across it by something like chance (though it may have a deeper meaning even to him). The Burroughs accretion starts accreting pneuma around the 23, the 23 responds because part of its accretion is a kind of animism, a perception of the number following him. This information becomes part of that accretion. Remember in this notion we’re accepting that the information (pneuma) is in some ineffable way out there. It’s a bit like Plato except the forms themselves are contingent accretions not pure essences.
From here on the accretion, because it exists in a cultural milieu largely rejecting of occult phenomena seeps into cracks where it is fetishised. Consider, in an other society more accepting of this kind of thing, a 23 popping up might be considered a sign; for sure a naive interpretation but at least one that allows its anomalous manifestation to reside rather than be repressed. When it appears in the enframed technological society it is incomprehensible. The only sign it becomes is a sign that ‘your higher mind is awakening'(to the modern occultist) but this too is more metaphysics, and utterly groundless like its being any other sign. However its being a sign is also part of its accretion so in a way it is a sign (I’m not going into that here).
But now here comes Wilson to accrete it further along with the rest of it (Eris, 5s, Psychic TV). Dogstars, aliens, goddesses all become accreted to the number. My accretion in turn attaches it to 47 (23.5 *2), and the spin angle of the world (amongst other things) gets involved -this is allowed because of course the degrees system is also an accretion that now has linked itself to the whole madness. Contingent pneuminous structures function autonomously and attach to one another at the speed of thought. This is not a psychological reduction (though it has a parallel as one) but neither does it give these numbers their special status -but neither can it absolutely deny it, there is still the phantasy that these numbers are some kind of tendril of a greater reality that pokes through in this form. This manifestation will also receive credence if you accept it but loses the phenomenological purity (it falls back to metaphysical explanation).
Let’s reiterate: 23 is information attaching to information, the only reason we say its independent to particular people accretions (sort of independent) is because in order for magickal effects to obtain the information must be able to alter the putative umbra. Once the 23 accretion is up and running, it is more potent to attach to others giving them the reality bending synchroncity experience it is capable of. Is this experience real? There’s the point exactly again, you cannot tell, the possibility of experiencing something like 23 as ‘real anomaly (where anomaly is cogent only in relation to a dominant solid side’) is one side of the coin of being. In the experience as anomaly the pneuma must be interfering with the umbra. Under this aspect we can say this much.
One implication of the pneuminous theory is the solution to the problem of numerology (which is also the problem of many occult areas) i.e. how is it that a system with contingent associations (this number means this) make any sense at all? The answer is then that the accretion of the number functions by connecting pnueminous threads. So 4 is not just contingently the number of solidity, it is attached to this concept accretion literally in the pneuma. This is the phenomenological manifestation of the situation anyway.
To spell some of the obvious out, this means supposedly fictional characters have pneuminous reality of a similar order to magical spirits. The essential difference being that the noetic structure of a fictional character is precisely that and as such they behave differently. If however we attempt invoke a fictional character by some kind chaos magickal means then we noetically shift them into a different kind of accretion. Pneuma is capable of self awareness as this is what we are made of. Spirits rarely have this durability as they do not receive enough pneuminous noetic focus to sustain their being. Aspect perception is literally engendering being through the reified accretion. So the accretion is contingent and necessary. Seeing teddy as alive, makes teddy alive. Does it give him organs and blood? No. But then your organs and blood aren’t what makes you into the kind of thing you are. Phenomenologically this is the error. The person is a person by the same token, that they are perceived as a person. The pneuma accretes by others to make them what they take themselves to be. The self is a pneuminous accretion as such is contingent. As such the umbratic form (of whatever we call a human is) can take on more accretive selves, or lose self entirely.
Constantly the idea recurs to me that pneuma provides a sort of solution to certain nihilistic issues, though frequently the clarity of this idea evades me and I am left only with the knowledge that whatever amelioration it provides it only shifts the problem away. The shifted problem however, sometimes seems to be enough. To make some kind of attempt to address it, the issue is something like this. When phenomena are seen to be nothing in the face of an all encompassing physics their value decreases and we are wont to see everything as nothing in the face of the endless universe. Pneuma cannot remove this entirely but it does mean that this old toy of mine is not just deludedly filled with my memories, it really is literally, possibly even perniciously so. This process is the same one as happens in ordinary perception, just the noesis is different and the differing noesis makes all the difference. If I buy something by a famous artist on the day they died as a souvenir then this item accretion has accreted to the death day and my own accretion, a unity of connection is made. This is psychologically true and phenomenologically magically true. This gets to the core of the purpose of the notion of accretion. I would argue however it is the magical notion that gives us the real sense of meaning for things and when they are merely psychologically true (of this kind) the emptiness pervades.
Part of the whole problem turns on events. If there was a ceremony which marked an event then the magickal implication is that the event is actually linked to the ceremony. This linking is phenomenological, it has the character of appearance that cannot be proved or dispelled. The phenomenological hypothesis disclosed here is the linkage must necessarily be informational (or pneuminous). The original event’s name is a use term covering a broad array of phenomena incoherently accreted to the name, and yet by these threads the accretion holds and as such by the ceremony we are connected to it.
Maybe there is a way we use a notion like this. Say there is smoke and in a society nobody actually has anything to say what it is as such. It’s just smoke, it’s indexically linked to fire and someone might give a definition using this kind of indexical manner ‘it comes with fire’ and that’s it. Then we have only a first order ontology. If we say ‘what is smoke?’ and we answer ‘the spirit of the thing that is burnt released into its purest form’ then we have a second order ontology. It does not only take that thing as existent( indeed kind of the point is that there is no object in this ontology but still the correlation of use and phenomenon begins to suggest it), it tells you what it is with recourse to a theoretical framework. Both are accretive, but differently so. The former accretes the word to the phenomena (and hence to other indexically related phenomena), the latter accretes to the framework designation and reifies the phenomenon into a thing defined by certain constraints. Of course herein lies part of the problem, for the definition can never be sure that it is complete, though it may appear as such.Is smoke is ‘a visible suspension of carbon or other particles in air, typically one emitted from a burning substance’ more true than ‘a spirit of the thing burned’?
The implication of all of this accretive business is that all those irritating Hegelian Nothingness’s do designate, they designate the paradoxical accretion of Nothingness and/or Being. We are (because the accretions have pneuminous form) then allowed to ask what is this form and is it actually useful? For the being in itself is made up of the umbratic and pneuminous but this is not what we mean when we ask what something is. The non-representational ‘it’s a knife’ is still true. The accretion of being, like that of some god is still an accretion. I was going to write that it is a more necessary accretion than God, but I’m not sure this is true because the manifesation of being as God or as ruled by a God is also transcendental insofar as it accord to the same problematic that dismissing synchronicity faces i.e. the criteria that establish the phenomena are not dismissed by any of the tools available to scientific epistemology. This does not substantiate these phenomena but it makes their belief more rational.