I want to give the notion of pneuma a kind of concretion. Of course it is incoherent but this is also partially the point of the accretive theory. As stated elsewhere Wittgenstein would be right if it were not for the manifestation of the pneuma. Let’s be clear there, essentially Wittgenstein is right, the meaning of the word can only be its use unless you have some actual metaphysical connection between umbra and pneuma. This brings to mind the possibility of needing another descriptive term i.e. if umbra is unperceived being, cthon is being in the manifestation of non-conceptualisation, pneuma is the informational power that makes things into concepts, the missing slot would the manifestation of being as behind pneuma. Part of the project states that umbra is affected by pneuma, but this would only happen in their conjunction, the term pneumbra (a play on penumbra) springs to mind. But anyway my point here was to demonstrate the reality of pneuma. I think this is simple if you just ask yourself what you are seeing as images ‘in your mind’. All dreams are pure pneuma with no necessary umbratic attachment. The magical correlate of this is that the pneuma can attach to umbra. If we imagine something floating in the air before us and have sufficient visualisation ability to perceive it in the transcendent spatio temporality then what is this image made up of? The answer is in my terminology pneuma. The thing to note is that when I see a stone I still see only pneuma. Yet in this case the pneuma has accreted around the umbra, yet in the former there is no umbra.