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.