A manifestation that re-emerges constantly is that of energy. This kind of notion has obviously been with us for a long time, prana, chi, orgone, vital force, being some examples. The work here has not used this notion believing that information is sufficient to rid ourselves of this idea. This might still be right, yet it seems there must be some kind of acknowledgement of this issue (as a manifestation). The reason we have not employed it is because calling it energy is always a kind of explanation for various phenomena which conveniently maps along various axes e.g. ghosts and living creatures would be powered by the same force. It remains a supposition to then say that there must be an energy that takes these different forms (an undermining strategy in Harman’s language). The problem is at least better phenomenologically posed if we say that the phenomena are only information (pneuma), and then adjust what information must necessarily be in order for this to be the case. This has the advantage of starting with something we can know, i.e. that we see the floating mist as ghost, and as such imbue it with a person like quality. In the ghostly instance the pneuma that is commonly attached to umbra (we call this unity a human being) becomes uncoupled from it and persists to a lesser or greater degree. We do not say how this comes about merely that if such a phenomenon is taken as obtaining, then this is the most we can say it is and when we stray to energy theory we have gone into speculation. The problem that persists is the problem of intensity. This issue regards (amongst others) the notion of why one sigil is magickal and another is not. Certainly the language of energy is employed in this wise, people talk about ‘charging’ symbols. We can say ‘but this is an accretion, and the magickal act is the act of forcing accretions together’ but the we must ask ‘but how is this done?’

Accepted, the willing subject is also an accretion whose coming into being as willing subject is born out of umbratic depths (umbra suggests pneuma, but does not control it). In either instance a perception of something growing in power is a pneuminous one: I am overpowered by the perceived force of the phenomenon or I seek to give power to the phenomenon, in other words I strive to look at it as if it were powerful. Force comes from the umbratic suggestion or the controlled pneuma. Energy (in this sense of magickal energy) is certainly an accretion, but it seems from my rumination I am still unable to give it the necessity it sometimes seems to beg. A feeling of increasing energy is still pneuminous, it is exactly that information and whether I seem to manipulate this increase, or have it imposed upon me I am still within a pneuminous frame and have no recourse to an extra ‘energy’ other than as language game employed as an explanation for the phenomenon.

Let us be clear, there are intractable mysteries here (indeed the transcendental mystery has been elsewhere in here posited as an ontological category) whose description we have by no means scratched. The pneuminous accretion that we call ourselves is one of the central issues here, for from this curious accretion emanates desire, or at least the desire accretion is necessarily attached to it (to the extent that it has the manifestation of an umratic suggestion). The ability to weave accretions together is the essence of anything we call creative. Whether a satisfactory disclosure of this beings inception will occur, it is not possible to tell. For now let us note the being of energy still as a distracting force until some greater argument compels us to better reconsider the matter.

Φantasy/Phantasy: Archiving post.


Phantasy 1.01

Φantasy: How do we expand this. We already said we did not wish to conceptually. But maybe this is erroneous. How can we map the loops that take place here. That is, when a concept becomes abstract and theoretical it suffers a certain death-by-theory, it is studied in vitro, and yet by the very nature of what is studied we might yet find there is sufficient power in this corpse to possess someone else. This theoretical daimon might easily leap out and get you. Note how this is phantastical language. You are wont to say that no demon or daimon will leap out and get me. But observe and remember that there is nothing in these scribbles but that interpretation which tells you they mean something. Stare at them and attempt to see them as meaning devoid lines, almost impossible. The concept as interpreted has a psychic life which will find a greater or lesser manifestation in your own thinking. This whole is the daimon, a truly ideal entity autopoetic in its ability to reproduce.

Φantasy is not so unrelated to its ordinary language use. But this is not a psychoanalytic use -though it might not be so far removed sometimes. What we wish to encompass in this notion though is the manner in which phantasy encapsulates the inability overcome some kind of factual account of being which lays beings out in such a manner to exclude the possibility of the phantastic.

Fantasy is fantasy understood as fantasy. Is there ever such a thing? Is this rarer than phantasy? There may be no sharp division here. If I daydream about being a superhero this is a fantasy. If I read a book about faeries and gain a great poetical longing for some notion of a hidden people in the forest and hills and subsequently even take up a pass time of looking for them, this is phantasy. Yet both seem like a flat contradiction of how the world is presented to me.

The latter operates within a peculiar epistemological realm which we must understand to do justice to forms of belief. Another part of the claim of the phantastic is that it makes no negative claim about the kind of phenomena. Phantastic does not mean subjective and merely internal desired imaginings, it means sometimes contingent on Being being a manner which we do not understand ordinarily.

φantasy 1.02

Psychic accretions are a φantasy. This has already been mentioned. To tread the path of the psychic accretion is to have gone too far. We have wandered erred and indulged. Yet we must wander, we must err, we must indulge, for we have nothing else but this realm. All hope of grasping is lost here in this desolate land. When we do not allow ourselves to wander and to indulge and err what do we find? We find the ground from which the doctrine of accretions grew and that ground is empirical. How can we get round this? If we believe again in a rational world view then we have also drifted into φantasy. Surely that cannot be so. Yet it is, for the rational world view can do little to dent your monadic existence, it can bolster one interpretation of its manifestation and help its solidity solidify. Reified theory is φantasy, a psychic accretion no less, as pernicious as any Gorgon. It is not as it really is, any less than it discloses itself in stranger ways and these strange ways too are part of the disclosure. As they arise they cry out for interpretation which we may disregard yet we cannot disregard to the possibility to interpret them thus as the monadic loneliness cannot reach out beyond its φantasy. But isn’t this more than we intended φantasy to be?

Φantasy 1.03

Why did we move beyond the world? What made us wish to invoke other forces for explanation? And yet Plato precedes Aristotle. When we say we derived number from the world, do we say something cogent? Like P says, ‘here is one thing and here is another’. It comes from the gap which then says ‘but in order to have two things, I must have the concept of twoness’, hence there must be such an essence enabling my perception of these things as such. But the principium individuationis guarantees this without the Platonic need. From the nomads perseptive there are seemingly separate things. The creative conceptual power of being unfolds the twoness out of the physicality. But hold on, didn’t we just hide the Platonism in the the creative conceptual unfolding of being. We did indeed, we posited that there is a capacity of the mind’s to reformulate an understanding of existence. But then the Platonist can say that we just accessed the forms which were already there, they were the unfolding aspect perception. And the best retort we have is that the Platonism is then unneccessary. But is it any more unneccessary than the capacity of the mind to reformulate things on an empirical stream -which we can know must itself be intentionally mediated.

This bifurcation is a φantasy, more clearly so the Platonic side. It adds an element of epistemological possibility which can not be positively refuted. This failure to positively refute it, with the apparent manifestation of the essence of things (the ability to see something as such). The φantasy of Platonism is generative of the numerical psychic accretions which may be experienced in various ways.

Φantasy 1.04

Φantasy can be analysed into ontic and ontological manifestations. Those ontic φantasies relate to unknowables within the world, conspiracy theories, the truth of ‘normal’ news and the like fall into the category of ontic manifestations. The philosophies themselves: idealism, materialism, realism etc are ontological φantasies. Each one attempts to answer the question of being and leave the minimum of logical difficulty. Naturally they all fail but may each have advocates who presumably believe in the positions. Of course owing to the incoherence inherent in language there is no possibility to prove a given position wrong from a given φantasy, only the belief from within the φantasy.

Φantasy and Disclosure.

When we consider as foolish the self disclosure of the object we must be quite clear as to what kind of claim we are making against this thesis. If the thing did not self-disclose then it must have been disclosed by the monad itself. But when the monadic attention is caught by the thing, what happened there? What motivated the monad to disclose the thing if not the thing? We could postulate psychological/psychoanalytic factors that might determine this but then we would be lost in the φantasy of psychoanalytical thought and not have improved the matter. Furthermore it only creates a further recourse to a previous occasion on which the thing self-disclosed. That the thing disclosed itself is one more competing φantasy is the case yet it is one more competing φantasy.

The thing no doubt disclosed itself within the horizon of an event-complex which itself which is a context of existence. An event-complex disloses itself as unity containing things in some relation -a cat and a car e.g. The event-complex occurs and discloses itself in doing so. This implies there was a state in which an event-complex was not occuring. This is heuristically true of our experience: ‘it was just one thing after another.’

Φantasy note

The aspect flip involved to perceive the psychic accretions as part of an ontology involves the phantasy of an aether. The phantasy of aether as ontologicall effective/interactive -in another sense the interaction between the substantial and the informational helps to give rise to the aspect flip but is only a sufficient condition of such an ontology.

The aether in this sense is information. But information is an ontological differential. Awareness entails information and must be interpreted as altering that which is out there..

Psychic (Pneuminous) Accretions -Archive.


Elsewhere we have spoken of the φantastical taxonomy of accretions. Here we must dwell further on this matter -insane as it might seem. A relation occurs here with Heidegger’s claim that physis is the highest form of poesis. Everything (concept or physical object) is some kind of accretion -its is formed of the pneuma (or informational aether as it is elsewhere known). When there are lots of stones in front of me they are part of the accretion ‘stones’, which in turn may have links to other accretions, through personal or knowledge based links. The stones show themselves as stones and allow that accretion to hold; φantastical happenings not withstanding this is their being as formed of pneuma. If I pick up a stone and it becomes ‘that stone of that fateful day’ its accretive now forms as a particular and it links temporally and emotionally to that time. Nothing can take this from the stone now. In φantasy we might say that if I lose the stone it might disappear literally in the un-pneuma, yet in reality (as a complementary principle remember) it is still there, it lies somewhere, still having been ‘that stone of that fateful day’. And though someone else might find it and know naught of this, they may yet find it queer (or they may never notice this quality).

When a thing is forged such that a new accretion is formed, it rests upon this other accretion and yet in a sense is separate from it -it might be possible that the new accretion could be made with other accretions (or not, a gold ring can after all only be made of gold). These accretions may nestle together to form again particular accretions -the gold ring given to me by such and such.

All things are accretions, yet there are accretions that show themselves in the accretion of natural itself (which is of course also an accretion). Stones and plants, wind and water, fire and air, metal and earth are such accretions. An analysis of type may occur and unfold new accretions, but when these things are used to make other things their nature shows itself in the new accretion only (though we might flip our aspect to see only the what-it-is-made-of). A mobile phone does not give itself like a stone. Yet the properties of a plant do not give themselves either like stone. So then does a stone give itself as a stone? Yes, but what is a stone (concrete could find itself as a stone accretion until someone epistemically separated it for someone else)? Only in culture does a phone give itself as a phone (but what is a phone?). In the φantasy of reality there is a difference. A stone manifests the idea of its self giving superiority over a phone. The trees and wind and sea claim this too. But this is φantasy, a borderline situation in which we cannot tell. We cannot get out of our culture and language to say that some beings have a more primordial disclosure over others, but we can say they manifest this appearance.

Psychic Accretions 1.01

The doctrine of psychic accretions says that phenomena of a mental kind acquire increasing size for various reasons. What does this mean? It regards the process of reification. Reification is a natural process by which the disclosure of the reality of things takes place; but the reality of things is one more intentional structure and not an absolute ground, rather just the disclosure itself. The inescapable intentional structure of all conscious processes discloses things as psychic. Psychic accretion refers to nothing more than this thing structure, however it says in essence anything we ascribe any kind of discretion to -as such a thing is tautologically psychic.

Psychic accretions acquire different powers within other psychic accretions. Selves are psychic accretions but in essence no different from other psychic accretions. Self interpretation partially determines the accretion of the self e.g. I am…a…b…c. The psychic accretions await the newly forming (psychic) accretion and there is a reciprocal latching onto each other in temporality. Something similar to a field of awareness is of course itself an accretion yet also an axiom for this to be the case. Such a notion also relies upon a kind of concept of a psychic energy rather akin to that found in psychoanalysis.

To reiterate every concept including psychic accretion is a psychic accretion, which holds together better or worse. Is this idealism? It would seem to buy into it. In this sense beyond idealism is phantasy.

Psychic Accretions 1.05

Aetheric matter constitutes the condition of possibility for para-psychological phenomena. Some form of aether can be used as an explanation for various ethereal beings. The definition of an aether of course is difficult. It is invariably some kind of fine matter which, by nowadays standards is difficult/impossible to detect associated with forces of differing kinds, though often primarily life. Thus a ghost may be said to be made up of such a matter because it is a deceased material being, which now carries on in some immaterial form, thus there must be some immaterial substance which can manifest in regular existence.

The ghost is not in itself a φantasy. The manifestation of such an entity promotes the φantasy of an aether. But let us recall, a φantasy is not a negative concept, but it is one which resists proof or disproof. Aetheric forces are suggested in multiple phenomena, feelings of energy (in chi gung e.g.) ghosts, dowsing. It is not the reality of aether that is at stake but rather the manifestation of such a possibility in the face of certain phenomena. Such a manifestation is inevitable in the face of no coherent alternative to the monadic consciousness. Furthermore a strategy which tells the consciousness that the phenomenon it experienced was not ‘real’ will not be truly acknowledged and the φantasy will reemerge (indeed the theory of no phenomenon having occured is itself a φantasy).

Psychic accretions are a quasi necessary correlate of an aetheric ontology i.e. if there is a fine matter then there is an inevitable association of it with mind. The impossible levity of mental phenomena lends to this association as does the notion of ghosts and souls. Therefore the mindstuff/aether (though the mind stuff may be only a form of aether -to go there though is to reach beyond the phenomenological and into the speculative) must be able to accrete into forms for the generation of such phenomena or we would not have acknowledged them as such -hence the accretive capacity or another way, the psychic accretions are themselves part of the manifestation of such phenomena.

What constitutes the accretions? We might say the monadic consciousness contitutes the accretions. This is a φantasy. The accretion of the monad  constitutes the other accretions. I constitute you and this cup and this plant by my intentional structures which hold these phenomena to be a certain discrete suchness, just as you constitute me (I, me and you of course are misleading terms which lead us to believe some kind of object is designated by this practice when there is no[o]ne).

Psychic Accretions 1.07

The philosophically investigated correlate of the psychic accretion is the notion of the word as object. Reality is assembled by psychic accretions which are themselves contingent structures to the ineffable. The axiom of groundlessness tells that our analysis does not reach an end, rather extends endlessly into the informational ether. Here though is a curious consequence which may explain one of the issues in philosophy. The manifestation of word and object obsessed philosophy for a long time. Understanding designation became a key issue. The notion of embedded meaning largely removes this problem as there is no object to point to, just an activity in which a certain kind of language is embedded. We had misunderstood the problem. However, the nagging intuition remains that surely when I say ‘this person’ in this context, I do mean this and only this person.

The result of such an intuition is of course a φantasy. For the connection can only exist by a metaphysical speculation, philosophically or magickally. If I have an object which had a prior usage -for which it was designed- yet I never knew this and now use it for something else, it is in that sense only my usage, it is not really something else; this is a metaphysic of original privelege. If I believe a person is embedded in their name and I can divine secrets about them using it (in this instance this person has this name), this is a magickal metaphysical attachment. If I intend a person by their name, there exists such an accretion; this is what has come into being -over time (from the perspective of temporality), the instance of naming is seamless to the accretion, it is part of what makes it. This of course is a rationally groundless metaphysical φantasy, yet it is transcendentally possible on the basis of the manifestation of reality as epistemologically limited -I can not know it is not true and furthermore as there exist phenomena which have a magickal character, I must look to something like the psychic accretions as a condition for there possibility -rather than simply disregarding them (as I cannot know either that disregarding them for a competing ontology would give me epistemological solace).

The φantasy of the origin and of the magickal attachment occur due to the various accretions and their ability to form thus. There exists an accretion of that person and that name is an aspect of it, inseparable from it; informationally thus the connection is necessary. A thing, we might believe on some level retains its previous usage; its informational imprint of its previous use is still somehow with it. The idea that this is possible is a φantasy which we can deny, yet it has a peculiar power belonging to the accretive idea of a thing as having a history. This stone is the stone that was on my desk and I studied for a long time. This is true of this stone and no other. A mistaken belief about another stone that was similar would not be true of it. Has anything happened to the stone in this process? A φantastical thing has happened to it by its being bathed in my awareness and intent.

If I had some mystical import, this stone might then become an artifact as the stone that belonged to me; the stone that absorbed my consciousness, that was cradled in my awareness. Here one can feel the sense of what one means by this kind of φantasy. Yet it is not without rationality, for if we have indeed retained the correct thing, then the things which happened to the stone did not not happen, indeed they did. The ineffable nature of consciousness generates the possibility that this kind of informational imprint might indeed have taken place and if there were such thing as a person of real ‘mystical import’ (whatever that might mean) then the possibility exists that their awareness might have left some kind of trace on the thing that they owned; as such this object is then deemed worth retaining.

What if we have the wrong stone though? If we know no differently then we will still have an accretion ruled by a φantasy tied to the accretion of this other being. Indeed if there were power in things, then such an accretion might still have a power as it is credited with the same force. The informational structure would be in operation. The true stone might lie then on a beach and we have no science to disclose its history and expose the fake stone, it has withdrawn from being and lies in the void.

Can we be satisfied here? No. For now a familiar line begins to emerge. One we must tread with the upmost of care. We cannot ignore the stone in the void, but neither can we say much about it earlier. We must rather take the accretive trace to see what this suggests. The intuition is that, since the informational imprint is necessary, there exists the possibility that its accretion will be ontologically effective (magickally interactive) with other accretions that comes across it -are drawn to it/it discloses itself to.

So now we have a simple taxonomy of magickal things.

i)Those impressed by the origin they are taken to have and actually have.

ii)Those with a history that is unknown yet still potent to a new interaction

iii)Those that are newly created through a historically incorrect belief (now irrelevant as they are believed to the the first instance, indeed (i) and (iiii) are indistinguishable from each other).
There will be more, there will be many more and it is folly and madness to name them in this way.  Yet the φantasy of taxonomy is not to be denied.

Psychic Accretions 1.1

Psychic accretions as a doctrine is a φantasy. φantasy shows the realm where that which might be the case holds sway. Psychic accretions has a strong and a weak doctrine. The weak doctrine is essentially psychological and would maintain that within the individual consciousness there form these accretions which make up its totality in their interlinkings. The strong doctrine would accord to something like a panpsychism. Thus the psychic accretions are not particularly in anyone’s consciousness. The strong doctrine is the theory behind the existence of beings formed of no obvious physical matter and phenomena similar to this realm (synchronicities). It says that psychic accretions may function independently of a physical vehicle though act in various manners which effect that which we call physicality. The effects may be purely regular, in the case of poltergeist activity or causational from behind the scenes of the spatiotemporal perspective (in the instance of an event happening which is deemed likely to have been brought about by the interference of a psychic accretion). Magical beings are as such psychic accretions. In this way this doctrine still maintains an agnositicism as to whether or not they existed prior to their invocation for in both cases do they class as a psychic accretion, just as you who reads this now, also classes as such an accretion.

Psychic Accretions 2.01

But this is madness. Surely we have done away with this. Pursuing the accretive idea results in an incoherent lunacy. This half garbled Platonism with shades of Jung needs to be put to bed. But how shall we do that? If we recognise that language creates the only the impression of the need for p-accretions then we can agree that their necessity is questionable -to say the least. Language for sure has multiple functions of differing natures. Naming objects -insofar as that applies at all- is only one. When we talk about ‘the mind’ we do not necessarily have any thing we refer to. For sure the concept is confused and indeed we can recognise that the language game of mind has a context we should be ill advised to stray out of. But some process which we experience does direct itself this way and that intentionally (at a conscious level and an unconscious one -intentional objects exist in dreams, what are these if not something we can reasonably call psychic accretions?). The force of this philosophy lies in its incoherence and refusal to retreat, its refusal to retreat lies in its radical skepticism.

But you cannot create a philosophy by saying ‘because I don’t know, it might be like this’.

I can, and I am doing. It is a actual perception to see the severe lack of ground that we stand upon. This lack of ground does not support everything. But is does give rise the inability to put to bed certain phenomena…

Psychic Accretions 2.02

Consider the self? Is this question a nonsense? Without the metaphysics of the p-accretions there is no self. The reference to ‘I’ is a language game which arises in a being such that its monadic situation suggests that this language is applicable. It exists in one spatial position, on one temporal horizon, other monadic entities identify it is as one entity and only one -usually- as such when it describes its actions and thoughts it invariably uses the first person pronoun to indicate that this being is the author of the described act.

If we say that ‘because we say ‘I’ there must be such an entity’ surely we have erred. For there is no necessity that some extra entity exists which is the ‘self’ as the words do not point to objects as was previously suspected. There is just language embedded in the world. However the doctrine of psychic accretions tells us there an aetheric force which accretes to form contingent wholes -our things. So we must double back on the previous position in order to satisfy the designatory desire. This desire insists that in some way we do mean ‘this and only this’. This is satisfied by the fact that the p-accretion of this object is tapped into by that monad on that occasion. This also satisfies imaginary objects such as the ‘present king of france’ by the forming of a simple p-accretion. P-accretions are accretions as such they accrete more by the many times they are invoked.

The strict philosophical account of things entails their essential disappearance. The p-accretions are a phenomenological retrograde step made in a world which allows that magickal phenomena are insufficiently erradicable. If magickal phenomena cannot be erradicated (their appearance -not their actuality) then p-accretions follow as a necessary correlate of all phenomena at an aetheric level (the aether is also a necessary postulate).

The self then, exists as a p-accretion. Formed by the reciprocity of self perception and the perception of others. By self imposed intent and the intent of others it stays in a form. This form is what is then believed to be a ‘real’ person. There exists of course a φantasy that no such reality exists -this can make us tremble. Even wearing the wrong shoes might call ourselves into question.

Phantasy 2.04

The φantasies compete to become reality. But both are accretions. But accretions are φantasies…

Accretive complex

What is x? is answered by a psychic accretion formed of the informational aether. The accretion is given a name. The name is part of the accretion. A line has been attached to it from the monadic accretion -forming an psychic-accretive-complex. It is purely heuristic to talk of a discrete psychic accretion in the first place for they are all interconnected in a myriad of ways.
Each accretion has the possibility of being proliferated through analysis. The accretion is incoherently coherently whole. Accretive forms cannot be underestimated in possibility of size -where size is understood quasi metaphorically. A religion is a kind of accretion. Hideously weaving in on itself, overlapping, unfolding, concealing, disclosing. These psychic entities reciprocally effect their embedded monads, reinforcing literally the belief. The hypocrisies and incoherences there inherent  do not undermine the existence of such accretions, though they do indeed look bewildering. This incomprehensible morass of organised informational aether is comprised by the endless lines of constituting power emitting from the attached monads. Each monad in turn hooks into other systems. Such is the understanding of this phenomena down the corridor.
But being an embedded monad is not something abstract. It is this, you read the information right now, I write the information right now. Noesis binds the aether to the accretive forms.

Sketch of Accretion/Concept and Analysis Regarding Speculative Implications.

I was looking at the sand/grit container at the train station and contemplating how my framework accounts for this. It’s so tempting to make the notion that only the front is presented. This is true but also not true. Pneuminously the container is given to me immediately, I see directly not the yellow plastic box but the container as grit container. But this thing is information or pneuma, I see an accretion of pneuma forming a whole new structure.  As a passing thought I see this raises the question as to whether or not there are ‘pneuminous atoms’. As a manifestation this seems cogent. The fact that yellow has various connotations to any given individual does not mean it does not also have the abstractive possibility as an atom, an informational feature further irreducible. Yellow is an accretion because it is indelibly accreted to so many other phenomena yet it also has an atomic manifestation as something pure, we might say that accretions of abstraction and purity are able to connect to certain phenomena that present themselves as atomic in this sense.

But we have strayed from the point. The accretion rather like in phenomenology has already contained the idea that it exists in space and time and the ‘what it is’. Its constitution as spatio -temporal is a priori but not its use. But here it gets confusing for these are in some sense separate accretions held together by a conditional relation. That it is a grit container entails that it is an object in space/time but that it is a spatio-temporal object clearly doesn’t entail it is a grit container. There is a lurking manifestation in here, one that separates out the solidity from the information. In one sense the information (the grit containerness) is only made possible by the spatio/temporality. In another we must feel that this is a contingency and in some sense separate, for I might not know it was a grit container. It might not have grit in it, and if no one ever knew that and thought it was a bin, then it would be a bin and that would be it. So in that sense you can’t talk about autonomous objects because the thing is the information, or rather the information is the relation to us. This is what brings in the pneuminous accretions as metaphysics for this problem. It can only continue to be a grit container outside of its functionality as one (its inceptive intention) if it is imbued with this accretion in a way external to human influence, or rather that once the human accretion has imbued this thing with this information, this information persists attached to what I have elsewhere called the umbra. Even if spatio temporality persists outside of human perception, without a pneuminous trace in the thing it is no longer a grit container, desolate and alone on the platform it is in a sense not.  Here Heidegger is cogent to me: the naming is the relation of being, but if we extend the accretive trace then the naming has persisted outside of our sheltering and now holds this thing, even on the desolate platform, as the faithful grit container, standing in reserve to protect us on the icy days and other beings might have relations to the grit container but they must fight this pneuminous hold if they wish to claim it as their own).

Let us review this fruitful exercise. We want the solid thing and information to be as one naively. But if this is just a name for us then no designation persists and Wittgenstein’s meaning as use is exhaustive of the situation. So then the thing that persists (outside of our use) cannot truly be called what we have called it because that is not the relation that the other things have engaged it in. The speculative realist might say I am splitting hairs here but I don’t think so. If you don’t know that the naming-human relation does not add some kind of difference to the umbratic-thing then you shouldn’t call it that in its relation to other things. Maybe there are natural kinds instances where the usage seems appropriate, where the accretive idea is more harmonious from human and other relations, but this is still problematic because any accretion like ‘fire’ is going to have many accretive connections in the pneuma. It is from this instance possible that we could be presented with video of a phenomenon that we could not recognise informationally as ‘fire’ (in some strange intergalactic form) and then the fire accretion would not be touching it. In this sense this phenomena would not be ‘fire’, neither as use, nor as thing out of our scope of understanding. But it is interesting here and we should not shy away from it. For when the scientist somehow understands that this phenomenon is some raging cosmological fire we accretively appropriate it thusly and we are then presented with the manifestation that it was somehow ‘fire’ all along.

Maybe the difference lies in that part of the accretion itself (in fire) is that such things once recognised [as such] have always been thus, whereas in the case of the grit container, the umbra admits of contingent relations even to its creators. This is clearly not all the story here and I note that my attempt to summarise and review has just opened the can wider…

On the Everyday Multiplicity of Paranormal Phenomena

What does the multitude of perceived paranormal instances that litter existence prove? Nothing of course  and the background ontology of the current science claws at each one of the phenomena, trying to drag it into its dark recesses. We must understand though that these phenomena constantly try to resist this dragging. Neurotically they can lodge themselves on the edge of this abyss, even when we wish to abandon them to it. Sometimes irrationally (if this is irrational) we adopt them and then re rationalise them. Think of magpie superstitions; many people will say ‘good morning Mr Magpie’ to ward off this evil, even though they would say no such power obtained. Something akin to Pascal’s wager functions here (why would you not say it?). The rationalised part will bracket the actual occult interference away, shifting the locus to a psychologically much more reasonable fear of unconscious actions (something equally uncanny when one contemplates it for any time, yet made safe by being safely sequestered within the subject). In this safer version we should still ward the magpie off for fear we will create our own bad luck; this or at least something like it is the background intution. I of course intimate that lurking behind the rationalised version is still the terrifying unacknowleged possibility that the world does respond in this kind of bizarre informationally integrative way, formed of viscous accretive pneuma that whilst mostly inert to it, can under the right circumstance shift the umbra in ineffable ways.

When someone’s car appears not to work at all and we have no idea why, then  we might say ‘come on old girl, you can do it!’ and the car springs to life suddenly, we are alarmed. We know, so we believe, that some mechanical fault was behind it and that coincidental to the fault’s autonomous undoing was the utterance. Yet here too, many will recognise the strange completely incoherent possibility that the car spirit (or accretion as I would call it) has heard our emotional plea and this pneuminous interference has made the once faulty machine come to life. In this instance, everything is too late for checking; everything was hidden. It is possible a mechanic can say what the fault most likely was after the fact, but suppose he cannot, suppose he can only supply a conjecture. Of course even more certainty of fault cannot undo this manifestation for we can still hold that the car spirit overcame the fault at that moment. We have here a problem of causation, yet a curious one. Why do we consider from just one instance that the occult answer may be the true one? The answer is simple. We don’t. What we do do though, in cases of certain event like structure, where the clear causal factors are obscured from direct perception, the phantasy is fail to stop this possibility existing.

Art and Accretions

In the natural occurrence of the accretions we should recall that they can be formed actively. Of course we have covered many times how the creation of spirits is exactly that however the creation of an artistic work is also this. The combination of heterogenous elements in a certain manner is the attempt to make them stick together. Here the natural tendency of the pneuma to accrete does not always occur for as anyone forging any kind of artwork knows, sometimes the elements do not so readily accrete. Indeed it can take many attempts at combining before the art accretion displays itself. This is a separate issue in the apophansis of art. Under this theoretical gaze there is of course an accretion of art as a contingent necessity. When we say something is art we immediately attach this accretion to it.  The quality of the art as we deem it then is at least partially a matter of the way the elements are attached together insofar as the artist themselves have successfully welded these accretions one to the other.


I nearly wrote this title as ‘Embarrassment’ but I was too ashamed to use the word. Possibly ’embarrassment’ is the correct term. When I write on here I try to say something rational about some kinds of occult experience. I try to bracket the experience something like a la Husserl. I end up with the phenomena as ambiguous. This is often the character of the occult experience: an ambiguity shifted one way or the other by a cultural interpretation. The more modern shift conceals it, the older models allow these experiences to hold ontological sway. We live in the illusion that the modern concealment is the removal, but it is precisely the point, my point, that you can’t remove it. Whether there ever ever was anything like an actual magickal relation in the world it matters not one jot because the world is always capable of creating the manifestation of one. Here is the relation to one of my other arms: manifestationism, something I will write more on soon.

But what do I want to say here? I’m not sure anymore. I feel slightly wretched as a sitter on the fence. Magick demands a decision (will) yet philosophy here demands rationality. If I give purely into a Magickal ontology I lose all ability to reflect upon it and I cannot substantiate my beliefs without some ill conceived reference to quantum physics that I do not properly understand anyway. When we try to say why for these phenomena we are lost. Sometimes here I sound like I am saying ‘why’, but this ‘why’ is the minimal ‘why’ that says heuristically if any of these phenomena obtain then an informational substance must be interacting with a putative ‘out there’. This is its disclosure.

The embarrassment comes partially in becoming misunderstood (as if I am advocating this as true (but of course part of me is, that part that sat marvelling at the sea of synchronicitous phenomena that unfolded, that was so overwhelmed by them that it found it unbelievable that the converse, that the solid world obtained), but also the extreme implications of this kind of world view have been made almost nauseating to articulate -thanks to the new age movement.

I want to say that the world equally looks like the unfolding of quasi-solipsistic tunnels as much as it looks like a giant spatio-temporal container. That the covering over of this perception is something monstrous, that we do not need quantum physical speculations to allow ourselves this manifestation, it is there built into our experience. There is a passage somewhere in Ross Heaven book where he says he was able to stand on the water until someone told him he couldn’t. Sounds ridiculous, it is ridiculous, if he earnestly believes this we could say he suffers from false-memory syndrome. Except, that nagging ‘what if…’ that things have been so badly comprehended (the embarrassment of writing weighs on my words here) that down some variant this actually obtains. The new age movement have soiled almost beyond use the notion that the scientific thinking is restraining the phenomena, yet I must find a way to speak this, for this is also the manifestation. Ontological doubt generates phantasy (and now I am comfortable in this language once more).