The Ontological Argument and Accretive Theory

Amongst the catalogue of observations in this realm is the notion that the ontological argument has something of the accretive flavour to it. If we say that because ‘I have the idea of a god therefore there must be a god’ (a simplified version of notion), we can readily see how it contains very little weight, or at least to the modern mind is unconvincing. Having the idea of something hardly entails its actuality. Saying that ‘because the idea is greater than me so I cannot have conceived of it’ does little more because I can readily conceive of many things ‘greater’ than me -whatever that might mean.

Yet from the accretive perspective it has a different meaning. Here, because I have the idea of a perfect God does entail that there is one, for they are being accreted in the very act of contemplation. The incoherence of the notion of God is problematic but as all concepts exhibit incoherence it is only a difference of degree and not of kind. Monotheistic Gods by there noetic nature have a different flavour to polytheistic Gods. Your Monotheistic God is all powerful. Is it transcendent or immanent? Really it’s both, the monstrous montheistic God accretion is necessarily transcendent and immanent, it can act like an interfering external power, or it can be all and everything. The notion is so incoherent no one can hope to figure it out in the first place but equally it necessarily is infinitely more powerful than us so it is hardly surprising it can behave in this way.

We have to side step the issue of the accretive formation of selves to talk about this because they need to be assumed to make any headway. In some sense of course the God accretion is the self accretion mirrored back into the sublime enormousness of everything (a Sartrean resonance strikes here). The God idea only exists by virtue of the self accretion, like an instantaneous artificial intelligence superior to ourselves, except unlike the overtaking of human cognitive power which may take decades, this happens instantaneously and purely by incoherent definition.

Let us apply our caveat to be clear. Down one corridor is a being with thoughts certainly reliant on the intertwining but still with them contained in the brain circuitry. Down this corridor, the informational is substantial (pneuminous). Here you can see the pneuma, look it’s there in front of you now, overlaying all that umbratic stuff, accreting to it, information itself. When you play in you mind you play with pneuma, everything you conceive exists pneuminously and as such not within your accretion (though necessarily attached to it). The monotheistic God accretion is the botched up accretion of infinity, power, sometimes goodness, sometimes capriciousness, perfection. All of these abstract terms are incoherent in themselves yet formed out of some curious dialectical dance with experience from an abstract potential, then reapplied to transcendent-immanence. Down here, the God is real and one of the most effective forms of Magickal disclosure possible; its actions supply the perfect hermeneutic for its own omnipotence supplying a feedback to support its parasitic accretive life. Thankfully this God, though an accretion of gargantuan age and size is as schizopneuminous as it is powerful. Fragmented, paradoxical, dispersed and contained the threads that accrete it, rend it similarly assunder.

Ironically this God manifested its accretion only through the self accretions as a pseudo-necessary sticking together of pneuma, which, once stuck together can scarcely be pulled apart -so hoary is its agglomerative power. After this fact this ironic God can indeed be found as an event within the pneuma that could be discovered in a manner very similar to the ontological argument and in this instance it would in a certain wise be true. Hence its accretion-creation renders it now as that potent monster, exceeding the human consciousness by an infinity and yet it is for all its seeming necessity: contingent.



Apart from the problem of self accretions there is yet another manifestation lurking in here. That however will have to wait for another day.


Accretive Objects

“Found objects are always significant because of their subjective investment. This applies not only to the baby’s transitional object, but to any object that in later life arrests our attention through its having this
special aura? Pebbles, pieces of driftwood, images provided by the natural  world, even people can be thought of in this way. All are ‘found objects’, in which we simultaneously ‘find’ parts of ourselves. Artists are particularly likely to collect ‘found objects’ that resonate with personal or ‘aesthetic’ significance, and the wider notion of finding oneself in, and through, an ohjective medium is central to understanding the artistic enterprise from this Winicottian perspective.” Kenneth Wright -Mirroring and Attunement, Chapter 9.

I was struck in this passage of Wright’s book by the similarity of this to the pneuminous kind of notion I want to push. Of course it is different but the text gives [me] one of those moments where you see how close it is some forms of psychoanalysis. But really this should come as no surprise, psychoanalysis always treads close to phenomenology whether it wants to or not (Jung understood this). What probably is of interest to me here is not the inferential importance of the ‘mother accretion’ -though I could scarcely deny this- but rather the manifestation of things as having special aura’s, being attractive to us as being part of ourselves.

Now I am going to maintain (under a certain manifestation) that all things are formed by pneuma, so the knife I use in the canteen and resist pocketing (hence sending it back for re-use) is no less a pneuminous thing than the special rock I find in the field. It is purely the mode of appearing that makes them different. When a theory tells us why something discloses itself as special it moves beyond a phenomenology (psychoanalysis of course does cross this line). Attempting to walk in this kind of bracketed magickal landscape gives us only the disclosure of the thing ‘as special’ and not the why. But this phenomenology also gives us everything as informational accretion, including the incoherent ‘self’. The ‘special’ object and the incoherent ‘self’ as such, in the moment of disclosure are connected. In psychoanalysis this may be tacitly reduced to a purely mental level with the acceptance of no physical interaction, yet down the other corridor is precisely the manifestation of the connection which would include the manifestation of interaction between this putative dualism.

In this realm the connection is real and a priori. Furthermore in our imagined encounter, once the thing has disclosed itself in this manner there is here the opportunity to accrete the thing further. For after we have our ‘special object’ we may then take it with us in life and thus it will accrete further to the self accretion. This may be a pernicious and/or rewarding relationship in which because the pneuma can interact with the umbra there is always there threat that loss of the object can be painful/damaging to the self/body-umbra. This though merely heightens the same effect (in a magickal kind of context) as happens through connections to the fetishised house and its adornments, the extension of a self/family accretion.

The ethical implication is there on the one hand in terms of non-attachment, at the same time it is completely lacking because whilst we might disperse our accretions through such other accretions ultimately there is nothing to say whether this is any better than keeping the self accretion more contained.

Paranormal dismissal

The escape from dismissal that the paranormal community provide is that the phenomena do not work in the same way under scientific conditions. This is such an easy escape route it invites derision. I think in a truly open minded sense  though we should possibly pay more attention to it as a proposition, not least because in fact it makes perfect sense with the subject matter.

This at least makes sense with magick, because any text on this will witter on about the perfection of the ritual to achieve the result and how easily this can go awry. Successful results as such by science can be attributed to apophenia and to the magickal community  as success -it has been my aim to point out how this division is irreconcilable. By this extension though, if telepathy etc whilst in the life of a psychic seem to be fluid and relatively frequent it does not seem outrageous that whatever level of informational transfer that is happening could be being interfered with by the informational structures themselves (the experimental conditions). We must note at this point that a thesis like this does not say that this infers the anecdotal claims are true rather it maintains that the explanation given by the experimental dodging paranormal community is cogent within their own framework. I do not know all the history of the experiments but it seems to me it might have been as surprising to the practitioners themselves when they were unable to reproduce results.

What I would add is that this difficulty is entirely commensurate with the phenomenological results herein. These again do not state anything about anything that ever ‘really’ happened but do say that there is nothing in the manifestation of these phenomena that can be dismissed by a thorough scientific explanation precisely because of the possibilities about reality they invoke. Any system that is making information capable of affecting a putative substance is going to be prone to be affected by another informational system. This doesn’t need to invoke any quantum physical knowledge, it is all laid out in the phenomena themselves.