One of the problems here can be outlined as follows. The manifestations exist as the logical possibilities of being. These war amongst themselves through the actions of their agents (the philosophers) in an impossible war. But what determines the how an agent comes into being? It seems we would need a psychological determination, but any psychological determination must presuppose the ontology is fitting to psychology, which in turn could only be determined within one or more of the manifestations.

Concept Beings.

When one conceives of the concepts as pneuminous forces outside of but plugged into the self-accretions we see these beings act through us. Thought arising within us is the action of the concept powers. This can manifest as a kind of creativity. It is long spoken of how the thoughts arise from nowhere. Pneuminously this not the case, they arise from the pneuminous accretions whose fine filaments float freely, tapping and all and sundry with conceptual squidity. Maybe one could conceive of something even like a cell receptor that receives some pneuminous forms and prohibits others. This kind of disclosure makes possible to conception of agency. That is that our accretions are all too often just servitors for other accretive forces passing of their machinations as ‘our thoughts’. In Nick Land’s words ‘can whatever it is that’s playing you make it to level 2?’

There is nothing to say what our reaction to this kind of world should be. Conceptual powers are not evil but they may be self serving, in this sense they  ‘want’ you to harbour them. Pneuminous beings become their agents, amplifying and fighting their causes in the battlefield of manifestations. There may be some pleasure in acknowledging your complicity in being-an-agent-of-the-concept, but equally in a society that believes essentially that separate subjects are thinking up these ideas for themselves it could be an alarming, frightening and undesirable model that tries to point out we are mere vessels for the concept gods.

Think though, a society that bought into this model as whole would find our society incredibly strange, even stupid. The notion that the individual unit ‘contains’ the ideas, is a little backwards. The individual has control over these ideas? We could readily admit that neither of these things are true. This being the case, why would we think a subject was the source of these powers. The subject is just an unknowing agent of the concept.

It begs the consideration as to whether one of the sources of mind quieting practices is the attempt to gain some control over the pneuminous accretive tentacles.

The God of Washing Machines and its Agents.

Power is surging through the system. There is an infection from a parallel body, bringing this work to be what it already is. Chaos magickal contemplations of being as pneuminous entails that if my washing machine is broken I should take seriously a supplication to the Deity (Zanussi: a perfect name for a god) for aid. Are there physical parameters as to when this might work? The manifestation of physicality imposes this idea. The phantasy of the possibility that the god might effect a cure is absurd of course and yet just by accepting the synchronicitous possibility we are tied also to this. The absurdity does not negate the possibility it only adds to the incoherence. When I invoked Zanussi in a simple manner, the machine did begin to work, but this was in a situation of perfect ambiguity (I don’t know that it wouldn’t have started working anyway).

This kind of thinking raises the possibility of subversive magickal acts that attempt to bind corporate entities through magickal means. Naturally some of these accretions are enormous and it would be hard to do so, yet we do not really know what is possible. A fluctuating ontology might warp powerfully from one monadic place. No ground.

Agency seems to emerge from this. We are agents to powers. This is one meaning of the Landian invocation of the old ones or at least one way of looking at it. But agency happens at many levels. I might be an agent of a capitalist ontic accretion like ‘The University of Lincoln’. I might consider myself strongly this agent thus strengthening the accretive power (mirroring, doubling).

I might also consider myself and agent of a manifestation. An agent of idealism, an agent of agency, and agent of philosophy. Conceptual powers (pneuminous manifestations) working through [me] to proliferate. The manifestations are at war in their desire for pneuminous territory.

We then immediately become victim to the swooping hawk of teleology: What for?  What do they want? asks this power. The manifestation of ‘purpose’ is clearly a transcendental. The nihilistic vanguard retort their inevitable response in vain. Yet only as vain as the territory gained by purpose.



Today the hyperstition disclosed itself. I can see serious conceptual similarities with it and some of the notions that I’m attempting to work with. There will be something more comprehensive on this but for now a consideration of similarities of the central points.

(1) an “element of effective culture that makes itself real,”

Pneuminous accretive theory is certainly accommodating to this notion. Real here is not just kind of empty Harman-esque ‘every thing is real’ but rather a real that can interact with a putative physicality (reality distortions). What makes it real is the territory of the competing manifestations. Do we make it real or does it exist of itself? What are we in this instance? Both we and it are accretions of course. What accretive theory would say is it would need to be hermeneutically gifted with pneuminous awareness in order for it to act with autonomy.

(2) as a “fictional quality functional as a time-travelling device,”

Pneumious accretions as the site of magickal functioning, necessarily are not limited by temporality as humans experience it.

(3) as “coincidence intensifiers,”

Synchronistic activity within this realm is as a direct result of pneuminous interactivity outside of solid world parameters. If you treat the world in this way the accretions will respond.

(4)  as a “call to the Old Ones”.

The acceptance of pneuminosity could easily be categorised in this wise insofar as it opens the flood gates for any manner of beings to be formed. Primordial accretions could be recovered or uncovered.

What is different is that notion of a pneuminous accretion is a much more generalized concept that applies to all concepts and not just ones exerting magickal force. It makes it a continuous line between a magickal concept and an ordinary one with the difference being the interpretation of something as  magickal instantiating the effect. The hyperstitional idea though fits within the pneuminous quite nicely. Of course, a hyperstition is in itself an accretion with all the CCRU filaments that entails.

Potato Accretion.

Once I grew a potato in a small terrace house garden. The plant grew to quite a prodigious size and was positioned just outside the back door. As the foliage got larger it grew, not as I would have expected towards the lighter part but in fact straight towards the door. The leafy stems in fact extended so much towards the door that when you opened it the potato plant would flop into the kitchen. This became quite annoying but viewing the plant as an entity with some interest and affection I was loathe to curtail its expansion. The growth of course only took advantage of my kindness and pushed further still. After putting up with this for some time I began to joke that the plant actually wanted to come inside to be with the people. This idea, whilst a joke, I also recognised as having some sense of possible incoherent actuality. I was undeniably less philosophically reflectively involved in magickal thinking at the time and hence ascribing a kind of spirit sentience to the plant seemed quite reasonable (I’m not saying it isn’t now, I’d just be more reserved it and couch it more accretively). The potatoes self-inviting became more obvious as it relentlessly tried to extend the stems that pressed against the door. This strategy was ultimately self defeating for the plant, as it began to get bashed around by people opening and closing the door. I began to feel some sense of resentment for its suicidal tenacity, largely generated by the mess of mashed stem and leaves that was accruing round the entrance. After enduring this for a short time I decided enough was enough and truncated the plant appropriately so that its longing to be in the house could not be fulfilled. This worked perfectly well and the plant continued growing outside.

About a week later I noticed something. A potato appeared on the kitchen table and stayed there day after day. I don’t know why but I didn’t investigate it initially. I suppose because, knowing it wasn’t mine, I assumed it was something to do with my house mate. It didn’t go anywhere so after a while I examined it. It turned out not to be a potato but a stone that looked identical to a potato (at least until close inspection). I asked my house-mate about this curiosity and he replied that he had seen it lying around whilst out and had felt compelled to bring it home. He had not however (at least consciously) spotted its similarity to the aforementioned solanaceae. My magickal interpretive faculty flashed immediately on hearing this, it seemed quite clear what had happened: The potato power, had tried to make its way into the house, initially  in plant form. This avenue had been thwarted and it had rerouted itself in such manner that its place in the house would be assured i.e. it re-manifested itself in stone format and then signalled to the other entrance route (my house-mate) that it he had some need for it. He had been an easy unwitting ally of the potato and had brought it straight to where it wanted to be and there it now sat in front of me.

What went on there? Obviously we can lay it out as nothing more than coincidental stone and plant and need say no more about it. What is more important though is, deluded or otherwise (it is impossible to say) this was not the experience of it as viewed through the corridor. The experience here is one of pneuminous interference by the potato accretion. The background of magickal interpretation makes it possible; this allows the accretive world to function. Of course there is a degree of doubling there, pneuminosity is just a heuristic but also an accretion itself. That’s for another day though.

The magickal interpretation of the potato as potato spirit accretes pneuminous awareness to this potato plant or potentially liberates its existing awareness to new teleological heights (it wants to be with its fellow beings). The possibility is given that without treating the potato in this manner it would never have sought refuge in the house. This particular end was brutally curtailed but the newly formed potato accretion attached to that unutterable umbra was not to stopped. This pneuminous power exercised some ineffable manipulation on whatever is tomake its pneuminosity send an accretive tendril to re-manifest in the pneuminous sphere of the house mate. The house mate, was as it happens aware of my attitude even if he treated it as a humourous oddity. His awareness and being-in-the-house make him easily attached to the accretive entities involved and hence and easy target for the solanaceous machinations. This literal accretion of stone (no doubt an accretive link to my name) and pneuminous potato spirit tapped the pneuminosity of my house mate, compelling him to bring it with him. Once in he had no use for it and deposited it exactly where this simple consciousness wanted to be: in the kitchen. The accretion was then noticed by myself and I was able to immediately recognise its triumph, observing it both outside the window and curiously in the house in my hand at the same time.

potato accretion stone

Pneuminosity of Dirt Association.

It is known that if you put some faeces in a sealed bag on a plate and then take them off again people will not want to eat off the plate. This is pneuminosity in a nutshell. The near impossibility of ourselves to believe that information does not contaminate. It seems to me the same issue. We are told of the solidity of the world and yet in this instance we find it hard to disassociate the faeces from the plate, there is somewhere the nagging doubt that the information might have penetrated the plate. This is the essential bifuraction of the two pneuminosities. One is essentially psychological and says association is what has happened that then puts people off the plate, whereas the other is that there is the possibility that the information has interacted with the solidity.

I take a bowl from the kitchen to wash some children’s shoes in and my wife admonishes me for taking the wrong bowl as I have taken a food bowl. I want to argue but then remember my own philosophy and that this is its perfect example. The shoes should not be washed in a food bowl because they are two separate accretions and we must be wary of the possibility that the pneuminous force is real. If I wash the shoes in the food bowl, no matter how clean I then make the bowl, it is attached to a different accretion, one of garden tasks and realms outside of the culinary. This is an modern manifestation of the notion of the sacred re-emerging. The food bowl is sacred to food and this sacred relation is not to be tampered with by making it a bowl of relativism. I do not say we should have separate food bowls and garden bowls, I merely point out that such a differentiation is (in one wise) grounded in a magickal speculation that is entirely rational.

Wednesday: Accretive Example

What is ‘Wednesday’? It’s a day of the week.  What is a week? What is a day? We can go on with this line of questioning and get nowhere. In following the method we must note the manifestations. There is a manifestation of nothingness. That Wednesday is a use term that extends nowhere but its convention. There is time passing as observed by the changing light and this repetition we divide into a system. In this system we call a part of the repeating sequence Wednesday. If I want to know what it means, I just enter the community and as soon as I’ve grasped the sequence of repeating seven days and the order in which they fall, I can then say ‘today is Wednesday’ and others will just accept that. Correlative to this is an accretion of Wednesday. The word, the sound, the historical attachments, some ineffable how ground into the sequence of every 7 days. Impossible, nonsensical, incoherent and yet this incoherent manifestation weighs hard upon us. It can be felt that this is Wednesday in such a sense that it seems more than convention and yet rationally we can know its just convention. That feeling is all that is needed to give the tiny crack through which pneuminous accretive theory flows. If we feel designation, we feel pneuminosity, we feel the sense of the information attaching to the externality. We immediately might deny it yet the sensation is there. The impossible living nature of conceptuality such that this duration of light and dark, this one in seven is somehow impregnated with this information. Magick assumes this connection is possible. Modern life is confused by the possibility.