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.