By means of a terminological clear up it seems evident to me that the terms manifestation, phantasy and reality are all related.
Manifestation is a way in which being can discloses itself, idealism, materialism and endless permutations thereof.
Phantasies are manifestations not considered ‘reality’ but which nevertheless occupy a space that such that they could be considered ‘real’. They do not at a given time hold the power of being interpreted as dominant ideologies.
Reality is just the manifestation that is dominant at a given time. This manifestation will have incoherent borders to the competing phantasies that hover around it awaiting their turn.
Incoherence is a feature of the way we exist in pneuma. The structure of incoherent coherence and coherent incoherence have been described elsewhere, but briefly let us remind ourselves that the former describes the ordinary manifestation of the concept insofar as it appears to adequately demarcate its territory, whilst the latter is what we come to know about the concept upon analysis -that it is incoherent.
This notion though features in three notable places in a more general philosophy. The first of these is the perennial problem living and non-living. True this is just the same incoherence problem, as however the case is so important the invocation of the term also must be considered so. The issue crosses over and might be considered identical with conscious non-conscious, though the accretions are different. No particular answer sharply differentiation between the two is found in definition precisely because of the borderline phantasies of the awareness of the putatively unaware. This position says that essentially there is no answer in the sense we would like one. The borderline is incoherent and can be known to be so (with the caveat of a phantasy of knowing apodictically lurking around). Whitehead’s solution of a mental pole that exists from electron to human in various scales is all well and good but it remains ontological speculation. We would be better to acknowledge that there is a manifestation of supposedly inert matter as also conscious in some sense. This receives greater and lesser grammatical grounding depending what kind of accretions one is an agent for. A propos this post of mine the situation is confused further by the possibility that whether or not the supposedly unaware is aware or not turns on whether or not it is treated as aware or not, thus compounding the incoherence even further.
Thus a Whiteheadian theory can then be seen as the rise of a competing accretion in the pneuminosity rather than as the truth. The truth would be the competing/interacting pneuminous accretions.
The second incoherence involves the difference between humans and animals and the third between natural kinds and human made things. More will be said on these accretions in due course. However we note that between three of them they seem to constitute the fundamental field of incoherence.
If consciousness survived physical death in any sense resembling discretion, there would be no reason to presuppose such a survived consciousness should be in any privileged epistemological position over ourselves. It might have various dimensional perceptions open to it currently barred from this mode of existence, however it’s continued intimation of separation indicates it would be in no better position to display ultimate answers any better than we can. This implication is part of the naturalising of such phenomena.
If we accept the manifestation of pure pneuma then we find the following is also true. This self same manifestation also contains within it the manifestation of being as solid and continuing outside of awareness. As an idea it is hence an hence an accretion of pneuma. This paradoxical accretion we have called the umbratic.
If what we perceive as reality shows itself in a way such that the pneuma can interact with the umbra then it raises the possibility that the umbratic as an accretion formed within the pneuma is actually becoming a reality that can exist outside of consciousness when it previously was not.
This would be a kind of inversion of being becoming conscious of itself. It implies the notion that possibly being was aware in itself, but ironically through the generation of beings within itself that possess a self awareness -pieces unable to process their essential connection to the whole- these beings, as emissaries of Being conceive being through epistemological restraint and in this process create a notion of externality as solid and disconnected from awareness. This very conceptualisation dialectically feeds back into Being creating exactly this kind of independent solidity. Rather than existence slowly gaining in awareness, it is actually losing it through the conceptual action of its own agents.
This is an interesting idea, a consequence of certain disjunctions. Of course it has no necessity, it is an extreme possibility. Yet it remains possible if the solidity and the information interact. More interestingly we might ask: if it isn’t true then why not? For it not to be true, either the information doesn’t interact with the externality or there are limits/conditions under which this is the case. The latter seems more likely. This means the question is: what are the restraints on the information such that it maintains the appearance of a cogent solid externality?
Further questions regarding the actual conceptualisation of pneuma also arise. If Being is pneuma, how does being that is not a pneuminous being relate amongst itself within the idea of the externality? You can say that this doesn’t matter, because a la Husserl everything is contained within consciousness a priori. But the pneuma also contains the idea of the solid externality (the continuous world), as such it contains the incoherent idea of beings not ordinarily perceived as conscious interacting with each other outside of field of awareness as we would ordinarily conceive of one. The paradoxical idea arises within pneuma that there are umbratic places in which there is no pneuma, and now we are a stones throw from a more regular scientific conception. If we say there is pneuminous relations going on at all levels we grant some kind of panpsychism and seem to admit that the umbratic exists external to awareness all be it attenuated slightly by a kind of Whiteheadian pneuminous pole.
The problem clearly needs more thought but what is said here confirms a basic sense that the notion of pneuma creates an umbratic so strongly that its manifestation is that it could be independent of it. Ontological speculation is not the aim here and hence the Whiteheadian route is barred.
The nihilistic problem is scarcely solved by pneuminosity. Yet nihilism too is an accretion so maybe there is some insight to be had in that. It follows that all meaning is an accretion. Any meaning that is forged is forged with being. Meaning as a sound, as a word of course is an accretion too. We cannot say it escapes but we can say meaning and pneuma are distinctly related. Meaning is part of the clue to existence of pneuma. When we seeking the kind of meaning that might justify existence it has invariably been couched in some kind religious doctrine. Anything other than this gives nihilism. Even the religious doctrine must presuppose that the God possesses a notion of purpose transcendent to anything we can conceive of or the question is begged as to what the God wants. Infinite continuous or simultaneous being does not confer meaning. But because meaning is constructed in pneuma -the idea of teleological meaning- a teleology is in a sense real when reified. The meaning isn’t local to the inside of a given pneuminous being, it exists within the pneuma at large. In a slightly Hegelian way this means that the successful construction of an idea that gives meaning that overcomes nihilism would not be a repression but being realising its own meaning. When we conceive ourselves as humans, discretely bound such an idea is just one more human construction, but when we are seen as an expression of the pneuma itself, our meaning is its meaning.