The thing’s being inheres in its discretion -that we can intentionally isolate. However discretion creates incoherence by the manifestation of the separate. The being of thing is disclosed and this disclosure fixes the being as that manifestation from which it can be difficult to see it otherwise -the multiple uses of a thing.
But the φantasy of apophansis is the ontological effect. The ontological effect is that a being becomes what we intend it to be, what we call it. When there is a pre-structure and we call things according to that pre-structure, Being hears this and greets it accordingly.
But this is nonsense for a stone will not become water though we may call it water. No but maybe with earnestness it will become a water-stone that may have some curious relation to water. If I treat a stone as if it were imbued with a mystery then it may respond to me in ways ineffable. If I treat it as a piece of inert matter, it will be likewise. But one is a delusion! Not so in φantasy which carries an equal weighting though you would not wish it to be so. This is a rational animism -down the corridor.
It is possible that the individual stone has a spirit -this is one φantasy. Is the spirit existent in the stone out in the moor when only the ravens are there? But then we do not know what a spirit is in relation to a stone, we have an incoherence of some kind of power localised in the stone which may manifest in x or y ways.
Or is the stone forged from the pneuma by the processing of the monadic intentionality? But then how did we obtain the pre-structure of the mysterious nature which gives rise to animistic ideas. Being in its initial opening suggests this world but correcting it with ‘knowledge’ does not help. Being-in-its-original-opening is yet one more incoherent φantasy. We cannot need such a φantastical history. In the unprocessed, powers still lurk and are but not through our pneuma. The being is immediately processed as it is processed by a pre-structure. This discloses it as such. But the being is still in operation in itself and may suggest itself; there is no in itself, only the between of its hidden disclosures and the pre-structure of the monad. Because we cannot pronounce absolutely on the nature of the disclosures they become φantastical and as such potentially from the stone. When we accept this side of the φantasy then the spirit arises (but that decision is just a decision).
When this apophanisis is successful the being becomes the qualities ascribed to it, hence the need for a pre-structure to interpret it through. Being without a pre-structure (sometimes referred to as blank sense data) is another kind of φantasy. Endlessly it suggests itself in a similar manner to which discrete beings suggest themselves.
This extra step -down the corridor- is the one that is not usually taken, where we began: the ontological effect. The pneuma takes over the being of the thing which is always hidden and only shows itself in various disclosures which may then effect the pre-structure. In the case of the pre-structure being that of awarenes, the meeting of the depths of the thing and pre-structure of awareness granting join to form a kind of accretion with awareness only due to its being interpreted as it. The functionality of this turns on the nature of the pneuma as that which does the processing and creates an ontological effect which may in turn have a power that then looks incomprehensible and is only comprehensible as magick. Such an interpretation mostly requires its effectivity from others to interpret it also as magick and feed the accretion. Damage is easily made by a rational interpretation of inertia.