Phantasy-Manifestation-Agnostic Disjunction

Further to the attempt to untangle some of the various terminological threads comes the insight that from an accepted manifestation other manifestations appear as phantasies. So if I buy into a materialist manifestation then the solid world appears a phantasy and vice versa. Phantasy we will recall is an epistemologically ineradicable option repressed only by greater weight being given to the accepted manifestation.

Let us remember the notion of the agnostic disjunction as a helpful terminological description. The agnostic disjunction occurs exactly in a situation where the outcome is not decided definitely by any kind of certainty but rather only a preference for one option over another. The pertinent example in this work has always been the interpretation of synchronicity as either a solid world statistical possibility or a fluid world pneuminous interference. The impossibility of arbitrating this (and other similar disjunctions) is named the agnostic disjunction.

There is no perfectly clear boundary between a fantasy and a phantasy, but the general idea is that a fantasy is an engagement with something for which I have no grounds for believing might happen (I might become superman), whereas a phantasy is a possible way in which existence might actually be interpreted. It is incumbent on phantasies that they are able to demonstrate criteria for their acceptance to enable them to be competing manifestations. I did not previously spot the overlap of manifestation and phantasy but clearly the terms are related. To reiterate: when a manifestation is not accepted it is a phantasy in relation to the dominant manifestation. For example, a committed idealist has materialism as a phantasy and they spend their time trying to shore up the territory against materialist incursions.

Here we can see the relation to the philosophy of agency, but this philosophy is largely functional only under the pneuminous manifestation. In the pneuminous manifestation various accretions are vying for territory. Pneuminous beings largely taken over by certain accretions (idealist ones in the example) cannot actually defeat the materialist because both positions are incoherent (remember that one).

It sounds confusing and what confuses me sometimes is that we must remember that pneuminosity is a complete theory. That is, if from the agnostic disjunction you opt for pneuminous theory, yes you are still open to the phantasy of a solid world, but then you must also account for the solid world theory from within the theory.

There does need to be a better description of the dialectic of subject formation but its going to be something like this: Selves are accretions, they are constituted by other pneuminous beings. Pneuminous beings invariably have a self accretion of some kind (though it is not necessary that this is the case, think of certain kinds of what we call mental illness). The self accretion is course accreted to all manner of different pneuminous structures. Now accepting that a materialist would blatantly reject this explanation of things, the pneuminous description of such a theoretical adherent is that they are accreted to a solid manifestation of existence and supporting accretions. A reasonable question would be as to whether it is better to call the self accretion a kind of discrete name/body pneuminous form or whether the self accretion is incoherent unity of the name/body and its accompanying accretions (which would manifest as beliefs etc)? The latter sounds very reasonable in one sense as we might say, here is John, he is a materialist. The very predication instantiates that he is a materialist. But maybe we would also say here is John, he has materialist views, in which case the former looks more appropriate. Potentially there are different kinds of self accretion anyway,  some of which are deeply intertwined with political/religious/or otherwise views, and other kinds of self accretion where the pneuminous threads relation to its beliefs is weaker. This kind of multiplicity is possibly the best way to go with it.



Quentin Meillasoux: Discordian Agent

The philosophy of agency becomes more and more pressing as it discloses itself. The notion is the perception that philosophers, indeed all humans are agents for different conceptual agents. These have elsewhere been called manifestations. Manifestationism was more concerned with the competing philosophical positions and their disclosure. Implicit in this was always the notion that any kind of accretion has agents. Accretions that are ideologies/isms attempt to establish power through agents, as one of the beings that can accrete the pneuma, we’re necessarily a target (possibly the only target). These are the ones that are more interesting (philosophicallly) but of course these aren’t just materialism, idealism, empiricism, they are also communism, capitalism, conservatism etc. There are more too, there are all the religions, some of which have alliances with supporting philosophies. There is a ground accretion of the possiblity of God, of Gods, (monotheism, polytheism, worship of the old ones). The point being, once you loosen the connection of the ideas to the agents, you can see a picture in which the pneuminous powers seek to control the agents to dominate the pneuminous territory.

The contemplation of this idea lead me to thinking on Quentin Meillasoux’s thought. Not all of it (for now). I was thinking of the hyper chaos, the instantiation that the priniciple of sufficient reason is not necessary. It involves the conception of the Humean skepticism (which is an epistemological issue) of causation (we cannot make a necessary connection between cause and effect, only an empirical association), not as epistemological but rather as applicable to reality. It’s not that we don’t know reality won’t suddenly behave in some inexplicable way, it’s that it might really do so.

One point here that I want to expand upon at a later date is that this is very close to some of the things I say in here. What I would add is that the experience of synchronistic/occult phenomena exactly is the direct experience of hyperchaos. But then things ring in my pneuminosity. This philosopher advocating this hyperchaos is of course an agent as are we all. But who is he working for? The answer is right there of course. Meillasoux is an Erisian agent advocating the purest chaos of existence.  His ‘Quentin’ accretion might not even be aware it has being tapped in this way, yet surely it has been. Whether it makes sense to say he thought the Humean interpretation up or it latched onto his accretion, either way he has functioned as a voice for the goddess. If we needed further confirmation it is not difficult to find.

Quentin, is of course derived from Quintus, or fifth…

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.