Laying out.

This is such a jumble of material and yet I frequently have insights of how it all knits together and then completely lose the unity again. So we’re looking at a phenomenological philosophy that tries to say problems arise between different systems that mean the arguments between them cannot be reconciled because of the incoherence inherent in all concepts. Furthermore the incoherent concepts are manifestations of how we take things to be. In the case of philosophy idealism and realism are both irreconcilable manifestations, but both incoherent by themselves. So we do have some kind of a meta Kantian limitation on the whole system yet at the same time acknowledge that the manifestation of Kant’s incorrectness is also very powerful.

Umbratic is the shadow thing outside of our perception, taken to be the same as within perception but ultimately unknown to hold this identity indeed one phenomenological aspect can tell us a priori it is not identical as it is perceived and this is necessarily some kind of difference. Clearly the problem is incoherent but this is not a reason for dismissing it. A realism would tell us there is no different but the same epistemological doubt means we cannot be sure of this. So the umbratic is close to the thing in itself, but maybe not identical but certainly a related manifestation. The umbratic is the brute stuff of primary qualities.

Cthonic is being perceived but uncategorized. When we have no obvious concept for what is before us the cthonic is rumbling. Is the cthonic the incoherence? Maybe.

The pneumatic is the information, the sense of incoherent coherence that pervades the world in its demarcation. This is a computer. Do I know what I computer is? what is everything I could call a computer? No I don’t, this is incoherence. But it is completely coherent to me that this is a computer nevertheless.

And the magick bit? Well that’s about pointing out that the pneuma may be capable of affecting the umbra. It’s about saying that pneuma without umbra may be capable of action in the world i.e. a spirit or a spell. This philosophy doesn’t say that this is true, it says that you can never know if it’s true or not and that some events act as criteria for our thinking that it is true.

Ethical possibilities here include reconsidering how we can just thinking anything about anyone and it doesn’t really matter because we are discrete creatures in spatio temporal holder. It means grannies special pen really is grannies special pen. It means that things that we lose that hurt, hurt because we lose the pneumatic thing which was literally part of us.

We consider currently whether there is a supplementary manifestation of energia required. Apophansis seems sufficient to bypass this in one sense i.e. if I see a stone as possessed by a spirit so it is so. But the manifestation of a force is still undeniably one. Vitalism is also a manifestation…



Let’s dwell on these a moment and see if we understand any clearer what we’re talking about. Do we need two categories? I think so yes. The umbratic is the never perceived at all ever, the rear side of the perceptual object and the putative behind of the appearance. An unknowable existence which presents its manifestation in exactly that impossible idea of  there being something in our absence. So there is the manifestation of something which we overlay with our pneuma accreting capacities. The pneuma overlays the umbra. Is that clear? Clear ish I suppose. So what do I need the cthonic for? Well I when I was reading something about Lacan I saw something about his notion of the real. Now the real for Lacan would probably cover both of these but I feel there is a separation to make. The passage I read said that there was no break in the real, that it was us that chopped it (conceptually) up.

This isn’t so helpful for this dark Umbratic existence which ironically partially contains the manifestation of things still being separate outside of our view. The chtonic for me would be more the sense of the given that I think I thought I could attribute to the umbratic in a recent post. The cthonic is more like a Husserlian hyle. There may be areas in my perception that are undifferentiated, that are to me an mass of approaching unconceptual space. Explanatory words given to me immediately attract pneuma. So are we saying here there may be experiences without pneuma? I think not, just that in some instances the pneuma is so thin we have a close to non-pneumatic experience. This is not an experience of the in itself, this is closer to Sartre’s experience of a tree. The field of being is highly conceptually(pneumatically) restricted which produces an uncanny effect.