Elsewhere we have spoken of the φantastical taxonomy of accretions. Here we must dwell further on this matter -insane as it might seem. A relation occurs here with Heidegger’s claim that physis is the highest form of poesis. Everything (concept or physical object) is some kind of accretion -its is formed of the pneuma (or informational aether as it is elsewhere known). When there are lots of stones in front of me they are part of the accretion ‘stones’, which in turn may have links to other accretions, through personal or knowledge based links. The stones show themselves as stones and allow that accretion to hold; φantastical happenings not withstanding this is their being as formed of pneuma. If I pick up a stone and it becomes ‘that stone of that fateful day’ its accretive now forms as a particular and it links temporally and emotionally to that time. Nothing can take this from the stone now. In φantasy we might say that if I lose the stone it might disappear literally in the un-pneuma, yet in reality (as a complementary principle remember) it is still there, it lies somewhere, still having been ‘that stone of that fateful day’. And though someone else might find it and know naught of this, they may yet find it queer (or they may never notice this quality).
When a thing is forged such that a new accretion is formed, it rests upon this other accretion and yet in a sense is separate from it -it might be possible that the new accretion could be made with other accretions (or not, a gold ring can after all only be made of gold). These accretions may nestle together to form again particular accretions -the gold ring given to me by such and such.
All things are accretions, yet there are accretions that show themselves in the accretion of natural itself (which is of course also an accretion). Stones and plants, wind and water, fire and air, metal and earth are such accretions. An analysis of type may occur and unfold new accretions, but when these things are used to make other things their nature shows itself in the new accretion only (though we might flip our aspect to see only the what-it-is-made-of). A mobile phone does not give itself like a stone. Yet the properties of a plant do not give themselves either like stone. So then does a stone give itself as a stone? Yes, but what is a stone (concrete could find itself as a stone accretion until someone epistemically separated it for someone else)? Only in culture does a phone give itself as a phone (but what is a phone?). In the φantasy of reality there is a difference. A stone manifests the idea of its self giving superiority over a phone. The trees and wind and sea claim this too. But this is φantasy, a borderline situation in which we cannot tell. We cannot get out of our culture and language to say that some beings have a more primordial disclosure over others, but we can say they manifest this appearance.
Psychic Accretions 1.01
The doctrine of psychic accretions says that phenomena of a mental kind acquire increasing size for various reasons. What does this mean? It regards the process of reification. Reification is a natural process by which the disclosure of the reality of things takes place; but the reality of things is one more intentional structure and not an absolute ground, rather just the disclosure itself. The inescapable intentional structure of all conscious processes discloses things as psychic. Psychic accretion refers to nothing more than this thing structure, however it says in essence anything we ascribe any kind of discretion to -as such a thing is tautologically psychic.
Psychic accretions acquire different powers within other psychic accretions. Selves are psychic accretions but in essence no different from other psychic accretions. Self interpretation partially determines the accretion of the self e.g. I am…a…b…c. The psychic accretions await the newly forming (psychic) accretion and there is a reciprocal latching onto each other in temporality. Something similar to a field of awareness is of course itself an accretion yet also an axiom for this to be the case. Such a notion also relies upon a kind of concept of a psychic energy rather akin to that found in psychoanalysis.
To reiterate every concept including psychic accretion is a psychic accretion, which holds together better or worse. Is this idealism? It would seem to buy into it. In this sense beyond idealism is phantasy.
Psychic Accretions 1.05
Aetheric matter constitutes the condition of possibility for para-psychological phenomena. Some form of aether can be used as an explanation for various ethereal beings. The definition of an aether of course is difficult. It is invariably some kind of fine matter which, by nowadays standards is difficult/impossible to detect associated with forces of differing kinds, though often primarily life. Thus a ghost may be said to be made up of such a matter because it is a deceased material being, which now carries on in some immaterial form, thus there must be some immaterial substance which can manifest in regular existence.
The ghost is not in itself a φantasy. The manifestation of such an entity promotes the φantasy of an aether. But let us recall, a φantasy is not a negative concept, but it is one which resists proof or disproof. Aetheric forces are suggested in multiple phenomena, feelings of energy (in chi gung e.g.) ghosts, dowsing. It is not the reality of aether that is at stake but rather the manifestation of such a possibility in the face of certain phenomena. Such a manifestation is inevitable in the face of no coherent alternative to the monadic consciousness. Furthermore a strategy which tells the consciousness that the phenomenon it experienced was not ‘real’ will not be truly acknowledged and the φantasy will reemerge (indeed the theory of no phenomenon having occured is itself a φantasy).
Psychic accretions are a quasi necessary correlate of an aetheric ontology i.e. if there is a fine matter then there is an inevitable association of it with mind. The impossible levity of mental phenomena lends to this association as does the notion of ghosts and souls. Therefore the mindstuff/aether (though the mind stuff may be only a form of aether -to go there though is to reach beyond the phenomenological and into the speculative) must be able to accrete into forms for the generation of such phenomena or we would not have acknowledged them as such -hence the accretive capacity or another way, the psychic accretions are themselves part of the manifestation of such phenomena.
What constitutes the accretions? We might say the monadic consciousness contitutes the accretions. This is a φantasy. The accretion of the monad constitutes the other accretions. I constitute you and this cup and this plant by my intentional structures which hold these phenomena to be a certain discrete suchness, just as you constitute me (I, me and you of course are misleading terms which lead us to believe some kind of object is designated by this practice when there is no[o]ne).
Psychic Accretions 1.07
The philosophically investigated correlate of the psychic accretion is the notion of the word as object. Reality is assembled by psychic accretions which are themselves contingent structures to the ineffable. The axiom of groundlessness tells that our analysis does not reach an end, rather extends endlessly into the informational ether. Here though is a curious consequence which may explain one of the issues in philosophy. The manifestation of word and object obsessed philosophy for a long time. Understanding designation became a key issue. The notion of embedded meaning largely removes this problem as there is no object to point to, just an activity in which a certain kind of language is embedded. We had misunderstood the problem. However, the nagging intuition remains that surely when I say ‘this person’ in this context, I do mean this and only this person.
The result of such an intuition is of course a φantasy. For the connection can only exist by a metaphysical speculation, philosophically or magickally. If I have an object which had a prior usage -for which it was designed- yet I never knew this and now use it for something else, it is in that sense only my usage, it is not really something else; this is a metaphysic of original privelege. If I believe a person is embedded in their name and I can divine secrets about them using it (in this instance this person has this name), this is a magickal metaphysical attachment. If I intend a person by their name, there exists such an accretion; this is what has come into being -over time (from the perspective of temporality), the instance of naming is seamless to the accretion, it is part of what makes it. This of course is a rationally groundless metaphysical φantasy, yet it is transcendentally possible on the basis of the manifestation of reality as epistemologically limited -I can not know it is not true and furthermore as there exist phenomena which have a magickal character, I must look to something like the psychic accretions as a condition for there possibility -rather than simply disregarding them (as I cannot know either that disregarding them for a competing ontology would give me epistemological solace).
The φantasy of the origin and of the magickal attachment occur due to the various accretions and their ability to form thus. There exists an accretion of that person and that name is an aspect of it, inseparable from it; informationally thus the connection is necessary. A thing, we might believe on some level retains its previous usage; its informational imprint of its previous use is still somehow with it. The idea that this is possible is a φantasy which we can deny, yet it has a peculiar power belonging to the accretive idea of a thing as having a history. This stone is the stone that was on my desk and I studied for a long time. This is true of this stone and no other. A mistaken belief about another stone that was similar would not be true of it. Has anything happened to the stone in this process? A φantastical thing has happened to it by its being bathed in my awareness and intent.
If I had some mystical import, this stone might then become an artifact as the stone that belonged to me; the stone that absorbed my consciousness, that was cradled in my awareness. Here one can feel the sense of what one means by this kind of φantasy. Yet it is not without rationality, for if we have indeed retained the correct thing, then the things which happened to the stone did not not happen, indeed they did. The ineffable nature of consciousness generates the possibility that this kind of informational imprint might indeed have taken place and if there were such thing as a person of real ‘mystical import’ (whatever that might mean) then the possibility exists that their awareness might have left some kind of trace on the thing that they owned; as such this object is then deemed worth retaining.
What if we have the wrong stone though? If we know no differently then we will still have an accretion ruled by a φantasy tied to the accretion of this other being. Indeed if there were power in things, then such an accretion might still have a power as it is credited with the same force. The informational structure would be in operation. The true stone might lie then on a beach and we have no science to disclose its history and expose the fake stone, it has withdrawn from being and lies in the void.
Can we be satisfied here? No. For now a familiar line begins to emerge. One we must tread with the upmost of care. We cannot ignore the stone in the void, but neither can we say much about it earlier. We must rather take the accretive trace to see what this suggests. The intuition is that, since the informational imprint is necessary, there exists the possibility that its accretion will be ontologically effective (magickally interactive) with other accretions that comes across it -are drawn to it/it discloses itself to.
So now we have a simple taxonomy of magickal things.
i)Those impressed by the origin they are taken to have and actually have.
ii)Those with a history that is unknown yet still potent to a new interaction
iii)Those that are newly created through a historically incorrect belief (now irrelevant as they are believed to the the first instance, indeed (i) and (iiii) are indistinguishable from each other).
There will be more, there will be many more and it is folly and madness to name them in this way. Yet the φantasy of taxonomy is not to be denied.
Psychic Accretions 1.1
Psychic accretions as a doctrine is a φantasy. φantasy shows the realm where that which might be the case holds sway. Psychic accretions has a strong and a weak doctrine. The weak doctrine is essentially psychological and would maintain that within the individual consciousness there form these accretions which make up its totality in their interlinkings. The strong doctrine would accord to something like a panpsychism. Thus the psychic accretions are not particularly in anyone’s consciousness. The strong doctrine is the theory behind the existence of beings formed of no obvious physical matter and phenomena similar to this realm (synchronicities). It says that psychic accretions may function independently of a physical vehicle though act in various manners which effect that which we call physicality. The effects may be purely regular, in the case of poltergeist activity or causational from behind the scenes of the spatiotemporal perspective (in the instance of an event happening which is deemed likely to have been brought about by the interference of a psychic accretion). Magical beings are as such psychic accretions. In this way this doctrine still maintains an agnositicism as to whether or not they existed prior to their invocation for in both cases do they class as a psychic accretion, just as you who reads this now, also classes as such an accretion.
Psychic Accretions 2.01
But this is madness. Surely we have done away with this. Pursuing the accretive idea results in an incoherent lunacy. This half garbled Platonism with shades of Jung needs to be put to bed. But how shall we do that? If we recognise that language creates the only the impression of the need for p-accretions then we can agree that their necessity is questionable -to say the least. Language for sure has multiple functions of differing natures. Naming objects -insofar as that applies at all- is only one. When we talk about ‘the mind’ we do not necessarily have any thing we refer to. For sure the concept is confused and indeed we can recognise that the language game of mind has a context we should be ill advised to stray out of. But some process which we experience does direct itself this way and that intentionally (at a conscious level and an unconscious one -intentional objects exist in dreams, what are these if not something we can reasonably call psychic accretions?). The force of this philosophy lies in its incoherence and refusal to retreat, its refusal to retreat lies in its radical skepticism.
But you cannot create a philosophy by saying ‘because I don’t know, it might be like this’.
I can, and I am doing. It is a actual perception to see the severe lack of ground that we stand upon. This lack of ground does not support everything. But is does give rise the inability to put to bed certain phenomena…
Psychic Accretions 2.02
Consider the self? Is this question a nonsense? Without the metaphysics of the p-accretions there is no self. The reference to ‘I’ is a language game which arises in a being such that its monadic situation suggests that this language is applicable. It exists in one spatial position, on one temporal horizon, other monadic entities identify it is as one entity and only one -usually- as such when it describes its actions and thoughts it invariably uses the first person pronoun to indicate that this being is the author of the described act.
If we say that ‘because we say ‘I’ there must be such an entity’ surely we have erred. For there is no necessity that some extra entity exists which is the ‘self’ as the words do not point to objects as was previously suspected. There is just language embedded in the world. However the doctrine of psychic accretions tells us there an aetheric force which accretes to form contingent wholes -our things. So we must double back on the previous position in order to satisfy the designatory desire. This desire insists that in some way we do mean ‘this and only this’. This is satisfied by the fact that the p-accretion of this object is tapped into by that monad on that occasion. This also satisfies imaginary objects such as the ‘present king of france’ by the forming of a simple p-accretion. P-accretions are accretions as such they accrete more by the many times they are invoked.
The strict philosophical account of things entails their essential disappearance. The p-accretions are a phenomenological retrograde step made in a world which allows that magickal phenomena are insufficiently erradicable. If magickal phenomena cannot be erradicated (their appearance -not their actuality) then p-accretions follow as a necessary correlate of all phenomena at an aetheric level (the aether is also a necessary postulate).
The self then, exists as a p-accretion. Formed by the reciprocity of self perception and the perception of others. By self imposed intent and the intent of others it stays in a form. This form is what is then believed to be a ‘real’ person. There exists of course a φantasy that no such reality exists -this can make us tremble. Even wearing the wrong shoes might call ourselves into question.
The φantasies compete to become reality. But both are accretions. But accretions are φantasies…
What is x? is answered by a psychic accretion formed of the informational aether. The accretion is given a name. The name is part of the accretion. A line has been attached to it from the monadic accretion -forming an psychic-accretive-complex. It is purely heuristic to talk of a discrete psychic accretion in the first place for they are all interconnected in a myriad of ways.
Each accretion has the possibility of being proliferated through analysis. The accretion is incoherently coherently whole. Accretive forms cannot be underestimated in possibility of size -where size is understood quasi metaphorically. A religion is a kind of accretion. Hideously weaving in on itself, overlapping, unfolding, concealing, disclosing. These psychic entities reciprocally effect their embedded monads, reinforcing literally the belief. The hypocrisies and incoherences there inherent do not undermine the existence of such accretions, though they do indeed look bewildering. This incomprehensible morass of organised informational aether is comprised by the endless lines of constituting power emitting from the attached monads. Each monad in turn hooks into other systems. Such is the understanding of this phenomena down the corridor.
But being an embedded monad is not something abstract. It is this, you read the information right now, I write the information right now. Noesis binds the aether to the accretive forms.