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.


On the Everyday Multiplicity of Paranormal Phenomena

What does the multitude of perceived paranormal instances that litter existence prove? Nothing of course  and the background ontology of the current science claws at each one of the phenomena, trying to drag it into its dark recesses. We must understand though that these phenomena constantly try to resist this dragging. Neurotically they can lodge themselves on the edge of this abyss, even when we wish to abandon them to it. Sometimes irrationally (if this is irrational) we adopt them and then re rationalise them. Think of magpie superstitions; many people will say ‘good morning Mr Magpie’ to ward off this evil, even though they would say no such power obtained. Something akin to Pascal’s wager functions here (why would you not say it?). The rationalised part will bracket the actual occult interference away, shifting the locus to a psychologically much more reasonable fear of unconscious actions (something equally uncanny when one contemplates it for any time, yet made safe by being safely sequestered within the subject). In this safer version we should still ward the magpie off for fear we will create our own bad luck; this or at least something like it is the background intution. I of course intimate that lurking behind the rationalised version is still the terrifying unacknowleged possibility that the world does respond in this kind of bizarre informationally integrative way, formed of viscous accretive pneuma that whilst mostly inert to it, can under the right circumstance shift the umbra in ineffable ways.

When someone’s car appears not to work at all and we have no idea why, then  we might say ‘come on old girl, you can do it!’ and the car springs to life suddenly, we are alarmed. We know, so we believe, that some mechanical fault was behind it and that coincidental to the fault’s autonomous undoing was the utterance. Yet here too, many will recognise the strange completely incoherent possibility that the car spirit (or accretion as I would call it) has heard our emotional plea and this pneuminous interference has made the once faulty machine come to life. In this instance, everything is too late for checking; everything was hidden. It is possible a mechanic can say what the fault most likely was after the fact, but suppose he cannot, suppose he can only supply a conjecture. Of course even more certainty of fault cannot undo this manifestation for we can still hold that the car spirit overcame the fault at that moment. We have here a problem of causation, yet a curious one. Why do we consider from just one instance that the occult answer may be the true one? The answer is simple. We don’t. What we do do though, in cases of certain event like structure, where the clear causal factors are obscured from direct perception, the phantasy is fail to stop this possibility existing.


I nearly wrote this title as ‘Embarrassment’ but I was too ashamed to use the word. Possibly ’embarrassment’ is the correct term. When I write on here I try to say something rational about some kinds of occult experience. I try to bracket the experience something like a la Husserl. I end up with the phenomena as ambiguous. This is often the character of the occult experience: an ambiguity shifted one way or the other by a cultural interpretation. The more modern shift conceals it, the older models allow these experiences to hold ontological sway. We live in the illusion that the modern concealment is the removal, but it is precisely the point, my point, that you can’t remove it. Whether there ever ever was anything like an actual magickal relation in the world it matters not one jot because the world is always capable of creating the manifestation of one. Here is the relation to one of my other arms: manifestationism, something I will write more on soon.

But what do I want to say here? I’m not sure anymore. I feel slightly wretched as a sitter on the fence. Magick demands a decision (will) yet philosophy here demands rationality. If I give purely into a Magickal ontology I lose all ability to reflect upon it and I cannot substantiate my beliefs without some ill conceived reference to quantum physics that I do not properly understand anyway. When we try to say why for these phenomena we are lost. Sometimes here I sound like I am saying ‘why’, but this ‘why’ is the minimal ‘why’ that says heuristically if any of these phenomena obtain then an informational substance must be interacting with a putative ‘out there’. This is its disclosure.

The embarrassment comes partially in becoming misunderstood (as if I am advocating this as true (but of course part of me is, that part that sat marvelling at the sea of synchronicitous phenomena that unfolded, that was so overwhelmed by them that it found it unbelievable that the converse, that the solid world obtained), but also the extreme implications of this kind of world view have been made almost nauseating to articulate -thanks to the new age movement.

I want to say that the world equally looks like the unfolding of quasi-solipsistic tunnels as much as it looks like a giant spatio-temporal container. That the covering over of this perception is something monstrous, that we do not need quantum physical speculations to allow ourselves this manifestation, it is there built into our experience. There is a passage somewhere in Ross Heaven book where he says he was able to stand on the water until someone told him he couldn’t. Sounds ridiculous, it is ridiculous, if he earnestly believes this we could say he suffers from false-memory syndrome. Except, that nagging ‘what if…’ that things have been so badly comprehended (the embarrassment of writing weighs on my words here) that down some variant this actually obtains. The new age movement have soiled almost beyond use the notion that the scientific thinking is restraining the phenomena, yet I must find a way to speak this, for this is also the manifestation. Ontological doubt generates phantasy (and now I am comfortable in this language once more).

Paranormal dismissal

The escape from dismissal that the paranormal community provide is that the phenomena do not work in the same way under scientific conditions. This is such an easy escape route it invites derision. I think in a truly open minded sense  though we should possibly pay more attention to it as a proposition, not least because in fact it makes perfect sense with the subject matter.

This at least makes sense with magick, because any text on this will witter on about the perfection of the ritual to achieve the result and how easily this can go awry. Successful results as such by science can be attributed to apophenia and to the magickal community  as success -it has been my aim to point out how this division is irreconcilable. By this extension though, if telepathy etc whilst in the life of a psychic seem to be fluid and relatively frequent it does not seem outrageous that whatever level of informational transfer that is happening could be being interfered with by the informational structures themselves (the experimental conditions). We must note at this point that a thesis like this does not say that this infers the anecdotal claims are true rather it maintains that the explanation given by the experimental dodging paranormal community is cogent within their own framework. I do not know all the history of the experiments but it seems to me it might have been as surprising to the practitioners themselves when they were unable to reproduce results.

What I would add is that this difficulty is entirely commensurate with the phenomenological results herein. These again do not state anything about anything that ever ‘really’ happened but do say that there is nothing in the manifestation of these phenomena that can be dismissed by a thorough scientific explanation precisely because of the possibilities about reality they invoke. Any system that is making information capable of affecting a putative substance is going to be prone to be affected by another informational system. This doesn’t need to invoke any quantum physical knowledge, it is all laid out in the phenomena themselves.

Strange Dialectics

The disclosure of strange things is only possible against a background of non strange things. These things are wont to be called reality. The business herein becomes strange. Consider that for us to have laid down what is real we must make a demarcation and say this is real. An ontology expresses this. That choice however must take into account the non-real as that which was decided against, indeed the non-real must have preceded the decision of the real. Hence when we consider our dialectic is the real is less real than the non-real. Do you see what I mean? If we insist that the real is what truly is, then there was something before this, the unreal. Is this gibberish? The real made an incursion into the non-real and claimed it as real but what was real, what was there was the non-real out of which reality sprang as the fundamentally non-real to the non-real’s true reality.