It is central to the claim of the Tractatus that conceptual words are essentially incoherent. This we believe is born out in the philosophy of Wittgenstein. The horizons of incoherence are various:

Incoherence manifests in regards to objects that are man made insofar as we never take a given form as exhaustive of a thing. Any instantiation of a thing does not give its essential nature which is its use. Incoherence here is the bewitching effect of language suggesting that the meaning of the word is the objects when in fact it is the use only.

Incoherence manifests its self with regard to natural kind beings almost inversely, that is the form is determinate of the epistemic range of the concept. If I have a thing ‘gold’ in a community all of which seems to be one substance -all of which as best as the community can tell behaves in the same manner- then if I discover later that there were two different substances I have no criteria by which I can say that ‘this one is really gold’ as up until that point there was only one substance. This argument defeats similar ones that attempt to show that the substance is in fact rigidly picked out by showing that we don’t have any ability to say which one is the one we intended (under these circumstances). We might make a decision after this knowledge that this one is really gold but this is just an arbitrary decision. Use is still the determining factor. The essentialist is continually open to the possibility of reviewing the putative final substance. Hence any name for a substance no matter how fixed it might appear -even by a modern scientific discourse- is potentially reviewable by a new set of criteria, thus the concept is -as we call it- incoherently coherent all the way up until it is analysed for sharp definition at which point it is coherently incoherent (the incohernce is brought to the surface).

The manifestation of the discretion of things already mistaken for their names in meaning also shows incoherence by the endless deferral of meaning. In the instance of gold the modern essence turns on atomic number, atom in turn is a concept which must answer itself as then is electron, proton, all of which are use terms also having within them the possibility of review.

This would all be true and exhaustive of all meaning were it not for the manifestation of the pneuma and its accretive nature.

In the case of gold, if there was a community using this concept for a substance which had a hitherto as yet undiscovered possibility of being known as two substances, there is but one accretion of pneuma overriding the umbratic. Once the substance’s bifurcation is disclosed the assimilator decides what will retain the name ‘gold’ (or if both will) but then there is a change in the accretion, there are two accretions -yet these two accretions are forever linked by the previous pneumatic thread.

When an old pot lid is found and no one knows that it was once such and uses it as an ashtray, in Wittgenstein’s terms it is only an ashtray, I suppose some one might say, we found it in the garden, maybe it was once something else but we use it as an ashtray. Or maybe we got it from an antique shop which actually sold it as an ashtray. Now there are two accretions again: the pot lid accretion which hides in the darkness of the past and the ashtray accretion whcih shines in the present. The manifestation of the pneuma says they both exist and maybe even outside of the antique expert there are ways as yet not understood to read these threads. Here a further transgression of Wittgenstein has taken place for the name of the thing is linked to the accretion directly. In the series of manifestations which are present in this phenomenology is also that of the umbratic realm (elsewhere referred to as cthonic). The umbratic is the goal of the physical sciences, however its access is mediated entirely by the pneumatic. The umbratic shows itself in the phantasy concept of matter, substance, primary quality. The manifest umbratic receives accretions of pneuma by the power of the assimilator. As such this thing is picked out by the pneuma’s attachment to umbra and the word is part of the pneuma.

The word literally reaches to the umbra in this way…



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s