The possibility arises that the pneumatic is actually the shadow world itself or rather there is no shadow world and the pneumatic is itself the solid. Solidity is of course something we know about something and hence pneumatic. There is of course a manifestation of the notion that there is a shadow world -and this must be what the doctrine means. So the idea that there is pneumatic content of an assemblage as yet accreted to the accretion by the assimilator has cogency as a manifestation but phenomenologically not as an ontological absolute.

Yet still further thought reinforces the existence of the Cthonic (shadow world) precisely as the manifestation mentioned above. The key lies precisly in the retained appearance of the possibility of the thing-accretion showing something else to us. Part of the showing-itself of a thing is the unconcealed part. The unconcealed is the Cthonic. This applies to different things in different ways. An axe is an accretion formed over the Cthonic, the Cthonic might disclose itself as some other function and thus wed another accretion to the axe. But a rock is also an accretion, the rock might disclose another possibility of itself as a hammer (accretion) or it might differentiate itself from other rocks in a manner previously unrecorded -mineral differentiation. Thus a new accretion might be formed -in taxonomy.



This writing concerns an earlier conception of the Cthonic. It also seems confused to me. There is certainly a manifestation of a shadow world as potentially different from the pneuminous -the umbratic as recently written on…


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