If we must speak of ontology and talk of a fundamental realm then we might speak of two interlocking realms in which these phenomena make manifest. The first is more clearly staked out so far as that ordinary or ontic level on which we make talk of scepticism and monads, fields of consciousness as having perceptual edges and so on. This level is utterly necessary to be understood for what it is and the concept of φantasy. However the ontological manifestation of the phenomenon is less clearly demonstrated. It is the manifestation of the event before the logical of the rupture of solidity has been put into place. The logic of the rupture is only possible on a certain epistemology which displays it as a φantasy. Prior to the logic of the rupture is the level at which the world is purely understood as an appearance in which anything is possible and to be accepted as such. For this reason the ontological level has no need for a story of explanation, for the event simply happens as one event among others. It has no privileged status as a rupture for there is nothing to rupture, the event is just one phenomenon amongst others. But how can we justify this status when the interpreted event seems clearly the the manifestation of the event through the accreted aether?
It is assuredly a subtle realm, prone to be rent assunder by the slightest touch. Its existence would be φantastical were it not that its existence is prior to the possibility of φantasy -and indeed reality by that measure. It is the realm in which magick is possible without causal speculation, it is the realm in which the gods walk -not as psychic accretions-, it is the pure acceptance of buddhism.