Your biblical sexual themes are very much in evidence here, upon an initial reading of your commentary I find them very arresting but as I regain my faculties in the wake of your power their arrest I perceive ephemeral -though not without merit.
I think the bridge or chasm may be in our respective academic areas such as they are (literature and philosophy). Your statements are often just that, poetic, powerful but lacking rigour.
Why for instance would we people have difficulty in believing in the solidity of the apple were it not for the other fluff? It is for sure an interesting reversal, it catches the attention, but then I am left wont for an explication of the matter –which I must have.
So we cannot begin and can only recognise there can be no end.
But this is part of my argument. People find endings coherent, things, events are perceived to start and end. Yet the beginnings and endings are incoherent.
For this reason I make my reversing statement for two ontological sets:
I have written the situation wrongly in the haste re my little beach example in error
As psychic accretion the country has a incoherently coherent border.
That is though we feel utterly sure it has one its definition is incoherent as the psychic accretion is perceived just in that way.
As a ‘real’ phenomenon that we investigate, it is coherently incoherent, for we can clearly perceive that we cannot perceive the exact finishing point (without the generation of an arbitrary definition)
I am not sure if I am dealing in sense and nonsense, you might be right, or that might a valid interpretation (though I fear my principle of incoherence would render neither of these truly intelligible only intelligible as incoherently coherent).
Primarily I am saying that we cannot tell whether a magickal phenomena is coincidental in statistically graspable world or whether reality is mutating around us in some unfathomable manner.
If one accepts the unfathomable as a real choice then we can look at that real choice and see what else might be entailed by that possibility.
I posit that some kind ontology that needs phenomena like an informational aether accreted into various psychic forms is required.
One of these could be sense one could be nonsense, I can readily understand this, except that the nonsense has been rendered as possible and thus no matter how repellent that might seem now is transmuted into sense. The concepts of sense and nonsense definitely are related to what is being said though not essentially.
Oh contraire I postulate to the Jackson sexual reduction. There is this whole endless plod of being which features orgasmic interactions and reproducitvely is of course predicated upon them, however the mire of being-aware is awash with wandering amidst the solidity and the bourgeoise luxury which leads to the query of solidity and fantasy. Though even if I were a peasant who toiled all day, if I did not hand over the milk at night to faeries and then my daughter died, I might still experience this harrowing tension; it strikes me as not utterly improbable that I might have done such a ritual ambivalent at least about their existence and now upon this fearful retribution I can still never know if they really killed her or not and indeed may force my mind to wish for some alternative reason to assuage my own guilt –especially if wifey had reminded me just before not to forget to put the milk out for the faeries…
Selfness as I said is an psychic accretion, there is no peter as such, just a peter accretion, such accretions occur in these organisms naturally in the aetheric flow.
This conclusion is drawn by the belief that spirits are accretions themselves, so why should we be any different.
We could postulate also that we are not accretions and that we are discrete souls, but so much of us is contingent to my description of p-accretion that I do not know what this would rescue. Further more then spirtis would be real in themselves and not just accretions formed by various means, where would such beings be? We cannot rule this avenue out in the corridor, but the evidence for their consistency of report is poor so it seems more likely they are psychically generated entities. The correlate of that is that all things are as such, tied together in a web of infinite complexity, viscous gossamer threads of informational aether.
I think or I thought, this is too much it is too unintelligible, but then I think this is no excuse to continue with this scheme, why should it be simple or intelligible?
But back to the sexuality aspect, yes of course sexual interpretation is part of what makes a self accretion, or even an object accretion in the case of a fetish. Somone elses sexual interpretation I hold furthermore forms our accretion in part though we know it not…
Again the same rule applies accretively perceived I am incoherently coherent, analysis will render me coherently incoherent.
Annihilation is thus absolutely a possibility for any accretion, but its information imprint is no doubt just as God of Ecclesiastes would have it.