Working on philosophy in this way is curious; I am no longer just engaging, enjoying other figures, I am trying to forge something using conceptual insights from elsewhere integrally but not essentially.
Skepticism states something like: given that I ordinarily experience the world in a certain consistency, if something happens which seems to transgress this (a synchronicity for example) I am thrown in to an implicit doubt about this. Unless that is I can say with certainty that I can know really something like ‘there are billions of people on the planet experiencing endless events all the time, statistically some kind of phenomena which appear unusual are bound to happen’ then the synchronicity will make some kind of dent in the appearance of consistency.
But what would certainty mean in this instance for the very event that is causing the disturbance suggests that the certainty of solidity itself is in question, thus I must check if I know there is ‘for certain’ any such solidity to ‘reality’. On this level the only certainty I have is to my immediate sphere of owness, within which I seem intentionally render the various things/structures around me in a solid way. So whilst philosophies like Heidegger’s and Wittgenstein’s might say these are epistemological dead ends, they are so only if we make the assumption of the solidity of the world. There is no argument with them that the structures of being embedded in a reality are already within us and flow through us, however the monadic existence creates the possibility of non solidity by its imperfect access to reality out side of its direct awareness (of course there is room for imperfection even with a putative direct awareness, however the point here would be that the abberational effect is no perceived within the solidity of ownness).
There are then [at least] two ways of perceiving synchronistic phenomena. I can allow the overflowing of the world and reinforcing statistical/scientific discourse to persuade me that nothing supernatural has occurred or I can find myself in a state in which it seems very strongly that something very peculiar has occurred though I have no coherent picture to tell me what it might be; a kind of ‘incoherence’ emerges that has the negation of the solidity as a feature of it without with being possible to utter anything positive.
Neither of these in fact can be seen to out gun the other. The monadic nature of existence will perpetually create the possibility of doubt no matter how rational the counter picture. The incoherence of the alternative is not phenomenologically perceived as unconvincing but rather emerging from the possibility of its truth.
This pivot is what I hummed and harred with for years, trying to seriously work with it to see if it goes somewhere gave me the curious feeling that I now refer to as ‘the corridor’.
The corridor is generated by thinking about skepticism in this way and considering that maybe it isn’t so much skepticism, skepsis is just the philosophical correlate of what I have taken to calling phantasies (poncily written with greek phi in my notes).
Phantasies essentially occur when we do not know what is the case; when the human monadic condition presents a blank epistemological wall. Thus for our paradigm synchronistic event, there is an ‘explanation’ (the statistical world view), but because of the curious nature of that problem, a truly convincing access to that explanation eludes us, but the alternative does not spring so much directly from doubt but rather from a direct phantasy of the incoherent mutable reality/multiverse (take your pick).
Phantasy in this sense is not a negative term, indeed it can easily be seen that in a certain way, given that it is possible to interpret the world magickally (we have done so before and synchronicities would raise a less epistemologically worrying eyebrow), the science/statistical view is in fact also a phantasy, one that is currently transmuted into what we call ‘reality’.
Phantasies occur for any black box (it seems to me), conspiracy theories are a less deeply ontological good example, we do not know they aren’t true -though many people will consider defaultly they aren’t due to buying into mainstream media.
The strange thing with the corridor though (the seeing that we do not know the ground properly and that this is not just a philosophical foible -it is a serious issue about existence) is that once you are down it, other sorts of phenomena disclose themselves.
It becomes difficult to tell the level of necessity you are dealing with. However the purpose of writing this is to look at these issues. Following the notion of phantasies I came to the notion of psychic accretions. This isn’t worked out yet properly and sometimes I think it cannot be worked out and sometimes I think the priniciple of incoherence is sufficient for it (see later).
Ok so if you accept the synchronistic phenomenon in the magickal interpretation (because it has equal interpretive validity to the alternative) then you have allowed yourself to step down the corridor. But then there must be other sequiters even though now we are in the most nebulous realm of phantasy -within a phantasy. So its now a case of feeling the kinds of issues within this realm. Psychic accretions are one answer to flesh this out which I think have a kind magickal-existential necessity to them.
All of this is done on a principle I have come to believe is present not just here but everywhere: Incoherence. Phenomena are incoherent by their nature, every concept is incoherent to a greater or lesser degree, the incoherence just gets hidden better when concepts become orthodox and have usefulness. Deleuzes critique of identity I think is down to its incoherence, but is multiplicity more coherent? No of course not, its just less monistic.
I was thinking of the incoherence of beach as the edge of a country:
Objects as ‘real’ are incoherently coherent.
P-Accretions are coherently incoherent.
So again, down the corridor we are in need of something that gives us a our connections between phenomenon -if we are to believe that a synchronicity is some kind response of existence to the monad. This will be the informational aether. Of course this kind of element has long been posited. I now generally do identify it with the atemporal/spatial informational spirit. This element or something like it, will always look necessary in this kind of world view, its has a degree of explanatory necessity to it. Of course it is also a phantasy.
The informational aether is what is accreted in the psychic accretions of the monad. Psychic accretions are reverse engineered in a sense. Spirits, visualised entities are accumulations of the informational aether or real in themsselves, either way they are purely informationally formed from our perspective. Our own psychological selves are just accretions in this way of this same ‘spirit’, intentionally held together by other monads. The point being that, if in this realm the spirits exist, they must be made of this aether, but the aether must hold together. The holding together of the aether as information is thus the same all the way down, the informational aether is what the plant perception, clock perception etc etc comprises of, spirit and cup (as cup is interpreted as cup) and Nader are all psychic accretions.
And of course psychic accretions are a phantasy…
I might stop there as otherwise I’ll have gone on too long.
There you have it: