There are only two modes of activity. One takes place within the strata of concepts/culture and the other other also partially does so but strains beyond it and possibly achieves this. Most activity in general takes place in the regular home of what I called above the ‘strata of concepts/culture’. I don’t mean anything esoteric by this, but I do mean something very broad. Whether a scientist, a writer, a carpenter, a gardener or a cleaner, your activities, your aims fall within this realm. Indeed just in your day-to-day existence, all of your quasi-conscious and conscious (though I am always wary of using this word since reading Gurdjieff) activities fall under this mode. The mode is purely directed within the accretions. It works with them. It may try to work out new, hitherto unidentified vector regions (science) or it may work with existing accretive structures, absorbing them, mildly mutating them as we do in our interactions.

Even many of those who believe they work closer to the edge, work purely within the accretive structures. Indeed many people interested in esoteric/occult matters only work within the accretive layers without attempting to escape them. Here probably is the only point of this writing. Nothing you engage in, in any occult quasi-activity (like numerology) escapes the accretive layers or does anything significant to alter your relation to them. You might obtain results. Results are a different kind of phenomenon. Results enable the practitioner to question the state of reality by means of the question ‘what ontology is compatible with my results not being reducible to a solid-world materialist/psychologist type explanation?’ Results are an invitation not a real result.

In this way results are openings, but they are in many ways only accidental openings. They may encourage more playing with systems. This may trigger more results either synchronisitic or intentional. It is real but it means nothing. All such activity is still within the accretive realm. The only activities that are otherwise are the practical attempts to move beyond it. These are the thought stopping, personality disabling, pattern breaking practices you read about in all the literature on this matter.

Phenomenology comes so close to some of these. Phenomenology unearths the vector field, the transcendental backdrop into which the accretions embed themselves, but then it returns to the accretive world to show how it is constituted. The second activity seeks the vector field unrelentingly. The vector field is the wellspring of sorcery. No one can say how long it goes down before disappearing into umbratic depths.

Poetry, art and music are interesting cases. Poetry rearranges the accretive field to present disclosures of a certain depth. This is a kind of result which might hook someone into seeking the vector field. Art in representational mode is simply the skillful display of the visual accretive field. However its other faces (more abstract forms) can facilitate something like an encouragement to perceive the vector field. Music, without words, can effect something similar, can give an insight into a heuristc pure[r] perception.

All of these experiences though, without motivation, are accidental results which are rapidly overtaken by the establishment of the accretive field.

The Centre for Experimental Ontology is going to sleep, maybe only for a short while, maybe forever. This concludes phase 2 of its existence.

Below you can find a rough summary of what this phase dealt with, where the CEO is now and where it might potentially go in the future —Gurdjieff has been pointing to some interesting correlates/directions.

1) Pre-ontology: The notion of a pre-ontology was not explore sufficiently but remains an ongoing concern. The central idea is whether it is cogent to conceive of a way in which existence can occur without an ontology excluding certain modes as possible. The emphasis of the thought is on conceiving of magickal phenomena as totally naturalised on a contiuum with all other phenomena.

2) Pneuminous Accretions: The pneuminous accretions remain at the heart of the general system. Materialised conceptuality (or at least the grammatical cogency of it) enables magick and completes philosophy in all directions.

3) Vector Field: Equally central to the system is the vector field. Meant in the sense of a ‘carrier’, the ability of vectors to host the pneuminous accretions is the counterpart to the accretions that completes the magickal explanation (of philosophy). A vector that houses a concept and suits it is the ordinary usage of the same force that we call magick (we don’t call it magick but the same operation occurs). A vector hosting an accretion that it would not normally house will find influenced/altered on a magickal level (what we tend to mean when we say magick).

4) Different Occult Endgames: The Castaneda system highlights this already suspected possibility. The reality or metaphor of the assemblage point illustrates how there is no necessity to some kind of occult achievement (that could be considered final) over another. Even the notion of ‘freedom’ in CC’s system can be contrasted against other possibilities of immortality. It is the extension of the lack of divine teleology into a vastly increased notion of what exists (which includes the occult possibilities).

5) Memetics: The disbanded science of memetics is highly commensurate with the pneuminous accretive theory. The only addition required is external existence of the memes i.e. whilst created by human activity they do no necessarily need it to continue to exist.

6) Susan Blackmore’s work present’s a considerable challenge to many aspects of esotericism. What she does is highlight the extreme ontology needed for it to be ‘real’ and not purely psychological. Pneuminous accretive theory is a good fit for such an ontology however at least one additional caveat is needed. The notion in question is one of something like levels of reality or consciousness. This is something mentioned both in Castaneda and Gurdjieff. In Castaneda, Don Juan will say that ordinary people would literally not be able to see the anomalies, though they are perfectly real, likewise certain statements are unintelligible unless one has sufficient ‘power’ to understand them. Gurdjieff says likewise that unless one obtains a certain level of consciousness, certain things are not visible and certain teachings incomprehensible. This is not a matter of cognitive ability but something else. This something else is what such an ontology would require, likewise it would say that the whole psychological edifice that Blackmore works in, amazingly admiral though it is to desire to not be fooled, can only return negative results, explainable in terms of neuroscience. This does not mean she has not encountered many frauds, but also it means that there is a certain letting go necessary for the actual encounter.

7) Plato, Castaneda, Laruelle: The most productive discussion in the last phase of the CEO concerned a kind of synthesis of these figures that overcomes that manifestation problem. The manifestation problem is simply this: if all ontologies (manifestations) compete equally to inhabit us, how do we understand an ontology that can account for this without lapsing into one more model. The pre-ontological investigations are related to this. Castaneda claims an absolute mode of perception that sees things as they are. This is the perception of the world as ‘energy’, though this accretion (energy) itself contaminates this perception. The reduction of the allness of everything to an endless series of fibres of light was called the reticulum. Gurdjieff has a similar message though there is less mention of energetic perception, rather he talks of ‘objective perception’, to again mean a perception of things as they are.
This line of thinking reinforces that what we mean by saying occult practices gives the completion of philosophy. To learn to perceive the pneuminous accretions as they are, to perceive the deep layers of the vector field. This possibility (?) undercuts Laruelle by granting access to the one, yet agreeing that philosophy (manifestations) is hopelessly inadequate to make any progress. The one is accessible only through deep struggle. This in turn makes sense of Plato but not as empty epistemology. The struggle out of the cave is a real struggle that we all must undertake and that necessarily most of cannot achieve -I include myself in this number.
But again this all relates to the point about ‘different occult endgames’. What Castaneda and Gurdjieff talk about may well not be the same thing, furthermore there are many different stations in this realm. Gurdjieff talks about ‘right results’ but maybe there are other kinds of ‘results’.

8) The vector field does have a certain incoherence. It is the imagined perceptual residue devoid of concept (pneuminous accretion). Even if this is not cogent, the idea functions a) transcendentally as a necessary condition for the possibility of an object and b) as a heuristic by which we can understand the structure of things. This heuristic dimension is particularly relevant with regards to certain occult technologies. In Gurdjieff for instance, there is a technique related to self-remembering which involves dividing the psyche into a potential real ‘I’ and the personality (often named after the person). The named being is the accreted (neurotic self or selves) and the real ‘I’ is something that comes with the organism. It is this part that the esoteric practices seek to access. Does this division make great sense? Not particularly; the separation of the personality from a putative underlying ‘essence’ is a highly confusing notion analytically. However as an occult instruction, or guidance, it has power. Conceive of yourself in this way and it helps to disclose pointless, repetitive, petty parts of your behaviour. A deeper layer of the human vector, stripped close to the vector field itself.
This whole notion of how far down the vector field goes is a fascinating one that requires further thought.

9) Wittgenstein and Laruelle point to the same place. This is because ‘language’ itself is a use word. It cannot be the ‘real’ noun that designates something. It all emanates from what can reasonably grammatically be called the one, or the human. No statement escapes. Language only speaks as language when it has been accreted, without this it is the vector region that the concept language is applied to (consider discussion two organisms communicating and asking ‘are they using language?’). One cannot understand the world beyond the accretions from within them. The only possibility of a greater comprehension comes from the possibility of something like a different consciousness being possible. This possibility remains agnostic disjunctive, at least from the level of regular thought.

10) Regular thought exists in a band that cannot seriously conceive of the world other than as it appears: solid, continuous. Agnostic disjunction functions at this level of thought. It renders anomaly as a possibility that cannot be dismissed but cannot be established. The only way out of agnostic disjunction is by the possibility of something like Gurdjieff describes as ‘objective consciousness’. This of course brings in the problem of ‘levels of consciousness’ which again cannot be verified in any way other than through the circular achievement of a ‘higher’ or ‘altered level’.

11) Gurdjieff makes a particularly interesting statement concerning art. He divides it into objective and subjective. Subjective art is that art we create when we allow powers to flow through us. Whereas objective art is created by a consciousness that is in control of its various parts and actually deliberately creates the work. Such a work, he says, will not generate subjective impressions of interpretation but rather will impose its meaning upon us all.
The last century and indeed this one, has made much of the discovery that we are not in control of the cultural, conceptual powers (pneuminous accretions/memes) that flow through us. Art controls the artist, we are but a vessel. Our general likes/dislikes and determinations are simply a product of these cultural forces. The CEO has played with this language calling it agenthood and utilised the phrase ‘who do you work for?’ to describe how we work for such forces —philosophers work for ontologies, they are agents for them, this explains their stubbornness of defending positions that are no better than those of enemy agents.
The occult endeavour again highlights the possibility of escape from these forces. The possibility that the ‘being-possessed’ by these powers is a contingent condition that we can potentially escape from -though not without serious effort. The death of the author is true but the author may also exist in some circumstances.

12) The double in Castaneda is the second body in Gurdjieff. This is largely the aim of both systems. The transference of consciousness from the feeble disparate exterior to a unified and separable (from the physical body) interior. He makes a fascinating comment that the kingdom of heaven in Christianity is just the development of the second body. Only when the second body is developed is survival beyond death possible. Even this though is finite —equally fascinating as again it suggests, not an eternal beyond, but simply another negotiable realm.

13) The Moon in Gurdjieff devours our awareness, we only can stop this by the development of ‘objective consciousness’. This is very similar to the ‘Eagle’

14) All adornments (job,clothes, language, hair styles etc) are a semiotic system that displays ones alignment to various powers. Some are imposed, some are chosen. Liberation from these powers leaves a vacuum we must somehow fill with a curious control. If we simply remove them, more accretions will take their place. This aids flexibility but not control itself.

15) Magnetic centres are what we develop and activate when we trigger synchonicity. Our fascination with this at the wrong level easily burns the centre out. We can reactivate it, but our modern consciousness means making contact through the centre is almost impossible. We have no choice but to attempte solitary activity and experiment.

16) Gurdjieff suggests that the mystery schools were/are not complete in their questionings. He indicates they continued to conduct experiments on subjects concerning consciousness. Some products of these are fakirs that one may encounter performing incredible feats. He suggests such people are sometimes simply failed experiments of mystery schools. This suggests a very scientific attitude (that one would not get past an ethics committee) towards their relation to consciousness. Ouspensky mentions an anecdote in which a sheep was brought to full consciousness. When he asks ‘What did they do with it?’ Gurdjieff replies ‘They ate it.’

17) Prevous CEO terminology called the human vector the ‘regional processor’. The ‘neurotic’ or ‘self accretion’ plugged into this to make the NARP.

18) The Hyperqabalah remains and ongoing concern. It is the development of a diagrammatic system in which each path of the previous tree of life is transformed into a sephiroth (node) or the levelled up system. It is a partial product of accident. In the process of forming sigils for each regular tree of life path they were as scribed numbers 1-22 as single symbols. This meant that if this was a new based system, it was necessarily base 23, i.e. the equivalent of 10 could only be achieved after the 22 single sigils. The cultural accretive weight of 23 makes this seem highly appropriate. Much work has been done on this but the nature of the paths between the nodes still needs establishing.

We are very pleased to announce that the Castaneda edition of Parasol is now available through the portal below.

Parasol 6 features the below listed amazing work:

Sorcery and the Myth of Er (Emanuel Magno)

Exploratory Notes on the Work of Carlos Castañeda
(Graham Freestone)

Restitutions of the truth in…a Separate Reality (Geoffrey Matthews)

Conworlding (I. “Garuda Guru” S.L.)

Bliss: An Interview Concerning Sorcery.

Castañeda as Formula & Death (Ryan Madej)

The Aesthetics of Mutants (Emanuel Magno)

 Physician! Heal Thyself!   By Jim Meirose

                                                          

Two worked the lab conkulating the document trove brought back from the Doc-doctor M-m-m-m-oon’s desk—the late doctor, that is. The mission being frying his madcap t’ween all his patients, the very Lon Carpre.

That Lon Carpre?

Yas uv course, Yas that one.

Huh.

Huh’s right but let us get going mein leben; Document ten of some few less than too many fragments catalogued, date time name date and place—gones goes went thusly it seems which nothing is as; archery; so ‘t’s how his headtop pancaked down flat. Coming to after that he failed to speak. Unless spoken to. Which was seldom since he—he was in essence, a mostly uninteresting person. Sort of like before the trauma but different. Deeper. Deep. There is quiet. Then deep quiet, then—deeper quiet. There is no deepest; it can always get deeper. His no yes so to be but—that’s not how they raised him. At least they thought they didn’t. They wanted the best for him. They wanted him to—I mean, really. It really must be said? Aw crack fizzle, no. Too obvious. Much too so, so. After all how many get chosen for praise by the head priest? Being close to God he must smell some truth. He must be able to smell one smell apart from the others. What these mean. And why these were put there. Don’t waste. Do not waste. Push pull and push pull and it will begin to open and he saw it there. On that wall off sides from that kitchen sink and drainboard unit cast together in one piece. They don’t make factories can do that any more. Where would you even get such a thing? Is always the question. You are good at this, Lon, so do it—and likewise very good at that—how ‘bout that too? And faithful be, too. Be too here is your purpose its lights out.

Yes.

Lights out. Why’s this been done. Is this another test—got to see the way—for lack of what the right thing to do is don’t sit don’t just sit do—this. This will do as a right thing for now. See the dark ahead cracking? Bright slivers there now here uh gone from there and here but—through that ahead space there’re bound to be more. Butt through. But through there he—or what? Maybe look harder. Look harder. But through there he sits. It is a he, right—a he with a yellow pad knee up and writing. As I—I am talking no. Shut up ‘cause wrong things behind are always straining to be said. By Peter! Wrong things behind are always straining to be said. So nothing, say nothing, be nothing, don’t be. Hot gravy, wow! I have burnt my hand Mom I have burnt my hand ah—her touch. Across here’s the store Lon. Across here. Here’s the store. We’re here. We’re here. We can get what we want in here. So come on—fully sat before this—I might yes be a man see? Fully sat now once in the store might yes this be a man, see? Where is she though who led me in. She’s off someplace buying. That is why she came. She came to buy. Top buy. Why come with someone when they’re just going here to buy so what brings you here to me Lon? What brings you here to me. Being led here’s the answer. Being led from back when no; no not back it has been too hard this first time don’t want to do it again so answer the man, Well Lon, that was a question. That how you were raised Lon? That how you were raised?

No.

I don’t know really. Why I am here now.

Good, that’s all right. You are here to find out. Here to find-out.

‘kay.

I’m told you fear—something. That right Lon; ‘es no yes wow, Lon. I am was and always will be, Lon. He is right about that much. That much being right, that I am Lon, and that that in that right Lon could be anything at all—a variable word like an x y or z—he is right yes he’s right so—

Lon!

—oh yes sir, that’s right.

Now he ’d,  You don’t but a black patch diagonalled over him, damn them. Damn them. They say that these will fade, but still and all, damn them!

I’m sorry, say that again, please.

Black patch gooey round float up dip past him and only I could catch the end we are friends—yah he said it that’s good maybe yes certainly yes, that is good say That’s good.

I know, he said. But now—Lon what do you fear so much that’s why then black slab cut bottom to top you here. Can you tell me?

The question what’s the question all wrapped up black uhhhhh tell true the questions I don’t know it so the honest answer is—no. I can’t sir.

I said you don’t have to blob up rip the word gone.

Don’t have to what?

Call me sir! It would be nice Lon if you zzzz pai  zzzzzzztention.

I don’r know what you mean.

How many things can that mean Lon ?

But I don’t know what the that is, sir.

Off! Penciltap hard in the pad roll the eyes back but—to his credit he did, catch himself. Catch himself so. Even though it was rude, it—wasn’t that rude—and.

And and dna an nd – I ah oh u be and drop out.

Had to drop it out there. Too hard to concentrate. Too hard, Blast. Be the blast death of me not just but ‘nybody. Perchsn’ce.

And that is all for today.

Signed and dated by Dr. B. Moon all flowy enscripted after but only one slight flourish, then Good-Night. File this with the rest of the proof. File this with the rest of the evidence file this with. That we’ve filed this with. Plus there’s more to come.

How long before the whole document’s analyzed and findings available?

Probably through ‘ent the end of the year.

This year?

Look, turning.

Now. What kind of damned question is that?

Bad one?

Bad one.