Disentangling pneuminosity and manifestationism is not easy but it seems in some sense this must be done. They are not the same thing. Pneuminosity is a philosophy that accepts the substantialisation of information as ontologically effect (pneuma) on the acceptance of the ‘magick obtains’ option out of the agnostic disjunction ‘magick obtains v magick does not obtain’. Manifestationism is a meta-philosophy that sees different ontologies as competing for dominance of the territory. Manifestationism posits the total space of ontologies as essentially agnostic disjunctive: no manifestation can deliver the knockout blow to the others.
Here comes the complication: the reason no manifestation can outmanoeuvre the other others is owing to the limited perception of the Narp. Its regionality means it is capable of doubting what is not immanent to it (and even doubting what is immanent to it given the right circumstances). This does mean manifestationism is a meta-epistemological position. It does allow the possibility that one of the manifestations might make better predictions than the others and that in fact if we could know it we would see that one of them was correct and many others false. However it bars the notion that we can ever know which one is correct and states that there will endlessly be a proliferation of ontologies fighting for the space (religious, scientific, magickal, phenomenological). So far so good, except that we have sneaked a manifestation into the theory. Narp (Neurotic Accretion Regional Processor) is of course part of the pneuminosity manifestation and does not belong to the meta-philosophy per-se.
Pneuminosity calling it a Narp is already a decision beyond the scope of manifestationism. The decision as to what the human/subject/Narp/dasein is is itself a manifestation. Without this site (subject/Narp) there would be no competing manifestations. If though we can accept (apart from extreme scepticism) the temporal progression of the site, we can sort of accept the notion of accretion. This does not mean we have leaped to accepting magick and pneuma, rather only the notion that words following the schema of ‘usage’ (assimilation) becoming ‘definition’ (accretion) is acceptable as part of manifestationism and not outside of it. This heuristic schema says nothing ontological and allows the manifestations to proliferate unhindered. The only claim it makes is that information attaches to other information within this site. If this far is permitted the next move is agnostic disjunctive. This move is precisely the pneuminous move. When the phenomena occur to the site that inspire religious/magickal thinking, the site must process them either as actual rupture to the normal solidity (pneuminous interference) or illusion with the underlying solidity continuing behind the site-illusion. In both cases there is a kind of accretion. In the former there is the strong version of pneuminous accretions a free floating entities capable (under certain circumstances) of procuring very strange effects in the ‘normal’ reality in the latter there is still information accreted, it is just the notion that the accretions are somehow out-there is denied. The information is within the site and conveyed between sites. This information-within-the-site is still the dominant manifestation.