It seems clear to the CEO that there is some linkage between the work of Francois Laruelle and the more recent notion of manifestationism. Manifestationism however is happy to be called a meta-philosophy with as yet partially inchoate reciprocal links with philosophy (pneuminosity). Certainly one empirical argument for manifestationism is the sheer blatant failure of philosophy to significantly shift ground; rather it develops new dialectical variations but then maintains the old ones as well. So the territory is exactly that of different manifestations jostling for power. Laruelle does not speak in this way but his non-philosophy does have a certain chime insofar as the determination in the last instance of each philosophy have no more privilege over the last -they are all affectations.
The natural question is whether manifestation is guilty of the Laruellian decision (the structure of factum determining datum (though the factum could not have been derived without the datum)). Clearly there is much more thought to go into this but an initial analysis suggests manifestationism is not decisionally guilty. We remember with interest that Laruelle suggests that any philosophy will contain a meta-philosophy. But here manifestationism is only a meta-philosophy, one that was derived from pneuminosity as self-reflectively aware of itself as a-side of the agnostic disjunction (a)magick-obtains/(b)does not obtain. Pneuminosity’s having to be aware that it is only a transcendental possibility forces the opening of manifestationism i.e. the proliferations of agnostic disjunctions between all the philosophies rendering them essentially, just as Laruelle says, as affectations (with agents aligning themselves owing to their affective predelictions).
Pneuminosity does have something like a decisional structure, but its condition of recognition (which turns out to be manifestationism) does not. So far in manifestationism we have made no term for what the manifestations are of. This seems in one sense frustrating but in another more methodolically valid that actually nominating it the one-in-one (which immediately starts accreting). Of course even this absence then becomes accretively reminiscent of the forbidding of saying the name of God. This however is not the point here. The point is to say that in saying there are only the manifestations, we do not reach a place where we can say what they are manifestations emitting from (admittedly Laruelle does not either, yet he still feels the need to name it). There are just manifestations, each one with its own criteria to try to take over the territory through its agents. Maybe a terminology from whence they emit will be needed at some point but for now precisely avoiding the designation of the one (which it does seem allies Laruelle himself to a manifestation) seems a better route.