Reflections on the notion of the agnostic disjunction -as displaying options between two or more manifestations- reveal that it must be not just theoretical discussion point but a feature of Narp existence. What is this flickering between options? Here we almost seem to hit the connection between pneuma and manifestationism. Certainly we can couch the problem in those terms. There is a pneuminous flicker, the whole informational schema is shifted or contemplated either within the Narp awareness or outside of it. But this is too much, we cannot couch the answer to a manifestationist issue using pneuma until we have definitively shown that manifestationism entails pneuma. This possibility seems a priori excluded from us on the basis that manifestationism is a meta-philosophy that says all philosophies are manifestations. But this raises the immediate problem hidden so far from any account of manifestationism: what are the manifestations manifestations of? This is clearly where Laruelle comes into play, for insofar as there is agreement, the manifestations are determinations in the last instance from the one. This utterly resistant one gives only its manifestations. Laruelle sometimes seems to suggest this exists at a level of preconceptual perception (very happy to be corrected). But for manifestationism that would be just one more manifestation. The essential question would be the cogency of oneness as absolutely immanent and axiomatic. If this is sound then a unified presupposition would be in some sense justified, however if something like a Deleuzian universe as different in itself, of Badiou’s axiomatic multiplicity can be conceived as equally possible then oneness itself just becomes another manifestation and the Laruelle-Narp would lapse back into (albeit very interesting) philosophy. A philosophy we might speculate (using our own terminology) shows him as an agent of oneness, as a power working against the tide of multiplicity to reestablish the dominance of oneness.
As it does not seem clear to us that oneness can be perfectly established, at the moment it looks like the non-philosophy is one more manifestation. This is not to belittle it, for its sideways parasitism upon philosophy is fascinating and we have cause to reflect on how it would approach pneuminosity.
So if oneness is not immanent then we do lapse back into pneuminosity insofar as now this itself becomes a meta-term. What manifests? Information. The informational structure is utterly immanent and the only possibility of escaping this is non-information (something postulated elsewhere). This is where the unpicking needs to take place and maybe a re-conceptualisation.
Pneuma has hitherto been discussed in two forms which broadly correlate to the agnostic disjunction magick obtains/magick does not obtain. ‘Magick obtains’ is the sense in which the term is commonly used here whilst ‘magick does not obtain’ is known sometimes as weak pneuma. This latter usage has very little difference from the normal understanding that information to the observer has no effect on the observed thing. The reason the term is used in both instances is because the language of autonomous accretions can be applied in either. The nature of how pneuma accretes is taken as given, this is clearly a gaping hole the theory and a more rigorous desciption of this process is must be supplied. Can it be denied though that information sticks together in Narp awareness? That is a different question and one which seems must be answered in the negative. Maybe just to be on the safe side we should just say information is immanent to itself. This presupposes discreta but does not rule out non-information as an underlying structure.
To return to the earlier problem, it seems then that manifestationism entails information (it does not entail non-information, non-information is a contingency within manifestationism) but it neither entails weak or strong pneuma, it entails only that there is information immanent to itself. It must make this axiomatic since it was achieved by a theorizer. If there was never any theorizer then there would be no manifestationism. For any experience in which the agnostic disjunction manifests there is a pull out of the accretive agency’s previously worked for. The agnostic disjunction makes Narp flickers on a pivot in information (where information is the pre-pneuma), it is the accretions that the Narp is an agent for that decide what choices attempt to be made. Of course an agent for contradictory accretions can only lead to one thing: