The primary transference is onto things. This is ontological doubling of the self. What do we mean by this? The guiding thread is the pneuminous accretion, (the bundle of informational stuff that can exist externally to the Narp). What we’re considering here is how affectivity is often linked to accretions and how this affectivity is the extension of what is perceived as awareness in a very primitive manner. This is a technical sounding abstraction for trying to describe something like really liking your car. This gets right to the heart of the accretive problem and the satisfying kind of description of existence it seeks to achieve. It immediately runs into creating heuristic levels of accretions, but if that’s what we need that’s what we have to have. Again an example. The much loved family car of several years that has acquired a name and a gender has accreted all these different kinds of pneuma, implicit in these is a kind of simple consciousness ‘come on girl, you can do it!’ the father might exhort to the car. Again the pneuminous interference agnostic disjunction comes into play. That is, on times when the car suddenly starts upon exhortation there is the incoherent notion that it did actually respond, then the moment has passed, of course solid world discourse resumes and life continues -but the possibility remains as grounded in actual event. In contradistinction to this loved car, let us consider a newly acquired car that exists on perpetual hire. This vehicle is of course still an accretion -as this is vacuously true of anything- but it has not accreted affective pneuma, at least to nowhere near the same extent, and neither is it likely to. It remains closer to the level of ready-to-handness. But here do we not raise an curious immediate aside? In claiming that the ready-to-hand (meaning as use) is this functional level deprived largely of affectivity, do we not uncover that what is called present-at-hand is not in fact cold and theoretical (or at least not just) but also has the capacity to the receptive site of affectivity. Not just broken, obstructive things, as Heidegger said, but things that drawn our affection or even hatred, stand out as things that give reflection.
Gives reflection is a serendipitous term that takes us back to our starting point. The loved thing grants us reflection on that thing as an individual thing and in doing so increases our ability to understand others of its kind e.g. a much loved jug from a certain potter is that much loved jug, but from this love comes knowledge of this history (quite possibly at least, through investment in wanting to know the thing), this knowledge in turn enables recognition of the attached accretions when other similar pottery is encountered. But gives reflection also gives literal ‘reflection’ in the mirroring sense. The affective pneuma that attaches to the thing of course comes from the Narp itself. Narp and thing become accreted, yet there is also pneuma of separation -it is an informational structure itself that the thing is separate from the Narp. The affective pneuma as having come from that particular Narp is necessarily part of it in all its psychoanalytic particularity, as such the primitive pneuminous structure of affectivity that the thing acquires is a [partial] mirror of the Narp. Affectivity is unlocked as possibly the defining feature of certain accretions that lift them out of functional and/or theoretical status -this too is a heuristic.
There is a problem before any of this gets off the ground. What are the things in the first place? This is where manifestationism steps in, for in honesty no one can say whether there is a Kantian-esque structuration of whatever is ‘external’ to the Narp going on or if the things have a pre-existent self giving. If we work with the pneuma though it is more like Kant. We are asked envisage a field that is pure information -the Narp field. The Narp field is the pneuma. Is there an implication that there is some ineffable something outside of the pneuma? Yes, this appears as an idea in philosophy. It is again an agnostic disjunction situation to ask if it is the same as that which is in the Narp field. This turns on the undecideable nature of the pneuma. But the magickal phenomenon basically suggests that it is different outside of the pneuminous field which ironically presents solidity (when it is the pneuminous paths themselves that produce the magickal results).
So the things? The things seem to be outlines of the umbratic in the pneuma. This Kantian style effect is shaping the umbra to its nature. It is these outlines that are called, the given, the chtonic, phusis and they are heuristically real. They form the brute possibility for the grammar of separation, hardness, transparency etc. But these concepts too are pneuma (because for us it all is). This brutal cthonic is the realm of the things that then have proceed to accrete more and more pneuma from particular Narp experiences and universal ones (concept formation).
The pneuminous outline is doubled under word, extracted into pure pneuminous form and placed back into the original cthonic structure.