Manifestationism is shown by agnostic disjunction. The clear case of which is the pneuminous interference case (the inability to know the nature of the paranormal event). This immediately can be seen to have implications for our interpretation of all manner of phenomena. Agnostic disjunction is an immanent process that discloses manifestationism as the nature of our background pneuminous hermeneutic. We live in a flicker of solidity and fluidity. What is presented to us as what is the case is only the case on the back of prior understanding. What is reported as true by particular Narps or large accretive entities (media) has easy criteria for its doubt/acceptance -people/organizations lie for their own ends. These criteria are variously accepted or rejected by the individual Narp.
Recent neo/speculative materialist trends do nothing to help the matter. They busy themselves with overturning a perceived problem with the restrictions of correlationist thought. All this achieves is highlighting the manifestation of realism as opposed to the very humble Kantian approach. It’s easy to see why. The staggering progress of science makes the Kantian limitation look ridiculous to some extent. The problem is no matter how ridiculous it might seem the Kantian stranglehold will not give way. It is always possible to perceive any anti-correlationist argument with skepticism. No matter how preposterous it might seem, the thing that we are could be ordering the structure of things in a seriously extreme manner. Equally of course the neo-materialism could be correct.
This dual possibility of correctness is again an agnostic disjunction and as mentioned, agnostic disjunction discloses manifestationism. Manifestationism is not another correlationism other than in a kind of epistemological sense. Manifestationism as tied to agnostic disjunction does say that you cannot know which philosophy is correct. This is somewhat in line with Laruelle’s notion of philosophical decision as endlessly self perpetuating. A possibility here though is that a philosophy is not a contingent activity, it is a necessary one of any being possessed of a certain degree of self-reflexivity. Such a being will always generate some kind of ontology even if it is not spelled out as an ontology. What is also true of what manifestationism says is that there may in fact be correct interpretations, these are not an impossibility. What is impossible is for us to be certain about them.
The question then is how to escape the circularity of asking what the site of the manifestations is. Any answer seems tied to being another manifestation. The answer seems though that it must be the same. The self-comprehension of the site is itself a flickering series of manifestations: a soul, a psychological self, a nothingness, a site of competing conceptual beings (tick). This must also be the case because any self-comprehension description must also be agnostic-disjunctive ontologically riddled supposition.
The next question is what determines which manifestations are dominant? The aforementioned power of science on various fronts serves to drive criteria that weaken the Kantian grip (but does not break it). This is a more interesting question insofar as the answer is less obvious. Obviously it would once more invoke the circularity if there were an actual answer. The answer is once again that the determining factors of the dominating manifestations is agnostic-disjunctive multiple.
Here though it is worth noting that it is outside of manifestationism to say that all of the manifestations are information (pneuma) where information is a minimal relation between two putative discreta. Any decision on the nature of information is manifestation but there is the possibility of the bracketed acceptance a priori that it all must be information within the site of manifestations (bracketing off flat ontologies that obviate any such relations) -the tentative Narp.
This means the question as to what manifestation is dominant is entirely convertible into what information is dominant in a given site. This means everything in the manifestation site is information in the form of concepts: these are accretions of information (still no transgression of manifestationism has take place here) or pneuma as we call it generally.
This allows us the very general proposition which includes all senses of a self:
The site of manifestations is a region of conceptual interactions of multiple kinds.
Tentatively the multiple kinds could be the recently re-accreted 5 part description of the site:
-Suphuric: Awareness relation (interna/external)
*Hydric: Affectivity control
=Pneumic: Alterity Relation
Further exploration clearly needed.