It is the most curious sensation to play with manifestationism and not a little like the feeling of non-philosophy. One must accept a kind of space, an experience in which the manifestations occur, without making any ontological interpretation. Manifestations are but it seems no reason can be given without lapsing into a manifestation.
The infuriating perpetual questions of how the manifestations arise and why is one preferred over another arise again and again. Let’s try to be as clear as we can be. Manifestations are theories of how the world is. These arise in the manifestation-space (a subject like notion that like Dasein tries to avoid the subject description). This indicates something like non-philosophy insofar as it intimates a kind of incoherent space without manifestations, a pre-ontological space. This space cannot be pronounced as definite but it is certainly worth exploring, it also raises the possibility of the primacy of pneuma over manifestations. There are also Kantian echoes here as it seems to suggest temporality might be something outside of manifestationism (a pure intuition?) -but not outside of pneuma.
Furthermore it seems something like a Laruellian ‘real’ is suggested as the ground for the manifestation space. This is cogent with the work herein insofar as it is reminiscent of the ‘umbra’ which offers restraint upon the manifestations possible criteria (the reasons they might arise e.g. the hard is not the soft).