How then are we to conceive of that endless source of problems: the object? The stickiness of pneuma (information) suggests something like this: There is a founding level of pneuma founded still again upon a kind of transcendental phantasy of that which is outside perception: the umbratic. To reiterate, the umbratic is the idea of something existing outside of perceptual relation. The phantasy of the remainder.
The umbratic is a necessary theoretical level to avoid ooo type errors of granting reality of atoms as we understand them to atoms in themselves i.e. making the demarcation atom might make no sense outside of human conception. We cannot extirpate the phantasy of the umbratic no matter how much we wish to. The umbratic allows the possibility of materiality persisting in our absence, yet also the possibility of a much more fluid reality bent into spatio-temporal shape by our selves (a further pneuminous structure).
What this hierarchical structuration suggests is something like the Heideggerian difference between hermeneutic and apophantic as. These correlate to the ready-to-hand and present-at-hand respectively. These suggest different grammars for these different levels which in turn suggests that the cogent laying out of something like a flat ontology is a vain hope. I suppose it would turn on what you meant by that, but I think that the differing ways in which things can be spoken of renders the notion that they can be made to fit a notion of ‘object’ where the definition is sufficient to encompass any noun structural game is not possible or at least certainly not by ooo.
The thing I want to explore is this difference. The difference arises in something like the realm our attempts to create an ontology of what things are made of as spatio-temporal/dynamic entities. We want to understand stones as stones by their mineral make up. The presupposition of atomism in the sense of different elemental atoms (we do not deny it) means ‘what is it made of?’ can be answered in these terms. We accept still this is somewhat artificial insofar as stones would just be stones at one point as phenomenologically determined. If we then define stones owing to the new element theory and demarcate some things as stones and some as not. If there were some things for which we used to use the term stones that are now excluded it does not seem to make sense to say that we corrected the understanding of the past. The analysis is improved but the word stones remit has been artificially restricted insofar as we cannot say that the previous usage was ‘incorrect’.
A stone used as a hammer is made of stone. This conceptual usage is now attached to stones. This is the meaning of accretion (information stuck together). The usage information of hammering is accreted to stone. Of course ‘hammer’ can escape stones and begin its own life made in all manner of form and shapes. Hammer is a use concept accreted to a set of standard images of what it normally looks like in a given culture, a flickering between hermeneusis and apophansis. This flickering is seen in stone too. Stone arises as use (hermeneusis) and transforms into definition (apophansis). The hammer concept must be carried by some vector suitable for it. There must be restraints in the system that make it viable (I cannot make a candy floss hammer). The founding disclosures of hardness, heaviness make the vector suitable for hammer to inhabit. The notion of the vector seems possibly productive. Is ‘stone’ an inhabitant upon a vector too, like an ooo core? This at least is a better way of phrasing it than often appears in ooo -the vector as much needed meta-term. There is a kind of at least phenomenological difference down here. I do not see stones as made of stone, the grammar of stone does not require this, though a hammer when actualised must be made of something ontologically different from the concept hammer, a vector that can give home to the usage/definition. This vector is the umbratic restraint. Is the vector real? What does that mean? The grammar of ‘real’ often entails that which persists away from ourselves . It contains a trace of the phantasy of outside of the correlation. The vector fulfils this grammar in the way reality ostensibly manifests but the vector is hard to define as existing as that discrete thing outside of our classification. If I say ‘that patch of grass’ have I made a vector? It looks less clear than if I say ‘this stone’. Do any of our vector borders stand up to existence as conceived outside of ourselves? The answer of course is ‘they might’ (agnostic disjunction) -ooo dwells upon instantiating that they do and how we can talk about this.
This doesn’t help any attempt to try to make imaginary entities ontologically equivalent. If I think about a living blue box with legs called Max, I am aware I have imagined it, this is part of it’s grammar. If I am a chaos magician I might want to make this entity functional (this has its own grammar). Is Max a vector? It is only made of information (called pneuma variously on this site, precisely to give this sense of information as a kind of substance). Max’s apophansis is pneuma (and then the question (the whole question of my work) is whether or not the pneuma can affect the umbra) and Max’s hermeneusis is Max the imaginary box (here the flickering occurs precisely between how real (Magickally effective or not) the imagination is). Max though is a bit like the stone insofar as it is tautologous to say the imagination is made of the imagination however unlike the stone Max is a vector only insofar as he is pneuma stuck together (accreted) by ourselves; the restraint on Max’s being is not umbratic it is purely pneuminous. The stone vector does not show this grammar, it has the presupposition of some kind existence prior to us (even if it is not in this form).
This notion of umbra is, as we say, a kind of transcendental. The umbra acting as vectors, restrain certain primal pneuminous forms (consistent names/usages). These in turn have multiplied, accreted, de-accreted, re-accreted both in attachment to vectors and as forms of pure pneuma. Yes they are both pneuminous, but one has the notion of the umbratic vector behind it and one is freed from this weight. This demarcation needs to be recognised for a decent ontological description.