Notes on Clarification of Pneuminous Accretive theory (i).

The philosophy of pneuma herein does not try to be some jargon like nonsense -though of course hardly any writers set out to achieve this. Terms like this become a kind of short hand for what the author wants to convey. Of course it’s so easy for the shorthand that is so clear to the author to become impenetrable to the readers Appropriating a term and utilising it with your own rules is a satisfying reterritorialization or re-accretion. The term used by myself is pneuma. Pneuma has come to mean a kind of informational substance that I think I have probably presupposed the cogency of without seriously exploring it. This writing makes some attempt to fill in part of the technical picture behind pneuma and its accretions. Why pneuma though? There is something arbitrary and appropriate about the choice. I came across the word pneumatology in Nietzsche as I have mentioned elsewhere (see Pneumatology and Chaos Magick). It’s meaning of breath and spirit connoted the hermetic air element, and from here the air element’s association of communication, hence pneuma came to mean the spirit of communication (information).

Information is a relation between one point which is external to another in some grammatical sense (it is cogent to say so). The point which is external is taken a) to be external and b) to be of a certain nature to the other point. The only things we can exercise relative certainty of their having informational relations are those beings which disclose themselves as having awareness. This does not deny the manifestation of the external reality of stones etc but it does mean attributing informational relations between stones and earth might not be cogent.

Information at the level of Narps becomes commonly transmitted in linguistic verbal and non verbal actions. Wittgenstein’s essential position is taken to be unassailable unless there is somehow an actual attachment between word and object. The meaning of a word is certainly primarily its use. The only way in which designation is possible is if some kind of metaphysical connection were forged between word and noema. If there is no such connection then usage controls all means of language employment.

A picture something like the following is taken to be the process of designation formation: readiness to hand of things entails only that they have a usage with no ontological examination of the what it is made of. The regular occurrence of such equipment forms stable associative names, shapes and material that come to dominate the equipment as archetypal form (a transformative process of accreting other information to the word). This is the accretion of information. On the periphery of this dominant accretive form are all the variant vectors that might still count as supportive of the accretion. This dominant image/word accretion then is rarefied into a pure informational realm (commonly called mind). It becomes idea-image associative of the what-for as relevant to it.

This accretive image is then what becomes seemingly determinative of what a thing is such that it counts as that thing, a strong version of this entails there is an ontological shoring up of the vector by the accretion so it becomes more like the accretion (seeing a thing as a thing attaches it to that thing literally in some ineffable way). Of course it is always possible for this to be reformed/re-accreted. In the region in which the informational accretion is dominant it exerts an  actual force of constraint upon the vector as thing. This is minimally a connecting force. A line of connection between being of awareness  and thing-accretion. Via the accretion of information the thing thought of is actually connected to and not just in the mind. This is achieved because the information in the aware being and that attached to the externality are the same.

Something like this set up makes actual designation possible. The informational accretion when triggered attaches to that thing literally by pneuminous thread. Unique designation entails something like magickal connectivity (sympathetic magick).

Wittgenstein understood how language (nouns esp) appears as if it has this strange ability to touch the thing it seems to refer to. This appearance is a manifestation –a way in which things show themselves. But this manifestation of designation entails actual metaphysical connectivity which does not entail magickal manipulation but certainly makes it look a lot more reasonable.

The above does not say this manifestation is the correct one, what it does say is that the appearance of something like a reality in which words actually plug into putatively external  things is a reality that shows itself all the time. Compound this appearance with all manner of low grade agnostic paranormal manifestations (telepathy, synchronicity etc) and we hope to  show why a serious metaphysical exploration of these implications is relevant. This does not conflate phenomenology with metaphysics (as Wolfendale accuses Harman of) as in this case the metaphysics in immanent to the phenomenology of what is being dealt with. The agnostic disjunction is a constant flickering between this showing and that of rationalist solidity.

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s