Either we must accept the (i) continuation of informational relations outside of the Narp-field or (ii) we postulate that this umbratic notion might, outside of the Narp-field exist in a manner necessarily unintelligible to us (non-information).
Conscious experience is said to constantly presuppose a vast and complicated world that facilitates it -atomic, cellular etc. This is true under the auspice of the first option but possibly unintelligible under the second. The thesis that emerges under the second (which is the one amenable to pneuminous interference (magick)) is the teasing out of the intuition of the disappearing of that world in its outside of the Narp-field. But here it becomes clear there is nothing clear about the Narp-field.
This is the land where Meillasoux like thought wants to point out the sheer madness of our continuing with a Kantian agenda in the face of an inescapably continuing world. The issue is not of a inescapably continuing world though, rather it is of the ontological status of this continuing world when it escapes our various fields of detection (umbra).
The umbra before was said to dwell in the beyond perception, but now we have an extension that possibly gives greater cogence to it. The umbra is also in hidden in the small and the great. Wherever we can no longer differentiate such that we can categorise then the umbratic is there. The fact that atomic/microscopic inspection discloses the same reality over and over again does not entail that this is exhaustive of the nature of it when it is not being drawn into the Narp-field proper.
Again it must be noted that this is not what we say is the case, only what is the case under a strict following of the possibility that unperceived being is actually different from perceived being (agnostic disjunction). To add extra confusion to this though, once we have the conceptual perception e.g. that air is these various gases which have these atomic natures, the vector that takes the air concept then becomes infected with this strict conceptualisation. This may be an accurate characterisation of concept and vector or it may be a concept that is overly simplifying the vector and rendering it closer to this simplification in the process.
In this way discussions about informational (pneuminous) relations between simpler beings are only intelligible insofar as we attribute the common existence that we are capable of understanding (even its scientific extensions) to these simpler beings (rocks). Insofar as this comprehension is reasonable (it is not unreasonable, but not unassailable) at what point do these pneuminous relations become what we consider accretions proper?
No answer given here should be taken as perfect, for this is just a working through. The answer though must surely concern the point at which a region processes information in such way that it retains it for temporal functionality -it can repeat the communication. This fulfils the basic notion of ‘this means this’ and thus a simple accretion is created. From this simple basis it seems the regions acquire greater complexity. When a region can process in such way that it recognises a phenomenon as a certain phenomenon and can indicate this to another region there is a further development. The accretion can then be passed on, thus amplifying the size of the accretion (no two perspectives, as is fondly pointed out, are identical). Taking parts of the vector field to be a kind of phenomenon is the primal form of magick. The ability to recognise this and manipulate it further is the Narp technological development we call [chaos] magick.