Where does this all leave us? We have on the one hand a paranormal supporting philosophy (phenomenology): Pneuminosity. Built on the back of synchroncity it says that information can autonomously interfere with a the necessary idea of the solid (the umbratic). By an Occam’s razor like implication all phenomena become informational and constituted in the same way that magick occurs. Human selves become accretions of pneuma like everything else.
But this is not posited as the definite view of things. This is posited as the most rational perspective for paranormality because it (I think) successfully deals with so many aspects of it (it’s basically chaos magick expanded into an generalised ontology of regular things as well). The whole foundation of all of this is not a foundation, its a disjunction, the agnostic disjunction.
The agnostic disjunction of paranormality/normality is an attempt to show a kind of parity between the believed experience paranormal phenomena and its sceptical opposite. When the strong rational voice thinks it has dismissed the phenomena, it hasn’t precisely because the level of doubt invoke is right up there with extreme Cartesian doubt. Something that is ordinarily wrong can have extra evidence shown against it. Repetition etc. can show how the phenomenon does not repeat. In the paranormal phenomenon this has no traction because the lack of repeatability is built into it as is the potential for wild local reality fluctuations.
The agnostic disjunction invokes manifestationism. Any theory of a region or totality that is sufficiently persuasive to gain any foothold and resists empirical refutation is a manifestation. We have a picture of competing manifestations and no real way to progress with the description without lapsing into a particular manifestation. It is reminiscent of Laruelle’s ‘philosophical decision’ without wanting to be non-philosophy.
The consideration of the manifestationist position is the only way forward. The only problem is: what is the way forward?