The ontological emptiness of the assimilation becomes more apparent. Assimilation does not require to be anything other than an incoherent region that you (another assimilation) plug into. A bar, a supermarket, a psychological theory, a recipe. As an existing structure that you willingly allow yourself to be taken over by, it has no ontological nature in itself. Any ontology is an assimilation. Accretion is a possible counterpart to assimilation. Accretion just says that for any assimilation all the activity within that assimilation is retained. It lingers. Every interaction within the assimilation that every occurred sticks together under the title of the assimilation. This is the accretion. One could argue that accretion is not necessary for assimilation insofar as accretion insists on an ontology of informational (pneuminous) retention. This is certainly true. However, the possibility that the accretion forms is readily given by the a strong manifestation of a continual history of any assimilation. The resulting AD is nearly the usual one: does the the assimilation retain its information or does it not? Of course, the physical traces are not in dispute. It is the strong case of a pure pneuminous residue that is crucial. Is there are a sense of the pure conceptual retained in the assimilation? It is in a sense the same answer. No, the assimilation passes over its history, yet simultaneously upon any reflection its history reemerges. It is as usual, only the occult case that forces the strong sense of the accretion.
The question can be posed of the accretion as to whether or not it requires the concept assimilation. The answer is that it must as the accretion is in some sense just this endless stuck togetherness of pneuma. The kernel in a sense is the assimilation. This has some sense of being the use term. The basic rules for the usage of the word. Assimilation immediately accretes yet equally it stays partially aside from the accretion by being an almost pure act of doing that facilitates the pneuma’s accretion.
Agnostic disjunction for anomaly suggest an obtains/did not obtain choice. This itself is hardly decisive. Obtains means that the effect was greater than impressions that occurred only in the NARP’s RP. The accretion did something to the apparently stable vector. Does not obtain, means the externality responds in no way to accretions applied to it. Every perceived response is purely projected and in no way actual. The accretions stayed only within the RP. It’s just the difference between the anomaly was a hallucination or the anomaly actually occurred. Neither instance esp the first actually tells us what it means for it to be the case. That is, the agnostic disjunction only provides a gateway towards obscure possibilities (manifestations). Mutable worlds are a shimmering realm of possibilities ranging from multiverses to solipsistically mutable reality tunnels and on. There are very little criteria to pick between them -unless maybe if you’re physicist, but given the omnipresent possibility of doubt it may be that this is little help in ruling out possibilities.