Notes on Integrating Deleuze and Guattari with Pneuminous Accretive Theory —rational chaos magick ontology (i).

These notes are not a definitive position but rather reflect the current state of a process.

Content, Expression and the Structure of Pneuminous Physical Objects.

It appears productive to try to synthesize PA theory with some of the concepts found in Deleuze and Guattari’s Thousand Plateaus. Here the focus is on the possibility of employing some of the language of content and expression that D & G borrow from Hjelmslev.

To briefly recap for anyone new to it pneuminous accretive theory unambiguously exists to propose an account of most paranormality where paranormality is presupposed to be ‘real’ in the sense of something other than current science understands and not something subsumable under neuroscience or otherwise. This does not mean such a belief is held, rather it says that if the phenomena are real then something like pneuminous accretive theory is probably the only place for occultism to retreat to. In this way it is a phenomenology of the appearance of the phenomena under the auspice of rational belief.

The explanation that PA offers is to say that conceptuality should be conceived as a quasi-substance that is attached to regions of existence. The presence of this substance (pneuma) is not some inert force only held within the subject but rather something present in what we call the object or the external. The plug-in of concepts (pneuminous accretions) into regions of being, under certain circumstances can cause radical shifts in existence that we call magick or paranormal phenomena. In short, usually what we think of as the solidity of the world does indeed determine the concepts, but sometimes the reverse happens.

How can we begin then, to translate or engage pneuminous accretions (PAs) with the process language of ATP. The first thing we can try to do is to note that since pneuma is considered to make things (accretions) it has this quasi-substantiality to it. In the Geology of Morals we are asked to consider three kinds of strata: the physical, the organic and the linguistic. Following this line of analysis we can ask ‘can pneuma be thought of in the sense of strata and what would this look like? At a glance it would seem to be hybrid of the linguistic and the physical strata, minimally it will draw on these two elements, though maybe the organic stratum will yet have more to do with it.

Let us consider a particular pneuminous accretion and see if it will be illustrative. The pen on my desk is a PA. Through the original use word pen, I have come expand the rule for pen to many instances. The multiple possibility is the accretion, though it may present itself to me in image as a contingent archetypal form e.g. a biro. The pen accretion is attached to a vector region. By vector region we just mean a region of existence that must in this case be capable of taking the pen accretion. I cannot pick up the mouse and pass it to someone who asked for the pen. I cannot apply the pen accretion to the vector region that would normally take the accretion mouse. The pen accretion will only (aside from the magickal act of trying to attach the pen accretion to another region for whatever reason) attach to those vector regions that allow for the rules of it -hand holdable, can write or at least used to write. When I see the pen, I literally see the accretion (in the language of hermeneutic phenomenology: everything is already interpreted). I see the concept not the vector region. The only difference here (to hermeneutic phenomenology) is that we are hypothesizing that the concept we see is a substance imprinted into the vector region i.e. it is ontologically altering the vector as opposed to being inert (purely psychological) in relation to it.

How can we begin to understand this in terms of the language of ATP? If we are speculating that there is an active force/substance that is conceptuality (pneuma) then we can initially ask: what is the substance and form of content and what is the form and substance of expression of an accretion?

Before we can answer this, we must supply the caveat that the answer may be quite specific to a certain kind of accretion. In this case it is a human-formed physical object. The PA structure could be though of as something like this:

Content substance: Smooth pneuma (the vector field region see the PDF linked above), the possibility of the pen region existing without being processed as a pen.

Content form: Possible structuring codes, designs.

Expression substance: The PA as it is described as a physical, comprised on analysis of composite PAs which tend towards the limits of our ability to enumerate/taxonomize these.

Expression form: The use ability of the object and the appearance of it, the name of it.

To this structure we must add two extending movements. The first of these is the line that extends from both kinds of substance. Content substance is marked as the vector field region. This, in the case of a human-formed object is the region of the objected re-imagined after the object’s creation as not the object but just an unknown nothingness. This is the vector field region into which the PA is projected. Expression substance is described as comprising of the composite PAs that we may analyse the PA into. Both of these categories tend towards the umbratic region i.e. the totally unknowable beyond current scientific and perceptual taxonomies. This line is necessary, for it is here that connection to mystery obtains. The potential that the region can connect to obscure parts of existence the anchor between the PA and the depths of existence that need to be manipulated in order to bring about anomaly.

The second movement is an exit most clearly thought of as from the level of form of expression. This is the line of subjectification (to borrow and slightly adjust a term for ATP). Subjectification pertains to the interaction between a being of awareness and the PA. What we mean by this is attachment to objects of any kind. This attachment is the formation of more layers of pneuma —memories. This formation of ‘special’ objects. In this way the line of subjectification is also related to paranormality. In particular we are thinking here of magickal objects and relatedly the ability to magickally interact with objects and or people at a distance. Subjectification is the accreting of pneuma that allows for the PAs particular identification —most usually through its name  This has in mind specifically human type beings of awareness, though we do not deny it may happen in others too. The accretion of subjectifying pneuma occurs in the use history of the object in relation to other PAs (e.g. of people/events). Its notable (intensive) interactions accrete pneuma to it, meaning it is not simply psychologically special/unique it is also ontologically-magickally (pneuminously) so.

0 Comments

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s