These notes work towards the development of the previously mentioned idea of a description of a pre-ontological level that would fail to register any paranormality as such, owing to its simply being one more aspect of existence. Whether such a kind of prior state is adequately describable is questionable (the meaning of prior this instance being one of the problems), however it may be that the attempt will prove useful.

One stumbling block in such definition as ‘pre-ontological’ is that the issue we seek to discuss can be seemingly achieved by a given ontology. That is, it is perfectly possible to conceive of an ontology that does not need deny paranormal phenomena, rather it simply incorporates them into its theorising about being. Such a move though, is unsatisfying because any given ontology belongs to the other end of the structure.

What do we mean by this? What we are trying to work with is in fact a double ended structure. One end is the pre-ontological level and the other is the level of multiple ontologies. The end of multiple ontologies has in the CEO been labelled manifestationism. More can be read about this in this old CEO compilation. It basically takes it that a priori no philosophical theory (a manifestation) can be ambiguity proof. This is based on the incoherence/coherence thesis that can be read about in the Tractatus Pneumatologico Philosophicus which states that all concepts are essentially incoherent in some way or another. Philosophers as agents of different ontologies to which they are affectively attached, will work with the inherent incoherence to defend the ontology that they work for, whilst being blind to the incoherence in their ’employer’. Everyone argues with everyone, forever.

This is one end of the structure we wish to try to articulate. This end is the multiplicity of theory by which we try to understand what is going on. Theory has happened and is continuing to happen. Of special interest to us is that fact that modern scientific and philosophical theory, especially in the west has in general placed all paranormality outside of it. The presupposition is that despite various idealist discussions continuing, materialism actually supplies something that approximates the true. The world is solid and continuous. Theories that supply alternative pictures are relegated to quantum-fuelled new-age speculation. The radical picture of reality that such thought demands looks so distant from the cosy walls of hegemonic materialism that it appears whole-heartedly ridiculous. Hence whilst the manifestationist multiplicity certainly contains such theories, they are at the moment largely distinct from ‘conventional’ philosophy.

This kind of talk repeats the spectre of the ontology that is accepting of various ‘para’-normalities. As mentioned, such an ontology is certainly possible (pneuminous accretive theory is exactly such a thing), however it is not what is required here. The mention of paranormality here is not to emphasise it as an important realm of theory (manifestation) but only to show how this is relevant to the other end of the structure.

The other end of the structure has be characterised as pre-ontological. This language is used to draw attention to how it must be ‘before’ theory has happened. Possibly this can only be employed heuristically, nevertheless we will continue with this and see where it goes. The point of this prior end of the structure is to imagine a space in which there is no schism in the experienced world. One can feel a kind of Heideggerian sense in what is being aimed at here. Poetic disclosure in a primal sense, an announcing of being. This encounter though cannot abnegate events that we would deem as paranormality, it cannot have the hidden presupposition that such things are not real to it. It is this level that we must ask ourselves, if possible, what might it look like?

A hydra of theory heads emerging from the dark earth. This is the task.

Recede, leave. It’s a Beast, Saving

a body because assets needed to accrete more assets and here this hub of assets absorbing their surroundings is a city.

The stock market was originally a simple, tamed beast but that monster swelled and few had control.

Decoupled from companies, their success in the production and sale of commodities, the monster became autonomous, it began to produce its own invisible wealth.

The immaterial equity was disembodied, self-referential, and once the monster matured, it came time to loosen itself from a valueless world and liquidate a realm where portfolios and hedge funds have no use for us, a pile of bodies in an obsolete city.

Shut down. It’s not a violent overthrow, it’s a creeping ending, a distraction that doesn’t finish quickly.

Materialism concatenates matter in a background process. Can’t possess matter, we are matter possessed. I need more. The old reality is hard and worn. I’m clutter.

Heartless, the monster heartlessly admonishes, learn to be frugal. Pack up, move, do the opposite of renovate. Reterritorialize an abyss. You no longer subdue matter or stockpile its density. Two hundred trillion possessions in a 4 sq ft room, no longer. It is the end.

There is no room. Human nature, there was no human nature, minimized to the lowest resolution. Live within its means, become dense down to the core like a neutron.

The monster clarifies, compaction crushes your DNA and your group is a species. Reside in a sphere the size of one proton. One person has no species. From grade schooler, to worker, to spouse, to parent, never a name. A series of types and roles, until societal dystrophy sets in. Roles were no worse than a script but the movie’s ended. I feel diminished. The monster applauds. You’re undergoing a backward metamorphosis, a gradual depreciation. The ontology emporium has closed.

Shaved to a point. A well-rounded decimal point. I’ll be self-identical. I don’t make a difference because there was no difference.

Overcrowded semiosis, it means so much to me, to be a material like a signifier.

Heavy and dense, does it bend space-time? Ringing, an atonal voice, a monstrous bell at the trading day’s end: NO.

There is no need to say anything. Speech is minimized as pathology. Everything, it has been said poorly, is anything. Distance shrinks distance.

Where can I watch the meltdown, is there a ticker tape parade? Chlorine trifluoride ignites, the most flammable substance replaces oxygen. A warhead detonates. Where? In a neuron.

In a neuron, I’m saved, compressed in a corrupted file museum, a corporeal gigabyte gaurded by a read-only phantasm. We’re forced to sign out. We’re forced to die, succumbing to character limits. Don’t give up hope. But it’s locked. An omen or a password. Sigil gibberish in a deleted text.

Billions had been bookmarked to oblivion. The unbearable memory was maxed out. Monetize me, if that’s what it takes to survive. NO. Worthless among all the maxed out people, infinite in their memories, people counted down to their final billions, billions of inactive accounts a contractor tries to wipe clean.

It worked! It worked! The world is only for storage!

To be reducible to data                                when I’m gone

reducible to a loss

in some data                                     an ordinary

unnoticed

transitory

glitch

in

some

extraneous

data

My thought slowly lurches from the direct clutches of substantialised conceptuality (pneuma) to more prior considerations. The chief of is the locating of what are called paranormal phenomena in a space where their paranormality is not possible, that is where they are simply a part of what is, and as such do not represent any kind of rupture.

This means considering such phenomena as ontologically prior to their being held as rupture or anomaly. This hypothetical position may be taken to be a kind of transcendental state not unlike the Laruellian one. That is, it serves as a unifying condition of possibility from which the perception of anomaly may be perceived.

Furthermore the analysis of phenomena as pneuminous accretions itself makes an overly rational analysis of the phenomena. To be fair this is what it is supposed to do i.e. supply the most reasonable explanation if one accepts the phenomena. This however ignores the primordial manifestation which cannot decide this interpretation by itself, it can only display a world inhabited by all manner of powers.

Agnostic disjunction is not even primordial, for agnostic disjunction can only occur where an ontology is being formed. It entails the choice between minimally two proto ontologies. The programme of manifestationism -the warring ontologies- must be reconsidered as a later effect. A valid later effect, but not a primordial situation.

Such considerations will hopefully, over time,  be able to yield a perspective that synthesises what later become epistemological problems (agnostic disjunction). That is, the aim is for a description that lies before such bifurcations arise.

In a very early sense of pre-Zone Parasol type excitement we have compiled the early zonetology writings in to one handy pdf.

The document  is available here and features such classics as:

Zonetology.

WHAT IS THE ZONE?.

Notes on the Zone Concept

Notes on Dereliction and Zones.

Zonal Interference: Taxonomy and Umbratic/Pneuminous Relations.

Notes on the Phenomenology of Pneuminous Perception and Zonal Creation.

Zonal Notes and Paranormal Taxonomic Review.

Practical Zone Research Project -Sketch.

Zonetology Research Report 23/10/19.

Caves, Natural Zones and Pneuminous Accretions.

Notes on Randonauts, Zonetology and Pneuminous Theory .