Pneuma is a transcendental conceptual substance employed in the theory of (chaos) magickal actuality. As such all things as we see in them in our understanding of them as things are pneuminous accretions. We as a being are a pneuminous accretion ourselves. This is very similar to a kind of idealism certainly, autonomous idealism one might call it. The way in which pneuma as a concept attaches to regions of the vector field has been relatively well covered before, however what has received insufficient treatment is the manner in which space-in-general exists.

In a sense there is no additional problem to solve here. Space is a use word that has become reified to some extent to attempt to mean the spatial framework in which we exist. Any modern conception of space must take into account our awareness of the moving nature of the planet. This is where difficulties creep in. This is a phenomenological account but a phenomenology does not exist in a vacuum. As Heidegger observed, phenomenology is deeply entwined with hermeneutics. Different people have different levels of scientific understanding altering their interpretation of what is in different ways. The implications of relativity are readily processed by some and totally lost on others. What I would say is that the comprehension of the mobility of the planet is a relatively well accepted and comprehended idea, even if this comprehension is somewhat incoherent upon reflection.

This in a sense is all we need to proceed. That is, if we can comprehend the mobility of the planet then we can encounter the difficulty of trying to conceive of a place as somehow occupying the same space as we can know that the whole system has actually moved -is continuously moving. Of course on a level of ordinary language ‘occupying the same space’ can just mean that a thing is in the place that it was before. But this is not the thought we wish to think. When we try to think the question as to whether or not this thing is in the same place in the framework of space then we can know by the mobility of the planet that in some sense this cannot be the case.

However pneuminous theory would in a sense counter this exact confusion. Whilst pneuminous theory is there to account for magickal phenomena it necessarily must equally say what is going on in regular reality. This is usually characterised by the feedback system in the featured image. That is, when we have extracted an idea from the vector field, we tend to form an ideal version of it. This pneuminous ideality, which unlike in magick, largely fits the vector, is applied back onto the vector, which in turn, by the logic in which magick alters an inappropriate vector, has the possibility of altering the appropriate vector to be closer to the ideality. The plant becomes more like our idea of the plant and so on. In this case we are talking about space. The vector for the concept of space in this manner is the extended nature of everything conceived as not being understood as space -the bracketing off of the concept as best as we are able. It is this nature that makes the grammar of space possible. This means the vector that facilitates space has accreted onto it the space accretion, or in other words an active ideality of space. As per the nature of the feedback mechanism, the pneuminous ideality of space makes space more like our conception of space.

The phenomenological ideality of a spatial world that seems like it can contain notions like ‘in the same space’ actually can. This is possible because the pneuminous ideality is attached to the vector field but it is not the vector field. In the pneuminous accretive world this place is not moving through space because the deep accretive structure is not telling us that, the vector does not take that concept. The deep accretive concept applied to the vector field speaks of stability. No one is denying physics but in the pneuma the whole world may exist in this ideality. This place here, actually is this place here, the mobility of the planet, even at our current levels of recognition is a minimal interference to this accretive power. When we think the problem of the moving planet we try to disturb the pneuminous ideal spatiality. We feel the alarming dissonance between the two and for sure this indicates that physics makes an impact upon this accretive structure and maybe in time will alter it. Our spatial accretion is an overlay but it is not purely phenomenal, it exists in its own right as magickal feedback entity attempting to render the underlying vector more like itself. We live, not in the vector, but in the accretion.

Randonauts for those who don’t know, is a project designed to enable people to tap into mantic forces of existence by visiting random places. The project has two related threads, the first zone related the second more so to the pneuminous theory described herein. The randonaut theory highlights the notion of blind-spots. These are places outside of our usual daily pathways -or reality tunnels. These blind-spots are very similar to the notion of the zone, with one potential difference. It would seem blind spots might be relative to a given subject i.e. a blind spot could be a fairly well frequented area, yet if it was unnoticed by the subject in question it would still count as one. Zones (at least in the most compatible zonal description) by contrast are necessarily highly unfrequented. It is this lack of being frequented by humans that loosens the conceptual grip upon the region and makes it more open to interference from other forces -free floating accretions of whatever kind. So the best we can say that all zones are blind spots but not that all blind spots are zones.

The second notion is that, based upon Princeton engineering and research experiments, the possibility is raised that we might be able to somehow tune a random place generator to our (sub)consciousness to send us to a place that will have something relevant to us. The system works well as a synchronicity generator and the randonauts subreddit is filled with incidents of meaningful encounters. Whilst working with the possibility that the organism is interacting with the system the explanation does allow for the possibility of the relation being purely psychological and that encounters with messages/artefacts are simply confirmation bias/coincidence. In this way the randonauts system acknowledges what we have called the ‘agnostic disjunction’. That is, the inability to differentiate between an actual synchronistic restructuring of existence and its psychological correlate.

What I would like to comment on is purely the way in which the pneuminous theory would translate the randonauts phenomena. What is pneuminous theory? Briefly, pneuminous theory, says that concepts have actual force that operate on a-spatiotemporal axes to be able to, under certain circumstances, restructure reality. Conceptual stuff (pneuma) sticks together to make pneuminous accretions. Accretions are bound to names, the names are part of the concept but also like a core of the accretion. Accretions of pneuma are directly attached to regions of existence (these are our objects/stuff) and they also float freely. There is lots more to this, a basic version of the detail can be found here. In the hard version of the theory all paranormal phenomena are caused by interactions of free floating accretions in the realm of what we call normal solidity -elsewhere named glitches in matrix. The bottom line is that the solidity of the world is largely real, yet under some circumstances the pneuminous accretions can alter the solidity -magickal phenomena.

Belief in pneuminous theory is a choice made on the binary of the agnostic disjunction which is succinctly: magick is real or magick isn’t real. This too is actually more complicated but here the ‘magick is real’ option is taken to stand for ‘chaos magick is real’.  To engage in any of this we must have the disposition capable of at least accepting the ‘magick is real’ side of the disjunction. If we do not have this, all experiences created with such tools will be interpreted as purely psychological within a solid world and will lack any [p]numinous character.

If you do not hold with solid world psychological explanations then you are (almost certainly) tacitly complicit in a theory very similar to the pneuminous one. The reason for this is simple. If you are in some way believing consciousness is altering what we call reality then the meaning of this is that, as opposed to the normal way round in which we have built the concept by relation to what the object does (a gross simplification), we are hoping the concept will shape what the object does.

The randonaut methods seem to have two ways for interacting with accretions. The first is to tap into unconscious free floating accretions using nebulous intent and random place generation. The intent to generate anomaly will literally generate anomaly, these anomalies are accretions directly manifest in the solidity. No one can say how it happens, only that this possibility of pneuminous interference is equal in appearance to the psychological explanation. The second is to use intent in a more specific manner to generate a specific kind of experience. This too operates by tapping the accretion, yet here the operation is partially consciously determined. The accretion as perceived in the conscious mind connects to the location through the pneuma to the place accretion and produces (sometimes) the relevant phenomena in that place.

Of course it is not necessarily the case that reality is directly altering in relation to the accretion, it is also possible that a) we subconsciously are able to know where such a thing is  or b) we are traversing between various nearly identical worlds. All these models would look the same but all still require some form of ‘concept attached to underlying field’ in order to function (this is called the vector field elsewhere).

Randonauting does presuppose the place randomisation is important. I wouldn’t be so sure this is true and would imagine throwing an item on a home drawn map would produce similar results (it would set up a ritual). It also presupposes going somewhere is important. As part of the ‘ritual’ this may be true. Going somewhere in this way may also have an extra anomally facilitating function insofar as it is sending us into reality less affected by our own conceptual accretive tentacles and hence is looser -trying to make things appear in your own house or garden is probably harder (though theoretically not impossible).

Neither of these comments are intended as criticisms. They are merely consequences of the pneuminous theory applied to the general area. The randonauts project is a fascinating one that probably opens many people’s minds to the notion that alteration of reality is a possibility. We need more of this kind of experimental reality play in these difficult times.

 

We are doomed to speculate upon a moment at which an inside becomes aware of an outside. We are equally doomed to place this moment on a historical axis. Theories like panpsychism do not really help this issue, they merely shift the problem from being about the where consciousness is (everywhere) to how it becomes localised in beings capable of having epistemological crises about their own ontological nature. That is, unless panpsychism accepts that occurring aggregates themselves develop discrete consciousness as unities (animism) it is doomed to be an empty theory that posits some kind of subatomic consciousness that is essentially ineffective until it organises itself into neurological systems. At which point we may rightly wonder what work the panpsychism is actually doing.

Of course panpsychists do not want to accept the consciousness of aggregates as this road does indeed lead to animism -a fish they do not seem to care for. Of course the consciousness of things does have serious problems from any rational stance. What it does though is solve the problem of consciousness in organisms. It does this by saying that the neurological systems are not the seat of consciousness. They are rather second level systems that access consciousness but have not created it. Such a theory would say that aggregates of all kinds have  discrete consciousnesses; neurological interface organism have just overridden this more primordial mode of consciousness which they developed owing to their mobile and energy consuming ways. This kind of model is attractive up to a point, certainly it is attractive to the more paranormal minded. The problem with it is that it must presuppose human criteria for aggregates and then presuppose a world in which things behave (away from humans) along the lines of discretion that humans have imposed upon them. That is to say, we must presuppose we have selected the real objects that existence itself recognises as discrete. If we do not do this we have to draft in more metaphysical rules about which kinds of non-organistic aggregates acquire consciousness -this rock but not this rock, this pool, but not this puddle etc. The whole system becomes too layered in speculation.

If however we wish to retain objects as discrete and that exist in the world as objects we essentially need the feedback system of pneuminous accretions to secure it. This is a contentious claim of course. The part that I think is sound is ‘to secure it’. If we do not use accretive theory then the possibility exists that there is no cogent way of saying that objects interact with one another as one has no grounds by which one can cogently talk about discrete objects as they themselves are only a product of our principium individuationis.

How does pneuminous theory help? Remember that whilst pneuma is there as a transcendental condition for the possibility of magick, it is however also necessarily just the ‘what’ all concepts are formed of. The primary pneuminous relation is the inside/outside. This sets up the primal accretion of both of these. Accepting the magickal relation as true (as an arbitrary decision of the agnostic disjunction: magick obtains/does not obtains), this means that as the inside/outside notion -no matter how primitive- is formed thus it is literally reified by the effect of the accretion. Other primal accretions will be related to propagation of the organism and energy consumption. The order in which these appear can be argued about, but their general primacy can not. The result of occupying a location, being able to move, desiring energy to place inside oneself create the condition for distinguishing one region from another. Three easy pairings can be spotted: outside/inside, food/not food, obstructive/not obstructive, to which we might add (when the organism is sufficiently complicated) dangerous/not dangerous. These primary hermeneutics would all be enabling the pneuminous feedback system by which the concept applied to the thing (vector) in an ineffable way (this is a theory magick remember) makes the thing closer to the concept that is attributed to it. This attributing of structured pneuma to a part of what is (a region of the vector field) is the accretive process. Remember also that the accretion is not simply within the organism, rather it becomes literally attached to the vector region. This notion is crucial for the autonomous existence of objects as objects.

By the time we get to more complex animals, the umwelt is equally so much more complex. Every kind of region of  the umwelt that the organism recognises as a discrete is either some deliberate product of evolution (an accretions itself) or a by product of it e.g. that the very ability to spot that there different kinds of things, might escape from dangerous/safe or edible/inedible things into just general things. Every one of these region/objects is accreted with a discreting pneuminous layer attributing to it some kind of conceptual significance in its world. These amassing layers are the accretions. Furthermore the layers of pneuma are not inert. Once accreted, they exert an effect upon the region (object), external to the perception of the organism. This effect, as mentioned is the curious feedback mechanism of active incoherent reification. That is, the region is nudged towards being of the nature of the concept that was applied to it. In the natural formation of region and concept this effect will be scarcely noticeable because of course it was the behaviour of the region that determined the concept in the first place -so the two are essentially harmonious.

Further explanation is achieved by noting that that the primordial accretion of perceiving of discrete things is still in play. This primal perception -according to the theory- is perpetually making things on some level, literally into separate things. The perception of separation becomes adopted by the outside. This is a subtle change. As stated, the change wouldn’t be possible if existence didn’t permit it. Yet what to a blind existence in itself, is simply different intensities without reflection, upon the the fissure of consciousness opening, becomes the conceptual actuality of discrete things. The intensities are transformed into objects by the pneuminous layers that they must bear.

This is all that is needed. In a (chaos) magickal universe, our individuated things as things are a product of a primal feedback of reifying perception. This in turn has literally formed the autonomous existence of discrete things. Its alteration to their physical behaviour may be almost nil but what it has done, to use a slightly Heideggerian tone, is allow them to be the things they are -something like OOO can actually make sense if you allow for this kind of metaphysical picture to underpin it. Things have necessarily at least a thin layer of pneuma accreted to them, this is guaranteed by their discretion itself, many things have vastly more layers upon them.

Finally a brief speculation upon the effect of the object forming pneuma is warranted. A reasonable possibility is that the organism has accreted, along with this primal individuation a sense of persisting in time and space.  This is a reasonable correlate that fulfils our sense of such things persisting in our framework outside of our perception. It is in effect as if, as good Kantian subjects we did not only structure the in-itself with our conceptuality, but also infected it.

 

Who or what is Daniel Charles Barker? The regular interpretation is that he is a hyperstitional character formed by various individuals in the days of the CCRU . Barker as such qualifies as either a chaos magickal egregore/free floating quasi conscious pneuminous accretion (as I might call it) or a purely psychological construct that various people either choose to play the game of treating as real (or actually believe him to be real). The former option is the strong-magickal interpretation whilst the latter the weak psychological. Either of these gives him a kind of reality that can exert hyperstitional effects, it is just that in the strong version the effects are potentially ontologically altering, whereas in the weak all alterations/synchronicities are reduced to a solid world reality interpretation. The difference between the two ontologies is notoriously impossible to tell, hence the phrase agnostic disjunction, which refers exactly to the arbitrary nature of any choice between them.

There is another possible interpretation that we might consider concerning Barker’s reality. This concerns the Mandela effect. The explanation here would be that various of us have in fact been in a reality in which Barker was real and can recall the various papers etc. that he wrote. However the subset between the Barker reality and this one was relatively small. So when the Barker reality pulled away leaving on this small contingent behind the reports about his work seemed wild, preposterous and worth only serious treatment at the level of ‘hyperstition’.

This is a possibility and it does though maybe suggest a clue for the means by which we might gain more insight into his/its nature. Barker’s work of decoding anorganic semiotics is a hint at a way in which we might be able to trace information about him. The Mandela effect version and the strong accretion explanation might both work with this method.Consider that in the Mandela effect version Barker was real and is still potentially alive -in an alternative reality. So because this reality was in contact with his at some point, it shows that contact between worlds is possible.

Similarly the egregore version of Barker’s existence entails that he was accreted out of pneuma by CCRU individuals and as such has an autonomous existence. There are two further theses behind this explanation: i) is that Barker is just a product of the various conscious/unconscious minds at the time. ii) is that Barker is an egregore interface bolted onto a previously existing non-physical entity that may not have been human formed. There are insinuations of an ‘entity’ in the CCRU writings. These intimations supply a suggestion that ii) is the more likely thesis. Furthermore ii) could also be seen as an explanation for the Mandela explanation. The idea being that the collision between Barker’s reality and this one was in fact orchestrated by the entity. In this version too Barker is a front for the machinations of the ‘entity’.

Both these explanations constitute versions of strong reality alteration -from the perspective of a single solid reality. Neither can be cogently ontologically mapped, but all we need to note here are the necessary features. The Mandela version entails the coming together of worlds in physically seamless blends that only leave historical oddities as evidence to its happening -no one ever sees the worlds coming together or coming apart. The egregore version allows for the ability to create chaos magickal (pneuminous) entities that exist independently of their creators and that potentially there exist non-physical entities with their own agenda, capable of using human made egregores as fronts.

The Mandela effect thesis does not entail that anorganic semiotics (magickal schizoanalysis) is a fruitful pursuit, but it does allow it to seem at least possible -given that it entails multiple realities shifting together and apart. If something like Barker’s theories were true then anorganic semiotic traces of him are potentially detectable through the mesh of conceptual substance (pneuminous accretions) i.e. conceptual axes that spanned across dimensions, which could be peeled back to reveal deeper (on that axis) states.The decoding thesis is certainly weaker with regards to the Mandela version, yet still is worth considering in relation to it.

The entity-accretion thesis (either as i or ii) most certainly does entail such a possibility. Barker’s geotraumatic traces theory can simply be extracted from the physical and noted to necessarily (under magickal conditions) apply to the conceptual (pneuminous accretive). The concept accretes over time. Etymological layers are in there whether we have the ability to detect them or not. The decoding of signs related to such beings necessarily leads us in the right direction -they cannot help but be related. Hence it is through this means that we must approach the matter, so that hopefully we can discern something of the Barker beings purpose or origin -either as a rogue accretion or (more likely) a front for a hidden and pre-existing entity. The difficulty will be discerning the meanings of the signs sufficiently well as to decode the Barker-accretions activities.

Where though should we begin? The most obvious place seems the name. The same problems that afflict us, afflict such beings. No matter what name it gives itself, it cannot help but reveal something about itself. Let us consider the name Daniel. It is of course one of the old Hebrew names and means something like ‘God is my Judge’. This seems to set the tone. It suggests that the Barker entity is working for a higher power -thus supporting the entity interface thesis. A simple gematric check on Daniel gives us a value of 79 and equivalences of ‘oil’ ‘link’ ‘qi’ and ‘godhead’. As an aside I personally cannot help but note a certain resonance of Kant through his use of the phrase ‘quid juris’ and the word God. It suggests the tension between the law of God and the Kantian impossibility of knowing it. Maybe ‘Daniel’ serves as a warning as to how limited such an enquiry as this can be. ‘Charles’ is equally enigmatic insofar as it seems to contain the historical duality of one the one hand meaning simply man and yet simultaneously it is a name of Kings -Charlemagne being possibly the most famous. As another aside, this bondsman/King relation cannot help put me in mind of the Hegelian master/slave dialectic phase. No doubt my philosophical propensity has enabled both these German idealist perceptions, however we must still note them in case they emerge as relevant later on. The Hebrew gematric value of Charles is 207 and simply for the synchronicity it is worth noting that on the gematric calculator I used, the highest placed equivalence for Charles is ‘God Sign’. Owing to matter with which we are dealing, we cannot ignore such instances no matter how slender and contingent they may seem.

Possibly the most obvious looking name clues is in the surname Barker. In the west, the surname has come to be the most necessary historical part of the name. Forenames may be repeated in families by tradition but surnames will still tend to survive as a matter of stronger custom. If this is true of Barker then it contains two powerful clues. The first is in the old meanings of Barker as an occupation. There are two of these. One is that of a tanner, that is someone who changes skin into leather. This has suspicious traces of geotrauma to it, for the leather is the transformed skin. It becomes leather by virtue of trauma. The palimpsest of the skin still exists in the leather. Skin is not the sign of the highest neurological development (that we know of) yet it is still an earlier one. The membrane is the condition of internal and external distinction -that we will refine so well ourselves over time. It is the primordial exoskeleton. Leather is an ancient artificial exoskeletal force that is still in use today -shoes/boots.

The other meaning of Barker is that of a person employed to attract people to entertainment acts by vocalizing (barking). The playful hyperstitional nature of Barker clearly resonates with this, yet an act of entertainment is not necessarily something fictitious. A famous fictional barker was the Tin Man in a musical stage version of the Wizard of Oz called ‘the Wiz’. The Tin Man was a barker for an amusement park which then closed (another quasi-occult linkage through the uncanny zonal appearance of abandoned amusement parks). More fascinating really though is the linkage to the Wizard of Oz itself. The film adaption of Oz is famously influential on many directors, not least David Lynch. Its resonance with things otherworldly does not need explaining here. The atomic number of Tin is 50 (in standard tellurian numerology that equals 5 -another clear hint of origin). We should note here that Barker as a barker re-emphasises the thesis of his working for another entity. He advertises the fun fair but he doesn’t run it

Possibly the most obvious clue from the name Barker is exactly what it sounds like. One who barks. And who or what barks? Dogs do of course. And what (in this territory) is the most famous dog significance? Clearly it is Sirius, the Dog Star. The accretive connections with 5, 23, UFOs and all manner of other paranormal phenomena were well mapped by Robert Anton Wilson in his Cosmic Trigger I. The word Barker is a clue in this sense that it tells us he is an emissary of the dog/Sirius accretion (again reinforcing thesis ii). This is confirmed by the fact the CCRU clearly made use of 23 Burroughs/Wilson type connections.

To be continued.

With thanks to Nick Land and Thomas Moynihan for pre-existing Barker research.

I am forced to ask myself if the philosophy I partially advocate is compatible with panpsychism or not? I say partially because I still have not satisfactorily overcome the problem of manifestationism as raised by the agnostic disjunction. Agnostic disjunction simply points to the way in which metaphysical options are just choices that are bolstered (or not) by criteria in the ‘reality’ we currently occupy. Hence according to this rather paralyzing meta-epistemology, panpsychism is one metaphysical option, it has agents that fight its corner and it has enemies that seek to denounce it. Neither position can triumph over the other without the philosophy transforming into some kind of physics that in some way settles the matter (and even then the enemy agents will always be there).

Rather like occult phenomena though -to which panpsychism is easily related, even if panpsychists would like this not to be the case- panpsychism can only be shown to be true, strong evidence to its untruth will not eradicate the suspicion that it might be true.  Consciousness might be clearly demonstrated as an emergent property of a level of complexity and some people would still wonder if being in general was  in some sense conscious too. Materialism doesn’t get a similar similar treatment, in many ways, owing to the continual solidity of things, materialism looks a fair bet, yet it is this default like status that renders it so vulnerable. Materialism can never do enough, because the anomalies and metaphysical possibilities only need science to back them up a little bit to show that something is clearly seriously awry with it. The reverse doesn’t seem to be true. This is because panpsychism can only be the major ontology by being demonstrably true -in the modern world. And if it’s demonstrably true then materialism isn’t going to be considered seriously, because presumably in this panpsychic dominated world, we can clearly show how to interact with/demonstrate consciousness at large in existence. I think this is something to do with the fact that panpsychism is additive but materialism is subtractive. That is, if you can show things are together then this is just the state of affairs (panpsychism) and it can be accepted, but if you wish to subtract something (consciousness) then you be perpetually gnawed at by the possibility that the two things may well be connected -it is an effort to keep them apart. But this is an aside.

The actual philosophy that I wish to consider as and ally of panpsychism or not is the CEO’s own brand of chaos magick friendly ontology: pneuminous accretive theory. This states something like the following.

i) All experiences are formed of a conceptual substance ‘pneuma’. All images, sounds, smells, sensations are pneuminous.

ii) Because everyday experiences suggest structure -solidity, repetitive possibility-, there is the minimum of the idea of restraint upon the pneuma -we do not live in a perpetually mutating dream world (only an occasionally mutating one). That which restrains what the pneuma appears as is the umbra -at least in the case of physical objects.

iii) Memory forming capacity accretes pneuma. Concepts and all the psychological baggage that is attached to them are such accretions.

iv) Concepts are not inert structures contained in minds in bodies, rather they are pneuminous accretions that exist out there in the pneuma, that organisms create and plug into.

v) Concepts as pneuminous accretions are literally attached to the umbratic structure that restrains them.

vi) Pneuminous accretions can, under certain circumstances, affect the restraining umbra. This is experienced as magick/synchronicity/various paranormal anomaly.

vii) All scientific investigations are within the pneuma, there is literally no exit from this, for the umbratic, if real, is necessarily without concept.

viii) The umbratic is not necessarily real but it is a necessarily real idea.

I could go on with these, but this seems sufficient for an outline. What they deliberately don’t contain is an explicit theory for how consciousness comes about. The question as to whether pneuma has always been there or not is not answered either. This is because I have tried not to stray into speculative metaphysics. You might laugh there, noting that clearly that is exactly what I have done. This is true but, as far as I can see these metaphysics are just the logical consequence of accepting something like chaos magick to be ontologically true and not just psychologically true.  The basic condition being that conceptual information must be capable of altering the putatively solid. You could have a pure idealism and not need the umbratic, yet the phenomenology of our experience continually yields the umbratic as concept -the thing in itself being a good example- hence it is inserts itself as kind of necessary agnostic disjunction. As a phenomenology of magickal types of experience, accounting for the cosmological nature of things doesn’t come into it, though clearly there are implications. However as soon as one tries to follow them the agnostic disjunctions begin to proliferate.

So is pneuma conscious? Pneuma is conceptual potential, but that doesn’t make it conscious. Everything you are experiencing is an accretion of some size or another -whether purely mental or physical perception. The chaos magickal compatibility part of the theory says that we can create conscious entities by intent. Essentially by treating something as conscious, so it begins to acquire some form of this possibility. These interactions are magickal and as such temperamental. This is what is known as applying a concept to a vector that will not normally take it. Rocks are not normal vectors that have the concept consciouness ascribed to them. So if I want to talk to a rock I must talk to the rock as if it would respond -ascribe consciousness to it. This will create an pneuminous interface of consciousness sufficient to generate some of kind interaction with the rock. The interface will make an unstable interaction, not a regular kind of conversation.

This commits any physical thing thing we can conceptually describe as being capable of some form of consciousness -of course this is also true of certain kinds of non-physical thing too, but these are often intentionally constructed e.g. egregores. This does not entail that everything is conscious. Certainly in such an ontology, making the pneuma into God would be fairly logical, yet it still remains the case that this does not seem necessarily the case. Nothing about it entails consciousness is everywhere. What it does entail though is that consciousness can escape its home.

If we hypothesize that the appearance of organisms results in the simple binding of pneuma. Evolution of these organisms increases the complexity of the accretions that are formed. Time binding organisms create more and more complex accretive structures. In the history of animism a key question would be whether or not the ascription of consciousness to non-living (to our modern selves) things is the application of concept to unwilling vector or whether it is a primordial appearance that appears alongside the recognition of ourselves and other creatures as sentient. The latter seems quite reasonable, yet of course the actual answer is agnostic disjunctive. If it were the latter, this would mean there was a feedback of primordial ascription of agency (consciousness) towards non-living being, which would in turn -by the magickal thesis- cause the world to respond in a quasi sentient manner. The post hoc version does not have much of a different result, it is simply that the agency ascription is not equiprimordial to agency ascription of other living creatures. It would in this sense represent a kind of primordial ontology -everything is alive. Such an ontology of course would not be doubted, it would be just how things are, it would though be slightly secondary to the recognition of each other as conscious agents. This primordial ontology of animism would indeed render everything as conscious. Yet this consciousness would not be necessary, it would be contingent. Contingent upon there being such a being as possesses the accretion forming ability such that the projection of consciousness upon existence at large was possible.

There is a side issue that we might touch on here. The usual presupposition is that of course animals recognise other creatures as such -different kinds of indices. We do however always presuppose that animals perceive other creatures as different from the general environment. We might consider the possibility that animals consider environment and each other as a far more homogeneous continuum than we have previously considered.

The answer then as to whether pneuminous theory entails panpsychism, seems to be possibly. This contingency may have a kind of historical necessity to it insofar as human history may have entailed a world view of an alive world. If it were true that any being that emerges into self consciousness necessarily views the world as alive in its earlier stages, then the theory would be have to say that some form of panpsychism is necessarily true -though it would be one that entails animism- yet equally it would posit a time in which it was not true -prior to the feedback occurring.

If conceptual potential can be identified with consciousness then panpsychism could more strongly be inferred from the theory. This however would not eradicate the problem of the umbratic. This is as follows: we believe we can conceive of Being without any organism present, yet we must be agnostic about the nature of this unperceived reality. From a pneuminous perspective the impossible beyond pneuma (the umbratic) is an idea we cannot remove. A thoroughgoing panpsychism would not need an umbratic, existence would be self-perceiving in some fundamental way. Having said that the umbratic is a necessary idea, not a necessary truth. So maybe the notion of pneuma as conceptual accretive potential working intimately alongside more regular physical forces is sufficient to reconcile the two? This though would stretch the metaphysical speculation beyond the phenomenology. The phenomenology suggests that consciousness can be said to be true of everything in our reality -contingently. But it would also point out that the umbratic possibility of absolute ineffability lurks literally, just out of sight.