Pneuminous Accretive Theory Overview

OBOA (Organic being of awareness) PA (Pneuminous Accretion)

Let’s be clear as we can be. The binding of pneuma into accretions is the overcoding of strata only insofar as the strata are already coded. Deleuze and Guattari seem comfortable with the pre-existence of the material strata as comfortably existing in its own right. PA theory is less so because it accepts no neutral scientific classification as non-pneuminous. Everything is part of the network of overlapping PAs. The physical strata and everything we understand it is a complex mesh of PAs. This is not identical to a thorough going Kantian denial of access to the in itself as such, for OBOA exists in a kind of membrane by which it incoherently delimits itself and the outside. This membrane is exists both as a vector field region with an attached PA and as a pure PA which is formed by the OBOA producing the PA of its own limit.

The OBOA then (the human in this case) binds pneuma which is incoherently external to it -though it is also formed of pneuma (see (ii)). It can be pointed out that the non-pneuminous stratification of the physical must be there in some sense. However precisely because the target is the paranormal event, these strata cannot be pre-given as such. The allowance of the understanding of the physical strata as identical to the physical strata science and continuous perception/understanding of the world would automatically preclude the radical reality shift possibility of pneuminous interference (at least in one model of pneuminous interaction).

So are the physical strata coded in themselves? Since they manifest in the vector field as differing regions, we may assume that umbratic existence is heterogenous. However we may not assume this heterogeneity is identical to its manifestation in the vector field —since each BOA will produce a vector field of a differing type relative to its perceptual system, size, etc. We are then allowed to treat the physical strata as coded in themselves (with the above caveat) hence the PAs we attach to these strata-regions are overcodings. These overcodings as PAs are ontologically constraining on the strata.

This is the magickal feedback of normal reality. Through use, a relation to a vector field region is formed, this is a PA layer but not of great strength. The PA forms more solidly when the PAs of the perceptual features and function common to the various ways in which it appears, accrete to form a kind of archetype of the of the thing (a contingent Platonic form). This archetype is a functional magickal PA, except of course its purpose is in no way to contradict the vector region onto which it is imprinted. Its purpose is to be that thing. Hence since the vector region is only ‘that thing’ by virtue of the PA inhabiting it and pneuma is a force, the PA constrains the vector region to be more like the archetype than it would otherwise be.

Pneuma though is not outside the strata, it is also a stratum, its difference lies in where it lies. For pneuma lies on a plane not conceivable by regular human consciousness. We can easily repeat phrases like non-spatio-temporal and this ease of repetition somewhat inures us to their actual meaning. Pneuma is a stratum that can be considered separate from the umbratic —a well of infinite strata.

When accreted and subject to certain intensities (relations to OBOAs) pneuma warps umbratic structures. The content/expression structure of a PA means its content substance plugs into the umbratic via the vector field. Whereas its form of expression concerns its use-relation to the OBOAs and its appearance (the aspects that form the archetypal PA). Thus an intensity (a strong affective event) at the OBOA level can cause pneuminous pressure to be directed into the umbratic bringing about what the OBOA experiences as the anomalous event.

ATP (A Thousand Plateaus) PA (Pneuminous Accretion)

Plateau 10 of ATP discusses various types of becoming. Of particular interest is the discussion becoming-animal and the way in which we can relate this to events. We are told there are three kinds of animal or rather three modes, for these are not types. There are oedipalized animals (pets), state animals of classification and myth and there are demonic animals of pack and affect. All animals are capable of being any of these; this is not a taxonomy.

Here we wish to use a similar schema upon events. We can apply the same triple structure to them. There are the oedipalized regular events of our daily lives, there are state events of the news, of (established) science, of history and there are anomalous demon events. The anomalous events do of course encompass the paranormal ones, though they also pertain to the anomalous aspects of science where its bleeding molecular edge exists. In one sense paranormal events and the anomalies of science are very similar. The difference is purely a matter of scale and acceptance. It is not even fair to say science does not wish to engage with paranormality, it certainly tries to test it rigorously, yet cannot do justice to its experiential dimension and either cannot detect (because it is correct and they are not ‘real’ or cannot yet find the means to detect what is going on in these phenomena). However, the anomalies of science are usually thought of as those unanswered questions, those papers of research at the periphery that suggest something may not be quite right, within a given accepted discipline (major science).

The demon events are those ones that befall us and can bring about the agnostic disjunctive state of reflection (see PA document) in which we literally cannot tell if we can ascribe anything anomalous to the experience or not. These too exist on a spectrum, from the mildest of knowing-who-is-going-to-call-because-you-were-just-thinking-about-them, to the full blown physical manifestation of otherworldly entities.

All events, like animals can be considered in packs, they are understood as some kind of event -they are coded and overcoded. Paranormal events have almost a meta-status in this regard, for the event is already a becoming. It is paradoxical, it is comprehended as an event and yet it is a purely ephemeral occurrence. The event is subjectified becoming. This means it accretes pneuma by its affective power.

The synchronicity (for example) is an event, it is a subjectified event which immediately accretes. It accretes pneuma as synchronicity. That is synchronicity itself is a PA formed by Jung. A named gathered the intensity, accreted other PAs into it, bound pneuma into this incoherent form. Whether we call it synchronicity or not, it’s nature is recognised throughout the world and history. The event that looks like some kind of interference, whether it be from our psychic selves, the gods, the spirits, UFOs. Is it always a demons event? Is it always anomalous? It is anomalous only in relation to the other assemblages. In the western pneuminous set up the synchronicity is anomalous and, as stated, it is meaningful only to the experiencer (it is subjectified).

The content and expression of the synchronicity can be shown thus:

Content Substance:                 The various PAs that the synchronicity is formed of.

Content Form:                         The web of relations that ties these PAs together that renders the synchronicity meaningful.

Expression Substance:            In the occurrence of the event, the elements of that event, the place, the time, the relevant coded things.

Expression Form:                    The experience as anomaly.

As anomalous the synchronicity is a demon event. It is at the edge of the pack of events. But what is the pack? The pack are all the regular events the support the smooth continuity of existence as solid, that reinforce God’s eye like perspectives. The demon event shows the edge of this understanding, yet because it exists at the level of event, it is already part of becoming —events are becomings. The demon event exists at the edge of events themselves, deterritorializing the continuous space of materiality and epiphenomenal conceptuality and reterritorializing it with the pneuminous conception of active conceptuality. The demon event is anomalous precisely because it breaks the rules of space and time and shows that there are connecting lines that cut across in directions we do not understand, and that, under some circumstances, these lines can restructure what appeared to be solid.

In becoming animal, any animal can display all three modes (Oedipal, State, Demonic), is this also true of any event? This is the case. It is simply the expression of the even that shifts. Any event can be taken as anomalous insofar the same structure is always there. The ineffable force of the umbratic lurks behind all events. Every PA is always the double of the vector field overlaying the umbratic. The demonic forces work continuously if one wishes to understand them this way —this is true of Oedipal or State events.

Demon events always belong to becoming. They always open the way for a new line. One may listen to the demon event and obey its suggestion. One may find the demon event opens the way to a new understanding. Of course demons can be deceptive and demon events are the most deceptive. The lines they open are what we have elsewhere called agnostic disjunctive. They may bring amazing new connections, ruin or nothing. Their umbratic nature (their mechanism) is entirely obscured and ranges in possibility from brute chance to the most strange and instantaneous arrangements of territory we can scarcely conceive of.

Please note, this post follows on from this post which in turn refers to this document on pneuminous accretive theory..

ii)

The next integration we need to achieve is the content/expression description of a being of awareness (BOA) as a PA (pneuminous accretion). We are trying to steer clear of making an identity of life and a BOA in order to account for BOAs that may not be considered alive. This does mean that the kind of classification will differ again between organic and (what Castaneda called) inorganic beings —to this we might also add beings that are physically deceased whose pneuminous structures persist (ghosts).

Organic beings of awareness (OBOAs) can be considered on a continuum in relation to their ability to manipulate pneuma into accretions. The manipulation of pneuma belongs to the form of expression. The substance of content is also conceivable on a similar spectrum, whilst the other two categories can be thought of as staying effectively the same (form of content and expression of substance) for any OBOA.

The two invariant structures of the OBOA are:

Content form:                          Underlying codes -genetic/electrical/unknown

Expression substance:             Cells, organs, bodies, nervous systems

As mentioned the form of expression can be heuristically be broken down into three stages of pneuminous manipulation.

  1. Performs an extremely simple manipulation of pneuma that scarcely accretes it. The organism shows some vector field differentiation insofar as it seeks an energy source and may respond to certain kinds of stimuli. Insofar as it encodes these stimuli and energy types it can be said to be forming various simple PAs.
  2. Has a complex relationship to its environment, differentiating between a wide array of stimuli (vector field regions). It seeks energy sources, shelter, safety (avoids threats), may indulge in leisure/play, can problem solve, experience emotion. It can communicate in a sign system with other OBOAs in 1 step communication -it can communicate a sign but not the sign of a sign. These things are possible because it has temporal encoding (memory) of a complex order. This means its ability to accrete pneuma is considerable. Many vector regions will receive small pneuminous accretions from such an OBOA. A process resembling subjectification may well occur, which will form a similar kind of emotionally imprinted PA (a feared predator, a safe hole e.g.). There will also be some formation of something resembling a free-floating PA owing to the 1 step communication, as this is still going to form some kind of PA thread at a physical distance from the vector.
  3. An extremely complicated catalogue of recognised stimuli (vector field regions). Seeks energy, shelter, safety. Can problem solve in a highly abstract manner, play, develop complex abstract play, produce complex culture, develop mathematical abstraction and apply it, has a complex emotional component. Can communicate multiple step communication -can communicate the sign of a sign and potentially more. Produces complicated communication/data storing systems. Can temporally encode vast amounts of complex information. This means its capacity to manipulate pneuma is huge and its ability to form PAs vast. A hugely complicated array of vector regions will be differentiated not simply on spatial fronts but also on abstract ones. Incredibly complex relations will form between these PAs in the way they various connect and overlap with each other in the dynamic constant alteration of the BOW. The vector regions to which the accretions are attached will shift as PA possibilities increase or decrease. On local levels many vector regions will receive strong subjective (as in subjectification) PA attachments complicating the picture further. In addition, this kind of OBOA also ascribes unique names to many kinds of vector regions, including other OBOAs. This imprints PAs into the OBOA regions which have complex feedback mechanisms.

This tripartite heuristic does not identify any specific biological entity range, but rather aims at delineating three places on a continuum of ability to manipulate pneuma. Having said this, the stage (iii) OBOA is clearly something like a human.

Since everything we experience is formed within human pneuminous structures, the OBOA is likewise. The OBOA is a PA but it is a PA whose vector region both takes the description of an OBOA and has some underlying structure that makes this possible (a nervous system, though nervous system of course is also a PA).

Similar lines can also be drawn out of an OBOA PA as extended from a non-aware PA. Because the pneuminous surface generates the idea of the beyond, this beyond (the umbratic -see document on PAs) either actually exists in some incomprehensible way or is near identical to the structure unearthed by the pneuminous interaction except for the double motion of subtraction and addition. The pneuminous grasp adds the accretive layer of pneuma to the vector region (which plugs into the umbratic) but in the grasping of necessarily only the partial, the pneuminous grasp is subtractive of the rest of the umbratic.

Thus since the OBOA is formed as a PA, this PA is attached to a vector region and thus to the umbratic. The OBOA then, as PA, is only partially grasped by itself and by other OBOAs. As such the OBOA itself has a tendency towards absolute mystery which is obscured when the PA is perceived as totally exhaustive of the vector region. This is not the idle epistemic mystery of OOO or something similar, this rather pertains to the paranormal possibility of absolute otherworldly interactions.

The OBOA also has the almost opposite direction of subjectification. The OBOA is constantly having accretive layers formed onto it, both by itself and by other OBOAs. These are the intensive attachments that it and the other OBOAs form about it. In the system of things (normal physical PAs) subjectification picks out one amongst potentially many and accretes pneuma to it (a memory, and attachment). In the case of OBOAs, all of them are subjectified by each other. Of course, not everyone is subjectifying everyone, but everyone is being subjectified by someone, even the lonely are often being subjectified exactly as lonely. Thus especially the OBOA type (iii) accretes many PAs.

In this way we can see the tripartite heuristic of the substance of content though we note that for all three the substance -of the content for type (iii) OBOAs must in some sense be that of the umbratic and also the vector field (which is formed of unaccreted (or unstratified) pneuma) since one bleeds seamlessly into the other.

  1. Reflects no PAs back upon itself. Constituted by PAs projected upon it either at the simple stimuli level or by investigation from type (iii) OBOAs e.g. doing science.
  2. Such an OBOA partially reflects accretions back onto itself to constitute a self (e.g. memory of its own image). Is mostly constituted by the PAs projected onto it by other OBOAs. Other OBOAs of a similar type (this does not mean biological genus) will form PAs of such OBOAs.
  3. OBOAs of this kind are constituted both by the PAs projected onto them and by the PAs that they project onto themselves. Thus the act of believing you are one kind of person and someone else believing you are another are both competing pneuminous forces exerting partial determinacy of yourself (PA of the self).

Thus the notion of subjectification applies most relevantly to the type (iii) OBOA. Subjectification in the case of things pertained to OBOAs having accreted pneuma to them under certain circumstances owing to affective encounters with relatively unaccreted PAs e.g. a rock is just a rock which is still a PA but its discovery on a beach by a child and transformation into a special rock, from that holiday, subjectifies the rock. In the case of OBOAs (iii) they subjectify each other intensively (by affect) constantly, variously hating, being attracted to, being made happy by, laughing with/at, considering stupid, considering wise, considering ugly, being that person who did that thing on that day etc. Some of these accretive layers are sustained by the PA of the self and some sustained by others.

This multiplicity of pneuminous interactions exerts a constant real (magickal) effect upon the OBOA causing it to adhere (albeit slightly) to the nature of the PA (see the writing on the double in the document on PA theory). This occurs because pneuma is a force that operates at an ontological level unlike regular physical forces as we understand them.

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.

In the CEO Zonetology project, zones have previously been described in three basic modes:

1 Spatial -This place is actually connected to an exterior power e.g. another dimension etc.

2 Temporal -This particular time brings this other kind of world/influence closer e.g. twilight.

3 Projected -The otherworldly effect is contingent upon the being of awareness e.g. pneuminous accretive theory.

The possibility we wish to look at here is that the zone is better understood in a more fluid sense than this admittedly heuristic taxonomy suggests. This more fluid conception though, may free the zone up from its slightly parochial usage to something much closer to the transcendental (in the Kantian sense).

We begin by suggesting that zonal instances are primordially affective. The zone is a feeling. The feeling is one of a certain alien/other-worldness. The zonal theory (as found in various zonetology writings) that the withdrawal of the accretions (the human concepts that covered the region) and the creation of a vacuum into which alien accretions are drawn is an explanation of the feeling, but it is not a description of the zone per se -unless we want the zone to be a very restricted concept.

The affective feeling of the zone suggests an ontology other than the one of the everyday world (at least for most people). Even if you ‘believe’ in weird occurrences, their actual happening still supplies a moment of strangeness. This is true also for rationalists, the difference being that the rationalist (as I use the term here) is an agent for the solid continuous world idea and discrete psychology. This means they have answers to paranormal oddities; they can be amazed by them but nevertheless explain them. Whereas agents for anomalies as anomalies have no clear answers, the above mentioned accretive theory is an attempt to supply a quasi rational answer that pares away all specific religions and magickal systems, but no matter how rational pneuminous accretive theory might be it still has none of the force of the explanations of the solid world model.

The agnostic disjunction points out that anomalous experiences as anomalous (contra the rationalist) have a fundamental epistemic equivalence to their rational counterparts. However despite this, the ability to give a more easily accessible looking answer (coincidence, hallucination) still gives the rationalist an apparent edge of explanatory power.

The modified zonal idea here is that the zone can be considered the space (in broad sense of the term) before alliance is made with either anomaly or rationality. So for instance when the synchronicity/coincidence occurs, the null state or ‘vector region‘ of the event can be considered the zone. The interpretive apparatus of the organism goes to work on the event and depending on what accretions (conceptual entities) are dominant in the organism, an interpretive decision will be made about its ontological status (rational or anomalous). In general this will be pre-determined by the accretive set up in the organism, though of course an extremely powerful zone might sway a previously rational agent to consider the anomalous possibility.

This raises an important structure of zonal dynamics: the zone only tends one way —towards anomaly. This is obviously true when you think about it, as an event or place that tends strongly towards normality is just, well, normal. However because rational explanation is much clearer (on an Ockham’s razor type principle) than anomalous explanation, the rational tendency of explanation is more powerful than the anomalous. Ultimately though, neither version can totally overpower the other.

How then do we assimilate both synchronicitous type phenomena and more spatial ones (like the eerie derelict) under the zonal? The answer to this lies in the affective nature of both. That is, both are constituted by a feeling of anomaly. Any vector region that gives criteria for being interpreted as anomalous can be defined as zonal. Thus the derelict car park that has the other-worldy look to it, does so by feeling. This is the zonal appearance of anomaly; the rational discourse says that this is just an appearance generated by the emptiness and unused appearance, whereas the anomalous discourse says that there really is something other-worldy about the car park —yet is unable to furnish you with any way in which this is so. In this (to reiterate) we see the above described double motion of the zone. It suggests anomaly by appearance and begs explanation by rational cognition more than by occult system.

The recent Castaneda investigations make for an interesting correlate or even extension of this idea. In these writings much is often made of ‘illusory’ phenomena. For instance, we get a description of how Castaneda perceives a dry branch for some time as an incredible creature. After Castaneda loses this image he discovers it was ‘really’ a branch. Don Juan (the shaman type figure) tells Castaneda that the branch had ‘power’ in it and that he has wasted an opportunity. The same zonal idea can be applied. The ambiguous branch that looks like the creature is the zonal phenomenon, suggesting the anomaly. For a while Castaneda sees the creature only and is spellbound —the zonal anomaly is in charge. Then he discovers the branch and has understanding of the ‘reality’ of the situation. This ‘reality’ is, especially in this instance, so overpoweringly tempting that it overcomes him immediately and he is relieved no such creature was there. But Don Juan will not yield to this ontological reduction, for him the zone was there and now it has gone —and it was Castaneda that sent it away. Even though one side has an explanation and the other has none, yet both are real on their own terms. This is the zonal logic: non-explanation does not count to deny the phenomenon.

Don Juan often refers to part of the practice of sorcery as ‘hunting for power’. ‘Power’ is these ontologically ambiguous opportunities that should be seized upon to extract the maximum anomalous interpretation from them. Given our connecting line between zone and power we cannot help but feel the echo of a related hunt in Twin Peaks i.e. William Hastings ‘Search for the Zone’. This ill fated ‘hunt for power’ contained classic zonal elements of dereliction and anomaly —though in a much stronger sense. It also suggested the strong draw that the zone has upon people. This maybe highlights another dynamic of desire related to the zone.

The zone is attractive, as people want reality to be mysterious, yet as soon as mystery turns into real anomaly the mystery might become terrifying and needs the rational mode to ‘explain’ it. ‘Explain’ here though is not about the desire to comprehend, it is about repression. Curiously this repressive explanation comes with the hope of inverted magick. That is, though the anomaly may have been terrifying, the explaining in rational terms seeks to mend reality, to normalise it, to erase the anomaly: it is the desire for the solid rational worldto reassert itself. Under all this though, the zone remains, for the zone is not the anomaly the zone is the ambiguous space that is its condition of possibility.

Many thanks to Bec Lambert (@LadyLiminal1) for the zonal image.