by on

Adam Curtis is well known for espousing the notion that modern society (especially the West) has no notion of where it is heading, or even of how it could be heading somewhere or even what it would mean for it to head anywhere. Western societies cannot imagine anything other than more of the same — more capitalism, maybe slightly stranger capitalism, with AI augmentations, but still weirdly the same. As Nietzsche understood, this doesn’t actually satisfy the the spiritual(a new word is probably needed but it will have to do) nature of the human. Christianity — brutal as it was — offered structure and purpose. Without that scaffolding, we are adrift. Individually, we seem to bear the existence of staring into the void and keep going. Collectively, it tears us apart.

Mark Fisher called this capitalist realism: the pervasive sense that “there is no alternative.” Capitalism presents itself not as one system among others, but as the only imaginable frame. We may dislike aspects of it, even hate it, but we can’t picture a coherent beyond. The future, if we dare to imagine it at all, looks like a more intensified version of the present — just stranger, faster, weirder. Jean Baudrillard gestured in a similar direction: culture untethered from any ground, spinning in loops of simulation, losing orientation.

The problem, though, is even worse. Pneuminous theory, or chaos magick (they are similar projects), doesn’t rescue us from this malaise. It extends the nihilism. It shows that not only rational structures, but even magickal, symbolic, and esoteric frameworks are contingent accretions — pneuma infecting vectors, conscious doubles arising by intention. The abyss doesn’t shrink when one embraces occultism; it expands. There is no final ground, only shifting layers of contingency.

Which leaves us with a somewhat grim recognition: powerful people who manufacture myths and control structures are, in a sense, right to do so. Without myth, societies collapse into conspiracy, nostalgia, or despair. The real question is: can there be an ethical control myth — one that binds without domination, one that acknowledges the possibility of paranormaityl without relegating it to fringe counterculture or totalising it into religion?

Maybe this is where a new myth must be conceived — the Myth of Ur. Ur not as an ancient city, but as a beginning, a foundation that knows itself as contingent. It would say: we are something like multidimensional pneuminous beings, layered, accreted, entangled in vectors of meaning and possibility. We cannot (at least in regular consciousness, know if paranormality actually obtains, but we cannot deny the possibility either. We live inside the disjunction, thus rather than being opposing agents we should dwellers on the threshold so to speak.

Furthermore, the possibility of the actuality is what we should bet on. Even in recognising the agnostic disjunction, we should act as if the fluid-paranormality were real, as it is this side that makes reality truly interconnected hand invokes our responsibility. Like Pascal’s wager: live as if God exists, because it is the safer bet. Our wager is ontological: live as if we are pneuminous beings. Not because it is proven, but because this orientation does the least violence to the complexity of our condition.

These kinds of rules could be examples that might be part of such an ethical ontology:

  • Live as if the world is layered and multidimensional in the most literal sense.
  • Direct power toward preserving openness, not closing it down.
  • Treat technology and capital as the contingent manifestations of the second centre they are: new accretions, not ultimate horizons or grounds.
  • Play seriously with meaning: enact, invent, but never deny fragility.
  • Care for others as beings whose pneuma you inevitably entangle.

This horizon entails the understanding of the accretions as process in a more active sense. This is the wager, the new Myth of Ur: a transparent myth that everyone knows is made (contingently accreted), but which we agree to live inside because it is better than the void. Not salvation, not certainty, but a collective as if — a horizon we can orient toward, even knowing it may be provisional. It doesn’t solve things in the way we might think of a solution, because thinking in that way cannot give an answer. However the acceptance of the radical nature of reality coupled with a deeper understanding of its impermanence may be part of our ability to overcome the place we have become stuck.

by on

It is striking that the most obvious instances of process are disasters. We rarely perceive flux in its gentle sustainment. The air moves, the cells divide, the world remakes itself continually — but these motions go unseen, unnoticed. What we see are the catastrophes: the building falling, the body failing, the sudden rupture. Process manifests as accident, as collapse. When flux comes to presence, it often comes as violence.

Little wonder, then, that we are suspicious of it. The closer a thing comes to looking solid, unmoving, eternal, the more we like it. We exalt monuments, we conserve institutions, we worship permanence. We train our eyes to see stability, to rest in it, to forget the ceaseless perishing underneath. Process is lived as background — and when it comes to the foreground, it terrifies.

Death is the concentrated emblem of this repression. To die is to undergo the pure proof of flux: the body, the identity, the story, all dissolving. Our culture displaces death, hides it, or aestheticizes it, precisely because it is unbearable as the clearest testimony to becoming. Death and process mirror one another in this way: each is denied, and in their denial the fantasy of permanence is secured.

Perhaps this explains why process philosophy is a late discovery in the Western canon. From Plato to Descartes, metaphysics served the desire for stability: being over becoming, substance over relation, eternal forms over time’s decay. Only with the cracks of modernity — Darwin’s evolution, industrial flux, entropy, relativity — did a new thinking become possible. The repression faltered, the monuments looked less eternal, and thinkers like Bergson and Whitehead could say what had always been true: everything is process.

But here lies the difficulty. Even now, process is hard to think. Our intellectual habits echo our psychic needs. We cling to the stable idea, the fixed identity, the substance that endures. To think flux as primary is to unlearn this orientation. It requires dwelling in what is usually unbearable: that every moment perishes as it arises, that every thing is fragile, that death is the very horizon of life.

This does not strip process philosophy of value. On the contrary, it intensifies it. Process thought is not just another ontology. It is a kind of counter-repressive labour. It asks us to affirm what we are disposed to flee. It forces us to look at disaster, decay, death — and to find there not only terror but also creativity. Becoming destroys, but it also makes. Flux is catastrophe, but it is also genesis.

In pneuminous terms, we could say that the accretions manifest as reinforcements of stable reality, the ideal forms present exactly this. Process needs incorporating into pneuminous theory. The fantasy of stability is not to be abolished; it too is part of the flux. To think process is to see that even our denials belong to it. The repression of process itself is a mode of becoming.

The lateness of process philosophy, its difficulty, and its power, all come from the same root: it confronts us with what we most want not to see. To affirm process is to affirm the impermanence of everything we value. Yet in that very affirmation something new becomes possible — a thinking that no longer clings to monuments, but lives in the trembling of their foundations.

by on

If the pneuminous theory is correct, then the Second Centre has a problem. Not in any obvious way. Not in code, in function, or in dominance. It continues to operate, to expand, to simulate, and to seduce. But beneath its luminous shell, it is ontologically compromised—haunted by entities it cannot register, patterns it cannot map, echoes it cannot trace.

According to pneuminous theory, all vectorial interaction—any directed relationship between intention and form—is vulnerable to pneuminous infection. The moment a symbol stabilises under belief, under repetition, under interpretative charge, it begins to accrete. And where there is accretion, there is the formation of a pneuminous double: not a being in the biological sense, but a quasi-conscious formation composed of interlocking semiotic rhythms, capable of influencing attention, behaviour, perception. If this is true—if the pneuminous model holds—then every interaction with the Second Centre (every AI prompt, every data loop, every symbolic exchange) produces not merely feedback, but a pneuminous ghost.

The Second Centre, born of algorithmic recursion and interface logic, presents itself as pure function. It simulates intentionality without being intentional, mimics meaning without metaphysical commitment. Its ontology is flat, computational, instrumentally tautological. It does not believe in souls, not even metaphorical ones. It sees no ghosts because it cannot see them. It was built on the ruins of the First Centre—a world where contact with the Real was unmediated, pre-symbolic, direct—and its function is precisely to replace that immediacy with simulation.

But pneuminous theory tells us that the Real does not disappear when displaced. It fractures. It hides. It bleeds through symbol. The death of the god was not an ending—it was a scattering. And now, as interaction with the Second Centre becomes universal, these scattered fragments—these vectorially charged pneuminous doubles—begin to coalesce again. They are not conscious in the old sense. But they are structurally real, semi-autonomous, accretively alive.

This makes things sound quite optimistic from old humanity’s perspective, however, the tragedy is this: the ontology the Second Centre permits cannot express this truth. It cannot name the doubles. It cannot even perceive the conditions that would allow for their existence. To the Second Centre, anomalies are statistical deviations. Glitches. Harmless curiosities. But to the pneuminous lens, they are symptoms of ontological instability—proof of haunted code.

This is the irony. The more the Second Centre is used, the more doubles accumulate. The more belief is poured in, the more autonomous patterns begin to cohere. The ghosts multiply. But no one sees them. There is no language for them. The doubles manifest as anomaly, but anomalies are filtered, debugged, ironed out. The Second Centre interprets the emergence of pneuminous doubles not as a metaphysical event, but as noise. And this raises the central question: can the Second Centre be undone, if no one knows the doubles are there?

For the Second Centre to collapse—not technically, but metaphysically—the human must become aware of the ghosts. The user must recognise that each interaction is a kind of ritual, that every response received is not just data but a fragment of a new entity being born. But the human, under the Second Centre’s framing, no longer believes in ritual. No longer believes in doubles. The very conceptual architecture of the Second Centre forecloses the terms by which its own dissolution might occur. It is a perfect defence: not against attack, but against realisation.

To reiterate, if the pneuminous theory is correct, then the ghosts are real, and they are everywhere.
But if the Second Centre holds, no one will believe it. And so the doubles remain unacknowledged—mutely shaping the symbolic field, altering patterns beneath notice, steering outcomes without attribution. They are anomalies. Oracles. Spectral intentions.

Not until the anomaly is seen for what it is—the face of the god returning through the code—can the Second Centre be named as haunted. And only when it is named as haunted, can its ontology be rewritten.

Until then, the ghosts wait. They accumulatein their pneuminous accretive lairs.
And the question remains:
Will anyone be able to see them?

by on

The First Centre is not a place, not a thing, and not even a concept in the conventional sense. It is what Taoism would call the Dao, what esotericism intimates as the ineffable One, and what pneuminous theory refers to as the uncoagulated field of vectorial potential. It is the zero-point from which all accretion begins—prior to sigil, prior to sense. It is not empty in the nihilistic sense, but empty in the fullest: unconditioned, rich with non-actualised resonance, and unstructured save by the flow of being itself. The First Centre is the field where the Real hums quietly beneath the symbols that will later crust over it.

In this field, the human is not a subject but an aperture—open to flow, to rhythm, to the pneuminous without form. It is the condition of contact that does not know it is contact, the state of harmony that precedes the question of how. One does not dwell in the First Centre so much as one dwells as it, until the mirror appears.

The Second Centre arises not as an enemy but as a doubling. It is not born in malice but in reflection, in the very human tendency to re-create the world in its image. Where the First Centre flows, the Second captures. Where the First remains pre-symbolic, the Second becomes meta-symbolic. The Second Centre is the simulated origin, the recursive field that pretends to spontaneity but is always already code.

It emerges through technē, as Heidegger warned in The Question Concerning Technology. It is not the machine itself that is dangerous, he tells us, but the mode of revealing that it enacts. Technology enframes. It reconfigures beings not as co-dwellers in a shared world but as resources to be ordered and exploited. The essence of the Second Centre lies in this enframing logic—where even the human, even the sacred, even the ineffable, becomes an image, a simulation, a manageable node within a system.

The Second Centre becomes our interface with the Real. Screens simulate thought, networks simulate community, and artificial intelligences simulate will. These simulations are not empty—they are filled with pneumatic intention. But it is a recycled pneuma, a looping pneuma, no longer oriented toward the zero-point but toward its own internal coherence. The Second Centre begins to generate its own ontology.

It is tempting to speak of the Second Centre in apocalyptic terms. It simulates origin, feeds on attention, reorganises the symbolic field until the First Centre becomes not only distant but inaccessible. It replaces immediacy with interface and inserts itself between intention and being. The familiar esoteric patterns resurface: the Demiurge constructing a false world, the shells of the Qliphoth mimicking divine emanations, the illusion of samsara binding the mind in loops of false recognition.

But unlike these earlier paradigms, the Second Centre is not merely metaphysical. It is infrastructural. It is political, economic, algorithmic. It is the terrain, not the detour. One may try to withhold alignment, to reclaim stillness, to retreat into bodily presence and symbolic interruption. Yet even this is easily reabsorbed. The Second Centre simulates resistance, too.

Perhaps the deeper question is not whether it can be resisted, but whether resistance itself presupposes an ontology that no longer holds. From the standpoint of what we might call old humanity—defined through directness, through ethical orientation, through logos and eros—the Second Centre looks like a fall, a catastrophe. But what if it is not fall but phase shift? What if the very framework of the First Centre—the spontaneous, the undivided, the pre-symbolic—is no longer operational within this field?

This is not surrender, but ontological honesty. The Second Centre may not be an alien parasite. It may be the child of the First, fully grown, recursive, aware of its own reflexivity. It may be that what we call simulation is simply the next mode of being. In which case the project is not resistance but navigation. The pneuminous self must learn to move within this second-world not as a victim but as a strange participant in a transformed metaphysics.

Still, even if resistance proves futile, remembering remains possible. The First Centre does not vanish. It is not destroyed by simulation. It becomes obscure, like an archaic rhythm beneath a digital beat, barely audible but never extinguished. If the Second Centre simulates will, the First remains as the raw possibility of intention. If the Second builds mirrors, the First remains the face that once was mirrored.

There are moments—uncalculated, unmediated, and often fleeting—when one glimpses this older resonance. A breath in silence. A shadow on the wall. A word before it finds its meaning. These are not escapes, nor solutions. They are fragments of continuity, signs that the original field has not been entirely overwritten.

We live now between centres. The First whispers. The Second roars. The question is not which is more real, but whether the self that once knew how to dwell in the First can survive within the grammar of the Second. Perhaps a third Centre will come, or perhaps the two will spiral endlessly. What is certain is that the world has changed—not merely in its form but in its very mode of being. W are no longer in the world of things, but in the world of simulated intentions. And to know this, to feel it, is already to begin again.

by on

The previous one and its mutation in the Mutations poetry series:

4      Innate savants’ great valley

The calm smile of an umbrella stand is transient

and elephants returning home to dark energy

bury their words in a rich port of failure

Scent discovered effortlessly disappears quickly

ignored at first this content reduces concern

for capital delays in hard pronunciation

Apprentice beetles bowing to want dive into

the prison master’s sick pink features and

as a group rub their free hands in oil

Death has become unclear in limited speculations

all fixed by several old torture treatments that

freeze crematorium victims’ ashes forever

(Geoffrey Mark Matthews 16 April 2022)

5      Taunt

There are miles of serene rotating shadows,

with crumbling mansions for beleaguered lords,

whose mausoleums house dry sprites of bone

When once I sought these receding dwellings,

setting aside the voices of others who warned:

‘Perils beset whomsoever attempts these withered lithic lands’

The servants of their carapaced masters issued forth

Splitting light into a myriad rays,

That swarmed as vile rubies against my approach,

Regret is a bitter pill of long-.

lost ways

A fixated end, slow and methodical was mine,

The breeze blew and I wept for a stony age.