by on

The Centre for Experimental Ontology is going to sleep, maybe only for a short while, maybe forever. This concludes phase 2 of its existence.

Below you can find a rough summary of what this phase dealt with, where the CEO is now and where it might potentially go in the future —Gurdjieff has been pointing to some interesting correlates/directions.

1) Pre-ontology: The notion of a pre-ontology was not explore sufficiently but remains an ongoing concern. The central idea is whether it is cogent to conceive of a way in which existence can occur without an ontology excluding certain modes as possible. The emphasis of the thought is on conceiving of magickal phenomena as totally naturalised on a contiuum with all other phenomena.

2) Pneuminous Accretions: The pneuminous accretions remain at the heart of the general system. Materialised conceptuality (or at least the grammatical cogency of it) enables magick and completes philosophy in all directions.

3) Vector Field: Equally central to the system is the vector field. Meant in the sense of a ‘carrier’, the ability of vectors to host the pneuminous accretions is the counterpart to the accretions that completes the magickal explanation (of philosophy). A vector that houses a concept and suits it is the ordinary usage of the same force that we call magick (we don’t call it magick but the same operation occurs). A vector hosting an accretion that it would not normally house will find influenced/altered on a magickal level (what we tend to mean when we say magick).

4) Different Occult Endgames: The Castaneda system highlights this already suspected possibility. The reality or metaphor of the assemblage point illustrates how there is no necessity to some kind of occult achievement (that could be considered final) over another. Even the notion of ‘freedom’ in CC’s system can be contrasted against other possibilities of immortality. It is the extension of the lack of divine teleology into a vastly increased notion of what exists (which includes the occult possibilities).

5) Memetics: The disbanded science of memetics is highly commensurate with the pneuminous accretive theory. The only addition required is external existence of the memes i.e. whilst created by human activity they do no necessarily need it to continue to exist.

6) Susan Blackmore’s work present’s a considerable challenge to many aspects of esotericism. What she does is highlight the extreme ontology needed for it to be ‘real’ and not purely psychological. Pneuminous accretive theory is a good fit for such an ontology however at least one additional caveat is needed. The notion in question is one of something like levels of reality or consciousness. This is something mentioned both in Castaneda and Gurdjieff. In Castaneda, Don Juan will say that ordinary people would literally not be able to see the anomalies, though they are perfectly real, likewise certain statements are unintelligible unless one has sufficient ‘power’ to understand them. Gurdjieff says likewise that unless one obtains a certain level of consciousness, certain things are not visible and certain teachings incomprehensible. This is not a matter of cognitive ability but something else. This something else is what such an ontology would require, likewise it would say that the whole psychological edifice that Blackmore works in, amazingly admiral though it is to desire to not be fooled, can only return negative results, explainable in terms of neuroscience. This does not mean she has not encountered many frauds, but also it means that there is a certain letting go necessary for the actual encounter.

7) Plato, Castaneda, Laruelle: The most productive discussion in the last phase of the CEO concerned a kind of synthesis of these figures that overcomes that manifestation problem. The manifestation problem is simply this: if all ontologies (manifestations) compete equally to inhabit us, how do we understand an ontology that can account for this without lapsing into one more model. The pre-ontological investigations are related to this. Castaneda claims an absolute mode of perception that sees things as they are. This is the perception of the world as ‘energy’, though this accretion (energy) itself contaminates this perception. The reduction of the allness of everything to an endless series of fibres of light was called the reticulum. Gurdjieff has a similar message though there is less mention of energetic perception, rather he talks of ‘objective perception’, to again mean a perception of things as they are.
This line of thinking reinforces that what we mean by saying occult practices gives the completion of philosophy. To learn to perceive the pneuminous accretions as they are, to perceive the deep layers of the vector field. This possibility (?) undercuts Laruelle by granting access to the one, yet agreeing that philosophy (manifestations) is hopelessly inadequate to make any progress. The one is accessible only through deep struggle. This in turn makes sense of Plato but not as empty epistemology. The struggle out of the cave is a real struggle that we all must undertake and that necessarily most of cannot achieve -I include myself in this number.
But again this all relates to the point about ‘different occult endgames’. What Castaneda and Gurdjieff talk about may well not be the same thing, furthermore there are many different stations in this realm. Gurdjieff talks about ‘right results’ but maybe there are other kinds of ‘results’.

8) The vector field does have a certain incoherence. It is the imagined perceptual residue devoid of concept (pneuminous accretion). Even if this is not cogent, the idea functions a) transcendentally as a necessary condition for the possibility of an object and b) as a heuristic by which we can understand the structure of things. This heuristic dimension is particularly relevant with regards to certain occult technologies. In Gurdjieff for instance, there is a technique related to self-remembering which involves dividing the psyche into a potential real ‘I’ and the personality (often named after the person). The named being is the accreted (neurotic self or selves) and the real ‘I’ is something that comes with the organism. It is this part that the esoteric practices seek to access. Does this division make great sense? Not particularly; the separation of the personality from a putative underlying ‘essence’ is a highly confusing notion analytically. However as an occult instruction, or guidance, it has power. Conceive of yourself in this way and it helps to disclose pointless, repetitive, petty parts of your behaviour. A deeper layer of the human vector, stripped close to the vector field itself.
This whole notion of how far down the vector field goes is a fascinating one that requires further thought.

9) Wittgenstein and Laruelle point to the same place. This is because ‘language’ itself is a use word. It cannot be the ‘real’ noun that designates something. It all emanates from what can reasonably grammatically be called the one, or the human. No statement escapes. Language only speaks as language when it has been accreted, without this it is the vector region that the concept language is applied to (consider discussion two organisms communicating and asking ‘are they using language?’). One cannot understand the world beyond the accretions from within them. The only possibility of a greater comprehension comes from the possibility of something like a different consciousness being possible. This possibility remains agnostic disjunctive, at least from the level of regular thought.

10) Regular thought exists in a band that cannot seriously conceive of the world other than as it appears: solid, continuous. Agnostic disjunction functions at this level of thought. It renders anomaly as a possibility that cannot be dismissed but cannot be established. The only way out of agnostic disjunction is by the possibility of something like Gurdjieff describes as ‘objective consciousness’. This of course brings in the problem of ‘levels of consciousness’ which again cannot be verified in any way other than through the circular achievement of a ‘higher’ or ‘altered level’.

11) Gurdjieff makes a particularly interesting statement concerning art. He divides it into objective and subjective. Subjective art is that art we create when we allow powers to flow through us. Whereas objective art is created by a consciousness that is in control of its various parts and actually deliberately creates the work. Such a work, he says, will not generate subjective impressions of interpretation but rather will impose its meaning upon us all.
The last century and indeed this one, has made much of the discovery that we are not in control of the cultural, conceptual powers (pneuminous accretions/memes) that flow through us. Art controls the artist, we are but a vessel. Our general likes/dislikes and determinations are simply a product of these cultural forces. The CEO has played with this language calling it agenthood and utilised the phrase ‘who do you work for?’ to describe how we work for such forces —philosophers work for ontologies, they are agents for them, this explains their stubbornness of defending positions that are no better than those of enemy agents.
The occult endeavour again highlights the possibility of escape from these forces. The possibility that the ‘being-possessed’ by these powers is a contingent condition that we can potentially escape from -though not without serious effort. The death of the author is true but the author may also exist in some circumstances.

12) The double in Castaneda is the second body in Gurdjieff. This is largely the aim of both systems. The transference of consciousness from the feeble disparate exterior to a unified and separable (from the physical body) interior. He makes a fascinating comment that the kingdom of heaven in Christianity is just the development of the second body. Only when the second body is developed is survival beyond death possible. Even this though is finite —equally fascinating as again it suggests, not an eternal beyond, but simply another negotiable realm.

13) The Moon in Gurdjieff devours our awareness, we only can stop this by the development of ‘objective consciousness’. This is very similar to the ‘Eagle’

14) All adornments (job,clothes, language, hair styles etc) are a semiotic system that displays ones alignment to various powers. Some are imposed, some are chosen. Liberation from these powers leaves a vacuum we must somehow fill with a curious control. If we simply remove them, more accretions will take their place. This aids flexibility but not control itself.

15) Magnetic centres are what we develop and activate when we trigger synchonicity. Our fascination with this at the wrong level easily burns the centre out. We can reactivate it, but our modern consciousness means making contact through the centre is almost impossible. We have no choice but to attempte solitary activity and experiment.

16) Gurdjieff suggests that the mystery schools were/are not complete in their questionings. He indicates they continued to conduct experiments on subjects concerning consciousness. Some products of these are fakirs that one may encounter performing incredible feats. He suggests such people are sometimes simply failed experiments of mystery schools. This suggests a very scientific attitude (that one would not get past an ethics committee) towards their relation to consciousness. Ouspensky mentions an anecdote in which a sheep was brought to full consciousness. When he asks ‘What did they do with it?’ Gurdjieff replies ‘They ate it.’

17) Prevous CEO terminology called the human vector the ‘regional processor’. The ‘neurotic’ or ‘self accretion’ plugged into this to make the NARP.

18) The Hyperqabalah remains and ongoing concern. It is the development of a diagrammatic system in which each path of the previous tree of life is transformed into a sephiroth (node) or the levelled up system. It is a partial product of accident. In the process of forming sigils for each regular tree of life path they were as scribed numbers 1-22 as single symbols. This meant that if this was a new based system, it was necessarily base 23, i.e. the equivalent of 10 could only be achieved after the 22 single sigils. The cultural accretive weight of 23 makes this seem highly appropriate. Much work has been done on this but the nature of the paths between the nodes still needs establishing.

by on

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.

by on

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.

by on

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.

by on

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.