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.

 

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.

In these writings the zone has come to mean to something like spaces that suggest either previous human occupation or continual human occupation except only at a level of vagrants or similar. Dilapidation and detritus are zonal indices. The eerie feeling of zones (in rough line with Fisher’s sense of eerie) is postulated as making them attractive to inhabitation by various entities of unknown origins. These my be pneuminous accretive left overs from previous habitation, purely pneuminous entities that have not been accreted by earthbound Narps, or physical cryptids of some kind -presuming there is more than a heuristic sense in making these divisions.

One problem in making the zone definition is always the issue of natural spaces that feel zonal. Wild desolate places that still emanate eeriness. These natural zones are sometimes identified as fairy homes, though many aspects of countryside can exhibit this characteristic and still have no history (that we know of) to link them to such associations. For this reason we feel the term natural zone is acceptable to  the endeavour here and may prove useful in forging further links as we go on.

Lewis-Williams’ famous book on the origin of Palaeolithic art hypothesises that there is likely a shamanic root to the various cave paintings found. Images produced in alternative states of consciousness as induced through sensory deprivation (dark caves) have been pinned onto walls to preserve the pneuminous form. The wall or membrane as it is often referred to in the text often serves as a guide to where the image will fall. There is a reciprocity between the appearance of the animal and the cave wall. A hole, an outgrowth, a stalactite may suggest some part of the creature and in the absence of the possibility that an image is anything other than magickal such a partial manifestation is to be paid special attention to. For the people of this time the suggestion is that the cave wall is literally the membrane to the other world. The cave is a natural zone of suggested partial inhabitance by pneuminous beings.

Lewis-Williams actual ontology is very much of the ‘this is all hallucination that we can understand by modern neuroscience’. All the experiences of his ancient artists are housed firmly inside the discrete consciousness of his cave dwelling homo-sapiens. In this way he chooses firmly and does not even acknowledge the lurking agnostic disjunction. Yet even in his discounting, his description of the membrane is powerful one.

The pneuminous theory as endlessly touted here, states that everything is understood conceptually in some sense (like in phenomenology). This conceptual understanding however is like a substance (pneuma) that acts upon the hiding umbratic solidity. This is the pneuminous accretion, an agglomeration of concept stuff that can stick to regions of the what-is-shown to us (the vector field). In most instances the accretions make a simple agreement with the solidity, but sometimes they do not. The accretion of a bison that escapes from the seen animal into the purely pneuminous world is what we call the spirit animal, or even the platonic form. We think such a thing is just an abstract universal and neglect the fact that they can be seen and engaged with. Before it was transformed into a universal this was the only version available. Down there in the cave, the cave wall has lost its sense of there being endless rock beyond the rock. There is only the pneuminous membrane, upon whose dark surface the accretion appears. The membrane is the membrane not through to the umbra but to the pneuminous world. In the pure dark, as close to the umbratic as we can be, the pneuma, freed from its solid shackles manifests its accretions freely. The spirit body of our own is of course the same thing, it is the concept of our embodiment released from the vector region we call body. The shamanic ‘other’ world is constructed of pure pneuma, of pure concept-stuff. Of course Lewis-Williams has no problem with this, for this is all perfectly possible within the discrete consciousness.

Yet the other side of the disjunction gives us the option that the pneuminous world is not just hallucination, but rather it does have the ability to actually do things. The zone, natural or not, is not necessarily a fantasy. These powers press against on all sides. The membrane is everywhere if you wish to see it. We live perpetually in face of its possibility. But now we have sided with the shaman and must withdraw to the disjunctive pivot.

The experience is one of multiple ontologies that face us everywhere, yet fundamentally split down this line. Has the escaped pneuma-concept actual potency outside of what we call our selves or does it just operate in projections inert, cast upon a world of solid passivity to it.

“Then this line drawn is a key…”

Notes

The essential problem with the zone pertains to its ontology. In science fiction the zone may be unambiguously real -in Roadside Picnic it is clear that humans seem in no doubt that aliens have been (and gone) and the artifacts they left are recoverable and repetitively useable. Tarkovsky’s interpretation leaves things hanging a little more ambiguously, though the reality of at least some anomalous interference is rendered clear by the telekinetic glass movement by the mutant child at the end. The aporia in both though is the same -the uncertainty of golden-sphere/room’s ability to grant wishes.

The zone in this world has no such ontological clarification. NARPs reflect the fact that even if Kant is not actually right, his thesis hovers exactly on the borderland of anomaly. The question as to whether Kant is correct or not is unanswerable in a similar kind of manner. The Kantian limitation in this sense is applied to the epistemological status of his own transcendental idealism – it is simply one more metaphysic that, like God, we should bracket off as unknowable. What he does do though is highlight this ontological manifestation like it had never been highlighted before: the possibility of the subject’s being intertwined in the production of spatio-temporal reality.

We cannot properly know whether transcendental idealism or transcendental realism obtain. They remain in perpetual war in conceptual territory being fought for by agents (scientists, philosophers and thinkers who would consider themselves neither). They occupy an agnostic disjunctive status.

The wood becomes so tangled in an instant, I can almost not make out where to go. The zone itself is split in its interpretation. Does it obtain or is it psychological? This is almost pointless as a distinction. ‘Does it obtain?’ has two options: Is it real in the sense of ‘built into a reality external to NARPs’ or does it somehow ’emanate from them’ and yet still affect the seeming externality? ‘Is it psychological?’ is intended to restrict the domain to hallucination, though one could argue that a Jungian psychological take would mean this was the same as the ’emanates from us’ thesis. Usually though it is intended to cover those interpretations in which phenomena are perceived as anomalous, though in fact fall under the understanding of reality as already given. Psychological in this sense implies that no anomaly obtains as such. This is different from the umbratic possibility which affirms the reality of the phenomena as external from the conceptual being. Concepts being merely understanding of the phenomena from the  NARP perspective.

Proliferating paths can dimly be sketched by noting the ontology of various anomalies under either pneuminous, umbratic  or psychological schemas (these mean in a sense transcendentally ideal anomaly, transcendentally real anomaly or anomaly as hallucination to a transcendentally real world).

Reviewing various anomalies under these heuristics may be helpful.

Zonal Anomalies

Ghosts

Pneuminously ghosts are pure accretive formations; they are formed either by neurotic accretions freed from regional processors that have not dissolved, or by accretions formed by other NARPs that project the presence onto the relevant zone.

Umbratically ghosts are literal spirits of the dead that persist in this reality and have not moved on to wherever they should do. Such an ontology presupposes something like actual souls that exist independently of the body and have an existence external to it.

Psychologically ghosts are pure hallucination due to various neurological occurence. They have no existence in a real external world that persists in our absence.

UFOs

Pneuminously UFOs are accretive entities that take conceptual forms either of an autonomous or imposed nature. They can behave as ‘real’ in many ways, but can disappear as quickly as a dream fades -as they are just pneuma interfering with umbra and the interference may stop abruptly.

Umbratically UFOs are either ultra or extra terrestrial entities that exist autonomously in some other sense, yet for what ever reason manifest in our reality periodically.

Psychologically UFO’s are a mix up of meteorological phenomena, hallucination, satellites and airplanes. No such aerial anomaly is real outside of these explanations.

Synchronicity

Pneuminous synchronicity is interference in (our) reality from accretions of pneuma. Conceptual entities manifest poignantly to NARPs, though their may not actually be any particular message, only a pneuminous connection.

Umbratic synchronicity is potentially preordained harmony. This retains the reality of the metaphysical connection and decentres it from the NARPs influence. Another version would be the reality of certain powers that sought to convey messages that were of import to the NARP in question (see umbratic spirits).

Psychological synchronicity is purely statistical probability, confirmation bias and apohenia. No external reality altered in relation to the subject.

Cryptids

Pneuminous cryptids would be similar to Keelian Ultraterrestrials. Pure conceptual powers that have ruptured umbratic restraint and manifest with potent solidity, even capable of leaving traces, yet equally ontologically are created by NARP like powers of accretion. Their autonomy could still be real but not necessarily in the sense of living a life somewhere else.

Umbratic cryptids would be actual alien, terrestrial or ultra terrestrial entities capable of appearing in this reality. They would have a coherent existence, not contingent upon NARP conceptuality.

Psychological cryptids are hallucinations or mistaken actual animals.

Spirits (Angels, Demons etc)

Pneuminous spirits are pure pneuminous constructs. Though created by NARPs they may have a high level of autonomy. Magick/religion creates these entities. Such beings may be visible and capable of bringing out reality altering effects (Magick).

Umbratic spirits would suggest that such beings are real outside of human conceptuality e.g. as if Wierus orders of demons or the Lemegeton  were just a correct descriptions of how these beings were structured. Such a structure might easily involved ontologically real good and evil. Such beings would likewise be potentially visible at leas in certain states, and capable of altering reality (as we perceive it) under certain conditions.

Psychologically such spirits are just hallucination. They may the products of unhinged minds and in this sense dangerous, however never actually existent in the externality.

Telepathy

Pneuminous telepathy is just the tapping into another NARPs accretions and accessing them as if they were ones own.

Umbratic telepathy is entails something similar, though the mechanism would be discoverable as some kind of psi like substance -this is not possible for pneuma.

Psychological telepathy is just knowing someone well enough that thoughts coincide on occasion. Selection bias determine the importance of certain instances.

Telekinesis

Pneuminous telekinesis is the manipulation of a vector that would not ordinarily move without physical help. The accretion ‘moving’ is successfully applied to it in accordance with the will of the telekinetic NARP. The umbratic is ruptured in this way.

Umbratic telekinesis entails that a real force exists (like psi) manipulable in some instances such that physical object may be moved by certain NARPs.

Psychological telepathy does not occur, all instances of it are only apparent.

Poltergeist

Pneuminous poltergeist activity is likely autonomous accretive powers exerting umbratic warping. Little else can be said about it.

Umbratic poltergeist activity may be an actual spirit or ghost. Potentially also it could be the kind of energy discharge theory often touted. It could involve a potentially detectable force like psi.

Alien Abduction

Pneuminous alien abduction is an interaction with the alien accretion and the long standing myth accretion of abduction (which exists in faerie too). The individual may well have genuinely disappeared into the pure pneuminous realm, but they have not gone to a cogent other world or dimension.

Umbratic alien abduction is the being actually abducted by alien beings of whatever kind. The abduction was ‘real’ in various senses of the world. The individual was actually gone and the beings involved abducted the individual with an agenda.

Psychological alien abduction means no such abduction took place. Dream, hallucination and sleep paralysis are likely features of the experience.

Astral projection

Pneuminous astral projection means that the neurotic accretion exited the regional processor and was capable of entering a more flexible pneuminous state. Instantaneous travel and umbratic manipulation is possible in this state.

Umbratic astral projection means that there is such an energy body as the ‘astral’ body or potentially soul. This can exit the body under certain circumstances. Such a entity is potentially measurable.

Psychological astral projection entails no such entity ever left the physical body and the experience is just construct and memory from the existing mind.