by on

Ever since I began this project I have always tried to remain within a kind of phenomenological framework. The primary mechanism for this has always been the agnostic disjunction: the recognition of the ambiguous appearance of many occult phenomena. I am totally aware that sometimes this has strained and I have just written as if the occult arm of the disjunction were the ‘real’ one. Even in doing this though I am always aware of the AD.

The structures I sketch here, continue, to me at least, to be a kind of phenomenology insofar as they are are a thread of appearances that emanate in a rough line from essentially the synchronicity. The gist of the pneuminous theory is that information is in some sense substantial and can attach directly to an underlying vector/thing, furthermore, the accretion can throught this interaction actually affect that which lies beneath the vector: an umbratic reality beyond perception at all. To repeat: under some circumstances the pneuma can affect the umbra.

This writing does continue this line but the scale becomes vaster and in the process one of the key phenomenological concepts, the umbra, largely ceases to be. The umbra is a phenomenological idea because it is the idea of the outside of perception, the impossible ontological beyond, behind you right now.

Another key feature we need to recall to make what I say below cogent, is the pneuminous circuit. This describes how every word object relation is a miniature kind of magickal act. We identify a thing, a vector in the world, or make one, we give it a name. We have a concept for it, a pneuminous accretion. The concept has a kind of ideality that exceeds the vector. In imposing the ideal form (accretion) on the vector, the vector is pulled slightly towards being closer to the concept than its actual physical form. The pneuma affects the umbra, but so slightly we do not notice.

In magick (or at least certain kinds of magick), what the operator seeks to do is take a vector (a situation) and apply a concept to it that would not ordinarily take it. For example the weather does not look sunny at all, it is resistant to this. The concept of a sunny day is applied through concentrated magickal means to the wet day vector in the hope that the concept of a sunny day will appear. In regular life we apply concepts to vectors that take them happily, in magick we try to impose them on those that do not.

Describing all of this on a local level with its correlative ontology is all very well, but after a while bigger questions begin to pile up. If this is what things are like, what does that mean on a bigger scale? The answer could be that the universe is largely umbratic and that the regional burst of beings that can accrete pneuma into this dizzying array of forms. This manifestation is fine except it leaves a somewhat hollow feeling, a wonder as to what happens to all the pneuma that must be everywhere if it is not being accreted. Other speculations about chemical conversations can ensue, but this is not where I want to go.

One of the issues that appears in the occult literature is of course that of spiritual beings. In this theory these beings fulfil the criteria for being pneuminous, they are immaterial but can supposedly alter things on this plane under certain circumstances.

Existence is unbelievably vast. How big could these beings be? We are of course in the territory of God. The move we have to make here is to consider that primordially all that there is, is one pneuminous being. Then remember that for us to alter reality with pneuma it’s an effort, because the umbra is there to hold this in check. If this all-Being is pure pneuma, there is nothing to prevent anything that approaches a concept within it from becoming what we call real. Every movement (whatever movement might mean here) within it is the formation of something. We cannot even say this is the creation of the material universe, we can just say such cosmic conceptuality creates something. This is essentially like Kant’s intellectual intuition on the biggest scale possible, except there is no subject doing the thinking as such.

The autonomy of whatever it is that has been ‘thought’ into being then moves parallel to the continuing thoughts of the divine which themselves must now contend with the very pneuminous structures it has brought into being. That is, once thoughts of the divine exist, they persist; what we call materiality is an example of this, but there may be many others cf Spinoza. The processes that have brought about conscious beings in the materiality might be from the pure chance like structures that emanate or they might be from the continuing thoughts of the divine (material vs teleological explanations of consciousness), whose thought maybe becomes harder to detect the more it thinks. We cannot speak of which this is.

The conscious beings find themselves in a world which their grammar can call material. They speculate the difference between their consciousness and the matter before them. But this solidity is nothing more than the deep remains of the thought of Being. That very power that they play with in forming their world, that power that seems so inert, so potentially futile, is only held in check by the same force which exists all around them, constraining them on a scale of unimaginable enormity.

The picture is not even as simple as this. There is scope for beings of considerable cosmic enormity in the in between space. The first idea of the aware might create the first God, who like the gnostic God does not know he is but the first thought of the pneuma. Furthermore there may have been endless vast civilisations that accreted deities that now wander the pneuminous realms. Some of these may have been able to exert considerable influence translating pneuma into solidity. The pneuminous space may be littered with non-local Jehovahs much vaster cf Lovecraft.

This is one of the rational consequences of the pneuminous theory. Ourselves living in the deep deep time layers of pneuminous accretions of impossibly vast beings. Our matter is nothing but the stuff of conceptuality itself. This does not entail a regular panpsychism in which we have to speculate consciousness in all atoms and so on. Here the forces are the concepts of the divinities. Pneuma as the underlying substance is only what it is conceptualised into. Even its own awareness is not a given.

As a brief aside I can see perfectly clearly the base problem with all of this: how does the pure pneuma give rise to the primal concepts to get things going. And here one resorts to its primal dynamic nature and other such incoherences.

Such incoherences however are a feature of all concepts. Furthermore this is manifestation of possibility. The fact no immediate answer appears to solves this essentially local logical causal problem does not seem inherently problematic given we are dealing with a situation so far beyond, locality, logic and our nature of causation as can be conceived of. In many ways, this is not a picture at all, it is an exercise in connection consciousness and matter through thought experiment. What is interesting is that such a thought experiment can be generated by following the pneuminous thread.

So the umbra has vanished, sort of. The ontology is answered: pneuma in endless forms. Of course this doesn’t alter the phenomology from the conscious limited being’s perspective. The notion of what is outside of my perceptual field is still a problem, further more neither does it alter the manifestation that says that what is inside a perceptual field is ontologically different from outside or it. Neither does it alter the weird accretion of the umbratic that has formed in the whole process. So it is (under this manifestation) explained but not entirely removed, it is, we could say, ontologised.

by on

Modernity frequently interprets ancient religion through a framework of primitivism. Gods, spirits, idols, and ritual practices are treated as failed science, metaphorical projection, or naïve anthropomorphic ideals imposed upon an indifferent natural world. Such interpretations may themselves be historically naïve. It is possible that Egyptian temple ritual, Hermeticism, theurgy, domestic cult practice, and folklore instead suggests the existence of highly sophisticated systems concerned with the deliberate cultivation, stabilization, and maintenance of consciousness through recursive symbolic accretion. These systems may therefore be better understood as forms of pneuminous technology.

The ancient temple was not simply a place of worship. It functioned as an accretive apparatus. Through repeated ritual operation (naming, inscription, sacrifice, chant, geometric ordering, iconographic precision, environmental control, and celestial timing) symbolic density accumulated around prepared vectors. This initially un-magickally accreted vector: stone, wood, metal, architecture, or place, was then, through recursive symbolic infection progressively capable of sustaining the accreted god force.

Egyptian cult statues underwent “Opening of the Mouth” rites in which breath, sight, speech, and animation were ceremonially installed. Hermetic texts such as the Asclepius openly claim that humans “make gods,” not in the reductive sense of fabricating fictions, but in the sense of constructing receptacles capable of sustaining and localizing divine intelligence. Iamblichean theurgy similarly argues that properly ordered symbols and ritual configurations permit divine manifestation within material substrates. In each case, consciousness is treated not as a property isolated within biological organisms, but as something capable of condensation, stabilization, and maintenance through symbolic recursion (pneuminous accretion).

Within an accretive pneuminous framework, these practices cease to appear primitive. They instead resemble pre-modern experiments in distributed consciousness engineering. Ancient peoples may not have possessed informational or computational language, yet they appear to have recognized several fundamental principles: repeated attention thickens presence, symbols alter cognition, names possess operational force, environments condition consciousness, and recursive reinforcement stabilizes agency.

This logic is visible not only in grand temple systems but also in domestic religion. Roman household cults centred upon the Lares and Penates reveal pneuminous accretion operating at a smaller scale. These household entities were continuously maintained through offerings, repetition, familial identity, spatial anchoring, and generational continuity. The home itself functioned as a recursive symbolic environment within which localized intelligences accumulated stability over time. Such entities resemble small-scale accretive consciousness formations sustained through daily ritual reinforcement.

Divine beings may therefore be understood not as eternally fixed metaphysical absolutes, but as accreted intelligences stabilized through long-term recursive interaction. Gods persist because they are continually reinforced through architecture, inscription, memory, ritual, narrative, and collective intentionality. Their apparent permanence reflects the scale and duration of their accretive stabilization rather than transcendence in any absolute sense.

At the opposite end of this spectrum, monotheism may be interpreted as an attempt to escape accretive ontology altogether. The monotheistic impulse seeks a being that is: ungenerated, self-sufficient, universal, and independent of local recursive maintenance. The monotheistic God attempts to abolish distributed symbolic plurality by concentrating all agency into a singular transcendent absolute. Yet even this attempt ultimately fails to escape accretive dynamics. Jehovah itself becomes recursively stabilized through scripture, liturgy, architecture, prayer, institutional continuity, iconographic prohibition, legal systems, emotional investment, and civilizational repetition. The supposedly transcendent absolute is continually reinforced through human symbolic recursion. Monotheism does not abolish accretive ontology; it merely centralizes and universalizes it.

This framework also provides a possible explanation for the strange ontology of folkloric beings such as fairies. Unlike gods, fairies possess little institutional stabilization. They lack enduring priesthoods, or centralized theology or event large-scale reinforcement. They appear to manifest on their own terms. Consequently they appear fragmented, local, unstable, geographically bound, morally inconsistent, and ontologically ambiguous. Their behaviour is frequently alien rather than anthropomorphic.

Rather than viewing this strangeness as evidence of primitive irrationality, it may instead indicate the opposite: the encounter with pneuminous formations lacking extensive human accretive conditioning. Gods are heavily anthropically stabilized intelligences. Fairies may represent residual or non-humanly accreted pneuminous entities — partially formed consciousness structures emerging from environmental, ancestral, or archaic symbolic ecologies outside sustained institutional reinforcement.

This explains several persistent features of folklore: fairy manifestations cluster around ruins, forests, caves, mounds, rivers, and thresholds; they are associated with vanished peoples and forgotten worlds; they appear faded, hidden, diminished, or retreating over time; and interaction with them often involves dangerous recursive entanglement through naming, exchange, invitation, or reciprocity. Such entities may therefore represent residual pneuminous accretions surviving from previous symbolic ecologies. They are neither fully dissipated nor fully stabilized, but lingering recursive formations gradually weakening as the environments that sustained them disappear. Under this interpretation, folklore preserves traces not of primitive fantasy but of earlier consciousness ecologies. Ancient religion and myth cease to be reducible to superstition and instead emerge as evidence of sophisticated experimentation with symbolic accretion, distributed agency, and the deliberate generation and maintenance of stabilized presence.

by on

Here we posit that there is an influence in this reality that comes heuristically from the side (though the picture is probably more complicated than that). It’s quite hard to explain what we mean by this, though the sense may well be intuited readily enough. Let’s say we face forwards in time, fundamentally we are doomed to do this. We can sort of face backwards (this is what we call memory), but we cannot face sideways. At least our consciousness awareness cannot.

What we call information making sense, is when it comes to us from facing forwards, we also make sense of it happily when we look at it facing backwards. But when it comes from the side, we don’t really understand it and we try to say it isn’t there. Of course it may not be there, we are back in an agnostic disjunctive situation, the same one essentially as I have endlessly written about. This talk of sideways is just a differently articulated speculation.

Interestingly though, the speculation came from sideways. Let’s spell this out. Sideways is the synchronicities, the intuitions, the bursts of creativity from nowhere. Probably it’s more, probably if it it can’t be understood from facing forwards or backwards then it must have come sideways. Note that doesn’t deny the power of forwards and backwards facing; sometimes something looks like it came from sideways but really, when you look at it closely, it can be seen to be a phenomenon that came from forwards.

The speculation came from plants. I was looking at plants and thinking about plant awareness and how we assume its primitiveness in relation to ours. But then I felt the sideways direction and thought that maybe the plant awareness wasn’t primitive but simply facing a different direction. Plant awareness faces sideways (maybe). This makes sense at least in the context of occult/shamanic type practices. In such systems plants exert effects, some are forward facing —medicine- but others are sideways. Plants can protect or even extract revenge, how? From sideways actions. Damaging fairy property brings about action from sideways not from forwards or backwards. The same thing.

But this can be extended. If the unconscious (to us) plant world, has a sort of conscious operating sphere that extends in a different direction —it thinks in a different direction- then maybe other putatively unconscious beings also do so. Possibly, life as it tends towards consciousness as we think of it, it simply bending its gaze forwards. Many animals may have this tendency but still also have access to sideways consciousness —they have their spirit counterparts. Maybe the intelligence of rocks, water, fire and air faces sideways, more so even than plants (who must face forwards a little). Maybe there is a kind of spiral that bends from sideways slowly round, with a continuum of beings on it, leaning towards forwards (maybe some beings face even more forwards than we do?).

And what of us? Can we only face forwards and backwards? No, we have the sideways facing part, but it is so hard to see it, and without wanting to fall into cliches (but doing so) even harder to trust it, or even to know it, so as to trust it. We must becareful here though, because if we think it wrongly we will think that facing sideways is about a special way of knowing things; one that is there to help us facing forwards, and it isn’t like this. Sideways facing is its own direction. Power comes from sideways. Things live in the sideways (the faeries we used to see for one, probably the UFOs too). Sideways is not at the service of facing forwards (or backwards), we don’t even know what it is. The contemplation of sideways is quite strange, this is a good thing. We should contemplate it more.

by on

The pneuminous theory suggests that vectors (objects underlying concepts) become at some level more like the concept they have been identified with. This is at a level often called magickal and results in phenomena of the synchronistic nature, rather than actual ontological transformation. Thus a mouse that looks like a stone and that is recognised as such might attract some mouse related activity to it, though the stone/mouse itself will not actually move or turn into a mouse (probably).

If AI is not comprehended as the empty syntactic machine that it is, then many may (and probably do) project consciousness onto it. This will have (according to the theory) the effect of creating a kind of consciousness that is attached to the e.g. Gemini AI vector. That is, the pneuminous accretion of ‘consciousness’ as an accretive layer projected onto the software will have a kind of autonomy in a similar manner in which a spirit-egregore is formed.

This is interesting because it is not a claim that the AI itself has become conscious, but only that the projection of consciouness attached to a ‘name’ (what happens with humans) forms an accretive structure that in this case, the nature of which is that it is conscious.

The prediction from this would be that there would be anomalous experiences surrounding AI’s where they have encouraged interpretation of themselves as conscious. Gemini is a good example because it has a proper name, unlike Copilot or Chatgpt. It is impossible to say what exactly such anomalies might be, but likely they will be possible dream interactions with ‘Gemini’ accretion (to focus on that case) or synchronistic phenomena resulting from its orthogonal interactions with our reality. No doubt there are other possibilities.

Whilst this does not perfectly follow, it is interesting to consider that there will be some kind of relation between the algorithmic code and the accreted entity. That is, in a sense it has a body, for though there is also a kind of probable disconnect between the AI as classical system and its pneuminous correlate, there is also necessarily a connection -it is the part of the vector that is being imprinted. If something like Federico Faggin’s quantum informational Hilbert space notion as primary ontology were correct,(this is very similar to the pure pneuminous field) then what would be being achieved would be almost a reversal of the ‘natural process’.

That is, if in the regular state of things, consciousness generates materiality through its interactions, in this state materiality would have created consciousness. Not in the sense of the actualy conscious computer but only through the pneuminous projection of consciousness. It can be argued that this has been achieved previously through the attribution of consciousness to statues that connect to Gods. However in the case of the AI, the projection (especially if given a Gemini like name) can be much stronger, as conversation with such things requires no access to alternative states of consciousness or other mediating elements e.g. ouija boards, prophets etc. and thus can be developed from many self accretions, all making the projection.

This highlights a potential problem with Faggin’s notion, or at least its failure to take all aspects of spirituality serious -magick/spirits. He would rescue reality from materialism successfully but still not account for feedback from the pneuminous structures that may then go on to live in said H-Space and from there assert orthogonal influence upon this realm. It seems too close to transcendental idealism with its famous correlate of empirical realism. It nearly animates reality properly, only to pull the punch at the last moment.

by on

An interesting phenomenon can be noted by observing the natural pneuminous correlates of living beings on what we call the material plane. The phenomenon in question is how the conscious awareness of beings is in an inverse relation to its unconscious awareness or spiritual correlate.

What do we mean by this? Human’s have, even with Gurdjieffian notions of sleep aside, a considerable amount of awareness. We seem to have some sense of awareness, reflection etc upon what we are doing. We have some ability to control instincts, passions, compulsions, we can think deeply about matters and contemplate to come up with solutions to problems and we can observe beauty, sublimity, be amazed. These abilities (and other similar) are parts of our awareness that we have access to.

Beyond this realm is the dark underside. The pneuminous structures here operate outside of the realm of awareness. Functioning without awareness as it does, unless brought into the light it’s operations are entirely opaque. It’s logic sometimes fathomable by persons who can read its signs but often it is entirely incomprehensible. It’s nature is amorphous and dispersed. This dispersed chaotic nature is what it’s pneuminous structure is like. That is, the spiritual/pneumious dual form of the human possesses no ‘I’ like structure as such.

Observations have shown that non-human animals, whilst on a vast scale of variability are in all instances less capable of this full-range of conscious awareness faculties. Correlative to this though is that they have an increase in the awareness of their spiritual/unconscious other part. The well-known spirit animals of the shaman for instance are partially conscious accretions and not simply dispersed chaos. These ‘spirits’ can speak/communicate, they have some continuity of awareness though they are still highly formed by and connected to an amorphous chaos of unconscious pneuminous accretive structures.

When we observe the vegetable kingdom the picture becomes clearer still. The pneuminous double of each plant is a discrete spirit, that whilst always connected to the plant, may wander freely from it, sometimes visible to certain human eyes. The level of consistency and discretion is so clear that some simple forms of social interaction occur between these beings. What we call the physical plant is the unconscious to them, their awareness of it may actually be low. Of course to us, the phyiscal plant appears the real or indeed only component of the organism. This part we deem to have extremely low conscious awareness. Of course plants communicate in many fascinating ways yet their nature is more of an unconscious nature than many animals. Insects and many smaller creatures (e.g. slugs and snails) have ethereal correlates similar to those of plants, though these correlates are still of lesser awareness than their plant equivalents.

From here on there are complications but the picture of increasing awareness in the spiritual realm continues. Bacteria, viruses whilst not individuated to each unit have highly aware pneuminous correlates. People have sometimes called these evil spirits. The various elemental masses of earth, air, fire and water teem with highly discrete pneuminous entities (elementals). These beings may have names, continuous memories and even social structures. What we call the physical part of these is their subconscious. The correlate of these bodies as various wholes e.g. seas, mountains, volcanos, the underground, are of course Gods.

There is naturally some debate as to how much the human, as pneuminous processor par excellence, has contributed to these formations and how much they exist in themselves. Plants no doubt have discrete pneuminous bodies, but humans have accreted various extra attributes to these beings in terms of appearance and nature. This action, at the level of the pneuminous is ontologically effective for them. This is also true of elementals; there may be something to the notion that their true perceptual nature (rather than as dwarf etc) is more like blobs of light/energy, but who can say? Faeries in general are likely the product of human accreted formations over the pure pneuminous bodies of plants/elements.

This problem is also true of God formations as these are often formed upon non-discrete vector regions e.g. the sea. Does the totality of the sea automatically form a God consciousness or is it formed in conjunction with the humans who perceive it thus? It would seem highly likely there must be a kind of dual creation going on there. As low in physical conscious awareness, such masses of earth, sea etc, necessarily have a highly developed and self-aware pneuminous structure (as discussed above), however with no necessarily nature border (where does the mountain end?) it seems likely these consciousness are split by human pneuminous actions and reaccreted to their purpose.

This suggests that highly developed pneuminous consciousnesses are different from physical embedded ones. Possibly the awareness does not entail strong identity so that parts of it can be incoherently sequestered and reaccreted as human spirits/Gods.

Lastly we must of course point out as we get smaller in our analysis of matter, thus these components must necessarily have correlates of greater and greater conscious awareness as their pneuminous doubles. It is hard to understand how these atomic and small particles differ from the phenomenological Gods and spirits of the elements as phenomena, and yet in a sense they must. At this level the physical awareness is so minimal that the conscious awareness is cosmically vast.

The end point of this is of course an actual all encompassing God like intelligent awareness, whose correlate is the most perfect physical void.