This transcript is of a conversation between the CEO’s Balthazar Schlep and Lis who has been experimenting with various sorcery techniques. We do not recommend emulating Lis’ experiments at home.

Lis is italicised to differentiate the voices.

CC is Carlos Castaneda. DJ is Don Juan. AP is Assemblage point (the energetic intensity that determines what reality will be experienced). IOB is inorganic being.

These comments are extractions from my finally initiating The Art of Dreaming and putting my experiences in terms of words that can make some sense to someone else that is not batshit seeing the moon as goddess and such. I start from a point of asking: how can the humans create more fibres? If we think, for example, that we are made of pneuma as is everything else in the reticulum besides the umbratic (so not the reticulum), acquiring more pneuma as power implies that one quite literally merges one’s pneumatic body with pure pneuma (in the form of accretions, for example). But that yields a problem of identity: if the organism is pneuma and the other accretions as well, why do they appear different at all, interact as if with a thing of its own and have this movement of push and pull? This is the same problem faced by the concept of the force of gravity. In physics, we know gravity is not “real”, what it is, is a gap in our system’s explanatory power (as in cohesion). Pneuminosity is this double counterpart of the pneuma and also its rationalized “energy”. So pneuma itself is doubled into the transcendental pneuma and the immanent pneuminosity. Now for why your description of luck describes karma: ‘power as acquired by someone facilitates what we call luck’ So this lucky person is what I would call a pneuminously resonant region. Their luck is relative to the limited perception of another person that can only perceive as the other’s luck some unexplainable synchronicities (here enters ineffability). The ‘dragging’ of something towards the luck unconscious/conscious desire is exactly the problem of identity: if a pneumatic someone exerted their effort towards, say, a chair, they could grab it via telekinesis. Could this happens? Maybe, but what we know is that it must necessarily be ridiculously hard to achieve. I ponder why is that and come to the conclusion that affecting direct pneumatic objects, or the pneuma that forms them, is likely impossible for the energetic output of humans as we are. So what we do is not affect but effect (or effectuate) other simpler things, so that, indirectly, we pull the chair towards us. Language is such an invention. We ask another pneumatic body to bring the chair to us. Language also is not restricted to humans as we are, since the chair is also a pneumatic body of different regional shape due to degree, we can in theory use language to communicate with the chair that it should move itself towards us. And so we have Wi-Fi, electric chairs and neural connexions as implants. This indirect way we expend whatever it is we are (pneuma) to effectuate a desired change is what I call pneuminosity. Since pneuma itself cannot be expended as in destroyed, what we do lose is *our* pneuma (or gain), which is the notion of pneuminosity, or simply bound pneuma (instead of the catch-all term for free-state pneuma that is pneuma). You said ‘so the directed power of the being taps the accretion/node through the reticulum and draws it towards it which raises the question what do we do with it?

I knew it was connected but this obviously has bearings for the notion of the non-ontology I was after of a pre-philosophical subject and how power would interact, pre-ontology I think I was calling it. Anyway what you say puts it in a clearer light, as in whilst such a being was still in a pneuminous world, I think there was a sense of greater vector field proximity, this may be true but maybe not for the reasons I was thinking. The pre-ontology in which occurs what we would call anomalous, is just woven in as nothing of note can now be thought. In terms of the transcendental field of a given organism though, with a set of accretions that give way easier to deeper vector field levels, the spikes as you call them, acquisition of pneuminosity would occur ‘naturally’ as it were and has no sorcerous technology applied to its acquisition. So I’ve always said that regular objects are magickally constituted by the doubling process of ‘use object’ which through  regular use becomes archetypal accretion, in this way the object is made more than it is, as the accretion is reapplied to the vector region of the object making it albeit slightly more like the archetype.This is nice (I always thought) because it flattens the difference between regular objects and magickal ones.The former are vector regions with concepts applied to them that fit the bill, e.g. calling this region ‘stone’ makes sense, everyone agrees with these rules, the accretion fits the region, but calling this vector region mouse even though normal rules would say it’s a stone, even though maybe it looks a bit like a mouse. The second instance can be magick as the application of an accretion to a vector region that would not ordinarily accept that accretion -according to use rules. This picture is fine but it still assumes even in the non magickal version that the organism can accrete So what holds the accretion together? And you say pneuminosity right? This is find, but I am still a bit confused about where its coming from? How is it formed from the pneuma as accretions such that it is the power itself that holds them together? I may well have missed a turning in what you say, I think it’s helpful to go over it though, there doesn’t seem any point going one without clarification.

So think of the pneuma vs pneuminosity in terms of gravity: we know there to be an almost magkical force that seems to be generated by objects large enough and exert a pull on objects small enough relative to that object’s mass. But we also know gravity to be a local thing, an emergent effect that is not, in a sense, “real”. We now know that the distortion of the space-time continuum yields us here on Earth the appearance of there being gravity at all. The same goes for pneuma and pneuminosity. Which one is gravity, however, depends on a certain number of constraints when talking about them.

Indeed pneuma seems to not need umbra in the accretive system, that’s why, since we’re dealing with a new system (is it even a system, CC’s sorcery?) I bring the actual concepts of CC as umbratic “invaders” incoherent from the accretive theory viewpoint. That’s how we can methodologically think of it not to make a mess.

Methodologically here I mean only in the unravelling sense, since I think we can indeed, after systematization, re-exclude the umbra through the creation of the philosophy of sorcery. * I think this part on explaining our intuitive methods/constraints is important. I don’t even know why I’ve glossed over this entirely with you. Sorry about that “why is reality solid and intractable sometimes and other times fluid and manipulable” The answer I was thinking here is that, for us humans, solidity and fluidity is a matter of pneuminous resonance (which simply means we’re at the epicentre of regions in pneuminous resonance — that’s pneuminosity).

“this make pneuminous accretion inadequate without some extra notion of power that determines the ability of the organism to force by extraordinary means the desired thing to happen” That’s pneuminosity. The extra notion of ‘organic’ power. Pneuminosity is the transcendental barrier for our use of pneuma, the maximal threshold which we can say we are pneuma with an awareness of itself. If it were differently, everyone would be flying and smashing asteroids together for fun.

So, since we are tackling sorcery with the accretive system (but not within it), we can say that pneuminosity is the possibility of making regular objects into magickal ones. This is not a two-way street, however, since once magickal that object is imbued with the conditions to transcend our capabilities of continually altering it beyond a certain limit. That limit is personal power, given how relative it is.

When we think logically about this, we get to notice that if this above is the case (that we can pneuminously make objects magickal), then what we think as regular objects are simply magickal objects of either a degree too imperceptible to us or an order of magnitude surpassing our personal power to ‘see’ them as such.

The predator, the Eagle, is the extreme case of this and a necessary formal aspect/postulate of the system. Like an inverse prime mover (Aristotle), the predator is the one to end it all (instead of initiate it all). Because we need to postulate, once we peek into the seeing, that what we see as regular reality is there for a reason, and is in fact a circuit of habit intentionally imbedded with so much power (although not pneuminosity, but pneuma in its freer state) that we take it as a transcendental ground. We take it as nature, for example. Nature is the machinations of the predator to groom its favorite garden (for food). But again, this is a formally necessary postulation used for pedagogic purposes in sorcery (it is indeed the inverse of Aristotle’s God, which is ontologically necessary and so realer than everything else).

The predator need not be taken as real at all. In fact, nothing in sorcery needs because its goal is physiological.Shortcut is that pneuma is absolute for us. It’s there and even ourselves are it. Pneuminosity is just a namesake for the pneuma we make resonate within ourselves through the physiological alterations performed via sorcery.

I was considering the umbratic and its shifting role. So in regular perception as discussed it’s almost like a regulative idea, it’s the idea of the ‘behind perception’, the ’round the corner’ the possibility that being that is perceived can literally not be ontologically identified with being that isn’t perceived.

Even if none of these effects were real its idea would remain because it presents as an agnostic disjunctive. But in reticular perception ‘seeing’ these things don’t apply because perception isn’t done with the eyes, it’s just not the same. So accepting that we seem to be happy that like DJ reticular perception is essentially noumenal. There is no umbratic behind and hence there is no such epistemological problem.

What arguably we still have, which was also a kind of implicit role of the umbratic is the notion of structure, originally in the phenomenology it went accretions, vector field , umbratic, so the vector field kind of was a fine unnaccreted layer over the umbratic which the accretions inhabited in regions, the umbratic was giving a kind of invariant structure which under certain circumstances (magick) could be over powered by the accretions. This has obviously changed with the pneuminosity resonance notion but there still seems to be some sense to me of why anything looks like anything in particular at the level of particular worlds? This was an earlier problem that needed the umbratic for structure.

But now it isn’t required at the level of an underneath, but may be at a level of laws/natural structures? Do you see what I mean, the reticulum entirely exists without humans, that’s absolutely true, this is also the answer to speculative realist notions without the anthropocentric OOO of people like Harman, or Bennet.

Maybe you can say why not, but I still feel there is a stable force at the level of a given assemblage point that makes things look a particular way. You can’t just say its mutual intent because it has to have started somewhere…

This transcript is of a conversation between the CEO’s Balthazar Schlep and Lis who has been experimenting with various sorcery techniques. We do not recommend emulating Lis’ experiments at home.

Lis is italicised to differentiate the voices.

CC is Carlos Castaneda. DJ is Don Juan. AP is Assemblage point (the energetic intensity that determines what reality will be experienced). IOB is inorganic being

Yes, I mean we’re nearly full circle here aren’t we. As of course this kind of god egregore kabbalah thing is one of the aspects that sparks the whole pneuma business. Just one question concerning your usage of the umbratic. A controversial term I know sometimes. I’m not entirely sure if I disagree or not as I’m not sure of your usage here. In a previous discussion it was translated into the CC world as the unknowable. This stems from how I’ve always taken it to be, even if not an actuality, a phenomenological actuality, the idea of being outside of pneuma or the vector field even.

“The umbratic may be understood as any given region of the vector field that achieved a degree of freedom qualitatively different from the other regions. Like a spike so big it achieved escape from the field and became its own smaller vector field.”

Maybe I misunderstand but this almost seems to place the umbratic within the encounterable which purely on a definitional level would not be possible. However I can see there is some kind of revision here given that the reticulum plays a kind of access to the in itself tunnelling into the vector field is heading towards the umbratic. I almost feel this as if it would ultimately end up with the reticulum and whilst I cannot see energy and this is all speculative I cannot feel like the problem of the umbratic exists in the reticulum. It not have the same kind of relation of ‘what is the status of being behind my head, behind a closed door’? that can prompt umbratic type ideas in this reality.

But yes I totally see a lot of what you say there may be some minor terminological harmonies to make so in what I say I don’t mean ‘this is the real usage of the term’. I only say it so you know what I’ve meant so we can see if we’re talking in the same way.

The vector field is the total possible kind of space (but not only space since it covers the a-spatial and the temporal) that facilitates our ability to use words and thus stick pneuma as accretions to regions. A region of the vector field could be a small as a speck of dust, or as vast as the universe, it has a concept applied to it (in both cases its incoherent because its a use concept). So there is always a kind of dual process, usage which is minimally accretive and then what we could call object formation, the full blown accretion or fluid archetype, what appears in your mind when you think of an x. Does this all tally with your vector region?

What I feel from your writing is a sense that the blank perception attempt -trying to not see the objects- is insufficient, it only reveals more accretive layers and the second attention is to really get into that blank perception space which takes energy and silence at least to do it sober. I can make most surfaces or repetitive patterns warp and flow if I stare at them. This is a second attention like process. But it’s so surface like that it’s largely pointless.

Another thing is :do you mean something other than pneuma by pneuminosity? As in, can I say that pneuma is produced in a sense by humans e.g.? I would have said previously in a speculative way that pneuma was already there and that humans accrete it spectacularly. If I think of it as the reticulum I would say we make fibres which attach to other fibres. This then makes it sound more like the production of pneuma from the reticular perspective. The whatever the fuck the stones and things are in the reticulum only shows up as fibres (the unaccreted vector field seen in the reticulum), but when they are ‘stones” we’ve attached fibres to these other fibrous regions, which makes accretions more like knots.

I’ve been reading a pop science book on fungi, it’s a good book on that current wave of interest in the mycorrhizal web that underpins pretty much all life. And of course (and I think you’ve hinted elsewhere at fungal interest) very very reticular, which only metaphorically of course makes me wonder about concept infestation of vector regions. I’m thinking of the concept as a spore (the usage) which grows into the object as fruiting body which replicates. I know I know Burroughs has done this largely with the virus thing.

It also reminds me about  how Seranoga was supposed to have written many of his poems. It’s really quite a fungal method. He took someone else’s poem and then inserted his idea. He changed it from the inside retaining different degrees of structural similarity until he was happy with it. Some people say Seranoga was supposed to have met DJ or had contact with those sorcerers, but probably you know that.

On another point, you don’t mean that IOBs are purely accreted (by synthetic) do you? This is an interesting one generally which the epistemological status of the earlier version accretive theory would generally agree with -it was all accretions. However the recent tendency towards accepting external ‘real’ powers suggest to me that whilst yes IOB is of course an accretion like anything with a name.

They are also beings that can we say exist in pure pneuma rather than having even a sense of physicality. In vector field language we cannot apply the concept physicality to them in the ordinary sense but they are not just things we have stuck together unlike the Gods which I would probably agree. This being said there will be many nature spirits that may well be human formed accretions. Thus both exist, it’s hard to say where it stops really isn’t it? An egregore can presumably make an egregore if its consciousness is sophisticated enough to do so.

On dreaming, the view I held before was that like images in the mind dreams are unbound pneuma, this kind of raises the question as to what vector field will be in dreams (if one had enough control). From the descriptions it seems that dreams can be ’empty’ this is also something one can feel to be true as well. Even lucid dreams can be empty but the possibility of connection exists i.e. through this pure pneuminous land into the weird places. This is in principle easier than access from ‘reality’ but of course developing dreaming control is tricky

Re your ethics comment, I just wrote this yesterday ‘This infinite play of reticules reminds us also of Deleuze’s hero: Spinoza. Remember Spinoza talks of there being infinite attributes to substance. The reticulum instantiates this claim in a practical way. Space-time is just one experience of the reticulum. Sorcery is the interaction with the other attributes of the reticulum. ‘

Also I remember now the better relevance of the mycorrhizal thing. Remember originally how beyond Ballard/Sellars I was saying you could interpret the modern communication network not simply as our nervous system writ large but rather that the nervous system is this worlds way to try to instantiate the reticulum. So the mycorrhizal network would be more of the same but possibly a better example.

Yes, it’s along these lines. At first I also thought that what I saw as silence was achieving this peeling off of the accretive to an interaction with the vector field, a more “pure” interaction. But then what happened is that the peeling off of an accretion is like spiking a region that reverberates the force used to peel it off. This spike and reverberation travel through the surface of a vector region and depending on the energy exerted it goes into other regions. But here’s the thing, there doesn’t seem to be a difference between affecting one region and affecting two. What seems to happen is that affecting one region enough makes it dissipate itself over other regions, and they become one expanded vector region.

This expansion in the vector region results, instead of in a purer contact with the vector field and more silence coming spontaneously, in the proliferation of whatever was in the region separate to inside the region that was spiker and merged with a bigger one.

So instead of spontaneous silence, the exercise of cultivating silence open the attention to indeed more noise

Which makes automatic, everyday existence, harder due to the level of energetic activity one has to maintain to keep the noise in check. Like a newborn learning to tune his ears

I like that Spinoza section a lot. Indeed it resonates.

I’m thinking of the pneuma as whatt seemingly was already there when we came into awareness of our own historical condition, and of pneuminosity as the “simulacra” of the pneuma. That thing which closely resembles it the most while still being “an imitation”. But an imitation refined enough that it can “work” almost like pneuma does. It’s in this sense that I’m thinking pneuminosity can be produced by humans much like bees make honey; using our own bodies like factories for this stuff. I was also thinking of the puffs as a color-spectrum of pneuminosity refinance. The white smoke being the “purer” (that I know of) of the colours.

The white fog/smoke being the stuff of dreams, it would be secure to say something along the lines of: we, pneuma, produce pneuminosity, and the side-effect of this pneuminosity is dreaming. One can use this to modulate one’s pneuminosity and better comprehend the operations of the pneuma that is without the dreamer.

The knots that you said it make accretions resemble more is what I’ve been calling nodes. Nodes are like these extremely loaded regions that seem impenetrable (no peeling off) even from the second attention

But a knot would differ from a node even linguistically, in the way a knot implies a tension between relations maintaining a structure together (it can be stressed to the point of unknotting)

While the node is more akin to the concept of a corner in interior design. It’s less a tension of relations between lines and more a structural holder in itself. Knots and nodes would differ only in degree.

I love this idea of the spore and even have a name for it: sporification

About the IOBs, by synthetic I don’t mean purely accreted. Synthetic here means the opposite of fabricated in the sense that pneuminosity is fabricated while pneuma “was there”. The synthetic is indeed a category instead of a mode, and I would say only the umbratic is properly synthetic (to take from Laruelle, it is pre-prior). The inorganic beings would benefit from being understood as synthetic beings (since, for example, a rock is inorganic but not an IOB).

Or it is perfected enough to the point where the pneuma in resonance in a given region, instead of pulling things into itself, starts to push them out. This is the possibility of making the pneumatic self less dense (or more dense) than the sum total of density the region enclosured by nodes can support.

So this happens

OK let me keep poking for greater clarity, don’t get me wrong I’m mostly there, there are just I think different angles of concepts that I’ve been using that I need to see how they work with this expansion. So with no energetic perception when I try to look at me room as not a room but undifferentiated hyle

Your recent ideas would mean doing this does not reach the vector field right?  Which phenomenologically I previously would have said. I can see how the reticulum could be the vector field itself. This makes a kind of weird mishmash of the earlier versions of the umbratic vector field thing

The vector field as reticulum would be something most organisms do not perceive ever but that as the biological and cultural formations of the organism develop directly attach to in the sense of the transcendental and as broad accretive structures that are carried by the vector field. So these broad transcendental structures would then be the thing I was previously calling the vector field.Does this tally?

About the room: I would say the room itself, as well as you, as interacting with each other due to the resonance between vector regions (consider yourself a vector region and the room another). Both regions are in the vector field. When you look at, say, the wall, you’re not “seeing” the field because what you’re seeing is a myriad of resonant accretions between the two regions. Still, the very possibility of seeing the field implies you’re always already in it.

Indeed, something most organisms will never perceive precisely because that’s what being an organism is: it’s being in a central point of resonance between regions, which make the habitus of the body work. Say, for example, the circadian rhythm of someone: it’s an organic circuitry modulated by exterior and interior relationships such as luminosity, onset of sleeping patterns, stress levels, even the noise or birds as they go to their nests and you know it’s time to go home and start to relax. This circuit of sleep, unique to each individual organism, is dictated by the nodes that make enclosures around a region.

When something deals a blow to what in CC is known as the assemblage point, it disrupts the organic circuitry . So, for example, you may gain more energy and less need of sleep (or the opposite) from recapitulating memories.

I think the ontological electricity of Twin Peaks may be a good example. So power structures accretions? This makes good sense, as you get it back if you take them apart. Back to Twin Peaks insofar as the pylon borders are intense electrical-power edges, fences which require a lot of power to go through but by this virtue are reservoirs of power themselves.

I think you basically, with some tweaks, explain the concept of karma in a rational way. Let me try to say what I think power is in that specific sense.

At a glance I think it reminds me of the descriptions of using the will through the eyes and so I want to ask have you experimented with the will centre umbilical tentacle thing at all?

Just a bit, the way I told you. At that party. It didn’t really matter if the eyes were open or closed. This cord energy thing is not something I can replicate with ease like what I assume is dreaming (when the fog appears). It needs a certain level of energetic chaos, like a party, for it to pronounce itself more. I think this has to do more with the level of “living being” or mode of life I’m used to, which is people. I feel training with the wall of fog thing can make the connection possible during dreaming, given some real effort.

This is the phenomenon I mean. It’s clearly light refraction, but the moon shines like that. It has receded a bit from the corner there, as you can see, and settled in a position that barely peaks through the window

There are many very interesting things in here. I see again the Laruelle correlate with your notion of the transcendental grounding of the transcendental. I feel there are like two pulls here almost, you have managed to see how general babble of humans is strategic at semi-conscious levels. I mean sometimes we know we’re making strategic chatter and sometimes we don’t. I can readily understand what you mean but of course my interaction with it is theoretical/psychoanalytic and partially intuitive since I have always had some facility for reading people. However you are talking about something else. As in even if I am reading people correctly, applying that kind of mind-will to the situation (e.g. willing someone to turn around, or talk to someone else) is ineffective (for me) because it is only internal or at least is the kind of failed magickal attempt that makes these processes look not real. I presume this is because it comes from the mind-emotive structure which is tied to the internal dialogue machine and pretty impotent, whereas you are talking about manipulating the threads through your will (if we make it in CCs language).

I suppose these kinds of abilities are as you say the practical face of sorcery. Sorcery is and in a sense has to be physiological, this seems right but it also means we have to extend the physiological along the multidimensional axis. It springs to mind that sorcery positions one in a relation to any given world in a similar way. If all these worlds were real real then presumably some of the inhabitants are just in those worlds and not multidimensional beings. Sorcery seems to emphasise the movement between the worlds. Though because it is a perceptual alteration when it is applied to a world it reveals things that are hidden and equally when applied to the world itself it reveals also what is hidden (the other worlds). Which makes sense with the epithet ‘stop the world’.

As for it being open to everyone, I think this is true and not true, it is a difference of degree but some energy forms are much more receptive to it than others. This turns on the accretions that are plugging people up and maybe on an energetic configuration. Some kind of capacity is possible for everyone for sure, but then even as writing this it opens it up as a broader weirder term. Sorcery is maybe just an umbrella heading for the way in which perceptual alterations manifest. DJ seems to say clearly that sorcerers have wildly different tendencies, some can see, others can’t some aren’t even impeccable, some people who can ‘see’ aren’t sorcerers and so on. So it comes to function as a kind of heading for a collection of perceptual extensions through all manner of plug ins, to the exclusion (in the case of our definition) of systematized ritual words especially and practices arguably too -which is magick

On a related topic, I mean I think it was your answers here that made me go over this, I was considering how vast the accretive set up is and really how well it all ties in. I mean we literally live in the accretions, as in whilst still pneuminous you managed to peel a layer off to see a level of activity that whilst not the vector field, was kind of closer to it. I remember I wrote something before trying to convey how space is literally so pneuminously accreted when you consider that what we think of as space in physics is in such a flux the idea of identity is ridiculous even before you get to relativity. here and there are accreted, it is the conceptual structure of things we live in. It seems preposterous but it would back up the weird reality things in CC and in buddhism/daoism if digging away the accretive layers revealed the vector field but the vector field is so so much deeper than my imagined access by a kind of phenomenological perception e.g. looking at things and trying to perceive them as a continuum of non-separates.

The vector field is the well of sorcery.

Completely. The vector field as this well of sorcery makes it “made of” in a generic sense (using analogy) the unknowable. However, the unknowable as the transcendental of the transcendental is still a reflection not of our inability to consider the vector region, but because it is the only stuff we can understand the vector region being made of (as in having as property) from our viewpoint as organic beings fabricated by the accretions themselves in their field of interactions.

So although vector region is a generic term, it is not an abstraction in the sense of a kind or substance (the unknowable), but in fact there are an infinite continuum of interactions in the form of accretions forming and disintegrating in regions of the vector field. I think the synchronicities are a spontaneous/accidental and partial peeling off of the accretive interactions, momentarily. My “crack” in the attention resulted in a strangely accurate feeling for synchronicities, as if palpating their shapes in the dark. The moon stuff seems a case of this, in which more and more synchronicities are perceived after the fact of a type of ineffable experience.

This peeling off the layer could be understood in terms of resonance. If we have awareness as a rule for knowledge in sorcery, we still lack a definition of awareness. Right now, I’m thinking awareness is a threshold of resonance between the maximal amount of accretions in a given vector region (not the entire field, but a region). When this threshold is crossed, it’s like the accretions themselves give way to a peak of energetic activity in the region that we think as the totality of our awareness and so think as our vector region (when in fact we are not vector regions but occupy them).

This energetic peak is similar to a sublation of the accretions that compose us, but instead of the usual Kantian sense of his last critique, we do not pass through a sublimation-like correlate. Instead of the accretions giving way, they in fact resonate more with each other in the vector region which we occupy and that we perform the outburst of energy. So the vector field itself is not experienced as such, but the movement of accretions and their production is halted from disintegrating within that region.

This ties with CC given the immense energy one needs to use the second attention, and how each time knowledge is achieved one has to increase the level of impecabillity lest it displace one’s entire energetic reserve into the resonance (which implies other vector regions are more liable to be tapped as in attuned to the frequency of that region in energetic overdrive).

So if we think of the vector field as this infinite continuum, vector regions are artificially induced zones in the vector field that are maintaining a threshold level of energetic resonance which we understand as awareness. Vector regions are the sorcerers themselves, and the vastness of the zone is entirely dependent upon unique developments of that sorcerer

A vector region is the totality of oneself, and one doesn’t have it set from birth but is said to be fated to encounter its limit at death. So although at first glance it may seem like a Landian time-war thing, it’s more of a system of ethics. A system of ethics immanent to the vector field. (not in the sense of norms, but more in the sense of capacity, what can and cannot be achieved, in a Spinozian sense).

Dreaming is not necessarily the act of dreaming, but the art of expanding the awareness of a vector region by changing the circuitry of its interactive constituents. Dreaming is dangerous because the “personal power” of the dreamer may get lost mid resonance within its own expanding field. Invading forces appear due to this increasing resonance, and so one needs to partially close the second attention instead of simply leaving it open for as long as possible.

This creates a “problem”. This almost monist interpretation implies that pneuminosity is a perhaps unquantifiable measure of energetic resonance. In other words, it is something correlative with power. If we understand power as the force of structuring and control of accretions in their regions of the vector field, pneuminosity would be the “stuff” of power, the formalization of its principle in an ontological system.

This seeming problem, on the other hand, is a solution to the zones issue: how we explain there being divergence in the tonal/nagual and between zones themselves. For example, liminal spaces as a region in the vector field that, due to energetic resonance, has a degree of pneuminosity in “freer” state than heavily accreted regions like the economic heart in the middle of a city.

Pneuminosity, then, is a flat notion with a spectrum of modality. But, in the first attention, there can be perceived only the two extremes of its degree of freedom: bound and unbound pneuminosity. The maximal threshold of bounded pneuminosity is the opaque, material object, while the minimal threshold is the affects and forces that stimulate language production, such as immaterial accretions; notions, concepts. The second attention is simply the physiological alteration to perceive more of the spectrum besides the two extremes.

With the middle of the spectral band as the place of most condensed energetic resonance (and the gate to the third attention, where pneuminosity is in such a free state that it changes qualitatively. This qualitative change is the umbratic.

To become like the eagle is not necessarily impossible but for anyone reserving personal power it is a vacuous task (given that the very stuff of power is less rich in reality than the eagle itself).

Oh, I forgot to tell the biggest implication of this: pneuminosity can be produced. Like an economy has factories that, say, due to desire (investment) displace the wood of trees into machines for producing paper, pneuminosity is the material produced by awareness due to the desire (investment) of the predator (in our CC case, or our entire world’s case, the eagle) in an economy of worlds beyond the second attention itself.

This ties well with the universality of ritual practices and religious experience throughout the history of humanity. Gods are egregores, reflections of the human as we peek collectively into the figure of the predator as its shadow passes through our world. Our collective channelling of awareness’ desire towards escape projects the egregore into the limit of the second attention.

These egregores act as guides for that social body which projected it, and so also act as bridges between the first attention and the black horizon of the gate into the third.

These gods, that uniformly form pantheons across all cultures, reign each over the aspect of our relationship with the predator as themselves aspects of our relationship with the predator. While the predator itself is the totality (and end) of the world.

Proto-monotheism in the form of pluralistic forms of esoteric knowledge (such as the systems that became kabbalah) understood the pantheon while arche-principle and so developed formalized circuits of representation (the tree of life, for example, is the entire genealogy of a pantheon put into a language of/for channeling). The sefirot are each an aspect or egregoric god-aspect of the totality of the world that is the circuit of the entire tree. Malkuth being the limit of the first attention and Keter the limit of the second in a way representative of the godhead. To simplify, this was obviously co-opted in the transition to full-blown monotheism.

This transcript is of a conversation between the CEO’s Balthazar Schlep and Lis who has been experimenting with various sorcery techniques. We do not recommend emulating Lis’ experiments at home.

Lis is italicised to differentiate the voices.

CC is Carlos Castaneda. DJ is Don Juan. AP is Assemblage point (the energetic intensity that determines what reality will be experienced). IOB is inorganic being

Maybe the second attention thing works like an antenna attuned to stuff that might lead to more awareness, so maybe the unconscious, not necessarily the nagual as metaphysical character, taps into others’ calls for reasons who can know. I think along the lines of relationships between figures of thought, which are the accretions in a restricted mode. DJ would probably say it’s futile to try to think about stuff like this.

But I now feel that what DJ was truly meaning was, in fact, just to say it’s the moon and roll with it. Not because he thinks it’s the moon, but exactly because he’s not interested in playing with the relationships that former the reflexion of that interaction. But now I get why an Indian in Mexico would have to live like that, having to secure two different lines of life (Yaqui and businessman) he had to take a rune-like chant: anything goes. If he’s late to work because of some heavy hallucinogenic session the day prior, he is actually not late. He just says “eh, it was the moon”, brisks it off and is at work. Which seems like a specific to DJ magical pass (he had an affinity for the throat/tongue if I remember correctly). So yes, it’s all relative to perspective.

When I say it’s the moon accretion it’s not meant to be denigrating (you don’t sound offended I’m just being clear). I mean there is nothing but the moon accretion for the moon to be. There’s a vector region right. That changing light thjng in the night sky. The moon accretion in all its scientific occult detail is plugged into this vector. Now maybe bodies like the moon have consciousness that isn’t just egregore formation. Even if they do it will be altered by the human accretions. You did necessarily in a sense talk to the moon. The feeling is sufficient to guarantee that the accretion was tapped. The only caveat would be if it was possible to delineate between and actual moon consciousness and the accretion. I don’t really think you can do this though

Oh not at all (I mean not offended). I’m really just having a lot of fun and going with the vibe. You have to remember I was already c Oh not at all ( I mean I’m not offended). I’m really just having a lot of fun and going with the vibe. You have to remember I was already cracked on psychedelics long ago, I’ve seen stuff just as weird but never had racked on psychedelics long ago. I 100% agree that’s how it is (on the vector field). I even said so sometime prior, no? In a paragraph where I was rambling my experiences. That I started to understand it as fields of relationships and relations. That’s the concept of the reticular reflexion (I “become” the moon to the same extent that it becomes “me”, it’s a matter of perception altering itself to a minimally increased level of awareness (so in this case being that all this weird stuff converged into a moment where whatever force that could help me do what I needed helped me get to it). That’s was “this mission”. The fictionalization is very Laruelle but as we say, better.

Even if the moon has consciousness, it’s something on the level of a god (which she herself is to a lot of people). There’s no way anyone could fully tap into that as in fully become one with the moon. I understand that my word usage “a oneness” was misleading.

I’m not so arrogant to think something like that. I thought we were clear on the fictionalized aspect of the becoming. But yes, it’s indeed a vector region with fields and tensions. All shamanic encounters are themselves mediations, because the shaman is the seer. The mediation is done through the shaman’s body. Maybe, in a very accelerated state of mind, the inscriptions that won’t over my skin have something to do with the general development of tribal tattoos and the body modifications of some cultures. Giving there is a central shaman, which itself is a metaphysical character, one but taps into as in becomes the shaman’s avatar for that time as organic being, surely cultures would develop body modifications to approach the archetypal shaman-warrior and shaman-healer/diplomat.

One good thing to add before I forget is that the inscriptions were indeed symbols that seemed cohesive. I almost indulged in the moment and tried to crack them. But when I started to try, the symbols started shifting into eyes, not one the same. It didn’t feel bad, but like a protective cocoon — a temporary one.

They didn’t leave my body, though. They just became scarcer in visibility until disappearing. I felt like I could “purge” them out the other palm if necessary.

I don’t think you’re arrogant. Sorry I wasn’t trying to be didactic about the vector field thing. I think I write it over as it excites me to see and think it through in a concrete instance.

I know, you were just trying to ground me. I appreciate the concern. I mean, if I really had cracked for good it would be a nice way to ground me again.

An openness to recalibrate and consider everything, as magical as it may have been, “just that” is the key to balance the dangers I’d say. That’s why probably no one should try just doing this stuff without someone else helping along. The sorcerers take an apprentice and don’t let go of them for a reason.

New short report: family party yesterday, but only more of the younger generations (cousins, their pairs etc.). I think due to the quantity of people tight in a house after some time doing dark rooms and the occasional guidance with few friends, something changed. This lot of jumbled emotions and thoughts in a room and through corridors, going in and outdoors etc, put me in a really weirdly new state. I became like a separate person: two senses of perception, one the normal me making conversation with everyone, the other still normal me but one tasked with interacting directly with the affects swirling through. Like the eye thing, that each one becomes a different perspective instead of amassing all the information into one normalize vision.

It seemed, instead of a loss of lucidity, like there was more of it. It was just like I was being me normally while now able to feel the affects like a music. The cool part is that each thing hit me like a “unit” or package (quanta) of emotion, like intonations in a song, and it hit like chords of a harp or string instrument. So, in essence, it felt like reading the “hearts” of people, and, through the intention behind words and acts, not interpret but have instant access to what they’re trying to accomplish by saying something. Everything said, say a comment about a series that’s on the tv, was an analogy or metaphor to speak about interpersonal relationships. Usually to criticize someone to someone else without nobody noticing (with the theory of the unconscious, if striking at something true at all, attests to this infra-perceptive dimension that we are always communicating between ourselves unbeknownst to the ego).

So I noticed something: all interaction between the people there, even though using topics like music and film, careers and hobbies, were not in fact about any of those things, but only about the people inside the house, usually the people in the same room. Everything from outside is a means to an end, the end of conveying influence towards someone or something through acts of perfected subliminal manipulation. It did not feel shameful, but beautiful. Like the veil of humanity being superior in a metaphysical sense, or even rationally, completely fell off to a jungle of gibbering bonobos.

When I noticed this, and due to it I felt even better and more attuned to the party, I started trying to isolate certain tunes. From these tunes, I tried isolating the exact chord towards a certain person in order to reproduce back, reflect to them, that single tonality of a chord continually. It seems to correlate (phenomenologically) in a less than scientifically acceptable way, that I catalysed the leaving of a couple of people trying to cause confusion and, and that’s ridiculous I know, a type of spontaneous orgasm on a sofa (a woman, just by herself).

If anything, if we speculate a correlation here, these chords and their tuning via these bursts of energy directly to other people’s specific chords seems like the filaments of light (although I don’t have enough power, as DJ would say, to just see them in their entire splendour).

The attitude of the people, also, goes well with the vector region/reticular reflexion: concepts and notions in language games. As Wittgenstein said, if I remember correctly, that if someone could really see all the intricacies of his face (I presume to an atomic level, or sub) then he himself would be being read like a book. Not only language in a restricted sense, but our own accretions (concepts, notions) are constructs that serve functions. Yet they’re machinic because they exist outside us. They are real but we fabricate little linguistic machines out of them, using them as pieces to a temporary message that serves a purpose, an end. After the fact, if the intent is conveyed or not, the little parts that are the accretions go out of the vector region and disassemble back.

This last analogy makes any sense at all with how the accretive system was “opened” through the zones research? How you’ve been saying that the reticulum may be the solution to the problem. Sorcery is indeed all about physiological changes (if this is correct) and how these changes open pathways to new ones via an expanded/altered form of perception.

And veritably has ties (if not being it entirely) with an ethics of ethics. A meta-ethics (since it essentially is the process of changing the ethics of a body — a body of people, a bloodline). Both organized religion and science (arguably almost a religion of the new paradigm), and philosophy itself in its classical understanding, and really any social institution, has its common root in sorcery as a practice ulterior to we as humans. A process of which nature uses to regulate itself, with animals as part of it (and seemingly more attuned to nature in the first place, to a society with institutions, because of their radically different institutions). The reverberates the shaman’s lemma that all modes of being have a human spirit, making humanity not the Homo sapiens, but what makes the Homo sapiens capable of developing norms to accrete institutions to shape its own development in the first place.

So the appearance of there being a nature at all is a condition of being human (as in partaking in sorcery), which grounds a transcendental reality as the sphere of influence their concepts are operative (functional) for the creation (poiesis) of their institutional bodies and the field of vector regions that intersect them like the skeleton of a body always in formation.

Sorcery is, in this case, the useless name for a version of Heraclitus’ flux on steroids. Everyone that has a nature and is compositive of a kind partakes in it at many levels of existence simultaneously (daily life, molecular life, atomic life, subatomic, etc.). It is a transcendental condition for the sense of transcendentality to be derived from in the first place. The sorcerer, then, is not different to anyone in kind but in degree. The degree of freedom/perception/awareness of all these existential thresholds makes one a weak or powerful sorcerer. Impeccability is the lemma because anyone who affirms to be a sorcerer, is one. There are no restrictions of participation because it’s not an institution but the fountain from which they spring like artifacts. Inorganic beings are merely the name expressive of any existence that has more energetic conditions for awareness than whatever remains with a nature and kind. They are inorganic due to this fact, and in fact are entirely synthetic beings (instead of synthetic organisms, which only organic beings fabricate as a means of simulating the energetic output of the synthetic beings/inorganic beings).