by on

The phenomenological world is not the world of physics. Our notions of constant spatial position would not be true from a physics perspective. However the phenomenological world has no problem with ‘there’, that point, two feet to the left of the table corner. This world is constructed of pneuma, conceptuality. The theory endlessly put forward here (on this site) is that we live in a sea of pneuminous accretions more than we live in a putative substrate (sometimes referred to as umbra), indeed at least consciously, we only live in pneuma. This is not an epiphenomenal substance that really means ‘your mind’, rather it is ontologically affective in its nature and as such, the reason why all manner of paranormality occurs (it is not necessarily beholden to the substrate, or can overpower it).

The determination of what something is, is akin to the collapse of a superpositional state. When any vector region (an area of reality that has the possibility of being an object for us) has its status disclosed for us (by being told what it is, or discovering a use for something) it collapses from a plurality of possibilities into one. This moment is the moment the accretion of pneuma (the concept as quasi Platonic form) attaches to the vector for an individual. We experience this as the difficulty on reperceiving things as different things and being stuck in patterns (this occurs on many scales).

Humans as conscious beings face forwards in time and backwards (memory) but there may be other temporalities that we may presuppose as speeded up or slowed down but in fact are very different. Such temporalities face in other directions, thus some may cut across our own. This cutting across is not an inert vision but an active presence which enables them to communicate or act through what we think of as strange phenomena (synchroncity). From the alternate temporal perspective, this is just action.

There are likely several kinds of ‘interaction with pneuma’ that bring about our events.
i) Events that occur in a truly random sense, brought about in a very real material manner (since this is a real mode of reality). This is still pneuminous, but this just occurs within forwards and backwards.

ii) Events that are brought about by pneuminous noise. Free floating accretions that we have latched onto or that have latched onto us manifest in some form that looks weird (synchronicitous) but has no actual significance to our intentions.

iii) Events that are brought about by interference from other conscious beings. This itself can be broadly categorised into events brought about by other humans, or beings of different temporalities, of this latter category there are those that are purely pneuminous and those that exist in this world (e.g. plants/trees). Humans may wish ill or good for other humans and depending on power and type of action may influence outcomes, however what it suggests is that humans do have sideways abilities, they simply do not have conscious access to them. The abilities of the other beings to influence action is difficult to comment on, but what can be said is that these influences manifest in improbable outcomes and strange occurences.

iv) Humans may influence their own outcomes. Much is written and spoken on this in the form of manifesting etc (a very different usage of the word to my manifestationism). This is the activation of the will towards particular goals; it aims to draw accretive structures towards the individual that will aid them. The manifestation of these circumstances is a sideways force, or at least diagonal.

These reasons (and probably some others) form a nexus of why things happen. They all intermingle all the time, with no one probably more common than the other. Though maybe some people have a tendency to guided by one of these more than another. The emphasis that occult systems place on ‘waking up’ is to lower the influence of other events and to increase self influence (and then not to abuse self influence). The basis of this control is silence, which facilitates the control of the accretions.

The relevance of the phenomenological world as pneuma can now better be seen. Since it is not simply an overlay on something solid, but rather a dynamic realm in itself that is simply mutually anchored to the appearance of a substrate (umbra or the substrate beyond appearance is a necessary appearance) it can change more that we think it can. The mode in which change occurs is through the interconnection of the intersecting temporalities.

The conceptual determination collapse is the seeing an event as pneuminous (numinous). This particular feeling is the collapse of that event from quotidian perception into the alternative temporal intersection that it is. Mostly this is only perceived in strong synchronicitous phenomena, however reperceiving the world in a certain way does facilitate a broader vision of such interactions. The trick is to not obssess with them in terms of meaning, whilst maintaining a clearer pneuminous-numinous view.

by on

The relation of pneuma to time can only be played with speculatively. This however does not mean that reasonable speculations cannot be made, and even if they are speculative they may have merit as ideas to be experienced if nothing else.

Difficult as it is to unpick, it is necessarily true that time is an accretion of pneuma. That is to say, since it is a concept like any other, this must be the case. There is a vector, or maybe several vectors that have the time concept applied to them. This sense of movement and change accompanied by regular patterns of lengthening and shortening days, altering seasons, decay, birth. These are the overlapping vector regions that we call time. For us, it goes in one direction, or at least for the consciously aware parts of ourselves. As Bergson recognised, it has different natures, it has an experiential qualitative dimension in which it can drag or quicken and it has a seemingly objective nature in which we can demonstrate its measurable nature by means of time pieces.

As time has gone by the latter version has become more and more accepted as the only time, and Bergon’s time becomes more like an interesting thought, an epiphenomenal time that we can recognise but know isn’t ‘real’. The pneuminous accretive model suggests a feedback system in which the accretion employed feeds back onto th vector to make it ‘more like the accretion’ in some way. This direction in which this is the case could now reasonably be identified as sideways (see the previous post on sideways perspectives).

So time is an accretion, but part of its vector structure is (as stated) the sense of change. There is a conceptual (accretive) parade in front of us as we move around, an endless series of conceptually understood beings litter the place. Internally (in the mind, another accretion) it is, if not similar, also accretively littered. The internal dialogue, for most people, constantly pours over various ideas, scenarios, worries.

An extension of this observation is that since time is an accretion, a background accretion for this parade of accretions then there is, in a sense, a way to stop it. To not be too crazy about it, I would have to concede that, barring possible extreme spiritual practices that I could only hypothesise about and have no particular evidence to suppose exist, such a notion would not alter reality in the sense of the absolute cessation of time. However I do find cogent the possiblity that whilst the vector field is indubitably changing, the engagement we call time could in some sense be severed.

This would in its most basic sense be meditation, but a meditation that did not focus on any rhythmical pattern, breath or otherwise that tied it to the forward facing time accretion. Such an absolute stillness, with an absence of intruding accretions, coupled with a re-perception of external reality that removed its comprehending concepts (successfully bracketed them off) would essentially form an absence of temporal perception (the removal of the time accretion). This removal would in turn remove the feedback, at least in the region of the individuals accretive connections. There would be no time. Of course the nagging sense that the body would continue to be forward facing persists. It’s a primary manifestation, however there is a secondary manifestation that presents an uncertainty as to how much ontological effect one might achieve by this action. If there is any ontological interaction then it seems to follow that lesser versions of such a practce might also precipitate lesser versions of reduced temporality.

So whilst internal dialogue stopping practices might fail at being as extreme as the one described above, any silence of the mind, removes accretive flow, disconnects us from it, and in a sense places us slightly outside of time (in a way that we should not feel is necessarily simply epiphenomenal). This fits quite well with pretty much all occult/esoteric systems, as they always encourage the cessation of the internal dialogue to achieve anything. Contemplating again the notion of sideways, we might hypothesise that, the removal of internal dialogue that directs the flow of the being forwards, allows it to face sideways. Sideways being the direction in which plant and other beings, often considered not conscious in our sense, direct their awareness. This direction may actually also be a kind of time (in the sense that there might be moving change within it), just time as we do not understand it, orthogonal or diagonal to ours. Certainly sideways has access to our time; this is speculatively, the direction from which synchroncity emits. Thought in this way, whilst Bergson’s duree, is still within forwards facing time, it could be considered to accept a certain wobble, and tendency that takes the being closer to the sideways perspective. From this perspective it would certainly achieve ontological parity with chronological time.

by on

What is the meaning of what philosophy tries to tell us? There are cases where it wants to tell us the true meaning of a concept. Maybe this is always what it wants to do. It then uses argument to tell you why a certain version of an concept is the case. When someone finds the argument agreeable they at least partially (or maybe wholly) become an agent for that system. Heidegger identifies this issue as the question of being. What is the being of something and hence what is the being of being?

The satisfaction that we feel (upon finding something that seems to answer an issue) has two potential explanations. One is that we drift into camps for different philosophies. This is what I wrote about by the notion of manifestationism. This is the idea that, owing to the irrefutable nature of the philosophies, the competing ontologies cannot outcompete each other; rather the agents (philosophers) only choose to adhere to different philosophies based on conscious or unconscious biases.

The second is a more radical conception. This is that there is a correct version. However the correct version is not necessarily one that alligns with an external reality, rather one that aligns with a deep bodily unconscious cognition (as Hayles would call it). In this version, the bodily unconscious already knows what is the meaning of for example, photography. It knows what photography is to the organism, the impact of it, how conceptual interaction interacts with the flat surface and the metaphysics drawn out from this. These exist. Philosophy (or non-philosophy) is trying to access these unconsious bodily understandings that we already have to produce an actually possible true answer. This will not appear in the sense of something proved correct, but rather only with a sequence of argument will give a ‘feeling of correctness’.

The satisfaction we feel in successful philosophy is a kind of almost catharsis at aligning our conscious intuitions or logical processes (either could find the right spot) with this bodily understanding which is already there. This is interesting, as it does not guarantee any particular a priori about reality as such, but it does suggest that a kind of anamnesis is possible, is real. This knowledge would be human actual philosophy. There is a kind of a hint as to difficulties of establishing such knowledge by argument. That is, the philosophical arguments would only be paths that lead you to this harmony with the bodily knowledge, not to be mistaken as abstract procedures that could definitively lead you there. They could be followed badly.

Two consequences seem to appear. One is that the manifestationist issue of multiple ontologies could re-appear through the failure to tread the corrrect paths appropriately, and thus also the failure to find the same places. These issues could be compounded by too much emphasis on seeking the validity of paths, using abstract systems i.e. logic. The second would be that different bodies have different realities within them. That is, deeply encoded in different organisms are quite radically different ways of treating the world (this would then re-align with the manifestationist position). These differences then mean that different cathartic satisfactions must be found to obtain the correct remedy. In Wittgenstein’s terms, there may be different shaped bottles for different shaped flies and different methods to escape them.

by on

I don’t know what’s going on with any of it any more. That’s not to say I ever did, but somehow it all seems maybe more pointless, I’m not sure. Purpose may be what’s missing, but what is purpose? Is it not just a kind of ego desire for someone to read and take note? Take note for what? Creativity is its own end to a point. There is a sense of wanting to have the cake and eat it. That is on the one hand, it is so clear that by an large the agent/accretive theory is generally (give or take an ontology here and there) correct, so I am nothing but an agent for certain informational powers that act through me (we all are). In this sense I cannot author anything as it, in the sense of the old CEO term NARP, I am just a regional processor. On the other hand getting the central accretion of self to understand this such that it can act without desire to have the sensation of production or failure is difficult.

Philip K Dick has a theory of time moving backwards communicating from the future. He manages to crowbar a teleology into this that I am less sure of, however the backward flow of time has some sense of truth about it. There is a Landian flavour to it, though the Landian version is more sinister. In Dick’s it is the holy spirit that is the backward time flow. This backwards time flow is perpetual and may be tuned into; we experience this as ESP etc.

Like myself Dick talks in terms of a pure informational substance that interacts with a kind of material reality. Weirdly like myself, Dick also talks of accretions, a term I thought was singular to myself. He may not mean exactly the same thing but the coincidence of terms is clearly synchronicitous and the usage similar. The backwards flow is clearly an ontological feature that I never particularly took into consideration, though I can see it makes a valid manifestation of possibility that could have agents adhering to it. In my terms, this would be a backwards projection of accretions from the future; why this would happen though is outside of the scope of my phenomenology. Dick must adhere (I think) to some sense of pneuminous interference with putative materiality. Either that or the information is all already present in our experience and it is simply our attuning awareness that perceives or does not perceive it.

Then there are numbers; it is also strange how Dick focusses on 2-3 74 as a thing. Surely he was aware of the whole 23 phenomenon -though there seems no mention of it. 74 is also highly significant as it suggests 47, the number that has been part of my own guiding thread. Indeed 74 is just as relevant in a sense as the two numbers form an oscillating pattern at the heart of base 10.

And then there are the bases, and how base 10 is a filter through which we see reality. Land knows this too an performed an unusual decoding that crosses the pneuminous-vector barrier with considerable potency (the numogram). An in the bases, in the arbitrary months and years and institutions we exisits. We exist in the pneuminous layers of conceptuality. This is the demiurge. Jehovah or Yahweh, an old Israelite war God sits smack in the centre of endless accretive layers of mad Godhood.

It might even want to be giving real reality, but all it can give its pneuminous accretive reflection. If magick is real and accretions can affect reality on a transcendental pivot, then the mad God is bending things to its image. The layers are all its allies, or most of them. The months are real as accretions, the letters are real as accretions because accretions are ontologically effective not simply psychologically passive.

What is the hyperqabalah? It is nothing but the desire to reaccrete the demiurge. To show it’s contingency and align it with the primal power of 23 and 47, whose numerical realities transcend base 10.

Joe Hoover is everywhwere. He is so omnipresent we cannot see him.

This is the second centre that closes down on itself and creates self consistent reality. I don’t know any way out as such on mass but I think one thing the occult type practices do is innure one to the power of the accretions. That is, the silencing of the mind and the raising of awareness.

But this is very very hard and has to be understood as a particular kind of liberation.

Do I mean all of this?

Maybe.