Pneuminous Accretive Theory Overview

OBOA (Organic being of awareness) PA (Pneuminous Accretion)

Let’s be clear as we can be. The binding of pneuma into accretions is the overcoding of strata only insofar as the strata are already coded. Deleuze and Guattari seem comfortable with the pre-existence of the material strata as comfortably existing in its own right. PA theory is less so because it accepts no neutral scientific classification as non-pneuminous. Everything is part of the network of overlapping PAs. The physical strata and everything we understand it is a complex mesh of PAs. This is not identical to a thorough going Kantian denial of access to the in itself as such, for OBOA exists in a kind of membrane by which it incoherently delimits itself and the outside. This membrane is exists both as a vector field region with an attached PA and as a pure PA which is formed by the OBOA producing the PA of its own limit.

The OBOA then (the human in this case) binds pneuma which is incoherently external to it -though it is also formed of pneuma (see (ii)). It can be pointed out that the non-pneuminous stratification of the physical must be there in some sense. However precisely because the target is the paranormal event, these strata cannot be pre-given as such. The allowance of the understanding of the physical strata as identical to the physical strata science and continuous perception/understanding of the world would automatically preclude the radical reality shift possibility of pneuminous interference (at least in one model of pneuminous interaction).

So are the physical strata coded in themselves? Since they manifest in the vector field as differing regions, we may assume that umbratic existence is heterogenous. However we may not assume this heterogeneity is identical to its manifestation in the vector field —since each BOA will produce a vector field of a differing type relative to its perceptual system, size, etc. We are then allowed to treat the physical strata as coded in themselves (with the above caveat) hence the PAs we attach to these strata-regions are overcodings. These overcodings as PAs are ontologically constraining on the strata.

This is the magickal feedback of normal reality. Through use, a relation to a vector field region is formed, this is a PA layer but not of great strength. The PA forms more solidly when the PAs of the perceptual features and function common to the various ways in which it appears, accrete to form a kind of archetype of the of the thing (a contingent Platonic form). This archetype is a functional magickal PA, except of course its purpose is in no way to contradict the vector region onto which it is imprinted. Its purpose is to be that thing. Hence since the vector region is only ‘that thing’ by virtue of the PA inhabiting it and pneuma is a force, the PA constrains the vector region to be more like the archetype than it would otherwise be.

Pneuma though is not outside the strata, it is also a stratum, its difference lies in where it lies. For pneuma lies on a plane not conceivable by regular human consciousness. We can easily repeat phrases like non-spatio-temporal and this ease of repetition somewhat inures us to their actual meaning. Pneuma is a stratum that can be considered separate from the umbratic —a well of infinite strata.

When accreted and subject to certain intensities (relations to OBOAs) pneuma warps umbratic structures. The content/expression structure of a PA means its content substance plugs into the umbratic via the vector field. Whereas its form of expression concerns its use-relation to the OBOAs and its appearance (the aspects that form the archetypal PA). Thus an intensity (a strong affective event) at the OBOA level can cause pneuminous pressure to be directed into the umbratic bringing about what the OBOA experiences as the anomalous event.

Please note, this post follows on from this post which in turn refers to this document on pneuminous accretive theory..

ii)

The next integration we need to achieve is the content/expression description of a being of awareness (BOA) as a PA (pneuminous accretion). We are trying to steer clear of making an identity of life and a BOA in order to account for BOAs that may not be considered alive. This does mean that the kind of classification will differ again between organic and (what Castaneda called) inorganic beings —to this we might also add beings that are physically deceased whose pneuminous structures persist (ghosts).

Organic beings of awareness (OBOAs) can be considered on a continuum in relation to their ability to manipulate pneuma into accretions. The manipulation of pneuma belongs to the form of expression. The substance of content is also conceivable on a similar spectrum, whilst the other two categories can be thought of as staying effectively the same (form of content and expression of substance) for any OBOA.

The two invariant structures of the OBOA are:

Content form:                          Underlying codes -genetic/electrical/unknown

Expression substance:             Cells, organs, bodies, nervous systems

As mentioned the form of expression can be heuristically be broken down into three stages of pneuminous manipulation.

  1. Performs an extremely simple manipulation of pneuma that scarcely accretes it. The organism shows some vector field differentiation insofar as it seeks an energy source and may respond to certain kinds of stimuli. Insofar as it encodes these stimuli and energy types it can be said to be forming various simple PAs.
  2. Has a complex relationship to its environment, differentiating between a wide array of stimuli (vector field regions). It seeks energy sources, shelter, safety (avoids threats), may indulge in leisure/play, can problem solve, experience emotion. It can communicate in a sign system with other OBOAs in 1 step communication -it can communicate a sign but not the sign of a sign. These things are possible because it has temporal encoding (memory) of a complex order. This means its ability to accrete pneuma is considerable. Many vector regions will receive small pneuminous accretions from such an OBOA. A process resembling subjectification may well occur, which will form a similar kind of emotionally imprinted PA (a feared predator, a safe hole e.g.). There will also be some formation of something resembling a free-floating PA owing to the 1 step communication, as this is still going to form some kind of PA thread at a physical distance from the vector.
  3. An extremely complicated catalogue of recognised stimuli (vector field regions). Seeks energy, shelter, safety. Can problem solve in a highly abstract manner, play, develop complex abstract play, produce complex culture, develop mathematical abstraction and apply it, has a complex emotional component. Can communicate multiple step communication -can communicate the sign of a sign and potentially more. Produces complicated communication/data storing systems. Can temporally encode vast amounts of complex information. This means its capacity to manipulate pneuma is huge and its ability to form PAs vast. A hugely complicated array of vector regions will be differentiated not simply on spatial fronts but also on abstract ones. Incredibly complex relations will form between these PAs in the way they various connect and overlap with each other in the dynamic constant alteration of the BOW. The vector regions to which the accretions are attached will shift as PA possibilities increase or decrease. On local levels many vector regions will receive strong subjective (as in subjectification) PA attachments complicating the picture further. In addition, this kind of OBOA also ascribes unique names to many kinds of vector regions, including other OBOAs. This imprints PAs into the OBOA regions which have complex feedback mechanisms.

This tripartite heuristic does not identify any specific biological entity range, but rather aims at delineating three places on a continuum of ability to manipulate pneuma. Having said this, the stage (iii) OBOA is clearly something like a human.

Since everything we experience is formed within human pneuminous structures, the OBOA is likewise. The OBOA is a PA but it is a PA whose vector region both takes the description of an OBOA and has some underlying structure that makes this possible (a nervous system, though nervous system of course is also a PA).

Similar lines can also be drawn out of an OBOA PA as extended from a non-aware PA. Because the pneuminous surface generates the idea of the beyond, this beyond (the umbratic -see document on PAs) either actually exists in some incomprehensible way or is near identical to the structure unearthed by the pneuminous interaction except for the double motion of subtraction and addition. The pneuminous grasp adds the accretive layer of pneuma to the vector region (which plugs into the umbratic) but in the grasping of necessarily only the partial, the pneuminous grasp is subtractive of the rest of the umbratic.

Thus since the OBOA is formed as a PA, this PA is attached to a vector region and thus to the umbratic. The OBOA then, as PA, is only partially grasped by itself and by other OBOAs. As such the OBOA itself has a tendency towards absolute mystery which is obscured when the PA is perceived as totally exhaustive of the vector region. This is not the idle epistemic mystery of OOO or something similar, this rather pertains to the paranormal possibility of absolute otherworldly interactions.

The OBOA also has the almost opposite direction of subjectification. The OBOA is constantly having accretive layers formed onto it, both by itself and by other OBOAs. These are the intensive attachments that it and the other OBOAs form about it. In the system of things (normal physical PAs) subjectification picks out one amongst potentially many and accretes pneuma to it (a memory, and attachment). In the case of OBOAs, all of them are subjectified by each other. Of course, not everyone is subjectifying everyone, but everyone is being subjectified by someone, even the lonely are often being subjectified exactly as lonely. Thus especially the OBOA type (iii) accretes many PAs.

In this way we can see the tripartite heuristic of the substance of content though we note that for all three the substance -of the content for type (iii) OBOAs must in some sense be that of the umbratic and also the vector field (which is formed of unaccreted (or unstratified) pneuma) since one bleeds seamlessly into the other.

  1. Reflects no PAs back upon itself. Constituted by PAs projected upon it either at the simple stimuli level or by investigation from type (iii) OBOAs e.g. doing science.
  2. Such an OBOA partially reflects accretions back onto itself to constitute a self (e.g. memory of its own image). Is mostly constituted by the PAs projected onto it by other OBOAs. Other OBOAs of a similar type (this does not mean biological genus) will form PAs of such OBOAs.
  3. OBOAs of this kind are constituted both by the PAs projected onto them and by the PAs that they project onto themselves. Thus the act of believing you are one kind of person and someone else believing you are another are both competing pneuminous forces exerting partial determinacy of yourself (PA of the self).

Thus the notion of subjectification applies most relevantly to the type (iii) OBOA. Subjectification in the case of things pertained to OBOAs having accreted pneuma to them under certain circumstances owing to affective encounters with relatively unaccreted PAs e.g. a rock is just a rock which is still a PA but its discovery on a beach by a child and transformation into a special rock, from that holiday, subjectifies the rock. In the case of OBOAs (iii) they subjectify each other intensively (by affect) constantly, variously hating, being attracted to, being made happy by, laughing with/at, considering stupid, considering wise, considering ugly, being that person who did that thing on that day etc. Some of these accretive layers are sustained by the PA of the self and some sustained by others.

This multiplicity of pneuminous interactions exerts a constant real (magickal) effect upon the OBOA causing it to adhere (albeit slightly) to the nature of the PA (see the writing on the double in the document on PA theory). This occurs because pneuma is a force that operates at an ontological level unlike regular physical forces as we understand them.

These notes are not a definitive position but rather reflect the current state of a process.

Content, Expression and the Structure of Pneuminous Physical Objects.

It appears productive to try to synthesize PA theory with some of the concepts found in Deleuze and Guattari’s Thousand Plateaus. Here the focus is on the possibility of employing some of the language of content and expression that D & G borrow from Hjelmslev.

To briefly recap for anyone new to it pneuminous accretive theory unambiguously exists to propose an account of most paranormality where paranormality is presupposed to be ‘real’ in the sense of something other than current science understands and not something subsumable under neuroscience or otherwise. This does not mean such a belief is held, rather it says that if the phenomena are real then something like pneuminous accretive theory is probably the only place for occultism to retreat to. In this way it is a phenomenology of the appearance of the phenomena under the auspice of rational belief.

The explanation that PA offers is to say that conceptuality should be conceived as a quasi-substance that is attached to regions of existence. The presence of this substance (pneuma) is not some inert force only held within the subject but rather something present in what we call the object or the external. The plug-in of concepts (pneuminous accretions) into regions of being, under certain circumstances can cause radical shifts in existence that we call magick or paranormal phenomena. In short, usually what we think of as the solidity of the world does indeed determine the concepts, but sometimes the reverse happens.

How can we begin then, to translate or engage pneuminous accretions (PAs) with the process language of ATP. The first thing we can try to do is to note that since pneuma is considered to make things (accretions) it has this quasi-substantiality to it. In the Geology of Morals we are asked to consider three kinds of strata: the physical, the organic and the linguistic. Following this line of analysis we can ask ‘can pneuma be thought of in the sense of strata and what would this look like? At a glance it would seem to be hybrid of the linguistic and the physical strata, minimally it will draw on these two elements, though maybe the organic stratum will yet have more to do with it.

Let us consider a particular pneuminous accretion and see if it will be illustrative. The pen on my desk is a PA. Through the original use word pen, I have come expand the rule for pen to many instances. The multiple possibility is the accretion, though it may present itself to me in image as a contingent archetypal form e.g. a biro. The pen accretion is attached to a vector region. By vector region we just mean a region of existence that must in this case be capable of taking the pen accretion. I cannot pick up the mouse and pass it to someone who asked for the pen. I cannot apply the pen accretion to the vector region that would normally take the accretion mouse. The pen accretion will only (aside from the magickal act of trying to attach the pen accretion to another region for whatever reason) attach to those vector regions that allow for the rules of it -hand holdable, can write or at least used to write. When I see the pen, I literally see the accretion (in the language of hermeneutic phenomenology: everything is already interpreted). I see the concept not the vector region. The only difference here (to hermeneutic phenomenology) is that we are hypothesizing that the concept we see is a substance imprinted into the vector region i.e. it is ontologically altering the vector as opposed to being inert (purely psychological) in relation to it.

How can we begin to understand this in terms of the language of ATP? If we are speculating that there is an active force/substance that is conceptuality (pneuma) then we can initially ask: what is the substance and form of content and what is the form and substance of expression of an accretion?

Before we can answer this, we must supply the caveat that the answer may be quite specific to a certain kind of accretion. In this case it is a human-formed physical object. The PA structure could be though of as something like this:

Content substance: Smooth pneuma (the vector field region see the PDF linked above), the possibility of the pen region existing without being processed as a pen.

Content form: Possible structuring codes, designs.

Expression substance: The PA as it is described as a physical, comprised on analysis of composite PAs which tend towards the limits of our ability to enumerate/taxonomize these.

Expression form: The use ability of the object and the appearance of it, the name of it.

To this structure we must add two extending movements. The first of these is the line that extends from both kinds of substance. Content substance is marked as the vector field region. This, in the case of a human-formed object is the region of the objected re-imagined after the object’s creation as not the object but just an unknown nothingness. This is the vector field region into which the PA is projected. Expression substance is described as comprising of the composite PAs that we may analyse the PA into. Both of these categories tend towards the umbratic region i.e. the totally unknowable beyond current scientific and perceptual taxonomies. This line is necessary, for it is here that connection to mystery obtains. The potential that the region can connect to obscure parts of existence the anchor between the PA and the depths of existence that need to be manipulated in order to bring about anomaly.

The second movement is an exit most clearly thought of as from the level of form of expression. This is the line of subjectification (to borrow and slightly adjust a term for ATP). Subjectification pertains to the interaction between a being of awareness and the PA. What we mean by this is attachment to objects of any kind. This attachment is the formation of more layers of pneuma —memories. This formation of ‘special’ objects. In this way the line of subjectification is also related to paranormality. In particular we are thinking here of magickal objects and relatedly the ability to magickally interact with objects and or people at a distance. Subjectification is the accreting of pneuma that allows for the PAs particular identification —most usually through its name  This has in mind specifically human type beings of awareness, though we do not deny it may happen in others too. The accretion of subjectifying pneuma occurs in the use history of the object in relation to other PAs (e.g. of people/events). Its notable (intensive) interactions accrete pneuma to it, meaning it is not simply psychologically special/unique it is also ontologically-magickally (pneuminously) so.

This document compiles the last writings on the pure form of the pneuminous accretive theory. The theory is one which attempts to acknowledge the epistemological ambiguity of occult phenomena whilst subsequently laying out the implied phenomenological metaphysics involved. This document underlines a certain phase in CEO research, which, whilst building on this, is now being overtaken by the evolving reticular ontology.

Please sent any comments to ceo47@outlook.com

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.

This isn’t ground breaking but I think CC is kind of like on the phenomenological path but in a more ridiculous way; it’s like the epoche but then you don’t return to the world to constitute it. The procedures of stopping the world etc. seem like something the preliminary of which is the attempt to perceive the vector field or hyle as Husserl would have it. But phenomenology is interested in reconstituting the world at the pneuminous level of concepts, so this raises the question, accepting that pneuma always was a phenomenological tool, when you dip below the vector field into the weird shit where are you? Phenomena like the green fog in the water, still take classification in the sense that there is still a vector field which we can break into regions and call it things, bubbles, fog etc. So I guess it is still necessarily pneuminous, but there seem to be states that try to be described where thinking has genuinely stopped so conceptualisation is only a posterior event that happens in recollection, there is still awareness going on but could that be called pneuma? Or maybe I just mean is it totally devoid of accretions?

To be sure, though the accretions facilitate magick at the level of synchronicity and spells, for the really freaky levels they seem to be an encumberance, they are the clag that weighs us down, and I think about Land’s phrase the ‘human security system’, and how this is very much the thing Don Juan is engaged in cracking. To this extent CC is not bullshit at all, it only turns on again if the actual reality weird stuff is real or not -and we both know it is to some extent, but I what mean is, real or not, practices like these rigorously applied would disable the titanically strong conceptual apparatus we have erected around ourselves?

But back to the other thing, I like this idea that what we call magick has this essentially different levels or even natures, accretive manipulation -the application of a concept/accretion to a vector region that wouldn’t usually take it (pretty standard spells stuff), and vistas of just other weird shit that doesn’t seem to have any evolutionary function and this seems to be the domain of sorcery, I think this is a bit what you mean by the transversal shaman? It’s a line of escape that is neither healer or killer, just a Cooperesque (in Fire Walk With Me) ‘I’m going over here’

Before reading the art of dreaming I’m conducting some experiments to know how much they match the book’s. And I think I’ve just unlocked the eye thing (before seeing this). It is very similar to controlling each eye separately. It seems to synergize better in a room, and have some command over people. I mean by the eye thing = the left eye of the sorcerer. Remember that? The left eye changes somewhere along the path of sorcery. And I was going deeper into that, looking for some research on this and found that link*. Have you read it?

It startled me because it describes very well the process of guiding a group through a trip

It all seemed like my own way of getting comfortable, but I guess there are precedents for these being “magical passes”, something universal in the sense that taking these plants and synthetics will have an expected outcome

Yeah the phosphene thing, it was really interesting, interestingly I was just talking to a psychology Phd about this stuff, i mentioned the purple puffs that the reddit cc people see. She was interested because she says when they do transcranial stimulation on people (including herself) when they get passed induced phosphenes people often see purple puffs.

When I talked about achieving the eye, I meant that somewhere during the second night my left eye started behaving in a different manner than my right eye, and I started to use it unconsciously to slightly hypnotize people.

So is the left eye right eye thing to do with the tonal nagual sides of the body thing?

You’re aware I have some synaesthesia?

Yes, have you seen the purple puffs, if so can you touch them?

Here’s the biggest thing I’ve noticed regarding the puffs. Exactly, you anticipated me I can now touch it/them. Whereas before, fully sober and before practice, I couldn’t

So if the reddit people were right you should start grabbing it and sticking it on yourself as a regular practice

The sensation is the same, it’s the intention that counts

Yeah,  they say that too.

I’m not acquainted with this procedure yet, but now I’m thinking this makes a whole lot of sense because the way I feel like touching them is with my left part, especially left hand and eye. It’s like they’re entering the pupil by what appears like a constantly forming flux of metallic gas,

Though the dark room gazing focus is too much, I think quite genuinely just like compassion bolsters the buddhist void, impeccability protects the organism from the incursions that the second attention produces. I suppose my comment also means, do be careful, I don’t think all hyperbolic warnings of DJ are nonsense. Clearly your first attention is partially cracked already but if you widen it too much too quickly, you are inviting fuck knows what to pop through.

Indeed, I wasn’t scared but I have been before. That’s why I’m taking some time off this. Before in my life I would just power through it. But as DJ says, each times requires more energy. This moving ball-tube of metallic thing seems to appear over my head if I’m outdoors. But indoors it depends

Maybe it’s an inorganic being. Certain of these are supposed to live in in an assemblage position close to ours and hence from dreaming etc we almost always come across them. These are the ones that Dan etc has. They teach, apparently but want you to hang around in the weird honeycomb world. They teach, your give energy.

Maybe that’s what the metallic thing is. It looks like a 5D bee-hive with an opening that is light itself and it had a pull. So maybe that’s what it is? I never felt like I entered it though. It’s more like a trade or conversation and the darkroom thing might be just a helper. I’ve seen the thing any time of the day and it actually can redirect the light into itself and make the day dark like night. Or the night radiate light like the sun is up. I will read the IOB stuff asap

Have you tried communicating with it?

Yes, the texture of the sound hits me like a bunch of little punches. Like the notes of an instrument on acid, they have a weight to it that can be felt on the skin where the opening is pointing. Mostly it feels like those weird massage techniques where someone taps you continually and fast.

That does sound weird, also highly reminiscent of the way cc describes the moth/ally talking. I’m sure it’s an iob. Not that I want to get all hysterical about that, I think as per the general magickal tradition and in the Art of Dreaming, you don’t belong to these things unless you agree to do so. The Art of Dreaming details how they will tend to teach and try to lure because they want human energy. This doesn’t kill humans at all, it’s just an exchange system. I think people Howard Lee (energy martial arts guy who taught CC some things) distanced themselves from CC because he was using spirits. Again it’s all there in the books really, DJ thinks CCs bent is more like the old sorcerers who did work with the allies a lot

I’ll read it (the Art of Dreaming). Let me guess something. DJ will tell CC that dreaming isn’t meant as simply dreaming (as in sleeping), by that one can dream awake and in other states of consciousness. Confirm? I want to compare how close my understanding of stalking is before entering the analogical definitions by DJ.

Yes.

Because the eye thing and the black metallic thing are both something that happens in a type of space of lucid dreaming, while awake.

It’s really interesting, I see part of the eye thing is in Tales of Power. I guess playing with these things alters what we call its physicality, which I think is part of the really interesting aspect of all of this. That what we’ve got here is something that really is trying to remove the sense of ‘occult’, to remove the notion of a particular set of practices as such.


*http://www.phosphenism.net/castaneda.html