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

Night considered as a power in itself has structural similarities to one of the forms of zones listed in these writings. The zone referred to is the spatial-temporal zone:

“Spatio temporal zonal manifestation appears only at a specific place and time. The entrance
to the Black Lodge in Twin Peaks was exactly such a phenomena. Magick is of course littered
by instructions to do certain things at not only certain times but also at certain places. In this
notion lies the spatio-temporal zone.”

What we mean then is that night functions as a temporal zone -where zone means region more prone to anomalous interference from trajectories not usually experienced (alien, crypto-zoological, ghosts, non-human spirits etc).

Night’s ability to act in this zonal capacity is interesting insofar as it may suggest either something in common or something different to other kinds of temporal zone e.g. astronomical/astrological particulars.

The standard explanation for the zonality of night concerns its ability to restrict human perception. Human accretive reality fields restrain the chaotic outside in a literal fashion. Light is an intricate part of this system. Perpetual feedback systems of solid realities as accretions fed back onto the vectoral (hosting) outside help to maintain the appearance of a near perfectly solid reality. Transcendental repression of small anomalies easily covers over tiny cracks.

Darkness alters this. As light withdraws, even though conceptual and other senses continue to work with the outside to maintain physicality at near similar levels to in daylight, there is necessarily an increase in the lack of stability. Fear of the dark can exacerbate this, both by increasing instability in the system and being attractive to entities that normally are outside of the reach of solid physicality. The instability generated by various anxieties and actual ontological looseness results in an increase in regular reality being breached by the anomalous.

These two processes themselves are also exacerbated by the night-time accretion itself. That is, the historical interconnected threads of the night in the pneuma (conceptual substance) make a vast accretive structure that itself autonomously alters the vector (the time region that the ‘night’ as accretion inhabits). No matter how much rationality may be imposed upon the vector in the modern day, this solidifying pneuma will only be partially successful in altering the mythic powers of the night as accretion.

In zonetology zones have been attributed with generating a kind of vacuum by the withdrawal human conceptual structures (dereliction). This conceptual vacuum has been assumed to be attractive to forces that can create anomaly -the speculative causal ‘reason’. Zones share with the night the accretive overlay effect which can multiply the anomalous potential of a zone.

In this sense though the zone-as-night has more similarity with the spatial zone than with some spatial-temporal zones. Our inevitable experience with this phenomenon on a daily basis bears some resemblance to a spatial zone that we might walk past every day. Twilight also fits this kind of description though twilight itself has a different accretive structure.

However spatial-temporal zones as they are otherwise defined can be shown to be different. Spatial-Temporal zones that are defined by particular configurations (astronomical/astrological) do not have the easy repeating nature of either the night or twilight. If it is augured that to be on a particular hill on a particular day may have some particular other worldly property, (if we accept this) we may infer two possibilities for its truth. i) is that a particular set of actual forces are in play in what we experience as ‘that time and place’ that will yield some kind of anomalous effect. ii) is that, having been given the coordinates for the ‘event’ we accretively project anomalousness onto this vector region and as such we facilitate its occurrence. We might note that if i) is true (so long as we know about the event then so is ii) (the accretion will necessarily be formed) whereas ii) might be true and i) was not.

Of course other forces might be in play on particular nights, however this is besides the point in relation to our zonal delineation. The zonal (anomalous) power of night has two faces, one human accreted ‘the night accretion’ and the other quasi intrinsic to our relation to it -the withdrawal of human visual perception. The power of the temporal zone however potentially comes from a particular intersection of hidden forces that create the zone or solely the application of the accretion to the spatial/temporal vector.

It is the former of these two points that is the crucial distinction between such zonal conceptions. Both faces of the night are contingent on different relations a particular species (humans) has with the night, one accretive and the other a feature of how its perceptual system functions. Clearly these demarcations aren’t absolute and it is hard at some level to strongly separate the withdrawal of light and its hiding of the world from the cultural-mythic accretion of ‘night’. However even treating them as two poles still renders the structure of night as differing from the spatial-temporal zone and its potential for being brought about by either simply accretive powers or actual hidden forces, utilised by humans but potentially simply occurring whether they are aware or not -and accretive powers..

With thanks to Emanuel Magno for the reticular word and ongoing discussions on this topic.

A reticulum is a network of fine lines. Reticular ontology describes reality in terms of these lines. The reticulum can be said to account for all relations between all phenomena both in reified object (molar) modes and relational-becoming (molecular) modes.

Reticular ontology unambiguously accepts the potential reality of all phenomena generally labelled paranormal/anomalous/spiritual. This does not mean there are not seemingly ‘strange’ phenomena explainable within an already comprehended band of reality, however it does mean that all potential realms that might account for extreme anomaly are accepted as existent.

As such common human perception only perceives the reticulum through a small lens -though is of course formed also by incredibly restricted access to the reticulum at large. The narrow region of the reticulum enables stable structures but also facilitates apparently strange alterations by their connections. The strangeness of the alterations is only only perceived as ‘strange’ by our inability to perceive the reticular flow in all its complexity.

The previously much discussed pneuma and its accretions are also reflected in the actions of the reticuli. Pneuma was put forward as a substantialised concept substance capable (under certain circumstances) of making alterations to the more generally recalcitrant ‘umbra’ that hides beneath. Pneuma now becomes an aspect of the reticulum that occurs in structures more like knots than accretions.

The fibres of the reticulum connect all things together and they are all things together -accepting that individuation is not necessarily part of the reticulum itself. Paranormality and associated phenomena are simply the actions of lines that connect across in ways we cannot perceive as cogent. To return to synchronicity, when we wonder what the connection between the dream and the event is, we can now understand that reticular lines quite literally connect the two.

Humans as reticular bundles move amongst the network (reticulum). However one must not conceive of the reticulum of consisting of simply one reality of this kind, it must be conceived as multiverse but not in a passive sense. Reticular engagement of what may seem to be relatively banal kinds can easily result in a shift to an alternate reality directly connected by a particular reticular flow. This kind of shift can be likened to a convergent tectonic plate shift, in which the plate appears to be heading one direction but then travels downwards. Factors previously understood as pneuminous accretions (conceptual entities) may be responsible for such shifts though such shifts may simply be flows in the reticulum of a movement more akin to the movement of the wind (when considered as an impersonal force).

As such existence is constantly formed of reticular band convergent slides and incursions from other differing angled flows that may form knots within a given band. A fluid experience from stability to ambiguous half-paranormal experiences (luck) through to attention grabbing anomaly is the result of the reticular interactions.

Previously we considered sorcery as a kind of response to the void. We also consider that maybe the previously phraseology of void-parasite may be awry. This is the case because the void must always be mediated and hence it is not the void that is the parasite but the void-mediation-system. In the examples of Buddhism of sorcery we may broadly say that compassion and awe respectively mediate the impact of the void upon the human-vector.

We can consider other activities also as responses to the void. Not least of these is philosophy. Philosophers all brush with the void to a greater or lesser extent. This encounter is (for example) the dizzying vertigo one gets when encountering Descartes radical doubt for the first time. This sensation is often (but not always) easily repressed and the activity looks like one more mode of study. But of course what characterises philosophy is that really none of its questions receives an actual answer. It has this character because there are no regular knowledge criteria for the kinds of questions involved. This is because it responds to an encounter with nothing. Ultimate questions have no answers, only speculations: What should we do? Maybe this… What is the nature of all things? Maybe this…

Philosophy proceeds by creating and counter-posing logical speculation against logical speculation. Sometimes more regular-world criteria emerge from other disciplines (science, logic) that facilitate the partial withdrawal of some aspects of it. However otherwise what happens is largely a proliferation of systems reacting to a total unknowable.

In this way philosophy is indeed a void response, only unlike the awe and perceptual manipulation of sorcery and the compassion of Buddhism, it focusses on arguing about what is the case and what we can know. It is what it thinks it is: a love of reason (to interpret wisdom in the way in which philosophy has evolved it).

Such talk cannot help but put us in mind of the work of Laruelle and our own notions of manifestationism and agnostic disjunction. Laruelle puts forward a similar notion of war between differing ontologies, none of which can triumph, as all are reliant in the last instance on the One. The One in this sense can be likened to the void. It is the font of all concepts and yet contains none in itself. What we note also is that the conception we have of philosophy as an encounter with the void presents the void as a transcendental condition for philosophy and stronger than this philosophy is a transcendental consequence of the void. The human as human cannot help but develop these questions because the void is real and hence cannot help becoming locked in their labyrinthine argumentative structures.

Two additional observations come to mind. The first concerns prescriptive religion (largely monotheisms). These are interesting insofar as they do not so much represent a void interface as a-voidance. That is, they deny at least the moral void whilst preserving the ontological void -only God can understand being properly. The response that humans should have to the world though is not up for grabs, rather it is dictated by the deity in a book/system of rules.

The void is a more rational response to existence whereas the dictator God seems less so. However in a sense either of these notions is equally plausible such that they form a kind of meta-manifestationism (meta-non-philosophy). That is, it seems that the void/prescriptive God opposition operates at a different level to which e.g. idealism/realism does.

This fascinating consideration aside there is another way in which the prescriptive God works with the void. If we consider pneuminous accretive theory (which is a void entailing theory) to be correct, then any monotheistic deity can be seen as a vast pneuminous accretion that by its own conceptual power (definition) entails its supreme nature. As such, this supremacy is to its followers (and even to some extent to non-followers) actually supreme and its laws ‘real’.

In this case such a deity does not so much as make a void mediation system as a void-protection system. The monotheistic accretive entity cocoons the void and prevents the humans from coming into contact with it, offering up instead a deity complete with life and death explanation, teleology and morals to determine how existence should be lived. It is of course the removal of such a cocoon that Nietzsche called the death of God.

Secondly, and this in part builds on the possibility of a two tier philosophy dissection. It seems interesting (if maybe not at this stage plausible) to potentially align the void interfaces with the Jungian quaternity.

Such a lining up would tentatively be as follows:

Thinking Philosophy -mediated through reason

Feeling Compassion -mediated through good deeds

Intuition Sorcery -mediated through awe, astonishing events

Sensation Pseudo-Hedonism -mediated through physical work and sensory pleasure.

My thought slowly lurches from the direct clutches of substantialised conceptuality (pneuma) to more prior considerations. The chief of is the locating of what are called paranormal phenomena in a space where their paranormality is not possible, that is where they are simply a part of what is, and as such do not represent any kind of rupture.

This means considering such phenomena as ontologically prior to their being held as rupture or anomaly. This hypothetical position may be taken to be a kind of transcendental state not unlike the Laruellian one. That is, it serves as a unifying condition of possibility from which the perception of anomaly may be perceived.

Furthermore the analysis of phenomena as pneuminous accretions itself makes an overly rational analysis of the phenomena. To be fair this is what it is supposed to do i.e. supply the most reasonable explanation if one accepts the phenomena. This however ignores the primordial manifestation which cannot decide this interpretation by itself, it can only display a world inhabited by all manner of powers.

Agnostic disjunction is not even primordial, for agnostic disjunction can only occur where an ontology is being formed. It entails the choice between minimally two proto ontologies. The programme of manifestationism -the warring ontologies- must be reconsidered as a later effect. A valid later effect, but not a primordial situation.

Such considerations will hopefully, over time,  be able to yield a perspective that synthesises what later become epistemological problems (agnostic disjunction). That is, the aim is for a description that lies before such bifurcations arise.