Recent considerations have moved my theorising away from outright human contingent paranormality –conceptuality as active substance– to a possibility that includes human accretive forces as only one element in the sea of what we call anomalous phenomena. Currently being played with is a ‘reticular ontology’, that is, a conception of everything as and endless series of lines or fibres. This is appropriated from reported occult conceptions of reality in this wise (e.g. the web of wyrd, Castaneda) in conjunction with Deleuze and Guattari’s notion of a line of flight.

Perception of the reticulum is supposed to be the closest one can have to seeing existence as it is in itself (note we do not say this is the case, we merely engage with the concept). It is also sometimes called ‘seeing energy’.

Now a feature of the reticulum is that once perceived, the separation of the perceiving being from the externality is considerably challenged. The lines can be clearly seen to extend straight from the being into the ‘outside’. There is a kind of boundary in so far as the being of awareness is a kind of node, yet the connectivity to the whole is immediately present. Furthermore the lines cannot be considered purely to exist in the regular spatial coordinates available to us; the lines bypass temporality as we know it and dimensionality.

A reticular ontology is essentially panpsychic insofar as all the lines are formed of awareness in a sense. Access to the reticulum is access to greater awareness -all psychic type events can be considered momentary reticular access. The reticulum as a whole is entirely self-aware. This is a postulate.

The formation of nodes (beings like ourselves) has an interesting consequence from this perspective. The more nodes develop there own internal awareness the more they believe they are capable of grasping what is going on. Unfortunately for the nodes, the more the awareness becomes centralised in the node, the less it actually accesses the reticulum. This then is the formula of the inverse increase in awareness in relation to the development of the node:

The greater awareness in the node, the less awareness of connectivity to the reticulum.

This means almost the opposite of Hegel’s PoS is true. The development of conscious is a retrograde step, worse still is self-consciousness, increasing narrowment of reticular awareness continues to occur until the crowning glory of this occurs -the state.

This tragedy also seems to entail a strong kind of unpleasant Kantianism. The more developed we become in investigating things with our own developed tools (maths, science) the less access we actually will have to the thing in itself. Of course Kant bars access to the thing in itself anyway, however the reticular as possible perception not only places the thing in itself partially within reach, it also means human rational attempts to fathom it necessarily get further from it. Consequentially all ‘lower species’ as we think of them have an increased reticular access, with this increasing further as one ends up in the inorganic.

Please don’t misunderstand. This is not an anti-scientific stance. Even if the node/reticular concept is accurate we generally do not live perceiving the reticulum and science has been of tremendous value to us. This occurrence of delving further and further away from perceptual access to something like the in-itself cannot necessarily be seen as worse than reticular access. Our investigations in this relatively solid seeming reality function well so the withdrawal from the reticular possibility can also be seen as highly epistemically satisfying.

This leads us to a second point about such an ontology. When we say that perceiving the reticulum is the actual connection to the ‘outside’, we consider it as a totally time/space transcendent perspective in which anything can be known (though equally there must be caution here, accounts like Monroe’s would suggest that even reticular access has many layers to it). It is minimally a totally superior epistemic state to regular human capacity. So it is easy to consider regular human perception as subtractive in its relation to reality. Even without the reticulum and simply with regard to our scientific understanding there is much we cannot see/hear/detect etc. We subtract from reality and our perception of the world is what we get.

Two points complicate this picture. The reticular ontology is totally compatible with human formed conceptual accretions which we literally layer over the regions of the outside. In the reticulum these are perceivable as emanating lines to nodes (accretions are different kinds of nodes) whereas from regular perception we often confuse concept and object.

This means we not only subtract, but that we add. We add pneuma to the externality and it stays there in the reticulum. However this actual state of confusion of regular perception -in which the connecting lines are not visible is also different from reticular perception, which for all its superior access is subtractive of the human state of perception. So our reality is additive and subtractive

Secondly then, this is why we couch reticular access as only the closest thing to seeing things as they are, for whilst it does show the accretions stuck to the vectors, it does not and cannot show the actual confusion of the nodally perceived reality state itself.

That is, even reticular access itself is subtractive.

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..

So far we have broadly delineated several void responses and void cocoons. The void responses are: philosophy, sorcery/chaos magick, compassion-love (Buddhism as paradigm example), something akin to hedonism and aestheticism. A void cocoon is any system that generates guidance for life, general teleology and cosmology from a putatively trustworthy supra-human source.

Questions remain as to how humans withstand the force of the void given that not all human-vectors are thoroughly taken over by any of the above installations or protective systems. Certainly combinations of these kinds of defences are enlisted to supply protection, however such patchwork approaches entail that there are gaps. These gaps necessitate another kind of response to the void. This response is the literal covering over of the issue with only a second nothing to put in its place. As such this is the negation of the nothing by an active lethic activity. There is something ironic in this given that the void is a kind of discovery of the cognitive mind. A variety language game escapes the inappropriateness of which can never confirmed or denied (why are we here? what should we do? what can we know?).

The negating of the nothing, here called a transcendental repression takes place to protect the individual from its overpowering effects and maintains a kind of ‘everyday reality’ bearable to most persons. We believe the transcendental repression has an equal number of faces to the impossible problems of philosophy.

Solipsism as a phantasy is a sceptical possibility that many people discover. This possibility is repressed in favour of the appearance of coherent others, yet the possibility remains. Solipsism is one way in which the nothing appears. It entails that there is literally nothing other than one self. Solipsism itself, owing to its extreme incoherence is not too hard to repress.

However related to solipsism is the Kantian issue. This entails that reality in human awareness (and the ability to process it), whilst coherent, is not necessarily identical to reality outside of human awareness (and the ability to process it). This problem in turn is deeply related to the manifestation of any occult phenomenon. This is the case as the non-identity of reality in and outside of human awareness facilitates the possibility of magickal alterations (synchronicity). This possibility opens the space for the radical outside which might contain all manner of potentially strange implications for the in-awareness.

More importantly then than the repression of solipsism is the repression of the sphere of immanent awareness as a potential source of actual certainty -insofar as reality is made more manageable in this immanent arena. The repression of the appearance of the non-identity of in-awareness and outside-awareness is crucial for the well-being of the human, as non-identity thesis presents an annihilation of the regular world -a nothingness. Whether considered as subtractive or additive, the effect of the non-identity is the same -a kind of annihilation.

This kind of thinking demonstrates adequately the connection of darkness and the occult entities. Darkness here is literally the paradoxical perception of the limit of awareness, as such it is literally ontologically the nothing. As source of various entities the darkness is not darkness because they come out at nice but rather because the non-identity thesis comes into force in this region of the space (a dark room) or time (night).

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.

What is sorcery (in Castaneda’s sense)? Sorcery seems to be the altering/replacing of the self through doing acts alien to the the original self. These acts might be perceptual, physical or mental though in the system they all might be described as perceptual. The body perceives in ways we do not understand. Accessing the bodies ability to do this part of the aim. Everything is about perception, though perception is not a passive power, rather it is an active force with the ability to alter what is at large (not unlike my description of how the pneuma can alter the umbra).

How does sorcery spread? The lineage is described as transferring from established sorcerers to new ‘apprentices’ who are invariably tricked into the world of sorcery or presented with it as the only escape route in opposition to death -people down on their worst luck. Sorcerers identify apprentices according to omens that identify them as viable potential sorcerers. These omens are supplied by ‘power’, the name given for both the general force at large for determining events and the force that can be harnessed by sorcery as ‘personal power’. What is interesting is that there is no overarching teleology given. What does sorcery do? It would seem nothing other than create sorcerers. It is like Dzogchen without compassion. It seeks only to enter ‘the other world’ and bypass death.

Power then can be seen as selecting the victims of sorcery. What is interesting is that in the absence of any teleology the acts of power could be meaningless coincidences. This is the problem of the agnostic disjunction, the inability to discern an ‘omen’ from an coincidence -they look identical. To the sorcerer apparently they don’t, but does this really help as even if they do look different on some level, the sorcerer still admits that she/he doesn’t understand why power chose one person and not another. Thus it seems the arbitrary choice of power is still available even if it can be ‘seen’ to be different from a coincidence.

Once power has selected the next set of apprentices, the current sorcerers must go about installing sorcery. As mentioned the initial hook is brought about by trickery or shown as a last resort. Once the hook is in, the apprentice is instructed to begin to behave ‘impeccably’ and not to ‘indulge’. This basically means to try ones best at everything and not to bother with futile thought patterns. This is all done with the aim of streamlining the organism. This streamlining process can take years and running alongside it is the instruction in the business of sorcery itself: dreaming (the developing of the dream double), stalking (manipulation of the physical self to enable hypnotic like trickery) and various other things. The combined force of these alterations is supposed to essentially dismantle the self and not reassemble it. The remaining entity as a sorcerer is no longer the person they were, both physically and mentally they are different. There is a moment in CC where the tragedy of this alteration is brought out. One of the apprentices weeps to think of his mother, whom herself, late in her life was identified by power as a viable sorceress. Her son the half-sorcerer, wishes that she had never met the sorcerers as then she would still be his mother. But the woman who biologically was his mother can not be said to be so anymore, rejuvenated and transformed away from her lot as a timid ageing cook and cleaner, her entire personality is altered -sorcery has replaced it with a fearsome intimidating sorceress. He himself loses his gloomy regret by stopping himself from ‘indulging’. He cannot indulge because it’s all too late, she has gone and in part so has he. So the indulgence advice in its context is even correct, there is only onwards for both of them.

Even part of the way through this process we can see how we can look upon this as sorcery installing itself into certain vectors as selected by power. But since sorcery wants nothing from the world as such what is it doing? Everything seemingly turns on the machinations of ‘power’. The sorcerers themselves, once dismantled simply respond to the fate that power doles out, presumably making their impeccable best out of whatever hand is given. All of which raises the question, can it be cogently asked if ‘power’ wants anything? Presumably from the perspective of sorcery power does show certain things are desirable, but does not say why -no answer of this nature is ever forthcoming.

Sorcery and systems like it seem to feed off ordinary life; this is the parasite analogy. Sorcery enters the ordinary human and destroys it from inside, the victim does not even know they are replacing themselves with the sorcerous installation. It is perhaps curious why it tries to stay so limited in its host-occupancy, though maybe this is its natural rate. Certainly many people who attempt occult systems only do so at a very shallow level, so even when the information is out successful parasitism is low.

Buddhism seems probably the closest parasite system with its inherent attempt to show the emptiness of things. Buddhism though of course attempts not to proselytize as such but still to help other beings, the compassion parasite must take over -but the Buddhists know, behind the compassion installation is the void. Is this possibly what commands/is power? The nothingness. In this sense sorcery and Buddhism offer just two different responses to the same phenomenon. Both install the void-parasite. One says that in a meaningless world endless play in the vast scope of perception is viable option -but that this is not for all and many must just live in the illusion. Whilst the other says almost the opposite, compassion towards all beings, the way is open regardless of omen.

The void-parasite will have any takers.