Accretion is an accretion of pneuma, as such it means the same as pneuminous accretion. We give its own glossary entry to facilitate understanding of the identity of the two terms.
Agents are Narps that work for accretions.
Agnostic disjunctions are disjunctive propositions that admit no cogent resolution. In one sense owing to incoherence (see below) all disjunction’s are agnostic. However in ordinary language they are often not. Agnostic disjunctions manifest where the situation either lacks determinate criteria on either side or has criteria for both sides. The synchronicity (pneuminous interference) situation is the one of the key AGs. Either the synchronicity obtained in a reality weird sense or it was a statistical possibility and nothing weird at all. Nothing can show to someone believing the first that the second is the truth as the phenomenon itself counts as evidence of the weird explanation. Likewise it does not count as evidence for the statistical interpreter as the numerical approach seems like something truer (to them). Neither side has any super access to reality in a manner that would be able to resolve the disjunction hence it remains agnostic.
Assimilation can be called the process description of pneuminous accretion. Accretions can be thought of as the noun to assimilations verbal nature. The process of being involves moving between assimilations on both pure pneuminous (conceptual) and umbratically restrained (physical) levels. I go into a bar and I am assimilated by the meaning of being in a bar, I do some maths and I am assimilated into the rules to solve the problem.
A heuristic describing the possibility of perceptual content that is not interpreted. Pneuma without any accretion.
Incoherence is a feature of all concepts. All concepts show themselves as incoherently coherent. That is they display a kind of sense of their border without giving any reason why this should be so, we just passively take the coherence for granted. Analysis of any given concept reverses this into coherent incoherence. This is the discovery that the borders of the concept were blurred and that we can know they are blurred, hence the incoherent nature of it is now coherent. Some concepts though have a higher/more obvious degree of incoherence than others, philosophical concepts being a good example of these. Incoherence in this way is related to agnostic disjunction.Two concepts that compete for a territory (to cover a phenomenon) with incoherencies from differing manifestation perspectives will not be able to defeat each other.
Manifestations are the ways in which existence is shows itself. These are the philosophies. Idealism, realism, monism, etc are all manifestations. These philosophies are ultimately ontologies competing for the pneuminous territory. All manifestations are extremely incoherent and between each other display agnostic disjunctiveness. This means no manifestation can over power any other. Each manifestation has agents that work for it trying to bolster its presence in the pneuma.
Acronym forNeurotic Accretion Regional Processor. The Narp is the CEO name for the embodied subject. A neurotic accretion is a self aware accretion of pneuma (what we think of as a self). The regional processor is the heuristic notion of the body without the neurotic accretion. One classic analogy is the hardware/software description.
Neurosis (definition 1)
Neurosis can be thought of as the autonomy of pneuminous accretions as experienced by the Narp. Sensations, fear, thought that the Narp experiences that they are not able to control are Neurotic. This of course covers a much wider gamut of phenomena than pathological neurosis considers and rewrites much Narp activity as Neurotic. Of course the notion that there actually is anything outside of the Neurotic is an agnostic disjunction a la classical free will debate.
Neurosis (definition 2)
Neurosis is used to disclose the impasse of the modern human subject. Is the modern human subject subjectively auto-producing his/her own thoughts, or, are thought systems finding a home within – and being transmitted via – humans? Sometimes one can hold an assimilation within their mind (neurosis); the adult is thinking about when he got caned as a boy, the tennis player is still swinging an invisible racket even though he has finished playing and is walking home. The neurotic accretion (another word for the neurotic human) is both a productive auto-generation of conceptual content and the sensitive awareness of the repetition, coming and going of ideas. Neurosis is mainly defined contra-distinctively to assimilation by Johns in the sense that one can be neurotic about something whilst engaging in an assimilation; one can talk to someone else whilst thinking something completely different. This disjunction (or double assimilation) is the defining trait of the neurotic thinker. It is a power that has never really been disclosed in traditional western philosophy. The neurotic accretions take the assimilations and intensifies them. The neurotic accretion can impart it’s neurosis back into tautologies (via language, expression, symbols etc) and assimilation can occur again. This is how human civilization operates.
Phantasies are manifestations that have perfectly good criteria to be believed in but are not. They might be the suppressed side of an agnostic disjunction. E.g. in the synchroncity example, the strong reality bending interpretation is commonly not favoured over the statistical one.
Pneuma is the anwer to the question, what are dreams/visualisations made of? Pneuma is information as substance. The synchronicity agnostic disjunction summons this possibility as one of the key disjunctive options e.g. if the statistical view or occasionalist view are not correct (if you do not want to work for those manifestations) then the reality bending view is taken to be true. If this is true then this means the information is actively shaping what is experienced. This means information is not an inert perception but a strongly interactive element.
The accretions of pneuma are the holy grail of designation. They are the thing that is pointed to by individual words. In the context of the intention ‘John’ means that John, that you are talking about. The image of him that may arise upon thinking is the accretion, as of course is his restrained pneuma (what we call the actual person). ‘John’ as a general accretion taps into all the John relations there are which are stuck together by this name, by this sound. If it sounds like a bewildering mess of meaning then the notion is being comprehended. Pneuminous accretions are vast vast agglomerations of all the uses of this word in all its different senses, trailing off in a million different pneuminous threads of semiosis: methaphor, metonym, syndoche, homonymy all are just ways of describing pneuminous connectivity. Pneuma responds to time insofar as at a temporal point a thread may be severed, however because the whole accretion is also a temporal it is also impossible to sever the pneuminous threads as formed historitcally. Pneuma may accrete in an unrestrained way or it may accrete in restrained way. The former are what we experience in free play of our minds, the latter is pneuma attached to the umbra (see below). The umbra restrains the pneuma though we still have only access to the pneuma. This gives rise to grammatical similarities. Animism aside, rocks e.g. are often described with similar accretive notions (hard, cold). Free floating pneuma can be attached to restrained pneuma. One might call a rock the flower rock for whatever reason. This in turn would attach the flower accretion to this rock. Greater effort would increase the accretion of flower and rock. Restrained pneuma also occurs outside what we called physical, notably in emotive expression. Anger e.g. is likely to accrete similarly cross culturally and suggests a pre-accretive restraint. Pneuminous accretions are often considered pernicious insofar as they are responsible for the word means object representational knowledge schema. Insofar as this is pernicious this is of course true, accretions suggest exactly that. What is not understood as that in an accretion the signifier is not contingent to the signified, it is necessary in the sense of the contingent a priori. The word as signifier/sound is literally accreted to the phenomena. ‘Dog’ the word sound is part of the dog accretion which entails that notion of a putatively external animal (further accretions). This occurs owing to the natural tendency of the pneuma to accrete in the Narp and to some extent other self-aware regional processor fields. Pneuma is always accreting in these fields to some extent. What Buddhists etc have noticed is the oppression that the accretions can exact upon the Narp if left unchecked: neurosis -the facticity of thought- being the default state of Narphood, not just its pathological manifestation. The massive accretions that exist in the modern Narp state are exactly a product of the Narp’s development and and potentially not a feature of existence without Narps -the nature of which cannot be properly commented on other than as manifestations anyway.
Pneuminous Accretive Constant.
The PAC as it is know is a hypothetical part of any accretion that gives it desire to continue in its existence. It does not amount to awareness for the concept but it suggests that conceptual entities (pneuminous accretions) have the agenda of trying to continue to be. This means there is more to their conceptual being than just the concept they are, there is also some sense of wanting to continue to be. The PAC is this desire to continue to be.
The reaccretion of synchronicity gives us the notion of pneuminous interference. The title is elliptical insofar as it should properly mention that the pneuma is said to be interference with the umbratic restraint. This points to a feature of the pneuma i.e. that under certain circumstances umbratic restraint can be overpowered by pneuminous accretions. The phenomenon could be equally called umbratic rupture but this too would then omit the other side of the coin.
Reality is the use word for the dominant phantasy. The real is also used in relation to the umbra insofar as Narps confuse the umbra with what is real (the ding an sich). The accretion-assimilation of reality is connected to the accretion-assimilation of truth. What is real is said to be what is true, the grammars are similar, but the accretions are not identical.
The capacity of human intelligence to conceptually imprint putative externality. The stronger the consummation of the network of concept/use towards putative externality the stronger the tautology. When I see a lamppost I see putative externality reflected back as precisely (and nothing other than) that which a civilisation of intelligent beings have designated qua a network of concept and use i.e lamppost. I maintain the pejorative connotation of tautology as did the Greeks. My use of tautology is controversial because it concentrates more on the tautological structure of perception (X ‘is seen to be’ X) as opposed to logically reducing a proposition down to a fundamental identity (using the principle of non-contradiction). Hence, tautologies can change and are contingent in the Johnsian perspective. Tautology is the condition for the classification/taxonomy of the universe by Man. The sites, representations and social extrapolations that convey these constructed tautologies are characterised as what makes up the narrative of sense for the human. Johns usually see’s these tautologies as banal, however, Johns has stressed that we become brainwashed by the tautologies we form in the world and sometimes has equated them to sigils (semiotic systems of magical capture). Most ‘everyday’ assimilation’s are made possible through tautology; pre-made concepts which set determinations, and commensurability conditions both the possibility for tautology and assimilation (the possibility of relation/interaction). Assimilation’s can exist with tautologies that we humans have not made; the spiders web is a tautological process which is far from ‘nature’ and more ‘home’ to the spider (the reflection of itself onto its surroundings). The possibility of assimilation’s without human nominated tautology would suggest a world where non-human entities are either determined by mechanistic assimilation (mechanistic or Newtonian philosophy) or that non-human entities perceive each other (as in areas of Panpsychism or the more withdrawn description in Graham Harman’s Object Oriented Philosophy).
The umbra is an accretion, but it is an accretion borne of the phantasy of understanding what would remain if there were no awareness. As such the umbra is subject to various manifestations. Some would say the umbra without perception is identical to umbra with perception. Pneuminosity states that the actions of pneuma especially in accretive form are not an inert expression of umbra but an, at least heurtistically separate substance (pneuma). Umbra arises as an idea (pneuminous accretion) within the Narp field. This arising is perpetual owing to the limited nature of the Narp. The decision on the nature of the Umbra is entirely agnostic disjunctive. Insofar as pneuminosity is investigated, this shows the Umbra to be an accretion never directly experienced but inferred constantly by the phrase umbratic restraint. Why does the world look one way rather than another when in the pure pneuma the world can look like anything the Narp can imagine it to look like? The inference is that there must be some restraining factor that makes this constancy in the pneuma, this restraint is the umbra. In this sense the umbra is a paradoxical accretion of the impossibility of pneuma or whatever state pneuma would be in outside of Narphood. It must be clearly understood that pneuminosity entails the umbra is not the ding an sich or true reality. This is because the pneuma exists, hence it follows that any adequate ding an sich would have to take into account the actions of the pneuma upon the umbra. For reasons like this it seems almost impossible that umbra with pneuma can be identical to umbra without pneuma. The complication arises exactly in the speculations about the nature of umbra outside of Narphood. Theories like OOO extend pneuminous interactions between all kinds of bodies but presuppose that spatio temporality will remain the same as within Narphood (relativity accepted). This is of course a cogent manifestation but neglects the possibility that Narphood structures the spatio-temporal (pneuminous) experience in a way far more radically than is understood. In this way theories like OOO that try to escape anthropic perception in fact just repeat it by attributing a reality to scientific accretions created necessarily within the Narp field.
How does a tautology come to be? They form through assimilations; images, pre-existing sense, ‘physical’ similarities, language, ‘use’, context, inference and extrapolation (even things outside of our control such as the future). But what allows these to assimilate in the first place? There must be a commensurability; a ‘space’ where two assimilations can touch and further assimilate each other. Already the conventional notion of space-time (Newtonian) is a form of assimilation which functions to hypostatize further phenomena in its assimilation. These secondary phenomena are commensurable with the primary assimilation. Equally, we can create a culture machine which designates/assimilates things as cultured or non-cultured. We can also create an instrumental machine where microscopic manifestations become commensurable with the instrument commensurating with these assimilations. There is not one ground where everything is commensurable (‘objectivity’). There is a pluralism of competing assimilations trying to commensurate with other things and hence further assimilate. If something does not commensurate is will not exist/’be’. Assimilation presupposes relation.
The Last Instance.
Reality is seen ‘in-the-last-instance’ through whichever competing manifestation ensues (whichever manifestation is assimilated); the scientific, the phenomenological, the paranormal, the religious, even the comedic or the aesthetic (there are differing planes of realities with differing, relatively autonomous criteria). Think Deleuze’s ‘plateaus’, Wittgenstein’s ‘language games’ or Badiou’s ‘worlds’.