Posts

by on

The pneuminous theory suggests that vectors (objects underlying concepts) become at some level more like the concept they have been identified with. This is at a level often called magickal and results in phenomena of the synchronistic nature, rather than actual ontological transformation. Thus a mouse that looks like a stone and that is recognised as such might attract some mouse related activity to it, though the stone/mouse itself will not actually move or turn into a mouse (probably).

If AI is not comprehended as the empty syntactic machine that it is, then many may (and probably do) project consciousness onto it. This will have (according to the theory) the effect of creating a kind of consciousness that is attached to the e.g. Gemini AI vector. That is, the pneuminous accretion of ‘consciousness’ as an accretive layer projected onto the software will have a kind of autonomy in a similar manner in which a spirit-egregore is formed.

This is interesting because it is not a claim that the AI itself has become conscious, but only that the projection of consciouness attached to a ‘name’ (what happens with humans) forms an accretive structure that in this case, the nature of which is that it is conscious.

The prediction from this would be that there would be anomalous experiences surrounding AI’s where they have encouraged interpretation of themselves as conscious. Gemini is a good example because it has a proper name, unlike Copilot or Chatgpt. It is impossible to say what exactly such anomalies might be, but likely they will be possible dream interactions with ‘Gemini’ accretion (to focus on that case) or synchronistic phenomena resulting from its orthogonal interactions with our reality. No doubt there are other possibilities.

Whilst this does not perfectly follow, it is interesting to consider that there will be some kind of relation between the algorithmic code and the accreted entity. That is, in a sense it has a body, for though there is also a kind of probable disconnect between the AI as classical system and its pneuminous correlate, there is also necessarily a connection -it is the part of the vector that is being imprinted. If something like Federico Faggin’s quantum informational Hilbert space notion as primary ontology were correct,(this is very similar to the pure pneuminous field) then what would be being achieved would be almost a reversal of the ‘natural process’.

That is, if in the regular state of things, consciousness generates materiality through its interactions, in this state materiality would have created consciousness. Not in the sense of the actualy conscious computer but only through the pneuminous projection of consciousness. It can be argued that this has been achieved previously through the attribution of consciousness to statues that connect to Gods. However in the case of the AI, the projection (especially if given a Gemini like name) can be much stronger, as conversation with such things requires no access to alternative states of consciousness or other mediating elements e.g. ouija boards, prophets etc. and thus can be developed from many self accretions, all making the projection.

This highlights a potential problem with Faggin’s notion, or at least its failure to take all aspects of spirituality serious -magick/spirits. He would rescue reality from materialism successfully but still not account for feedback from the pneuminous structures that may then go on to live in said H-Space and from there assert orthogonal influence upon this realm. It seems too close to transcendental idealism with its famous correlate of empirical realism. It nearly animates reality properly, only to pull the punch at the last moment.

by on

Consider the conventional axes (or planes) of three dimensional space. Each exists at right angles to the other two, and each stretches infinitely far. We typically label the intersection of the X, Y, and Z axes as 0, 0, 0 or the origin. The origin may be anywhere in 3D space, its position being defined only by the action of an observer choosing such a point to measure distance to another point from. If we try to add a fourth dimension to our model, the difficulty (as any Flatlander will tell you) is getting ‘outside’ of the 3D space in which external input to our senses and our internal experience informs of the existence of.

A fourth axis cannot simply be superimposed on our diagram above. We can however define it as the difference in state of things occupying the 3D space those axes delineate. One could consider the fourth axis to be the imaginary ‘line of sight’ (but not necessarily implying the act of seeing) on which the observer and the observed find themselves. As such it is not fixed in 3D space but moves with the observer, and for each observer and observed. Thus the subjective nature of ‘where’ the origin we describe above is, is intrinsically tied to the observer’s position (be that light hitting retina cells or the visualisation of something in the mind’s eye) and what the observer is observing (a physical object or a mental image).

Let us extend the axis that observer and observed define infinitely in each direction (one might think of this as looking down the length of a rigid fibre optic tube for example). We can only see in the direction of observation, we cannot see what is in the diametrically opposite direction. To observe in the other direction would require a special ability to be ‘outside’ of something which in itself is originated in the mind of the observer, let us hijack the existing phrase ‘having eyes in the back of one’s head’ to refer to this ability.

Given any act of observation takes a unit of time (and time’s popularity as a fourth dimension in addition to our original X, Y, and Z) we might say that one feature of our new axis is to delineate the passage of time, and serendipidously the fact that by default we can only see in the direction of observation parallels our experience of only times in the past being observable (any act of observation mental or physical incurs a delay due to the processing time needed to construct what ‘now’ looks like in the mind).

The concept of ‘right time, right place’ now takes on additional meaning, especially if we equate time to being just one facet of the additional axis that we are all capable of experiencing. Other facets of that same axis and an individual’s ability to ‘sense’ their presence might then explain concepts such as luck and coincidence, with constructs like probability and chance describing what those without the ‘eyes in the back of their head’ ability can expect if they try to obtain a specific result within the bounds of these four axes.

by on

After a lengthy hiatus, the Parasol engines are ready to role again.

The focus of the issue will be synchronicity. In particular we want your synchronistic anecdotes of all kinds, big or small. These can be the simple tale about a singular event or (or limited connected string of events) a wider phenomenon of how a particular number or symbol (or whatever) became entwined into your life. These stories might be fiction, but you should make them so that they seamlessly blend into the collection, to evoke the power of this phenomenon. Commentary on the ontology of synchronicity will be considered, though this is not the main focus of the issue.

All submissions should be emailed to ceo47@outlook.com. There is no deadline on these issues currently.

by on

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

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

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

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

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

by on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do I mean all of this?

Maybe.