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. AP is Assemblage point (the energetic intensity that determines what reality will be experienced). IOB is inorganic being.

These comments are extractions from my finally initiating The Art of Dreaming and putting my experiences in terms of words that can make some sense to someone else that is not batshit seeing the moon as goddess and such. I start from a point of asking: how can the humans create more fibres? If we think, for example, that we are made of pneuma as is everything else in the reticulum besides the umbratic (so not the reticulum), acquiring more pneuma as power implies that one quite literally merges one’s pneumatic body with pure pneuma (in the form of accretions, for example). But that yields a problem of identity: if the organism is pneuma and the other accretions as well, why do they appear different at all, interact as if with a thing of its own and have this movement of push and pull? This is the same problem faced by the concept of the force of gravity. In physics, we know gravity is not “real”, what it is, is a gap in our system’s explanatory power (as in cohesion). Pneuminosity is this double counterpart of the pneuma and also its rationalized “energy”. So pneuma itself is doubled into the transcendental pneuma and the immanent pneuminosity. Now for why your description of luck describes karma: ‘power as acquired by someone facilitates what we call luck’ So this lucky person is what I would call a pneuminously resonant region. Their luck is relative to the limited perception of another person that can only perceive as the other’s luck some unexplainable synchronicities (here enters ineffability). The ‘dragging’ of something towards the luck unconscious/conscious desire is exactly the problem of identity: if a pneumatic someone exerted their effort towards, say, a chair, they could grab it via telekinesis. Could this happens? Maybe, but what we know is that it must necessarily be ridiculously hard to achieve. I ponder why is that and come to the conclusion that affecting direct pneumatic objects, or the pneuma that forms them, is likely impossible for the energetic output of humans as we are. So what we do is not affect but effect (or effectuate) other simpler things, so that, indirectly, we pull the chair towards us. Language is such an invention. We ask another pneumatic body to bring the chair to us. Language also is not restricted to humans as we are, since the chair is also a pneumatic body of different regional shape due to degree, we can in theory use language to communicate with the chair that it should move itself towards us. And so we have Wi-Fi, electric chairs and neural connexions as implants. This indirect way we expend whatever it is we are (pneuma) to effectuate a desired change is what I call pneuminosity. Since pneuma itself cannot be expended as in destroyed, what we do lose is *our* pneuma (or gain), which is the notion of pneuminosity, or simply bound pneuma (instead of the catch-all term for free-state pneuma that is pneuma). You said ‘so the directed power of the being taps the accretion/node through the reticulum and draws it towards it which raises the question what do we do with it?

I knew it was connected but this obviously has bearings for the notion of the non-ontology I was after of a pre-philosophical subject and how power would interact, pre-ontology I think I was calling it. Anyway what you say puts it in a clearer light, as in whilst such a being was still in a pneuminous world, I think there was a sense of greater vector field proximity, this may be true but maybe not for the reasons I was thinking. The pre-ontology in which occurs what we would call anomalous, is just woven in as nothing of note can now be thought. In terms of the transcendental field of a given organism though, with a set of accretions that give way easier to deeper vector field levels, the spikes as you call them, acquisition of pneuminosity would occur ‘naturally’ as it were and has no sorcerous technology applied to its acquisition. So I’ve always said that regular objects are magickally constituted by the doubling process of ‘use object’ which through  regular use becomes archetypal accretion, in this way the object is made more than it is, as the accretion is reapplied to the vector region of the object making it albeit slightly more like the archetype.This is nice (I always thought) because it flattens the difference between regular objects and magickal ones.The former are vector regions with concepts applied to them that fit the bill, e.g. calling this region ‘stone’ makes sense, everyone agrees with these rules, the accretion fits the region, but calling this vector region mouse even though normal rules would say it’s a stone, even though maybe it looks a bit like a mouse. The second instance can be magick as the application of an accretion to a vector region that would not ordinarily accept that accretion -according to use rules. This picture is fine but it still assumes even in the non magickal version that the organism can accrete So what holds the accretion together? And you say pneuminosity right? This is find, but I am still a bit confused about where its coming from? How is it formed from the pneuma as accretions such that it is the power itself that holds them together? I may well have missed a turning in what you say, I think it’s helpful to go over it though, there doesn’t seem any point going one without clarification.

So think of the pneuma vs pneuminosity in terms of gravity: we know there to be an almost magkical force that seems to be generated by objects large enough and exert a pull on objects small enough relative to that object’s mass. But we also know gravity to be a local thing, an emergent effect that is not, in a sense, “real”. We now know that the distortion of the space-time continuum yields us here on Earth the appearance of there being gravity at all. The same goes for pneuma and pneuminosity. Which one is gravity, however, depends on a certain number of constraints when talking about them.

Indeed pneuma seems to not need umbra in the accretive system, that’s why, since we’re dealing with a new system (is it even a system, CC’s sorcery?) I bring the actual concepts of CC as umbratic “invaders” incoherent from the accretive theory viewpoint. That’s how we can methodologically think of it not to make a mess.

Methodologically here I mean only in the unravelling sense, since I think we can indeed, after systematization, re-exclude the umbra through the creation of the philosophy of sorcery. * I think this part on explaining our intuitive methods/constraints is important. I don’t even know why I’ve glossed over this entirely with you. Sorry about that “why is reality solid and intractable sometimes and other times fluid and manipulable” The answer I was thinking here is that, for us humans, solidity and fluidity is a matter of pneuminous resonance (which simply means we’re at the epicentre of regions in pneuminous resonance — that’s pneuminosity).

“this make pneuminous accretion inadequate without some extra notion of power that determines the ability of the organism to force by extraordinary means the desired thing to happen” That’s pneuminosity. The extra notion of ‘organic’ power. Pneuminosity is the transcendental barrier for our use of pneuma, the maximal threshold which we can say we are pneuma with an awareness of itself. If it were differently, everyone would be flying and smashing asteroids together for fun.

So, since we are tackling sorcery with the accretive system (but not within it), we can say that pneuminosity is the possibility of making regular objects into magickal ones. This is not a two-way street, however, since once magickal that object is imbued with the conditions to transcend our capabilities of continually altering it beyond a certain limit. That limit is personal power, given how relative it is.

When we think logically about this, we get to notice that if this above is the case (that we can pneuminously make objects magickal), then what we think as regular objects are simply magickal objects of either a degree too imperceptible to us or an order of magnitude surpassing our personal power to ‘see’ them as such.

The predator, the Eagle, is the extreme case of this and a necessary formal aspect/postulate of the system. Like an inverse prime mover (Aristotle), the predator is the one to end it all (instead of initiate it all). Because we need to postulate, once we peek into the seeing, that what we see as regular reality is there for a reason, and is in fact a circuit of habit intentionally imbedded with so much power (although not pneuminosity, but pneuma in its freer state) that we take it as a transcendental ground. We take it as nature, for example. Nature is the machinations of the predator to groom its favorite garden (for food). But again, this is a formally necessary postulation used for pedagogic purposes in sorcery (it is indeed the inverse of Aristotle’s God, which is ontologically necessary and so realer than everything else).

The predator need not be taken as real at all. In fact, nothing in sorcery needs because its goal is physiological.Shortcut is that pneuma is absolute for us. It’s there and even ourselves are it. Pneuminosity is just a namesake for the pneuma we make resonate within ourselves through the physiological alterations performed via sorcery.

I was considering the umbratic and its shifting role. So in regular perception as discussed it’s almost like a regulative idea, it’s the idea of the ‘behind perception’, the ’round the corner’ the possibility that being that is perceived can literally not be ontologically identified with being that isn’t perceived.

Even if none of these effects were real its idea would remain because it presents as an agnostic disjunctive. But in reticular perception ‘seeing’ these things don’t apply because perception isn’t done with the eyes, it’s just not the same. So accepting that we seem to be happy that like DJ reticular perception is essentially noumenal. There is no umbratic behind and hence there is no such epistemological problem.

What arguably we still have, which was also a kind of implicit role of the umbratic is the notion of structure, originally in the phenomenology it went accretions, vector field , umbratic, so the vector field kind of was a fine unnaccreted layer over the umbratic which the accretions inhabited in regions, the umbratic was giving a kind of invariant structure which under certain circumstances (magick) could be over powered by the accretions. This has obviously changed with the pneuminosity resonance notion but there still seems to be some sense to me of why anything looks like anything in particular at the level of particular worlds? This was an earlier problem that needed the umbratic for structure.

But now it isn’t required at the level of an underneath, but may be at a level of laws/natural structures? Do you see what I mean, the reticulum entirely exists without humans, that’s absolutely true, this is also the answer to speculative realist notions without the anthropocentric OOO of people like Harman, or Bennet.

Maybe you can say why not, but I still feel there is a stable force at the level of a given assemblage point that makes things look a particular way. You can’t just say its mutual intent because it has to have started somewhere…

Laszlo Aranyi (Frater Azmon)

Twilight of the Gods

Light sleepers without bodies; homunculus germs in sticky,
curd-like drivel
on a cutthroat flypaper.

The unity of male and female,
the degenerated, fading, distant, magical obsessions
of the primordial, blameless root cause become perceptible
The rebel leader writhes in chains.

Call to your ancestors, the flooded river answers,
your double that moved to your house,
is the lynx.

Meanwhile, a double-edged, demon-slaying sword inflicts
a wound upon you,
your self-reanimated shadow draws you deeper.
The dreadful North’s sending a dire army; it crushes
the masked, sleepless foe. Before he murders you though
he waits insidiously for you to kill him.

Archaeology (part 1)

Today, inderunderessnes ‘re scantifying to t’ ‘oit of being nearly fatal over all o’ those went that those these ways e’coptering under that trestle bridge over there. Okay, Phyllis? Prune. I time with most small boys’ and girls’ undercuriousnesses, their lesser maybe, if found deepl’ embedded in some strata later excavated down to in search of precious hipbreather’s mineralstuffs’s and other necessary foods, may be found to turn into some profound and precious previous population of these hereses and nowses, artifacts. Prune prune. Then the police will windround it in yellow tape at the call of the museum-men as a great discover, which now in the past tense one hundredth of an instant or some lesser number of seconds, a histori a istorical an orically not to be tampered down into—and yes, dear Phineas, that means you! No ‘splosions can be permitted to enswath the terrain wit’ their dusts, or grey matters, and not even if life and death is at stake for some farmers due to the need for scarce resources, they cannot, must not, no never can they be touched, disturbed, moved around, rearranged, or otherwise rendered false ‘n empty of their initially see’ spotted and staked down meaningfulness, and ability to show the truth of some past. Which has nothing to do with any-henna’s near-term survival. Hip.

Lancy-sweet?

Yah?

What is the holdup of our necessities out there?

There’s a tow’ ‘uare ‘ut ‘e.

What? Speak slow and loudly. This connection stinks.

There’s t’ ‘n square out there. Old one, that.

What? T-square? That’s for—that’s for that old-school mechanistical drawling they used to do, like—wit’ projotractors and compressactresses and all like that and that. Know?

No! Town square!

Huh? It’s all woods there and where it’s not woods it’s barren and when their really not completely either, there’s both! I don’t kn’.

No. Under the ground there. It used to be a town square, but.

No, I don’t get it, so what it used to be this or that? So what? Everyplace in the whole world by now must have used to be something else, and—you don’t see the whole world told stop so we can know what used to be, eck. Tip, what used to be most times is—totally unimportant, ‘n of no value.

This one is. And that’s why.

How do you know that when you need to dig it up to know if that’s true or not?

Huh?

How do you know that when you have to dig it up to know if that’s true or not?

Because of where it is.

What ‘bout where it is?

The lay of it. The lay and the lie of it and the big archaelonglielle professors we always have along to guide us saying, there, they lay and the lie and the roll of it rolls me to sa’ ‘yin’ ‘g th’ ‘s ‘re we shou’ dig down. Ho, so let’s ca’ ‘p ‘ere, hold! The wind is too strong, over. You break up like some alumininium word factory’s all, vibratationally fallin’ down. So, say, what?

I said rolls me to saying this; I’ wh’ w’ ‘oul’ ‘ig ‘wn.

Okay, shut up, I think I got the point. Prune; if I got it no further prescience-ision is not needed. No no. No. No no no. Prune; gik.

Prune. Prune. But how about this thriving village we’re centered within-which? There’s there can ‘t not no being no not being a archjangely dig right ‘ere—but why?

Because people live here an’ ‘d make livings here.

The people living here and making livings here are temporary.

I think they will not feel they’re so temporary. Prune. They.

Money, get money from the university. We can pay them off to relocate.

So—cinsta’ this their eldermen’ne met us and we had discussion for some few years which in the mood of the greater quest for knowledge of man was insta-grammificant, and we said and they backed o’ and one more time I said to the waiting pack of archaeological professorships, They say that you must dig only in free ground—prune—not under any existing structure, or under any existing thoroughfares, but—do not choose any free ground which may ever be needed to be passable by the reasonable man’s passible land vehicle to convey any and all types of matter required to be conveyed from point to point to facilitate the economic stability of the region.

Sus-s.

The mass of professors writhed secretly within themselves, prune, fo’ several or more days, before turning their open side our way and began speaking in intelligible streams o’, e’ rd’ o’ bull’, we can ide the les wh ill hap f some s disco ding u o se it gin y follo a ail, wh l m l us to and ove the bord of some I’m sorry hold it existi structu or thoroug we can’t get what you are trying to say, or piece of free ground, which someday may be, so please stop and start from the beginning, but, needed to be passable by any reasonabl’y man’s passible land but but it—prune! It looks like there’s no time so hey what vehicle to convey any and all types of hey what can we do based on matter required to be conveyed from point to the original statement tha’ the villagers

made point hey to facilitate the economic stability so we can at least say to the masters of the region that hey yah we did do some digging prune we did not waste this whole entire decade or less prune just looking and looking but in the process not getting no kind of archaeological work done at all; so. Books.

S-s-s-sssssssssss—s.

So. Prune; once unbagged, the professors led the way from their confusion into the clear and, after some months of reading and intense study, smoothed by liberal applications of Eterna-Rub, ‘tween the letter of the words within the reading we, and they identified a ten foot square test lot, to dunce ourselves ‘oof ‘ve, shoveling out and down into, and as usual took the first step of magic markering it out, until here came several numbers-matched duodenal tribesmen dressed in bright plaids, looking ‘nd feeling so lavishly overdressed ‘round their others, that they splintered off, and, like the blood-dried pups they resembled, they did, ran up against us, pointing to the deftly sliced small single-shoveled hole which had not yet multiplied into enough samenesses of itself to yield any type of discovery at all, let alone anything significant—prune! And they wagged all four fingers toward the hole, then in our faces several dozen times, before saying, That spot and any like it you need to lay off from as we know that sometime in it’s future it will be the site of one of the following; 1, an actual dwelling, or, 2. a building, while not an actual dwelling, still to be used to store material goods, but—the lack of stored items at any point in time, is not to be construed as it not being an actual dwelling, which still will be used to store material goods, or, 3. An empty lot, which, though it may seem to be just another empty lot, but will in the future become the site of a number 1., or a number 2., item. Prune; as described previously so, prune; hence, it follows naturally that, you may not dig here, but—in our grace we can tell you what there lies under so you may study these, virtually.

But.

No but! First there’s masses of unhinged bombshell factsheets, spiral-bound, down there. By the way you can lay out the autopsy instrument set now, but no rush.

Okay.

Then, there’s the usual garden-variety o’ old crockery much like your college said you retrieved from your last dig, like, y’know, th’ artifacts ye found in old big Billy’s dog’s belly. Lay those out also. They may be needed, depending.

Eh? Oh.

Yah, et cetera; then—as this professorial hencidorian ecksplanarationne would ‘bviously continue, the archeologists ducked under beginning a wild random dig, using freshly sharp instruments, aimed at stripping an average three shovelfulls of earth each for every two words shouted out over them, on average; such words as, There’s dozens of analdictation samplers in original packaging under there—eck, prune, so; given there were fifty archaeologists digging in under this major professorienne shoutflow, they ducked under, and in spite of it all excavated in their total onlies such prizes as several or maybe just one big meth-boil’r type arced wide-style characterization templates, each only used once or twice. Prune; by the look of it—a grand find for any expedition, large or small—it ‘came apparent t’ the top princes of leadership that they’d likely need to remove nineteen thousand three hundred and fifty spadesful of earth to totally exploit this larger than expected most precious deposit—they cried, Huzzah! upon unearthing a European style overloaded bale wagon—the first intact example in this century—the magnitude of it all blocked out to nothing the core of the professor’s elongated bleats of protest, screaming o’er inches up ’bove them—prune; they beheld cases of bottled ice-air right beside three dozen or more dry clean only individually wrapped formally flowered-over dancing-day zip-on cloaks

which, prune; when carefully suctioned away, revealed further riches—dead drip’d instructional magazine fifteen or less first editions; high capacity pump-pedaled sewing devices; several Bob’bb-b-faces equipped with the heretofore only rumored of optional groovy-slabbed maple workbeds properly installed, to boot; prune; Momma Mia, they cried, as a pork batter mix flat-packing assembly instructional booklet appeared in the next layer o’ viscera down, but—they noted they had reached the dig-depth where the artifacts found become generally colder and harder to cleave than the shallower organs which most lately’d been ‘live. Fresh new scalpel sets were brought down from the medical storeroom, when it was clear the pathologeermen would soon be on overtime, since the court had just ruled the cause of death must be found quickly. These finding-frenzies are…

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. AP is Assemblage point (the energetic intensity that determines what reality will be experienced). IOB is inorganic being

Yes, I mean we’re nearly full circle here aren’t we. As of course this kind of god egregore kabbalah thing is one of the aspects that sparks the whole pneuma business. Just one question concerning your usage of the umbratic. A controversial term I know sometimes. I’m not entirely sure if I disagree or not as I’m not sure of your usage here. In a previous discussion it was translated into the CC world as the unknowable. This stems from how I’ve always taken it to be, even if not an actuality, a phenomenological actuality, the idea of being outside of pneuma or the vector field even.

“The umbratic may be understood as any given region of the vector field that achieved a degree of freedom qualitatively different from the other regions. Like a spike so big it achieved escape from the field and became its own smaller vector field.”

Maybe I misunderstand but this almost seems to place the umbratic within the encounterable which purely on a definitional level would not be possible. However I can see there is some kind of revision here given that the reticulum plays a kind of access to the in itself tunnelling into the vector field is heading towards the umbratic. I almost feel this as if it would ultimately end up with the reticulum and whilst I cannot see energy and this is all speculative I cannot feel like the problem of the umbratic exists in the reticulum. It not have the same kind of relation of ‘what is the status of being behind my head, behind a closed door’? that can prompt umbratic type ideas in this reality.

But yes I totally see a lot of what you say there may be some minor terminological harmonies to make so in what I say I don’t mean ‘this is the real usage of the term’. I only say it so you know what I’ve meant so we can see if we’re talking in the same way.

The vector field is the total possible kind of space (but not only space since it covers the a-spatial and the temporal) that facilitates our ability to use words and thus stick pneuma as accretions to regions. A region of the vector field could be a small as a speck of dust, or as vast as the universe, it has a concept applied to it (in both cases its incoherent because its a use concept). So there is always a kind of dual process, usage which is minimally accretive and then what we could call object formation, the full blown accretion or fluid archetype, what appears in your mind when you think of an x. Does this all tally with your vector region?

What I feel from your writing is a sense that the blank perception attempt -trying to not see the objects- is insufficient, it only reveals more accretive layers and the second attention is to really get into that blank perception space which takes energy and silence at least to do it sober. I can make most surfaces or repetitive patterns warp and flow if I stare at them. This is a second attention like process. But it’s so surface like that it’s largely pointless.

Another thing is :do you mean something other than pneuma by pneuminosity? As in, can I say that pneuma is produced in a sense by humans e.g.? I would have said previously in a speculative way that pneuma was already there and that humans accrete it spectacularly. If I think of it as the reticulum I would say we make fibres which attach to other fibres. This then makes it sound more like the production of pneuma from the reticular perspective. The whatever the fuck the stones and things are in the reticulum only shows up as fibres (the unaccreted vector field seen in the reticulum), but when they are ‘stones” we’ve attached fibres to these other fibrous regions, which makes accretions more like knots.

I’ve been reading a pop science book on fungi, it’s a good book on that current wave of interest in the mycorrhizal web that underpins pretty much all life. And of course (and I think you’ve hinted elsewhere at fungal interest) very very reticular, which only metaphorically of course makes me wonder about concept infestation of vector regions. I’m thinking of the concept as a spore (the usage) which grows into the object as fruiting body which replicates. I know I know Burroughs has done this largely with the virus thing.

It also reminds me about  how Seranoga was supposed to have written many of his poems. It’s really quite a fungal method. He took someone else’s poem and then inserted his idea. He changed it from the inside retaining different degrees of structural similarity until he was happy with it. Some people say Seranoga was supposed to have met DJ or had contact with those sorcerers, but probably you know that.

On another point, you don’t mean that IOBs are purely accreted (by synthetic) do you? This is an interesting one generally which the epistemological status of the earlier version accretive theory would generally agree with -it was all accretions. However the recent tendency towards accepting external ‘real’ powers suggest to me that whilst yes IOB is of course an accretion like anything with a name.

They are also beings that can we say exist in pure pneuma rather than having even a sense of physicality. In vector field language we cannot apply the concept physicality to them in the ordinary sense but they are not just things we have stuck together unlike the Gods which I would probably agree. This being said there will be many nature spirits that may well be human formed accretions. Thus both exist, it’s hard to say where it stops really isn’t it? An egregore can presumably make an egregore if its consciousness is sophisticated enough to do so.

On dreaming, the view I held before was that like images in the mind dreams are unbound pneuma, this kind of raises the question as to what vector field will be in dreams (if one had enough control). From the descriptions it seems that dreams can be ’empty’ this is also something one can feel to be true as well. Even lucid dreams can be empty but the possibility of connection exists i.e. through this pure pneuminous land into the weird places. This is in principle easier than access from ‘reality’ but of course developing dreaming control is tricky

Re your ethics comment, I just wrote this yesterday ‘This infinite play of reticules reminds us also of Deleuze’s hero: Spinoza. Remember Spinoza talks of there being infinite attributes to substance. The reticulum instantiates this claim in a practical way. Space-time is just one experience of the reticulum. Sorcery is the interaction with the other attributes of the reticulum. ‘

Also I remember now the better relevance of the mycorrhizal thing. Remember originally how beyond Ballard/Sellars I was saying you could interpret the modern communication network not simply as our nervous system writ large but rather that the nervous system is this worlds way to try to instantiate the reticulum. So the mycorrhizal network would be more of the same but possibly a better example.

Yes, it’s along these lines. At first I also thought that what I saw as silence was achieving this peeling off of the accretive to an interaction with the vector field, a more “pure” interaction. But then what happened is that the peeling off of an accretion is like spiking a region that reverberates the force used to peel it off. This spike and reverberation travel through the surface of a vector region and depending on the energy exerted it goes into other regions. But here’s the thing, there doesn’t seem to be a difference between affecting one region and affecting two. What seems to happen is that affecting one region enough makes it dissipate itself over other regions, and they become one expanded vector region.

This expansion in the vector region results, instead of in a purer contact with the vector field and more silence coming spontaneously, in the proliferation of whatever was in the region separate to inside the region that was spiker and merged with a bigger one.

So instead of spontaneous silence, the exercise of cultivating silence open the attention to indeed more noise

Which makes automatic, everyday existence, harder due to the level of energetic activity one has to maintain to keep the noise in check. Like a newborn learning to tune his ears

I like that Spinoza section a lot. Indeed it resonates.

I’m thinking of the pneuma as whatt seemingly was already there when we came into awareness of our own historical condition, and of pneuminosity as the “simulacra” of the pneuma. That thing which closely resembles it the most while still being “an imitation”. But an imitation refined enough that it can “work” almost like pneuma does. It’s in this sense that I’m thinking pneuminosity can be produced by humans much like bees make honey; using our own bodies like factories for this stuff. I was also thinking of the puffs as a color-spectrum of pneuminosity refinance. The white smoke being the “purer” (that I know of) of the colours.

The white fog/smoke being the stuff of dreams, it would be secure to say something along the lines of: we, pneuma, produce pneuminosity, and the side-effect of this pneuminosity is dreaming. One can use this to modulate one’s pneuminosity and better comprehend the operations of the pneuma that is without the dreamer.

The knots that you said it make accretions resemble more is what I’ve been calling nodes. Nodes are like these extremely loaded regions that seem impenetrable (no peeling off) even from the second attention

But a knot would differ from a node even linguistically, in the way a knot implies a tension between relations maintaining a structure together (it can be stressed to the point of unknotting)

While the node is more akin to the concept of a corner in interior design. It’s less a tension of relations between lines and more a structural holder in itself. Knots and nodes would differ only in degree.

I love this idea of the spore and even have a name for it: sporification

About the IOBs, by synthetic I don’t mean purely accreted. Synthetic here means the opposite of fabricated in the sense that pneuminosity is fabricated while pneuma “was there”. The synthetic is indeed a category instead of a mode, and I would say only the umbratic is properly synthetic (to take from Laruelle, it is pre-prior). The inorganic beings would benefit from being understood as synthetic beings (since, for example, a rock is inorganic but not an IOB).

Or it is perfected enough to the point where the pneuma in resonance in a given region, instead of pulling things into itself, starts to push them out. This is the possibility of making the pneumatic self less dense (or more dense) than the sum total of density the region enclosured by nodes can support.

So this happens

OK let me keep poking for greater clarity, don’t get me wrong I’m mostly there, there are just I think different angles of concepts that I’ve been using that I need to see how they work with this expansion. So with no energetic perception when I try to look at me room as not a room but undifferentiated hyle

Your recent ideas would mean doing this does not reach the vector field right?  Which phenomenologically I previously would have said. I can see how the reticulum could be the vector field itself. This makes a kind of weird mishmash of the earlier versions of the umbratic vector field thing

The vector field as reticulum would be something most organisms do not perceive ever but that as the biological and cultural formations of the organism develop directly attach to in the sense of the transcendental and as broad accretive structures that are carried by the vector field. So these broad transcendental structures would then be the thing I was previously calling the vector field.Does this tally?

About the room: I would say the room itself, as well as you, as interacting with each other due to the resonance between vector regions (consider yourself a vector region and the room another). Both regions are in the vector field. When you look at, say, the wall, you’re not “seeing” the field because what you’re seeing is a myriad of resonant accretions between the two regions. Still, the very possibility of seeing the field implies you’re always already in it.

Indeed, something most organisms will never perceive precisely because that’s what being an organism is: it’s being in a central point of resonance between regions, which make the habitus of the body work. Say, for example, the circadian rhythm of someone: it’s an organic circuitry modulated by exterior and interior relationships such as luminosity, onset of sleeping patterns, stress levels, even the noise or birds as they go to their nests and you know it’s time to go home and start to relax. This circuit of sleep, unique to each individual organism, is dictated by the nodes that make enclosures around a region.

When something deals a blow to what in CC is known as the assemblage point, it disrupts the organic circuitry . So, for example, you may gain more energy and less need of sleep (or the opposite) from recapitulating memories.

I think the ontological electricity of Twin Peaks may be a good example. So power structures accretions? This makes good sense, as you get it back if you take them apart. Back to Twin Peaks insofar as the pylon borders are intense electrical-power edges, fences which require a lot of power to go through but by this virtue are reservoirs of power themselves.

I think you basically, with some tweaks, explain the concept of karma in a rational way. Let me try to say what I think power is in that specific sense.