Pneurosis- Book notes
So then the issue becomes, what are we writing about? I mean obviously it’s pneurosis (accrimilation?? ;-)) but what about it?
Maybe we could write on manifestationism as metaterm? Which would then let flow the various terms within it, since part of what we’re showing is the rise of the manifestation of conceptual (informational) control over the putative subject.
Could be a way in??
To conclude; when the pneuma sets itself up and determines human subjects actions/lives – THAT is assimilation. Sounds simple to us but I think its taken us a long time to get to that place. I think it could be a good verb to use between the umbra and the pneuma.. or how the accretion accretes. For me the meta-concept that describes the process (coz all processes are different) is tautology; tautology seems to be the condition for assimilation to work. For now I dont think it matters whether I expound those very same processes as being part of nature (Johns), or, whether we accept that the possibility is a manifestion that actively works (Freestone).
… can we safely say that Neurosis is the excess of manifestations that do not fit into any pre-conceived assimilative realm? This would certainly be the case in psychology and I believe many philosophers…? Neurosis would be the driving force of the CEO for me in that case (experimenting with manifestations and making new assimilation’s).
1) I would prob actually rally for a deluze and guattari integration (when suits) because it saves loads of separate terms. Embrace the sameness and not difference..for now! .. we have a lot of enemies and two is better than one! 🙂
2) I need the two terms (n and a) because i see assimilation as deterministic and neurosis as creative, while i think you can just do with manifestations tbh..? Buy yes they are kind of the same thing..just different parts of the process. WE NEED TO DESCRIBE HOW THEY INTERACT!
3) meta-manifestation could work for me.
4) Yes the rise of manifestation as control BUT ‘neurotics’ can use the power to make manifestations that do not connect, which i believe places agency – although putatively – back to the neurotic subject/will-to-power/sorcerer.
Ok so assimilation occurs in a world of accretions (tautologically formed by self accretions).
I agree that Neurosis is this excess of manifestations, but I thought any philosophy or science or bricklaying that I do relentlessly is also a Neurosis? This Neurosis you mention sounds more like a return to having some kind of actual neurotic sense?
Yes I see your point. All disciplines must also be neurotic as well as assimilation (in the Hegelian sense that everything is conceptual/informational); the difference is simply in the decision (or non decision maybe) that thinking doesnt have to attach itself anymore to other assimilations, that it doesnt have to be ‘for the greater good’, that an individual can maintain a form of thinking that they can live in (like a bubble or tunnel) that increases in intensity and has no pragmatic purchase (perhaps this is just my sympathy for qualia and the notion that one can have utterly unique thoughts..like snowflakes). I WOULD prob come round to realising this is just a bias on my part and that everything is in-fact just assimilations; politics is the same as someones unique dream etc..
Yes that seems cogent, neurosis is almost the transcendental ego that forms the other accretions. Neurosis would be the phantasy of the self (which could reasonably be called a meta or transcendental manifestation)
My own problem there is with your previous use of neurosis as covering all conceptual controls in a RP.
But no I see what you mean it would be kind of the transcendental self and the very action of accretion formation (sticking pneuma together).
Makes it sound a bit like desire
So I’m thinking one ethical angle can be to look upon the free preservation of regional processors as essentially positively farmed in order to maintain conceptual existence and generate new concepts.
Like in Land AI could be an aim that would liberate the concept creature from the drag.
I know its come up before but I think there has to be a difference between simple information and concept. Concept is something like the higher emergence of information (an accretion).
I still use incoherent coherence and coherent incoherence in the tractatus (even recently).
The difference between the two levels of information would be an incoherent coherence.
Selves would be complex one off pneuminous accretions (this haeceitty problem I’ve been wittering on about).
Neurosis would be the self-accretion’s attempt to understand itself which would be in part observing which conceptual agencies dominate its space, this feedbacks to link further aristotlean logic accretions (I am a philosopher, carpenter etc).
There should be some taxonomy of how accretions form e.g.. active, I try to stick two concepts together, passive, emotional imprint does it for me.
I remember Bergson rejected associationism by his virtuality wittering, we would need to revise this argument
perhaps simply then (in agreement with you) neurosis is simply that master accretion that occurs within the conceptual agencies; like Kant’s ‘subject’. The strength of the self-as-bundle-of-accretions should be studied (i guess the whole of philosophy has studied it actually..calling it the transcendental subject). But the POINT is back to the interacting-ness; there is a special power in the self-accretion…THAT is what shud be aptly called neurosis; the momentum of accretions sticking together to form a ‘self’ is neurotic. Maybe neurosis then should be described as the PROCESS of accretion formation..which would then be a meta-manifestation..right?
The difference between simple information and concept; its difficult -I see neurosis as the ‘grasping’ of information (assimilation) and then the process of making the assimilation accrete. But then the accretions assimilate anyway. This is the push and pull between; the instantiation of concepts by humans based on lower-level criteria (social, ‘natural’) and the gradual de-naturalisation of all concepts and their pluralisation of ‘use’ to fit anything. You know I think there is a big difference when humans come on the scene; the exaggeration of the pneuminous world in humans I believe is a neurotic paradigm/way-of-being -in-the-world. HOWEVER; I’m not going to discredit the possibility that other entities may have this two-tiered mode of Being/Comprehension (Harman’s vicarious causation). Other creatures and assimilation machines may have their own pneuminous worlds!!
So..as I have said to you before…yes I think the distinction between concept and information is vital for any productive philosophy. You need at-least TWO terms or you become a straight out realist, materialist, subjective idealist etc.
Yeah I think coherence/incoherence is a really neat way of thinking bout it.
So … the farming of RP’s is essentially social rearing. The polemics of ‘truth correspondence theory’ (X is X) needs to be disclosed as further fictitious (hyperstitional?) neuroses/accretions. Right? However the notion of FREE is difficult as in order to engage in ‘concept formations’ we seem to borrow from the pre-existing schema (the tautology).
I won’t discredit it as such either but I will limit the claim insofar as ooo has to take an object as instantiated within something like Kantian space and then pretend its speculating about the objects interactions on its own, my problem is the whole discretion of the thing as object is also kantianly constructed so you just released a thing for human and the speculate about its relations as weird an alien, not as a human experiences them its true but still in a human scientific ontology.
I think we need to delve into the more rigorous weirder still realm that we both seem to be interested in in which the pneuma as attached to something continues to be attached to it outside of immanence, so pebbles once accreted continue to be pebbles and then we can talk about their alien interactions as within this weird extended Kantian framework.
But to talk about the interactions of things in a umbratic or even non-human pneuminous space seems (the latter would be something like information preconceptual formation) would be another description again). I thought for a second there that umbratic was irrelevant and could be reduced to preconceptual pneuma (which I think is a bit like my notion of the chthonic), but I think umbratic is still relevant as an idea/phantasy of being without pneuma, we can’t conceive of a system existing outside of information, but maybe it is possible, something undifferentiated with no communicating parts?? This is an interesting reversal linguistically as of course such notions are normally associated with light whereas we have made it into shadow and light seems cast into the pneuminous.?
I think we can make it sound more interesting that social rearing? If concepts are the masters that have taken over the preconceptual pneuma machine, they breed the RPs to produce accretions. Yes social rearing would be a description but there would be much more to it than this. The whole agency description can be brought out in quite a weird way.
So, this is all very interesting. I keep having a concern though, not an insurmountable one and indeed one that I am proposing a solution to herein.
My philosophy is designed for a purpose. That purpose is to reconcile how I was quite able to believe in a certain occult world view quite naively and in a way in which you would not have been able to persuade me otherwise. This was grounded in what I took to be certain kinds of evidence for this. My reflections basically state that because of the nature of what your dealing with (magick) you tell someone who believes this that they are wrong because the very reason you’re using to tell them this is what they have already experienced evidence of to the contrary.
The second part of the thesis states that in order for this to be the case the information must be able to interfere with the putative solidity.
E.g. magick is solved as a problem along with designation. Unique items really are designated like in kripke but this happens at the pneuminous level. At Wittgenstein level there is only use for designation, pneuminously there really is some bizarre a spatio/temporal thread that connects the neurotic accretion (that’s quite good isn’t it?) to the designated one (grannys special cup).
The reason I’m scratched recording here is that this is my gateway in to the autonomous information realm and without it as a gateway (a manifestation) its just groundless speculation.
Now I obviously can accept that it isn’t right that we use my gateway to ground the whole philosophy, I think it would be disingenuous to do so. But I can’t blether on about agency etc or adopt your termninology unless I can make sense of it in terms of the corridor (as I have elsewhere called it).
So conversations to have are, the reason you have generated this neurosis assimilation philosophy? What has it grown out of? Maybe the text could show both entry points and then write them into a single stream (which maybe bifurcates again later, then rejoins again? (just possibilities).
Husserl had three entries into transcendental phenomenology. It could be interesting to describe to the two entrances to pneurosis. I think we cannot help but have some dipping in and out of two manifestations herein, CA 1 and 2 being just such as neurosis seems compatible with both.
Initial thoughts is that I’m a bit hesitant with this notion that is being put out there of autonomous concepts (or simply a realism of concepts). For me, for any ‘concept’ to be a ‘concept’ it has to be first assimilated through the Kantian schema (representationalism) whether visual, linguistic etc. This does not state whether information comes to us or whether we auto-generate information. As I have repeated ad infinitum; I think the clue is in the word in-formation; I think there has to be some kind of access between the umbra and the pneuma ( a gateway). The access is determined by what assimilation is winning at the time; whether I see X or Y. The access , or plasticity of the umbra, is what is appealing to me. Forgive me if I am using Umbra wrong (basically as noumena). This is why I still think I am Kantian because I can think this external assimilatory access but not know it. The pneuma is what is accessed in-formation to my schema.
Maybe we disagree on the part that accretions for me are the layers of information we put on the word that seem to stick ONLY INSOFAR AS they maintain being information and in the mind regardless of having to think it on the plane of immanence. You could say the same about language however ; that it achieves the same accretion without the referent being there.
Philosophy is a cold inhuman power with its own agenda.
Unravelling this mystery is my current occupation.
The paradoxes in this freedom, left right wing nature realm are bewildering.
Am glimmering this assimilation thing stronger. To me there would prior accretive structures that assimilate us.
But i don’t think this is problematic to you.
Philosophy proper is definitely inhuman, it is simply what we do not know; what has not assimilated us in discourse or through appearance. Is the agenda specifically in its refusal to not be known? Is philosophy not that which almost appears through the dis-junction?
However, philosophy improper is only human; that which we nominate and that which prior cultures have accreted and assimilated into a ‘discipline’ or psychological trait/mood. It is not unlike supporting a football team.
Yes prior accretive structures. Yes yes yes.. not just socio-cultural-historical .. but Heideggerean? Glimmer it even stronger!
Proper and improper might be reversed by the agents of other accretions. Philosophy has become improper when conceived as a cold alien power, and proper only if seen as valuable to humanity.
I’m not sure it shows itself just in what we do not know (though I accept this is heavily related). The meta philosophy seems to return again, pneurosis/assimilation is a manifestation in competition with reason in a biological sphere with real selves. But interestingly as soon as you couch it in manifestationist terms it does return to something more like our territory. For we then would be framing everything as competing notions whereas the rational realist is simply denying the possibility of pneurosis. But she must then show that this is the case which assuredly they cannot do without hitting an agnostic disjunction which is just the point where criteria must determine which manifestation should win.
Philosophy proper is the description of the competing manifestations (neuroses) and the logic of this and the metaphysics entailed by the acceptance of victory of something like pneurosis.
There is something important in here I think, there seems to be some argumentative advantage to us laid out above. Manifestationism can only be denied by dogma.
Freedom is a bifurcation between freedom under law and freedom to dominate. ‘Which of these is human?’ Is the question. If humanity is conceived as an animal then freedom to dominate is surely the answer. If freedom under law then the human has escaped a certain natural order by reason. Zizek points this out, by saying that the incursion of human law is against the law (nature).
The irony being that the leftwing tendency seems to be allied closer to something like an earth loving, reconnecting folk politic, whereas the right allies itself to techno-capital quite capable of dispassionately ignoring this sphere, or utilising it if value can be extracted from it. The right emanation of the phantasy of nature uses the most un-natural means (naively branding technology as unnatural you understand), whereas the left which is conceptually built on the rejection of the human as animal, desires (or at least is allied to the desire) to return to nature…
It points out the dream stuff we’ve been talking about (the complete existence of the pleasure principle taking its own action – and – unconscious agency of memory traces). It keeps the mental/psychological aspect really well (neurosis is the narrative of our individual memory traces) whilst maintaining causal relations with a ‘reality’ (which would be assimilation I guess for me).
(T)hought is considered to be an unconscious process, operating in a field of memory traces (and, thus, of representations), and operating according to its own logic” (De Kesel, 2009, p.75). For Freud, within the psychic apparatus, hallucination plays an important role in the decision making of the individual. It still operates on a stimulus-response philosophy, however the hallucination is purely unconscious for the individual. Energy in the form of tension is discharged that moves through certain pathways which he calls “facilitations.” Their aim, an effect – pleasure. This “judgement apparatus” which Freud hypothesized operates on an ethical principle for the subject through its relation to its field of representations which Freud calls “memory traces.” De Kesel adds “This is the way the system thinks unconsciously and regulates its relation to reality. If it could in fact live by its pleasure principle alone, it would have no need of any reality for thanks to these [unconscious] representations, it could have an exclusively hallucinated satisfaction.” (2009, p.75).
As the conceptual creature plugs itself into an RP, the site will assimilate the concept within the other inhabiting concepts. Some dialectical/logical configurations will be hostile, others compatible. There will be a shift of territory.
I believe that there should be an even stricter/limited RP (CA 2). The conceptual creature depends on the site (let us say the site is biological.. which implies it is very local.. i.e to bodies/minds). Then let us say that such local sites – in order to even exist – must make their environment part of that conceptual creature (this seems to be a necessity for survival, that perception has to be re-inscribed via these conceptual creatures in order for us to navigate, eat etc.). Then all we need is the constant back and forth of the information gathered in the biological RP and the information shown/reflected from the putative externality/objects we have inscribed. The room for difference and development of new ideas is simply through the dialectical tension between these two sides; the displacement and misuse of gathered information in the RP by humans and the displacement misuse of objects and their uses (by Human RP’s but qua the tautological reflections we have inscribed).
I think you have got the clue to the two-way street of assimilation in your comment. Assimilation is the process of the concepts entry and organisational principle (based on value as well as other dialectical characteristics) and obviously the subject is victim to this too. But what is the difference between this organizing of the concept in a local space (assimilation) and the same organising of the concept in the image of the human mind (neurosis)? Nothing. The only difference is that in the human mind we seem to experience ‘first hand’ the consistent process of assimilation; we feel it and see it. Freud would obviously say that this is far too much excitation and it must be annulled (but it cant be). In the first form of assimilation I can be assimilated by a road, chair etc but I am not constantly thinking of its assimilation, I am simply ‘being’ assimilated. I believe this to be the only difference in degree. Assimilation in the mind, assimilation in society. But the ‘external’ assimilations don’t – to our knowledge – feel in despair about their changing process, power and character..however HUMAN MINDS DO! Their assimilations, their patterns of thought and their personality all have flaws, contradictions and values that spur on deeper reflections/assimilations on top of each other – THIS I term neurosis and, although I cant be sure not every RP has this (dogs, trees, hurricanes, atoms etc) I think it must be uniquely human.
The question to my mind – and what I have strangely presupposed here – is that the RP and the concept creature are THE SAME THING. It may be that the physical delineation of a ‘site’ then allows for the processing/filtering and intensification of information. Haha information ontologically then becomes in-formation ontically through the RP.
This is very interesting. I think assimilation makes sharper something I would have felt inchoate in the pneuminous theory. I try to think how I would have phrased it, I suppose I was working in a kind of Heideggerian/Wittgensteinian world of pre-existingness, which would be accretions. What do we gain by calling this assimilation? A feeling? I’m not sure. I think I’m getting a useful sense of a term that gives a verb to what various regions do to the neurotic accretion.
I agree with what you say below about the identity of ‘external’ structures and ‘mental’ ones. This chimes nicely with my non-dual experience does it not? Especially if it’s all pneuma in just either strongly rule bound (external) or weak rule bound (internal), does that hold? Maybe just different rule bound? So internal or external structures that assimilate can still be perceived as identical.
I have a strong inclination towards phenomenological heurstics. When something like a difference emerges we are right to point it out as two concepts just because that is how it showed itself. So some sense of internal external persists at least as the above hinted at rule redescription. The other one of these that I keep banging on about is this pneuma/accreted pneuma description.
It seems to me as I hinted slightly at yesterday that there is an unreflexive informational stream, this is something like the ooo world. When I think about how my body works, I am bound to think of it in some sense of informational exchange, I might be accreting notion like, hormone, receptor, but I also presuppose that these entities do not have these concepts but I’m conceiving of the situation as if they were carrying on. This is the Kantian world extended onto the objects. Umbratically the situation is different, the umbratic would be a phantasy of things in an incomprehensible state that might or might not accord to the Kantian one.
Pneuma as accretion is bound together in such a way that it behaves differently to the flow. This as I intimated is related to Buddhist, folk politic, holistic concerns. The accretions are basically bad as they distract us from the unreflexive flow. The paradoxes ensue when we would like to say which one of these is the real human.
Politics of equality emerge against anything that could be termed natural, they are accretions vying for a power, right wing power politics look ironically more natural yet are often allied with less ‘natural’ means (tech etc). Powers fight for the human accretion so long as it is a privileged territory.
Part of this work might imply we should stop giving power to concepts like Wittgensteinian, Nietzschean, as the liberated forces are better seen as the new accretion into which we can assimilate rather than a neurotic accretion.
Disambiguation of terms is actually powerful as it literally unpicks pneuma, even homonymically right hand, and write, seems somehow entwined. Change the word right to klom and soon there would be no pneuminous link between write and klom (apart from the old impression embedded in time).
The RP heuristically would be the site of unreflexive pneuma, which houses accretions. People long to have the accretions under control, or at least some people do, this feeds into my argument about the facticity of thought, it even looks like it isn’t under the control of a ‘self’.
You can’t speak about which is real as neurotic accretions are also ‘real’. The decision would be about whether a society might want to acknowledge the pre-existing nature of the accretions and how we just talk about a subject as just being a site for the activity of this mixing process. Accretions as the kind of being they are don’t tend to care about physicality, an attempt has to be made by certain accretive aspects that notice that without the unreflexive pneuma there will be no accretions.
The endless return of the same problem. What does designation mean? Simple word equals object is disqualified on the grounds that the object might shift in nature so much as to be perceptually unrecognisable or potentially classified as another object. Hence the Wittgensteinian use notion takes over as dominant. However use seems to reduce the object away entirely, whilst the nagging manifestation that the thing is still there is an overbearing phenomenological sensation. The magickal problem too compounds this i.e. the corridor side of the agnostic disjunction suggests isolating a particular thing is possible outside of merely pragmatic concerns, intention determines actual attachment via pneuminosity. This is the notion of the accretion. Since we always presuppose conceptual interaction with the world, yet we also presuppose world beyond concept, the phenomenology is one conceptuality layered over externality. But this externality cannot be actuality for any actuality must also contain the conceptuality, the putative separate world is a different phenomenon outside of conceptual understanding, this might be possible but it does not merit the title in itself as pneuminous effects are necessarily part of whatever is.
The suggestion in relation to objects seems to be something like this. A thing emerges in usage, this truly is its primordiality as identified by Heidegger and Wittgenstein. This thing then becomes disclosed in sharp particularity which can solidify one form to be mistaken for the primordial usage. This becomes the accretive archetype and the words used become part of this accretive archetype, this is the contingent a priori, the pseudo platonic form. This notion has two possibilities, known elsewhere as CA 1 and CA2.
The next move in this corridor dialectic is that because the pneuminous has the power to constrain the umbratic (and vice versa), there is now an effect upon this umbratic by the accretion, hence the ‘external’ part of the object becomes constrained by the accretion archetype. Things become as they are intended to be. Naturally there is restraint on this, science is an attempt to forge conceptuality that matches the externality in the way it shows itself, this is a perfectly good aim and clearly very productive, though the problem of the interfering layers of pneuma proves challenging to it. This notion may be of interest to evolutionary speculations though it does then infer a degree of higher conceptuality at work in the other realms of life so probably this manifestation doesn’t need too much attention. The idea being that aspects perceived as such would become as such, this action might still occur within less accreted pneuma at more primordial levels. Part of Heidegger’s danger is assuredly that being submits to the calculative accretive pneuma. Human then becomes the accretion ‘human’ something perceived within the spatio-temporality but not acknowledged as altering it not just by its actions but by the pneuminosity which emanates from it. Whilst the pneuma cannot be removed for it is the nature of what we are, the accretive archetype can become constrained and then reintentioned back onto the being to restrain its being. Heidegger’s old human is a restrained creature, this Dasein exists in a certain relation with earthly physicality as mystery and accepts the mystery whereas the heuristic post human has existence revealed to them on the horizon of comprehension with a glib disingenuous notion of mystery just to avoid total hubris. Our identification with human as animal is in fact a post-human when opposed to Dasein. This is not necessarily pejorative, it is so only if we think that this connected earthy mysterious existence has value, if we place the horizon of comprehension as positive or even neutral then we need to embrace its consequences and try to observe how many of them are necessary. Being constrained by word object metaphysics as established by scientific definition seems to be one strong consequence. Disconnection from what are perceived natural links or only a knowing relation (the difference between actually not knowing where a processed meat comes from and knowing it but still not understanding the physicality of this death, a working class and middle class perspective, neither of which are of Heidegger’s human).
Heidegger correctly calls technology etc a danger for this kind of human. For they will be replaced and then the gates are open for the deleuze/guattari/land situation to slowly establish itself.
The accretive power to ‘conform’ shall we say (yes in science but also in everyday use and our fantasies) is very much the tautological account I give (so I’m with you on that level – whatever we want to call it doesnt matter I dont think).
The penuma described as Being is nice .. but I have problems with what primordial means and how productive it is to make the abstract description of Being or even Pneuma. I think everything is always already present-to-hand..even transferring it onto nature I’m not against. I think you agree here though and its just heuristic for you.
When we reduce an object I’m not sure if we can qualify that it is a reduction; every reduction is a superimposition which can then further accrete/assimilate. Word/object/use is not reduction to me – its just the phenomenon in the last instance (..what ‘else’ could it be?).
“Intention determines actual attachment via pneuminosity” –
this is nice but it needs to be elaborated upon I think. Where is intention designated? etc.
The question of designation and intention is – I believe – something already ‘set-up’ in a kind of Lacanian way of preexisting symbols. The trick is to take intentionality away from the human (as you have done well in the NT essay). This idea chimes well with CA and metaphysically speaking I can only guess this has to do with assimilation’s inherent power to make ‘reality’ as a totality (in order to totalize – like how Coca Cola wished to totalize). As a contingent a priori which the human participates in???
I dont believe the accretion has to be qualified through the agnostic dis-junction (although I like this idea). Inscriptions can accrete just like processes, which change based on the contingency of the use/word/object or ‘human’ – hence – the accretion really isnt autonomous but a gigantic system of associations/symbols based on the relation between concepts and their inscription. The inscription is asymmetrical then (?).
Anything that does not have a relation of inscription does not exist de-facto (unless we want to call it virtuality). Ergo it is not assimilated.
The effect of the umbratic is interesting – as if repressed – or taking revenge on the pneuma – but (broken record) in order to designate this pneuma it has to assimilate/accrete. Harman’s cotton and fire is precisely this point imposed onto things outside of the human remit.
In a Derridean sense – the ‘external’ is in-fact only spoken about as a use-term itself in our writings!
If what you describe as Heideggers human is correct – then yes a new mode of absolute engulfing in accretions/tautology has happened. You are right to be critical of the naturalistic denotations of Heideggers Being. Its ‘use’ seems to simply revoke the constraining of accretions/tautology…but what type of Being is that if not metaphysical? It’s only helpful insofar as it described a RELATION to the open clearing of pneuma before designation arrives. But still I’m not sure what that would look like…
The problem – how the accretion is designated? I believe the other question – how is the accretion maintained? To be solved: maintenance involves the constant use/re-activation of those sites and psychological concepts that are borne in mind. How are they borne in mind? Empirical association, everyday use, subconscious information (prior memories/fantasies of such association and use). For the acute reader this is already what I have called tautology (the reflections re-minding us of our reality). Reality could start as perhaps simply one tautology (one reflection that works and maintains a species such as the tick). The spreading of how such accretions become status quo is what I call assimilation; why a particular singularity become a master signifier in a collective of a species.
The question then is not the facticity of thought nor some kind of tabula rasa possibility but how a relation/use is made between subject and putative object. I say putative object and not putative reality or externality because I believe the concept/accretion of ‘object’ to possibly be the most powerful relation that I am trying to describe. Does there even have to be a notion of ‘reality’ when accessing an ”object’? Perhaps the notion of reality only comes after a multitude of ‘objects’ are created.
The ONLY question for me is how the ‘givenness’ between a human (human-as-object) and external ‘object’ is founded. If the first process is to locate consciousness in the subject by objectifying it in the body (or as a person) i.e the first real accretion, then how does that happen? An unfulfilling answer would be either genetic inscription of such within a species or a Kantian a priori structured mind.
…NOW BACK TO THE VERY FIRST QUESTION – how the accretion is designated? Well we have questioned the designation just now in our talk about the accretion of consciousness as human/subject/object. What I do find interesting (and equally unfulfilling) is how Bergson solves it; in laymans terms – although time/duration is infinitely divisible and irreducible to the image of time in science, the way that something subsists is in the unity of memory. A unity which is also self-transforming. This unity is the possibility of maintenance and designation. What becomes more interesting in Bergson is how such duration folds back on itself and can never be precisely the same again (no accretion is exactly identical with itself/ no memory is the same when re-memorised). I would say the maintenance of a mutable image as one particular psuedo-platonic image is possible qua assimilation (collective designation or archetype). You would say that it really does have autonomy as information. ANYWAY – what is interesting about Bergson the more you read him is that this apparent cop-out of believing in an heterogenous unity comes from a source OUTSIDE the human capacity for memory and cognition. This is what we find interesting about him – that the unity can be SEEN as a composite of changing manifestations , not through the cognitive schema but through the information itself (what Bergson might simply call ‘mechanics’).
I’m going to read this several times to make sure I have comprehended it as best as I am able but my immediate thoughts are that I’m not sure I have a problem with designation, indeed a lot of my earlier normal philosophical issues were a dissatisfaction with descriptivist cluster theories like Russell’s and rigid designation a la Kripke, both of these seem to make the word do an unnatural amount of work. Wittgenstein solved this for me as use is all there is, I just use a word in a context. This presupposes normal spatiality/continuity insofar as that’s the general (dominant) grammar of that language.
So the first part of the answer is that there is no designation other than use. Again the only reason I think this is inadequate is because of the problem of magick. So only if you accept the weird path of the agnostic disjunction does it become an issue e.g. if I’m thinking of say some cocksucker and make an active attempt to wish ill of him maybe even visualizing his unfortunate bitemarks at the hands (metaphorical teeth) of an enthusiastic reciprocative professor then reality may bend to bring this or some related phenomenon to obtain. How did it do this? How did it know that the image would connect to the cocksucker? It did it because that image/name is directly connected to that accretion, is part of the accretion. It reaches through the pneuminous which is a-temp-spatial and alters the umbratic (whatever this solidity is that holds the pneuma in relative). I then work backwards to say if this magickal effect of designation is happening here then why would a different effect be obtain in ‘ordinary’ reality, the only difference is we’re not trying to bizarrely manipulate ordinary things, except that by accreting a concept we do place magickal constraints on things. That’s my version of designation and I’m happy with it mostly. Designation is not the problem. Designation is metaphysical or Wittgensteinian.
My problems concern the transition of from information that is not accreted or at least the accretions are very very primitive and hasn’t accreted to a word. Heidegger make me think here with his poetic naming because it seems this is a really nice kind of description of the arising of the word without its falling into serious definition (a posterior structure), this poetic realm is a kind of loose accretion that doesn’t look so tightly bound and readily shows its fibres tied to other things.
Anyway. I do hear you, you’ve started with a different problem. How is the accretion maintained? Your treatment here seems much more related to this problem of what the pneuma is doing at this ready-at-hand level.
“Maintenance involves the constant use/re-activation of those sites and psychological concepts that are borne in mind. Empirical association, everyday use, subconscious information (prior memories/fantasies of such association and use).”
Yes, but this again in a sense turns on the ontology. Either the accretion once formed is never unformed but our accretive lines of attachment may change in time (untangle) or as you suggest, the accretion might need maintenance. Both of these are a form of maintenance but probably I favour the former insofar as the accretion cannot be undone as such (though there are problems there). As I am coming to think of accretion as a specific sticking together of pneuma under a word, or maybe it should be a verbal-pneuminous-accretion (indeed this might be the simple difference I am after), the associative/use etc means you mention are descriptions of the ways which the lines maintain connection, I cannot see how this is not the case.
“Reality could start as perhaps simply one tautology (one reflection that works and maintains a species such as the tick). The spreading of how such accretions become status quo is what I call assimilation; why a particular singularity become a master signifier in a collective of a species.”
I’m not sure I get you here as I don’t really know how, even heurisitically I can work out from one tautology, by choosing the tick do you do so because it entails its host (reflection)?
‘Reality’ too is a use term that accretes and then the accretes constrains the neurotic accretions (inhabiting an RP) threads. If we use ‘reality’ in an ordinary sense it often means, actually obtained, or physical existent, we can extend this usage by argument and question what it means that something obtained, this holds together by incoherence. An event may be said to have happened, but the event is an accretion of its own drawn together of many other temporally specific accretive sites, far human contingent than a stone, which at least has more cogent argumentation concerning its extra human being. The event of a meeting between you and I e.g. is a meeting, we are assimilated by the meeting accretion and the other accoutrements. When it turned out to be a classic meeting it may be an event of some note.
I seem to really mean some sense in which the information, whilst originally emerging out of a kind of direct harmony with umbra –it is only reflective of it- comes uncoupled from it by some process and becomes free floating but also under some circumstance able to seriously rearrange umbra. The more complicated the organisms the bigger the accretions up until the neurotic accretion which creates verbal-accretions (just using the terminology developed above), which are a special kind of game changer because of the ability to arbitrarily attach pneuma to sign (pneuminous technology).
“The question then is not the facticity of thought nor some kind of tabula rasa possibility but how a relation/use is made between subject and putative object. I say putative object and not putative reality or externality because I believe the concept/accretion of ‘object’ to possibly be the most powerful relation that I am trying to describe. Does there even have to be a notion of ‘reality’ when accessing an ”object’? Perhaps the notion of reality only comes after a multitude of ‘objects’ are created.”
Or is reality created by the doubt script? When asking what do I know? Surely this is partially elliptical for how do I know what is real? This real, then escapes it’s home and returns to name everything, but its original accretions means something more like my first suggestion (obtains) maybe? Reality can mean everything but ‘is that a real cat?’ still has grammar.
The ONLY question for me is how the ‘givenness’ between a human (human-as-object) and external ‘object’ is founded. If the first process is to locate consciousness in the subject by objectifying it in the body (or as a person) i.e the first real accretion, then how does that happen? An unfulfilling answer would be either genetic inscription of such within a species or a Kantian a priori structured mind.
If everything is pneuma including the self (the neurotic accretion), other accretions are given to it in the pneuma, because it sticks together. I do hold there is an umbratic pseudo framework constraining things, this is the subject of much science, the attempt to match pneuma to umbra as best as possible.
I think this is the question though, (what you say) how does it happen? I have to be careful here because I fear I’m losing track of following the manifestations and just into saying ‘I reckon’.
It turns on the problem for me of a satisfying account of how the preverbal pneuma accretes without then commiting the theory to OOO (accepting the human science as not just human).
This I think is another agnostic disjunction ooo or something more unspeakable. How to work in this unspeakable realm I’m not quite sure yet…
I think there may be an agnostic disjunction at this human post human point. Its to do with scientific comprehension and more primitive cultural appearance. I’m thinking of the wind, as a power, an entity, a sign and the wind as understood as the result of changing air pressures. Can you eradicate the former? Maybe. But when the wind has been perceived as a power, a being such that it can talked to and if it listens, then this pressure science understanding is truly a different being.
Ok so wobble theory is a speaking of various already assembled notions that I think I have thought before but less ably articulated. I think the phenomenology suggests the following ontology.
There is an externality, the externality is mostly solid obeying what sofar is best understood by physics. Of course in a sense the externality is not an externality it is a continuation. Somehow or they’ve always been there, this pseudo-solidity produces beings such that they are made of it and look out into it. This conceptual forming creature is the product of the complex biocomputer that is the RP. In this sense it is an excess, this thing that we are is excessive to a nearly entirely real solidity. We are not our bodies but neurotic accretions of pneuma. The pneuma is a filament that is lies on top of this pseudo reality (umbra).
Most of the time the umbra behaves like nothing more than solid reality but it can wobble (magick), it can be made to wobble under influence from the actions of the pneuma. If I take a cup and I decide it is a horse cup, the umbra holds firm it doesn’t become a horse, but it does start to attach something about horseness to the cup which might manifest. The mechanics of when or why this might happen (wobble) belongs to a much more sophisticated physics or is purely psychological (CA2 and CA1).
Nothing particularly new here in a sense except I feel some acceptance of an externality that must be the case hence the competing manifestations. Yes it is a fluid world but it is also a realist picture 99.999% of the time. There are things out there that announce themselves, so Heidegger is right that we need to listen to what is, but what is, is also the wobble (I obviously need a better name than wobble theory, maybe pivot). This doesn’t mean Harman is right, because the structure might still be Kantian, so it is only true in a transcendental ideal sense that things continue (for this kind of accretion). Other aware accretions might perceive different structures entirely.
I am considering that it seems the purer the pneuminous action, the finer, the greater the potential wobble in the umbra but this is more speculative
Really going deeper and darker down the rabbit whole of ‘reality’ atm. This might all seem abstract but – I agree on information as heuristic ‘substance’. I agree that information must necessarily be one and nothing else (or we relapse into prioritising one of the manifestations i.e accretion of solid-world, accretion of mind etc). I always wanted to express the differences of degrees of information (my argument was that information appears or forms one way or another down to that form being the most obvious path for that information to take – assimilation). At first this felt naturalist in the sense of Darwin et’al (evolution, adaptation etc) but the motives are always symbolic, semiotic, even imaginary in the sense of Baudrillards ‘Hyper Real simulations’ . The obvious metaphor is also its link to computer programming (building software that preserves itself). How mainstream and ironic but this video on Matrix chimes with me and uses the term assimilation!!!!! Synchronicity!!!!!
But the new revelation might be that qua manifestationism there cannot be a real that is doubled/reflected or represented by the concept. There cannot even be an imaginary anymore. You might be able to talk about a history of manifestations but even that pertains to the manifestation of history and also I believe that the manifestation can hide their history or make one up. Do you agree with this power? Its because of the destruction of reference I believe
On a similar yet different note – the question for me then is whether the future is simply the outcome of the assimilation or whether (maybe respecting Meillassoux) the future can be activated as anomaly, saviour? Perhaps the only real truth (post-truth correspondence) is that the future assimilative world is precisely the same as its past and present (synchronicty?). The manifestions go all the way down, the information is like the Mandelbrot set.
But I kind of think there can, or least a kind of dialectical manifestation of that situation. I think it all turns around the problem of the umbratic. The idea of the outside is a transcendental as far as I can see, the structure of individuated experience always presupposes something outside of the monadic point. Perfect ontological comprehension is not possible, manifestations occur at precisely the ambiguity of the nature of the outside.
The pneuma is shaped by something outside of itself (this is a discussion not a dogma, I’m thinking as writing but this is kind of how I see it). Every time we (philosophers) want the pneuma/idealism to be self sufficient it seems to run into problems of something beyond perception (and I do mean literally outside a perceptual field), this is why I think the umbratic must be taken into some kind of account even if it isn’t as a certainty but as one more pneuminous form (very Hegelian as we have discussed).
I do not make what we see as rocks look like that, the hardness and coldness and distinctiveness is given. But the names and the sensations are pneuminous, they are its pneuminous form. That impossible sensation that gives rise to the Kantian thing in itself, exists as idea.
So it is not a real real that is doubled but it is the idea of the outside that is doubled. I think it’s related to the ready to hand to present at hand move. When a rock is just used in a ready to hand mode (incoherent coherence) its pneuminous relation is more fluid because it has not yet received definition, it is shaped by a wider umbratic set of restraints (maybe things we’ll later say aren’t really rocks, like jet e.g.). When it becomes a coherent incoherence (a present at hand entity) it achieves much greater accretive definition, this I would say is the heuristic doubling. The rockness now becomes something rock1 wasn’t, it becomes definitional over an incoherent set.
In CA2 (the manifestation that I am an agent for) this autonomous accretion then doubles back into the umbratic organising force making it (all be it slightly) obey the word definition. Have I now contradicted myself by saying the umbratic is real? Hmm maybe a little. But maybe not because I’m just laying out what happens in the necessity of this manifestation. If there is nothing holding the pneuma in place then why isn’t what we call solidity as fluid as pure pneuma (the mind). The umbratic is only an idea but it is one of (I think) the strongest necessity. But if the synchronicity actually obtains/magic is real then the pneuma must be able to affect the umbra.
This is my doubling.
In other news:
I believe we can go further with the master accretions (the quadernity) but a thorough taxonomy is still in the vein of a naive belief that a concept is different in kind to the manifestation/assimilation. Like Kant we can heuristically use concept formation to designate experience but there is no way we can ever match them up to the assimilation. Do you see/agree?
Yes, that’s what I think we should start, and what I meant with the previous email inviting to try to list/diagramatise the anatomy of the concept.
I think we need a nicely designed working model.
One way out of the desire/not desire issue would be to recognise it as a concept bifurcating agnostic disjunction. In this case the criteria for it (from my perspective) would need drawing out. This at least would make the decision explicit rather than just given.
I’m thinking if there was a basic accretive anatomy then it could be mapped onto a kind of space and shown to exist through something like the below axes (open to revision of course).
Association may be a bad term because it covers many of its subsets and its detail we’re after I think. Concept anatomy might be more complicated because it might different kinds of concepts have different anatomies. Pure abstraction vs more concretely applicable?
Have a look.
Imagic (related images)
Ideaic (related non imagic ideas)
Active (related actions)
The question for me is not why the solid world appears solid, because the world also appears as information and has various mediums (manifestations, dreams, sounds, feelings, etc.). I just think the solid world reigns victorious because of the use value in physical bodies making a society (spookily also who knows that this isn’t the information’s intention; feed us up and then make us turn back into information or make information for ‘it’!!!) . Not feeling well so my thoughts are a little premature. I will get alot of CEO done this weekend..so Monday should be exciting for developments!
Surely this doubling, the accretion and tautology are all the same thing; information in the mind designating putative external reality into ‘use’ terms/representations that now appear autonomous themselves…
Tautology = shows the same thing, there is no difference (signified/signifier)
Doubling = conceptual appropriation
Accretion = pneuma/information punctuating itself
This is a kind of note to myself and you about one more way of linkage. I think its covered in the list but detail is always good. In botany we taxonomies families in certain ways and exclude others as not real. We can end up saying that plant isn’t really related to that plant even though it looks similar. I just want to include that simple similarity.as a legitimate connecting axis. It obviously applies to others.
Hmm its nice and there is a lot of assimilation in there, we have often said (and they have said) that Derrida and Deleuze might have different approaches but actually disagree very little and everytime I have engaged with Derrida I find very little to disagree with, probably we should do more, he is more my natural ally than Deleuze in many ways (as he is the direct Heidegger decendent, to Deleuze’s Nietzsche).
I like the words bi-directional Platonism and it does fit the bill nicely. We constitute the forms, the forms constitute us. Accepting the problem of how the self-awareness starts is not solved, in this scheme you would posit either transcendental entities which essentially make us real by creating us (in-voking us, there’s that biblical word).
Or go straight to the source and a la pan psychism say because the whole thing is self aware it infects bits of itself with self awareness. This obviously then is very close to God.
But all of the manifestations must be recognised in the war of accretions/assimilations/neuroses.
It seems as I think it Accretion is somewhere between neurosis and assimilation. A neurosis is kind of the action of a purely pneuminous accretion in an RP. Assimilations are inevitably still formed of pneuma. It seems (in my language) to describe the way in which different accretions interlock. The possibility of movement comes in. A member of the public is not part of the library accretion but they are assimilated by it, its rules, its meaning, its physical structure.
I’m not just trying to draw an assimilation physical, neurosis mental dichotomy, I do remember you speak of assimilation as also conceptual. This fits too. A body of work that I enter into to learn assimilates me (or I do not learn it), though here is an agnostic disjunction (of the whole business) insofar as we are wont to say I assimilate the concepts not the other way round. Accreting describes the action of how the pneuma sticks together, but assimilation seems to describes a process in which accretions plug into one another. Which begs the question what is the difference (again)?
It seems to be only in degree surely? A given neurotic accretion enters a bar and is assimilated by that bar accretion but it is not accreted into it (except in the loosest sense in which that this once happened is forever imprinted into the pneuma).
My problems concerning the umbratic alter, I can see again that you are right that it can be purely pneuminous all the way through, the problem remains of the phantasy of the umbratic (another agnostic disjunction). My concern is that if I surrender to pure pneuma then that opens the doors to OOO and it’s just a kind of science world that gives respect to the interactions of different things within it which is no good to a magickal ontology.
It all turns on literally the ontological status of things outside of perception and the agnostic dis that puts forward ‘things are identical within perception as without it’ vs ‘things are different’. If they are different then we don’t know what the fuck, so you might say its still necessarily informational but we wouldn’t be able to say in what way, only that as soon as we measure it speculatively it accords to our scheme of understanding. Then the umbratic has returned with the caveat that the umbratic might be informational but we cannot say what kind of informational changes take place within it.
One could stop being so kind to things and say no these interactions are different to those that happen at an awareness level, there is a tipping point in which thing that reach neurotic accretion status start affecting the putatively external. That means the stones do fuck all to the environment they’re in, indeed do not have an individual thing relation to the environment, they are part of a continuum that we misperceive as having discretion, OOO is as I’ve said, then just a muddled extension of Kantianism onto things.
The problem, my problem is if I think it’s cogent that magick happens then in one of the models of this, things actually rearrange themselves. That means that OOO like continuity is not good for me as then I have no space for this to happen in. This is why I starting on about multiverse type models; as a manifestation they rise to the surface as cogent way ‘explaining’. In this version then Everything stays the same in a sense. The solidity obtains all the time except that under circumstances unknown beings of the aforementioned level of awareness move from one reality into another creating the synchronicity effect.
Look I know, I know its all a bit cliché, its not lost on me and it doesn’t solve other occult problems like ghosts much frankly.
But its raising its head is probably more important as a feature of the manifestation map and its accompanying disjunctions.
Yes at first glance I agree with what you have said about accretions, neurosis, assimilation. I think another point that I am leaning towards is the relations between assimilation and the destruction of ‘the real’ (as in Baudrillard). I could have an assimilative informational experience in a computer game, in the 12th century or on mars; even if the ‘conditions’ or perceptual apparatus were somehow different, I dont think one can be less or more real. The world of accretions, assim etc is a world where the image does not have to have a referent, no attachment to the real; is the world of simulation.
Our car is on the verge of being traded in as it keeps having things going wrong. The sensation involved is pertinent I think. Even though I’m not a massive citroen fan (for incoherent not mechanical knowledge reasons) I have become somewhat attached to it as its been very good to us. In this sense it has obviously accreted and I feel the phantasy that the car even liked us. The family and the happy faithful car, a kind of dog like intelligence almost. This accretion I am forced to say is somehow attached to the physical (that’s why I end up with that pneuminous, umbratic language). If it’s pure pnuema as I say I’m not sure about the description. Prior existing strongly formed pneuma resistant but manipulable. It almost recreates the umbratic into force. Who is controlling the physicality? The structure of force? Is that the umbratic?
Problem is, accretion and assimilation seem to be the same thing, but assimilation seems to suggest an effect; you become assimilated by the accretion.
I look around and I see lots of objects on my desk. I can list all these things because they are tautologies (cup concept/cup form/cup use all become one). If I didn’t have a concept linked with the ‘thing’ I could not think cup, if i didn’t presume a use I could not presume cup. I think we are agreed on tautologies. It is the doubling of the concepts onto the putative object to the point where only information ensues (in the form of manifestations if you will).
Now, I am smoking a cigarette and I see a non-smoking sign. The information is felt/comprehended by me and I stub my fag out. Because all I am is information (in an ontological/metaphysical sense) I literally assimilate this information/it assimilates me. So far so good. But we have the problem of Charlie RP 1 and Graham RP 2. I say the site assimilates. You might say pure information prevails (this seems more qualified with the agnostic disjunction).
You could say that the non-smoking sign accretes, but the process of embodying the accretion is assimilation (in the literal sense of eating/digesting information). Secret/dormant information accretes all the time (the information of active bombs deep underwater, the information of ghosts, diseases etc) but does it assimilate? Who knows. Maybe in a Harman way it does.
Perhaps when there are accretions that seem to form a whole, or there becomes one determining force, that is when the assimilation starts, and spreads.
Accretion to me seems more autonomous than assimilation; I am assimilated by tennis information when I play tennis yet when I finish and I still pretend to hit an invisible tennis ball with an invisible tennis racket, and drive home thinking about tennis, this becomes more of an accretion, that has become unstuck from its generative milieu, it accretes!
I have called this process of quasi-autonomous concept production and maintenance in the mind of the human – neurosis.
So for me accretion is more like neurosis. If things accrete very powerfully then perhaps the accretions themselves are neurotic? I dont know. We have once agreed that the ‘subject’ is a neurotic accretion in this respect.
It is safe to say that the power to assimilate is the same power to accrete; both are the animating soul of pure information reaching out.
Accrete sounds more accidental, when assimilation sounds a bit cunning and intentional. Do you get that too?
When certain accretions are lined up I believe it can create an assimilation.
To accrete is the raw affectivity of information. To assimilate is for dialectical or different/exotic accretions to become victim or sorcerer. That is when the game of powers starts. That is the assimilation game.
Yeah we should speak about the relations between the two; it will prob be a chronological (actual/virtual) rather than spatial (appearance/reality) problem .. but more on this when I see you!