What Harman calls the intentional image is the pneuma as accreted into a particular form. There are some similarities between OOO and pneuminosity however these are largely superficial. In pneuminosity there is no ‘real’ object as opposed to an intentional one. This underscores Harman’s dubious interpretation of Husserl in which he seeks to separate out the intentional object from the real one. For pneuminosity this separation does not occur. The pneuminous object is what it is, information (pneuma) is not an inert separate image/sensation that is apprehended, rather it is the totality of everything that the Narp experiences -and is made up of. Being-burned by a fire is still an informational happening within the Narp-field. The only need for something beyond the pneuma is the notion within the pneuma that there must be something beyond it. This is the phantasy of the beyond. It appears in Kant as the ding-an-sich and in Schopenhauer as the will. Those familiar with CEO terminology will understand that phantasy does not mean something negative but rather suggests a region whose ontological status is wholly indeterminate.The manifestation war rages over the nature of the beyond.
Here at the CEO the beyond-pneuma is known as the umbra. This is not the same as the ding an sich as it makes no claim to be the totality, indeed it is something less. Since pneuma is wholly its own substance with no necessary umbratic behind it, the phantasy (maybe it is more like a fantasy) of the umbra is something less than the in itself which could only be conceivable as both pneuma and umbra. Because all we have access to is pneuma the umbra is just a pneuminous accretion of the impossibility of itself. Of course it is not this simple because precisely one of the manifestations that wants to control this realm is the continuation of information beyond the Narp. This seems wholly reasonable yet it is still the product of an agnostic disjunction. We do not know what the ontological status of things outside of the Narp field and phenomena like pneuminous interference suggest it may be extremely strange. We cannot presuppose the same kind of informational interactions that we experience happening within the Narp-field as continuing to happen outside of it no matter how incomprehensible that might seem. Incoherence is not a criteria for rejecting something because incoherence goes all the way down (and up).
There are forms we term pure pneuma, these are dreams, images in the putative internality of the Narp, visualizations projected [outwards]. These kinds of visual pneuma have no umbratic restraint, for it is the restraint that gives the idea of the umbra to the Narp. These kind of things have the pneuminous structure of exactly that i.e. what it means to know these things as such things is that they have no beyond and this is necessarily true of them (if we accept the definition of pneuma as substantialised information). Those things that we might consider not as pure pneuma are still wholly pneuminous; the only difference is that owing to their recalcitrance they suggest that there is something beyond them on the level that is sometimes called present-at-hand (that level which considers extensional physicality and not use). A hammer is pure information (pneuma), within the Narp field the comprehension that the strike upon the nail will yield a result is all part of the pneuma. Yet the hammer in darkness, outside the Narp field, what is this? This question immediately presupposes the individuation of things cogently persists outside the Narp field. That pneuminous suggestion of solidity and continuity outside of the Narp field is so seductive and it is not that it needs outright rejecting, it’s just that it needs comprehending in its radicalness as just one manifestation.It is not a problem for the hammer, it is a problem for the allness that falls out side of the Narp field, solipsistically and collectively. This is the true implication of this mess.