Deleuze and Guattari’s notion of incorporeal transformation as found in the ‘postulates of linguistics’ suggests very much the kind of notion intended by accretion attachment, indeed there is much in our pneumatology that is similar to Deleuze and Guattari’s work. In the example of the judge about to bestow guilt upon the person, the accretions hover thickly about, poised to attach. The judge herself is an agent of the law, the law is a massive pneuminous accretion. Guilt too is an accretion, complex and multifaceted. Guilt and the law intertwine in a certain manner. There will be a subset of guilt between our non-law breaking and law breaking. Like the Christian god, the accretion conceived as autonomous doesn’t care, legal transgressions are a priori decided by the accretion not the Narps. Personal guilt will have a more complex relation to Narp particularity (though there will be large structures there too).
In a sense this is a disagreement with D&G. The accretion of guilt is already attached to the guilty Narp, if they are guilty. Of course the territory of this guilt may be disputed (does the Narp even know if they commited murder or manslaughter?). Of course D&G know this, they are just in this performative sense not interested in ‘internal states’ as determinant. The disagreement is minor yet we could not not articulate it, there is a prior attachment of guilt or non-guilt depending a) on the strength of the epistemic relation the Narp has towards the transgression (are they fully aware they committed it) b) the incoherence or coherence of the transgression as capable of being judged by the accretion itself. Obviously these two are massively linked and in some sense just the same thing.
If the Narp is already guilty or not guilty then what is it that the judge actually does? The judge through his power as embodying the accretion of the law, attaches or deattaches the accretion of guilt to the Narp. Regardless of the judgement of the accretion and the epistemic status as the event not having obtained, if the judge attaches guilt then the guilt accretion attaches its fibres to the Narp. This instantaneously commands most other Narps to do likewise and creates agnostic disjunctive disharmony in those who do not wish to accept this. Nevertheless where the court is itself propped up by accretions that support it (the situation is not in country in which everybody knows the situation is rigged), no matter how much the ‘truth’ (epistemic and accretive judgement) might exonerate this Narp, when the guilty pronouncement is made, the accretion attaches and they too have the pneuminous fibres of guilt stuck to them. Struggle though they might, such fibres once attached can never be properly removed even by the judge removing the verdict.
This model is true of many Narp interactions.