"persuading" ananke, God as supreme Noos "persuades" our spurious "creation" - which certainly resembles Plato's ananke - into true form (i.e. reality), order. This harmonizes "Timaeus" with Xtianity - my version of a rather Gnostic Xtianity, our "creation" is not only irreal, it is chaotic - which fits my conception of the Maze generating not just non-meaning but anti-meaning (perversely), a thwarting of sense which is antithetical to Noos, here equated with sense (meaning); so the Empedoclean dialectic between love + strife is reinterpreted as one between anti-meaning (-order) + meaning (order): the former equal to strife, the second love (the Krasoi of Eros); + strife equals the irreal, + love the real. An anti-meaning universe is not a true creation at all. Eidos is identified with the real; the anti-eidos with the merely seeming.
An interesting corollary of this is that when anti-meaning is encountered, it must be assured not to be actual, however palpable it is to our percept system.
This view, however, cannot be equated with the Gnostic idea of the divine sparks being drawn one by one out of this acosmos to allow the ascosm, when so deprived, to perish.
My writings, e.g. "Maze," point to the latter yet the 1974 historic intervention points to an imposition of divine form (plan, Logos) onto this world - + the return of the rightful king (Siddhartha, Buddha, Apollo, St. Sophia