unraveling the counterfeit quality of the world. The Gnostics stressed such a "metaphysical strike" and pointed out that the archons (who rule this prison world, the wardens) can only harm the body and mind but not the divine spark. It is a refusal to cooperate with a harmful world, which, once one has balked against it, reveals its ersatz quality. The process does not work by (1) first discerning to be ersatz and then, on the basis of that, balking, but always (2) one balks, and then the ersatz --counterfeit-- quality is exposed; what is undoubtedly more important is the manifestation of the Advocate, once the initial balk done without knowledge of the counterfeit quality of the world. I perceive the crucial existential act as a volitional rupture with the world, which according to the Gnostic structure, throws the person back to God. The man must determine that this repudiation, this rupture, this crisis (which mirrors perhaps an ancient analogous crisis in which he broke with God, the true vine) this crisis must take place; what he does not know is that this rupture heals the primordial rupture with God -- that which started the cosmos into being in the first place. If the man were aware that this rupture would start the machinery into motion which would restore him to God, he would probably have little hesitation in doing it; everyone would do it; but he must enact the rupture without knowing the joyful consequences will result; he does it for intrinsic reasons, without yet knowing that he is healing the original break. This explains why my denial of the world as we see it was simultaneous with my affirmation of the apostolic reality; the two acts constitute one act, because they are twin sides of a single act. When I saw the golden fish I knew the truth; I simultaneously knew the counterfeit quality of our world and knew the reality of the apostolic world; these were not sequential realizations, but in fact one realization. It probably is of extraordinary significance that repudiation of the mundane reality and acknowledgement of the transmundane is a single event or act, rather than two. The two realities cannot both exist, evidently. They are counter-realities. This is what the Gnostics believed: that the world stands between man and God, and must be eliminated. Who would expect that disavowing the world would instantly expose the divine on the far side of it? "Man and God in essence belong together against the world but are in fact separated by the world, which in the Gnostic view is the alienating, divisive agency." (E philo). Well, then this being so, look what my writing tends to promote: it promotes a sense of the counterfeit quality of the world; it promotes a repudiation of it which dissolves it by assisting the withdrawal of assent to it; and finally, by so doing, obliterates the alienating agency and brings man & God together. I can claim this for my work, on the theological level. My own 2-74 to (3-74) et all experience, then, undoubtedly stemmed from my years of work and the viewpoint in me elaborated in and by that work -- culminating in a moment (when I saw the golden fish) that I could deny(world/affirm(God) on the basis of it. Thus 2-74 and 3-74 were the logical end-result of 25 years of epistemological scrutiny and evaluation, and did not just happen sui generis. My experience seems to ratify the Gnostic 3-element equation; otherwise a repudiation of the world would result in a solipsistic autism. For it to divulge the divine upon its abolition, the world would have to constitute the divisive agency between man and God the Gnostics perceived us to be.