Dashboard | Log in | Sign Up | FAQ

folder 53 - 025

C-13

It is clear from the "brain, thoughts, info, mutual arrangement of objects," that (when everything is considered) they -the characters- & world itself are in the mind of God; hence this dialectical combat between the proto-prerational creator deity & the intervening -& triumphing Logos- is really going on within a mind (1) (brain), & what else can this possibly be but the Mind of God? (1) i.e. within one mind: the two sides of the dialectic -irrational & the rational Logos- are the dynamic bipolarities of a mind, & the latter progressively triumphs over the former (the former "moved" -acted- first; then the rational Logos "moved"). (Moved as counter-move.) Then in 3-74 I experienced Boehme's dialectic internally (in my mind) & also saw the same dialectic externally as the invading & transubstantiating Logos, which I called Valis.

The main point is that the irrational is construed as emanating directly from God, & the rational, identified as the Logos, likewise, to combat it - & victoriously in progressive steps: cumulatively, a conversion over & over again by Logos of the irrational.

Thus the broad theoretical Dynamic Drama of the novel is the dialectical inner life of God Himself. Thus, "Valis" although defectively structured, shows God from the inside, and were someone like Paul Tillich to read it, he would know that the author had not only experienced God, but God from the inside of God - not God objective & other & external.

By the way: my concept of the struggle (dialectic) between the irrational and the rational (Logos) is not Gnosticism. These categories (irrational-rational) are not the Gnostic ontological categories


Notes

PKD seems to equate the irrational/rational with the insane/sane, and if this is the case, then there is an ontological fallacy there, one has to be very wary of. Also, the idea of an inner and outer God is absurd in itself, and clearly PKD is alluding to the manifest and transcendental essence of God.
by Faridik
PKD seems to equate the irrational/rational with the insane/sane, and if this is the case, then there is an ontological fallacy there, one has to be very wary of. Also, the idea of an inner and outer God is absurd in itself, and clearly PKD is alluding to the manifest and transcendental essence of God.
by Faridik