Fat later developed a theory that the universe is made out of information. He started keeping a journal – had been, in fact, secretly doing so for some time. His encounter with God was all there on the pages in his—Fat’s, not God’s—handwriting.
The term “journal” is mine, not Fat’s. His term was “Exegesis.” A theological term meaning a piece of writing that explains or interprets a portion of scripture. Fat believed that the information fired at him from time to time was holy in origin and hence a form of scripture.
One of his paragraphs impressed me enough to copy it out and include it here.
“Summary. (etc. –v. tractate)
Fat developed a lot of unusual theories to account for his contact with God, and the information derive there from. One in particular struck me as thought-provoking. It amounted to a kind of mental capitulation by Fat to what he was undergoing; this theory held that in actuality he /
could now honestly discount his hallucinations, which meant he recognized them as such. But, like Gloria, he now had a they. It seemed to me a pyrrhic victory. Fat’s life struck me as a litany of exactly that, as for example the way he had rescued Gloria.
The Exegesis Fat labored on month after month struck me as a pyrrhic victory if there ever was one—in this case an attempt by a beleaguered mind, to make sense out of the inscrutable. Perhaps this is the key to mental illness: incomprehensible events occur—your life becomes a bin for hoax-like fluctuations of what used to be reality, and not only that—as if that weren’t bad enough—you, like Fat, ponder forever over these fluctuations in an effort to order them into coherency. When in fact the only sense they make is the sense you impose on them, out of the necessity to restore everything into shapes and processes you can recognize.
The first thing to depart in mental illness is the familiar
board game, the ultimate board game! However, as intellectually stimulating as the theory might be - however thrilling the prospect of the contest between "us who know" (ie Minds) + "that which defeats Being Known" (ie the world-maze with its quasi-mind), in practice we immediately + totally succumbed. If a principle were dredged up it would be:
Mind, confronted by the impossible-to-know, loses, however great its capacity, efforts + resources (in our hubris we deemed the truth of this).
IF the purpose of this exegesis is to develop an overview in which my (3-74) experience (+ by extension the Kerygma of my writing) makes sense, I may (due to Pat Warrick's help) have succeeded. What I could most seek (hope for) would be a cosmogony + cosomology in which Zebra was not just possible but necessary. This has required me to reach for Gnostic acosmism, cybernetics, info theory, +, most of all, to exegete the 3-74 revelation (Gnosis) itself as the court of last appeal (ie the AI voice + what it has told me). It has also required a lot of hard reading (inc. my own writing) + disciplined thought. I wind up with the notion of an irreal Maze world which we created + then got caught in, + are being extricated from by God through a reversal of the primordial ontological ignorance (ie by equally ontological knowledge - revealed knowledge, + the revealor, Zebra which amounts to an invasion by God - or ultimate + real Noos - into this calculatedly inexplicable irreal world which half-consciously thwarts the hopes + expectations of all life by the introduction of the anti-expected.
The fact that after 4 1/2 years of strenuous exegesis, whereupon I have reached these conclusions (not to mention 27 years of published writing) I now find myself being signalled to die - which effectively makes it impossible for me to put this Gnosis in a form which I can publish - is a condition which can be deduced from my Exegesis itself, + shows I'm on the right intellectual path, but to no avail. I am not extricated by my Exegesis but by Zebra (Christ) back in 2-3-74. The Exegesis would have provided the basis for a broad, explicated formulation to sow broadcast, but of course this can never come about; these insights will die with me. All I have is a three folder high stack of chicken-scratchings of no use to anyone else, as K.W. tirelessly points out. To heap the burning coals of anti-meaning on me, I also have a lot of money for the only time in my life, but with no use to which I can care to put it. My personal attack - war - against anti-meaning (by means of my mind) has gone the way of our collective primordial defeat at the hands - I should say Quasi-Mind - of the Maze; I merely recapitulate the ancient, original losing by mind in this exquisitely sophisticated board game which we so cunningly devised for our delectation. This past time is once more the death of one of us - but this time I am, entirely through Christ, extricated - "taken out of this world." I did not win; Christ won me for his own, so vis-a-vis me alone the Maze as always won, + I did not realize this, naturally, until it was too late to retreat back out intact. Omnial via ad mitis.
I don't think I see the world as other people do; I presume what I'm trying to prove in this whole Exegesis, namely a medieval realist worldview in which the sensible world-order is [unconsciously] assumed to be printed out from an upper more real realm - this is also the world of the shaman: two level reality, as found in Plato but repudiated by Aristotle. 2-3-74 was a coming into full consciousness -+ control- of this worldview. My leap to full abstracting in 2-74 was an epiphany of - some archaic -probably medieval- substrate in me, bursting through the thin rationalist modern veneer. It was anamnesis all right (v. p 512, Plato's view of how we apprehend universals) but Primitive is the word I want. Contemporary philosophy makes no sense to me. & yet, as Pat Warrick says, I write from the standpoint of quantum mechanics. My God isn't even transcendent - No; I don't believe in heaven or an afterlife. What do I believe in? Kantian phenomenology? That an invisible latent realm exists immanently in the sensible world or that no objective world in itself exists at all? Acosmism? Something Eastern (e.g. Brahmanism?) "If you press world hard enough it yields up God" - paraphrase of p. 485. "I define God as world under the threat of death ... God forced into the open, + put to work in the service of evading death." I am not I; I am not here; I am not now. Buddhist idealism? No, because when self + world go, God -not the void- replaces them, + world is seen as an abstraction outside space + time, an interconnected system of ideas in His mind; more precisely, a memory [s...t .n] process (i.e. not static).