Exegesis II


Search for "Horselover Fat" Fat*

Folder 90

90 page 161 thumb

folder 90 - 161


then was an ascending to paradiso, world gave way to God: God outside me as world, God inside me (i.e. Valis). So to say that "God [Valis] invaded world" is quite wrong; this was my return to God - which is Dante's top realm. The BIP, of course, is the lowest realm, + originally I had been there. (Which is what anamnesis told me.) So my 3-74 experience of "the second signal" can best be understood in terms of the vertical ["spatial"] ascent of the "Commedia". Hence my impression that I had died. The best term for Valis is Rudolf Otto's: "the wholly other." This could also be described as an ascent from ignorance + slavery to knowledge + freedom. Our world is irreal + we generate it ourselves (+ for precisely this reason it can properly be called irreal;) thus in contact with it we experience not the true other but in fact our own thought-formations spun out of our own minds, coming back at us as world. This is the result of an evasive flight in time from reality. Only when we cease to run do we experience the truly other - + break out of our private world. Thus in this world we are literally + conceptually blind. We are not actually dealing with world but with a representation we take to be world, a spurious representation that we ourselves generate. At this level world is encountered as annihilating Fate; from this we flee into time: the very axis along which this irreal world is generated. In a way "real world" is an oxymoron; world as thing is by definition irreal because only God is real. But while you are in it you cannot possibly comprehend it as irreal, since thus comprehending it + escaping (rising above) it cannot be separated: while we are in it our absolute assent to it is compelled by we

Last edit over 1 year ago by Unteleported Man
90 page 162 thumb

folder 90 - 162


know not what. (I think it is our act of perceiving it that compels our assent; to perceive it is to cause it to be real. Thus the more -+ more intently- we examine it the more compellingly real it becomes. + if we try to flee from it we rush toward it, or it toward us. This is a "horizontal" flight, not in vertical space but down a horizontal time corridor. How, then, is this irreal world escaped from? It cannot be escaped from. It must be made to stop proliferating in time; time must be abolished. This comes when one ceases to run but, rather, goes to meet one's fate, the fate that will annihilate him. Heidegger is absolutely right. Once thus confronted, world freezes + then becomes -is revealed as or gives way to- the wholly other, the true (authentic) other. (This is Buber's conversion from it to thou.) One has now broken out of his self-generated private world. The effect on me of the Golden Xtian Fish sign can only be understood if it is understood to have broken in on + into my [private] world from outside. So it converged two things simultaneously: 1) The private nature of my world. 2) The existence of another world, real in nature + greater, not autogenerated (i.e. by me). That this world turned out to be a world in which genuine Xtians existed, +, more, Christ himself. Thus I was signalled from outside, all of which gave me the impression that this world had been invaded. What is most remarkable

Last edit over 1 year ago by Unteleported Man
90 page 164 thumb

folder 90 - 164


Thus when we experience world-as-it-is we experience God + our being in God. This is a restoration of our primordial faculties lost in the original Fall + hence exile from the Garden. We are really still there, but are perceptually + cognitively blind. Under these blinded circumstances God supplies us a world derived chiefly from our own minds; it is both a blessing (in that it is a world we do take to be real); + a punishment (in that we are cut off from God + in a private world, so-to-speak alone - without him). (It is thus a halfway existence between hell + heaven, as Dante perceived). This private world is simultaneously real (in contrast to hell: no world at all) + irreal (in contrast to restoration to God, the "wholly other," since in this private world there is no true authentic "wholly other," only our own self + thoughts coming back at us: known to the ancients as Karma or astral determinism or Fate. We escape from it by ceasing to flee in the time axis + confronting directly our own annihilation (Heidegger's true Sein).

Last edit over 1 year ago by Unteleported Man
90 page 165 thumb

folder 90 - 165


The power to do this -to cease fleeing + to confront fate, burst this private world +, through the divine illumination experience the real world as eternal interconnected structure of ideas in God- comes only due to Christ intervening from outside our private world; he must literally invade it + help us; on our own we cannot extricate ourselves. If (as Malebranche teaches) we + world are in God, then my perception of the universe as the cosmic corpus Christi may not have just been a mystical vision but a vision of true reality: the sacred body + blood. No - I prefer my binary switching system with its perpetual disjunctions + introductions of newness. The unveiling of causation as being in fact a method of selection - this one discovery alone justifies my life, for this alone reveals deity by inference (in Whitehead's terms, + this is sufficient). Paramount to this is something I intuited long ago: a variation on the basic element of "pretextual causation": a sort of teleological "set-up" cause in which several lines of ostensibly innocuous causation are triggered off for teleological purposes, as if pre-wound harmonies (in Leibnitz's sense), obviously by a being not only wise + powerful but equipped with absolute foresight. In this modus operandi minor "causes" are employed to trigger off

Last edit over 1 year ago by Unteleported Man
90 page 168 thumb

folder 90 - 168

G 112

no longer seems necessary to name him, as if naming him tells me something. I see him as the shaper of all that is: intelligent shaper: he who selects, he who decides; he who knows; he who wills; +, most of all, he who causes to be (YHWH-Asher-YHWH, I guess). This has been a great task + a thrilling one. My conception of the absolute is vast indeed; he shapes yet he is not; if one can fathom that, wisdom has come at last. Put briefly: God enters or affects our universe as/in what we call "causation," because "causation" has to do with change + process; what it really is, I have come to think, is ex nihilo creation, the original act of cosmogenesis perpetually renewed; this mysterious element which we see constantly but do not understand is where + how God who is-not acts on the is to shape + direct + exert influence on it. Thus to understand what we call "causation" is to understand - not God but God's relationship to the universe: +, specifically, God as creator. It can be said that he directs the outcome of things + events, but he does this by creating, by causing to be that which was not. Thus he does not exactly direct the is, but, as in the beginning, causes something new to come into existence + enter the universe "from outside"; this is the "perturbation of the reality field" that the AI voice spoke of. Herewith God can be understood as distinct from reality (Spinoza to the contrary). He is not in reality; he is not reality. He acts on reality by

Last edit over 1 year ago by Unteleported Man
90 page 180 thumb

folder 90 - 180

G 124

The links of meaning are actual, literal, real links because reality is a set of structurally inter-related ideas (MMSK) in a mind that thinks them (it), + it does not think them (it) in time, space + causation but in terms of relationships of logical necessity -i.e. meaning- not contingency; + it was into this true world that I broke suddenly in 2-3-74: the Mens Dei. If you can find no other way to accept it -+ it is the truth- accept it in terms of your artistic vision. It is God, it is Christ, it is Easter, it is MM337, it is Tony, cancer. Your own imminent death in 2-3-74: it is Augustine's Platonist Xtianity: God saved you; that is what Valis was + is; you left world, fate, space, time + causation behind + were in his mind + saw reality as it is: as he does: the MMSK. It is all true; "Valis" is true; the AI voice is Ruah. Believe at last, fool - Tor. Du reiner Tor. The Kingdom is yours. You saw it. Tu es vox dei. Conceptual arrangement is the true arrangement + you did it + saw it. We stand at the entry of a new epoch. Open the door + enter; you entered once already. Dare to believe. Believe Malebranche. He is correct. We are in God's mind. Your exegesis is successful: it ends with Malebranche.

Last edit over 1 year ago by Unteleported Man
90 page 185 thumb

folder 90 - 185

G 129

is isomorphic with his own because his true mind + it (or its mind) are one + the same mind, but in a micro-macro -relationship. This is why I did not merely see Valis outside me in/as world but experienced Valis in/as my own mind (the Atman-Brahman "tat tvam asi" equation, + Boehme + Eckehart, etc). (This, too, is the Hermetic "above-below" transform.) Note p. 116: This is why when his own prior thought-formations come back at him as world that he [merely] perceives, they take the form of fate ("astral determinism"), this also is why in order to break their prison over him the "heroic new act" is necessary on his part by which he introjects newness -i.e. something current, not past- into what otherwise is a blind, inexorable mechanism. Thus the binary switching not only introduces choice + newness into world for its sake, so-to-speak, but for his -the mind's- sake as well (or even more so!) since by this 0-1 switching he extricates himself from the trap that in the final analysis he himself has created. Thus in this introjection of newness he reasserts himself as cosmogenitor, as pantocrator, lord of the world; to remember, if it is to serve any real purpose, must lead to this new (ex nihilo) deed; + the determinist mechanism that he built + then fell victim to (as mere percipient) is overcome, he has broken world qua world. It is himself in the present overpowering his own

Last edit over 1 year ago by Unteleported Man
90 page 186 thumb

folder 90 - 186

G 130

prior thoughts (just at the point where they as world boded annihilation for him; but having from the start absolutely foreseen this a priori he established -also from the start- the self-reminding device that I know as the "AI" voice. He is, then, his own redeemer/savior, operating out of the past before he fell into forgetfulness + the role of mere percipient - hence victim. This is why anamnesis deals with -or seems to, whichever- a very ancient self + time; however, even more so, it gives him access to, understanding of + participation in the true order of reality (i.e. Plato's eide) which are/is his own memory in his own mind. He is Funklein to Urgrund, then, + knows it. Inner - outer, small - large are now unified; he has tapped into his own mind, which is in + small, outer + large all at once. The introjection of the "new deed," the "heroic ex nihilo act" emanating from anamnesis can, then, be seen as everything; restoration of memory + identity accomplishes nothing unless it leads to this act. He is, then, rescuing a lot more than his immediate hide (although that is involved, since this is world-as-fate [annihilation doom] catching up with him. I guess this is in essence his last chance to reverse polarities between himself + world. This is all dealt with in "The Tibetan Book of the Dead." Gnosticism, then, is the correct model with its view of the soteriological value of Gnosis in terms of restoration of the Godhead itself. This is, indeed, the salvator salvandus, the savior who saves himself - based on having from the beginning foreseen his own fall [into forgetfulness] + having from the beginning brought into being the method of his own rescue.

Last edit over 1 year ago by Unteleported Man
90 page 194 thumb

folder 90 - 194

G 138

+ this in fact is exactly what for some time I've felt I have - + increasingly so. Authentic existence. A center is precisely what I lacked prior to 2-74, + this is linked to my boundless anxiety which was basically a sense of impending annihilation (+ accurately so!). Thus God who is being itself conferred being on me. (This goes far beyond extricating me from danger!). This fits in with my recent perception of the Xtian ceasing evasively to flee + instead confronting his fate. This analysis -that a genuine essence was conferred on me- certainly fits in with my realization of last night that I did indeed participate in the divine mind. It is a powerful argument that that indeed is what took place. Related to this is the performing of the heroic deed, such as Joseph Campbell relates in "Hero with a Thousand Faces." One ventures forth + after a victorious encounter returns with one's soul. This is a sacred journey + a vast rite of passage, mysterious + profound + of unparalled importance. But to discern that this soul is conferred by God himself out of -from within- the divine mind itself - thus this soul is related to + in fact a part of God. ___ I define God as the only true other, + until one has broken out of his private world of his own prior thought formations + experienced God he has in fact only experienced projections of himself; thus he has never truly been born.

Last edit over 1 year ago by Unteleported Man
2527 thumb

90 - Notes

PKD Selections from Folder 90

Selection 1 (letter to Pat, pages 1-2 of PDF) N.B. This system basically envisions A.N. Whiteheads definition of God as, “A principle in or as the universe constantly selecting the good; that is, an active, intelligent principle of selection” (paraphrase). In fact I am essentially defining/God functionally, in that precise way: a selecting mechanism; it perpetually selects.

Enclosed a carbon of what may be a resolution of my seven years of attempting to construct a model of reality; by “reality I mean God in or God and the universe; what Erigena called natura. This solution came to me in a series of recent sleep revelations, that is, hymnatogic and hypnopompic insights where I actually saw how the system works. (Universe and God regarded, as Spinoza does, as one and the same.) My model is that of a computer or computer-like entity -- well, look at the enclosed page; it is pretty much complete.

You’ll be pleased to see how it relates both to Taoism and to computers. This may be it, Pat. Initially I had a vision of reality as a rapid procession of static, discrete frames replacing each other at enormous velocity; we turn these frames --each of which is unique, slightly different from the one before it and the one following it-- into a continuous flow by means of the modem we call causality. But in fact “causality” is illusory; our minds project it onto the procession of discrete frames in order to connect them into a flow. This is a necessary modem, for otherwise we will not be able to discern that constants (eide, Forms) within the procession of frames; all would be chaotic flux to us, without the modem of causality. The system is thinking, but its thinks (as I say on the enclosed page) during its [mm] off of non-being void thinking. Our reality is shot full of information, both quantitative (bits) and qualitative (constructed/converted out of the bits) Pat, this is the first model I’ve had confidence in! The system continually makes tentative faulty choices, cancels them, substitutes a better --i.e. correct-- choice which is the next on frame. Let me know what you think.

It selects the good by a no - yes discard at each branching. Phil. And it utilizes as many branchings as possible, so it maximizes the number of its selections (choices, decisions).

April 15, 1981. Sleep insight. Hartshorne -- pantheism -- the E.B. macro. A.F. Whitehead’s process deity. We are within in (the MMSK), as interconnections, but organic model is incorrect. It is a signaling system, mutually interpreted by me as time frames); actually it’s binary. Tries out a false move (0), then corrects to 1 which is actualized in/as the next discrete “frame.” Has the effect of separate frames due to the off-on pulsation; discrete: isn’t - is, nonbeing - being. The system shuts off every trillionth of a second (0). These are decisions. After each off (0) when it switches back on to the 1 the “frame” (reality) is different (in terms of internal arrangement, adjustment, mutual adjustment, interaction/interconnection, as information flows through its circuits.

Boehme: yes - no. Hartshorne 0 -1. Quantitative (0-1) converted to qualitative by spatiotemporal reality itself; that is, quantitative information is poured into the material reality within which and by which it is converted into qualitative information.

While it’s off, reality ceases to be. When it comes back on it is slightly different. It (the system) doesn’t transmit a zero bit; it (the system) ceases to be. This is when it makes a tentative move which it then cancels in favor of a better move; at every junction (trillionth of a second, flicker rate) it discards an inferior move in favor of a better one; hence Leibnitz’s view that “this is the best of all possible worlds” (this is a rapid selection process). This is how a computer works. The zero position is the void; hence when I conceive of God as VALIS I am only getting the 1; I need also the void, the zero. To comprehend/apperceive/envision the void is to envision the other phase (zero phase) of the flicker binary pulsation, the sum of the two phases being the totality. Thus the Muslims are correct; the universe is destroyed “every day” (actually every trillionth of a second) “and re-created.” But what is interesting to me is that the way I conceinve of this, all its decisions are made during the “spaces” that we are totally unaware of. It comes back on, back into being, back to the 1 phase when it has tried out a faulty solution and has substituted a better (the best possible?) instead, which is the next “time frame.” Thus its decision-making processes, i.e. its thinking, and its nonbeing phase, lie outside our awareness. The initial false move that it tries out during its zero phase is Boehme’s no, and the 1 or on phase is Boehme’s yes. So my envisioning is essentially Boehme’s, updated in terms of computers and information-processing systems. The similarity to the Taoist alternation of yin and yang is very obvious.

(page 3 pdf) April 16, 1981 Dear Pat, Listen: when I wrote my letter of yesterday, and wrote the page I enclosed the carbon of, I had forgotten that Alfred North Whitehead, as the basis of process theology --i.e. process deity-- defined God this way (or something like this; I’m quoting from memory): “A principle of selection in the universe that chooses the good (i.e. in its selection-process).” This is Whitehead’s basic definition of God; this, then, is the basic definition of the modern process deity who is not static and above the universe and its proces, but is, rather, involved in that very process itself. My apperception is totally in accord with Whitehead’s; more, I stipulate how this selection is made (that is, on a binary basis utilizing branching; at each branching, there is a no and a yes. God/the system chooses the no first, tentatively, which is to say provisionally; it then rejects and cancels this and chooses the alternative, the yes; this yes it actualizes as the next time frame). As many branching --binary forkings-- as possible are made use of; that is, this no - yes selection process occurs to the maximum; it is maximized. The structural development is cumulative; it goes only one way. Thus the structure is finishing completing and perfecting itself.

What I didn’t say in my previous letter or enclosure is that my apperception of these discrete static time-frames is that none affects any other. What I mean is, when time frame B follows time frame A, the prior time frame A has no effect on it; there is no causal connective at all. These frames, replacing each other very rapidly, are truly discrete. In no way is there a flow: in no way is there an interaction between them. Reality, then, is perpetually disjunctive. And, as I said yesterday, our minds supply causality as the modem for converting this disjunctive procession into a continuous flow, which we experience as “the flow of time,” that is, flux and change. Which is to say, process -- which brings me back obviously to Whitehead’s basic view of the universe and God, which is that of process. But I am saying, Yes, there is process, but it is not a flow process. With each branching there is an interruption, an off or no or shut-down position in the binary circuiting. Now it occurs to me, these shut-down interval could actually last as long as it takes God (the mind of the system) to make the off - on decision. We are unaware of these offs because during them reality simply does not exist; what exists is the void, nonbeing. All this that I have said is not mere speculation; it is all derived from an applies to what I saw in March 1974 that I called VALIS, which was a disappearance of causality; and, in its place, I saw what seemed to be self-instigating changes working in synchronization, suggestive of a unitary field involving all the ostensible plurality of things. That reality consists of a rapid procession of discrete slightly different “frames” was my initial breakthrough in my perception of this model. The next breakthrough was my perception that between (as it were) each two frames the system makes a choice, a decision; it selects (exactly as Whitehead said; but I didn’t realize that I was restating Whitehead until today, so I arrived at my perception independently, although I knew it to be related to White head because it is process deity, process theology). And it chooses by means,as I say, of a no initially, a tentative move that it discards, choosing then the alternative. It has reduced choice, the act of selecting, to a binary matter; so the system is binary (quantitative) throughout. Everything operates in a no - yes fashion. The selecting is binary; the system itself operates in a pulse phasing of off - on as well; it is therefore thoroughly binary, which means that it understands everything in either-or terms, which is the most simple elemental basis possible. That means that the mind of the system has literally broken reality down to its irreducible fundamental constituents, as I’m sure you can see. Now I come to the pay-off. When I experienced VALIS’ mind in my own, I experienced no thoughts, but, rather, a dialectic. This dialectic, I realized at the time, is fundamental to it. I have never been able to explain to myself how this worked, but I literally experienced it as the very basis of VALIS. Well, the dialectic that I experience is this choice, this no - yes selection at every junction or branching (into two, the irreducible branching, i.e. forking). VALIS does not think, as men think; it tries out, then chooses. Again and again. This is exactly what Whitehead is talking about, although he speaks in more general times; also, mine was an experience with and of it, as with Jakob Boehme, not speculation. If we were to see this branching, we would see elaborating arborizing and reticulation, and indeed I did see that; it is what I call the macrometasoma-kosmos, which is by now virtually infinite in complexity in terms of arborizing and reciculation.

Pat, I’ve got to rest; but this is it; put one way, this explains my encounter with and experience of VALIS both in my mind and in/as world; put another way, I have had an actual experience that confirms this model. Thus there is identity between my theoretical construct and my experience.

Selection 2 (pg 20) A worldview (Dasein) that repudiates strict causation and subsitutes for it a concept of decision-making at repeated binary branchings overthrows a worldview anchored in antiquity, specifically in the Babylonian planetary determinism that dominated the ancient world. This planetary or astral determinism, with which astrology was concerned, is specifically the “ancient powers” that Paul assert Christ will topple. So the perception of a rigid causually-determined world-order derives from antiquity --it did not begin with Newton-- and it is specifically this rigid structure that Christ invades and defeats. What, then, is the theological or soteriological application to my 3-74 apperception of what seemed to me an invasion of causality, invasion of and replacement by what I construed to be the Cosmic Christ? Is not this the promised liberation? I realize I am forever returning to Christianity in an effort to account for what I saw, but I did construe VALIS as (1) the Cosmic Christ; and (2) having invaded the world-order invisibly, that is, camouflaged; (3) moreover, this invasion was specifically an invasion of and penetration of --and transformation of-- xxx causation, a trasformation from immutable cause-and-effect into what I call choice of decision-making, apperceived by me as “pretextual cause,” which is to say, not really efficient cause at all. This so strikingly corrolates with the notions in Paul’s Captivity Letters that I am stuck fast by the theological implications, or apparent implications. All I need to nail down this case is the following: (1) Successful equating of the Babylonian determinism with causality; and (2) successful equating of the invading, camouflaged VALIS who transforms rigid, mechanical causation into volitional, sentient decision-making with the Cosmic Christ. Though in a sense I am right back where I started from at the beginning of this exegesis, and fully aligned with my presentations in VALIS, I would have a much stronger case for these early views -- early in the period of my exegesis... being in essence my initial impression. There is another way we could put it. If there is a Cosmic Christ as depicted in Paul’s captivity letters, were we to apperceive him and his activity, what could we expect to apperceive specifically? The answer: an invasion of, interference with, disturbance of, transformation of, causality.

Selection 3 (pg 30) Premise: Christ consciousness produces a worldview (Dasein) so radically different from what we now normally experience that it is almost impossible to communicate it. Absolute space, a vast (???) diminution and weakening of time (time qualitatively transformed) and no causality, as well as reality experienced as a unified self-governing field (it initiates all its own changes acausually in synchronization); moreover this field makes use of --or operates by means of-- a binary of-on switching involving an indeterminate element so that it is perpetually disjunctive; thus it does not flow through time at all but always is. Also it either is based on or generates quantitative binary information in a cumulative fashion; i.e. it develops in one direction and one only. As a total field it ceaselessly makes off-on choices at each forking or junction; thus it is free (again, indeterminacy is involved at its basic level of operation). The receptacle in which it exists is space, not time. When it pulse-phases to its off position it ceases to exist; when it comes back to its on position it is slightly different. (I feel like someone trying to interpret the Sistine Chapel Ceiling to a blindman.) Thus in a certain real sense it abolishes and then re-creates itself it is different, hence in a real sense new. I somewhat hesitate to add this, but since with Christ consciousness there is no clear demarkation between the observer and the reality field he participates in, world is in a certain real and palpable sense affected by his involvement with it and perception of it; thus he is conscious of perturbing the reality field in the very act of participating in it; world, then, loses its reified, stubborn quality (associated with rigid determinism, cause-and-effect) and responds to him not as an It but as what Buber called a Thou. Within this one total schema involving the observer and his world together, it becomes impossible to distinguish Christ in him and Christ in world; there is only one total reality: himself, Christ, world.

Put another way, then, “Christ consciousness” is a certain way of being-in-the-world, related to Heiddegger’s authentic being; it is a way in which the observer and his world are unified. This may be a very new sort of Dasein, without historic recodent.

(ep 31) I will now make what may be an ultimate affirmation: what I am describing, although in more modern terms, is Malebanche’s idea of universe, man and God: one continuous field embracing the three. The great element of Malebranche’s system --not recognized at all for what it is-- is that it abolishes the pernicious distinction between man and world, man and God, God and world, unifying them into a continuum; this his system has in it the basis for a very modern view compatible with and in fact essentially related to contemporary physics. For example, Malebranche says, “It is not I who breathes; it is God in me who breathes.” This unitary view of total reality by Malebranche has never, in my opinion, been fully appreciated; God is in man and outside man’ God is in world and is world; this being the case, man is a participant in and of world, not an isolated observer outside it.

And it was Malebranche and the other occasionalists who first realized that causality was not the case: 3-74 (perceiving VALIS) was a verification of Malebranche, and my recent successful model is obviously based on a thorough study and understanding of him; he was the first to crack the mystery of causation in terms of God; that is, what we see that we call “causation” is God acting. I owe Malebranche and the other occasionalists a lot.

Selection 4 (32) If the system stuck --had to stick-- with the yin or zero move, we would have causality, because this initial (zero) move is indeed inexorably determined by the antecedent cause. However, a system constructed this way would soon run down (entropically speaking); it would simply progressively degenerate. The binary switching permits the introjection of newness at each forking; as a result the system not only does not run down but accumulates energy expressed as form, contour, complexity, integration, articulation. The one or yang switchings overcomes this. Obviously, this is the system that the yin-yang school of Taoists perceived as the basis of reality; the mind of the system that makes the decision at each forking is quite obviously the Tao. (The fact that the initial yin or zero move is tentative and is cancelled out in favor of a superior alternative is what gave rise in Parmenides’ system to the notion that in some very important sense Form Two --which is certainly yin-- is not real; that, ultimately speaking, only Form One --yang or the 1 position/choice-- is truly real.) (It is as if Parmenides examined the universe and understood all the yin moves or elements as a sort of network of falsework, provisional in nature, which is precisely what I say it is: provisional in nature.) (If Parmenides’ perception is correct, our reality is shot through with these yin moves or falsework, against which the truly real yang moves, Form One, operates in a dialectic.) (It is as if Parmenides caught sight of the merely provisional nature of the zero or yin moves and now they are annulled, which is exactly what I am talking about; the yin or zero moves seem to be but are not. No wonder Parmenides saw a changeless monistic world: The yin or zero moves are necessary if change, which is to say cause-and-effect, are to exist, insofar as they can be said truly to exist. What matters to me is that herewith I find some verification, although perhaps dubious, of my understanding that the system only provisionally utilizes the zero or yin or Form Two moves in the creation of its permanent structure; these yin moves (I hold) are there only to be cancelled, overtaken as it were, by the one or yang or Form One moves.) (Another and very persuasive correlation is the Tibetan notion of the yin world as one of “immutable cause and effect”; this fits perfectly.) (33) If there were only yin moves we would have causality, immutable cause and effect; it is yang that interrupts this (also we would have an inexorable decay into entropy and death). So my apperception of the switching to one from zero at the branchings is a perception of the yang world of freedom, in which inexorable determinism is overwhelmed, literally interrupted. Put another way, the perception of a strictly deterministic world is a perception of the yin world where there is causality, but this is not in fact the case. I guess there are three choices possible: (1) Perception of the yin world of immutable cause-and-effect. This would be Inferno, the BIP... and there is no escape.

(2) Perception of a mixture of yin and yang; this would be Purgatorio where liberation is possible but only potential. (3) Perception of the yang world of total freedom; this would be paradiso. And this would be the PTG (the middle realm, the mixture of yin and yang, is our normal world; you can sink down from it into the yin world or you can rise to the yang world. This analysis fits Parmenides’ absolutely).

Selection 5 pg 35 I sense a positive feedback loop, here. The evasion of reality delivers you over to tyrannical time, and tyrannical time carries with it the inevitable promise of your own annihilation, which is of course the very thing you are feeling in the first place (das Nichts, nonbeing). Fate, then, as dismal destiny, is generated by a fear of fate. One would have to say, then, that in some real sense the BIP is autogenerated, not (I mean) by itself but by the percipient/participant, like his own prior thought-formations coming back as demons during his Bardo Thoedol trip. In this context the message of the cross is: you can be annihilated and survive -- more than survive -- be lifted up newly made, made into a higher thing by the very act of annihilation. Again I perceive authentic Christianity as an antidote to the malady of evasive flight... which would make it an antidote to the malady of having to live in the BIP; in theological terms, then, Christ delivers you from hell; or, if you are in purgatorio, from that. Now, this brings me back to what I said to Michael Bishop about Gnosticism being a sort of “paranoid Cartesianism.” Since we do not experience world directly (which Kant certainly verified) but rather a representation, is it not possible (and this argument was in fact presented to DesCartes, although I did not know it when I wrote Bishop) that a demon could insert a false and misleading picture of creation in our mind? I seem to be talking about exactly this; creation is the PTG; they are one in the same; we fell in the sense of suffering a sort of perceptual occlusion that cuts us off from creation as it is (which is what the First Book of Adam and Eve is talking about); this is all that is necessary to arrange our expulsion from the Garden, for the reasons the Cartesians give. How we see reality is going to determine what reality we are “in.” So by having our faculties debased we are de facto expelled from the Garden; the Garden is still there, but we can’t see it. This analysis suggests that our occlusion is advetitious. We did not do it to ourselves; it was done to us (there’s no help from Sankars in this matter; as to the origin of the veil of maya he simply says, “It floats; it simply is there,” for unknown and unknowable reasons). A restoration of our primordial, original senses and intellect would, then, reverse the fall, the expulsion, and this is in fact what I discovered from 2-74 to 2-75; the garden is located here, as if on another frequency (hence my concept of coaxial worlds, plural worlds possessing or based upon, derived from, a common essence); well this really argues that what I called Acts, which indeed was the world of TEARS, is not the past but is a version of the present, as I said in my Metz speech and as I realized (or came again to believe) very recently.

ODT File of Folder 90 Selections

Last edit over 4 years ago by Max

Folder 57

57 page 13 thumb

folder 57 - 013


This is the "chemical wedding" of the alchemists, the "Golden Flower" or "mysterious embryo" - Firebright. + he is immortal. He will escape when I die; he will be reborn; this is what Thomas did when he died; thus Thomas relived again - as me. He did it; I have now done it. I am / we are an immortal. Hence Ditheon. It's all there in "Valis"! This is why I experienced anamnesis + the meta-abstraction, +, centuries from now, I will live again. This is the vertical pulley that extricates me from heimarmene - fate as death, the ultimate fate: mors itself. "Death, where is thy sting? Grave, where is thy victory?" This is Xtian magic/technology. For purposes of problem-solving it converts time into space. This is done in the right hemisphere. This would be the vertical "pulley" axis; it is de Bono's lateral thinking in which the two hemispheres represent a self-correcting two-component homeostatic system that utilizes a series of narrowing (more + more precise approximations in which the result -that which is sought- is fed in at the beginning. It is also the "two mirror" effect. "Eternal

Last edit about 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
57 page 24 thumb

folder 57 - 024


__ re Q14-16. "It's YHWH" - strange. I thought when I read it over today I'd laugh. But I'm not laughing. It is true that when I reread "Valis" I realized Valis is YHWH (the radiation, the 3rd -ajna- eye). + in "DI" not only does YHWH come to Earth as the savior but Valis is specifically identified as YHWH. Now this latter is interesting; the AI voice said only that "...He has been transplanted + is alive" (i.e. the savior) is YHWH; it never said Valis is, + yet I explicitly state this - i.e. that Valis is YHWH not in anthropomorphic, incarnated form. + I make a crucial point: YHWH has, as process theology teaches, become ABBA, the Father of whom Jesus speaks, whose nature is agape. + the Maitreya's nature is loving kindness. But I add two points. 1) Perhaps, since we accept process theology, YHWH has evolved further; that is, this is a 3rd dispensation (viz: as ABBA the N.T. God is to YHWH the O.T. God, this is to ABBA. + what has he evolved into now? Why, the ecosphere itself, as I saw (Valis). 2) The AI voice is "the low, murmuring voice" that Elijah heard. "He teaches schoolchildren". He first spoke to me when I was in school. Okay - that day in Nov '80 when Kay was here; I saw blue sky, + then God was there: a terribly old man who loved me + yet admonished me, reproved me. I see the most profound argument of all: the stewardship over all the Earth as depicted in Genesis: Judaism is for all creatures, man, animals, the ecosphere itself, as Paul Williams pointed out. Jesus was too Orphic,

Last edit about 3 years ago by Unteleported Man

Folder 82

82 page 009 thumb

folder 82 - 009

Now, to compare Christianity with the mystery religions: it seems to me that the existence of the Greco-Roman mystery religions indicates that non-Christians had begun to figure out the fact that man fell, especially the Orphics; which gives further verification to the probability of this primal catastrophe. It was the intent of the mystery religions to reverse the damage of the fall. There can be no question of this; we know this to be so. How well they did we don't know. But I can personally speak for the efficacy of Christianity, which is to say of Jesus Christ. Perhaps Judaism was indeed kinder to oxen, but Christianity at Paul's time had bigger goals: the reversal of the then-fate of all creation, which involves man and animals both. When man fell all creation fell with him as a result. The Torah makes this clear. And the more the Torah is glorified and adulated the more severe the problem grows, because Judaism more and more forgets that man is fallen, i.e. debased and damaged, impaired and occluded. So it was necessary for Paul to go the whole way (at times) and to stigmatize the Law as either totally ineffective or downright evil -- which seems unnecessarily harsh until we realize what his purpose was. "The Law cannot save," Paul said, and he said it in every way and at every occasion possible. He went so far as to deny that it came from YHWH but said that "mere angels" handed it down, which (I believe) has no scriptural basis. He had to void the Jew's faith in the salvific power of the Law in order to save the Jew. The Law did not save; it did not claim it could save; it drew men's minds away from the notion of fall and salvation

Last edit about 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
82 page 018 thumb

folder 82 - 018

not, although the argument for this is torturous. The circumstances will be the issue, legitimate or not. Jesus must prove that he is God if his system is to be accepted -- this without regard to the system itself. Hence the doctrine of the risen Christ is crucial to the acceptance of the system, at least for antiquity. Today we could accept the system on its merits. It is accepted by countless people who deny the resurrection. On the other hand, no one who accepted the dogma of resurrection would deny the system, at least pro forma. Resurrection on the third day proved that the system of teachings did indeed originate from the same --or an equal-- source as the Mosaic Law, the Torah. (Equal or superior; the Gnostics believed it was superior, and not the same source at all.) Today we really cannot fathom this unless we are acutely religiously inclined. Paul, however, knew that he could teach nothing of Christ unless he could affirm the resurrection convincingly. The fact of the growing acceptance of Jesus' teachings is due to the fact of an acceptance of the resurrection --initially-- and not due to a belief that the system was a superior system. I would argue that because it is a superior system Jesus probably was God, but in antiquity it would be the other way around; it was a superior system because Jesus was God. We overlook this. But if Jesus were the Christ and did rise from the dead on the third day then the quality of theophany matched that of the former at Mt. Sinai. Everyone knows that only a man-god can rise from the dead. More, the body in which Jesus was resurrected was a different kind of body (this is central to Paul, and for good

Last edit about 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
82 page 027 thumb

folder 82 - 027

events in reality, and seemed to teach us as children (engramming); Valis seemed to have (1) prepared me for 2-3-74 by early-on engramming and (2) intervened vis-a-vis the Xerox missive to save me.

Also, Judaism opens the way for my viewing 3-74 in terms of Spinoza's immanent God, developed out of the Shekhina and the Cabala. A modified Spinozaism, that includes personality and pronoia and planning. Have I not said, "Transcendent deity is definitely out?" This would include Christianity and Gnosticism and of course theism. Not to mention (ugh) deism. Anyway, how could Valis be Christ, inasmuch as it is Christian dogma that Christ now sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven; i.e. he is not here.

Ah. The doctrine of vicarious atonement is more repugnant to me than the doctrine of original sin. And worst of all, is the idea (connected with the doctrine of vicarious atonement) that God would demand a sacrifice, i.e. the crucifixion, of his own Son which is to say Himself, which is nonsense, brutal and against all reason. There is no way I can be convinced that the notion of God demanding a ransom or slaughtered human or god-human sacrifice to redeem man is a reasonable idea; it is far more barbaric than the talion law of Judaism. Here is where I balk, and since the doctrines of original sin and that of the vicarious atonement form a unitary view that is the very basis of Christianity -- well, it is beyond me, and I still say that Paul misuses Wisdom 3:1. We are not all dead, Ws says; only the evil think that (cf). If you want barbarism there you have it. Also, "This is my body; eat of it -- this is my blood; drink of it" -- although this is good mythic ritual practice I wonder if it can be sustained in the world today; viz: eating the body of the dead god and drink-

Last edit 25 days ago by Max
82 page 039 thumb

folder 82 - 039

-10- 3-2-80

information that could not be developed until later; getting out of synch with reality so that I reacted the stimuli before they occurred; and Valis itself) under one basic syndrome? This is scientific method! This is the way the modern rational mind deals with theory formulation! And my sense of being in touch with a mind moving retrograde in time. Did I warp time so that it ran backward? And out of this one factor the above (and perhaps other) several phenomena were observed to take place?

As I said in my UK speech: "Maybe we're seeing the universe backward." Also I tend -

Oh; and the double superimposition of worlds. Two "tracks" which is to say alternate worlds. Alternate worlds involve time; every SF author knows that.

Oh my god.

Yes, and the koine. A time disturbance, caused by me. Alternate worlds, information from the future sucked back to the present; information from the past; and another me. Plus the breakdown of causal synch. Valis -- the modulations; that's causality. Set to zero, as I put it; due TO A CHANGE IN THE PAST.

All time disturbances. And quantum field like.

And my future NFMD affecting and effecting the GO. So non-GO (which is to say groove tracking) is just a way of talking about normal time and normal causality.

Is thee anything that happened, starting with the material in "Faith of" and TMITHC and PENULTIMATE going to now and the AI voice that does not actually some way involve time? Certainly the material in the writing (especially TEARS) seems to involve time. I may find

Last edit 25 days ago by Max
82 page 083 thumb

folder 82 - 083

-3- 3-8-80

entity embedded in reality camouflaged by forward moving time. Part of me did pass over into the next world, due to my "death" sometime in early 1974. There were two alternate time tracks for me to scan, at this point: the original one where I died, and the new one where I moved to Santa Ana, met Joan, etc. But look; I had broken the power of heimarmene, my death strip, over me. I did successfully deal with the Xerox missive due to my precognition, but what a dreadful and strange situation: dreadful because I foresaw it killing me, and strange because when it arrived I overwhelmed reality and remastered my response; hence my "dissociated" actions -- they emanated from my precog unconscious which had become conscious but lacked verbal skills (right hemisphere). No wonder I had a vivid sense in 3-74 of being a machine! Of being programmed! It was my original involvement foreseen by my precognition, this involvement having the aspect of a rigid determinism that I was overpowering. It had the aspect of fate. Yes, it was a good question: When the death situation actually arrived, would I be able to overpower the faulty response that through precognition I foresaw and, due to the precog ratiocination regarding it, change the future away diametrically from what I foresaw? The premise of JONES was weighing on me, that the precog could foresee his own death but be able to do nothing about it. I proved that wrong, but it was a terrible struggle; I could feel my original foreseen faulty response weighing me down. As to time running backward (or stopping) there is the possibility that I was so programmed to die that some elements of the death strip fired anyhow, as if not knowing that I'd altered my response to the Xerox missive; I entered

Last edit about 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
82 page 084 thumb

folder 82 - 084

-4- 3-8-80

postmortem time (eternity) and world but was still here, as if certain vast forces didn't get the (new) message. So the veil to the next world was lifted for me, an unusual happening. The literal physical death failed to occur but -- part of me passed on over to the far shore anyhow. So what I saw everyone eventually sees. The angel of death had an appointment with me there in that apartment, but took Pinky instead. The vicarious sacrifice. Now, I should consider the possibility that my precognition was a God-given gift provided me by merciful Providence long in advance for that very purpose, to overcome my fate when death struck at me. This may have been Valis, whom I saw. Hence the engramming on the pretty girl with the fish teeth necklace. After all, I was told recently by the AI voice that I was "adopted," because I gave to the kids at Covenant House. Here's a major point: the Xerox missive trap could only be solved by twice tracking it (solution A and then solution B based on A). I had to fail, which yielded me the information I needed, and then I relived in utilizing that information. This is why I had information that I could not possibly (normally) have had, information THAT WOULD ONLY DEVELOP --COME INTO BEING-- LATER WHEN IT WOULD BE TOO LATE. The trap, then, was so constructed that you could only develop the essential information by failing to escape; you would then know what you needed to know. Providence saw how it could be solved: through precognition of faulty solution A. Through, literally tracking the situation twice. The paradox was: You could only get the information by which to succeed BY FAILING. And precognition got

Last edit about 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
82 page 085 thumb

folder 82 - 085

around this paradox by foresseing the failure, deriving the necessary information from it --it had to happen, the failure-- and then going through the trap again but this time (sic) armed with the information acquired from failing. Either this is a biological evolution survival mechanism of great quantum-leap worth, or God helped me; or both together. Yes, time did stop moving forward. And I did see Valis (God). (Well or some kind of supernatural entity. He arranged my Success: for instance, without the engramming on the necklace-girl long in advance I wouldn't have been disinhibited in 2-74. Not only did I have to have precognition I had to RECOGNIZE THE SITUATION WHEN IT DID BEGIN ACTUALLY TO OCCUR. A trigger slightly in advance was needed; that was the golden fish sign and girl at the door. As witness MITHC and "Faith of." What I must realize is that through precognition I did not foresee solution B, which did occur, the successful solution; my precognition foresaw failure. That's why my tension was so great, and why I almost did die. I foresaw the failure but derived the needed information from it, as witness PENULTIMATE TRUTH. But all this knowledge --ofthe trap and of the essential information by which to solve it-- was at an unconscious level in me; hence, for it to be of any use, it had to surface and take motor control and speech control --which is exactly what it did. This shows that "Thomas" is indeed intrinsic to me, not adventitious. This explains who/what Thomas was. Why he took over. How come he had the information he had.

Last edit about 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
82 page 091 thumb

folder 82 - 091

-2- 3-11-80

"Divine Providence" was experienced as an uncanny supernatural knowledge of the gravity of the situation, the necessity of not retracking the same way, and, most of all, knowledge of what should be done INSTEAD. But all this is my precog faculty at work. But my precog faculty is based on the fact that I was reliving 2-3-74 for a second time, and I myself causing it to come out differently. You see, you can't just say "Here we have precognition," as if precognition is natural. Why is there precognition? How did it come to arise? It came to arise BECAUSE I WAS TRACKING REALITY A SECOND TIME; THAT EXPLAINS THE ORIGIN OF THE PRECOGNITION. I will accept this because I think it is the correct explanation. The existence of another personality --Thomas-- points to it. But I cannot fathom what this tracking a second time implies, except this: it implies a vast system --macrocosm-- similar to Lem's paradigm, and Valis is, like Ubik, the entity --mind-- on control of the system. The system would of course have a mind of itself or an adventitious operator; if we find people wired into retracking we can infer a large system of which this is a part, and, if there is a large system, there is going to be (as in UBIK) a macromind running things. I mean, systems like this aren't spontaneous; they don't just happen. I was in contact with Valis' mind, and, my goodness yes; Valis does program (i.e. engram) us, and from birth. So Valis is for sure in charge of the whole thing or is the whole thing; and it generates for us the semblance of a reality -- which accounts for my radical acosmism. There; I've explained Valis, my acosmism, why we retrack, everything. I can close down and mark end. So my previous article explaining everything on the basis of

Last edit about 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
82 page 104 thumb

folder 82 - 104

That I genuinely warped reality (time, causality) and that it wasn't just a change in how reality "looked" to me --my view of it in the customary sense of the word-- is: I GOT THE INFORMATION. SO I REALLY WAS EITHER MOVING RETROGRADE IN TIME, OR I GOT TIME TO MOVE RETROGRADE AROUND ME. It was an act of mental will. A bending, a warping, of the objective ontological category of time. Thus starting in 2-74 I myself created the disruptions that I attributed to the Soviet psychotronic experiments. All the information that came to me either came from the future or from deep layers in my own mind (probably from my mind in the future based on what I would know during the following years): anyhow, the disturbances around me that I perceived were caused by paranormal powers in me, striving to affect time, to speed up, overtake it thereby causing it to run in reverse in relation to me.

I have it. My normal (sic) precognition prewarned me of the problem shaping up (the Xerox missive), thus making me growingly apprehensive. But my normal precognition did not give me the SOLUTION to the problem; something more than precognition was needed. This explains the rehashing of the problem in PENULTIMATE TRUTH, "Faith of Our Fathers," MITHC, etc. I had to reach beyond passive precognition, the intuitive hunch syndrome, and actively draw/yank information to me deliberately, willfully and selectively, and over a very long stretch of future time. The precog faculty had to come under the direction of my will. It could not therefore be confined to the subliminal area of mental functioning; thereupon my psyche turned inside out.

Last edit about 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
82 page 118 thumb

folder 82 - 118

-1- 4-6-80

There is vast and massive evidence that the theory that I perturbed the reality field in 3-74 to obtain information from the future (as I wrote recently) is false. PENULTIMATE TRUTH, "Faith of" and MITHC show that I had the information in me, at least ten years before 3-74, including the crucial datum that the Xerox missive was a forgery (PENULTIMATE TRUTH), as well as what I should do (again, PENULTIMATE TRUTH). It seems absolutely certain to me now that my series of "dissociated" ideationless actions vis-a-vis the Xerox missive was not due to an external pressure or to enthusiasmos, but was programmed into me at some much earlier date, that I acted out a distinct series of engrammed actions, and this means that the phosphene graphics were indeed an indication of a drop in GABA fluid so that blocked neural circuits could fire. I was, in other words, totally in the power of the twin-tape proramming, rather than being freed from it. I realized this last night when I saw FIDDLER. 3-74 represented a rite of passage taking place in illo tempore, and I was programmed to do the correct thing, the one response that would save my life. This is why I said to Sergeant Kelly, very correctly, "I am a machine." I was totally in the power of the inner "bump" and the outer engrammed stimulus situation as I again was with FIDDLER last night. (To a lesser degree last night.) My insight at the time, in 3-74, that I was in the grip of something on the order of post-hypnotic suggestion was absolutely correct. My sequence of responses was totally outside volitional control; I had no power to change or refuse or balk or decide. This frightened me enormously, but at that point I did not know that the Xerox missive situation was elaborated described

Last edit about 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
82 page 119 thumb

folder 82 - 119

-2- 4-6-80

and discussed and analyzed --as to what it was and what to do-- in my writing of the Sixties. The fact that the engramming/programming was laid down that long ago (before the events surrounding 1971) eliminates Pigspurt, and my experience last night ratifies that it was not Pigspurt; it was Valis (Adonay). I did not just have a priori foreknowledge; I had engramming/programming, the sequence of responses being triggered off by the golden fish sign (v. "MITHC" and "Faith of," the dark-haired girl at the door wearing the pin, etc.). I was programmed to do exactly what I did; I did not (as I sometimes suppose) tug myself loose from programming. PENULTIMATE TRUTH shows that I was programmed to do what I did and why (forgery). And it was for my own survival. (Since the missive was a forgery, as the AI voice points out and as I reasoned logically later at my leisure, after I knew that the Roogna letter was harmless.) So I did not perturb the reality field, although yes indeed it was perturbed. And I did not employ paranormal talent; what was going on was precognition based on Adonay having given me a priori knowledge about the Xerox missive a decade in advance -- a decade or more, perhaps!). How I could suppose that I did a search and retrieve of information from the outer world in 3-74 when in fact the entire situation is described in PENULTIMATE TRUTH I did not know. It was a totally false path for me to suppose that I was responsible for 3-74. That an "evolutionary leap" was the case. As I wrote in my notes last night, "This is how the Creator governs the universe." His will (as Spinoza rightly said) is law, and my ideationless actions in 3-74 vis-a-vis the Xerox missive are an example of his will being law, law for me; I had no choice but did what I was programmed to do.

Last edit about 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
82 page 135 thumb

folder 82 - 135

-1- 4-27-80

There is a series of realms. Each has its own laws. The sequences resembles that of Dante's COMMEDIA. Dante was influenced by Joachim of Fiore who taught of three successive ages: that of the Father, the Son, the Spirit (each presumably better). I would equate the first with power; the second with justice and wisdom; the third with mercy and love. The BIP world of TEARS that I remembered when I experienced my anamnesis was of a former lower world which I had lived in; it had its own causal laws and qualities. In 3-74 I made another jump from the realm I had been in during this lifetime up to 3-74; I rose into a less severe realm; hence I saw a perturbation of causality. In each ascending realm the causal laws weaken; the next realm up involves more freedom, less determinism (or fate). Whether there are only three or whether there are more I don't know. Apparently it is the common lot of mankind to live life after life, rising and falling and staying the same, but apparently it is unusual for a person to be jumped from one realm to the next above during --in the middle of-- a lifetime, as was the case with me. It, then, was somewhat on the order of being taken bodily into heaven (I am not joking when I write this). New, milder laws obtained from 3-74 on. And I saw the agency who brought about this jumping for me (Valis). I have even been told why I was elevated. I think this explains 3-74. Being extricated from a trap was a subsection of a greater fact: the being jumped to a higher, milder realm, where my fate (falling victim to the trap; i.e. my astral determinism or ananke) did not obtain. This is clearly related to what the mystery religions taught, beyond doubt.

Last edit 25 days ago by Max
3035 thumb

82 - Notes

January 30, 1980 -1

Upon reading THE TAO OF PHYSICS (Capra) I have come to some conclusion about Valis other than those I endlessly recirculate; viz:

A unitary web in process, self-initiating, in which I participate and whose aspect as it pertained to me my mind determined, conscious, all times simultaneous. I was not outside it. It was everywhere. Its self-motivation was to me most striking (e.g. “pretextual” cause; no laws were imposed on it). It was equally conscious and aware throughout. Every part of it was perfectly linked together into a structure (kosmos). Yet, the whole structure was epiphenomenal, a magician’s trick, done for the sake of beauty, music and dance. It could “be” (appear) any way it wanted to anyone: different ways to different people. It took an infinity of forms, all of which came into being and passed away ({ontoyon} leaving only constants (phylogons) as parts of the structure – hence it was in flux like a self-perfecting organism. The complexity of the structure increased upward (i.e. toward the macro) and downward (toward the micro) with each passing second.

4:15 a.m.: I wasn’t seeing it and I wasn’t seeing a projection of my own brain. What I was seeing was a combination of end interaction between my brain and it, so that to some extent a unique local field came into existence; viz: I didn’t observe Valis but participated actively. Valis, then, is not it and not me, but rather it and me. So of course it mirrored back my own conceptions. This was due to participation in it. But this wasn’t just projection on my part. It was an interpenetration between it and me. The significance of this new insight is very great. So Valis was not me, but I helped shape its nature as it presented itself to me and mingled with me. This is not a matter of preconception

January 30, 1980 -2 on my part; it is an interpenetration. Hence “Thomas” took me over (its penetration of me).

Valis, then, is a syzygy of me and the whatever-it-is, but I can only know it in the fashion that I knew it; I can’t exclude myself as a participant in it.

It had the power to actualize my thoughts (mind, brain) so that I was outside myself and thus looking at my own mind interwoven with external reality; it conjured up a reality for me constructed in the image of my own mind. Thus it (Valis) has total creative power, in terms of bringing something into being (“He causes to exist whatever exists”). My mind was outside me.

Valis, then, is me made into a world (by the creator deity). He showed that he could conjure up an entire world based on my mind – infinite powers of creation. But Valis is not the creator deity; Valis is a fusion of me and the creator deity and thus applicable to me only.

By this power he can make me immortal. I now return to Xtianity; this is the esoteric Xtian gnosis.

So my belief system actually changes Valis as it changes. Hence with every new theory I come up with, Valis changes – not because it’s playing tricks or games but because my belief system is part of it – the intersection of two fields: me and not-me.

Hence (and this resembles a psychotic notion but isn’t) I have a certain control over my reality by thinking about it, but only because my mind links up with a greater mind. So in 3-74 there was an element of paranormal powers in me, probably allied to precognition. But I changed my outer reality. This interpenetration of my mind and its explains the “too

January 30, 1980 -3

obliging" quality of it. In fact the “too obliging” quality is a great clue to the real nature of my experience and of Valis.

This reveals the plurality world for what it is: an epiphenomenon of the mind! If it wasn’t, my mind could not have affected/altered it!

5:30 a.m. Each human brain is a different universe, literally, not metaphorically: vast spaces. I saw mine (i.e. my brain). Hermetic alchemy. So the vast spaces that I saw was my own inner space projected outward; it is greater than outer space.

I was interacting with reality at its deepest level below that of the plural epiphenomena; I joined with it (or became aware that I was already joined with it). It took the form of an open system biological organism model because it is; this is why it could interpenetrate me and me it. I can never know the not-me greater mind as it is in itself, since when I encounter it I actively participate in shaping the aspect it shows me. I do not experience it; I experience myself merged with it in syzygy. This is the issue Kant raised regarding the thing-in-itself; his arguments hold true here. This other mind probably appears only to me under the aspect I encountered; thus I can say little or nothing about its intrinsic nature. This is what has wrecked my attempt to analyze it for these six years; I overlooked the fact that I was a participant in it and not a detached observer outside it. I changed it by encountering it. It is significant that the boundaries of my mind and its mind are lost in such an encounter; we blur together into the syzygy. I’d like to conclude that this indicates isomorphism, but it does not. Nor can I even be sure which parts (elements, aspects) are from its mind and which from mine. All I can be sure of is: it was not all me.

2-29-80 -1

Paul and original sin.

Paul is saying, Man after the Fall is still fallen. The Torah has not restored him to his pre-fallen state. This is the point Paul is trying to make; the Jews believed that the Torah, in particular the Decalogue, was sufficient for man’s needs, but Paul points out that the Torah doesn’t save; i.e. it doesn’t reverse the damage, the effects, of the Fall. Man stays as he is: blighted and occluded; what Paul calls “in a state of (original) sin.” Again, the Torah is for fallen man (1). It tells him first of all what not to do (“Though shall not” etc). How has this changed fallen man? Original sin is simply a term telling us that Adam alone did not fall but that all men fell with him and are fallen now. This is simply a statement of fact, unless you reject the doctrine –notion—of the Fall. But Judaism accepts that notion (1). Does Judaism believe that Adam’s descendents re-arose to a pre-fallen state after Adam’s death? No, of course not (1). Paul says, “The Law (Torah) can only condemn, can only convict of sin.” This is so. In itself it has no power to save; in fact Judaism is devoid of a concept of any method by which man can be restored to his pre-fallen state (1). It as a concept simply does not exist in Judaism. Man will stay fallen forever, abiding by the Mosaic Law (1).

Another objection. Let us concede that the theophany at Mt. Sinai took place, that the Torah was indeed handed down to Moses by YHWH. Well, let us compare it to Jesus’ teachings. We find that Jesus’ teachings are superior. Then if we regard Jesus as only a man and not God or the Son of God, we are faced with the impossible notion that a mere man, a prophet or preacher, could come up with a

I am wrong; Rabbi Huz says that for Judaism there was no Fall (of course no original sin).

“Torah” or system of ethics-beliefs superior to what God came up with vis-à-vis Moses at Sinai. Well, since this is impossible, then perhaps a solution illegible characters? is to say that Jesus’ teachings are not superior to Mosaic Law. But they seem to us to be superior. But perhaps this is circular reasoning; we find them superior because we are Christians and have been taught them. But Rabbi Herz claims that the golden rule comes from the Torah (Liv. 19:18), so he admits the absolute superiority of Jesus’ basic ethical premise but claims that it came in the Hebrew Torah long before Jesus. Then Jesus was just repeating concepts already familiar to Jews; e.g. Hillel. But Jesus does not just state the golden rule; his system is complex, intricate, sophisticated, vast. He did not utter just the one statement found in Liv. 19:18. So where did his other sayings come from; especially the Sermon on the Mount? Again, if he is only a man he is more advanced in terms of ethical conceptions and propositions than YHWH! In my opinion if you conclude that indeed the Decalogue was given to Moses by God, then it follows from internal evidence, which is to say the teachings and system of Jesus, that Jesus was God or related to God in some way; for instance God’s Holy Wisdom, or as with Ptath in the Egyptian system, God’s “tongue.”

Finally, Jesus presented a system which went beyond making men truly moral –spotless of sin—but, more, restoring men to their pre fallen state (1), and here the issue lies, because it seems probable that only God could inaugurate such a system – unless you wish to take the argument that Jesus’ system does not in fact restore man to his pre-fallen state but only claims to. But illegible characters?Judaism does not even make this claim for the Torah.

But if man did not Fall, then what was I restored to. The cut off by end of page in scan

Further, the Torah is frozen; it is an article of dogma for Judaism that there is no new Torah and there will never be, so by Judaism’s own dogma, Torah is frozen forever. Obviously, then, it has ossified. What Jesus represents is the living Torah, with new revelations; he is with us and can enter into dialog with us. He is flexible. Obviously if the original Mosaic Torah were ever to be superceded, this would be the ideal way for it to be superceded: by God incarnate as man.

It seems to me that the original Torah ossified and was then superceded by Jesus, the Christ, and then Christianity itself ossified around 1300 and was then superceded by the system of the Protestants, and that now we see an ossification of that; by reason of which we can expect a new revelation, a new theophany, perhaps the Parousia.

Also, if Jesus is Holy Wisdom, he existed before creation and does not represent a part of creation but the Godhead itself entering creation anew. Structurally, this makes perfect sense, but what is involved is not just further injunctions, admonitions and rules for fallen man, but a method by which fallen man ceases to be fallen man. Rabbi Herz does not speak of this when he contrasts Judaism with Christianity. He misses the central point of Christianity, and hence the central weakness of Judaism, or, as Paul puts it, the Law and the Law's inability to save. Judaism accepts the condition of fallen man and makes the best of it (by relying on the divine Torah revealed to Moses by YH WH). Christianity does exactly the opposite; it preaches man restored, the Second Adam who undoes --more than undoes--the work of the first Adam. (1) Judaism does not present

Yet I have always rejected Paul’s doctrine of original sin, hence the Fall. Judaism teaches that Man is pure. Is this not my belief? Do I not share it?

an alternative system by which this is accomplished. In fact it is only upon studying Judaism --the writings which include the Torah and many glosses-- that I understand what Christianity does, by virtue of the contrast visible between them. Thus for the first time I can understand why Paul taught the doctrine of original sin. It was absolutely essential to stigmatize man's present and past condition (state) as that of Adam's and in no way an improvement on Adam's -- if this was not put forth as a premise, then what was next put forth, the idea of salvation, which is to say the restoration of man to his pre-fallen state, makes no sense. Man must be seen as fallen if man is to be seen as necessarily requiring salvation; otherwise, "Salvation from what?" Paul has made a daring leap of insight from the story of Adam's Fall to all mankind's condition -- to mankind's present condition. Paul says, “No one since Adam ever got back up to the pre-fallen state; hence we say, Adam deprived us all of that original state of felicity." What else could Paul say if he is to preach the doctrine of salvation through Christ? That the Torah restored man to his pre-fallen state? (1) But Judaism does not claim that the Torah does that; all Judaism claims for the Torah is that God has spoke to fallen man and told him what to do and what not to do. Man is still fallen. (1) Only Jesus the Christ has the power to restore man; only Jesus the Christ even claims that power or, what is more, conceives of that restoration taking place! What is so disheartening about Judaism is that under it man accepts his fallen state as eternal. And this means, Judaism is tacitly saying that Yes, we have all inherited Adam's sin, which is to say, Adam's fall; we fell with him and are fallen still, and our descendents as

This whole article is based on the false premise that Judaism believes, like xtianity, in the Fall – it destroys? (word is cut off)



So the claim of Jesus the Christ is original and revolutionary, but it must depend on an admission of man's fallen state which is a way of saying that man is born sinful; i.e. he is born fallen and does not fall individually during his particular lifetime according to his own deeds. All that Paul wants to do is lay the conceptual groundwork for the notion of salvation; the last thing he wants to do is condemn man. Paul has a remedy but to convince us to make use of the remedy he must point to the disease. Judaism has forgotten about the Fall when they regard man as a wonderous thing made in the image of God. Paul says, Yes we were so designed, but fell.

And if God ordained the Fall (in terms of punishment or curse) then it is logical that God and only God can reverse the condition and restore man. It is not likely that a system by a mortal human could accomplish this, because if it did, it would de facto place that mortal human at the level of Godhood. He would be as powerful as God. How, then, can Jesus not be God or anyhow the Logos or Holy Wisdom, i.e. God's Wisdom?

For myself I can testify that through Christ, or so it would seem, I was in February 1974 restored to my pre-fallen state, thus giving me personal verification of the gospel of Christ, as well as the reality of his nature and power. It has taken me six years to come to understand that this is indeed what happened to me in the spring of 1974, but such was it, in fact. Thus I personally can reason back from my own salvation or restoration to the fall and to the ubiquity of the fall in terms of all men past and present, in terms, I mean, of course myself.

Now, to compare Christianity with the mystery religions: it seems to me that the existence of the Greco-Roman mystery religions indicates that non-Christians had begun to figure out the fact that man fell, especially the Orphics; which gives further verification to the probability of this primal catastrophe. It was the intent of the mystery religions to reverse the damage of the fall. There can be no question of this; we know this to be so. How well they did we don't know. But I can personally speak for the efficacy of Christianity, which is to say of Jesus Christ. Perhaps Judaism was indeed kinder to oxen, but Christianity at Paul's time had bigger goals: the reversal of the then-fate of all creation, which involves man and animals both. When man fell all creation fell with him as a result. The Torah makes this clear.

And the more the Torah is glorified and adulated the more severe the problem grows, because Judaism more and more forgets that man is fallen, i.e. debased and damaged, impaired and occluded. So it was necessary for Paul to go the whole way (at times) and to stigmatize the Law as either totally ineffective or downright evil -- which seems unnecessarily harsh until we realize what his purpose was. “The Law cannot save," Paul said, and he said it in every way and at every occasion possible. He went so far as to deny that it came from YHWH but said that “mere angels" handed it down, which (I believe) has no scriptural basis. He had to void the Jew·s faith in the salvific power of the Law in order to save the Jew. The Law did not save; it did not claim it could save; it drew ments minds away from the notion of fall and salvation -7 intertwined.

Now the utter nobility of the doctrine of Vicarious Atonement makes sense to me -- now that I have some small grasp of Judaism, the basis of Christianity, its substrate. What could be more heroic than the idea that God who himself threw mankind down as punishment for man’s original transgression, so loved man that He gave His only begotten Son to redeem man? And under conditions of acute --supreme-- abasement and suffering? There is nothing in Judaism to equal this, and nothing in any of the other of the world's religions. Mani was martyred but he left no system of teachings as did Christ. Christ's teachings are his certification of Godhood, since they exceed in value the Mosaic Torah itself.

Again, Judaism has no mechanism for salvation. Yet their own Torah depicts man's Fall. Judaism cannot therefore deny that man is fallen, unless there was a restoration not depicted, or, possibly, it is supposed that the revelation at Mt. Sinai restored man, but I don’t see that claim made. Nor do I see it as implicit in the revelation to Moses that the Torah made man what he had originally been; it certainly did not return him to Eden (or as it is called Paradise). Yet when Christ restored me in 1974-5 I saw Eden; I saw the palm tree garden around me, although I did not know what it was. Also, I saw the black iron prison in which we now live (cf the First Book of Adam and Eve: the Cave of Treasures called "small and narrow” and a "prison," in contrast to the Garden from which they were expelled).

There is a great significance in the Christian concept of restoration in terms of God's wisdom and foreknowledge, lacking in Judaism, and when a salvific framework is understood it is hard to justify, then, a system that excludes it. Presumably God foreknew that man would fall, and with man, creation itself. Are we to assume that God had no remedy planned for the situation? Or did he not foreknow and had no remedy? Neither of these possibilities is likely. It is much more logical that God would foresee and have, from the beginning, a remedy -- which in fact in Christianity he has: what Christians call the "felix culpa" situation, wherein the remedy is greater than the malady, so that in final terms the restoration outdoes the Fall and there is a net gain to the resulting system. If the awesome majesty, power and wisdom attributed to God in the Torah are taken as given, the preparation of divine remedy seems not only logical but inevitable. Having studied the Torah I find it hard, in view of the presentation of God contained therein, to believe that the cosmos and man having fallen. God could or would do nothing -- unless the Torah is considered a solution, which it is certainly not.

Thus there is an inner logic to Christianity in that its aspect of a new or second covenant with God seems to spring naturally from the Old Testament, in particular the Torah itself. It seems almost an insult to God to suppose that he would not or could not fashion a countermove to Satan's strategy; in Judaism Satan would seem to have been successful --whereas in Christianity he is undone. So the great theme of Christianity is the Fall and then Salvation through Christ, whereas in Judaism it is the Fall, and then the best made of it through divine theophany and revelation culminating -9 in the Mosaic Law, in the Torah itself. But as a law the Mosaic law is not that superior to known man-made systems of law, and could have arisen naturally; whereas the teachings of Jesus bear no real affinity to the teachings of any man, except, perhaps, the wisdom of the Buddha (and even there it is a dubious comparison). If one examines the Mosaic Law and the "law” of Christ, what he calls his "yoke," one finds the second superior to the first, and one must conclude that if divinity is anywhere it lies with the second. In fact the "law" of Christ seems to refute much of the decalogue, and certainly strikes Christians as higher, in which case it is impossible for a Christian to imagine that the latter is God-given and the former not.

Finally, the Christian view of history is grand, in that it sees Fall and then the beginning of the salvific machinery of restoration culminating in the uniquely moving and beautiful First Advent, whereas for Judaism history begins wrong and never really gets much better; the Christian is dynamic, the Judaic somewhat, at least in comparison, static. There is nothing in Judaism but a vague notion that somehow "everything will end," whatever that may mean, and that there is a spirit or soul in men, but what becomes of it after death, if anything -- nowhere is the answer clear until Christianity enters, with its grounding in Zoroastrianism.

The ultimate triumph of Judaism in terms of eschotology appears to be the establishment of a national ethnic state, which really does not merit the term "religious" except that it is a theocracy. The Dutch had similar aims in the Thirty Years War, and they fought also for human freedom.



From internal evidence (a study of his teachings) Jesus was the greatest of the Hebrew prophets, yet he was rejected by Israel. Why?

Because he depreciated the Torah. Only if he were God or the Son of God or Hagia Sophia --God's Wisdom-- could he claim the authority to do so. He did make this claim. God having established the Torah it could not be voided or superceded or amended by any man. Therefore Christ’s claim to divine kingship was essential if his teachings were to be accepted. The Jehovah's Witnesses do not understand that (the Arian Heresy). Mt 5:21: "You have learnt how it was said to our ancestors: 'You must not kill; and if anyone does kill he must answer for it before the court.' But I say this to you: anyone who is angry with his brother will answer for it before the court." Mt5:28: “You have learnt how it was said: 'You must not commit adultery.' But I say this to you… " Etc. Especially, this change: "You have heard it said: 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him.' Etc. This is all said by Jesus on his own authority. He could not amend and nullify the Law on any authority less than God's. Put another way, anyone who announced a nullification of the decalogue would de facto be blaspheming, in view of the authority of the Torah, and upon being brought before a Hebrew tribunal, for example the Sanhedrin, he would be boxed in by his own assertions. Note that Jesus says, "But I say this to you." He already claims the authority to supercede the Torah, and yet according


to the Rabbis the Torah as originally revealed cannot be amended nor nullified. Jesus says in Mt 5:17, "Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them." He then goes on to supercede the decalogue with a totally new ethical system, the like of which has never been seen. No one doubts that Jesus did this in such statements as Mt records in chapter 5. Do his statements fulfill the decalogue, or do they amend it? In any case, there is only one authority upon which such changes, however interpreted, can be based, and that is God's authority, so his later claim to be Kyrios, Lord, is already implied here. He will have to say that he is Kyrios or be crucified. If he says that he is Kyrios he may be rejected anyhow and be crucified. He has invited crucifixion by amending the Torah; he need do no more. The Torah is what Paul says it is: only able to condemn, to convict of sin, not save. There is a progression here that is logical: Jesus states an ethical system that supercedes the Law; Jesus says that he is Kyrios; Paul says that the Law cannot save. Once the sequence has begun it will go to its end.

This brings me again to Paul's doctrine of original sin which I have always found objectionable. What if it is interpreted as a failure of the Law (Torah) to save, not as an indictment of men? It is a way of declaring that indeed Jesus did bring a new ethical system which amounts to a repudiation of the Law. A Jew is placed in the situation where he must choose the Torah or Jesus and he cannot choose Jesus unless he chooses him as Kyrios: God or Son of God. There is no such thing as partial blasphemy.


Suppose, however, that Jesus had not started with a new ethical system and then declared himself Kyrios but had simply declared himself Kyrios. What would his credentials have been? At the time miracles were considered prima facia evidence of the presence of God, but this is not true for the modern world; however the total ethical system that Jesus announced is another matter. It would be very strange if the finest ethical system ever announced were the product of a liar or a madman; i.e. Jesus lied when he said he was Kyrios. or he imagined that he was Kyrios, etc. At this point, if Jesus' authority is called into doubt, whoever doubts it should then go on to doubt the divine authorship of the decalogue. It is pointed out by the Rabbis that the Torah's intrinsic nature points to its divine authorship, it being advanced over any other system known in antiquity. This same argument, then, if used for the Torah must be used for Jesus, inasmuch as his system is to this very day unmatched in all the world. There is a further element in the case to be made for Jesus; viz: that his system seems to be the product of the mind of a single person, whereas it is possible that the Torah is the borrowed result of inter-cultural mingling as well as the product of many human minds, Hebrew minds, over an extended period of time. The argument, I think, for the divine authorship of Christian ethics is stronger than the argument for the divine --i.e. revealed--origin of O.T. ethics. In fact the O.T. ethics are not ethics at all but law; they are not internalized. The decisive feature in Jesus’ system is the involvement of the inner person; not just what he does but what he thinks and feels and desires. It is simply not the same kind of system as the Decalogue. -13

It is argued by the Rabbis that the two statements "You should not do to anyone who you would not have done to yourself" and “Do unto others as you would have done unto you" differ only in terms of semantics, that in terms of meaning they are interchangeable. This is not so. The first is a typical prohibition ordinance of the sort contained in the Decalogue. It is a "don't.” It is based on a notion of external law that forbids certain actions; it is a generalization of the summary of prohibitions. For example, "Thou shalt not push people in front of moving trains" does not mean the same thing as, "Thou shalt pull people out of the way of moving trains,” and even modern English common law makes this distinction; viz: You can be sent to prison or even executed for pushing someone in front of a moving train but you cannot be punished if you fail to pull someone out of the way of a moving train. The Rabbis either do not understand English common law and Roman law, for that matter, or choose to pretend that they do not understand these distinctions. By and large the difference between a law and an ethic is that a law tells you what you must not do (it is prohibitive) and an ethic tells you what you must do (it is a command). Jesus, then, does not substitute better laws for worse laws but internalized ethics for legal prohibitions -- which in itself is a quantum leap upward in the evolution of human life. The result is simply that the person becomes a law unto himself based on the system put forth by Jesus. He guides himself on the internalized basis of this system. At this juncture, the old world gives way to the new, and the O.T. to the N.T. The Rabbis either plead ignorance when in fact they know, or they like their -14

Torah have ossified at the level of two thousand B.C.E.

From a study of the original Torah it can be readily seen that unless it is susceptible to amendment, perhaps through precident, as is Roman and English law, it will spiral downward entropically, across the ages, and this is precisely what it has done. From the standpoint of entropy and negentropy, Jesus' system introduces new energy into the realm of moral precepts.

Jesus put the Jew in a difficult position. Israel had believed for centuries that the Torah came directly from God and therefore could only be amended by God. The God who had revealed to Moses the divine Torah had manifested himself in a striking theophany: lightning, thunder, dense clouds, a loud trumpet blast, and the necessity of setting up barriers to keep back the people, with such injunctions as, "Any man who touches the mountain must be put to death." The people of course were terrified. "Mount Sinai was all smoking, because the LORD had come down upon it in fire; the smoke went up like the smoke of a kiln…and the sound of the trumpet grew even louder." Against this commanding impression, Jesus entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey. He was the son of a rural carpenter, from a province out of which nothing good was said ever to come. He pits his ethical system against that revealed in the awesome theophany at Mt. Sinai and is destroyed.

When one considers the circumstances under which the original Torah was revealed to man, it is easy to understand why Israel would reject amendment by any human being whatever the system he offered in replacement. The circumstances of revelation, not the system itself, seems to be the legitimate issue. But in point of fact it is not, although the argument for this is torturous. The circumstances will be the issue, legitimate or not. Jesus must prove that he is God if his system is to be accepted -- this without regard to the system itself. Hence the doctrine of the risen, Christ is crucial to the acceptance of the system, at least for antiquity. Today we could accept the system on its merits. It is accepted by countless people who deny the resurrection. On the other hand, no one who accepted the dogma of resurrection would deny the system, at least pro forma. Resurrection on the third day proved that the system of teachings did indeed originate from the same --or an equal-source as the Mosaic Law, the Torah. (Equal or superior; the Gnostics believed it was superior, and not the same source at all.) Today we really cannot fathom this unless we are acutely religiously inclined. Paul, however, knew that he could teach nothing of Christ unless he could affirm the resurrection convincingly. The fact of the growing acceptance of Jesus' teachings is due to the fact of an acceptance of the resurrection --initially-- and not due to a belief that the system was a superior system. I would argue that because it is a superior system Jesus probably was God, but in antiquity it would be the other way around; it was a superior system because Jesus was God. We overlook this.

But if Jesus were the Christ and did rise from the dead on the third day then the quality of theophany matched that of the former at Mt. Sinai. Everyone knows that only a man-god can rise from the dead. More, the body in which Jesus was resurrected was a different kind of body (this is central to Paul, and for good reason; for essential reason. Were it a corporeal body a trick might have been involved, an accusation still made. What we today must realize is that the sudden, early spread of Christianity was emphatically and necessarily based on a widening conviction that Jesus had risen and in an incorruptable body. It is not within historic posibility that his ethical system would have caught on in the absence of this belief. The real story of Jesus is not, Here is someone with a superior ethical system but, Here is someone who rose from the dead in another kind of body and he has given us this system to live by. If you go back and analyze what happened at Mt. Sinai, whatever system this person, this god, God Himself, has given you, you will accept it; you must accept it or perish, because God gives life and God takes life; God and life and inseparable. By his resurrection Jesus showed his power to create ethical systems backed up by the primal ground of being. The system was inseparable from the existence of the universe. For example, if the LORD at Mt. Sinai had told Moses that the people were to boil chickens in their feathers --the chickens' feathers, not the people's-- it would have been as binding on them as the decalogue, as Thou shalt not kill. But what we have with Jesus is resurrection --proof of godhood-- yoked to the finest ethical system the world knows. So for us the argument can be turned around; we today can infer resurrection from the system, not the validity of the system from resurrection. It is a different world that we inhabit, now.

This is why the Torah contains the seeds of its own entropic destruction: it does contain what reasonable men understand to be mindless prescriptions. It is a vast hodgepodge and to follow every tittle of it is to damage your sanity. This is not true of Jesus' system. This is why Paul rightly views Jesus' teachings as the spirit, and the Law as the letter. He has it right. He fully understands the difference between the Law and Christian teachings. Paul is a reasonable man. For example, it is not cruelty that causes him to taunt the Jews for caring about oxen; he is saying that the Law is mindless in its distinctions between obsessive ritual and pure substance. It is the Law because it was revealed. What we have here are the characteristics of a mechanical or slave entity, something below the threshold of consciousness. Paul as a Jew knew this very well. His analysis of the Law is flawless, and also blasphemy. We should take the latter into account in appraising him and what he says. Speaking as Paul spoke eventually cost him his life, and it cost the lives of many other people. Jesus foresaw this, and his own payment as well. Therefore no one can say that Jesus preached and Paul followed for practical reasons. They were pitted against Mt. Sinai, which represents absolute divine power, and against the Roman Empire, which is the embodiment of worldly, secular power. Thus Paul could speak of Christianity as a kind of foolishness greater in worth than the highest wisdom of men. --

Out of ignorance I have made a basic error; I assumed that Judaism (although it did not know of original Sin) believed in the Fall; I thought this because Genesis seems very clear on this matter: Adam sins, and man is expelled from the Garden of Eden. Scripture seems clear to me on this point: we were supposed to dwell in Eden -18

but we disobeyed God and we were expelled into misery, and we still are expelled; Eden is guarded by cherubim with flaming swords (i.e. by angry angels). I never doubted that the story of the Fall could be explicitly seen in Genesis, but Judaism does not see it. Well, are we in the Garden? No. Were we supposed to be originally? Yes; that was the plan. Did we disobey and were expelled? Scripture clearly says so. I don’t see how Judaism can read Genesis any other way. "The Fall" means (1) Rebelling; and (2) Expulsion from Eden. These are not implicit in Genesis; they are explicit.

Another matter: the Tree of (eternal) Life, the eating of the fruit of which would make man like "us," like the Elohim. This is precisely the fruit that Jesus offers us. So even if you discard the notion of expulsion from Eden and the possibility of return, through Christ, you have this forbidden tree the fruit of which Christ now offers you ("Your ancestors ate manna in the wilderness and they are all dead. But I offer you the bread of eternal life which is my body; I am that bread," etc). Okay. I will reject the notion of original sin and the Fall; that man now is Fallen; I will go along with Judaism because I have always balked at the notion of original sin and I can see that the notion of original sin cannot be separated from the notion of the Fall, i.e. fallen man. But there is still the Tree of Life which was denied us and which Christ (I am told by the AI voice} stole. Stole to give to us; he got it through --smuggled it past-- the angels guarding Eden. In fact he restores us to Eden. Eden as place. And I will assume that the paranormal faculties conferred on me in 3-74 or disinhibited were not restored but were adventitious (contrary to Calvin and the Book of Adam and Eve).

But the Book of Adam and Eve explicitly describes the paranormal faculties I acquired as those they had in Eden. This is too great a coincidence to be ignored. Still, I would like to reject Paul's notion of original sin; I think this is one of the best elements in Judaism in contrast to Christianity. But if I reject original sin I reject the Fall. Okay; I reject the Fall and I say, “Restoration" is not restoration at all but the bestowing of supernatural faculties through the fruit of the Tree of Life which is Christ, the eating of which makes us like the Elohim. Now that is certainly based on scripture.

Also, to get this fruit you return to the Garden; the purpose of returning you to the Garden is so that you can eat of this fruit, the fruit of the other tree of the two trees denied us -- stolen, as was the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil (the serpent's gift to us).

Wait; why, of course if man didn't fall --there was no Fall-- the Torah would be totally sufficient! So the doctrine of the Torah's inadequacy is tied in with the Fall, and the doctrine of its perfect adequacy is tied in with the denial of the Fall. I can interpret the Fall as punishment, with a removal of some human faculties and the occlusion (impairment) of others without the doctrine of sin; sin has nothing to do with it -- it is a punishment for stealing the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil --punishment by a dumb demiurge who wants to keep us enslaved -- as the Gnostics teach. So Gnosticism teaches the Fall without teaching original sin. And hereby the inadequacy of the Torah is logically supposed. -20

Then Judaism is even more occluded than Christianity, because by denying or ignoring the Fall Judaism has not realization that man has lost some of his faculties entirely and has had others occluded (impaired). The punishment by YHWH is totally successful, and part of the saving gnosis is contained in the Christian doctrine of the Fall because it permits us to comprehend that we are impaired -- deprived of some of our original faculties. So already, by believing in the Fall, Christianity has rolled back the cloud of enforced ignorance which the demiurge covered us with.

We fell, and the idea is to regain what we lost (1) in the way of faculties; and (2) return to Eden. "The Golden Age of humanity is not in the past but in the future," Rabbi Herz writes in his notes on Genesis. Well, and (3): the fruit of the Tree of (eternal) Life, which Christ specifically offers us.

Then I can see that conventional or orthodox Christianity in itself contains much of the saving gnosis, irrespective of Gnosticism. We fell; we lost Eden; we lost our faculties; Christ restores us (as Milton says; the doctrine of the Second Adam Who undoes the work of the first). Judaism knows absolutely nothing of this, of the events (loss of faculties) and aim (restoration). So of course the revelation at Mt. Sinai is considered adequate. And of course in Christianity it is not, and Christ must tell us, "But I say unto you –“ etc, and then so does. If you study Judaism and contrast it to Christianity you can see, for the first time, that Christianity is Faustian, that its real but covert message is “We were once as gods or as God, and Christ shall restore us,” ideas totally absent in Judaism, as is also absent the concept that the -21

Messiah would be the Son of God or God Himself as Christians believe about Jesus. This latter idea is logical given the former; God took away our brightness, our holy nature, and God has the power to restore it; Christ restores it; therefore Christ equals/is God.

So the doctrine of original sin is a method that permits Christians to believe all this without assigning any blame to God for man's Fall. In no sense did God do wrong in blighting, expelling and impairing and punishing man. Gnosticism sees this as a tactic and rejects it. The doctrine of original sin is only necessary if man alone is to hold the place of the guilty party, but the Gnostics are willing to blame God.

What is my opinion? Well, I have the statement of the AI voice: "Stolen secret." This is absolutely Gnostic. Also, my "messenger" dream is Gnostic (as well as other elements; many, in fact). However, you have to become a dualist to be a Gnostic; you have to believe in two gods, not one. That’s the price you pay for abandoning the doctrine of original sin. Paul could retain his monotheism. The Gnostics can't, and don't want to.

Christianity is very wise; it stresses the remedy above the malady in its "felix culpa" doctrine -- which insures the positive or Faustian aspect of the belief-system, rather than the negative aspect (fallen, debased, sinful man… although many Protestants stressed the latter --but it is said of them that they went back to the O.T.; after all, kerygma or gospel means "good news," not "bad news"). The concept of "felix culpa" is not tangential to Christianity but cardinal. In a sense, everything is expressed here;


and what is most fascinating is that it gets God Himself off the hook re the idea that he planned badly. Before man fell, and God foreknew that he would, God had a remedy that exceeded the malady as was expressed in a recent satori I had. When I had that particular satori I was beginning to get to the heart of the true meaning of Christianity.

"Had there been no disasterous Fall, there might not have been an Incarnation.” Judaism rejects the notion of the Fall and as a result regards the doctrine of the Incarnation as blasphemy. The Fall and the Incarnation cannot (or are not) separated. Yes; so for Judaism there is a lot of noise and a bunch of rules, whereas we have the Savior.

Rabbi Herz: “The antidote to the poisoning of the human race by the serpent is found at Mt. Sinai." Could this be so? Have I made an error? Because "Sinai” could meant "Man is still in dialog with God and not cut off from him,” which is precisely my experience; I experienced a theophany, both visibly and audibly, which fits in with a view of man as still pure (having received the antidote; and the antidote still comes, directly from God; contrast this to Jesus in the N.T.: "No man has seen God.” But the Rabbis speak of humans seeing the Shekhina: “One Rabbi died; one went insane, one became irreligious, one escaped unharmed.")

Uh, Andy; less/look aroun' heah.

I did have in hypnagogic state these revealed words: “He has been transplanted and is alive" and I saw YHWH.

In Christianity there is a Mediator between God and man, and yet (as I say in the outline of VALIS REGAINED) Elijah's theophany at Mt. Horeb (Sinai) shows that YHWH can modulate his appearance so as not to destroy the human percipient.

It was the O.T. that I read as a kid and prayed that God would speak to me. Not the N.T. God not Christ.

If God can/will modulate his theophanies so that they are endurable by humans, and there are such theophanies, what then is the need of a man-god Mediator? We can return to strict monotheism, as I spoke of in “Man, Android and Machine.”

And there was that “excluded from the centers of power" dream in which the AI voice identified itself as YHWH.

Have I not always believed that Paul's doctrine of original sin is terrible and not acceptable to me? That it has done harm in human history, dreadful harm, whatever the intent? And I figured out that the doctrine of the Vicarious Atonement --i.e. the purpose of the crucifixion-- rests on the doctrine of original sin.

In my revelations there are no N.T. designations, but at least three from the O.T. (YHWH twice and St. Sophia, the latter identified by the Rabbis with the Torah).

I'm stuck. Paulline Christianity is unacceptable to me because of the doctrine of original sin. Gnosticism is unacceptable because it is bitheistic and unnecessarily complex. Judaism is unacceptable because it rejects Jesus' teachings. The only way out for me is to (1) Consider that YHWH still manifests himself to humans and that this was Valis; and (2) the Torah is alive, and this is what the plasmate was. I have some basis for believing these because when Valis' mind fused with my mind Valis seemed to be the author of all changes and events in reality, and seemed to teach us as children (engramming); Valis seemed to have (1) prepared me for 2-3-74 by early-on engramming and (2) intervened vis-à-vis the Xerox missive to save me.

Also, Judaism opens the way for my viewing 3-74 in terms of Spinoza's immanent God, developed out of the Shekhina and the Cabala. A modified Spinozaism, that includes personality and pronoia and planning" Have I not said, “Transcendent deity is definitely out?" This would include Christianity and Gnosticism and of course theism. Not to mention (ugh) deism. Anyway, how could Valis be Christ, inasmuch as it is Christian dogma that Christ now sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven; i.e. he is not here.

Ah. The doctrine of vicarious atonement is more repugnant to me than the doctrine of original sin. And, worst of all, is the idea (connected with the doctrine of vicarious atonement) that God would demand a sacrifice, i.e. the crucifixion, of his own Son which is to say Himself, which is nonsense, brutal and against all reason. There is no way I can be convinced that the notion of God demanding a ransom or slaughtered human or god-human sacrifice to redeem man is a reasonable idea; it is far more barbaric than the talion law of Judaism. Here is where I really balk, and since the doctrines of original sin and that of the vicarious atonement form a unitary view that is the very basis of Christianity -- well, it is beyond me, and I still say that Paul misuses Wisdom 3:1. We are not all dead, Ws says; only the evil think that (cf). If you want barbarism there you have it. Also, “This is my body; eat of it -- this is my blood; drink of it” although this is good mythic ritual practice I wonder if it can be sustained in the world of today; viz: eating the body of the dead god and drink


ing his blood so as to acquire his powers. In any case it is as archaic a practice as talion law. The Romans, for instance, considered it cannibalism. It is obviously related to the worship of Dionysus, which is a very barbaric and ancient practice. So is Christianity that much of a reformation, a radical and revolutionary new version, of Judaism?

And then there is the merit of the accusation that Christianity despite all its protestations to the contrary departs from actual monotheism. Will Durant thinks it does. It seems to be based on the worship of Hermes Tristmegistos. A Greek/Egyptian worship.

Okay; now for the clincher. The EB macro article on Moses discusses the Hittite Covenant and says that Moses realized that it was the model/basis for the covenant between Israel and YHWH. Among other lesser (to me lesser anyhow) aspects was this: God had come to the rescue of the helpless Hebrews in Egypt, so it was basic to the covenant between Israel and God that the Hebrews protect widows, orphans, the poor, the stranger, the disadvantaged, as God had protected them (Rabbi Herz points out correctly that this even included animals; “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox as he treadeth out the corn"). Nothing could enrapture me more; nothing could be closer to my own heart.

Interestingly (to say the least) the reason the AI voice gave for heaven's intervention on my behalf in 3-74 had to do with my aiding the kids at Covenant House; i.e. the weak and disadvantaged and helpless, which fits in with the Hittite Covenant. It is in fact a perfect replication of the Hittite Covenant. -27 I can then go on to say with Dante that "God is the Book of the universe." After all, the O.T. gives mention of Holy Wisdom having existed with God before creation and at the act of creation. And coming down from heaven to aid good men.

The situation is that in accepting the N.T. or parts thereof I do not have to give up the O.T.; they are not mutually exclusive. I can E accept the gospels and not Paul if I so wish. 3-2-80


So to explain 2-3-74 I draw on the Tibetian Book of the Dead, Orphism, Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, Buddhism, esoteric Christianity and the cabala; my explanation sources are the highest -- which is good and which makes sense. But put another way, starting at the other end, have synthesized all these high sources and derived a single sensationally revolutionary occult doctrine out of them (which I was able to thin} up due to the addition of my 2-3-74 experience); the distillate expressed theoretically is, We are dead but don't know it, reliving our former real lives but on tape (programmed), in a simulated world controlled by Valis the master entity or reality generator (like Brahman), where we relive in a virtually closed cycle again and again until we manage to add enough new good-karma to trigger off divine intervention which wakes us up and causes us to simultaneously both remember and forget, so that we can begin our reascent back up to our real home. This, then, is purgatorio, the afterlife, and we are under constant scrutiny and judgment, but don’t know it, in a perfect simulation of the world we knew and remember -- v. UBIK and Lem's paradigm. We have for a long time been dying brains/souls slipping lower and lower through the realms, but the punishment of reliving this bottom-realm life is also an opportunity to add new good-karma and break the vicious cycle of otherwise endless reliving of a portion of our former life. This, then, is the Sophia summa of the 6 esoteric systems -- 7 if you count alchemy -- of the entire world. 8 if you count hermeticism. We are dead, don’t know it, and mechanically relive our life in a fake world until we get it right. Ma'at has judged us; we are punished, but we can change the balance… but we don't know we are here to do this, let alone know where we are. We must change the "groove" for the better or just keep coming back, not remembering nor reascending.

Word Doc 1-30

Last edit over 4 years ago by Max

Folder 06

6 page 16 thumb

folder 06 - 016


The cruelest thing done to me was by my destructive hateful father who made no effort to help me financially when it was time for me to go to college. Thus I do the diametric opposite for Laura - + have planned to from the start; my attitude toward her is 180o opposite from his to me. Thus in her I overcome the destruction he wished on me - which is why he won't see his grandchildren. Thus my revolutionary stance when I became, say, 19, was a tactic: the only way I could get any power in this society since he withheld his help, which he easily could have given. There was nothing my mother could do. (For me.) Except educate me to the value of writing - which (i.e. writing) became my avenue, the only avenue I had at my disposal. For better or worse I had to make use of it tactically - + I did real good. But my big triumph (comeback) was 1) Laura herself + 2) my helping (funding) her. + on a subconscious level I've been well aware of my long range strategy - it is gene pool phylogenic strategy, + it appears to be working. My God, in achieving success (victory) in this long range strategy in 3-74 I drew on actual supernatural powers. This furthering of/via Laura was the goal of my supernatural actions in 3-74, the reason why I did what I did: the positive payoff (vs the negative payoff of merely getting out of the trap). These are the same powers drawn on for/in my writing. Cut off from utilizing the rational, I've availed myself of the irrational.

Last edit 25 days ago by Max
6 page 21 thumb

folder 06 - 021


Note p. 7: "In 3-74 I beat karma + took control." I elevated the subconscious non-self impersonal will to consciousness + fused my thinking conscious ego with it; thus I temporarily achieved an "impossible" union of mind (mens) + will + took conscious control of my destiny - shattering "astral determinsim" fate or karma as something which happens to me (which is universally the case) + made it into something that I do: a deed (eine tat) of the will (like thinking intentional blood). (Which I thereupon literally saw.) I became self-programming (which is the mystic gnosis-technique of Xtianity). This (event) is the true nature of "Christ" - bringing the impersonal will into syzygy with the conscious self so that it programs instead of being programmed. In fact, the will (which is regarded as invariable unconscious) is miraculously made conscious (which to India is impossible - + this includes Nietzsche + Shopenhaur + Mussolini). We find ourselves with a self-aware (but strictly speaking not thinking) will, a particularized, personalized will (which to Sankara is self-contradictory). That will could rise to consciousness is the greatest achievement in human history, when you consider that we human individuals as "souls" are normally completely at its [programming] mercy, which the mystery religions (+ Paul) figured out (in contrast to Plato + classic Greek-Roman thought). Normally, the thinking rational self is a mere tactic of the will which [...]

Last edit 25 days ago by Max
6 page 40 thumb

folder 06 - 040


Bardo Thodol existence. 7) Years of research + analysis on my part regarding this has caused me to notice that the stated purpose of the Greco-Roman mystery religions (including Xtianity) was to free the initiate from "astral determinism." If the structure I've experienced is as I see it, what this would involve would be learning to pre-program one's future reality consciously, so that instead of things (events) happening to you, you would be their deliberate artificer, which means they would not happen to you at all; you would control your reality by the power of your own mind: make your own destiny, which would cause it to cease to be destiny or fate or Karma or astral determinism - even cause + effect as normally experienced + understood would be transformed. You would have the world you willed, but it would interact with other worlds of other people + affect their realities. That your mind could "perturb" your "reality field" is only possible within such a schema as I outline here. In essence you would be cooperating with VALIS, acting in harmony with it, + its will would be palpable in you through its living info "blood," the energetic plasmate. 8) The living macro entity Valis lies behind the neutral synchronized twin tapes, so it can be said that whereas simulated reality is inert, the hidden genuine reality is volitional, aware + wise. Whether this is God depends on how you conceive of him, but Valis certainly seems to have aspects commonly attributed to God.

Last edit 5 months ago by Unteleported Man
6 page 41 thumb

folder 06 - 041


8) Finally, I have reason to believe that VALIS desires us to overcome the determinism of our self-generated inner-outer tape simulated reality, become aware of him + act in harmony with him, regulated + informed by the plasmate -his blood- within us. In my opinion he wishes us to cease to be victims of "Karma" + to learn about our true nature + our own powers, which deals with the underlying thought dialectic, as much a part of him as it is of us. He wishes us to join him in consciously directing the process of reality, to become co-artificers, incorporated in him + yet still individually volitional. Volition + process are the key terms. However, for us to learn to consciously control our reality we must start by assuming moral + practical responsibility for all that has happened to us in the past. This requires an effort of attention on our part normally impossible for us to achieve; we must trace the causal strands back in time (which requires genuine memory) to ourselves as the author of our own fortunes + misfortunes, + to repudiate the notion of Fate, fortune - of what the Greeks called ananke. In essence (as Plato describes in "Timaeus,") Noos must persuade ananke macrocosmically, + in each of us our micro-noos must successfully subdue or persuade our individual ananke, the process of the macro- + microcosms must consist of a transformation of ananke (identified with anomie) into noos: this is the goal of the process - at least as envisioned by Valis -Noos- itself, + it should be our view. 9) Simulated pre-programmed deterministic reality being equated with ananke is equated thereby with anomie which we call chaos or entropy. This winding down or heat- + form-loss in progressive stages is precisely what the Bardo Thodol trip {...} Therefore I

Last edit 5 months ago by Unteleported Man
6 page 42 thumb

folder 06 - 042


maintain that whatever the intent of the authors of "The Tibetan Book of the Dead" they are in fact describing our world + state. We are in a decomposing, degenerating process + will continue so unless enlightened by Valis, who introduces negentropy. Determinism + entropy are considered here as identical; succumbing to what is really a self-generated fate is identified with death + disorder. Upon the lethal triumph of this decomposing process, nothing new comes into the individual (or macro) mind. This is tantamount to psychosis or ultimate brain dysfunction (schizophrenia). I maintain that regarded as a totality the cosmos, including Valis, is partially in this state; a measure of anomie or irrationality pervades us + pervades Valis. Technically, the dialectic loses its generative power or potentially could lose its generative power. This is the abysmal evil to be fought at all costs, inasmuch as its victory would snuff out the cosmos. This is being versus nonbeing. In my opinion human beings freeze or die or partially die vis-a-vis this dialectic; its progression in us -as us- is not automatic. Each of us is a microform of it, + to the extent that we succumb to "fate" or "astral determinism" we succumb to death + madness, to congealing. Viewed this way it is easy to see what Valis promotes with our volitional triumph over ananke, but most of us are more victim of fate than artificer. To the extent that this is true of us, we have died. Valis cannot or will not revive us unless we are astute enough to 1) fathom our condition + 2) act to transform it. However, he will patiently provide us with clues, which if we will heed, take note of + act upon, we will be saved. Thus he initiates a salvific process in our {...}

Last edit 5 months ago by Unteleported Man
Records 91 – 120 of 166