New line of reasoning: it was the Holy Spirit which came to me (not the Gnostic vision per se, but containing elements of it such as the James-James genius-madman creator-god) because, in coming to me, it fulfilled all which has been prophesied. I.e. the final days or Apocalypse. (Parousia) It brought time, linear time, through its stages to its end. Incidentally the book THE OCCULT AND THE THIRD REICH has a quotation about the Cathars in which the Paraclete is said to be the female side of God.
My nitrous oxide "vine and its lopped-off branches which we placed in a godless cosmos, either as punishment for thinking they could get along without God, or just "started" in that godless cosmos as cuttings" -- this is the basis of a rather different cosmogony and cosmology than any I know of . It is slightly Gnostic, inasmuch as it assigns no God to this cosmos, but -- the Fall is there, and the God is good, not evil; he just isn't here, but elsewhere. Herewith, a somewhat new cosmogony/cosmology may have been revealed to me, than is found anywhere else. It is not Gnostic, inasmuch as the God who created this cosmos is in no sense evil, and there was the classic fall from the Golden Age (of being part of the vine with Him), but what is new is the explanation of why he is the deux absconditus, why we see no sign of him (he is waiting to see which of us need to return or want to return, those who grieve for him). This would account for the Gnostic sense of alienation, of being a stranger in this world, of God and man vs the world -- without positing an evil god. Also, it would well fit into my personal epistemology that this world is in some sense not real, which is not a Gnostic intuition. If the "lopped of cuttings from the vine is added to my radical epistemology, we have, do we not, a new cosmogony/cosmology, which in a sense reconciles Gnosticism with orthodox Christianity. Perhaps the True God did not create this cosmos, but consigned its creation to "James-James," which would make my view more toward the Gnostic view. I can easily fit this in with my "lopped-off cuttings from the vine" revelation. Unless we can sense the sickness of this cosmos, if instead it feels natural to us, then we are equated to it, will remain in it and deserve to. But if we (among the longing and nostalgia and grieving) can discern the sickness in this cosmos, then we are becoming sane, or are the sane ones, and return to the sane god (who, in this sick cosmos, is, as Dionysos, regarded as mad which in fact he alone is not). In a cosmos created by a sick god, a penetration by the sane God would seem the penetration by a sick one; the labels are all backward. In other words, perhaps this cosmos (world) was mad --is-- deliberately alien for a good (benign) reason; the supreme Wise Mind, God, could have deliberately allowed the cosmos where the cuttings went to be a sick cosmos, the more to stimulate them to long to return to him. This is not punishment; this is a set of clues, a mystery and a puzzle, which we must solve, the essence of the puzzle being, "If God is good, why is there evil?" As Gnosticism intuits, the evil demiurge does not know of the existence of the One True benign God in the pleroma above him. The demiurge cannot fathom (like Joe Chip in UBIK) these incursions into his cosmos; naturally he would regard them,
Spinoza, in his monism, foundered at this point and had to the deny the existence of miracles (intervention) altogether. Intervention signifies the existence of a powerful, all-knowing, all-caring (loving) divine deity, but then how did evil arise (as well as the above problem of explaining how we would come to intervene in his own world). The two questions derive from the same issue, and one answer handles both which is the Gnostic answer: the creator god is not the same God who intervenes. But I split with the Gnostics wherein I say, "The true divine good deity allowed or even encouraged the 'James-James' sick demiurge to create his tacky quasi-cosmos, his ersatz, counterfeit cosmos." We are graded, which is to say emancipated, according to what we find (if we do find anything) objectionable about this world. Thus we are not only confronted by a skillful teaching machine but one which grades our responses and thus either repeats an unlearned lesson or carries us upward to be the next in order. I think that in the final analysis, ethical considerations are salient. This involves ethical choices on our parts (existential view) and the perception of ethical disfigurement not of our own doing but not acceptable to us. The two interlink, the observation (analysis) that there is something wrong ethically with our world, and the ethical imperitives [sic] we feel to act or not act and in what way. Proper observation and action alienates us from the world, and puts us in the man and God vs the world situation of the Gnostic system. The fact is, this world presents us with ethical problems which for all intents and purposes admit to no solution; as Father Reed said to me when I was taking religious instruction, "We do not have a choice between good and evil but between greater and lesser evils." Thereby one knows this to be either a fallen world or a bungled (or even evil) world, since, as Father Reed pointed out, we are forced to do evil. I think, though that we fell before there was a cosmos here, that we rebelled against the True Vine and claimed we could get by on our own. Perhaps the demiurge who created this cosmos was our leader, the highest of us all. Anyhow, here we are, trying to determine which is the lesser of the evils presented to us. If the true benign God allowed creation to fall, then he obviously erred, and orthodoxy cannot give an adequate explanation of this, as the dualistic religions can. But if we, as parts of the true vine, revolted and were then lopped off, and our leader was permitted to create this world for us -- no questions remain, if the fall is presumed to be cosmic, and to precede creation. THe good God's role is (1) to extricate us from this world; (2) to transmute this world into a true cosmos, which is exactly what it has never been. In Feb of 1974 I momentarily withdrew assent to the reality of this world; a month later this world underwent visible changes, and its true nature became perceptible to me: it is, as the Gnostics said, a prison. It is there, but it is not as it appears to be. The immediate reaction to the anomie in the world is to say simply that it is out of control. If it is there in the world is to say simply that it is out of control. If it is there to reawaken us to our divine origins, however, its malign aspects serve a good purpose. What each of us must do is repudiate the world, which is to say, deny it while at the same time affirming a sanctified alternate reality, which I did vis-a-vis the golden fish sign; the false quasi-cosmos was denied and the true sacred reality was affirmed. It was a single act, a movement away from the first to the second. I think I've figured out the basic move necessary: an ethical balking. That is how the world-denying begins. That is the first step in
But it is amazing, the amount of substructure of reasoning which would have to go into this repudiation --successfully-- of the world thus exposing the divine. One would have to separate god the creator from God the True Father. As long as God is assumed to be creator, one could not conceptually divide him from the world, and thus affirm him in the act of denying the world. This is why all natural theology has failed. God cannot be discerned from nature; the argument from design back to designer is specious. What I saw that I term VALIS or Zebra must then not have been immanent deity at all, but, as I later realized, a mimicking entity not rising up from within but descending into objects and processes from above or, better, outside. It had, so to speak, landed here. As with Runciter's words in UBIK, it was penetrating through from --this is best formulation of all: from behind. Reality is constructed like a ham sandwich: man is one slice of the bread, then comes the slice of ham which is the world, then the second slice of bread which is God. The words in UBIK pierced or filtered through from the other slice, through *to man, to us, the this slice. It's funny that I could read the E of Philo about the world being "an alienating, divisive agency that separates man from God" and not instantly perceive the value --perhaps the ultimate value-- of my writing & its preoccupation. In point of fact, such novels as UBIK, MAZE, STIGMATA, etc., tend to dissolve away the world -- and, if the Gnostics' 3-elements situation-view is a correct view, God should be reunited with us thereby.
Now the incredible accuracy of UBIK can be appreciated. The world is not merely counterfeit (as in STIGMATA and all the others)x; there is more: it is counterfeit, but under it lies another world, and it is this other world, this Logos world, which filters or breaks through. UBIK, then, is a step up from MAZE and STIGMATA is presenting this. It presents a triune situation, which evidently is the actual one, whereas the other novels & stories present only the aspect of world as hallucination, without disclosing that another, actual one lies beyond, below or beneath.* It is God who, as the far bread slice, takes the initiative toward us, as Runciter does toward Joe Chip and the other inertials. This is what I saw in (3-74), when, under the power of the Holy Spirit, I read the dream section in TEARS and found a latent or crypte message embedded in the text. My experience and view, then, are not only Gnostic but what is more tend to prove the correctness of the triune Gnostic division, in particular their view of the world as alienating and divisive between man and God (Joe Chip & Runciter). Had the Gnostic view been wrong, when I "abolished" the world (suddenly withdrew assent from it) I would have exposed nothing, no sublime, sacred, divine reality beyond; a religious experience would have turned out to be nothing but a psychotic break.
Were the Gnostic triune division wrong, my writing would serve a malign, sick purpose: leading the reader away from reality and toward autism. But the Gnostic triune division is correct; otherwise I could not, would not, have had my 2-74 and 3-74 et al experiences. As the
*This is incorrect. MAZE shows another, actual reality lying below the hallucinated one, but it wrongly shows it as bad. It is this world which is bad, is the prison; beyond or below it lies the divine. In fact there seem to be 3 levels: hallucinated good; prison below, which is real, but not the final layer, and then the wonderous divine ground of being below.
which in pulling apart consign some of us to one, some of us to another. In that case the Great Assize is taking place or will be; probably has already begun. This brings me to my theory of orthogonal time as I discussed it in my Metz speech. What normally are post partem experiences happened to me in (3-74), lasting almost a year. As soon as you have anyone, even one single person, experiencing post partem reality before death you know, you can be positive, that the eschotological fulfillment Parousia has begun; the Apocalypse is here indeed: Christ said that the Kingdom would begin, like a mustard seed, as very small; it would enter the world virtually unnoticed, and then grow to infinite size ("until birds can roost in it"). The mystery and miracle of that kingdom, beginning as the smallest of the small but stealthily growing -- where? Among us? In us? In this world but not part of this world -- it is still a mystery to me, bringing me to the point I made in a previous note, that we must deal at least with something which simultaneously is and is not. The Parousia has come and yet it has not come; I must realize that. Only the vigilant will see it -- do see it. I saw it. I am a witness to it, as I am a witness to the reality of the Holy Spirit and the Cosmic Christ and to God's intervention in history. These 10 pages of notes return me finally to my first sentence: I see that by seizing me the Holy Spirit caused a playing out to the end, for me, of linear time, so that for me the End Days came, and all the events (including the Great Assize) took place during my lifetime. If it could not occur during my lifetime, and when I saw the golden fish I knew that this was really apostolic times, AD 70 not AD 1974 -- the prophecy, "Some of you will still be alive when the Kingdom comes, when Christ returns" -- that promise has proved true. I am still alive, and witnessed --experienced-- it. Other people did not. But they do not remember; I experienced anamnesis, the necessary condition for experiencing the reality of the Kingdom. Anamnesis and salvific knowledge are one and the same: what is remembered is our divine origin, and what is comprehended is that we will return to our lost home, as part of the True Vine.
As time passes I tend to evaluate the perception of Zebra as the greatest miracle of all, overshadowing the gnosis -- which is to say: the perception of the actual Presence of the Deity must of necessity impinge above all that is merely understood or known. "Oh, that I might come before His presence," to quote from "Elijah." Jesus said, "No one has seen the Father but me." He did not say that no one would ever see God. If indeed what I call VALIS or Zebra is God, then -- as in the dream in TEARS the barrier between realities has been shattered and the godless cosmos has been invaded (as Palmer Eldritch invaded Earth both externally, in others, and internally as well) -- the cosmos which I deem to have been built by a sick god and to have lacked the Real presence -- that cosmos, as in STIGMATA, has been transubstantiated. The entire world is now what is called the Temple, which means all of us and each of us. And our world has been replaced by the One saying of HImself, "I am He Who causes to be." It is accomplished. Or begun.
successful of the mystery religions" - + VALIS - God - did break the power of the spatiotemporal world over me, I mean astral determinism or Fate or Heimarmene or Karma or the sublunar realm or the planetary powers or the old law or DNA programming - this fired futilely into empty (non) time-+- space. This event, as Eliade points out, is trans-cultural + trans-doctrinal. All you really need to know is: 1) Lower realm (spatiotemporality) [Note A] 2) Upper realm (above space + time) 3) Vertical axis leading from (1) to (2). I.e. the universe of the shamans. This is e.g. what the Eucharist is supposed to do (v. the E.B.macro article on time).
[Note A] + when this goes, so also goes causation. My 5 or 6 realm hierarchy is correct, but - is it Gnostic? No, it is Neo-Platonism because it has to do with (1) essence vs accidents; (2) the Form realm; (3) the supra-spatiotemporal; (4) the One. There is no suggestion of acosmism. Or of an evil demiurge. Oh yes there is a suggestion of Gnosticism: the Fremdheit of the spatiotemporal world -Geworfenheit- + the familiarity of the restoration-state: + the salvator salvandus. + Heidegger's Ur-Angst. + the dialectic is the war between God + the world (demiurge who
Pages that refer to Horselover Fat:
Page 1 (Fat)
Page 1 (Fat)
Page 1 (Fat)
Page 1 (Fat)
Page 2 (Fat)
Page 2 (Fat)
Page 2 (Fat)
Page 2 (Fat)
Page 3 (Fat)
Page 5 (Fat)
Page 5 (Fat)
Page 6 (Fat)
folder 53 - 023 (Fat)
folder 53 - 024 (Horselover Fat)
Subject articles that refer to Horselover Fat: