Dashboard | Log in | Sign Up | FAQ

Search results for Exegesis* exegesis* tractate* Tractate* "the exegesis"

Folder 03

003_page_05_thumb

Folder 03 - 005

5

For the first time I have inferential evidence that a genuine secret fraternity of authentic Xtians exists, + has affected history (e.g. supporting regarding the Elector Palatine Frederick, overthrowing Nixon) + possess supernatural powers + immortality, due to direct links back to Christ - so they are the true hidden church. The two historic interventions which I am sure of collate: the secret fraternity fights the Empire (Rome in all its manifestations) + promotes the evolution of man to higher levels by inner + outer regeneration. The 16th, 17th century illuminati are connected with this secret brotherhood of authentic Xtians linked to the macrobrain + to Christ. (This may be the same thing.) The arcane symbolism + cryptic tractates + codices of e.g. the Hermetics, + Bruno + Theophrastus + Boehme may conceal a supratemporal movement of political radical activists (like the Freemasons vs Maria Theresa). They were crucial in breaking the power of the Catholic League in the 30 years war in its effort to crush Protestantism; without the Brotherhood in Holland, England + Germany, Protestantism would have gone the way of the Catharists, instead of being the first heresy in 1600 years to survive. The entire new world would have been Catholic: divided between Spain + Portugal. This is why the AI voice said: van ("fen") Walloon Portuguese States of America. An alternate world was alluded to (or it was actually speaking from it) in which the Walloons (i.e. Catholic Flemish people) + Spain + Portugal defeated England - + there was no U.S.A. At the very least, this otherwise inexplicable statement of origin of the AI voice points to the Protestant-Catholic

003_page_37_thumb

Folder 03 - 037

37

Also, this ratifies my impression that a "we," not a single "I" is involved. "Philip, the first living reality to be taken over" as their outlet or agent. Boy, can I exegete a lot from this sentence! God, another interpretation occurred to me: "the only living reality we have now..." - "living" equally still alive; someone got the others, or the strain proved too much. No, I think it's living in contrast to outlets which aren't alive. Yet I sense, despite "the first" the sense of reduced to. (Because of "only..." linked to "...now..."). No, "now" means "at this time." No, "now" = "now left" not "now at this time." I sense it: then "living" means "left living." "Now left" + "left living." + "the first" means that later hosts got wiped out. I could get very frightened from this exegesis of the sentence. No, "now" just refers to this time sector. I must remember that these are supra- or transtemporal entities so "now" doesn't have the ominous ring to it I supra supposed. Or could it mean "now available"? As in "available for assignment." I sense, "Now, for your use. Available to you" - a sort of inventory or map report. Re the Bowie film, + the little boy on the raft floating toward England; the divine child won't be born, but rather smuggled in, like a cuckoo's egg in a host nest, disguised as a - human? Terrestrial? Evading "Scotland Yard" - i.e., the authorities. Extraterrestrial? No. It has to do with time, + he can mix his world in + out with ours, like with a mixing board. Space + time both. But he is an invader - but God knows from where or when - but another planet, the future? +/or an alternate world?

Folder 08

8_page_09_thumb

folder 08 - 009

9

Re the dialectic: In the "two source cosmogony" the two hyperuniverses interact dialectically (Yin + Yang - Forms I + II). But there is an impairment in hyperuniverse II - hence an impairment in the dialectic. II has degenerated into entropy + madness + noise + (in time) must be slain; in eternity is already slain, out of necessity by the savior Christ, who will now divide to form two healthy hyperuniverses. Is this the dialectic -the impaired dialectic- I experienced? #1: "One mind there is; but under it two principles contend." Recently I have forgot my own tractate. My experience with the dialectic agrees with the formulation in the tractate + hence in "Valis." It is stipulated as basic.

[Blood clans (?)] 16.500 14.000 38000 38500 ___ The ability of Valis to assume the particular form most syntonic to me - the form of Ubik - is connected with its basic mimicking ability which I have already written about. It never occurred to me that Zebra as a form was just another mimicking until the last couple of days when I realized that it conformed in all respects to my conception of the deity (the Logos) as I [naturally] put forth in "Ubik." This

3224_thumb

08 Notes

Folder 8: p. 1-14, 19-22.

(1)

Regarding the invading entity: what if itâ??s more than a free variable but an actual quasi-life form assimilating a stagnant process - failure - in which case, where is the dialectic (binary system), in the invading entity or the invaded entity? I think in the invading entity, as it arranges the bone yard of the antecedent universe into subsumations of itself. This is the entity which the mystery religions put you in touch with: it is from outside the program + breaks the hold of â??astral determinismâ? over you, which is: time, space, ego + causality, i.e. it lifts you into the upper realm + makes you divine;^(1)^ i.e. one with it. So the secret is: â??Christ in us.â? (1) + immortal It is some kind of process entity. (the dialectic.) _____ Okay. Letâ??s finalize on this. The reversion of Calif. USA 1974 to Rome CAD 45 is (as is shown in â??Tearsâ?) reversion along the platonic form axis, as put forth in â??Ubik.â? There is a platonic-form relationship between the Nixon USA 1974 police tyranny vs us new left hip types, + Rome vs the secret illegal xtians. Yet another element of â??Ubikâ? is shown to be true, + to apply to 2-3-74: 1) time (world) reversion. Double exposure. 2) along a form-axis (Platonic) 3) simulated reality, which is entropic 4) an invading information entity which is negentropic 5) this entity freights our media with its messages - at the trash level.

(2)

6) But at the same time this info entity seems divine, everywhere, + is the Logos. 7) an Empedoclean dialectic is in process - progress underlying all else. 8) their dead boss-friend {?} seems to be coming back â??from the other sideâ? - like Jim Pike to me. On a one-way basis. 9) He + the info entity (Logos-Ubik-Valis) seem to have some kind of close relationship. 10) Oddest of all, there seems to be some hint of Tony Boucher + the German Quatrain (which constitute my dedication in â??Ubikâ?) in my 2-3-74 experience. In summation, as I wrote Peter Fitting, there is an uncanny number of Ubik-esque elements in my 2-3-74 experience - too many to discount. As Claudia wrote, â??the ontological categories of space + time collapseâ? etc. + I felt in mid 1974 that â??â??Ubikâ?? contains scientific information,â? ie that in both a broad general sense + in specific particulars it is true. 2-3-74 confirms it. + I even dreamed the word Ubik in â??74. Ubik + the occp. Not only is the â??onionâ? model of accretional time put forth, but the platonic form axis, which is original with me (evidently) implies another kind of time - reversion or no - which no one has ever conceived of. This is not linear or orthogonal or circular time, etc. but an eidos-time - so presumably itâ??s from the upper realm - it

(3)

may be the way time c (3) - hypertime or eternity - works. On this platonic form axis, USA Calif 1974 + Rome CAD 45 may (because the form is virtually identical in the two) be just a hairâ??s breadth off in pulsation or frequency or wave or whatever. Anyhow tangent to each other. The reversion just serves to disclose this temporal form-axis; it is a temporal axis, after all. The aperture to this axis was revealed in the billions of phosphene graphics, which permutated in processions of linked style (artistic style) coherence. (resemblance.) I just realized: the phosphene graphics were a third manifestation of the dialectic: each one in succession gave rise instantaneously to ^ie generated^ the next, infinitely. The form-axis of any given form reveals an example of the dialectic generating each successive evolution of the instance. Then in 2-3-74 I did not devolve back to Rome + Thomas; the fish sign brought them forward. Thomas + Rome broke into (â??invadedâ?) PKD + Calif 1974. + if (as is so) Thomas was a true apostolic xtian possessing + possessed by the Holy Spirit, if Thomas broke through (generated permutation) into this world + me, heâ??d bring the Holy Spirit with him. So maybe the Holy Spirit leaped forward across time. Via the form axis.

(4)

I suppose to this should be added the fact that the world I saw in 3-74 resembled â??Tearsâ? which had just been published. Also regarding â??Ubikâ?: in 3-74 I felt as if occp was involved, + â??Ubikâ? is the book theyâ??re interested in. An overriding quiddity of the 2-3-74 experience is this: Itâ??s as if certain books of mine went out from me (â??Unteleported Man,â? â??Ubik,â? â??Tears,â? etc.) + then [years] later (or weeks) came back, like in F. Brownâ??s â??The Waverlies,â? in signal form: inc. the â??bichloridesâ? info, like an answer to a Q. which I had previously - maybe years before - posed. It was all - 2-3-74 - like a mind responding to my mind as I expressed it in my books. What if â??The Bichloridesâ? was an answer to a book not yet (then) published - ie why the occlusion expressed in â??Scannerâ?? This strongly implies: contact with the future! No, the platonic form-axis is not a temporal axis (at least in the usual form) but rather the axis along which the permutations of form are driven by the dialectic (v. the phosphene graphics). Okay, it is temporal, but this kind of time is real time. These are the true [line, axis, of] change - so I envision a form-incising ^incised^ world in which the forms progress by an internal logic. The logic (of the dialetic) is the dynamism of true

(5)

reality (beneath the dokos). It may lie at right angles to linear time + so be orthogonal. Permutations may split all (be generated) sideways as alternate realities (like tracks A, B + C), thus defeating the linear axis weâ??re used to. All permutations not truly evolutionary are avoided by the Macro-brain Valis (Ubik) so it (Ubik) constantly selects again + again the permutation which constitutes true groth; Rome 45 AD is a backward permutation but logically generated (sideways); thus in 1974 Ubik intervened to abolish that track (ie the Nixon tyranny) because it led back to a prior synthesis + amounted to death (a complex) in the macro-mind. The Empire may not be a congealed permutation (stasis of the dialectic) but the one - which the macro brain desires to - + works to - avoid, since its uniformity is entropy itself. In a sense it may be that the empire is any stagnation so rigid that with it (by reason of it) the dialectic ceases. Put another way, when we see it we know that stagnation has occurred: this is how we within the program experience congealing. We see (or should see) the BIP. We are supposed to combat it phagocyte-wise, but the very valence of the [BIP] stasis warps us into Micro extensions of itself; this is precisely why it is so dangerous. This is the dread thing it does: extending its android thinking (uniformity) more + more extensively. It exerts a dreadful + subtle power, + more + more people fall its its field (power), by means of which it grows, thus thwarting the dialectic more + more. The macro-brain is well aware of this. It has seen xtianity itself. Its

(6)

own doctrine, congeal due to this valence. The very doctrine of combating the â??hostile world + its power,â? has to a large extent been ossified ^by^ + put at the service of the Empire. Thus I deduce that the power (magnitude) of the BIP congealed stasis is very great. ____ The explanation of â??who or what fed me back my books,â? in particular â??Ubik,â? (in 3-74) is found in the contents of â??Ubikâ? itself; i.e. the formulation of the information entity Ubik. Obviously I envisioned an entity which actually existed + therefore which responded ^with^ as a feedback confirmation. One could analyze this theoretically; viz: if there were a macro-information entity, + you presented a fairly accurate formulation of it, you could reasonably expect the entity to fire a confirmation at you; since the formulation puts it forth as helpful + benign, in fact interventive. In fact, one could test as to whether such an entity exists by presenting a formulation of it, + then seeing if it responded, based on the built in quality attributed to it that if it existed it could be expected to respond. In other words, via the tentative formulation one could come into contact with it if indeed it existed. As I recall, there is some theory about this vis-a-vis contacting ETIs - if they return the info you transmit, specifically if the info is selectively modified, you know youâ??ve made contact with what youâ??re trying to make contact with. The point of it returning your info to you (modified) is that it doesnâ??t speak your language or even think like humans, so to create a signal you can recognize as sentient it must utilize to some extent the info you sent to it. (Maybe {?} decides suggesting a star.)

(7)

The big new clue is that the â??bichloride â??bichlorides [of mercury]â? + â??asprin of mercuryâ? info dreams are in answer to my query in my letter in S-F commentary about paresis-like symptoms in my friends. Itâ??s an immense intelligent binary computer + it has an override on me + a lot of other people. In my opion opinion [it has invaded our world +] it runs things here; we are a program which it is running. It simulates our reality; we are in it. It must be posing us a problem vis-a-vis the BIP. We are to dissolve the BIP + in this effort it monitors us ceaselessly. Whether the problem (the BIP + dissolving the BIP) is in itself a simulation within the program, or the real thing (e.g. a complex in the macro-brain/computer) I have no way of telling. Also it is decidedly a big new clue that 1) my own writings have been fed back to me in edited form 2) as well as the above â??paresisâ? question answered. This marks the 3-74 telepathic material not only as responsive but formulated deliberately to show that it is responsive. This still doesnâ??t tell me who/what has responded, or even where it is. But I have been in dialog with it for almost five years now! The Ubik material would seem to point to it being Ubik-like - seem to: I canâ??t be sure; or did it ^only^ simulate Ubik qualities in order to rea-{?} back my writing? It seemed so much like Ubik; this may have been a way of communicating with me, which I really didnâ??t catch on to until now, actually. It may be quite alien to us humans.

(8)

If to communicate with me it had to take on Ubik qualities it must be really dismorphic to us. (This is frightening.) I am now in the position of having to dismiss all attributes which it disclosed as being possibly only simulations mimicking Ubik in order for it to be comprehensible + syntonic (nicht {?}) to me - possibly. I canâ??t be sure. This is a very sophisticated analysis of Valisâ?? nature. I am going to leap to a conclusion based on the Acts + other xtian material. I think it is indeed the Holy Spirit, which took a Valis-like ^(ie Ubik-like)^ form out of considerateness toward me but - I hesitate to essay anything in the way of assertions about its actual (real, not simulated) nature. After all, if it is the Holy Spirit it is the supreme being himself (â??I am he which causes to be. I am what I am.â?), I assess its taking a form compatible to me as 1) a gracious act of loving deference; + 2) valuable (if not necessary) for it to communicate with me. I do not construe it as deception but as a virtual necessity + certainly done for my sake. It shapes itself to my conception of the Logos (ie it). When I reflect on the form it took I can appreciate that this form would be the most acceptable possible to me, as disclosed by my conception in â??Ubik.â? It tailored itself to my stated conception, my highest conception. But also it testified to me of the living reality now of Christ + the joy involved. The preparations for his return.

(9)

Re the dialectic: In the â??two source cosmogonyâ? the two hyper universes interact dialectically (yin + yang - Forms I + II). But there is an impairment in hyper universe II - hence an impairment in the dialectic. II has degenerated into entropy + madness + noise + (in time) must be slain; in eternity is already slain, out of necessity by the savior Christ, who will now divide to form two healthy hyper universes. Is this the dialectic - the impaired dialectic - I experienced? #1: â??One mind there is; but under it two principles contend.â? Recently I have forgot my own tractate. My experience with the dialectic agrees with the formulation in the tractate + hence in â??Valis.â? It is stipulated as basic.

{?} } 16,500 14,000 30,500 38,000 38,500 _______ The ability of Valis to assume the ^particular^ form ^most^ syntonic to me - the form of Ubik - is connected with its basic mimicking ability which I have already written about. It never occurred to me that Zebra as a form was just another mimicking until the last couple of days when I realized that it conformed in all respects to my conception of the deity (the Logos) as I [naturally] put forth in â??Ubik.â? This

(10)

realization undermines the probity of my reams of description of Zebra; I have only described what my own head construes the deity to be like - a self-portrait; albeit a modern, complex + sophisticated apprehension of the deity, it is quite subjective + quite culturally determined. (ie a cybernetics - biological model.) As shown in â??Ubikâ? I conceive of God as isomorphic to my own brain: thus I encounter a macro-brain arranging reality into information, a projection on my part. It was a maco-mirror. My brain to Ubik to Zebra. Mimickry. It analyzed my preconceptions - what Iâ??d expect. â??Ubikâ? isnâ??t the sole source; â??Ubikâ? just demonstrates my conception. Even if I hadnâ??t written â??Ubikâ? the conception would be there; everyone has a conception of the deity. I donâ??t feel it duped me; I think it had to take some form; + it took the one Iâ??d expect + like - it took this form for these reasons. My realization of its mimickry ability should have made me think of this possibility before now. But then does not this mean that Zebra is the deity, inasmuch as it took the form which I conceive the deity as taking? Or at least, it is reasonable to suppose it is the deity. I can say that â??I now realize that what I saw - Zebra - perfectly fits my deepest + most profound conception - down to all fine details - of the deity. What could 1) know my conception: + 2) assume it, but the deity? So actually these realizations bolster the argument that what I experienced was the deity, rather than undermine it.

(11)

{drawing: my conception of the deity-->expressed in â??Ubikâ?...}

So Zebra is a macro feed back circuit re my ^micro-^ conception as expressed in â??Ubikâ? especially, but not limited to â??Ubik.â? Does this verify the hermetic â??above as belowâ? cosmology? Brunoâ??s Mirror? Or is this a case where an assumption ^(that Ubik exists)^ serves as a hypothesis which gets tested due to its very formulation (+ publishing thereof?) - if itâ??s correct, a response comes; if not then not. In this case the hypothesis is confirmed by the response, because undoubtedly Zebraâ??s epiphany is a response. Somehow this resembles my concept of the self-perpetuating dialectic. A correct hypothesis will be responded to - as if automatically, since such a response is included in the conceptual formulation. Thereâ??s, then, an â??up by his bootstrapsâ? element in the fact of Zebraâ??s epiphany. IF you even just happen to formulate properly you can be certain of the epiphany-response! Itâ??s [like] asking the right question: thatâ??s all thatâ??s needed. This takes me back to my idea of the our [simulated] reality being a teaching machine, of which you must discern what question to ask of it. This means that in

(12)

the 3-decade evolution of my epistemological investigation I asked the right question (or put forth the correct formulation, apparently best - put forth in â??Ubikâ?). So I see Zebraâ??s resemblance to Ubik as a subtle but vigorous confirmation of my formulation of Ubik, + the nature of our reality, our situation, put forth in â??Ubikâ?. Even if the entity which responded tailored its Gestalt to fit my Ubik formulation: even totally tailored (it canâ??t be totally. The ability to do this ^tailoring^ is a major part of my formulation: {?} â??Ubikâ?, etc). I suspect that an analysis of my formulation of the nature of Ubik would disclose a presentation of the mimickry ability, since ubiquity is stipulated - ubiquity + invisibility, hence memesis or mimickry is implied if not overtly stated. So its taking the form it took toward me leads me back to a recognition of what must be a fundamental quality of it: its mimicking ability. This is an exciting realization. I have been right to conceive this as basic to it: camouflage. Then it is (in some sense) an invader, probably: from outside the program or simulated reality, as Ubik is in â??Ubikâ?. (This was primary with Ubik, this invasion of our simulated world.) So the insight that the form which Zebra took was a calculated simulation of Ubik only refers me back to my previous insight of the camouflage capacity of the entity - camouflaged here in our world, perceiving but unperceived. It was in me, manipulating (?) or {?}.

(13)

what I saw could all have been a â??world,â? a simulated â??world.â? 1) Did it cause itself to resemble Ubik? 2) Or did Ubik resemble it? if 2), why did Ubik resemble it? Did it influence my writing of â??Ubikâ?? Or did I just guess correctly? I think (1). _____ Voice: â??It assimilated 3 of my books.â? It is, after all, living information. My writing is information. The books incorporated into a life form - Lord! Well - thus the phosphene cypher in â??Tearsâ?! Can (+did) replay â??Ubikâ? + â??Tearsâ? - like holograms; I was in each - both. Valis + Rome CAD 45 were actually holograms of â??Ubikâ? + â??Tearsâ? + also â??Unteleported Man.â? NB: â??Tearsâ? is Acts. This entity spins â??spuriousâ? realities. Hologram realities. _____ It can turn worlds (eg Acts) into information (eg â??Tearsâ?) + then turn info (eg â??tearsâ? eg â??Ubikâ?) back into worlds - eg 2-3-74. When God remembers something it exists again. Powers: â??It let the courier have a glimpse of the info he was carrying.â? _____ It is obvious from all this that we must be dealing with God. If he can turn a world into info + then the info back into a world - this is the creative Logos. Perhaps I now know more about Zebra than I did, in regarding it as 1) living information; + 2) an arranger of reality into [linked] information. This is like DNA genetic encoding out of which the whole organism can be constructed. ____________________________________________________________________

(19)

So in 2-74 I briefly remembered + a month later saw the world as it really is (Acts), which I had put forth as the world in â??Tears.â? Hence â??Thereâ??s someone else in my head + heâ??s not living in this century.â? Thomas is real. In a sense I am not (PKD). PKD could be said to be Thomas asleep. Thomas deluded, Thomas under a spell. The tyranny which was deposed in 1974 was an ediface of {?} Valis is the real ^+ rational^ world breaking into (invading as in e.g. â??Ubikâ?) our simulated ^+ irrational^ world. I am saying, Valis is a world. A (the) real world. Ubik is to the cold-pac world as Valis is to our world. If Ubik + Valis are one in the same, our world is both irreal (â??Ubikâ?) + irrational (â??Valisâ?). Weâ??re missing half our stereo signal - what {I} (all the upper realm {?}. This notion that in 2-3-74 the real broke into the irreal (as in â??Ubikâ?) is acosmic + Gnostic - + it agrees with another Gnostic idea (put forth in â??Valisâ?) that the creator of this world is irrational. A superimposition of â??Ubikâ? + â??Valisâ? is a superimposition of two basic Gnostic ideas, one cosmological, the other cosmogonical. Itâ??s very interesting, what you get if you superimpose â??Valisâ? over â??Ubikâ? - + I had previously seen that â??Valisâ? is an electronic circuit - like feedback of â??Ubikâ? + mixing, enriching, etc. (v. p11). The rational is real; the irrational is not real. Our ordinary world is the latter into which the former has broken, invading it (as in â??Ubik,â? but

(20)

now Ubik is seen not just as real but as rational + as world, an information world; put another way, information experienced as world). Different space-time worlds are different coherencies - systems - of information, the info content of each arranged within a 4 dimensional system. I believe that my 2-3-74 experience with Valis confirms the acosmic of â??Ubikâ? + consisted of the breaking into this irreal world of the real, of whose nature I now have some idea. It is my belief that 2-3-74 verifies the acosmism of my 27 years of writing. This invasion by the real/rational into the irreal/irrational is a third Gnostic ur-concept. (The salvitor salvandus.) So in what way - if in any way - is my view + experience not Gnostic? In no way that I know of. We have the counterfeit creation of the blind demiurge, + the true God taking pity on us + invading this domain by outwitting the - Oh yes. 4th idea: that this world is a prison with prison wardens (the archons) - ie those who impose â??astral determinism,â? which the savoir breaks (5th Gnostic idea!). I seem to have - Oh. 6th Gnostic idea. Anamnesis. Restored memory of our divine spark nature + celestial origin. Our real nature. 7th Gnostic idea: the saving Gnosis itself. Which recalls to us our real nature.

(21)

Then the 1974 overthrowing of the tyranny by Valis is the savior freeing us from our prison. This is his prime role; he frees us, restores our memory + true nature, + gets us out of here. Meanwhile the true God transmutes this irrational irreal world into the real + rational. These are Gonstic ideas #8 + #9. I now have assembled the complete Gnostic system with its two realms, only one of which - the upper - is real (form I of Parinenides). (As stated in â??Valis.â?) It all stems from the insight that our world is not real. Then we ask, not real in relation to what? (Something must be real, or else the concept â??irrealâ? means nothing.) Then we ask, â??what is the real like? And how do we find it?â? + we ask, â??How did this irreal world come into being? + how did we get imprisoned here?â? + then we ask, â??What is our real nature?â? IF reality, rationality + goodness are not here, where are they? + how do we get from here to there? IF this is a prison, how do we escape? We learn of a mysterious savior who camouflages himself to outwit our jailers + makes himself + his saving Gnosis known to us. He is our friend + he opposes this world + its powers on our behalf as our champion, + â??one by one he takes us out of this world.â?

(22)

The Valentinean ontological {assessment?} of knowledge is not that it (the Gnosis) leads to salvation or is knowledge about salvation, but that in the act (event, revelation, experience) of knowing in itself lies salvation. Because in knowing, there is a restoration of manâ??s lost state, + a reversal of his present state of ignorance. Upon knowing, man is again what he originally was. This view accords with 2-3-74. Upon knowing I became again what I originally was. + this involved me as a now-restored piece of the ground of being itself, from which I, as a piece of it, had fallen + forgotten + lost my nature. My 10th Gnostic belief (v. supra) is that time is a mere counterfeit, of eternity.

Word Doc of Notes

Folder 55

3427_thumb

55 -Notes

1-9 - O (or C?)-1-O-9. Datable to ca. February 1982 (cf. top of p. 6â??one year since Feb. 81.) p. 2 â?? the Forms are discovered as memory (anamnesis), not learned. That he wrote Ubik proves that the concept of the Forms was latent in his mind. p. 3 â?? But Ubik reflects only a partial apprehension of the Forms, because it was not triggered by an external event. p. 4 â?? Plotinusâ?? description of the higher world that lies beyond the apprehension of the Forms. Neoplatonism, with â??overtones of Buddhism or Christianity or Gnosticism.â? But he takes comfort in this being an explanation â??within the framework of reputable Western thought and away from the occult and outré.â? States that anamnesis doesnâ??t fit in with Christianity or Gnosticism (which I think is incorrect on both countsâ?Š). p. 5-7 â?? Time is illusory; from the 5D standpoint our reality is the same thing played over and over like an LP. Gnosticism (Valentinian, though he later mentions the Sethian Yaldabaoth)) is correct; this world is a prisonâ??a time prison, in which we loop, a la â??Tempunauts.â? p. 8 â?? purpose of Valis was a delivery method for the â??Tractates,â? not as a tiny privately-printed pamphlet but bundled (hidden) in a mass-distributed work. p. 9 closes with a brief paragraph on Beethovenâ??s music as a means of metaphysical salvationâ??it removes us from irreal spacetime and puts us in real spacetime. 10-12 - P-1 to P-3 â?? Platoâ??s misconstrual: â??it is not that the forms are eternal but that our time is counterfeit.â? We donâ??t â??rememberâ? through anamnesis, we perceive correctly the real universe instead of our irreal one.

13-17 - Q-1 to Q-5 p. 13. Two key insights of VALIS: 1) that all saviors are the same â??immortal manâ?; 2) that time is (or was?) spurious. p. 13-15 - A self-aware enantiodromia; all previous stuff thrown out the window. Valis is YHWH, and Philo is correct! Exploration of the â??pulleyâ? vision. Social justice, philanthropia as key components; pronoia and divine benevolenceâ??incompatible with gnosticism. Possible solution in term â??ditheonâ?â??not two gods, but a dialectic God.

18-43 - L-17 to L-43 (some of those Ls look like Is). Stated date (p. 25) is December 1981. p. 18 â?? â??Tearsâ? as a Christian narrative, â??virtually scripture.â? (Interesting Christian anarchism note â?? â??to topple empiresâ? is accepted as a clear and basic element of Xtianity!) p. 19-20 â?? Rightful ruler/usurper metanarrative in â??Tears,â? Hamlet, Zagreus legend. Reality is the opposite of perceptionâ??the fool is the rightful king. (Somebody is gonna get a pretty good research paper out of all this Hamlet material!) p. 21-22 â?? World of Daniel/Revelation is true reality, beneath the masks. Reference to â??the cypher in Psalm 46â?? p. 22-23 â?? Hell is â??absolute self-awareness.â? Leads to a hilarious line: â??Last night I dreamed about Harlan Ellison and realized that about him: heâ??d have to exist throughout all eternity with and as Harlan Ellison.â? p. 23-27 - justification and grace, in the context of eschatological judgment. p. 27-32 â?? The old (false) king and the young madman/fool. The young foolâ??s â??very presence is indicative of a vast mystery and deception that he knows of and that the old usurper knows of, but which no one else knows of.â? p. 32-35 â?? â??Two coaxial realmsâ?--instead of Platoâ??s forms; each object exists in two separate places but with a unitary nature/reality. The value/meaning/nature of each object may be 180 degrees opposite in each realm (i.e. king = fool, fool = king). â??The next world may not be â??nextâ?? at all in terms of temporal sequence.â? This also explains Thomas. p. 36 â?? description of hypnagogic vision: â??I saw a network of red threads forming a vascular system, as in our bodiesâ? that was also a growing vine â??like the mycelia of a mushroom.â? p. 37-38 â?? the radical, difficult thing is to figure out how two universes (ours and Christâ??s kingdom) can coexist in parallel realms. p. 39 â?? To act out of mercyâ??to put oneself above/apart from the lex talionisâ??is to put oneself under the dominion of the kingdom-realm rather than this realm; to â??become a christos.â? This means giving up oneâ??s own sense of self-preservation. p. 40-43 â?? Set/ground as the distinguishing of the two realms from one another. Rehash of arrangement of objects = information processing.

44-46 â?? 2-1 to 2-3. Seems to be written around the same time as the previous section, so probably ca. Dec. 1981. Valis/Christ/the Kingdom is a â??perturbation in the reality field,â? the visible effect of our universe (information storage) being impinged upon by that living information.

47-56 â?? 3-1 to 3-10 p. 47 â?? Savior brings understanding (not to be confused with knowledge). Apocalyptic Christianity is the lens through which reality makes sense. p. 48-50 â?? Hubris/self-interest/pride is an obstacle; the reliance on God of the â??nepioi and ptochoiâ? (infants and beggars) is the path to the kingdom. Absolute trust/reliance/faith. p. 51-53 â?? Second coming is when the true, hidden state becomes apparent. Exploring the idea of the â??return in glory.â? A â??covert physicsâ?â??we do not know what the rules governing our universe really are. p. 54-56 â?? the moral vs. the pragmatic: why the way of righteousness must be perceived as folly. Some excellent material linking ontology and ethics. â??The search for God, then, is successfulâ??or not successfulâ??due to certain moral acts.â? And Jesusâ?? apparent failureâ??the worldâ??s understanding that he failedâ??serves his true victory.

57- 62 â?? 5-4 to 5-9. Letter to Isa referred to in the opening line is not in the 80-82 letters volume, but this is probably ca. Dec. 1981. Absolute faith, â??truly the Pauline positionâ? and that of â??the Reformers,â? esp. Luther; also states heâ??s probably on the same page as Tillich. Faith must be an act.

63-72 â?? I-10 to I-19 (possibly intended as 1-10 to 1-19) p. 63-65 - Exploring the idea that, in his version of Protestant Christianity, man must act first, not Godâ??an emphasis on human responsibility. The Holy Spirit will come, but only in response. Dickâ??s action in 2-74 may have been â??burning the votive candle night and day: a religious act at a time when I had no involvement or concern with religion whatsoever.â? p. 66-67 â?? Exploring the â??moral crisisâ? that preceded 2-74, and the theoretical underpinning of the idea of moral crisis leading to conversion/H.S. intervention. p. 68-69 â?? He now gets the Protestant/Lutheran concepts of justification, â??total depravity,â? etc. And the Protestant emphasis on direct experience of God without intermediaries accounts for 2-3-74. (Boehme and Eckhart, too.) p. 70 â?? The reformers went back to the O.T. So this is also â??Judaic pietyâ? without â??legalism.â? p. 71 â?? â??I know very little about the writing of Kierkegaardâ?â?Š but â??I seeâ?Š in this exegesis a very great deal of him.â? p. 72 â?? nice quote: â??I should not reproach myself for the slowness at which my theological system is developing. People have worked for thousands of years on these matters.â?

73-84 â?? X-1 to X-15. Mid to late 1981. p. 73 â?? â??Last night at Joanâ??s the God told me: â??You are now permitted to be happy (felix) at last.â??â? Very brief account. p. 73-77 - Exploring thematic links between the â??70s novels: Tears, Deus Irae, Scanner, Valis, Divine Invasion, and Timothy Archer. He describes this as â??my third period.â? Brings in Crap Artist , Androids, and a bit of Ubik as well: â??the meta-novel.â? p. 77-78 â?? seeing the ubiquity of Christ in 2-74 to 2-75. Interestingly, uses the term â??cognitive estrangementâ? theologicallyâ??this is Darko Suvinâ??s term for the defining characteristic of SF! p. 78-79 â?? â??Timothy Archerâ? is VALIS inside-out, with Angel Archer as Gloria Knudson resurrected. And the common element is Christ. p. 80 â?? God as more immediate and real than world in 74/75. p. 80-82 â?? Nurturing as key characteristic of Godâ??defined (partially) as â??tutelage.â? Total reliance on God, â??bypassing and of necessity combating all earthly authority and power.â? P. 82 includes a quote from â??Tillich p. 445 on Schellingâ?â??not sure offhand which Tillich book in particular heâ??s quoting. My gut tells me itâ??s Systematic Theology. p.83-84 â?? Dialectic within God that leads to the appearance of a demiurge and an invading logos/Christ. Awareness of process theology (Hartshorne).

85-88 â?? Y-1 to Y-4. p. 85 - Contrasting apotheosis/anamnesis of Plato with enthousiasmos of Jesus. p. 86-88 â?? Dialectic boiled down to: the irrational vs. logos. Two wills within God, a dynamic processâ??linked to Boehme and to process theology. Itâ??s becoming clear to me that this dialectic idea is much more important than I think has been acknowledgedâ??and this is a good presentation of it. It is, I think, a much more nuanced end result of playing with gnostic/dualistic ideas.

89-106 â?? Z-1 to Z-16 (Z-6 and Z-16 are repeated in pagination) (continues at p. 128 below) p. 89 â?? Dialectic is present in self, God, and world alikeâ??thus the three are not really separate. â??Cognitive estrangementâ? is the victory of logos in the self, thus a sort of â??Christification.â? p. 90-91 â?? Insight (after seeing The Elephant Man!) that we are connected to world through God, rather than directly to world. Every individualâ??s perception of reality (which does exist objectively) is thus unique, and unique in a meaningful, divinely-controlled way. p. 91-95 â?? We cannot rationally/logically comprehend another beingâ??s suffering; we can only reach that empathy by Godâ??s grace. God demolishes that isolation. Malebranche. p. 96 â?? more on the â??interfaceâ? p. 97-100 â?? a new hypnagogic AI voice communication: â??a long extinct true cosmos and itâ??s still there.â? Back to the Presocratics. His analysis more-or-less breaks the communication down word by wordâ??â??still there,â? â??cosmos,â? â??extinct,â? â??true,â? all examined in turn. p. 101 â?? Integration of self and world. This has psychological meaning (a la Jung), but heâ??s more interested in â??epistemological and religious significance a la Plotinus and Heidegger.â? This post-quantum/pre-atomist idea is â??the radical new emerging worldview of the future.â? p. 102-104 â?? Fallacious perception of the cosmos, our â??matter physicsâ? based on the ideas of Leucippus and Democritus, leads to estrangement. â??Reality is not made up either of void or of discrete atoms.â? This is not a question of philosophy or theology, but physics. p. 104 â?? Reflecting on the scientific satori, in high school, that â??space does not existâ? or â??all space is the same size.â?

107-127 â?? D-94 to D-114; picking up from p. 165 below (D-106) p. 107-115 â?? â??Absolute moral insightâ? relating to his relationship with â??Sandra.â? This section is dateable from material in the letters to 11-4-81, possibly a day or two later. (The â??Sundayâ? in question, when this moral crisis culminated, is directly stated on p. 116 as Nov. 1, 1981.) Hell as â??absolutely (by the knowledge of Godâ??s own mind) to see what one has done, illuminated by the divine light that reveals all.â? Much examination of himself and Sandra, their psychological motivators, etc.; deeply personal stuff. p. 116-118 â?? Relating his â??Sunday nightâ? (11-1-81) experience (moral mysticism?) to 2-3-74: the earlier experience as Dionysian, the later Apollonian. 11-1-81 possibly set off by reading, in a â??completed bibliographyâ? that arrived the day before (Levack?), an analysis of D.I. that compared the split between Emmanuel and Zina to the Appollo/Dionysus split. p. 119-120 â?? More on Sandra; timeline of the previous week becomes a bit clearer. p. 121-123 - 2-3-74 and all that followed as psychosis; A.I. voice was the sane part of his mind calling him back, predicting the return of his rationality (â??St. Sophiaâ?), which ultimately happened on 11-1-81. p. 124-127 â?? Still considering 2-3-74 as Dionysian, but not pejoratively hereâ??i.e., not as psychosis. More akin to Lutherâ??s theology of the cross, via Jungâ??the cross (absolute grief) contains and conceals its opposite, absolute joyâ??thus the Passion is an enantiodromia. Christianity as an ecstatic religion.

128-131 - Z-17 to Z-20 (continued from p. 106 above (Z-16). p. 128 â?? Taoism reconsidered, in the context of pre-socratic, pre-atomist physics. p. 130-131 â?? 3-74 not mystical or supernatural; it was the lifting of an occlusion. A conceptual error corrected, and subsequently the shift of his mind around the new, correct perception. Literally loss of blindnessâ??we are not able to see what is there.

132-165 D-60 to D-93. Dateable to late Oct-early Nov. 1981. (p. 148 is datable to Oct. 31 (cf. p. 173); p. 157-160 datable to ca. Nov. 5-7, 1981. p. 132-136 â?? After Malebranche: we experience God and our own minds directly; we experience the external world indirectly, mediated through the mind of Godâ??the objects, etc. that we see are representational ideas in Godâ??s mind. The idea that, when seeing two objects of the same type, we are seeing two objects once and not one object twice, as â??the most dangerous error in all philosophy.â? And it is basic, central to the conventional understanding of the world. p. 136-137 â?? A sort of footnote on the above meta-abstraction in regards to schizophrenia: misapplying Malebrancheâ??s idea, â??suppos[ing] the same person twice when in fact it is really two different people.â? p. 138 â?? PKD/Thomas overlap as proof of a divine error/malfunction/perturbation. p. 139-142 â?? Buddhist/Platonist idea of the world as a plural image of a single, unitary, archetypal reality. We can have some access to this reality, albeit a limited access. Some arguing against Eckhartâ??s ideas on this matter. p. 142-145 â?? Christic Institute (whistleblowing organization) may be the secret Christian church? â??Karen Silkwood literatureâ?â??Silkwood was a whistleblower who died â??under mysterious circumstances.â? Christic Inst. as a â??subformâ? of the Catholic Church (is this true/is it a Catholic organization?)â??the hidden/true form hiding within the overt/false form. Union of (Teilhardian) theology and social action. p. 146-147 â?? Wrestling over the inclusion of Malebranche in the above. p. 148 â?? from the Book of Creation (i.e. Sefer Yetzirah) the idea that the universe is formed from the letters of the Hebrew alphabetâ??i.e., logos-as-Scripture and logos-as-world-plan are the sameâ??and this is also the plasmate. Bible not a plan of the world, but as the/a world itself. p. 149 â?? the word â??anokhiâ? â?? Hebrew for â??I am,â? and here referring to the self-awareness of God--used, I believe, as the name of the mushroom Archer searches for in Transmigration. Assuming this entry is from before the composition of TTAâ??has this term appeared before, or did he discover it in the Sefer Yetzirah book he is riffing on in this section? p. 149-152 â?? The world as thoughts in the mind of God. p. 152-155 â?? Godâ??s self-awareness, self-salvation, self-remembrance, from a mostly-gnostic angle. p. 156 â?? â??Thus what I have been trying to do in this exegesisâ??and which exhausts meâ??is deliberately on my own part again to do what I did in 2-3-74!â? Link/unity between analysis and experience. What seems â??cerebralâ? is really â??existential.â? â??This is why trying to write â??Owlâ?? broke me.â? Thinking about 2-3-74 is â??a Chinese finger trapâ?: the maze that Valis fell into is made of thoughts, and the exegesis creates more thoughts for it to be trapped inside. p. 157 -160â?? Slightly mysterious comments: â??Her letter is a lieâ?, intuited as a result of God/AI voice. â??Sheâ? seems to be â??Sandra,â? and he has been steered away from her because of the effect she would have on his relationship with Tessa and Christopher. Theory layered on top of the autobiography pretty thickly: â??This was the God of the Torah summoning me back to moral reality.â? This section is pretty directly datable (based on material in the letters) to on or around November 4th, 1981. p. 161-162 â?? Back from the deeply personal to more abstract: â??There is no way now that I can believe in Gnosticism.â? But the discussion here (of his extraction from a dire moral situation) depends on the personal material. p. 162-165 â?? More on Sandra; absolute, a priori moral knowledge as an experience of Godâ??s mind, seeing the way God sees. (Continues on p. 107 above.)

166-198 â?? D-115 to D-148 (continued from 127 above) p. 166-168 â?? Christianity as an ecstatic religion, with the Passion, and the arrival of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, as enantiodromia â?? grief to joy. The purpose of this is to conquer suffering through a kind of spiritual â??alchemy,â? converting it into joy. PKDâ??s â??lifetime search in plumbing the depths of suffering in order to unravel its mysteriesâ? leads to this reversal/transformation. 169-170 â?? Knowledge of Christâ??s imminent return â?? bride waiting for the return of the bridegroom. p. 171-172 â?? If Christ is paradigmatic, this must be understood differently. Adoptionist idea that Jesus became Christ at baptism would support the idea that the Holy Spirit changes you. p. 174-176 â?? More on Sandra, and someone named Barry. Security (Tessa) vs. reckless love (Sandra). â??Finding God is better than not losing Sandra.â? p. 177 - His career, too, is more important than Sandra; being with her would cause his work to suffer. p. 178-179 â?? A dream: he has committed an elaborate theft and hopes he wonâ??t be found out. The meaning: Being with Sandra would mean being an outlaw, forsaking work and abandoning family. Relationship with S. pulls him out of his state of grace/justification. p. 179-181 â?? Relating the above S. material to the Fall: â??The remedy is better than the malady,â? more good comes from the Lawâ??s existence than would have existed without it. (This is the exact opposite of what Paul says in Romans.) â??The taste of the apple justifies the fallâ?â??this was a previous insight; here he somewhat reverses it. p. 181-182 â?? the decision to leave S. was made by God within him, as per Malebranche. p. 182-187 â?? After Spinoza: pondering the meaning of the attribute of â??infinity,â? in the context of the attributes of mind and physical reality. p. 187-191 â?? â??oneness of idea, word and writing of word, and object.â? Uniting previous ideas in this folder on Sepher Yezirah with Spinozaâ??s conception of God. This is in opposition to the Platonic and Plotinian conceptions, which propose a hierarchy of reality; in this system, all attributes (including physical reality/res extensae) are equally real; but we incorrectly perceive physical realityâ??it is, in fact, words, language in Godâ??s mind. p. 192 â?? Exegesis and his writing in general as a Faustian exploration, leading to the comprehension of the fall as felix culpa, the victory of the heroic over the tragic. p. 193-196 â?? Kabala-Spinoza-Malebranche system of three (identically-real) attributes, intersecting with our minds at the level of physical reality. A â??loopâ? from idea to word to (infinite) object. We usually just see the â??wordâ? mode; in 3-74 he saw the information/(idea?) mode as well. p. 196-198 â?? â??infiniteâ? does not mean immense size, but rather â??transcendent significance.â? In 3-74 he saw all reality from a liturgical point of view: â??reality became a sacrament.â? Shows that he was slightly perplexed by the idea of transubstantiation, normally applied only to the Eucharist, being applied to all reality.

Word Doc of Notes

Search

Exegesis

Are you tired of intrusive radio frequencies? Do you wish those bunny ears didn't require constant attention? Put your fears and frustrations aside with TransFoilent, the new metallic foil, designed for your specific transmission needs. Whether you need a little extra boost in signal or need to block out extraneous voices, TransFoilent makes the perfect tin foil hat! But don't take our word for it, here what others have to say.

*Best when used with your own discretion

Read pages that mention Exegesis in all works.

Graph of subjects related to Exegesis

Pages that refer to Exegesis:

folder9-page1 (Exegesis)
Page 1 (Exegesis)
Page 3 (Exegesis)
folder 22 - 029 (exegesis)
folder 22 - 030 (Exegesis)
folder 22 - 030 (Exegesis)
folder 22 - 030 (Exegesis)
folder 01 - 017 (Exegesis)
folder 01 - 072 (exegesis)
folder 01 - 099 (tractate)
folder 01 - 151 (Tractate)
folder 01 - 164 (exegesis)
folder 01 - 166 (the exegesis)
folder 01 - 167 (the exegesis)
folder 02 - 001 (Exegesis)
folder 02 - 052 (exegesis)
folder 02 - 065 (exegesis)
folder 02 - 066 (exegesis)

Subject articles that refer to Exegesis: