Dashboard | Log in | Sign Up | FAQ

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

Folder 55


55 - Transcription 2

{p. 61 - 5-8}

from world. Manâ??s fate is in Godâ??s hands, not worldâ??s. â??Fate,â? then, now means something totally other (than heimarmene). It has to do with God. Fate has been assimilated to providentia! â??Fateâ? as contrasted to providentia has been conceptually abolished; the term has no meaning other than providentia, so that before world loses its power over man actually (in terms of causal law) it has already been conceptually obliteratedâ??nullifiedâ??and replaced entirely by a realization of the absolute and total power of God (as Pantocrator). This, then, is a severe and major element making up faith per se, this reassessment of what â??fateâ? signifies as a term, a concept. Man, having reconceived fate in this way, is now dealing with God; all transactions defining manâ??s existence have to do with God and not with world. Thus a vast conceptual transformation occurs in the mind, soul, and heart of man even before providentia and justification occur. And this of course causes me to reconsider the meta-abstraction, and in a new light. Thus â??Tearsâ? is not indubitably Xtian scripture but, more precisely, consists of a very specific strain or thrust of Xtian thought: Protestant existential Pauline

{p. 62 - J-9}

doctrines of the Holy Spirit, justificationâ??in short, Luke. It also suggests Joachimâ??s third status. The authorship and authority of the Holy Spirit in â??Tearsâ? now seems to me to be beyond question. And yet, in this absolute faith in God, I see a returnâ??not to the Torah as code-ethicsâ??but to the essence, the absolute and fundamental spirit of Judaism. It is Judaism restored to its single premise, that man is in the final analysis totally dependent on God. And the recognition of this is per se a refinding of God and in fact a restoration of the original lost direct relationship between man and God that obtained before the Fallâ?Š and perhaps this is precisely the purpose, here: not a return to Moses and Sinai but to Eden! And this would equate 3-74 and the 180° coaxial world as both kingdom of God and the lost original paradise before the Fall, which is to say restoration of manâ??s original innocent condition. And this correlates exactly with what I say in my letter to Isa about the unheimlich world versus the heimlich. This is what we are precisely talking about, and I make this clear in that letter. Thus Heidegger, drawing his ontological categories from Gnosticism, enables me to erect a new and radical notion of the real purpose of the messianic mission.


{p. 86 - Y-2}

The irrational against ?????: this is the Dialectic. In the synthesis, achieved by ?????, ????? wins. This is the topic of â??Valis.â? 3-74 was victory by logos in me and over me. From Hegelâ??s standpoint, to meta-abstract historical constants would be the epiphany of absolute spirit, since it is realized in history. There is something very strange here. History, the Dialecticâ??why, my God, the intervention in 1974 to overthrow Nixon. Necessity operating on and in me: Valis. The key is: history. My sense at the time that a historic transformation was taking place: e.g. â??Tears.â? â??Yahweh is the God of history.â? The most important conceptionâ??possibilityâ??is the one dealt with in â??Valisâ?: The dialectic within God, perceived by Boehme, in which the irrational or prerational or even demonic willâ??the dark sideâ??combats the bright side, Godâ??s reason, specifically ?????, and the latter always (sic: always, as was revealed to me) wins (at the conclusion of the sequence, thus gaining for itself the whole sequence). Although in â??Valisâ? I conceive of two Gods, this dramatic â??deviceâ? does not blur the true picture, for the two sides in the dialectical combat are correctly characterized; in fact the term â???????â? is specifically employed, and shown as victor. Thus ????? converts, as it were, the prerational will into ????? (although Schelling used a third term for this synthesis). In â??Valisâ? this dynamic process occurs in all reality (macrocosm) and in Horselover Fat (microcosm).

{p. 87 - Y-3}

Now, what I must never forget is that this Dialectic, the nature of the two differing sides, the inevitable victory in each sequence by ?????, came to me as absolute revelation (as it did for Boehme). Then the 2-74 meta-abstraction, although quite likely noesis, was (in terms of this Dialectic) the synthesis by ?????: its victory in me and equatable to/with sanity (or, equally, a quantum-leap in intelligence). There is nothing I can possibly come up with that is more importantâ??concerning 3-74â??than this. And it is the topic of â??Valis,â? clearly and dramatically presented. Now, there is, then, a curious and curiously important thing about â??BTAâ?â??I mean Angel Archer. She is ????? in me, beyond doubt. Sheâ??and here the novel itselfâ??is the fruit of 2-3-74: the outcome. Paradoxically, she denies the validity of the very reality (event) that created her. The perception of Valis in world (externally) by me (in 3-74) and assigned in â??Valisâ? to Horselover Fat is a perception of the macroform of the inner vision of the victory by ?????. Both (as I have always said) are Valis, but both (I see now for the first time) are precisely the Dialectic! And the victory by ????? in the Dialectical struggle. This means that I saw God in and as world (as well as in and as me): dynamic process in world (if indeed world can be distinguished from God, at this point). This, the â??transubstantiation of the universe into the body of Christ/ ?????,â? is Boehmeâ??s vision of the Dialectic in God himself. This means that I very correctly

{p. 88 - Y-4}

interpreted what I saw when I saw Valis externally, in and as world: I saw dynamic and in fact Dialectic process. Such an interpretation was either very brilliant or supernaturally inspired. I not only saw logosâ??and logos as the rational per seâ??but I saw it winning; and I recognized this as the absolute and basic dynamic process underlying all phenomena, all reality, all flux, process and change. This is enormously, radically, and decisively other than the classical static view of logos as the principle of world-reason! I would even go so far as to say that although it has links to Boehme, Schelling, Hegel, Teilhard, Whitehead, Heartshorne, it is a new revelation concerning God, the human and world; and it is a theophany indubitably. Although â??logosâ? refers to Christ (and is so treated in â??Valisâ?) it also describes Godâ??s reason (Hagia Sophia). Thus my vision is of the divine ground of being itself.


{p. 90 - Z-2}

I had the strangest insight after seeing â??The Elephant Manâ? that for some reason I failed to write down. Viz.: we are not linked to world directly as:

{DIAGRAM: Selfâ??â??World}

but rather:

{DIAGRAM: Selfâ??â??Godâ??â??World}

That is, there is world, objective and substantial and ral, but between us and it there is god, so that we receive world through God. This makes it possible for God to control and arrange how we experience world, what in world strikes us forcefullyâ??that is, God acts as a medium of selection in our apprehension of world so that for each individual person world is not only experienced uniquely (differing from person to person) but unique in purposeful ways: certain elements stressed, others suppressedâ??this especially has to do with information patterns that impinge compellingly (or, conversely, not at all). Now, this resembles Malebrancheâ??s epistemology somewhat, and yet is crucially different. Viz.: God and world are clearly distinct. What emerges here (in this theory0 is a totally new explanation of 2-3-74. Either there was massive selecting (for a time) or I became aware of massive selecting, that is, aware of the medium as interface between me and world (i.e. such massive selection always goes on, but we know it not, supposing all we experience to be properties of world and applying to the encounter with world by all persons uniformly.) Now, a powerful but by no means invincible argument can be offered that due to my meta-abstraction in 2-74 (that is, due to a sudden titanic insight) I comprehended something about world that makes it possible for me on my own to fathom the presence of this selecting interface. The meta-abstraction would (perhaps) then have been

{p. 91 - Z-3}

that there was a pluralized signal system at the point of origin (world) but that only one set normally reaches me, which says a lot about world, but also presumes a selecting interface. Thus â??worldâ? is radically redefined but, more, the interface is realized and its selecting (suppressing, enhancing) activity, and this is God (Valis). So what comes of this meta-abstraction pertains to epistemology (â??ti to on?â? in terms of world) but yields up by implication a much more radical notionâ??that in fact world qua world is less an issue than the interface itself that lies between us and world and passing the power selectively to determine what of world impinges on us and what, contrarily, is suppressedâ??whereupon (I think) I found myself dealing with the interface itself, and this is theophany. As if, upon my becoming aware of it, it could then â??speakâ? as it were explicitly, by means of open enhancing-suppression patterning, which clearly did not emanate from and in world but existed between world and my percept system. It is possible that world qua world consists of eternal constants, and the interface modulates our reception in extraordinary ways and to extraordinary degrees. (e.g. your â??beingâ? in AD 70 in Syria or USA 1974 depends only on the interface, on its selecting. World and interface, then, are quite distinct. Malebrancheâ??s epistemological premise, then, is quite the case: â??We see all things in God.â? â?? A strange insight last night (hypnagogic). The person whoâ??there is some relation between intelligence and the empathic facility. But when I was tormenting the beetle and understoodâ??that understanding (which I have called satori) was due to Godâ??s grace. For that knowledge cannot in fact be known. There is no active (rational) way that I can know how that beetle feels or even that it feels; I know by the grace of God; it is a gift conferred on me, as were the later satoris. This is the activity of salvation. The prison of the isolation of the atomized individual is burst through the grace of

{p. 92 - Z-4}

God by this knowledge. And he who has this not is not evil but deprived. And he on his own cannot change his situation, for there is no rational wayâ??only a supernatural wayâ??that this knowledge can be obtained. I must not blame someone who possesses not this knowledge, for there is no way he can obtain or acquire it on his own; he is totally dependent on the grace of God. Here is where the original satori is as the 2-74 meta-abstraction was. But this shows that although the 2-74 meta-abstraction had to do with cognition it was given to me from outside, which brings me to the issue of Socrates vs. Jesus that Tillich speaks of. Reminding the person (Socratesâ?? route) and what is already in him; or Jesusâ?? way (midwife, as Tillich puts it). It is not probably that the meta-abstraction was truly an intrinsic (internal) cognitive act on my partâ??either viewed in isolation or in relation to the sequence of earlier satoris. All one knows is that one now knows what one did not know, but not due to ratiocination, due rather to some element outside. And this is the key clue: outside. But I figured out last night that we do not know world directly but through God as lens link interface. So the stimulus in outside reality affords God the interface the opportunity (to use Malebrancheâ??s term) (no: his term is occasion) to transfer knowledge pretextually, as it were. This is in conformity with my whole conception of clutch, selection, enhancement and suppression and not a special {situal?}, onlyâ??as Joyce calls itâ??an epiphany of regular conditions. It is as if the pretext is clearly only pretext. Effectâ??that which is knownâ??far exceeding its ostensibly cause. As to the transfer of information regarding Christopherâ??s birth defect, the situation is clearly and explicitly such that it is palpably impossible than insentient plural objects can give rise to the information, in which case something is there that I have always spoken of as camouflaged in and as ordinary plural insentient objects.

{p. 93 - Z-5}

These various situations that I denote here are differing versions of one enduring underlying stable situation that by its very ubiquity escapes our notice. Thus beetle, meta-abstraction, and Valis informing me of Chrissyâ??s birth defect are in fact one and the same experience along an axis of revelation as follows: (1) with the beetle there is no reason to suspect that the knowledge does not arise naturally (unaided) from the ostensible situation; cause (the situation) and effect (the knowledge) seem commensurate. (2) In the meta-abstraction the effect exceeds the cause/the situation outside me, but it is not at all clear where the knowledge is internally retrieved in me (Platoâ??s anamnesis) or transferred from outside. (3) But in the situation regarding Chrissyâ??s birth defect there is now no dobut that the information (knowledge) cannot arise from or be accounted for by the situation (i.e. the Beatlesâ?? song, etc.). In this case the satori I experienced regarding the ending of â??The Elephant Manâ? is a satori concerning satoris: not only is it perfectly clear that the knowledge is transferred from outside (it is external in origin, and a free gift) but that the source is not in world but as-it-were between me and world so that I am dealing with world indirectly but dealing with the interface (by definition) directly. This precisely agrees with Nicholas Malebranche. What is now disclosed was in fact the state all the time, but behaving so as to conceal itself and in fact its existence. At this point it is clear that there is now the resolution to my total lifelong epistemology which strove from the start to resolve the issue of ?????. It reaches the conclusion that while world exists it is per se unknowable to us, but on the other hand we immediately know Godâ??which is Malebrancheâ??s contention. Now, a verification of this is the infinitude of space that I experienced in 3-74: I was encountering not the physical world in space (extension, res extensae) but the infinitude of God. but here the problem and issue of epistemology collapses into the matter of grace.

{p. 94 - Z-6}

Because the power to bestow and withhold knowledge of what is truly there (the answer to â??ti to on?â?) is to say God, and no activity on our part will in itself ever unravel the mystery. (The nature of the situation dictates this, and kant seems to be the first thinker systematically aware of this.) If on our own we try to plumbâ??or even discernâ??the interface we enter an infinite regressâ??as Iâ??ve discovered for almost 8 years: since the interface is not so much {DIAGRAM: Selfâ??Interfaceâ??World} but: {DIAGRAM: Interface encompassing Self and World}

Which is to say that the interface is somehow in us and in world; so the interface simply recycles our own mind back to us over and over again; the prison gate of isolationâ??of the atomized selfâ??closes once more (this is dealt with in â??Frozen Journeyâ?). Thus we know others only through the grace of God (as in the beetle satori), and this pertains of salvation: to know othersâ??just as hell pertains to isolation. Then knowledge of God as other is knowledge of ultimate other and is the triumph and consummation of the axis of salvation that began, for me, with the beetle satori. If ????? equals empathy then there is only one road to salvation; in its partical form it deals with and pertains to finite creatures (but is real): in its complete form (absolute, realized form) it pertains to God; this is an axis. What and who one has loved in world (â??loveâ? here being ?????) has always pertained to God; it was always God who was loved, so that in the end all that was lostâ??all that was known and hence lovedâ??is resotred in and as God. I never would have come to these realizations except for Malebranche. Then upon seeing the film â??The Elephant Manâ? figuring out the interface. Then, last night, realizing that all my satoris, back to the first, the beetle one, are due to grace and involve knowledgeâ??correct knowledgeâ??that by its nature can only be revealed; whereupon I now

{p. 95 - Z-6}

see one vast axis of disclosure from the first (the beetle), culminating in 2-74 and then 3-74, and then tapering off in subsequent revelations. 2-3-74â??and specifically Valis itself, in me and in external reality, centering around the transfer of information about Chrissyâ??s birth defectâ??then is the quintessential moment in a pattern of revelation predicated on grace and involving salvation stretching out across my entire life. What, then, I have viewed as a preoccupation with epistemology turns out to be a search forâ??and a finding ofâ??God.


{p. 142 - D-70}

Dio. Eureka. I found theâ?? Christic Institute. All the way back to â??Tearsâ?: the Acts material, the dream, the King-Felix cypher. Karen Silkwood. The Parousia is here and the holy mother church knows it. My 2-3-74 to 2-75 experience (back to â??70 if you include â??Tearsâ?) has to do with the Parousia. Eleven years and at last I hold it in my hands and it does have to do with Pere Teilhard. My Tagore vision is authentic; Christ is here. Point Omega. â??Portuguese States of Americaâ? represents the Roman Catholic Church. As does the posse in the â??TearSâ?? dream (it also represents the KKK). Itâ??s all trueâ??the plasmate, everything. Covenant House! The eschatological sorting has begun. I have linked up with the true, secret Xtians. Christic Institute, a subform of the Catholic Church. Holy wisdom. When I read the Karen Silkwood literature originally that day I saw

{p. 143 - D-71}

in it the convergenceâ??at lastâ??of my political involvement and my religious experiences right up to my Tagore vision; now today I get verificationâ??that National Catholic Reporter and Christic Institute (founded in Nov. 1980). It is all true, and the new radical theology is ecotheology linked to radical political action, as we have here (i.e. with Silkwood). And it is the Roman Catholic Churchâ??or rather a subform of it: the true secret Xtians. My vision in 2-3-74 of Acts was indeed aâ??theâ??Xtian apocalyptic vision (i.e. Revelation). The holy power of God is established here covertly, pitted against Satan and political reaction. It (the Holy Spirit) operates through the Roman Catholic Church: my intimations have been correct all the way back to 3-74 when the stegenographic covering was removed from â??Tearsâ? and I read what is there. I have been a BefahltrÀgen. Now I am a GeheimnistrÀgen: I know and understand the message that I have carried (as expressed primarily in â??Tearsâ? and then in â??Valis, â??D.I.â? and â??BTAâ? and the Tagore visionâ??everything. Whatâ??I thinkâ??is the most exciting is that due to 2-3-74, my Tagore vision, what Victor Ferkis has said and Christic Institute I can now discernâ??albeit dimlyâ??the outline of a new theology, rooted in

{p. 144 - D-72}

the epoch we are moving into. It is a Xtian-Buddhist neo-pantheism very close to Pere Teilhardâ??s christocentric point omega, but having specifically to do with the unitary ecosphereâ??and for me, closely related to Malebrancheâ??s Cartesian pantheism which of course goes back to Augustine and Pauline mysticismâ??and may also include the new physics and field theory, a merging of science and theology in defense of a palpably living universe. (There may also be an information and a Platonic component). I feel confident now that my 2-3-74 experience is not reactionary but is carrying me into the futureâ??a vast quantum leap from political action to one colossal metaview of reality that embraes the political and the spiritual, the scientific and the religious: what for me personally may be the quintessential summation of my entire life of inqury and worldview; for me and for mankind a new age is opening in which the holy, expected from the top, so to speak, returns at the bottom, at the trash stratum of the alley, humble and noble, beautiful and suffering and alive and conscious, personified in and by my Tagore vision. If indeed it is the triumph of Xtianity to dignify the lowly, here now is a whole new

{p. 145 - D-73}

leap along that axis: the lowly snail darter becomes identified with suffering ubiquitous Christ and by being assimilated to him is glorified as if nature itselfâ??and the electronic environment of info and signals and message trafficâ??is able to perish and be resurrected as and with the cosmic Christ (Jesus patibilis) of Pere Teilhard. Thus Christ extends even beyond the reality of the organic to bits of newspaper and song lyrics and random pages of popular print: one vast entity that evolves and thinks and has both personality and consciousness. It perfects itself and includes us all, subsuming and incorporating progressively more and more of its environment into arrangements of informationâ??which is to say negative entropy: this is, in fact, a runaway positive feedback loop of greater and greater complexity and organization. Malebranche is not only compatible with this neo-pantheismâ??more: it is a highly sophisticated modern-day version of how God can be hereâ??all around usâ??and we be yet unaware: that is, he is everywhere yet unseen. Malebrancheâ??s mystical pantheism is the philosophical explanation of ecotheology. In other words, Malebranche is the how and ecotheology the what.


{p. 156 - D-84}

Thus what I have been trying to do in the exegesisâ??and which exhausts meâ??is deliberately on my own part again to do what I did in 2-3-74! But that was sparked by the messenger, and now I have him not. Hence I simply become more and more weary as world becomes more and more powerful over me. I seek to regain, to recapture, the Liberator of 2-74 to 2-75â??whereupon world regained its power over me: the vision was lost and I fell back. I do not seek to gain Gnosis and liberation but to regain it; I had it and lost it! This is why trying to write â??Owlâ? broke me: it is this that is the topic of â??Owlâ?! Although my effort seems cerebral (having to do with thinking) it is really existentialâ??but failing. Cerebral = knowledge = Gnosis; typically Faustian, as in Goetheâ??s â??Faustâ? part one. â??Valisâ?: built the maze and fell into it. The maze changes because it is alive. It is alive because it draws on and from the very thoughts of the creation trapped in it; his efforts to solve it are thoughts, and it is these thoughts that â??fuelâ? itâ??i.e. it is one vast Chinese finger trap; the harder I try to get out, the more powerful world becomes. Hence Hex 47: my increasing exhaustion. What, then, should I do?

{p. 157 - D-85}

The solution does not lie in ratiocination but in the meta-abstraction. So last October and last February represeted genuine victoriesâ??but I canâ??t seem to follow them up! â?? I was treated to a demonstration of YHWH: thought, word and reality were one, with no ideation separate from the word and no difference between the wordâ??what I saidâ??and the deed; it was the deed. Moreover, there was absolute a priori knowing (about S., about Tess). And this unitary â??thingâ? (thought, word, act) is his power (omnipotence). He willed it so, by the use of Holy Wisdom, a separate hypostasis who is never apart from him. And what he knew, I intuited (only); which explains how Iâ??ve felt Fri, Sat and today. Her letter is a lie. Again it has to do with a letter! As on 3-20-74! Now I know what my anxiety was about when I was in Balboa on thurs. (St. Sophia.) God lent me his absolute knowing and (without ratiocination) for a second timeâ??no: 3rd, when you count my physics test. Not only did he extricate me but (again) he revealed himself to me: his nature, not just that he exists.

{p. 158 - D-80}

He gave me the missing cognitive part of the emotional state Iâ??ve been in since her call from LAX. Plus the anxiety attack on Thurs, when she didnâ??t invite me for dinner. She was expecting someone. Then the â??not 2 mothers but 1 mother twiceâ? meta-abstraction was YHWH as Holy Wisdom. â?? The really extraordinary thing that although I was terror-stricken I experienced absolute lucidity; I saw and understood my total situation perfectly, without degree and without reasoning it out. It was utter knowledge. I wasâ??had beenâ??destroying that which was of most value to me in the world: Tessa and Christopher: they are all I have. However good or bad Sandra is intrinsically: that was secondary and tangential: God summoned me back to what was morally right and what existed: it was right and it was real. I had been occluded and severely jeopardized this most precious element in my life. This was no vague intimation; YHWH summoned me back from the lip of the abyss. What I stood to lose by my wrong actions was that which my very physical life depended on. I was on the brink of literal doom, yet indirectly so: Sandra would destroy me not by what so: Sandra would destroy me not by what she did but by what I did. There was in this

{p. 159 - D-87}

a vast moral summons, for in Judaism, God and morality are one and the same. This was the Lord God of Israel, not just a vague God but YHWHâ??and I knew it. This was the God of the Torah summoning me back to moral reality, with no choice; he willed it; he commanded me to return to life and what was right (in him and by him the two are one and the same). Thus morality and that which gives and sustains life stood bipolarized to immorality (sin) and that which takes life. Sin and death, then, were one. I sinned and I died. Abandoning Tessa and Christopher meant my death. Moreover, he gave me words to express all this to them (rather than just an understanding of it) so deed was conjoined to knowledge: what I knew I didâ??act and cognition being one, as morality (the law of God) and life were one. I knew, said things I never knew, said before. My stipulated stand has no precedent in my life. Secondarily, I was to abandon my relationship with Sandraâ??secondarily (because it was destroying my relationship with Tessa and Christopher). What was primary was what I sad, did with Tessa and Christopher. Having said, done this, the matter of Sandra would de facto take care of itself. It would be seen for what it was, that is. The effect it was having on my life and the lives of Tessa and Christopher. This was the resolute carried to the absolute; here God compelled assent not just to the real but to the moral as well.

{p. 160 - D-88}

It was 3-74 all over again, but with moral overtones. Carried beyond the irresistable to the terrifyingly irresistible in this case I had fallen into mortal sin (this was not the case in 3-74; there I was in peril but not in peril of mortal sin; I could, then, lose my freedom or life, but here I lost my soul; I not only doomed myselfâ??I damned myself. Here, power and wisdom prevailed; in 3-74 knowledge and love prevailed: this yesterday was YHWH, not Abba. The situation was intricate, unstable, ambiguous. There was a single night choice and it had to be made then and no later. God made it for me, based on his wisdom, power, and because it involved morality, goodness (as exemplified by the law). Thus, having justified me in 2-3-74, he forbade me from sinning any further; he intervened absolutely. He prevented me from falling from my state of grace by making my moves for me: regarding Tessa and Christopher and regarding Sandra. Also, but I think secondarily, he saved my life. It was the moral fall into sin that was the primary issue. He is the Lord and his will is law. As I wrote last night, at the time, I was presented with an indubitable demonstration of the power, the wisdom and the goodness of God. It was more convincing even than 2-3-74, and yet followed it upâ?Š there is the common theme of a dangerous lying letter from a woman that requires that I actâ??act immediatelyâ??in a certain wayâ??

{p. 161 - D-89}

a way I would not act on my own (because of weakness, folly and lust). (And just plain ignorance.) Never before have I understood what Spinoza knew so well: â??His will is law,â? as inexorable as physical causal law. Thus he rules the universe and wills all that is. There is no way now that I can believe in Gnosticism. What I experienced is what I had just been reading in the notes on â??Sepher Yezirah,â? that for God, â??thought, word, writing of word and work (object) are one.â? This unity I had understood a little, and in an intellectual way, but then last night I experienced it. The unitary nature of it surpasses intellectual understanding, because for us, thought, word and act are separate and sequential. Nor do they possess (1) absolute force or (2) are based on absolute a priori knowing. For God, to know (thought) and to act (will, power) are one. Our knowledge is dim and our acts feeble; we never know truly and never achieve perfection in choice or execution of the act based on the knowing (and the knowing and the acting are separate; we know and then act in sequence). God abolished the basis of my whole erring lifeâ??literally abolished it so it ceased to be. This was the apotheosis of 3-20-74, its utter culmination, yet of the same nature. Terrifying as it was (after all, it induced absolute terror in me) I thank him from the bottom of my heart, in two regards: 1) the extrication and solving of my problem whichh I had not the wisdom or strength or moral insight to solve on my own.

{p. 162 - D-90}

2) Even more important, the revelation of his wisdom, power and goodness (which of course certifies his existence as active God, Lord of creationâ??not God, but YHWH, the God of Israel). And this was not just a display of power but of moral powerâ??it is this unity of wisdom, power and morality that invincibly argues for YHWH. Here is the difference between this and 3-74. Any number of divine entities could have extricated me from that trap. But here, this time, I experienced the moral force that is unique to Judaism. (In which the nature of god fixes the law as its first necessity regarding man; that is, YHWH discloses himself to man in and as the law.) Now it is possible to add this theophany to 2-3-74 and perceive that it was YHWH then and Hagia Sophia; then it was loving, but here it was angry. Yet both are YHWH: in 2-3-74 mercy, here justice. Yet this was also for a benefit, to save me (but as I say, from damnation more than from death; the peril was the peril of sin and death, whereas before I was a victim). (Here I was the guilty transgressor.) â?? I just realized something. Until my terror last night I actually believed that I should haveâ??and pursueâ??a relationship with Sandra, over and above the issue of my enjoying it (i.e. wanting to). I had been told I should have â??an affectionateâ? relationship;

{p. 163 - D-91}

suddenly (last night) I had absolute knowledge that it was wrongâ??and why it was wrong (because of Tessa and Chris). There was no ratiocination leading to this insight; the insight was wordless and infinite and absolute and 180° from what from the beginning I had believed I should do (to create balance in my life, etc., a whole bunch of reasons, very complex and intricate, but spurious). And this was no enantiodromia. This was an invasion of my psyche by absolute knowledge. It bore no relation to what I had up to that moment believed, wrongly believed. There was not even a sense of insight, of satori: it was pure knowledge, like a sort of seeing: a vision of the situation as it actually was. And it was primarily a moral seeing. Absolute moral rectitude occurred in me. It simply took place. All at once it was. I guess I saw it as God saw it. And how different that was! And absolute! It was not a viewpoint. It was knowing. â?? What I have been calling â??the meta-abstractionâ? is in fact knowledgeâ??the act of knowingâ??as God knows (i.e. knows what is, i.e. world). In 2-74 and more fully later in 3-74 I saw as God sees and understood as god understands, that is, absolutely and a priori, in which what is known is exactly the same as what is; they are assimilated to each other.

{p. 164 - D-92}

That the mind of God was at that time in my mindâ??I experienced that as Valis in my mind. All that I saw (Xtian apocalyptic world, the plasmate, set to ground, the prison, the secret Xtians, the abolition of timeâ??i.e. coaxial reality and the conception/perception of eternal constants)â??this is how God sees; I did not see this or understand this; God saw and understood this, and, as I say, I saw and understood because he bloomed in my mind like cold white light (hence I experienced an infinitude of space).(1) I realize this due to Sunday night when the same absolute knowing by God in my induced a realization of my practical and moral jeopardy. Again there was certitudeâ??total, unconditioned knowingâ??but what I knew this time was dreadful and lethal to me practically and spiritually. Once again the unitary fusion of knowing and doing occurred because for God there is no distinction between what he knows and what he does. Ratiocinationâ??logic itself, thinking itselfâ??does not occur because it is not required; God does not figure out; he does not reason because he does not need to reason. (1) Augustine teaches this: the divine illumination, later picked up by Malebranche. It wasâ??both timesâ??as if my mind expanded into infinity (conceived as spatial infinity). The sense one gets is that oneâ??s mind contains all reality, and this is because all reality is known a priori and absolutely, not sensibly and contingently. So this experience last sunday revivifies and

{p. 165 - D-93}

explains 2-3-74. In that case the awareness was involved with awareness and imminent danger which suggests providentia and grace; in this case there, too, was imminent danger. Hence providentia and grace, but with the added element of my awareness of my own sinningâ??an element not present in 2-3-74. This time God saved me from myself and not from an external threat, and this time the threat was spiritual, rather than just lethal. Also, what I was taught Sunday night is that the moral law is as real and actual as causal physical law. So in a sense the Gnostics are right about heimarmene: causal and the Mosaic law combined into one. This explains karma; the moral law has literal physical consequencesâ??effectsâ??like causal physical law. And this explains why Christâ??s sacrifice was necessary: it took an actual literal act to break the power of retribution. Xtianity can only be understood (ransom, the â??nailing up of our death warrants{â?}) if this is understood first. And now (Tuesday night) I can truly say, â??His will is my peaceâ?â??after I had for a time rebelled. To understand (1) that there is the Lord who governs all; and (2) that this order is moral order with the force of physical causal law: what extraordinary discoveries! He did not force me to do the right thing as if I were an object in motion; he granted

{p. 107 - D-94}

me his absolute knowledge of the situation so that my actions sprang rationally from the moral nature of reality, a reality that all at once I understood. My horror (yes, that is the word; not terror but horror: at seeing the true situation and my peril and what I had done) stemmed from total insight; I was anything but a robot: I recoiled in boundless horror at my own sins and at the peril I faced, and what I had done to Tess and Chrisâ??and sought to remedy it, because at that point if I acted swiftly it could be remedied. Now I can say, â??free at last!â? I was enslaved and was destroying myself and others, exactly like Faust. If the universe were not moral in nature, it would have been okay, but (I see now) Godâ??s moral laws are built into the very physical basis of reality itself, inseparable from the actual; hence my sins caused me discomfort and a vague, dim unease that continually grew. I have never been aware of sin before; now it is real to me, sin in myself. And yet, was I not doing to Greg what Honor Jackson did to me? And God condemned him to death. This is the missing part of the moral equation: Sandra is married. This is adultery. The Decalogue forbids it. I repented in horror at what I had done, just before there was no drawing back. I guess for a moment I was plunged into hell and discovered what it consists of: one is given absolute moral insight into oneâ??s own sinful nature,

{p. 108 - D-95}

and there is no way it can be rectified; it is now too late; hence hell is eternal. This is clearly and obviously the just punishment and the logical punishment: absolutely (by the knowledge of Godâ??s own mind) to see what one has done, illuminated by the divine light that reveals all. This is total knowledge of the situation and of oneself. It can be awful. By this divine illumination oneâ??s cognition/perception condemns one; this is absolute self-condemnation not based on arbitrary rules but on total comprehension of what, really, is structural and how one has fitted into this structure and changed it by oneâ??s deeds. The harmony and order of the cosmos are disrupted by what one has done. It was not guilt that I experienced; it was understanding. This is more terrible than any guilt. Guilt admits of degree; this was boundless.


{p. 114 - D-101}

These revelations that took place Sunday night tell me a great deal about God, wisdom, morality and the Torah, and the order and sustaining of the cosmosâ??understandings I never had even an inkling of before. I see how correct moral laws function in the divine government and are inseparable from the physical laws that regulate reality itself; moreover, this being the case (the homologizingâ??logicallyâ??of physical law and moral law in sustaining the cosmos, i.e. order) shows why God as cosmocrator is ontologically the source of morality as his primary attribute or manifestation (as Judaism teaches): and as I say, the Gnostics are correct: heimarmene combines causation and the Mosaic dispensation because both are essential in the divine government. Godâ??s will, then, which (as Spinoza rightly says) is physical law, is based on Holy Wisdom who informs the creator of what is, and in a certain real sense the absolute comprehension of what is (omniscience) determines what should be.

{p. 115 - D-102}

Thus (as I say) wisdom and morality and the preservation of the cosmosâ??universal rulesâ??become one. My radical new comprehension stems from sharing Godâ??s view of reality and morality as a unitary â??thingâ?; they only become unitaryâ??one and the sameâ??when Holy Wisdom is involved so that absolute a priori knowing exists. The key term is being (Sein, esse, einai); this is what is preserved because this is what Holy Wisdom knows. Hence the role of God as creator is stressed. (I did manag to deal with some of this in â??D.I.â?) I can now see clearly why and in what way Hagia Sophia is the primary agent in creation. All this (based on Sunday night) is probably one of the greatest leaps in my theology-epistemology-worldview-ideology. There is nothing radical in it; it is fundamental: the O.T. itself. And yet, significantly, I was already moving in this direction, in my thinking (as expressed in â??D.I.â?) and in my life (conservatism, preservation, accrual and building/creating). (And, very important, stability.) What epitomizes all this is not idealism but the rational (as Rabbi Hertz and others point out regarding Judaism). One could say that Sunday night absolute rationality invaded my mind and totally possessed it. (Apollo, then, in contrast to Dionysus or Faust.) Yes, ever since 2-74 I have venerated and sought out St. Sophia, for it was she of whom the AI voice spoke. I see myself is intoxiacted up to Sunday night; whereupon I became sober; I came to my senses very suddenlyâ??at the last moment.


{p. 166 - D-115}

This means that my lifetime search in plumbing the depths of suffering in order to unravel its mysteries has proven successful (this relates to the rat, the beetle, the burning Japanese soldier, the Galapagos turtle; this has to do with empathyâ??my empathyâ??which is another word for agap?: and agap? is the greatest of the Xtian virtues, as Paul tells us: it is the true way of the Xtian. But why? Because it is good, i.e. a virtue? Not

{p. 167 - D-116}

exactly. Agap? is a road along which one travels in imitation of Christ, to penetrate to the coreâ??deepest ontological layerâ??of suffering (his passion and crucifixion), and there, if you follow that roadâ??and that road onlyâ??you arrive at the secret: the Resurrectionâ??which is the miraculous conversion of suffering into ecstasy, which is uniquely the Xtian miracle; this is how Xtianity and Xtianity alone solves the problem of suffering. This solution is not a philosophical, intellectual understanding (e.g. why there is suffering) but an event: the dramatic conversion of sufferingâ??not into mere stoic apathy, the mere lack of sufferingâ??but into its affective and ontological bipolar opposite: ecstasyâ??and here, precisely, Dionysus-Zagreus enters; Jesus â??isâ? Dionysus-Zagreus as a solution to suffering; this is not just ecstasy but, more, ecstasy as the conversion of suffering (this conversion is not found in the Dionysian-Orphic system; ecstasy is sought for its own sake{)}. There is, then, no exulation in suffering per se, here; suffering, as in Buddhism, is to be solved (thus Jesus addresses the same problem that Buddhism and Stoicism address, but solves it quite differently. If Buddhas can be called victors, certainly, then, the Xtian (who goes all the way to the end of the road of agap?) is even more a victor, for he is not merely liberated from

{p. 168 - D-117}

sufferingâ??he experiences ecstasy. Why? My perception is: he remembers Christ the bridegroom having just been here and anticipates his imminent return, and is now as bride preparing for that return; the Xtian is right now making the wedding preparations in this the tiny interval between Christ leaving and his anticipated imminent return; this is the Dasein of the true Xtian, and this is joyful, in fact ecstatic. I know because I experienced it. There is memory of Christ (anamnesis) and anticipation (eschatology), and, most of all, the sense of oneself as the bride of Christ (which is, as soul, which is female). This hierogamy is consummated by the birth in the Spirit, the purpose of the messianic mission; and I do speak of this in â??Valis.â? All time and all space collapse into this: the memory, the anticipation, and the understanding of oneself as the intended brideâ??which is literally (not just symbolically!) fuliflled by the birth in the spirit which occurs now: it is not anticipated but occurs. Yet the road to this is through suffering, and it is not just actual (involuntary) suffering, such as is imposed on all creatures, but, rather, the vicarious and voluntary ontological suffering of agap?. In imitation of Christ one voluntarily takes on all suffering, but as means, not end.


{p. 196 - D-146}

To say that it extends into infinity does not imply immense physical size; it enters into infinnite implications, significance, meaning, which is to say it is as I saw in 2-3-74: it is typological (or archetypal). This is precisely the 2-74 meta-abstraction, for it has a permanent and ubiquitous ramification. Thus many places and times work off it. It applies over and over again. It is into this attribute that scripture taps. This is how sacerdotal performance works. The significance axis {is} always the same.(1) (For each paradigmatic {thi}ng, event, act, situation). (1) By â??sameâ? {wha}t is meant is: unitary. The key term is {word?} rather than resembles or is identical to. â??Not 2 mothers once but one mother seen twiceâ? is a realization of this. Surely this {is} what Plato surnamed eid?. If what is involved here is that which is signified (by a thing, event, act, situation) then there is a sign-to-object relationship between the word and writing of word mode

{p. 197 - D-147}

and object: the word (info) which we take to be the objectâ??thing signifiedâ??does not in itself contain the significance that is in the true thing but only refers to it (the word â??dogâ? does not itself have hair, feet, a tail). Thus when we see info as object it lacks the significance that the infinity attribute (true object) possesses, analgous to hair, feet and tail on particular dog. Now, in a sacerdotal act (a sacrament) the significance â??inâ? the act is precisely what is sought for; the object and what is said and done in connection with the object is summoned deliberatelyâ??so in a sacerdotal act what I call the infinity attribute is apprehended, or at least the attempt is made to apprehend itâ??that is the entire point. Well, this is precisely what happened to me in 2-74 in seeing the golden fish sign: an object (that was really only an informational sign pointing to an object) was comprehended by me in this sacerdotal senseâ??which from a liter liturgical sense {is} comprehensible; but what is not compre{hens}ible is that I saw all reality this way: {as} sign not thing, whereupon (by definition) reality became a sacrament, every building, {per}son, event. No conventional theological {ex}planation will account for this (since such a transformation should be limited to designated sacerdotal objects and acts). What is obvious is that what is doneâ??sought forâ??with the sacraments (and often achieved) is equally true for any thing, act, situation,

{p. 198 - D-148}

event: all reality viewed collectively as an aggregate of plurality; that is, as reality per se. This should not be possible. And, moreover, ordinary reality taken as such without this enhancement becomes â??mereâ? information. So two things have happened: ordinary reality can now be viewed as a sign (information, word, writing) pointing to another kind of reality (object) entirely that is primarily definedâ??not by its trans-spatial and trans-temporal qualityâ??but by its meaning. It is a significant reality in which meaning is everything, like a sacred drama. Now, this is not Platoâ??s eid?. This is something else. This means that everything extends into this dimension, but that the attempt to summon it, being confined to stipulated sacerdotal objects and acts, does not reveal this to us. What I claim for this dimension or mode or attribute is meaning or significance, and this definition when scrutinized really asserts that that which truly is is revealed; viz.: the {me}aning is not implied, referring to something {e}lse, as in a symbol or sign that has been {giv}en a referal value; the meaning is in the {di}mension now perceived and this meaning is self-authenticating and self-revealing: it discloses its own â??storyâ? by itself, requiring no interpretation or analysis: it is â??open.â? In fact, it is â??openâ? in the precise way that the ordinary object is not when it is taken to be a sign signifying something; with the sign the meaning must be explained: it is not there.

Word Doc of Transcription

Folder 53


folder 53 - 030

YHWH found me to be a good & pious man, according to his Law, the Torah. When I gave to Covenant House, I acted in accord with the Torah. & the Torah is sublime, transcendent & eternal, & it pertains to all humans at all times & places, Jew & non-Jew alike - to YHWH it makes no difference.

I was shown that all 3 of us as one family (me, Tess, & Christopher) were saved, for to YHWH the family is sacred. The Law of God - of the Torah that I obeyed was what Philo called philanthropia or Sadakah.

My God - I saw myself (in these hypnopompic visions) the way God sees me, not as I see myself : he sees me in terms - under the aspect of - the Torah, for the Torah in his Law : as a good and pious man (I would guess in terms of philanthropia). There is only one Law at all times & places for all men, & it is Torah. God is not concerned if you are a Jew or a Japanese or a Nigerian; the Torah is divine & existed before creation. "DI" then is essential & logical as the sequel to "Valis" but none of the 3 books in the trilogy deals with the Platonist metaphysics that must be understood if the whole story of 2-3-74 is to be understood (reincarnation, anamnesis, noesis, the Forms, reason, the meta- abstraction, etc; these pertain to the _how_ : philosophy - no ; the repeated horizontal tracking is theological.

The meta-abstraction - my analysis of it : "Not two Mothers but one Mother twice" - one object existing at two places & two times - is essential in understanding 2-3-74 & is Platonist, is noesis & the forms. None of my Exegesis has been in vain : the Platonist part is correct, & God - the God of Abraham - is equally necessary; he created the Platonist universe. I _did_ remember a past life, & indeed two spatiotemporal continua superimposed due to one common constituent. Adonay, God of Mercy.

Folder 49


folder 49 - 092

My error has been to think in terms (in this Exegesis) of alternate or multiple worlds. But my books point to _pseudo_ world (& anamnesis) vs _real_ world.

Hence my sense of greater space. The real world is constructed in _actual_ space, not greater space. The irreal world isn't in real space at all.

We lost a war. All the centers of power fell - the center per se :

Diagram :

3 concentric circles, an outer circle (#1), enveloping an inner circle (#2), enveloping the innermost circle (#3). The outer circle #1 : ostensible world, #2 : secretly the Empire rules everywhere, #3 : beneath _that_ secret rule is one more truth, one more secret : the Xtians & JHWH rule.

These are levels of ontology. There are 2, no 1, secret worlds. The Empire has infiltrated our world, & the secret Xtians have infiltrated the Empire. If you can see 3, you can at once infer 2. It is Y, X & Y.

These two statements are true : 1) Xtianity lost (level 2) 2) Xtianity won (level 3)

or rather 1) Xtianity won. (overtly) 2) Xtianity lost (secretly) 3) Xtianity secretly won (ultimate)

The dialectic is between 2 & 3. The real battle is invisible on level 1, the ostensible

Folder 48


folder 48 - 049


The battle is going on, but Satan is at the center - of government, of church. Still, YHWH has the crucial advantage of a priori foresight. It was revealed to me that ultimately he wins every hand. This was my primary vision: the dialectic + how it works. The O.T. is harsh, but it accords with the facts: we are in literal slavery, + must be taken out of it, as the Jews were delivered from Egypt. ___ Note. Here, for the first time, I begin to grasp what I saw that I call Valis. This is the summa of my exegesis, as I begin to comprehend God as creator ("He causes what exists to exist"). Hence Valis follows because the universe is seen as a mock plurality that is epiphenomenal. Only if God as Yahweh-asher-Yahweh is comprehended does Valis make sense, + I was always cut off from this before, since I could not grasp the "He brings into existence whatever exists" aspect as the most fundamental; i.e. this is what YHWH means. Thus I really could never make sense out of Valis, of what I saw. (I researched this + it isn't Plotinus; it's Philo. The ideas exist in the mind of God throughout eternity + then God makes them into real objects: creation. This mind Philo calls "Logos," not "Nous." Philo considered the ideas not a mere aggregate but {Note} an intelligible world, a concept not known before him. {Note:} integrated into



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: