Exegesis II

OverviewStatisticsSubjects

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

Folder 01

001 page 162 thumb

folder 01 - 162

856

So I wind up knowing a lot more about world - world as we will later experience it, the world-experience of the future; + I no longer suppose that I was discerning God, + realize that I was discerning world instead; + I was at last led to God, but not by my intellect, not by Gnosis, not by myself at all; it was due to God's initiative, due to his loving-kindness; + what was proved was (once again) that all roads/ways/routes if pushed far enough lead to God. Hence (as I say) here is an example of how God the wise horn of the dialectic defeats its stupider foe inevitably in the end - this was an enantiodromia. It occurred when I realized that all that I had seen of God in 2-3-74 was a glint of color + a ripple of wind in the weeds of the alley, acting on reality; that Valis was not God but rather world ("the reality field") perturbed (from beyond creation) by God; but this did not yield knowledge of God direct, but only by inference; + that in fact 2-3-74 was not a theophany, but was a more sophisticated experience of world: creation pulled through infinity by reaching the end of (exhausting) its creative/entropic "splitting" (disintegrating; differentiating) dialectic process: entropic time converted into negentropic time. But this was still world, + Satan caused me to worship it... to fall victim to it, ensnared by it, taking it to be God; until I found that I had pushed my exegesis to infinity without result! + then I focussed

Last edit 24 days ago by Max
001 page 163 thumb

folder 01 - 163

857

on the very infinitude of my theories + saw (recognized) this as an instance of cosmogenic entropy; +, at last exhausted, prayed for release, + God did appear to me in theophany + took the field + blocked each + all theories, + ended my exegesis, not in defeat but in logical discovery of Him (which Satan had not foreseen). Thus intellect + knowledge on my part led to exhaustion + to destruction of that intellect + a recognition of the futility of what I was doing; I knew I knew nothing; + then God took the field + made his move that resulted in the enantiodromia that led me to him anyhow, as if I had wandered that way by chance; but it was his plan all along. + this was an instance of the dialectic that I had seen.

Finally I wind up with y=y; viz:Both these 2 following statements are true: 1) The intellect will not lead you to God. 2) The intellect will lead you to God. I am left with this paradox, which Satan did not foresee; he saw only statement (1) + did not see how God could convert it into its mirror opposite through enantiodromia. Thus God works + wins within the fallen entropic creation of the disintegrating "splitting" dialectic to win vs me + all in the end, by different routes. Thus the cosmic game between God + his adversary continues on; here was another victory by God; + in the end God will convert the dialectic itself into its opposite (through enantiodromia) + the game will end + God's victory + Satan's defeat, which God's victory vis-a-vis me echoes in microform.

Last edit almost 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
001 page 164 thumb

folder 01 - 164

858

In a certain sense it can be said that God's victory consists in turning Satan's false creation -i.e. Satan's lie + delusion- into the real, which is exactly what I saw Valis doing; transmuting reality by transubstantiation into the real. Here is the secret + perpetual + ever-growing victory by God over his adversary as he (God) defeats him (Satan) again + again in the game they play - the cosmic dialectic that I saw. This is enantiodromia at its ultimate: the conversion of the irreal to the real. In my case it was the conversion of "the human intellect will not lead to God but will lead only deeper + deeper into delusion" into its mirror opposite: "the human intellect, when it has pushed to infinity, will at last, through ever deepening delusion, find God". Thus I am saved; + know that I did not start out seeing God (2-3-74) (which led to this 6 1/2 year exegesis), [Note] but, instead, wound up finding God (11-17-80) - an irony that Satan did not foresee. + thus the wise mind (God) wins once again, + the game continues. But someday it will end.

END

[Note] See separate envelope notes dated 12/10/80 p 10 passim

Last edit 24 days ago by Max
001 page 165 thumb

folder 01 - 165

1

Footnote, My flight expressed by the phosphene graphics was a movement faster + faster through cosmogenic-entropic time, ending in exhaustion + then the enantiodromia of entropic time - which had reached infinite velocity + infinite fragmentation ("splitting") which is to say the dialectic into negentropic time or synthesis, reintegration: hence I saw Valis [Note], the universe pulled through infinity, inside out, to freeze; this was 3-74. My exegesis was entropic-cosmogenic time resuming, speeding up faster + faster, "splitting" (fragmenting) farther + farther. Finally, it, too, ended in infinite velocity + infinite fragmentation (creativity, expressed as ever newer + quicker theories); it ended in exhaustion + then the enantiodromia of entropic time -the dialectic of my thoughts- into negentropic time + another reintegration (this was 11-17-80). Only this time I did not see Valis [Note], there was a theophany, + I was in the presence of God + God's loving-kindness; whereupon He explained everything to me. So events leading up to 3-74 + my experience with Valis had a parallel in the dialectic of my exegesis leading to 11-17-80 + the theophany of the Christian God of Love. The common ingredients of the two flights were: the cosmogenic-entropy "splitting" dialectic flight itself, until infinite velocity (time) + fragmentation (space) were reached, then exhaustion, then enantiodromia into negentropic time + "freeze" (reintegration) of,

[Note] World, not God (as I had supposed)

Last edit almost 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
001 page 166 thumb

folder 01 - 166

2

so-to-speak "prajapati", but then comes a totally different outline: 1) 3-74. Valis which is world properly seen (morphological arrangement, growth + perfection + self completion in negentropic time, the entropic -flux- universe pulled through infinity - i.e. inside out). Compared to: 2) 11-17-80. The Christian God in theophany, who is other than world, who is transcendent. What I thought I had seen in 3-74! The summation (combining) of the two is (1) An acute knowledge of world based on 3-74 + the exegesis arising out of that experience. (2) Direct knowledge of God + God's nature based on the above elements; so that 3-74 led to the exegesis, which although it was a loss of negentropic, integrative time + a resumption of cosmogenic-entropic time, did lead (due to the infinite speeding up of time + the infinite breaking down of space until exhaustion set in) to the theophany I had supposed I had already had. Now it is possible to see how the Mary Jane fitted in; it added the final push to the dialectic in me, my exegesis (in other words as preceeded 3-74, my thinking) so that it reached infinite speed + infinite space, exhausted itself, + again as before, enantiodromia set in. This enantiodromia did not have to do with world, however, but had to do with the human intellect striving to find God - futilely. (Futilely until the last great enantiodromia occurred + God took the field to block the dialectic of my thinking himself, + thus revealed himself.)

Last edit almost 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
001 page 167 thumb

folder 01 - 167

3

So there is a striking parallel -a logical, structural parallel- between 3-74 + 11-17-80, but in another, more profound respect the two are mirror opposites - since the first is a vision of world (which I thought was God, yet it was not, + so it yielded no knowledge directly about God, but only inferential knowledge that he existed + that he had saved me - in pronoia) + the second is a genuine theophany. When one realizes that world + God are wholly other to each other (Satan rules world) then this mirror opposite situation can be appreciated. Let me add, too, that total revelation about world does not yield knowledge of God. God entered when I became aware that my theorizing was carrying me into an infinite regress, which is to say, when I became exhausted - at which point enantiodromia occurred; intellect had proven futile + yet, paradoxically, it had led to God - but due to God's volitional initiative. His (as I call it) taking the field, which is an inbreaking by the divine. The circumstances under which the theophany occurred (I gave up on the exegesis + kicked back + massively turned on) are not capricious causes but follow the logic of the dialectic along several axes. This shows the hauntingly eerie paradoxical (almost seemingly whimsical or playful) nature of enlightenment: it comes to you only when you cease to pursue it, when you totally + finally give up.

Last edit almost 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
001 page 168 thumb

folder 01 - 168

4

Another way of putting this is to say that the answer lies in the least likely place, where you are least likely to look. This is what gave rise to zen. Yet, emerging from this maze of paradox + mirror opposites, of seeming, + infinite change, here, finally, is the answer I sought, the goal I sought. + it is where I started from back in high school in my physics final when I prayed to God, the Christian God - who was always there, leading me to him. My guess in "VR" - that it was YHWH - was correct. But it wasn't a guess: it was what the AI voice told me. Always, faintly + distantly but clearly, the AI voice pointed the way to the truth. It knew the answer from the beginning, + spoke in the spirit of God. (Ruah.) Through it I figured out that Valis was not God but reality perturbed by God. + knew, then, that I had not found God after all. My great discovery, then, was not in knowing what I had found, but facing the fact of what I had not found - the very thing I was searching for. Ironies abound. But the playfulness ended in infinity, exhaustion + the great reversal. The goal was reached, + the journey did not begin in 1974. It began in high school during that physics test when I first heard the AI voice. 35 years!

I note that earlier in my exegesis I express confidence that Valis -the macrometasomakosmos + "second signal" is the Cosmic Christ com-

Last edit over 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
001 page 169 thumb

folder 01 - 169

11-24-80 1

God said that I couldn't know with certainty, but, instead, to watch where the computer punch cards piled up. Okay.

(1) As late as 11-16-80 (the day Ray arrived) I theorized that Valis was the macrometasomakosmos and the "second signal" and that this was the Cosmic Christ, not disguised as an invader in our universe but assembling itself out of our universe. So here you have the Cosmic Christ, seen in 3-74. (2) In my anamnesis I remembered being a Christian, of the first century C.E. This was "Thomas." He brought with him the original sacraments of the apostolic secret church. (3) On 11-17-80 I experienced a theophany and God turned out to be the Christian God, of love (his nature was love). He told me that my problem was that I could not believe I had seen him, specifically him, in 3-74. (4) Small details. Disinhibition by the Christian fish sign. The Acts material in TEARS. Seeing the world of ACTS. Remembering the supratemporal eidos of the secret underground revolutionary Christians, of which I am one, battling the Black Iron Prison; what I call realm #3 or morphological arrangement.

The first three; let us consider. (1) possibility that Valis (the macrometasomakosmos and "second signal") are the Cosmic Christ. (2) Thomas was a secret early Christian. (3) When God revealed himself to me in a theophany he was the Christian God, specifically.

Don't these all fit together? Look at how the computer punch cards fall; look at the distribution. (3) is proved; He proved who he was by causing me to experience infinite bliss. Oh Yes: Regarding (4), the AI voice's initial statement was, "St. Sophia will be born again; she wasn't acceptable before." Another small item. How do the computer punch cards fall now, with that addition? Mention of St. Sophia (Christ), the Christian God -- who told me that my theorizing in the exegesis was not logical but infinitely creative; and he would take the field and block my endless speculation. Isn't (1) and (2) verified by (3), which is a known? Can't I work backward from (3) to especially (1), which is to say, Valis, the macrometasomakosmos, the "second signal" (vide entry dated 11-16-80)? I would say yes; yes I can.

Last edit 24 days ago by Max
001 page 175 thumb

folder 01 - 175

1-7-81 5

as unreal, but something replaced it, a sort of timeless matrix. If this timeless matrix is the Form world then Plato is right; if this matrix is Brahman then pan-Indian thought is right. My question would be, Just how irreal did the flux world, the spatiotemporal world, seem? Merely semireal? If so, then Plato is pointed to. I have held this belief for several months, but just lately I have come to the conclusion that a more radical acosmism was involved, in which case pan-Indian thought --which is to say world as maya-- is pointed to. The fact is, even though I myself experienced the anamnesis that Plato refers to (I mean 2-74) I am still not sure what I remembered; it seemed to have to do with another life but it was a life here and now, not there and then, so it was not memory in the usual sense of the word. I've said this time and time again in this exegesis, but it is like when you remember that you have left the burner on under the coffee pot; this deals with something going on right now, and yet memory is involved, or, more precisely, the loss of forgetfulness. If indeed that other life is here and now, then in effect you are cut loose from spatiotemporality as such, because if that other life is here and now, rather than back there and back then, this has profound epistemological significance. If what you remember has to do with a former life --in the past, at another place-- there is not any real epistemological significance. This is why I say in VALIS, "It has nothing to do with reincarnation. Either my body is in two places at once, or my body is nowhere at all." Such concepts as here, now, there, then -- all this vanishes, and you are (I guess) in another realm, the realm of the timeless. Does this point to Platonist metaphysics or pan-Indian Brahmanism? I'm not sure. But what is certain is that upon this anamnesis you no longer view the spatiotemporal world as you have been viewing it. Why you could understand this but not be able to put the concept into words I cannot at all fathom. Perhaps it is too primary, a basic orientation, a basic way of relating to reality. It is soo primary and so profound that there is no ready verbal concept that will express it. But it does deal with recollection, with recovered memory which is a form of knowledge, a sudden vast insight about world: about what is not real (spatiotemporality) and, conversely, what is (either the Form world or Brahman). At this point I choose the latter. I think that what you realize is, simply, "Tat tvam asi." It's that profound. It is the Atman-Brahman identification. And I say this because there is something else that you realize: your own identity. Possibly this

Last edit over 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
001 page 216 thumb

folder 01 - 216

751

I am going to stick with my theory of entropic + negentropic times, each the reverse of the other, + quote my U.K. speech + the Tractate (both based on my subjective insight experience in 3-74): that normally we are blind, occluded, + see the universe + especially time inside out + backward, i.e. wrongly. + that in 3-74 I was seeing the universe + time correctly: reversed (negentropic time, running in reverse): the mirror opposite of appearance. This normal view would constitute the Great Lie, the primary delusion by Satan: a lie on a titanic scale: not only does he involve us in semireal spatiotemporality (which Plato + the Oriental religions handle) but (unsuspected, as far as I know) he causes us to see change process in reverse: from Form to disorder. Backward! So we are occluded from seeing the activity of the Cosmic Christ, the construction of the (his) macrometasomakosmos that has been going on for 2000 years. This is specifically how Satan deludes + cuts us off from Christ + the new creation: by causing us to see growth, unity + integration as entropy, disintegration, the random, the pointless. How clever. + if I understand the physical-psychological mechanism by which this is done, all Satan has to do to accomplish this

Last edit about 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
001 page 265 thumb

folder 01 - 265

813

An entity whose very essence is to know, must know itself first of all, + if involving itself, first, in an illusory creation + then making that creation real + after that reassimilating it - well, this is the price intelligere pays. + for it, it's worth it. + to the extent that we are God or analogy in microform of God, it is worth it for us, as I myself can testify to. Then the striving to know + to understand that make up 2-3-74 + this exegesis, the exegesis as quest, is divine intellegere seeking to penetrate the mystery that it posed for itself in the first place - + is the essential activity of the divine, an expression of its nature: to know, +, specifically, to know itself from an external, objective standpoint - which necessitates a schism in it, in itself undesirable, but having an outcome justifying it as a strategy for self-awareness. My awareness of Valis, then, is divine self-awareness in process. Regarding sin: the Savior does not really sinful man exonerate - because in fact he is not sinful in the first place; but he is subject to world-rule (heimarmene) which is retributive, like the law. The solution is to dupe the retributive machinery + to awaken the person from illusion, the world-rule which is itself illusory - based on an illusory world. Exculpation is real, but it is exculpation of man as victim, not as sinner. Exculpation from a rule that man is subject to, unnecessarily.

Last edit almost 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
001 page 281 thumb

folder 01 - 281

828

all the time, antithetically, like exhalation + inhalation: "I am the breath of my creator, + as he breathes (the dialectic) I live". Note: Creating (the act of) equals disintegration + differentiation. It is only after exhaustion that memory returns; reintegration is not creating although the macrometasomakosmos comes into existence; this would seem like the act of creation, but it is not; it comes into being like a film of an explosion run backward - + here was my key (to retrograde time + its significance; it is creation in reverse; i.e. "cosmic resorption"!) This "even down to the ants" is why one first moksa in 3rd grade had to do with the beetle I was tormenting: "tat tvam asi" literally! I created the phosphene graphics involuntarily (in my identity as Macro-Brahma; I could not refrain from the act of cosmogenesis. It got -it had gotten- out of my control a month before when I created the hologram Acts AD 45 out of my self! The Golden Fish sign simply triggered this creative act off, due to the pentathol, + hence my ability to control myself as creator of world. This exegesis, e.g. is not analytical but an endless generation (creation) of an infinity of new ideas. They just

Last edit almost 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
001 page 292 thumb

folder 01 - 292

844

appeared was not complex + illusive enough to satisfy me, so Satan obliged: with world that would satisfy me emotionally + intellectually. (+ in doing so, burdened me with the hell-labor of this exegesis). (But God reached out to me in my self-generated delusions + led me to him by virtue of the infinity of theories I found myself producing; he told me what this infinitude of theories pointed to. Despite Satan's craft, this path -the path Satan designed- led me to God; why? Because then, 6,5 years after 3-74 + what I mistook as theophany, God did reveal himself to me, + the truth. So it all served a good end. What I say is that God always wins every human soul in the end, by whatever route; more, I say that everything that ever happened to you + that you did led you to God + was for that purpose. World plays no other role, finally, when all is known + understood. World is a plantation in which men grow to God. God designs each step through the dual aspects of ordaining + allowing, to bring men to him. There is free will, + men can sin. I have sinned in this exegesis; it is one vast ediface of hubris, of Satan in me questioning + accusing. + I finally began to realize it; I prayed to be delivered from it. 3-74 was some vast enantiodromia in which I pulled reality inside out, used up + hence froze time, saw the past (Acts) + the future (the second signal) so it was a great feat. But it was still reality: epistemology + not even metaphysics, + no theology - world rightly seen - but not God.

Last edit almost 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
001 page 293 thumb

folder 01 - 293

[5]

pleting itself in reintegrative negentropic (retrograde) time out of the disintegrated entropic universe of plurality - + also I state that "seeing the 'second signal'" + Valis + the macrometasomakosmos is the way humans will later on see (experience) reality. These insights should not be disregarded even though I designate Valis as world + not as God, not a theophany. The resolution of these two views ("it is the Cosmic Christ" + "it is the world as we will see it in the future) is: the world is being converted into the Cosmic Christ - Point Omega, as Teilhard de Chardin speaks of (more properly as the captivity epistles of Paul speak of). This is the reintegration of world but world reabsorbed back into the Godhead through Christ - cosmic resorption. (This is Prajapati reintegrating himself.) In other words, the way people will eventually see world is as -under the aspect of- the Cosmic Christ (Valis, the macrometasomakosmos, the "second signal"). Hence, the Savior is still to come. Even though I saw Valis he is not here yet; there was a collapse of spatiotemporality for me, as related earlier in this exegesis. I saw it before it happened. I saw-when I saw Valis- the future of the world. (This is the morphological arrangement, realm #3.) Either I broke through to it or it broke through to me: I used up all that remains of entropic time (before exhaustion due to its reaching infinite velocity converts it by enantiodromia into negentropic time, hence reintegration + unity.). There wasn't much left. I would say that the Savior (St. Sophia) is almost here + indeed the AI voice now says that the

Last edit almost 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
001 page 300 thumb

folder 01 - 300

6

Here's a strange theory. The extent to which you are aware of Valis governing reality cannot be separated from the proportional degree that you are in the Kingdom [Note] (more accurately Kingship). Because you interact as a subfield with the macro-field generated by Valis: this assumes what I call "a cosmos within a universe" or two conflicting realities. But I would think that for this awareness to exist Christ would have to disclose Valis to you (or the Spirit would have to) ("I am the narrow gate").

[Note] No; the degree that you are in the Kingdom cannot be separated from the degree that you are aware of Valis governing reality. Neither is cause or effect; they are two sides of the same thing. This goes to what the E. of S-F about my definition of reality: it is what you perceive it to be. For me, 3-74 was the in-breaking of this Kingship into my idios kosmos hence my perception of it simultaneously. Although I do not see it clearly now, I sense its presence + purposeful nature.

An examination of my exegesis shows that during the last two months (Oct + Nov) I suddenly began to get real answers - based on my breakthrough regarding meta-abstracting (as I call it) + the realization of what I call "morphological arrangement"; this led through a rapid series of insights (including the identification of Valis + the "second signal" with the macrometasomakosmos), cosmic resorption hence entropic + negentropic time (time read either way) ending with (on 11-16) an identification of Valis as the Cosmic Christ - but not seen as the higher invading the lower, but rather the lower evolving into the higher. [Here] I think I

Last edit almost 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
001 page 301 thumb

folder 01 - 301

7

was both right + wrong; it was as if I was on the lip of stabilizing an overview on Valis after years of floundering around. Repeatedly I again + again identified Valis as the Cosmic Christ, but could not quite stabilize it. Then came the theophany of 11-17. While it came as a surprise to me that I had it -i.e. a second theophany- when I look over my notes I get the distinct impression that the revelation of the nature + identity of Valis as the Christian God follows naturally out of the successes in my exegesis of the last two months. I might almost say that God took the initiative + dramatically ratified the discoveries I had made before those discoveries got lost in a further + fruitless spate of speculations. I was so close to the truth, but I had abandoned my great initial insight that Valis was an invader into our reality. This insight is crucial because it correctly points to the in-breaking of God + his reign -the Kingdom of God- that Jesus preached, without which realization no overview of Valis can be correct.

It's a place but also it's a who - a mind. A holy + lovely place-mind-condition, it is alive + it thinks + it transmutes anything + everything into itself - but normally

Last edit almost 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
001 page 310 thumb

folder 01 - 310

24

but is (just as I say) an in-breaking + dismantling + assimilation. I have now seen 1) World without God (normal perception). 2) World invaded by God (Valis, 3-74). 3) God transcendent without world. It is not possible to see (3). [Note] It is possible to see (2), but you are not actually seeing God per se; you are seeing world affected by God; my "iron filings + magnetic field" image expresses this. "VR" is a long description of this. Even though in it God takes human form -essentially as the Messiah- it is correct, + I took my cue from the AI voice.

[Note] So 11-17-80 was real, because if it had been [just a] hallucination almost certainly I would have seen a figure, as I did with Diana; but I saw nothing at all; God was complete presence/spirit.

YHWH is here. It is a good thing that earlier in my exegesis I realized that I had a surd left over, because that surd is the God I experienced in 11-17-80; viz: when "perturbed" world was completely analyzed, there was something left over that was not world (the glint + riffle in the weeds of the alley, the glyphs of God).

Last edit almost 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
3225 thumb

01 - Notes

513

"If you press world hard enough it yields up God" -- paraphrase of page 485. "I define God as world under the threat of death... God forced into the open, and put to work in the service of evading death."

521

I already know where the Kingdom is: it is a floating principle of organization that can be any collection of things that He wants.

525

Xtianity is like a given drama on TV; what I've been trying to figure out for 6 1/2 years is not what this one drama of many is about, but how the TV set works that brings this drama and all the others (there are many, as Eliade makes clear). (So: Christianity, when you think about it, could not be the answer. It is a content within the system, not the system..

10/22/80 As of late last night my emotions (affective self) moved into synch with my intellect (as engaged in this exegesis), and the result was that I surveyed a world-picture of such bleakness that it was for a time beyond my capacity to bear. I saw and understood suffering, not just intellectually, not just emotionally, but fully, with complete comprehension. Today I have thought about it, and the only attitude that can or should be brought to bear is a stoic one, in fact a heroic one, a facing of this bleakness unflinchingly, with no attempt to flee from it as a vision or existentially, as a way of being in the world. It is a view of the weary wheel of Buddhism; it is the Buddha's view of absolute suffering and the need not to be reborn, to get off the wheel....

Each creature is born, suffers, dies, is again born, forever and ever, because the world soul —there is just one soul, and it has fragmented into billions of bits—made the primordial and primary mistake of taking the spatiotemporal realm as real, thus plunging itself into enslavement and multiplicity. For a few there is a way out: discovery that the spatiotemporal world is not real, an ascent back up into unity and freedom, but only for a few bits (sparks) is this possible; the enormous mass of fragments will remain caught forever, unless some final great savior comes here and frees us en masse. I hope this will happen but I doubt it. Every fly with a missing leg, every cat beleaguered by fleas, every human fearing economic want —the endless wheel turns for all of us and it turns forever, in this irreal time we have fallen victim to.

"The saying that is uttered in secret rites, to the effect that we men are in a sort of prison, and that one ought not to loose himself from it nor yet to run away, seems to me something great and not easy to see through; but this at least I think is well said, that it is the gods who care for us, and we men are one of the possessions of the gods.” So says Plato referring to the Pythagoreans. Everything is contained here: the vision and the stance, and, finally, what may be the only solace that can be held out, that the gods care for us because we are their possessions. This paragraph will have to do if I am to be saved from the vision I have seen, and it is meant to save; it is Plato's great mind coming to bear on the situation, with full knowledge of the reality of the situation, the Greek equipoise that Apollo exemplified; that Attic calm to which I must return, or I am destroyed....

Premise: the primordial Fall was caused by our taking the spatiotemporal realm to be real.

1) In 2-74 I saw that the spatiotemporal realm was not real.

2) Therefore I reversed the original Fall—which is doing much more than remembering—by anamnesis—the reality of the Form world, the universals. What I realized last night is that I as a soul splintered up in fragments through space and time, literally exploded through space and time, in incarnation after incarnation, my unity shattered. This is the "weary wheel" of the Orphics. This realization is terrible. Because even though I reversed the effects of the Fall for myself, I can see the dreadful condition of the others of us, born again and again (but this is temporal talk; it is irreal. Splintered is the correct term. ... Now the results of not recognizing "Tat tvam asi" seem actually sinister, since you literally are other life forms, other humans and other creatures; you as primordial soul are splintered, exploded, over thousands of years and thousands of miles. "Tat tvam asi" is not a luxury for the languid philosopher or the special mystic; it is essential in the reversal of a primordial fall (our taking the spatiotemporal realm as real.).

Recollection as re-collection: (calling one's splintered, scattered parts in, to a center). The primordial explosion reversed as the calling back together, a sort of teleological implosion, as if time were running backward.

10/24/80

3 pages on his syncretistic system Rats. I'm rediscovering things that I already knew; that are, in fact, the basis of my system. I am too tired; I must quit for a time and rest.

Probably the wisest view is to say: the truth —like the Self—is splintered up over thousands of miles and years; bits are found here and there, then and now, and must be re-collected; bits appear in the Greek naturalists,in Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Plato, Parmenides, Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism, Taoism, Mani, orthodox Christianity, Judaism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Orphism, the other mystery religions. Each religion or philosophy or philosopher contains one or more bits, but the total system interweaves it into falsity, so each as a total system must be rejected, and none is to be. accepted at the expense of all the others (e.g. “I am a Christian" or "I follow Mani"). This alone, in itself, is a fascinating thought: here in our spatiotemporal world we have the truth but it is splintered —exploded like the eide—over thousands of years and thousands of miles and (as I say) but be recollected, as the Self or Soul or eidos must be. This is my task.

In that case, each given system is in itself part of the enslaving snare of delusion; in other words, as soon as I avow one philosopher or system (e.g. Spinoza or Schopenhauer or Kant or Anaxagoras or Parmenides: or Gnosticism) I have become again or more ensnared, as I am by this spatiotemporal world itself; it is as if the eidos of Truth is exploded and splintered like all the eide. And all the Selves and Souls. But what else could you expect here in realm #4? Since everything real is here only in discrete bits. Of course this means that I can never come up with the whole, true, complete explanation/answer. I can re-collect and re-collect, do better and better, but never completely make unified the eidos of Truth. Yet, in 3-74 when I meta-abstracted, a great deal of the eidos the Truth was revealed to me; however, alas, I did not understand it then and do not yet.

Look; I may be on to something here, that in realm 4 it is impossible to re-collect any given eidos including that of a true verbal (informational) picture (analog) of reality; that in fact the true informational analog will be exploded over thousands of miles and thousands of years like all other eide. Such is the situation here in the spatiotemporal realm; this is one of its drawbacks (among many). Fascinating. In that case, no wonder I haven't been able to match my 2-3-74 experience to any religion or any philosopher, yet many seem in part to apply. The truth is splintered! This would explain, too, why the sacardotal power is found in bits in, say, the alley; for the same reason: it is exploded ubiquitiously. (In additional to the places I listed above where I've found bits of the truth I should add: the Hermetics and the Kabala and quantum mechanics.)

So one great realization is: the map is exploded; the map is splintered. (And, perhaps, the map is not complete; see Hussey on the map paradox, the vicious regression.) Nous exploded…

10/25/80

If a gun were put to my head and I had to give one short answer as to what Valis was, I would say, “The Tao, as the Absolute.” And as to what happened in 3-74: the regulation of the Yin and the Yang, i.e. the dialectic, by the Tao; the Tao asserting itself as master of the dialectic that makes up our world-order of flux and strife ("the Tao is what lets him first the light, then the dark" -- this has always stuck in my mind is the basic definition of the Tao). And this has to do with advanced physics; so Warrick is right about Valis and 3-74. Sentient physics.

But also: Valis was my splintered self "imploding" back together, the pieces that had exploded over space and time reversing their direction in enantiodromia and re-collecting to form their original unity. Of this I am absolutely certain; but look: this, too, could be an example of an event of higher physics! (This is why time seemed to flow backward; and forward-moving time had exploded myself over thousands of years and miles.)

This is why I had the distinct and indubitable impression that my own earlier thought-contents were coming back to me in the form of world – eg Ubik and “Faith of…” etc. World was familiar to me as my own earlier mind. I never could explain this until now. It was (I see now) the re-collecting of my own splintered self as if time were running backward, turning an explosion into an implosion. So beyond doubt enantiodromia and other higher laws of physics perceived by the Taoist in Greek naturalists (Pre-Socratics) were involved! I see! The normal process of self splintering was reversed.

The first space-time thing that return to me was my most recent book, Tears, and the world (acts) in it with a main part of myself had been exploded to. Then later came Ubik. The above paragraph is the most important realization of my six and a half years of exegesis.

10/26/80

Therefore my experience in 2-3-74 now that it has been followed by a successful exegesis -- and only in the last two weeks has it become successful -- pays off in the way that I perceive ordinary daily reality. I cannot bring back the absolute vision of the morphologically arranged realm that I had in 2-74, the anamnesis; but I now can apprehend this realm from the standpoint of the realm number three reality; I can see in the epiphenomenal realm the constants shining through... and this is the triumph in practice of Platonist metaphysics, its whole point: that you learn to see in the flux realm the constants, literally see them with the educated eye, educated by Plato's metaphysics of the forms.

But the real success of the exegesis is that as I become old, now, and wear out, I feel myself wearing out only as an instance of an eternal soul or form; that nothing is lost, nothing is destroyed; and although I don't crave immortality I do crave vigor and joy and the running that I associate with my eidos. and I know, too, that all that I have lost in my life is epiphenomenal, people and cats and things, that in reality nothing is lost. So I can face my own aging and mortality with calm and even pleasure, since I am grounded in both a mystical vision of super reality and an intellectual exegesis based on that vision, the totality of which provides me with a philosophy and with an experience with world that is harmonious and wonderful and intellectually satisfying: it is a vision of intactness, of my own self and world. Of everything as a negentropic whole. As regards my writing: it will permanently affect the macrometasomakosmos in the form of reticulation and arborizing -- and hence will survive in reality forever, in the underlying structure of the world order.

11/1/80

This is the surd I am left with after completing the metaphysical system of my exegesis: a surd. There is what the AI voice called "a perturbation in the reality field." This is Valis; this is the most important part. Originally I spoke of it as a valence away from plumb. Now I think of it as a tugging, like the moon's effect on Earth's oceans creating, by tugging, the tides.

I say, the reality field is not real but the tug is. But what the tug points to -- that is, what is doing the tugging -- I. have no idea. I know of it only by its effects on reality, in setting up an irregularity in reality, in the field, the way reality, the field, behaves. It is being affected from outside -- outside reality.

This surd (something irrational that can't be explained after everything that is rational has been) may stick with me. So I may wind up with something like quantum mechanics faces. In fact it may be an event in quantum mechanics, like something related to the Tao. I don't know.

And this is what I wanted the most to explain. And this tug is right here and now, in the very trash stratum of reality. I have set out in pursuit of ontology, rising from level to level, only to go full circle and come back where I started: pop tunes on the radio, weeds in the alley... and the faint flurry of a kind of breath, as if some invisible spirit, perhaps the ruah, is breathing creation into existence ex nihilo. Yes, I am on the rim of reality; level after level each one more ontologically real than the previous, and then -- nothingness. The void. Only a faint wind stirring reality, tugging at it. And maybe a glint of color, briefly. And a word or two as set to ground. 6 1/2 years of work: a glint, a rustle in the weeds of the alley; I am confronted by unfathomable mystery, as if I saw cosmogenesis reversed: cosmic resorption, until at last creation ceased to be, and only the spirit moved across the face of the void. And, equally real and equally enigmatic, a small murmuring voice speaking in the night, as if from immeasurable distances away.

I have found the ultimate source: a rustle of wind in the weeds and faint, distant words by a lovely voice that is neither male nor female. Both bordering on the rim of not being there but being, I am convinced, the truly real; in contrast to the great substantial world order, the galaxies and nebulae, Suns and planets, civilizations and deeds.

I cannot say that I have found moxa, enlightenment. I do not understand what I saw and what happened in 2-3-74. Something helped me. Who? Oddly, although I don't know who I do know why (since the AI voice told me that). I chased after reality, and how far did I actually get? “Ti to on?” The Pre-Socratics asked. Perhaps it is the wrong question.

Of odd thought came to me. I end my exegesis with something -- what I call a surd because that is what it is -- that can't be fitted into an otherwise satisfactory system. This one thing is simple. No elaboration of it seems possible, no implications extracted and elaborated. It makes me think of Dante’s semplice lume. And my exploded morphological structure reminds me of Dante's description of God as the book of the universe whose pages are scattered throughout the universe.

I beheld leaves within the unfathomed blaze into one volume bound by love, the same that the universe holds scattered through its maze. Substance and accidents and their modes became as if together fused, all in such wise that what I speak of is one simple flame.

About all I can see clearly is that 3-74 was a heroic act that consisted of the overcoming of fate. “We can be heroes for just one day," to quote Bowie. It all has to do with waking up long enough to perform one action, to make one change, before you sink back down into sleep, before you again forget.

What strikes me about this is that it is cosmogenesis ijn miniature, in the microcosm, because something has come into being ex nihilo. What the person did – the heroic act – he could not do given who he is, given his history, his karma. It is an impossibility. Thus in a real and literal sense a new self has been born in him, since this fact, this deed, could not issue out of field self, the self is splintered throughout time and space. This is as much a miracle of the original cosmogenesis; in a sense it is the original cosmogenesis, and perhaps the ruah is present at it as it was in the beginning.

So I felt as if another self had taken me over; my actions were "disassociated,” without ideation; and then Thomas came into being in me. Maybe he was new, not a lost part rejoining me but new ex nihilo, the permanent offspring of the heroic deed that broke the power of the world rule existentially. What world lost, self acquired. There is a quantum transfer of essence from world itself, so that the balance between the two shifts critically. Self is acting on world, rather than world on self; it is as if up until then the self is only a product of world, its being; it was a thing among things, controlled and directed and shaped, as a potter shapes the Clay vessel. And all its deeds in all its thoughts have only been world acting and speaking through it, within a closed system of which that self was only a component.

For one thing, if you view it in science fiction terms, in terms of ideas S.-F. has developed vis-à-vis time travel and changing the past: has not this one new deed changed the entire future, the entire future history of the universe? Because the universe is one great field, and to introduce truly new thing or event into it is to alter it in its entirety. Permanently.

Since world is now no longer a closed system it is no longer in effect a prison.

620

Is the secret connected with time and the reversal of Time? Cosmic resorption? I am right in my writing: reality is a series of Chinese boxes, a box within a box within a box, etc.: but a final point comes when you have Valis, but what are who Valis is I have no idea. The Tao, YHWH, cosmic Christ, Brahman, Shiva, Krishna, or a quantum mechanics phenomenon. Or ruah, the spirit of God breathing creation into existence out of nothing – ex nihilo -- you finally wind up with: non-being -- that is-not -- is real, and the "is" is only seeming, is not real. You open box after box and ascend the levels of being (esse, substantia, einai) and then you open the last one and it contains -- nothing! And yet you're faced with the mystery or paradox that Ho on (for want of a better term) is actually right here and now, in the very trash at hand, not far away at all -- the ultimate paradox in terms of your long search through level after level of being -- he is at the initial least real (sic) level. You wind up back where you started, paradoxically. But now you know that this utterly worthless trash level -- mere appearance -- is somehow also Ho On, whom you seek. “The Buddha is a piece of toilet paper." "The Savior is a crushed beer cans in the alley." Could this be the final great enantiodromia?

So if you push essence far enough in terms of ascending levels, you find you have gone a full circle, and you wind up encountering ultimate deity cooking and riding pop tunes on the radio and popular novels, and a breath of wind in the weeds in the alley.

It's as if the ultimate mystery is that there is no mystery -- it's like what Robert Anton Wilson says in the COSMIC trigger about being outside the Castle when you think you're in, and inside when you think you're out.

And in a way what is most paradoxical is that I said it all in Yupik years ago! So in a way my exegesis of 2-3-74 says only, "Yupik is true." All I know today that I didn't know when I wrote UBIK is that you but isn't fiction. In all of history no system of thought applies as well to 2-3-74 as Yupik, my own the earlier novel. When all the metaphysical and theological systems have come and gone there remains this inexplicable surd: a flurry of breath in the weeds in the back alley -- a hint of motion of color. Nameless, defying analysis or systemizing: it is here and now, lowly, at the rim of perception of being. Who is it? What is it? I don't know.

I ask for 30 years, what is real? And in 2-3-74 I got my answer as of the universe -- well, as if my question traveled across the whole universe and came back to me in the form of experienced answers... and what I wind up with after 6 1/2 years of studying those experienced answers is: a surd. A perturbation in the reality field -- an irregularity, a departure from the normal -- a tugging or pulling or bending. And that is all. Not even the thing, the perturbing body itself; only its effects on "the reality field." Something out of the ordinary -- like I say, a surd.

So what, then, do I know about the nature of reality,? That an irregularity can show up in it that points to -- something else. Only a sign.

Q: “ti to on?”

A: Heidegger says, "why is there something instead of nothing?" To which I asked, "why does Heidegger think there is something instead of nothing?" The tug is real and the "reality field" tug on isn't. So that which is genuinely real is pointed to by its effect on "the reality field" (which isn't real) but what it is that is doing the tugging I have no idea.

631

This is exactly what does not happen in frozen journey! Thus this us as this is this 651

My most recent notes show that Christianity and Platonist metaphysics are two branches of the same one source: Christianity the dramatic performance of it (event, act), Plato's metaphysics the theoretical explanation (the basis: the how.) So Platonist metaphysics and Christianity are not only not mutually exclusive, they reinforce and complement each other -- they together form a complete whole, neither part (half) alone on its own being the whole truth, i.e. neither part by itself is the true "mystery." This now I don't have the puzzling surd left, as I did after I made use of the Platonist part alone. By adding the cosmic Christ (especially as put forth in Dallas on page 80 passim) I have a total comprehensive system. I do not have to choose between the cosmic Christ and Platonist metaphysics: on the contrary: I get the answer by adding them together and only by adding them together. But to do this I had to see that they flow from a common source, like a message torn in two pieces.

4:30 AM: I was lying here thinking how Christ would show up in the alley in the weeds because that is where he is and things of daily life and world, and I ask myself "would he be additional substantial/material trace bits?" And I realized, "no, as a tug, a perturbation -- the iron filings and magnetic field perturbation" – the eide are not material, not physical; so the only way they (P.) would show up would be as a tug; and this would render the plural objects and processes at the field perturbed as a unitary whole -- I visualized it so clearly. Since he is not real in the spatiotemporal sense, and yet he is here not there, in this world, immediately at hand; I understood it for a moment so clearly -- and it was exactly what I saw in 3-7 for that I called Valis. It is the only evidence we would have. {…} So I arrive at the conclusion to this exegesis and it is where I started: Vallas is (the cosmic Christ; but to understand this I had to reject all other possibilities one by one over 6 1/2 year period; and, most important of all, I had to study Plato's metaphysics thoroughly and rejoin it to other half: Christianity, the anamnesis of the Eucharist, arising out of Orphism, from which Plato's metaphysics came.

655

MWII: “Field. Physics. A region or space traversed by lines of force; the region throughout which the force exerted by a body or by etc. is detectable.”

This is quite clear. What we call reality is the "region throughout which the force exerted by a "body" etc. is detectable" Valis is that “body” etc. exerting detectable force, and that force is detectable by a perturbation in reality as field. So: something lies outside of reality acting on it. By "reality" I understand that the physical spatiotemporal universe is meant. Reality, then, is just a region on which the truly real acts and is detectable. To quote from "Valis": "my body is either in two places or else it is nowhere" “

11/7/80 – cosmic resorption **

11-7-80 1 I've solved itl I've solved the problem of 2-3-74j I did it through Eliade. It was right there in front of me; I read it but did not see the application. I will quote: For Indian thought, suffering is originated and indefinitely prolonged in the world by karma, by temporality; it is the law of karma that imposes the countless series of transmigrations, the eternal retuI to existence and hence to suffering. Liberation from the karmic law i~ equivalent to “cure." The Buddha is the "king of physicians," his message is proclaimed as a "new medicine." It is by "burning up" the very last germ of a future life that the individual definitely ends the karmic cycle and is delivered from Time. Now, one of "the ways of "burning up" the karmic residues is the technique of "going back" in order to learn one's previous lives. The method is to cast off from a precise instant of Time, the nearest to the present moment, and to retrace the Time backward in order to arrive ad originem the point where existence first "burst" into the world and unleashed Time. Then one rejoins that paradoxical instant before which Time was not, because nothing had been manifested…ln the man who accomplishes it this "return" or "regression" finds expression in the annihilation of the Cosmos and hence brings about "emergence from Time," entrance into "immortality." Now, in the Tantric view immortality can be obtained only by halting manifestation and hence the process of disintegration; one must proceed "against the current" and recover the primordial Unity that existed in illo tempore, before Creation. What is necessary, then, is to enact in one's own being the process of cosmic resorption, and so return to the "origin." ••. After describing the creation of the Universe by Shiva, the text describes the inverse process of cosmic resorption, as it is to be lived, experienced by the yogi. The latter sees the element Earth become "subtle" and dissolve in the element Water, Water dissolve in Fire, Fire in Air, Air in Ether, and so on, until all is reabsorbed into the Great Brahman. The yogi witnesses the inverse of the process of Creation, he "goes back" until he reaches the "origin."

Valis is Brahman. I am finished. I know now. I s aW-Brahman because through anamnesis I escaped from time, and then time ran back­ward, and I saw cosmic return from plurality to unity (the metakosmos) and most of all I saw Brahman, which I called Valis.

I did it. I figured it out. The Platonist anamnesis was the cause. It sent time moving backward from plurality to unity, to Brahman.

The cosmic resorption must have occurred in a flash; I mean, it --time--regressed at hyper speed, as represented by the permutation of the phosphene graphics. So I reached the point "where existence first 'burst' into the world and unleashed Time" came very swiftly. This (the realization that time moved retrograde) was an absolute essential fact for completion of my understanding of 2-3-74. It is no wonder that I felt that I had encountered world as my own prior thought-formations; this is connected with Buddhism, Brahmanism, the "TIBETIAN BOOK OF THE DEAD." I am right about that; but: I did become involved with my own prior thought formations because I literal traveled back through them into phylogenie reverse-time; I used up ontogenic time (my own prior thought formations). I relived my own earlier books. But Valis is Brahman, the unity before time hence multiplicity occurred. Then the metakosmos is the universe before the Fall:

God, the work I have put into this. I am so tired. But here it is. Platonism, most of all, then this Taoist and pan-Indian technique of returning to the origins, to cure the work of time, to attain health and immortality, and to burn up karma and get off the wheel. It is very complex; I must adopt a synchretistic view; but wha is most important is that Valis ,is identified as the Great Brahman; when I saw Valis I saw Brahman, the unity before time and multiplicity began (time and multiplicity are the same because time equals flux, which is change, which is multiplicity). I can only repeat: this was the missing element, this business of cosmic resorption, time flowing backward. So what I did was alchemical and yoga.

God, I could just burst with excitement. Once I broke free of time I was on my way back; once I remembered that's what the whole thing hinges on, the anamnesis. And I wound up seeing Brahman.

3 This points up how correct my definition of God was: "God is world under the aspect of imminent death." You push world far enough and it turns into God. This is Brahman and no other. So when I saw Valis, time had been driven out as if destroyed.

I can't believe it's over. All I have done is ratify my original insight, but what a fruitful journey it has beenl I must have passed through millions of years of time during that Bardo Thodol (phosphene graphics) trip. All initiated by the Platonist anamnesis, which --well, I've said it; there is nothing more to say. I broke free of time; I burned up my karma; I returned to illo tempore; I saw world as Brahman, Which is to say,before cosmogenesis. I saw the primordial unity; and I shared in the Brahman-Atman identity equation. I saw; I saw. And I gained health and "immortality" and new birth, the "Golden Flower" of mystical Taoism (alchemism).

Well, was it worth my not giving up on this exegesis, this attempt to understand what happened in 2-3-74 and how and why? certainly. Absolutely. Beyond any doubt. Even if I did take the wrong path thousands --literally thousands--of times. I had to find my way to platonist metaphysics before I could make any progress at all, and that came only recently. Christianity was a factor (I finally realized) that was always throwing me off. I knew the answer had to do with time. I read and reread Eliade1s MYTH AND REALITY, but until I had digested the difficult philosophical matter of plato's metaphysics --and related it to pythagoras and the Orphics, to the greater mysteries--only then could I return to MYTH AND REALITY and understand that I had done what Eliade describes in his chapter "Time Can Be Overcome." {…} "The flux world feeds into the metasomakosmos" --it never once occurred to me that when I saw this I was seeing time moving backward, that the metasomakosmos was the original primordial unitary reality before "existence first 'burst' into the world and unleashed Time." I might have gone on forever without grasping this, but for the fact that I was haunted by the realization that somehow 2-3-74 resembled my own prior thought~formations, which suggested THE TIBETIP BOOK OF THE D£AD which then pointed to India hence Buddhism and Brahmanism, hence yoga. And always, always, I had sensed that Valis might well be Brahman. He reckons ill who leaves me out; When me he flies I am the wings. It was always there intuitively in my mind, but I could not verify it because I could not explain why --how--I had seen Brahman, if indeed I had. It was not enough for me to say, "I saw Brahman." I had to explain why and how. And why we normally do not. Now I have all that. ttl define GOJ as world under the threat of (imminent) death." This is not transcendent deity, Western man's deity. AS in VBIK this is, well, world under the threat of imminent death; I can say no more.

addendum I add the following , not found in Eliade, but certainly a part of the sort of world mythology that Joseph Campbell describes: What is required is (1) the recognition of world as your OWn prior thought-formations, i.e. the karmic nature of world. (2) An awakening (well, this is perhaps involved in the above). Okay. (3) The heroic deed performed while awake that introduces an element of newness so that the prior thou~ht-formations are sundered, broken, abolished, ruined; their power over you is gone; this is how you free yourself from karma and take control of your own destiny. It is not just by anamnesis and by recognizing world as your own prior thought­formations (perhaps from a former life); it is by awakening enough to perform the heroic deed and thus introduce newness.

I say this because I did it. That is what destroyed the power of the spatiotemporal world (karma) over me. I am the authority; I need not find it in a reference book. This was essential; not just to know but to do (die Tat). perhaps this is a western notion. In any case, I believe the deed is essential, because upon it hap~ening, the prior thought-formations are no longer true. They no longer pertain. Thus Time --or a certain kind of cyclic dead Time--is destroyed, and real Time (the future? The free future?) rushes in; whereupon Time runs retrograde and you are carried back to the beginning before cosmogenesis; and you see Brahman.

11/16/80

Have I had it backward? I've always said: I saw His Body camouflaged as the world. Maybe it's the other way. I saw how the pieces of the world fitted together to form his body this was what I saw that I called Valis, externally. This is the same thing as I understood inwardly when I saw that the wise horn of the dialectic selected pieces of the antecedent universe, as a stockpile, and fitted the pieces together to form the macrometasomakosmos which was its own self, its own metasoma. Here seen both ways (externally as Valis and internally as an inner consciousness): world evolved into the Body of Christ; world as pieces that seen acting and operatin together became --were now--Christ as cosmic body. So it is world first; or rather they, as plural pieces are world. Then they-come together so that the they becomes an it, one body made up of all the many objects and processes that were --that had formerly been-­the world. The lower plural evolve into the higher unitary. This was one process seen two ways, seen inwardly and outwardly. Yet you could still say, "His body was camouflaged as world. World was transubstantiated into Christ's Body." But it isn't Christ's Body posing as world; it is world becoming --joining together to form-­Christ's body. Again: it is a cosmic evolution. Not the higher invading the lower but the lower evolving into the higher, with pieces of world added element by element to complete and perfect this titanic body, a body so vast that I could only comprehend dimly enormous --infinite--volumes ~~ of space, space such as I had never conceived or apprehended before. Larger than the universe, which in comparison is merely. finite. Limited. And all of it was alive and all of it thought. And the pieces didn't just happen to fit together; they didn't just haphazardly come together; Christ himself searched for the pieces, took the pieces, placed each piece of the world in place correctly, integrated, beautiful, a kosmos, a macrokosmos that was good, beautiful, pleasing and harmonious, where all the many parts that had been world interacted as one unity. And yet absolutely in no way was this vast body anthropomorphic; it was not a human body. It was a permanent body that continually become more reticulated and arborized and complex and perfect, that had once been world. So my inner vision of the macrometasomakosmos formed out of the antecedent universe, and my external perception of Valis "camouflaged” and one and the same. And it is right here. Evolution, not reversion. Gestalting on my part; form -perception.

And this waS accomplished by him defeating world over and over again in dialectical combat with it, where he subdued it, disassemblec it and assimilated it in the form of useful and appropriate pieces into his own vast body. Every new part incorporated --self-incorporated-­came as a result of of defeating and subduing world, but not defeating and subduing it by force, but rather by wisdom; by his being wiser than it, although not as powerful; it was his wisdom victorious over its power, and as it lost each time it lost another piece of itself. So the vast body grows, and with each defeat world becomes less and he becomes more: more completed, more perfected, more internally intricate and organized; and everything valuable in world is preserved eternally in his body as the right part fitted into the right place.

And he systematically deprived world of its blind, inexorable causality, and substituted his voliton in simulation of that mechanical causality, so that to the unaided eye causality still remained… just as to the unaided eye the plural constituents of world remained plural and unalive. And unable to think. And not integrated into a whole, a whole that was evolving internally, just as world passed over --which is to say evolved--into it. So in a sense there were two evolutions: world evolving into his body not the pieces sort of swimming together but selected and arranged by him and an evolution internal to his body: the reticulation and arborizing, based on events in the world fed into his body, continual accretions passing from world --where they were transitory--into his body --where they were forever preserved and remembered, like within a memory system in a mind or brain. And all the internal arrangement was morphologi­cal, not in terms of space and time, but in terms of information, as if arranged by meaning, like a kind of language. Like neural conduits in a brain. There Was an endless processing of things as information, as if every combination was tried out, a perpetual rapid activity, like an internal metabolism, an information metabolism. It was using objects --combinations and recombinations--of objects to think with. And every given thing was limited (telos) by every other thing, in comparison to which the antecedent universe was chaotic (atelos). It was alive; it thought; and it initiated its own movement. Nothing acted on it; all its movements were self-initiated. And nothing outside it acted to construct it; it constructed itself.

And if you were outside it in the chaotic antecedent universe you were in a prison; but if you were inside it you were in a park or garden. And it constantly attacked the prison to dismantle it as a source of parts. And this had been on for two thousand years, a really very bitter but somehow also joyful war. Finally, when an object was incorporated into this structure it became real for the first time, as if up until then in a certain way it had been illusory: coming into being and passing away without ever having truly existed. But now it was safe from decay and harm

And perishing. Forever. As if the body had a map of its own internal structure, the only structure ever to have been self-mapping, hence totally internally self-aware. Yet when you looked at this great system it was only ordinary objects such as you see every day.The basic things of the world, but interrelated and arranged without having moved in time and space. The internal arrangement was its own awareness of itself. Itself as map.

AS incredible as it may seem, I actually didn't realize (until last night) that when I saw what I called Valis I saw what I call macrometasomakosmos. Apparently this is the case; the case that (1) I didn't recognize their identity and (2) they are identical. That means that my vision as to how the macrometasomakosmos is constructed (out of pieces of the antecedent universe by means of the dialectic) applies to Valis. I literally saw the macro­metasomakosmos into which the flux world feeds. So Valis didn't invade our world in a disguised or camouflaged form, as I have always supposed; it is constructed right here, but invisible to us. It grows; it becomes more complex and perfected; and it constructs itself. Absolutely it is the Cosmic Christ; either that or it is one fuck of a meta life form. It just ruthlessly plunders the flux world, treating it as a chaotic stockpile that it uses for parts. And it is selective as to what it assimilates and where it places it in its own soma. Did I realize this? I don't think so; I didn’t realize that I saw it and that It is Valis. It's as if two thought clusters in my mind finally collided and formed one thought-complex. I had two separate categoriE one involving invading; one involving construction, by its own self.

Word Doc of Notes

Last edit over 4 years ago by Max
3226 thumb

01 - Notes 2

Suddenly years of speculation are rendered void, by this realization. Valis experienced three ways. Valis is --indeed must be--the Cosmic Christ assembling itself out of the antecedent universe which it uses as a stockpile, which it (the Cosmic Christ) defeats perpetually in a dialectical combat. (1) Its mind was in direct touch with mine and it explained how it comes into existence and out of what. The macrometasomakosmos.

(2) I saw it externally as Valis.

(3) I was inside it, and saw its inner information-metabolism, what I call "the second signal."

Because the essence of its identity --it's einai--is its structure, we can't see it; all its constituents are ordinary objects. Also its einai is noein; they are one. Supra (3) confirms that (1) and (2) are identical. The fact that the macrometasomakosmos is right here, made up of ordinary objects structuredinto a cohesive unity, changes my conception of it; I must now reappraise everything I've thought during the past six and a half years. I’ve missed the point all this time; I knew Valis was here, but I could not figure out where the macrometasomakosmos was --since I didn't realize that they --and what I call the "second signal"--are the same. It is a floating mind that turns objects into information within a brain, a brain that processes objects and their causal connections as information; it is especially active in our own communications media utilizing a set-ground system. I must admit that I don't really understand this; why can't we pick up, say, its meta-morphemes? Well, because we can't perform feature-extraction with it. It blends perfectly. Am I to assume that I'm the only human aware of it? Hardly. Where I differ is that (I'd guess) live struggled so hard to explicate what happened to me…no, that isn't it. Could it be here just recently? No; that isn't it either. It's not in time and space; it's exploded morphologically…or it utilizes a retrograde time axis, what I call negentropic time. I don't know. It's impossible that no one else has seen it, but you can't see it unless it incor­porates you. Maybe I'm the only one stupid enough to talk about it.

11/17/80

God manifested himself to me as the infinite void; but it was not the abyss; it was the vault of heaven, with blue sky and wisps of white clouds. He was not some foreign God but the God of my fathers. He was loving and kind and he had personality. He said, "You suffer a little now in life; it is little compared with the great joys, the bliss that awaits you. Do you think I in my theodicy would allow you to suffer greatly in proportion to your reward?" He made me aware, then, of the bliss that would come; it was infinite and sweet. He said, "I am the infinite. I will show you. Where I am, infinity is; where infinity is, there I am. Construct lines of reasoning by which to understand your experience in 1974 . I will enter the field against their shifting nature. You think they are logical but they are not; they are infinitely creative. " I thought a thought and then an infinite regression of theses and countertheses came into being. God said, "Here I am; here is infinity. " I thought another explanation; again an infinite series of thoughts split off in dialectical antithetical interaction. God said, "Here is infinity; here I am. " I thought, then, an infinite number of explanations, in succession, that explained 2-3-74; each single one of them yielded up an infinite progression of flipflops, of thesis and antithesis, forever. Each time, God said, "Here is infinity. Here, then, I am. " I tried for an infinite number of times; each time an infinite regress was set off and each time God said, " Infinity. Hence I am here . " Then he said, "Every thought leads to infinity, does it not? Find one that doesn't. " I tried forever. All Ied to an infinitude of regress, of the dialectic, of thesis, antithesis and new synthesis. Each time, God said, "Here is infinity; here am I. Try again. " I tried forever. Always it ended with God saying, " Infinity and myself; I am here." I saw, then, a Hebrew letter with many shafts, and all the shafts led to a common outlet; that outlet or conclusion was infinity. God said, "That is myself. I am infinity. Where infinity is, there am I; where I am, there is infinity. All roads—all explanations for 2-3-74— lead to an infinity of Yes-No, This or That, On-Off, OneZero, Yin-Yang, the dialectic, infinity upon infinity; an infinity of infinities. I am everywhere and all roads lead to me; omniae viae ad Deum ducent. Try again. Think of another possible explanation for 2-3-74." I did; it led to an infinity of regress, of thesis and antithesis and new synthesis. "This is not logic, " God said. "Do not think in terms of absolute theories; think instead in terms of probabilities. Watch where the piles heap up, of the same theory essentially repeating itself. Count the number of punch cards in each pile. Which pile is highest? You can never know for sure what 2-3-74 was. What, then, is statistically most probable? Which is to say, which pile is highest? Here is your clue: every theory leads to an infinity (of regression, of thesis and antithesis and new synthesis). What, then, is the probability that I am the cause of 2-3-74, since, where infinity is, there I am? You doubt; you are the doubt as in: They reckon ill who leave me out; When me they fly I am the wings. I am the doubter and the doubt.

"You are not the doubter; you are the doubt itself. So do not try to know; you cannot know. Guess on the basis of the highest pile of computer punch cards. There is an infinite stack in the heap marked INFINITY, and I have equated infinity with me. What, then, is the chance that it is me? You cannot be positive; you will doubt. But what is your guess?" I said, " Probably it is you, since there is an infinity of infinities forming before me." "There is the answer, the only one you will ever have," God said. "You could be pretending to be God, " I said, "and actually be Satan. " Another infinitude of thesis and antithesis and new synthesis, the infinite regress, was set off. God said, "Infinity. " I said, "You could be testing out a logic system in a giant computer and I am—" Again an infinite regress. "Infinity, " God said. "Will it always be infinite?" I said. "An infinity?" "Try further," God said. "I doubt if you exist," I said. And the infinite regress instantly flew into motion once more. "Infinity," God said. The pile of computer punch cards grew; it was by far the largest pile; it was infinite. "I will play this game forever," God said, "or until you become tired." I said, "I will find a thought, an explanation, a theory, that does not set off an infinite regress . " And , a s soon as I said that, an infinite regres s was set off. God said " Over a period of six and a half years you have developed theory after theory to explain 2-3-74. Each night when you go to bed you think, 'At last I found it. I tried out theory after theory until now, finally, I have the right one . ' And then the next morning you wake u p and say, 'There i s one fact not explained by that theory. I will have to think up another theory. ' And so you do. By now it is evident to you that you are going to think up an infinite number of theories, limited only by your lifespan, not limited by your creative imagination. Each theory gives rise to a subsequent theory, inevitably. Let me ask you; I revealed myself to you and you saw that I am the infinite void. I am not in the world, as you thought; I am transcendent, the deity of the Jews and Christians. What you see of me in world that you took to ratify pantheism—that is my being filtered through, broken up, fragmented and vitiated by the multiplicity of the flux world; it is my essence , yes , but only a bit o f it: fragments here and there, a glint, a riffle of wind . . . now you have seen me transcendent, separate and other from world, and I am more; I am the infinitude of the void, and you know me as I am. Do you believe what you saw? Do you accept that where the infinite is, I am; and where I am, there is the infinite?" I said, "Yes." God said, "And your theories are infinite , so I am there. Without realizing it, the very infinitude of your theories pointed to the solution; they pointed to me and none but me. Are you satisfied, now? You saw me revealed in theophany; I speak to you now; you have, while alive, experienced the bliss that is to corne; few humans have experienced that bliss. Let me ask you, Was it a finite bliss or an infinite bliss?" I said, "Infinite. " "So no earthly circumstance, situation, entity or thing could give rise to it. " "No, Lord," I said. "Then it is I," God said. "Are you satisfied?" "Let me try one other theory, " I said. "What happened in 2-3-74 was that—" And an infinite regress was set off, instantly. "Infinity, " God said. "Try again. I will play forever, for infinity. " "Here's a new theory," I said. "I ask myself, 'What God likes playing games? Krishna. You are Krishna . ' " And then the thought came to me instantly, " But there is a god who mimics other gods; that god is Dionysus. This may not be Krishna at all; it may be Dionysus pretending to be Krishna." And an infinite regress was set off. "Infinity," God said. "You cannot be YHWH Who You say You are, " I said. "Because YHWH says, 'I am that which I am,' or, 'I shall be that which I shall be.' And you—" "Do I change?" God said. "Or do your theories change?" "You do not change , " I said. "My theories change. You, and 2-3-74, remain constant. " "Then you are Krishna playing with me," God said. "Or I could be Dionysus, " I said, "pretending to be Krishna. And I wouldn't know it; part of the game is that I, myself, do not know. So I am God, without realizing it. There's a new theory! " And at once an infinite regress was set off; perhaps I was God, and the " God" who spoke to me was not. "Infinity," God said. " Play again. Another move." "We are both Gods, " I said, and another infinite regress was set off. "Infinity," God said. "I am you and you are you, " I said. "You have divided yourself in two to play against yourself. I , who am one half, I do not remember, but you do. As it says in the Gita, as Krishna says to Arjuna, 'We have both lived many lives, Arjuna; I remember them but you do not. And an infinite regress was set off; I could well be Krishna's charioteer, his friend Arjuna, who does not remember his past lives. "Infinity, " God said. I was silent. "Play again," God said. "I cannot play to infinity," I said. "I will die before that point comes." "Then you are not God," God said. " But I can play throughout infinity; I am God. Play. " "Perhaps I will be reincarnated, " I said. " Perhaps we have done this before, in another life . " And an infinite regress was set off. "Infinity, " God said. "Play again. " "I am too tired, " I said. "Then the game is over. " "After I have rested—" "You rest?" God said. "George Herbert wrote of me:

Yet let him keep the rest, But keep them with repining restlessnesse. Let him be rich and wearie, that at least, If goodness leade him not, yet wearinesse May tosse him to my breast.

Herbert wrote that in 1633," God said. "Rest and the game ends. " "I will play on," I said, "after I rest. I will play until finally I die of it. " "And then you will come to me," God said. "Play. " "This is my punishment," I said, "that I play, that I try to discern if it was you in March of 1974. " And the thought carne instantly, My punishment or my reward; which? And an infinite series of thesis and antithesis was set off. "Infinity," God said. "Play again. " "What was my crime?" I said, "that I am compelled to do this?" "Or your deed of merit," God said. "I don't know," I said. God said, "Because you are not God . " "But you know," I said. " Or maybe you don't know and you're trying to find out." And an infinite regress was set off. "Infinity," God said. "Play again. I am waiting. "

So Satan served me up a sophisticated world in accord with my epistemological expectations (as expressed in my 1 0 volume meta novel)• & I took this to be God & worshipped it, which is not only delusion although a subtle delusion-but blasphemy; but in doing this 1 ) Satan revealed to me a great deal about world (although he led me to believe it was God, not world); & 2) Because of the infinitude of my theorizing I reached God anyhow-& this is an example of the triumph of God the wise horn of the dialectic; so: 3) The dialectic revealed to me is the entropic world-process; but also: 4) The dialectic is God in combat with Satan & God always wins; winning me (as expressed in 1 1- 1 7 80) is an example: Satan's delusions led me to God in the end (through the "infinity" route; viz: as God said, "Where there is infinity, there is God; where there is God, there is infinity. "). Thus my exegesis has been futile, has been delusion, &: has been a hell-chore (as I was beginning to realize, but God delivered me from it, from my own exegesis; & he pointed out the one truth in it: the infinity expressed in it was-but this was overlooked by Satan who does not possess absolute knowledge-a road to God, & did lead there; but only when I recognized the exegesis as futile & a hell-chore delusion. Hence God permitted this deluding by Satan, knowing when it would end. So I wind up knowing a lot more about worldworld as we will later experience it, the world-experience of the future; & I no longer suppose that I was discerning God, & realize that I was discerning world instead; & I was at last led to God. But not by my intellect, not by Gnosis, not by myself at all; it was due to God's initiative due to his loving-kindness; & what was proved was (once again) that all roads/ways/routes if pushed far enough lead to God. Hence (as I say) there is an example of how God the wise born of the dialectic defeats its stupider foe inevitably in the end-this was an enantiodromia. It occurred when I realized that all that I had seen of God in 2-3-74 was a glint of color & a rippled wind in the weeds of the alley, acting on reality; that Valis was not God but rather world ("the reality field") perturbed (from beyond creation) by God; but this did not yield knowledge o f God direct, but only by inference; & that in fact 2-3-74 was not a theophany, but was a more sophisticated experience of world: creation pulled through infinity by reaching the end of (exhausting) its creative/entropic " splitting" (disintegrating; differentiating) dialectic process: entropic time converted into negentropic time. But this was still world, & Satan caused me to worship it . . . to fall victim to it, ensnared by it; taking it to be God; until I found that I had pushed my exegesis to infinity without result! & then I focussed on the very infinitude of my theories & saw (recognized) this as an instance of cosmogenic entropy; &, at last exhausted , prayed for release; & G o d did appear t o m e i n theophany & took the field & blocked each & all theories, & ended my exegesis, not in defeat but in logical discovery of Him (which Satan had not foreseen). Thus intellect & knowledge on my part led to exhaustion & to destruction of that intellect & a recognition of the futility of what I was doing; I knew I knew nothing; & then God took the field & made his move that resulted in the enantiodromia that led me to hiIn anyhow, as i f I had wandered that way by chance; but it was by his plan all along. & this was an instance of the dialectic that I had seen. Finally I wind up with Y = Y; viz: Both these 2 following statements are true: 1 ) The intellect will not lead you to God. 2) The intellect will lead you to God. I am left with this paradox, which Satan did not foresee; he saw only statement ( 1 ) & did not see how God could convert it into its mirror opposite through enantiodromia. This God works & wins within the Fallen entropic creation of the disintegration " splitting" dialectic to win us one & all in the end, by different routes. Thus the cosmic game between God & his adversary continues on; here was another victory by God; & in the end God will convert the dialectic itself into its opposite (through enantiodromia ) & the game will end in God ' s victory & Satan's defeat, which God ' s victory vis-a-vis me echoes in microform. In a certain sense it can be said that God ' s victory consists in turning Satan's false creation-i. e. Satan' s lie & delusion-into the real, which i s exactly what I saw Valis doing: transmuting reality by transubstantiation into the real. Here is the secret & perpetual & ever-growing victory by God over his adversary as he (God) defeats him (Satan) again & again in the game they play-the cosmic dialectic that I saw. This is enantiodromia at its ultimate: the conversion of the irreal to the real. In my case it was the conversion of "the human intellect will not lead to God but will lead only deeper & deeper into delusion" into its mirror opposite: "The human intellect, when it has pushed to infinity, will at last, through ever deepening delusion, find God . " Thus I am saved: & know that I did not start out seeing God (2-3-74) (which led to this 6 V2 year exegesis): but, instead, wound up finding God ( 1 1- 1 7-80)-an irony that Satan did not foresee. & thus the wise mind (God) wins once again, & the game continues. But someday it will end. END

Footnote. My flight expressed by the phosphene graphics was a movement faster & faster through cosmogenicentropic time, ending in exhaustion & then the enantiodromia of entropic time-which had reached infinite velocity & infinite fragInentation ("splitting") -which is to say the dialectic into negentropic time or synthesis, reintegration: hence I saw Valis,• the universe pulled through infinity, inside out, to freeze; this was 3-74. my exegesis was entropic-cosmogenic time resuming, speeding up faster & faster, "splitting" (fragInenting) farther & farther. Finally, it, too, ended in infinite velocity & infinite fragInentation (creativity, expressed as ever newer & quicker theories); it ended in exhaustion & then the enantiodromia of entropic time-the dialectic of my thoughts-into negentropic time & another reintegration (this was 1 1- 1 7-80). Only this time I did not see Valis,* there was a theophany, & I was in the presence of God & God' s loving-kindness; whereupon He explained everything to me. So events leading up to 3-74 & my experience with Valis had a parallel in the dialectic of my exegesis leading to 1 1- 1 7 80 & the theophany of the Christian God of Love. The COmmon ingredients of the two flights were: the cosmogenic entropy "splitting" dialectic flight itself, until infinite velocity (time) & fragmentation (space) were reached, then exhaustion, then enantiodromia into negentropic time & "freeze" (reintegrational) of, so-tospeak "Prajapati",•• but then COmes a totally different outcome: * "World, not G od (as I had supposed}." 1) 3-74. Valis which i s world properly seen (morphological arrangement, growth & perfection & self completion in negentropic time, the entropic-flux-universe pulled through infinity-Leo inside out). Compared to: 2) 1 1- 1 7-80. The Christian God in theophany, who is other than world, who is transcendent. What I thought I had seen in 3-74: The summation (combining) of the two is ( 1 ) an acute knowledge of world based on 3-74 & the exegesis arising out of that experience. (2) Direct knowledge of God & God's nature based on the above elements; so that 3-74 led to the exegesis, which although it was a loss of negentropic, integrative time & a resumption of cosmogenic-entropic time, did lead (due to the infinite speeding up of time & the infinite breaking down of space until exhaustion set in) to the theophany I had supposed I had already had. Now it is possible to see how the Mary Jane * fitted in; it added the final push to the dialectic in me, my exegesis (in other words, as preceded 3-74, my thinking) so that it reached infinite speed & infinite space, exhausted itself; & again, as before, enantiodromia set in. This enantiodromia did not have to do with world, however, but had to do with the human intellect striving to find God-futilely. (Futilely until the last great enantiodromia occurred & God took the field to block the dialectic of my thinking himself, & thus revealed himself. So there is a striking parallel-a logical, structural parallel-between 3-74 & 1 1- 1 7-80, but in another, more profound respect the two are mirror oppositessince the first is a vision of world (which I thought was God, yet it was not, & so it yielded no knowledge directly about God, but only inferential knowledge that h e existed & that h e had saved me-in pronoia foreknowledge) & the second is a genuine theophany. When one realizes that world & God are wholly other to each other (Satan rules world) then this mirroropposite situation can be appreciated. Let me add, too, that total revelation about world does not yield knowledge of God. God entered when 1 became aware that my theorizing was carrying me into an infinite regress, which is to say, when 1 became exhausted-at which point enantiodromia occurred; intellect had proven futile & yet, paradoxically, it had led to Godbut due to God's volitional initiative. His (as 1 call it) taking the field, which is an inbreaking by the divine. The circumstances under which the theophany occurred (I gave up on the exegesis & kicked back & massively turned on) are not capricious causes but follow the logic of the dialectic along several axes. This shows the hauntingly eerie paradoxical (almost seemingly whimsical or playful) nature of enlightenment: it comes to you only when you cease to pursue it. When you totally & finally give up. Another way of putting this is to say that the answer lies in the least likely place, where you are least likely to look. This is what gave rise to Zen. Yet, emerging from this maze of paradox & mirror opposites, of seeming, of infinite change, here, finally, is the answer 1 sought, the goal 1 sought. & it is where 1 started from back in high school in my physics final when 1 prayed to God, the Christian God-who was always there, leading me to him.

My guess in "VR"*-that it was YHWH, was correct. But it wasn't a guess; it was what the AI voice told me. Always, faintly & distantly but clearly, the AI voice pointed the way to the truth. It knew the answer from the beginning, & spoke in the spirit of God (Ruah) . Through it I figured out that Valis was not God but reality perturbed by God. I knew, then, that I had not found God after all. My great discovery, then, was not in knowing what I had found, but facing the fact of what I had not found-the very thing I was searching for. Ironies abound. But the playfulness ended in infinity, exhaustion & the great reversal. The God was reached, & the journey did not begin in 1 9 74. It began in high school during that physics test when I first heard the AI voice. 35 years!

11/24/80 The arguments for Valis being the Cosmic Christ are not conclusive but they are compelling. I call my own attention to the typed pages of 11-16-80 which preceeded by only a short while the theophany of 11-17-80. They were in fact the last thing I wrote before the theophany.

1/7/81 back to resorption, Brahman

708 (seems to be before 11/17)

But most of all: breath. The pattern in the iron filings: that is it breath to weeds: field to iron filings. It is the stirring in the weeds, the pattern (structure: as with Pythagoras. Field. Arrangement. It is not substantial; it is nothing (but a field). And the AI voice -- very faintly -- arranging my thoughts! Absolutely it is a field, as in quantum mechanics. Not the iron filings, but the pattern.

I can visualize it very clearly – visualize Valis. set-ground reversal. The not-is is Valis. the is is not. It is normally a weak field, too weak to be detected. Only under exceptional circumstances does it intensify to cause a perceptible perturbation (3-74). Paradoxically, though it is weak it is irresistible. Why, this is the Tao! This is how the Tao works! (vide the “tao te ching.”) Weak and -- everywhere.(“UBIK”!)

If all reality (universe) is a (one) field, it (Tao) need set up a tiny perturbation at one space time, and ultimately the whole field will be affected, by inducing an enantiodromia of the whole field! through a chain of mounting flip-flops!

I finally understand. This is what is meant by "a perturbation in the reality field." One tiny tug sets a sequence of mounting, growing changes in motion, ending in massive (total?) Enantiodromia: victory. Over world. Since all reality is one field the effects of the initial perturbation and only when the final enantiodromia occurs, and all the "counters" flip over to their opposites. ' This is what MITHC” is about, and deliberately so. But: the real secret is:

Something NEW (although tiny, bordering on ex nihilo, on nothing, yet something) is introduced into an otherwise closed system. My example? My act vis-à-vis the xerox missive. As a result the entire closed system is affected throughout.

709 then there is no doubt that I did indeed encounter deity and the workings of deity, and am in an unique position to know something about -- if not deity directly -- than the way deity affects reality. How it relates to the world order and acts on it. And I better understand 3-74 and especially my "dissociated" action vis-à-vis the xerox letter, and why when I saw Valis I saw unitary reality and "pretextual cause" and especially the "tug"; it was all in the tug that the heart of everything lies! Which was for me just a week ago my surd! Had I been content to leave that surd unaccounted for -- what would I have had?

710

I can now simplify my vast philosophical synchretistic overview in say: in 3-74 I encounter deity and it seems to be -- it acts like the Tao. It introduces some tiny X. Nilo event into the vast closed reality field ("a perturbation in the reality field") and since the reality field, large as it is, is unitary and closed, this very week, small new event introduced at exactly the right place and time sets off a mounting chain of growing events until the whole field is affected and massive enantiodromia occurs. This is not pantheism; God (Tao) is a world but, on the contrary, acts on world-as--field from outside, perturbing it. This answers the question that has always perplexed me, the "why me?" Question; I mean, why am I so important (the Elijah syndrome)? The answer is, I am not important. But I constituted a critical weak point in the interaction within the total reality field where the ex nihilo something new could -- and should -- have been introduced (this is continual creation!!!). So there was a higher off in me or epiphany or theophany! And Valis is deity (most easily identified as Tao), warping space-time to set up a different "shortest distance between two points," so that it was easiest for reality to move along the line it did move, but, without the intervention, would have not.

712

the fact that I wound up with Valis as a surd when I finished my first "complete" or "successful" overview shows how scrupulous I was. It would have to be left over. Deity can’t be fitted into a theoretical system; it is irreducible and stands alone. But at least that way I could focus on it as isolated -- which paved the way for my total overview in which this surd was included but only as "the absolute," leading finally to my ferociously close scrutiny of it in total isolation (from my own mind and from the reality field as well). I realized that it came into existence literally out of nothing, was pure arrangement and not the things arranged (acted upon). I visualized (conceived of) it as a breath on the weeds of the alley -- then connected it to the "heroic act that causes genuine newness" to enter the world; then, realizing that it is weak but irresistible, I saw it as the Tao and hence saw its relationship to the dialectic and mounting chains of events culminating in macroenantiodromia: the purpose of it "breathing" on the "weeds in the alley." Which shows total wisdom on its part!

722

well, my perception of 3-74 is that I encountered something outside of me; and my recent theory is that it came into existence out of nothing -- at least in terms of our reality field.

764

Yes, something can be irreal and yet powerful; the lie is powerful; it thrusts itself at us like a reality, but I saw in 2-74 that it isn't real.

Irreality, then, is the basic defect of the entropic old flux cosmos. There are valuable bits in it (e.g. Mozart symphonies; will use that as an example) but they are not real in that they pass away; they never are. But the meta-soma assimilates them into itself like permanent memories stored in the mind.

812

I would even be willing to argue that an experience such as mine (2-3-74) justifies the Fall in the sense of making it worth it due to the absolute joy generated by the re-collection and return. I know it was for me -- all the tearful years were not only nullified; they were overbalanced by the bliss experienced in restoration. Whether my feelings in history could rightly be projected onto the deity I don't know; but if my system is right in all respects, 2-3-74 was the deity recovering its memory and identity, and so is representative -- a sort of microcosm of the total deity's own travels, its journey (I envision deity and dynamic process undergoing unfolding stages of self-knowledge.) Perhaps this is the ultimate price of the game: self-awareness, acquired through "external" plural standpoints, of which I am one. Then I would say, it is worth it, this journey. That's my subjective opinion. So the Fall as a vast adventure, culminating in a joy that outweighs the arduousness and sorrow of the trip itself. And out of this adventure the deity knows itself more clearly, and, since (as I say) intellegere is its essence, this matter outweighs all else.

835

suddenly a smashing idea: 1) Acts is a hologram as to how reality looks in the past. Did look in the past. 2) “The second signal" is a hologram as to how reality will look people in the future. ' So I experienced (1) the past breaking through; and(2) the future breaking through; this is a total collapse of space time bringing both past and future. This fitted my subjective impression at the time. Since I have no memories of the future I didn't recognize it as such. Then Dallas, the macrometasomakosmos, “the second signal,” is from the future! Then I know what happened; I know what I did. I broke through into the next evolutionary state of the human mind, a world of info and synchronicity; it's (what I did and what I saw) has to do with quantum mechanics; the “2nd signal” is how I did it, as well as what we will see in the future. {…} The future will be all information and synchronicity a negentropy. I didn't see God; I saw world (as it will be seen by us all some day). ' So all my recent theories about meta- abstracting and morphological arrangement of the semi-reality of the spatiotemporal realm, and negentropic time versus entropic -- it's all correct, but it all has to do with world in physics, not theophany. It came as a result of my reaching out and sucking information in from the future -- about the xerox missive. In the far future, where that reality hologram will prevail, only poly modular theories will be used, which is why I can come up with one theory that fits (2-3-74) to get the information I had to go into in a causal mode, the result of which either perturbed or annihilated time.

837 oh my God! Last night after I went to bed I realized that the Prajapati myth contains the following information: creating (cosmogenesis) is not creating but is entropic; therefore the act of creating occurs naturally as part (?) Of the entropic process; the dialectic is a constant progression (infinite progression) of differentiation, of each thing splitting into two mirror opposite halves, and then they split, forever; this is multiplicity and disintegration in differentiation and is entropic and follows the line of least resistance; Prajapati did it then split further and further downward through the ascending levels of creation, "even to the ants," and that "last was exhausted"; whereupon he must reintegrate himself and came back the unity and energy lost (negentropic time). So the dialectic is entropic -- the dialectic that carries every new thought through flip-flops to infinity: this is creative (as God told me) but it is entropic! The true task, then, is not to create (cosmogenesis) but to reverse the process and regain the original unity and energy -- i.e. cosmic resorption. Therefore the universe came into existence by the line of least resistance -- i.e. entropy. Exhaustion and total differentiation equals entropy and disintegration. Loss of form (eidos). This must be reversed. So in 3-74 when I saw VALIS I had reversed it: negentropic time is the right term for cosmic resorption. And VALIS is the original unity; ACCO meta- soma cosmos is the endpoint -- well, it's being constructed in retrograde or negentropic time! I was right! We are normally in entropic -- i.e. creative -- time. So the Prajapati myth contains the key to 3-74 and is also the most profound info I have yet come across; viz: it by polarize creation and negentropy. This is why in the flux world everything is passing away as soon as it starts to be; this is entropy; this is the dialectic; this is creating. Infinite regression. Hence creation is a fall. Which holy wisdom sets out to repair, through cosmic resorption. Entropy.at the Godhead, or the Godhead fell into entropy. Or creation is the entropic side of the Godhead. Propelled along by the dialectic; but these are not growth stages. This is further disintegration in differentiation. But if a sequence passes through infinity (by the dialectic) it is turned inside out and returns to its source (enantiodromia -- the Dow; hence: negentropy as an outcome. So the only answer is to let each sequence passes through infinity, turn topologically M. inside out, and return to its source in this reversed state; the dialectic can't be halted -- infinity of the Godhead, the source; entropic time must run its course. Hence in 3-74 I saw the universe inside out, and "I am no longer blind." (The phosphene graphics was a motion to infinity by the dialectic along some axis. When it had finished, the universe for me with inside out and I saw unity, not multiplicity. I saw VALIS. That was the universe of multiplicity pulled through infinity by the entropic dialectic. (1) this is how you get out of entropic time and into negentropic (reintegrating) time: rolling the universe through infinity; so I was on the outside of it looking in. Apparently the Prajapati myth is correct: the entropic creation process does ends -- in exhaustion. The dialectic finally expends itself, and then reintegration can -- and does -- occur. Which is what I saw after I was carried by the dialectic faster and faster through entropic time. When it becomes infinitely fast in yields infinite disintegration it "freezes," as I saw, and negentropic reintegration begins -- hence VALIS. Hence repair. (1) note: VALIS is not God but world -- seen by me now as it will be seen by people in the future. (v p 835) God is transcendent and other than world; no view of world is God. ' And my phosphene graphics trip was flight due to entropy, the splitting occurring faster and faster until entropic time rose, and negentropic time and hence VALIS appeared. I exhausted entropic time and came out in a pulled through infinity reversed world, where the macrometasomakosmos is being integrated. That's why before the phosphene graphics my thoughts went faster and faster; the motor was: terror. Primal dread. The graphics were: 1 the essence of creating; 2 the essence of entropy; 3 the essence of the dialectic for the essence of the flux world itself; 5 the essence of disintegration -- until at all was finally exhausted and -- the universe was pulled inside out; the dialectic, entropy in entropic time were gone, and reintegration (enantiodromia, the final one -- eschatology -- said in). I actually traveled, like a shaman, to the end of (entropic, disintegrated, creative) time of the universe.

It's exactly what God told me yesterday 1) all infinities are (or lead two) God 2) 2) the dialectic entropic process it is infinite 3) therefore it leads (through a final enantiodromia, turning itself topologically inside out, pulling through infinity) to God (Valis) (1) but this is just I via to God. (1) but Valis is final world, not God. ' The dialectic is the perpetual splitting into two opposites with the new synthesis of opposite of the original premise; but the final enantiodromia is the dialectic itself which converts into a frozen stasis when it reaches infinite speed (time) and infinite division (space); i.e. space and time are exhausted: the dialectic ends at {infinity mark}

842

in 3-74 when I saw the second signal and VALIS I saw world from a highly advanced standpoint, but it was still world. Yesterday I, on the other hand, knew God, and he was wholly other than world and transcendent and not complex and not material and not in process. There is no dialectic in him; that has to do with time, flux, change, growth, perfection, completion; something like an organism. He is not seen by the eyes in world or as world. The Jews and Christians are correct. And he has personality, which VALIS lacked; VALIS was machinelike, computerlike, and evolving mechanism, like a clever artifact. Intricate and growing more intricate. God ist ein lieber vatter ubrem sternenzalt. I found him to be a person like myself, with personality and love and simplicity. He was not involved in world (pantheism). He manifested himself to reassure me -- it is only a little pain that we feel now here in world -- nothing compared to the bliss to come. Of which he gave me a little that I might see how it would be. And he was no foreign God but the God of my fathers, our own God. What he wills is. He simply wills it. This is simple; there is no mechanism, no complexity. VALIS is the world properly seen, as if from outside from an objective standpoint outside space and time, but still world, with all its history preserved in an advancing through its growth stages via the dialectic, it (VALIS) is, simply, reality. But that is other than God. When I saw the glint of color in the alley and the rippling of the weeds I saw the edge, the end of creation, but not the beginning of God: I saw him not. But there is nothing to see, because he is not physical. All that happens either wills (ordained) or allows.

I think 3-74 was something I did vis-à-vis world that did not involve God. In involved world in information, but it was physical. I am the doubt; God allows it but it is satanic and rebellious. It is Satan the accuser of God's handiwork, Satan in me as rebel questioning reality under the guise of epistemological inquiry. It is hubris and intellectual arrogance yet God allowed. It was -- has been -- blasphemy. World, which I questioned, came back at me in a subtle form, the subtle serpent, world as VALIS which I then took to be real, and so fell even more under its domination than any average Christian is dominated by world; VALIS is world as Satan's kingdom, subtly disguised in such a way as to fulfill my personal, individual preconceptions about God; this is why 3-74 resembled UBIK and UBIK; it was my own preconceptions and theology fed back at me to" ratify" them. This is worlds -- Satan's -- victory, this great intellectual subtlety. World as it normally appeared was not complex and elusive enough to satisfy me, so Satan obliged: with world that would satisfy me emotionally and intellectually. (And in doing so, burned me with a hell labor of this exegesis).

I have sinned in this exegesis; it is one vast edifice of hubris, of Satan in me questioning and accusing.

And I finally began to realize it; I prayed to be delivered from it. A 3-74 with some vast enantiodrornia in which I pulled reality inside-out, used up and hence froze time, saw the past (acts) and the future (the second signal) so it was a great feat. But it was still reality: epistemology and not even metaphysics, and no theology -- world rightly seen -- but not God.

7 An examination of my exegesis shows that during the last two months (Oct and Nov) I suddenly began to get real answers -- based on my breakthrough regarding meta- abstracting (as I call it) in the realization of what I call "morphological arrangement"; this led through a rapid series of insights (including the identification of VALIS and the "second signal" was the macrometasomakosmos), cosmic resorption hence entropic in negentropic time (time read either way) ending with (one 1116) identification of ballots as the cosmic Christ -- but not seen as a higher invading the lower, or rather the lower evolving into the higher. Here, I think, I was both right and wrong; it was as if I was on the lip of stabilizing an overview on Valis after years of floundering around. Repeatedly I again and again identified Valis as the cosmic Christ, that could not quite stabilizing. Then came the theophany of 1117. While it came as a surprise to me that I had it -- i.e. a second theophany -- when I look over my notes I get the distinct impression that the revelation of the nature and identity of VALIS as the Christian God follows naturally out of the successes in my exegesis of the last two months.

21

strange to say, when I look back to 11 1780 what seems to me now the most proof that it really was God is not so much the bliss that the distinct individual personality (with its intense love); the distinction is, the uniqueness, the individuality of the personality. I could then and still can't imagine what he would look like where he physically visible: an old man in a row, very old, very dignified and wise, but, most of all, loving and kind and gentle (yet firm, very firm) -- but not as he is usually pictured, not a patriarch in the usual sense, more, perhaps, like a magician in contrast, though, to (say) and off; much darker: gray and brown and black, in shadow, yes: in shadow, like Michelangelo painted him in his creating {?}, yet not so, but close to it. Not heroic, as Michelangelo painted him, and not Hebrew. More supernatural. Really sort of physical, not "spiritual." Yes: physical and supernatural, not a king or patriarch, all dark. Like a druid or humanist: learning. Not classical. Like a tree or a scholar. I know: like a book {underlined 3 times} . Hence made of parchment, tree, branches, paper, cloth.

He was not a type, like "the wise old King," not an archetype, not like a statue; he was an individual, not man but a given specific man (in contrast to sort of platonic eidos). It was as if the universe had been created by one given specific individual man.

Book. Rove. Three. Great. Brown. Art shades and fabric. There was nothing generic about him. No so to speak DNA. No latency; all was actualized and distinct. As if you have gone from the physical, material realm of specifics to the platonic archetypal -- and then back to the specific man! Like a complete circle. Strange. He was like all ontogeny!

As if the wise old scholar, a stage, had conjured up creation, not God as we normally think of him, but a scholar of love and tenderness, but a vast learning. Again I see a book.

24

it is a good thing that earlier in my exegesis I realized that I had a surd left over, because that's surd is the God I experienced in 11 1780; viz.: when "perturbed" world was completely analyzed, there was something left over that was not world (the glint and riffling the weeds of the alley, the glyphs of God)

Word Doc of Notes

Last edit over 4 years ago by Max

Folder 02

002 page 01 thumb

folder 02 - 001

So Thomas is not a former me or a multiple personality, the single sentence last night ("there's someone else inside my head + he's not living in this century") nails it down.

1) "Someone else," Thomas is not me. 2) "Inside my head," it's a human being (not the Holy Spirit); 3) "He's not living in this century,"

This opens the door to that which is beyond conception, operating out of my head he is locked into the world of Acts.

Here ends 4 years + 6 months of analysis + research. Time is unmasked as irreal; 1900 years are disclosed as aspects of one underlying Matrix; "Tears" + its Acts material is explained; my 27 years of writing the same themes over + over again fits into place; 2/74 + 3/74 is comprehensible, as is the overthrow of Nixon; the transtemporal constants have been explicated. When I got onto the "volvox" model + the push-pull system I was pretty close: the slowly revolving Matrix structure, sphere, + the way it enhances what we project. The negentropic total system with its stations + connecting links, forming a vast brain - what a Grand vision - how beautiful. The Brain Cannibalizing its earlier Law-bound Self to achieve total homeostasis + wakefulness for all its parts, so that all is Brain, not sub-Brain, interface for mind, all Lives, all Knows, all Participates.

But I'm under the stricture of silence, because to publish all this I'd have to tell about the immortal authentic apostolic Xtians operating covertly in us. Perhaps I should destroy the Exegesis. It's a Journey which reached its Goal.

Last edit 24 days ago by Max
002 page 38 thumb

folder 02 - 038

before, the exegesis plainly fell short of the experience it served to explain, or _tried_ to explain. But at last, by the aid of the voice I have made bold clean strokes, radical ones, in this B model. After reading it over I can't fault it. Such wild disclosures as those of 3-74 require a wild explanation, not a conventional or cusomary one. The principle of parsimony is involved in the B (or selective brain-site stimulation, with us as stations of a vast info-processing brain, each station given a push-pull psyche-world locked together by an inner-outer "tape" synchronization which plays reality out like a recorded tape - this reality susceptible to being "melted" by mind, + its causality only pretextual, as Hume noted, etc) model. Yes: each of us has his own world (as I've long suspected); these worlds are in some way irreal (as I've long suspected) + are recordings into which we are deterministically locked (as I had _not_ suspected): Hume, Kant + Leibnitz aided me, as did brahmanism, as did Plato. _One_ theory now accounts for _many_ diverse experiences + insights. + the brain (Zebra) can invade (like a theophany) our push-pull worlds + psychoi, as if "from behind" - which I saw in 3-74. Zebra is the true koinos kosmos, + each of our push-pull psyche-world locked-together systems is idios kosmos, + there are billions of them. So I have penetrated to Zebra, the vast brain, as koinos kosmos. Interestingly, it is not a world _at all_ in the usual sense (that each idios kosmos is). I have seen the traffic of info of this brain + see how we serve to process the info as so many interacting stations. This is decidedly not solipscism, _but_ - there is no way I know of that the existence of Zebra, the overall [brain ...]

Last edit over 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
002 page 52 thumb

folder 02 - 052

The logic of this looping-back future tutelary spirit of the awakened Siddhartha to arouse the antecedent dormant - sleeping - Siddhartha points inexorably to me as one of the many Buddhas - for instance, I experienced dibba cakkhu. The tutelary voice which speaks to me is my future ajna self which came into existence in (3-74). (But also, it is timeless, it has always existed.) I must ask if I am supposed to teach, now, but I see at once that I have taught, over a period of 27 years of writing: I have taught the illusion of world (simulated worlds), + the approach of liberation (enlightenment/salvation/gnosis). The ajna self over all that time underwrote the novels + stories operating out of its future time; this explains such "precog" material as I find in "Faith of..." + "Tears" etc. It had looped back, + in 3-74 awakened me, its past self. Then "Thomas" is a future self. But rooted in the absolute time + world of Acts: the master (form I) personality. [Note] What could I write now that I failed to write in "Ubik", "Maze", "Eye" + "Tears"? It - all these writings - are post dibba cakkhu, not pre. Like in existential fascism (Italian) I acted first + then, at my leisure, in this exegesis, now formulate theory - afterward. "In Anfang war die Tat". Too, this shows the retrograde-in-time motion of Zebra. [Note] Thomas speaks for form I as such, since all of form I is a unitary mind; thus he is + is-not me. There is no individual me in form I because the psychoi have all been subsumed as stations in the one vine (brain), + then plural push-pull worlds abolished. He is more not-me than he is me.

In terms of individual push-pull worlds, forms I + II can be contrasted as modes of being, with II an inauthentic mode in which the psyche, itself false, encounters nothing more than an enhanced

Last edit 24 days ago by Max
002 page 65 thumb

folder 02 - 065

65.

The journey, the Quest, ends successfully not in assertion but in silence. & among the things I know is why, i.e. why that has to be. Without knowing it during the years I wrote, my thinking & writing was a long journey toward enlightenment. I first saw the illusory nature of space when I was in high school. In the late forties I saw that causality was an illusion. Later, during my 27 years of published writing, I saw the mere hallucinatory nature of world, & also of self (& memories). Year after year, book after book & story, I shed illusion after illusion: self, time, space, causality, world -- & finally sought (in 1970) to know what was real. Four years later, at my darkest moment of dread & trembling, my ego crumbling away, I was granted dibba cakkhu -- &, although I did not realize it at the time, I became a Buddha ("the Buddha is in the park"). All illusion dissolved away like a soap bubble & I saw reality at last-- &, in the 4 1/2 years since, have at last comprehended it intellectually -- i.e. what I saw & knew +& experienced (my exegesis). We are talking here about a lifetime of work & insight: from my initial satori when, as a child, I was tormenting the beetle. It began in that moment, forty years ago. No one can

Last edit over 3 years ago by carrifaery
002 page 66 thumb

folder 02 - 066

66.

say it came glibly or easily. What I saw between 2-74 & 2-75 -- look how much labor + study were needed to obtain a mental conceptualization of that year's experience! & how I must not speak -- the final cost -- the great sacrifice, payment: not of my intellect but of my voice. It is as if you have a choice between knowing + speaking; & I wished to know. & was granted that wish. & I am willing to pay the price: that of silence - not about, as with Wittgenstein, what I don't know but what I do. There is & has long been a great obscure battle raging, & I played out my part -- successfully. The war goes on. If I talk I jeopardize our hopes. There must be others like me, as I wrote supra, the true Buddhas are silent, which means invisible & unknown: "die stille im Lande". It has to be this way, for us to win. This exegesis turns out to be my memoirs - my private memoirs. I just realized: in (3-74) re the xerox missive -- intervention broke my karma (what I've been calling determinism) &, my karma being broken, I am released from the wheel of rebirth - which is why I dreamed about my name being entered in the "hotel" register. I was freed -- released, (recalling a "former life" fits in with this). What I've been calling "astral determinism" is karma, more properly. At the time (3-74) I felt something which completely controlled the break. I

Last edit 24 days ago by Max
2321 thumb

02 - Notes

002p1

Development throughout of model a vs b (stated on p 21 – is the real hiding behind the fake or are there only multiple worlds caused by brain-site stimulation? To fill in the gaps might need more..or less!

So Thomas is not a former me or a multiple personality. The single sentence last night ("there's someone else inside my head and he's not living in this century") nails it down. 1) "someone else." Thomas is not me. 2) "inside my head." It's a human being. (not the Holy Spirit) 3) "he's not living in this century." This opens the door to that which is beyond conception. Operating out of my head he is locked into the world of Acts. Here ends 4 years and 6 months of analysis and research. Time is unmasked as irreal; 1900 years are disclosed as aspect of one underlying matrix; "Tears" and its Acts material is explained; my 27 years of writing the same themes over and over again fits into place; 2/74 and 3/74 is comprehensible, as is the overthrow of Nixon; the transtemporal constants have been explicated. When I got onto the "volvox" model and the push-pull system I was pretty close: the slowly revolving matrix structure, sphere, and the way it enhances what we project. The negative entropic total system with its stations in connecting links, forming a vast brain -- what a grand vision -- how beautiful. The brain cannibalizing its earlier law-bound itself to achieve total homeostasis and wakefulness for all its parts, so that all is brain, not sub brain, interface for mind, all lives, all knows, all participate.

But I'm under the stricture of silence, because to publish all this I'd have to tell about the immortal authentic apostolic Christians operating covertly in us. Perhaps I should destroy the exegesis. It's a journey which reached its goal.

5

In my dream in Canada, Kathy said, "one day the masks will come off, and you will understand all." It came to pass -- and I was one of the masks, much to my surprise -- and my whole world as well.

7

It was a sort of raid on USA 1974 by Christ/God via these apostolic secret immortal Christians latent in some of us -- and becoming active, seizing control of their host humans, at the crucial historical moment. Because these true Christians emanated from the world of Acts, that world so to speak took over our world and voided it or anyhow melded -- synchronized -- with it, which was not visible to the unenhanced eye. Only the apostolic Christians could see it, those foes of the BIP, pulling off an enormous and enormously successful attack on it.

10

Voice: "it will take ^i.e. require the appearance of noble men." I.e. the second incarnation (i.e. to certify that it's come.)(Or rather, before it can happen. Is Thomas one of these?

11

My sudden comprehension in 2-74 is literally correct and needs no interpretation. When I experienced anamnesis I knew -- remembered and realized, recovered and recognized -- the real, hidden, secret truth, which is obscured to us.

But suppose: A) two persons exist in my head. B.) one lives in USA 1974, the other in Rome C. A.D. 45 [therefore] there are two persons into space-time worlds -- not two aspects of one matrix, no one absolute (real) world + aspect, but two different worlds, each as real as the other, and separate.

I live in USA 1974; Thomas lives in Rome C. A.D. 45. But how, then, can we both be in one human head? If I dislocate my shoulder, is his dislocated?

The only models for this but I've ever even heard of, let alone know, are my own stories and novels. This situation appears again and again. Take the story "Retreat Syndrome." Or the novel "Maze." The same idea (as has been pointed out to me by all sorts of readers) is reworked again and again, obsessively and endlessly; viz: I keep trying out new ways to account for this situation:

A) you see world X and have memories to match.

B) that world X. is irreal, a delusion, and hides real world Y, and the memories in you are faked to match fake world X. The explanations for this change, but the paradigm does not. I'd state the paradigm this way:

a group of people live in a particular world, i.e. time and place. Then one or more of them begins by degree to discover (or the reader learns) that that world is only a veil or delusional world covering another, real one, which the characters once knew about -- lived in -- but have both forgotten and can no longer perceive. In a variety of ways the latent, hidden, forgotten real world shows through or intrudes, or abolishes entirely the surface, delusional world, and their real memories of it return.

This is exactly what happened to me in 2-74, then more so in 3-74, and then I found that hidden, real world depicted in the novel I wrote four years earlier -- which was released the very week (2-74) I remembered the truth.

However, suppose I am unique. I am the only living person -- even the only one ever in all history -- who has someone else inside his head who is not living in this century -- and who (this someone else) therefore sees and inhabits another space and time, obviously of the century he is living in. But this raises vast questions anyhow, even if I am unique. (This condition, of course, explains they obsessive theme/paradigm in my writing, which accounts for that.)

1) does this someone else just remember the other century -- i.e. did he once in formerly live in it, i.e. in a "past life" and now recalls that? If so, we have evidence here of and for reincarnation, and that's all there is to it.

But this doesn't quite accord with the sentence is stated; viz. "He is (sic) not living in this century." (In contrast to, "he lived in another century." The syntax presents a current situation. He is living there now. And this accords with 2-74, really, in that I did not remember that I once (formerly) lived in Rome C. A.D. 45, but in fact realized that it is Rome C. A.D. 45.

Maybe this was just an erroneous impression. The memory was so vivid that it seemed as if it were now. But in 3-74 I saw in Rome C. A.D. 45. Okay -- obviously the someone else and his other century assumed dominance in me. Aha. Got ya. Why would I actually see Rome C. A.D. 45 going on around me? This is not how memory works; when you remember something you don't see and hear it -- externally (not unless there is electrical stimulation of certain brain centers). Fine. This brings us to Lem's paradigm of the brain being fed an entirely simulated world via technological (electrical, etc.) stimulation of very selective brain sites

17

Instead of real hidden world versus fake seeming world we have more than one (two to infinity) worlds all simulated uniformly, and selves to match. 2-74 and 3-74 then become "technological breakdown" which "reveals the true state of affairs" and that seems to be the sites-stimulated brain that Lem perceives is the basic model of my writing. My writing is proved by my 2-3/74 experience and vice versa. What I seem to be is a mal constructed entity: somehow the "factory" or "mechanism" fucked up and stuck two personalities in my head (brain) living in different worlds thousands of miles apart and thousands of years apart -- thus disclosing the nature of self and world in general. And I had written it all up in many stories in many novels -- i.e. called world-wide attention to the paradigm at least as the fictional or -- better yet -- theoretical possibility.

18

so I can choose the multiplex "always stimulation and simulation" model, where I can choose the "fake world and memories hiding the real world and memories" model, but not both, and, as near as I can tell, there is no other choice but these two. Which should I choose?

20

Conclusion: the vast traffic of information which I saw in 3-74 when I saw "Zebra" is the answer. We are in an information-processing entity -- it may even be [living] information. It uses us to receive, modulate, store and transmit information. So it is computer-like -- or AI-system-like, or brain-like -- a cybernetics or biological model will both work. Basically it knows.

World is -- worlds are -- push-pull projected/generated for us, by us, through us, so that we see world, not the entity as it is (supra paragraph). Why this is I have no idea -- i.e. why we are given what we call "reality" (world) and don't know what we really are (supra), are for, where, why, what.

20

Voice: “Pretexts”

21

I have a choice between two totally wild conclusions: A) either it's really Rome C. A.D. 45, and the USA 1974 world is just a way of viewing acts, a mere illusory aspect, through which the real world of acts broke through in 3-74 or B) our world (space and time) and all other worlds are simulations due to direct stimulation of certain brain sites, projected onto an a-spatial, a temporal, plastic matrix out there, by an entity unglimpsed.

25

Theologically, the only known formulation would be a thorough Brahmanism, very thorough. We (the Atmans or brains) are real, and outside us, Brahman plays tricks and games in conjuring up any and all worlds -- X. number of them, one for each individual Atman, which means billions -- and each Atman finds its exterior analog perfectly substantial, real, consistent, satisfactory and objective (but: compared to what, I ask.)

30

I have been governed too much by my own fictional models (e.g. "Maze," "Joint").

36

So our little psyche-world systems are perpetually bombarded with incoming information which we process and, at the right time to write other stations transmit in the right we modified form -- but all this takes place through us as if we were transistors, diodes, wires condensers and resistors, all none the wiser. Meanwhile our closed private world engages our attention with challenges, pain and delight, so that we will not merely subsist as slave components with nothing to do but function. After all, they will be long intervals when no adventitious information needs to be processed by us -- without a world, we would degenerate fatally during the standby periods, which, I intuit, may last years or even decades. Meanwhile we have food, music, books and friends.

The primal necessity of this info processing may explain events and episodes in our lives which otherwise remain enigmatic or appear even futile -- pointless travail, goalless activity. For all we know, it is during or because of these that we then or later can fulfill our data processing task. I'm not sure of this but I suspect it.

I have read these 37 pages over and I'm amazed and delighted at the direction of my analysis. What an original system -- and, more important, a system at last commensurate with the revelations of 3-74. Always before, the exegesis plainly fell short of the experience it served to explain, or tried to explain. But at last, by the aid of the voice I have made bold clean strokes, radical ones. In this B model. After reading it over I can't fault it. Such wild disclosures as those of 3-74 require a wild explanation, not a conventional or customary one.

41

This is the paradox of "where should you most expect to find God?" A: "in the least likely place." I discern in this the following: "in point of fact you therefore cannot find God at all; he must -- will -- find you, and when and where you least expect it" -- i.e. he will take you by surprise, like the still small voice which Elijah heard. Or like oh Ho the ceramic pot. The Oracle may speak to you from the gutter (whatever "gutter" might mean in this context). So my writing -- itself part of the "gutter" and, as Lem says, "piling trash upon trash" -- may serve as the sort of gadfly kind of thing that Socrates considered himself to act as. My writing is a very unlikely place to expect to encounter the holy, the Koinos, the message-processing,Ubik-like ultimate entity.

47

Although I often write about the irreal (or hallucinated) world crowding out the real, the facts are exactly opposite: the real has irrupted into the irreal, literally broken through into it, like Ubik and Runciter into the cold PAC world of “Ubik”

49

So the introjection is not only sentient, flexible and alive but specifically negentropic. Then, indeed, the Voice is right in speaking of higher (mind) realm versus lower (physical), with the higher having "plenary" powers to make the lower "plastic" -- well put!

53

In Form I the system opens and authentic newness pours in from outside so that the psyche encounters -- not itself as world -- but the divine other rich with a mysterious infinitude of possibilities -- and the dialogue between the psyche and this authentic other begins and from there grows into a different sort of information exchange, which is not just the signal from the psyche boosted and enhanced and returned. That given psyche is now no longer essentially alone.

75

SCAN – Laura? 9 levels of reality

77

The AI voice is the voice of the brain/noos/living information which we have gotten cut off from by the sinking of this region of the brain into sub sentience and hence illusory (simulated) world -- where her voice is blotted out by the noise deliberately generated by the BIP (heavy metal particle).

77

Voice: the reason I have my agoraphobia as is because of the way I died, in a cage in a Roman Coliseum. I was strangled.

80

If I had not regained his lost wisdom by losing forgetfulness (Maya) I would doubt if there were any literal truth to the thing. (When I contemplate my system as such, I say, "it's fanciful.") But I did see the Golden fish and hear the words -- and I did lose forgetfulness. And when that happened, I not only remembered (e.g. a past life) but saw my world as simulated, and then experienced progressively eight layers of ever greater reality. Really, all I fail to explain is how come we have fallen into forgetfulness (ASP of this primal wisdom -- and lost some faculties entirely, and partially lost others). In my experience -- and system -- is neither new nor limited to the West. It was known to the ancients all over the world. Why is it as it is? Must we earn wisdom? Why is memory (and memory of wisdom) not natural?

83

The macrocosm (universe) -- microcosm (man) theory leads to the interesting idea that any given human mind contains latently within it the entire structure or soul of the totality, but in miniature; so all knowledge can be retrieved out of one person's mind through mirror-like “magic recollection”(Bruno) Hegel sees this as the collective unconscious: the repository of the phylogenic history of the person. Ontogeny contains phylogeny. This looks very much like my "onion" model in "Ubik” but in "Ubik” is the macrocosm whose phylogeny is recapitulated latently. This takes us back from Freud to Empedocles: "Freud invokes the contending forces love and strife of Empedocles, pointing out their similarity to Karros and destructiveness, the to primal elements of his bio psychical theory. These instincts, which present the delusive appearance of forces striving after change in progress, actually and tell the organism toward the reinstatement earlier, more stable states, ultimately to inorganic existence. The originally biological principle that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has received very wide psychological extension and psychoanalysis; most recently Carl Jung has identified his doctrine of the collective unconscious with that of "the microcosm containing the archetypes of all ideas."

If the macrocosm -- microcosm view is correct, the universe’s phylogeny is recapitulated in man's (any given man's) ontogeny -- and thus 3-74 is explained (phylogeny in terms of ideas or knowledge)

85

In “Ubik” the universe (not the organism, e.g. a man) is "impelled toward the reinstatement of an earlier, more stable state”(my form axis is real: it is a regression along the phylogenic recapitulation latent in its ontogeny – like Freud says about us humans). I may be the first person to perceive in (or consigned two) the macrocosm this phylogenic recapitulation (and regression due toThanatos or strife {cutoff to end}

Word Doc of Notes

Last edit over 4 years ago by Max

Folder 90

90 page 020 thumb

folder 90 - 020

8

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

Last edit over 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
90 page 167 thumb

folder 90 - 167

G 111

cultural limitations + relating to A.F. Whitehead's process deity. It would seem, too, that I am becoming stabilized in my focus on Malebranche. All this tends to point to a rather clear conception; Valis is deity (the Tao, perhaps, yet still possibly Christ or the Wise Mind or YHWH or Brahman); I understand him/it + his/its activity + nature in extraordinarily abstract terms - which is right + proper; +, of great worth, I seem to understand clearly how he/it relates to the world-order + yet how he/it is to be distinguished from it. So there has been a clear + steady cumulative evolution in my thinking + comprehension about all this (even since I wrote "Valis"). I would even say that I probably know as much about the absolute as any man has; + I believe it acted on my behalf, +, more, it disclosed its presence + reality to me, +, in doing this, unveiled its way of functioning. Thus at this point (4/29/81) I would say that very evidently this exegesis is a success, + the work put in on it is clearly justified. I feel (1) I well understand 2-74 to 2-75 + (2) possess, based on it, a solid, lucid, comprehensive philosophical-rational system both original + eclectic, trans-cultural + trans-temporal, spanning the Prajapati myth to quantum mechanics, Augustine to Whitehead + computer theory + information theory. I do not specifically identify Valis with any given deity or culture, as I tried to do for so long. It

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

folder 90 - 180

G 124

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

Last edit over 1 year ago by Unteleported Man
90 page 198 thumb

folder 90 - 198

G 142

the upper realm, is eternal; it actually existed before me, as if having always been there! It so-to-speak waited for the proper moment for me to assume it.) (+, having assumed it at last, I am not the person that I was; I am changed. My writing this exegesis, for instance, is an expression of that change.) That this soul was not identical with me as I had been is disclosed by the fact that when it was conferred on me I felt the presence in me of another person - he whom I called "Thomas" with his own tastes, habits, attitudes, interests + customs. But look: my eternal existence in the divine mind -as what I call a phylogon- is guaranteed; it will not be there; it is there + in fact was there already, from the start. As I say, it can be regarded as a unique message, a certain intersection of given, specific ideas that may never have come together to form one complex before. Although they do form a unity, a coherency, these ideas seem on the face of it beyond reconciliation into one workable whole; my soul is (or possibly may be) literally a point in the divine mind where a number of distinct + distinctly different trains of thoughts come together - come together there perhaps for the first + only time. Put another way, when these particular thoughts come together, I uniquely am created (but created entirely out of ideas already extant in the divine mind; this is the phenomenon of the emergence of the truly new). Thus I can view my essence as a combination of intelligible ideas, myself not reduced to this combination of ideas but as a person derived from + based on these ideas. To know these ideas + how they can + do interact is to know me in terms of my essence. I can be both the object of thought + thought

Last edit over 1 year ago by Unteleported Man
2527 thumb

90 - Notes

PKD Selections from Folder 90

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ODT File of Folder 90 Selections

Last edit over 4 years ago by Max
Records 31 – 60 of 74