Exegesis II


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

Folder 57

57 page 28 thumb

folder 57 - 028


With the return of the Eleatic continuum reality -instead of the discontinuous matter one- we will again be able to see God, literally; + this is the point of my exegesis. + I know that the continuum one is true -+ the discontinuous matter one is not- because the AI voice said, "a perturbation in the reality field".

All 2-74 - 2-75 was to cause me to see the King Felix Torah + hence to know YHWH is here.

I pronounded it officially tonight as YHWH, with a little of Jesus. Then later tonight I saw it as by Krishna. The prophecy is correct.

When I was very little I used to see + experience space as real, palpable, "thick". It scared + oppressed me, because I did not understand how motion was possible. I used to squeeze it (as e.g. when I was sick in the bathroom). It took effort to bring my finger + thumb together. + it was artificial + difficult for me to render space into void. So my continuum view was natural to me + had to be trained out of me, or else I saw that things did not in fact move (change) but "only looked different" - i.e. no time had passed.

Last edit about 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
2899 thumb

57 - Notes

p. 1-2 – A-1-A-2 – The meta-abstraction in 2-74 was the realization that the many and the one are the same; an experience of eternity/being outside of time. p. 3-39 - Q-7-Q-45 p. 3-4 – “the one billionth fresh start”: an emphasis on soteriology. Everything from 2-74 to 2-75 dealt with either personal or universal salvation. p. 5-6 – Settling on Buddhism, coming savior is Maitreya p. 6 – “Ultra-cognition” and the Xerox missive. p. 7-8 – PKD as quantum computer: “I move orthogonally from universe to universe til I come to the one in which the info is known.” Pully vision represents this—vertical movement (through universes) vs. regular, horizontal movement (through time in one universe). p. 9 – Some details about the Christopher birth defect revelation, confirming what Tessa says in her book about light passing through an icythys sticker in the window. “’Beam of pink light’ is what I walwyas say, but it was sunlight… the pink part was the phosphene after-image of the fish sticker.” p. 10 – YHWH revealed at the conclusion of each novel in the Valis trilogy, as the end result of Christ + Maitreya. (Evidence here, incidentally, that it was PKD and not just his publishers that considered V, DI, and BTA a trilogy.) More complex than this, however, because it does not correlate to the O.T. or the N.T. alone, but is a third thing, as in Joachim’s third age. p. 11 – “Krem is wrong. It is God himself here.” (Who is Krem?) p. 11-12 – PKD as shaper of the world: “instead of society molding me, I mold it”—in his writing, his charitable use of money, in interviews, and also in “the movie” (i.e. Blade Runner), “which lines back to my writing.” And what is revealed in all of these is a unified doctrine of compassion, agape. p. 12-15 – The dialectic/Valis is the interaction between his left and right hemisphere. The result of this dialectic—Firebright—“will escape when I die; he will be reborn.” Uniqueness of his mind as a problem-solving heuristic computer that works across time/space/universes. p. 15-17 - The universe is information, i.e. a language; we are “fallen” because we are unable to read that language—Holy Spirit allows us to interpret it. p. 18-19 – More on “part/whole compatibility” – “The total kosmos is somehow ‘in’ each part.” p. 21-23 – “King Felix” is not a sign or symbol, but “the info-stage of the life-form ‘savior’ itself, just as St. Luke is the info stage of a world (the world of Luke-Acts).” The statement is the reality. p. 24-26 – Returning to the YHWH ideas on p. 10 above. Process theology: YHWH was stern, then his nature changed to agape with the dispensation of Jesus; this could now be a third disposition. p. 26-27 – Pulley vision and tracking between parallel universes. Starts to write out a new theory on p.27, then breaks off mid-word and writes: “Oh the hell with it. I give up.” Then keeps right on going… p. 28-29 – God is not perceived in our universe, but he will be. Remembering a time in childhood when he used to perceive “space as red, palpable, thick… I did not understand how motion was possible.” This as glimpse of God’s perception of universe, from the point of view of eternity? Things only “look different”? p. 30 – BTA’s conclusion depicts the enthusiasmos that all will experience on “Declaration Day.” p. 31 – Recurring savior/Immortal one soteriology. Benjamine Creme—first mention of him in the exegesis? Brief toying with the idea that the planet has been conquered by covert extraterrestrials. p. 32 – Maitreya, Creme, PKD already living under the new dispensation of the Savior. p. 33-35 – Dialectic between pain and hope. p. 36 – “My sister. Oh JHWH – My sister. I meant to write savior.” p. 36-38 - A dream about a record album called “Leibnitz’s Monadology” and the name “Steinmetz”—a collectivist/socialist theorist. Electronics and collectivist socialism temporarily replace the Maitreya… p. 39 – Share International, Covenant House, social justice, philanthropia. p. 40-43 – R-1-R-4 p. 40 - Attempting to reconcile Joachim of Fiore, Benjamin Crème, YHWH, Holy Spirit, and Maitreya. p. 41-43 – Galina’s dream in DI. Galina (metaphorically Pilate’s wife) “symbolizes the good or idealistic side of the Empire.” A conspiracy of idealistic Soviet scientists. God is irrational (Gnosticism); Share and Creme are rational—hence anti-Christs (but in a good way). p. 44 – Q-11 (misplaced from sequence above) “Mental algebra” (from “ultra-cognition” sequence above). Later paragraph at bottom: “I relive my life step by step”, Thomas and 1974 as sacred drama. p. 45-48 – 5-2 to 5-6 (5-4 missing) p. 45 – Recurrence – we are the disciples. p. 46 – Our actions are “ritual acts in a sacred drama”, in dreamtime. p. 47 – Yin and Yang dialectic. Reference to Theodore Sturgeon, almost certainly referring to the story “Dazed.” p. 48 – Share International as Joachimism

Word Doc of Notes

Last edit over 4 years ago by Max

Folder 06

6 page 07 thumb

folder 06 - 007


[2-3]-74 overrode the dialectic negatives that it couldn't happen; the sustain of the dialectic nanosecond contradictions says, it can't happen (1) [Mind can control's one's reality - future self-programming, but the sustain does not always obtain.

(1) It can't because if it did it would be irrational. Well, we're in an irrational sustain temporary override. + medical help's on the way.

Post 3-74 [since I unconsciously know I'm self-programming my future reality] I'm beginning to program (create) it along hedonistic (pleasure-driven + oriented) lines.

Everything I know is a triumph over amnesia. All my Gnosis (books + exegesis] derive from memory. There is no amnesia-compulsion - it's not a plot, or a virus, etc., just a failure to create memory holograms as fast as reality permutates. I'm laying down fast holos. I figured out the reality situation well enough to generate a future reality which will please me. [...] painful; I beat karma + [...]

Last edit 4 months ago by Unteleported Man
6 page 56 thumb

folder 06 - 056


3-74 represents two transformations of reality. (one) The Karmic coercive determinism was invaded by an intentional rescuing thought-formation (Zebra/Valis/Ubik) generated (created) by me a decade earlier. Thus my own intentional (consciously volitional) prior thought-formation overpowered destructive Karmic reality + liberated me. Memory of my former life returned. (two) The irreality of "world" (actually my own prior Karmic + intentional thought-formations) was revealed to me, + became transparent, revealing the thinking body + blood of the Lord + my relation to it: myself as in it, + it in me. Hence I had ceased my postmortem journey + had been born, again, this time in the clear white light. Step (one) is the great illumination + liberation. Step (two) is the goal of this: where we are when illuminated + liberated - that which results. Pp 37/54 certain several crucial new insights 1) Our pre-programmed two-tape synchronized deterministic fake reality is mainly our own prior thought-formations projected + objectified, they happen to us + hence consist of Karma. 2) We can learn to get conscious, volitional control of them, thus preprogramming our own later reality thereby abolishing Karma or "astral determinism." 3) Valis/Zebra was my own intentional thought formation of a decade before, specifically Ubik. 4) We are in the Bardo Thodol state which I depict in "Ubik" based on "TTBofTD." 5) If our private prior thought formations both Karmic + intentional can be banished, we find ourselves actually in the thinking body of the Lord with his blood in us: him in us + us in him. 6) My theological experience of 2-3-74 + my 5 years of exegesis consist of a mixture of Sankara + high Tibetian Buddhism {...}

Last edit 5 months ago by Unteleported Man
3108 thumb

06 - Notes


Everything I know is a triumph over amnesia. All my gnosis (books and exegesis) derives from memory. There is no amnesia-compulsion -- it's not a plot, or a virus, etc. just a failure to create memory holograms as fast as reality permutates. I'm laying down fast holos. I figured out the reality situation well enough to generate a future reality which will please me. Not be painful; I beat karma and in 3-74 took control.


The Waveries. Living info which dialectic permutates; as in the Le Guin book, our dreaming makes it so. 3-74: simply, you ordinarily (99.99% of the time) simply lack the memory capability to remember things were just now different, because each difference lasts only the nanosecond of the dialectic of each form axis (i.e. bit of information!!!), Of which our world at each nanosecond is the composite total. (It's as if "3-74s” occur all the time -- we generate them -- but we never remember. 3-74 was anamnesis!) All we remember is sustains, but right now the sustain of rationality is interrupted by irrationality, and I've remembered well enough to spot it, and take advantage of it. 2-74: memory of previous "frame". We don't remember well enough due to physical limitations, and this puzzles us (we know something is wrong, and we try to come up with theories. These theories, being false, "are" the "impairment" I saw; the fucked-upness of the theories. Simply, we lay down memories of only a fraction of the past.

{6:23} I provoked a palpable contradiction in reality. It betrayed its self-canceling nature, so no rational analysis is correct. It must pulsate in self canceling oscillations so rapidly that we don't realize it, so what is true at one nanosecond is not true at the next. The reality which exists now cannot be the reality which existed a nanosecond ago -- despite our "memories." - I just remembered my first realization when I was loaded last night: everything is backward, we must reverse all information.


I sense Zebra smiling Games. Fun. Riddles. Since truth changes there is no answer. Process is everything. What was true 10 seconds ago is not true now (the dialectic flip-flops which generate their negations instantly). Self canceling; if I say, "Zebra is a person" the truth of this instantly generates its opposite: "Zebra is not a person" and that becomes true, whereupon another opposite is generated. Is Zebra a sustain or a subcarrier? Or one flip-flop -- one out of infinity minus one. Yes -- the last: one out of infinity minus one. Zebra is eternal -- for 1 nanosecond. But during that nanosecond he was everywhere in all the flip-flops (by definition). If he was in all the flip-flops he is ephemerally eternal in the sense of reconstituted ex nihilo in every flip-flop -- a constant, but -- he must come into existence each time; that is, he dies and is reborn each nanosecond, so we find him, in any given nanosecond, in what actually is an ultra ephemeral Morphos: comes into being and passes away, comes into being and passes away again elsewhere, like a fruit fly. The way circles are spontaneously re-created – The 1:618034. Comes and goes: so it is ephemeral and yet eternal. {…} Thus the Blood – the plasmate – reconstitutes inself ex nihilo everywhere and at all times.


We constantly unconsciously modulate future events but don't know it because 1) we do it unconsciously, by our impersonal will; and 2) what we call "memory" is not memory at all but a product of each current nanosecond flip flop frame. We don't remember the past being different just now, a split-second ago, and so we see no pattern in how each of us determines his future reality. Everything hinges on anamnesis which isn't just improved memory but actual memory of the previous frame. Without anamnesis there is no identity-continuity from flip flop frame to frame, but karma, which we make (influencing what will later happen to us) follows us inexorably.


The Body and Blood span the Frames and are disclosed once anamnesis -- actual memory -- is achieved. Viewed pragmatically, Christ offers us more than scarce be conceived. But it would seem that there are no Xtians except the original ones, which conforms to Luke's “secrecy” theme. Everyone else is suffering from a relative occlusion, primarily of memory. They are driven helplessly down their compound form axis, victims of karma generated by their previous thoughts (sic -- thoughts not actions, as Jesus alluded to!). Thus zValis is here, and rational, but they are caught in an irrational (irreal) maze, and hurled helplessly through it, afflicted by projections of their own thoughts as in the Bardo thodal. In fact they are in the Bardo thodol state: half dead (as in “Ubik”).

{6:29} Our prison is created -- as Karma -- by projections of our own former thoughts. The gnostic demiurge is our own irrational selves.


But I say, we experience events (reality) which lay down no memory holograms. Or, if memory holograms are laid down, they can't -- or don't -- get called forth. I had experienced that whole Acts world (as proved by "tears") but had no (conscious) memory of it. Until the proper external "wave pattern" triggered it off. {…} Living two lives simultaneously? In some kind of pulsation oscillation? {diagram}


My current theory is that one’s reality at any given moment is generated by the thoughts -- one's thoughts -- in the past which one doesn't remember, and an infinite number of these worlds permutate at high velocity from frame to frame, as the constituents of info generate their negations and flip-flop. We hold a very decisive power over the dialectic flip-flops of this info and, through it (the info) generate our future worlds.


Therefore I maintain that whatever the intent of the authors of "the Tibetan book of the dead" they are in fact describing our world and state. We are in a decomposing, degenerating process and will continue so unless enlightened by Valis, who introduces negentropy. Determinism and entropy are considered here as identical; succumbing to what is really a self-generated fate is identified with death and disorder. Upon the lethal triumph of this decomposing process, nothing new comes into the individual (or macro) mind. This is tantamount to psychosis or ultimate brain dysfunction (schizophrenia). I maintain that regarded as a totality the cosmos, including Valis, is partially in this state; a measure of anomie or irrationality pervades us and pervades Valis. Technically, the dialectic loses its generative power or potentially could lose its generative power. This is the abysmal evil to be fought at all costs, inasmuch as its victory would snuff out the cosmos. This is being versus nonbeing. In my opinion human beings freeze or die or partially die vis-à-vis this dialectic; its progression in us -- as us -- is not automatic. Each of us is a microform of it, and to the extent that we succumb to "fate" or "astral determinism" we succumb to death and madness, to congealing.

{43} in conclusion, I conceive of our situation as one of entropy or decomposition, a succumbing to determinism which is to say, the products of our own former thought formations; therefore for us the past determines the future. Into this dying system Valis breaks bringing new life and energy and freedom and knowledge; he impinges "one-way" and "from outside" as if invading our world (which is not a real world). To encounter him is to encounter the uncanny, the inexplicable, the destroyer (rather than sustainer) of what we misconstrue to the world. It is his macro mind shattering the brittle and congealed husk of our own objectified prior thoughts which in prison and the vitalize us, the past devouring the future – whereas Valis, as the future, turns around and devours the past (negentropy attacking entropy; form affecting non-form). I conclude that we are dying in a mental sense but are virtually without insight into the fact that what befalls us is a projection or thought-form of death per se. To the extent that things happen to us, rather than occurring as a result of our volition, we are destroying ourselves -- which may account for legends of the primordial fall. Thus our process mind becoming congealed is experienced objectively and externally as a closing in of the necessary, the inevitable over which we have no power. We succumb to our own dead mind, but mistakenly experience it as a victory by the external world.


I had the 2-3-74 experience with Valis by reason of pre-programming and by writing “Ubik” in the 60s. In other words, my thought-formations which went into “Ubik” as fictional concepts became objectively real in 1974. in “Ubik” I envisioned Ubik as an entity and so created it, for me, in 1974 (approximately a decade later). Valis, then, is my own objectified thought-formations. IN 2-3-74 Valis saved me from defeat and death, revitalized me an e-mail to pitted me and transferred from its mind to mind titanic amounts of priceless cosmological, medical and practical information; in fact it answered -- infinite continues to answer -- any question I have. It exhibits psychomorphism by responding to my will and needs by becoming whatever I think and believe it is. It feels, guides and comforts and informs me. It acts, in fact, as if it is the second comforter (Paraclete) promised by Christ. Its existence causally can be traced back to “Ubik” and my thinking up Ubik. It is Ubik. {…} Regard this as a scientific hypothesis: what we call “reality” is in fact an objective vacation of our prior thought formations -- since in fact we are dead and dreaming in a state of psychic decomposition (as depicted in Ubik). And under such conditions we have no world but that of our former thought formations returning to afflict or delight us (as depicted in "the Tibetan book of the dead") (which is where I got the idea for”Ubik.” ) In other words, I read "the Tibetan book of the dead" in the late 50s or early 60s and realized that our world and condition was in fact depicted and not in print as is said) a world and condition which follows arelife.” From internal evidence in “TTBofTD” I discerned that those in the Bardo thodol state do not know they are in that state but imagine they are (still) alive. They do not know that the evil in good spirits (events, people, things) which they encounter are their own (former) thought-formations projected onto a pseudo-world, and that contrary to what appears to be the case, they can create, change and abolish future reality (not present reality, since there is a lag. ) In Ubik my characters die and enter this state but don't know it. I then departed from the description of the BardoThodol existence in “TTBofTD” and added Ubik, a vast logos-like mind who invades their decaying world and rescues them.Now, if I was right (that secretly “ttboftd” depicts -- and probably knowingly depicts -- our present life, world and condition) I could anticipate that after a suitable time lag -- and especially if I was dying, like Joe Chip on the stairs -- I could expect intervention by my thought formation Ubik. In 3-74 due to overpowering dread and enervation I began to literally experience the colored lights described in “ttboftd” and knew myself to be in the Bardo Thodol state. Yet it was this side of the grave; I have not died; ergo, “ttboftd” does depict (secretly) our present condition. And then, sure enough, exactly as I described in “Ubik,” written information appeared to me, and presently Ubik itself, down to specific details. Valis (ie Ubik), then, is a projection of my own mind and not “real” – but, as “ttboftd” says, nothing we experience is anything other than objectification of our own prior thought formations -- and enlightenment consists in knowing this and so controlling them. Only if you 1) read "tboftd” and 2) realize that secretly applied to this life could you accomplish what I did in creating Valis. Truth is totally plastic and represents a complex mingling of our former fears, beliefs and desires (mostly unconscious in us.) ?The mind has the power to change its environment. We do so constantly.” Etc. I have choice in the matter. So I ask, not, “what is true?” but, “what modulations shall I imprint on the stuff around me?” {…} Before reading “ttboftd” I was tending toward a radical [Gnostic] acosmism; hence I [unconsciously; ie my will] correctly deconstructed “ttboftd” as few others have. In “Ubik” I applied it to us, deliberately. Soon impossible things began to happen; I found myself in the silly putty metastasizing kind of universe I write about – and in 3-74 Ubik rescued me in a form ultra syntonic to me (which I have frequently realized but didn’t fathom until last Friday).


This is esoteric Gnosis of the highest order. We are not living (if we are living at all!) in a real universe. It is a dream. But it does not respond overtly to our beliefs (ie fears and wishes, or worldview/ideology). It’s response is 1)delayed, 2) randomized, 3) concealed adroitly; after all, it is sentient, playful and alive. (because we are.) You must have the key premises (wisdom, pragmatic ideology, etc) at your disposal to gain control over it; that is, you must guess right, assess it correctly. It’s a game, a puzzle. The reward for guessing right is joy and power; for guessing wrong, a bitter disappointing frustrating defeated life (or death). The “tboftd” tells the truth and yet we misread it because it says, “these are instructions to the dead.” {…}I tested the instructions out when I wrote “UBik,” adding to the Bardo thodal journey what I desired to find there: Ubik, modeled on the Logos. So, from 2-74 on (when I remembered I am actually one of Christs’s twelve disciples) I have lived with the Logos beside me. Yes – in 3-74 the radio kept saying: “Bright white light Shining in the night To guide your way.” And at the time I understood; I steered toward it. And found it and was reborn healed.

{54} All the above (the Bardo thodol self programming of reality, etc) fits in with my earlier “too obliging” theory, that I had gotten reality to contradict itself, in its psychomorphic desire to resemble my preconception of it.


It’s interesting to read back to pp 21 and 7, and see how on p 7 when I was totally loaded I had the ex nihilo satori that “I figured out the reality situation well enough to generate a future reality which will please me. Not be painful. I beat Karma and in 3-74 took control.” Thus in the following pages I came to recognize Valis/Zebra as my conscious liberating thought formation of Ubik a decade before; and finally I found my way to the views of “ttboftd,” as to the nature of reality as Karma or our own prior thought formations which we must learn to control {…} This insight was a glorious quantum leap up: that a decade before 3-74 I myself consciously generated Ubik which then in 3-74 intervened and invaded and liberated me exactly as it does in the novel. Thus was explained why when I encountered Zebra/Valis I had the uncanny feeling that I was encountering my own thoughts “coming back from a trip around the whole universe” – like the Waveries.


The evidence seems to be pointing more and more {…} to us being stationary mega [multipersonal] brains outside time and space, pre-programming ourselves with a pseudoreality! Thre is some evidence that we are arranged like the audience in the James-James draam, multiperson megabrains viewing a single omnifaceted matrix which is the source, for us all, of all times and all places (and all events); and onto which we project our individual prior thought-formations – which consist of our thought responses to prior reality frames (which lay down no holographic memories in us); we pass from one frame to the next at ultra high speed – too fast to lay down memories, along all he form axes. These axes are determined not by any intrinsic nature but by our thoughts about them; what we believe to be true. Thus actual reality is our compound thoughts, and change in reality is the result of changing thought responses to prior objectified thought-formations; ie we think in response to “reality” which is really a prior thought-formation and this thought response causes the thought-formation to flip flop along its dialectic form-axies, thus causing a changed reality, to which we think new thoughts – have new beliefs as to what is true – which generate new objectified thought-formations – and so on. {…}This is the irreducible dialectic which I experienced” {diagram} 1: objectified thought-formation 2:resulting belief systems This means that we, the multi person mega brain, resonating at all times and places, are Valis. I visualize a vast grid of 0-1 flip flop grid squares whose pattern of 0 (dar,) and 1 (light) changes constantly. 0 is irrational or untrue belief. 1 is rational or true. The patterns are intricate. The aggregate of dark squares at any one nanosecond is the “streak of the irrational” in the “world soul.” 0/1, strife/love, death/life, irrational/rational, nonbeing/being insentient/sentient false/true yin/yang form II/form I But consider: the irrational (false) beliefs generate objectified thought-formations although untrue! So irreal reality is repeatedly generated.



Upon rereading pp 1-50: “we are in a decomposing, declining, entropic halving dialectic process, constantly proportionately more and more vitiated.” In that case, if at at given moment a transfer of energy from the past occurred – arced across into the future – it would be, vis-à-vis the future into which it arced, highly charged.(in contrast to the charge it held vis a vis its own time.) I conceive of this decomposing as taking place at exponential rates. Thus a mere idea of 1968 (the novel “Ubik”) if it arced across to 1974 would be relatively so highly potentiated that it would no longer be a mere idea but would dynamically literally overpower the 1974 reality. Also, this would explain why prior thought formations now objectified have such deterministic coercive power. But if the thought jumped across the intervening years -- it would be so potent in comparison to the de-vitalized future which it had invaded -- just imagine the thought formation Ubik amped up to say one thousand times its original ergic force.


Suddenly, just when I was beginning to think I had nothing going here, my rereading 50 pages and seeing this verification-point gives me renewed enthusiasm. The structure checks out. If there is exponential decomposition (entropy) in our universe (and this view is universally accepted), were Ubik as thought formation to arc across directly from the time-frame in which I originally conceived it to 3-74 – one could anticipate such surging vitality, such energy and power: “if x then y.” If conforms exactly to my impression of Valis: Ubik amped up until it spilled all over the apartment, bursting and burning everthing, and flooding me with information.

{71} This modifies my psychotic idea that I created Ubik. No-it was already a ubiquitous (ie constant) form in all frames; thus is showed up in my writing, as a result of its ubiquity, not a cause.

Word Doc of Notes

Last edit over 4 years ago by Max

Folder 03

003 page 05 thumb

Folder 03 - 005


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

Last edit over 1 year ago by Unteleported Man
003 page 37 thumb

Folder 03 - 037


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

Last edit over 1 year ago by Unteleported Man

Folder 08

8 page 09 thumb

folder 08 - 009


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

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

Last edit about 2 years ago by Unteleported Man
3224 thumb

08 Notes

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


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


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


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


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


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


own doctrine, congeal due to this valence. The very doctrine of combating the “hostile world + its power,” has to a large extent been ossified ^by^ + put at the service of the Empire. Thus I deduce that the power (magnitude) of the BIP congealed stasis is very great. ____ The explanation of “who or what fed me back my books,” in particular “Ubik,” (in 3-74) is found in the contents of “Ubik” itself; i.e. the formulation of the information entity Ubik. Obviously I envisioned an entity which actually existed + therefore which responded ^with^ as a feedback confirmation. One could analyze this theoretically; viz: if there were a macro-information entity, + you presented a fairly accurate formulation of it, you could reasonably expect the entity to fire a confirmation at you; since the formulation puts it forth as helpful + benign, in fact interventive. In fact, one could test as to whether such an entity exists by presenting a formulation of it, + then seeing if it responded, based on the built in quality attributed to it that if it existed it could be expected to respond. In other words, via the tentative formulation one could come into contact with it if indeed it existed. As I recall, there is some theory about this vis-a-vis contacting ETIs - if they return the info you transmit, specifically if the info is selectively modified, you know you’ve made contact with what you’re trying to make contact with. The point of it returning your info to you (modified) is that it doesn’t speak your language or even think like humans, so to create a signal you can recognize as sentient it must utilize to some extent the info you sent to it. (Maybe {?} decides suggesting a star.)


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


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


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

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


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


{drawing: my conception of the deity-->expressed in “Ubik”...}

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Word Doc of Notes

Last edit over 4 years ago by Max

Folder 55

3427 thumb

55 -Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Word Doc of Notes

Last edit over 4 years ago by Max
3429 thumb

55 - Transcription 2

{p. 61 - 5-8}

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

{p. 62 - J-9}

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


{p. 86 - Y-2}

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

{p. 87 - Y-3}

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

{p. 88 - Y-4}

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


{p. 90 - Z-2}

I had the strangest insight after seeing “The Elephant Man” that for some reason I failed to write down. Viz.: we are not linked to world directly as:

{DIAGRAM: Self——World}

but rather:

{DIAGRAM: Self——God——World}

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

{p. 91 - Z-3}

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

{p. 92 - Z-4}

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

{p. 93 - Z-5}

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

{p. 94 - Z-6}

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

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

{p. 95 - Z-6}

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


{p. 142 - D-70}

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

{p. 143 - D-71}

in it the convergence—at last—of my political involvement and my religious experiences right up to my Tagore vision; now today I get verification—that National Catholic Reporter and Christic Institute (founded in Nov. 1980). It is all true, and the new radical theology is ecotheology linked to radical political action, as we have here (i.e. with Silkwood). And it is the Roman Catholic Church—or rather a subform of it: the true secret Xtians. My vision in 2-3-74 of Acts was indeed a—the—Xtian apocalyptic vision (i.e. Revelation). The holy power of God is established here covertly, pitted against Satan and political reaction. It (the Holy Spirit) operates through the Roman Catholic Church: my intimations have been correct all the way back to 3-74 when the stegenographic covering was removed from “Tears” and I read what is there. I have been a Befahlträgen. Now I am a Geheimnisträgen: I know and understand the message that I have carried (as expressed primarily in “Tears” and then in “Valis, “D.I.” and “BTA” and the Tagore vision—everything. What—I think—is the most exciting is that due to 2-3-74, my Tagore vision, what Victor Ferkis has said and Christic Institute I can now discern—albeit dimly—the outline of a new theology, rooted in

{p. 144 - D-72}

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

{p. 145 - D-73}

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


{p. 156 - D-84}

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

{p. 157 - D-85}

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

{p. 158 - D-80}

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

{p. 159 - D-87}

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

{p. 160 - D-88}

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

{p. 161 - D-89}

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

{p. 162 - D-90}

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

{p. 163 - D-91}

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

{p. 164 - D-92}

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

{p. 165 - D-93}

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

{p. 107 - D-94}

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

{p. 108 - D-95}

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


{p. 114 - D-101}

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

{p. 115 - D-102}

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


{p. 166 - D-115}

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

{p. 167 - D-116}

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

{p. 168 - D-117}

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


{p. 196 - D-146}

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

{p. 197 - D-147}

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

{p. 198 - D-148}

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

Word Doc of Transcription

Last edit over 4 years ago by Max

Folder 53

53 page 030 thumb

folder 53 - 030

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

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

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

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

Last edit over 3 years ago by psychick

Folder 49

49 page 092 thumb

folder 49 - 092

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

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

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

Diagram :

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

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

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

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

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

Last edit about 3 years ago by psychick

Folder 48

48 page 049 thumb

folder 48 - 049


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

Last edit 12 months ago by Unteleported Man
Records 61 – 74 of 74