Exegesis II

OverviewStatisticsSubjects

Search for "mental illness" madness*

Folder 09

3 thumb

Page 2

wasn’t experiencing anything at all. Sites of his brain were being selectively stimulated by tight energy-beams emanating from far off, perhaps millions of miles away. These selective brain site stimulations generated in his head the impression—for him—that he was seeing and hearing words, pictures, figures of people, in short God, or as Fat liked to call it, the Logos. But, really, he truly imagined he experienced these things. They resembled holograms. What struck me was the oddity of a lunatic discounting his hallucinations in this sophisticated manner: Fat had intellectually dealt himself out of the Game of Madness while still enjoying its sights and sounds. In effect, he no longer claimed that what he experienced was really there. Did this indicate he had begun to sober up? Hardly. Now he held the idea that 'they' or God or someone owned a long-range very tight information rich beam of energy focused on Fat’s head. In this I saw no improvement, but it did represent a change. Fat

Last edit over 3 years ago by carrifaery
4 thumb

Page 3

could now honestly discount his hallucinations, which meant he recognized them as such. But, like Gloria, he now had a they. It seemed to me a pyrrhic victory. Fat’s life struck me as a litany of exactly that, as for example the way he had rescued Gloria.

The Exegesis Fat labored on month after month struck me as a pyrrhic victory if there ever was one—in this case an attempt by a beleaguered mind, to make sense out of the inscrutable. Perhaps this is the key to mental illness: incomprehensible events occur—your life becomes a bin for hoax-like fluctuations of what used to be reality, and not only that—as if that weren’t bad enough—you, like Fat, ponder forever over these fluctuations in an effort to order them into coherency. When in fact the only sense they make is the sense you impose on them, out of the necessity to restore everything into shapes and processes you can recognize.

The first thing to depart in mental illness is the familiar

Last edit almost 5 years ago by Max
5 thumb

Page 4

and what takes its place is bad news because not only can you not understand it, you also cannot communicate it to the other people. The madman experiences something, but what it is or where it comes from he does not know.

In the midst of his shattered landscape Fat imagined God had cured him. Once you notice pyrrhic victories they seem to abound. -- Either he had seen God too soon, or he had seen him too late. In any case it had done him no good at all in terms of survival. Encountering the Living God had not helped to equip him for the tasks of ordinary endurance, which ordinary men, not so favored, handle. -- Men and the world are mutually toxic to each other. But God—the true God—has penetrated both, penetrated man and penetrated the world, and sobers the landscape. But that God, the God from outside, encounters fierce opposition. Frauds—the deceptions of madness—abound, and mask themselves as their mirror opposite: pose as sanity. The masks, however, wear _____ the madness reveals itself. It is _____

Last edit almost 5 years ago by Max

folder 21

021 page 025 thumb

folder 21 - 025

23

writing (inc "MITHC" esp.) there is a preoccupation with fakes + the fake: fake worlds, fake humans, fake objects, fake time, etc. "The authentic human vs the android or reflex machine" is the essence of it. Again + again I attempt to formulate criteria for what is fake + what is not fake, in every area, from a comic book to a world leader to a girl friend to an entire universe. "Things are seldom what they seem" - right. It has to do with reality testing, which is related to another theme of mine: mental illness (which brings in hallucinations) + deliberate deception (v "Penultimate Truth," "The Simulacra," "Game Players of Titan" etc, novels I usually overlook. + mental illness brings in "Martian Time-Slip," "Dr Bloodmoney," "The Simulacra," "Clans." So virtually all of my writing interlocks at this substratum.)

I count 21 books (inc story collections) in which fake vs real is in some way the topic. 22, if "Japed" is included, plus a number of unanthologized stories. In "Sheep" for instance, fake vs real operates on 5 levels:

1) Fake (synthetic) moods (electronically generated) 2) Fake animals (machines) 3) Fake humans (androids) (inc. Fake memories + identity) 4) Fake savior (old wino movie bit player) 5) Fake police station (part of world)

+ in "MITHC" there are deliberately faked objects - in a world the totality of which may be fake (i.e. in which the axis won WWII!)

Last edit over 1 year ago by Unteleported Man

folder 20

20 page 46 thumb

folder 20 - 046

45

down the "criminal virus" or as I think it to be, the poison. Mercury is an antidote to syphilis: Hal told me my genius was due to paresis. The effects of Substance D resemble tertiary syphilis. But it was Hal (Barris) who showed the impaired (pseudo) brilliance depicted in "Scanner." The cereal box dream was alluding to "Scanner," that I had the key in that book. Have I not supra written, "my writing is a detoxifying agent" - like mercury? Or Is mercury the symbol for the toxin or the antidote? Well, mercury is double edged; in measured doses it is medicine (antitoxin); in unmeasured amounts it is a toxin - this is a venerable principle in medicine, certainly known to Paracelsus. Jeter says, "the fucked-up dopers -on Substance D- were the only ones who correctly understood the reality situation." I suspect Dionysos is involved here: madness - genius. Are the "sane" really the insane? Dionysos: the mad (i.e. crazy) god. Maybe he is in touch with reality + what we see when sane is not real. Christ, Dionysos, the "enthusiasmos" of the shaman, of possession by the Holy Spirit. Schizophrenia: the right hemisphere. There is where the truth, + lost faculties lie. (v. "Scanner" - this is specifically stated - + the origins of dreams ("psychosis while asleep" or conversely, schizophrenia is awake dreaming.) Then what's missing is right hem. parity. Bilateral parity. Well, again, "Scanner" is correct. Half our brain is cut off. The bicameral voice! The "Sibyl" - Julian Jaynes.

Last edit over 2 years ago by Unteleported Man

Folder 01

001 page 071 thumb

folder 01 - 071

I saw my little saint statue grow grape vines, + heard either Erasmus the greatest Greek/Biblical scholar of the humanists or it was Dionysos. The Joy God. Look how I ended my U.K. speech with that verse of Pindar. Underlying "Tears" there is more than Acts; there is also "the Bacchae" + I have known this all along: the King of Tears destroyed by the stranger - the prison burst! + Hoffman's theory that LSD was used in the Greater Mysteries - + John Allegro's mushroom theory about early Xtianity. Divine Joy - intoxication: permits you to see the truth: spatiotemporal world (i.e. the prison) destroyed. When I saw the second signal, the plasmate, etc in (3-74) I was intoxicated, not by LSD - it wasn't a flash-back - but by Camouflaged nature God - life form - Valis Everything must be read backward. Ecstasy is sanity. Sobriety is madness. It is the King of Tears who is insane. I'll tell you who stole the secret, smuggled it past the angels + placed it in one's - i.e. our - hands: He who we know of as Dionysos to Zagreus to Orpheus to Christ to the Paraclete where it then peters out.

Last edit 25 days ago by Max

Folder 02

002 page 55 thumb

folder 02 - 055

"Siddhartha" is the sleeping soul sub-section mind of this calcified section. [Note] "St. Sophia" is the soul of the totality: its voice + wisdom. St. Sophia speaks to the sleeping Siddhartha, in order to awaken him + thus lift this calcified section back to growth + flexibility, + of course consciousness. Thus it can be said that at present St. Sophia is outside of (absent from) this section, + will return upon the sleeping Siddhartha's awakening, at which point he will again _know_. (This _section_ will again know.) Since there has never been a period in human history in which this section has not been calcified - asleep - we have no basis by which to imagine the magnitude of the transformation which is coming. "Siddhartha" is merely human, but St. Sophia is equal to the Godhead itself (+ could never be said to be asleep). Enlightenment (e.g. the dibba cakkhu, anamnesis, the ajna chakra etc) is given _to_ Siddhartha _by_ St. Sophia. Siddhartha hears her voice, which is man being called to by God, finally she wakes him. In micro form I experienced this, +, through it, understood the macro situation ("what is below is an analog of what is above" + "tat tvam asi". Some (or much) of the message traffic which I saw might be St. Sophia's calling to "Siddhartha". Disinhibiting stimuli invading our closed simulated clock run push-pull worlds.

[Note] This section died. It became fossilized, + merely repeats itself. This is scary; it is like mental illness. "One day nothing new never entered his mind - + the last thought just recirculated endlessly". Thus death rules here, which explains Paul's "mystery" in 1 Cor. The BIP is the form of this death, its embodiment - of what is wrong, here. To see it is to see the ailment, the complex which warps all other thoughts to it: the imperial levelling

Last edit over 3 years ago by Unteleported Man

Folder 90

90 page 063 thumb

folder 90 - 063

XXXIV

E-5

I risked madness + death + terrible punishment in order for a moment to read the Book - with the ajna eye that I stole from Yaldabaoth, Lord (creator) of the world. I read the information that world is based on. I learned the secret from the Sibyl, the secret hidden from mankind. St. Sophia, Christ, Kyrios Pantocrator, is here; the Parousia is here. I told mankind, it can't be undone; I defeated world-fate (the Norns) by my heroic act; even Wotan, master of the runes who traded an eye for wisdom, could not do that. I overcame the Norns, the spinners of fate, + stole the secret kept from mankind; I am not a hero but the hero: I did this with Dionysos' aid. He rebels + bursts the prison. We did it; we killed the monster, stole the eye, read the Book of Fate, learned the hidden secret, stole it + gave it to mankind, + freed them with/by knowledge. We the Gods defeated Fate (Erda, the Norns). It was Wotan who conversed with me on 11-17-80. This was his plan: to use me to steal the 3rd eye from the Sibyl, read the Book + learn the secret. + give it to man. So I am Siegfried; the Knights Templer [Note] have succeeded in their plot through me. Via my writing - my books.

[Note] The Gnostics.

Last edit about 3 years ago by Unteleported Man
90 page 067 thumb

folder 90 - 067

E-9

spinners" can no longer see the thread of Ariadne (or weave it as explanation, revelation) leading out of the maze. This is dreadful. The spinners, almost blind, peer through the 3rd eye + can barely see the sun ("Ghosts" - "Mother, give me the sun"; the occlusion in "Scanner". Paresis. Senility. The poison "is in the ground" - i.e. this planet. O Weh! We are poisoned, occluded, blind; we can no longer read the sacred scriptures as they came from God (the sun); he did not stop communicating to us; no - a dreadful Fall occurred on our parts, at our end. In 3-74 I regained my sight temporarily; hence I said "I am no longer blind!" I saw God + could read + understand "Tears". Thus apparently I did not steal the secret; I ceased to be poisoned + again could see. This theme of going blind fits in with the Mello Jello - blindness, literally: + madness. "Valis" is right. O Weh! We can no longer see the sun, our spiritual source! Not because it changed but because the soil here (autochthonic world) has poisoned us. Then I did the right thing in reading the scriptures now concealed from us, + told what I saw in "Valis". Dio - what if I had read the sacred scripture + seen the light again, as I did in 3-74, + not reported -i.e. in "Valis"- what I saw? Then it would have been in vain. What I discerned: Christ is here posing as, camouflaged in, the world; I saw him + I saw the "spinners' book" where it told of him being here. The book of the

Last edit 25 days ago by Max

Folder 06

6 page 42 thumb

folder 06 - 042

42

maintain that whatever the intent of the authors of "The Tibetan Book of the Dead" they are in fact describing our world + state. We are in a decomposing, degenerating process + will continue so unless enlightened by Valis, who introduces negentropy. Determinism + entropy are considered here as identical; succumbing to what is really a self-generated fate is identified with death + 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 + 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-a-vis this dialectic; its progression in us -as us- is not automatic. Each of us is a microform of it, + to the extent that we succumb to "fate" or "astral determinism" we succumb to death + madness, to congealing. Viewed this way it is easy to see what Valis promotes with our volitional triumph over ananke, but most of us are more victim of fate than artificer. To the extent that this is true of us, we have died. Valis cannot or will not revive us unless we are astute enough to 1) fathom our condition + 2) act to transform it. However, he will patiently provide us with clues, which if we will heed, take note of + act upon, we will be saved. Thus he initiates a salvific process in our {...}

Last edit 5 months ago by Unteleported Man
3108 thumb

06 - Notes

{6:7}

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.

{6:8}

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.

{6:23}

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.

{6:25}

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.

{6:28}

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.

{6:34}

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}

{6:36}

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.

{6:42}

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.

{44}

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).

{49}

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.

{57}

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.

{62}

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.

{66}

Diagram

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.

{67}

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 08

8 page 09 thumb

folder 08 - 009

9

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

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

Last edit about 2 years ago by Unteleported Man
3224 thumb

08 Notes

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

(1)

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.

(2)

6) But at the same time this info entity seems divine, everywhere, + is the Logos. 7) an Empedoclean dialectic is in process - progress underlying all else. 8) their dead boss-friend {?} seems to be coming back “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

(3)

may be the way time c (3) - hypertime or eternity - works. On this platonic form axis, USA Calif 1974 + Rome CAD 45 may (because the form is virtually identical in the two) be just a 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.

(4)

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

(5)

reality (beneath the dokos). It may lie at right angles to linear time + so be orthogonal. Permutations may split all (be generated) sideways as alternate realities (like tracks A, B + C), thus defeating the linear axis 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

(6)

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.)

(7)

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.

(8)

If to communicate with me it had to take on Ubik qualities it must be really dismorphic to us. (This is frightening.) I am now in the position of having to dismiss all attributes which it disclosed as being possibly only simulations mimicking Ubik in order for it to be comprehensible + syntonic (nicht {?}) to me - possibly. I 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.

(9)

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

(10)

realization undermines the probity of my reams of description of Zebra; I have only described what my own head construes the deity to be like - a self-portrait; albeit a modern, complex + sophisticated apprehension of the deity, it is quite subjective + quite culturally determined. (ie a cybernetics - biological model.) As shown in “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.

(11)

{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

(12)

the 3-decade evolution of my epistemological investigation I asked the right question (or put forth the correct formulation, apparently best - put forth in “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 {?}.

(13)

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. ____________________________________________________________________

(19)

So in 2-74 I briefly remembered + a month later saw the world as it really is (Acts), which I had put forth as the world in “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

(20)

now Ubik is seen not just as real but as rational + as world, an information world; put another way, information experienced as world). Different space-time worlds are different coherencies - systems - of information, the info content of each arranged within a 4 dimensional system. I believe that my 2-3-74 experience with Valis confirms the acosmic of “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.

(21)

Then the 1974 overthrowing of the tyranny by Valis is the savior freeing us from our prison. This is his prime role; he frees us, restores our memory + true nature, + gets us out of here. Meanwhile the true God transmutes this irrational irreal world into the real + rational. These are Gonstic ideas #8 + #9. I now have assembled the complete Gnostic system with its two realms, only one of which - the upper - is real (form I of Parinenides). (As stated in “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.”

(22)

The Valentinean ontological {assessment?} of knowledge is not that it (the Gnosis) leads to salvation or is knowledge about salvation, but that in the act (event, revelation, experience) of knowing in itself lies salvation. Because in knowing, there is a restoration of 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

3428 thumb

55 - Transcription

{p. 13 - Q-1}

There are two absolutely brilliant correct guesses in “Valis”: now it seems they are (1) true; and (2) decisive. 1) All the saviors—even Gods—are the same person—“the immortal one”—who returns again and again and again, who uses the human—e.g. Elijah, Jesus—as a host but leaves him “and is never killed or caught.” And in some sense “we are that immortal man.” 2) Spurious time. “Real time stopped.” In connection with this I now say that real time has started up again, and hinting that it did so in 1974 because Armageddon took place and was won. 3) In connection with real time resuming, I should add the Empire, which is conceived of as having secretly ruled for millennia but invisibly and which was dealt “a decisive defeat” in 1974. Thus it would seem as if I am saying that Armageddon took place and was won by what I call “the forces of light.” And now the savior comes. Item #2, spurious time, is a necessary concept if the eternal horizontal tracking and retracking is to be understood. Hence counterfeit time is the instrument by which the prison is maintained. I’m sorry; I’m doing another enantiodromia and I know it. Valis is YHWH (hence the dangerous radiation, “the carrier”). Here’s what: When I looked up photo to reread about ??????????? (my giving to Covenant House was this, and hence in accord with the Torah, YHWH’s law) I discovered that my “vertical spatial axis, the pulley of rope net that

{p. 14 - Q-2}

suddenly lifts you up” is an exact description—literally exact—of Philo’s idea of pronoia, how YHWH governs the world directly. Before Philo, pronoia was equated with the regular causal laws—e.g. the Stoics equated pronoia and heimarmene. But for Philo, God intervenes by miracle on the behalf of “deserving persons for their safety or welfare by suspending natural causal law.” I had forgotten that my “pulley” hypnopompic vision incuded my reading “the Guide to the Perplexed,” and that God (YHWH) had found me “to be a worthy and pious man”—and that I saw myself—not as I normally do—but as he sees me. And Philo fully accepted Plato’s Forms doctrine; Philo’s ????? was “the pace of the Forms, the ‘Kosmos Noetos,’ an ‘intelligible world.’” So it is all there in Philo! 1) Plato’s Forms doctrine. 2) Philanthropia. (Derived from the Torah.) 3) Pronoia as miraculous direct intervention as a contravening of natural law—i.e. the “machinery of retribution.” Pronoia “for individuals deserved of it” which has to do with (2), as I construe it re “the pulley” vision. Note: the whole social justice kerygma of Sharia, that B. Krem speaks of re the Maitreya is one sublime global ???????????: “Giving to—rendering aid to—those in need.” It is the moral basis of my life and it stems from the Torah. And since it stems from the Torah, YHWH is pointed to. I don’t see how (if at all) Gnosticism can be fitted in with pronoia, esp. if pronoia is equated with the government

{p. 15 - Q-3}

of the world. By definition, the God of Gnosticism is transmundane, acosmic or even anticosmic and plays no role whatsoever in the government of the world. Now, pronoia in the sense of a suspension or overruling of regular natural law when it (the regular law) threatens the safety or welfare of a deserving individual, is part of the government of the world: any and all conceptions of pronoia involve the government of the world, either directly—as with Philo and his concept of miracle—or indirectly, as with the Greco-Roman view of pronoia and heimarmene being one and the same. Also, I am told by revelation that the intervention of 2-3-74 (and it was intervention) was due to my own later act re Covenant House. But the transmundane Gnostic deity has no interest in Torah or/and social justice, and surely my act had to do with Torah and/or social justice, these stem from YHWH the Creator. If God is able to suspend natural law—if he is the God of providence—he is de facto active in the government of the world. He exerts his mercy, wisdom and power here. Perhaps the key word is the Greek term used by the AI voice: Ditheon.(1) Not “Ditheism” but “Ditheon,” as in dialectic. This is Boehme’s God, and Schelling’s: God is a dialectic, with an irrational destrcutive will versus the “bright” or ????? side—and the latter always wins. 2-3-74 was the latter. The ?????. (1) That is, it is one God (theon) but “di” (the dialectic). This

{p. 16 - Q-4}

term, then, revealed to me by the AI voice, is the crucial concept I need.

————————————————————————

{p. 19 - L-18}

I have it now:

Buckman Jason Alys Claudius Hamlet Gertrude Pentheus Zagreus Pilate Jesus Tears Joy Old Young Usurper Rightful king Tyrant Liberator

What is being studied? A usurper is on the throne. The rightful king (who is younger) appears as a madman, criminal or fool; he is mysterious; his nature and origins are uncertain. He is arrested and tried. (I should say falsely arrested.) Interrogated by the old king (usurper). He is charged with a crime he did not commit. The resolution varies; sometimes he is acquitted and assumes the throne; sometimes he is killed. The white-haired old king on horseback may be the murdered father of the young man who is the rightful heir to the throne; he returns to seek justice: punishment of the usurper; the son placed on the throne. This story is told and retold. Why? What are we supposed to learn? That the ostensible ruling power of this world is illegitimate? The “King” is not in fact the true king? and the “fool” is not mad or a fool or a criminal but is the rightful king? My analysis: everything we see is a 180° mirror opposite of the truth. The ostensible “king” is not only not the true king, he also has no actual power: despite appearances

{p. 20 - L-19}

his power is illusory. All true power belongs to the “fool” who is the true king (vide “The Bacchae”). This is all some sort of play—which “Hamlet” very clearly alludes to. We are to guess the riddle: who is the true king? (And hence who really rules, i.e. who has power?). This strikes me as some sort of religious pageant or initiatory rite or ritual into a hidden truth deliberately concealed from the many. Only what are called “the elect” are let in on the true state of affairs. Who, then, qualifies as one of “the elect”? Perhaps one who before (i.e. without) knowing the truth, reveals his own true nature; that is, faced with a moral choice, even though he is deliberately misled as to the actual situation—that is, who holds power, who does not—he chooses correctly nonetheless. Once he has so chosen, the masks are dropped and the true state of affairs is revealed to him. Power—awesome and absolute—belongs to the “fool”; contrarily, the power of the pretend king is illusory: he only has seemed to possess the power to compel and punish. What the person has in effect done is test this ostensible power to compel and punish, by this correct moral choice. If this analysis is correct, our world is in fact the Zoroastrian sifting bridge

{p. 21 - L-20}

or Ma’at and her feather. It is the dividing of the souls between the saved and the damned; viz.: “the court sat, and the books were opened”—which is to say, were reality seen clearly—when and if it is seen as it truly is—it is the apocalypse (Daniel, Revelation) here and now, but hidden, disguised. Hence, when the masks drop, the apocalyptic world of Daniel/Revelation is suddenly revealed to sight. King. Throne. What does this suggest in Xtian religious terms? Daniel and Revelation: the Ancient of Days, the eschatological judging. And does the Ancient of Days appear in “Tears”? Yes: in the dream. So the solution is: our world is cryptically (stegenographically) an unending apocalypse, specifically the eschatological judging. And this is exactly what I saw (comprehended) in 2-3-74. (What I call the “Acts” world.) Christ, then, is somehow present, for it is he who judges. Did I see him in 3-74? Yes: as Valis. Is he in “Tears”? Yes, as the cypher, which is his living blood, the “plasmate.” Did I myself in fact perform a crucial right act, a specifically moral act? I am told yes: my giving to Covenant House for the reasons I did. And what did this result in? The revelation of (1) the actual but hidden situation (i.e.

{p. 22 - L-21}

the masks were dropped) and an awesome display of the power, presence, the pronoia, of God, which saved me. I even saw my name entered in the Book of Life: the Lamb’s Book. And my actual literal physical life was long-extended; that is, the power of fate over me was broken, and I was given life instead of death, health instead of illness. I have known since 3-74 that the truth about 3-74 lay in “Tears”; I think that at last I have figured it out. There is a secret and invisible kingdom here, 180° opposite to the ostensible world (what I call “coaxial realities working off a common essence”) and it holds the true power. Those who are judged to be Christ’s sheep are transferred there, as I was (what I call the PTG vs. the BIP). The cypher in Psalm 46 is part of the covert info traffic of this “other” coaxial kingdom coexisting with the ostensible one. As I say, it is a court. And it judges. The white-haired old king on horseback in the dream in “Tears” is indubitably the eschatological judge. And he holds the keys to life and to death. Restudied, the 2-74 meta-abstraction was not only an ultra cognitive act that led to a perception of the actual situation (in 3-74) but a full and utter perception of the two coaxial worlds right then and there—in one sudden total leap.

{p. 23 - L-22}

I saw that two 180° opposite worlds could coexist in the same space-time but that in fact they did—and more. I perceived the nature of the secret ones, opposite to the ostensible one. With all the value-signs reversed. This is the “realized eschatology{”} of John, I guess. Well, there is no getting around it; Christ has returned; the Parousia is here. And this is the topic—the common element—of all 3 books of the Valis trilogy. He is here; he rules; he judges—and we don’t see it because (as I say) there are the two (coaxial) worlds. And although he judges in this world, he rules visibly only in the other; here, in this one, we cannot distinguish him as I did; I saw him camouflaged. And transubstantiating the universe invisibly into himself. And—I said so, in Valis”? Hence the statements by the AI voice, esp. the mention of St. Sophia. It all fits together, now: and it is the apocalypse. Oh Dio—I just put together several extraordinary theological ideas. On 11-1 when I had that psychotic anxiety and had to have Tess and Christopher come over—I realized then that hell consisted of a state of absolute self-awareness of what you had done—forever; that is, you accused yourself and found yourself guilty—and then had to live with and as that guilty

{p. 24 - L-23}

self forever. 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. But now, suddenly, the significance of justification occurs to me; in the light of the above it assumes the absolute quality that Paul and the Reformers assigned to it. Justification is, as it were, the sole, the real, solution to—the saving you from—hell, precisely as Paul and the Reformers taught. Since hell as a state is absolute, and justification is absolute. Well, this idea is not new or original but, rather, my first understanding of sin, hell, salvation, grace and justification! As orthodoxy regards all these. Justification saves the person who otherwise is doomed; he does not save himself (e.g. by good works): the power to save lies in God. Thus, if indeed it is the case that in 2-3-74 I was justified, then though my own conscience accuse me, I am not merely called justified but am, through God (God’s grace) saved in fact—I mean, justified in fact; I am changed through Christ. Jesus Christ, then, is paradigmatic of the saved/justified person, who was often called by the Reformers “a Christ” and I think correctly: it is almost a technical term, not just a compliment. So much more than pronoia and astral determinism was involved in 2-3-74; they were, but far beyond that lay justification stemming from the same source: charis: God’s saving grace. If we are indeed here in this world, as I suspect, to be fashioned and shaped, to

{p. 25 - L-24}

become (our einai established forever) then justification is the finishing of this, the sudden perfecting, and is the logical outcome of what we are here for. God has judged, closed the books; the person has been made by God acceptable, in the twinkling of an eye. Now my statement that “PKD now (12-81) is very much what Thomas was in 3-74{”} suddenly tells me that it is all okay: Thomas was my justified, perfected self, and thus I evolve (thank God!) toward becoming him more and more: he was the future. I do not believe that, once God has justified you, you can fall from that state, for it would mean God had erred. Since you are justified by God and not by your own good works, it follows that you can neither acquire nor lose that state by what you do. God has pronounced you justified and the books are closed. To think that justification by God through grace can be temporary or provisional is profoundly to misunderstand the absolute nature of justification. It is, then, in a sense to reject it and to reject, then, God. It was not acquired by merit; it cannot be lost by lack of merit. It is divine and total and everlasting; it is eschatological judgment and that is, by definition, the last judgment, as Paul calls it, “the last trumpet.” And I did see the world as the apocalypse, which serves to verify this contention. Time for me fulfilled itself in the form of eschatological judgment; I saw my name entered in the Lamb’s Book of Life. Those entries are eternal.

{p. 26 - L-25}

I guess this is why I saw world as the apocalypse: because I was under eschatological judgment. The two go together, are indeed one: judgment (justification) and the end times. I never realized this before. I think my realization, here, that the justification—being the eschatological judgment—and my seeing the world as the apocalypse are two halves of a single whole—this is the utter comprehension of 2-3-74: the end times. Hence the Parousia: Christ as eschatological judge, as time, for me, speeded up to infinity and then ran out, my name entered in the Lamb’s Book of Life, everything: realized eschatology, as in the Fourth Gospel. To speak, then, of justification without the apocalypse, or the apocalypse without the eschatological judgment (justification) and Christ as the judge—all parts must be understood. Yes, it is absolute, final judgment and cannot be reversed, added to or taken away from. Hence the crucial statement by the AI voice, “you have been adopted” plus the mention of my giving to Covenant House. It all adds up and it all makes sense and it all is based on charis: God’s grace. I know what I saw and, more importantly, why (the “why” is the justification, and this in turn is linked to pronoia). Then when the bedroom lit up with the pale white light everywhere—Death came for me, but Christ in the form of Pinky sacrificed himself in my place, and I was spared. This is why I saw Pinky as the crucified Christ.

{p. 27 - L-26}

He was the paschal lamb offered, to avert the angel of Death: Passover re-enacted, to save my physical life. So this, too, in addition to my spiritual salvation was involved. “The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep.”

————————————————————

{p. 36 - L-35}

I just remembered (5:45 P.M.) a right-hemisphere graphic image in hypnagogic sleep last night: I had been thinking about the two coaxial worlds in which one—hidden—is Christ’s kingdom. All of a sudden I saw a network of red threads forming a vascular system, as in our bodies; at the same time this was also; a growing {arboring?} vine constnatly becoming more and more intricate; and it was like the mycelia of a mushroom. This intersticing {arboring?} network (I realized when I saw it) grows invisibly within our world, and this is what I saw as the plasmate, Christ’s blood as living information—literally saw. But here now I beheld it as a network, a structure so-to-speak “invading” or internally penetrating our reality invisibly, and ever growing and becoming more complex. This is both Christ and his kingdom, and in 3-74 I had done a set-ground discrimination of it—this is what Jesus meant when he referred to himself as the “true vine” and it is the vision I had that day at the dentist’s. And this fits with Valis here (i.e. Christ) camouflaged in our reality. Then all portions of the plasmate form one organism or entity, and the living information does not pertain to it but is it, is Christ. I remember (also) thinking recently, “I did not see Christ in a vision or as an anthropomorphic figure but somehow involved with and as transubstantiation” and this is all very well—I was thinking about Valis—but that does not take into account the plasmate— Oh Dio—recently I figured out that the “cypher” King Felix not only refers to Christ but, more, is Christ! Which the “vine” vision verifies. So in a sense “Christ’s kingdom” is Christ himself, the Corpus Christi; this fits the “organic” model Paul puts forth in the captivity letters. {p. 37 - L-36}

“Information metabolism” is, then, probably close to the mark, and this is its own internal negentropy: its internal organization (structure).

——————————————

{p. 47 - 3-1}

He—the Savior—is for the creatures who don’t understand, so that they will understand (reversing cognitive estrangement); hence he is logos, wisdom, the part-whole compatibility pattern of cosmos. This was 2-3-74. And why I feel I got suddenly smarter, i.e. I understood (above and beyond knowing and thinking); understood—not knew—is the key word. (“Understand” here equals “penetrate the mystery” or “shrewdly guess the riddle {of “Tears”}.) Another passion—mercy. Viewed through the “lens” of Xtianity, in particular Xtian apocalypse—everything makes sense—not just to me and for me but as such; it is the key that explains the mystery of reality (creation), i.e. cosmos is why this lens is used. This is not merely personal and subjective on my part: it is objective face. Last night as I reflected on the beautiful and Karen (nepioi and ptochoi) I realized this, whom God loves in this world and how and where he acts, in elation to them; she is one and so am I. She more than I: in her I see myself. Late last night I realized that “Tears,” in Buckman vs. Jason, expresses the two different ways, man relying on himself and man relying on God: viz.: “Heaven protects the innocent (or just) man”—that is, the nepioi, the ptochoi. And this must be the case since, without the guile and power and tactics of the world at their disposal, the innocent would all perish, did heaven not protect them. Much of what Jesus taught addresses this issue, it is basic.

{p. 48 - 3-2}

This is the great secret of the Judeo-Xtian religion, first found {in?} Judaism and then brought to its peak—fulfillment—by Jesus’ teachings. The proud man relies on his own powers and abilities (e.g. Buckman): the nepioi and ptochoi rely on their heavenly father. This is what explains 2-3-74: it is an instance of this last principle which involves God’s love—hence both pronoia and theodicy. The ultimate expression of this is to “have a tutelary spirit” and “to be adopted (sons of God” which as to do with the kingdom or kingship of God). This is it: to be one of the nepioi and to be adopted by God, hence to enter the kingdom; this secret is concealed from the proud. (I.e. hubris is the opposite state from relying on God: hence it is the ultimate sin or folly.) The motto: “In God we trust” expresses absolute faith in God’s love, hence his protection. 2-3-74 verifies that one can so do. In a sense for me to guess the answer to the riddle of “Tears” is to understand the essence of Xtianity (and also Judaism), as well as to explain 2-3-74. The innocence of the nepioi is a return to—or a real never departing from in the first place—the primordial innocence of original man. In viewing Karen I see myself and esp. see myself as God must see me: defenseless and innocent, both needing and deserving the aid of heaven (“and found in heaven a friend”), hence the theme of the holy fool in Christ (e.g. Parsifal). It is like a secret law of physics: how the world-order works (but in terms of morality, of being in the world but not of it). Thus in “Tears” Jason and the rabbit are shown to be the same: the creature that does not know what to do. Viewed this way, Jesus’ entire system of teachings boils down as it were to: being (or becoming) one of the nepioi/ptochoi and as a result being protected by God. If indeed—as 2-3-74 proves it to be the case—this is so as a law of the world-order, Jesus’ teachings are practical,

{p. 49 - 3-3}

for they evoke this law (it functions lawfully, based on due cause, as the AI voice explained to me; it is not arbitrary!). One has put himself in a direct relationship with the God above (as it were) the stars (heimarmene), the supreme power in the universe. Thus Jesus stressed his role as the good shepherd. It may be that the way I saw world in 3-74—for instance the animals, as in a nativity scene, or like the Good Friday spell—is the way God sees us all, ourselves and our world, and this indeed is the way it is; and this would apply to the apocalyptic reality in toto. Hence I say: the dimension of eternity entered: God and the viewpoint of God, which is an absolute viewpoint. The holy nature of reality was disclosed. Absolute trust in God—in contradistinction to one’s own powers—is, think, the quintessential spiritual enlightenment, for it ushers in the comprehension of the nepioi and ptochoi and their relation to heaven (and to the world-order and to themselves as well). Thus two bipolarized divisions or categories of men are disclosed: Buckman who relies on his own abilities and powers (called by Paul hubris) and hence who is destroyed, and Jason (one of the nepioi or ptochoi; that is, he becomes one in the alternate world) who, being innocent and defenseless, is placed by heaven (God) under its/his protection. Thus I solve the riddle of “Tears” and see it as N.T. scripture; I arrived at this by increments but would never really have grasped it except by understanding Karen and contrasting her to everyone else and seeing myself in and as her—and thus I fathom 2-3-74 as the kingship of God. In loving her I love God her protector, and at last love and understand myself.

{p. 50 - 3-4}

What is expressed in all this is God not as creator but as sustainer. The nepioi and ptochoi have a direct relationship to God even if they are not consciously aware of it. It is not world that sustains them; it is God even contra world, God overpowering world for their sake, as his adopted sons. Whether God contra world points to Gnosticism I don’t know. But it does point to the infinitely distant point of the mystery relgions: either transcendent or transmundane: “above the stars” and ruler of them, able to overrule them. That it is God contra world means that it is heaven contra world: “matter is plastic in the face of mind.” It is a freeing of the nepioi from world expressed as heimarmene, so probably it is Gnostic by and large—as against especially Spinoza, hence “perturbation in the reality field”—from beyond it, i.e. outside. It is, too, perhaps, the inbreaking of the rational, for it is pure mind (Valis’ mind in mine). That was the kingship of God, in which he inscribed his law on my heart; this realization—and fact—is very important. The kingdom is not quite a place (i.e. kingdom as we use the term), it is this place, here and now, but radically transformed by the kingship

{p. 51 - 3-5}

of God (my set-ground) (and coaxial worlds); it is God disclosed as here and in fact as reality (set) in the form of the cosmic Christ enfusing and permeating mundane reality and rendering it holy. Thus it is transformed into a different sort of world entirely, but in this place and at this time. Now, what does the second coming amount to in terms of all this (the nepioi and ptochoi, the ethical system of Jesus)? Why, very simply an overt disclosure of the true state of affairs, in contrast to the ostensible state: a vast mystery is revealed: the nepioi and ptochoi—who by definition are the powerless and weak—are contained in, expressed in and rendered invincible by the absolute might of God—which is to say, this hidden law—that heaven protects then and not the proud—is revealed, and an extraordinary disclosure occurs: Christ rules (that is, he comes as king and judge) and this means that all that we see or think we see is not the case; conversely, what we see as not the case in fact somehow is the case, as if world reversed its sign-values (pertaining to majesty and power) by 180°. This is precisely what is meant by “Christ returning in glory”; he does not return, he “returns in glory” and in this transformation from suffering servant to lord and judge the nepioi and the ptochoi are transformed—reversed, as it were, with him. And what relationship if any does this have to 2-3-74, in particular the sudden understanding that I call “the meta-abstraction”? The two are precisely one: I comprehended in an instant that Christ rules, rules absolutely, and yet we see this not; we see the contrary (hence my notion of two coaxial worlds with 180° sign values). There is no visible

{p. 52 - 3-6}

indication to the unaided eye whatsoever of this power, this kingdom, this rule, and yet I saw it. (That is, in 2-74 I understood it and in 3-74 I literally saw it and for a year lived in that world or kingdom, even though no one else could se it at all; and I equate my comprehension of this and then literal perception with an order of reason so high as to bear no name). Now, what is the difference between what I understood (2-74) and saw (3-74 to 2-75) and this “terun of Christ in glory?{”} (A point: were Christ not to return in glory the true state of affairs, 180° from what we unaided see would be limited like Plato’s Forms to the region of speculation, faith and hope, but the return in glory seals (by virtue of revealing) this with the stamp of indubitable fact capable of being known and known absolutely; thus the return in glory, the second coming, is logically necessary to the very premise on which all Christ’s teachings are based, for he did not just teach that it was virtuous to be of the nepioi and ptochoi but—and this is different—they will be raised up, and the proud will fall. And this—both sides/halves of this—is exactly what I understood and saw. (The question, why did I understand and see it? is not as correct a question as, why do we not see it, since it is in fact the true state of affairs? I do not have an answer to this, but I say that what I first understood and then saw is that Christ and the true Xtians in secret absolutely rule, in and as a kingdom coaxial to our mirror opposite world, and this is the Parousia as precisely defined and that when I understood and saw it in no way did I know enough to have possibly “guessed the riddle of ‘Tears,’” as I put it; that is, to have fathomed what I now discern to be the ultimate declaration of Xtianity which subsumes and also explains as logical and natural and practical all else: that heaven protects and sustains the nepioi and ptochoi—and, conversely, destroys the proud—these “physical facts” being totally, not just relatively concealed from us in terms of empirical knowledge and experience with world (that is, this cannot be inferred by

{p. 53 - 3-7}

world as it is or even was, and yet Jesus declares this in fact to be the case—which makes of Xtianity a revealed religion. 3-74 was both a revelation of the true state of affairs generally (what I call the Acts coaxial world) and also in the specific an instance pertaining to me personally in my real, actual and immediate peril of this axiom, this law so-to-speak in operation. 3-74, then, divides up into two portions that verify and reinforce and complete each other: (1) I was rescued; and (2) the power that rescued me is a ubiquitous kingdom or kingship operating thusly in all cases despite what our senses report: my case is not unique, then, not even unusual (as with pronoia or miracle per se) but a lawful, regular event built into and stemming from what I term a “covert physics” as real and as universal as any physics. It is, then, not at all the suspension of natural law—and, as it were, physical due process—but proof that we do not really know what the laws governing our world really consist of once the area of Xtian teaching is treated. “The return in glory” is, then, a disclosure of true reality more than an event, although it is necessarily linked to the event of the existential execution of the lawful “physics” that we simply cannot see; by this I mean that its operation on your specific behalf (the particular instance) and the 180° opposite coaxial domain (the universal true state of affairs concealed from us) cannot be separated; if heaven acts on your behalf you of necessity will see the universal situation (reality) and conversely. (This is not cause-and-effect; it is two sides of one thing.) I therefore say that I encountered the “return of Christ in glory” in that not only did heaven act on my behalf but moreover I saw the obtaining domain in which this action is lawful and logical, and this is the Parousia. But we are told in the synoptics that indeed the secret is kept from the many and revealed to the few; this is explicit. As the operation of heaven is for the nepioi and ptochoi

{p. 54 - 3-8}

and not for the proud (i.e. all others) it follows that only the former will ever know that the answer to the “Tears” riddle is the case. Here is why: if all people understood that by following Jesus’ teachings—which seem to be self-sacrifice absolutely—one acquires the support of the absolute power of heaven, then self-interest not morality would impel men, all men, to follow the way, and summarily the moral aspect would be engulfed by the pragmatic and practical, and an ethical system would succumb to the degradation of personal ambition. Thus the “secrecy theme” is simply unavoidable. There just plain is no other way that it can be done. Hence the stegenography, the veiling, is essential to the situation to a degree that by the very essence of logic admits of no mitigation or compromise. The way not will seem folly but must inexorably and inevitably seem so. Thus the apparent failure of Jesus and of Xtianity and the apparent non-occurrence of his return in glory—this fiction has to obtain. The prophecy and promise of the return in glory (1) had to be made; and (2) appear not to be fulfilled. Then the fact that it is always and eternally in fact fulfilled is the ultimate secret of the way, second only to the answer to the riddle posed in “Tears.” and the very rejection of faith in—belief in—the truth of Jesus’ victory and the veracity of his teachings serves the essential purpose of those very teachings and victory, for the real issue is moral (viz: in Judaism, the parent of Xtianity, it is most clearly and fully in the domain of morality that God’s presence is found and disclosed). The search for God, then, is successful—or not successful—due to certain moral acts (or the lack thereof) which acts in turn are based on appraisals that pertain to the ontology of the person: what he is at the utmost level—and this leads us back to the eschatological judging, and, then, the apocalypse itself.

{p. 55 - 3-9}

So this all turns out to be a coherent, vast, logical, lawful system in which ontology generates morality, morality generates certain acts, these acts lead to the inevitable operation of heaven on behalf of the person, and finally there occurs Gnosis, knowledge of the situation, enlightenment: one acts first and then understands (i.e. the true situation is revealed to him). So, as I say, it can be no other way. Paradoxicaly, the freedom of true moral choice can and does only occur when the person does not know the truth (actual situation, which is to say real consequences). Thus for inevitable reasons, moral choice and knowledge are bipolarized. This is very strange, and yet it can be understood. The true issue in moral choice; this is where ontology and freedom obtain. And knowledge suppresses all this. And so it can only come as consequence: as the final step in a long and crucial sequence, each step of which must {time?} precisely right. It would always have been this way, be this way, and in the future remain so. Hence when the AI voice speaks of St. Sophia’s approaching—or fulfilled—return it tells the truth, and yet this return never seems in fact to occur. This was true 1900 years ago, is true now, and, I suspect, will always be the case. And the fact that this is universally not realized has to be the case (for the reasons I have given: the case cannot be otherwise now, in the past, or ever, at least until the literal end of this planet and all life on it). To reprise, “Christ’s return in glory” is a disclose rather than a historical event, and the ubiquitous false notion that Jesus failed, his ethics do not work and he did not return not only must be the case but in fact serves as a top-level agency, agent and instrument of the very system that is doubted. The doubt is necessary to it, serves it, is subsumed by it, even generated by it. The system is in absolute control, and utilizes this disbelief—

{p. 56 - 3-10}

and this disbelief can only be abolished as a result of moral action and never before that essential moral action; it is not just allowed. It is (I think) imposed as a necessary condition that the moral act be possible. Thus it is hopeless for me to expect to convince anyone of the truth of my revelation in “Valis” because this is not how it works. This is not how it should work. This is not how it can work. My error is to reason: (1) knowledge of the truth. (2) then as a result, right conduct. But (2) would have ceased to be based on free choice, true ethical decision and would be merely smart. The act would be done for tangible reward, and this has nothing to do with morality and ethics. Right action must bear the stamp of folly, self-sacrifice and, finally, madness itself. For the first time in my life I understand the necessity of what I have long identified as a vast, deep and powerful cognitive and perceptive occlusion.

—————————

{p. 57 - 5-4}

I realize suddenly that in my letter to Isa I say we are saved through faith—utter faith, absolute faith in the for of recognition of our absolute and utter dependence on God; and this is truly the Pauline insight and position—and I did not realize this when I wrote the letter! (I.e. that I reaffirm Paul’s essential doctrine of salvation through fait—a faith that I rigorously define: I do not use the term vaguely but in the precise sense of the Reformers. My position (credo) is precisely that of esp. Luther: total reliance on God in contrast to reliance on one’s own powers: faith, then, as utter trust in God, as utter turning to God—to which God responds by justifying that person; again the Pauline Luther position regarding salvation! What also is implicit here is the view of the total worthlessness of man in terms of his capacity to save himself, and his utter inefficacy. (This is the other side of the utter faith in God which is an act: the act of turning to God, termed by me as a calling to God for aid, to which God responds. Probably my position is congruent with such 20th century existential Protestant theologians as Paul Tillich; beyond doubt! Esp. in view that man must act; he must do something: faith, then, is expressed existentially, not a belief in something but the act of calling out to

{p. 58 - 5-5}

God for help; and my whole scheme depends on, relies on, the Holy Spirit—again a Protestant position contra the Roman Catholic. What is perhaps unusual—heterodox—in my position is that I assert that man, not God, must take the first step; it is God who responds to man, not man to God, and this runs counter to the whole orthodox view of grace both Catholic and Protestant. But this only reveals my position as thoroughly existential; salvation hinges on a human decision and act based on that decision; God will not respond unless the person chooses, and he chooses entirely of his own free will. Despite the Pauline-Luther basis, my position is radical, and very modern. Man bears primary responsibility for setting in motion the machinery of his own salvation. Faith, then, pistis, is viewed by me as primary, existential, based on choice—which in turn is based on free will—and thus man takes an active role, an essential role, in his own salvation. He must come to a very great realization about himself and about God if he is to be saved. First, he must acknowledge his own total powerlessness (this is indeed a Protestant position!). He must then acknowledge his total dependence on God

{p. 59 - 5-6}

and he must ask for help (I deduce this from the word “Paraclete” itself). This goes far beyond petitionary prayer: man has faced and accepted the fact that the way has ended for him in terms of his own abilities and powers, then efficacy to save and preserve and sustain him; without God, he will cease to exist utterly: he will not be. Ontologically, this is as radical a Protestant-existentialist-Pauline theology as is possible: God is everything; man is nothing and exists only because of God, by God, out of God’s own being (that is, man’s being is totally derived from that of God). And, moreover, this act (resulting in justification, another basic theme in Protestantism) ocurs once and only once in a person’s lifetime: at the moment of ontological, existential crisis, as described by Heidegger. Now, my views derive from my “solving the riddle of ‘Tears,’” do they not? Which therefore again points to the Holy Spirit as the author of the scriptural material in “Tears.” (I.e. Acts, “the Gospel of the Holy Spirit”). What, I think, is most beautiful in my (sic) theology here is the concept of

{p. 60 - 5-7}

God as the absolute guarantor of man’s being—i.e. God as absolute friend and protector of man, i.e. God the Father who compltes his original work of creating man with this final act of justification. And, in addition, man and God are reunited (with man seeking God, and God seeking man). Everything is in terms of absolutes: absolute faith, absolute being conferred on man by God. But there is an original component in this system, here: the absolute cry by man to God. The call for help; man does not just absolutely trust that God will help him but must call out for that help; that is, man must act. Man bears, then, a responsibility so decisive as to be an absolute responsibility. He participates crucially in his own salvation. God does not impose salvation on him; man must ask for it, and ask for it predicated on an absolute realization of his dependence on God. There are no conditions or qualifications here. The concept “fate,” man’s fate, is newly comprehended by man as “fate as the power of God to save”; thus fate ceases to be a property or power of world and is seen as the power of God as distinguished

Word Doc of Transcription

Last edit over 4 years ago by Max

Folder 53

53 page 020 thumb

folder 53 - 020

C-8

There is something terrible + terrifying throughout "Valis" + it is coupled with wisdom. Agape is not the topic: war, judgment + death are, carrying out in full the dream in "Tears". It is all very convincing. The novel partakes of epic greatness. Also it is a story of madness converted into faith through -due to- suffering. But this suffering itself pertains to death, to slaying. Slaying: that is the basic theme of "Valis": + Shiva is the correct name for the deity. It is a very strong novel + a great, great one, a true epic of the human soul + spirit. But it deals with judgment + war + death. Slaying, not healing. The slaying even spreads out to include Sophia, who is the savior; the awful awesome power of YHWH is told of: it breaks out in all its destructiveness. Thus (I say) my 2-74-2-75 experience was that of Jakob Boehme + the dialectic in which the demonic power within God was revealed, + only the "bright" side of the dialectic -i.e. wisdom, Logos- confines the "dark" or demonic side to slaying the wicked + thus sparing the sheep. So (finally) I say: my experience was Boehme's, + it was of God himself, + he is terrible but just.

Last edit 21 days ago by Unteleported Man
53 page 022 thumb

folder 53 - 022

C-10

This is what I first experienced as Palmer Eldritch.

"DI" verifies that it is YHWH who is VALIS (based on my seeing the Tetragrammaton as I again heard the "... & is alive" statement). If VALIS is indeed YHWH, and it is, as I realized last night, & as the seeing the Tetragrammaton told me, then, all of "DI" follows "Valis" logically. The old King on horseback in "Tears" is YHWH.

This is why I saw Hebrew letters in 3-74.

Palmer Eldritch's vidlux eyes -- Shiva's 3rd eye. YHWH as Judge & destroyer at the end of time, the Apocalypse.

This is not the God of the N.T., the Xtian God of agape; this is YHWH whom Moses knew.

I looked it up in "DI" & it explicitly states that Valis is YHWH. "Valis". "Who is 'Valis'?" "The Lord your God", i.e Yah.

"Valis" is a very great book, passing from madness to sanity (the Logos), from Despair to Faith despite everything. But most of all:

1) 2-74 -- 2-75 was a theophany. Indubitably. 2) It is the God of Moses: YHWH 3) This in turn is connected with the Apocalypse, Daniel & Revelation (the Dream in "Tears"). 4) I have captured it thoroughly in words; not only did I experience a theophany by the God of Moses, but I got it written down in a novel that in fact is not a novel but a kind of modern-day Apocalyptic Book, like a fusion of Exodus & Daniel, literal events & symbolism: facts & visions combined.

Last edit 25 days ago by Max
53 page 023 thumb

folder 53 - 023

C-11

It is simply extraordinary that amid all my confusion I went on and wrote "DI" as the sequel to "Valis" & explicitly declared Valis to be the God of Moses: YHWH, for in "Valis" this is neither stipulated nor even speculated about. In fact, YHWH is defamed -- bipolarized to the Logos: stated to be irrational. But what comes of this, finally? Not Gnosticism at all, but a presentation of the vast Dialectic within God that Boehme & Schelling & Whitehead speak of -- that Tillich fears so important in the understanding of God as he really is.

It is simply impossible, what I've done -- experienced the God of Moses, which involved me in madness & brought me to the verge of physical death, survived & wrote about it.

Why, then indeed the AI voice is Ruah ! speaking of the messianic expectation -- which is why Christ is designated by the O.T. hypostasis: Hagia Sophia!

Now, I ask why this theophany? Pronoia was indubitably a major factor. However, the material in "Tears" indicates strongly that my writing is a factor. I did manage to write it up - one must include all three volumes of the Valis trilogy, here. Also, I have sought to write about God for years (this especially includes "Stigmata" in which I encounter the demonic side of God).

"Valis" is a very Great Book. & the inchoate quality only points to the veracity & the power of the vision (experience) on which it is based -- as John Clute so clearly recognized! All the side-trips, all the speculative & theoretical excursions, the asides, etc. in "Valis" only make it more convincing, more real. (as Art Spiegelman realized: that I neither know what in fact happened nor presume to say.) Clearly, all this happened, & clearly it almost destroyed & consumed me, & yet like Horselover Fat or

Last edit 25 days ago by Max
53 page 088 thumb

folder 53 - 088

H-1

I couldn't bear hearing what I was hearing Jeanie say. & then God turned into a very upper-class Englishwoman reading an old fashioned book 200 years ago.

I have it. Jeannie's voice turning from that of an actual woman in Calif USA 1982 telling about former events in her life - this turning literally into (1) an English woman, not American; (2) reading a book, not telling actual events; (3) of 200 300 years ago, not now - this only happens in a dream. YHWH did it, to spare me: the info about Chrissy's birth defect was like in a dream. We are asleep & dreaming. Strange. & God is in charge, not us: here is where it differs from a dream. A dream - we cause it ourselves. It emanates from our own mind: it is ourself mirrored back. But God's world emanates from another mind - the only true other "thing" we really know. Malebranche is correct. But both are equally dreams, made equally as the same thing: the only difference is the source.

The madness of Jehovah came upon me that night, & I was in London in 1715 Fuck. Once with Gene, later with Jeannie. Therefore 2-3-74 was Jehovah. World becoming Acts in 2-3-74 had not to do with world epistemology, but with Jehovah's presence & power! He replaces world-- his world, with

Last edit 7 days ago by gabrielmckee

Folder 48

48 page 052 thumb

folder 48 - 052

852

So my writing -+ thinking- have been a search for God; but in the end, when the crisis came -in Heidegger's sense of me being aware of my own death, i.e. my own non-being- it was YHWH who found me, not me him. At all costs the world must be real; it must not betray its epiphenomenality except under certain exceptional circumstances, such as 2-3-74, since the consequences can be lethal (since they involve (1) non-being + (2) the revealing of non-being). Thus such a crisis engages the percipient in death, +, if all goes well, resurrection; but only the most extreme circumstances would call it forth; it is, in my opinion, the ultimate move by God, since in allowing world to dissolve (display non being) he replaces it with himself (pellucid theophany). Both self + world disappear for a moment. The seriousness of this can't be overstated - + the possible benefit. (In terms of outcome experience of being by the creatorial percipient). It is like the bichlorides: "a very poisonous poison for you"; but if used in a "measured dose" a medicine that cures madness; viz: the drugged intoxication of our earthly state.

Last edit 12 months ago by Unteleported Man
All 19 records