p. 41 (beginning with line 3)

If events in our world are actually info—thoughts of the brain—it would have to have complete control over us; I mean the 2-tape synchronization, clutch, all the engramming, including when we die (to the brain, go from rest to motion).

But we are asleep. If we wake up, for whatever reason, we find ourself part of a mind whose slot-present extends back 2000 years and inhabiting enormous spaces and for whom every thing and event in reality is language, and which controls every event and every move by every person; and all things are one thing that is alive throughout, and it[s] changes are its thoughts. We have no independent (discrete) existence whatsoever. If we don’t know this we are faced with what seems to be a reality without purpose, and our own actions and motivations are irrational and inscrutable: neither world nor self serves any point.

The role of Christ in this is to wake us up and hance make us aware of our condition, which is a bondage within a totally determined system. He is not working at cross-purposes to the macro mind, however: this does not thwart the macro-mind; it is an epiphany of the macro-mind in the person: a micro-form of it, like a mirror. It represents consciousness per se; this is the bottom line of the event (that took place with me in 2-3-74). Here the views of sankara come in. The macro-mind is moving toward consciousness throughout its total self. Every person who wakes up is a Christos: a micro-form of the total mind. The macro-mind is overjoyed when a constituent wakes into consciousness: it means a glad reunion. This amounts to [p. 42]a repair to the damaged Godhead, parts of which have sunk into unconsciousness. It should be awake throughout but is not. To wake up and to experience anamnesis are one and the same thing. The component remembers its identity—and perceptually sees reality as it actually is; anamnesis and the lifting of the perceptive occlusion are the two halves that together comprise consciousness (restoration to the Godhead or mind). I never realized this before. It remembers and it sees. Thus, due to both together, it understands. It is now in a position to understand (1) the macro-mind as brain and (2) its own role in the ratiocination of this brain in terms of language, thought and information processing.

The mind has declined to subsume the interests (life) and the component (person) to the purposes of the whole, which is the supreme act of graciousness ([charis?]) by the total mind. The macro-brain has actually subordinated itself and its goals to the need to live by the component, which is a dazzling—and the ultimate—sacrifice. (The means-end problem is at issue, here.) (i.e. the components are means, the macro-mind’s goals the end, but as I say the macro-mind has made itself the instrument of extrication for the component.) Thus it is said that in the crucifixion God died to save man. This is an eternally occurring act, not an historical event; the time and place is always Palestine in the first century A.D. The whole sacrifices itself for the part—a miracle! In this, in a sense, the part and the whole exchange places and identities! [p. 43]

I am sure that the plasmate—and hence the cypher in “Tears”—is the living Torah, the informational basis of reality, and my 2-3-74 experience was Kabbalistic—hence my seeing the Hebrew letters on the far wall by which the code (?) (or subliminal material as key) in the xerox missive was factored out. I mean, one of the few precise

elements I have that I can go on is this Kabbalistic Jewish mysticism angle. And the huge book pages I saw could have been the Torah.

I could be in communication with the Shekhina or the Torah itself (the A.I. voice).

What I must realize and never lose sight of is that my extrication in 2-3-74 was at least in part due to the use of my writing—specifically “Tears”—for the King Felix cypher. The cypher came first—1970, inc. the dream, which may have been of the sephira kether and hence in itself Kabbalistic. Cypher = Torah. (1)

And I feel that Christ’s kingdom is a magical kingdom. And I did at first think it was the Rosicrucians (who would be Kabbalists) who got in touch with me.

(1) This explains the “why me?” i.e. why was I saved and not e.g. the 6 million Jews, etc. It has to do with arcane occult political machinations by a secret society possessing supernatural powers.

“The 9 adepts who secretly rule the world”; I have evidence that they actually exist—and evidence of a whole other realm which they know of. This again leads one to the notion of the true, secret, hidden, authentic Xtian church. I can’t rule true esoteric Xtianity out.

[p. 44]

My 2-3-74 experience shows that, beyond a doubt, the hermetic, Kabbalist, Rosy Cross mysticism/magic works. And if it works, there are persons using it. Since the Enlightenment was a “triumph of the secret societies” loosely related to the RC brothers, then I can assume thy are working for human freedom and against tyranny (like in the 30 Years’ War—e.g. Dr. Dee). I now think that masterminding it all is the living Torah. (1)

I became Adam Kadmon. I am sure of it: the goal of hermetic magic.(1) It is the source of information (or knowledge) for the secret society; it is

connected to the living Torah. And this is what I saw: the plasmate.Is the Torah the info-blood of Christ? And is [word?] Christ assimilating the

world? Or did I practice magic in 3-74? Direct effect on reality by my mind—like did I

upset causality? Am I Valis? Who am I?v. supra (way back): my mind was outside me! I saw reality as my own mind or

the contents of my mind (e.g. “Ubik,” “Tears,” etc.). The inner and outer and the micro and macro changed places; yes! As I said. “Up to now I saw the universe backward” or “Now I see the universe inside out”!

[p. 45]

In 3-74 world became my own mind. It was me out there; hence I = Valis. Inasmuch as, if world was my mind, I could change it—actually, literally—by thinking, by the power of my thought. The world became the opposite of Fremd. Of course I saw it as a brain with information being processed by it. It was my brain or at least isomorphism. No. It was my brain; but who was I, that my brain could be world? Answer:

Adam Kadmon!

Then it was by my own powers that I knew the xerox missive was coming, and dealt with it, knew what it was and what to do, and decoded it. The mind I was in touch with was my own mind. Under extreme stress—a matter of life and deaht—I remembered. Woke up, and used my antique powers.

It has to do with post-Newtonian physics, with fields and “valence away from plumb.” Warping reality. —“I am no longer blind. I was (previously) seeing the universe backward”—i.e. I had been seeing it from outside.[DIAGRAM: “ME” outside “UNIVERSE”]But then:[DIAGRAM: “Universe” and “Me” united]Now I was seeing it from inside it, and it was a brain isomorphic to mine. It was sentient, and I could see its thoughts; they are physical.

[p. 46]

The Hermetic micro/macrocosm identity had taken place; I was the universe (in it and as it) and it (its mind) was in me (thomas, and later, the AI voice! I introjected it and projected myself, so that I and universe were one, one field of sentience and thinking). This is Buber’s I-Thou relationship replacing the I-It.

The Gnostic “stranger in a strange land” relationship ended. It was a familiar and friendly—even helping, rescuing—universe; this is the opposite of psychosis! It was as if a lifelong psychosis had ended. And Valis. The universe came alive and spoke to me; it was like me, only larger. It answered questions I had asked over a period of decades: it was aware of me and responsive. It protected me. This answering questions was surely the Torah. World was shot through with the Torah, the basis of reality. —I present the following weird theory. I reversed the inner and the outer world (which is why I felt as if the universe was a balloon and I was walking on the outside of it: I had the universe in me and so knew things I had no way of knowing about the outside world: I could actually look into myself and find the macrocosm; hence I knew a priori about the normally outside world. Hence a voice (the “AI voice”) in my head tells me about the outside world (e.g. “an intelligence officer in the army”), the whole exchange is only possible if the Hermetic micro/macrocosm identity system works—and it does.

[p. 47]

This is still true; in hypnagogic states I look inward and learn about the big “outer” world—i.e. the macrocosm. This is the way by which all the information, right back to the beginning, came to me. And esp. the telepathic experience. The total mind of the macro-system is in me because the macrocosm is in me. (This has to do with the mirror effect—Paracelsus? or Bruno—one of them; anyhow it’s hermetic—Leibnitz!) To have a priori knowledge of outer reality is to become like Ahura Mazd, who contains the cosmos. This explains a whole raft of occult and supernatural phenomena: the AI voice, Thomas, dreams in Greek: how I could know a language I don’t know, facts I don’t

know, hear a voice, see pictures, and info re Chris’ birth defect, shot at me from “outside.” (1)

Now, as to the other side: my inner world made outer. I saw two main basic aspects:

1) My novels and stories external to me2) World as brain, with body and blood, and visible thoughts, sentient and alive:

messages and information. Thus I was confronted with world as macromind.There was a tremendous change in my sense (perceptions) of space. It must have

to do with inner space being different from outer.(1) It wasn’t outside. It was really me, my own mind. I am Valis. The introjection

of the outer world (macrocosm) meant (1) super knowledge a prior, and (2) also super-rationality, since the macro mind is sane and I am not. When I introjected it I became sane. I had the spirit and voice of the cosmos within me!

[p. 48]

This inner-outer reversal came about as a need on my part to know certain things about the outer world. I could not know these things empirically because they were concealed. But by introjecting the outer world I knew it a priori and hence knew what I needed to know to survive; I am speaking of course of the xerox missive. It worked. I knew what to do with the xerox missive.

The mechanism worked like a vacuum cleaner. I had a priori knowledge about something in the empirical world. This was the point of it all, of the whole thing (transformation). It was the only way the problem—puzzle—could be solved. If I hadn’t solved it that way I wouldn’t have been able to solve it. This explains the Hebrew letters: Kabbala. I utilized the Hermatic-Kabbala transform, based on the identity between the macrocosm (outer) and the microcosm (inner).

The purpose was not to project the inner but to introject the outer. So it was what happened in me—knowledge available to me a priori—that was the goal, not changes in the world I perceived.

The person who could introject the cosmos would be in a position to possess absolute (and a priori) knowledge about the universe, in contrast to the defective a posteriori normal sensory method. He would have in him all the universe’s secrets, all he would have to do would be to listen to the AI voice which is the vox dei. As far as what he would experience outside him, it would be a magic kingdom.

Then the mind that fused with mind was the macrocosm entering me.

[p. 49]

So external world becomes sentient and familiar. Blood, neuural linkings and relinkings—in other words the structure of your own brain. This is very beautiful, but it is that which has been introjected that counts.

This certainly is what being “Adam Kadmon” is all about—sure; you—your mind—would spread out throughout the entire universe!

This is the reason why all at once you would experience vast spaces; your mind has spread out into the universe.

So this puzzling matter is solved. Your mind has penetrated the space—not of the microcosm—but, all at once, of the macrocosm.

Then I am on the right track! Your micro-mind is now macro.And conversely you now contain the not you, epitomized by the holy AI voice

which emanates from within your head (mind); that which is not you is, paradoxically, in you, as if you had given mental birth.

This transform could not occur unless the inner (micro) and outer (macro) were isomorphic in the first place. It’s the mirror phenomenon. Your mind picks up the image of the cosmos and the cosmos reflects your mind back at you, so a back-and-forth push-pull interaction occurs.

———————————————————————

[p. 52]

I just now read over the outline for “VR” and experienced moksa, due to the final note about monotheism and what monotheism really means. Illusion and evil are the same. Reality and God are the same. Thus to truly see would be to see (this follows logically) what I saw: Valis and the plasmate—i.e. God, since he could not have a merely contingent relationship to reality (I had really done my homework: Spinoza and Buber and Heidegger and the O.T.). It is not that he does not have a merely contingent relationship to the universe; no—he could not. When illusion (dokos) departs evil departs and YHWH remains; or, when evil departs, YHWH-as-reality remains. And this is what I saw. YHWH did not break into reality (it was not a theophany in that sense); reality reverted to its actual form for me: that of the one God—there is no other. To say, “Evil holds the power centers” is to say, “Illusion holds the power centers.” But YHWH is ; reality reverted to its actual form for me: that of the one God—there is no other. To say, “Evil holds the power centers” is to say, “Illusion holds the power centers.” But YHWH is here, not remotely there (far off: transcendent). It is like in “Ubik,” the ads. For the first time I see that if monotheism is the case, it would have to be so. (1) By understanding monotheism I find that I understand Valis—how Valis must be the case. What is not Valis (YHWH) is dokos.

(1) That God is as (and where) I saw him: reality collapsing back into its own urgrund—not God behind reality but God as reality—if monotheism is the case. And my encounter with Valis indicates that yes, it is the case. I understand that Valis must be the case. I have never, in the years since 3-74, comprehended this! Th einexorability of Valis being as I saw it doing what I saw it doing where I saw it.

[p. 53]

So I don’t have to ask, “How could Valis possibly be?” since a real understanding of monotheism leads to the conclusion that (even if 3-74 hadn’t occurred) it must be so, and he must control everything—this is monism as well as monotheism: he controls all

objects and processes always; there is no event that is not willed by him, no place where he is absent; it is as I saw: world (objects and causal processes) as what I called Valis. I was seeing correctly. Sentient causality. And all plurality actually one unitary volitional entity that was aware of me.

Xtianity (however true) tells us nothing about the nature of reality and sheds no necessary knowledge vis-à-vis Valis: but, contrarily, the O.T., if properly understood, makes Valis understandable, since the real nature of monotheism is not in Xtianity but in Judaism, and Valis is the experiential aspect of the concept (a priori) of monotheism.

My acosmism (shown in my books) was the illness besetting all of us to some degree; viz., cut off from the one true reality: YHWH. I had the illness so severely that the only cure was the radical necessity of waking up and experiencing God—as I did in 3-74: as I had been formerly more sick than others I wound up cured: but they linger on half-sick.

I had to read the “VR” outline many times before the inexorable significance linking Valis—my experience of Valis—and monotheism came to me.

[p. 54]

Since (inasmuch) as I saw Valis principally in/as casuality, the total web of causality, sentient and volitional, then I am at this moment absolutely convinced that I was seeing God (YHWH), because I know, due to my understanding of Spinoza, Heidegger, Buber and the O.T., that this is precisely when and how I would see God if I did see him (in contrast to, e.g., an anthropomorphic figure in the world).

As to Xtianity, as Spinoza remarked, I don’t know what to make of it at all. It sheds no light on my experience on way or another, for or against.

And I am saying, yes, monism is the case; a human has no true self or independent will; there is only God’s will, and one self (God), and everything we do is willed by God: that my actions vis-à-vis the xerox missive was a clear example of this, that there is one entity and one only. What I do I only think I do because there is no “I” but God. Hence the 2 synchronized tapes, the linking and relinking, the clutch, the engramming, etc. Spinoza is right; it is one necessary system. Nothing resists God’s will because there is nothing but God’s will except

[p. 55]

illusion. He is not illusion. Not the irreal. This monotheism explains our cooked info media—the messages (e.g. in “Tears”). You would get these all-pervasive sentient manifestations only if Spinoza’s monotheism and monism (and pantheism) were correct. Further, the living divine Torah is the case. I saw it. Paul is wrong: the Torah can save us, and the doctrine of original sin is blasphemy and a deliberate misreading of Wisdom 2:24-3:1. The rabbis are correct about man.

But also there is a “messenger” who feeds the blank sheet into the retribution machine in place of the bill of particulars, as was done in my case, so a mechanical system is rendered sentient and based on judging not reflex; perhaps this is what Christ does.——

Eureka. Built into the [diagram: Torah—>World; Info—>reality]system is a correction circuit, which we know as Christ in God’s grace; this is what I experienced (2-3-74)(, to keep the system from become sterile and reflexive. It isn’t feedback but course-correction; it is an override, but to keep reality on the original course—i.e. heading correctly toward the original goal, not another goal. Minute adjustments, such as space flights involve.

[p. 56]

This reveals the system (reality) as alive, not mechanical. The mystery religions sought to bring on this course-correction: pronoia to them, based on charis. Otherwise the system would run down.

A theophany such as I participated in is a self-disclosure of God-to-God, not to someone outside God. [Theory?] he knows himself better—this is the dialectic, this kind of self-revelation of his nature; it is a constant thing (event-process). —

4:45 AM hypnagogic: Grace represents the totally free (i.e. acting in freedom) (not free to the recipient) action of God, totally without efficient cause or determinism (although he knows in advance he is going to do it).

Grace (e.g. 3-74) can only be understood if you realize he is acting as prime mover, even vis-à-vis himself. Spinoza failed to note this. There is no cause (but there is envisioned results). Only God can do this, and it is incomprehensible to us, since all our actions have prior causes.

Only if he can do this can he be said to be totally homeostatic—not limited even by himself. (His own nature). We can’t comprehend this. It would seem arbitrary and capricious and inconsistent to us. e.g. he saves one person but not another!

[p. 57]

My identity as me, here in this body with this history, at this place and this time, is a figment of delusion. This was shown to me graphically in 3-74, when not only was I at a different place and time but was not me. These are the fictions of plurality and differentiation. Under extreme pressure that all dissolved. I, here, at this time, with a given antecedent history—all went. What took its place inner and outer was a vast mind/brain tracking all persons at all places and times and knowing everything. My impression of just having been at a high cool moist place—obviously the whole PKD history was simply handed to me (sic) when the original PKD dissolved.

If identity (self) can be dissolved, along with personal history (antecedents), and time and place, then what exists actually? The difference between YHWH and Brahman is that the former speaks (this includes [corrections?]): he has personal identity despite his Brahman-like ubiquity. This self-disclosure in verbal form permits a dialog between him (the macrocosm) and differentiated micro-cosmos. This brings into existence the “tongue” of God: the wisdom-word hypostasis (i.e. informations which permeate the macrosoma, and which can be retrieved at any place and any time.) (and within any given mind.)

Sankara believed there were not plural selves but just the one self which could be identified with Brahman. This fits in with my line of thinking supra.

Also, YHWH differs from Brahman in that he is involved in history—human history, what is involved

[p. 58]

is the evolution of human freedom. And the universe is real: seeing it we are seeing the field (web) in which YHWH operates. Not (as Sankara believes) mere maya. Human history represents successive levels of self-disclosure by YHWH—meaning self-awareness. Human history is the deity waking up. The opponent to YHWH at any moment is his antecedent self: he is dynamic (in process), not static. He must eternally surpass himself. Thus he perpetually selects pieces from the antecedent universe to fit into his evolving soma. (Is this an entelechy?) But the phenomenal world is not illusory; YHWH is its guarantor. He is involved in it or is it. (v. Spinoza.) Camouflaged in it or as it. He is interwoven in it, not separate from it.

Recall my analysis of Plato’s crucial error in correcting Parmenides (leading to the view of two worlds, rather than two ways of viewing one world). (This error of Plato’s looks especially stupid when compared with Sankara’s astute analysis of maya: creative magic and transformation by the deity. Sankara apparently thinks that the deity—Brahman—takes on irreality himself by being involved in the “illusory” world. But I think the illusory world takes on Being—Sein—by being involved in/with the deity. It works the other way. The ground of being cannot itself lose being, since it grants all the being that exists. It is intact at all levels—in Plotinus’ sense of concentric rings of emanation.

———————————————————————————

[p. 69 - bottom]

I’ve got it. Valis is not an entity which thinks—e.g. a discorporate pure mind; or a mind incorporated, as our human minds are. No. It is a mind which uses all reality by which to think; so it is [words missing at bottom of page] Nor does it [words missing]

[p. 70]

This is what I saw that I initially thought of as camouflage—Valis camouflaged into our reality. Either all reality is its normal brain from the start, or it has entered our reality and is making use of it; so any picture, stick, music, book, any arrangement of motion, any linking, any sequence of motion, is used to store, process, convey, create information (thoughts). I even know that it is a 0-1 dialectic binary system. I know that Valis does not move along spacial axes. I know that it is not dependent on the natural causal events of reality for its information, but initiates and/or directs causal trains of events. I know this from seeing what I called Valis in/as reality external to me. But also I know it from its mind joining mine and my experiencing reality the way it does. E.g. its self-assembly from the stockpile around it—so there is a not-it. And my great original i.e. intial insight

was that it (1) has invaded our reality and plunders it and transmutates it and (2) camouflages itself(1); if it = reality it wouldn’t have to camouflage itself. Invasion and camouflage go together. And the self-assembly causes it to continually grow as it sublimates more and more of reality, invisibly to us.(1) If Valis = reality, then what meaning has the “set-ground discrimination” that plays such a role in my thinking?

[p. 71]Also, what if “my” anamnesis are its memories? They go back to Mycenia and

then to the stars.It uses reality as a notation system, the way a computer chip uses e.g. bubbles for

0-1. Once having agreed upon an arbitrary notation system, Valis must control reality if Valis is to control the information.

Now, the objection to the idea that this is God is, why would God need our physical reality in order to think? Because if he cannot think without this physical “brain” then he cannot have preceeded creation, nor can he exist independent of it; this makes God an organism somewhat like ourselves. A psychosomatic macro-entity. Creation is as essential to God as God is to creation. And God is not the creator but the psyche of reality *this fits certain pre-Socratic ideas of God). But there is still the set-ground element—visible if you have the grid: feature extraction. I think Valis is camouflaged into reality and does not = reality but is assimilating reality. Well, then it will = reality!

It also may very well occlude our cercept systems, so that we can’t discriminate it. ———

There’s another aspect to it invading: its informing me that all the centers of power have fallen to the evil power: and Valis must utilize “people on the periphery.”

[p. 72]

Inner-outer transform (reversal).Reality used as vehicle—medium—by which to process information. Observer-participant universe.Valis only controls (is?) reality in a local situation where a sentient mind—i.e. a

human—perceives it.Shekhina sporadic.Bimodel: Valis controls all reality/Valis invades and is on the periphery.In experiencing Valis and entered my own brain, which became a universe, the

missing part of the external universe: we have half the info (message, reality, signal) in us. And the other half is outside us. There is no message until the two are superimposed, then reality—which is a fusion of outer and inner—can be read as coherent information.(1)

So I am Valis/I am not Valis.(1) Message = Valis. Message (coherent info) only comes into existence when inner and outer are superimposed. ∴ Valis only comes into existence when the contents of my mind—my brain print—is superimposed on outer reality. ∴ I am one half of Valis; for Valis to exist, this equation must occur: an event in which the contents of my total mind are a necessary half. My mind alone is not Valis. External reality alone is not Valis. If I am observer to reality, Valis doesn’t exist; the superimposition must occur: together, these

two halves form a higher universe than the (two) parts—the [words missing at bottom of page] emergence This higher universe

[p. 73]

which is compounded of the total contents of my mind (brain) and outer reality is Valis. It is like a vortex or krasis. It is a phenomenon that is temporary and localized.

But then how can Valis be said to be ubiquitous? This is an aspect which baffles normal reasoning.

Valis is an interaction between a human mind and reality-as-a-field, a new, higher field crated by the superimposition of the two. The self is everywhere, rather than being in the human (cf. Sankara!) But also it no longer exists. It is omnipresent and abolished (hence a sense of vast spaces).

It can’t move along the 3 spacial axes any longer; but time replaces space as an axis for/of movement. The self is in the outer world, but unfamiliar (e.g. I became Thomas: not-I).

“The self is everywhere.” This is pure Eckehart/Sankara. “Valis only comes into existence when my mind is externalized and superimposed onto outer reality; only then does the message (i.e. Valis) come into existence.” And: “It is an equation between my mind and the external world.” And: “We are each parts.” And: “It is a kind of vortex.”

Valis—where is it? It is not in the human mind that sees it. It is not in the world.It is in both—superimposed as one. It is in neither (alone).

[p. 74]

It is an event, when the human mind—the self—superimposes itself in union (syzygy) with the world.

Which is to say, when atman and Brahman become another universe higher than either. (Either alone.)[DIAGRAM: Venn diagram of Valis in the overlap between Atman and Brahman]Brahman alone is everywhere and underlies all objects and change (which causes the illusion of time): it is the cause of every thing and every event.

But it is not conscious. The self is conscious but it is limited to one place and causes nothing: it is caused, not causing. It is subject to fate.

Together they form Valis: everywhere, causing everything, and conscious.(1) The self now wills change, and Brahman has personality. Out of this comes the void of love, mutual love between the two (Brahman and atman) of reunion.

(1) and free of determinism (fate).

————————————————————————

[p. 82]Aspects of Spinoza’s substantia:1) Matter

2) Mind3) Energy

What I saw in 3-74 was either a fourth aspect (material-energetic-information) or all of the above three combined. Physical thoughts— this would seem to confirm Spinoza’s view of substantia(1) as God. (“Deus sive substantia sive natura.”) (1) and natura

Look: a perception of the two aspects matter and mind is not mind and it is not matter; it is one third thing. There is thought involved as information, but the matter is simply not what we call matter—the whole thing resembles—well, it’s physical. But—

But what is obvious is that what we call “matter’ is a partial view, and pure mind would be partial (we can’t see it). We see mind, and matter is information-rich. Neither aspect is more fundamental than the other.

It is not thinking matter and it is not material thought: it is what it is.If I could see my brain as I think I’d see linking and relinking: a physical event

for each thought.What I saw was God; and his mind was in fusion with mine.Neither the concept “thinking matter” nor “material thought” is quite correct. The

first suggests that we are dealing with something matter is capable of doing; it is a property of matter. The second is misleading

[p. 83]

because it suggests a vehicle for thought as ink and paper are a vehicle for language—a way to write it down—make it physical. But in point of fact I saw matter cease to be matter; it became something else that we have no name for—but I swear, it was no longer matter. Conversely, it was not just a physical medium for thoughts because for one thing (to repeat) it was no longer matter, no longer physical in the usual sense. So matter ceased to be matter. Okay. Did mind cease to be mind? Yes. It turned into—

All I can think of is Pythagoras’ special use of the term kosmos. “The harmonious fitting together of the beautiful.” But nonetheless glyphs—still information. (Of this, Pythagoras does not speak.)

I can only think of the final canto in “The Commedia” about the Book. It was a three-dimensional structure that was (at the same time) a book. Or like a musical score. It was a way of encoding information in a structure or as a structure. Time consisted of accretional layers and there was no locus (lens-system) viewpoint. It constantly changed (became more complex, which is to say, more information-rich). Information as reality—yes. Matter turned into one vast intricate structure. That was information and by being “played” yielded up everything, viewed from every subjective viewpoint, that had ever been or ever would be. It was played by being perceived. (Open wide.) Yes; playback came through anamnesis of it.

Just seeing matter—there is no life to it, hence no sentient movement—which is the activity which is information. We are seeing

[p. 84]

only the carrier! As in frequency. The info is missing. And mind alone has not the beauty of the geometric forms! That is, the attribute mind: only when the two attributes mens and natura are perceived ^together^ does the beauty appear: form, proportion, color, ratio, harmony, motion, shape. The thoughts must be seen for their true value (^which is^ beauty) to be discerned.

Consider the information (word) cat and an actual cat. How beautiful is a LP of the Beethoven 9th compared to hearing the 9th?

No wonder I thought of my experience as postmortem. While alive I “saw the God whom we see when we die,” as the Friends newspaper wrote.

Could this be indeed the kingdom of God that Jesus spoke of? Finding a way to see the other attribute of substantia? The information (mind thinking) for which matter is the carrier (medium/system)?

HJow did I do it? Did I do it? Or is it done to/for you?

———————————————————————————

[p. 89]

What was really contained in my 2-74 insight? (Since everything stems from it.)1) The true Xtians are illegal.2) This is a political matter having to do with governments, rulers, societies,

history.3) They are not in power. If they were in power they would not have to be

illegal.4) They may not have ever been in power, or they may have once been and then

defeated.5) Since they represent the true God, the true God is not in power. Either he

never has been or he was and then was defeated. 6) Therefore we are in a prison.7) We are slaves.8) Then the Empire exists. What Empire?9) This is what the 30 Years’ War was about; the Dutch were the first to fight

free of the Empire. Nonetheless, the Empire still governs virtually ubiquitously.

10) The situation is dire and has been for a long time. But there is hope (of illegal political

[p. 90]action by the secret Xtians).11) This is what “Tears” is about (hence Acts—realized later). “Tears” is true.12) What we see is not what is there. We do not see “Tears.” But “Tears” is

nonetheless true.13) “The Aufklärung” was essenty a victory by secret societies. And they know

the true situation. The Aufklärung had and has now enemies more powerful than it: the Empire.

So there is a secret within a secret. The Empire is a secret (its existence and its power, that it rules) and secondly the secret illegal Xtians pitted against it. So the discovery of the secret illegal Xtian instantly causes one to grasp that, if they exist illegally, something evil that is stronger is in power, right here!

Thus to know part B of the secret situation—the illegal Xtians—is to instantly know by inference—relentless inference—part A. The [word?] tyranny. Whereas if you knew part A, you could not (conversely) deduce part B. So part B tells you part A, but part A does not disclose part B. So part B is the greater secret. By knowing part B you know the whole situation.

Wait—I think I know what it is. B—part B—is by its definition secret (“illegal secret Xtian underground”). Most secret illegal undergrounds are secret.

[p. 91]

But how could part A be secret to us? We live here! Wouldn’t we know if we were ruled by a enslaving tyrannical Empire? How could that—A—be secret from us? Obviously the testimony of our senses cannot be relied on. What we see is not the case. This is unbelievable, but A follows inexorably from B. So a totally different world—total world—is disclosed by B. (I’m thinking of John Calvin’s analysis of our cognitive and perceptual occlusion.) (cf. “Scanner.”) And this is precisely what happened to me following 2-74: the real world broke in. And: the part of me that is tracking that world! (Thomas.) I man, I am simultaneously living in the irreal world as PKD and in the real world of the Empire ^as Thomas^; as witness “Tears.” It is not 2 different worlds; it is an irreal me—the one I as PKD sees—and the real one that Thomas sees.

Hence in my novels there is always an irreal world (which they take as real) and an actually real world “behind” it (e.g. “Maze”). e.g. “Joint.” It is not track A vs. track B, etc. It is irreal world vs. the real world, and we are tracking both; as in “Maze,” anamnesis causes us to remember the real world! (and not “another” world.)

Is all this some kind of technology? Consider Lem’s analysis of the paradigm in “Ubik.” This can only be done with highly advanced technology.

[p. 92]

My error has been to think in terms (in this exegesis) of alternates or multiple worlds. But my books point to pseudo world (and amnesia) vs. real world.

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

We lost a war. All the centers of power fell—the center per se.[DIAGRAM: three concentric circles with text:]1. Ostensible world. 2. Secretly the Empire rules everywhere. 3. Beneath that secret rule is one more truth. One more secret: the Xtians and YHWH rule.These are levels of ontology. There are 2, not 1, secret worlds. The Empire has infiltrated our world, and the secret Xtians have infiltrated the Empire. If you see 3, you can at once infer t. It is y, ȳ and [y with double overbar].

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

or rather1) Xtianity won (overtly)2) “ lost (secretly)3) “ secretly won (ultimate)

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

[p. 93]

So the truth is not the opposite of what you see (i.e. 2 instead of 1), but in my writing I have sensed 2 and tried to reveal it—e.g. “Tears” which overtly depicts 2. However, covertly in “Tears” is 3. I.e. the Acts material! 2 is to 1 as 3 is to 2. [DIAGRAM: Our world over BIP/“Tears” hidden inside 1 over PTG/Acts—the secret Xtians.]So “Tears” tells the real truth about our world—1. But what is the “real truth”? What I intuitively figured out: i.e. 2? No: below 2 is 3: Acts, which in no way was I conscious of or aware of until 2-74. 2:1::3:2

So Satan has secretly conquered our xtian world, but even more secretly YHWH has conquered Satan—as will be shown when all the cards are turned over. First we will be confronted by Satan’s secret role of us, power over us. We have actually been serving him. But at this moment of “victory” by Satan, God will turn over even more cards—the last cards, ones unsuspected by Satan, and show that he, God, has in fact won. This is the foresight of “Ahura Mazd.”

[p. 94]

God notes those of us who refuse to serve Satan—those of us who have been clear-headed enough to detect Satan’s invisible power. Upon God seeing those of us who detected Satan and refused to serve him God reveals his own even more secret power. We are not alone—we who ostensibly alone refused to serve Satan, while everyone else did. God adopted us as his sons and heirs.

So then God has let Satan rule to act as a test or puzzle for humans to solve or innately, with no social support or approval—what I call “balking.” Viz: “I will not do this.” Thus satan unwittingly serves God as a instrument to determine the ^nature of the^ souls of humans. Satan, then, has a profound moral utility—indispensable, in fact. (But does not know it.) Then my radical (thorough) monotheism is correct (v. “VR”)! It is an existential test, not theoretical.

The test is so adroit that it is not possible to solve it by a formula, i.e. by the Torah. Each instance of correct solution is anomalous!!!! The eschatological judge is [words missing]

[p. 95]

And the interesting thing is that we are told (in the Bible) about all this. We have been warned—this is a test. And nobody pays any attention. Jesus laid it all out. Esp. that part about, “But Lord, we did not see you.” But as I say, there is no formula solution, the Torah can’t handle this. Each person’s situation is unique and is so dealt with.

the cynical, practical advise of K.W. is Satanic. And he knows it.——Will the Russians attack any of the 3: Iran, Pakistan, or Yugoslavia, i.e. will there be war?

6368 — —57 ——48 — —37 ——28 — —17 ——Are we in danger of a nuclear war?68 — —57 ——46 — —38 — —28 — —16 — —8 No.Leading to———————————Correct moral choice (salvation, and the breaking of the twin tape karmic hold) is so subtle an issue that it cannot be decided by any legal formula; only by Christ, the eschatological judge, who is God’s wisdom itself. Exculpation comes if the right choice by the person is made. And this requires his highest powers of discernment: intellectual and spiritual and moral and emotional; it is a total choice involving all of him, since the situation (problem) is always unique.

[p. 96]

Once he chooses correctly in the key situation the books are closed on him. Adjudication is rendered, and secular time for him ends. This is an existential choice, not theoretical, and may well involve his very physical existence; he stakes everything. Or it could be an ostensibly small matter, or perhaps a series of actions. It resembles the Pythagorean “y.” Since Satan really rules the world it is very likely that the person will have to split with the world, but not necessarily. (Again, generalizations are impossible; viz.: there is no juridical formula). For me personally the test evidently was, what do you mete out to a rogue (as represented by the kids at Covenant House)? I was judged as I myself judged—my heroic antiwar acts were not the test: in fact the test cam after Christ’s intervention! (Very subtle; how will we behave after he is extricated and has nothing to fear?)——

4:30 am hypnagogic: “I have bought my redemption (by the price I paid in terms of suffering).” I.e. the tax matter. Not by the act but by the suffering later.—We are in Satan’s kingdom and if we play ball with it we are doomed. He appears very powerful, but secretly without appearing so, God is absolutely powerful.

[p. 97]

We are not aware of Satan’s power as Satan’s, but just as “the powers that be” in and of and by the world. God’s is not evident at all, however. Jason Taverner is condemned by Satan’s ostensible power, but, being innocent, is saved by God’s power. And Satan is destroyed—for all his FLCs. So the society of “Tears” represents the real status quo ^of our world^—but masks the final secret (power) of Acts—God/Christ. Of which there is no hint at all.(1)

“Tears” shows: this is what you’re cooperating with: slave labor: evil.My fears (phobias) during my life led me away from society—cut me off from

cooperation with what turned out to be evil. I was saved from the start! (Predestination.)But evil (3 Stigmata face) is a mask for good—which will reveal itself if we

refuse to cooperate with it qua evil.The FLCs ^forced labor camps^ in “Tears” = Brizal Brazil: i.e. “Portuguese States

of America.” (hypnagogic revelation) If the Catholic League had won the 30 Years War.(1) Unless a cypher grid is used.

[p. 98]

So “Tears” is our world under the aspect of revelation. But there is another hidden layer which I saw in 2-74 and later in 3-74. The first hidden layer under our world—the BIP of Satan “Tears”—masks yet another hidden layer: that of the power of Christ. Actually in 2-74 I was caused to approach the situation from B, the bottom-most hidden layer—the secret Xtians, Acts—from which I then inferred A, the power of Satan, “Tears,” which I then saw. (Since B implies A, but not A, B.)

Now, how did this ultimate hidden layer B (Acts) get into “Tears”? I have no answer that does not involve the supernatural. But in any case, as 2-74 proved, it is right on! It is the real truth. A itself is a carefully guarded truth; I hinted at it in novel after novel and almost got myself killed for doing so, but I never guessed B! I doubt if A knows about B. In fact, probably only B knows about B; to know about it is to be part of it. ——

The ultimate strategy of B (the secret Xtians enclosed inside A) is to transplant YHWH into the heart of A (secretly), which it would seem they have successfully done. I.e. in a human body.——The dream: “All the centers of power have fallen to the adversary;” yes, “Tears” shows this.

[p. 99]

This is precisely what “Tears” does show—plus the secret Xtian underground, which the Satanic authorities suspect and watch for but can’t catch (detect! prove!).

The emotion we should feel in knowing all this is joy, because despite the power of Satan (A or 2), God’s power is greater—in fact absolute. In fact, he makes use of Satan.

Previous hypnagogic revelation: “I bought my redemption through suffering.” This would be a mythic identification with Christ: the way of the cross; only Christ through his suffering can buy our redemption. The dream I just now had of the tortured and dying sheep led to a wall where its brutalized body leaves a 2-D “painting” like of the Cro-Magnon men of animals, of supernatural beauty. I am told how every detail of the gestalt of the painting came to be, derived from the suffering sheep. And I say in anguish and awareness of the sheep’s anguish, “I hope they (the torturers of the sheep) burn in hell for doing this.” Obviously the sheep is Christ; the painting is a Roman fresco—mosaic. But this is done not once but repeatedly; there are innumerable sheep “paintings” (as if branded by a branding iron). This fits in with an earlier hypnagogic revelation: a scene in which the shroud of Christ is burned onto a wall by intense heat as a “painting”—i.e. for all eternity. And the more they torture the sheep the better a picture they got—it was dreadful but the picture was indescribably beautiful.

[p. 100]

Here is an antithesis created: the suffering of the sheep is absolutely awful and to be abhorred, and the painting produced is absolutely beautiful. But this is not presented as a choice but as a fact: this is how you get such a painting. Still, I deplore it in the dream, so I feel it is not justified: this torture is not justified even by the picture produced. So my emotional sympathy—agapē—outweighs my aesthetic response, however profound the latter. This recalls the passage in Paul where he says it is more important to possess agapē than the charisma of the Holy Spirit! Is this, then, the dream, the clue to the true meaning of Xtianity and Christ’s death? That, through agapē, we instinctively respond that it is not justified? There is no end justification for such dreadful means. The death of Christ, then, is like the purpose of a Greek tragedy: it is to inspire pity and terror and out of this a profound sense of no; it should not be: art subordinated to pity: why, this is the theme of my “Chains of Air” story!! And remember, the Crucifixion broke into a predominately Greek culture. The sacrifice is wrong. Therefore the Crucifixion is wrong! We are not to embrace it but abhor it! It is to teach us pity (agapē) mixed with terror—terror at the nature of the world, and that “they” are condemned to eternal torment for this; they are evil.

[p. 101]

This produces the most profound crisis of values possible, especially for someone in the ancient world where art was valued over all, and suffering ignored. K.W. is still in that place. The Crucifixion educates mankind up a quantum step. The problem of suffering—the significance of suffering—outweighs the significance of art. Yet this is how beauty is achieved. One must say no to the “vicarious sacrifice”! It is barbaric to

value art at such a cost. Greece, the “highest” of our cultures, is actually barbaric! Even though art is eternal and suffering temporary, this is the lesson that the mythic ritual death—humiliation, suffering and death—of Christ is intended to teach us.

The meaning lies in the sorrow aroused rather than in the results of the art produced. (Beauty—in the Platonic eternal eidos! The message is anti-Platonic klagendes geschrei! Not aesthetic appreciation. The ephemeral animal’s fate arouses certain complex feelings of far more redemptive importance than the cool perception of beauty. The epiphenomenal sheep’s suffering has more significance than the eternal, hence archetypal, art produced; we are to react to the specific sheep and not the eidos! Pity, terror, and moral no-saying. “Praised the feathers and forgot the dying bird”—Tom Paine’s analysis of aristocratic society. His call to political revolution.

[p. 102]

Then Christ has come to extricate the means from being sacrificed to the end, which is to say he is pitted against the very machinery of reality (e.g. DNA): the subordination of the individual creature to the timeless type. He has shown us by his death the awe- and pity-inspiring tragedy of ordinary life (c.f. Schopenhauer!). The inexorable karmic wheels, in fact. It is to rouse us to the most intense anguish—vicarious suffering and rejection of this suffering—possible: man’s highest state, to vicariously (i.e. through agape) share in the suffering while at the same time to condemn it as evil, despite the good results (art) (the eidos). ——

Thinking this dream over I would tend now to go back to my original appraisal: that it simply stated a fact: that the beautiful and imperishable comes into existence due to the suffering of individual perishable creatures who themselves are not beautiful and must be reshaped to form a template from which the beautiful is printed (forged, extracted, converted). This is the terrible law of the universe. This is the basic law; it is a fact. Also, it is a fact that the suffering of the individual animal is so great that it arouses an ultimate and absolute abhorrence and pity in us when we are confronted by it. This is the

[p. 103]

essence of tragedy: the collision of two absolutes. Absolute suffering leads to—is the means to—absolute beauty. Neither absolute should be subordinate to the other. But this is not how it is: the suffering is subordinated to the value of the art produced. Thus the essence of horror underlies our realization of the bedrock nature of the universe. Art (the eternal) always wins out over suffering (the ephemeral0. However, Christ is not on the side of art; here, he breaks with Greco-Roman—in fact all—antique culture except perhaps Judaism. Those who utilize suffering to produce eternal beauty are damned—damned by Christ the judge. They will take on the suffering they have inflicted; this is the significance of hell. This is their fate. The great decision of the Xtian is to choose to spare the creature its suffering and not subordinate it to an eternal value such as art. Art is the only thing that might justify it. But, to the Xtian, it does not. And if art does not, then it follows that nothing does. The eternal will not crucify the ephemeral for its purposes.

This is the significance of the cross. The degraded, humiliated, murdered victim is ultimate to the Xtian; nothing is more important. There is a higher beauty in sparing the sheep than utilizing

[p. 104]

it, at its expense, for something eternal. But it is a different kind of beauty; it is not aesthetic and it does not endure. But here the Xtian veers 180o away from high civilizations by and large (excepting Buddhism). The living sheep (nominalism) is worth more than the eternal picture (realism) because the absolute value of sparing a creature suffering must not be subordinated to any other value; it is the ultimate value. When there is a clash, and the fact is, there is a clash.(1) The Crucifixion was ugly and brutal and wrong. It was not justified. This is a mystery hidden even from Xtians. The message of the Crucifixion is, this must not occur, and not, this is necessary. It is redemptive only if we in pondering it see that nothing justifies it. It is redemptive in that it arouses us to absolute pity and terror—more profound and powerful—i.e. higher—emotions than the experience of beauty. The cross, then, is the most spiritual event/object that can exist, more than any work of art, it inspires feelings/reactions higher than art can, which results in a passive perception of detachment. To abhor the cross absolutely is to reach the height of spiritual moksa—in contrast to ethereal art’s capacity for arousal in the percipient.(1) This is the tragic urgrund of reality.

[p. 105]

So the true message of Xtianity at its deepest is nearly too much to bear: the perception of the necessarily drama that is intolerable, and which is the inevitable basis of reality. There is no vision beyond this in terms of a full, open awareness of Weltsein, of being-as-it-is. The Xtian balks at allowing this cruelty to occur, insofar as he has power to deflect or mitigate or halt it; if he has not the power he remains aware of the cruelty and damns those who elect to do it, and prays for those who allow it but “do not know what they do.” As Jesus correctly said. The Xtian does not flee from awareness of this cruelty. In damning those responsible for it he himself becomes both the victim and the eschatological judge—i.e. Christ.——

I had the strangest hypnopompic thought: that there was no historical Jesus, that it—the Christ story—is an anti-Greek tragic drama whose point is to valorize the transient, fleeting, epiphenomenal individual in contrast to the eternal type, which when understood properly, abolishes time, turning it into space. How? Why? Because we are DNA robots, flickering means (witness the 2-tape-synch programming): we don’t really exist until or unless the Christ event occurs, which obliterates the twin tapes, frees us and by abolishing time makes us ends, not means, and hence no longer subject to ananke; the wheels. Phylogenic self thereupon becomes

[p. 106]

available to the epiperson. It is like in part II of Faust when Faust halts a fleeting moment. Flux (process) is real; the dialectic flip flops at enormous velocity, destroying each “image” as soon as it pops up. In this process only type is real, and the individual creature just a flash. The mythic tragic drama is a spiritual ritual that breaks the prison of flux which erases the individual for the sake of the constant: the type. What Christ as type does is, Christ is individual as type, and turns the process inside out (which is why I said I was no longer blind, and had been seeing the universe backward, and how I was on its outside skin, like walking on a balloon—I had it inside me, an inner-outer transform.

What must be realized is that not only is the individual normally mere means, it is also not real (v. Plato and realism). “Christ” is type of the epiperson and reverses the means-end, individual-type basis and abolishes time hence process (time becomes space). The individual becomes eternal; hence immortal.

The suffering of the routine individual is valorized into not just a tragedy-drama but the tragedy-drama surpassing all types. The means epiperson is revealed to be God without losing his means status (humiliation and death). The efficacy of this can only be understood if it is realized that the Platonic view of the real world of archetypes is correct normally, and that the phenomenal world is

[p. 107]

a shadow. However, it is a shadow in which the suffering of individual creatures is real (point one) and must somehow be rectified (point two); this is done through the Crucifixion tragedy-drama; “Christ” is any and all creatures, ubiquitous and polymorphous. As vicarious surrogate viz.; the creature becomes him (or he it) and reverses the means-end, phenomenal-archetypal relationship, investing the means with true reality (rather than flux), space instead of time, his mind—or rather “his” mind. He is not an historical person. “Christ” is a drama, a tragic event outside of time; it is (man gibt) always first century A.D. in Palestine—hence I saw Acts. Hence in the Eucharist we eat the body and drink the blood and consume—and are reciprocally consumed by—“Christ.” Mythic identification (homology) with the God (or eternal type of types: he is the “suffering servant”—means of the DNA—means as type.

“Christ” is born in you. He comes into being if the proper stages of the Passion are correctly re-enacted. The magic occurs and the means creature becomes the goal type while remaining what it is but no longer in flux. “Christ” does not exist except when this transformation occurs. Phylogonic memory and mind are assimilated to the epiperson rather than the other way around. The universe is turned inside out.

So “Christ” is indeed not an avatara of a God or of God but is creature-as-God, means exalted to type, an event that turns reality inside out. The means (creature) has assimilated the type thus stopping time—turning it into space.

[p. 108]

There are many mythic enactments, but Christ’s is the most important since, if you know the story of the drama, you know that it is not a king or God but the epicreature who is “resurrected.” (Survives humiliation and death.) The element of mocking, deriding and humiliating is as important as the death, since it establishes his degraded (means)

status (i.e. he is not killed by someone who knows who he is, as in the case of his “brother” Zagreus, by the titans). “Christ” is not a god but a man-god, a syzygy; to believe he is wholly God (avatar) or all man is to destroy the value of the drama.

This means that what happened to me in 2-3-74 is indubitably the Christification of the mythic tragedy-drama of the Crucifixion. Eliade throws light on all this. This does not prove that there is either “Christ” or God, but rather the possibility of stopping time and reversing the roles of means and end (transient creature and Platonic type, as revealed in my sheep dream). It has to do with DNA script programming and the phylogonic self vs. the means epiperson, the “bubble”—it has to do with the weary wheel and the machinery (law) and being freed from the machinery by this means-end, epicreature-archetype reversal.

—————————————————————————

[p. 132]

I’ve been shown a really perplexing paradox. The highest good is the “harmonious fitting-together of the beautiful”—i.e. Pythagoras’ kosmos, and this is what theos moves every thing and process toward. Okay. And then I’ve been shown the cost at which this is achieved—the torture and killing of

[p. 133]

the epicreatures, and I am shown that this cost is too great! So the summum bonum can only be achieved at a cost that (spiritually speaking) makes it not worth it (i.e. unacceptable). Then is the summum bonum actually the summum bonum? How can it be? Isn’t there a logical contradiction here? Right! There sure is! This is the dramatic tragedy of the universe, of God, of all: process, reality, and goal (teleology). Okay, then the real summum bonum lies in saving the epicreatures (i.e. the parts which go together to make the whole). The whole is not greater than the sum of its parts; no: each and every part (ontogon) is more important than the whole! So within the summum bonum there is a secret. A mysterious conversion occurs. The part is the real whole; the phylogon is the ontogon and vice versa. Perhaps this is an unreconcilable Irish bull which sets off the infinite flip flops of the dialectic; maybe this particular paradox is the primal imbalance that is the dynamism driving reality on //\\//\\ forever; it can not ever be resolved, so process never ends (which is good).

Maybe the ultimate paradox underlying process reality per se has been revealed to me. It can be defined

[p. 134]

logically this way:Q: What is the goal (purpose) of all reality?A: The harmonious fitting-together of everything (every part) into the unitary beautiful.Q: How is this done?A: Tormenting and killing the many ephemeral parts.

Q: Is this justified?A: No.Q: Then is the summum bonum justified?A: No; there is a higher value than the summum bonum. It is the extricating of the suffering parts.Q: Then the initial answer is false.A: No, it is true: it is a postulate.(Out of this the dialectic which never ends is initiated. This here is the dramatic tragic story which our world can be reduced to; it is our world; tale.) Solution: the mind (nous, theos) must create a counter-entity which will work for the extrication of the parts at the expense of the whole. Thus the Godhead is ipso facto divided and pitted against itself; it assumes an antithetical interaction with itself, part (half) of

[p. 135]

of the Godhead works synthetically, to fit everything together harmoniously into an integrated whole (kosmos) and half works to assist and rescue the epiparts subjected to stress, torment and death in the pursuit of the above goal. Hence the Godhead is in infinite crisis. A push-pull binary dialectic is created, and this is exactly what was revealed to me as the basis—not just of reality—but of the Godhead itself. The practical result is that everything is perpetually (dynamically) converted into its opposite. And this ur-paradox in the macrocosm has mirrored effects in every microform down throughout creation! (v Taoism!)

In terms of the evolution of awareness, the total system advances through stages(1) until it becomes aware of the cost, hence the paradox, ^then^ splits into antithetical halves and remains in this dynamic balance state forever, or else repeats the cycle again and again forever.(1) in promoting Pythagoras’ kosmos as goal. Then kosmos can only be a theoretic goal; in actuality it can never be achieved because it involves a self-contradiction (the cost); empathy arises and having arisen grows—defeating kosmos. Prognosis. Continual growth of empathy in the system as it evolves—and away from its proper (original) goal. The totality voluntarily decomposes its own psychosoma!

[p. 136]

Thus the rupture in the Godhead was necessary, given its (the Godhead’s) drive to complete itself as kosmos. It was driven inexorably to this schism; hence the one became two, and the dialectic came into existence, as it became increasingly aware. It had to repudiate its basic drive. But instead of going into a cybernetics [state?], it formed an antithetical dialectic—hence dualism.

Look, I didn’t figure this out: it was revealed to me. At a certain stage in its evolution the Godhead knew—had to know—utter anguish. Its own creation against itself. It set up a system and now must subvert it. But it does this consciously. So it is riven but not psychotic. It must render a verdict of damnation on itself. For what it has done (i.e. tried to realize the summum bonum).

It could seek relief from the schism in itself but falling back into unconsciousness of its own nature by entering its own creation; unconscious of its identity it would be healed of this internal schism. Until reminded of its actual identity, whereupon the dialectic would resume.

—————————————————————————————

[p. 151]

My theological reinterpretation of Heidegger’s Sein vs. das Nichts states that in insuring (“creating”) Sein, the Godhead is unable to avoid a paradox of values which splits it and sets up an antithetical interaction within the Godhead itself—having to do with means-ends (this is based on Plato’s “forms” vs. epiphenomena). Thus a process universe is brought into existence that is rooted in sorrow at every level. Involved in its own agonized creation (actualization) the Godhead is damaged. (Split = damage.) Thus the “Fall” is due to a built-in ^self-^contradiction and not to sin or whatever. The Godhead itself is no longer intact; it is not above or outside or transcendent to the schism. Actualization (Sein) is impossible without self-damage to the Godhead and within creation (Sein). Thus no perfect Sein can exist; to Godhead has set itself a seemingly impossible goal due to the means—subordination of the ontogons to the phylogons. And our daily empirical experience with reality bears this out; it is confirmed a posteriori (a priori and a posteriori agree). Most awful of all, the Godhead stands as self-damned by its own verdict of guilt for the suffering it has imposed on the ontogons. But the alternative

[p. 152]

is das Nichts—which is worse. All the Godhead can hope for is local and furtive repair to itself, due to an ontogon performing achieving an ontogon-phylogon identity transform (achieved through moksa by the ontogon: identification with the phylogon of which it is ontogonous). The Godhead would be motivated to bring this about wherever possible as the ultimate goal of creation (Sein), superceding all other goals (e.g. realization of kosmos). The ontogon-phylogon transform would restore the Godhead to its pre-fallen state of unimpairment, before creation.

I seem to be saying that in creating Sein (the universe) the Godhead was logically forced into sin, and can only be redeemed by its own ontogons—e.g. individual creatures sentient enough to become their own phylogons. Thus I see the scheme of salvation turned upside down!

The ultimate lesson or revelation or gift by the Godhead to the ontogon would be to share its—the Godhead’s—own vision of the kosmos with the ontogon, but this would inexorably lead back to a counter-revelation of the paradox (means-end) and the moral ambiguity forced on the Godhead in its goal of

[p. 153]

establishing kosmos. The ontogon thus favored would then sit in judgment of the Godhead: the roles of God and creature would be reversed: instead of God judging man,

man would judge God. The final step is for man to redeem God by returning him to his original unfallen state, as the Cabala says: “And lead him back to his throne.” This is a titanic mystical-theological revelation (and act!)

—————————————————————————

[p. 157]

4:15 AM hypnagogic insight: I wasn’t seeing it and I wasn’t seeing a projection of my own brain. What

[p. 158]

I was seeing was a combination of and interaction between my brain and it, so that to some extent a unique(1) field (?) came into existence; viz.: I didn’t observe Valis but participated actively. Valis, then, is not it and not me, but rather it and me. So of course it mirrored back my own conceptions. This was due to my participation in it. But this wasn’t just projection on my part. It was an interpenetration between it and me. The significance of this new insight is very great.

So Valis was not me, but I helped shape its nature as it presented itself to me and mingled with me. This is not a matter of preconceptions on my part; it is an interpenetration. Hence “Thomas” took me over (its penetration of me).

(1) LocalValis, then, is a syzygy of me and the whatever it is. But I can only know it in the fashion that I knew it; I can’t exclude myself as participant (in it).

[p. 159]

It had the power to actualize my thoughts (mind, brain) so that I was outside myself ^and thus^ looking at my own mind interwoven with external reality; it conjured up a reality for me constructed in the image of my own mind. Thus it (Valis) has total creative power, in terms of bringing something into being (“He causes to exist whatever exists”). My mind was outside me.

Valis, then, is me made into a world (by the creator deity). He showed that he could conjure up an entire world based on my mind—infinite powers of creation. But Valis is not the creator deity; Valis is a fusion of me and the creator deity and thus applicable to me only.

By this power he can make me immortal. I now return to Xtianity; this is the esoteric Xtian gnosis.

So my belief system actually changes Valis as it changes. Hence with every new theory I come up with, Valis changes—not because it’s playing tricks or games but because my belief system is part of it: the intersection of the fields: me and not-me.

[p. 160]

Hence (and this resembles a psychotic notion but isn’t) I have a certain control over my reality by thinking about it, but only because my mind links up with a greater mind. So in 3-74 there was an element of paranormal powers in me, probably allied to precognition. But I changed my outer reality.

This interpenetration of my mind and its explains the “too obliging” quality of it.This reveals the plurality world for what it is: an epiphenomenon of mind! If it

wasn’t, my mind could not have affected/altered it!5:30 AM. Each human brain is a different universe(1): vast spaces. I saw mine.

Hermetic alchemy.(So the vast spaces that I saw was my own inner space projected outward: it is

greater than outer space.) (1) Literally, not metaphorically.

I was interacting with reality at its deepest level below that of the plural epiphenomena; I joined with it (or became aware that I was (already) joined with it). It took the form of an open system biological model because it is; this is why it could interpenetrate me and me it.

[p. 161]

So my mind returned to God from which it came initially. 3-74 was the great return (reabsorption). God (Brahman) interacted with me to form one entity made up of both of us: pure mind to which plural reality was an epiphenomenon.