In Pursuit of Valis
Page 8
The first three; let us consider.
(1) Possibility that Valis (the macrometasomakosmos and “second signal”) are the Cosmic Christ.
(2) Thomas was a secret early Christian.
(3) When God revealed himself to me in a theophany he was the Christian God, specifically.
Don’t these all fit together? Look at how the computer punch cards fall; look at the distribution. (3) is proved; He proved who he was by causing me to experience infinite bliss. Oh Yes:
Regarding (4), the AI voice’s initial statement was, “St. Sophia will be born again; she wasn’t acceptable before.” Another small item.
How do the computer punch cards fall now, with the addition? Mention of St. Sophia (Christ), the Christian God-who told me that my theorizing in the exegesis was not logical but infinitely creative; and he would take the field and block my endless speculations.
Isn’t (1) and (2) verified by (3), which is a known? Can’t I work backwards from (3) to especially (1), which is to say, Valis, the macrometasomakosmos, the “second signal” (vide entry date 11-16-80)? I would say yes; yes I can.
Also, I have the impression that the dialectic (that I saw in 3-74) represented two processes at two levels:
(1) The disintegrating “splitting” of entropic time. This would be world and would pervade all creation.
(2) At the same time (so to speak) at a higher level it would be God versus Satan, with God as the wiser horn who always wins through enantiodromia.
Now, this winning through wisdom points to the Cosmic Christ, since Christ is Holy Wisdom, St. Sophia, Hagia Sophia, Wisdom personified. Also Christ is God (“Kai Theos en ho logos”) [The King is God through his Word]. Therefore, if this be true, perhaps although I did see world in 3-74 I saw world as Christ; world becoming the Cosmic Christ (the macrometasomakosmos). Then Christ combatting Satan in the dialectic is God Himself, the Christian God of love, combatting Satan. This would explain why one horn of the dialectic was wiser than the other, and, despite the power of the other, always won (through its wisdom; this is what produces the ceaseless enantiodromia). By the way; this fits in with Jakob Bohme’s vision of the Yes-No dialectic of God who passes through stages, and that the negative or “No” sides are what we experience as evil. In my opinion this is God as the Cosmic Christ.
A trinitarian view of God and Christ being of one substance must be held in order to understand this.
The arguments for Valis being the Cosmic Christ are not conclusive but they are compelling. [ . . . . ]
(11-24-80)
So Satan served me up a sophisticated world in accord with my epistemological expectations (as expressed in my 10 volume meta novel)[69] & I took this to be God & worshipped it, which is not only delusion—although a subtle delusion—but blasphemy; but in doing this
1) Satan revealed to me a great deal about world (although he led me to believe it was God, not world); &
2) Because of the infinitude of my theorizing I reached God anyhow—& this is an example of the triumph of God the wise horn of the dialectic; so:
3) The dialectic revealed to me is the entropic world-process; but also:
4) The dialectic is God in combat with Satan & God always wins; winning me (as expressed in 11-1780) is an example: Satan’s delusions led me to God in the end (through the “infinity” route; viz: as God said, “Where there is infinity, there is God; where there is God, there is infinity.”).
Thus my exegesis has been futile, has been delusion, &: has been a hell-chore (as I was beginning to realize, but God delivered me from it, from my own exegesis; & he pointed out the one truth in it: the infinity expressed in it was—but this was overlooked by Satan who does not possess absolute knowledge—a road to God, & did lead there; but only when I recognized the exegesis as futile & a hell-chore delusion. Hence God permitted this deluding by Satan, knowing when it would end.
So I wind up knowing a lot more about world— world as we will later experience it, the world—experience of the future; & I no longer suppose that I was discerning God, & realize that I was discerning world instead; & I was at last led to God. But not by my intellect, not by Gnosis, not by myself at all; it was due to God’s initiative due to his loving-kindness; & what was proved was (once again) that all roads/ways/routes if pushed far enough lead to God. Hence (as I say) there is an example of how God the wise born of the dialectic defeats its stupider foe inevitably in the end—this was an enantiodromia. It occurred when I realized that all that I had seen of God in 2-3-74 was a glint of color & a rippled wind in the weeds of the alley, acting on reality; that Valis was not God but rather world (“the reality field”) perturbed (from beyond creation) by God; but this did not yield knowledge of God direct, but only by inference; & that in fact 2-3-74 was not a theophany, but was a more sophisticated experience of world: creation pulled through infinity by reaching the end of (exhausting) its creative/entropic “splitting” (disintegrating; differentiating) dialectic process: entropic time converted into negentropic time. But this was still world, & Satan caused me to worship it ... to fall victim to it, ensnared by it; taking it to be God; until I found that I had pushed my exegesis to infinity without result! & then I focussed on the very infinitude of my theories & saw (recognized) this as an instance of cosmogenic entropy; &, at last exhausted, prayed for release; & God did appear to me in theophany & took the field & blocked each & all theories, & ended my exegesis, not in defeat but in logical discovery of Him (which Satan had not foreseen). Thus intellect & knowledge on my part led to exhaustion & to destruction of that intellect & a recognition of the futility of what I was doing; I knew I knew nothing; & then God took the field & made his move that resulted in the enantiodromia that led me to him anyhow, as if I had wandered that way by chance; but it was by his plan all along. & this was an instance of the dialectic that I had seen.
Finally I wind up with Ÿ = Ŷ; viz:
Both these 2 following statements are true:
1) The intellect will not lead you to God.
2) The intellect will lead you to God.
I am left with this paradox, which Satan did not foresee; he saw only statement (1) & did not see how God could convert it into its mirror opposite through enantiodromia. This God works & wins within the Fallen entropic creation of the disintegration “splitting” dialectic to win us one & all in the end, by different routes. Thus the cosmic game between God & his adversary continues on; here was another victory by God; & in the end God will convert the dialectic itself into its opposite (through enantiodromia ) & the game will end in God’s victory & Satan’s defeat, which God’s victory vis-à-vis me echoes in microform.
In a certain sense it can be said that God’s victory consists in turning Satan’s false creation—i.e. Satan’s lie & delusion—into the real, which is exactly what I saw Valis doing: transmuting reality by transubstantiation into the real. Here is the secret & perpetual & ever-growing victory by God over his adversary as he (God) defeats him (Satan) again & again in the game they play—the cosmic dialectic that I saw. This is enantiodromia at its ultimate: the conversion of the irreal to the real. In my case it was the conversion of “the human intellect will not lead to God but will lead only deeper & deeper into delusion” into its mirror opposite: “The human intellect, when it has pushed to infinity, will at last, through ever deepening delusion, find God.” Thus I am saved: & know that I did not start out seeing God (2-3-74) (which led to this 6 ½ year exegesis),[70] but, instead, wound up finding God (11-17-80)—an irony that Satan did not foresee. & thus the wise mind (God) wins once again, & the game continues. But someday it will end.
END
[At this point, PKD created a title page for the EXEGESIS as a whole, as set forth on page 58.(in this eBook the folowing picture)]
Footnote
My flight expressed by the phosphene graphics was a movement faster & faster through cosmogenic-entropic time, ending in exhaustion & then the enantiodromia of entropic time—which had reached infinite vel
ocity & infinite fragmentation (“splitting”) —which is to say the dialectic into negentropic time or synthesis, reintegration: hence I saw Valis, the universe pulled through infinity, inside out, to freeze; this was 3-74.
My exegesis was entropic-cosmogenic time resuming, speeding up faster & faster, “splitting” (fraginenting) farther & farther. Finally, it, too, ended in infinite velocity & infinite fragInentation (creativity, expressed as ever newer & quicker theories); it ended in exhaustion & then the enantiodromia of entropic time—the dialectic of my thoughts—into negentropic time & another reintegration (this was 11-17-80). Only this time I did not see Valis,[71] there was a theophany, & I was in the presence of God & God’s loving-kindness; whereupon He explained everything to me. So events leading up to 3-74 & my experience with Valis had a parallel in the dialectic of my exegesis leading to 11-1780 & the theophany of the Christian God of Love. The common ingredients of the two flights were: the cosmogenic-entropy “splitting” dialectic flight itself, until infinite velocity (time) & fragmentation (space) were reached, then exhaustion, then enantiodromia into negentropic time & “freeze” (reintegrational) of, so-to-speak “Prajapati”,[72] but then comes a totally different outcome:
1) 3-74. Valis which is world properly seen (morphological arrangement, growth & perfection & self completion in negentropic time, the entropic—flux—universe pulled through infinity—i.e. inside out). Compared to:
2) 11-17-80. The Christian God in theophany, who is other than world, who is transcendent. What I thought I had seen in 3-74:
The summation (combining) of the two is (1) an acute knowledge of world based on 3-74 & the exegesis arising out of that experience. (2) Direct knowledge of God & God’s nature based on the above elements; so that 3-74 led to the exegesis, which although it was a loss of negentropic, integrative time & a resumption of cosmogenic-entropic time, did lead (due to the infinite speeding up of time & the infinite breaking down of space until exhaustion set in) to the theophany I had supposed I had already had.
Now it is possible to see how the Mary Jane[73] fitted in; it added the final push to the dialectic in me, my exegesis (in other words, as preceded 3-74, my thinking) so that it reached infinite speed & infinite space, exhausted itself; & again, as before, enantiodromia set in. This enantiodromia did not have to do with world, however, but had to do with the human intellect striving to find God-futilely. (Futilely until the last great enantiodromia occurred & God took the field to block the dialectic of my thinking himself, & thus revealed himself.
So there is a striking parallel—a logical, structural parallel-between 3-74 & 11-17-80, but in another, more profound respect the two are mirror opposites— since the first is a vision of world (which I thought was God, yet it was not, & so it yielded no knowledge directly about God, but only inferential knowledge that he existed & that he had saved me—in pronoia [foreknowledge]) & the second is a genuine theophany. When one realizes that world & God are wholly other to each other (Satan rules world) then this mirror-opposite situation can be appreciated. Let me add, too, that total revelation about world does not yield knowledge of God. God entered when I became aware that my theorizing was carrying me into an infinite regress, which is to say, when I became exhausted—at which point enantiodromia occurred; intellect had proven futile & yet, paradoxically, it had led to God—but due to God’s volitional initiative. His (as I call it) taking the field, which is an inbreaking by the divine.
The circumstances under which the theophany occurred (I gave up on the exegesis & kicked back & massively turned on) are not capricious causes but follow the logic of the dialectic along several axes.
This shows the hauntingly eerie paradoxical (almost seemingly whimsical or playful) nature of enlightenment: it comes to you only when you cease to pursue it. When you totally & finally give up.
Another way of putting this is to say that the answer lies in the least likely place, where you are least likely to look. This is what gave rise to Zen. Yet, emerging from this maze of paradox & mirror opposites, of seeming, of infinite change, here, finally, is the answer I sought, the goal I sought. & it is where I started from back in high school in my physics final when I prayed to God, the Christian God—who was always there, leading me to him.[74]
My guess in “VR”[75]—that it was YHWH, was correct. But it wasn’t a guess; it was what the AI voice told me. Always, faintly & distantly but clearly, the AI voice pointed the way to the truth. It knew the answer from the beginning, & spoke in the spirit of God (Ruah).[76] Through it I figured out that Valis was not God but reality perturbed by God. I knew, then, that I had not found God after all. My great discovery, then, was not in knowing what I had found, but facing the fact of what I had not found—the very thing I was searching for.
Ironies abound. But the playfulness ended in infinity, exhaustion & the great reversal. The God was reached, & the journey did not begin in 1974. It began in high school during that physics test when I first heard the AI voice. 35 years!
(December 1980)
Chapter Two: Theoretical Explorations
In UBIK the forward moving force of time (or time-force expressed as an ergic field) has ceased. All changes result from that. Forms regress. The substrate is revealed. Cooling (entropy) is allowed to set in unimpeded. Equilibrium is affected by the vanishing of the forward-moving time force-field. The bare bones, so to speak, of the world, our world, are revealed. We see the Logos addressing the many living entities. Assisting and advising them. We are now aware of the Atman everywhere. The press of time on everything, having been abolished, reveals many elements underlying our phenomena.
If time stops, this is what takes place, these changes.
Not frozen-ness, but revelation.
There are still the retrograde forces remaining, at work. And also underlying positive forces other than time. The disappearance of the force-field we call time reveals both good and bad things; which is to say, coaching entities (Runciter, who is the Logos), the Atman (Ubik), Ella;[77] it isn’t a static world, but it begins to cool. What is missing is a form of heat: the Aton.[78] The Logos (Runciter) can tell you what to do, but you lack the energy—heat, force—to do it. (i.e., time.)
The Logos is not a retrograde energetic life form, but the Holy Spirit, the Parakletos, is. If the Logos is outside time, imprinting, then the Holy Spirit stands at the right or far or completed end of time, toward which the field-flow moves (the time flow). It receives time: the negative terminal, so to speak. Related to the Logos in terms of embodying world-directives and world-organizing powers, but at a very weak level, it can progressively to a greater degree overcome the time field and flow back against it, into it, impinging and penetrating. It moves in the opposite direction. It is the anti-time. So it is correct to distinguish it from the Logos, which so to speak reaches down into the time flow from outside, from eternity or the real universe. The H.S.[79] is in time, and is moving: retrograde. Like tachyons,[80] its motion is a temporal one; opposite to ours and the normal direction of universal causal motion.
Equilibrium is achieved by the Logos operating in three directions: from behind us as causal—time—pressure, from above, then the final form, the very weak H.S. drawing toward perfection each form. But now equilibrium as we know it is being lost in favor of a growing ratio of the retrograde teleology. This implies we are entering, have entered, a unique time: nearing completion of the manifold forms. Last pieces are going into place in the over-all pattern. The task or mode of the H.S. is completing. Not beginning, not renewing or maintaining, but bringing to the end, to the close. An analogy would be the transit of a vehicle from one planet to another; first stage is the gravity of planet of origin; then equilibrium of both planets in terms of their pull; then the growing pull of the destination gravity-field as it gradually takes over and completes the journey. Beginning, middle, end. At last one senses the receiving field engage, and then correct.
When I wrote UBIK I constructed a world (universe) which differed from ours
in only one respect: it lacked the driving force forward of time. That time, in our own actual universe, could weaken, or even go entirely away, did not occur to me because at that point I did not conceive time as a force at all [ . . . . ] I thought of it in Kantian terms. As a mode of subjective perception. Now I believe that time, at this point in the expansion of the universe (or for some other reason(s)) has in fact actually begun to weaken, at least in relation to certain other fields. Therefore, this being true, a measure of the UBIK-experience could be anticipated. I have indeed had that experience, or a measure thereof. That is, time still drives on, but counter forces have surfaced and impinge, laying bare the UBIK landscape—only for a few moments, that is temporarily. Then time resumes its sovereignty.
What one would expect is two-fold: (one) Material (e.g., information, images, weak energy fields, etc.) from the future leaking or bleeding back to us, while we continue on. (two) Abrupt lurches back on our part to recent time periods, like a needle on a record being anti-skated back to a prior groove, which it has already played, and then playing on from there as if nothing happened. The latter we would not be consciously aware of, although subcortical responses, and perhaps vague sense of amnesia, dreams, etc., would tell us that something was “wrong.” But the leakage back to us from the future, not by us but to us, that we would be aware of (calling it esp, etc.), and yet be unable to account for it.
But what is most telling is that in March, at the initial height of the “Holy Other” pouring into me, when I saw the universe as it is, I saw as the active agent, a gold and red illuminated-letter like plasmatic entity from the future, arranging bits and pieces here: arranging what time drove forward. Later I concluded that I had seen the Logos. What is important is that this was perceptual to me, not an intellectual inference or thought about what might exist. It came here from the future. It was/is alive. It had a certain small power or energy, and great wisdom (sic). It was/is holy. It not only was visible around me but evidently this is the same energy which entered me. It was both inside and out. So the Logos, or whatever it was, this plasmatic life form from the future which I saw, satisfies, as near as I can fathom, most of the theoretical criteria above.