(12 September 1981)
If the abstract structure of reality is the agent of creation, then is not it self-causing? This is a definition of Prime Mover Unmoved; I am saying that when reality is viewed—not as a multiplicity of physical objects in space and time governed by causality—but as insubstantial abstract unified structure (Pythagoras’ kosmos, perhaps; the Forms, perhaps; Philo’s logos, perhaps; Torah, perhaps; or some other name not known to us: pre-existent ideas, etc.)—it is its own cause. And yet I have not used the term God or even suggested a cause lying outside reality; for the abstract structure is not outside reality (like potter to pot, artisan to artifact); this insubstantial abstract structure is reality properly conceived; this is conceived by reason of a colossal meta-abstraction in which reality is, so-to-speak, hollowed out so that its intelligible basis is apprehended. This is at least one level up in the hierarchy of ontology. But it is not God. Here, multiplicity gives way to unity, to what perhaps can be called a field. The field is self-perturbing; it initiates its own causes internally; it is not acted on from outside. This does not quite sound like theology or even, perhaps, philosophy (although it does resemble Pythagoras’ idea of kosmos, but the early Greek thinkers were as much scientists as philosophers or anything else).
Then the “perturbation in the reality field” refers to a perturbation in physical, substantial reality—plural objects in space and time governed by causation—emanating from the abstract structure that is both basis of reality and the agent of its creation. Nothing lies beyond this abstract hyper-structure known by the meta-abstracting of Noesis. There is no reason to posit a higher, more real ontological level, since the insubstantial abstract structure is self-causing and initiates its own changes internally; there is nothing that acts upon it from outside it. Yet this is not quite pantheism or hylozoism; a sharp distinction is made between physical reality (plural objects in space and time governed by causation) and the abstract structure—only the latter is self-causing—so it is no hylozoism; and no deity is posited, so this is not pantheism. It is (to repeat) something like the kosmos of Pythagoras, if it is like anything we know of at all. Where it differs from Plato’s theory of the Forms (as true reality) is that instead of positing a loose aggregation (the Forms) it posits a unified abstract structure; this would be kosmos noetos or Logos, but it would be Logos not as intermediary between God and creation since no God is posited. Perhaps it resembles the logos of the Stoics, which was immanent in creation; but their logos was substantial, which is to say, material; so it is not that either. It is a kind of Pythagorean mathematical Logos, having to do with limit, ratio and proportion (e.g. the 8x13 rectangle, the Golden Rectangle). This is Pythagoras, not Plato.
(12 September 1981)
“The agent of creation is its own structure.” This structure must not be confused with the multiplicity of physical objects in space and time governed by causation; the two are entirely different. (The structure is insubstantial, abstract, unitary and initiates its own causes internally; it is not physical and cannot be perceived by the human percept-system sensibly; it is known intelligibly, by what Plato called Noesis, which involves a certain ultimate high-order meta-abstracting.) On the other hand, it is not to be confused with God. In no way does it presume God as either itself or as lying beyond it having created or produced it. It is not an intermediary between God and physical creation. It resembles both Pythagoras’ kosmos and Aristotle’s Prime Mover Unmoved. Could it be what Spinoza calls “the attribute mind” which is parallel to the res extensae [extended forms] that we know as the physical universe, both being equal attributes of a single substantia? (And identified by Spinoza as God?) No; because for Spinoza these are purely parallel attributes; neither in any way acts on the other and neither is primary in relationship to the other, i.e. its cause. I, on the other hand, posit ontology primacy to the insubstantial abstract structure, and, moreover, I believe that it fully controls the physical spatiotemporal universe as its basis and cause.
Abstract insubstantial structure to physical universe.
Music to groove.
Thus the “seeing” is analogous to “seeing” that if one cow plus one cow equal two cows, one plus one equals two always; so it is Noesis, but maybe not of the Forms; maybe of Pythagoras’ kosmos. There is something very strange, here; it has to do not even with ontological hierarchy or even, perhaps, abstraction, but a combined abstraction-conversion (as in groove to music; viz: music is not an abstraction of groove, but a combined abstraction-conversion of levels having to do with intelligence; a persons sees that, etc. It is a disjunction, a disjunctive leap not of degree but of kind. Yet it bears some relationship to “seeing” the Forms; this is how “seeing” the Forms is done: by such a leap. But mathematicals may be involved, hence Pythagoras, not Plato.
Doesn’t the concept Logos move back more toward Pythagoras’ kosmos, that is, from a loose aggregation to a unified structure? Would not the concept “kosmos noetos” be more like his kosmos, in some ways, than it is like the Forms? Perhaps it combines the (1) reality of this hyper-world and (2) the semi-reality of the world of particulars (as is found in the Forms doctrine with Pythagoras’ notion of structure? Whether Plato intended it to or not? (As a Jew, Philo would not share Plato’s view of the mere semi-reality of the spatio-temporal world. But unintentionally Philo may have combined what is true of Pythagoras’ kosmos (insubstantial structure) with Plato’s semi-reality of combines Pythagoras and Plato, perhaps without knowing it.
(12 September 1981)
A final point: the world transformed from the unfamiliar to the familiar—this cannot point to a psychotic break, for in a psychotic break this is all reversed: the familiar becomes the unfamiliar. So much for the “Horselover Fat is insane” theory. In 2-374 came comprehension and recognition; there also came the end of—the healing of—the gulf that separated me from world. This is 180 degrees away from psychosis. Viewed psychologically, this is, in fact, a healing; it is repair.
(17 November 1981)
Chapter Three: On His Writing Techniques And The Creative Quest For Truth
My very recent book dream, the masterpiece novel gummed into the encyclopedia—it refers to such as the above novel cum covert message,[114] as well as UBIK, etc. I’m beginning to think this most recent dream did not carry the message: Write such a book. But rather: You did write such books (with the gospel reassembled from. trashy bits, as Lem[115] put it). (So as to get past the Soviet Marxist materialist censors.) “There are other sheep whom I must bring in,” as Christ said. This dream told me not what to do but explained to me what I have been doing. I, so fashionable to Marxists both in the West & East—I, unknown even to myself, carrying the gospel to them in a form acceptable to them. I wonder, now that (3-74) it was explained to me, if I could do it, now being self-conscious and deliberate and doing it myself per se; maybe my work is done, successfully. I was finally told what I had done: the sheep in wolf’s clothing, so to speak. [ . . . . ] Maybe now I can rest. It’s interesting— you can flatout outfront tell a Marxist that my work is theological in nature [ . . . . ] and it doesn’t register, as if I never even said it. “He doesn’t comprehend his owm work,” as one of them said.[116] Not only can’t they see it unaided, they can’t see it aided. Yet I am positive that on some level (right hemisphere]) they are absorbing it; ah yes: subliminally!! I think this is why so many of my dreams-plus my intuitions themselves about my 3-74 experience-contained elements pertaining to the USSR. Paranoiacally, I had it backward; they weren’t influencing my thoughts, but I theirs (via my stories, novels, speeches, letters, oral discourse!!). Lord—I think when they see the cross I wear, or read theological elements—find them in my writing, they think I am “one of them,” but adding these as a sort of disguise to fit into capitalistic Christian Western society; my golly, they have it backward, but it’s layer under layer; the bottom which (spreading the gospel to the Soviets) was unknown even to me. Until it was revealed to me in 3-74. Probably the m
ost severe assault delivered in my work is against materialism as such, in my probing into the illusory nature of apparent reality ... but surely this is a prime assault against the Enemy, against Marxism as one form of it.
(1975)
Thinking back over my life I can see that I have survived many troubles—I look at the copies of the Ballantine SCANNER[117] & I can see what I have done to transmute those terrible days into something worth-while, lasting, good, even important (i.e., meaningful). This is what God does; this is his strange mystery: how he accomplishes this. When we view the evil (which he is going to transmute) we can’t see for the life of us how he can do it—but later on, & only later on, after it’s done, can we see how he has used evil as the clay out of which he as potter has fashioned the pot (universe viewed as artifact).
What I will notice is how many people wish me well. Look at what John Ross, a stranger, said.[118] Look at what Jeter[119] said about me having served, done my duty, & now can pass on into the reward waiting for me—he said, even, that they’d applaud me. I still don’t know what I did in 3-74 re the xerox missive, but what I did was what I was sent here to do from the start, & I did it right; as Jeter put it, “They tell you how, when & where to throw the spear, but you must throw it.”
I am really very happy. Snuff, music & cats, friends & my exegesis, my studying & gradually more & more understanding my Gnosis, when in 374 the Savior woke me to full consciousness for the first time in my life & refound myself, knew who & what I was, remembered my celestial origin, was restored to what I had been before the fall, & saw the prison we are in, & knew I had done right on the Ramparts[120] matter—look at the penalty I paid until & even on into ‘72, ‘73, & up to my moment of rescue in 2-74.[121] Christ claimed me for his own & restored me to the Godhead. I opposed the world, risked everything, lost everything, but here I am, healthy & safe & at peace—with myself, having seen God. Watching him—perfect his plan in human history, & discovering that a part of that plan called for me to be rescued. What rewards of the world could equal that? & included in the revelation was a vision of where I am going to go: the next world—my real & former home.
The 3 ages of Gnosticism were shown to me (how it originally was—how it is now—how it will finally be) & the triune hamsandwich universe: man as part of God separated from him by the world: 3 ages, 2 forces (God & man as one, the evil world as the other). (In manicaeism the 2 forces being matter vs. spirit or noös[.)]
The entire basis of my illumination is to see God as pitted against the world, man pitted against the world, hence God & man isomorphic, separated by the world—man a fraction of the Godhead which due to some primordial crises in the Godhead fell into for—getfulness & ignorance—fell asleep & is awakened to memory & refinding of self & final restoration to the Godhead by means of the Savior, who comes here to this prison-trap world.
Salvation—from what? From the world, which is an iron prison. Cf. Schopenhauer. Salvation from what he saw happening to the turtles (James-James’ creation). God did not design such a structure of suffering: he extricated us from it, & restores us as part of him. This is the acosmic view in all my writings: the empirical world is a fraud, counterfeit. I write about reality as illusion because it is, & I see that it is, thus my writing is a tremendously powerful attack on the world—but I am just now realizing that this view (of world as illusion) is Gnostic—my corpus of writing is an assault on the created universe of matter, highly original, & accurate. It (the view) discloses the deceptive nature of empirical reality—now I have had it revealed to me that this world is an impediment between us (man) & God.
In my writing I seek to abolish the world—the effect of which aids in our restoration to the Godhead. & this is what I did in 2-74 when I saw the Golden Fish; in a single moment of total knowledge (awareness of the true state of things) I withdrew my belief in what I customarily saw—& it vanished, & the Christ/God continuum was disclosed—i.e., the slice of bread on the other side of the ham sandwich. First for years I did it in my writing, & then in 2-74 I did it in real life, showing that my writing is not fiction but a form (e.g., MAZE, TEARS, UBIK, etc.) of revelation expressed not by me but through me, by (St.) Sophia in her salvific work. What is in my work that is important is precisely nothing less than the Salvific Gnosis (or parts of it anyhow).
In Gnosticism this is God’s point of view: “he is acosmic & even anticosmic.” Zebra (one form of God) has penetrated secretly into this prison world to rescue us—he is invisible via his mimicking objects & processes of this world the great turning pt. for me was to reject immanent deity & correctly see it as mimicking—& from outside the world, entering as in the James-James dream.
1Jn[122] 3:2 ”& then we shall see God as he really is.” Is that what I saw in 3-74, that which 1Jn 3:2 predicts? I think so. Zebra concealed here.
The Gnostic message in my writing can be seen when we realize that it is a Gnostic revelation that this world is a bungled counterfeit of the celestial world, esp. time as a poor counterfeit of eternity. & Palmer Eldritch equals (is) the Gnostic demiurge creator, spinning out evil & false worlds to feed his drive for power. In STIGMATA the evil quality of the creator is expressed, & man (Leo Bulero) pitted against the False evil cosmos & its evil creator—a very acosmic novel.
When I withdrew assent from this world in 2-74 it began with sudden knowing the truth on my part, the secret, revealed truth, & then later on, this world changed—became visible as a prison & then was gone (i.e., I had been extricated from it).
Part of the attraction for me of Gnosticism is one of its major pts.: That God cannot be discovered (found) in Nature (i.e., the empirical world). I had already (well, at least recently) come to know—not just believe but know-that no natural theology is possible—despite 1000s of years of trying to establish it. God must be disclosed by revelation & revelation alone. This paved the way for me being able to see a bipolarization of God to the world & I find this “the world hated me before it hated you” explicit in scripture (e.g., St. John). One reasonably asks, “Why, if He exists, can’t he ever be discerned in the world?” (answer: He isn’t there.) At first I thought Valis was immanent deity! & that I had found him in the world. But then last January I suddenly formulated the more accurate “Zebra” hypothesis which portrays him as a subtle, invisible world—mimicking invader—& then lately I got the “ham sandwich” model going—the triune topology.
Even my long held Brahman view was triune, the ham sandwich, with the empirical world as Maya, delusion, & deity being within, not in but inside, meaning “on the other—far—side.”
Zebra counterfeits the counterfeit—which fits the Gnostic idea of the bumbling demiurge being helped out, out of mercy, bythe true God. This helping out, not just of us humans but of the whole fallen (fucked up, not really real) cosmos is the transubstantiation of objects & processes on an invisible ontological level which I saw the growing Corpus Christi achieving. A Fake Fake = something real. God/the savior is mimicking this counterfeit cosmos with a stealthily growing real one. What this all adds up to is that God, through the Cosmic Christ, is assimilating our cosmos to himself.
His salvific mercy is not limited just to & for us humans but extends to all creation. As Paul says in either Col. or Eph.[123]—I think the latter.
Neither the so-called ontological proof of the existence of God (St. Anselm’s) nor the empirical design-to-designer, etc—none hold up. Only revelation, initiated by God. He is indeed the Deus Absconditus [Hidden God]—Gnosticism explains why: He is not found in nature because he is not here, & our reasoning cannot discern him because we are occluded. God must reach down to us from “beyond” or “outside” the cosmos.
Since & inasmuch as Christ died for our sins, he wiped the slate clean; as Luther pointed out, when God sees (one of) us he sees his own spiritless son. So, even by this orthodox reasoning, we are not (now, anyhow) sinful. From a Gnostic standpoint, Christ “took the blow” aimed at us in retribution “justice” by the Archon or demi
urge: Christ intervened between us. Just as in my case in 3-74 when they sprung the trap, it was not me in it but him, & he burst the trap & defied the world, the trappers.
I depart from Gnosticism & Mani in this regard: God does not just take the sparks of light out of the cosmos; he is infusing (good) ontology—his rule, i.e., the kingship of (the true) God onto, into this previously unreal Cosmos—which is, why I say, he is saving the totality of creation, by transubstantiation & assimilation & thus repairing the breach in the Godhead by operating through history, as Hegel saw. Besides rescuing us as individuals he rescues the species; besides the species, all life; besides all life all creation.
But: when the cosmos is assimilated it will as such cease to exist (the slice of ham). There will be no world qua world—so in a sense the Gnostics are right. We will be parts of a cosmic living organism, not of dead matter, i.e., Zebra.(1977)
I, who was not a legitimate member of the ruling class (which is defined as, “those who get to define—control, generate—reality”) via my writing, subversively obtained a certain small but real power to control. Create & define reality; the next step is [ . . . . ] to enter (the ruling class) by the front door, officially welcomed. (& not infiltrate in by the back door as I did. But boy, what a good job I did; & VALIS is the best subversion so far; as Mark[124] points out, it deranges all (sic!) your learned preconceptions). Thus I via my writing can be said to be a revolutionary, & I carried with me into power, other people of my ilk. Many disenfranchised “misfits”—the quasi-insane, or pseudo (sic!) schizophrenics; ach! we are mimicking schizophrenia as a political tactic, in order to thrust the schizophrenic worldview onto the authorities as a tactic to infiltrate & vitiate them, “them” being defined as “those in power.” The schizophrenic worldview was selected by us because it is (so) threatening to those in power due to its self-concealing logic, its non linear logic or null-logic (as Warrick[125] correctly says, I maintain Y = Y)!! This is a political tactic on my part. A logic held for merely pragmatic purposes-causes-reasons. A device. A weapon (& it was so—& correctly-interpreted by the enemy.)
In Pursuit of Valis Page 14
