Yet the road to this is through suffering, and it is not just actual (involuntary) suffering, such as is imposed on all creatures, but, rather, the vicarious and voluntary ontological suffering of agape. In imitation of Christ one voluntarily takes on all suffering, but as means, not end.
[55:D-132] “Spinoza’s 3rd attribute: infinity.” If every thing, event and act extends into infinity (the eternal) would this (principle alone) not explain 2-3-74 and the “not two mothers once but one mother twice” meta-abstraction? That is, I saw world correctly, extended into the infinite, the absolute, eternal, i.e., as Spinoza’s “Deus sive substantia sive natura”! Thus particulars became for me their own archetypes. (Which is why Plato’s anamnesis and noesis were involved!) This is not merely a perception of world-as-it-really-is; this is perception of God! Hence the infinite space. [ . . . ] In 2-74 I must have caught sight of a particular as what it truly is: an eternal constant; and thus I ushered in infinity by the power of my own comprehension/cognition: I understood.
[55:D-146] To say that it extends into infinity does not imply immense physical size; it enters into infinite implications, significance, meaning, which is to say it is as I saw in 2-3-74: it is typological (or archetypal). This is precisely the 2-74 meta-abstraction, for it has a permanent and ubiquitous ramification. Thus many places and times work off it. It applies over and over again. It is into this attribute that scripture taps. This is how sacerdotal performance works. The significance axis (is) always the same. (For each paradigmatic thing, event, act, situation.) (1) By “same” what is meant is “unitary.” The key term is “[is]” rather than “resembles” or “is identical to.” “Not 2 mothers once but one mother seen twice” is a realization of this. Surely this is what Plato surnamed eidē. If what is involved here is that which is signified (by a thing, event, act, situation) then there is a sign-to-object relationship between the word and writing of word mode and object: the word (info) which we take to be the object—thing signified—does not in itself contain the significance that is in the true thing but only refers to it. (The word “dog” does not itself have hair, feet, a tail.) Thus when we see info as object it lacks the significance that the infinity attribute (true object) possesses, analogous to hair, feet and tail on a particular dog. Now, in a sacerdotal act (a sacrament) the significance “in” the act is precisely what is sought for; the object and what is said and done in connection with the object is summoned deliberately—so in a sacerdotal act what I call the infinity attribute is apprehended, or at least the attempt is made to apprehend it—that is the entire point. Well, this is precisely what happened to me in 2-74 in seeing the golden fish sign: an object (that was really only an informational sign pointing to an object) was comprehended by me in this sacerdotal sense—which from a liturgical sense is comprehensible; but what is not comprehensible is that I saw all reality this way: as sign not thing, whereupon (by definition) reality became a sacrament, every building, person, event. No conventional theological explanation will account for this (since such a transformation should be limited to designated sacerdotal objects and acts). What is obvious is that what is done—sought for—with the sacraments (and often achieved) is equally true for any thing, act, situation, event: all reality viewed collectively as an aggregate of plurality; that is, as reality per se. This should not be possible. And, moreover, ordinary reality taken as such without this enhancement becomes “mere” information. So two things have happened: ordinary reality can now be viewed as a sign (information, word, writing) pointing to another kind of reality (object) entirely that is primarily defined, not by its trans-spatial and trans-temporal quality, but by its meaning. It is a significant reality in which meaning is everything, like a sacred drama. Now, this is not Plato’s eide. This is something else. This means that everything extends into this dimension, but that the attempt to summon it, being confined to stipulated sacerdotal objects and acts, does not reveal this to us. What I claim for this dimension or mode or attribute is meaning or significance, and this definition when scrutinized really asserts that that which truly is is revealed; viz: the meaning is not implied, referring to something else, as in a symbol or sign that has been given a referral value; the meaning is in the dimension now perceived and this meaning is self-authenticating and self-revealing: it discloses its own “story” by itself, requiring no interpretation or analysis: it is “open.” In fact, it is “open” in the precise way that the ordinary object is not when it is taken to be a sign signifying something; with the sign the meaning must be explained: it is not there.
Folders 67, 68, 69
December 1981
[67:12] Something has happened in me that is so important that it is, in effect, the healing at last, of the schism in me that goes back to the 50s to when Mr. Smith and Mr. Scruggs first approached me and set up the schism—and it stems from the Tagore vision. For the first time, tonight, at Michelle’s, I was able wholeheartedly and without a trace of ambivalence to engage in political activity directed against the government—and why? Because I know, really know, that this is what God wants; I have chosen—at last—between the two sides that eternally have competed for my allegiance and between which I have always been divided all my life—at least all my adult life. And totally and absolutely committed, because of the religious sanction overriding the merely secular authority.
[68:L-10] The palpable situation that I now (12/9/81) perceive and in which I am not just actively but wholeheartedly involved is (I suddenly realized) the revealed apocalyptic situation of 2-3-74: it is Armageddon, with the true Christians pitted against the Empire in terms of what I call the “demonic trinity”: nuclear reactors, nuclear waste, and nuclear weapons. It is the Tagore vision that transforms supernatural revelation into the palpable: that was (as I have realized in other but closely related terms) the turning point for me. What I did today vis-à-vis the Christic Institute was fully commit myself without hesitation to precisely that organization of Christian revolutionary activists that I saw in 2-3-74 (by revelation) combating the Empire. In other words, my unaided eye can now discern what then was visible to me only by supernatural revelation.
[ . . . ]
I had already realized that the Tagore vision (1) unified my political action of the 60s with my religious experiences of 74; and (2) unified my psyche, which always before had been split into two warring sub-psyches on opposite sides of the political fence: opposition to the Empire (government) and support of it (e.g., the Bureau). Not only am I mentally healed, I am palpably in what in 74 I knew only by revelation. To me, the nuclear issue is Armageddon and—as I saw revealed in 2-3-74—it is the true Christians against the Empire. Thus 2-3-74 regarded as prophecy has now come true—seven years later—and I am in the thick of it. These are indeed the final days.
* * *
[68:L-12] The apocalyptic vision has come true really only since Reagan took office; just recently the whole tone of reality has shifted drastically: as I said recently, “The masks are off,” and they are off on both sides!
[69:I-8] Nietzsche is right about Christianity. It’s the fucking hair shirt syndrome: always made me feel shame, guilt, always responding to duty and obligations to others—I view myself as weak, at the beck and call of others, obligated to them. Bullshit.
“I am a man”—as that book on Judaism puts it. I need no one’s permission anymore. I need not account to anyone. I owe them nothing; they are pushing old buttons, long out of date. I have proved my worth and earned my reward.
[ . . . ]
I have earned self-respect, and I deserve the respect of others. Finally. I did it; Russ helped me, but really I did it, starting in 72 when I came here to Orange County. I’ve made it.
For me the Tao—the path—is not self-sacrifice and humility but self-respect based on wisdom, achievement and strength. My body’s pain is not directed against me; it is my pain in response to self-denial, and, most of all, my denying myself Denise, whom I loved.
Folder 73
&nb
sp; December 1981
[73:29] Owl*
That final last movement for the 13th quartet Beethoven wrote keeps showing up (as it were: i.e., being played) on KPFA, and Owl is invariably terrified by it—he knows not why. Golly: I’d even be parodying VALIS in my absurdist treatment of the search—Faustian search—for knowledge (salvation through gnosis, which seems to be my own downfall). Owl feels superior to all the other “people” in the construct because they can’t see—or aren’t interested in—the plasma’s autograph. Hence the title: The Owl in Daylight—Owl is a fool, but, like Jack Isidore, a holy fool in Christ.
Obviously I’ll be either going Borges one better or parodying him—either will do.
Harvey Pong idiot S-F fan.
The trouble with Owl, the plasma points out, is that in a way he’s too clever; he’s outsmarting his own maze—which after all was built not to trap or punish him but to teach him and help him problem solve; but all he does is sniff out (1) that it’s a forgery (in which I parody my own 10 volume meta-novel!) and (2) that a vast “God like intelligence” lies concealed behind it. This is counterproductive—and costing Owl money. So here in Owl we have absurdist Faust story which parodies my exegesis and Borges and Gnosticism.➊
Maybe philosophy prof, parody of Heidegger—German ontologist with elements of Jung.
➊ Yet there will be elements of wondrous beauty: Beethoven is not parodied, nor Dante; it won’t be a parody; it will contain elements of parody, some funny, some savage.
This won’t be merely funny; it will be tragicomic. The futility, the foolish hopelessness of questing after the gnosis—it is in vain. But what, then? Let me ponder. Peer Gynt.50 The button molder.
Kafka’s Castle will be parodied in Owl’s relationship to the university.
* * *
[73:32] Owl
In the first mode the computer (plasma) is punishing and severe. In the second, arbitrarily capricious. In the third, rewarding.
It introduces the alien in order to add something new (into his mind) to exalt him to his fourth period.
The alien mind introduction is the whole resolution of the novel. It brings Owl to his fourth period through the Ditheon psyche.➊ But he tells the plasma, “It wasn’t worth it”; thus I indict my whole search for knowledge as futile, which it seems to be, since it continues on, forever restlessly striving Faust-like.
Of course the war—and the alien—must be mentioned early in the novel, before Owl enters the construct. He has psychologically retreated from the war and into his music. (Draw on Beethoven’s feelings toward Napoleon and the siege of Vienna; posit a Great Terror general.) At the end, Owl winds up (like Bobby Fischer) futilely passing out antiwar leaflets in defiance of sedition laws; this is his resolution, and, minute as it is, it is the only heroic deed he ever performed (since it means jail or death; I will draw on my tax protest stand for this).
The crippled dwarf Nick Nicholson in the construct; he is based on someone Owl really knew in the actual world. Under wartime government law he is “put to sleep” because he is damaged physically. In this future world of genetic engineering Owl accepts this—until the alien mind is grafted into his—and Ditheon occurs. In the real world the dwarf is destroyed before Owl enters the construct. As I say, he unprotestingly accepts it—although he does feel grief. But he does accept it as inevitable. So until Ditheon (fusion with the alien) occurs Owl not only shows no interest in the war—more, he withdraws from it into his art (and the allied search for knowledge; this search is to find the basics for a fourth period vision). The plasma’s decision was wise and necessary: the construct wasn’t working out (because Owl always winds up seeking out the plasma), and time and money are running out for Owl. His resources are limited (tell me about it). In fact it was a brilliant decision by the plasma, but not ad hoc; it had been working on this problem before Owl hired it away. This of course would be stipulated in/at the opening of the novel.
So in his fourth period he abandons—not just his art—but his identity as an artist. He has become one-sided, to the detriment of his spiritual, psychological wholeness. Where the seeds of restored wholeness are laid down is in his relationship with the girl (Mary? BJ?) in the construct. (She plays the part of Gretchen.)
Could there be something like in “Frozen Journey” where the plasma (ship) confers with Mary (Martine Kemmings)? She is like Hoffmann’s muse Nicklausse in Tales.51 She could be a government monitoring agent, whose job it is to see that Owl—as an artistic resource—is protected. So she is not a creation of/by the plasma; she represents a government regulatory agency—as Mary Lorne represents the college in “The Exit Door Leads In.” The government (à la Ursula) is worried about Owl’s mental health: “spiraling into himself and slowly going crazy.”
Although she knows that Owl’s political stance will result in his death she understands that it is necessary in order to save him spiritually. She does her best—uses her official influence—to abort not his stand but his execution—in vain. She shoots one of the soldiers in the execution squad—and can get away with it due to her political position (like a party commission).
Totalitarian society: one party; mixture of CP and NSDAP. But she is, after all, a thoroughly political person (somewhat like Kathy, a police agent leading a double life).
Since people don’t age, formal rites of passage are very important; the stagnation problem is not unique to Owl by any means but is officially recognized. The “one day nothing new came into his mind” phenomenon (problem) is recognized as real and as grave. The dialectic is necessary to start up growth, and this is the ideological theory behind the grafting of the alien mind and Owl’s. Does this mean that the war was deliberately started by the government in order to give a challenge and stimulus to the people? At the end, Owl suspects this.
By introducing the alien into his mind the government brings the war to him, the war he has retreated from. He furiously resents this, even though it does spark his sought-for fourth period. Actually, the government is trying to help him, but he rejects that help—he rejects them and their war.
➊ So Owl does reach a fourth period successfully, but in it he ceases to quest for knowledge, and, instead, acts (politically), not as an artist but as one who cares what becomes of other men; his elitist attitude is gone. Thus the fourth period is radically different; it doesn’t involve music and creativity and art. Here the side of Beethoven passionately involved in the cause of human freedom comes out, surmounting the music entirely.
[73:54] Nothing is what it seems, but the war is between Christianity and the Empire; but what we call Christianity is the Empire, and the true Christians are a Celtic-Orphic mystery religion. Further, Christ’s kingdom is the “invisible secret Commonwealth” of Gaelic mythology, and it is right here unseen.
No; this is all nonsense. What I’m dealing with—as I realized last night—is the way the whole universe—reality itself—behaves. Today’s insights are idiotic.
Folder 53
January 1982
[53:C-8] There is something terrible and terrifying throughout VALIS and it is coupled with wisdom. Agape is not the topic: war, judgment and death are, carrying out in full the dream in Tears. It is all very convincing. The novel partakes of epic greatness. Also, it is a story of madness converted into faith through—due to—suffering. But this suffering itself pertains to death, to slaying. Slaying: that is the basic theme of VALIS, and Shiva is the correct name for the deity.
It is a very strong novel and a great, great one, a true epic of the human soul and spirit. But it deals with judgment and war and death.
Slaying, not healing. The slaying even spread out to include Sophia, who is the Savior; the awful awesome power of YHWH is told of: it breaks out in all its destructiveness. Thus (I say) my 2-74 and 2-75 experience was that of Jacob Boehme and the dialectic in which the demonic power within God was revealed, and only the “bright” side of the dialectic—i.e., wisdom, logos—confines the “dark” or demonic side t
o slaying the wicked and thus sparing the sheep. So (finally) I say—my experience was Boehme’s, and it was of God himself, and he is terrible but just.
The demonic or insane side of God is barely contained by the irrational or logos or wisdom or “bright” side: a dreadful theophany indeed. And it is indubitably—beyond doubt—authentic. I know this from having read Paul Tillich’s book. I have encountered the demonic, insane, slaying, “dark” side of God—and seen it contained by the “bright” or logos or rational or wisdom side—i.e., in the dialectic—so this is a profound and absolutely veridical experience of the Godhead, exactly as Boehme experienced it. VALIS, then, narrates one of the great encounters in human history between a given human being—myself—and God. The dual nature of God is all summed up by the dual nature of the third eye and the beam of pink light—wisdom and death.
[53:C-14] Hypnopompic vision: we live over and over, but because it is erased each time, this paradox results: it is als ob only one time (that is, it is again and again and it is but once). So Christianity is true—and also the pan-Indian doctrine of reincarnation is true; both are equally so. Now, this is a linear journey, and it is eternal (goes on and on forever) until we are saved. And when we are saved we are lifted up very abruptly without warning vertically, at right angles—by a pulley (as in the 17th century poem “The Pulley”52), like cargo on a ship, all encompassed in a net of ropes like a little cage of extrication and salvation—lifted up to safety. And what causes this? Anamnesis: recovered memory—loss of (more accurately) the loss of memory of all the previous times; the instant we remember (fail to forget) all the previous times, why, at that instant (2-74) we are saved—lifted up, by Christ. And what causes us to remember? To know. To know (i.e., gnosis) and to remember (anamnesis) are one. And why do we know? Through the training of the intellect; it is an intellectual matter. And why did I remember? It had to do with time. The illusion of time and the breaking of that illusion (which is the dimension or receptacle in which this journey that is linear is repeated throughout infinity); I broke it when I was about 21 years old by reading Maimonides’ Guide to the Perplexed, an old Hebrew book.53 And because it was old, and pious, and Hebrew, two things happened: two “trackings” (lives, reincarnations) became identical due to this common element; that is, in two of them I did the same thing: read this book, and so, because of the way two coaxial worlds can operate off the same common essence or matrix, they became one and thus converted over or passed over each into the other, as if I had traveled back in time. That is one of the two causes of my salvation and it is literal and real: by reading Maimonides in two different lives at two different places and times, these lives became one (viz: my meta-abstraction); this is because of Plato’s eidei, the fact of a given eidei, instantiating itself multiple times and places and yet being—remaining—unitary (viz: there is only one Guide to the Perplexed); this is what 2-74 was all about, anamnesis and the meta-abstraction. So half of the reason for my salvation had to do with the fact that (1) we live lives again and again but forget; (2) Plato’s forms-metaphysics (“coaxial worlds”) is the case; (3) there was a single object at two times (now and in the distant past) and two places (USA and Syria/Africa). (Viz: The PTG world that I saw is the Africa of the far past where I first read the Maimonides book, perhaps at the time it was written—it was written in “Felix”: Arabia!)