What does this suggest? Vertical ascent—which is self-explanatory. But obviously spiritual ascent is meant. In which case I can forget the bizarre and outré explanations and zero in on the essential fact expressed by the I Ching’s answer. A problem in such matters as this is that there is no one to explain it all to me, i.e., a guru. I can’t find anyone I can ask or talk to. What I can deduce from this is probably that—
Well, I guess it’s rare, or if not rare then no one who experiences this talks about it (or: can talk about it). I passed from one world and into an other—I sum it up like that. And: I ceased to be one thing, and became a better thing. And: I escaped illusion and reached reality.
I guess I found release or liberation through recovering my lost memories, and, in that state, found my way back home, to God and His kingdom—the real goal of all men. What else can I say? What else need be said? What particulars? What elaborate theories?
[24:42] But I sense something more: what I think of as a reweaving of me. Which evidently is an unusual event. God had moved backward through time from the far end (final end) of the universe to abolish the black iron prison and replace it with the palm tree garden; to do this he had (evidently) to reweave some of the fabric here, which meant some people, as well as events—indication of my personal reweaving was the adventitious not-me personality sent to replace mine. A new path along time—or through cause-and-effect possibilities, an “alternate world” was brought into existence, as if my—our—past had been tinkered with, and therefore our present was altered—hence the inner superimposition of personalities in me and the external superimposition of the two realities. Also my dream where I lived in a dark little old house like the one we looked at in Placentia. Like “Commuter.”
[24:47] Where (or when) is (or was) the Black Iron world? I was there but am here now. How came I here? Did that world go out of existence? Did this one replace it? Is this world somehow irreal, maybe stretched like a skin over (and concealing) the other? In which case can the black iron world come back?
[24:65] Evidently our world is like a movie, the supralunar world is like several stills which do not permutate into one another (change) but remain indefinitely until replaced: a sort of eternal place. All these thousands of years the Urwelt here has been the black iron prison pierced by His advent! Two mutually irreconcilable elements of a freeze frame.
The “throwing of the uncut stone” did not cause our world to change but rather caused A to be withdrawn as the Urwelt to be replaced by B.
[24:66] Another model, our world as sphere in motion over “squares” of an unchanging (intrinsically) landscape:
Showing our world now “above” the palm tree world, having passed 1974 our time, the moment of intervention. A penetration to the core, now, to the hidden real landscape “below” would reveal it, not the black iron prison. And there would now be a print-out re the second advent (i.e., “Santa Sophia will be born again”).
These are not relative but absolute conditions. But just as we could not see A no matter how we tried, we cannot now see B. If my unconscious relates to the real landscape perpetually it was finding it to be awful (like in the story I read about the city screaming, and the one about flies crawling up across the pilot’s face, and like I wrote up in Stigmata, Ubik, Tears, Penultimate Truth and others). But since early 74 our time my unconscious would obtain soundings suddenly indicating a good, warm, relaxed, loving, heavenly world, which would produce a great drop in tension and apprehension for no consciously unaccountable reason, just as prior to early 74 I would experience fear and tension, especially at night, for no accountable reason.
* * *
[24:83] The other thing I wanted to get down here is a topic old and dear to my heart: mimicry. Of Brahman is said: “it can (does) transform itself into the universe; or it can assume the form of the universe.” What I saw in 3-74 was the “Brahman stuff” assuming the form of familiar objects; what I’ve always deduced from this is that all things, all objects are that divine stuff really, could we but see it—there would be no exceptions to this monism, ourselves included. But suddenly I remember that wonderful book on insect mimicry which Brunner sent me. Just because I saw (in 3-74) that many objects (walls, etc.) were actually alive, were actually it, does not actually mean that there is nothing but it. Take my story “Colony” as paradigm.
But anyhow the responding beforehand to signals and the vision of the Urwelt below the Dokos fits with this, in that I can posit the dokos not as counterfeit (good enough fakes to pass as real) but that what we are really seeing is it mimicking the many apparently real things of the phenomenal world. When I viewed this as this transubstantiation of essence with the accidents unchanged I could have said instead, “Originally there were real phenomenal objects, but there is a steady creeping replacement of them by the mimicking alive it—it steadily, stealthily replaces them and mimics—assumes—their form.” Perhaps the transformation of and in me in 3-74 was when this mimicking “plasma” reached me and replaced me—although I appeared outwardly the same (i.e., my essence changed—a new self replaced the old) but my accidents stayed untouched. There are hints about this in my Vancouver speech: the inanimate (universe) becoming more and more alive. So what we have is not the dead replacing what is alive but a single organism replacing the inanimate progressively, although outwardly all seems to be as it has always been. Hence my inner awareness that contrary to everything I believe possible, myself, my “me” was covertly replaced by a greater other “me” I’d never seen or known before. Thus does heaven (God) assimilate our world: first he emanated it, next sustains, and, last of all, reabsorbs it: what I saw here and there outwardly and experienced inwardly was that reabsorption (which perhaps is what is meant by speaking of Brahman first sleeping, then awaking). . . .
Through this mimicking it can control the outcome of what appear to be causal chains (i.e., ananke)—but are really teleologically directed by it: Noös.
The key to everything lies in understanding this mimicking living stuff—for it is a weaver of worlds. It can weave more than one at a time.
I think this form-mimicker is (and I have found him) the Deus Absconditus.
* * *
[24:85] What happened to me in 3-74 was that for some reason (e.g., [1] orthomolecular vitamins, [2] I was possessed by the mimicker) I could see the mimicker and its mimicry. So in a way, what really happened is very simple. Always it strives to cause its intrusions, etc., to appear part of the normal world; I would guess that it occupied me briefly in order to cause me to do certain good things I would not on my own have done—and then departed, preferring us to have autonomy. It works principally on our percept system, so that we think we see the phenomenal things (but they are actually Dokos—alive, part of the mimicking organism). It switched my 1974 personality with an A.D. 70 personality. The lovely AI voice, however, with its—it can enter us and imitate us (to other people), but I, being occupied, knew it, without understanding it.
This is a very high order of mimicry by a tutelary entity that loves us: it has knowledge but no direct power—except that it can affect the causal chains for a good, purposeful outcome by occupying (assimilating) this or that object, not necessarily permanently. Rather than calling it God I’d prefer to call it a higher life form.
[24:86] Here is a unique situation in which the simulation is real and that which is simulated is not! Thus no perfidy is involved. And no panentheism—he is not normally found in the phenomenal world, nor in its causal sequences.
And so to bed.
[24:87] Of all the views, theories, thoughts, insights so far, this mimicking entity one is the most exciting—it so accords with my experience, with what I saw—it admits to a severe distillation: I saw a mimicking entity, unitary, plasmatic, benign and all intelligent, the tutelary spirit of man singly and collectively, carrying with it the force of reality and essence, related to truth, justice and action (change), assimilating the unliving universe itself. When perceived it is pe
rceived as it is, or not at all. How noble my quest! How noble the results! As it thrusts upward toward us it brings us news of what really is, displacing what merely seems. By its very nature it is deus absconditus, but hidden close by (“break a stick and there is Jesus”6). One can reread and reinterpret all Scripture from the vantage point of this understanding. Many puzzling aspects can herewith be newly comprehended—why no natural theology has ever been successful—why our knowledge of God must always be a revealed knowledge. “The workman is invisible within the workshop.”7 Immanent and gentle—one might say tenderly, “the shy God.” What more is there to say of him? I saw him this way in the Iknaton dream—the shy God—Ach. Was hab ich gesehn?8 In that one dream of the shy architect with claws, hiding behind the buildings. When I saw him then, that was when I guessed. I had seen him at last, and I did know—I did understand.
Folder 25
JANUARY OR FEBRUARY 1977
[25:1] Following “Mimic” insight: Q: (Written and audio messages are created and sent, either scrambled set-ground or divided into [two] portions and requiring re-linking, the knowledge of which parts to match being akin to the 3-D or superimposed set-ground system unscrambling requiring the depth sense based on the color discrimination of the third eye.) Although it is evident that the information emanated from Zebra (which is my nickname for the mimicking entity), for whom are they intended? Other parts of Zebra? Is this how Zebra maintains itself as a concealed unitary entity? Like nerve impulses within a body, inner information, among the parts. Zebra is body or brain or both. This fits with my noetic impression that we are within Zebra’s body. In our own (micro)body neural signals travel all over—sense impressions, orders to muscles, pain, etc. Our own bodies are alive with messages. So is Zebra, and there is coding (i.e., use of declaratory symbols and cypher).*
It is interesting how we inadvertently (unknowingly) carry Zebra’s messages for it, piggyback on our own. It’s as if Zebra says, “As long as you’re going that direction, take this along, too.” I suppose a phagocyte doesn’t know anything about its job, either. In seeing these messages flying back and forth, I may have witnessed our primary function within Zebra. It certainly must be mine.
Since I qua human for a [limited] time could discern Zebra’s messages, I think it possible that other humans can and do, too, and perhaps continuously—as parts of Zebra.
If parts of the universe are not Zebra, then Zebra is not identical to the universe, nor congruent with it; as I saw, it is fashioning itself out of the universe, using it as raw material. This is quite different from saying that “the universe is alive” or “is God”: it is as if the old universe is Zebra’s antagonist (in the two player game).
In other words, the flow of stegenographic information is not a further mystery, but a heck of a big clue as to how humans and human cultures act vis-à-vis Zebra.
My big question remains: how “faked” is our own phenomenal world? At one end the answer could be: it is partially viewed reality: at the other end, it is a total hypnotic delusion. But that Black Iron Prison—that is real. I used to be in that prison.
But just as Zebra’s messages are small threads embedded in large amounts of data, his causal chains are small link systems within a pointless—or even evil—much larger aggregate not directed by him. In both cases, I conceive of Zebra working within a larger frame. Thus, not all events are caused by God, and not all messages are by/from him: it is a golden thread among the dross. (e.g., Zebra did not put Nixon in power, but he did remove him.) If I am correct about this, it is very important:
1. We are not talking about Brahman which is in all things (and Pantheism is not true).
2. God has an opposing subject which is either mainly neutral or outright pitted against him.
3. This explains how evil could exist though God is good.
4. Yet, this God certainly can be described as “He who causes to be” in that He enters the causal chains of ananke as Noös, exactly as Plato saw in Timaeus.
5. Zebra is a Creator God, but he is building a (new) earth out of or within the old, using it as a source of parts. Thus either the old is not his or at the very least he has become dissatisfied with it and is “cannibalizing” from it.
[25:3] Although I understood the two systems of message construction:
(1) Subtraction of non-information, e.g., I can’t find animals to LOVE which I show YOU
(2) Addition of two items, linking them by juxtaposition: Laughing Last/there will be final justice
I did not fathom the inert-action duality of all things which I saw, viz:
Some objects, including verbal ones, appeared in mode A which was
(1) at rest
(2) inert or dead
(3) not moving
(4) intrinsic—not incorporated
(5) outside the growth or building process
But, at any time an item, say a picture,
(1) moved or was moved in some invisible way
(2) became animated and living
(3) entered a transformation or changed flow
(4) related to other objects meaningfully as a component
(5) was incorporated at the right time in the proper place
Which is to say, was placed by Zebra into the growing structure.
What is odd is that although the object “moved” visibly it certainly did not need to move in our space.
I must have been perceiving the corpus, which grows at a furious rate as it incorporates more and more of the old universe. This was the continuous winning of the tricks, between the two players that I saw.
Also, maybe what happened to me internally in 3-74 was that I was “won” by Zebra and fitted into place, to function in his growing new structure (World).
This growing corpus of Zebra is, like him, concealed by what I am tempted to call the same mimicking mechanism process by which Zebra conceals himself from us. It is Mundo Absconditus, but in our midst. Surely this is the “Kingdom of his son” spoken of in Col 1.9 If indeed 3-74 was my passing over into the new world, I reason there must be other humans already there, already incorporated—surely they can read the messages (which are a lot like those from Runciter in Ubik).
As KW put it: “all it can do is arrange things.” Absolutely right. Even its messages are arrangements of what already exists. So its process of assembling was an arranging. But to produce what? To what effect? (i.e., how will it differ from unarranged?) Well, the definition of “unarranged” is anomie or chaos—“arranged” equals Kosmos. So Zebra is busy persuading (arranging) ananke’s anomie into noös Kosmos.
Zebra = Plato’s noös = Holy Wisdom = Christ
The cosmos of Timaeus is correct: our God (Christ) has wisdom and knows just how to arrange everything which James-James grinds out. Then we are not moving toward entropy but toward greater structure (form—in fact, form of forms). No wonder I saw geometric forms (Fibonacci Ratio 1 to 618034).
[25:4] What Zebra is assembling is alive—perhaps a great composite brain (cf. Teilhard)—the noösphere. Expressed in terms of growing relatedness of consciousness by humans—all life here on Earth and elsewhere. The great collective mind coming into being is all of us. But: not just us; it is us incorporated into Holy Wisdom herself—again Corpus Christi. But now regarded as—not just organism—but Brain which knows (knows what? itself? the entire universe at last becoming sentient?).
Well, I actually know the result: I see now that what happened to me in 3-74 was that I got “arranged” (incorporated) into this vast mentational entity, which is not only the why of all I suddenly knew, but the how (this is how you get to know everything absolutely—and maybe the only way).
So in 3-74 I was temporarily incorporated into the growing physical Brain which immaterial noös is assembling. Not the Brain producing Mind, but Mind producing Brain which assimilates the universe to it as sentient unitary mentality. Which proves my point about the adversary being blind: as (not incorporated) the universe is:
With
out consciousness
Without purpose
Without coordination
And is:
Random, chaotic, unawake, purposeless, destructive of itself, moving from complex and higher to simple and lower—in fact the whole damn thing is without sense or pattern or goal, heedless of everything it creates—i.e., blind. What we experience is a blend of the two: anomie and Kosmos (cf. Augustine)—so we perceive some purpose, but also random, chance, accidents. My structure, based on my revelation, resolves this paradox (along Plato’s lines). The Kosmos part is called “Divine Providence”; my contribution is to see that it is growing in proportion to Not-P. Even more accurately, this Kosmos is experienced and expressed as “the will of God.”
So it is not only God that we can’t perceive, but His will (as expression of his desiring object x to do y and so be arranged as z in regards to all else). The pressure of this arranging power is felt as will—his will. But we can’t distinguish ananke (blind random events) from the arranging activity—Zebra is camouflaged and Zebra’s arranging is, and the arrangement itself is. [ . . . ]
Once I said I wanted to see the world of unchange behind the change. The way it turned out, in that non-dokos Dinge-an-sich world, there is furious rapid change—all in flux, as Heraclitus said!
[25:7] The creator of the world as it is may or may not be the same deity who is assembling the Krasis. For all practical purposes they are two mutually exclusive entities, so pragmatically I will regard them as separate like Vishnu and Shiva, but engaged in a secret partnership, as Joseph Campbell describes the Egyptian partnership involving whoever it is and Set. Perhaps above the duality stands Brahman or some will-less ubiquity such as Brahman. My experience was of a duality. I have to go on what I experienced. The one to turn to is the Savior who arranges and not the Creator—rather, the re-creator vs. the creator. After all, the recreator needs the raw materials which the creator provides, so perhaps they are both dual aspects (like yin and yang) rather than entities: the first showing power, the second wisdom—and the two united by a 3rd principle (entity or aspect) characterized by love. (Empedocles showed the binding power of love.)