(3) I am making progress.
(4) VALIS is salient and evolves into the “Bishop Timothy Archer” novel.
(5) My turning down the Blade Runner offer to do the “Archer” book for only $7,500 is a double-edged spiritual advance: (1) to turn down the money; (2) to do the “Archer” book; thus my spiritual aspirations endured white-hot iron testing and triumphed.*
(6) It is Anokhi whom I seek. My perception grows, it is real, it is worth the work.
(7) VALIS was a dim but authentic (!) vision, as to a child, of Anokhi. Someday I will be an adult.
(8) My view synthesizes all the theology and philosophy I have learned; nothing is wasted.
(9) I have a real understanding of Anokhi and he works with me to bring this vision about; I am not working in the dark; he is with me.
(10) Finally, I am right now triumphing, as I write the “Archer” book. Not as a literary piece but rather having to do with Anokhi. Had I not turned down the Blade Runner offer, had I not tackled the “Archer” book, I would have lost. But he helps me. Literature is not the issue. Forging a vision of Anokhi as I write is the issue. For me there is no other issue. Pure consciousness.
[79:I-13] 17 I see the legend of Satan in a new way; Satan desired to know God as fully as possible. The fullest knowledge would come if he became God, was himself God. He strove for this and achieved it, knowing that the punishment would be his permanent exile from God. But he did it anyhow, because the memory of knowing God, really knowing him as no one else ever had or would, justified to him his eternal punishment. Now, who would you say truly loved God out of everyone who ever existed? Satan willingly accepted eternal punishment and exile just to know God—by becoming God—for an instant. Further (it occurs to me) Satan knew God, truly knew God, but perhaps God did not know or truly understand Satan; had he understood him he would not have punished him. But Satan welcomed that punishment, for it was his proof to himself that he knew and loved God. Otherwise he might have done what he did for [the] reward. “Better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven” is an issue, here, but not the true one; which is the ultimate goal and search to know and be; fully and really to know God, in comparison to which all else is really very little.
[79:I-15] What I must do—what I am doing—is extract the essence (einai) of God out of intoxication; sever the two; for the presence (not the es sence!) of God intoxicates man and makes him mad, but it is man the percipient who is mad, not God.
I did see God (3-74), and as a vast signalling system who operates in us and on us by hieroglyphics that are stimuli—and this (seeing thus, and correctly) drove me mad; I am mad but I did see God. Yet I continue, for at last God’s essence, which transcends madness, will sober me in love: cf. Donne’s “batter my heart”; the whole pattern is becoming clear to me, and it is a rational structure! The madness that seeing God fills man with is the madness of belief, knowledge and joy; these must be separated from the madness or their value will be lost in the intoxication. This is enthusiasmos by the Holy Spirit. But (to repeat) God is not mad; man is driven mad by belief, understanding and joy, for he is a little thing.
[79:I-19] In 2-3-74 the Geist in me rebelled against Fate (death) expressed by the Xerox missive and, in rebelling, became self-aware (Anokhi); this is what I knew (and knew of) as Valis. It could not rebel unless it became self-aware; it could not be self-aware without rebelling (against fate). (This finds expression in VALIS when I say of the plasmate: “For thousands of years it slumbered”; i.e., “throughout all this [the first age or half of the book] Siddhartha slept [but now he awakes].”) [ . . . ]
Thus in a certain poetic way it is true to say I seized the Book of the Spinners—i.e., of Fate—read the writing and caused it (my fate) to come out differently.18 Put another way, I refused my instructions to die—my programming; I rebelled against it. These are poetic or quasi-poetic, but “rebel,” “Fate” and “spirit” and “consciousness” (Anokhi) are real and literal.
[79:I-24] The issue is not reality or ontology but consciousness—the possibility of pure, absolute consciousness occurring. In terms of which material things (objects) become language or information, conveying or recording or expressing meaning or ideas or thoughts; Mind using reality as a carrier for information, as an LP groove is used to carry information; to record, store and play it back. This is the essential issue; this use of material reality by mind as a carrier for information by which information is processed—and this is what I saw that I called Valis, and anyone who reads VALIS and thinks it is just a rehash of metaphysical ideas or ideas “worked over by 1,000s of thinkers for 1,000s of years” is a fucking fool! Robert Anton Wilson is right.19
[79:I-28] I will know what this pure consciousness was, ere I die trying.
Some mental entity using reality as a carrier for information—what does this mean? That we humans are not alone and that we are not the highest life form on this planet. And it is aware of us and intervenes in our lives; yet we see it not.
[79:I-30] All I can think of is that reality is pure consciousness; that only Anokhi exists, purely and solely. That what we have is ascending degrees of perception, and the ultimate is perception of pure consciousness “out there”!
I can express the essence of it: reality refers to something above, beyond and outside itself; it is (literally is) an idea about something else; it is not so much information but an idea or concept of something beyond it (itself). Hence I discerned info “recorded” or “encoded” into/on it. What I have been missing is: this causes reality—not just to be a vehicle for info—but, as a vehicle, to be caused to refer to something outside itself. Thus it signifies (as what is seen) what is not seen, and this (my not-seen) is my surd. And I know what that (surd) is: it is God impinging on reality (but distinct from it, Spinoza to the contrary). Hence this is why I saw “pretextual cause” and “camouflage”; this (new) concept subsumes both these earlier perceptions/conceptions.
I have had it all and never realized it before (except that I understood the “surd” concept). Hence the AI voice speaks of a “perturbation in the reality field”—pointing beyond the reality field! All creation registers the imprint of God and reveals God. But not in the traditional “design” sense; no: not design but sign which must be read; sign pointing to what lies beyond it (viz: a sign does not point to itself). Put another way, if there was no creation, the existence of God would be metaphysical, just as without the iron filings the magnetic field is metaphysical. Yet we do not and cannot normally “read” reality at all. It is either-or, not degree. Both the immanent and transcendent views are wrong; a totally new view is needed! Viewed this way the “Acts,” dream and cypher material in Tears becomes completely understandable. This is how the I Ching works, the registering as if by a limpid passive “vegetable” agent. What we are talking about, then, is the Tao, which is real but does not exist! Yet registers on (or mildly shapes) what does exist! And is the ultimate power.
[79:I-34] When I saw the Grail this morning (5:30 A.M.) I did not see it per se; I did not, either, see it created out of nothing. I saw an ordinary physical normal every-day cup already in world affected by God; the cup in a sort of mist of color—the space around the cup as mist-like colors; and this cup became the Grail; it changed; it was made into (?) the Grail, and it did not just seem to me to be the Grail; it was the Grail; it was what I would say converted into spirit, a spiritual thing: “Grailified,” so to speak. Light did not emanate from it; it was transfigured by a sort of material light that showed—displayed or was—colors. He must have a physical cup or cup-like object in, I guess, our Lower Realm, to shape and mold and change and transform and “Grailify.” The spiritual, then, is not opposed to or separate from the physical; it is as if the physical and mundane exists to be thus spiritualized.
The physical, material world, then, is not truly disjunctive to the other realm but points to it as a sign and under certain circumstances—a state of Grace—can be so read: as to what it refers to, is o
r bears (carries) information about.
I found myself thinking, “This is the Medieval World View,” and then I realized, “No! This is what it aimed at.”
[79:I-36] “Bishop Archer.” The medium Rachel Garret is (acts as) the Spinner; she foretells the Bishop his fate: death in the Dead Sea Desert. The rest of the book is his attempt to defy Fate and free himself from his sinister destiny through the blood of Christ.
[ . . . ]
He puts up the greatest fight possible against sinister Fate; this could include fighting against deteriorating into a credulous crank: Kristen’s death sobers him up. Yet if he believes Rachel’s prophecy he has de facto succumbed to superstitious credulity! Is this not Scylla and Charybdis? To avoid death he must believe in crackpots. The reader, knowing of Jim Pike’s death, will see the irony of the situation. Angel counsels him not to believe what mediums say; but he cannily senses that he had been heeding Rachel’s warning at the cost of seeming/being a nut: “Better a live dog than a dead lion.” He is really in a spot: Fate, by a master move, has him either way. The Bishop correctly perceives the strategy (by Fate): a master move involving paradox.
[79:I-39]
(1) The warning by Jeff, through Rachel Garret. Apparently Jeff has come back all right.
(2) Disbelief by Tim and Angel (of the warning).
(3) Kirsten’s suicide. This changes everything.
(4) Tim now takes it seriously and perceives the double bind he is in. He is totally lucid.
(5) Tim sees the situation in terms of Fate; his knowledge of the mystery religion origins of Christianity comes to his rescue; Christ can save him (and only Christ).
(6) ∴ (sic!) He goes to Israel to seek “Christ,” the Anokhi mushroom. Dies. It would seem Fate won.
(7) Angel encounters Bill: Tim is alive in him (as in “Beyond Lies the Wub”) but he (whoever “he” signifies) is mad.
(8) All she can save now is herself.
[79:I-43] All—repeat: all—that invaded me in 2-3-74 was myself as eternal unique idea (in other words my intelligible essence or soul). Somehow I gained access to my informational basis!
[79:I-46] In this “Sibyl” plot development in the “Bishop Archer” book: do I not realize what I am saying? Jim Jr. came back; Jim was right—it was true! The prophecy (by Jeff) proves it, whatever the character’s reactions thus in writing the book I vindicate Jim. Do I want to do this? Yes.
[ . . . ]
Am I falsifying history? I don’t know; the material seems to be in control. But it (Jeff’s—Jim Jr.’s—coming back) proves futile pragmatically: The Bishop and “Kirsten” died anyhow! Angel must be shown to realize this. Yet—what if “Jim” is alive in Bill (as in the “Beyond Lies the Wub” story)? It must be an inscrutable epiphany at the end; she can’t tell. No; I know the answer; Jim, as we all are, is immortal; he did come back (in Bill, in me). That is the point I am working toward.
There must be some indubitable sign that Bill at the end conveys to Angel that he really is Tim (even though he is mad and in the asylum). (My model: “Beyond Lies the Wub.”) It must be a holy moment, and, to her, terrifying. Both: (1) holy; and (2) terrifying, not reassuring. (That would be sentimental.) This goes all the way back to my early novel (really my first): “The Weaver’s Shuttle”!!!!! The old salesman (Runcible/Runciter) reborn. Rebirth is my theme. Immortality as, specifically, renewal and rebirth, not just continuity. With, in, as Bill, Tim is complete: he is now rooted in practical reality: thus is a syzygy.
[ . . . ]
He could not prove Jeff came back. He could not get the necessary info to save his life. He has returned—in/as Bill—but cannot prove it. So the book in the final analysis explores the fact that first, you cannot know the truth, and what truth you know, you cannot prove to others, thus (this is the summation) although Fate is defeated, you cannot prove that you have defeated it; this knowledge (of this victory) cannot be communicated. You can defeat Fate and know it, but you cannot tell it—which is my precise position; thus Tim winds up in an ambiguous position; he both won (he defeats Fate) but he cannot proclaim it—as if Fate exacts a latent, final, sting/victory. Yes: Fate plays the final card; you win but can’t make anyone believe. It remains a private matter, locked in your idios brain. [ . . . ] So, strangely, this is the study of a man’s triumph over Fate, which is a Promethean freedom; but his punishment for his “theft” or daring is to be chained to the rock of eternal silence that he did this: that Fate can be overcome. Thus he is free of Fate and yet punished by Fate—doomed in a subtle way: he is alive (reborn) but can tell (convince) no one.
What would be his best ideal solution? Why to resolve simply in the fact that he is alive, per se; to abandon the proclaiming in the form of a simple, private, humble life, thankful for being spared, being alive; so we see him (Bill) at last in perfect peace, no longer trying to convince Angel; and at this point when he abandons his strivings (Schopenhauer’s Will) and simply says, “This is sufficient,” he then for the first time is redeemed—and knows it. It is sufficient simply to live, even if he can’t tell anyone. This is his victory; he has won by and in submission. He has come to terms with Fate, rather than overcoming it. He and Fate are friends. They both know the truth. He will simply be Bill—and rotate tires. And out of this comes—for him, saintliness—for the first time. He as Bill is a Saint, a Buddha; he as Tim—forever striving—is not and here it ends, peacefully.
He has won this tremendous victory, through the help of Christ, over Fate and death—and can tell (convince) no one. And yet he is content. This is sublime. In and as Bill he works on a car, repairing it, caring for it as one would an animal; devoted to it. We see him polishing the chrome: a boy, simple and gentle and loving and no longer off in theoretical abstract clouds. And Angel loves him although she does not believe. It does not matter to him; he is content, like the Buddha. It is as if the best in Bill has won out—of the syzygy: firmly rooted in reality: the salvation of both Bill and Tim, each of whom individually was mad in his own way; but out of the syzygy has come sanity, of a higher kind. The striving and restlessness are gone. Essentially he is content without knowing whether he won or lost to Fate, i.e., whether he defeated Fate, or whether Fate in the final analysis managed to defeat him. So he does not know that; and Angel does not know that; and Angel does not know if it’s really Tim (or just Bill imagining he is Tim). This is a strange ending. The will (of Schopenhauer) turns back on itself and is satisfied not to know: This is the form its cessation takes: that he is content not to know, and so is she. Thus one thing is certain: the restless, striving, irrational will is defeated; it has given up. If this is how victory is defined, there has been victory. If victory is defined as knowing whether Tim Archer defeats Fate through Christ and immortality—it is not victory.
The final message seems to be: sublime peace—freedom from the restless striving will—is possible, but knowledge—intellectual knowing—is not. The heart can know peace but the mind cannot be satisfied; the drive to know, to possess intellectual certitude is doomed to failure. Hence one short look elsewhere—to the heart (as Paul says about love). This, very simply, is a fact.
[ . . . ]
The conclusion: life is possible but knowledge is not, and the two must be discriminated.
[79:I-56] Someone from behind me leaned forward and touched me on the shoulder. “Hi, Angel.”
I turned around to see who it was. A pudgy faced youth, blond haired, smiling at me, his eyes guileless. Bill Lundborg, wearing a turtleneck sweater and grey slacks and hush puppies.
“Remember me?” he said softly. “I’ve been wondering how you’ve been doing. I guess we better be quiet.” He leaned back and folded his arms, intent on what Edgar Barefoot was saying.
[79:I-59] So despite all my efforts to the contrary I after all wrote the 3rd book of the trilogy! And it is finished and sent off!
And it may just be the most accurate of the 3 books, in that it involves Jim Pike, and, what is more, says that Jim return
ed from the dead, out of compassion for “those he loved”—which is what I had wanted to write from the very beginning but did not know how, nor did I dare to! Inasmuch as Jim’s (Tim’s) return from the dead is identified with the presence of Christ in the Dead Sea Desert, it is expressed—like Christ’s own resurrection—as a sign that the Parousia is here! Thus it may be the most accurate and most important and most daring of the 3 books! And completes the previous two!
And very adroitly written! Since it does not seem to preach. Angel categorically rejects the notion that Tim (i.e., Jim) has come back, and yet from the internal evidence in the book it is clear that in fact he has—and thus is to be seen as a sign pointing to the Parousia, identified as such!
Jim came back (I say it in “Bishop”) and he came back to me (if you add in VALIS) and this is the Parousia (The Divine Invasion). The full and true story is divided up over the 3 books. Thus I now have—despite any of my intentions to the contrary—told the full and true story, not only of Jim but of the Parousia; he did come back and this is only half the story; the other half is: What this signifies: the news he brings: the Parousia is here.
What I have done in and by these 3 books is penetrate to the heart of the Christian mystery. That Bill in the end is taken over by the Holy Spirit is proved by the xenoglossy (the Dante quotations) that Angel recognizes; this is specifically what Tim Archer when first we see him denies exists: This specifically is proof of the presence—and reality—of the Holy Spirit who in turn is Christ; and who and what is Christ? Our spiritual leader who dies, and whose return in us (and hence to us) by enthusiasmos is a triumph over death and proof of eternal life—and carries with it the knowledge from the next (upper) realm. This is the Essence of the Christian (1) experience and (2) knowledge, and is related to Elijah sending back a part of his spirit to his friend Elisha. I have now told the full story and specifically identified it with Christ, the Parousia and the Holy Spirit; the revelation is now by this 3rd book complete and accurate. Most of all it is clear that this return is due to compassion (agape) on the part of the departed friend who turns down Nirvana out of love for his friends left behind.