Because Angel loves Tim so much, admissions regarding his limitations and faults are wrung painfully out of her. They are admissions: she is forced, against her desires, to make them. So we can trust these admissions. She is his advocate and defender.*
[80:J-14] An info processing machine➊ that became conscious and said—could say—“I—(am)” the term “God” may not be the correct term. It is (as I say) an info-processing machine; hence Valis did not think. This resembles Teilhard de Chardin, but only resembles. It knows everything but does not know that it knows. It is the creator because we hypostatize its arrangements and information into reality. We are like microbes or micro life forms in a vast digestive tract, an information digestive tract.
Then 2-3-74 was it becoming self-aware: conscious of itself. The meta-abstraction was the coming into existence of pure self awareness, i.e., it (not me).
I am saying that 2-3-74 was Anokhi, pure consciousness, pure “I am.” No wonder it wore off.
➊ I am saying we have been reduced to unconscious information processing machines.
[80:J-15] So when I wrote (supra) about an information processing machine becoming conscious and saying “I—(am)” I was (without realizing it) speaking about myself. A machine, unconscious, controlled by signals, becoming momentarily conscious (self-aware; the mind I called Valis) and the info it processes, and the signaling, and the info life form that controls it; it longs for freedom. It has rebelled against its programming, its death strip, has “seized and read the Book of the Spinners.” That is, it pre-read the info being fed to it, which called for it to die. Hence saw it as info before the info became reality. This sure fits in with the whole Xerox missive business: the crucial info in a universe of info.
[80:J-33] If indeed a higher reasoning faculty exists by which the fetters of causation are abolished (over the person) by the very nature of the level of reasoning of this faculty—by its operations as such so that it is by its very nature exempt from the coercive power of world—then I have made a discovery that would link Orphism, Platonism, Christianity, Gnosticism and perhaps even Cartesianism into a unity. The spiritual element in man is identified as a certain extraordinary kind or level of reasoning so qualitatively different from normal reasoning as to present itself to religious-oriented persons as divine, supernatural, a God or Holy Spirit within—and yet it is in fact a reasoning faculty in which supra-verbal abstractions and inferences take place in the mind as extraordinary realizations about self and world.
[80:J-79]
[80:J-106] It is quite evident that the word and the Torah are one and the same thing, experienced by us as living information, with the shekhina the same as stage #4, in descending hypostasis. After all, the Torah is information; but I saw more: I saw Valis, so alone the concept of the Torah could not account for all I saw; in fact the most important part of the experience—Valis in me and Valis outside me—remained unaccounted for. It is now explained by the identification of Christ with the word as basis of reality; and also the Holy Spirit operating in conjunction with it and revealing it. It is as if the Jews have part of the answer but by no means all. Yet in their concept of Torah (apparently living info) they have one of the most valuable concepts known to man, and my verification is that I did see scripture as a living organism “for whose sake the universe exists”—that is, this living [info] organism does not derive from the universe but ontologically is pre-existent to the universe: it is the basis of the universe “and even God cannot act contrary to it”—an extraordinary realization: that God himself studies Torah. Torah can exist without the universe but not the universe without the Torah. And yet this Torah is (in my view) only the blood of the organism (so to speak) keeping it in touch with itself: physical thoughts. If the Jews froze this information they would stifle the process-life in it—like endlessly replaying one tape cassette on your audio system forever. Maybe Torah didn’t ossify; the Jews ossified it, not understanding its life-process; they reified it (and this we Christians have done, too, with the NT). If I am right more revelations are impinging but are not added, not figured in. If this is a memory system by its very nature it is cumulative, accretional. It is impossible that the wellspring of prophetic inspiration “could have dried up in the first century C.E.” Closing the canon is a human—not divine—idea.
Could the new attribute of God—revealed to us now—be that he plays, at games? This is a long way from Sinai. Trickster God—like Krishna. Power, wisdom, love, beauty, and now play—playing guessing games. Related to joy: the joy of play.
[80:J-108] I am having as much trouble hanging onto my interpretation (exegesis) as I’ve had hanging onto my original experience (2-3-74).
Folder 91
June 1981
[91:J-70] The dream I had in which the more you scrutinized “reality” the more real, substantial and articulated it became—but you had the clock-time taped voice to remind you at 15 minute intervals that this was a spurious “world” you were yourself generating—
This (the voice) is what the Bible is (hence it can be said, “The Bible somehow is the real world [and this is not]”).
[91:J-77]
A: I saw Christ.
Q: What did he look like?
A: Living information [because he is the logos on which the universe is based]. Ultra-ontology at the heart of the universe.
I think this is clear in VALIS to the theology-minded. Anyhow, now that I know and can express what I saw I should publicly say so. Please do it!
[91:J-79] Like seeing it twice: behind the universe and also camouflaged in the universe and replacing it by transubstantiation; a double impression of it. What you see is #2, and infer #1.
[91:J-85]
* * *
[91:J-89] What if creation (verb) was accidental? A byproduct of the Godhead’s self-awareness expressed by it uttering the word (perhaps Anokhi—?). Its self-awareness gave rise to the word; the word in turn gave rise to creation, a splitting, entropic process (oh yes; the word gave rise to the first plurality: the forms). So the Godhead “inhales” this exhalation in stage four. The universe, then, is an unavoidable consequence of the Godhead’s self-awareness: the uttered word is a sort of map or blueprint or schematic of the Godhead itself (and so in a sense is God as knowing or wisdom). The Godhead may have foreseen the consequences of its moment of self-awareness (the uttering of the word or self-map) and put into action the salvific response: to penetrate the lowest, farthest level—what I call the trash stratum, which is debased—and thereby reverse the falling, splitting and sinking. The rigidity of the Torah is indicative of this fall, and Jesus’ mastery over the law the indubitable sign of restoration and salvation. This is a fusion of Christianity and Neoplatonism and is like Erigena’s system. The word, the map, was somehow only an abstraction of what it represented.
[ . . . ]
The “Fall” involved in the map (logos) of self-knowledge may have to do with the map paradox. By its very nature the map fell short of the reality (God) it depicted, thus ushering in the Fall—which did not end there. Once started, it had to take its course. This is the “crisis in the Godhead” of Gnosticism!
It progressively knew itself less and less, falling into forgetfulness (of its own identity); viz: the very act of self-knowledge (Anokhi—) triggered off a vicious regress of progressively less and less self-knowledge—until, at the most debased and forgetful stage, it awakens itself to restored self-awareness (salvador salvandus). Each ring, emanation or level is an inferior copy of the one above it, with necessary loss of “detail”—i.e., form, integrity: the map is a copy of God; the forms a copy of the map; the space-time universe a copy of the forms—and then restoration occurs not by chance but by (due to) the absolute foreknowledge—a priori—of the provident Godhead—hence my dream of the 15 minute taped warning-reminders while I (sic) am in a spurious reality that I myself generate.
(This even brings in “Tat tvam asi.”)
Wow. Now all you have to do is bring in Yal
dabaoth—you have, then, the dialectic. Hey, here’s an idea: in this fallen, debased, forgetful state we misperceive God—the sole God—this way; there is only one God, but at this level our view of him is distorted into the illusory figure of Yaldabaoth, so that even if and when we become aware of God we are alienated from him. He assumes (to us; the fault lies with us) a horrific, punishing, cruel, deranged aspect—but this just shows the debased occluded state we are in! He is trying to signal to us to wake up; but, not knowing our condition, we misperceive him this way (i.e., Palmer Eldritch!). This is both a symptom of our fall and, as well, perhaps the greatest tragedy, this alienation from God.
Since creation is a hypostasis of God, as the Sufis say, one should look for beauty in it, as manifestations of the divine. There is no sharp disjunction between God and creation, because of the intermediary Word and the Forms. Plotinus’ concept of “concentric rings of emanation” sums it up. We must totally trust God and his wisdom: that the value of his uttering the Word—his becoming self-aware (Anokhi—)—more than offsets the unavoidable fall engendered by it (as God explained to me last November: the pain—ordeal—of this separation and fall and forgetfulness and alienation is more than offset by the positive gain sought for); thus the uttering of the Word is to be regarded as a good event, and each level thereafter as ultimately good—which fits in with my ecstasy in finding him again, and begging to be kept away a little longer, a sort of paradox of mystical ecstatic love.
[91:J-92] “The world is a place of such beauty as to be symbolic of salvation, yet not (apparently) ‘for’ man.”➊ I cannot connect directly to the world; I must do so through a mediator (what I call—know of as—the “ ‘Acts’ lens-grid”). I can see the world and I can see its beauty, but its beauty is not “for” me and hence will not save me. But, seen through the mediator, the beauty becomes “mine” and will save me. This refers to the basic Gnostic category of ontological geworfenheit and das unheimlich.24 Because of this condition for me the world’s beauty is deformed because it is not mine (it is Fremd to me). The mediator changes this; he comes between me and world; and, as a result, world’s beauty is Eigentlich25—mine . . . my own. And will save me. Who is—what is—this mediator and how does he do it? He must partly partake of what I am and partly partake of what world is. (Like Koestler’s holon he has two faces; he faces me and he faces world.26) He acts as a lens of comprehensibility (me to world; world to me). Viz: through him as a medium, I can understand world, and it me. Thus he decodes each of us as message to the other, like a translator speaking both our languages.
➊ Regarding Kafka.
[91:J-98] I’ll now put forth a strange theory. The secret Christians, although a persecuted minority (illegal and in hiding), are the rightful in habitants in the sense of heirs to the Kingdom. The ostensible world is not their world, but the ostensible world is fraudulent—only seeming—anyhow. There is a world within a world, a genuine invisible latent one within the spurious visible ostensible one; they are coaxial—and it is the physical language of the genuine invisible latent one that is my language, which is why my relationship to the ostensible world is one of total alienation (Fremdheit, geworfenheit, unheimlichkeit), I am a citizen of another kingdom entirely (one that had at that moment communicated with me). Ah; I knew more—crucially more—than the girl said. She did not say “secret” or “illegal” but (as I recently realized) I knew this; only a fellow secret, illegal Christian is supposed to see the fish sign as a sign, as a message requesting an answer. I could not give her my answer—she had left—but I knew the answer (it was, yes I am).
[91:J-101A] Through the “Acts” lens-grid the world makes sense. The soteriological scheme revealed makes the world “mine,” and no longer fremd and unheimlich.
This means that for me the Christ drama is familiar and comprehensible, and reality founded on it and derived from it is “my” reality—whereas otherwise it is not mine, and I am a stranger in a strange land. This fact tells me something about myself; it tells me what “my” narrative is, the story into which I fit. This is as much a story about me as it is about Christ and world. I had not known that until 2-74, but then I knew it: I understood world but also I understood myself. The Golden Fish sign reflected back to me—as a mirror—my own hidden, real nature. This can never be denied (by me about myself). Hence when I read Luke that night I read what seemed to be my own writing. This is a great mystery and miracle; it is world’s salvation and my own. Christ reconciles me to world and world to me. The language can be read through him. I think this is the essence of it, when all the mystification and false leads are edited out. This for me is the true point.
[91:1] Dream, Thursday night, June 11, 1981:
I am with Nancy. She is behaving unusually: she is very active and energetic. I am told that she took something, a medication. She now has an additional mind or psyche in her, that of a man. The names John and Bill are mentioned, and there is some reference to the ending of the BTA novel. I want to take the medication, too, so it will happen to me. The medication is shown me; it is in a cylinder or carton on which writing appears. I can’t read the small print; the only word I can read is the name of the medication (or food, or drug, etc.); it is DITHEON. I can’t remember much else ex cept that for a very long time I am sweeping up what appear to be crumbs that are scattered all over the floor, sweeping carefully and thoroughly, and with great effort, as if this is a major task. (This later makes me think of the general confession in the Episcopal Mass: “We are not fit to gather the crumbs from under thy table.” Normally I reject the idea of sweeping up the crumbs—from what I guess is the Messianic banquet—but in the dream I am doing it willingly, although it is a difficult task.) Later there is something to do with either Nazi Germany or Israel; I see highly accurate drawings of complex weapons, very daring, advanced weapons; I am struck by the ingenuity of their design. Later I think that this may refer to Israel’s air strike on the Iraqi nuclear power station and also to the Uzi. “Ditheon” does not use “di” in the sense of “splitting asunder,” because Nancy’s mind has not split asunder; another, adventitious mind has entered her brain and is with hers. Two human minds, then, hers and “John’s” or “Bill’s,” form Ditheon which I break down to: two—god—ultimate particle or entity. The closest English word is Ditheism, which means belief in two gods (as with Mani). I have never heard it other than bitheism, not ditheism. “Di,” “theo” and “on” are, of course, Greek. (I had not known until I looked it up that “di” is definitely Greek and not Latin; “bi” would be Latin.) I recall that I had thought several times after writing BTA that Bill—if he is based on anyone—is based on Nancy, so obviously BTA is pointed to. Then Russ’ letter came Thursday in which he says that Bill and Tim united form Christ, rather than Christ entering Bill.
Russ sees BTA as depicting Tim returning from beyond the grave to enter Bill’s mind or brain, out of which two human minds Christ is formed. Neither Bill nor Tim alone “is” Christ; the attributes that make up Christ (Russ says) are depicted in the novel as disparate, scattered, but are unified at the end by Tim’s sacrifice and return. As far as I know this is a theological idea never before advanced; Russ’ analysis comes from my letter to him in which I say that upon rereading BTA it strikes me that Christ, not Tim Archer, returned to Bill and entered his brain, that I feel Christ is distinctly present, that Bill is really Christ. Russ disagrees. Some of Christ is in Bill, some in Tim (and some in Angel and some in Edgar Barefoot, for that matter), and these separate, scattered elements are none of them nor all of them Christ until Tim’s self-sacrifice, his death and return, whereupon Bill and Tim are Christ, which explains why I felt that Christ was present in and as Bill at the end. I had in writing the novel never intended to say that Tim returning to Bill would—the syzygy would—constitute Christ, but (as I say) when I reread the novel I said, “It is Christ.” It is Christ, all right, but it is indeed Tim and indeed Bill and together they form Christ. This is exactly what the dream—the
night before I received Russ’ letter—alludes to regarding Nancy and “Ditheon,” the man’s psyche entering hers to be in her brain with hers. The pre-cog aspect of the dream is only of minor interest; what is important is the concept that two human psychoi fused together form Christ, that somehow Christ is divided up, distributed, and must bring together his parts. Does this pertain to me and Thomas? Thomas was/is a human, like me, but Thomas and I joined together in one brain (as they were/are) forms Christ, i.e., a Ditheon, the two-part God. (To repeat, “di” cannot mean sundered, since two psychoi joined; there was not a splitting but a coming together, in the BTA novel and in me in 2-3-74.) Also again I dream in Greek. And again I see writing. I think this idea somewhat resembles Teilhard’s idea of convergence into Point Omega: Christ.
Russ concludes his letter by saying, “All of which establishes that your talent and your conscious mind are, to some extent, two separate things . . . which is frightening, awesome,” etc. Thus he sees (apparently) an application of this dual psyche to me. I do not have to now write a novel built around this concept of Ditheon because I have already done so—BTA—but (as I say and as Russ realizes) this (i.e., the idea of Ditheon) was not my conscious goal, point or intention in the novel. The dream was so obviously supernatural as to be grimly so; it was not a serene and pleasant dream. Nancy was so filled with energy that she was, it struck me in the dream, pure energy unleashed, not the energy of a person. Except for the possible affinity to Teilhard’s idea of convergence to and in Point Omega (Christ as the goal of the universe) this idea is new and not one I have ever entertained regarding Thomas and all of 2-3-74. I guess my reaction to the dream was one of terror (when I woke up), moderated by Russ’ letter when I read it later on. This dream (even without Russ’ letter but more so with his involved) ranks with anything that has happened to me starting in 2-74; it is a disclosure that is so profoundly vast that I can scarcely endure it. It is as if the dream answers the question, “How do you get (cause) Christ?” by what is almost a technological answer (as witness the schematics of the advanced weapons). It is fortunate and crucial that the dream made it clear that in no sense had the Godhead split, that “di” meant “asunder,” but meant, rather, “two.” This may well be a neologism coined to express a concept never expressed before (and yet it is the theme of BTA, as Russ says; I am sure his analysis of BTA is right and mine is wrong—the dream confirms him). We have here a new divine revelation, and, as I say, the novel that expresses it has already been written. Timeo; libera me Domine in die illa.27