Here is an antithesis created: the suffering of the sheep is absolutely awful and to be abhorred, and the painting produced is absolutely beautiful. But this is not presented as a choice but as a fact: this is how you get such a painting. Still, I deplore it in the dream, so I feel it is not justified: this torture is not justified even by the picture produced. So my emotional sympathy—agape—outweighs my aesthetic response, however profound the latter. This recalls the passage in Paul where he says it is more important to possess agape than the charisma of the Holy Spirit! Is this, then, the dream, the clue to the true meaning of Christianity and Christ's death? That, through agape, we instinctively respond that it is not justified? There is no end justification for such dreadful means. The death of Christ, then, is like the purpose of a Greek tragedy: it is to inspire pity and terror and out of this a profound sense of no; it should not be: art subordinated to pity: why, this is the theme of my "Chains of Air" story!! [...]
The meaning lies in the sorrow aroused rather than in the results of the art produced. (Beauty—in the Platonic eternal eidos! The message is anti-Platonic klagendes geschrei!56) Not aesthetic appreciation. The ephemeral animal's fate arouses certain complex feelings of far more redemptive importance than the cool perception of beauty. The epiphenomenal sheep's suffering has more significance than the eternal, hence archetypal, art produced; we are to react to the specific sheep and not the eidos! Pity, terror, and moral no-saying. "Praised the feathers and forgot the dying bird"—Tom Paine's analysis of aristocratic society. His call to political revolution.
Then Christ has come to extricate the means from being sacrificed to the end, which is to say he is pitted against the very machinery of reality (e.g., DNA): the subordination of the individual creature to the timeless type.* He has shown us by his death the awe- and pity-inspiring tragedy of ordinary life (cf. Schopenhauer!). The inexorable karmic wheels, in fact. It is to rouse us to the most intense anguish—vicarious suffering and rejection of this suffering—possible: man's highest state, to vicariously (i.e., through agape) share in the suffering while at the same time to condemn it as evil, despite the good results (art) (the eidos).
***
Thinking this dream over I would tend now to go back to my original appraisal: that it simply stated a fact: that the beautiful and imperishable comes into existence due to the suffering of individual perishable creatures who themselves are not beautiful and must be reshaped to form a template from which the beautiful is printed (forged, extracted, converted). This is the terrible law of the universe. This is the basic law; it is a fact. Also, it is a fact that the suffering of the individual animal is so great that it arouses an ultimate and absolute abhorrence and pity in us when we are confronted by it. This is the essence of tragedy: the collision of two absolutes. Absolute suffering leads to—is the means to—absolute beauty. Neither absolute should be subordinate to the other. But this is not how it is: the suffering is subordinated to the value of the art produced. Thus the essence of horror underlies our realization of the bedrock nature of the universe.
[49:1105] I had the strangest hypnopompic thought: that there was no historical Jesus, that it—the Christ story—is an anti-Greek tragic drama whose point is to valorize the transient, fleeting, epiphenomenal individual in contrast to the eternal type, which when understood properly, abolishes time, turning it into space. How? Why? Because we are DNA robots, flickering means (witness the 2-tape-synch programming): we don't really exist until or unless the Christ event occurs, which obliterates the twin tapes, frees us and by abolishing time makes us ends, not means, and hence no longer subject to ananke; the wheels. Phylogenic self thereupon becomes available to the epiperson. It is like in Part II of Faust when Faust halts a fleeting moment. Flux (process) is real; the dialectic flip-flops at enormous velocity, destroying each "image" as soon as it pops up. In this process only type is real, and the individual creature just a flash. The mythic tragic drama is a spiritual ritual that breaks the prison of flux which erases the individual for the sake of the constant: the type. What Christ as type does is, Christ is individual as type, and turns the process inside out, which is why I said I was no longer blind, and had been seeing the universe backward, and how I was on its outside skin, like walking on a balloon—I had it inside me, an inner-outer transform.*
What must be realized is that not only is the individual normally mere means, it is also not real (v. Plato and realism). "Christ" is type of the epiperson and reverses the means-end, individual-type basis and abolishes time hence process (time becomes space). The individual becomes eternal; hence immortal.
[49:1118] Starting with the phosphenes there has been a disclosure of beauty to me, more and finer and higher until it seemed the ultimate quality and value—and then the sheep dream, and the first revelation about suffering—so that I can see that absolutes are involved: the two ultimate absolutes of reality.
Revelation 1: The whole cosmos is aiming at—evolving toward— beauty.
Revelation 2: But at what cost? Infinite suffering by the means to the end: the creatures.
Revelation 3: It isn't worth it, and Christ effects extrication from this subordination to the goal of cosmos; this is Christianity.
It is not just that the Christ story is a tragedy; reality—for each individual creature—is a tragedy, because the two absolutes of (1) beauty for the type and (2) the problem of the means by which it is achieved: individual suffering—meet head-on, and the former triumphs at the expense of the latter (the species subordinates individual suffering to produce its—the species—perfection).
[49:1119] We ontogons are not only systems for processing information but (1) information creates us; and (2) the main processing is a diversification and proliferation. You get more info out of the ontogon than you put in:
[49:1132] I've been shown a really perplexing paradox. The highest good is the "harmonious fitting-together of the beautiful"—i.e., Pythagoras' kosmos, and this is what theos moves every thing and process toward. Okay. And then I've been shown the cost at which this is achieved—the torture and killing of the epicreatures, and I am shown that this cost is too great! So the summum bonum57 can only be achieved at a cost that (spiritually speaking) makes it not worth it (i.e., unacceptable). Then is the summum bonum actually the summum bonum? How can it be? Isn't there a logi cal contradiction here? Right! There sure is! This is the dramatic tragedy of the universe, of God, of all: process, reality, and goal (teleology). Okay, then the real summum bonum lies in saving the epicreatures (i.e., the parts which go together to make the whole). The whole is not greater than the sum of its parts; no: each and every part (ontogon) is more important than the whole! So within the summum bonum there is a secret. A mysterious conversion occurs. The part is the real whole; the phylogon is the ontogon and vice versa. Perhaps this is an unreconcilable Irish bull which sets off the infinite flip-flops of the dialectic; maybe this particular paradox is the primal imbalance that is the dynamism driving reality on //\//\ forever; it cannot ever be resolved, so process never ends (which is good).
Maybe the ultimate paradox underlying process reality per se has been revealed to me. It can be defined logically this way:
Q: What is the goal (purpose) of all reality?
A: The harmonious fitting-together of everything (every part) into the unitary beautiful.
Q: How is this done?
A: Tormenting and killing the many ephemeral parts.
Q: Is this justified?
A: No.
Q: Then is the summum bonum justified?
A: No; there is a higher value than the summum bonum. It is the extricating of the suffering parts.
Q: Then the initial answer is false.
A: No, it is true: it is a postulate.
(Out of this the dialectic which never ends is initiated. This here is the dramatic tragic story which our world can be reduced to; it is our world's tale.) Solution: the mind (noös, theos) must create a counter-entity which will work for the extrica
tion of the parts at the expense of the whole.* Thus the Godhead is ipso facto divided and pitted against itself; it assumes an antithetical interaction with itself, part (half) of the Godhead works synthetically, to fit everything together harmoniously into an integrated whole (kosmos) and half works to assist and rescue the epiparts subjected to stress, torment and death in the pursuit of the above goal. Hence the Godhead is in infinite crisis. A push-pull binary dialectic is created, and this is exactly what was revealed to me as the basis—not just of reality—but of the Godhead itself. The practical result is that everything is perpetually (dynamically) converted into its opposite. And this ur-paradox in the macrocosm has mirrored effects in every microform down throughout creation! (v. Taoism!)
In terms of the evolution of awareness, the total system advances through stages➊ until it becomes aware of the cost, hence the paradox, then splits into antithetical halves and remains in this dynamic balance state forever, or else repeats the cycle again and again forever.
Thus the rupture in the Godhead was necessary, given its (the Godhead's) drive to complete itself as kosmos. It was driven inexorably to this schism; hence the one became two, and the dialectic came into existence, as it became increasingly aware. It had to repudiate its basic drive. But instead of going into a cybernetics stall, it formed an antithetical dialectic—hence dualism.
Look, I didn't figure this out: it was revealed to me. At a certain stage in its evolution the Godhead knew—had to know—utter anguish. Its own creation against itself. It set up a system and now must subvert it. But it does this consciously. So it is riven but not psychotic. It must render a verdict of damnation on itself. For what it has done (i.e., tried to realize the summum bonum).
➊ In promoting Pythagoras' kosmos as goal. Then kosmos can only be a theoretic goal; in actuality it can never be achieved because it involves a self-contradiction (the cost); empathy arises and having arisen grows—defeating kosmos. Prognosis. Continual growth of empathy in the system as it evolves—and away from its proper (original) goal. The totality voluntarily decomposes its own psychosoma!
[49:1151] My theological reinterpretation of Heidegger's Sein vs. das Nichts states that in insuring ("creating") Sein, the Godhead is unable to avoid a paradox of values which splits it and sets up an antithetical interaction within the Godhead itself—having to do with means-ends (this is based on Plato's "forms" vs. epiphenomena). Thus a process universe is brought into existence that is rooted in sorrow at every level. Involved in its own agonized creation (actualization) the Godhead is damaged. (Split = dam age.) Thus the "Fall" is due to a built-in self-contradiction and not to sin or whatever. The Godhead itself is no longer intact; it is not above or outside or transcendent to the schism. Actualization (Sein) is impossible without self-damage to the Godhead and within creation (Sein). Thus no perfect Sein can exist; the Godhead has set itself a seemingly impossible goal due to the means—subordination of the ontogons to the phylogons. And our daily empirical experience with reality bears this out; it is confirmed a posteriori (a priori and a posteriori agree). Most awful of all, the Godhead stands as self-damned by its own verdict of guilt for the suffering it has imposed on the ontogons. But the alternative is das Nichts—which is worse. All the Godhead can hope for is local and furtive repair to itself, due to an ontogon achieving an ontogon-phylogon identity transform (achieved through moksa by the ontogon: identification with the phylogon of which it is ontogonous). The Godhead would be motivated to bring this about wherever possible as the ultimate goal of creation (Sein), superseding all other goals (e.g., realization of kosmos). The ontogon-phylogon transform would restore the Godhead to its pre-fallen state of unimpairment, before creation.
I seem to be saying that in creating Sein (the universe) the Godhead was logically forced into sin, and can only be redeemed by its own ontogons—e.g., individual creatures sentient enough to become their own phylogons. Thus I see the scheme of salvation turned upside down!
The ultimate lesson or revelation or gift by the Godhead to the ontogon would be to share its—the Godhead's—own vision of the kosmos with the ontogon, but this would inexorably lead back to a counter-revelation of the paradox (means-end) and the moral ambiguity forced on the Godhead in its goal of establishing kosmos. The ontogon thus favored would then sit in judgment of the Godhead: the roles of God and creature would be reversed: instead of God judging man, man would judge God. The final step is for man to redeem God by returning him to his original unfallen state, as the Kabbala says: "And lead him back to his throne." This is a titanic mystical-theological revelation (and act!).
Folder 8258
January–April 1980
[82:1] January 30, 1980
Upon reading The Tao of Physics (Capra)* I have come to some conclusions about Valis other than those I endlessly recirculate; viz:
A unitary web in process, self-initiating, in which I participate and whose aspect as it pertained to me my mind determined, conscious, all times simultaneous. I was not outside it. It was everywhere. Its self-motivation was to me most striking (e.g., "pretextual" cause; no laws were imposed on it). It was equally conscious and aware throughout. Every part of it was perfectly linked together into a structure (kosmos). Yet, the whole structure was epiphenomenal, a magician's trick, done for the sake of beauty, music and dance. It could "be" (appear) any way it wanted to anyone: different ways to different people. It took an infinity of forms, all of which came into being and passed away (ontogons) leaving only constants (phylogons) as parts of the structure—hence it was in flux like a self-perfecting organism. The complexity of the structure increased upward (i.e., toward the macro) and downward (toward the micro) with each passing second.
4:15 A.M.: I wasn't seeing it and I wasn't seeing a projection of my own brain. What I was seeing was a combination of and interaction between my brain and it, so that to some extent a unique local field came into existence; viz: I didn't observe Valis but participated actively. Valis, then, is not it and not me, but rather it and me. So of course it mirrored back my own conceptions. This was due to my participation in it. But this wasn't just projection on my part. It was an interpenetration between it and me. The significance of this new insight is very great.
So Valis was not me, but I helped shape its nature as it presented itself to me and mingled with me. This is not a matter of preconception on my part; it is an interpenetration. Hence "Thomas" took me over (its penetration of me).
Valis, then, is a syzygy of me and the whatever-it-is, but I can only know it in the fashion that I knew it; I can't exclude myself as participant in it.
[...]
5:30 A.M. Each human brain is a different universe, literally, not metaphorically: vast spaces. I saw mine (i.e., my brain). Hermetic alchemy. So the vast spaces that I saw was my own inner space projected outward; it is greater than outer space.
I was interacting with reality at its deepest level below that of the plural epiphenomena; I joined with it (or became aware that I was already joined with it). It took the form of an open system biological organism model because it is; this is why it could interpenetrate me and me it. I can never know the not-me greater mind as it is in itself, since when I encounter it I actively participate in shaping the aspect it shows me. I do not experience it; I experience myself merged with it in syzygy. This is the issue Kant raised regarding the thing-in-itself; his arguments hold true here. This other mind probably appears only to me under the aspect I encountered; thus I can say little or nothing about its intrinsic nature. This is what has wrecked my attempt to analyze it for these six years; I overlooked the fact that I was a participant in it and not a detached observer outside it. I changed it by encountering it. It is significant that the boundaries of my mind and its mind are lost in such an encounter; we blur together into the syzygy. I'd like to conclude that this indicates isomorphism, but it does not. Nor can I even be sure which parts (elements, aspects) are from its mind and which from mine. All I can be sure of is: it was not all me.
THE ULTRA HIDDEN (CRYPTIC) DOCTRINE: THE SECRET MEANING OF THE GREAT SYSTEMS OF THEOSOPHY OF THE WORLD, OPENLY REVEALED FOR THE FIRST TIME.
So to explain 2-3-74 I draw on The Tibetan Book of the Dead, Orphism, Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, Buddhism, esoteric Christianity and the Kabbala; my explanation sources are the highest—which is good and which makes sense. But put another way, starting at the other end, I have synthesized all these high sources and derived a single sensationally revolutionary occult doctrine out of them (which I was able to think up due to the addition of my 2-3-74 experience); the distillate expressed theoretically is, We are dead but don't know it, reliving our former real lives but on tape (programmed), in a simulated world controlled by Valis the master entity or reality generator (like Brahman), where we relive in a virtually closed cycle again and again until we manage to add enough new good-karma to trigger off divine intervention which wakes us up and causes us to simultaneously both remember and forget, so that we can begin our reascent back up to our real home. This, then, is Purgatorio, the afterlife, and we are under constant scrutiny and judgment, but don't know it, in a perfect simulation of the world we knew and remember—v. Ubik and Lem's paradigm. We have for a long time been dying brains/souls slipping lower and lower through the realms, but the punishment of reliving this bottom-realm life is also an opportunity to add new good-karma and break the vicious cycle of otherwise endless reliving of a portion of our former life. This, then, is the sophia summa of the 6 esoteric systems—7 if you count alchemy—of the entire world. 8 if you count hermeticism. We are dead, don't know it, and mechanically relive our life in a fake world until we get it right. Ma'at has judged us; we are punished, but we can change the balance ... but we don't know we are here to do this, let alone know where we are. We must change the "groove" for the better or just keep coming back, not remembering nor reascending.
The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick Page 73