Philip K. Dick (PKD) had the idea of God as hidden and yet present in the world. God invades the world and re-creates it, makes real that which lacks fundamental reality. In light of this, I was thinking of another idea from A Course In Miracles (ACIM) which is that God doesn’t make real or even recognize our false creations. Supposedly God sees us as we truly are no matter how we see ourselves. Maybe, in a sense, both are right. As God’s reality is hidden from us, our reality is hidden from God. We can make this rationally coherent by proposing the Gnostic view that the divine can simultaneously be fallen and not fallen. Also, from the Gnostic view, Jesus acts as mediary for he understands our predicament as God cannot. Jesus, like all of us as separate individuals, is not ultimately real. But Jesus reflects the light of the real, acts as a remembrance of the real. If we can recognize that we are the fallen divine, then we can remember that the divine never really fell.
PKD had another idea borrowed from earlier Christians: the Ape of God. The god of this world mimics the creative powers of the God of heaven, or if you prefer the emanating fullness of the pleroma. The Ape of God, however, creates falsely. In terms of ACIM, the Ape of God is the ego. Even though ACIM posits no evil, ACIM does distinguish between the false and the real which would fit some definitions of evil and good. Anyways, ACIM is clear that the false use of the creative power serves no useful end whatever terms one wishes to use. PKD, on the other hand, theorized that the Ape of God may serve a positive purpose, may even be an artifact of the one true God. Maybe God needs to remain hidden to accomplish his task and so we need to temporarily remain in this dream. This attitude necessitates faith in God being in control and using that control to a benevolent end. We will all awaken one day and the sufferings of the dream will be forgotten. For PKD, that is our hope and consolation.
PKD had a further notion about these two ideas. The hidden God and the Ape of God both operate in the world, one seemingly good and the other seemingly bad. PKD felt that the two were inseparable. The world could be seen as a game with two players, but still the game is being played out by a single God. William S. Burroughs thought that evil often appeared as good and good as evil. This is an aspect of the hidden God. God isn’t where we expect him; or, as PKD stated it, God in the garbage. Burroughs was more cynical than PKD and saw this world as one to be escaped. PKD, on the other hand, believed escape was not necessary or maybe even possible. Accordingly, we may “escape” our delusions and misunderstandings, but we can’t escape the world. We need not seek out God because God will seek out us. PKD went so far as to say God can’t be found. God reveals himself for reasons that are a mystery to us, and God’s hand can’t be forced.
PKD started out much more of a dualist, and Burroughs seems to have remained a dualist. For Burroughs, the god of this world and the God of the Western Lands are two entirely separate beings. Burroughs said he always believed in God but, oddly for a writer, not the God of the Word. He apparently took from Christianity that this world was created from the Word; but since this world didn’t seem good to him, he believed that neither was the God who created it. Interestingly, PKD was influenced by Burroughs Gnostic thinking. Both sought God in unlikely places, and PKD was interested in Burroughs cut-up technique. The idea is that if language is broken up from its normal order, true information can be revealed (God in disorder similar to God in garbage). So, language could be used to see beyond language as long as one realized that Truth existed beyond the Word. PKD also sometimes seemed to equate the creative Word as part of the deceptiveness of this created world, but it was a deceptiveness serving a good purpose. Burroughs, of course, saw no good in it (even though he saw goodness or the potential for goodness in people or at least some people).
The mixing of the seeming good and the seeming evil is the trick of PKD’s maneuvering past dualism. PKD remained fascinated with dualities but felt they were contained in a larger whole. PKD had begun to question what he saw as the dualism of Gnosticism, and later in life he questioned Christianity for the same reasons. He was drawn to the Greek idea of pantheistic monism. He saw in Greek philosophy a love of symmetry and beauty that he felt lacking in Christianity. He once had a vision of a world beyond a golden door (i.e., Golden Rectangle). It was utterly perfect and he saw a young woman within that world. He somehow knew this woman was Aphrodite and that this world was the Greek otherworld rather than the Christian heaven. Burroughs believed in the Egyptian idea of an otherworld which I don’t know if it at all resembled PKD’s vision of the Palm Tree Garden. For certain, there is a clear distinction between Burrough’s vision of a perfect world only attainable in death and PKD’s vision of divine reality existing as part of this world. The former, to the extent that I understand Burrough’s view, is entirely dualistic in that the worlds of good and evil shall never meet.
So, what conclusion can we come to about dualism? My sense is that PKD is right that absolute dualism is false, but maybe dualism still portrays something true in our experience. From PKD’s perspective, it’s necessary that we take the game seriously even though it is only a game. Dualism, according to PKD, may serve a purpose of purification of the world. The good needs to remain hidden so that the evil can be more apparent. If good were to be obvious, then evil would mimic it and we wouldn’t be able to distinguish the two. God must act as an undercover agent in enemy territory. God may even forget himself in entering the human realm, but he leaves clues for himself (something like the Hymn of the Pearl). In a sense, we are all God hidden in the form of the human for the spark of God exists within every person.
The hiddenness of God allows for the subtlety of faith. Faith must be developed and that is what God encourages in remaining hidden (yet available). This offers freedom to choose. God is intimately close to everyone, but every person must choose what he sees. Even though God can’t be found out through force, by a shift of perception we can open ourselves to the possibility of revelation. A simple shift is all that is necessary (and an immensely humble patience is also helpful). This fits in with the idea of willingness in ACIM. However, unlike ACIM and Burroughs, PKDs evil can serve the purpose of good for the reason that God can and does use everything to his end. Furthermore, there is nothing to fear because the Second Coming already happened… for those who have eyes to see.
In general, PKD was interested in dualities which is something he probably picked up from his studies of Gnosticism (and Jung). He had many theories about dualities. Along with the good and evil issue, he connected the views of a lower and higher world in which he saw this world as the meeting ground for the two. He thought about this partly as a depth perception in time rather than space, the two worlds being two perspectives that create our perception of reality (the mind itself reflecting this split in reality). This also relates to his idea of how the Holy Spirit flows backwards in time. So, the backward flow with the “normal” experience of forward flow creates the present. I could go on and on with PKD”s philosophizing about dualities, but I’ll only add one further aspect.
PKD, in line with the Gnostics (and Jung), was very much interested in the duality of male and female and how this corresponds to spiritual truths. For PKD, this was very personal. He had a twin sister who died as an infant and this made him obsessed with this sense of a missing part of himself. He was obsessed with the “dark-haired girl” both in his fiction and in his personal life. More importantly, he had that vision of the divine feminine which stuck with him. Burroughs, to the contrary, was more critical of the feminine to the point of being called a misogynist. Going by an essay he wrote on the matter, I don’t think he was actually a misogynist but simply a pessimist about life in general. He just had a negative view of life, of embodied existence. He wasn’t trying to simply blame it all on women. Still, he certainly wasn’t idealizing the feminine either. Personally, my experience is more in line with PKD. I fel a certain connection to the divine feminine. Understanding the interplay, psychologically and spiritually, between the feminine and the masculine seems important to me.
Let me return to the views about the world of the good, of the true. Burroughs believed the Western Lands was distant and the path arduous. PKD believed (as did certain Gnostics, Kabbalists and Christian mystics) that the Kingdom is all around us and even within us, that the Kingdom is right here and now in this world (necessitating dual vision). I must say both make sense to me in that both speak to that which feels true in my experience. Oftentimes, the divine does feel infinitely distant and infinitely alien to this world. God is so far beyond my comprehension that I’m left with nothing useful to say (which doesn’t stop me from trying)). But I sense the reality of something that, although beyond me, does exist within or at least touches upon my experience and so is intimately close (there is some comfort this at least). It’s right here, and yet always beyond my grasp. Like Gnostic Valentinus, I suspect that all believers may be saved in some sense, but still gnosis is very much desirable. What good does the hope (or even certainty) of being saved do when people are lost in delusion and ideology? Seeing truly is of utmost importance in this world and such discernment is no easy task. The kingdom may be all around us, but the trick is to truly understand what this means. Belief isn’t enough. We must know… or else we suffer (and cause suffering) in our unknowing.
To quote PKD from his Exegesis (1978 entry, p. 143, In Pursuit of Valis):
The Valentinian ontological assessment of knowledge is not that it (the Gnosis) leads to salvation or is knowledge about salvation. But that in the act (event, revelation, experience) of knowing in itself lies salvation. Because in knowing, there is restoration of man’s lost state, & a reversal of his present state of ignorance. Upon knowing, man is again what he originally was.
This knowing isn’t a conclusion. From the conventional sense of reality, it’s an utter paradox (a dualistic view that allows for seemingly contradictory experiences). We are saved and yet the world remains as it was. We simply remember what always has been true. The hidden is glimpsed, but even in its revelation it remains hidden from our intellect. We can’t really understand it no matter how much we try. PKD accepted the failure of the intellect and saw in this very failure a hidden success. This was part of the paradox. Seeking God always fails, but only in our failing can we find God. The seeking is necessary in its own way.
To quote PKD once more from his Exegesis (1979 entry, p. 91, In Pursuit of Valis):
I actually had to develop a love of the disordered & puzzling, viewing reality as a vast riddle to be joyfully tackled, not in fear but with tireless fascination. What has been most needed is reality testing, & a willingness to face the possibility of self-negating experiences; ie., real contradictions, with something being true and not true.
The enigma is alive, aware of us, & changing. It is partly created by our own minds; we alter it by perceiving it, since we are not outside it. As our views shift, it shifts in a sense it is not there at all (acosmism). In another sense it is a vast intelligence; in another sense it is total harmonia and structure (how logically can it be all three? Well, it is).