Letter to Malcolm Edwards, January 29, 1975
[4:135]
Dear Malcolm,
[ . . . ] One thing I’ve meant to write you about (did I?) is the long piece you wrote on Flow My Tears which will appear in England’s sole SF maga zine.31 Malcolm, at the risk of repeating myself in case I said this already, in that piece you expressed certain ideas about my writing which struck me as so important and so meaningful that I was dazzled, and for me, anyhow, it was one of those rare critical works which shed a fundamentally new light on my own work for me, the author. It made sense out of things in my work, aspects, underlying connectives, which I had never discerned properly—but had tried to discern. In particular your remarks about Ubik jolted my mind into furious—and delighted—activity. I’ve sent the piece on to a lady who is writing a post-graduate thesis on my writing, telling her how important, how truly astonishing!, your piece is, in my opinion. When you discuss how the idios kosmos is invaded by what I think you describe as the “strangely different koinos kosmos,” this makes sense out of a lot of what I perpetually write about . . . also, when you discuss how the various idios kosmos-es, whatever the plural is—how a bunch of them may still be only a proliferation, a kind of mutual agreement to extend one idios kosmos, one partial view, from person to person, which is still not a genuine koinos kosmos: Malcolm, you have come up with a totally new concept, in my opinion. To phrase it baldly, there can be shared idios kosmos-es, giving the impression of illusion of a koinos kosmos. (The latter have the aspect of authenticity, the former not, however many people share it.) What comes to my mind in this regard would be when a tyrannical state so manages the news and so manipulates the ideas and thoughts of its citizens, shutting out facts from their purview entirely, that together they collectively share a sort of ersatz koinos kosmos which is nothing more than the Approved Idios Kosmos manufactured synthetically by the state. It could fail to incorporate into it certain vital elements, without which however many people share it and ratify it, it still fails to partake of reality—in the sense that an authentic koinos kosmos should. Multiple incorrectness, however frequently ratified, does not create accuracy, does it not?
A deliberate structure/artifact which they jointly maintain against the threat of reality, against what, if they somehow relaxed, they would find they could allow to seep in . . . as it later does. They have collectively generated their “reality” outside their field of conscious awareness. (At night, in sleep, this mental mechanism dims, and other elements slide in, but are of course ruled out the next day on awakening, as being mere phantasms.) After the bomb blast in Ubik, as I was writing it, I suddenly had to stop, to realize, with a jolt (I recall that day well, as I sat at my typewriter empty headed and empty paged, as it were), with no preconception at all as to how their new world would be, compared with the one they’d been living in. They were alive; they had been killed; all at once, for plot purposes, I needed to imagine a world so-to-speak as it was, which the closest ana log we commonly discuss would be: what is the room like when I’m not in it? I tried to imagine their world for them when it lacked this projection machinery and artifact-like material which they naturally, as do we, maintained constantly, outside awareness. Being dead, they had no force. (“No force, no motion has now/she neither sees nor hears,” or however it goes. Guess it’s “hears and sees,” to go with “trees.”32) I sat at my typewriter for a boundless eternity, imagining their world stripped away, and without realizing it, I was imagining their true koinos kosmos seeping in. What is more thought-provoking is this: what is true of one universe (theirs) would be true of all universes (which would include ours). Thus, the bare-bones koinos kosmos after the bomb blast in Ubik would presumably be ours as well, our authentic koinos kosmos, if we somehow pierced the veils, or rather, if the veils drifted away from between us and it as we relaxed for whatever reason our constant projections which we mutually share. At the time I wrote Ubik it never occurred to me that the world depicted in the latter part of Ubik might in some fundamental way, give or take a bit here and there, be our own, could we see it properly. I wrote the book and forgot how I came to write it; that in point of fact I created a sort of a priori paradigm of what a universe would have to have, minimum, to exist, without reference to what I saw daily in my own. [ . . . ]
Ubik, the world, was arrived at a priori. But now [ . . . ] I discern in Ubik certain traditional elements (I discern them only by studying night and day my various reference works): (1) the Logos (i.e., Runciter talking and writing notes to them); (2) the twin competing interacting subforces which Empedocles described (Ella versus Jory, which is love versus hate, a kind of dialectic interaction generating all change); (3) Ubik as an omnipresent energy field which would be the ancient notion of God as Immanent Mind infusing the universe, within it rather than above it; or, in Hindu terms, the Atman, the Breath of God; (4) the manner of regression of forms which takes place runs along an axis which is, so to speak, at right angles to the form-progressing axis we usually envision, but it is logically there, although not within our range of immediate perception. However, Plato’s edola weren’t within immediate perception either, and still aren’t. Given the other elements of the Ubik world as being theoretically possible as underpinnings of our own, but not disclosed or available to us in a perceptual sense, then this, too, may be a valid view as to (1) the actual existence of the Platonic archetypes, the ideal forms, and (2) how they progress or decay, as incising takes place or for some reason fails to take place. It all constitutes together a harmonious Greek worldview, consistent with itself and available as I say a priori.
Even the small point of negative ionization as a factor in Ubik the force is consistent with Reich’s33 view of the orgone force he posits, which was linked to ionization, especially in the atmosphere. (I just learned that, amongst all the rest.) Orgone as an underlying semi-living life energy, cosmic in origin, the link between the living and the non-living, would be roughly equal to Ubik, although not conceived by Reich as a sentient. I obviously conceive of Ubik as sentient, perhaps a bioplasmic life form related to the Logos, as the three members of the Christian Trinity are related to each other and one another; Runciter as Christ/Ubik as Immanent God/Runciter, when not visible but writing to them as Logos. Which, I see now, by my logic, makes Logos and Christ the same (which was St. John’s view anyhow, in his Gospel34). Imagine, having arrived at St. John’s view of Christ a priori! (Should I notify the Pope?)