PKD & Religion by Ted Hand

Thoughts on Exegesis by Ted Hand

From Philip K. Dick and Religion

Was Philip K. Dick a great mystic?

I think there’s an interesting question as to whether Dick “ranks” with the great mystics of the ages. He sometimes thought that he might on the basis of the extraordinary nature of his experiences, but there’s also the nature and value of his writings. Moreover, Dick was a pioneering *theorist* of mysticism (with a nod to David Gill and Erik Davis I’m calling him a “garage theorist of religion” in my book) who is doing a lot of interesting religious studies work in the Exegesis (see the comments of Kripal to understand how he’s interesting to a contemporary comparative religion professor), although in his characteristically unsystematic form. However, even the “unsystematic” nature of his work has been greatly exaggerated: as McKee demonstrates there’s serious Christianity in there (“a cruel religion… but accurate” -PKD), and as countless modern day occultists can attest there’s plenty of insight into Altered States of Consciousness and magical practices of all kinds. That all said, it’s also important to understand that he couldn’t have pulled off any of this as an academic, being that so many of his insights are actually misunderstandings, however productive. Perhaps rather than trying to fit him into the box of old school mysticism we should see him as designing a new way to be mystical. But isn’t that what all great mystics do?

Is The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick a bunch of crazy talk?

I hadn’t noticed the “crazy talk” comment above. Not sure I understand why you’d use that phrase. Most of what we find in the published Exegesis is quite serious and reasonable exploration of his experiences and the research he was doing into theology/mysticism to understand them, although the experiences and ideas he’s working with may be a bit strange. It’s of great interest to serious students of religious studies and philosophy as well as literary theory and abnormal psychology. Those of us who have had extraordinary experiences, whether mystical or pathological, find a great deal of insight into these conditions. Frankly, I’m skeptical of the motivations of those who would triivialize or pathologize it. Most of the time when an author’s notes are available we are grateful for the opportunity, and little ink is spilled attacking the notes for being in note form.

Another rant about Dick and Postmodernism

[Lord Running Clam had asked about when postmodernism “started,” the Total Dick Head pointed out that you could go back to Shakespeare, then I replied:]

Another way to look at it is that there are no “postmodern” writers — writers are just writers/don’t fit into reductive categories etc– only critics who use the term. And the term “postmodern” is certainly a 20th c. invention, usually employed by critics who have an agenda–and these critics are often not unjustly accused of obscurantism which explains why it’s hard to find a simple answer (or hacks who are trying to get an academic job!). “Postmodern” is a term of art, and it’s much easier to trace the use of the term rather than try to identify a trend in specific authors. I could argue all day that medieval authors like Chretien de Troyes, Chaucer, Pseudo-Dionysius, Cusa, Bruno etc already displayed many traits of the so-called postmodern.

But I digress. Perhaps the best way to understand it in the context of PKD’s thought is that Heidegger was the “postmodern philosopher” that started it all. But then again, since Dick’s often better situated in early modern philosophy, perhaps Hume was the “postmodern philosopher” that started it all. Then Again, Socrates was the original hipster ironist, and Heraclitus even more radically postmodern (explicitly cited by Heidegger as foundational in the continental giant’s thought) so perhaps the greeks were the first postmoderns. That Dick was down with Heidegger, at least later in life as evidenced by Letters/Exegesis, is not controversial–although guys like Critchley can explain better than I can where Dick misunderstands Heidegger. Nobody ever said you have to be a GOOD postmodernist! Disobedience is the bread and butter of the postmodernist, and Dick was doing that before postmodernism.

Nietzsche was right about Christianity

Readers of the Exegesis will notice a great deal of Christianity in the book. Dick notoriously explored and plundered the philosophical sublimities and ecstatic excesses of Christian Platonism and Mysticism, but he was also dedicated to his Bible. Christology is a big deal for Dick, who seems to have discovered that Christ can mean just about anything as he plugs Christ into all his theories, trying to make sense of them. But as we see in quotes like the below, Dick had moments where he radically doubted the Christianity that otherwise obsessed him. We have seen another place where Dick thought that he was tuning into a pre-Christian Platonic religion that was “bringing down Christianity.” Here we have a spirited affirmation of Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity as a “slave religion.”

[69:I-8] Nietzsche is right about Christianity. It’s the fucking hair shirt syndrome: always made me feel shame, guilt, always responding to duty and obligations to others—I view myself as weak, at the beck and call of others, obligated to them. Bullshit. “I am a man”—as that book on Judaism puts it. I need no one’s permission anymore. I need not account to anyone. I owe them nothing; they are pushing old buttons, long out of date. I have proved my worth and earned my reward.

PKD wrote about 2 million words in his Exegesis over the course of eight years.

For comparison, Plato wrote about a half million words of philosophy, Aristotle wrote about a million words, and Aquinas wrote ten million words with the aid of scribes despite his busy teaching schedule. (before dying in his 40s)

Dick’s notes for Maze of Death

Here is an interesting take on the Gnostic emanation as diminution concept.
Dick sure had a novelist’s gift for retelling the story of trapped divinity.

“God’s learning about absolute evil from the relative evil of evil events in cosmological history, would infringe on the absolute quality of God’s goodness, since to know of evil is to become to some extent evil. Therefore, soon after creation, God became diminished — or tainted — by knowledge of evil, and, like man, fell into the realm of the Curse (which is an expression of that knowledge of evil by what had been purely good). It has taken God thousands if not millions of years to work his way back out of this critical situation, and, as stated before, the appearance of God in the form of the Redeemer is a sign that he has managed to climb back upward sufficiently to reintroduce new good into his creation. God, then, is once again available to man, and vice versa.”

From Philip K. Dick, “Notes on the novel” circa 1968: RFPKD #7 (August 1998)

More on pkdreligion.blogspot.com