How to Build a Universe That Doesn't Fall Apart Two Days Later, Philip K. Dick
web.archive.org
web.archive.org
Think about the history of words with a negative connotation that people try to replace, and how the new euphemism acquires the previous negativity.
dang doesn't like it when people say correlation is not causation, but dammit, the fallacy is everywhere! Changes in language accompany changes in thought, but it's not causal.
Please do share more about this "stupid idea" regarding "words shape thought"; as you say, I seem smart enough to share and repeat something stupid so I must be able to understand you further.
I haven't read that particular book, which is an oversight I'll have to correct on my next holiday.
With that in mind, couldn't society's thought process on ownership drive the phrasing, not the other way around?
In other words, maybe you can't change thought processes by changing phrasing.
Languages are used to express ideas. We have debates on this very website about the expressiveness of languages, how expressiveness of language enables (in)efficiency, and which languages are best for a given task.
The expression of a thought influences and, in some cases, limits the kinds of thoughts that can be expressed. This is evident when you see things like someone "writing Java in perl".
Meanings evolve and often doesn’t follow the literal words used. “Pull yourself up by your bootstraps” for example has seen it’s meaning dramatically shift over time. Basically as soon as a phrase has a well known meaning, that meaning can begin to drift.
The only clarification I can think of for my response is to reiterate that the context I was assuming was the belief that controlling language allows one to control thoughts of real people. My reaction isn't that it should or shouldn't, just that it obviously doesn't.
Maybe "control" would be a better word than "shape", after further contemplation. I agree that words shape thought, because in general, actions shape thought. But nobody can control thought by controlling language. It's futile. Unless you are privileged to be designing the universe.
Is the government subjecting people to enhanced interrogation or torture?
Are they placing them in detention or prison?
Are people undocumented immigrants or illegals?
Is someone a <respectful term> or "just a <derrogatory term>"?
Is someone a freedom fighter, a terrorist, or a traitor?
To the Nazis, were Jewish people human or subhuman?
Can a given historical event be called a genocide?
To me it's pretty clear the words used to describe people and their actions influences how these people and actions are viewed and understood.
This is one reason why propaganda is so effective, and why violence often follows the dehumanization of certain groups of people, in which word choice tends to play an important role.
If there is an example of successful thought control through language, how is anyone going to be able to think of it, by definition?
For instance, in Nazis who truly believed that Jewish people were subhuman, empathetic thoughts towards Jewish people were less likely.
Also, I don't agree that attempts at control have failed. I think they have often succeeded.
- "Thoughts are not influenced by words" would be a silly claim, and I disavow it.
- I am disoriented by your throwing out "some thoughts are impossible for users of certain words", not knowing who and where you think that was claimed. That's not the only way one could try to control thoughts with words. The method people seem to try a lot is to eliminate words to prevent thoughts, which seems like kind of the opposite.
- On what basis do you presume you have good insight into the psychology of Nazis? I mean really, that's awfully glib.
- Your last two sentences don't seem mutually exclusive, but having them together seems to imply they should be, which means I don't know what you are trying to say. Can you give an example of successful control at any rate?
Advertisement works, even though it's not thought control.
Nazi were quite successful in turning Germany the way they wanted, in making soldiers hate and in making them comit atrocities. That was succesfull language manipulation. They lost war for unrelated reasons.
In the end, people will get old, and forget history, and die off, and the feedback loop will go around and around and what people believe will evolve. But nobody will have successfully controlled what people think.
I totally agree that everybody is trying to influence everyone else's thoughts through language. That's what words are for. Nobody could reasonably disagree with that, and I never intended to.
I wonder if you believe that this kind of absolute, unsubtle thought control is what Ursula Le Guin was talking about with the brush example, or what the parent post was talking about. Or even what Orwell was talking about.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is really popular in the full 'thought-control' kind of way, and I do believe that that is not well supported.
What Orwell was talking about, what he thought or feared possible, I disagree with, and, well, you can compare our society to 1984. There is a tremendous amount of propaganda, and it has an effect, but don't you agree that as warped as the mental space we collectively inhabit may be, that it's not under control of a specific entity? Even in, say, the Soviet Union, it wasn't under control. Maybe some day when totalitarians can program brains...
Yes, I agree that the case of a single entity being able to use words to place thoughts directly in minds like a TV version of hypnosis or etch them out of minds as if with electroshock therapy is not an accurate description of... anything.
It's not what anyone means when they talk about words shaping thought, an idea which you disparaged so vituperatively - which would be understandable if anyone meant by it what you seem to be implying they mean. They can mean a number of things, whether it's a coach or leader influencing the attitudes of their followers, a person seeking to direct their own train of thought, a movement using language to dehumanize a minority group, an advertiser affecting how the public views a product, or a propagandist or politician attempting to move the Overton Window. Or many other things, more or less subtle.
And in nazi example, successful controll of how Jews are seen does not imply that foreign non-Jewish armies will never beat you. That would be ridiculous standard.
Nazi succesfull framed Jews as evil and Jews got exterminated. They succesfully framed slavs as inferior and succesfully framed themselves as needing more living space which led to expansive war and population displacement.
That foreign armies conguered them does not imply that messaging aimed at Germans was not succesfull.
Given your statement that "enhanced interrogation" is still going on, that means from my framing that calling it torture failed to stop it, hence attempts to control it through language failed. You're saying that language allows it to happen, but I would say the correct framing is that doing it and the desire of people to rationalize it allows it to happen. The euphemism being an effect rather than a cause.
Yes, nazi lost wwii, no it does not prove their control of langue failed.
No, there being two opposing sides trying to control langue and one of them not winning does not prove control through langue does not work.
Frankly, there are very illogical argument.
It can have unintended consequences, however. For me, hearing the phrase “undocumented immigrants” just irritates me and actually distracts me from the point the utterer is trying to make. It's like a word pretzel designed to get around saying “illegal”.
https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/1994_04_03_newyo...
Baudrillard certainly “got” Dick, as his essays provide a beautifully formalised encapsulation of the primary ideas that motivated Dick, and did so by reading his stories.
Good literature doesn’t have to have a compelling plot, or beautiful literary style, or evocative descriptive prose, or any particular form or mechanism - it just has to do one thing: change you, the reader.
Philip Purser-Hallard: "The drugs did work": https://www.theguardian.com/film/2006/aug/12/sciencefictionf...
Ultimately it's impossible to diagnose post mortem what exactly was going on in his head.
Anyway, I'm not sure how trustworthy PKD's accounts of his own drug use are.
But yes, it's hard to trust what he said about his drug use.
I say this as a huge PKD fan. Ubik and A Scanner Darkly both had a profound impact on me.
Here’s something I was just learning about in a podcast recently — 2000 years old abd similar to the kind writing that pkd was doing after his breakdown.
https://biblehub.com/library/clement/the_stromata_or_miscell...
Psychedelics and other means of altering consciousness have been used throughout human (and possibly even pre-human) history. In reference to the link you cited, there has been evidence that cannabis, which can have psychedelic effects at high doses, was used in ritual contexts in biblical times in ancient Israel. Here is a recent article discussing some new evidence of this:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/world/tel-arad-shrine-israel-...
IMHO, The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch is by far the best PKD book.
1st rank - Ubik, The Three Stigmata, A Martian Time Slip, Faith of Our Fathers
2nd rank - (The Divine Invasion or The Galactic Pot Healer ... don't remember which now... it's been a long time), A Maze of Death
3rd rank - VALIS, Eye in the Sky
Honorable mention: the middle of Lies, Inc -- it has a weak start and ending, but the middle is up there with the best PKD has ever written.
I found The Transmigration of Timothy Archer to be pretty boring, but I didn't make it all the way through, and some PKD books (like Lies, Inc) start dull and turn great, so I might give it another go sometime.. but the impression I got when first reading it was that this was a book written around the time PKD was starting to transition to writing more "serious literature" (aka not scifi), and to me PKD is just much stronger at writing scifi, particularly of the really mind-bending, bad acid trip kind, and he just wasn't cut out to write "serious literature"... so yeah, right now I'd pass on The Transmigration of Timothy Archer.
I'm also kind of sick of his obsession with his pink light mystical experience.. I wish he'd just gotten over it already and moved on to something else. Writing about it once was more than enough.
I also just liked reading Dick's descriptions of the Bay Area.
https://pkdickbooks.com/pkdworld.html
When I see these stories of mine, written over three decades, I think of the Lucky Dog Pet Store. There's a good reason for that. It has to do with an aspect of not just my life, but the lives of many freelance writers. It's called poverty [........] So anyhow, there I am at the Lucky Dog Pet Store on San Pablo Avenue, In Berkley, California, in the Fifties, buying a pound of ground horsemeat.
Philip K. Dick in the introduction to the Golden Man, 1980
Lucky Dog, alas, is closed.
Thing about reality being slippery we have a tendency to acknowledge the fact when we're reading the books but then to comfortably return to our regularly scheduled mundane existence the minute the books are closed.
I still haven't been able to reconcile the sheer madness of the world with the workaday banality and obedience I've experienced in this cursed industry.
It's like, we all just started existing one day. You can trace that back to your parents, to being born, to evolution, to the laws of physics, to the big bang, etc, but that doesn't remove the bizarre fact that we exist and are conscious for some reason but we have no idea why. (Or if the question of "why" even makes any sort of logical sense.) Even the reality we think we perceive is unlikely to be anything like what's actually going on. Isn't that just so weird?
It's been about 5 months now, and I still get hit with these feelings multiple times a day. It's accompanied with a strong feeling of anxiety, so I wish I could go back to the old banality.
(Yes, I've been considering therapy for awhile, but it's difficult to get an appointment with a therapist right now.)
Unfortunately that ship has sailed for us, there is no going back all the way..
But you should take comfort in that you're not alone.
I have a lot I'd like to share with you, would you be into having a virtual cup of tea or coffee?
I'd love to discuss it more. Where can I get in touch?
Dude let's have a nice warm beverage and compare war stories
If you're interested in what I did with all that since then, I'd be happy to chat more and share what I've learned, where I'm at, and where I'm headed. Seconded on the cup of virtual coffee, /u/artsyca, although of course I'm perfectly happy not to crash y'all's party.
> and that ultimately reality is terrifyingly absurd
Yep, this is exactly what I felt, and now deal with on a daily basis.
I'd take it all with a grain of sand, however. Just because what one experiences on psychedelics might seem "more real than real" doesn't mean it actually is. Some have described psychedelics as superplacebos.. people can be very suggestible in such states, and are prone to believing what they want to believe.
And even that realization isn't something that intrinsically should be connected to anxiety, except that the drug also induced a panic state in me, so now my brain associates those thoughts with fear and danger. Slowly working on reprogramming that.
> Waking Life is a 2001 American experimental philosophical adult animated docufiction film written and directed by Richard Linklater. The film explores a wide range of philosophical issues, including the nature of reality, dreams and lucid dreams, consciousness, the meaning of life, free will, and existentialism.[3] It is centered on a young man who wanders through a succession of dream-like realities wherein he encounters a series of individuals who engage in insightful philosophical discussions.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/culture/movies/g2691/movies...
Slacker doesn't take itself nearly as seriously, so is much more successful with its own cast of weird characters.
i fell in love with this piece of art a decade ago.
then there was a five-year period during which I felt the same way about the film myself. i would have agreed with this statement.
but in this past year, attending meditation retreats and interrogating my metaphysics, my perspective shifted once more.
it’s very much been thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
The "serenity prayer" is worth keeping in mind; surrender is a powerful tool.
as a meta: i recommend the book “the power of now”. it sounds like pseudo selfhelp bullshit but at least for me it clicked beautifully - and it can be a really good initiation/transition to something more established like buddhism.
I’ve thought about this stuff for a long time - my grandmother started me, as a child, on the path of “why is that a cat? How do you know you’re not its dream?”, and introduced me to PKD, whose corpus I devoured the first time around while nine or ten.
I’ve seen the human world as absurdist comedy, blindfolded people shuffling around in a circle, for about as long as I can recall. It’s nonsense upon nonsense, forgotten meanings, wilful misinterpretations, and age-old traditions invented yesterday. Our meta-consciousness is senile and gibbering. Etymology provides a wonderful insight into just how screwed up we are - when you see meaning diverge, drift, and even invert across culture and language, you realise just how malleable the world, human reality, is, if you modify the symbol set.
When I first tried LSD in my late teens, it wasn’t so much “whoa, revelation!” as “yup, that looks about right”.
You can learn to live with the colourless pit of infinity hovering in your mind. You can even come to love it. You still need to do the human things, play the human game, but you now have the added perspective of understanding that there exist possibilities outside of the human game, ways of living divested of a lot of the meaningless crap. It can be advantageous, like being able to think in 3D in flatland.
I managed to stick it out as a “regular person” for about 15 years, working in an office, living in an apartment, buying stuff to try to pave over the infinity hole - but it just felt more and more wrong, like play-acting at life rather than living, like I was a sad little third-hand simulacra of a human being. Sad little robot, enter stage left, exit stage right. Didn’t fancy that role.
I live off grid now, and work with my hands, growing food, building structures and infrastructure, transforming my labour into a direct and tangible output - it has been massively helpful, as it lacks the layers and layers of abstraction that civilised life demands, and presents a clear, direct and straightforward reality.
I still sit here and think about it all, still sometimes get caught out by a nihilistic trap, but more generally have just come to appreciate existence and consciousness as the most brilliantly absurd thing possible. What a thing, to seem to be matter that thinks. Marvellous if real, marvellous illusion if not. A marvel, either way.
I'm hoping that with some time and healing I'll get to that place where I can appreciate the absurdity for what it is. I don't think the anxiety I feel is inherent in the realizations themselves, but emerge as a result of my perception of them. It's been hard to deal with that this year though, when there have been so many other anxieties piled on top of that core existential fear.
Apparently it was one of Dick's least favourite novels. As I recall, he wrote the book in just one week while under the influence of amphetamines, and later had no recollection of having written it, and he more or less disowned it.
as for the pot healer? i think the book is dope and it’s up there in my top10.
> Now Philip K. Dick is right about time, but he's wrong that it's 50 A.D. Actually, there's only one instant, and it's right now, and it's eternity. And it's an instant in which God is posing a question, and that question is basically, 'Do you want to, you know, be one with eternity? Do you want to be in heaven?' And we're all saying, 'No thank you. Not just yet.' And so time is actually just this constant saying 'No' to God's invitation. I mean that's what time is. I mean, and it's no more 50 A.D. than it's two thousand and one. And there's just this one instant, and that's what we're always in."
That's quite different from PKD's hypothesis (one of many he entertained) that the present moment is something like a holographic superimposition on biblical times in ancient Rome.
PKD meant this quite literally, as one possibility of what reality might actually be, not as an opinion on what different philosophies or religions are getting at.
PKD grazed the truth but fell short, and this is alright.
The thing they have in common is that they believe all religions or philosophies are getting at the same thing or have their root in the same thing or experience.. but what that thing is differs from one perennial philosophy to another.
You seem to have cited one such belief -- that there is only one moment -- but I'm not sure what the origin of your belief is. Which version of perennial philosophy are you referring to?
In it there are versions by: Huxley, Philo of Alexandria, Ficino and Pico della Mirandola, Agostino Steuco, Emerson, Blavatsky, Huston Smith, and a bunch of others.
Take a closer look at what these people believed and you'll see they believed different things (except that, again, they believed that there was a common source or experience that different religions stemmed from or were getting at).
For example, from the article, "the Egyptian god Osiris and the Greek god Dionysus had been equated as Osiris-Dionysus by the historian Herodotus as early as the 5th century BC", while "The mystic Ramakrishna's spiritual ecstasies included experiencing the sameness of Christ, Mohammed and his own Hindu deity". Not really the same, is it?
"Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499) believed that Hermes Trismegistos, the supposed author of the Corpus Hermeticum, was a contemporary of Mozes and the teacher of Pythagoras, and the source of both Greek and Jewish-Christian thought."
Again, not the same as the other two.
"Ficino saw his thought as part of a long development of philosophical truth, of ancient pre-Platonic philosophers (including Zoroaster, Hermes Trismegistus, Orpheus, Aglaophemus and Pythagoras) who reached their peak in Plato."
So now the peak is supposedly Plato, not Osirus, Christ, Mohammed, or a Hindu diety.
Then there's Steuco who believed "that philosophy works in harmony with religion and should lead to knowledge of God", but that's different from Emerson, who thought "an individual's intuition of truth was taken as the criterion for truth".
Etc, etc, etc...
By the way, in none of the above (or anywhere else in this Wikipedia article) is there any mention of what you said perennial philosophy (and, according to you, PKD) were getting at: that "there is only one moment". Where did you get that?
i’m referring to Buddhism, Sufism, Hinduism, and Esoteric Christianity.
key figures would then be Patanjali, Buddha, Ramana Maharshi, Jesus Christ (Gospel of Thomas), St. Theresa of Avila, The Desert Fathers especially Anthony The Great, Shankaracharya, Rumi, and Hafez.
Patanjali in the non-dual Hindu tradition.
Buddha in the Buddhist tradition.
Jesus (as expressed in the Gospel of Thomas) representing Christianity.
Shankaracharya for advaita vedanta.
Ramana for Self-Enquiry.
Rumi, Hafez for Sufism.
also Somananda for Kashmir Shaivism.
Apologies if there was confusion in terms. It seems we were coming at it from different angles.
I guess it's from that movie he quoted, "Waking life", here's the script: https://wakinglifemovie.net/transcript/chapter/18/
According to his research and the works he chose to survey, what is it that one might conclude he sees as being "the single, metaphysical truth or origin from which all esoteric and exoteric knowledge and doctrine has grown?"
Science Fiction really is a mental illness.
You suspend disbelief, you invent an alternate reality in your mind, and then you walk around in it accepting both the possible and the preposterous in equal measure.
But what a wonderful illness to experience, because someday it might infect others and we might have spaceships or cybertrucks or watch c-beams glitter in the dark near the tannhauser gate.
Heard that a bunch of times. I was today years old when i discovered it was PKD who said it.
yet this conceptualisation of reality actually dates back thousands of years to Hindu metaphysics:
what is the nature of belief?
what is the nature of consciousness?
is consciousness the same as thought?
is there consciousness without thought?
I'm not sure 2/3 are something we can ever answer.
And that spawns many interesting questions about the physical characteristics of cousciousness. Does it start and end? It is present spacially? If you don't need thought, do you need the brain to be conscious? Do you need neurons? Can something without it be conscious? Is there only one form of consciouness? Is it persistent? Is it a whole? It is homogenous? Is it something in itself, or an emerging phenomena? Does it have a support, or is it a support in itself?
Unfortunatly, people tend to immediatly reach for spiritual, religious or mystical answers to those.
i personally can’t help but wonder how it is that many sages in different times and places seem to arrive at corroboratory confessions of what they’ve experienced as the ground of being.
according to the Wikipedia article for “flow my tears… “, The speech was never delivered
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_My_Tears,_the_Policeman_S...