Slashdot Mirror
Philip K. Dick's Exegesis To Be Published In 2011
Dynamoo writes "The NYT reports that a two-part edition of PKD's Exegesis will be published next year. This huge work, a combination of journal and philosophical treatise, has been published in part before, but this is the first time that the whole version will be made generally available."
I love Phil Dick's books. I've read the majority of them and even the bad ones are masterpieces in their own way. I have to say that I have mixed feelings about the Exegesis being published, because as interesting as it will be to read I think it is going to further tarnish his reputation. Phil Dick was the kind of person that was so smart that it caused mental disorder and he had some absolutely crazy beliefs. The Exegesis will probably underscore that.
When does the movie come out?
I don't have sources to cite, but I recall when Radio Free Albemuth came out post-humously, that there was a stir that PKD had specifically stipulated that he did not want his works to be published after his death / without his approval. IIRC, his son approved the publication of aforementioned book, and like I said, there was quite a stir at the time.
Is his estate profiting against his original wishes?
FWIW, RFA was a GREAT book and I am glad it was published. Just wondering about the estate's ethics here.
I like PKD's work, but I'm getting negative vibes from this. L. Ron Hubbard "Dianetics" anyone?
Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
"so smart that it caused mental disorder"
no, this is an exoticization and a glamorization, like "a beautiful mind"
there are smart people
and there are crazy people
then there smart and crazy people
its an overlapping of types, not a cuase or effect anywhere in there
there is no such thing as smart -> crazy and there is no such thing as crazy -> smart
the man was brilliant and gifted. he had also had paranoid schizophrenic tendencies. this was not a cause of his intelligence, or an effect, this was merely a cofactor in what made philip k dick philip k dick. obviously he would not create what he created were he not paranoid and schizophrenic. joan of arc and joseph smith also had schizophrenic visions, and the world is radically changed because of them too. but it is, in the end, a sickness and a kind of suffering
stop exoticizing and glamoring mental illness as some sort of gift. philip k dick, for one, would not see it that way
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
BTW, I hope you don't drink coffee or alcohol.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
p.s. Life is about having fun and enjoying life, not about achieving your maximum throughput as defined by your rankings. Insects are made to strictly produce; sentient species like humans have the added ability of being able to have fun. You might want to try it sometime.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Not that I'm trying to offend Ph. K. Dick's fans, but IMHO he was just a schizofrenic. He does not offer any particular insights into the future. Yes, his writings are notably different from most of the SciFi garbage, but diferent doesn't mean better. It's OK, but would you expect any revelations from psychotic type of personality? I don't. Yeah, I read many of his books, just to see what's this all about. As I said, my only impression that he's quite delusional kind of person.
Stuff I do like: Heinlein. and S. Lem.
He was a great author. I've read "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep" and "Ubik". I have yet to read "Scanner Darkly", "The Man In The High Castle", and his other great works.
I love PKD works. Really love them--and V.A.L.I.S. is my favorite. I've read a few pages of the Exegesis, those published by the estate so far. They read kind of like Crowley's better works, some kind of hypnotic poetry. They help put me in touch with infinity and chaos.
Regarding astro's comments, I can't think of a better way to honor his memory than to celebrate his work--all of it.
Regarding his reputation being tarnished, well, whatever. The man was in a category by himself. The only other authors who have come even close to lighting up my cortex like that are H.P. Lovecraft and E.J. Gold--not Gibson, not Orson Scott Card, not Bob Wilson.
And of course my opinion should be of the greatest value to everyone.
p.s. best way to read the Exegesis is out loud.
I don't know, does the latin cuisine have hallucinogenic properties or the ability to alter someone's perception of reality?
Well, aside from the spicy part. We all know about that.
Sig not found.
and to do it at other people's expense, to risk becoming a zombie addict unable to maintain a job and keep a relationship, is not something i will allow, because i and many others don't want to support the useless zombies. we'd rather prevent them from becoming zombies: its cheaper
freeloading is not an option
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i've done psilocybin, marjiuana, and alcohol. all should be legal and none of which i mind, because they don't produce addicts aggressively (alcohol, and to a much lesser extent marijuana, are only moderately addicting)
but what i don't tolerate is the idea that the use of any of this, including coffee, somehow enhances your life, somehow enhances your pleasure. your pleasure is maximized when you lose all drugs in your life. complete abstinence is the ultimate drug
and furthermore, the highly addictive and inebriating drugs (not nicotine: its highly addictive but not inebriating, so you dont lose your job and relationships) mean you lose your job and your relationships: they must be waged war on forever, because it is not my job to take care of freeloaders. im talking about heroin, cocaine, meth: the on those drugs will never end
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
just dismiss me with a clownish characterature
there's no real substance to my concerns is there?
everyone is always wonderfully responsible with brain altering addictive substances, there's no danger or downside whatsoever, its all unicorns and rainbows
ignorant irresponsible asshole
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
have been used since antiquity, and recreational drugs will be continued to be used forever
lsd, psilocybin, and marijuana should be legalized, because the war against them is more costly than their cost in use
but for heroin, cocaine, and meth, the costs to society of use is greater than the costs to society of war on them
i suppose your position is that heroin cocaine and meth are wonderful lifestyle accessories with no downside whatsoever
everyone is a responsible thoughtful human being, even with substances that destroy responsibility and thought!
and everyone's desire to use these substances always comes from the most noble of instincts! never are they used in a ploy to destroy oneself, to plug pain with relief (that always bottoms out to yet more pain), a slow motion suicide, that also consumes other innocent individuals along with the user, the family, the friends, communities, and society as a whole
do you deny the costs of use you fucking ignorant twatstain?
i've known them. i've known them probably better than you, like any blissfully ignorant freeloading user who thinks they have a right to be supported while they consume themselves in an ignorant choice
right? naaahh.... you've got me pegged, i'm just a cartoon character from another era. there's no validity or points to what i am saying at all, right?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
low addiction, low inebriation: caffeine, legal
low addiction, high inebriation: lsd, psilocybin, legal
high addiction, low inebriation: nicotine, legal
moderate addiction, moderate inebriation: marijuana, alcohol, legal
high addiction, high inebriation: meth, heroin, coke, illegal
the reason is that these substances themselves, no social policies, destroy lives. a human being cannot take a substance which significantly alters days and hours of their lives while at the same time locking them into hard pharmacological cravings... and maintain a relationship and a job at the same time. so they become freeloaders, because they are destroyed lives unable to feed and house themselves. nicotine is as addictive, but you are lucid while an addict. lsd is as inebriating, but its not addictive, so you can take it and forget about it
but a chemical that blots out hours and days of your life and constantly interrupts your thoughts "need more", "need more": you've turned a functional human being into a zombie
thus, certian substances are more costly to society than the war against them costs. other substances, like lsd and marijuana: the war is more costly than actual drug use, so they should be legal
the idea meanwhile that all substances should be treated the same is a sort of hamfisted naivete. drugs are different, so drugs need to be treated differently, duh
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
used in the andes by bolivian indians for centuries. at low concentrations, more similar to nicotine addiction than powder cocaine or crack
absolutely: concentration and delivery method (rate of acceleration in the bloodstream) has an affect on addiction rates
but you're not arguing about that are you? what are saying is that yes, cocaine and crack have different addiction rates... ok, that means what? that means they should both be legal? in other words, you point to differences, but use that to argue for equivalent legal status? huh?
if you admit there is a difference in drugs, then why can't you admit that they deserve different legal status? show some logical coherence
here, i'll help you get started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg
you're ignorant and naive in your attitudes, to yourself and any fool who listens to you
drug addiction is serious, and it destroys lives. completely independent of any social or legal policy. recognize the fucking obvious, or be a complete fool
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"For example, legalizing marijuana isn't going to take drug profits away from organized crime; they'll just sell more hard drugs"
this is low iq crap. you're root problem is your just not a very bright person
but you keep on believing the policy is the problem, not the substance itself. go on with your bad self. you're not the first moron who draws breath and spouts nonsense, you won't be the last. when it comes to drug policy, you're an idiot, and you hurt yourself and those around with your ignorant beliefs
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
obviously
why? because of the psychopharmacology of that particular drug
but, dear "genius", why the FUCK do you think something like heroin cocaine or meth should be legal?
you do realize that simple exposure to highly addictive+highly inebriating substances is enough to spiral lives into ruin, to turn your average human being into an addict?
in your supposed massive high iq intellect, you DO understand the biochemistry of addiction, don't you?
and if you are actually as smart as you suppose yourself to be, you're probably in denial. perhaps an addict yourself. its amazing what the average addict asshole will rationalize to avoid the truth of their predicament
try this factoid on for size, "genius": what class of doctor is most likely to become an addict? answer: anaesthesiologists. the guys who handle highly addictive substances. deduction: simple exposure is all that is needed to create addicts. intelligence and education is no defense. doctors are obviously incredibly bright well-balanced and educated individuals. so how come they are prone to addiction? because there is no defense against addiction save one: less exposure
so if you make certain highly addictive+inebriating substances legal, you increase exposure, and you get more addicts. its that simple. if you make a drug illegal, meanwhile, the committed suicidal assholes will still of course still get the drug, but the casual idiot won't. and that's all the difference the world for that casual idiot to have a fulfilling life and one as a fucking freeloading zombie. yes, you also get all of the prohibition effects as well. and i agree and acknowledge every single one of those effects: stronger mafia, addicts alienated from sources of help, etc. and, with most drugs, such as alcohol and marijuana, the prohibition effects obviously argue for legalization. however, some drugs: cocaine, heroin, meth, are such potent life destroyers that simple exposure to these substances is WORSE than prohibition effects
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
this is your argument:
"i'm a (self-declared) superman who can drive 100 mph all the time and never crash. therefore, nobody needs speed limits"
so you're telling me addiction to HIGHLY ADDICTIVE substances is a minor issue
(face palm)
in a way you're right: nobody is an addict. until they become one. and then they spend their time like you hopelessly insisting they really aren't. sound familiar?
you're ignorant. you could have an iq of 250, you're still ignorant. you can read every study of drugs that ever existed. you're still ignorant. much like a highly intelligent, highly educated anaesthesiologist... addicted to his own drugs, that he's studied at phD levels, and is fully aware of the threat of
there is no defense against addiction save one: a serious and sober (pun intended) assessment of the genuine and real threat of addiction from the use of these drugs
all your words above amount to is "addiction isn't a big deal, it isn't a threat". highly laughable, highly ignorant, unbelievably naive, incredibly irresponsible
you're words are absurd as saying gravity isn't real or the tides won't rise and fall tomorrow
but i've encountered types like you before, so earnest and eager to insist addiction isn't the threat it obviously is. this belief says nothing about reality. but it does say volumes about your own problems
you'd be a pitiable character if you weren't so dangerous to the rest of us in your massive case of denial
good luck on dealing with your problems. stop believing your problems reflects reality. they reflect your own failures. some of us have successfully escaped the trap you are in and wish others not to befall your plight, and will continue to make sure they don't wind up like you
get help fool
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
why do we have speed limits, dear einstein?
because the price people pay for speeding is death and dismemberment of innocents. the price is too high. so instead, we save the irresponsible and suicidal assholes from themselves, and save us from them: we post speed limits
understand reality, oh great high iq yogi?
if you speed, you increase the chance you will kill someone. if you use the most highly addictive+inebriating drugs, you risk becoming a useless zombie who can't house or feed themselves, and then we have to take care of you. well guess what: we don't want to take care of zombies. we want to prevent people from becoming zombies. got it, asshole?
tell me again, oh great swami, how addiction isn't a threat, how no lives are wasted by a previously intelligent mind reduced to a twitch: "need more fix, need more fix, need more fix..."
tell me again, oh great zombie, why we should have no speed limits and just somehow get irresponsible suicidal assholes to raise the dead and repair the severed spines
you are truly one ignorant irresponsible moron
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
exposure to the most highly addictive and inebriating substances is all you need to create addicts. that's my fucking point. thanks for supporting my fucking point
yes, hillbilly heroin is a problem. what is your point? we make hillbilly heroin legal? ok, so more people will take it. then what? less addicts?! is that your position? what the hell is wrong with you, "genius"?
there will ALWAYS be addicts. some people in this world are just hellbent on slow motion suicide. they are pitiable and pathetic. there is always a hardcore tragic few who are eternally beyond salvation
but i'm more interested in saving the casual idiot who, if it were harder to get a certain drug, won't wind up wasting their lives away (and me and my tax dollars having to support the useless zombie). that's my simple, obvious point
and i'm a relic? for pointing out simple motherfucking rock of gibraltar obvious cause and effect of exposure to highly addictive+inebriating substances? that now YOU YOURSELF WITH YOUR LAST COMMENT MAKE THE SAME POINT OF? pffffffffft. what a moron
yeah, just call me nancy reagan and *poof*, everything about the obvious truth of the most highly addictive+inebriating substances just magically disappears from your need to address what i am saying and your desperately rationalizing, massively denying self. yeah, i'm just a relic (snicker). drugs are unicron rainbows! no downside! no threat of life destruction! even with heroin, cocaine and meth! yay!
what a blind twatstain
the truth is you're in massive denial. your words say volumes about your own problems, and nothing about reality
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
if we had no speed limits, people would drive slower!
unfettered exposure to METH, COKE, and HEROIN means less addicts!
yay!
what a retard
and you want to talk history of drug use before 20th century?
ok, asshole, let's talk about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
there's your harmless substance. there's your more exposure leads to more addicts. in fact, when china tried to fight the scourge of opium, because THE DRUG ITSELF WAS DESTROYING THEIR SOCIETY, the drug dealing mafia forced war on them to keep being addicted for the sake of profit. that's the DESTRUCTION OF FREEDOM BY DRUGS right there, asshole
any other historical or pharmacological obvious fucking truths you need help with, mr. massively in denial?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
by the social degradation the easy availability of a highly addictive substance caused
but it's really amazing how, according to you, a legal edict can go into the bloodstream and change simple pharmacological biochemistry. quite amazing
that's your point, isn't it? that laws have a greater effect than how biochemistry works? that in a land with no laws, the addictiveness of something like heroin is different than a land with draconian laws?
hmmm. maybe if a country passes a law about gravity, we could float?
(snicker)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
the degradation to society by the most addictive+inebriating substances (heroin, cocaine, meth, etc) are more costly to society than prohibition effects. prohibition effects argue for legalization of less addictive/inebriating substances (lsd, marijuana, etc)
i've already written this. but thanks for trying to smear me with positions and attitudes i don't resemble. furiously rationalizing and denying ;-)
when britain got the monopoly on opium, and began flooding china with it, consumption of opium went from 15 tons annually in 1730 to 900 tons in 1820. my thesis is that simple availability creates addicts, because of the simple obvious biochemical facts of what heroin is and what it does to the body and brain. do you deny those scientific facts? what is your alternative thesis for why opium use skyrocketed in china?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
except that it is slowly rebounding from a horrible situation, due to a whole number of factors, not only one dubious factor you allude to out of agenda cherry picking of your facts
furthermore, cocaine was not as widely available or historically well-known at the beginning of the timeline you cite. growth was a simple function of increased awareness and product of availability, regardless of legal landscape. again: arguing for my point about simple addictiveness of a drug being the deciding factor
but what inquiring minds want to know, is at what point do you stop living the absurdity, and acknowledge the simple obvious truth that the ADDICTIVE POTENTIAL of a substance, as a matter of simple biochemistry, is a factor. then maybe we can slowly hand hold and lead you to the next painfully obvious fact: for HIGHLY ADDICTIVE substances, availability of the substance itself is the DOMINANT factor in harm
you keep trying to draw me into wider arguments about all sorts of drugs, and paint me in ridiculous social conservative corners, when i have repeatedly told you i am for marijuana and lsd legalization, and that i stand for illegality ONLY FOR heroin, cocaine, meth, etc: only the most highly addictive+inebriating substances. for on that deep end of the pool, there is where damage to lives and society by the DRUG ITSELF is greater than damage to society by social policy and laws
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
and i understand that the bars that addiction creates in your mind is more freedom destroying than the most fascist autocratic regime orwell could imagine in the furthest reaches of his imagination. you take a mind that might have explored new avenues in art, literature, music, science... and instead you have a mind that is on a constant interruption circuit "need more fix, need more fix, need more fix..." and unable to be the person they were before the addiction
in fact, the tool of the most oppressive regime possible, to rob people of their free will to the most maximum extent, would be compulsory addiction to morphine. the fight against highly addictive+inebriating substances is, in the entire history of mankind's sordid experience with drugs, on a personal and societal level, the essence of the fight for freedom
and actually, yes: if you placed anvils at the top of a building, and the wind shifted a tarp near one and knocked it off the building, you would be found criminally culpable for not recognizing the common sense danger implicit in that arrangement. why is this simple example of responsibility a strange concept to you?
tell me now again: the obvious science of addiction of something like heroin, cocaine, meth, etc.: this means absolutely nothing to you in how these substances are treated? is this your honest opinion?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
P2: Too bad no dictators have tried that, eh?
P3: So the anvils are on tarps now? What about gargoyles?
Treated in what sense. Medically? Legally? Ethicly? In the end, the effects on freedom and choice are the same, and even 1 substance prohibited in an over-the-top manner is enough to be used a pretense for trampling on most amendments in the constitution. The substance doesn't even have to be known for this statement to be universally true. Funny thing how poisons aren't criminalized; it's not necessary to criminalize things that have actual harm past a truly harmful threshold.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
in SPITE OF their drug use, not BECAUSE of it. drug use by artists is contemporaneous with them being characters on the edge of society, which leads them to do great art AND take drugs due to various personality issues. but drug use does not CAUSE art. even artists like william s burroughs or hunter s thompson: their art was from periods of sobriety, crawling out of their overindulgence, before slipping back in. imagine what burroughs or thompson could have done if they remained drug free!
and you're saying that laws against drug use is merely a ploy to steal more rights, is that it? so there's no observance of the effects of addiction on people's lives and a desire to stop that negative effect. nah... that's completely bogus. there's only the scary bogeyman of a control freak who wants to stop everyone from having any fun... just because that's what they do
you're absurd
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
you mean this?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
forcing nonwhites to become addicts for profit then waging war on them when they resists forced addiction?
stop with the red herrings asshole
it should be quite clear to you the source of my opposition to the highly addictive+inebriating substances by now, i've said it repeatedly. it is based on sound science, sound pharmacological facts of addiction. not racism. not nancy reagan
you're smearing my position because you have no logical coherence in your opposition to the simple fucking-obvious-to-a-kindergartener truth. you're grasping at straws, and you've lost the argument because you continually avoid my central thesis:
THE DRUGS THEMSELVES CREATE THE SUFFERING
address that, or you are nonresponsive and avoidant, like any stupid junkie when confronted with the truth of their terrible problem
give it up asshole. the massive wall of denial is no defense against the truth that THE SUBSTANCES THEMSELVES CREATE THE HARM
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
howabout anthrax
who needs restrictions on those things? they're just "things", its the person who does bad things with them, not the substances, because everyone is always 100% responsible all the time
so of course, restricting plutonium and anthrax is just a social conservative control freak freak out just trying to make everyone as miserable as they are, right?
oh and speed limits: this is of course the slippery slope to social conservative control and destruction of all freedoms. we should just assume that everyone is completely responsible, that bad things never happen. even with cars going 120 mph and the most addictive substances known to man freely the hands of teenagers. if that teenager becomes an addict, well thats ok. its only the rest of his life he'll have a demon he has to suffer with. the consequences of playing games with the potential for crippling drug addiction are so mild and hardly life altering, it should just be freely released into society at large, because everyone is a superman with unlimited willpower and nobody's subject to the fact sof hard pharmacological science
pffffffffffft
you're a seriously deluded asshole
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
for example, the argument with wall st is: if a guy loses his cash on a bad investment, that's his problem. why intrude?
and the answer is: because the whole damn economy can go into meltdown in an unregulated marketplace, like it did in 2008
in other words, the argument that any negative consequences of certain behavior is small, or only effects the individual, is bullshit. we regulate anthrax and plutonium because the consequences of using that stuff and screwing up is death and destruction for people besides yourself. we have spped limits because the consequences of crasing is death and destruction to more than just yourself
and free and unfettered access to the THE MOST (enough with the alcohol red herring, asshole) addictive and inebriating substances known to man WILL create an army of zombies that i have to pay to feed and house. so just like the economy, the maleffects of poor personal choices do not affect only the indivudal, they affect society. THAT's the source for regulation, not some social conservative freakout
if you can understand why the economy needs regulation from a personal choice/ societal effect point of view, why can't you understand that also applies to THE MOST addictive and inebriating substances known to man? why can't you see that more access to something like heroin inevitably leads to more addicts who can't house and feed themselves, as a simple consequence of the simple pharamcological facts of what heroin does to the mind and body?
i don't want vast swaths of my society reduced to zombiehood because you somehow erroneously believe you are an island and your bad choices affects no one but yourself
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I would love for someone to tell me why anyone cares about this? I never likes his stuff. It was all over the map. Few of his stories had any real plot and his writing, at the detail level, is hardly literature. I have the same opinion of Neal Stephenson.