Phildickian Gnosticism is the most difficult to define, or at least to define well. At its base, Phildickian Gnosticism is just a Gnostic variant named after the person who developed or popularized it. The mythology Valentinus expanded, for example, is usually known as Valentinian Gnosticism. Therefore it’s pretty easy to simply say that Phildickian Gnosticism is just the Gnosticism created by Philip K. Dick. Unfortunately, that’s an easy way out which doesn’t really address what this belief system says. And that’s where the problem begins. You see, Phil said a lot of things and wrote even more. He began writing and theorizing immediately after his first mystical experience and he only stopped when death pried the typewriter from his hands. Too, didn’t set himself up as a religious leader. He didn’t want the job, and to be honest I don’t think he could have handled it if he tried. If Phil’s a teacher of a path, it’s the path that he walked. I think this is best, because I can’t imagine he’d want artificial humans, drones, aping his every movement. Phil’s the kind of guy to show you where he is, how he got there, and then hand out some hints and possible routes. He’d be as likely to follow you down a new route you found than to insist that his path was “The” way. So probably the best way to figure out what the deal is with Phildickian Gnosticism is to examine how Phil himself handled his spiritual experiences and investigations and hope some kind of pattern emerges.

This constant inquiry though, is our first clue as to the nature of his beliefs. During one vision in particular Phil asked it, God, about its nature. God replied that his nature was that of infinity. Of particular note, it also pointed out that it was Phil’s own constant questioning which pointed the way to God. Regardless of what exactly the explanations were, it was this constant search for answers and explanations which was important; more important than getting the explanation right. The journey is the destination. Curiosity, a desire to know, is one of the hallmarks of any Gnostic sect. But this desire is especially prominent in Phildickian Gnosticism. The number of blogs run by people with Phildickian leanings lends itself well to this definition. A Phildickian likes to present stories, and get as many explanations as possible about them. Whether those opinions have any solid base is somewhat secondary to the process of joyful exploration for the sheer thrill of it.

Next, Phil wasn’t picky about where to find enlightenment. Certainly he drew large amounts of inspiration from established philosophers and religions. But, he was also a science fiction writer in a time when science fiction had far less respect given to it than it receives today. Phil was pretty much writing for what most would consider the literary equivalent of a trash heap. The secret was that Phil knew that seemingly ugly things, objects that had been thrown out by society, were just as if not more likely to contain needed truth.

Phil was also, and quite unquestionably, a creative force to be reckoned with. He was able to churn out high quality writing at a remarkably quick pace. Just as importantly, he was able to walk the fine line between recurrent examination of theme and simple repetition. He would revisit certain concepts again and again, but almost always from another angle. One of the prime examples of this is his musings on the illusionary nature of reality. But the meaning behind these illusions would always be different. In one book the process would have a divine nature, and in another there would be a sinister cast to it. Just as often there would be conflicting feeling interspersed within their description. One of the most quoted passages about Gnostics comes from Irenaeus; “every one of them generations something new every day, according to his ability; for no one is considered initiated among them unless he develops some enormous fictions!” This also goes back to Phil’s love of weaving new twists into how he interpreted his visionary experiences. It wasn’t enough to know what it meant, he needed to know what it meant at that very moment. As he changed, as any person changes, experiences are seen in a new light. This is especially true for Phil, as he received new knowledge. For him, every new vision was like turning on one more dim light in a huge room. He might see an object far in the distance, but only dimly through the haze of darkness. Every vision, every illumination both banished more darkness and twisted the shadows in new ways. The objects become clearer, but also may seem to take on a new nature as the illumination takes hold. Ancient Gnostic sects may very well have shouted agreement at such a description. Their baptism into Gnosis, their own visionary awakening, cast new light on the traditions of their parents or the society to which they were born. Adam, Eve, Jehovah, Jesus, all the players would still be there. But they’d be seen in a new light, the illumination of Gnosis. More true, more real, than before even if that truth isn’t “The Truth” with a capital T.

Phil was also distrustful, some would go so far as to say paranoid about, the government. This distaste would sometimes quite literally escalate into the realm of the mythic. He saw the impeachment of Richard Nixon as a symbol of the world’s healing from a deep seeded disease. Most poetically, Phil abstracted the whole of the oppressive government into a continuation of the roman empire and their hunt to destroy Christians.

So, aside from the usual Gnostic beliefs, in short these are my observations as to what makes a Phildickian Gnostic.

1. Desire to gather as many explanations for events as possible.

2. Intuition that there’s great value hidden within things that society has thrown away.

3. Search for truth by active reinterpretation of everything known and found.

4. Distrust of institutions which try to shape or control people.

Phildickian Gnosticism: The many religions of Philip K. Dick

John Emerson, November 14, 2005