What was does Dick (1995) himself theorise about the I Ching?
First of all, Philip K. Dick points out that the 'I Ching' was used to "develop the direction of a novel". The I Ching, is an ancient Chinese oracle-text which Dick used as a means of plotting his narrative The Man in the High Castle; "a ground-breaking narrative experiment that has distinct cybertextual, as well as oracular, resonances" (Mountfort, 2006). Overall, Dick's literary experiment with the I Ching oracle was a brave and radical one.
Dick himself has an interesting theory upon his use of the I Ching, he stated in an interview:
"Well, the I Ching gives advice beyond the particular, advice that transcends the immediate situation. The answers have a universal quality. For instance: 'The mighty are humbled and the humbled are raised.' If you use the I Ching long enough and continually enough, it will begin to change and shape you as a person" (As cited in Mountfort, 2006).
In his book 'Schizophrenia and the Book of Changes" (1965) Dick further mentioned; "I speak from experince. The Oracle - the I Ching - told me to write this piece". He also says that in a sense, it was the I Ching that wrote The Man in the High Castle, not him.
Dick became obssessed and 'hooked' on the concept, and that it made decisions for him. When he became Schizophrenic, bitter, and paranoid, he decided it was the I Ching that had made him this way. That is had purposefully misled and betrayed him, saying it was a "malicious spirit":
"And then, just about the time that it's gotten your, you know, your credulity is there - you're willing to trsut it - just about the time you've given it your faith and trust, it will zap you with the most malevolent, wrong information. In other words, it sets you up. I regard the I CHING as a malicious spirit". (as cited in Mountfort, 2006).
Personally, I think Philip. K Dick's theories regarding the I Ching are delusional yet extremely fascinating. His mind is clearly in a world of it's own, and his words are hard to make sense of; but even the slightest bit of my understanding enables me to realise he certainly had strong beliefs about the power the I Ching had over him, and it's important role in creating The Man in the High Castle.
I think a good way to describe Dick's theory upon the I Ching is that it is a 'beautiful monster'; to him, it was vital in the narrative of his amazing novel, but it also destroyed him and set him up for, well, mental failure.
References
Dick, P.K. (2001;1962). The Man in the High Castle. London: Penguin.
Dick, P.K. (1995) Schizophrenia and the I Ching. In Sutin, L. (Ed.), The Shifting Realities of Philip K. Dick (pp.175-182). New York: Vintage.
Mountfort, P. (2006). Oracle-text/Cybertext in Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle. Conference paper, Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association annul join conference, Atlanta, 2006.
'Personally, I think Philip. K Dick's theories regarding the I Ching are delusional.' What theories are you referring to and why are they delusional? (That whole paragraph is waffly). Do you agree with Dick that the ending of the novel is unresolved, and that the I Ching was responsible? Why?
ReplyDeleteHi Mike, thanks for your comment - has made me think!
ReplyDeleteI mentioned in my blog 'delusional yet extremely fascinating'. Maybe delusional was too strong of a word. I am mainly referring to his idea that the I Ching was responsible for writing the Man in the High Castle, not P.K.Dick himself. To me, this portray his poor mental state.. as ofcourse, Dick wrote the novel, not the I Ching. However he believed the I Ching supplied him with ideas, and made decisions for him regarding the direction of the novel. Sorry for waffling - I tend to get a bit carried away with my ideas when writing!
I think I do agree with Dick that the end of the novel is unresolved - it leaves you unsure and a bit confused. I felt as though I wanted more explanation from it's ending. I also feel that the I Ching cannot be completely to blame - as this sounds a bit like a scape goat for Dick, because it was him that could not completely resolve the end realistically..however, the I Ching could be held partly accountable; as it supposedly supplied him with all his motives throughout the rest of the novel; but left him alone at the end.