The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch is a particularly bizarre tale from that most imaginative of writers, Philip K. Dick. This month on Film, Literature and the New World Order, James discusses this groundbreaking work with Tim Lacy of ReportageBook.com. So, what do the exploits of Leo Bolero and Barney Mayerson have to do with anamnesis, the Platonic forms and Valentinian gnosis? Find out in this fascinating conversation!
Video player not working? Use these links to watch it somewhere else!
WATCH ON: 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
or DOWNLOAD THE MP4
SHOW NOTES
Postscript to The Name of the Rose
How to Build a Universe That Doesn’t Fall Apart Two Days Later
90 Minutes With Philip K. Dick
NEXT MONTH: The Conversation (1974) – dir. Francis Ford Coppola
NEXT NEXT MONTH: The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Dear James and Philip,
For centuries, we have been talking about consciousness, reality and interpretation. Plato, the Gnostics, Jung, hermeneutics, Philip K. Dick — the material is abundant. And yet one layer remains structurally underexamined: the concrete, individual interface through which reality becomes accessible to a human being in the first place.
This is not a detail. It comes before interpretation.
Every human being has literal blind spots. The retina contains an area without photoreceptors; yet we do not experience a hole in our visual field because the visual system fills in the missing information. Attention is selective as well: something can be visibly present before us without ever being consciously noticed. Our experience of reality is therefore not a complete registration from the outset, but the result of selection, processing and construction.
And this access is not identical in every human being.
People differ in attention, sensory sensitivity, mental imagery, inner speech, bodily awareness, capacity for abstraction, and the ways in which information is subsequently processed. What immediately acquires conscious weight for one person may barely be noticed by another, or may be represented in an entirely different way.
Two intelligent and sincere people can therefore observe the same phenomenon without having precisely the same information consciously available to them.
This is not a philosophical curiosity. It goes directly to the question of how knowledge itself comes into being.
People think they are discussing “reality”, while easily forgetting that they are first dependent on their own access to that reality.
And this is precisely where intellect can become a peculiar problem.
A powerful intellect can construct a phenomenal edifice from the information that *has* become available. It can make hundreds of historical, theological and philosophical connections. It can design schemas, draw triads, distinguish hermeneutical layers and analyse Gnostic myths, presenting all of this with such coherence that completeness begins to seem almost self-evident.
But coherence is not evidence of completeness.
A perfectly coherent model can still be constructed from only a limited portion of what there was to know.
And an exceptional intellect may make that limitation more difficult to see. Not necessarily because the blind spot itself becomes larger, but because the intellect becomes increasingly capable of constructing a convincing, consistent and self-reinforcing system from what *is* available.
This creates a second-order blind spot.
The problem is no longer merely: I do not perceive something.
The problem becomes: I do not know that I do not perceive it, because what I do perceive can be explained so convincingly.
That is a much more fundamental epistemological vulnerability.
Intelligence does not automatically protect us against it. Expertise necessarily brings strong schemas and expectations. These enable rapid recognition and complex analysis, but they can simultaneously determine where attention is directed, what is assigned significance, and what is dismissed as irrelevant.
The very same instrument that makes someone exceptionally good at recognizing patterns can therefore make that person less sensitive to information that falls outside their existing patterns.
And this is precisely the paradox I see in conversations in which people spend hours discussing reality, perception, gnosis, psyche, transcendence and consciousness, while barely examining how the concrete human being using these words gains access to what they are trying to understand in the first place.
What is missing, then, is a question that comes even before hermeneutics: What part of reality was accessible to this particular observer, through which sensory and cognitive routes, with what intensity and what weight, before the intellect began to interpret it?
And then comes the more difficult question: What barely reaches this person at all — and how could they ever discover that it is missing?
This is where the ancient injunction “nosce te ipsum— know thyself” suddenly acquires a far more radical meaning.
Not merely:
know your character;
know your history;
know your beliefs.
But: know the instrument with which you are trying to know.
Know how your attention operates.
Know which forms of information readily acquire conscious weight for you.
Know how quickly perception becomes language, image, feeling, abstraction, explanation or action. And above all, learn to take seriously the possibility that there is information that remains barely accessible within your own particular configuration.
Only then does interpretation become truly interesting. Because without that step, we run the risk of explaining not reality itself, but constructing an extraordinarily convincing explanation of that part of reality to which our own instrument happened to give us access.
And the more brilliant that intellectual edifice becomes, the easier it is to miss the fundamental problem: we do not have full access to consciousness, nor are most of us aware of how our particular interface gives us access to it.
We build our understanding from what becomes available through that limited opening — and then risk mistaking the coherence of what we have constructed for the completeness of consciousness itself.
A couple more archive dot org book links777:
Umberto Eco, Travels in Hyperreality (1986)
Umberto Eco, The Limits of Interpretation (1990)
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul – Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters (1975)
And a segue from the FLNWO podcast last month, when James and Tom-Oliver Regenauer discussed Eco’s Foucault’s Pendulum:
Excerpts from Umberto Eco’s commentary from 1984, Postscript to The Name of the Rose (archive dot org link to book).
I believe reader and even peer reaction in the go-go postmodern 1980s gave Eco second thoughts about the offhand pronouncement that a novel is “a machine for generating interpretations.” I strongly recommend his 1990 book (see link above), The Limits of Interpretation.
Here Eco doesn’t tell us anything new, but rather decries the hazards of using hot jargon.
We will come back to this double-negative anamnesis (ἀνάμνησις) later..
Elusive Agon, MacGuffins and Names
PDK’s stories often have a number of false or evolving MacGuffins. I will note one, but do see how many and which ones you can trace. Oh, and character names, place names, company names are also very interesting, worth investigation.
I quote wikpedia:
The early chapters very economically set forth the main characters, establishing a semblence of the “real life” needed for every story. (In this novel, that “reality” unravels in nearly its every facet as the end approaches.)
The story begins in medias res, and the agon (contest) is Alles gegen Alles: none of the characters we meet early on are heroic. In fact, they all seem determined to take advantage or manipulate one another. (With the possible exception of Emily, and with the definite exception of Anne Hawthorne, the Neo-Christian whom we first encounter when Barney is in the airport, awaiting his voluntary trip to Mars.)
Speaking of names, “Emily” appears 103 times, 102 as simply “Emily” and only once with her last name. In that instance, her name is presented in combination with her husband, in the E-therapy scene in Chapter 5, well after her introduction in the story: “Again Bulero eyed Richard and Emily Hnatt, lingeringly, then strode off.” She appears alone, singular, even protected, throughout. A tenderness comes to surround her through this persistence, foreshadowing the sad result of her E-therapy session.
MacGuffin-wise, we have Barney’s doomy draft notice, and his gloomy attitude. In order to evade the draft, (the world government in the form of the UN will send him to Mars), Barney plans to build a body of disqualifying psychoanalytical documentation on himself. Hence the use of Dr. Smile, his shrink-in-a-suitcase and constant companion. A talking machine, the good doctor is present even from the time Barney shacks up with Rondinella (“sparrow”) Fugate (past participle of Latin “to drive away”), Barney’s new, young, slender, too-clever-by-half female assistant, a precognitive fashion consultant for P. P. Layouts. The story begins following her first day and night “on the job” so to speak.
While the novel’s first (and short-lived) MacGuffin is the draft notice, we have to acknowledge Dr. Smile for a special award. While he doesn’t exactly drive the narrative like a worry bead (MacGuffin), he does turn out to be a very forth-giving narrative device, providing both comic relief and expository dialogue… and psychiatry.
Comparison to Kafka
Towards the end of the podcast, we compared the opening sentence of PKD’s novel with that of Kafka’s novella The Metamorphosis.
DIE VERWANDLUNG von Franz Kafka
(Project Gutenberg, original German text)
Als Gregor Samsa eines Morgens aus unruhigen Träumen erwachte, fand er sich in seinem Bett zu einem ungeheueren Ungezeifer verwandelt.
THE METAMORPHOSIS
by Franz Kafka
As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a monstrous beast.
THE THREE STIGMATA OF PALMER ELDRITCH
by Philip K. Dick
His head unnaturally aching, Barney Mayerson woke to find himself in an unfamiliar bedroom in an unfamiliar conapt building.
A bit of expansion on Kafka’s work seems useful.
The last two of nineteen simple words, the alliterative “ungeheueren Ungezeifer” are conjoined by a near stutter (DUM-dee-dee-dum d’DUM-dee-dee-dum), driving home and lyricizing a plain hideous fact. This might not be translatable, but should be heard. Do your best.
Then notice PKDs fisrt sentence, also nineteen words, providing his own rhythm and “un” repetition. He lays it out differently, but the internal echoing is clear: “unnaturally… unfamiliar… unfamiliar….”
I admit that I note this (and I continue below) with righteous glee, and with sincere gratitude to Vladimir Nabokov—an entomologist on top of everything else one can say about him—whose edited lecture notes and even some drawings on Kafka’s work are published in the 1980 volume Lectures on Literature (archive dot org link), because I have interfered with the accepted English translations out there, opting here for literal German. Therefore “ungeheueren Ungezeifer” is “monstrous beast” and not “gigantic insect” as is the usual (mis)translation.
This is what Kafka wrote. The subsequent sentences present Gregor’s horrific new “reality” in impartial, descriptive detail. The author omits “helpful” naming, explanations and interpretations. This essential point is made well in James and Tom’s podcast last month. Our discussion of Umberto Eco and Philip K. Dick in the present podcast reestablishes the point.
These details—in Kafka, in PKD, in literature—are not secondary. They ARE the work. A worthy author does not put ideas on paper… what does that even mean? An author puts words together. Whether clear or ambiguous, sonorous or awkward—the meanings, the associations, the sound and sense are not to be altered, sanded down or recast for ease of intake, cataloguing or interpretation.
Specifically in the opening sentence of The Three Stigmata, I think the allusion, the rhythm and repetition, the homage to Kafka is conscious and intentional. PKD read and spoke German, and he read everything. (His German caused surprise and dismay for the erstwhile “helpful” Teutonic translators of his novel Ubik.)
Not only is Barney undergoing a metamorphosis, a transformation. So is the reader. The world created in this novel is home to our encounter with a transcendent evil that is “unnatural… unfamiliar… unfamiliar.”
Speaking of indescribable evil, or more precisely of evil which cannot and should not be described…
Willis Barnstone
“Thirteen Questions: A Dialogue with Jorge Luis Borges”
Chicago Review, vol. 31, no. 3, 1980
(Emphasis is mine. This is excerpted from a PDF hosted by Chicago Review.)
Continuing with The Metamorphosis, the German word “Insekt” appears nowhere in the original novella. A particular, named characterization of Gregor’s new outward form appears, after the horror of the new thing has receded somewhat (and after his mother and sister have tired of him), when “this old widow” refers to him as an “old dung beetle” (alter Mistkäfer). The narrator presents this descriptive three-word sequence precisely, twice, yet in an off-hand way:
Anfangs rief sie ihn auch zu sich herbei, mit Worten, die sie wahrscheinlich für freundlich hielt, wie »Komm mal herüber, alter Mistkäfer!« oder »Seht mal den alten Mistkäfer!«
At first she called him over, too, with words she probably thought friendly, such as “Come over, old dung beetle!” or “Look at the old dung beetle!”
And “this old widow” (Diese alte Witwe) “had no real abhorrence for Gregor” (hatte keinen eigentlichen Abscheu vor Gregor).
The narrator is intentionally detached and forensic—almost bland—as he lets the widow bear honest witness. The blasé narrative tone therefore contains precise confirmation, the naming of something which had to be described—not interpreted or explained for us—at the outset.
(She is not a “charwoman” by the way. Translators never cease to mock the reader and harm the work with such unhelpful “helpfulness.”)
More Audio Interviews
I especially like (and am familiar with) the first in this list. Note the point when Platt realizes he has stumbled upon a gold mine.
Philip K. Dick – Raw Interview (1979, w Charles Platt)
A Talk with Philip K. Dick (1976)
Philip K. Dick “Speaking His Mind”
PKD, Palmer Eldritch and Sacramental Theology – Preamble
I note (with sniffy disdain) the expression “Christian Themes” patiently applied to PKD’s writing, in and after this novel. The expression is found in wikipedia, in academia, in nearly every soiled market stall of today’s conformist, humanist, secular, atheist and anti-religious, workaday culture. (The culture was less so in 1964, but now we are looking at an ignoramus standard, especially among the elite. BTW: Is there an adjective form for ignoramus?)
As used, the term “Christian Themes” often seems to imply that religion (Christianity) = meaninglessness. (There was an equally dismissive phrase “beautiful old churches” in the Soviet world. It signified the generous indulgence of those-who-understand, of their intellectual and ideological currency and hence their [not your] membership in THE in-group. Think about this when you hear the word “religion” or “Christianity” used as an implicit substitute for obsolescence, a bygone thing which “everyone knows” has been surpassed by “progress” and is rightly held in contempt by all enlightened persons. I mean, it’s 2026, right?)
I don’t take issue with any atheistic, agnostic, pro-istic or anti-istic position. One can believe, embrace and express any position, any faith whatsoever. Do be aware, however, that disbelief is nearly always a belief too. Every Anti-Thingy comes with received ideas, dogmatic rules and regs, anathemas and sins to be expiated (or not!). Those committed to the Anti appear chock-a-block with ideological presupposition, in direct proportion to their smugness (when unchallenged) and to a point-and-splutter emotional meltdown (when challenged).
I take issue only with that underlying, perennial philistine presumptuousness which presents opinion as fact. Please show your work. Don’t tread on me.
So here let us re-enter the Eco Chamber, hand in hand… for cool and quiet solace, for refuge, for the soul-nourishing mind-candy of Umberto Eco’s thoughts on intellectual honesty.
I quote (emphasis in the original) from the essay “Cogito Interruptus” on page 222 of Travels in Hyperreality:
Stigmata is not only the wounds of Jesus.
Stigmata (Ancient Greek: στίγματα, plural of στίγμα stigma, ‘mark, spot, brand’), in Catholicism, are bodily wounds, scars and pain which appear in locations corresponding to the crucifixion wounds of Jesus Christ: the hands, wrists, feet, near the heart, the head (from the crown of thorns), and back (from carrying the cross and scourging).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmata
It is hard to understand this comment. If “not only the wounds of Jesus” then what else?
The wikipedia definition states that “stigmata” does not always refer exclusively to the “Five Sacred Wounds” (four nail marks and a spear mark) of the crucifixion, but may also refer to marks associated with the Passion: the crown of thorns, the scourge marks. Is this the point you are making, that we have left out the crown and the whip marks?
The Greek meaning of the word is marks upon the skin. Sadly, I lack both Greek and direct knowledge of every human utterance, but I have never seen the word used in anything other than the Christian, Roman Catholic meaning. Even when borrowed to describe non-Christian phenomena… it’s borrowed.
PDK places the word in the book title and in chapter 13. In the context of the rest of the book, I think it’s safe to say that the word can only carry the Christian/Roman Catholic meaning. It does not simply mean generic “marks” in other words. (And in the case of our title character, they aren’t marks upon the skin, but hideous prosthetics, resulting from injuries in his murky past. This tenuous victim status evokes no sympathy for the character of Eldritch. His “stigmata” are artificial aftermarket add-ons, which I think is a significant point.)
PDK offers zero elaboration on the word, as James noted. We did not say, but it is also true, that, because Eldritch’s stigmata do not resemble or reflect the wounds of Christ at all—not in type, not in placement, not in the story of their acquisition—it is in name only that these hideous features associate PE to JC.
I take the concept of legal discovery as a good methodology for understanding literature. We marshal the facts from the text and the context. We put together everything we can say about a character, about a story, even about an author (without psychoanalysis, ideally).
The evil Eldritch is an anti-savior, an inversion of Christ, in both character and in principle, in both practice and in theory. Through Chew-Z—remaining ever a mystery (Latin: sacramentum)—Palmer Eldritch offers himself to us through an inverted, deceptive “communion” that seems an everlasting nightmare and the opposite of goodness and life.
Hi Tim, sorry for my short ambiguous comment!
During the conversation I was thinking of the psychosomatic phenomena called stigmata, where people align so strongly (consciously or unconsciously) with the suffering of Jesus that they themselves start to manifest actual wounds in the significant places. There are a lot of books on the subject. (I have not read the PDK book yet, only read “Do androids dream…”)
A possible broadening of the stigmata concept would then be that the stigmata is a more general taking over of someone else’s suffering, without redemptive consequences.
He used my ‘Eco Chamber’ pun!
PKD, Palmer Eldritch and Sacramental Theology – Chapter and Page
I searched the PDF text of this novel for instances of “bread and wine” and “wafer” and so forth. The PDF I used is different from the print edition that James and I have and refer to, but I corrected page numbers to refer to the 2007 Phoenix/Orion UK paperback edition (which is the one held up on the screen). I also note the chapter numbers, to help those who have a different edition/pagination.
Chapter 5, page 70
Dr. Denkmal mentions transubstantiation when introducing E-Therapy to Richard and Emily Hnatt.
Chapter 6, page 95
This weird and disconcerting conversation happens during Leo’s trip into Chew-Z, into the world(s) of Palmer Eldritch—whatever he or it is. The little girl “is” Palmer Eldritch, and goes on to prove this to Leo by bringing up “the wine and the wafer in transubstantiation…”
Chapter 7, pages 131 and so on
Anne Hawthorne’s first appearance. In less than a page of (shameless expository) dialogue, she proves herself to be a font of information on the sacramental theology of the Neo-Christian movement. The conversation moves toward their destination (Mars), to Can-D, Chew-Z etc.
Chapter 9, Page 157
“Paul who?” Anne, exuding spiritual enthusiasm, alludes to Paul’s epistles, and specifically mentions the “paraclete” (the advocate), a name for a post-ascension, earthly manifestation the Holy Spirit.
Chapter 10, page 171
Barney’s encounter with Palmer Eldritch (or with a projection… or whatever). Interiorly Barney says, “flesh and blood” with characteristic irony.
Chapter 11, page 203
Barney faces six Palmer Eldritches, and “they” mention St. Paul. This whole section is a tenuous episode in Barney’s Chew-Z trip(s). I find it uncertain where/if he is in space-time… or what that even means at this point. He visits P.P. Layouts, his old office, which seems exactly the kind of regretful, unrelenting “past revisited” personal nightmare that typifies the Chew-Z experience.
Chapter 13, page 230
Anne says, “Remember the wine and wafer,” as the neighbors in Chickenpox Acres grapple with … whatever it is, following their first taste of Chew-Z.
(Part one)
In my self published book The Urban Shaman I cover the idea of myth and reality.
>>Eliade, Mircea
Myth and Reality; Harper and Row Pub., Inc., New York, New York, 1975
“Myth narrates a sacred history; it relates an event that took place in primordial Time, the fabled time of the ‘beginnings…Myth then is always an account of a ‘creation;’…Myth tells only of that which really happened, which manifested itself completely. …in societies where myth is still alive the natives carefully distinguish myths—‘true stories’—from fables or tales, which they call ‘false stories.”>>
So, according to Eliade, in archaic societies, myth means a true story, sacred, significant. It assures people that what they are about to do has already been done before, helping them overcome doubts about the results of their endeavor. Todays use of “myth” is in the context of fiction or illusion. The “false stories” Eliade is talking about are those which speak to being freed from monsters, delivered from other disasters, national or regional heroes, and doing noble deeds.
This is so obvious of course in the plethora of shoot, maim, kill, nonsense seen in movies, TV, digital games, etc. today. Part of the controllers clever manipulation of consciousness to insure strife and division amongst people and not any true investigation or exploration of deeper thinking about reality.
– – – – – – – – – –
As Rockefeller said in about 1903 after buying out and closing down holistic colleges to assure the use of his coming big pharma corporations based on the Prussian method of education:
“We want workers, not thinkers.”
– – – – – – – – – –
False stories, according to Eliade, can be told anywhere, any time, but the true myths, in archaic culture, must not be recited except during a period of sacred time (usually in the Autumn or Winter and only at night.) And this thinking receives much resistance from those who are caught in the idea that alternative thinking from the main stream narrative is ‘hippie dippie’ nonsense.
(Part two)
Through retelling and reenacting the myths, a shaman or medicine man is able to learn the secret of the origin of things. The Greeks emptied mythos of all spiritual, metaphysical value. The word eventually has come to mean, “What cannot really exist.” Most of the Greek myths were recounted and modified by Heisod and Homer, who were writing for the military and feudal aristocracies.
Much of our modern reading is oriented for profit towards the middle class who are steeped in the myths, lies, and deceptions of the “holy books.” They are prime candidates for stories of victims, revenge, etc., like the war stories in the bible. As they say, the winners write the history books.
Hidden Reality—Many cultures refer to our coming into existence after our first going through a ritual of voluntary loss of our memory regarding our previous greatness:
Veils of Illusion, Valley of Forgetfulness. In mythology the “awakening” or anamnesis proves to be a prerequisite for immortality, freeing of oneself from a deep sleep, a forgetting or bondage of some sort, part of a divine circular game.
It is said, while you may get recollection of past lives, that does not mean you will necessarily recall the eternal truths or ideas. There is a difference between memory (Mnemne) and recollection (Anamnesis.)
It is my belief our overemphasis in using the neo-cortex (New Brain) center, in our technologically oriented society, has seriously affected us. It has closed down access to the ancient wisdom and knowledge carried in our genetic coding, our mind-body systems, leaving us deprived of trusted intuitive guidance. And I don’t see this as an ‘accident’ of any sort.
The current revealing of the Tartarian or ancient ways is waking many up to just how much truth has been hidden from us. Our greatness potential has not been witnessed in centuries.
WALKING BETWEEN WORLDS (song)
https://old.bitchute.com/video/YV58suiSIw0K/
Interesting. If you don’t already know of him, you might find Georges Dumezil’s work of interest. His approach to myth is philological, not theoretical, not a social science. He makes a heady, broad and abstract subject graspable as fact, re ancient civilizations and cultures. He says what can actually be said, but by doing so he does not cancel the magic of the poetry (for those who has an ear to hear it).
Gods of the Ancient Northmen (another archive dot org link)
Interesting??
One word of reply and then what YOU want to say.
Almost a put down isn’t it if it was said with a British affectation?
No, I haven’t come across Dumezil’s work.
I started putting The Urban Shaman together on the Summer Solstice,1996. No web just lots of library time, scores of books on a variety of subjects and using a Mac Plus as a word processor. And spending time with Shaman and Medicine Men and Women.
Pop messianism and more name stuff
In Chapter 2, page 25 (2007 Phoenix UK paperback edition)
Taking Leo’s endorsement of Miss Jurgens’ observation as an example of popular imagination (and she does explicitly provide such context, regarding the recent history of the world of this novel), then space travel beyond the Solar System is not merely a voyage into the void, but into spiritual mystery. It is akin to revelation, and those who have traveled and returned carry an aura of theosis, deification, etc. A forgivable popular belief becomes hubris in an individual who takes the messianic ball and runs with it, so to speak.
As for Barney Mayerson, his surname means “son of the greater.” Perhaps he was born for better things.
Or/and, perhaps Barney is comparable to the transformed Gregor Samsa, who dies never having realized he could fly.
To be extremely pedantic: Barney is one of two characters with a patronymic surname, the other being Miss Gleason, Leo’s bright, competent secretary. (Gleason means “son of the bright” or “son of brightness.”)
Tim
Great One
That information sifting here is granular. Do you have an Alien decoder ray gun ? Maybe a mouse with properties only available to Publishers? So much there to chew on. ! Lets see if that hump can bare another grain of information. Ah ! Here it is. Seems that’s all that’s left. I believe you Hoover’d it completely. Drained it all, this was all that remained.
https://share.google/images/YfUaQz8nmrg6wPV6L
Jackie Gleason had a fascination with UFOs and had a saucer shaped home built in New York in 1959. Dick wrote this in 1964 and published in 1965. Wiki says Gleason was shone classified ufo stuff by President Nixon . There was no record of Dick ever crossing paths with Gleason.
I use a wired, vertical mouse, an ergonomic necessity, available to all in exchange for money/debt.
The Great One was indeed great! I didn’t know about his UFO fascination, but I know Gleason was good friends with Brendan Behan. Degrees of separation to PKD remains an open question.
Kosmos didn’t simply mean order or system. It had several senses in history. It’s also where the word cosmetic comes from.
i cant really read ficition stuff. but listening to these two and just describing stuff from this book i find it interesting that portion of the story clearly was depicted in total recall, the scifi movie.
The song kicked ass on 1.5 speed.
Maybe under-appreciated is the humor. Leo Bulero finds out that he’s got a high likelihood of going to prison for murdering Eldritch, so of course then he has to meet Eldritch to find out. Not just fatalism but sort of a poking fun at human nature, which is refreshing. This book would be almost too discombobulating if it didnt also make you laugh.
There is a lot to learn about the Gnosis and variants
So many ancient secret societies..
the Gnosis archive – http://gnosis.org/
With text from Carl Jung and such.
I found a channel that talks about the many Gnostic ideas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOLoW9tTIac
Why the monad was too dangerous to teach – MorgueOfficial
In the story, the world is ruled by a blind god
but the Monad helps to deal with this world.
Some ideas are similar to Buddhism.
Different channel talks about ancient texts:
The dead sea scrolls are weirder than you think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZWA-lsC1Pc
A religious sect wrote the scrolls.
Various texts are gnostic.
I find it interesting how the Catholic church removed and changed texts.
Mel Gibson is making a new movie with “the Resurrection of the Christ”
It appears that Gibson found out that Jesus after his crucifixion spread Gnostic ideas.
Anamnesis
This word does not appear in the novel, but PKD deals with it in other books, in his meta discussions and Exegesis.
The word does however appear in the essay titled “The Historical Novel” on page 74 in Eco’s Postscript to The Name of the Rose:
The word is a Greek double negative, literally “not not remembering” or “disamnesia” if I may coin a semi-recognizable but equally opaque term.
It is a fundamental part of Platonic theory, its working definition of knowledge (aka epistemology: how you know what you know). Yes, there is reason and experience, but real knowledge (so the dialogue goes) is not something newly arrived at—like the shoreline of an unknown continent, or a new marriage. Nor is it something acquired—like an article of clothing, an advanced degree or an ingot of silver. True knowledge is innate, akin to Truth, to Beauty, to The Good, to The Forms. “Gaining” knowledge in this sense is the un-forgetting of something which is essentially there from time immemorial (pun intended).
(This theory of “knowledge” is of course dismissed in our rational world. But that rather misses the point, imo. It’s not even wrong to declare Plato wrong. Just examine and understand. Is it not ironic that PKD called this world a black iron prison?)
The Christian usage of the word is central to the liturgy, to christology, to the institution of the Eucharist, which—along with the Gospels themselves, the Passion and Resurrection—comprise the New Covenant. See Luke:
καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασε καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. (KJV)
The rather straightforward English word “remembrance” is the sticking point here, as it has long been among Christian theologians of various stripes (a discussion not connected to this one).
From PKD’s perspective, the implications of Luke’s anamnesin (Greek ἀνάμνησιν, literally “in anamnesis of Me”) are closer to Plato’s usage, but PKD applied it to human perception and to reality itself, not only to a philosophical principle concerning knowledge, not only to Christology… but to those things too.
Given that linear time and human sense perception are illusory, anamnesis (disamnesia) denotes the perception or apprehension of a timeless reality, or realities, which “run” beyond, beneath, behind or alongside normally perceptible phenomena. And whether this or that reality is the real one depends on where in PKD’s writings you draw a line. He ceaselessly worked such notions like clay, deploying them into the worlds he created.
@Mo (below) thank you for articulating the epistemology missed in Tim’s exposition. Your point is well observed.
Incidentally, i loved that you address it to James and Philip. Blind spot? perhaps, but still works 😉
As well as ‘CONSCIOUSNESS’, I feel the discussion also largely missed the dimension of ‘SPIRIT’, though Corbeteer-contributors touched on this with mention of AI.
To my recollection, the word ‘stigmata’ was indeed used only once, and not until the final page or so, at which point it felt to me redundant (although who knows; I’d read the book in one sitting – unable to put it down – and perhaps on another day, or if reading in broken chunks, I would have been glad to have the motif pointed out). Stigmata to me was never limited to Jesus, to divinity, nor to its inverse; evil. i take STIGMA to sound like SIGN/SIGNIFY and the phenomenon broadly signifies a presence or consciousness making itself manifest in the being/body of another person.
Interpreting this in terms of what one has heard about (or read in) the bible seems to limit the meaning to two dimensions: namely, the physical and the mental (analogical). It misses what ‘moved my spirit’ on reading this phenomenal book, and which I think can be articulated as the plane which Tim presents as vertical: the transcendent (anagogical) axis whereupon the reader’s spirit/ morale/ mood/ being/ vibration/ breath/ pneuma/ life-force may be elated upwards toward joy, expanse, liberation (perhaps thru imagination; after all, not every character trips badly on Chew-Z) or sucked downward into subjugation and gripped by The Fear (Withnail and I) aka The Horror.
Perhaps i missed this in the discussion but I didn’t hear discussed the thing that most gripped me about this cracking book in which PKD describes the form of Eldritch returning from the neighbouring Galaxy possessed by an advanced CONSCIOUSNESS that is using Eldritch as a vehicle to our solar system, and our conscious reality, to colonise humanity by feeding off its attention, and manifesting there. PKD is not alone is supposing that life more advanced than us may make itself known through the mind-alteration.
To characterise this as evil (terrifying to us as it may well be) feels two-dimensional. Humanity subjugates and feeds off other species. All species do. Does this make us and all species evil? Perhaps the third plane is amoral. What determines our experience on this plane is the content we bring to bear on the [psychedelic] experience. The positive/negative output is auto-generated.
@Mo, i think you hit upon the key to controlling the direction of travel.
I’m very glad I read this book. Thank you James Corbett for prompting me to do so and for providing this forum for discussion. Thanks to James, Tim, and the community for a riveting discussion. I haven’t read any other PKD.. I’m curious as to why/how you selected it, James.
WAS THIS BOOK CHOSEN BECAUSE IT IS PKD’S BEST ???
PS. i read Foucault’s Pendulum as a 20-year-old student in the mid 90s – it had a huge and lasting impact – and happen to have re-watched The Conversation just last month. Now seems the Brothers Karamozov beckons obligatorily – regardless of whether I think I have time for it! Deep breath…
If I recall correctly (I sometimes don’t), I suggested the book to James a good while after we started discussing books and authors we liked. He told me he hadn’t read any PKD, and I reacted with (admittedly deliberate, overstated) astonishment. I want to say I fell on the floor, but I can’t back that up with documentation.
The FLNWO series was dormant at the time. Perhaps this is conceit on my part, but I think our discussions—and the book Powerless by Harry Turtledove, and certainly the overall elevation of book awareness in all the activity surrounding Reportage—prompted James to revive the series so enthusiastically.
Anyway, I took time to consider what PKD title to recommend to James. By the time I had decided upon The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, I think FLNWO’s return had moved from thought bubble to action panel. I ordered two copies and sent one to him around the end of 2025. I reread it in January of this year.
Why that title in particular? I can’t say if it’s PKD’s best book, or creepiest, or any other superlative. Hard to rank books in such a way.
But I know it was the book I wanted to reread next. And I thought it was the best first PKD title to recommend to James, considering The Corbett Report, the world and the complex craziness of the book. V.A.L.I.S. would be the last one I would recommend—because it is the ultimate, not because of any deficiency. Ubik, Flow My Tears, Martian Time Slip, Electric Sheep, High Castle, Dr. Bloodmoney… plus oodles of short stories, are all great, all highly recommended. It’s just that Palmer Eldritch has its own sort of stamp.
Last night I watched the documentary linked above in the show notes. I haven’t really looked at PKD’s life story in about ten years. It was so sad and confused. The doc is pretty good. I see his genius, his goodness, the true greatness of his work. It makes me want to reread his fiction—not in a binge, but at an enjoyable pace.
We didn’t discuss or even allude to The Exegesis. I do not recommend it, except to someone who has formidable detachment, as well as a scholarly or medical purpose in mind. As interesting as I found the first few hundred pages, is not an enjoyable cumulative reading experience. It’s dark, and it wore me down.
PKD did not compose or conceive it. The Exegesis is a committee-driven collation which reduces a huge body of thoughts on paper, scribbles, multiple permutations of ideas and schemes, obsessive conundrums. I think it was about 6,000 pages edited down to about 600.
His story is worth telling. I hope this podcast will encourage people to read his fiction.
Urik is crazy and fun and another example of his ability to predict aspects of the future: You will own nothing and “not be happy.”
For anyone still looking to get The Brothers Karamazov, I want to commend to you the translation by Richard Pevear & Larissa Volokhonsky, which has won best translation awards. This husband/wife pair put out the best Russian translations of many Dostoevsky & Tolstoy works.
I think putting the philosophy to one side and examining the prophetic nature of this book would be way more down your alley James C. Think about it:
The drugs are like the internet, it’s an addiction most of us have and we now depend upon.
Virtual, simulated lives, people staring at screens, addicted to mind enslavement devices.
Subconscious desire to escape the drudgery of reality.
The mad industrialist in our time who wants to populate Mars, who probably has a God complex, and would most definitely love to be Palmer Eldrich.
The elites using medical intervention to become “superior”.
The UN being a one world government.
The climate catastrophe is real.
Predicting AI, the artificial psychiatrist and machines that can create different versions of existing media.
James, I am very glad you resurrected this Film and Literature series. I think it really elevates the intellectual level of your channel and it also has a selective feature in attracting and satisfying a certain part of your following.
I know this kind of discussions are really satisfying for your intellectual needs also, I dare to think you would really like to do more of this and probably, as the time passes by, you will get inclined to do so.
I watched all your latest episodes on books, but I was especially astonished by the last two iterations and they got me buying Umberto Eco’s books (in my native tongue – romanian – and also in italian). Also, you (and Tim) got me convinced that I should really look into Phillip K Dick’s works.
But I was really blown away by announcing your next two proposals – The Conversation – and especially by Dostoievsky’s Brothers Karamazov. I did read it twenty years ago, in highschool, but I really wanted to reread it in the last years and now you gave me the perfect excuse. So I begun to reread it, in english this time (it’s an 1912 translation by Constance Garnett).
I don’t know who you thought about inviting as your guest for the Dostoievsky’s episode, but I think Jay Dyer might be a good recommendation, given that he is orthodox himself and quite knoleadgeable of ortodox theology and general philosophy. Also, I think it would be a great chance to reinvite him after many years of absence on your channel. (if I recall well he last was invited to speak on your channel, also on the same Film and Literature series, on one of his books – Hollywood ezoteric).
God Bless!