This is the last in a series of posts regarding contemporary perspectives on PKD. Search this blog for Philip K Dick to see previous lectures and interviews from some of the most knowledgeable sources out there.
YT description: Philip K. Dick is one of the literary giants of our era, as well as an eminent Gnostic visionary. Much of what Dick wrote or accurately predicted was channeled by a series of mystic events in the early 70’s. He received Gnosis by various means from entities beyond reality, and his astral ideas still grip the imagination of modern art and culture. Yet what Dick revealed in his books and notes was only a fraction of his insights. He actually wrote thousands of pages that were kept away from the general public for decades, until recently. We discuss the earth-shattering findings with a member of the editorial team. We discover more secrets of the visible and invisible cosmos, many that might help the spiritual and mental evolution of humanity.
Astral Guest– Erik Davies, author of TechGnosis: Myth, Magic & Mysticism in the Age of Information and Nomad Codes: Adventures in Modern Esoterica.
Title: The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick: Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio (YT link) Uploaded by Miguel Conner.
Erik Davis: The Exegesis Of Philip K Dick – (2013) 3 stars
Run time: 1 hour, 6 minutes. There is a problem here. I don’t know if host Conner is asking the wrong questions, or maybe he wasn’t as knowledgeable as he is when it comes to other areas, but there wasn’t a whole lot of substance here. Most of this interview involves the process of combing through 10,000 pages worth of material to produce a 1,000 page book. That’s all fine and dandy, but that should have taken up only the first fifteen minutes or so of this interview. Factor in Conner’s long introductions, and we end up losing a lot of valuable time getting nowhere. Conner could have gotten better mileage by following the reporter’s Five Ws: who, what, when, where, why. Instead, we have the host asking guest Davis about startling revelations, prophecies and talking about a woman’s breasts. That’s sensationalism and skimming the source, instead of really digging into the subject and pulling out golden nuggets of information. Also, Conner goes for the puerile Dick jokes one too many times and ends up looking like an idiot, especially at the conclusion of the interview. There is a time and a place for the profane, and certainly the time isn’t when Conner should have been talking about Dick’s legacy.