(Update – Original publication date: July 31, 2021 / Revision and reconstruction completed on July 31, 2026) [COPYRIGHT ©]
Foreword
At the very beginning of this detailed study, it must be emphasized that the (neo)gnosticism of writer Philip Kindred Dick (hereinafter referred to throughout the study as PKD)—referred to in English as Phildickian Gnosticism [1]—originates from direct realization: PKD’s gnosis. However, his gnosis encompasses his subjective reflection of inner knowledge derived from direct contact with the Divine, as well as his comprehensive understanding of both ancient and modern Gnosticism at the level of his own detailed knowledge. Regarding PKD’s knowledge, it is worth noting that he possessed extensive erudition ranging from Greek philosophy to a deep understanding of world religions, including lesser-known traditions.
The genius and uniqueness of his (Neo)Gnosticism lie primarily in his ability to seamlessly translate the ancient theological concepts of the Logos and the Spirit into the modern language of cybernetics and information theory.
Personally, he felt closest to the Christian tradition, but understood it in his own way, also based on direct realization. Therefore, he was certainly not an orthodox Christian, nor a proto-orthodox one according to ancient gnosis [3], but according to all available information, he was most likely a syncretic (Neo)Gnostic, or perhaps a Christian-Hermetic Gnostic (this topic is still debated). However, the foundation of his Christian philosophy was not a „struggle“ with other, orthodox Christians, but his own alternative understanding of the Christian faith—following his concept that „Fish (Christians) cannot bear arms.“ [4]
Tessa Dick, December 13, 2017:
Phil was undoubtedly a Gnostic. He said so himself. However, he was not an advocate of organized religion. He was once a devout Episcopalian, but his friendship with Bishop Pike led him into a similar heresy.
