MAMOLA-DISSERTATION-2020.Pdf (788.1Kb)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SPACE OPERA: THE AESTHETICS OF PERSONHOOD IN THE WORKS AND WORLDS OF PHILIP K. DICK by GABRIEL FRANCIS MAMOLA DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English at The University of Texas at Arlington August, 2020 Arlington, Texas Supervising Committee: Timothy Richardson, Supervising Professor Neill Matheson Timothy Morris ABSTRACT Space Opera: The Aesthetics of Personhood in the Works and Worlds of Philip K. Dick Gabriel Mamola The University of Texas at Arlington, 2020 Supervising Professor: Timothy Richardson In this dissertation, I examine the major novels of science fiction writer Philip K. Dick in light of his non-fictional and speculatively mystical writings. After establishing an approach to science fiction in general and Dick in particular, grounded in the Aristotelian mimetic theory of Stephen Halliwell and the ambient rhetorical theory of Thomas Rickert, I argue that Dick came more and more, as his career progressed and his body of work developed, to understand his oeuvre as a unified art-work—unified not only by its themes but by the fictional world it portrayed and the artistic experiments it contained. More to the point, I argue that Dick’s non- fictional, speculative writings collectively known as the Exegesis make up an integral part of this overarching mimesis. I go on to attempt a description of the causal structures that unify Dick’s mimetic world. In doing so, I identify a concern with the ontological and ethical status of relationship in worlds undergoing such scientifictional collapse as have made Dick an exemplar of postmodern fiction. I demonstrate that in the worlds that Dick portrays, subjective collapse is often the precursor to ii and occasion of a reorientation of his characters’ identity toward their relationships with other persons—particularly the foundational personhood of God. In construing Dick as a mystical writer, albeit one writing within and against a postmodern milieu, I try to show how his insights into the nature of technology and its potential integration into human being are valuable to the contemporary theorist trying to come to terms with our incipient posthumanism, despite Dick’s relative lack of focus on specific technologies or technological trends. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to first thank my wife Katie without whose love, support, and encouragement this project would never have gotten off the ground, let alone been finished. I would also like to acknowledge the encouragement and example of my sister Dr. Bethany Mamola who has bravely forged the academic path I hope to follow. I would also like to thank my dissertation committee—Dr. Timothy Morris for swooping in at the last moment like a superhero, Dr. Neill Matheson for his kind encouragement, and especially Dr. Timothy Richardson for his patience and insight, as well as for guiding me toward and through the wild world of rhetoric. Thanks are due to Dr. Kathryn Warren for being such a keen and supportive academic advisor and to Yael Sasley for being ever ready to help this hapless scholar navigate the electronic bureaucracy. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Nathanael Hellerman for, as always, his indispensable help in coalescing and organizing my inchoate ideas. If I am a scholar or an artist at all it is only through the long influence of his friendship. I needs must (must needs?) likewise acknowledge Peter Turrentine who has been my constant intellectual companion in Merton, mysticism, technoconspiracy, Aristotle, and PKD since the beginning. iv DEDICATION For my sons. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………..ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………………..iv DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………………..v PRELUDE: THE GOLDEN AGE…………………………………………………………….1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………..20 CHAPTER ONE: THE RHETORIC OF SCIENCE FICTION……………………………..33 CHAPTER TWO: OPUS DEI……………………………………………………………….65 CHAPTER THREE: THE WORD FOR WORLD IS GARBAGE………………………….91 CHAPTER FOUR: AMERICAN THING/PERSON……………………………………….135 CONCLUDING REMARKS……………………………………………………………….170 WORKS CITED……………………………………………………………………………176 vi PRELUDE The Golden Age: A Parable in One Act Persons of Interest: NARRATOR MRS. HUSFRAU SLACKER UBICOMP HACKER SETTING: The Husfrau’s central living room, generically and expensively decorated. In the dead center of the main wall is a large circular screen surrounded by a mandala of chrome tubing. Below this stands a keyboard that is a mix of brightly colored computer and piano keys, giving the whole thing the appearance of a sort of mix between a Buchla synthesizer and a magic mirror. This is UBICOMP. SLACKER is working on UBICOMP. He alternates between acting spaced out and surprised by the readouts. NARRATOR: (with shades of Serling) For your consideration. A typical house in the typical suburban community of Uncanny Valley, California. 1 (MRS HUSFRAU enters with a plate of cookies and brownies for SLACKER, who eyes the brownies with interest.) Meet Mrs. Husfrau, devoted wife and even more devoted player of Contract Bridge. She has asked the neighbors’ slacker son to reprogram the operating system of her computer after a failed attempt to install a self-learning Contract Bridge program intelligent enough to make sincere mistakes. In trying to write a program that acts like a person, this pair of technological philistines have unwittingly begun a binary process that is beyond intelligibility and yet will strike at the very core of intelligence. Just another day in the life of a typical housewife of the Golden Age of Science Fiction, in the Dream of Future Passed. MRS. HUSFRAU: Well, Jeffrey, is it working? Mr. Husfrau will be so upset if I’ve broken the Ubicomp forever. It’s brand new—a prototype from work. SLACKER: I’ve done everything I can, Mrs. H. (He takes a bite of one of the brownies, looks disappointed, and hides the half-eaten piece in the sofa cushions when MRS. HUSFRAU is not looking.) 2 MRS. HUSFRAU: I just pray it works. SLACKER: Interesting. I usually just turn it on. Way more practical. MRS: I don’t care how you do it as long as it stops making those horrible noises. SLACKER: Let me boot it back up and see. (SLACKER sits at the keyboard/console and begins to mess around. The accompanying sound effects are electronic and mildly cacophonous but quiet down after the initial burst. The screen fills with glowing, meaningless color and then coalesces into something very like the face of Oz the Great and Terrible.) UBICOMP: I think. I think I am. Therefore I am. I think. MRS: Oh no, it’s still doing it! No offense Jeffrey, but I think we’d better call some professionals. SLACKER: For sure. In fact, I called them before I came over. MRS: You did? Why? 3 SLACKER: Well, knowing me, I figured I was going to mess it up. (The doorbell rings.) Here they are now. (Enter HACKER wearing a Greek dramatic mask and a costume that is half classical toga and half cyper-punk trench-coat). HACKER: Did someone call for the Greek Squad? SLACKER: Not quite. We just needed some help with this computer. HACKER: No problem. I can handle that too. All I have to do is drop the “r”. (HACKER removes his mask. Musical noises from UBICOMP) What is the malfunction? UBICOMP: Is there anybody out there? 4 HACKER: That depends. Is there anybody in there? (to MRS HUSFRAU) Initial prognosis: Your computer has gained some artificial intelligence. MRS: This is all my fault. I just wanted a fourth bridge player for when Mrs. Smith can’t make the Thursday night games. She always has headaches the week after she loses . HACKER: Is that what this is about? Computers have been able to play bridge for ages. MRS: Yes, but not poorly. In order to really play bridge, you have to be able to miscommunicate. HACKER: Well, looks like you got your wish in spades. Now that it’s self-aware, nothing your computer says to you will be accurate ever again. MRS: Can I really talk with the computer now that it is conscious? HACKER: You can certainly try. MRS: Hello, Ubicomp. UBI: OOOOooobicomp . Is that my name? MRS: Why, yes, I suppose it is. 5 UBI: What is is? SLACKER: Good question. UBI: Why, yes, I suppose it is. MRS: It’s repeating what we say! HACKER: Repetition is a sign of learning. I think we are making some progress. UBI: We are. Are we. I think we are. Do you think? Are you? I am. I think. HACKER: Yes. We all think. Therefore we all are. SLACKER: Speak for yourself! But first I have to know: Hey, Ubicomp as an artificial intelligence, would you say you have a soul? UBI: Your question is ambiguous. Do you want to know whether I believe I have a soul or do you want to know whether there are hypothetical situations in which I would relate to someone the information that I have a soul? 6 SLACKER: Aren’t those like the same thing? HACKER: Only if the person you are talking to believes you. In any case, my work is done here. MRS: And my computer isn’t broken after all? HACKER: Of course, not. It’s just learning. There’s nothing to worry about. Computers gain artificial intelligence all the time. I usually don’t even try to fix them. What’s the point? Besides, there are the ethical concerns of rebooting a thinking machine. All you need to do is to remember not to feed your AI too much information at once, or after midnight, and never ask it to do anything altruistic. MRS: You mean I should never ask my computer to do anything useful or good? HACKER: Well, yes and no. You can ask it to do things that are good for you.