PKD's "The Pre-Persons" (in The Golden Man)

[Extollager]

I'd like to start a thread on this story, but the thread is intended only for people who can discuss any aspect of it with respect for others as human beings. Evidently Joanna Russ didn't when she told PKD what she thought of his pro-life story.

I think at least three topics could be discussed:

(1) The story as a work of literary art, as a piece of fiction published in a magazine (Fantasy and Science Fiction) and a book

(2) The beliefs about the sacredness of life implied by the story, the story's satire of pro-abortion ideology (PKD does not use "pro-choice")

(3) The relevance of the story for PKD personally -- preferably without a lot of speculation

I will begin by throwing out the following comments:

I agree with PKD as regards being pro-life and opposed to permissive abortion laws. I am disappointed by the story because, in its second half especially, it seems to me to suggest that permissive abortion laws are to be blamed on women. I think that, if you grant that permissive abortion laws are wrong, men are at least as much to blame as women are. (a) A man should never have intercourse with a woman if he would not commit to the physical and spiritual rearing and security of any child born of that intercourse. Men who do not accept this are unmanly; they are like boys and should stick to m*********** or wet dreams until they can rule themselves and affirm the humanity of other people. (b) Especially at the time of Roe vs Wade, but now also, more men are legislators than women are. If permissive abortion laws are wrong, men are therefore more to blame than women.

I had read a little of PKD's difficulties as husband and boyfriend (although I have not read any of the biographies, just dipped in). He seems to have been messed up about women. Unfortunately that defect of his character intrudes itself in the story. I don't know what Russ said. I wonder if she would have moderated her comments to PKD if the story had stayed strictly with the issue of termination of life.

Finally, I think the story works as a story. It is not a political tract cynically exploiting the sf form as a way to make people read a message; it is a work of literary art, although not, to me, necessarily his most impressive story (compare "I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon," which practically brought tears to my eyes the other day on a second reading -- be it noted, this was at the point when the ex-wife promises to stay with the protagonist as long as he needs her; I find myself thinking that one of the things that most impresses me about PKD is how he conveys love; I'm reminded of how Ursula Le Guin conveys compassion; most sf authors I've read just don't negotiate these states of the soul). I'm reminded of Jonathan Swift.

 

[Fried Egg]

An excellent idea for a discussion. I myself have not long read this story and it definitely merits a discussion.

I'll start by declaring my personal beliefs are generally "pro-choice". That said, I like to believe that I can look past a difference of views with an author to appreciate a good story if indeed it is such. However, it has to be said that in this case I really didn't think it was a very good piece of "literary art". I didn't find the story itself very interesting or engaging and the same has to be said for the characters. But my main problem with it was the heavy handed and deeply one sided way in which he explored the issue. For me it really did come across as a "political tract cynically exploiting the sf form as a way to make people read a message". There was no subtlety or ambiguity in his approach. Not even the pretense at considering the other side of the argument, no room for doubt in the view that the author held was the correct one. For me, this is not a good way to write a story and to make their point.

As for the argument itself, I think he largely constructed a straw man. His contention was that the legal limit is essentially arbitary and that economic and political pressures would inexorably lead to that legal limit being extended. By conveying the absurdity of a society in which it was acceptable to abort up to the age of twelve, and by the asserting the idea that the legal limit is arbitary, he attempted to show that the current system is absurd. The flaw in his argument was in his assertion that the legal limit was arbitary because it was a judgement as to when a person attained a soul. No secular person would make such an argument because they don't believe in souls and I doubt a religous person would believe in such a point of distinction anyway. The legal limit is based on when a fetus has a sufficiently formed nervous system to feel pain.

Now, any legal limit on age is essentially arbitary in that it takes no account of the individual in question but that is not quite the same. The limit could never be extended indefinitely as happened in the story because this is a physiological condition and not a nebulous metaphysical condition as in the case of a soul. I don't know, perhaps the argument was different back then in 1960's America but as I understand the argument today, that is not how it is made.

So, although I condidered the argument flawed, I could have forgiven that if the story itself stood in it's own right. Unfortuntely, I think it failed in that regard to. Thus, it was one of his weaker stories that I have read. It does at least succeed in provoking thought and discussion though.

 

[Fried Egg]

As an aside, it is interesting how that we have one person who agreed with PKD's view on abortion and also thought it was a good story and one person who doesn't agree and didn't like the story. It will interesting to see if there are anybody who agree with him but dislike the story, or disagree with him but liked the story...

 

[D_Davis]

I'll read through this this week.

 

[Extollager]

Thanks, Fried Egg! Your response just the kind of commentary I was hoping to see. I hope there will be more responses from PKD fans.

 

[D_Davis]

It does make sense that PKD would be concerned about abortion issues given the fact that the overriding theme found in the majority of his work deals with the authenticity of the human experience.

One of the key components of the abortion debate is this: when does a fetus become a person?

Dick might make it even more basic, and simply ask: when is a person a person? And secondly: prove it.

 

[Extollager]

It does make sense that PKD would be concerned about abortion issues given the fact that the overriding theme found in the majority of his work deals with the authenticity of the human experience.

One of the key components of the abortion debate is this: when does a fetus become a person?

Dick might make it even more basic, and simply ask: when is a person a person? And secondly: prove it.

Perhaps the best we can do is to ask, instead: "At what point, if any, in the developmental process, from fertilized egg on, can we say with certainty that this is not a person and therefore it may be terminated with no possibility that in doing so we are committing murder?"

If we ask that question, we soon will realize that it is hard to define "person" in a way that satisfies both the scientific method and the intuitions of spirituality. Our cultural default is to appeal to the scientific method because it is held to yield "objective" information apart from untestable persuasions.

But this gets us into profound difficulties that have not yet, I think, been very openly and honestly faced. The chief one is this, that a statement in the indicative mood cannot lead us to statements in the imperative mood; we cannot get from "this is" to "we ought" and "we (ethically) may." And with regard to abortion we needed the latter kind of statement. Another problem with the appeal purely to "science" is that unadorned "science" does not support our social commitment to equality; we cannot get, from "science" as it is now understood, alone, to the "self-evident" truth that "all men are created equal." A rigorously science-based society will not be a democratic one.

Therefore, my argument is that since we cannot say with absolute certainty that what grows in a woman's womb is not human or is not a person at some stage of its existence, the safest stance is that we ought to treat it as if it were. Instead of resorting to abortion to avoid extremely difficult situations, men and women should avoid choices that cause them to arrive in the first place. People being people, that will never happen all the time, and we need humane ways to deal with the crises that will still arise. But I think that if there were a renewal of the sense of the "sacredness" (for want of a better single word) of human life, we would see not only fewer crisis pregnancies but a good change in other areas too. For example, we might become far less inclined to entertain ourselves with scenes of savage, mechanized violence, we Americans might become less inclined to engage in endless war (cf. Andrew Bacevich's Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War), etc.

I'm reminded, in the context of this last remark, of another PKD story, "Second Variety." In my mind these two stories go together as exposés of the way we live now and of the mind of Philip K. Dick. It is a story about how imagination of violence is so captivating. The disguised machines began as things imagined by men imagining the killing of other men.

 

[D_Davis]

Instead of resorting to abortion to avoid extremely difficult situations, men and women should avoid choices that cause them to arrive in the first place.

If people were this intelligent and responsible, we wouldn't need laws at all.



Take the helmet for instance. Rather than not doing things that would cause harm to the brain, humanity invents the helmet to offer some protection.

This is why I always laugh at the ideas proposed by extreme skeptics who long for a world of pure logic and reason.

This just in: human beings are entirely illogical and unreasonable. This is a crucial part of what makes us human.


However, the deal with abortion goes beyond the life/death of the fetus. It has more to do with the right of a woman to decide what is or is not growing inside of her. This parasitic/symbiotic relationship is what is really in question, and no one but the women in question should be able to decide what they should do.

 

[Fried Egg]

I just want to say that I don't intend to get into a general discussion about the rights and wrongs of abortion. I will confine my remarks to intepretations of PKD's argument that he made in this story. I am sure there are far better arguments out there against abortion than those made by Dick.

 

[Extollager]

Fried Egg, thanks for the nudge PKDwards. What about the issue, in this story, of "personhood"? Can we take this story as one facet of his preoccupation with personhood? Yet I hesitate a bit because "personhood" is so abstract, and in one PKD story after another, it's more than a matter for abstract philosophizing! I'm thinking that this gets back to the importance of love in PKD's stories and thought: you can't get very far talking about "personhood" without talking about love, and you can't get very far talking about love without dealing in some way with persons.

Furthermore, a writer may deal with love and personhood largely by their absences. Hmm -- I'll bet that you might get some insight into a number of PKD stories by asking: "To what degree is this story about love or its absence, the consequences, etc.?"

I think, finally, that he was interested also in the other things that can become the basis for human living arrangements other than love and care of persons. For example, in "The Hanging Stranger" (which I don't have at hand), isn't the counterfeit alien "community" that is developing based on something horribly subhuman, just a colonizing, disease-like, ruthless growth for its own sake? It acts violently towards what is not itself. But then could we not take the story to suggest something about how humans think, feel and behave when love and the sense of personhood have been banished from their lives by, say, "consumerism" in the broadest sense, where live is essentially the acquisition of possessions and experiences, at the expense of others?

 

[D_Davis]

I am sure there are far better arguments out there against abortion than those made by Dick.

Yeah - I wouldn't turn to PKD for anything concerning women.