Free Will and Alternative Realities (Mr. Baynes's Perspective)

On his travel back to Germany, Captain Rudolf Wegner (better known to the reader as Mr. Baynes) reflects on his actions and the dystopia that he lives in. Although Captain Wegner was successful in warning General Tedki about Operation Dandelion, he is not optimistic about the world’s future. Captain Wegner delves into a deep discussion about individual actions and their overall effects:

“Whatever happens, it is evil beyond compare. Why struggle, then? Why choose? If all alternatives are the same…” (pg. 246)

Yet, in just the previous chapter, Mr. Tagomi visits an alternative world that is very different than the world that Captain Wagner contemplates. Also, in the next chapter, the reader learns that the world in The Grasshopper Lies Heavy is the “real,” while the world that all characters live in is “fake.” Captain Wegner’s ideas conflict with the ongoing theme of the book—individual actions do matter and one change in an event can influence the entire make-up of the world.

Captain Wegner later sprinkles some hope when he talks about an alternative world:

“On some other world, possibly it is different. Better. There are clear good and bad alternatives. Not these obscure admixtures, these blends, with no proper tool by which to untangle the components." (pg. 246)

The characters in this novel are conscious of these alternatives. I point this out specifically in Captain Wegner’s case because although he does not experience a revelation in the same way as Juliana and Mr. Tagomi, he does acknowledge how the world could be different through his thoughts. Captain Wegner is interesting due to his stance on the matter. The two quotes I provided seem to butt heads; the first quote opposes free will, but the second quote speaks of alternate realities. Captain Wegner does not use the I Ching to guide his life, but still struggles with theses concepts of free will; this a common motif weaved into the text of the book.

METACLASS

As I revisit the novel, Man in the High Castle, to find quotes for the outline, I stumbled upon another potential line of foreshadow (someone mentioned another one earlier in the blog). When Frank Frink consults the oracle on becoming a jeweler he receives a convoluted response that involves both good fortune and doom. He reflects, “You can’t have good fortune and doom simultaneously. Or...can you?” (51).

This quote reminded me of our debate in the first few weeks of class on ignorant bliss vs. truth. At the very end of the novel, when Julianna discovers the truth of the Grasshopper Lies Heavy, she has a different opinion on the revelation than Hawthorne and his wife do. On the one hand, Julianna is thrilled to discover the truth and claims to be lucky because she finally knows her reality. The last paragraph of the novel portrays a romantic into-the-sunset ending for her, in which her life appears to be blissful and at balance. On the other hand, Hawthorne and his wife are distraught by the truth and refuse to admit it to themselves. Mrs. Abdensen goes so far as to comment about Juliana, “‘Do you know what you are? This girl is a daemon...She’s terribly, terribly disruptive,’” (258). The very same truth caused both bliss and pain. So again, the answer comes down to perception, which implies ambiguity.

I’m starting to think that Truth, Lies, and Literature is a meta-class that forces us to question our own reality and thoughts by reading novels so that we feel distant from ourselves. Thus far, what I have taken away is that we can only question without expectation for a definitive answer, because I’m starting to think that there are none. However, in questioning is where we learn our own answers.

We have talked in class about how when the I Ching actually gives a true prediction, it is true because the oracle’s predictions are so vague that users can interpret them based on what they feel is true. Dick seems to support this idea. When Frank Frink gets an answer from the oracle that contradicts itself, giving him a good omen and a bad omen, he decides that the good omen was about Edfrank Jewelry but the bad omen referred to “something deeper, some future catastrophe probably not even connected with the jewelry business” (p. 51). This could refer to anything, especially in a world with such potential for nuclear war. Therefore, when Frink decides this refers to a Third World War, this comes from his own personal fears and not from a direct communication by the oracle.

At the end of the book, Juliana and Abendsen ask the oracle why it wrote The Grasshopper Lies Heavy. They receive the hexagram that means “Inner Truth.” If I had been in their place I would have decided that it meant that the themes of The Grasshopper Lies Heavy were true, or as with The Things They Carried that the truth was emotional rather than literal. But both Juliana and Abendsen immediately decide that it means everything in The Grasshopper Lies Heavy is the truth, the Axis powers lost the war, and that their reality is false. I feel we have to assume that Juliana and Abendsen make this interpretation because they have had previous suspicions, perhaps similar to the experience Mr. Tagomi had with the Edfrank pin. Juliana and Abendsen are reading the I Ching like we read The Man in the High Castle in this class. The truth we pull out is based on what we already know or believe. I think that if we as readers can take from The Man in the High Castle that we should question our reality, it is not because this is what Dick is telling us directly, but because we have found reason in our lives to question our realities.

"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination." John Lennon

One particular section of the novel, The Man in the High Castle, that I found especially enlightening was towards the very end of the work when Julianna Frink is about to reach the writer of The Grasshopper Lies Heavy. Although I have sadly forgotten the novel back at Hamilton during Fall Break, I can paraphrase one of the thoughts she has in the novel. Essentially, she mentions that it is her belief that her reading of Grasshopper is the correct reading; no one else's interpretation comes close to matching her own interpretation. I feel as if this is important to mention because of the true irony located in her thoughts at the precise moment she has them. In fact, she is on her way to visit the author of the novel. By standard thinking, we might presume that the author has the most correct interpretation of the 'correctness' of interpretations. This idea seems to represent the fact that it is nearly impossible to determine if an interpretation is correct or not; we can only rely on our own thoughts and what we make of the text.

Another question that I thought of when I finished reading the novel was how forged this fake reality of a world was. No one seems to question the influx of fake historical goods and the constant supply of these great artifacts from the past. Furthermore, Abendsen doesn't seem to be a hard figure to kill, if the Nazi's really wanted him dead. Abendsen is listed in the phonebook, I wonder why the Germans can't just bomb his location-it would hardly be the worst of anything they've done. Instead, they rely on a spy attempting to find a woman to court Abendsen-it all just feels too complicated when a bomb could easily wipe out the address. Thus, it seems that Abendsen may be in fact living between both worlds and able to save his own soul by focusing completely on the true reality, the reality of his writing. Thus, he can escape by consulting his own reality.

The Allegory of the Cave by Plato seems to illustrate this scenario that the individuals of The Man in the High Castle live in perfectly. In the Allegory of the Cave, prisoners are chained up in a cave and forced to watch shadows on a wall in front of them. This scenario is the reality for these prisoners. They have watched from birth and believe that everything that they witness is the actual world. Eventually, someone breaks free from the chains and climbs up into the world, our world. There, they can see the light and realize that all their lives they had been living in this fake reality. Abendsen, in a sense, seems to have gained this knowledge. Yet, Plato would argue that he is not doing enough to convince the people of the false reality. When the chosen philosopher-king has made his way up to gain knowledge, it is his duty to go back down into the cave and convince the rest of the prisoners that they are living in a false reality. Yet, the prisoners will not easily accept this information and will more often than not attempt to kill the bringer of true knowledge.

And finally, as Stephen Colbert assures us, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Reality > Illusions ?

I definitely agree with Alyssa’s point that having an escape can bring you happiness. However, after reading The Man In The High Castle and Cat’s Cradle, I think that having an escape from reality creates a form of destruction rather than happiness. At some point, the escape stops being temporary for that person and becomes the actual reality, which can be dangerous. For example, in The Man In The High Castle, the characters consistently consult the I Ching for advice. On the surface, the I Ching provides some kind of relief and joy because they don’t have to worry about particular situations; they are able to behave accordingly to what the I Ching tells them. But after some point they become so reliant on it, that they are unable to view reality. As a result, when the Frank, Juliana, and Tagomi find out they’ve been living a false reality, their personal realities are destroyed because what they thought existed was never there. Trapped within the illusions from the I Ching, the characters are unable to acknowledge their false reality.

In Cat’s Cradle, the citizens of San Lorenzo use the religion Bokononism to escape their poverty stricken lives. However, they emerge themselves within the religion so much that they are unable to think and behave for themselves without the guidance from Bokononism; their reality is Bokononism and the lies it provides. After ice-nine has destroyed the world, the remaining survivors immediately look to Bokonon for counsel on how to continue with their lives. The citizens comply with Bokonon’s advice by killing themselves. This inability to distinguish reality from Bokononism resulted in the demise of the people.

From reading The Man In The High Castle and Cat's Cradle, we should acknowledge that escape from reality causes more harm than good. It may be possible that reality is more pleasant than the illusions we create.

In every book we have read so far, there is always some sort of reference to an escape from reality. This made me wonder, is reality really that bad? In some cases no but everyone has those days when its just too much to handle. Having an escape is justifiable, to some extent. What Im trying to say is that its not ok to go through life in a complete fantasy world but its ok to have something that gives you a temporary escape from the harness that life can sometimes bring. Like Dick talked about in The Man in the High Castle, “Perhaps if you know you are insane, then you are not insane. Or are becoming sane, finally.” You are only crazy if you don’t realize that you are living in a fantasy world. In other words, you are free to escape reality you just cant forget the “truth.”

The reason that having an escape is justifiable is because what good is it to go through life miserable? Your not doing any good for yourself, your community, or the world if your burnt out and depressed. Having an escape allows you to find happiness even in your darkest days. I think being happy is one of the keys to life. If and when all else fails, your still happy then that is the only thing that matters. That in and of itself implies that you have led a successful life. That’s my opinion of course; at the end of it all when your asked, “well are you happy?” and you can confidently answer “yes” then you have lived a good life.

Foreshadowing?

Just something I came across as I was looking back into our reading: When Paul says, “An entire new world is pointed to, by this [the pin]” (p. 176). Is this foreshadowing of how the pin will later point to a “new world” (actual reality) when Mr. Tagomi tries to connect to it, or am I reading too much into this?

Relics & Artifacts

Our class discussion regarding the role of art in The Man In The High Castle prompted me to re-inspect the passage where Paul is describing his “certain emotional fondness” of Childan’s pin (p. 175). Paul notes the differences between a relic and an artifact that I think could add to what we said about the role of art in this novel. A relic can be defined as surviving memorial of something past, such as the ancient medieval shinbone that Paul describes. An artifact is something made by human beings; the pin made by Frank Fink that Paul and Childan are discussing. Paul notes that the shinbone has more historicity than the pin, so one could possibly assume that the shinbone therefore is more “authentic.” However, Paul goes on to discuss authenticity on a level of individual feeling, and “wu.” Through a relic, one can “experience awareness of wu” by looking at the object (p. 176). In this case, the wu is solely within the viewer. An artifact accomplishes much more because the artificer had wu, which he allowed to flow into the piece. Wisdom and understanding are no longer just within the viewer, but strengthened by the wu of the artificer. By contemplating what a certain artifact may “satisfy…we gain more wu ourselves” (p. 176).

Paul therefore connects relics to historicity, and artifacts to a deeper human emotion. What then is more authentic, the relic or the artifact? This is strikingly similar to the quandary in The Things They Carried with the two types of truth; happening truths and emotional truths. I suppose then that each is authentic in a different way, and as we decided in The Things They Carried, it is up to the individual to decide which they believe more. We may choose to believe the relic because we know the definite facts behind the object. Or we may choose to believe the artifact, because through contemplation, we may gain completely new insight that gives a stronger sense of emotional truth. Or maybe we don’t have to choose; we can believe both. Despite what we choose, we still understand that art is very influential in what is deemed “authentic,” even if that definition of authenticity begins to shift.

Truth & Reality

Philip K. Dick’s The Man in the High Castle is an exploration of the purpose and power of fiction. Fiction offers us an alternate reality where we can explore new possibilities and open our minds to more than one perspective that we would otherwise not consider. It is far easier to escape into a fictional world, than to face reality. Thus, the poignancy of the book lies not in the stories, but in Dick’s use of fiction as a means of enlightening us and broadening our horizons—broadening our sense of reality and forcing us to question it.

The first alternate reality takes place fourteen years after World War II, where the Axis Powers are victorious. The Grasshopper Lies Heavy, the book-within-a-book, postulates yet another alternate reality, where the Axis Powers lose World War II to the Allies but with a different sequence of events. By showing that every character in the book is living a false reality, Dick brings forth the frightening concept that perhaps there does not exist a central “true” reality. Perhaps there are only several juxtaposed layers of alternate realities and we just happen to be living in one of them.

Another important point Dick makes is through the I-Ching, which symbolizes how reality is subjective and swayed by perspective. Regardless of what results the I-Ching produces, the terms we are left with (like “pleasure” and “clarity”) are so vague that they are ultimately left to our own personal interpretation. Consequently, there is no concrete answer or reality beyond our inner truth.

If we want to take this concept even further, since truth is based on perspective, we could say that truth could be everywhere. And if truth is everywhere, truth is also nowhere. And so we find ourselves back at square one asking ourselves what is truth? What is reality? Is there such a thing?

Perhaps if you know you are insane then you are note insane. Or are you becoming sane, finally. Waking up. I supposed only a few are aware of all this. Isolated persons here and there. But the broad masses…what do they think? […] Do they imagine that they live in a sane world? Or do they guess, glimpse, the truth…? (41)

"Tone Is Everything"

When I first began reading The Man In The High Castle I couldn’t help but become frustrated with the short staccato way in which Mr. Tagomi talked. The sentences are succinct and terse, and do not flow. There are no emotions or added detail. I feel as if I am reading a brief report which gives only the facts, not reading a novel or listening to a dialogue. Now, however, I am realizing that the tone with which each character talks is intentional and important. There is a clear difference between the Juliana’s dialogue and Mr. Tagomi’s. Also, within Mr. Tagomi’s sections, there is a difference between the narrator’s sentences and the sentences which ‘originate’ in Mr. Tagomi’s mind.

Dick warns through one of his characters, “Tone is everything” (240), and now I’m beginning to understand why. In this example, tone is important because it declares place in a society that values this above all else. The tone with which a man talks, including the conciseness with which he says it, portrays his influence and standing among those around him. For me, though, it portrays something different. The lack of emotion portrays a sense of urgency and a world where people simply “go through the motions”. Tagomi’s thoughts are expressed without emotion or opinion. There is no inclusion of superfluous thought. This reminds me of the use of the I Ching. The I Ching removes responsibility from the user. The amount of value the characters place in the I Ching prevent them from having to take responsibility for their actions since they believe the I Ching holds all of the power. If a person has no control or responsibility over his own life, how can he truly live it? Instead, I believe that this person simply goes through the motions while never actually experiencing it.

I view this in stark contrast to Juliana’s life, whose dialogue contains emotions and details. Her thoughts are expressed completely and flow together in a more natural way than those of Mr. Tagomi. She also takes responsibility for her actions and does not consult the I Ching as often as other characters. Her actions are more powerful than those of the other characters and she is portrayed as a very strong and independent woman. Although she adores having Joe around, she overcomes him in both a physical and mental battle when her ‘moment of truth’ comes. At this moment she develops a more complete understanding of the world in which she has been living and learns her role in it.

Symbolism

A major focus in The Man in the High Castle is on the significance of material objects, in particular, the value of real and fake goods. Three instances in the book highlight this topic particularly well. Wyndham-Matson, a collector, possesses two relatively similar zippo lighters, one that was in FDR’s pocket at the time of his assassination and one that is artificial. Even though the lighters look quite similar, Matson places a much higher value in FDR’s lighter as opposed to the artificial lighter, because FDR’s lighter contains “historicity”. Likewise, Childan, a merchant of old American goods, is mortified when he realizes he is selling potentially fraudulent guns. The perceived history behind the lighters and the guns is what determines their value, yet this history is impossible to prove, rendering the value to be arbitrary. The closest verification we can achieve is a certificate of authenticity, but even that can be forged. We also read about the supposed “wu” (inner-truth) of the pins that Frank and Ed are creating. The experience of this wu is left up entirely to interpretation; people can experience wu differently, some may not experience it at all. The underlying theme of these three examples is that, in this book, the value of material objects is determined by the intangible significance people arbitrarily place in them.

This application of value to an object based on interpretation reminds me of how we analyze books. We extract certain lines from a book and add our personal interpretation to them, in order to give them meaning. The basic point of symbolism is to read an object or event as representing something greater than its presence at face value. However, most of the symbolism we find in books can have different interpretations, depending on who is reading the book.

We discussed in class that The Man in the High Castle is a metaphor for reading a book. I think Dick constructed a piece of this metaphor by writing about people literally using symbolism, by attaching value to material goods based on their interpretation of the significance of those goods, similar to the way readers assign value to certain words, images and objects in books. However, Dick constructed a world where people cannot distinguish between the authentic and the artificial and result in placing value arbitrarily based on only what they think is true. This phenomenon sends me, as a reader, the message to not even try to determine the “truth” in a book, because it is impossible to determine. I should instead value the parts of the book that mean something to me, while realizing that my interpretation is purely personal and may not hold much value to a different reader.

Anchor Points

Where I come from, astrology is big deal and this is established the moment you are born. Once you are out of your mother’s womb, an astrologer prepares a paper marking the cosmic coordinates of your birth and this paper stays with you all your life. This paper is a pretty important marker of a person’s identity. It is also somewhat like the I Ching in the sense that people consult astrologers regarding whether a certain life decision would be favorable according to their birth papers. In fact, it’s common practice to get birth papers “matched” in order to decide whether two people should get married. I know that at least in my house, this paper is guarded better than my birth certificate. Sabrina pointed out in class how it is ironic that the birth certificate is such a flimsy paper. Well, this paper is even flimsier. It is handmade. It gets rolled up like an ancient scroll and is wrapped over with a piece of red cloth. I have never taken actually one good look at my birth certificate, but I would be devastated if I were to lose this roll of paper, or if I were to find out that it’s not “authentic.”

What we consider the “anchor points” of our identity, I guess, largely depends on our cultural backgrounds, our history. This becomes relevant in the scope of an alternate world too. In the book The Man in the High Castle, Childan considers the artifacts in his shop to be a mark of his heritage. In a world where his culture had been invaded and was prone to die out, the genuine Americana became his anchor point. If he were in the current world, it is unlikely that would happen. In the alternate world of the book, it is common for people to change names or even their faces. In the current world, our names and our faces would be considered pretty valid anchor points to us.

It just goes on to show how our identities are interlaced with our culture. After all, what is in a name? Why does the authenticity of FDR’s lighter matter? Why do I connect my identity to a roll of paper that has a lot of archaic words that I don’t understand and a bunch of numbers scribbled on a Sudoku-like grid work? Except in the light of culture and history, our idea of identity almost seems arbitrary.

What does authenticity mean?

Throughout Man in the High Castle we see the struggle of authenticity and really begin to wonder what it actually means. Or better yet, why it matters. For an item to be authentic it has to be the real deal, that the facts are straight. But what if there is an emotional attachment to an item it can be just as authentic, even if it does not have a piece of paper with it that supposedly verifies it.

When I was little, I was sick a lot and my brother wanted to go to the dollar store really bad and I could not stay home alone. So, he convinced me to go by telling me to take my prized possession, Mr. Bear (my naming creativity when I was younger to this day amazes me), along for the trip because he would make me feel better. When I got home, he was missing. We thought I left Mr. Bear in the car, we soon found out that I actually left him in the store. My mother dutifully drove back, only to find out that the woman who owned the store sold him.

That year for Christmas Mr. Bear was under the tree. I was three or four at the time, so it was some real Christmas magic. I thought Santa had brought Mr. Bear back to me and, unsurprisingly, was absolutely delighted. The magic was lost when I realized the truth about Santa, but only for a moment. Maybe this was not the same Mr. Bear that I had lost all those years ago, but he had been there longer, so the authenticity did not phase me. I loved the bear, still do, and he is Mr. Bear, there is no identity crisis there. So he’s not the authentic Mr. Bear, but he became the authentic one with the emotional attachment.

One can understand why authenticity matters, however. It is much like the truth in story telling we discussed in The Things They Carried. We do not like to be lied to, if a story is told like it is true, it better be true. But what is considered true depends on the person, and I think likewise authenticity has to take emotional attachment into account and varies person to person.

Yep, Mr. Bear is at college now, chilling with a bust of JFK.

Can you feel the historicity?

In The Man in the High Castle, Wyndham-Matson claims that out of his two almost identical lighters, one was in the pocket of President Roosevelt when he was assassinated and one wasn’t. One has “historicity” and one is a copy. However it is almost impossible to tell the difference between the two, although President Roosevelt’s lighter is worth thousands of times more than the fake. All that he has to differentiate between the two is a certificate of authenticity. He asks his guest if she can feel the historicity of the historical lighter, and of course she cannot. But I think historicity could be a valid concept, depending on the significance of an object to a person; however it is less of a feeling and more of a memory connected to an object.

As we talked about this in class I began to consider myself whether “historicity” is important to me. Honestly, I think it is. If I were to order a signed poster from my favorite singer, I would want it to be authentic. It would have no meaning to me if the singer hadn’t signed it herself. It would not have any “historicity.” I know that you cannot technically feel the historicity of an object, but if I knew something was authentic I would feel more connected to the actual person (in this case). For this very reason I would never order a signed poster on the computer. I would want to get a signature in person so I myself could know for sure that the signature was authentic. Not only that, but by getting it signed in person I would have a memory to connect myself with the signature. The signed poster would have more meaning to me than one I could buy online even if I knew 100% that the one on the computer was authentic.

Now if I had this poster, it might not mean much to most people, however I do think some of the historicity could be transferred to another fan of the singer. If I told my story to that person about how I got it signed and what it was like meeting the singer, they would also feel connected to the signature on the poster. They might be also able to feel its “historicity.” However if that person told their friends the story of how I got the poster signed, and those friends told their friends (I know this is an unlikely situation, but just roll with it), there would be a growing disconnect between each of these new groups of people and their knowledge of my poster and in turn, some “historicity” would be lost. It is my guess that it would mean far less to the 100^th person who hears of my poster signing adventure than the 2^nd person because they would have learned from a friend who was not there to witness the actual event.

I can see how it would be almost impossible to truly feel the “historicity” of a historical object, unless you were actually a witness of the event. If Wyndham-Matson had actually been a witness to the assassination of President Roosevelt, he might not have been kidding about being able to feel the “historicity” of the lighter. The lighter would in that case be a trigger for a memory and it would have significance that a replica would not have. However if I held that lighter (if I was in the world depicted in The Man in the High Castle of course), I would not be able to connect the lighter with my own memory and I probably wouldn’t know why it was more important than the replica. But if Wyndham-Matson had told me a firsthand account of Roosevelt’s assassination and how he had come to acquire the actual lighter (assuming that it was the real lighter and that he was trust worthy), I might have felt differently about the lighter. The “historicity” would be there.

On Thursday we talked about authentic in class and then some mention the fact that both the actual book we are reading is not authentic because it focuses on an alternate universe. Also the book inside the book, the grass Hopper lies heavy, is another unauthentic universe on how the world would be if the allies how one. In reality the allies did win but the book inside the book doesn’t depict the actual facts.

The grass Hopper lies heavy is based on two things one being that FDR wasn’t assassinated and two that Italy had to betray the Axis, but then again if they had won they would have been the allies. I can somewhat see why in that book it would take Italy to win the war, because of the out come of World War

I.(I was unaware of the assassination attempts on FDR)

Then again the author was on freaking acid, while he wrote this (or maybe he wrote it on the calm down…) then was he himself authentic. Obviously drugs alter your state of mind, and so how can we know that it was his authentic self the person we can see and acknowledge that wrote the book.

The book also raises the topic of authenticity in the historicity of an object. Most of the collectors are Japanese and the I Ching, which is a Chinese object, plays a huge role in the lives of people. The book doesn’t display the dominance of Japanese culture other than the bowing. In a sense the book makes a mockery of the lack of authentic Japanese cultural presence.

Double Consciousness

After class on Tuesday, I attended my philosophy class contemporary moral issues with Professor Werner. I have referenced him before in my blog posts because so much of what we discuss can be applied to the novels we have read. In class we examine everything from gay marriage, sexism and racism, to capital punishment. This class in particular the term double consciousness arose. I have never heard of it before; alike most moral beliefs we discuss. Double consciousness is most commonly experienced within an individual member of a minority amongst a greater population. This concept states that you know how to behave when you are around another culture, and adjust to their customs, their beliefs, accents, etc. But then goes on to say that while your amongst your own minority, you act naturally and differently than you would amongst a majority group. You don’t only act differently, but you think differently. Whether it is subconscious or you are aware of the way you are acting is debatable. Not only is this sense developed in settings where religion, race, or culture clash but it can be applied to situations such as school. For example, I speak differently to teachers in class then I do to my friends.

Double consciousness is important because I believe that it can be applied to The Man in the High Castle and seen throughout the novel. The difference between cultures seems to be a conflict addressed throughout the book thus far. I think that Robert Childan and Joe have experienced this double consciousness. Childan witnesses it at dinner with the Asian couple of Paul and Betty Kasouras. Although he may not have adjusted to their culture, he was respectful of it and aware that he did not belong from the minute he drove onto the street due to the nice cars, the clean-cut lawns, and the beautiful apartments. The gap between the two cultures was very noticeable as he was a white man amongst and Asian family meal. “He wondered if they too sensed the unbridgeable hap between themselves and him” (Dick, 115). Also, I believe Joe experiences this throughout his relationship with Juliana. It is obvious that he is Italian, but tries his best in public to blend in with society by hiding his accent, dressing the part, and keeping a lot of his stories secret to avoid the cultural barrier it would create. Racial and religious differences are prevalent in The Man in the High Castle, and this creates a moral sense of double consciousness within the characters.