The Dice Man

Last night I watched a British documentary about Luke Rhinehart and his book The Dice Man. (I didn’t know that Luke Rhinehart was a pseudonym; his real name is George Cockcroft.) Several of my friends have recommended this book to me, but I didn’t feel that the story appealed to me. Seeing the documentary, I found that it to a greater extent than I had realized was intended as a philosophy of life: that you transfer the control to the die.

In the documentary, they interviewed a lot of people for which the book had meant a lot, that actually had used or were still using dice in their lives. Some used dicing for things such as choosing nailpolish or what to drink for dinner, while others used it for more “daring” things like going to a prostitute or smashing your neighbor’s window.

One thing I like with this principle is that it suggests that you can’t fully control the course of things, so you might as well transfer control to the die. Another thing I like is the idea that everything is illusion, so starting to use dicing is only swapping one illusion (that life can be controlled) for another (that the die can control your life). But as a philosophy of life, I am very skeptic. Cockcroft said in the documentary that it can be used as a technique, but as with any technique it should be left behind when it has taken you where you wanted to go.

In the documentary, they also let Cockcroft interview people on the street about what dreams they had but could not pursue, and made them dice about it. Surprisingly many of the dreams were things that weren’t impossible to pursue. They said things like “I want to learn to play the piano,” or “I want to write books”. Sure, there were more dramatic dreams too, such as “I want to sell my apartment and all my things, quit my job and travel around the world.”

As for learning the piano and becoming a writer, there probably is something else besides fear hindering the people to pursue their dreams. I guess they have a feeling that it just isn’t something they can do. Of course there’s fear, too, but probably not as much as for the one who wanted to break free and travel. This “something” that stands in the way is perhaps something that could be overcome by transferring the control to an external entity, such as dice.

In the book, the main character dices about things such as whether to rape or murder people, and I find this a strange way to “sell” a philosophy. Apparently, there are people who have interpreted it as, if they use dicing to determine whether to go to a prostitute or commit a crime, this would benefit themselves in some way. One of the book’s fans that they interviewed said that he sometimes used the die to get an excuse for doing something he knows he shouldn’t do, but wants to. I am skeptical about this part.

Sure, actually dicing about such things and “obeying” the die, should it vote in favor of acting out a “forbidden” desire, could in theory be a way to explore what that desire is about. But I feel that the entire dicing principle (as I’ve interpreted it from my friends telling me about the book, and the documentary) is directed more towards the “doing scary stuff” part, and away from the “why you want to do it, and why you won’t allow yourself” part. It bypasses the “whys” via the die. And that’s more about denial than self-exploration and seeing things for what they are, which is why I’m skeptic.

But I want to read the book to find out more about what it’s about. I also found a book about the theory, The Book of the Die (also by “Luke Rhinehart”), which might be interesting. But it’s not the first books on my wish list.