I'm pretty dubious. The most interesting thing to me about this piece is that it addresses something I didn't hear anyone talking about at Potlatch this past weekend: the rough edges of Dick's work. My feeling about most of what I've read of his early stuff is that it takes a hodgepodge of unlikely pulp tropes and throws them together into something with a little more depth to it, but still something that you can only enjoy if you don't mind pulp tropes. But I completely disagree with Gary Westfahl about Dick's later work; in particular, I found The Transmigration of Timothy Archer to be a wonderfully rich and mature work, albeit only barely sf. It's by far my favorite of what I've read of Dick's work. That site I linked to calls it "an anguished, learned, and very moving investigation of the paradoxes of belief," which I think is an excellent description.

I am also extremely dubious about the universal merits of "adventurous" writing in the sense of not knowing how the story is going to come out when you start. I've written stories that way, and they don't work nearly as well as when I have a pretty good general idea of where I'm going from the start. Also, I've read a fair number of stories that looked to me like the author didn't know at first where they were going, and I generally think such stories tend to feel unfocused. (Of course, sometimes the author later tells me that everything about the story was meticulously planned and intentional from the start, and I end up looking foolish for thinking it wasn't.) Anyway, my real point is that different writers work differently; some produce their best work from outlines, some lose interest in a story if they have to outline it first. Saying that one approach inherently leads to more interesting stories doesn't seem reasonable to me—though of course he's entitled to his own tastes.