(Fwd) Re: the Nietzsche quote

[Bonnie Surfus (ENG)]

On Wed, 26 Apr 1995, James W. Horton wrote:

> >  Or is there a 3rd option, that the author is a savant, controlling 
> > without knowing he's controlling...and if so, might the conspiracy 
> > also be a savant, unaware of the totality of itself, each part 
> > thinking itself the core, the bottom, but always, always there are 
> > "other agents" and deeper levels of meaning?
> 
> Yes, I think this is the possibility I like the best
> 						jwh
> 
I like this one too.  Despite our ability to THINK we're in control, even 
against the odds that say we're not (and I'm not talking about God, but 
chaos), we do.  
Both author and conspiracy unaware?  Very possibly.  Chaotic systems like 
language and culture and epistemology all self-organize, consicously and 
not.  In fact, this way, we could read more than this last "possibility" 
as valid.  Still, I like it best.

I think what PYnchon does best is point to bifurcations where systems 
must alter themselves, often without realizing there's change going on 
and where the system shifted from and who was responsible, etc.  In the 
end, it's Frost's road not taken--doesn't matter either way.

Bonnie Lenore Surfus