Cycles

[Bonnie Surfus (ENG)]

On Tue, 30 May 1995, Andrew Dinn wrote:

> Dkipen at aol.com writes: > > > Two more narratives with their tails in
their mouths: the first Moebian story > > in John Barth's Lost in the
Funhouse, and the choral part of Beethoven's > > Ninth Symphony, which
begins and ends with the same sung line (which, > > considering how many
other times it crops up in between, you'd think I'd > > remember...) > >
I'm sorry to poop on this party, something I seem to be doing quite a >
lot these days, but, entertaining as it is hypothesiswise, not only am > I
not particularly convinced by the `Now everyone - A screaming...' >
juxtaposition that `Gravity's Rainbow' has it's tail in its mouth, as >
'twere, moreover (hey, you're lucky I didn't throw in a > notwithstanding)
- moreover, I don't see anything else in the book to > make the
presumption of such a cycle respectable. Joyce had reasons of > his own
for making his story repeat itself - not the least of which > being
Finnegan, begin again (let's not re-enter that debate). But did > Pynchon?
> > Sure there are cycles all over the place. But there are all sorts of >
other structures too, most notably the rocket parabola. I have written >
before that motion under a central force can also include hyperbolic > and
elliptical trajectories, a circle being a special (very special) > case of
the latter but... it looks pretty unequivocal that in this > case the
rocket is on the downside of a parabola, only a small delta-z > above
impact. It would be a pretty (beautifully) transcendent miracle > if *any*
rocket resisted that ole gravity and escaped into elliptical > orbit (or
better still hyper(bolic)space). `You didn't think you would > be exempt'
THEY inquire rhetorically of Slothrop, poor sap - who, it > turns out,
*does* escape at a bare crossroads, denuded of cares, `just > feeling'. >
> But I think Pynchon's message is all too clear, foax. It's 1970 and >
this rocket that was launched 25 years ago is going to hit ground > pretty
soon and unless we take evasive action there will be time for > nothing
more than to join hands with the people in the neighbouring > seats or put
your head between your legs and kiss your arse goodbye - > now there's a
latter-day Ourouboros, full of cosmic resonance for this > shit-recycling
society we live in. So you can all pray that by some > miracle the book is
pointing us back into its own hermetically sealed > script but it takes
the neck of an ostrich to stick your head that far > up your own backside
and I think TRP knows way too much about human > biology (and its psychic
correlates) to recommend such a trick. > > > Andrew Dinn > ----------- > O
alter Duft aus Maerchenzeit / Berauschest wieder meine Sinne > Ein
naerrisch Heer aus Schelmerein / Durchschwirrt die leichte Luft
> 

I've never attempted to "do" anything with,impose upon, etc., etc. GR 
because I've only read the book once.  Now, as I reread, I find different 
ways of making (my) meanings in the work.

Something funny in this post of Andrew's (not "funny," uninformed, or 
ridiculous--in fact, the argument would kick my @#_* if I didn't have a 
bit of confidence.)  Andrew says that it would be miraculous if a rocket 
could escape gravity and move into an elliptical orbit.  Seems so.  But, 
for my reading, this miracle is the possiblity explored by Ilya 
Prigogine and Isabel Stengers (who, sadly, is often left out of any 
mention of Prigogine's work, despite her contribution to the Nobel Prize 
winning _Order out of Chaos_.)   Their view notes entropy as an agent 
responsible (at times) for creating order from disorder.  The argument is 
grounded in a revision of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  The 2nd law 
says that (I know, we all know) entropy increases in closed systems, 
encouraging, ultimatley, a "universal tendency toward dissipation." 
(Thomson 514).  This meant the world was heading for "heat death."  But 
Prigogine and Stengers see entropy as an agent responsible for generating 
increasing complexity, not death.  Hayles says that "they calculate that 
in systems far from equilibrium, entropy production is so high that local 
decreases in entropy can take place without violating the second law.  
Under certain circumstances, this mechanism allows a systems to engage in 
spontaneious self-organization" (Chaos and Order 13).  This allowed them 
to suggest that "the universe has a capacity to renew itself"  (C&O 13).

Another reason I was reluctant to post my thoughts on O structure in GR 
is because of the "interruption" of Werner Von Braun's beautifully 
transcendent proclamation that opens the text--just before the 
announcement of the V-2's just past-arrival.  I thought it would "mess 
up my theory."  But actually, Andrew forces me to rethink the whole 
thing, only to feel more fully my convictions concerning the text.  So, 
do I see the text as redemptive?  In a way, yes.  That's not to say that 
"certain local decreases" in entropy don't disturb--systems like those 
that generate highly structured scenarios like those at Blicero's house 
in the woods.  But then, there are the highly structured Preterit songs 
that offer another example of a decrease in entropy.  One is no stronger 
than the other as, on the whole, there is redeeming value in even the 
destructive forces that operate in the text--as they hurl the system 
towards renewal.  So. . .
		Nature does not know extinction; all it knows is 
		transformation.  Everything science has taught me, and 
		continues to teach me, strengthens my belief in the 	
		continuity of our spiritual existence after death.
WVB's statement here might, in a way, be seen as an apologia for the 
action of the text--from end to beginning to middle, etc., etc.

Then there's the argument concerning cognition--readers CANNOT find 
redemptive value in GR without what Hayles refers to as "personal 
annihilation," the rocket penetrating our skulls.  She says "to remain 
conscious is to resist Return, and to REturn is to experience the 
annihilation of consciousness that Slothrop foreshadows for us when he 
dissipates into the underlying field of the cosmos" (The Cosmic Web 
194).  In a way, I think Hayles is conceding to the oppositions here, as 
she foresees the arguments that will undoubtedly come her way in light of 
hte wealth of lit crit that says the book is largely apolcalyptic.
But she turns on her earlier assertion concerning the reader's 
participation in the text--that which can offer information--thus 
increasing the complexity that thereby encourages the production of 
entropy that may push the limit.  IN this scenario, the possibility of 
return increases, according to Prigogine and Stengers' view.  Hayles says 
that ". . . interfaces are not barriers, but points of exchange, surfaces 
through which two orders of being can interpenetrate.  This raises the 
possibility of a holistic field that transcends and includes the 
interface.  As the interface is thus transformed from the boundary that 
cognitive consciousness perceives it to be to the permeable membrane it 
can become in the field view, Return returns agan as a possibility" (CW 181.)

So the interface forces entropy to increase in the text, which forces 
and increase in local decreases, thereby increasing the possibility of 
return.  BUT. . . this is all contingent upon the interface--which is, of 
course contingent upon the reader and her/his cognitive matrix.  Here, 
you've seen a bit of the current configuration of mine.

Bonnie