Rainbow god circle confusion

[MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu]

A. Dinn chides B. McCary thusly:

>Brian D. McCary writes:
>
>> 	Not exactly.  Rainbbows don't exist so much as appear.  You
>> can see round "rainbows" with the right light on a foggy night, and
>> you are correct that the arc is basically circular, not parabolic.
>> However, the reason you can't find the end of the rainbow is that
>> they don't really exist: they are an optical phenomenon, not a
>> physical one.  They are not located up in the sky.  If they can be
>> said to be located anywhere at all, it is on the retina.

A. Dinn chides:

>For goodness sake! Isn't the moon's pale fire also an optical
>phenomenon not a physical one? Does this locate moonlight on yer
>eyeball?  Rainbows do of course exist just as much as sunlight or the
>the particular shade of red used on Prentice Hall computer science
>texts (variant lighting conditions notwithstanding) or the concept of
>optical phenomena or whatever else. Watch that baby, what with that
>plug hole right next door.

McCary continues:

>> This is
>> why I find them to be such an apt metaphore in the book: they are
>> not quite material, not quite illusion, sort of the conspirisy that
>> isn't.  Proving they aren't where they appear to be is extremely
>> difficult, especially to the casual observer.

And Dinn gets downright opaque:

>Actually, rainbows are exactly what they appear to be to the casual
>observer and no more. The real problem is disabusing people of the
>conspiratorial constructs their particular paranoia jerry-builds
>behind the rainbow.

So I chime in:

The real question, since this isn't an elementary science list, last time I checked, 
isn't what's a rainbow but what's the title GRAVITY'S RAINBOW about?  Perhaps 
A. Dinn would say that the title is exactly what it appears to be to the casual 
observer and no more, thereby satisfying himself that the question is put to rest.  
but most of us expect a little more from his often breathtaking posts.  

Before things get out of hand (I see--on my mind's retina that is--A. Dinn turning 
angrily to his six-gun keyboard. Why, I'll get that hombre, he mutters, as he 
prepares to zing me through the ether), I'm not trying to start another DFW war or 
anything, nor am I challenging Andrew to a bout of sarcastic ripostes, though I 
must say  that I was put off by the dismissive tone of his reply to McCary, esp. when 
that reply leads to the incoherent paragraph quoted above.  So, respectfully, I ask, 
are you saying that any attempt to play with or tease out some of the spheres of 
meaning around the title GR is a--conspiratorial construct--caused by paranoia?  Is 
that your position on this thread?  This is a real question.  And if it is your position, 
does your harsh judgment extend to the author as well?  Wouldn't it be TRP you 
are indicting w/ your cavalier conclusion that if it's not immediately clear to the 
casual observer (by whom I guess you mean yourself), then we are dealing w/ a 
conspiratorial paranoid who jerry builds constructs (or tommy builds them, I 
suppose).  Well, who was Tom conspiring with then?  

john m