the paranoid vs. the paranoid-critical

[Tony Elias]

I think a case could definitely be made for a 'good' paranoia. Lacan's work
assumes that the ego is paranoid in nature, that this is a necessary
conidtion for gaining any kind of knowledge. Dali lived his life through the
notion of the paranoid-critical & had a period of 'pranoid-critical works'
which were defined by their use of double and triple images within the same
pictorial form; an eye that's also the mouth of a vase in a head that is
also a fruit bowl etc. etc. <If we assume that the paranoid looks for hidden
connections beneath the surface of the apparent world, that s/he tries to
construct a meaningful syatem out of so much randomness then Dali's work
seems to also be a call for this. 

Paul Ricouer once identified a philosophical-interpretive tradition typified
by a 'hermeneutics of suspicion' within which he named Nietzsche, Freud,
Marx as key proponents. The danger it seems in all this talk of 'revealing'
the truth - "the truth is out there" etc. (the truth as revelation) implies
that we need to peel away lies and conspiracy to get to some bedrock of
truth which is what trashy conspiracy narrative does, its about reading
cluses to get to the Thing, to discover a THEM. Pynchon seems completely
antagonistic to this kind of naive paranoia and writes paranoia-conspiracy
narratives that lead nowhere-everywhere in this interminable search, you
never find truth or certainty, but you have a more accurate picture of the
universe and your place in it.

My own experience of reading Pynchon, that feeling of being wonderfully
adrift, seems to be about considering 'knowledge' in terms of knowing the
dimensions of your ignorance...GR and COL49 never seem to be about an end
you read towards, but the way you get there, getting lost occasionally but
neverthelss continuing. 

The Kennedy assasination, whatever 'really' happened signifies this cultural
uncertainty, or faltering of belief in relation to the official story. Hakin
Bey wrote once that "In order to either confirm or deny conspiracy theory
categorically one must belive in the category of 'History'" - that's a
logical and critical paranoia at work. 

Craig's point that:

>Perhaps They are having a good old chuckle over the fact that 70% of 
>Americans (so I've heard it said) believe that the US government is 
>collaborating with the Greys, allowing the Greys to abduct humans for 
>"biogenetic experiments" in exchange for stealth technology... While 
>very few Americans indeed believe that transnational capitalism is 
>eating away at their liberty by inducing a mind-numbingly conformist 
>consumer mentality. "If They can get you asking the wrong questions, 
>They don't have to worry about the answers."

reveals the sad 'truth' of the matter since such theories seem, if anything,
to ask the wrong questions. Pynchon's obsession with the dealings of
companies such as IG Farben, and his constant figuring of war etc. as
capitalism by other means; that the market of transnational capitalism
always survives and adapts whatever conspiracy you believe, points to the
transparent conspiracy beaneth all these narratives. 

Looking for THEM precludes the possibility that it might be WE we're after.


Tony Elias.