MDMD(2): Deflation and Friendship flip-flop

[Sojourner]

At 07:19 PM 7/2/97 BST, andrew at cee.hw.ac.uk wrote:
>Greg Montalbano writes:
>> I have to wonder if this represents an evolution of TRP's view of history,
>> or perhaps his attempt to correct a long standing, widespread
>> misapprehension of his writing:  it has long been taken for granted (by
>> reviewers & a number of scholars) that TRP is "the paranoid's paranoid",
>> and assumed that he takes all of these conspiracy theories seriously.  Is
>> it not possible that, all this time, what he has really been writing about
>> is the overwhelming human need to impose structure on random events, a need
>> so compelling that we all willingly assume our roles in whatever "grand,
>> master conspiracies" are presented to us? -- and about the absurd lengths
>> some will go to, to connect the dots -- 
>
>Absolutely. That's how I have always read him first and foremost
>(apart from in some of my more paranoid moments, that is). That's why
>he contrasts paranoia with anti-paranoia. To show that paranoia is a
>common consequence of taking the world even the slightest bit
>seriously, especially when the world has a habit of bending the rules
>on you. The implication being that science is not that far away from
>organised, regulated mass paranoia (and in Pynchon's metaphysics that
>doesn't remove it too far from T H Huxley's definition of science as
>`organised common sense'). Anyone who thinks Pynchon takes the White
>Visitation psy or psi wierdos seriously has got to be kidding.
>

Absolutely a wonderful analysis.  I am currently around page 230 of M&D,
which goes into a number of mystical forays, including the magnetic lay of
the land, and Druidic influences etc. etc.  Pynchon's "metaphysics" (I say
metaphysics in quotes because the "metaphysics" is relayed through works of
fiction, rather than some sort of direct theological preaching) are one of
the true signs to me of his skill as a writer.  His books are not merely
collections of entertaining plots, but rather a whole world view (aka
metaphysics) is portrayed through a number of characters, be they
historical, semi-historical, or based in historical settings.

I do not consider Pynchon to BE anything, but rather read his books to
absorb what he IS/WAS and what IS/WAS being portrayed (obviously I've never
read a live writing of a book, but rather the past words he has written).
Therefore, the mixing of characters, traditional "plots" and overall
"bookness" ("bookness" meaning the book in its entirety or zeitgeist or
well... screw Aristotle but similar to his "horseness").  

I was reading a copy of the UTNE Reader, many of you may be familiar with
this publication (also available at http://www.utne.com) which describes
the legacy of western "reality" or "metaphysics" since Plato.  I wouldn't
consider Pynchon a theologian or a philosopher, but rather one who truly
conveys a world which is inside his head most purely into words on paper in
the English language.  Aha!  This is what a book exactly is FOR, and
therefore he is a skilled and talented writer whose works are definitely
worth reading (which we all agree on eh?).  I will not label Mr. Pynchon
(or Ms. Tanasky if you prefer) as any sort of thinker of any sort of
method/discipline, although in my benefit he shares some of the greatest
qualities of the Sophists (whom UTNE decided weren't worth mentioning).

In other words, he's a damn fine writer, and if you say he's in love with
paranoia or conspiracies, you're quite wrong.  And if you say he's not in
love with paranoia or conspiracies, you're quite wrong as well.  For every
label you put his work into (ahem even you POMO people), his work flows out
of your box.

>It's not particularly relevant to Pynchon's purpose that certain
>particulars are true or false. What is important is that what can be
>accepted as true^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H . . .  oops, sorry, what can be true
>or false is a consequence of how we choose to cut our conceptual cake,
>and this stands independent of the results of any particular
>observations. Sometimes we choose our concepts carefully on the basis
>of past experience in the hope we get results we like. But we don't
>have to and concepts do often grow after their own bizarre fashion for
>arbitrary reasons.

Exactly.  Every person who has ever done the "cognito ergo sum" has always
realized that grasping reality is like grasping a square of gelatin
(Jell-O).  If you squeeze too hard, it slips out of your fingers.

>
>And note also that much of the justification for including the occult
>in GR is that the occult was very much included in the history he
>deals with, particularly by the Nazis. There is plenty of evidence
>that a lot of senior Nazis were completely potty wrt the occult (just
>that? no, but including that). He includes it as evidence for the
>bizarre systems people will come up with and accept to explain and
>justify things the way they want. The Nazis clearly developed the most
>outrageous theories in order to support their desires and prejudices.
>If they can do it so can any group with a common powerful enough
>ideology -- British war-time scientists, Virginians in the 1670s,
>Russians in the 1920s or even enlightened, liberal rationalists in the
>1990s. Rather than suggesting we take potty theories seriously as
>theories, he is warning us that we have to be very careful whenever we
>theorize to ensure that we pay attention to the political and moral
>rationale behind our theorizing and that we are flexible enough to
>change our views when we discover that what we have come to believe
>does not produce the consequences we expect or hope for.
>
>Sufficient unto the day are the realities thereof. That's Pynchon's
>motto.
>
>
>Andrew Dinn
>-----------
>We drank the blood of our enemies.
>The blood of our friends, we cherished.
>

Amen!! Sorry your backspace isn't working, but amen!