and "mu" to you too

[Vaska]

Why do we have to reach for our Barthes when Pynchon is giving us his own
gloss on his own "mu"?  If the writer goes to the trouble of specifying what
content he wants to give to his use of a particular symbol, let's go with
the dude and see what he's up to in his own right.  Elementary, methinks.

Also, isn't there a little school of rhetorical theory that goes under the
"mu" monicker -- all about metaphor and such -- and has nothing to do with
Barthes?  Given Pynchon's long-standing preoccupation with things metaphoric
[the bit from _V_ was quoted just a little while ago], my guess is that if
there be layers of allusion to that "mu", the metaphor guys would come in
well before Barthes.

I suspect Pynchon added the gloss on "mu" precisely so we *wouldn't*
superimpose Barthes' well-known take on it on Pynchon's own -- not that the
"emptiness" thing ain't there, it's a koan so how else, but that Pynchon
clearly wants the "compassion" thing to prevail and guide our reading of the
doggy-koan.

Will's reading works perfectly fine and has the added grace of doing justice
to what's really in the text.

Vaska


Phillip Muth adds to Rick's objections:
>According to Rick Vosper:
>> 
>> At 08:27 PM 7/9/97 -0300, you wrote:
>> 
>> >A nice post, Will; very nice indeed.
>> >Vaska
>> >
>> >At 05:33 PM 7/9/97 W. Karlin wrote:
>> >
>> >>  to wit:  on p. 22 L.E.D. relates the koan in which a student asks
>> >>"whether a Dog hath the nature of the divine Buddha."  The master answers
>> >>with a single word: "mu."  
>> >>
>> >>  Later on p. 61 the phrase "assigning to every Looking-Glass a
>> >>Coefficient of Mercy,-- term it u,--..."  Actually, that "u" is the greek
>> >>character "mu" (can't do the real symbol).  
>> >>  The answer to the koan is mercy.  The question whether the dog hath the
>> >>nature of the divine buddha (and hence deserving the respect we *should*
>> >>afford our fellow man) is not the right question. I think the real
>> >>question,-- how do we treat the dog without knowing whether it hath the
>> >>NDB?,-- is answered...we show it mercy.  (Which may mean that the Dog
>> >>hath the NDB.)
>> >>
>> >>  Goes along with the "soul in every stone", I think.
>> 
>> Nice, try, but no pickle, sorry. Please consider the following:
>> 
>> 1: The pun is weak (even by Pynchonian standards).The Mu of the zen koan is
>> generally transcribed "muh"; the greek Mu is pronounced "myu", and stands
>> for, well, any number of things; angstroms coming most easily to mind.
>> 
>> 2: Pynchon knows his koans well enough to know that "mercy" is *not* the
>> "answer" to Josho's Mu (about dogs and Buddha-nature). This is evidenced by
>> his "correct" answer to the famous "one hand" koan elsewhere in the Canon
>> (I thought this was in GR, but have been unable to find it therein; perhaps
>> another P-Lister can assist me?) and by his knowledge of published
>> "answers" elsewhere in Buddhist literature.
>> 
>> 3: My own interpretation is that a dog/Buddha-nature koan as posed by the
>> LED is simply too wonderful an opportunity to pass up, and its relation to
>> other parts of M&D, sadly, is minimal.
>> 
>> Other ideas?
>> 
>> --rick
>> 
>A look at page 5 of Barthes Empire of Signs reproduces 
> the character mu,
>which is translated as emptiness.  On the facing page you can
>find this:
>
>Writing is after all, in its way, a satori:  satori (the Zen
>occurence) is a more or less powerful (though in no way formal)
>seism which causes knowledge, or the subject, to vacillate:  it
>creates an emptiness of language.  And it is also an emptiness
>of language which constitutes writing; it is from this
>emptiness that derive the features with which Zen, in the
>exemption from all meaning, writes gardens, gestures, houses,
>flower arrangements, faces, violence. (p.4)
>
>Parke Muth
>