and "mu" to you too

[dennis grace]

Vaska wonders
>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.

Why do we have to be so agonistic in our approaches?  Will, Parke, and now
Vaska--with his addition of--

>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.

--have all contributed possible layers of meaning to TRP's already dialogic
use of mu/µ.  The best metaphors work on several levels at once.  Certainly,
allusions all have their limits, but nothing in this discussion has yet
suggested any possibilities outside of TRP's apparent ken.

So, as for Vaska's claim
>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.

I think this is a bit too close to trying to read the old boy's mind.  So,
unless Vaska has an inside line on TRP's thought (i.e.--Vaska is in fact one
of the international conspiracy that is--Times photo notwithstanding--the
real TRP), then such claims are, themselves, mu.

But, hey, most of the rest of this stuff (except where PM claims Will is
"wrong") is mighty taste thoughtfood:

Will's:
>>> >>  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.

Weak, but unavoidable for most American readers.  Everyone who already knew
how to pronounce "mu" raise your right hand.

>>> 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.

He may know it, but he's chosen not to clue us in.
 
>>> 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
>>
>
>
_____________________________
Dennis Grace
University of Texas at Austin
English Department
Recovering Medievalist
amazing at mail.utexas.edu

That's right, you're not from Texas, but Texas wants you anyway.
                                                                            
         --Lyle Lovett