and "mu" to you too

[Vaska]

Dennis, listen: I'm not claiming any profound telepathic powers here, I
swear I'm not.  I'm simply going on what more than one writer [on more than
one continent, this isn't some local phenomenon, rilly] has told me -- in
some exasperation I might add -- about people disregarding the pointers and
clues they very carefully try to work into their fictions so folk don't
misread their intent [yes, intent -- practising writers, even of the bona
fide PoMo variety do use the word in private].  Haven't had the pleasure of
such conversations with Pynchon himself, but I'd be surprised to learn he
didn't put the gloss on "mu" for some *very* specific reason.  Such as the
one Will [and then I] pointed out, perhaps.  And now you accuse me of trying
to pick a fight -- 

Vaska, reduced to a multi-clausal stammer

Dennis Grace arbitrates: 
>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
>
>