MDMD(1) - Comments: china

[Doug Millison]

God -- as the 18th century European knew Him -- on a deathbed is a
thought-provoking image. With the big certainty failing -- it took that God
a long time to "die", after all -- opportunities for Pynchonian "paranoia"
appear rife, especially in an age when many things the 20th century
considers paranormal or supernatural were still easily accepted (relative
to the 20th century, although much of the magic of the Middle Ages and
Renaissance had gone underground again), creeping in the chinks and around
the edges of the Newtonian machine. Discovering what we have in common with
Mason & Dixon and their contemporaries accounts for a lot of the fun of
reading M & D; discovering what's singular, even unrecoverable, accounts
for the true surprises, the startling insight.

Thanks,
Doug


At 7:28 PM 6/14/97, dennis grace wrote:
>Doug takes note of my:
>
>>>In this light--i.e., the old God is dead, and
>>>the new God doesn't give a rat's ass about us--far Cathay offers a whole new
>>>array of philosophies.  Of course, the real irony here is that Buddhism
>>>ultimately offers only disolution and Nirvana--so we're back to Lucretius.
>
>And responds"
>
>>The "old God is dead" may be a bit anachronistic, more of a late 19th-early
>>20th century formulation than an Englightenment idea, but then I'm not a
>>specialist and may be badly mistaken.
>
>Yah.  Mea maxima culpa.  Sorry.  Lo siento.  Personal philosophical
>shorthand--dearth of shared assumptions and all that.  Okay, the longer
>version of my claim that "[in the Age of Reason] the old God is dead" goes
>something like this:
>
>The Age of Reason, the Enlightenment, essentially proof that DesCartes
>failed in his Meditations:  you can't prove the existence of God starting
>with cogito ergo sum, but--Damme--you just might prove exactly the opposite
>if you aren't too careful.  Read Swift's attack on the Royal Academy in book
>3 of _Gulliver's Travels_ (yeah, the section everyone always skips), and
>you'll see evidence of discomfort with the whole idea of scientific study.
>Granted, some of those experiments were purty darn looney; still, Swift
>never admits that any of the RA's experiments were worthwhile.
>
>No, the Enlightenment didn't quite produce determinism, and yes I believe it
>was Nietzsche who first came out and actually pronounced God's demise.
>Nonetheless, all those philosophers and mathematicians in lace and powdered
>wigs DID lay the groundwork.  Without Adam Smith's _Wealth of Nations_, we
>never would have had Darwin's _Origin of Species_, f'rinstance.  And without
>David Hume's unique take on reality, we never would have had Kant or Mr.
>Determinism hisself:  Schopenhauer.  The Enlightenment was the first era in
>Europe since Saul of Tarsus saw the light, stopped selling Christians as
>lion food, and went on tour with the road company from Nazareth in which it
>was actually safe for any prominent individual to openly express a heartfelt
>belief in a diety-free cosmos. _But just barely._  David Hume was an
>atheist, but a century before Rene D was careful to assert his faith
>prefatory to his revolutionary philosophical musings.
>
>In an intellectual atmosphere of this sort, it's kinda hard to take the
>pulpit pounders and incense wavers seriously.  In that sense, God--for the
>18th century thinking woman or man--was dead, or at least on his deathbed.
>So, where's an Enlightenment body to go for some comfort?  TRP students,
>fans, critics, and wannabees love to talk about paranoia and note its
>appropriateness to late twentieth century US of A.  Maybe, but I don't think
>we have anything on the 18th.
>
>dgg
>
>_____________________________
>Dennis Grace
>University of Texas at Austin
>English Department
>Recovering Medievalist
>
>That's right, you're not from Texas, but Texas wants you anyway.
>                                                  --Lyle Lovett

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
D O U G  M I L L I S O N<<<<<>>>>>millison at online-journalist.com