[Was: narratives] Lines of the World

[Peter Mead]

> 
> >It was quite common in the sixties to smoke pot and goof on old movies
> >and see a sinister, hidden, absurdist or universal meaning in just about
> >anything.  

> Many religions which use "mind-altering" drugs believe the exact opposite,
> that you are hallucinating most of your life until you come to a point of
> clarity (whether with drugs or with fasting etc.) and you are NOT
> hallucinating
> and therefore can see the "lines of the world".  
>If you want to say that
> drugs made you see things that weren't there, that's fine.  But, if what I
> am hearing from you is being interpreted correctly by me, in reality the
> medium of the drugs allowed you to sublimate these works, achieving a
> higher awareness of their genius, and seeing their interrelatedness with the
> world around you.

Sorry Sojourner, I meant to be ironic about drugs and higher
conciousness and imply that converging the kind of entertainment that
was available on TV and in the movies with a stoned perception created a
kind of mental-collage viewpoint that became part of the culture of the
60s.  And Pynchon was there, even if he DOES seem to remember it with
such a heartbreakingly graphical precision in Vineland.  My suggestion
was that TRP borrowed the kind of sprung form that was a template for
those times simply as one of the vehicles he told the tale with.  

As for the "higher strung lines of connectivity", for me Pynchon's works
seem to be more of a mapping of his vision onto a holographic universe
revealed in his works as an implicate order of event.  GR's final Ascent
and Descent strikes to the heart of it, Astronomy and surveying in M&D
broadens it.

> Ask yourself this.  Why is it always you can determine immedietely what
> works appeal to you, what works you find to be "works of genius", to be
> of sublime beauty, and then only AFTERWARDS can analyze them enough
> to "figure out" why this is so?  Perhaps if you could "see" the beauty and
> the lines of connectivity to the world, then you might achieve this analysis
> more quickly.

When a work of art instantly appeals to me, it is because it evoked an
emotional response from me.  It forces me to "contribute" in this way. 
Later, I might see how this was done because I am rationalizing the
experience.  I cannot mandate how much emotion I will give up to a work
even as I read it. That's under the control of the artist.  

Remember, we don't all agree on what's art, who's good and what's
beautiful. I haven't gotten too far into M&D yet but I love it.  Maybe
it isn't Hey Jude but it also isn't Mr. Moonlight.  
 

Peter Mead