Prosthetic Paradise (was Re: pynchon-l-digest V2 #1012

[rj]

TF
> "Critical pluralism" is an approach that emphasizes the
> potential
> usefulness of a variety of interpretive theories without
> giving exclusive
> emphasis to any single point of view. It encourages mutual
> understanding
> and dialogue rather than hostile conflict between adherents
> of different
> theories.

Except that some of those interpretive theories claim exclusive
privilege over textual analysis, and arose in direct and antagonistic
opposition to some of the others. "Critical pluralism" as you define it
here, apart from the wishy-washy moralising (which is your own), isn't
so far from what postmodernist critiques are advocating, except that
those critiques recognise and foreground the contradictions, internal
and overt, within critical modes. In this sense they are
anti-rationalist, as is Pynchon's fiction (itself comprising a series of
postmodernist critiques), acknowledging the contradictions and
oppositions yet still willing to consider and accommodate their yield.

> I hope the definition of critical pluralism above will make
> my meaning clear.

No, it doesn't.

> This is probably the case and I recognize that I am more
> familiar with the terms you use than you are with the ones I
> use. This is ONLY true because the terms you use share
> common and current use in literary criticism, while the
> terms I use are often more common to philosophy.

I see. So, set against my intellectual deficiency is your
all-encompassing wisdom and beneficience. Thank you so much for your
condescension, Terrance.

> Yes, I understand this term "reader" and I understand what
> you mean by the author as reader and that Pynchon reads
> history through his own text. I am not always happy with
> these terms and I don't always agree with the concepts that
> they carry, for example, as to the term "text",  even in its
> most comprehensive sense, I reject the idea that the world
> is a "text." I reject it on philosophical grounds and not as
> a useful term for certain critical approaches.

I have not used the word "text" in this sense in this exchange. 

> Conflating creativity with divine creation (here I
> assume you mean the literary creativity of the author or
> artist and not the reader, though one could make both
> arguments) involves artist and some sort of god or
> inspiration.

No. It refers to the way some critics approach fiction as if it were
scripture.

> I have studied the text closely and I
> have a clear and coherent argument that supports my claims.

Don't know about that "clear and coherent" there, Jackson. 

> I think we are not polarized and I think
> that we can come to an agreement on this issue

Why is it necessary that we agree?

> Your statement was:

The "statement" which you claim is an unfair and inaccurate attack has
gone from a sentence to a whole passage. You still haven't clarified why
you believe (all of?) it to be unfair or inaccurate, nor have you
offered examples and actual argument to support your contention.

> 
> OK, but can you explain what you mean by machine "using" (or
> what ever term works) a man?

Oh good grief. It's a fairly simple point. Once upon a time, a man who
learnt to use an object as a hammer thereby gave himself an advantage
over other men. Now, the man who does not learn to use that hammer is at
an acute disadvantage. The hammer's existence and use now precede and
define what it is to be human. This is the shift.

best