GRGR (5) PK

[Keith Woodward]

At 08:46 AM 7/2/99 +1100, rj wrote:
>I
>gotta admit that I've never quite been able to succesfully separate my
>notion of epistemology from my notion of ontology, or keep them apart
>for long rather, but yes, it is the key breach which quite a few critics
>have lighted on as the distinguishing characteristic between postmodern
>fiction (ontological questions) and Modernist fiction (epistemological
>questions). 

Brian McHale, in _Constructing Postmodernism_ & _Postmodernist Fiction_,
gives quite a bit of attention to the distinction (although, I think he
wants to do something slightly different: rejecting any notion of ontology
in the pomo novel other than an allowance for a plurality of ontologies;
given that, epistemology becomes a very hairy business (just as it appear to
be in GR)).  

>Otoh I'm not sure
>that probability theory frees you up from the determinist bind of
>objectivism either in the long run. The numbers are still ones and
>zeroes aren't they, but described rather than tested
>for/conditioned/manipulated. Judgement and consequent action are taken
>out of human hands: faith in and responsibility for these are
>apportioned to the numbers alone, aren't they? But, even so, Roger
>doesn't like to look (let alone move) "beyond the zero" (85.15-20),
>which would be into the realm of ontology, I take it. 

Yeah, I think there might be some type of ontological conceit within Roger's
approach, but it's tougher for me to locate.  It may be that it more akin to
McHale's pomo notion, as his numbers deal with possible worlds, but don't
give any absolute claims about any (to the extreme that Pointsman & Jessica
would like; i.e., WHERE, exactly, will said bomb fall).  I think that might
be part of the problem with the phrase "Beyond the Zero": the title borrows
from so many different angles in Part One that it seems to be saying many
things at once (more possible worlds?): re Slothrop's potential
conditioning, re Mexico's & Pointsman's number theories, ground zero, the
vaginal "O" (?), etc.  (But, yeah, that science stuff always catches me with
my pants down, too.  My brothers are majoring in engineering and biology, it
makes for great sport, to my dismay, whenever we're all back home.)

>I don't think Pynchon is trying to assert that either worldview is *the*
>one, though, but merely entertaining their contest.

I agree.  I think it's important to his project, though, to present them.
It's arguably one of the main sources of the intrigue of the novel.  He
possibly never gives us one correct (by his estimation) worldview.  If you
enter into the novel asking what the narrator/author wants you to believe,
and then follow from there, GR becomes very garbled very quickly.  As when
Jessica asks "What about the girls?", there's always another angle that
needs to/can be looked at.  Such is life (sigh).  There are a number of
ontological theories out there, all existing with/against eachother.  Maybe
the only truth about Slothrop's conditioning is "maybe/yes-&-no"

>btw, does that stylometry technique have anything to do with the
>word-counting and Zipf Principle stuff we looked at back in grgr2?

It seems to be the same idea, I think.  The main difference being that
Stylometry generally (but not specifically) tends to glean identity, while
that in GRGR2 gleans pathology.  With the former, I think, you just plug the
text into the computer and let it look for similarities (although those
perameters may have their own relativity), while the latter, after it has
been recorded, still requires an interpretive step re the words used.  (Of
course, in the former, you have to decide to accept or reject the computer
findings, itself an interpretive act (Ha-ha! Relativity, I have you now!))

Keith W