GRGR 11 Proverbs for Paranoids (was also Re: GRGR(11): transcendence/annihilation

[Terrance F. Flaherty]

rj wrote:
> 
> I tend to see the Proverbs for Paranoids as deriving from a narrative
> source outside of Slothrop. I don't think he possesses the acuity or
> commitment to devise them for himself -- yet. I think that, like true
> proverbs, they are expressed unironically for the most part, and that
> they are actually promulgating truths which Slothrop, if he was more
> alert than he is, should be coming to understand by dint of his
> experiences thus far. They are Slothrop's lessons, in other words, but
> Tyrone's a slow learner.

Agreed.
> 
> Also, insofar as Slothrop's dilemma is identified with that of the
> reader (i.e. in trying to make sense of it all), the proverbs function a
> little like Nietzschean aphorisms. I think that they actually provide
> commentary on the narrative for the reader in lieu of their recognition
> by Slothrop, and, that they are meant to apply across the board.
> 

Nietzsche is a good example. I wish Pynchon had included
more aphorisms. One of
the advantages of the aphorism or pensée is that it can
easily produce an impression of depth when it may be only a
commonplace pungently expressed. Another is that it allows
several approaches to a subject by the skilled prose writer.
If he is of a
fiery temperament, prone to enthusiasms and lashing out in
wrath against what he deems to be false, he can, like
Nietzsche, embrace contradictions and sponsor opposed
attitudes. 

> Thus, PfP #1 applies to Pointy and Blicero, as well as to Slothrop,
> Katje et. al., and is a lesson about relativity and Control.

agreed
> 
> PfP #2 emphasises that "the Master" is undefined, and that various
> individuals serve various "Masters".

agreed 
> 
> Pointy's Master could well be Pavlov: Science is the abstraction or
> higher truth served. For Blicero it is Rilke, perhaps, and Love is the
> abstraction. For Slothrop and Katje the bodily Self is the Master, in
> terms of hedonism and individuation respectively, and base
> self-preservation is the issue for both.

agreed
> 
> I take PfP #2 to mean that when the Masters are immoral, like the heads
> of those multinational corporations such as Wimpe who serve only power
> and wealth, then the loyal creatures like Tchitcherine plying the
> company line are not innocent at all. But someone like Gottfried, whose
> Master is Blicero, is an archetypal innocent, *because* Blicero's
> dominion is constructed upon an elaborate moral schema. Even the human
> "Masters" like Blicero and Pointy fit into the hierarchy, too, for they
> are creatures serving other Masters themselves.
> 

agreed
> Murthy Y:
> 
> > In sufism, annihilation is the annihilation of the self (via immersion
> > in love and merger with the Master/Teacher standing in for God). It's
> > quite different from Blicero's version (love of Death and pursuit of it
> > via annihilation of everything - in essence, taking upon himself the
> > functions of the Lord of Death).
> 
> We could also read Blicero as a (per)version of the Christian God who
> willingly sacrifices his "Son" (Gottfried) as the ultimate expression of
> His Love.

Why not both? Yes, god, and not our Grand-parents caused the
fall. This is one of the things Slothrop's triumph over DT
intimates. 
> 
> The characters in *GR* who have the greatest insight into humanity and
> the world are the ones who are capable of and responsible for the most
> wicked atrocities. Power corrupts, human nature etc. Witness Enzian's
> "education". For Pynchon Slothrop is the Chosen One -- like the Gadarene
> swine or Ursula the lemming -- who, against all odds and in defiance of
> all logical imperatives -- just might be able to turn things around.
> 
> The reader doesn't escape the PfP #2 syllogism either. Our "Master"
> whilst reading is "the author", our abstraction or higher truth "the
> Text". In this we are just as indoctrinated by and devoted to the
> inanimate by-products and cultural dross of the era as Slothrop is
> within the narrative. We are *conditioned* to read in certain ways, and
> this conditioning has been planted in us from infancy. This conditioning
> must be subverted, but it is virtually impossible to achieve this from
> within the system of the novel. Thus, the self-deprecating and
> exasperated later characterisations of the author and his readers as
> schlemiels like Slothrop once was, glozing neuters scuffling off into
> some undistinguished mediocrity, still trapped within "The System" of
> the novel.
> 
> best