Gottfried & Blicero, Nietzsche & Pynchon

Tue Aug 22 06:17:06 CDT 2000

Just to add another little twist into our already labyrinthine meanderings 
through Mr. Pynchon's texts and supposed thought-processes:

Saying that there is "Not much of anything careless about Pynchon the 
writer" is overlooking one very important fact that Pynchon himself has 
admitted to:  the fact that he himself can't remember what he meant when he 
wrote many of the episodes in "GR", that he was either too wasted or too far 
out on some existential ledge to pull any coherent meaning out of his own 
text.  Can't remember right offhand where he said this, but i will look 
diligently tomorrow when I wake up.

Stacy

>From: "can't wait" <yayforgod at yahoo.com>
>To: jbor <jbor at bigpond.com>, MichaelB <mjoking at yahoo.com>
>CC: pynchon-l at waste.org
>Subject: Re: Gottfried & Blicero, Nietzsche & Pynchon
>Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 10:56:14 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>Good God, I've been sic-ed by herr professor Monroe.  Always you know
>a spanking is ensuing when you get sic-ed.  As a preface to the
>sic(en)-ing, he said:
>
>'Not much of anything "careless" about "Pynchon the writer," which is
>why one doubts that he'd be "tossing about" such, er, "events," much
>less "joyfully" ...'
>
>I wonder how Dave knows this, in light of the impossibility of any
>knowledge of what he recently termed 'authorial intention'.  How is
>it that what you state above....is the case?
>
>I agree with how you characterize Nietzsche, best, especially in
>recognizing that being 'faithful to the earth' is his work's
>'quiddity'.  To say that an ubermensch creates ever new tables
>of values is rather misleading: that creating is merely the natural
>working of the will to power non-sublimated by the commands of
>teleological metaphysics.
>
>If I recall, in the last day or two the professor mentioned certain
>circularities in the Rainbow--no doubt raising the issue of the
>eternal recurrence of the same, the light of the will to power in the
>Book, Our Book, the Gravity Book.  Since I recall nothing of the
>Rainbow (very Nietzschean of me, no doubt), from fear of once again
>(though not really) being sic-ed by you really really careful
>writers, I won't make any wreckless attempts at an answer.
>
>As Mr. Weaver pointed out, Paul very much (as he's now been more
>clear about) nevertheless believes in the ultimate value of (a type
>of) Christian moral/ethics despite our hypermodern consciousness of
>nothingness pumping through the world, and that is precisely what I
>was reacting to in his post.  Nieztsche pointed out that despite the
>death of god for centuries to come Christianity will continue to lurk
>in the shadows of caves, and that this quickening of Christian values
>in the presence and acknowledgement of the nothingness is a great
>wave before the final tide of universal nihilism.
>
>"Unconcerned, mocking, violent:
>Thus Wisdom wants _us_.
>She is a woman and always loves
>Only a warrior."
>
>Nietzche thought so highly of the truth of this that he placed it
>Over the third book of Zarathustra.
>
>To what extent is Pynchon....unconcerned?
>
>m
>
>
>
>--- jbor <jbor at bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure that either Nietzsche or Zarathustra, let alone
> > Pynchon, are
> > actually in the business of setting up a new table of values at
> > all, though
> > I agree with much else that you write on the subject. Within every
> > system of
> > morality is a subjective pov, they seem to be saying; any system of
> > good and
> > evil, any moral judgement, is simply the justification for a
> > particular set
> > of ethical prejudices. It is the idealism of all such
> > teleologically-
> > grounded systems (Platonism, Christianity, democracy, the drive to
> > self-preservation) which is actually life-denying, because there
> > are always
> > aspects of life and living which are denied, left out of the
> > equation (i.e.
> > made preterite). Such systems feast upon weakness and guilt, foster
> > world-weariness (ressentiment), and poison human vitality and the
> > creative
> > spirit. Thus the perspectival multiplicity of their texts, which
> > does not
> > render the negation of meaning but, conversely, is an enhancement
> > of
> > possibilities (both/and, not either/or).
> >
> > I think that the fundamental problem presented by the radical
> > relativism
> > (i.e. the nihilistic ramifications) of Nietzsche's thinking
> > perseveres
> > throughout his work. He shrugs off Schopenhauerian pessimism early
> > on (as
> > with shallow Wagnerian flag-waving), and seems to want to affirm
> > life and
> > living, to discover a way beyond the inevitable nihilism pursuant
> > to the
> > collapse or abandonment of values and belief systems he foresaw
> > (i.e. "God
> > is dead", the demise of metaphysics, the scientific renunciation of
> > absolute
> > knowledge). I don't know how successful he was in achieving this,
> > and it is
> > this part of his philosophy (the Ubermensch, the "will to power",
> > the
> > "splendorous blonde Beast", art and the creative transformation of
> > social
> > relations, a "higher" morality et. al.) which is seized upon by
> > anti-Semites
> > and fascists in decades hence and travestied to serve their heinous
> > -- and
> > utopianist -- visions of world domination.
> >
> > For Nietzsche the "will to power" has no origin and no purpose, no
> > beginning
> > or end, for these are idealist, metaphysical categories themselves.
> > The
> > creation of new values he speaks of are to be "faithful to the
> > earth" (see
> > esp. *The Gay Science* sections 108-9, 125, 343), a process of
> > "translating
> > man back into nature" (that notion of immanence again). "The soul
> > is only a
> > word for something about the body ... " says Zarathustra. 'Crazy'
> > talking in
> > *The Will to Power* Nietzsche exhorts: "*This world is the will to
> > power --
> > and nothing besides!* And you yourselves are also this will to
> > power -- and
> > nothing besides!" (Sect. 1067)
> >
> > best
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > >From: MichaelB <mjoking at yahoo.com>
> > >
> > snip
> > > Who
> > > amongst us has the Stength to create values where our fellow men
> > are
> > > concerned?  To say yes, to say no: to claim for yourself (and for
> > > humanity, though not in the sense of a categorical imperative)
> > what
> > > is good and bad.
> >
> > and before
> >
> > > In answering the question of Pynchon's being beyond good and
> > evil,
> > > you say he doesn't see himself as an ubermensch. --But I don't
> > think
> > > that an ubermensch, in Nietzsche's sense, is one that is merely
> > > beyond good and evil.  One must certainly be beyond good and
> > evil,
> > > but that awareness is the necessary groundwork for what the
> > > ubermensch primarily does: revaluates old tables of values, or
> > > better, revaluates existing tables of values.  To be merely
> > beyond
> > > good and evil but to fail to create new values in the nothingness
> > > that resides 'beyond good and evil' is to further that aspect of
> > > modernity that the ubermensch overcomes--nihilism.  I obviously
> > am
> > > none too swift in my knowledge of Pynchon, but I would guess that
> > in
> > > this sense--in recognizing the nothingness that permeates
> > > 'reality'--he is certainly beyond good and evil.  The question
> > would
> > > be, then, does Pynchon create, and continue to create, ever new
> > > tables of values.  Has Pynchon overcome the nothingness?  I for
> > one,
> > > am unabashed about admitting I have not yet been able to grasp
> > that
> > > most crucial overcoming, that essential creating.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!
>http://mail.yahoo.com/

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com