Chasing ... Cutting

[Paul Mackin]

So how is it that authorial intention or meaning, which in truth we have 
always believed in (well, haven't we? especially in the case of Thomas
Pynchon), IS SOMEHOW PROPOGATED TO THE READING WORLD AT LARGE? Is it
perhaps something like the case of quantum mechanics? Can we detect actual
PARTICLES of authorial meaning, moving about in some kind of microscopic
nonlocal field, so as to be in actual fact a part of our relativistic
space/time Einsteinian universe? Is there some wave function here
(psi) the mathematics of which have not yet been able to elaborate?

There's a sure Nobel in this for someone.

			P.

On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Paul Mackin wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Stacy Borah wrote:
> 
> > IMO, Pynchon's intentions in writing GR don't matter at all UNLESS he wants 
> > to tell us why he wrote it.  Then, his reading of the novel becomes the only 
> > true reading.  Because those are his words and his thoughts and his 
> > meanings, any other reading would be false and only true to the reader 
> > making it.  Therefore, any discussion on Pynchon's intentions will only 
> > muddle any serious discussion of his great novel. 
> 
> The nature of text and meaning is a theological question which St. Thomas
> Aquinas (13th C.) might have handled as follows: Textual potency is
> that attribute which distinguished the textual animal from the brute
> animal. Text is given Actuality (Text brought into Being) when the
> textual animal inscribes/types/speaks/imagines/hears or visualizes words
> of his/her or another's creation and at the same time   
> (concommitantly) interprets and gives meaning to these words.
> 
> 			P. :-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>